Purpose
We aimed to identify the prognostic and predictive values of post-treatment prognostic nutritional index (PNI) and PNI dynamics in nasopharyngeal cancer patients (NPC) in this study.
Methods
...One hundred seven non-metastatic NPC patients were included. PNI was calculated by using the following formula: 10 × serum albumin value (gr/dL) + 0.005 × total lymphocyte count (per mm3). ROC analysis was used for determining prognostic PNI values and univariate and multivariate statistical analyses for prognostic characterization of PNI.
Results
The statistically significant cut-off values for pre- and post-treatment PNI were 50.65 and 44.75, respectively. Of the pre-treatment PNI analysis, PNI ≤ 50.65 group had shorter loco-regional recurrence-free survival (LRRFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), and overall survival (OS). Furthermore, for post-treatment PNI analysis, PNI ≤ 44.75 group had shorter LRRFS and OS. In univariate analysis, only pre-treatment PNI was associated with LRRFS and DMFS, while pre- and post-treatment PNI were both associated with OS. In multivariate analysis, both PNI were independent prognostic markers for OS. In the combined analysis, pre- and post-treatment PNI, differences between the groups were statistically significant, and the PNI dynamics was an independent prognostic indicator for OS.
Conclusion
PNI is a useful, independent prognostic marker for non-metastatic NPC patients. It is used for either pre- or post-treatment patients. Furthermore, changes in pre-treatment PNI value after curative treatment is a significant indicator for OS.
Objectives
Contrast nephropathy risk has been increasing in cancer patients. Nephrotoxic side effects of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor/receptor (anti-VEGF/R) drugs used in oncologic ...treatment are also prominent. The purpose of this study was to identify the possible association among anti-VEGF/R drugs use and development of the contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) in patients with cancers.
Methods
A total of 92 patients were included in this prospective cross-sectional study. Patients whose glomerular filtration rate (GFR) of < 50 ml/min, hemoglobin of < 10 g/dl, and eastern cooperative oncology group (ECOG) score of ≥ 2 and had received nephrotoxic drugs were not included in the study. Blood samples were collected baseline at pre computed tomography (CT) and day 2, day 3 and day 7 later CT imaging. CIN was defined as either an increased serum creatinine value of 0.5 mg/dl or increased 25% to baseline. CIN frequency between groups receivingand not receiving anti-VEGF/R was compared using the chi-squared test. CIN frequency between bevacizumab and other anti-VEGF/R was also analyzed.
Results
There were 39 patients in the anti-VEGF/R (+) group and 53 patients in the anti-VEGF/R (−) group. Eleven patients (28%) in the anti-VEGF/R (+) group and 3 patients (5.6%) in the anti-VEGF/R (−) group had CIN (
p
= 0.006). In the anti-VEGF/R (+) group, 23 patients received bevacizumab (combined with FOLFOX/FOLFIRI), while 16 patients received other anti-VEGF/R (sunitinib, axitinib, regorafenib, aflibercept) effective treatments. CIN ratio in patients who received bevacizumab or other anti-VEGFR therapy was similar (
p
= 0 = 50). Of the patients, one patient had acute kidney injury leading to death.
Conclusion
CIN was significantly more frequent in cancer patients who receiving anti-VEGF/R drugs than those not receiving anti-VEGF/R drugs.
Purpose
To assess the efficacy and safety of regorafenib versus rechallenge chemotherapy in previously treated mCRC patients in third-line setting.
Materials and methods
The data of 104 patients ...diagnosed with mCRC enrolled from 2010 to 2017 in six oncology centers were analyzed. Tumor treatment options were obtained from follow-up and treatment files. Rechallenge chemotherapy was identified as the re-use of the regimen which was previously administered to patients in one of the therapy lines and obtained disease control, these were the patients whose disease did not progress within 3 months.
Results
A total of 104 patients had received previously two lines of chemotherapy regimens for mCRC. Of these, 73 patients with mCRC who received regorafenib and 31 those who received rechallenge chemotherapy in third-line therapy were analyzed. Overall survival was better with rechallenge than it was with regorafenib (HR 0.29 95% CI 0.16–0.54,
p
< 0.001). Median OS was 12.0 months (95% CI 8.1–15.9) in rechallenge versus 6.6 months (95% CI 6.0–7.3) in regorafenib group (
p
< 0.001). Progression-free survival in the rechallenge group showed a higher median value of 9.16 months (95% CI 7.15–11.18) versus with that recorded in the regorafenib group of 3.41 months (95% CI 3.01–3.82), in favor of rechallenge chemotherapy. The most common adverse events of regorafenib was liver function test abnormality and hand–foot syndrome. Although grade 3 or 4 adverse events were similar, non-hematologic toxicities were more common than those of rechallenge.
Conclusions
Rechallenge is still a valuable option against regorafenib in patients who achieved disease control in one of the first two lines of therapy. Even though mCRC patients treated with regorafenib benefited clinically from this treatment, we revealed that chemotherapy rechallenge compared to regorafenib was more effective in the third-line treatment for mCRC patients.
Background
Transverse colon cancer (TCC) is a rare condition that accounts for 10% of all colon cancers. TCC was accepted more likely right-sided colon cancers. We aimed to investigate whether TCC ...differs from other colon tumors by using clinical, pathological, and molecular prognostic factors known to be important in colon cancer and if it differs in its own anatomical structure.
Patients and Methods
We evaluated local and locally advanced TCC patients between 2007 and 2020 years for demographics data, symptoms, treatment status, and histopathological and molecular features.
Results
Overall, 107 TCC patients were included in this study. According to the molecular data analysis of 44, 35, and 23 patients for MSI, RAS, and BRAF status, respectively, 7 (15.9%) were MSI-H, 13 (37.1%) were RAS mutant, and 11 (47.8%) had BRAF V600E mutation. The median follow-up time was 31.5 months. Median disease-free survival (DFS) was 5.19 months, and median OS was 88.3 months for the whole study population. The tumor stage was the most significant prognostic factor for DFS and OS. Although BRAF mutation was not a significant marker for DFS, it was an independent prognostic marker for OS (HR 3.90 95% CI 1.42–10.7). There were no statistically significant differences between proximal two-thirds and distal one-third tumor location.
Conclusion
TCC has molecular features and prognostic factors more likely RCC and no differences between proximal and distal sub-parts. BRAF V600E mutation status is an independent predictor of survival even in the early stages of TCC.
Objective:
To evaluate clinical and demographic characteristics and the results of cytotoxic treatments of KRASG12C, KRASother, and next-generation sequencing (NGS) panel negative patients.
Methods:
...NGS data of 1264 patients with non-small cell lung cancer were retrospectively evaluated. Among these patients, the mutation distributions of 1081 patients with metastatic lung adenocarcinoma were analyzed. A total of 150 patients with negative NGS panel or mutant KRAS followed up in our clinic were included. Clinical features, overall survival, first-line chemotherapy responses, and progression-free survival of NGS panel negative, KRASG12C, and KRASother groups were compared.
Results:
In 1081 patients who underwent NGS from tumor tissue with the diagnosis of metastatic lung adenocarcinoma, 296 (27%) NGS panel negative and 276 (26%) KRAS mutant patients were detected. Among these patients, 150 patients whose data were available were 71 (47.3%) NGS panel negative, 54 (36%) KRASother, and 25 (16.7%) KRASG12C. Clinical features, brain metastasis, and first-line chemotherapy response were similar among groups. Bone metastases were detected more often in the NGS panel negative group (p = 0.03). The median follow-up was 8.4 months. Overall, 107 deaths had occurred at the time of analysis. There was no difference in overall survival (p = 0.56) or progression-free survival (p = 0.71) among NGS panel negative, KRASother, and KRASG12C patients.
Conclusion:
There is no difference in overall survival, first-line chemotherapy response, or progression-free survival among patients with NGS panel negative, KRASG12C, or KRASother metastatic lung adenocarcinoma. Bone metastases were observed more frequently in the NGS panel negative group.
Purpose
To evaluate whether sunitinib and pazopanib treatments are associated with change in skeletal muscle area (SMA) and total lean body mass (LBM) as well as to compare their efficacies and ...safety profiles in patients with metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC).
Methods
Thirty-six patients treated with a tyrosine kinase inhibitor were included. Eighteen of them received sunitinib and the rest/remaining received pazopanib in the first line of mRCC treatment. Baseline and follow-up computed tomography studies of the patients were performed to measure cross-sectional areas (cm
2
) of muscle tissues.
Results
About 69% of patients were male and median age was 60 (49–68) years. Median time interval between two CT imagings was 6.1 (3.1–7.7) months and it was similar between the two groups (for sunitinib, 4.9 (2.5–6.9) months vs for pazopanib, 7.3 (3.2–9.5) months,
p
= 0.16, respectively). Disease control rate was 77.7% in all patients. Of these, 66.6% in sunitinib group was consisted of four partial responses and eight stable diseases. In addition, 88.8% in pazopanib group was consisted of three partial responses and 13 stable diseases. A significant decrease in SMA and LBM was observed after sunitinib therapy, whereas SMA and LBM values of pazopanib group did not change significantly (
p
= 0.02 and
p
= 0.70, respectively). No significant differences were observed between patients with sunitinib, and pazopanib group median PFS 11.9 (95% CI 6.1–17.6) vs 8.1 months (95% CI 7.2–9.1), respectively;
p
= 0.28 and median OS 28.6 (95% CI 24.3–32.9) vs 25.5 months (95% CI 18.9–52.7), respectively;
p
= 0.42. Dose-limiting toxicities were significantly more frequent in sunitinib group than in pazopanib group (66.7% vs 22.2%,
p
= 0.02, respectively).
Conclusions
Loss of SMA and LBM with sunitinib was more substantial than with pazopanib. Treatment efficacies of both drugs were similar, but dose-limiting toxicity was more frequent in sunitinib group. Loss of SMA had no significant association with prognosis. Further studies are needed to clarify the possible association between SMA and prognosis in mRCC patients who receive sunitinib or pazopanib.
Lung cancer is one of the most lethal cancers. It is mainly classified into 2 groups: non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and small cell lung cancer (SCLC). Extrapulmonary small cell carcinomas ...(EPSCC) are very rare. The Ras oncogene controls most of the cellular functions in the cell. Overall, 21.6% of human cancers contain a Kirsten Ras (KRAS) mutation. SCLC and EPSCC have several similar features but their clinical course is different.
We investigated the KRAS mutation status in SCLC and EPSCC.
Mutation research.
Thirty-seven SCLC and 15 EPSCC patients were included in the study. The pathological diagnoses were confirmed by a second pathologist. KRAS analysis was performed in our medical genetic department. DNA isolation was performed with primary tumor tissue using the QIAamp DNA FFPE Tissue kit (Qiagen; Hilden, Germany) in all patients. The therascreen KRAS Pyro Kit 24 V1 (Qiagen; Hilden, Germany) was used for KRAS analyses.
Thirty-four (91.9%) of the SCLC patients were male, while 11 (73.3%) of the EPSCC l patients were female. SCLC was more common in males, and EPSCC in females (p=0.001). A KRAS mutation was found in 6 (16.2%) if SCLC patients. The most common mutation was Q61R (CAA>CGA). Among the 15 EPSCC patients, 2 had a KRAS mutation (13.3%). When KRAS mutant and wild type patients were compared in the SCLC group, no difference was found for overall survival (p=0.6).
In previous studies, the incidence of KRAS mutation in SCLC was 1-3%; however, it was 16.2% in our study. Therefore, there may be ethnic and geographical differences in the KRAS mutations of SCLC. As a result, KRAS mutation should not be excluded in SCLC.
PDF
