The benefit of adjuvant therapy (AT) for biliary tract cancer (BTC) is unclear, with conflicting results from nonrandomized studies. We report a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the ...impact of AT on survival.
Studies published between 1960 and November 2010, which evaluated adjuvant chemotherapy (CT), radiotherapy (RT), or both (CRT) compared with curative-intent surgery alone for resected BTC were included. Only tumors of the gallbladder and bile ducts were assessed. Published data were extracted and computed into odds ratios (ORs) for death at 5 years. Subgroup analyses of benefit based on lymph node (LN) or resection margin positivity (R1) were prespecified. Data were weighted by generic inverse variance and pooled using random-effect modeling.
Twenty studies involving 6,712 patients were analyzed. There was a nonsignificant improvement in overall survival with any AT compared with surgery alone (pooled OR, 0.74; P = .06). There was no difference between gallbladder and bile duct tumors (P = .68). The association was significant when the two registry analyses were excluded. Those receiving CT or CRT derived statistically greater benefit than RT alone (OR, 0.39, 0.61, and 0.98, respectively; P = .02). The greatest benefit for AT was in those with LN-positive disease (OR, 0.49; P = .004) and R1 disease (OR, 0.36; P = .002).
This analysis supports AT for BTC. Prospective randomized trials are needed to provide better rationale for this commonly used strategy. On the basis of our data, such trials could involve two active comparators rather than a no-treatment arm among patients with LN-positive or R1 disease.
Inflammation may play an important role in cancer progression, and a high neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) has been reported to be a poor prognostic indicator in several malignancies. Here we ...quantify the prognostic impact of this biomarker and assess its consistency in solid tumors.
A systematic review of electronic databases was conducted to identify publications exploring the association of blood NLR and clinical outcome in solid tumors. Overall survival (OS) was the primary outcome, and cancer-specific survival (CSS), progression-free survival (PFS), and disease-free survival (DFS) were secondary outcomes. Data from studies reporting a hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) or a P value were pooled in a meta-analysis. Pooled hazard ratios were computed and weighted using generic inverse-variance and random-effect modeling. All statistical tests were two-sided.
One hundred studies comprising 40559 patients were included in the analysis, 57 of them published in 2012 or later. Median cutoff for NLR was 4. Overall, NLR greater than the cutoff was associated with a hazard ratio for OS of 1.81 (95% CI = 1.67 to 1.97; P < .001), an effect observed in all disease subgroups, sites, and stages. Hazard ratios for NLR greater than the cutoff for CSS, PFS, and DFS were 1.61, 1.63, and 2.27, respectively (all P < .001).
A high NLR is associated with an adverse OS in many solid tumors. The NLR is a readily available and inexpensive biomarker, and its addition to established prognostic scores for clinical decision making warrants further investigation.
To describe outcomes of prospective trials of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).
Two trials of SBRT for patients with active HCC unsuitable for standard ...locoregional therapies were conducted from 2004 to 2010. All patients had Child-Turcotte-Pugh class A disease, with at least 700 mL of non-HCC liver. The SBRT dose range was 24 to 54 Gy in six fractions. Primary end points were toxicity and local control at 1 year (LC1y), defined as no progressive disease (PD) of irradiated HCC by RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors).
A total of 102 patients were evaluable (Trial 1, 2004 to 2007: n = 50; Trial 2, 2007 to 2010: n = 52). Underlying liver disease was hepatitis B in 38% of patients, hepatitis C in 38%, alcohol related in 25%, other in 14%, and none in 7%. Fifty-two percent received prior therapies (no prior sorafenib). TNM stage was III in 66%, and 61% had multiple lesions. Median gross tumor volume was 117.0 mL (range, 1.3 to 1,913.4 mL). Tumor vascular thrombosis (TVT) was present in 55%, and extrahepatic disease was present in 12%. LC1y was 87% (95% CI, 78% to 93%). SBRT dose (hazard ratio HR = 0.96; P = .02) and being in Trial 2 (HR = 0.38; P = .03) were associated with LC1y on univariate analysis. Toxicity ≥ grade 3 was seen in 30% of patients. In seven patients (two with TVT PD), death was possibly related to treatment (1.1 to 7.7 months after SBRT). Median overall survival was 17.0 months (95% CI, 10.4 to 21.3 months), for which only TVT (HR = 2.47; P = .01) and being in Trial 2 (HR = 0.49; P = .01) were significant on multivariate analysis.
These results provide strong rationale for studying SBRT for HCC in a randomized trial.
Abstract Context Clinical data supporting the use of targeted agents for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) are based predominantly on patients with clear cell histology. Little ...is known about the efficacy of these drugs in non–clear cell variants. Objective To evaluate the efficacy of different clear cell RCC (ccRCC)-approved targeted agents among patients with non-ccRCC compared with ccRCC. Evidence acquisition We conducted a systematic review of electronic databases to identify publications evaluating the outcomes of patients with non-ccRCC treated with targeted agents approved for treatment of ccRCC. Patients with sarcomatoid variant RCC were excluded from the main analysis but were evaluated as an independent cohort. End points of interest were response rate, median progression-free survival (PFS), and median overall survival (OS). Where possible, data were pooled in a meta-analysis. For studies of unselected patients with RCC, the outcomes of patients with non-ccRCC histology were compared with ccRCC. In exploratory analyses, outcomes of non-ccRCC with nonapproved agents were assessed. Evidence synthesis A total of 49 studies comprising 7771 patients were included in the analysis. Of these, 1244 patients (16.0%) had non-ccRCC, 6300 (83.1%) had ccRCC, and 227 (2.9%) had sarcomatoid tumours. The overall response rate for non-ccRCC with targeted agents was 10.5%. In studies directly comparing non-ccRCC and ccRCC, there were significantly lower response rates for non-ccRCC (odds ratio for response: 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.40–0.68; p < 0.001). For non-ccRCC treated with targeted agents, median PFS and OS were 7.4 and 13.4 mo, respectively; for patients with ccRCC, these were 10.5 mo and 15.7 mo, respectively ( p value for difference <0.001 for both parameters). Conclusions Patients with non–clear cell renal cell carcinoma (non-ccRCC) have significantly lower response rates and poorer median progression-free survival and overall survival than those with ccRCC. The optimal treatment of patients with non-ccRCC remains unclear and warrants further study. Patient summary Systemic treatments for patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) tend to be significantly less effective for non–clear cell RCC, with lower response rates and worse progression-free survival and overall survival when compared with clear cell RCC. Optimal therapy remains unclear and warrants further study.
Most patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are diagnosed with advanced disease not eligible for potentially curative therapies; therefore, new treatment options are needed. Combining nivolumab ...with ipilimumab may improve clinical outcomes compared with nivolumab monotherapy.
To assess efficacy and safety of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with advanced HCC who were previously treated with sorafenib.
CheckMate 040 is a multicenter, open-label, multicohort, phase 1/2 study. In the nivolumab plus ipilimumab cohort, patients were randomized between January 4 and September 26, 2016. Treatment group information was blinded after randomization. Median follow-up was 30.7 months. Data cutoff for this analysis was January 2019. Patients were recruited at 31 centers in 10 countries/territories in Asia, Europe, and North America. Eligible patients had advanced HCC (with/without hepatitis B or C) previously treated with sorafenib. A total of 148 patients were randomized (50 to arm A and 49 each to arms B and C).
Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to either nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg, administered every 3 weeks (4 doses), followed by nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks (arm A); nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg, administered every 3 weeks (4 doses), followed by nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks (arm B); or nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 6 weeks (arm C).
Coprimary end points were safety, tolerability, and objective response rate. Duration of response was also measured (investigator assessed with the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors v1.1).
Of 148 total participants, 120 were male (81%). Median (IQR) age was 60 (52.5-66.5). At data cutoff (January 2019), the median follow-up was 30.7 months (IQR, 29.9-34.7). Investigator-assessed objective response rate was 32% (95% CI, 20%-47%) in arm A, 27% (95% CI, 15%-41%) in arm B, and 29% (95% CI, 17%-43%) in arm C. Median (range) duration of response was not reached (8.3-33.7+) in arm A and was 15.2 months (4.2-29.9+) in arm B and 21.7 months (2.8-32.7+) in arm C. Any-grade treatment-related adverse events were reported in 46 of 49 patients (94%) in arm A, 35 of 49 patients (71%) in arm B, and 38 of 48 patients (79%) in arm C; there was 1 treatment-related death (arm A; grade 5 pneumonitis).
In this randomized clinical trial, nivolumab plus ipilimumab had manageable safety, promising objective response rate, and durable responses. The arm A regimen (4 doses nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks then nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks) received accelerated approval in the US based on the results of this study.
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01658878.
Summary Background Previous prognostic models for second-line systemic therapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma have not been studied in the setting of targeted therapy. We sought to ...validate the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) model in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma receiving next-line targeted therapy after progression on first-line targeted therapy. Methods In this population-based study, we analysed patients who received second-line targeted therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma at 19 centres in Canada, USA, Greece, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, and Denmark. The primary endpoint was overall survival since the initiation of second-line therapy. We compared the prognostic performance of the IMDC model with the three-factor MSKCC model used for previously treated patients for overall survival since the start of second-line targeted therapy. Findings Between Jan 1, 2005, and Nov 30, 2012, we included 1021 patients treated with second-line targeted therapy. Median overall survival since the start of second-line targeted therapy was 12·5 months (95% CI 11·3–14·3). Five of six predefined factors in the IMDC model (anaemia, thrombocytosis, neutrophilia, Karnofsky performance status KPS <80, and <1 year from diagnosis to first-line targeted therapy) were independent predictors of poor overall survival on multivariable analysis. The concordance index using all six prognostic factors (ie, also including hypercalcaemia) was 0·70 (95% CI 0·67–0·72) with the IMDC model and was 0·66 (95% CI 0·64–0·68) with the three-factor MSKCC model. When patients were divided into three risk categories using IMDC criteria, median overall survival was 35·3 months (95% CI 28·3–47·8) in the favourable risk group (n=76), 16·6 months (14·9–17·9) in the intermediate risk group (n=529), and 5·4 months (4·7–6·8) in the poor risk group (n=261). Interpretation The IMDC prognostic model can be applied to patients previously treated with targeted therapy, in addition to previously validated populations in first-line targeted therapy. The IMDC prognostic model in the second-line targeted therapy setting has an improved prognostic performance and is applicable to a more contemporary patient cohort than that of the three-factor MSKCC model. Funding DF/HCC Kidney Cancer SPORE P50 CA101942-01, Kidney Cancer Research Network of Canada, Canadian Institute for Health Research, Trust Family, Loker Pinard, Michael Brigham, and Gerald DeWulf.
Abstract Background The skeleton and liver are frequently involved sites of metastasis in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Objective To analyze outcomes based on the presence of ...bone metastases (BMs) and/or liver metastases (LMs) in patients with RCC treated with targeted therapy. Design, setting, and participants We conducted a review from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) of 2027 patients with metastatic RCC. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis We analyzed the impact of the site of metastasis on overall survival (OS) and time-to-treatment failure. Statistical analyses were performed using multivariable Cox regression. Results and limitations The presence of BMs was 34% overall, and when stratified by IMDC risk groups was 27%, 33%, and 43% in the favorable-, intermediate-, and poor-risk groups, respectively ( p < 0.001). The presence of LMs was 19% overall and higher in the poor-risk patients (23%) compared with the favorable- or intermediate-risk groups (17%) ( p = 0.003). When patients were classified into four groups based on the presence of BMs and/or LMs, the hazard ratio, adjusted for IMDC risk factors, was 1.4 (95% confidence interval CI, 1.22–1.62) for BMs, 1.42 (95% CI, 1.17–1.73) for LMs, and 1.82 (95% CI, 1.47–2.26) for both BMs and LMs compared with other metastatic sites ( p < 0.0001). The prediction model performance for OS was significantly improved when BMs and LMs were added to the IMDC prognostic model (likelihood ratio test p < 0.0001). Data in this analysis were collected retrospectively. Conclusions The presence of BMs and LMs in patients treated with targeted agents has a negative impact on survival. Patients with BMs and/or LMs may benefit from earlier inclusion on clinical trials of novel agents or combination-based therapies.
Display omitted
There is limited information on the use of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) as a bridge to liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma and no study comparing its efficacy ...to transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA). We aimed to ascertain the safety and efficacy of SBRT on an intention-to-treat basis compared with TACE and RFA as a bridge to liver transplantation in a large cohort of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.
Outcomes between groups were compared from the time of listing and from the time of transplant. Between July 2004 and December 2014, 379 patients were treated with either SBRT (n=36, SBRT group), TACE (n=99, TACE group) or RFA (n=244, RFA group).
The drop-out rate was similar between groups (16.7% SBRT group vs. 20.2% TACE group and 16.8% RFA group, p=0.7); 30 patients were transplanted in the SBRT group, 79 in the TACE group and 203 in the RFA group. Postoperative complications were similar between groups. Patients in the RFA group had more tumor necrosis in the explant. The 1-, 3- and 5-year actuarial patient survival from the time of listing was 83%, 61% and 61% in the SBRT group vs. 86%, 61% and 56% in the TACE group, and 86%, 72% and 61% in the RFA group, p=0.4. The 1-, 3- and 5-year survival from the time of transplant was 83%, 75% and 75% in the SBRT group vs. 96%, 75% and 69% in the TACE group, and 95%, 81% and 73% in the RFA group, p=0.7.
In conclusion, SBRT can be safely utilized as a bridge to LT in patients with HCC, as an alternative to conventional bridging therapies.
Patients with liver cancer included in the waiting list for liver transplantation are at risk of tumor progression and death. Stereotactic body radiotherapy may be a good alternative to conventional therapies to reduce this risk.
Homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), remains poorly defined beyond germline (g) alterations in BRCA1, BRCA2, and PALB2.
We interrogated whole genome ...sequencing (WGS) data on 391 patients, including 49 carriers of pathogenic variants (PVs) in gBRCA and PALB2. HRD classifiers were applied to the dataset and included (1) the genomic instability score (GIS) used by Myriad’s MyChoice HRD assay; (2) substitution base signature 3 (SBS3); (3) HRDetect; and (4) structural variant (SV) burden. Clinical outcomes and responses to chemotherapy were correlated with HRD status.
Biallelic tumor inactivation of gBRCA or PALB2 was evident in 43 of 49 germline carriers identifying HRD-PDAC. HRDetect (score ≥0.7) predicted gBRCA1/PALB2 deficiency with highest sensitivity (98%) and specificity (100%). HRD genomic tumor classifiers suggested that 7% to 10% of PDACs that do not harbor gBRCA/PALB2 have features of HRD. Of the somatic HRDetecthi cases, 69% were attributed to alterations in BRCA1/2, PALB2, RAD51C/D, and XRCC2, and a tandem duplicator phenotype. TP53 loss was more common in BRCA1- compared with BRCA2-associated HRD-PDAC. HRD status was not prognostic in resected PDAC; however in advanced disease the GIS (P = .02), SBS3 (P = .03), and HRDetect score (P = .005) were predictive of platinum response and superior survival. PVs in gATM (n = 6) or gCHEK2 (n = 2) did not result in HRD-PDAC by any of the classifiers. In 4 patients, BRCA2 reversion mutations associated with platinum resistance.
Germline and parallel somatic profiling of PDAC outperforms germline testing alone in identifying HRD-PDAC. An additional 7% to 10% of patients without gBRCA/PALB2 mutations may benefit from DNA damage response agents.
PDF
