Purpose In early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), post-treatment mortality may influence the comparative effectiveness of surgery and stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), with implications ...for shared decision making among high-risk surgical candidates. We analyzed early mortality after these interventions using the National Cancer Database. Patients and Methods We abstracted patients with cT1-T2a, N0, M0 NSCLC diagnosed between 2004 and 2013 undergoing either surgery or SBRT. Thirty-day and 90-day post-treatment mortality rates were calculated and compared using Cox regression and propensity score-matched analyses. Results We identified 76,623 patients who underwent surgery (78% lobectomy, 20% sublobar resection, 2% pneumonectomy) and 8,216 patients who received SBRT. In the unmatched cohort, mortality rates were moderately increased with surgery versus SBRT (30 days, 2.07% v 0.73% absolute difference (Δ), 1.34%; P < .001; 90 days, 3.59% v 2.93% Δ, 0.66%; P < .001). Among the 27,200 propensity score-matched patients, these differences increased (30 days, 2.41% v 0.79% Δ, 1.62%; P < .001; 90 days, 4.23% v 2.82% Δ, 1.41%; P < .001). Differences in mortality between surgery and SBRT increased with age, with interaction P < .001 at both 30 days and 90 days (71 to 75 years old: 30-day Δ, 1.87%; 90-day Δ, 2.02%; 76 to 80 years old: 30-day Δ, 2.80%; 90-day Δ, 2.59%; > 80 years old: 30-day Δ, 3.03%; 90-day Δ, 3.67%; all P ≤ .001). Compared with SBRT, surgical mortality rates were higher with increased extent of resection (30-day and 90-day multivariate hazard ratio for mortality: sublobar resection, 2.85 and 1.37; lobectomy, 3.65 and 1.60; pneumonectomy, 14.5 and 5.66; all P < 0.001). Conclusion Differences in 30- and 90-day post-treatment mortality between surgery and SBRT increased as a function of age, with the largest differences in favor of SBRT observed among patients older than 70 years. These representative mortality data may inform shared decision making among patients with early-stage NSCLC who are eligible for both interventions.
•The COVID-19 pandemic necessitates reevaluation of head and neck oncology paradigms.•There are novel COVID-19-specific barriers to safe head and neck surgery.•There are substantial multilevel risks ...to patients, health care workers and society.•Multidisciplinary assessment of risks and shared decision-making are recommended.•In select circumstances, alternatives to surgery should be temporarily considered.
The COVID-19 pandemic demands reassessment of head and neck oncology treatment paradigms. Head and neck cancer (HNC) patients are generally at high-risk for COVID-19 infection and severe adverse outcomes. Further, there are new, multilevel COVID-19-specific risks to patients, surgeons, health care workers (HCWs), institutions and society. Urgent guidance in the delivery of safe, quality head and neck oncologic care is needed.
Novel barriers to safe HNC surgery include: (1) imperfect presurgical screening for COVID-19; (2) prolonged SARS-CoV-2 aerosolization; (3) occurrence of multiple, potentially lengthy, aerosol generating procedures (AGPs) within a single surgery; (4) potential incompatibility of enhanced personal protective equipment (PPE) with routine operative equipment; (5) existential or anticipated PPE shortages. Additionally, novel, COVID-19-specific multilevel risks to HNC patients, HCWs and institutions, and society include: use of immunosuppressive therapy, nosocomial COVID-19 transmission, institutional COVID-19 outbreaks, and, at some locations, societal resource deficiencies requiring health care rationing.
Traditional head and neck oncology doctrines require reassessment given the extraordinary COVID-19-specific risks of surgery. Emergent, comprehensive management of these novel, multilevel surgical risks are needed. Until these risks are managed, we temporarily favor nonsurgical therapy over surgery for most mucosal squamous cell carcinomas, wherein surgery and nonsurgical therapy are both first-line options. Where surgery is traditionally preferred, we recommend multidisciplinary evaluation of multilevel surgical-risks, discussion of possible alternative nonsurgical therapies and shared-decision-making with the patient. Where surgery remains indicated, we recommend judicious preoperative planning and development of COVID-19-specific perioperative protocols to maximize the safety and quality of surgical and oncologic care.
Children with moderate-to-severe asthma continue to have disease complications despite the receipt of standard-of-care therapy. The monoclonal antibody dupilumab has been approved for the treatment ...of adults and adolescents with asthma as well as with other type 2 inflammatory diseases.
In this 52-week phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we assigned 408 children between the ages of 6 and 11 years who had uncontrolled moderate-to-severe asthma to receive a subcutaneous injection of dupilumab (at a dose of 100 mg for those weighing ≤30 kg and 200 mg for those weighing >30 kg) or matched placebo every 2 weeks. All the children continued to receive a stable dose of standard background therapy. The primary end point was the annualized rate of severe asthma exacerbations. Secondary end points included the change from baseline in the percentage of predicted prebronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (ppFEV
) at week 12 and in the score on the Asthma Control Questionnaire 7 Interviewer-Administered (ACQ-7-IA) at week 24. End points were evaluated in the two primary efficacy populations who had either a type 2 inflammatory asthma phenotype (≥150 blood eosinophils per cubic millimeter or a fraction of exhaled nitric oxide of ≥20 ppb at baseline) or a blood eosinophil count of at least 300 cells per cubic millimeter at baseline.
In patients with the type 2 inflammatory phenotype, the annualized rate of severe asthma exacerbations was 0.31 (95% confidence interval CI, 0.22 to 0.42) with dupilumab and 0.75 (95% CI, 0.54 to 1.03) with placebo (relative risk reduction in the dupilumab group, 59.3%; 95% CI, 39.5 to 72.6; P<0.001). The mean (±SE) change from baseline in the ppFEV
was 10.5±1.0 percentage points with dupilumab and 5.3±1.4 percentage points with placebo (mean difference, 5.2 percentage points; 95% CI, 2.1 to 8.3; P<0.001). Dupilumab also resulted in significantly better asthma control than placebo (P<0.001). Similar results were observed in the patients with an eosinophil count of at least 300 cells per cubic millimeter at baseline. The incidence of serious adverse events was similar in the two groups.
Among children with uncontrolled moderate-to-severe asthma, those who received add-on dupilumab had fewer asthma exacerbations and better lung function and asthma control than those who received placebo. (Funded by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals; Liberty Asthma VOYAGE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02948959.).
To present evidence-based guidelines for the treatment of oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC) with definitive or adjuvant radiation therapy (RT).
The American Society for Radiation Oncology ...convened the OPSCC Guideline Panel to perform a systematic literature review investigating the following key questions: (1) When is it appropriate to add systemic therapy to definitive RT in the treatment of OPSCC? (2) When is it appropriate to deliver postoperative RT with and without systemic therapy following primary surgery for OPSCC? (3) When is it appropriate to use induction chemotherapy in the treatment of OPSCC? (4) What are the appropriate dose, fractionation, and volume regimens with and without systemic therapy in the treatment of OPSCC?
Patients with stage IV and stage T3 N0-1 OPSCC treated with definitive RT should receive concurrent high-dose intermittent cisplatin. Patients receiving adjuvant RT following surgical resection for positive surgical margins or extracapsular extension should be treated with concurrent high-dose intermittent cisplatin, and individuals with these risk factors who are intolerant of cisplatin should not routinely receive adjuvant concurrent systemic therapy. Induction chemotherapy should not be routinely delivered to patients with OPSCC. For patients with stage IV and stage T3 N0-1 OPSCC ineligible for concurrent chemoradiation therapy, altered fractionation RT should be used.
The successful management of OPSCC requires the collaboration of radiation, medical, and surgical oncologists. When high-level data are absent for clinical decision-making, treatment recommendations should incorporate patient values and preferences to arrive at the optimal therapeutic approach.
There is growing interest in the role of local therapies, including external beam radiotherapy (RT), for men with metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa). We used the National Cancer Database (NCDB) to ...evaluate the overall survival (OS) of men with mPCa treated with androgen deprivation (ADT) with and without prostate RT.
The NCDB was queried for men with newly diagnosed mPCa, all treated with ADT, with complete datasets for RT, surgery, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, Gleason score, and Charlson-Deyo comorbidity score. OS was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method, log-rank test, Cox proportional hazards models, and propensity score-matched analyses.
From 2004 to 2012, 6,382 men with mPCa were identified, including 538 (8.4%) receiving prostate RT. At a median follow-up of 5.1 years, the addition of prostate RT to ADT was associated with improved OS on univariate (P < .001) and multivariate analysis (hazard ratio, 0.624; 95% CI, 0.551 to 0.706; P < .001) adjusted for age, year, race, comorbidity score, PSA level, Gleason score, T stage, N stage, chemotherapy administration, treating facility, and insurance status. Propensity score analysis with matched baseline characteristics demonstrated superior median (55 v 37 months) and 5-year OS (49% v 33%) with prostate RT plus ADT compared with ADT alone (P < .001). Landmark analyses limited to long-term survivors of ≥1, ≥3, and ≥5 years demonstrated improved OS with prostate RT in all subsets (all P < .05). Secondary analyses comparing the survival outcomes for patients treated with therapeutic dose RT plus ADT versus prostatectomy plus ADT during the same time interval demonstrated no significant differences in OS, whereas both therapies were superior to ADT alone.
In this large contemporary analysis, men with mPCa receiving prostate RT and ADT lived substantially longer than men treated with ADT alone. Prospective trials evaluating local therapies for mPCa are warranted.
The optimal role for postoperative radiotherapy (PORT) for thymoma and thymic carcinoma remains controversial. We used the National Cancer Data Base to investigate the impact of PORT on overall ...survival (OS).
Patients who underwent an operation for thymoma or thymic carcinoma were categorized into Masaoka-Koga stage groups I to IIA, IIB, III, and IV. Patients who did not undergo an operation or those who received preoperative radiation were excluded. Kaplan-Meier estimates of OS and univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were performed. Propensity score–matched analyses were performed to further control for baseline confounders.
From 2004 to 2012, 4056 patients were eligible for inclusion, 2001 of whom (49%) received PORT. On multivariate analysis of OS in the thymoma cohort adjusted for age, WHO histologic subtype, Masaoka-Koga stage group, surgical margins, and chemotherapy administration, PORT was associated with superior OS (hazard ratio HR = 0.72, p = 0.001). Propensity score–matched analyses confirmed the survival advantage associated with PORT. Subset analysis indicated longer OS in association with PORT for patients with stage IIB thymoma (HR = 0.61, p = 0.035), stage III (HR = 0.69, p = 0.020), and positive margins (HR = 0.53, p < 0.001). The impact of PORT for stage I to IIA disease did not reach significance (HR = 0.76, p = 0.156).
In this large database analysis of PORT for thymic tumors, PORT was associated with longer OS, with the greatest relative benefits observed for stage IIB to III disease and positive margins. In the absence of randomized studies assessing the value of PORT, these data may inform clinical practice.
PDF
