Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 2 of 2 items for

  • Author: Siddhartha Yadav x
  • Refine by Access: All x
Clear All Modify Search
Full access

Siddhartha Yadav, Sri Harsha Tella, Anuhya Kommalapati, Kristin Mara, Kritika Prasai, Mohamed Hamdy Mady, Mohamed Hassan, Rory L. Smoot, Sean P. Cleary, Mark J. Truty, Lewis R. Roberts, and Amit Mahipal

Background: Current staging systems for gallbladder cancer (GBC) are primarily based on surgical pathology and therefore are not relevant for unresectable patients and those undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Methods: Patients with a confirmed diagnosis of GBC managed at a tertiary referral center (2000–2016) were included. Independent predictors of overall survival (OS) were identified using multivariable analysis (MVA). A combination of these variables was then assessed to identify a set of factors that provided maximal accuracy in predicting OS, and a nomogram and a new staging system were created based on these factors. Harrell’s C-statistic was calculated to evaluate the predictive accuracy of the nomogram and staging system. Results: A total of 528 patients were included in the final analysis. On MVA, factors predictive of poor OS were older age, ECOG performance status, hemoglobin level <9 g/dL, presence of metastases, and alkaline phosphatase (ALP) level >200 U/L. A nomogram and a 4-tier staging system predictive of OS were created using age at diagnosis, ECOG status, tumor size, presence or absence of metastasis, and ALP level. The C-statistic for this novel staging system was 0.71 compared with 0.69 for the TNM staging system (P=.08). In patients who did not undergo surgery, the C-statistics of the novel and TNM staging systems were 0.60 and 0.51, respectively (P<.001). Conclusions: We created a novel, clinically based staging system for GBC based on nonoperative information at the time of diagnosis that was superior to the TNM staging system in predicting OS in patients who did not undergo surgery, and that performed on par with TNM staging in surgical patients.

Full access

Irbaz Bin Riaz, Saad Ullah Malik, Muhammad Husnain, Qurat Ul Ain Riaz Sipra, Warda Faridi, Farva R. Gondal, Thanh Ho, Siddhartha Yadav, Zhen Wang, and Manish Kohli

Background: Four large RCTs (ASSURE, S-TARC, PROTECT, ATLAS) tested adjuvant VEGF-TKI therapy in high risk RCC. The results were variable for efficacy and there were concerns for increased toxicity and decline in quality of life (QoL). We performed an updated meta-analysis including results of ATLAS trial to asses a risk-benefit for adjuvant post-operative treatments in high risk RCC patients by assessing reported disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), and toxicity endpoints. Methods: Literature search was done using Medline, CENTRAL, and Embase. The DerSimonian and Laird random effects model was used to pool estimates for DFS, OS, and common side effects across the 4 trials. A subgroup analysis was performed for sunitinib alone because of its FDA approval. Heterogeneity was assessed with Cochrane Q statistic and was quantified with I2 test. Risk for bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool. Results: The 4 RCTs included 4,820 patients. Adjuvant therapy with TKIs yielded no significant improvement in DFS or OS as compared to placebo (DFS HR=0.916; 95% CI, 0.832–1.009 and OS HR=1.09; 95% CI, 0.886–1.150). Separate analysis of DFS in sunitinib vs placebo did not show any benefit (2 studies, N=1,909; HR=0.90; 95% CI, 0.67–1.19). Use of TKIs was associated with significantly increased risk of drug toxicity. Increased risk of grade 3 or 4 adverse events (RR=5.110; 95% CI, 3.765–6.935), diarrhea (RR=10.725; 95% CI, 4.672–24.622), fatigue (RR=3.310; 95% CI, 1.879–5.829), hypertension (RR=4.274; 95% CI, 3.452–5.292) and palmar/plantar dysesthesia (RR=20.53; 95% CI, 9.006–46.801) was observed. There was no statistically significant heterogeneity amongst included trials. QoL endpoints were inconsistently reported. Risk of bias was low. Conclusions: This pooled analysis provides further evidence that there is no OS or DFS benefit associated with adjuvant TKI treatment. There was a significantly increased risk of grade 3 or 4 toxicity in greater than half of the patient population leading to decline in QoL during TKI therapy. Carefully selected very high-risk patients who can tolerate these agents without dose modifications may benefit from adjuvant TKI approach.