Ying Zhou, Chenchen Zhu, Zhen Shen, Yanhu Xie, Wei Zhang, Jing Zhu, Tianjiao Zhang, Min Li, Jiwei Qin, Shuai Yin, Rongzhu Chen, Wei Wei, Sinan Sun, Guihong Wang, Zheng Zhou, Hanhui Yao, Dabao Wu and Björn Nashan
Richard Li, Wei-Hsien Hou, Joseph Chao, Yanghee Woo, Scott Glaser, Arya Amini, Rebecca A. Nelson and Yi-Jen Chen
Background: Limited data are available to guide management of patients with stage I–III gastric cancer not undergoing potentially curative surgical resection. We compared survival outcomes associated with chemotherapy alone versus chemoradiation (CRT) in the treatment of nonmetastatic gastric cancer. Methods: Patients with gastric adenocarcinoma from 2004 to 2015 were identified using the National Cancer Database. Patients were excluded if they had surgery, metastatic disease, or T0, Tis, or T1a disease. Logistic regression was used to evaluate predictors of CRT use. Cox proportional hazards modeling was performed to compare overall survival (OS) between chemotherapy alone and CRT in overall and propensity score–matched cohorts. Results: We identified 4,795 patients with stage I–III gastric adenocarcinoma who did not undergo surgery, at a median follow-up of 11.8 months. A total of 3,316 patients (69.2%) received chemotherapy alone and 1,479 patients (30.8%) received CRT. Predictors of increased CRT use were age ≥65 years (odds ratio [OR] 1.68; 95% CI, 1.43–1.99; P<.001), Charlson-Deyo comorbidity score ≥2 (OR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.18–1.81), and treatment at a community facility (OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.07–1.51; P=.006). Patients receiving CRT had a 2-year OS rate of 28.3% compared with 21.5% among those receiving chemotherapy. Multivariate analysis showed that CRT was associated with improved OS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.82; 95% CI, 0.77–0.89; P<.001). After propensity score matching, a persistent survival benefit was observed (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.74–0.88; P<.001). Conclusions: In patients with stage I–III gastric cancer not undergoing surgical resection, CRT was associated with improved survival compared with chemotherapy alone. However, only 30.8% of patients received CRT in this setting.
Jia-Wei Lv, Yu-Pei Chen, Guan-Qun Zhou, Xu Liu, Ying Guo, Yan-Ping Mao, Jun Ma and Ying Sun
Background: The reporting quality of publications is of vital importance to ensure accurate evidence dissemination. This study aimed to compare the consistency of results reporting between the ClinicalTrials.gov results database and the respective matching publications. Methods: We identified 323 phase III/IV cancer drug trials with a randomized controlled design and searched PubMed for publications in a 50% random sample (n=160). Data were extracted independently from ClinicalTrials.gov and publications. A scoring system was applied to determine characteristics associated with reporting quality. Results: Of 117 reviewed trials with publications, result reporting was significantly more complete in ClinicalTrials.gov for efficacy measurement (92.3% vs 90.6%), serious adverse events (SAEs; 100% vs 43.6%), and other adverse events (OAEs; 100% vs 62.4%). For trials with both posted and published results for design information (n=117), efficacy measurements (n=98), SAEs (n=51), and OAEs (n=73), discrepancies were found in 16 (13.7%), 38 (38.8%), 26 (51.0%), and 54 (74.0%) trials, respectively. Overreporting of treatment effects (7 trials) and alteration of primary end points favoring statistically significant outcomes (11 trials) were the major discrepancies in efficacy reporting; incomplete (66 trials) and underreporting (20 trials) of SAEs were the predominant issues in benefit/risk reporting. Median quality score was 21 (range, 14–28). Trials that had parallel assignment, were phase IV, had primary funding by industry, were completed after 2009, and had earlier results posted possessed better reporting quality. Conclusions: Although most trials showed reasonable completeness and consistency, some discrepancies are prevalent and persistent, jeopardizing evidence-based decision-making. Our findings highlight the need to consult results systematically from both ClinicalTrials.gov and publications.
Ya-Fu Cheng, Wei-Heng Hung, Heng-Chung Chen, Ching-Yuan Cheng, Ching-Hsiung Lin, Sheng-Hao Lin and Bing-Yen Wang
Background: The therapeutic strategies for clinical stage T1–3N2 (cT1–3N2) lung cancer are controversial. For operable tumors, treatment can vary by center, region, and continent. This study aimed to identify the optimal therapeutic method and type of surgical strategy for cT1–3N2 lung cancer. Methods: This retrospective evaluation analyzed the records of 17,954 patients with cT1–3N2 lung cancer treated in 2010 through 2015 from the SEER database. The effects of different therapeutic methods and types of surgical strategies on overall survival (OS) were assessed. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed using a Cox proportional hazards model. Results: The 5-year OS rates were 27.7% for patients with T1N2 disease, 21.8% for those with T2N2 disease, and 19.9% for T3N2 disease. Neoadjuvant therapy plus operation (OP) plus adjuvant therapy, and OP plus adjuvant therapy, provided better 5-year OS rates than OP alone or concurrent chemoradiotherapy (34.1%, 37.7%, 29.3%, and 16.1%, respectively). In the T1N2, T2N2, and T3N2 groups, lobectomy provided better 5-year OS than pneumonectomy, sublobectomy, and no surgery. Both univariate and multivariate analyses showed that young age, female sex, well-differentiated histologic grade, adenocarcinoma cell type, neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy, lobectomy, and T1 stage were statistically associated with better 5-year OS rates. Conclusions: In cT1–3N2 lung cancer, multimodal treatments tended to provide better 5-year OS than OP alone or concurrent chemoradiotherapy. In addition, lobectomy was associated with better survival than other operative methods.
Vinayak Muralidhar, Paul J. Catalano, Gally Reznor, Brandon A. Mahal, Toni K. Choueiri, Christopher J. Sweeney, Neil E. Martin, Clair J. Beard, Yu-Wei Chen, Michelle D. Nezolosky, Karen E. Hoffman, Felix Y. Feng, Quoc-Dien Trinh and Paul L. Nguyen
Background: The current NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology for Prostate Cancer recommend long-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for all men with high-risk prostate cancer treated with external-beam radiation therapy (EBRT). We determined whether the use of long-term ADT varied by the recently defined subcategories of high-risk disease (favorable, other, and very high) versus unfavorable intermediate-risk disease. Methods: We identified 5,524 patients with unfavorable-risk prostate cancer diagnosed from 2004 to 2007 and managed with EBRT using the SEER-Medicare linked database. Patients were stratified by risk group: unfavorable intermediate-risk, favorable high-risk (previously defined and validated as clinical stage T1c, Gleason score of 4 + 4 = 8, and prostate-specific antigen [PSA] level <10 ng/mL, or clinical stage T1c, Gleason score of 6, and PSA level >20 ng/mL), very-high-risk (clinical stage T3b–T4 or primary Gleason pattern 5), or other high risk (ie, neither favorable nor very high). We used multivariable competing risks regression to estimate the rates of long-term (≥2 years) ADT by group. Results: Men with favorable high-risk prostate cancer were significantly less likely to receive long-term ADT than those with other high-risk disease (15.4% vs 24.6%, adjusted hazard ratio [AHR], 0.68; 95% CI, 0.60–0.76; P<.001), and similarly likely as those with unfavorable intermediate-risk disease (AHR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.99–1.23; P=.087). Other high-risk disease was less likely to receive long-term ADT than very high-risk cancer (24.6% vs 30.8%; AHR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.74–0.93; P=.002). Conclusions: Despite current guidelines, patients with EBRT-managed high-risk prostate cancer received significantly different rates of long-course ADT based on subclassification. Our results suggest that oncologists view these patients as a heterogeneous group with favorable high-risk cancer warranting less aggressive therapy than other high-risk or very high-risk disease.
Siyang Leng, Yizhen Chen, Wei-Yann Tsai, Divaya Bhutani, Grace C. Hillyer, Emerson Lim, Melissa K. Accordino, Jason D. Wright, Dawn L. Hershman, Suzanne Lentzsch and Alfred I. Neugut
Background: Bisphosphonates reduce skeletal-related events (SREs) in patients with multiple myeloma (MM) and, in some studies, improved survival. Since 2011, bisphosphonate use has been recommended by NCCN for all patients with newly diagnosed MM receiving antineoplastic therapy independent of the presence of bone disease. This study investigated their use after these guidelines were established. Methods: We identified patients aged ≥65 years in the SEER-Medicare database with newly diagnosed MM between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2013, who received antineoplastic therapy, had ≥6 months of follow-up, and did not receive prior bisphosphonates. Presence of SREs at diagnosis was identified, including pathologic fracture, spinal cord compression, radiation to bone, or surgery to bone. Use of bisphosphonates was defined as having ≥1 claim for an intravenous or oral bisphosphonate within 6 months after the start of antineoplastic therapy. We used multivariable modeling to compare users with nonusers, controlling for demographic and clinical covariates. We compared overall survival between users and nonusers using proportional hazards analysis. Results: Of 1,309 patients identified, 720 (55%) used a bisphosphonate. Factors associated with use included SRE at diagnosis (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 2.60; 95% CI, 1.98–3.40), hypercalcemia (AOR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.26–2.41), and use of proteasome inhibitor + immunomodulatory imide therapy (AOR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.21–2.39). Chronic kidney disease (AOR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.35–0.66) was associated with decreased use. Bisphosphonate use was associated with reduced mortality (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.56–0.88). Conclusions: Although bisphosphonate use is recommended for all patients with newly diagnosed MM receiving antineoplastic therapy, 45% of patients in the United States did not receive this guideline-recommended care.
Sanjeev Kumar Gupta, Nitin Jain, Guilin Tang, Andrew Futreal, Sa A. Wang, Joseph D. Khoury, Richard K. Yang, Hong Fang, Keyur P. Patel, Rajyalakshmi Luthra, Mark Routbort, Bedia A. Barkoh, Wei Chen, Xizeng Mao, Jianhua Zhang, L. Jeffrey Medeiros, Carlos E. Bueso-Ramos and Sanam Loghavi
RNA-seq was used to identify the partner gene and confirm the presence of a BCR-PDGFRB fusion. Identification of this fusion product resulted in successful treatment and long-term remission of this myeloid neoplasm. Based on our results, we suggest that despite current WHO recommendations, screening for PDGFRB rearrangement in cases of leukocytosis with eosinophilia and no other etiologic explanation is necessary, even if the karyotype is normal.