Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 4 of 4 items for

  • Author: Xu Liu x
  • Refine by Access: All x
Clear All Modify Search
Full access

Kan Wu, Xu Liu, Zhihong Liu, Yiping Lu, Xianding Wang, and Xiang Li

Background: Adrenocortical carcinoma (ACC) is an aggressive cancer with high recurrence rates and poor prognosis, even after radical surgery. The survival benefit of adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) in patients with ACC has not been well explored. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of adjuvant RT on the survival outcome of patients with ACC. Patients and Methods: All patients with nonmetastatic ACC who underwent complete resection were identified from the SEER database (2004–2016). Overall survival (OS) was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Multivariable Cox regression analysis was performed to identify prognostic factors associated with survival. Results: Of 365 patients with nonmetastatic ACC, 55 (15.1%) received adjuvant RT and the remainder underwent surgery alone. Patient characteristics were similar between the 2 groups, but those with a higher disease stage were more likely to receive adjuvant RT. Overall, patients receiving RT seemed to have better survival compared with the non-RT group (3-year OS rate, 63.1% vs 52.8%; P<.062). After adjustment for confounding factors, adjuvant RT was indeed associated with a 48% decreased risk of death (hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.29–0.91; P=.023) for all patients. In addition, adjuvant RT may confer a survival benefit only in patients with a high risk of recurrence (3-year OS rate, 55.1% vs 40.0%; P=.048) rather than in those with low/moderate-risk ACC (P=.559). Conclusions: Our findings suggest that adjuvant RT may be associated with improved survival in patients with nonmetastatic ACC who underwent radical surgery, especially those with high risk of recurrence.

Full access

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.

Full access

Dong Ding, Huabin Hu, Shuosha Li, Youwen Zhu, Yin Shi, Mengting Liao, Jin Liu, Xu Tian, Aiting Liu, and Jin Huang

Background: In the CASPIAN trial, durvalumab + chemotherapy demonstrated significant improvements in overall survival compared with chemotherapy alone in patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (SCLC). We aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of durvalumab in patients with extensive-stage SCLC from the US healthcare system perspective. Patients and Methods: A comprehensive Markov model was adapted to evaluate cost and effectiveness of durvalumab combination versus platinum/etoposide alone in the first-line therapy of extensive-stage SCLC based on data from the CASPIAN study. The main endpoints included total costs, life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-e-ectiveness ratios (ICERs). Model robustness was assessed with sensitivity analysis, and additional subgroup analyses were also performed. Results: Durvalumab + chemotherapy therapy resulted in an additional 0.27 LYs and 0.20 QALYs, resulting in an ICER of $464,711.90 per QALY versus the chemotherapy treatment. The cost of durvalumab has the greatest influence on this model. Subgroup analyses showed that the ICER remained higher than $150,000/QALY (the willingness-to-pay threshold in the United States) across all patient subgroups. Conclusions: Durvalumab in combination with platinum/etoposide is not a cost-effective option in the first-line treatment of patients with extensive-stage SCLC.

Full access

Qingqing Zhou, Chenchen Zhu, Zhen Shen, Jing Zhu, Tianjiao Zhang, Min Li, Jiwei Qin, Lili Qian, Chuan Chen, Hanyuan Liu, Zhihao Xu, Dabao Wu, Björn Nashan, and Ying Zhou