Real-World Effect of Maintenance and Intermittent Chemotherapy on Survival in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

Background

With improved survival and longer duration of treatment, clinicians managing metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) increasingly consider intermittent (IC) or maintenance chemotherapy (MC), but the effect of these treatment modifications on real-world outcomes is unclear.

A Reappraisal of the Comparative Effectiveness of Lumpectomy Versus Mastectomy on Breast Cancer Survival: A Propensity Score–Matched Update From the National Cancer Data Base (NCDB)

BackgroundRecent observational studies are concerning because they document rising mastectomy rates coinciding with more than a dozen reports that lumpectomy has better overall survival (OS) than mastectomy. Our aim was to determine if there were differences in OS of matched breast cancer patients undergoing lumpectomy versus mastectomy in the National Cancer Database (NCDB).Patients and MethodsA retrospective cohort of patients with stage I-III breast cancer in the NCDB (2004-2013) was identified. Propensity score matching (PSM), Kaplan-Meier, and multivariate Cox proportional hazards models were used to examine OS by type of surgery.ResultsOf 845,136 patients, 464,052 (54.9%) underwent lumpectomy and 381,084 (45.1%) underwent mastectomy. After PSM, the hazard ratio (HR) and confidence interval (CI) for OS in all patients comparing lumpectomy with mastectomy was 1.02 (CI, 1.00-1.04; P = .002). In patients with stage I, II, and III, they were HR 1.27 (CI, 1.23-1.36; P < .001), HR 0.98 (CI, 0.95-1.01; P = .21), and HR 0.83 (CI, 0.80-0.86; P < .001), respectively. In subgroup analyses of all patients by estrogen receptor (ER) status, they were HR 1.05 (CI, 1.03-1.07; P < .001) and HR 1.00 (CI, 0.96-1.03; P = .65) in ER+ and ER− patients.ConclusionIn our primary model of all stage I-III matched patients, using the most recent NCDB data and the largest observational sample size to date, the OS after mastectomy was not inferior to lumpectomy. This finding can be reassuring to patients and providers. In subgroup analyses, the association between type of surgery and OS differed by cancer stage and hormone receptor status.     

WJOG13219G: The Efficacy and Safety of FOLFOXIRI or Doublet plus Anti-VEGF Therapy in Previously Untreated BRAFV600E Mutant Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Multi-Institutional Registry-Based Study (BRACELET Study)

BackgroundThe real-world survival benefit of FOLFOXIRI (fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan) plus anti-VEGF therapy (Triplet) over doublet chemotherapy (Doublet) remains controversial in patients with BRAF^V600E mutant metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).Patients and MethodsWJOG13219G was a multicenter, retrospective, registry-based study of patients with BRAF^V600E mutant mCRC who received first-line triplet or doublet chemotherapy from January 2014 to December 2019 in Japan. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to adjust for patient background.ResultsThe analysis included 79 and 91 patients in the Triplet and Doublet groups, respectively. The Triplet group was significantly younger and had better performance status. No statistical difference was noted in progression-free survival (PFS; HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.60–1.13; P = .22) and overall survival (OS; HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.62–1.25; P = .48) between both groups. IPTW analysis also showed no difference between the 2 groups in PFS (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.69–1.08; P = .20) and OS (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.73–1.20; P = .59). The Triplet and Doublet groups had an objective response rate of 53% and 41%, respectively (P = .10). At least one grade 3 or 4 adverse event was seen in 51 (65%) and 43 (47%) patients in the Triplet and Doublet groups, respectively, with the incidence of neutropenia being significantly higher in the former.ConclusionTriplet therapy had no survival benefit versus doublet therapy in the overall and IPTW cohorts or specific subgroups for real-world patients with BRAF^V600E mutant mCRC.     

Daratumumab,Bortezomib, and Dexamethasone Versus Bortezomib and Dexamethasone in Patients With Previously Treated Multiple Myeloma: Three-year Follow-up of CASTOR

BackgroundIn the phase III CASTOR study in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, daratumumab, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (D-Vd) demonstrated significant clinical benefit versus Vd alone. Outcomes after 40.0 months of median follow-up are discussed.Patients and MethodsEligible patients had received ≥ 1 line of treatment and were administered bortezomib (1.3 mg/m²) and dexamethasone (20 mg) for 8 cycles with or without daratumumab (16 mg/kg) until disease progression.ResultsOf 498 patients in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population (D-Vd, n = 251; Vd, n = 247), 47% had 1 prior line of treatment (1PL; D-Vd, n = 122; Vd, n = 113). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly prolonged with D-Vd versus Vd in the ITT population (16.7 vs. 7.1 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.31; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.25-0.40; P < .0001) and the 1PL subgroup (27.0 vs. 7.9 months; HR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.15-0.32; P < .0001). In lenalidomide-refractory patients, the median PFS was 7.8 versus 4.9 months (HR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.28-0.68; P = .0002) for D-Vd (n = 60) versus Vd (n = 81). Minimal residual disease (MRD)–negativity rates (10⁻⁵) were greater with D-Vd versus Vd (ITT: 14% vs. 2%; 1PL: 20% vs. 3%; both P < .0001). PFS2 was significantly prolonged with D-Vd versus Vd (ITT: HR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.38-0.61; 1PL: HR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.24-0.51; P < .0001). No new safety concerns were observed.ConclusionAfter 3 years, D-Vd maintained significant benefits in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma with a consistent safety profile. D-Vd provided the greatest benefit at first relapse and increased MRD-negativity rates.     

Clinical Outcomes of First-line Sunitinib Followed by Immuno-oncology Checkpoint Inhibitors in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

BackgroundThe present retrospective, longitudinal cohort study assessed the association between the first-line sunitinib treatment duration and clinical outcomes with second-line immuno-oncology (IO) therapy among patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC).Patients and MethodsA total of 161 patients with mRCC who had been treated with first-line sunitinib and subsequent IO therapy from select International mRCC Database Consortium centers were included. The overall survival, time to next therapy, time to treatment discontinuation, and real-world physician-assessed best response measured from IO therapy initiation were analyzed and compared between patients treated with first-line sunitinib for ≥ 6 months and those treated for < 6 months.ResultsThe 116 patients treated with sunitinib for ≥ 6 months tended to be older and to have a better International mRCC Database Consortium risk than the 45 patients treated for < 6 months (favorable, 36% vs. 8%, P = .001; intermediate, 59% vs. 70%, P = .21; poor, 5% vs. 22%, P = .007). The receipt of sunitinib for ≥ 6 months versus < 6 months was associated with longer survival (hazard ratio [HR], 0.42; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.21-0.87; P = .02). No significant association was observed between the first-line sunitinib duration and second-line IO outcomes, including the time to next therapy (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.52-1.51; P = .66), time to treatment discontinuation (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.54-1.34; P = .49), and tumor response (odds ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.22-2.49; P = .62).ConclusionsWe found no statistically significant association between the first-line sunitinib duration and clinical outcomes with second-line IO therapy. Patients receiving first-line sunitinib for ≥ 6 months compared with < 6 months was associated with better overall survival, although potential unadjusted confounders could have been present. These findings support the paradigm that previous therapy will not dictate the effectiveness of subsequent immunotherapy.     

Effect of Thoracic Radiotherapy Timing and Fractionation on Survival in Nonmetastatic Small Cell Lung Carcinoma

BackgroundThe optimal timing of thoracic radiation therapy (RT) in relation to chemotherapy is unknown in the treatment of nonmetastatic small cell lung cancer (SCLC). We analyzed the National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) to assess the effect on overall survival (OS) of RT timing with chemotherapy for patients with SCLC.Materials and MethodsThe NCDB was queried for patients diagnosed with nonmetastatic SCLC from 1998 to 2011 who had undergone definitive chemoradiation. The patients were stratified into quartiles according to the interval between the start of chemotherapy and the start of RT. The first and second quartiles (RT started 0-20 days after chemotherapy) were classified as “early” RT and the third and fourth quartiles (RT started 21-126 days after chemotherapy) as “late” RT. Patients were included if they had received hyperfractionated 45 Gy in 30 fractions or standard fractionation of ≥ 60 Gy in 1.8- to 2-Gy fractions. Kaplan-Meier analyses of OS were performed, and multivariable Cox regression analysis was conducted to assess the effect of the covariates on OS.ResultsA total of 8391 patients were included (50.5% had received early RT). Early RT was associated with significant improvement in survival (5-year OS, 21.9% vs. 19.1%; P = .01). On subgroup analysis, the survival advantage for early RT was significant for patients receiving hyperfractionated RT (5-year OS, 28.2% vs. 21.2%; P = .004) but not for those receiving standard fractionation (19.8% vs. 18.4%; P = .29). On multivariable Cox regression analysis, hyperfractionated RT was associated with reduced mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85-0.96; P = .001), but early RT was not (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.94-1.04; P = .53).ConclusionThese data support the early initiation of hyperfractionated thoracic RT for nonmetastatic SCLC.     

Association of Surgical Approach With Treatment Burden,Oncological Effectiveness,and Perioperative Morbidity in Adrenocortical Carcinoma

MicroabstractIn the National Cancer Database (NCDB), patients treated with minimally invasive adrenalectomy (MIA) for adrenocortical carcinoma (ACC) had similar oncological outcomes and cumulative treatment burden with less morbidity compared with open adrenalectomy (OA). Although OA remains the standard of care for adrenal lesions concerninge for malignancy, MIA in appropriately selected patients may offer equivalent oncological outcomes.Introduction/BackgroundWe investigated the cumulative treatment burden, oncological effectiveness, and perioperative morbidity in patients undergoing MIA compared with (OA) for patients with ACC.Patients and MethodsWe reviewed the NCDB for patients undergoing surgical resection (MIA vs. OA) for ACC from 2010 to 2017. Inverse probability of treatment weighted logistic regression, negative binomial, and Cox proportional hazards models were fit to assess for an association of surgical approach with cumulative treatment burden (any adjuvant therapy, radiation therapy [RT], and systemic therapy), oncological effectiveness (positive surgical margins [PSM], lymph node yield [LNY], and overall survival [OS]), and perioperative morbidity (length of stay [LOS] and readmission) as appropriate.ResultsWe identified 776 patients that underwent adrenalectomy for ACC, of which 307 underwent MIA. We noted patients with larger tumors (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.78-0.86, P < .001) were less likely to have MIA prior to IPTW. We did not appreciate a significant association of MIA with cumulative treatment burden or the use of any adjuvant therapy (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.60-1.21, P = .375), adjuvant RT (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.59-1.50, P = .801), or adjuvant systemic therapy (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.58-1.21, P = .352). Patients undergoing MIA had similar oncological effectiveness of surgery and OS when compared with patients which underwent OA. Patients that underwent MIA had a significantly shorter LOS (IRR: 0.74, 95% CI 0.62-0.88, P = .001) and lower odds of readmission (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.23-0.91, P = .026).ConclusionsAlthough the standard of care for adrenal lesions suspicious for ACC remains OA, in appropriately selected patients, MIA may offer similar oncological effectiveness and cumulative treatment burden, with less morbidity, than OA.     

Nomograms for Predicting Overall and Recurrence-free Survival From Pathologic Stage IA and IB Lung Cancer After Lobectomy

BackgroundStage I non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is potentially curable with surgical resection. Significant proportions of patients may still experience recurrence and death despite undergoing curative surgery. This study describes predictive nomograms for recurrence-free (RFS) and overall survival (OS) after lobectomy.Patients and MethodsA total of 301 patients with the American Joint Committee on Cancer pathologic stage IA and IB NSCLC who underwent open, thoracoscopic, or robotic lobectomy from January 2011 to April 2017 were analyzed. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to create nomograms for OS and RFS. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were calculated for OS and RFS comparing high-risk and low-risk cohorts based on nomogram scores.ResultsHistology (hazard ratio [HR], 0.24; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.10-0.56; P = .002), lymphovascular invasion (HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.29-0.74; P = .001), smoking status (HR, 3.46; 95% CI, 1.25-9.55: P = .02), and total lymph nodes removed (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.01-1.10; P = .021) were significant predictors for OS in a multivariate model. Lymphovascular invasion (HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.36-0.83; P = .0040), smoking status (HR, 2.56; 95% CI, 1.16-5.62; P = .02), total lymph nodes removed (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.00-1.08; P = .029), and tumor size (HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.30-1.68; P = .047) were significant predictors of RFS in a multivariate model.ConclusionNomograms can predict OS and RFS for pathologic stage IA and IB NSCLC after lobectomy regardless of operative approach. The risk for death and recurrence after stratification by the nomogram scores may provide guidance regarding adjuvant therapy and surveillance.     

Outcomes of Treatment for HIV-Infected Lymphoma Patients: A National Cancer Database (NCDB) Analysis

BackgroundHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection may be a predictor of undertreatment of patients with lymphoma. We hypothesized treatment with systemic therapy (SysT) or hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HCT) in the first-line setting leads to improved outcomes and sought to compare the predictors for treatment and outcomes with non-HIV (HIV−) patients.MethodsPatients with lymphoma diagnosed between 2004 and 2015 were extracted from the National Cancer Database (NCDB). Patients were categorized as HIV+ and HIV−. First-line treatment was categorized as no systemic therapy reported (noSyst), SysT, or HCT. Multivariate analysis to predict treatment and survival was performed.ResultsWe identified 552,513 lymphoma patients, of whom 11,160 HIV+ versus 349,607 HIV− patients were eligible for analysis. Among HIV+, the positive predictors for SysT were insurance and higher income, whereas female sex and minority racial status predicted lower likelihood for SysT. Forty HIV+ patients underwent HCT. Treatment of HIV+ lymphoma patients resulted in improved outcomes: 3-year overall survival 43.6% in noSyst versus 58.1% SysT (hazard ratio [HR] 0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52-0.61; P < .005) versus 62.2% HCT (HR 0.42; 95% CI, 0.14-1.3; P = .08). The outcomes were lower compared to non-HIV patients (3-yr overall survival 67.3% with SysT and 62.2% HCT).ConclusionPatients with lymphoma with HIV benefit from SysT when feasible but outcomes are worse than non-HIV patients. HCT should be offered to HIV+ patients with lymphoma in the appropriate clinic setting. Individual characteristics of the patients and complications could not be evaluated in the present study but should be a focus for future research.     

The Impact of Locoregional Treatment on Survival in Patients With Metastatic Breast Cancer: A National Cancer Database Analysis

BackgroundAlthough systemic therapy is the standard treatment for metastatic breast cancer, the value of locoregional treatment (LRT) of the primary tumor and its impact on survival is controversial. This study evaluates survival outcomes in patients with metastatic breast cancer after receiving LRT (surgery and/or radiation therapy) of the primary tumor.Materials and MethodsThe National Cancer Database was used to identify 16,128 qualifying cases of metastatic breast cancer who received systemic therapy with or without LRT from 2004 to 2013. Treatment modality was divided into surgery (Sx), radiation therapy (RT), surgery followed by RT (Sx + RT), and no LRT. The median survival and 3-year actuarial survival rates (OS) were analyzed for each treatment group. On multivariate analyses, adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed using Cox regression modeling to adjust for patient and clinicopathologic characteristics.ResultsOverall, the median follow-up was 28.3 months, and the median survival for all patients was 37.2 months. With 9761 deaths reported, the estimated 3-year OS was 51.3%. The Sx + RT group (n = 2166) had the highest 3-year OS of 69.4%, followed by the Sx group (n = 4293) with 57.6%, the no LRT group (n = 8955) with 44.3%, and the RT group (n = 714) with 41.5% (P < .0001). On multivariate analysis, compared with the no LRT group, a decreased HR was noted in patients receiving Sx (adjusted HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.65-0.71; P < .0001) and Sx + RT (adjusted HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.43-0.49; P < .0001).ConclusionLRT, especially surgery followed by RT, in addition to systemic therapy, was associated with improved survival in patients with metastatic breast cancer.     

Comparison of Cilta-cel,an Anti-BCMA CAR-T Cell Therapy,Versus Conventional Treatment in Patients With Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma

BackgroundIn the single-arm, phase 1b/2 CARTITUDE-1 study, ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel), an anti-B-cell maturation antigen chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy, showed encouraging efficacy in US patients with multiple myeloma (MM) who previously received an immunomodulatory drug, proteasome inhibitor, and anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody (triple-class exposed).Patients and MethodsA dataset of US patients refractory to an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody (MAMMOTH) was used to identify patients who would meet eligibility for CARTITUDE-1 and received subsequent non-CAR-T therapy. The intent-to-treat (ITT) population in CARTITUDE-1 included patients who underwent apheresis (N = 113); the modified ITT (mITT) population was the subset who received cilta-cel (n = 97). Corresponding populations were identified from the MAMMOTH dataset: ITT population (n = 190) and mITT population of patients without progression/death within 47 days (median apheresis-to-cilta-cel infusion time) from onset of therapy (n = 122). Using 1:1 nearest neighbor propensity score matching to control for selected baseline covariates, 95 and 69 patients in CARTITUDE-1 ITT and mITT populations, respectively, were matched to MAMMOTH patients.ResultsIn ITT cohorts of CARTITUDE-1 vs. MAMMOTH, improved overall response rate (ORR; 84% vs. 28% [P < .001]) and longer progression-free survival (PFS; hazard ratio [HR], 0.11 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.05-0.22]) and overall survival (OS; HR, 0.20 [95% CI, 0.10-0.39]) were observed. Similar results were seen in mITT cohorts of CARTITUDE-1 vs. MAMMOTH (ORR: 96% vs. 30% [P < .001]; PFS: HR, 0.02 [95% CI, 0.01-0.14]; OS: HR, 0.05 [95% CI, 0.01-0.22]) and with alternative matching methods.ConclusionCilta-cel yielded significantly improved outcomes versus real-world therapies in triple-class exposed patients with relapsed/refractory MM.     

A Population-Based Study of Incidence and Survival of 1588 Thymic Malignancies: Results From the California Cancer Registry

BackgroundThymic malignancies are rare and there are limited contemporary population-based epidemiological studies for this uncommon cancer.Patients and MethodsAdults aged 20 years and older diagnosed with thymic malignancies between 1988 and 2015 were identified from the California Cancer Registry (n = 1588). Trends in age-adjusted incidence rates were examined overall and according to race/ethnicity, and the proportion diagnosed according to stage was evaluated over time. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival (OS), and Fine and Gray competing risks regression for cause-specific survival (CSS).ResultsAge-adjusted incidence increased on average 2.08% per year over the study period (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.30%-2.86%; P < .0001), with an incidence of 0.277 cases per 100,000 in 2015. Incidence was highest among Asian/Pacific Islander and non-Hispanic black individuals. The proportion of unknown stage at diagnosis declined as localized diagnoses increased over time. Compared with patients with thymoma, those with thymic carcinoma had significantly worse OS (HR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.33-2.01; P < .0001) and CSS (subdistribution HR, 2.99; 95% CI, 2.29-3.91; P < .0001). Advanced stage at diagnosis was also associated with worse survival. Surgical intervention was associated with better prognosis for patients with localized (HR, 0.08; 95% CI, 0.02-0.30; P = .0002) or regional disease (HR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.06-0.34; P < .0001).ConclusionThymic malignancy incidence is increasing in California. There was incidence variation across race/ethnicity, which warrants future study. These findings provide contemporary insight into the incidence and prognostic factors of thymic malignancies.     

Efficacy of Immediate Postoperative Instillation of Chemotherapy for Primary Non–Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer in Real-World Clinical Practice

BackgroundNon–muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) can be treated using transurethral resection (TUR), but high incidence of intravesical recurrence remains a clinical challenge. Single immediate postoperative instillation of chemotherapy (IPIOC) is controversial for NMIBC patients with intermediate recurrence risk. The aim of the present study was to report the efficacy and toxicity of IPIOC, particularly in intermediate-risk NMIBC patients, in the real-world setting.Patients and MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed 363 consecutive patients with primary NMIBC who underwent radical TUR at Kyoto University Hospital between 2007 and 2016.ResultsIn low-risk patients, recurrence-free survival (RFS) was significantly better for IPIOC than non-IPIOC (2-year RFS: 89.3% vs. 59.4%; P = .001). In intermediate-risk patients, IPIOC was associated with significantly longer RFS compared with non-IPIOC (2-year RFS: 85.5% vs. 58.2%; P = .011). IPIOC and bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) were independent predictors for post-TUR recurrence (non-IPIOC vs. IPIOC: hazard ratio [HR], 2.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.14-4.88; P = .02; non-BCG vs. BCG: HR, 2.22; P = .045, 95% CI, 1.02-5.30). In the high-risk group, only BCG was an independent prognostic factor of recurrence in a multivariate Cox proportional hazards model (HR, 2.55; P = .006, 95% CI, 1.32-4.87). There were no significant differences between the BCG-only group and the IPIOC with BCG group in Grade 3 or more local (16 patients [21%] vs. 21 patients [24%]; P = .61) or systemic (3 patients [4%] vs. 6 patients [7%]; P = .40) toxicity rates.ConclusionOur study showed the efficacy of IPIOC for the prevention of intravesical recurrence in primary intermediate-risk NMIBC patients regardless of BCG therapy.     

A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of Novel Androgen Receptor Inhibitors in Non-metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer

BackgroundAmong men with high-risk non-metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC), we used network meta-analysis to compare non-steroidal anti-androgens (NSAAs) and stratified class-level meta-analysis to identify subgroups with particular benefit from NSAAs with androgen deprivation therapy versus androgen deprivation therapy alone.Materials and MethodsWe performed a systematic review of phase III parallel-group randomized controlled trials in adult men with nmCRPC. Primary outcome was metastasis-free survival (MFS). Secondary outcomes included overall survival (OS), prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression-free survival (PFS), and rates of grade 3 to 4 adverse events (AEs). We assessed class-level effects using random effects models; effect modification owing to subgroup effects using random-effects models to pool study-level differences; and comparative outcomes between agents using fixed-effect network models in a Bayesian framework.ResultsThree randomized controlled trials were identified. Pooled MFS, PSA-PFS, and OS were significantly greater with NSAA versus placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.32; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.25-0.41; HR, 0.08; 95% CI, 0.05-0.13; and HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.61-0.90, respectively). Subgroup analysis demonstrated a greater benefit with NSAAs in men with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 (HR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.24-0.38) versus 1 (HR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.36-0.56; P = .005), but no difference owing to PSA doubling time (P = .43) or use of osteoclast targeting therapy (P = .77). Bayesian analysis showed apalutamide and enzalutamide had a 56% and 44% likelihood of maximizing MFS, respectively, with subgroup analysis demonstrating these agents were preferred regardless of PSA doubling time and performance status. There was a 44%, 41%, and 15% likelihood that apalutamide, darolutamide and enzalutamide offered the greatest OS benefit, respectively. Grade 3 to 4 AEs were more common with NSAAs (odds ratio [OR], 1.47; 95% CI, 1.27-1.71) and there was a 61% chance that darolutamide was preferred.ConclusionsNSAAs improve survival in high-risk nmCRPC. Apalutamide and enzalutamide may result in improved oncologic outcomes. Darolutamide may result in fewer AEs. Phase IV data are needed to validate these findings.     

Effectiveness of Combining Bevacizumab With First-Line Chemotherapy Regimens for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer in Real-World Practice

BackgroundAnti–vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents have shown clinical benefits against metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) when combined with cytotoxic chemotherapeutic drugs. Because randomized controlled trials have restrictive enrollment criteria, and because the participants typically do not resemble actual patients, we here investigated the efficacy of bevacizumab as part of a combination therapy for mCRC in a Korean real-world practice setting.Patients and MethodsWe retrospectively evaluated 3748 patients with an initial diagnosis of mCRC or recurrent colorectal cancer with distant metastasis who received first-line chemotherapy in a tertiary cancer center. The primary study endpoint was overall survival. We used multivariate analysis using the Cox regression hazard model and propensity score matching (PSM) methods to adjust for any confounding clinicopathologic factors. Subgroup analysis was also performed for patients who did not receive local treatments for metastatic lesions before receipt of first-line chemotherapy.ResultsIn an initial crude analysis, patients who received first-line FOLFOX or FOLFIRI showed better survival outcomes if these regimens were combined with bevacizumab (median overall survival, 3.5 vs. 2.3 years; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59-0.73; P < .001). However, Cox regression hazard model adjusted analysis using PSM methods revealed no significant survival differences between these groups (3.0 vs. 2.6 years; HR = 0.92; 95% CI, 0.79-1.07; P = .2612). We performed further survival analysis of 2814 patients with unresectable disease without metastasectomy who received metastatic radiofrequency ablation before chemotherapy. Cox regression and PSM analysis indicated that bevacizumab group showed better survival (HR = 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71-0.94; P = .005; and HR = 0.84; 95% CI, 0.71-0.99; P = .018).ConclusionThe addition of bevacizumab to a first-line chemotherapeutic regimen provides survival benefits in a real-world setting for mCRC patients who cannot undergo curative-intent local treatment for metastatic lesions.     

Impact of Duration of Neoadjuvant Radiation on Rectal Cancer Survival: A Real World Multi-center Retrospective Cohort Study

Background

The utility of neoadjuvant radiotherapy (nRT) for the treatment of stage II and III rectal cancer is well-established. However, the optimal duration of nRT in this setting remains controversial. Using a population-based cohort of patients with stage II and III rectal cancer (RC) treated with curative intent, our aims were to (1) examine the patterns of nRT use and (2) explore the relationship between different nRT schedules and survival in the real-world setting.

CAPOX Associated With Toxicities of Higher Grade but Improved Disease-Free Survival When Compared With FOLFOX in the Adjuvant Treatment of Stage III Colon Cancer

Introduction/BackgroundAdjuvant treatment of colon cancer relies on fluoropyrimidine-containing regimens as the intravenous formulation, 5-FU, or its oral prodrug, CA, combined with oxaliplatin (FOLFOX and CAPOX). There is currently no clinical trial comparing the 2 regimens; however, both are considered standard of care treatment options.Materials and MethodsWe performed a retrospective chart review comparing average relative dose intensity (ARDI), percentage of intended total dose (PITD), overall survival (OS), DFS, and toxicity profiles of these regimens. The patients (n = 176) received either modified FOLFOX6 (n = 93) or CAPOX (n = 83).ResultsOxaliplatin ARDI (80.72% vs. 87.11%; P = .0033) and PITD (70.09% vs. 88.11%; P = .0013) was significantly lower in those treated with CAPOX compared with FOLFOX. CA ARDI (87.10% vs. 93.60%; P < .0001) and PITD (77.19% vs. 88.11%; P = .0006) was significantly lower than 5-FU dosing. Patients treated with CAPOX had more ≥ Grade 2 toxicities and trended toward more dose-limiting toxicities. Survival analysis demonstrated a trend toward improved OS with CAPOX (hazard ratio [HR], 0.4741; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.1660-1.354; P = .1663) and improved DFS with CAPOX (HR, 0.4949; 95% CI, 0.2512-0.9749; P = .0420). Multivariate analysis demonstrated similar results with CAPOX being associated with a trend toward improved OS (HR, 0.396; 95% CI, 0.110-1.429; P = .1571) and DFS (HR, 0.458; 95% CI, 0.210-1.001; P = .0504).ConclusionPatients receiving CAPOX had significantly lower ARDI and PITD compared with FOLFOX, but showed trends toward improved outcomes when treated with CAPOX in the adjuvant setting when compared with FOLFOX.     

Efficacy of Targeted Therapy for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma in the Elderly Patient Population

Introduction/BackgroundTargeted therapy has become the mainstay of treatment for mRCC. The efficacy of this therapy in the older population is poorly understood.Patients and MethodsData from patients with mRCC treated with first-line anti-VEGF therapy were collected through the International mRCC Database Consortium from 12 centers. Patient characteristics, data on second-line therapy, and outcomes including treatment duration and overall survival, were evaluated using summary statistics and multivariate analysis.ResultsAll patients (n = 1381) were treated with front-line targeted therapy; 144 (10%) were 75 years old or older. Six patients (4%) were favorable risk, 99 patients (69%) intermediate risk, and 39 patients (27%) poor risk according to Heng Journal of Clinical Oncology 2009 prognostic factors. The initial treatment for those ≥ 75 years of age was sunitinib (n = 98), sorafenib (n = 35), bevacizumab (n = 7), and AZD217 (n = 4). Twenty-three percent of older patients and 39% of the younger patients went on to receive second-line therapy (P < .0001). The overall response rate, median treatment duration, and overall survival for the older versus younger group were 18% versus 25% (P = .0975), 5.5 months versus 7.5 months (P = .1388), and 16.8 months versus 19.7 months (P = .3321), respectively. When adjusted for poor prognostic factors, age 75 years and older was not found to be associated with poorer overall survival (hazard ratio [HR], 1.002; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.781-1.285) or shorter treatment duration (HR, 1.018; 95% CI, 0.827-1.252). The retrospective study design was the primary limitation.ConclusionThe use of advanced age as a selection criterion for targeted therapy requires further study, with data suggesting no clinically meaningful differences in overall response rate, treatment duration, and overall survival between older and younger age groups.     

Prevalence and Clinical Significance of Incidental and Clinically Suspected Venous Thromboembolism in Lung Cancer Patients

BackgroundIt is unclear what proportion of VTE events in lung cancer patients are incidentally discovered and whether incidental events affect mortality.Patients and MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study of lung cancer patients seen at the University of Rochester between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2008 with the goal of quantifying and characterizing VTE events. Multiple clinical variables and mortality outcomes were compared using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and multivariate Cox proportional hazards.ResultsThe study population consisted of 207 subjects with lung cancer. The median age was 66 years and 55% were female (n = 115). Thirty-one patients (14.9%) experienced at least 1 VTE event with 32.2% (10/31) of these incidentally discovered. Incidental events comprised 29.4% (n = 5) of pulmonary embolisms, 11.1% (n = 2) of deep vein thrombosis, and 100% (n = 3) of visceral events. The median survival for patients with incidental VTE was 23.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.8-32.1) compared with 45.8 months (95% CI, 34.1-56.8) in patients without VTE (HR 2.4; 95% CI, 1.2-4.9; P = .01), but in a subgroup analysis of stage IV patients overall survival was not significantly different (HR, 0.94; P = .33). Patients with clinically suspected VTE had the lowest median survival at 13.1 months (95% CI, 6.4-18.9) which was significantly lower than patients without VTE (HR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.6-4.5; P = .002), but not significantly different from patients with incidental VTE (HR, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.4-2.0; P = .7). In multivariate analysis, occurrence of VTE (HR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.3-3.8; P = .002) was significantly associated with mortality when adjusting for age, stage, and histology.ConclusionsOne-third of VTE events in lung cancer patients are incidentally discovered and VTE has negative clinical effect in lung cancer patients.     

Chemotherapy-Induced Neutropenia and Outcome in Patients With Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Treated With First-Line Docetaxel

Background

Neutropenia is a common side effect associated with docetaxel use. We retrospectively investigated the association between chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and survival in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients receiving first-line docetaxel.