Non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma is a very rare malignancy that includes several histological subtypes. Each subtype may need to be addressed separately regarding prognosis and treatment; however, no Phase III clinical trial data exist. Thus, treatment recommendations for patients with non-clear cell metastatic RCC (mRCC) remain unclear. We present first prospective data on choice of first- and second-line treatment in routine practice and outcome of patients with papillary mRCC. From the prospective German clinical cohort study (RCC-Registry), 99 patients with papillary mRCC treated with systemic first-line therapy between December 2007 and May 2017 were included. Prospectively enrolled patients who had started first-line treatment until May 15, 2016, were included into the outcome analyses (n = 82). Treatment was similar to therapies used for clear cell mRCC and consisted of tyrosine kinase inhibitors, mechanistic target of rapamycin inhibitors and recently checkpoint inhibitors. Median progression-free survival from start of first-line treatment was 5.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.1–9.2) and median overall survival was 12.0 months (95% CI, 8.1–20.0). At data cutoff, 73% of the patients died, 6% were still observed, 12% were lost to follow-up, and 9% were alive at the end of the individual 3-year observation period. Despite the lack of prospective Phase III evidence in patients with papillary mRCC, our real-world data reveal effectiveness of systemic clear cell mRCC therapy in papillary mRCC. The prognosis seems to be inferior for papillary compared to clear cell mRCC. Further studies are needed to identify drivers of effectiveness of systemic therapy for papillary mRCC. 相似文献
Problem: Although efficacy studies of opioid maintenance treatment (OMT) have shown evidence of treatment benefits, there is still need for studies on its effectiveness in natural clinical processes. This study investigates the development in health, substance use and social conditions of those who applied for OMT, including those denied access or discharged.
Method: First, persons assessed for admittance in 2005–2011 (n?=?127) were categorized into four trajectory groups based on whether they were admitted or denied (n?=?19), discharged (n?=?31), readmitted (n?=?21) or had been undergoing OMT without interruption (n?=?56). Second, 99 of these, the analytical sample, were interviewed at follow-up using (a) the Addiction Severity Index (ASI) for seven problem-areas and housing, and (b) self-rated change in 11 problem areas. The ASI was compared to baseline interviews after 55 months (mean). Third, outcomes within groups was studied in relation to alternative interventions.
Results: Within the analytical sample, those denied OMT showed no improvements at group level, those discharged had some improvements, more if readmitted than if not and those with uninterrupted OMT showed the most comprehensive improvements. Those outside OMT, denied and discharged, had considerable mortality risks related to ongoing drug use, especially in lack of well-planned alternative interventions.
Conclusion: Improvements strongly relate to access to OMT. This study underscores that access to OMT improves the situation in all areas investigated and decreases the risk for drug-related death. It underscores the importance of two major risk situations, i.e. being denied OMT and being discharged. 相似文献
