Disparity in Utilization of Multiagent Therapy for Acute Promyelocytic Leukemia in the United States

BackgroundDespite high rate of cure in acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) in clinical trials, outcomes in real-world practice are dismal. We utilized National Cancer Database (NCDB) to explore utilization of multiagent therapy in APL and identify any disparities in treatment in real-world practices.Patients and MethodsNCDB categorizes use of systemic chemotherapy into single agent versus multiagent therapy. Some patients received hormonal therapy, immunotherapy, and unknown therapy; details of these treatments could not be ascertained. We therefore used multiple logistic regression analysis to evaluate effects of covariates on the probability of multiagent therapy use in 6678 patients.ResultsCompared to patients >60 years, patients aged 0 to 18 years (hazard ratio[HR] 3.2, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.8-5.5, P< .0001), 19 to 40 years (HR 1.6, 95% CI 1.03-2.54, P= .03), and 41 to 60 years (HR 1.6, 95% CI 1.3-1.9, P< .0001) were more likely to receive multiagent therapy. Patients with Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) of 0 (HR 1.6, 95% CI 1.2-2.3, P= .001) and CCI of 1 (HR 1.4, 95% CI 1.0-1.9, P= .04) had a higher likelihood of receiving multiagent therapy than patients with CCI ≥ 3. Patients treated at academic cancer centers, compared to those treated at community cancer center (HR 0.5, 95% CI 0.3-0.7, P= .001), comprehensive community cancer center (HR 0.7, 95% CI 0.6-0.8, P< .0001), and integrated network cancer center (HR 0.8, 95% CI 0.6-0.9, P= .02) were more likely to be treated with multiagent therapy. Compared to the patients with private insurance, those with Medicaid had increased likelihood (HR 1.2, 95% CI 1.0-1.4, P= .04) whereas uninsured patients had a lower likelihood of receiving multiagent therapy (HR 0.6, 95% CI 0.5-0.8, P= .0005).ConclusionTo our knowledge, this study is the first and the largest scale analysis of treatment practices in APL in real-world practices. Our findings highlight significant disparities in treatment of APL based on age, insurance, and health-system factors.     

Multiomic analysis reveals conservation of cancer-associated fibroblast phenotypes across species and tissue of origin

1. Download : Download high-res image (241KB)
2. Download : Download full-size image

     

Clinical characteristics and surgical outcomes of resectable acinar cell carcinoma of the pancreas-propensity score matching analysis with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

BackgroundSurgical resection is recommended for patients with resectable acinar cell carcinoma (ACC). The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical characteristics and surgical outcomes of resectable ACC in comparison to pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).MethodA retrospective analysis was performed on all patients who consecutively underwent radical resection with pathologically confirmed ACC and PDAC from December 2011 to December 2018. Clinicopathologic characteristics and follow-up information were analyzed. A 1:3 propensity score matching (PSM) method was used to minimize the bias between ACC and PDAC.ResultsA total of 26 patients with ACC and 1351 with PDAC were included. Compared to PDAC, ACC tended to be larger (4.5 vs. 3.0 cm; p < 0.001) and more frequently located in the pancreatic body/tail (61.5% vs. 36.6%, p = 0.009), with lower total bilirubin levels, lower neutrophil lymphocyte ratio (NLR) levels and lower carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9) levels and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) levels. There was no difference in postoperative morbidities in patients with ACC and PDAC. The median OS and RFS were longer in ACC when compared to PDAC (OS: 43.5 mo vs. 19.0 mo, p = 0.004; RFS: 24.5 mo vs. 11.6 mo, p = 0.023). After the 1:3 PSM, ACC remained to be a better histological type for OS (p = 0.024), but had comparable RFS with PDAC (p = 0.164).ConclusionPatients with ACC after radical resection had better OS than that with PDAC. However, ACC is also an aggressive tumor with a similar trend of RFS with PDAC after the matching, necessitating the multidisciplinary treatment for resectable ACC disease.     

How does transfusion-associated graft-versus-host disease compare to hematopoietic cell transplantation-associated graft-versus-host disease?

Transfusion-associated graft-versus-host disease (TA-GVHD) is a rare life-threatening complication of blood transfusion caused by donor T cells that escape rejection by the recipient immune system. These donor T cells drive recipient tissue damage in response to host antigens. On the other hand, GVHD occurring after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT-GVHD) is also caused by donor T cells, but its pathophysiology is more complex and differs due to the effects of tissue damage caused by pre?HCT conditioning and profound immunosuppression. Both TA-GVHD and HCT-GVHD can be fatal; however, mortality is higher with TA-GVHD due to the paucity of treatment options. Here, we compare and summarize the presentation, diagnosis, pathophysiology, prevention, and treatment of TA-GVHD and HCT-GVHD.     

Sickle cell nephropathy: A review of novel biomarkers and their potential roles in early detection of renal involvement

Whether the underlying mutations are homozygous, heterozygous, or co-inherited with other hemoglobinopathies, sickle cell disease is known to afflict the kidneys, leading to the clinical entity known as sickle cell nephropathy (SCN). Although common, SCN remains diagnostically elusive. Conventional studies performed in the context of renal disorders often fail to detect early stage SCN. This makes the quest for early diagnosis and treatment more challenging, and it increases the burden of chronic kidney disease-related morbidity among patients. Novel diagnostic tools have been employed to overcome this limitation. In this study, we discuss various biomarkers of SCN, including those employed in clinical practice and others recently identified in experimental settings, such as markers of vascular injury, endothelial dysfunction, tubulo-glomerular damage, and oxidative stress. These include kidney injury molecule-1, monocyte chemoattractant protein-1, N-acetyl-B-D-glucosaminidase, ceruloplasmin, orosomucoid, nephrin, and cation channels, among others. Furthermore, we explore the potential of novel biomarkers for refining diagnostic and therapeutic approaches and describe some obstacles that still need to be overcome. We highlight the importance of a collaborative approach to standardize the use of promising new biomarkers. Finally, we outline the limitations of conventional markers of renal damage as extensions of the pathogenic process occurring at the level of the organ and its functional subunits, with a discussion of the expected pattern of clinical and biochemical progression among patients with SCN.