Does a high Mandard score really define a poor response to chemotherapy in oesophageal adenocarcinoma?

Background A high Mandard score implies a non-response to chemotherapy in oesophageal adenocarcinoma. However, some patients exhibit tumour volume reduction and a nodal response despite a high score. This study examines survival and recurrence patterns in these patients.Methods Clinicopathological factors were analysed using multivariable Cox regression assessing time to death and recurrence. Computed tomography-estimated tumour volume change was examined in a subgroup of consecutive patients.Results Five hundred and fifty-five patients were included. Median survival was 55 months (Mandard 1–3) and 21 months (Mandard 4 and 5). In the Mandard 4 and 5 group (332 patients), comparison between complete nodal responders and persistent nodal disease showed improved survival (90 vs 18 months), recurrence rates (locoregional 14.75 vs 28.74%, systemic 24.59 vs 48.42%) and circumferential resection margin positivity (22.95 vs 68.11%). Complete nodal response independently predicted improved survival (hazard ratio 0.34 (0.16–0.74). Post-chemotherapy tumour volume reduction was greater in patients with a complete nodal response (−16.3 vs −7.7 cm³, p = 0.033) with no significant difference between Mandard groups.Conclusion Patients with a complete nodal response to chemotherapy have significantly improved outcomes despite a poor Mandard score. High Mandard score does not correspond with a non-response to chemotherapy in all cases and patients with nodal downstaging may still benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy.Subject terms: Oesophageal cancer, Surgical oncology     

Lifitegrast clinical efficacy for treatment of signs and symptoms of dry eye disease across three randomized controlled trials

Objective: Report efficacy findings from three clinical trials (one phase 2 and two phase 3 [OPUS-1, OPUS-2]) of lifitegrast ophthalmic solution 5.0% for treatment of dry eye disease (DED).

Research design and methods: Three 84-day, randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled trials. Adults (≥18 years) with DED were randomized (1:1) to lifitegrast 5.0% or matching placebo. Changes from baseline to day 84 in signs and symptoms of DED were analyzed.

Main outcome measures: Phase 2, pre-specified endpoint: inferior corneal staining score (ICSS; 0–4); OPUS-1, coprimary endpoints: ICSS and visual-related function subscale (0–4 scale); OPUS-2, coprimary endpoints: ICSS and eye dryness score (EDS, VAS; 0–100).

Results: Fifty-eight participants were randomized to lifitegrast 5.0% and 58 to placebo in the phase 2 trial; 293 to lifitegrast and 295 to placebo in OPUS-1; 358 to lifitegrast and 360 to placebo in OPUS-2. In participants with mild-to-moderate baseline DED symptomatology, lifitegrast improved ICSS versus placebo in the phase 2 study (treatment effect, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.05–0.65; p?=?0.0209) and OPUS-1 (effect, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.10–0.38; p?=?0.0007). Among more symptomatic participants (baseline EDS ≥40, recent artificial tear use), lifitegrast improved EDS versus placebo in a post hoc analysis of OPUS-1 (effect, 13.34; 95% CI, 2.35–24.33; nominal p?=?0.0178) and in OPUS-2 (effect, 12.61; 95% CI, 8.51–16.70; p?<?0.0001).

Limitations: Trials were conducted over 12 weeks; efficacy beyond this period was not assessed.

Conclusions: Across three trials, lifitegrast improved ICSS in participants with mild-to-moderate baseline symptomatology in two studies, and EDS in participants with moderate-to-severe baseline symptomatology in two studies. Based on the overall findings from these trials, lifitegrast shows promise as a new treatment option for signs and symptoms of DED.