Role of surgical treatments in high-grade or advanced gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms

Over the last 40 years, the incidence and prevalence of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (GEP-NENs) have continued to increase. Compared to other epithelial neoplasms in the same organ, GEP-NENs exhibit indolent biological behavior, resulting in more chances to undergo surgery. However, the role of surgery in high-grade or advanced GEP-NENs is still controversial. Surgery is associated with survival improvement of well-differentiated high-grade GEP-NENs, whereas poorly differentiated GEP-NENs that may benefit from resection require careful selection based on Ki67 and other tissue biomarkers. Additionally, surgery also plays an important role in locally advanced and metastatic disease. For locally advanced GEP-NENs, isolated major vascular involvement is no longer an absolute contraindication. In the setting of metastatic GEP-NENs, radical intended surgery is recommended for patients with low-grade and resectable metastases. For unresectable metastatic disease, a variety of surgical approaches, including cytoreduction of liver metastasis, liver transplantation, and surgery after neoadjuvant treatment, show survival benefits. Primary tumor resection in GEP-NENs with unresectable metastatic disease is associated with symptom control, prolonged survival, and improved sensitivity toward systemic therapies. Although there is no established neoadjuvant or adjuvant strategy, increasing attention has been given to this emerging research area. Some studies have reported that neoadjuvant therapy effectively reduces tumor burden, improves the effectiveness of subsequent surgery, and decreases surgical complications.     

Patient navigation across the cancer care continuum: An overview of systematic reviews and emerging literature

Patient navigation is a strategy for overcoming barriers to reduce disparities and to improve access and outcomes. The aim of this umbrella review was to identify, critically appraise, synthesize, and present the best available evidence to inform policy and planning regarding patient navigation across the cancer continuum. Systematic reviews examining navigation in cancer care were identified in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, Embase, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL), Epistemonikos, and Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) databases and in the gray literature from January 1, 2012, to April 19, 2022. Data were screened, extracted, and appraised independently by two authors. The JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Systematic Review and Research Syntheses was used for quality appraisal. Emerging literature up to May 25, 2022, was also explored to capture primary research published beyond the coverage of included systematic reviews. Of the 2062 unique records identified, 61 systematic reviews were included. Fifty-four reviews were quantitative or mixed-methods reviews, reporting on the effectiveness of cancer patient navigation, including 12 reviews reporting costs or cost-effectiveness outcomes. Seven qualitative reviews explored navigation needs, barriers, and experiences. In addition, 53 primary studies published since 2021 were included. Patient navigation is effective in improving participation in cancer screening and reducing the time from screening to diagnosis and from diagnosis to treatment initiation. Emerging evidence suggests that patient navigation improves quality of life and patient satisfaction with care in the survivorship phase and reduces hospital readmission in the active treatment and survivorship care phases. Palliative care data were extremely limited. Economic evaluations from the United States suggest the potential cost-effectiveness of navigation in screening programs.     

Surgical Management and Outcomes of Patients with Multifocal Hepatoblastoma

ObjectiveTo compare the outcomes of patients with multifocal hepatoblastoma (HB) treated at our institution with either orthotopic liver transplant (OLTx) or hepatic resection to determine outcomes and risk factors for recurrence.BackgroundMultifocality in HB has been shown to be a significant prognostic factor for recurrence and worse outcome. The surgical management of this type of disease is complex and primarily involves OLTx to avoid leaving behind microscopic foci of disease in the remnant liver.MethodsWe performed a retrospective chart review on all patients <18 years of age with multifocal HB treated at our institution between 2000 and 2021. Patient demographics, operative procedure, post-operative course, pathological data, laboratory values, short- and long-term outcomes were analyzed.ResultsA total of 41 patients were identified as having complete radiologic and pathologic inclusion criteria. Twenty-three (56.1%) underwent OLTx and 18 (43.9%) underwent partial hepatectomy. Median length of follow-up across all patients was 3.1 years (IQR 1.1–6.6 years). Cohorts were similar in rates of PRETEXT designation status identified on standardized imaging re-review (p = .22). Three-year overall survival (OS) estimate was 76.8% (95% CI: 60.0%–87.3%). There was no difference in rates of recurrence or overall survival in patients who underwent either resection or OLTx (p = .54 and p = .92 respectively). Older patients (>72 months), patients with a positive porta hepatis margin, and patients with associated tumor thrombus experienced worse recurrence rates and survival. Histopathology demonstrating pleomorphic features independently associated with worse rates of recurrence.ConclusionsThrough proper patient selection, multifocal HB was adequately treated with either partial hepatectomy or OLTx with comparable outcome results. HB with pleomorphic features, increased patient age at diagnosis, involved porta hepatis margin on pathology, and the presence of associated tumor thrombus may be associated with worse outcomes regardless of the local control surgery offered.Level of EvidenceIII.     

Differences in Evidentiary Requirements Between European Medicines Agency and European Health Technology Assessment of Oncology Drugs—Can Alignment Be Enhanced?

ObjectivesNational health technology assessments (HTAs) across Europe show differences in evidentiary requirements from assessments by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), affecting time to patient access for drugs after marketing authorization. This article analyzes the differences between EMA and HTA bodies’ evidentiary requirements for oncology drugs and provides recommendations on potential further alignment to minimize and optimally manage the remaining differences.MethodsInterviews were performed with representatives and drug assessment experts from EMA and HTA bodies to identify evidentiary requirements for several subdomains and collect recommendations for potentially more efficiently addressing differences. A comparative analysis of acceptability of the evidence by EMA and the HTA bodies and for potential further alignment between both authorities was conducted.ResultsAcceptability of available evidence was higher for EMA than HTA bodies. HTA bodies and EMA were aligned on evidentiary requirements in most cases. The subdomains showing notable differences concerned the acceptance of limitation of the target population and extrapolation of target populations, progression-free survival and (other) surrogate endpoints as outcomes, cross-over designs, short trial duration, and clinical relevance of the effect size. Recommendations for reducing or optimally managing differences included joint early dialogues, joint relative effectiveness assessments, and the use of managed entry agreements.ConclusionsDifferences between assessments of EMA and HTA bodies were identified in important areas of evidentiary requirements. Increased alignment between EMA and HTA bodies is suggested and recommendations for realization are discussed.