Search

Objectives: Accurate risk stratification of patients with stage II and III colorectal cancer (CRC) prior to treatment selection enables limited health resources to be efficiently allocated to patients who are likely to benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy. We aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of a recently developed deep learning-based prognostic method, Histotyping, from the perspective of the Norwegian healthcare system. Methods: Two partitioned survival models were developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of Histotyping for two treatment cohorts: patients with CRC stage II and III. For each of the two cohorts, Histotyping was used for risk stratification to assign adjuvant chemotherapy and was compared with the standard of care (SOC) (adjuvant chemotherapy to all patients). Health outcomes measured in the model were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and life years (LYs) gained. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to determine the impact of uncertainty. Scenario analyses were performed to assess the impact of the parameters with the greatest uncertainty. Results: Risk-stratifying patients with CRC stage II and III using Histotyping was dominant (less costly and more effective) compared to SOC. In patients with CRC stage II, the net monetary benefit of Histotyping was 270,934 Norwegian kroners (NOK) (year of valuation is 2021), and the net health benefit of Histotyping was 0.99. In stage III, the net monetary benefit of Histotyping was 195,419 NOK, and the net health benefit of Histotyping was 0.71. Conclusions: Risk-stratifying patients with CRC using Histotyping prior to the administration of adjuvant chemotherapy is likely to be a cost-effective strategy in Norway. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The DoMore-v1-CRC marker was recently developed using deep learning and conventional haematoxylin and eosin-stained tissue sections, and was observed to outperform established molecular and morphological markers of patient outcome after primary colorectal cancer resection. The aim of the present study was to develop a clinical decision support system based on DoMore-v1-CRC and pathological staging markers to facilitate individualised selection of adjuvant treatment.Methods: We estimated cancer-specific survival in subgroups formed by pathological tumour stage (pT<4 or pT4), pathological nodal stage (pN0, pN1, or pN2), number of lymph nodes sampled (≤12 or >12) if not pN2, and DoMore-v1-CRC classification (good, uncertain, or poor prognosis) in 997 patients with stage II or III colorectal cancer considered to have no residual tumour (R0) from two community-based cohorts in Norway and the UK, and used these data to define three risk groups. An external cohort of 1075 patients with stage II or III R0 colorectal cancer from the QUASAR 2 trial was used for validation; these patients were treated with single-agent capecitabine. The proposed risk stratification system was evaluated using Cox regression analysis. We similarly evaluated a risk stratification system intended to reflect current guidelines and clinical practice. The primary outcome was cancer-specific survival.Findings: The new risk stratification system provided a hazard ratio of 10·71 (95% CI 6·39-17·93; p<0·0001) for high-risk versus low-risk patients and 3·06 (1·73-5·42; p=0·0001) for intermediate versus low risk in the primary analysis of the validation cohort. Estimated 3-year cancer-specific survival was 97·2% (95% CI 95·1-98·4; n=445 [41%]) for the low-risk group, 94·8% (91·7-96·7; n=339 [32%]) for the intermediate-risk group, and 77·6% (72·1-82·1; n=291 [27%]) for the high-risk group. The guideline-based risk grouping was observed to be less prognostic and informative (the low-risk group comprised only 142 [13%] of the 1075 patients).Interpretation: Integrating DoMore-v1-CRC and pathological staging markers provided a clinical decision support system that risk stratifies more accurately than its constituent elements, and identifies substantially more patients with stage II and III colorectal cancer with similarly good prognosis as the low-risk group in current guidelines. Avoiding adjuvant chemotherapy in these patients might be safe, and could reduce morbidity, mortality, and treatment costs.Funding: The Research Council of Norway. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The role of molecular classification in patients with low/intermediate risk endometrial cancer (EC) is uncertain. Higher precision in diagnostics will inform the unsettled debate on optimal adjuvant treatment. We aimed to determine the association of molecular profiling with patterns of relapse and survival. This retrospective cohort study included patients referred to The Norwegian Radium Hospital, Oslo University Hospital from 2006–2017. Patients with low/intermediate risk EC were molecularly classified as pathogenic polymerase epsilon (POLE)-mutated, mismatch repair deficient (MMRd), p53 abnormal, or no specific molecular profile (NSMP). The main outcomes were time to recurrence (TTR) and cancer-specific survival (CSS). Of 626 patients, 610 could be molecularly classified. Fifty-seven patients (9%) had POLE-mutated tumors, 202 (33%) had MMRd tumors, 34 (6%) had p53 abnormal tumors and 317 (52%) had NSMP tumors. After median follow-up time of 8.9 years, there was a statistically significant difference in TTR and CSS by molecular groups. Patients with p53 abnormal tumors had poor prognosis, with 10 of the 12 patients with relapse presenting with para-aortic/distant metastases. Patients with POLE mutations had excellent prognosis. In the NSMP group, L1CAM expression was associated with shorter CSS but not TTR. The differences in outcome by molecular groups are driven by differences in relapse frequency and -patterns and demand a higher precision in diagnostics, also in patients with low/intermediate risk EC. Tailored adjuvant treatment strategies need to consider systemic treatment for patients with p53 abnormal tumors and de-escalated treatment for patients with POLE mutated tumors. • Clarifying the role of molecular classification in low/intermediate risk endometrial cancer. • Time to relapse and survival differed signifi cantly by molecular groups. • roboPatients with p53 abnormal tumors had poor outcome. • roboPatients with POLE mutated tumors had excellent survival. • pmMolecular classification is crucial for tailoring of adjuvant treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]