Search

Background: Pregnancy-associated breast cancer (PABC) is a rare entity whose prognosis has previously been studied and is subject to controversy. Methods: Survival of patients with PABC diagnosed between 2009 and 2021 with breast cancer during pregnancy or until 1 year after childbirth was compared with non-pregnant patients with breast cancer from the same period at La Paz University Hospital. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to compare disease-free (DFS) and overall (OS) survival between the groups, adjusting for grade and pathologic stage. Results: Among the 89 included patients with breast cancer, 34 were diagnosed during pregnancy, and 55 were not pregnant. The pregnant patients were more likely to have grade 3 tumors (61.3% vs 37%, p = 0.023) and an advanced stage (pathologic stage III-IV: 44.1% vs 17.6%, p = 0.008). Median follow-up was 47 months for the pregnant group and 46 months for the control group. After adjustments for tumor grade and pathologic stage, OS was comparable between the groups (HR 2.03; 95% CI 0.61 to 6.79; P = 0.25). Conclusions: The outcome of women diagnosed with PABC is comparable to young non-pregnant controls. However, it should be taken into account that PABC has a more aggressive phenotype. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Pregnancy-associated breast cancer (PABC) is a rare entity whose prognosis has previously been studied and is subject to controversy. Methods: Survival of patients with PABC diagnosed between 2009 and 2021 with breast cancer during pregnancy or until 1 year after childbirth was compared with non-pregnant patients with breast cancer from the same period at La Paz University Hospital. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to compare disease-free (DFS) and overall (OS) survival between the groups, adjusting for grade and pathologic stage. Results: Among the 89 included patients with breast cancer, 34 were diagnosed during pregnancy, and 55 were not pregnant. The pregnant patients were more likely to have grade 3 tumors (61.3% vs 37%, p = 0.023) and an advanced stage (pathologic stage III-IV: 44.1% vs 17.6%, p = 0.008). Median follow-up was 47 months for the pregnant group and 46 months for the control group. After adjustments for tumor grade and pathologic stage, OS was comparable between the groups (HR 2.03; 95% CI 0.61 to 6.79; P = 0.25). Conclusions: The outcome of women diagnosed with PABC is comparable to young non-pregnant controls. However, it should be taken into account that PABC has a more aggressive phenotype. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Combined serplulimab and chemotherapy demonstrated improved clinical survival outcomes in patients with advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) and PD-L1 combined positive scores (CPS) ≥ 1. The present study aimed to evaluate the economic viability of integrating serplulimab in combination with chemotherapy as a potential therapeutic approach for treating ESCC in China. Methods: A Markov model was constructed to evaluate the economic and health-related implications of combining serplulimab with chemotherapy. With the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), costs and results in terms of health were estimated. For assessing parameter uncertainty, one-way and probabilistic sensitivity studies were carried out. Results: The combination of serplulimab and chemotherapy yielded incremental costs and QALYs of $3,163 and 0.14, $2,418 and 0.10, and $3,849 and 0.15, respectively, for the overall population as well as patients with PD-L1 CPS1-10 and PD-L1 CPS ≥ 10. This corresponds to ICER values per QALY of $23,657, $23,982, and $25,134. At the prespecified WTP limit, the probabilities of serplulimab with chemotherapy being the preferred intervention option were 74.4%, 61.3%, and 78.1% for the entire patient population, those with PD-L1 1 ≤ CPS < 10, and those with PD-L1 CPS ≥ 10, respectively. The stability of the presented model was confirmed through sensitivity studies. Conclusions: In conclusion, the combination of Serplulimab and chemotherapy showed excellent cost-effectiveness compared to chemotherapy alone in treating PD-L1-positive patients with ESCC in China. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) monoclonal antibody, pembrolizumab, is a promising drug for platinum-pretreated, recurrent or metastatic nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC). We aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab compared with chemotherapy for Chinese patients in this NPC. Methods: The cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy was evaluated using a partitioned survival model with a 5-year boundary. Efficacy and toxicity data were derived from the KEYNOTE-122 trials. Economic indicators including life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and lifetime cost were used. One-way analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) were performed to explore the uncertainties. Additionally, various scenario analyses, including different pembrolizumab price calculations and discount rates were performed. Results: Pembrolizumab or chemotherapy alone respectively yielded 2.82 QALYs (3.96 LYs) and 2.73 QALYs (3.93 LYs) with an ICER of $422,535 per QALYs ($1,232,547 per LYs). This model was primarily influenced by the price of pembrolizumab. Furthermore, PSA indicated that pembrolizumab had none probability of being cost-effective compared with chemotherapy at a willingness-to- pay (WTP) of $38223. Scenario analyses revealed that irrespective of any potential price reduction or adjustments in the discount rate, no discernible impact on the ultimate outcome was observed. Conclusion: Pembrolizumab was less cost-effective for patients with platinum-pretreated, recurrent or metastatic NPC compared with chemotherapy in China. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patients presenting with inoperable colon cancer at first onset (ICF) or at time of relapse (ICR) are considered in unrecoverable. The therapeutic goal for unrecoverable cancer is to prolong overall survival (OS) and maintain a high quality of life (QOL). As data on objective indicators of QOL in cancer patients, such as length of hospitalisation (LOH), outpatient consultation times (OCT), and hospital-free survival (HFS), is limited, this study compared ICF and ICR with respect to OS and QOL over the entire clinical course. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated 90 inoperable colon cancer patients with chemotherapy and compared ICF and ICR in terms of OS, LOH, OCT, and HFS. Results: Patients with ICF had a worse OS than those with ICR. In patients with ICF and ICR, OS and LOH were not correlated but OS and OCT and OS and HFS were strongly correlated. In patients with ICF and ICR, OCT and HFS accounted for approximately 8% and 90% of their OS, respectively. Conclusions: The LOH, OCT, and HFS are important factors for evaluating objective QOL of patients with inoperable colon cancer and should be considered when making treatment decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Colon cancer (CC) is one of the most common cancers worldwide and has a poor prognosis. Surgery followed by adjuvant chemotherapy is the standard treatment strategy for stage III CC patients. Primary tumor location (PTL) is an important factor for the long-term survival of CC. However, the difference in the prognosis between the histological subtypes of mucinous adenocarcinoma (MAC) and nonspecific adenocarcinoma (AC) in stage III CC patients is unclear. The correlation of chemotherapy, PTL and histological subtype with the overall survival (OS) of stage III CC patients has not yet been explored. Methods: Patients diagnosed with stage III CC from 2010 to 2016 in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database were retrieved. The clinicopathological features and OS were analyzed according to the chemotherapy, PTL and histological subtype. Results: A total of 28,765 eligible stage III CC patients were enrolled in this study. The results showed that chemotherapy, left-sided CC (LCC) and AC were favorable prognostic factors for OS. Right-sided CC (RCC) had worse OS than LCC regardless of chemotherapy. MAC had worse OS than AC in the patients with chemotherapy, but the survival benefits disappeared in the patients without chemotherapy. Additionally, in LCC, MAC had worse OS than AC regardless of chemotherapy. However, in RCC, MAC had worse OS than AC in patients with chemotherapy but had similar OS to AC in patients without chemotherapy. In the AC group, RCC had worse OS than LCC regardless of chemotherapy. In the MAC group, RCC had comparable OS to LCC regardless of chemotherapy. Four subgroups, i.e., RCC/MAC, RCC/AC, LCC/MAC and LCC/AC, all showed benefits from chemotherapy. Among them, LCC/AC had the best OS, and RCC/MAC had the worst OS compared with the other three subgroups. Conclusion: The prognosis of MAC is worse than that of AC in stage III CC. LCC/AC has the best OS, while RCC/MAC has the worst OS but still benefits from chemotherapy. The impact of chemotherapy on survival is greater than that of histological subtype, but the impact of histological subtype on survival is similar to that of PTL. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Radio-chemotherapy with CDDP is the standard for H&N squamous cell cancer. CDDP 100 mg/m2/q3 is the standard; alternative schedules are used to reduce toxicity, mostly 40 mg/m2/q1.Methods: Patients were treated from 1/2010 to 1/2017 in two Radiation Oncology Centres. Propensity score analysis (PS) was retrospectively used to compare these two schedules.Results: Patients analyzed were 166. Most (114/166) had 1w-CDDP while 52 had 3w-CDDP. In the 3w-CDDP group, patients were younger, with better performance status, smaller disease extent and a more common nodal involvement than in the 1w-CDDP. Acute toxicity was similar in the groups. Treatment compliance was lower in the w-CCDP. Overall survival before PS was better for female, for oropharyngeal disease and for 3w-CDDP group. After PS, survival was not related to the CDDP schedule.Conclusions: 3w-CDDP remains the standard for fit patients, weekly schedule could be safely used in selected patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Visceral metastases account for 48–67% of metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients and presage a worse overall survival. Previous study suggested potential effect of nab-paclitaxel on patients with visceral metastases subgroups. This phase II trial was conducted to explore the efficacy and safety of nab-paclitaxel in such a high-risk group of patients. Methods: In this prospective, single-center, open-label, phase II study, MBC patients with visceral metastases (N = 80) received nab-paclitaxel (Abraxane, 125 mg/m2, D1, D8, D15 every 28 days). Results: The median PFS was 5.1 months (95% CI: 4.2–6.0 months), with an ORR of 33.8% (95% CI 21.3–43.8%) and CBR of 66.2% (95% CI 56.3–75.0%). In univariate analysis, patients with premenopausal status had a trend of better treatment outcome. Multivariate analysis demonstrated non brain metastasis (adjusted HR 0.31, 95% CI 0.12–0.83, P = 0.019) and first line treatment (adjusted HR 0.37, 95% CI 0.17–0.81, P = 0.013) as independent predictors of longer PFS. The overall safety was acceptable with most common treatment-related, grade ≥ 3 toxicities of neutropenia (16.3%) and sensory neuropathy (3.7%). Conclusions: This phase II trial documented satisfactory efficacy and safety of nab-paclitaxel in MBC patients with visceral metastases, providing evidence for relative clinical practice. Patients in first line therapy had better treatment outcome. For patients with premenopausal status or brain metastasis, further alternatives (for example, combined chemotherapy or targeting therapy) might be required. This study also demonstrated the efficacy and safety of 125 mg/m2 nab-paclitaxel among Asian patients. Trial registration: This research is registered under clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 02687490, February 22, 2016). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The purpose of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety of concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) versus chemotherapy alone for patients with stage IV esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC).Methods: Eligible patients were retrospectively enrolled at the authors's institution from January 2010 to October 2015. Of the 141 patients enrolled, 55 (39.0%) received CCRT and 86 (61.0%) received chemotherapy alone. The outcomes and adverse events (AEs) were compared between the two groups.Results: The baseline clinical characteristics of the two groups were similar. However, the CCRT group showed a significantly better primary tumor objective response rate (ORR) than that of the chemotherapy group (74.5% versus 45.3%, p = 0.001). The 1-year, 2-year, 3-year overall survival (OS) rates and median OS were 58.0% versus 43.0%, 25.5% versus 14.0%, 10.7% versus 4.7%, and 14 months versus 11 months for patients treated with CCRT or chemotherapy, respectively (p = 0.007). The 1-year and median progression-free survival (PFS) were 29.8% versus 14.9% and 8 months versus 6 months (p = 0.005). Multivariate analysis identified CCRT (p = 0.013) and solitary metastasis (p = 0.037) as independent factors for greater OS. The frequency of leucocytopenia (grade 3 or higher) was significantly higher in the CCRT group than in the chemotherapy-alone group (p = 0.040), whereas the rates of other AEs did not differ.Conclusions: In this study, it is suggested that CCRT is more effective than chemotherapy alone for stage IV ESCC, yielding better primary responses and survival outcomes with tolerable side effects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]