Search

Item does not contain fulltext, PURPOSE: Preoperative chemoradiotherapy according to the chemoradiotherapy for esophageal cancer followed by surgery study (CROSS) has become a standard of care for patients with locally advanced resectable esophageal or junctional cancer. We aimed to assess long-term outcome of this regimen. METHODS: From 2004 through 2008, we randomly assigned 366 patients to either five weekly cycles of carboplatin and paclitaxel with concurrent radiotherapy (41.4 Gy in 23 fractions, 5 days per week) followed by surgery, or surgery alone. Follow-up data were collected through 2018. Cox regression analyses were performed to compare overall survival, cause-specific survival, and risks of locoregional and distant relapse. The effect of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy beyond 5 years of follow-up was tested with time-dependent Cox regression and landmark analyses. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 147 months (interquartile range, 134-157). Patients receiving neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy had better overall survival (hazard ratio [HR], 0.70; 95% CI, 0.55 to 0.89). The effect of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy on overall survival was not time-dependent (P value for interaction, P = .73), and landmark analyses suggested a stable effect on overall survival up to 10 years of follow-up. The absolute 10-year overall survival benefit was 13% (38% v 25%). Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy reduced risk of death from esophageal cancer (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.80). Death from other causes was similar between study arms (HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.99). Although a clear effect on isolated locoregional (HR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.21 to 0.72) and synchronous locoregional plus distant relapse (HR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.26 to 0.72) persisted, isolated distant relapse was comparable (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.52 to 1.13). CONCLUSION: The overall survival benefit of patients with locally advanced resectable esophageal or junctional cancer who receive preoperative chemoradiotherapy according to CROSS persists for at least 10 y

Introduction: Pancreatic cancer remains a challenging malignancy due to the high proportion of patients diagnosed at advanced stages and the limited treatment options. This article discusses recent evidence in the management of both localized and advanced pancreatic cancer and offers an expert opinion on current best practice. Areas covered: For patients with localized disease, the evidence for adjuvant chemotherapy is discussed as well as emerging neoadjuvant approaches for resectable, borderline resectable, and locally advanced disease. Advances in metastatic disease are discussed including cytotoxic chemotherapy, targeted therapies, and the role of genomic testing to identify patients with molecular alterations. Reviewed literature included journal publications, abstracts presented at major international oncology meetings, and ongoing clinical trials databases. Expert opinion: Pancreatic cancer is a devastating diagnosis and despite recent advances has a very poor prognosis. Only a minority of patients, 20%, are diagnosed with potentially curable disease. The shifting paradigm toward neoadjuvant therapy may improve resectability and survival rates; however, robust evidence is required. Thus far, there has only been limited progress in advanced stage disease. Genomic testing may potentially identify more treatment targets although limited to small subgroups.Copyright © 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.

Aim: Optimal treatment for newly diagnosed metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) has evolved, with many patients deriving benefit from the addition of docetaxel to androgen deprivation therapy (D-ADT). This study sought to define the therapy used and associated activity following D-ADT. Method(s): Retrospective analysis of patients with mHSPC treated with one or more cycles of D-ADT who were identified from a prospectively maintained multisite prostate cancer database of patients treated in a community or academic center setting in Australia. The primary endpoint of this study was first-line time to treatment failure (1L TTF) for subsequent treatment of metastatic Castrate Resistant Prostate Cancer (mCRPC), with secondary endpoints of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) reduction >50% and time from 1L to second-line (2L) treatment initiation. Result(s): A total of 93 patients received D-ADT for mHSPC, 85 (91%) had subsequent treatment for mCRPC. Median time to mCRPC (biochemical, clinical or radiographic) had been 14.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 11.9-16.5). 1L treatment was enzalutamide 47 patients (55%), abiraterone 23 (27%), cabazitaxel 7 (8%), docetaxel 4 (5%) and other therapies 4 (5%). Median 1L TTF was 6.3 months (95% CI, 4.9-7.6), PSA > 50% reduction was achieved in 32 of 89 patients (36%), median time from 1L to second-line treatment was 7.3 months (1.3-27.4), which did not differ significantly between treatment groups. Conclusion(s): Abiraterone, enzalutamide, cabazitaxel and docetaxel all demonstrate activity following progression on D-ADT. No difference in efficacy was detected between treatment options for mCRPC. Prospective trials investigating the optimal treatment sequence for prostate cancer following progression on D-ADT needed.Copyright © 2020 John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd

Purpose: Multiple life-prolonging systemic therapies are now approved for patients with metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). However, the optimal treatment strategy following progression through standard treatment lines, including docetaxel, novel anti-androgens abiraterone or enzalutamide and cabazitaxel, remains unclear.We aimed to describe treatment patterns in men with mCRPC following progression on cabazitaxel. Patients andMethods: Patients with mCRPC, who had received treatment with cabazitaxel were identified from the ePAD database (a multicentre mCRPC registry). Clinicopathologic information, treatment and outcome data were extracted. Descriptive statistics were used to report prior and subsequent systemic therapies. T-tests and chi square analyses compared characteristics between those who did and did not receive further therapies. Result(s): Search of the ePAD database identified 106 eligible patients. The median age at commencement of cabazitaxel was 70.8 years. Cabazitaxel was most frequently given as third line treatment (n = 56, 53%). Seventy-nine patients (75%) had previously received both docetaxel and a novel anti-androgen. The median duration of cabazitaxel treatment was 4.1 months, with most patients stopping due to disease progression (n = 61, 58%) or toxicity (n = 14, 13%). Following cabazitaxel, 47 patients (44%) received further systemic therapy. Eighteen patients received a novel anti-androgen, 11 entered a clinical trial and 10 received carboplatin. Other agents included docetaxel (n = 8), cyclophosphamide (n = 6) and mitoxantone (n = 5). Patients who received further systemic therapy were more likely to have better ECOG performance status (P = .0013) but had no difference in median age or comorbidities compared to those who received no further systemic therapy. There was no significant difference in the duration on subsequent systemic therapy. Conclusion(s): This retrospective analysis demonstrates the wide variety of pres

Background: This study: (i) assessed compliance with a consensus set of quality indicators (QIs) in pancreatic cancer (PC); and (ii) evaluated the association between compliance with these QIs and survival. Method(s): Four years of data were collected for patients diagnosed with PC. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A multivariable analysis tested the relationship between significant patient and hospital characteristics, patient cluster effects within hospitals and survival. Result(s): 1061 patients were eligible for this study. Significant association with improved survival were: (i) in the potentially resectable group having adjuvant chemotherapy administered following surgery or a reason documented (HR, 0.29; 95 CI, 0.19-0.46); (ii) in the locally advanced group included having chemotherapy +/- chemoradiation, or a reason documented for not undergoing treatment (HR, 0.38; 95 CI, 0.25-0.58); and (iii) in the metastatic disease group included having documented performance status at presentation (HR, 0.65; 95 CI, 0.47-0.89), being seen by an oncologist in the absence of treatment (HR, 0.48; 95 CI, 0.31-0.77), and disease management discussed at a multidisciplinary team meeting (HR, 0.79; 95 CI, 0.64-0.96). Conclusion(s): Capture of a concise data set has enabled quality of care to be assessed.Copyright © 2021 International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association Inc.

Objectives: To investigate the recent real-world use of first-generation antiandrogens (FGAs) in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) using a retrospective multicentre cohort study. Patients and Methods: The electronic CRPC Australian Database (ePAD) was interrogated to identify patients with mCRPC. Clinicopathological features, treatment and outcome data, stratified by FGA use, were retrieved and reported through descriptive statistics. Survival analyses were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and groups compared using log-rank tests. Factors influencing overall survival (OS) were analysed using Cox proportional hazards regression model. Result(s): We identified 634 patients with mCRPC, enrolled in ePAD between January 2016 and March 2019, including 322 (51%) who received FGAs. The median follow-up was 21.9 months. Patients treated with FGAs were more likely to have lower International Society of Urological Pathologists (ISUP) grade group (P = 0.04), longer median time to CRPC (25.6 vs 16.0 months, P < 0.001), and were less likely to have visceral metastases (5.0% vs 11.2%, P = 0.005) or to have received upfront docetaxel (P < 0.001). A >=50% reduction from pre-treatment prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level (PSA50 response) during FGA treatment occurred in 119 (37%) patients and was independently associated with improved OS (hazard ratio 0.233, P < 0.001). Prior FGA treatment did not significantly influence the selection of subsequent life-prolonging treatments for mCRPC or their PSA50 response rates. Conclusion(s): In our present cohort, FGAs were commonly used in lower-risk mCRPC and their use did not significantly influence the choice or duration of subsequent systemic therapy. A PSA50 response to FGA therapy was an independent favourable prognostic marker associated with improved OS.Copyright © 2021 The Authors. BJU International © 2021 BJU International

Introduction: Novel antiandrogens abiraterone and enzalutamide are commonly prescribed in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Current data suggest similar efficacy between treatments, with selection often based on toxicity profiles and patient comorbidities. We aimed to describe real-world prescribing patterns in Australian patients receiving novel antiandrogens. Method(s): Patients receiving novel antiandrogens for mCRPC were identified from the multi-centre electronic CRPC Australian Database (ePAD). Descriptive statistics were used to report baseline characteristics, treatment choice and adverse events. Groups were compared using Chi-square, Fisher's exact or Mann-Whitney tests. Time-to-event analyses utilised Kaplan-Meier curves and were compared through log-rank tests. Result(s): Of 812 patients receiving first-line mCRPC therapy, 503 received abiraterone (n=180) or enzalutamide (n=323). Overall, 140 (28%) had prior ischemic heart disease (IHD), 509 (81%) had >=1 cardiovascular risk factor and 20 (4%) had documented cognitive impairment. Compared to enzalutamide, those receiving abiraterone were older (79 vs 76 years; p=0.007), more commonly had ECOG performance status 2 (22% vs 12%; p=0.003) and were more likely to have prior stroke history (13% vs 6%; p=0.007). IHD was a prospectively documented reason for preferentially selecting enzalutamide in 10%, while older age and cognitive impairment influenced abiraterone choice in 38% and 6% respectively. PSA50 response rate was lower in the abiraterone group (47% vs 58%; p=0.03) but there were no significant differences in time to treatment failure or overall survival. Overall, 92 (18%) experienced adverse events leading to dose modification (n=47) or cessation (n=45), with clinically significant cardiac failure more frequent with abiraterone (4% vs 1%, p=0.04) and fatigue with enzalutamide (9% vs 4%; p=0.005). Conclusion(s): Our data reflect real-world prescribing practices for n

Introduction: Bone metastases occur frequently in castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) and may lead to skeletal-related events (SREs), including symptomatic skeletal events (SSEs). Bone-modifying agents (BMAs) delay SREs and SSEs. However, the real-world use of BMAs is debated given the absence of demonstrated survival advantage and potential adverse events (AEs). Our retrospective study examined BMA use and SSE rates in Australian patients with CRPC. Method(s): Patients with CRPC and bone metastases were identified from the electronic CRPC Australian Database. Patient characteristics, treatment patterns and AEs were analysed. Descriptive statistics reported baseline characteristics, SSE rates and BMA use. Comparisons between groups used t-tests and Chi-square analyses. Overall survival was calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Result(s): A total of 532 eligible patients were identified with a median age of 73 years (range: 44-97 years). BMAs were prescribed in 232 men (46%), 183 of whom received denosumab. Patients receiving first-line docetaxel for CRPC were more likely to commence BMAs than those receiving abiraterone or enzalutamide (51% vs 31% vs 38%; p = 0.004). SSEs occurred in 148 men (28%), most commonly symptomatic lesions requiring intervention (75%). At the time of initial SSEs, only 28% were receiving BMAs. Patients treated at sites with lower BMA use (

BACKGROUND: We previously reported the Alopecia Areata Consensus of Experts study, which presented results of an international expert opinion on treatments for alopecia areata. OBJECTIVE: To report the results of the Alopecia Areata Consensus of Experts international expert opinion on diagnosis and laboratory evaluation for alopecia areata. METHODS: Fifty hair experts from 5 continents were invited to participate in a 3-round Delphi process. Consensus threshold was set at greater than or equal to 66%. RESULTS: Of 148 questions, expert consensus was achieved in 82 (55%). Round 1 consensus was achieved in 10 of 148 questions (7%). Round 2 achieved consensus in 47 of 77 questions (61%). The final face-to-face achieved consensus in 25 of 32 questions (78%). Consensus was greatest for laboratory evaluation (12 of 14 questions [86%]), followed by diagnosis (11 of 14 questions [79%]) of alopecia areata. Overall, etiopathogenesis achieved the least category consensus (31 of 68 questions [46%]). LIMITATIONS: The study had low representation from Africa, South America, and Asia. CONCLUSION: There is expert consensus on aspects of epidemiology, etiopathogenesis, clinical features, diagnosis, laboratory evaluation, and prognostic indicators of alopecia areata. The study also highlights areas where future clinical research could be directed to address unresolved hypotheses in alopecia areata patient care.

IMPORTANCE: A recent expert consensus exercise emphasized the importance of developing a global network of patient registries for alopecia areata to redress the paucity of comparable, real-world data regarding the effectiveness and safety of existing and emerging therapies for alopecia areata. OBJECTIVE: To generate core domains and domain items for a global network of alopecia areata patient registries. EVIDENCE REVIEW: Sixty-six participants, representing physicians, patient organizations, scientists, the pharmaceutical industry, and pharmacoeconomic experts, participated in a 3-round eDelphi process, culminating in a face-to-face meeting at the World Congress of Dermatology, Milan, Italy, June 14, 2019. FINDINGS: Ninety-two core data items, across 25 domains, achieved consensus agreement. Twenty further noncore items were retained to facilitate data harmonization in centers that wish to record them. Broad representation across multiple stakeholder groups was sought; however, the opinion of physicians was overrepresented. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This study identifies the domains and domain items required to develop a global network of alopecia areata registries. These domains will facilitate a standardized approach that will enable the recording of a comprehensive, comparable data set required to oversee the introduction of new therapies and harness real-world evidence from existing therapies at a time when the alopecia areata treatment paradigm is being radically and positively disrupted. Reuse of similar, existing frameworks in atopic dermatitis, produced by the Treatment of Atopic Eczema (TREAT) Registry Taskforce, increases the potential to reuse existing resources, creates opportunities for comparison of data across dermatology subspecialty disease areas, and supports the concept of data harmonization.

AIM: Optimal treatment for newly diagnosed metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) has evolved, with many patients deriving benefit from the addition of docetaxel to androgen deprivation therapy (D-ADT). This study sought to define the therapy used and associated activity following D-ADT. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of patients with mHSPC treated with one or more cycles of D-ADT who were identified from a prospectively maintained multisite prostate cancer database of patients treated in a community or academic center setting in Australia. The primary endpoint of this study was first-line time to treatment failure (1L TTF) for subsequent treatment of metastatic Castrate Resistant Prostate Cancer (mCRPC), with secondary endpoints of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) reduction >50% and time from 1L to second-line (2L) treatment initiation. RESULTS: A total of 93 patients received D-ADT for mHSPC, 85 (91%) had subsequent treatment for mCRPC. Median time to mCRPC (biochemical, clinical or radiographic) had been 14.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 11.9-16.5). 1L treatment was enzalutamide 47 patients (55%), abiraterone 23 (27%), cabazitaxel 7 (8%), docetaxel 4 (5%) and other therapies 4 (5%). Median 1L TTF was 6.3 months (95% CI, 4.9-7.6), PSA > 50% reduction was achieved in 32 of 89 patients (36%), median time from 1L to second-line treatment was 7.3 months (1.3-27.4), which did not differ significantly between treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Abiraterone, enzalutamide, cabazitaxel and docetaxel all demonstrate activity following progression on D-ADT. No difference in efficacy was detected between treatment options for mCRPC. Prospective trials investigating the optimal treatment sequence for prostate cancer following progression on D-ADT needed.

Antiandrogens have demonstrated a protective effect for COVOD-19 patients in observational and interventional studies. The goal of this study was to determine if proxalutamide, an androgen receptor antagonist, could be an effective treatment for men with COVID-19 in an outpatient setting. A randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial was conducted at two outpatient centers (Brasilia, Brazil). Patients were recruited from October 21 to December 24, 2020 (clinicaltrials.gov number, NCT04446429). Male patients with confirmed COVID-19 but not requiring hospitalization (COVID-19 8-point ordinal scale <3) were administered proxalutamide 200 mg/day or placebo for up to 7 days. The primary endpoint was hospitalization rate at 30 days post-randomization. A total of 268 men were randomized in a 1:1 ratio. 134 patients receiving proxalutamide and 134 receiving placebo were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. The 30-day hospitalization rate was 2.2% in men taking proxalutamide compared to 26% in placebo, P < 0.001. The 30-day hospitalization risk ratio was 0.09; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.03-0.27. Patients in the proxalutamide arm more frequently reported gastrointestinal adverse events, however, no patient discontinued treatment. In placebo group, 6 patients were lost during follow-up, and 2 patients died from acute respiratory distress syndrome. Here we demonstrate the hospitalization rate in proxalutamide treated men was reduced by 91% compared to usual care.

Clinical trials have strict eligibility criteria, potentially limiting external validity. However, while often discussed this has seldom been explored, particularly across cancer types and at variable time frames posttrial completion. We examined comprehensive registry data (January 2014 to June 2019) for standard first-line treatments for metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC), advanced pancreatic cancer (PC), metastatic HER2-amplified breast cancer (BC) and castrate-resistant prostate cancer (CaP). Registry patient characteristics and outcomes were compared to the practice-changing trial. Registry patients were older than the matched trial cohort by a median of 2-6 years (all P = <.01) for the CRC, BC and PC cohorts. The proportion of Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) 0-1 patients was lower for CRC (94.1% vs 99.2%, P = .001) and BC (94.9% vs 99.3%, P = .001). Progression-free survival (PFS) for registry patients was similar to the trial patients or significantly longer (CaP, Hazard Ratio [HR] = 0.65, P = <.001). Overall survival (OS) was also similar or significantly longer (CaP, HR 0.49, P = <.001). In conclusion, despite real-world patients sometimes being older or having inferior PS to trial cohorts, the survival outcomes achieved were consistently equal or superior to those reported for the same treatment in the trial. We suggest that this is potentially due to optimised use of each treatment over time, improved multidisciplinary care and increased postprogression options. We can reassure clinicians and patients that outcomes matching or exceeding those reported in trials are possible. The potential for survival gains over time should routinely be factored into future trial statistical plans.

BACKGROUND: The major concern regarding the use of low-dose oral minoxidil (LDOM) for the treatment of hair loss is the potential risk of systemic adverse effects. OBJECTIVE: To describe the safety of LDOM for the treatment of hair loss in a large cohort of patients. METHODS: Retrospective multicenter study of patients treated with LDOM for at least 3 months for any type of alopecia. RESULTS: A total of 1404 patients (943 women [67.2%] and 461 men [32.8%]) with a mean age of 43 years (range 8-86) were included. The dose of LDOM was titrated in 1065 patients, allowing the analysis of 2469 different cases. The most frequent adverse effect was hypertrichosis (15.1%), which led to treatment withdrawal in 14 patients (0.5%). Systemic adverse effects included lightheadedness (1.7%), fluid retention (1.3%), tachycardia (0.9%), headache (0.4%), periorbital edema (0.3%), and insomnia (0.2%), leading to drug discontinuation in 29 patients (1.2%). No life-threatening adverse effects were observed. LIMITATIONS: Retrospective design and lack of a control group. CONCLUSION: LDOM has a good safety profile as a treatment for hair loss. Systemic adverse effects were infrequent and only 1.7% of patients discontinued treatment owing to adverse effects.

BACKGROUND: The cutaneous manifestations of COVID-19 may be useful disease markers and prognostic indicators. Recently, postinfectious telogen effluvium and trichodynia have also been reported. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the presence of trichodynia and telogen effluvium in patients with COVID-19 and describe their characteristics in relation to the other signs and symptoms of the disease. METHODS: Patients with a history of COVID-19 presenting to the clinics of a group of hair experts because of telogen effluvium and/or scalp symptoms were questioned about their hair signs and symptoms in relation to the severity of COVID-19 and associated symptoms. RESULTS: Data from 128 patients were collected. Telogen effluvium was observed in 66.3% of the patients and trichodynia in 58.4%. Trichodynia was associated with telogen effluvium in 42.4% of the cases and anosmia and ageusia in 66.1% and 44.1% of the cases, respectively. In majority (62.5%) of the patients, the hair signs and symptoms started within the first month after COVID-19 diagnosis, and in 47.8% of the patients, these started after 12 weeks or more. LIMITATIONS: The recruitment of patients in specialized hair clinics, lack of a control group, and lack of recording of patient comorbidities. CONCLUSION: The severity of postviral telogen effluvium observed in patients with a history of COVID-19 infection may be influenced by COVID-19 severity. We identified early-onset (<4 weeks) and late-onset (>12 weeks) telogen effluvium.