Search

Despite the improved survival rates of patients with advanced stage melanoma since the introduction of ICIs, many patients do not have (long‐term) benefit from these treatments. There is evidence that the exposome, an accumulation of host‐extrinsic factors including environmental influences, could impact ICI response. Recently, a survival benefit was observed in patients with BRAF wild‐type melanoma living in Denmark who initiated immunotherapy in summer as compared to winter. As the Netherlands lies in close geographical proximity to Denmark and has comparable seasonal differences, a Dutch validation cohort was established using data from our nationwide melanoma registry. In this study, we did not observe a similar seasonal difference in overall survival and are therefore unable to confirm the Danish findings. Validation of either the Dutch or Danish findings in (combined) patient cohorts from other countries would be necessary to determine whether this host‐extrinsic factor influences the response to ICI‐treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Many studies have compared real-world clinical outcomes of immunotherapy in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with reported outcomes data from pivotal trials. However, any differences observed could be only limitedly explored further for causation because of the unavailability of individual patient data (IPD) from trial participants. The present study aims to explore the additional benefit of comparison with IPD. Methods: This study compares progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of metastatic NSCLC patients treated with second line nivolumab in real-world clinical practice (n = 141) with IPD from participants in the Checkmate-057 clinical trial (n = 292). Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards models were used to construct HRs for real-world practice versus clinical trial. Results: Real-world patients were older (64 vs. 61 years), had more often ECOG PS ≥ 2 (5 vs. 0%) and were less often treated with subsequent anti-cancer treatment (28.4 vs. 42.5%) compared to trial patients. The median PFS in real-world patients was longer (3.84 (95%CI: 3.19-5.49) vs 2.30 (2.20-3.50) months) and the OS shorter than in trial participants (8.25 (6.93-13.2) vs. 12.2 (9.90-15.1) months). Adjustment with available patient characteristics, led to a shift in the hazard ratio (HR) for OS, but not for PFS (HRs from 1.13 (0.88-1.44) to 1.07 (0.83-1.38), and from 0.82 (0.66-1.03) to 0.79 (0.63-1.00), respectively). Conclusions: This study is an example how IPD from both real-world and trial patients can be applied to search for factors that could explain an efficacy-effectiveness gap. Making IPD from clinical trials available to the international research community allows this. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Interhospital referral is a consequence of centralization of complex oncological care but might negatively impact waiting time, a quality indicator in the Netherlands. This study aims to evaluate characteristics and waiting times of patients with primary colorectal cancer who are referred between hospitals. Methods: Data were extracted from the Dutch ColoRectal Audit (2015-2019). Waiting time between first tumor-positive biopsy until first treatment was compared between subgroups stratified for referral status, disease stage, and type of hospital. Results: In total, 46,561 patients were included. Patients treated for colon or rectal cancer in secondary care hospitals were referred in 12.2% and 14.7%, respectively. In tertiary care hospitals, corresponding referral rates were 43.8% and 66.4%. Referred patients in tertiary care hospitals were younger, but had a more advanced disease stage, and underwent more often multivisceral resection and simultaneous metastasectomy than non-referred patients in secondary care hospitals (p<0.001). Referred patients were more often treated within national quality standards for waiting time compared to non-referred patients (p<0.001). For referred patients, longer waiting times prior to MDT were observed compared to non-referred patients within each hospital type, although most time was spent post-MDT. Conclusion: A large proportion of colorectal cancer patients that are treated in tertiary care hospitals are referred from another hospital but mostly treated within standards for waiting time. These patients are younger but often have a more advanced disease. This suggests that these patients are willing to travel more but also reflects successful centralization of complex oncological patients in the Netherlands. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: This study aimed to determine predictive factors for the circumferential resection margin (CRM) within two northern European countries with supposed similarity in providing rectal cancer care. Method: Data for all patients undergoing rectal resection for clinical tumour node metastasis (TNM) stage I–III rectal cancer were extracted from the Swedish ColoRectal Cancer Registry and the Dutch ColoRectal Audit (2011–2015). Separate analyses were performed for cT1–3 and cT4 stage. Predictive factors for the CRM were determined using univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses. Results: A total of 6444 Swedish and 12 089 Dutch patients were analysed. Over time the number of hospitals treating rectal cancer decreased from 52 to 42 in Sweden, and 82 to 79 in the Netherlands. In the Swedish population, proportions of cT4 stage (17% vs 8%), multivisceral resection (14% vs 7%) and abdominoperineal excision (APR) (37% vs 31%) were higher. The overall proportion of patients with a positive CRM (CRM+) was 7.8% in Sweden and 5.4% in the Netherlands. In both populations with cT1–3 stage disease, common independent risk factors for CRM+ were cT3, APR and multivisceral resection. No common risk factors for CRM+ in cT4 stage disease were found. An independent impact of hospital volume on CRM+ could be demonstrated for the cT1–3 Dutch population. Conclusion: Within two northern European countries with implemented clinical auditing, rectal cancer care might potentially be improved by further optimizing the treatment of distal and locally advanced rectal cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]