Search

Prior models have been developed to predict survival for patients with esophagogastric cancer undergoing curative treatment or first‐line chemotherapy (SOURCE models). Comprehensive clinical prediction models for patients with esophagogastric cancer who will receive second‐line chemotherapy or best supportive care are currently lacking. The aim of our study was to develop and internally validate a new clinical prediction model, called SOURCE beyond first‐line, for survival of patients with metastatic esophagogastric adenocarcinoma after failure of first‐line palliative systemic therapy. Patients with unresectable or metastatic esophageal or gastric adenocarcinoma (2015‐2017) who received first‐line systemic therapy (N = 1067) were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Patient, tumor and treatment characteristics at primary diagnosis and at progression of disease were used to develop the model. A Cox proportional hazards regression model was developed through forward and backward selection using Akaike's Information Criterion. The model was internally validated through 10‐fold cross‐validations to assess performance. Model discrimination (C‐index) and calibration (slope and intercept) were used to evaluate performance of the complete and cross‐validated models. The final model consisted of 11 patient tumor and treatment characteristics. The C‐index was 0.75 (0.73‐0.78), calibration slope 1.01 (1.00‐1.01) and calibration intercept 0.01 (0.01‐0.02). Internal cross‐validation of the model showed that the model performed adequately on unseen data: C‐index was 0.79 (0.77‐0.82), calibration slope 0.93 (0.85‐1.01) and calibration intercept 0.02 (−0.01 to 0.06). The SOURCE beyond first‐line model predicted survival with fair discriminatory ability and good calibration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background & Aims: Hepatocellular adenomas (HCA) rarely occur in males, and if so, are frequently associated with malignant transformation. Guidelines are based on small numbers of patients and advise resection of HCA in male patients, irrespective of size or subtype. This nationwide retrospective cohort study is the largest series of HCA in men correlating (immuno)histopathological and molecular findings with the clinical course. Methods: Dutch male patients with available histological slides with a (differential) diagnosis of HCA between 2000 and 2017 were identified through the Dutch Pathology Registry (PALGA). Histopathology and immunohistochemistry according to international guidelines were revised by two expert hepatopathologists. Next generation sequencing (NGS) was performed to confirm hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and/or subtype HCA. Final pathological diagnosis was correlated with recurrence, metastasis and death. Results: A total of 66 patients from 26 centres fulfilling the inclusion criteria with a mean (±SD) age of 45.0 ± 21.6 years were included. The diagnosis was changed after expert revision and NGS in 33 of the 66 patients (50%). After a median follow‐up of 9.6 years, tumour‐related mortality of patients with accessible clinical data was 1/18 (5.6%) in HCA, 5/14 (35.7%) in uncertain HCA/HCC and 4/9 (44.4%) in the HCC groups (P =.031). Four B‐catenin mutated HCA were identified using NGS, which were not yet identified by immunohistochemistry and expert revision. Conclusions: Expert revision with relevant immunohistochemistry may help the challenging but prognostically relevant distinction between HCA and well‐differentiated HCC in male patients. NGS may be more important to subtype HCA than indicated in present guidelines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of enzalutamide (Enz) as fourth-or fifth-line treatment in men with metastasized castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), by analyzing a retrospective cohort of heavily pretreated patients. Methods: We evaluated toxicity, overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and time to prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression data from 47 CRPC patients treated with fourth- or fifth-line Enz. Results: All patients were treated with docetaxel and abiraterone acetate and 42 patients (89%) with cabazitaxel. The median age of the patients was 69 years (IQR, 63-73.5), 79% had bone metastases, 55% had lymph node metastases, and 17% had visceral metastases. The median duration of Enz treatment was 12.0 weeks (IQR, 8.3-20.4), and 11 patients (23%) responded to Enz (maximum PSA decline ≥50%). In general, Enz was well tolerated, with the most frequently reported adverse events being fatigue and nausea. The median OS was 40.1 weeks (95% CI, 25.4-61.4), the median PFS was 12.1 weeks (95% CI, 9.9-14.0) and the median time to PSA progression was 15.7 weeks (95% CI, 14.0-28.7). Conclusions: Analysis of this retrospective cohort suggests that Enz is well tolerated and that there is a 23% response rate in heavily pretreated CRPC patients, which is comparable with third-line treatment outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Regular physical activity (PA) is associated with improved overall survival (OS) in stage I-III colorectal cancer (CRC) patients. This association is less defined in patients with metastatic CRC (mCRC). We therefore conducted a study in mCRC patients participating in the Prospective Dutch Colorectal Cancer cohort. PA was assessed with the validated SQUASH questionnaire, filled-in within a maximum of 60 days after diagnosis of mCRC. PA was quantified by calculating Metabolic Equivalent Task (MET) hours per week. American College of Sports and Medicine (ACSM) PA guideline adherence, tertiles of moderate to vigorous PA (MVPA), and sport and leisure time MVPA (MVPA-SL) were assessed as well. Vital status was obtained from the municipal population registry. Cox proportional-hazards models were used to study the association between PA determinants and all-cause mortality adjusted for prognostic patient and treatment-related factors. In total, 293 mCRC patients (mean age 62.9 ± 10.6 years, 67% male) were included in the analysis. Compared to low levels, moderate and high levels of MET-hours were significantly associated with longer OS (fully adjusted hazard ratios: 0.491, (95% CI 0.299-0.807, p value = 0.005) and 0.485 (95% CI 0.303-0.778, p value = 0.003), respectively), as were high levels of MVPA (0.476 (95% CI 0.278-0.816, p value = 0.007)) and MVPA-SL (0.389 (95% CI 0.224-0.677, p value < 0.001)), and adherence to ACSM PA guidelines compared to non-adherence (0.629 (95% CI 0.412-0.961, p value = 0.032)). The present study provides evidence that higher PA levels at diagnosis of mCRC are associated with longer OS.

Background: For the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) during the delayed phase (24-120 hours) after moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC), the use of 3-day dexamethasone (DEX) is often recommended. This study compared the efficacy and safety of two DEX-sparing regimens with 3-day DEX, focusing on delayed nausea., Patients and Methods: This open-label, randomized, phase III study was designed to demonstrate noninferiority of two DEX-sparing regimens: ondansetron + DEX on day 1 + metoclopramide on days 2-3 (MCP arm), and palonosetron + DEX on day 1 (PAL arm) versus ondansetron on day 1 + DEX on days 1-3 (DEX arm) in chemotherapy-naïve patients receiving MEC. Primary efficacy endpoint was total control (TC; no emetic episodes, no use of rescue medication, no nausea) in the delayed phase. Noninferiority was defined as a lower 95% CI greater than the noninferiority margin set at -20%. Secondary endpoints included no vomiting, no rescue medication, no (significant) nausea, impact of CINV on quality of life, and antiemetics-associated side effects., Results: Treatment arms were comparable for 189 patients analyzed: predominantly male (55.7%), median age 65.0 years, colorectal cancer (85.7%), and oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy (81.5%). MCP demonstrated noninferiority to DEX for delayed TC (MCP 56.1% vs. DEX 50.0%; 95% CI, -11.3%, 23.5%). PAL also demonstrated noninferiority to DEX (PAL 55.6% vs. DEX 50.0%; 95% CI, -12.0%, 23.2%). There were no statistically significant differences for all secondary endpoints between treatment arms., Conclusion: This study showed that DEX-sparing regimens are noninferior to multiple-day DEX in terms of delayed TC rate in patients undergoing MEC. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier. NCT02135510., Implications for Practice: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in the delayed phase (24-120 hours after chemotherapy) remains one of the most troublesome adverse effects associated with cancer treatment. In particular, delayed nausea is often poorly controlled. The role of dexamethasone (DEX) in the prevention of delayed nausea after moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) is controversial. This study is the first to include nausea assessment as a part of the primary study outcome to better gauge the effectiveness of CINV control and patients' experience. Results show that a DEX-sparing strategy does not result in any significant loss of overall antiemetic control: DEX-sparing strategies incorporating palonosetron or multiple-day metoclopramide are safe and at least as effective as standard treatment with a 3-day DEX regimen with ondansetron in controlling delayed CINV-and nausea in particular-following MEC., (© 2020 The Authors. The Oncologist published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of AlphaMed Press.)

Background: Metastatic colorectal cancer patients with deficient mismatch repair (dMMR mCRC) benefit from immunotherapy. Interpretation of the single-arm immunotherapy trials is complicated by insignificant survival data during systemic non-immunotherapy. We present survival data on a large, comprehensive cohort of dMMR mCRC patients, treated with or without systemic non-immunotherapy., Methods: Two hundred and eighty-one dMMR mCRC patients (n = 54 from three prospective Phase 3 CAIRO trials; n = 227 from the Netherlands Cancer Registry). Overall survival was analysed from diagnosis of mCRC (OS), from initiation of first-line (OS1) and second-line (OS2) systemic treatment. Cox regression analysis examined prognostic factors. As comparison for OS 2746 MMR proficient mCRC patients were identified., Results: Of 281 dMMR patients, 62% received first-line and 26% second-line treatment. Median OS was 16.0 months (13.8-19.6) with antitumour therapy and 2.5 months (1.8-3.5) in untreated patients. OS1 was 12.8 months (10.7-15.2) and OS2 6.2 months (5.4-8.9) in treated dMMR patients. Treated dMMR patients had a 7.6-month shorter median OS than pMMR patients., Conclusion: Available data from immunotherapy trials lack a control arm with standard systemic treatment. Given the poor outcome compared to the immunotherapy results, our data strongly suggest a survival benefit of immunotherapy in dMMR mCRC patients.

The optimal first-line palliative systemic treatment strategy for metastatic esophagogastric cancer is not well defined. The aim of our study was to explore real-world use of first-line systemic treatment in esophagogastric cancer and assess the effect of treatment strategy on overall survival (OS), time to failure (TTF) of first-line treatment and toxicity. We selected synchronous metastatic esophagogastric cancer patients treated with systemic therapy (2010-2016) from the nationwide Netherlands Cancer Registry (n = 2,204). Systemic treatment strategies were divided into monotherapy, doublet and triplet chemotherapy, and trastuzumab-containing regimens. Data on OS were available for all patients, on TTF for patients diagnosed from 2010 to 2015 (n = 1,700), and on toxicity for patients diagnosed from 2010 to 2014 (n = 1,221). OS and TTF were analyzed using multivariable Cox regression, with adjustment for relevant tumor and patient characteristics. Up to 45 different systemic treatment regimens were found to be administered, with a median TTF of 4.6 and OS of 7.5 months. Most patients (45%) were treated with doublet chemotherapy; 34% received triplets, 10% monotherapy and 10% a trastuzumab-containing regimen. The highest median OS was found in patients receiving a trastuzumab-containing regimen (11.9 months). Triplet chemotherapy showed equal survival rates compared to doublets (OS: HR 0.92, 95%CI 0.83-1.02; TTF: HR 0.92, 95%CI 0.82-1.04) but significantly more grade 3-5 toxicity than doublets (33% vs. 21%, respectively). In conclusion, heterogeneity of first-line palliative systemic treatment in metastatic esophagogastric cancer patients is striking. Based on our data, doublet chemotherapy is the preferred treatment strategy because of similar survival and less toxicity compared to triplets., (© 2019 The Authors. International Journal of Cancer published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of UICC.)