The IDH paradox: Meta-analysis of alkylating chemotherapy in IDH-wildtype and -mutant lower grade gliomas.

BACKGROUND: IDH-wildtype (-wt) status is a pre-requisite for the diagnosis of glioblastoma (GBM); however, IDH-wt gliomas with low grade or anaplastic morphology have historically been excluded from GBM trials and may represent a distinct prognostic entity. While alkylating agent chemotherapy improves overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) for IDH-wt GBM and also IDH-mutant gliomas, irrespective of grade, the benefit for IDH-wt diffuse histologic lower grade gliomas is unclear. METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials for World Health Organization (WHO) grade 2-3 gliomas (2009 to present) to determine the effect of alkylating chemotherapy on IDH-wt and -mutant gliomas using a random-effects model with inverse-variance pooling. RESULTS: We identified six trials with 1,204 patients (430 IDH-wt, 774 IDH-mutant) that evaluated alkylating chemoradiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone, allowing us to perform an analysis focused on the value of adding alkylating chemotherapy to radiotherapy. For patients with IDH-wt tumors, alkylating chemotherapy added to radiotherapy was associated with improved PFS (HR:0.77 [95%CI 0.62-0.97], P=.03) but not OS (HR:0.87 [95%CI 0.64-1.18], P=.17). For patients with IDH-mutant tumors, alkylating chemotherapy added to radiotherapy improved both OS (HR:0.52 [95%CI 0.42-0.64], P<.001) and PFS (HR=0.47 [95%CI 0.39-0.57], P<.001) compared to radiotherapy alone. The magnitude of benefit was similar for IDH-mutant gliomas with or without 1p19q-codeletion. CONCLUSIONS: Alkylating chemotherapy reduces mortality by 48% and progression by 53% for patients with IDH-mutant gliomas. Optimal management of IDH-wt diffuse histologic lower grade gliomas remains to be determined, as there is little evidence supporting an OS benefit from alkylating chemotherapy.

Site-specific patterns of early-stage cancer diagnosis during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic caused widespread disruptions in cancer care. We hypothesized that the greatest disruptions in diagnosis occurred in screen-detected cancers. We identified patients (≥18 years of age) with newly diagnosed cancer from 2019 to 2020 in the US National Cancer Database and calculated the change in proportion of early-stage to late-stage cancers using a weighted linear regression. Disruptions in early-stage diagnosis were greater than in late-stage diagnosis (17% vs 12.5%). Melanoma demonstrated the greatest relative decrease in early-stage vs late-stage diagnosis (22.9% vs 9.2%), whereas the decrease was similar for pancreatic cancer. Compared with breast cancer, cervical, melanoma, prostate, colorectal, and lung cancers showed the greatest disruptions in early-stage diagnosis. Uninsured patients experienced greater disruptions than privately insured patients. Disruptions in cancer diagnosis in 2020 had a larger impact on early-stage disease, particularly screen-detected cancers. Our study supports emerging evidence that primary care visits may play a critical role in early melanoma detection.

Updated Analysis of Comparative Toxicity of Proton and Photon Radiation for Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Previous comparative effectiveness studies have not demonstrated a benefit of proton beam therapy (PBT) compared with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for prostate cancer. An updated comparison of GI and genitourinary (GU) toxicity is needed. METHODS: We investigated the SEER-Medicare linked database, identifying patients with localized prostate cancer diagnosed from 2010 to 2017. Procedure and diagnosis codes indicative of treatment-related toxicity were identified. As a sensitivity analysis, we also identified toxicity based only on procedure codes. Patients who underwent IMRT and PBT were matched 2:1 on the basis of clinical and sociodemographic characteristics. We then compared GI and GU toxicity at 6, 12, and 24 months after treatment. RESULTS: The final sample included 772 PBT patients matched to 1,544 IMRT patients. The frequency of GI toxicity for IMRT versus PBT was 3.5% versus 2.5% at 6 months (P = .18), 9.5% versus 10.2% at 12 months (P = .18), and 20.5% versus 23.4% at 24 months (P = .11). The frequency of only procedure codes indicative of GI toxicity for IMRT versus PBT was too low to be reported and not significantly different. The frequency of GU toxicity for IMRT versus PBT was 6.8% versus 5.7% (P = .30), 14.3% versus 12.2% (P = .13), and 28.2% versus 25.8% (P = .21) at 6, 12, and 24 months, respectively. When looking only at procedure codes, the frequency of GU toxicity for IMRT was 1.0% at 6 months, whereas it was too infrequent to report for PBT (P = .64). GU toxicity for IMRT versus PBT was 3.3% versus 2.1% (P = .10), and 8.7% versus 6.7% (P = .10) at 12 and 24 months, respectively. CONCLUSION: In this observational study, there were no statistically significant differences between PBT and IMRT in terms of GI or GU toxicity.

Risk of Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Breast Following Postmastectomy Implant Reconstruction in Women With Breast Cancer and Carcinoma in Situ.

This cohort study uses national surveillance data to describe the incidence and risk of squamous cell carcinoma after postmastectomy implant reconstruction in women with breast cancer.

Risk of Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma Following Postmastectomy Implant Reconstruction in Women With Breast Cancer and Ductal Carcinoma in Situ.

This cohort study examines the risk of anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL) following postmastectomy implant reconstruction among US women with breast cancer and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS).