Outcome of Patients with Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer Pursuing Non-Surgical Strategy in National Cancer Database.

BACKGROUND: Survival data on patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) undergoing non-operative management (NOM) in a real-world setting are lacking. METHODS: We analyzed LARC patients from the National Cancer Database with the following features: treated between 2010 and 2020, age 18-65 years, Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) ≤ 1, received neoadjuvant multiagent chemotherapy plus radiation ≥ 45 Gray, and underwent surgery or NOM. Patients were stratified into two groups: (A) clinical T1-3 tumors with positive nodes (cT1-3N+) and (B) clinical T4 tumors, N+/- (cT4N+/-). We performed a comparative analysis of overall survival (OS) with NOM versus surgery by the Kaplan-Meier method and propensity score matching. Additionally, a multivariable analysis explored the association between NOM and OS. RESULTS: NOM exhibited significantly lower OS than surgery in both groups. In cT1-3N+ patients, NOM resulted in a 5-year OS of 73.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 69.7-77.6%) versus 84.5% (95% CI = 83.6-85.3%) with surgery (p < 0.001). In the cT4N+/- group, NOM yielded a 5-year OS of 44.5% (95% CI = 37.0-51.8%) versus 72.5% (95% CI = 69.9-74.8%) with surgery (p < 0.001). Propensity score matching and multivariable analyses revealed similar conclusions. CONCLUSION: Patients with LARC undergoing NOM versus surgery in real-world settings appear to have inferior survival.

An Age-Stratified Analysis of Early Postoperative Mortality Among Medicare-Eligible Patients With Common Gastrointestinal and Hepato-pancreato-biliary Malignancies.

Background: The frequency of major cancer surgery in the elderly (≥80 years) has increased concomitantly with the rise in average age of the population. We assessed early postoperative mortality following hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) and gastrointestinal (GI) procedures for common malignancies stratified by age. Methods: The National Cancer Database (2004-2017) was queried for patients who underwent resection for GI (gastroesophageal and colorectal) or HPB (pancreatic adenocarcinoma, biliary tract, and primary liver) cancers. We compared early postoperative mortality (30 d and 90 d) stratified by age (65-79 vs ≥80 years) and procedure, and compared survival outcomes by age and operative vs nonoperative management. Results: A total of 709,358 patients were included. The 30-day mortality ranged from 1.8% to 5.8% among patients 65-79 years and from 3.2% to 12.4% among patients ≥80 years depending on procedure. The 90-day mortality ranged from 3.6% to 10.6% in patients 65-79 years compared to 8.4%-21.0% among patients ≥80 years. The overall 90-day mortality was 5.2% for patients 65-79 years and 12.0% for patients ≥80 years (P < .001). Age ≥80 was associated with worse survival among operatively managed patients with each upper GI, HPB, and lower GI malignancy relative to younger patients on multivariable analysis. However, operative management of patients ≥80 years was associated with improved survival relative to nonoperative management. Discussion: Elderly patients suffer higher postoperative mortality after major GI and HPB cancer surgery, but operative management is associated with improved survival among patients ≥80 years as compared to nonoperative management. These data are important to contextualize when counseling elderly patients on their treatment options for localized GI and HPB cancers.

Disparities in Receipt of Adjuvant Immunotherapy among Stage III Melanoma Patients.

OBJECTIVES: Melanoma survival has greatly improved with the advent of immunotherapy, but unequal access to these medications may exist due to nonmedical patient factors such as insurance status, educational background, and geographic proximity to treatment. METHODS: We used the National Cancer Database to assess patients with nonmetastatic cutaneous melanoma who underwent surgical resection and sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) with tumor involvement from 2015 to 2020. We evaluated rates of adjuvant immunotherapy among this patient population based on patient, tumor, and facility variables, including insurance status, socioeconomic status, pathologic stage (IIIA-IIID), and treatment facility type and volume. RESULTS: Adjuvant immunotherapy was associated with improved survival for stage III melanoma, with a slight increase in 5-year OS for stage IIIA (87.9% vs. 85.9%, P=0.044) and a higher increase in stages IIIB-D disease (70.3% vs. 59.6%, P<0.001). Receipt of adjuvant immunotherapy was less likely for patients who were older, low socioeconomic status, or uninsured. Low-volume and community cancer centers had higher rates of adjuvant immunotherapy overall for all stage III patients, whereas high-volume and academic centers used adjuvant immunotherapy much less often for stage IIIA patients compared with those in stages IIIB-D. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate inconsistent use of adjuvant immunotherapy among patients with stage III melanoma despite a significant association with improved survival. Notably, there was a lower use of adjuvant immunotherapy in patients of lower SES and those treated at high-volume centers. Equity in access to novel standards of care represents an opportunity to improve outcomes for patients with melanoma.

First-line Immunotherapy for Metastatic Merkel Cell Carcinoma: Analysis of Real-world Survival Data and Practice Patterns.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors are a promising new therapy for advanced Merkel Cell Carcinoma (MCC). We investigated real-world utilization and survival outcomes of first-line immunotherapies in a contemporary cohort. METHODS: Using the National Cancer Database (NCDB), we identified 759 patients with MCC between 2015 and 2020 with stage IV disease and known status of first-line systemic therapy. Univariable and multivariable analyses were used to determine predictors of immunotherapy usage. Overall survival (OS) was compared for patients receiving immunotherapy, chemotherapy, or no systemic therapies. RESULTS: We identified 759 patients meeting our inclusion criteria: 329 patients received immunotherapy, 161 received chemotherapy, and 269 received no systemic therapy. Adjusting for demographic, clinical, and facility factors, high facility volume significantly predicted first-line immunotherapy use (OR 1.99; P=0.017). Median OS was 16.2, 12.3, and 8.7 months, among patients who received immunotherapy, chemotherapy, or no systemic therapy, respectively (P<0.001). On Cox multivariable survival analysis, first-line immunotherapy treatment (HR=0.79, P=0.041) and treatment at high-volume centers (HR=0.58, P=0.004) were associated with improved OS. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with clinical trial results, first-line immunotherapy associated with improvement in median overall survival for patients with stage IV MCC, significantly outperforming chemotherapy in this real-world cohort. Treatment at high-volume centers associated with first-line immunotherapy utilization suggesting that familiarity with this rare disease is important to achieving optimal outcomes for metastatic MCC.

Patient Navigation in Cancer Treatment: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Patient navigation promotes access to timely treatment of chronic diseases by eliminating barriers to care. Patient navigation programs have been well-established in improving screening rates and diagnostic resolution. This systematic review aimed to characterize the multifaceted role of patient navigators within the realm of cancer treatment. RECENT FINDINGS: A comprehensive electronic literature review of PubMed and Embase databases was conducted to identify relevant studies investigating the role of patient navigators in cancer treatment from August 1, 2009 to March 27, 2023. Fifty-nine articles were included in this review. Amongst studies focused on cancer treatment initiation, 70% found a significant improvement in treatment initiation amongst patients who were enrolled in patient navigation programs, 71% of studies focused on treatment adherence demonstrated significant improvements in treatment adherence, 87% of studies investigating patient satisfaction showed significant benefits, and 81% of studies reported a positive impact of patient navigators on quality care indicators. Three palliative care studies found beneficial effects of patient navigation. Thirty-seven studies investigated disadvantaged populations, with 76% of them concluded that patient navigators made a positive impact during treatment. This systematic review provides compelling evidence supporting the value of patient navigation programs in cancer treatment. The findings suggest that patient navigation plays a crucial role in improving access to care and optimizing treatment outcomes, especially for disadvantaged cancer patients. Incorporating patient navigation into standard oncology practice can reduce disparities and improve the overall quality of cancer care.

Neoadjuvant Dual Checkpoint Inhibitors vs Anti-PD1 Therapy in High-Risk Resectable Melanoma: A Pooled Analysis.

Importance: Despite the clear potential benefits of neoadjuvant therapy, the optimal neoadjuvant regimen for patients with high-risk resectable melanoma (HRRM) is not known. Objective: To compare the safety and efficacy of dual checkpoint inhibitors with anti-programmed cell death protein-1 (anti-PD1) therapy in a neoadjuvant setting among patients with HRRM. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this pooled analysis of clinical trials, studies were selected provided they investigated immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment, were published between January 2018 and March 2023, and were phase 1, 2, or 3 clinical trials. Participant data included in the analysis were derived from trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of anti-PD1 monotherapy and the combination of anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated protein-4 with anti-PD1 in the neoadjuvant setting, specifically among patients with HRRM. Interventions: Patients were treated with either anti-PD1 monotherapy; dual checkpoint inhibition (DCPI) with a conventional dose of 3-mg/kg ipilimumab and 1-mg/kg nivolumab; or DCPI with an alternative-dose regimen of 1-mg/kg ipilimumab and 3-mg/kg nivolumab. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were radiologic complete response (rCR), radiologic overall objective response (rOOR), and radiologic progressive disease. Also, pathologic complete response (pCR), the proportion of patients undergoing surgical resection, and occurrence of grade 3 or 4 immune-related adverse events (irAEs) were considered. Results: Among 573 patients enrolled in 6 clinical trials, neoadjuvant therapy with DCPI was associated with higher odds of achieving pCR compared with anti-PD1 monotherapy (odds ratio [OR], 3.16; P < .001). DCPI was associated with higher odds of grade 3 or 4 irAEs compared with anti-PD1 monotherapy (OR, 3.75; P < .001). When comparing the alternative-dose ipilimumab and nivolumab (IPI-NIVO) regimen with conventional-dose IPI-NIVO, no statistically significant difference in rCR, rOOR, radiologic progressive disease, or pCR was noted. However, the conventional-dose IPI-NIVO regimen was associated with increased grade 3 or 4 irAEs (OR, 4.76; P < .001). Conventional-dose IPI-NIVO was associated with greater odds of achieving improved rOOR (OR, 1.95; P = .046) and pCR (OR, 2.99; P < .001) compared with anti-PD1 monotherapy. The alternative dose of IPI-NIVO also was associated with higher odds of achieving rCR (OR, 2.55; P = .03) and pCR (OR, 3.87; P < .001) compared with anti-PD1 monotherapy. The risk for grade 3 or 4 irAEs is higher with both the conventional-dose (OR, 9.59; P < .001) and alternative-dose IPI-NIVO regimens (OR, 2.02; P = .02) compared with anti-PD1 monotherapy. Conclusion and Relevance: In this pooled analysis of 6 clinical trials, although DCPI was associated with increased likelihood of achieving pathological and radiologic responses, the associated risk for grade 3 or 4 irAEs was significantly lower with anti-PD1 monotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting for HRRM. Additionally, compared with alternative-dose IPI-NIVO, the conventional dose of IPI-NIVO was associated with increased risk for grade 3 or 4 irAEs, with no significant distinctions in radiologic or pathologic efficacy.

Disparities in the Receipt of Systemic Treatment in Metastatic Melanoma.

BACKGROUND: In 2011, immunotherapy and targeted therapy revolutionized melanoma treatment. However, inequities in their use may limit the benefits seen by certain patients. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of patients in the National Cancer Database for patients with stage IV melanoma from 2 time periods: 2004-2010 and 2016-2020, distinguishing between those who received systemic therapy and those who did not. We investigated the rates and factors associated with treatment omission. We employed Kaplan-Meier analysis to explore the impact of treatment on overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 19,961 patients met the inclusion criteria: 7621 patients were diagnosed in 2004-2010 and 12,340 patients in 2016-2020, of whom 54.9% and 28.3% did not receive systemic treatment, respectively. The rate of "no treatment" has decreased to a plateau of ∼25% in 2020. Median overall survival was improved with treatment in both time periods (2004-2010: 8.8 vs. 5.6 mo [ P <0.05]; and 2016-2020: 25.9 vs. 4.3 mo [ P <0.05]). Nonmedical factors associated with the omission of treatment in both periods included low socioeconomic status, Medicaid or no health insurance, and treatment at low-volume centers. In the period from 2016 to 2020, patients treated at nonacademic programs were also less likely to receive treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Systemic therapies significantly improve survival for patients with metastatic melanoma, but significant disparities exist with their receipt. Local efforts are needed to ensure all patients benefit from these revolutionary treatments.

US Cancer Detection Decreased Nearly 9 Percent During The First Year Of The COVID-19 Pandemic.

We investigated the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer detection, using data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program, which recently released data through the first year of the pandemic (2020). Across all cancer sites, cancer incidence fell by 8.7 percent. The most common cancers that experienced the largest disruptions were lung and bronchus, melanoma of the skin, and thyroid cancer.

Understanding surgical attrition for "resectable" pancreatic cancer.

OBJECTIVES: We used a novel combined analysis to evaluate various factors associated with failure to undergo surgery in non-metastatic pancreatic cancer. METHODS: We identified rates of surgery and reasons for surgical attrition from clinical trials, which studied neoadjuvant therapy in resectable pancreatic cancer. Next, we queried the National Cancer Database (NCDB) for Stage I-III, T1-3 pancreatic adenocarcinoma patients. We investigated the rates and factors associated with the receipt of surgery. Finally, we evaluated variable importance predicting the receipt of surgery. RESULTS: In clinical trials, 25-30 % of patients did not undergo surgery, mostly due to disease progression. In the NCDB, the overall surgical rate was only 49 %, but increased to 67 % in a curated cohort meant to mirror clinical trial patients. Patients treated at low-volume institutions (OR = 0.64, 95 % CI: 0.61-0.67) and who were uninsured (OR = 0.56, 95 % CI: 0.52-0.62) and Medicaid-insured (OR = 0.67, 95 % CI: 0.64-0.71) were less likely to receive potentially curative surgery. CONCLUSION: We have identified a realistic target surgery rate of 70%-75 % in potentially-resectable pancreatic cancer. While attrition to pancreatic cancer surgery is mostly due to tumor biology, our study identified the most important non-medical barriers, such as facility volume and insurance, affecting pancreatic cancer surgery.

Preoperative therapy in melanoma: Evolving perspectives in clinical trials.

We reviewed phase II and III trials beginning after 2010 studying preoperative therapy in melanoma (61 trials). Compared to standard adjuvant treatment, neoadjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) show improved outcomes with approximately 70-80% recurrence free survival at 2 years. Several biomarkers demonstrate predictive value for pathological response (higher PD-L1 expression) and survival (IFN-γ signatures, CD8 + cell density). A number of 'non-standard' treatment mechanisms are being studied in combination with ICI therapies such as TLR-9 agonists, and anti-LAG3 checkpoint inhibitors, which show promise for alternative therapy options in the neoadjuvant setting. Finally, trials for advanced unresectable melanomas show improved survival compared to definitive systemic treatment when upfront systemic therapies lead to resectability. To conclude, in the preoperative setting for melanoma, ICIs have potential to improve outcomes for patients, and will likely change the standard treatment approach for advanced resectable disease.

The effect of surgical timing in nonmetastatic melanoma.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: There is no consensus guidelines on the best timing to perform Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) in high-risk melanoma patients. We aimed to understand the impact of surgical timing on nodal upstaging in patients with cutaneous melanoma. METHODS: We queried the National Cancer Database from 2004 to 2018 for patients with T2-T4, N0, M0 melanomas, who underwent melanoma excision and nodal surgery. We included patients who underwent surgery within 2-19 weeks postdiagnosis. We aimed to determine the association of surgical delay (weeks) with nodal positivity. RESULTS: A total of 53 355 patients were included, of whom 20.9% had positive lymph nodes. Patients underwent surgery at a median of 5 (4-7) weeks after diagnosis. The rate of positive nodes increased with increased weeks to surgery (line of best-fit slope = 0.38). Multivariable regression analysis identified an association between time to surgery and nodal positivity (2.4% increased risk per week, p < 0.05). Our analysis showed significantly increased likelihood of nodal positivity beginning 9 weeks after diagnosis (odds ratio [OR] = 1.3, p < 0.05). Furthermore, patients with T2-3 tumors had a significant increase in nodal positivity with increased time to surgery (OR = 1.03 per week, p < 0.001). However, no significant trend in nodal positivity was identified for patients with T4 melanomas (OR = 1.01 per week, p = 0.596). CONCLUSION: Surgery within 9 weeks of melanoma diagnosis was not associated with increased likelihood of nodal positivity. These data can guide clinical conversations regarding the importance of surgical timing for melanoma.

Combined hepatic resection and ablation for high burden of colorectal liver metastases demonstrates safety and durable survival.

BACKGROUND: Hepatic resection (HR) and thermal ablation of Colorectal Liver Metastases (CRLM) have each individually demonstrated safety and survival benefit. We sought to provide our experience with the combination of HR + ablation within one operation for patients with multiple CRLM. METHODS: Review of a single institution database of patients who underwent HR + ablation between 2010 and 2019. RESULTS: 161 patients were identified who underwent HR + ablation for isolated CRLM (mean age: 59, male 63.4%). 125 (77.6%) patients had bilobar disease and 92 (57.1%) patients had ≥5 tumors. 28 (17.4%) patients experienced minor (grade 1 or 2) complications while 20 (12.4%) had grade 3-5 complications. Patients who underwent simultaneous colon resection with HR + ablation had a higher complication rate (22 of 47, 46.8%) than those undergoing HR + ablation only (26 of 114, 22.8%, p = 0.002). Median and 5-year OS for all patients undergoing HR + ablation was 38.2 months and 33.2%, respectively. 5-year hepatic recurrence free survival was 23.5%. Patients with 5 or more tumors demonstrated no difference in median survival compared to those with fewer than 5 tumors (37.0 months vs 38.4 months, p = 0.326). CONCLUSIONS: In this population of CRLM patients with a relatively high burden of disease, HR + ablation demonstrated an acceptable safety profile as well as durable long-term survival.

Is sentinel lymph node biopsy needed for lentigo maligna melanoma?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is an area of debate in the management of lentigo maligna melanoma (LMM). The utility of SLNB and its prognostic value in LMM have not yet been studied with large databases. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of the National Cancer Database (2012-2020) and the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (2010-2019) database for patients with cutaneous nonmetastatic LMM with Breslow thickness >1.0 mm. Multivariable logistic regression identified factors associated with SLNB performance and sentinel lymph node (SLN) positivity. Univariable and multivariable analyses assessed overall survival (OS) and melanoma-specific survival (MSS) based on SLNB performance and SLN status. RESULTS: Compared to other melanoma subtypes, LMM had lower rates of SLNB (66.6% vs. 80.0%-84.0%) and SLN positivity (11.3% vs. 18.6%-34.2%). Compared to patients who did not undergo SLNB, SLN status was significantly associated with improved OS in patients with SLN positive (HR = 0.64 [0.55-0.76]) and SLN negative (HR = 0.68 [0.49-0.94]), and worse MSS only in patients with positive SLN (HR = 3.93, p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The improved OS associated with SLNB likely implies surgical selection bias. Analysis of MSS confirms appropriate patient selection and suggests important prognostic value associated with SLN status. These results support continued SLNB for LMM patients according to standard guidelines.

Surgical management of 1- to 2-cm neuroendocrine tumors of the appendix: Appendectomy or right hemicolectomy?

BACKGROUND: The surgical management of 1- to 2-cm neuroendocrine tumors of the appendix is an area of debate. We analyzed the clinical outcomes of appendectomy and compared them to right hemicolectomy. METHODS: We queried the National Cancer Database to identify patients treated for 1- to 2-cm ANETs from 2004 to 2018. Patients were stratified by surgical approach (appendectomy vs. hemicolectomy). Multivariable models were used to identify factors associated with the choice of surgical approach and the association between surgical approach and overall survival. RESULTS: Of the 3,189 patients we included, 1,573 (49.3%) underwent right hemicolectomy and 1,616 (50.7%) appendectomy. The appendectomy rate increased from 37.7% in 2004 to 58.9% in 2018. On multivariable analysis, patients with grade 2 and 3 tumors were less likely to undergo appendectomy alone (odds ratio = 0.41, 95% confidence interval = 0.26-0.66). Longer travel distance was associated with a higher likelihood of undergoing appendectomy (odds ratio = 2.52, 95% confidence interval = 1.15-5.51). After adjusting for tumor grade, appendectomy alone had similar survival to hemicolectomy (hazard ratio = 1.03, 95% confidence interval = 0.67-1.59). CONCLUSION: In this updated analysis of the National Cancer Database, right hemicolectomy was not associated with improved overall survival compared to appendectomy alone for 1- to 2-cm neuroendocrine tumors of the appendix. Although patients with grade 2 or 3 tumors are more likely to undergo right hemicolectomy, this procedure may not improve their treatment or overall outcome.