Landmark survival analysis and impact of anatomic site of origin in prospective clinical trials of biliary tract cancer.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Whether all patients with advanced biliary tract cancer (aBTC) should be included in prospective trials, irrespective of the anatomic site of origin, is debated. Herein, we aimed to assess the survival impact of anatomic site of origin in prospective clinical trials of aBTC using landmark survival analysis. METHODS: Patients enrolled into prospective first-line aBTC clinical trials (Jan 97-Dec 15) were included. Overall survival (OS) was analysed using Cox proportional hazard regression; landmark survival (LS) and 95% CIs were calculated. RESULTS: Overall, 1,333 patients were included: median age 63 years (range 23-85); 46% male; 84% ECOG-PS0/1; 25% with locally advanced disease, 72% with metastatic, 3% not reported (NR). Patients were treated with mono-chemotherapy (23%), cisplatin/gemcitabine (36%), other combinations (39%), or NR (2%). Median OS was 10.2 months (95% CI 9.6-10.9). All sites (treatment-adjusted) had decreased risk of death vs. gallbladder cancer (GBC) (p <0.001). This reduced risk vs. GBC was maintained in those receiving cisplatin/gemcitabine for extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (p<0.001) and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (IHC, p<0.001), but not in cholangiocarcinoma-not specified (CCA-NS, p = 0.82) or ampullary carcinoma (p = 0.96). One-year OS rates amongst patients who survived beyond 1, 2, 3 and 4 years post-trial registration were 37%, 45%, 61%, and 63%, respectively. For patients who survived 1 year, those receiving combination therapy vs. mono (p = 0.008) (acknowledging potential selection bias) and those with IHC and CCA-NS vs. GBC had better LS (both p <0.05). Metastatic disease was associated with shorter LS than locally advanced disease (p = 0.002). ECOG-PS and gender were not associated with LS (p >0.05, p = 0.08 respectively). CONCLUSIONS: GBC is associated with worse OS than other BTC sites and should be considered as a stratification factor in clinical trials. LS rates enable adjusted prognostication for aBTC survivors. LAY SUMMARY: Patients with gallbladder cancer have worse overall survival compared to those with biliary tract cancers of different primary origin. Thus, gallbladder cancer should be considered as a stratification factor in future clinical trials. Landmark survival rates enable adjusted prognosis prediction for patients with advanced biliary tract cancer who survive for some time.

NUC-1031/cisplatin versus gemcitabine/cisplatin in untreated locally advanced/metastatic biliary tract cancer (NuTide:121).

Gemcitabine/cisplatin is standard of care for first-line treatment of patients with advanced biliary tract cancer (aBTC); new treatments are needed. NUC-1031 is designed to overcome key cancer resistance mechanisms associated with gemcitabine. The tolerability/efficacy signal of NUC-1031/cisplatin in the Phase Ib ABC-08 study suggested that this combination may represent a more efficacious therapy than gemcitabine/cisplatin for patients with aBTC, leading to initiation of the global NuTide:121 study which will include 828 patients ≥18 years with untreated histologically/cytologically-confirmed aBTC (including cholangiocarcinoma, gallbladder or ampullary cancer); randomized (1:1) to NUC-1031 (725 mg/m2)/cisplatin (25 mg/m2) or gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2)/cisplatin (25 mg/m2), on days 1/8, Q21-days. Primary objectives are overall survival and objective response rate. Secondary objectives: progression-free survival, safety, pharmacokinetics, patient-reported quality of life and correlative studies. (Investigational new drug (IND) number: 139058, European Clinical Trials database: EudraCT Number 2019-001025-28, ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04163900).

Systemic therapy in younger and elderly patients with advanced biliary cancer: sub-analysis of ABC-02 and twelve other prospective trials.

BACKGROUND: Outcomes in younger (<40 years) and elderly (≥70 years) patients with advanced biliary cancer (ABC) receiving palliative chemotherapy are unclear. This study assessed outcomes in those receiving monotherapy or combination therapy in thirteen prospective systemic-therapy trials. METHODS: Multivariable analysis explored the impact of therapy on progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in two separate age cohort groups: <70 years and ≥70 years, and <40 years and ≥40 years. RESULTS: Overall, 1163 patients were recruited (Jan 1997-Dec 2013). Median age of entire cohort: 63 years (range 23-85); 36 (3%) were <40, 260 (22%); ≥70. Combination therapy was platinum-based in nine studies. Among patients <40 and ≥70 years, 23 (64%) and 182 (70%) received combination therapy, respectively. Median follow-up was 42 months (95%-CI 37-51). Median PFS for patients <40 and ≥40 years was 3.5 and 5.9 months (P = 0.12), and OS was 10.8 and 9.7 months, respectively (P = 0.55). Median PFS for those <70 and ≥70 years was 6.0 and 5.0 months (P = 0.53), and OS was 10.2 and 8.8 months, respectively (P = 0.08). For the entire cohort, PFS and OS were significantly better in those receiving combination therapy: Hazard Ratio [HR]-0.66, 95%-CI 0.58-0.76, P < 0.0001 and HR-0.72, 95%-CI 0.63-0.82, P < 0.0001, respectively; and in patients ≥70 years: HR-0.54 (95%-CI 0.38-0.77, P = 0.001) and HR-0.60 (95%-CI 0.43-0.85, P = 0.004), respectively. There was no evidence of interaction between age and treatment for PFS (P = 0.58, P = 0.66) or OS (P = 0.18, P = 0.75). CONCLUSIONS: In ABC, younger patients are rare, and survival in elderly patients in receipt of systemic therapy for advanced disease, whether monotherapy or combination therapy, is similar to that of non-elderly patients, therefore age alone should not influence decisions regarding treatment.

Prognostic importance of lymph node yield after curative resection of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours.

BACKGROUND: The prognostic significance of lymph nodes (LNs) metastases and the optimum number of LN yield in gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (GEP NETs) undergoing curative resection is still debatable. Many studies have demonstrated that cure rate for patients with GEP NETs can be improved by the resection of the primary tumour and regional lymphadenectomy. AIM: To evaluate the effect of lymph node (LN) status and yield on relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with resected GEP NETs. METHODS: Data on patients who underwent curative resection for GEP NETs between January 2002 and March 2017 were analysed retrospectively. Grade 3 tumours (Ki67 > 20%) were excluded. Univariate Cox proportional hazard models were computed for RFS and OS and assessed alongside cut-point analysis to distinguish a suitable binary categorisation of total LNs retrieved associated with RFS. RESULTS: A total of 217 patients were included in the study. The median age was 59 years (21-97 years) and 51% (n = 111) were male. Primary tumour sites were small bowel (42%), pancreas (25%), appendix (18%), rectum (7%), colon (3%), gastric (2%), others (2%). Median follow up times for all patients were 41 mo (95%CI: 36-51) and 71 mo (95%CI: 63-76) for RFS and OS respectively; 50 relapses and 35 deaths were reported. LNs were retrieved in 151 patients. Eight or more LNs were harvested in 106 patients and LN positivity reported in 114 patients. Three or more positive LNs were detected in 62 cases. The result of univariate analysis suggested perineural invasion (P = 0.0023), LN positivity (P = 0.033), LN retrieval of ≥ 8 (P = 0.047) and localisation (P = 0.0049) have a statistically significant association with shorter RFS, but there was no effect of LN ratio on RFS: P = 0.1 or OS: P = 0.75. Tumour necrosis (P = 0.021) and perineural invasion (P = 0.016) were the only two variables significantly associated with worse OS. In the final multivariable analysis, localisation (pancreas HR = 27.33, P = 0.006, small bowel HR = 32.44, P = 0.005), and retrieval of ≥ 8 LNs (HR = 2.7, P = 0.036) were independent prognostic factors for worse RFS. CONCLUSION: An outcome-oriented approach to cut-point analysis can suggest a minimum number of adequate LNs to be harvested in patients with GEP NETs undergoing curative surgery. Removal of ≥ 8 LNs is associated with increased risk of relapse, which could be due to high rates of LN positivity at the time of surgery. Given that localisation had a significant association with RFS, a prospective multicentre study is warranted with a clear direction on recommended surgical practice and follow-up guidance for GEP NETs.

Sorafenib as first-line therapy in patients with advanced Child-Pugh B hepatocellular carcinoma-a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Sorafenib has demonstrated survival benefit in first-line treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC); utility of sorafenib in patients with advanced HCC and Child-Pugh B (CP-B) liver function remains a subject of debate. METHODS: A systematic review identified studies using first-line sorafenib in patients with advanced HCC and CP-A/B liver function. Meta-regression analysis comprising linear regression was conducted to explore the association between the baseline factors and overall survival (OS). Differences between efficacy/safety and tolerability parameters were explored using meta-analysis. RESULTS: Thirty studies (12 Asian) comprising 8678 patients (August 2002 - September 2012) were included (four randomised controlled trials, 26 cohort studies). Median age was 61 years and 83% were men. Hepatitis B/C status was positive in 35%/22%, respectively. The CP status was available for 8577 patients (99%); CP-A, 79% and CP-B, 19%. Median OS on sorafenib for entire cohort was 7.2 months; 8.8 months in CP-A and 4.6 months in CP-B. Multivariable meta-regression analysis showed significant negative association between OS and proportion of patients with the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 2 (P = 0.04) and CP-B liver function (P = 0.001). Among four studies reporting multivariable comparison of the CP status, CP-B was associated with significantly worse OS (P < 0.001). There were no differences in the response rate to sorafenib between patients with CP-A (4.6%) and CP-B (4.2%) liver function. Safety and tolerability were similar; 35% of patients with CP-A/B liver function developed grade III/IV adverse events (P = 0.7). Meta-regression analysis showed similar rates of treatment discontinuation without progression (P = 0.31) and treatment-related death (P = 0.94) in patients with CP-B liver function. CONCLUSION: CP-B liver function (versus CP-A) is associated with worse OS (but the similar response rate, safety and tolerability of first-line sorafenib, is unlikely to be clinically meaningful).