Neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy for biliary tract cancer: Advances and limitations.

Biliary tract cancers (BTC) are a rare and aggressive consortium of malignancies, consisting of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, and gallbladder carcinoma. While most patients present with metastatic disease, a minority of patients with BTC are eligible for curative surgical resection at the time of presentation. However, these patients have poor 5-year overall survival rates and high rates of recurrence, necessitating the improvement of the neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment of BTC. In this review, we assess the neoadjuvant and adjuvant clinical trials for the treatment of BTC and discuss the challenges and limitations of clinical trials, as well as future directions for the treatment of BTC.

Adaptation of a Multimedia Chemotherapy Educational Intervention for Latinos: Letting Patient Narratives Speak for Themselves.

This study aims to adapt a video-based, multimedia chemotherapy educational intervention to meet the needs of US Latinos with advanced gastrointestinal malignancies. A five-step hybrid adaptation process involved (1) creating a multidisciplinary team with diverse Latino subject experts, (2) appraising the parent intervention, (3) identifying key cultural considerations from a systematic literature review and semi-structured Latino patient/caregiver interviews, (4) revising the intervention, highlighting culturally relevant themes through video interviews with Latino cancer patients, and (5) target population review with responsive revisions. We developed a suite of videos, booklets, and websites available in English and Spanish, which convey the risks and benefits of common chemotherapy regimens. After revising the English materials, we translated them into Spanish using a multi-step process. The intervention centers upon conversations with 12 Latino patients about their treatment experiences; video clips highlight culturally relevant themes (personalismo, familismo, faith, communication gaps, prognostic information preferences) identified during the third adaptation step. The adapted intervention materials included a new section on coping, and one titled "how to feel the best you can feel," which reviews principles of side effect management, self-advocacy, proactive communication, and palliative care. Ten Latinos with advanced malignancies reviewed the intervention and found it to be easily understandable, relatable, and helpful. A five-step hybrid model was successful in adapting a chemotherapy educational intervention for Latinos. Incorporation of video interviews with Latino patients enabled the authentic representation of salient cultural themes. Use of authentic patient narratives can be useful for cross-cultural intervention adaptations.

An Update on the Management of Mixed Neuroendocrine-Non-neuroendocrine Neoplasms (MiNEN).

OPINION STATEMENT: The classification of mixed neuroendocrine-non-neuroendocrine neoplasms (MiNEN) is evolving, and no clear management guidelines are currently available. However, recent studies provide insight into factors affecting outcomes and could help develop treatment decisions for patients with these rare malignancies. The majority of MiNENs have a poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinoma (NEC) component which is associated with an aggressive clinical course and poor outcomes. Due to the paucity of clinical trials, strategies adopted in gastrointestinal cancers and NECs are used to manage MiNENs. It is also to be noted that the thoracic neuroendocrine neoplasm WHO 2021 classification does not recognize MiNEN terminology but suggests an equivalent terminology called "combined neuroendocrine non neuroendocrine neoplasm." Surgical management is appropriate in early-stage disease with a low threshold for addition of adjuvant chemotherapy. Multimodality treatment with chemotherapy offers a survival benefit in advanced disease or when surgical resection is not possible without significant morbidity. Chemotherapy should be directed at the more aggressive component which is often the NEC component. In addition, molecular testing should be employed to evaluate patients for enrollment in clinical trials and other targeted treatments. Being a rare disease with retrospective studies and case series providing the majority of data on treatment selection, it is essential to include more granular details of pathology (e.g., Ki-67, mitotic index, percentage of each component, staging information) and treatment modalities (e.g., type and duration, rationale, radiologic response, survival outcomes) in future studies to make systematic reviews possible and help derive meaningful conclusions.

Use of Molecular Assays and Circulating Tumor DNA in Early-Stage Colorectal Cancer: A Roundtable Discussion of the Gastrointestinal Cancer Therapy Expert Group.

The use of genomic testing is rapidly emerging as an important clinical tool both for cancer diagnosis and for guiding treatment decisions in a wide range of malignancies, including gastrointestinal (GI) cancers such as colorectal cancer (CRC). Advances in technologies such as polymerase chain reaction and next-generation sequencing methods have made it possible to noninvasively screen for CRC through, for example, the use of blood- or stool-based testing, with high specificity. Tests are also available that can provide prognostic information beyond traditional clinicopathologic factors such as tumor size, grade, and nodal status, which can enable clinicians to more accurately risk stratify patients for recurrence. Lastly, in the setting of resected CRC, tests are now available that can detect circulating tumor DNA as a means for noninvasive minimal/molecular residual disease monitoring, thereby potentially guiding the use of adjuvant chemotherapy and/or escalating or de-escalating therapy. The Gastrointestinal Cancer Therapy Expert Group (GICTEG) recently convened a virtual meeting to discuss current issues related to genomic testing in GI cancer, with the goal of providing guidance on the use of these tests for the practicing community oncologist, for whom GI cancer may be only one of many tumor types encountered. This article provides a summary of the discussion and highlights the key opinions of the GICTEG on this topic. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The Gastrointestinal Cancer Therapy Expert Group seeks to provide practical guidance and opinion on the treatment of gastrointestinal malignancies, including colorectal cancer (CRC), for the practicing community oncologist in situations for which guidelines from established bodies, such as the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and the American Society of Clinical Oncology, may be less clear. In the present report, clinical guidance on the use of molecular assays for a range of clinical indications in CRC is presented, including the use of circulating tumor DNA to detect minimal/molecular residual disease in patients with successfully resected early-stage CRC.

Neuroendocrine and Adrenal Tumors, Version 2.2021, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Neuroendocrine and Adrenal Gland Tumors focus on the diagnosis, treatment, and management of patients with neuroendocrine tumors (NETs), adrenal tumors, pheochromocytomas, paragangliomas, and multiple endocrine neoplasia. NETs are generally subclassified by site of origin, stage, and histologic characteristics. Appropriate diagnosis and treatment of NETs often involves collaboration between specialists in multiple disciplines, using specific biochemical, radiologic, and surgical methods. Specialists include pathologists, endocrinologists, radiologists (including nuclear medicine specialists), and medical, radiation, and surgical oncologists. These guidelines discuss the diagnosis and management of both sporadic and hereditary neuroendocrine and adrenal tumors and are intended to assist with clinical decision-making. This article is focused on the 2021 NCCN Guidelines principles of genetic risk assessment and counseling and recommendations for well-differentiated grade 3 NETs, poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinomas, adrenal tumors, pheochromocytomas, and paragangliomas.

A Phase II Study of Ibrutinib in Advanced Neuroendocrine Neoplasms.

BACKGROUND: Ibrutinib is an orally administered inhibitor of Bruton's tyrosine kinase (Btk). Preclinical data suggest that mast cells are recruited within neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) where they stimulate angiogenesis and tumor growth. Ibrutinib inhibits mast cell degranulation and has been associated with regression of tumors in a mouse insulinoma model. METHODS: A prospective, phase II trial evaluated patients with advanced gastrointestinal (GI)/lung NENs and pancreatic NENs (pNENs) who had evidence of progression within 12 months of study entry on at least one prior therapy. Patients received ibrutinib 560 mg daily until unacceptable toxicity, progression of disease, or withdrawal of consent. The primary endpoint was objective response rate. RESULTS: Twenty patients were enrolled on protocol from November 2015 to December 2017 (15 advanced GI/lung NENs and 5 pNENs). No patient reached an objective response. Median PFS was 3.0 months. A total of 44 drug-related adverse events (AEs) were captured as probably or definitely associated with ibrutinib. Five patients experienced probably or definitely related grade 3 AEs, and 1 patient experienced a probably related grade 4 AE. Five patients discontinued treatment prior to radiographic assessment. CONCLUSIONS: Ibrutinib does not show significant evidence of activity in well-differentiated gastroenteropancreatic and lung NENs.

Will clinical heterogeneity of neuroendocrine tumors impact their management in the future? Lessons from recent trials.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) are a group of biologically and clinically heterogeneous neoplasms arising from the diffuse neuroendocrine system. In the last few years, advances in our understanding of the biology of these tumors have translated into an expansion of treatment options for patients with NETs. Current treatment modalities include somatostatin analogs (SSAs), radiolabeled SSAs, targeted agents, cytotoxic drugs and liver-directed therapies for the management of metastatic disease. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent studies have expanded the role of SSAs in gastroenteropancreatic (GEP)-NETs, and everolimus has shown robust antitumor activity across a broad range of NETs of the lung and GEP tract. The radiolobeled SSA Lu-DOTATATE has been investigated in a randomized phase III trial, and has demonstrated exceptional efficacy and tolerability in patients with progressive midgut NETs. The new serotonin inhibitor telotristat etiprate has shown significant activity in the palliation of symptoms of carcinoid syndrome, and its approval by regulatory authorities is expected soon. SUMMARY: The field of NETs has been transformed from one dominated by limited treatment options to one characterized by an increasing number of therapeutic agents and active clinical trials. Navigating the current therapeutic algorithm may be challenging, and requires an understanding both of the heterogeneity of NETs and of characteristics that are shared by NETs across tumor subtypes.

Vaccination of Adults With Cancer: ASCO Guideline.

PURPOSE: To guide the vaccination of adults with solid tumors or hematologic malignancies. METHODS: A systematic literature review identified systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and nonrandomized studies on the efficacy and safety of vaccines used by adults with cancer or their household contacts. This review builds on a 2013 guideline by the Infectious Disease Society of America. PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched from January 1, 2013, to February 16, 2023. ASCO convened an Expert Panel to review the evidence and formulate recommendations. RESULTS: A total of 102 publications were included in the systematic review: 24 systematic reviews, 14 RCTs, and 64 nonrandomized studies. The largest body of evidence addressed COVID-19 vaccines. RECOMMENDATIONS: The goal of vaccination is to limit the severity of infection and prevent infection where feasible. Optimizing vaccination status should be considered a key element in the care of patients with cancer. This approach includes the documentation of vaccination status at the time of the first patient visit; timely provision of recommended vaccines; and appropriate revaccination after hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation, chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy, or B-cell-depleting therapy. Active interaction and coordination among healthcare providers, including primary care practitioners, pharmacists, and nursing team members, are needed. Vaccination of household contacts will enhance protection for patients with cancer. Some vaccination and revaccination plans for patients with cancer may be affected by the underlying immune status and the anticancer therapy received. As a result, vaccine strategies may differ from the vaccine recommendations for the general healthy adult population vaccine.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines.

Consideration of quality of life in the treatment decision-making for patients with advanced gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors.

INTRODUCTION: Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs) are a complex and heterogenous family of solid malignancies that originate from neuroendocrine tissue in the gastrointestinal tract or pancreas. Most patients diagnosed with GEP-NETs present with advanced or metastatic disease, and quality of life (QoL) is often an important priority when selecting treatments for these patients. Patients with advanced GEP-NETs often experience a substantial and persistent symptom burden that undermines their QoL. Addressing a patient's individual symptoms through judicious selection of treatment may improve QoL. AREAS COVERED: The objectives of this narrative review are to summarize the impact of advanced GEP-NETs on patient QoL, assess the potential value of current treatments for maintaining or improving patient QoL, and offer a clinical framework for how these QoL data can be translated to inform clinical decision-making for patients with advanced GEP-NETs. EXPERT OPINION: Patients with advanced GEP-NETs experience a significant and persistent symptom burden that impacts their daily lifestyle, activities, work life, and financial health, leading to erosion of their QoL. Ongoing and future studies incorporating longitudinal QoL assessments and head-to-head treatment evaluations will further inform the incorporation of QoL into clinical decision-making.

Comparative Genomic Analysis of Pancreatic Acinar Cell Carcinoma (PACC) and Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma (PDAC) Unveils New Actionable Genomic Aberrations in PACC.

PURPOSE: Pure pancreatic acinar cell carcinomas (PACC) are rare malignancies with no established treatment. PACC demonstrates significant genetic intertumoral heterogeneity with multiple pathways involved, suggesting using targeted cancer therapeutics to treat this disease. We aggregated one of the largest datasets of pure PACC to examine the genomic variability and explore patient-specific therapeutic targets. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: PACC specimens (n = 51) underwent next-generation sequencing of DNA (n = 29) or whole exome (n = 22) and RNA (whole transcriptome, n = 29) at a commercial laboratory. We performed comparative analyses of a genomic cohort of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas (PDAC; n = 4,205). In parallel, we conducted a retrospective review of patients with PACC treated at Huntsman Cancer Institute (HCI). RESULTS: The real-world dataset included samples from 51 patients with PACC. We found key molecular differences between pure PACC and PDAC, highlighting the unique characteristics of pure PACC. Major differences in PACC include lower MAPK signaling and less stromal cell abundance compared with PDAC. Pure PACC showed genomic loss-of-heterozygosity to largely coincide with mutations in BRCA1, BRCA2, and PALB2. Of the 7 patients treated at HCI, one had a tumor that harbored a BRAF-V600E mutation. Leveraging precision oncology, this patient is being treated with encorafenib plus binimetinib, achieving an exceptionally durable and ongoing complete response of more than 3 years. CONCLUSIONS: There are major differences between PACC and PDAC, including downregulation of the MAPK signaling pathway, and less stromal cell abundance. In addition, genomic characterization of pure PACC revealed frequent targetable alterations, which can guide patient treatment.

A single center case series of immune checkpoint inhibitor-induced type 1 diabetes mellitus, patterns of disease onset and long-term clinical outcome.

Background: Type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) is a rare, but serious immune-related adverse event (irAE) of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Our goal was to characterize treatment outcomes associated with ICI-induced T1DM through analysis of clinical, immunological and proteomic data. Methods: This was a single-center case series of patients with solid tumors who received ICIs and subsequently had a new diagnosis of T1DM. ICD codes and C-peptide levels were used to identify patients for chart review to confirm ICI-induced T1DM. Baseline blood specimens were studied for proteomic and immunophenotypic changes. Results: Between 2011 and 2023, 18 of 3744 patients treated at Huntsman Cancer Institute with ICIs were confirmed to have ICI-induced T1DM (0.48%). Eleven of the 18 patients received anti-PD1 monotherapy, 4 received anti-PD1 plus chemotherapy or targeted therapy, and 3 received ipilimumab plus nivolumab. The mean time to onset was 218 days (range 22-418 days). Patients had sudden elevated serum glucose within 2-3 weeks prior to diagnosis. Sixteen (89%) presented with diabetic ketoacidosis. Three of 12 patients had positive T1DM-associated autoantibodies. All patients with T1DM became insulin-dependent through follow-up. At median follow-up of 21.9 months (range 8.4-82.4), no patients in the melanoma group had progressed or died from disease. In the melanoma group, best responses were 2 complete response and 2 partial response while on active treatment; none in the adjuvant group had disease recurrence. Proteomic analysis of baseline blood suggested low inflammatory (IL-6, OSMR) markers and high metabolic (GLO1, DXCR) markers in ICI-induced T1DM cohort. Conclusions: Our case series demonstrates rapid onset and irreversibility of ICI-induced T1DM. Melanoma patients with ICI-induced T1DM display excellent clinical response and survival. Limited proteomic data also suggested a unique proteomic profile. Our study helps clinicians to understand the unique clinical presentation and long-term outcomes of this rare irAE for best clinical management.

Real-world pan-cancer landscape of frameshift mutations and their role in predicting responses to immune checkpoint inhibitors in cancers with low tumor mutational burden.

BACKGROUND: Pembrolizumab is FDA approved for tumors with tumor mutational burden (TMB) of ≥10 mutations/megabase (mut/Mb). However, the response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) varies significantly among cancer histologies. We describe the landscape of frameshift mutations (FSs) and evaluated their role as a predictive biomarker to ICI in a clinical cohort of patients. METHODS: Comprehensive genomic profiling was performed on a cohort of solid tumor samples examining at least 324 genes. The clinical cohort included patients with metastatic solid malignancies who received ICI monotherapy and had tumor sequencing. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival, and objective response rates (ORR) were compared between the groups. RESULTS: We analyzed 246,252 microsatellite stable (MSS) and 4561 samples with microsatellite instability across solid tumors. Histologies were divided into groups according to TMB and FS. MSS distribution: TMB-L (<10 mut/Mb)/FS-A (absent FS) (N=111,065, 45%), TMB-H (≥10 mut/Mb)/FS-A (N=15,313, 6%), TMB-L/FS-P (present ≥1 FS) (N=98,389, 40%) and TMB-H/FS-P (N=21,485, 9%). FSs were predominantly identified in the p53 pathway. In the clinical cohort, 212 patients were included. Groups: TMB-L/FS-A (N=80, 38%), TMB-H/FS-A (N=36, 17%), TMB-L/FS-P (N=57, 27%), TMB-H/FS-P (N=39, 18%). FSs were associated with a higher ORR to ICI, 23.8% vs 12.8% (p=0.02). TMB-L/FS-P had superior median PFS (5.1 months) vs TMB-L/FS-A (3.6 months, p<0.01). The 12-month PFS probability was 34% for TMB-L/FS-P vs 17.1% for TMB-L/FS-A. CONCLUSIONS: FSs are found in 47% of patients with MSS/TMB-L solid tumors in a pan-cancer cohort. FS may complement TMB in predicting immunotherapy responses, particularly for tumors with low TMB.

Expert Consensus Practice Recommendations of the North American Neuroendocrine Tumor Society for the management of high grade gastroenteropancreatic and gynecologic neuroendocrine neoplasms.

High-grade neuroendocrine neoplasms are a rare disease entity and account for approximately 10% of all neuroendocrine neoplasms. Because of their rarity, there is an overall lack of prospectively collected data available to advise practitioners as to how best to manage these patients. As a result, best practices are largely based on expert opinion. Recently, a distinction was made between well-differentiated high-grade (G3) neuroendocrine tumors and poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinomas, and with this, pathologic details, appropriate imaging practices and treatment have become more complex. In an effort to provide practitioners with the best guidance for the management of patients with high-grade neuroendocrine neoplasms of the gastrointestinal tract, pancreas, and gynecologic system, the North American Neuroendocrine Tumor Society convened a panel of experts to develop a set of recommendations and a treatment algorithm that may be used by practitioners for the care of these patients. Here, we provide consensus recommendations from the panel on pathology, imaging practices, management of localized disease, management of metastatic disease and surveillance and draw key distinctions as to the approach that should be utilized in patients with well-differentiated G3 neuroendocrine tumors vs poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinomas.

CYP2D6-guided opioid therapy for adults with cancer pain: A randomized implementation clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: The CYP2D6 enzyme metabolizes opioids commonly prescribed for cancer-related pain, and CYP2D6 polymorphisms may contribute to variability in opioid response. We evaluated the feasibility of implementing CYP2D6-guided opioid prescribing for patients with cancer and reported pilot outcome data. METHODS: Adult patients from two cancer centers were prospectively enrolled into a hybrid implementation-effectiveness clinical trial and randomized to CYP2D6-genotype-guided opioid selection, with clinical recommendations, or usual care. Implementation metrics, including provider response, medication changes consistent with recommendations, and patient-reported pain and symptom scores at baseline and up to 8 weeks, were assessed. RESULTS: Most (87/114, 76%) patients approached for the study agreed to participate. Of 85 patients randomized, 71% were prescribed oxycodone at baseline. The median (range) time to receive CYP2D6 test results was 10 (3-37) days; 24% of patients had physicians acknowledge genotype results in a clinic note. Among patients with CYP2D6-genotype-guided recommendations to change therapy (n = 11), 18% had a change congruent with recommendations. Among patients who completed baseline and follow-up questionnaires (n = 48), there was no difference in change in mean composite pain score (-1.01 ± 2.1 vs. -0.41 ± 2.5; p = 0.19) or symptom severity at last follow-up (3.96 ± 2.18 vs. 3.47 ± 1.78; p = 0.63) between the usual care arm (n = 26) and genotype-guided arm (n = 22), respectively. CONCLUSION: Our study revealed high acceptance of pharmacogenetic testing as part of a clinical trial among patients with cancer pain. However, provider response to genotype-guided recommendations was low, impacting assessment of pain-related outcomes. Addressing barriers to utility of pharmacogenetics results and clinical recommendations will be critical for implementation success.

Consensus report of the 2021 National Cancer Institute neuroendocrine tumor clinical trials planning meeting.

Important progress has been made over the last decade in the classification, imaging, and treatment of neuroendocrine neoplasm (NENs), with several new agents approved for use. Although the treatment options available for patients with well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) have greatly expanded, the rapidly changing landscape has presented several unanswered questions about how best to optimize, sequence, and individualize therapy. Perhaps the most important development over the last decade has been the approval of 177Lu-DOTATATE for treatment of gastroenteropancreatic-NETs, raising questions around optimal sequencing of peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) relative to other therapeutic options, the role of re-treatment with PRRT, and whether PRRT can be further optimized through use of dosimetry among other approaches. The NET Task Force of the National Cancer Institute GI Steering Committee convened a clinical trial planning meeting in 2021 with multidisciplinary experts from academia, the federal government, industry, and patient advocates to develop NET clinical trials in the era of PRRT. Key clinical trial recommendations for development included 1) PRRT re-treatment, 2) PRRT and immunotherapy combinations, 3) PRRT and DNA damage repair inhibitor combinations, 4) treatment for liver-dominant disease, 5) treatment for PRRT-resistant disease, and 6) dosimetry-modified PRRT.

Systemic Therapy for Tumor Control in Metastatic Well-Differentiated Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors: ASCO Guideline.

PURPOSE: To develop recommendations for systemic therapy for well-differentiated grade 1 (G1) to grade 3 (G3) metastatic gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs). METHODS: ASCO convened an Expert Panel to conduct a systematic review of relevant studies and develop recommendations for clinical practice. RESULTS: Eight randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria for the systematic review. RECOMMENDATIONS: Somatostatin analogs (SSAs) are recommended as first-line systemic therapy for most patients with G1-grade 2 (G2) metastatic well-differentiated GI-NETs. Observation is an option for patients with low-volume or slow-growing disease without symptoms. After progression on SSAs, peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) is recommended as systematic therapy for patients with somatostatin receptor (SSTR)-positive tumors. Everolimus is an alternative second-line therapy, particularly in nonfunctioning NETs and patients with SSTR-negative tumors. SSAs are standard first-line therapy for SSTR-positive pancreatic (pan)NETs. Rarely, observation may be appropriate for asymptomatic patients until progression. Second-line systemic options for panNETs include PRRT (for SSTR-positive tumors), cytotoxic chemotherapy, everolimus, or sunitinib. For SSTR-negative tumors, first-line therapy options are chemotherapy, everolimus, or sunitinib. There are insufficient data to recommend particular sequencing of therapies. Patients with G1-G2 high-volume disease, relatively high Ki-67 index, and/or symptoms related to tumor growth may benefit from early cytotoxic chemotherapy. For G3 GEP-NETs, systemic options for G1-G2 may be considered, although cytotoxic chemotherapy is likely the most effective option for patients with tumor-related symptoms, and SSAs are relatively ineffective. Qualifying statements are provided to assist with treatment choice. Multidisciplinary team management is recommended, along with shared decision making with patients, incorporating their values and preferences, potential benefits and harms, and other characteristics and circumstances, such as comorbidities, performance status, geographic location, and access to care.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/gastrointestinal-cancer-guidelines.

New treatments compared to established treatments in randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: The proportion of proposed new treatments that are 'successful' is of ethical, scientific, and public importance. We investigated how often new, experimental treatments evaluated in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are superior to established treatments. OBJECTIVES: Our main question was: "On average how often are new treatments more effective, equally effective or less effective than established treatments?" Additionally, we wanted to explain the observed results, i.e. whether the observed distribution of outcomes is consistent with the 'uncertainty requirement' for enrollment in RCTs. We also investigated the effect of choice of comparator (active versus no treatment/placebo) on the observed results. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Methodology Register (CMR) 2010, Issue 1 in The Cochrane Library (searched 31 March 2010); MEDLINE Ovid 1950 to March Week 2 2010 (searched 24 March 2010); and EMBASE Ovid 1980 to 2010 Week 11 (searched 24 March 2010). SELECTION CRITERIA: Cohorts of studies were eligible for the analysis if they met all of the following criteria: (i) consecutive series of RCTs, (ii) registered at or before study onset, and (iii) compared new against established treatments in humans. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: RCTs from four cohorts of RCTs met all inclusion criteria and provided data from 743 RCTs involving 297,744 patients. All four cohorts consisted of publicly funded trials. Two cohorts involved evaluations of new treatments in cancer, one in neurological disorders, and one for mixed types of diseases. We employed kernel density estimation, meta-analysis and meta-regression to assess the probability of new treatments being superior to established treatments in their effect on primary outcomes and overall survival. MAIN RESULTS: The distribution of effects seen was generally symmetrical in the size of difference between new versus established treatments. Meta-analytic pooling indicated that, on average, new treatments were slightly more favorable both in terms of their effect on reducing the primary outcomes (hazard ratio (HR)/odds ratio (OR) 0.91, 99% confidence interval (CI) 0.88 to 0.95) and improving overall survival (HR 0.95, 99% CI 0.92 to 0.98). No heterogeneity was observed in the analysis based on primary outcomes or overall survival (I(2) = 0%). Kernel density analysis was consistent with the meta-analysis, but showed a fairly symmetrical distribution of new versus established treatments indicating unpredictability in the results. This was consistent with the interpretation that new treatments are only slightly superior to established treatments when tested in RCTs. Additionally, meta-regression demonstrated that results have remained stable over time and that the success rate of new treatments has not changed over the last half century of clinical trials. The results were not significantly affected by the choice of comparator (active versus placebo/no therapy). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Society can expect that slightly more than half of new experimental treatments will prove to be better than established treatments when tested in RCTs, but few will be substantially better. This is an important finding for patients (as they contemplate participation in RCTs), researchers (as they plan design of the new trials), and funders (as they assess the 'return on investment'). Although we provide the current best evidence on the question of expected 'success rate' of new versus established treatments consistent with a priori theoretical predictions reflective of 'uncertainty or equipoise hypothesis', it should be noted that our sample represents less than 1% of all available randomized trials; therefore, one should exercise the appropriate caution in interpretation of our findings. In addition, our conclusion applies to publicly funded trials only, as we did not include studies funded by commercial sponsors in our analysis.

Treatment Sequencing Strategies in Advanced Neuroendocrine Tumors: A Review.

Neuroendocrine tumor (NET) incidence has grown. The treatment landscape for advanced NETs is rapidly evolving, but there are limited head-to-head data to guide treatment sequencing decisions. We assessed the available clinical data to aid practicing clinicians in their routine clinical decision-making. Clinical trials have demonstrated efficacy benefits for new therapies in advanced NETs. Emerging long-term data from these trials have enabled clinicians to make more accurate risk-benefit assessments, particularly for patients receiving multiple lines of therapy. However, clinical data specifically regarding treatment sequencing are limited. In lieu of definitive data, treatment sequencing should be based on disease-related factors (e.g., site of tumor origin, volume of disease) and patient-related characteristics (e.g., comorbidities, patient preferences). Clinical decision-making in advanced NETs remains highly individualized and complex; important evidence gaps regarding treatment sequencing remain. Given this, advanced NET management should be a joint effort of multidisciplinary teams at referring and high-volume centers. Additional clinical trial and real-world evidence are needed to meet the challenge of understanding how to sequence available NET therapies. Until these trials are conducted, the best practices provided in this review may serve as a guide for clinicians making treatment sequencing decisions based on the available data.

Quality of Life and Symptom Management in Advanced Biliary Tract Cancers.

Biliary tract carcinomas (BTCs) account for less than 1% of all cancers but are increasing in incidence. Prognosis is poor for BTC patients, with 5-year survival rates of less than 10%. While chemotherapy has been the mainstay treatment for patients with advanced BTC, immunotherapy and targeted therapies are being evaluated in numerous clinical trials and rapidly incorporated into clinical practice. As patients with BTC have reduced health-related quality of life (HRQoL) due to both tumor- and treatment-related symptoms, it is important for clinicians to recognize and manage these symptoms early. This review will highlight the anticipated complications from BTC and its systemic treatment, as well as their effects on HRQoL.

Stopping randomized trials early for benefit and estimation of treatment effects: systematic review and meta-regression analysis.

CONTEXT: Theory and simulation suggest that randomized controlled trials (RCTs) stopped early for benefit (truncated RCTs) systematically overestimate treatment effects for the outcome that precipitated early stopping. OBJECTIVE: To compare the treatment effect from truncated RCTs with that from meta-analyses of RCTs addressing the same question but not stopped early (nontruncated RCTs) and to explore factors associated with overestimates of effect. DATA SOURCES: Search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Current Contents, and full-text journal content databases to identify truncated RCTs up to January 2007; search of MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects to identify systematic reviews from which individual RCTs were extracted up to January 2008. STUDY SELECTION: Selected studies were RCTs reported as having stopped early for benefit and matching nontruncated RCTs from systematic reviews. Independent reviewers with medical content expertise, working blinded to trial results, judged the eligibility of the nontruncated RCTs based on their similarity to the truncated RCTs. DATA EXTRACTION: Reviewers with methodological expertise conducted data extraction independently. RESULTS: The analysis included 91 truncated RCTs asking 63 different questions and 424 matching nontruncated RCTs. The pooled ratio of relative risks in truncated RCTs vs matching nontruncated RCTs was 0.71 (95% confidence interval, 0.65-0.77). This difference was independent of the presence of a statistical stopping rule and the methodological quality of the studies as assessed by allocation concealment and blinding. Large differences in treatment effect size between truncated and nontruncated RCTs (ratio of relative risks <0.75) occurred with truncated RCTs having fewer than 500 events. In 39 of the 63 questions (62%), the pooled effects of the nontruncated RCTs failed to demonstrate significant benefit. CONCLUSIONS: Truncated RCTs were associated with greater effect sizes than RCTs not stopped early. This difference was independent of the presence of statistical stopping rules and was greatest in smaller studies.