Anatomic versus non-anatomic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma-A European multicentre cohort study in cirrhotic and non-cirrhotic patients.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is increasing in the western world over the past decades. As liver resection (LR) represents one of the most efficient treatment options, advantages of anatomic (ALR) versus non-anatomic liver resection (NALR) show a lack of consistent evidence. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate complications and survival rates after both resection types. METHODS: This is a multicentre cohort study using retrospectively and prospectively collected data. We included all patients undergoing LR for HCC between 2009 and 2020 from three specialised centres in Switzerland and Germany. Complication and survival rates after ALR versus NALR were analysed using uni- and multivariate Cox regression models. RESULTS: Two hundred and ninety-eight patients were included. Median follow-up time was 52.76 months. 164/298 patients (55%) underwent ALR. Significantly more patients with cirrhosis received NALR (n = 94/134; p < 0.001). Complications according to the Clavien Dindo classification were significantly more frequent in the NALR group (p < 0.001). Liver failure occurred in 13% after ALR versus 8% after NALR (p < 0.215). Uni- and multivariate cox regression models showed no significant differences between the groups for recurrence free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS). Furthermore, cirrhosis had no significant impact on OS and RFS. CONCLUSION: No significant differences on RFS and OS rates could be observed. Post-operative complications were significantly less frequent in the ALR group while liver specific complications were comparable between both groups. Subgroup analysis showed no significant influence of cirrhosis on the post-operative outcome of these patients.

Characteristics and survival of patients with cancer with intended off-label use-a cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the characteristics and the survival of patients with cancer with intended off-label use (OLU) cancer treatment and reimbursement request. DESIGN: Cohort study using medical record data. SETTING: Three major cancer centres in Switzerland. PARTICIPANTS: 519 patients with cancer and a reimbursement request for OLU between January 2015 and July 2018. MAIN OUTCOMES: Characteristics of patients with cancer with and without access to intended OLU. Characteristics included the Glasgow prognostic score (GPS) which includes C reactive protein and albumin and discriminates prognostic groups. RESULTS: OLU was intended for 519 (17%) of 3046 patients with cancer, as first-line treatment in 51% (n=264) and second-line in 31% (n=162). Of the 519 patients, 63% (n=328) were male, 63% (n=329) had solid cancer and 21% (n=111) had a haematological malignancy. Their median overall survival was 23.6 months (95% CI: 19.0 to 32.5). Access to OLU had 389 (75%) patients who were compared with patients without access on average 4.9 years younger (mean; 95% CI: 1.9 to 7.9 years), had a better overall prognosis according to the GPS (51% with GPS of 0 vs 39%; OR: 1.62 (95% CI: 1.01 to 2.59)), had less frequently solid cancer (62% vs 71%; OR: 0.66 (95% CI: 0.41 to 1.05)) and advanced stage cancer (53% vs 70%; OR: 0.48 (95% CI: 0.30 to 0.75)), were more frequently treatment-naive (53% vs 43%; OR: 1.55 (95% CI 1.01 to 2.39)) and were more frequently in an adjuvant/neoadjuvant treatment setting (14% vs 5%; OR: 3.39 (95% CI: 1.45 to 9.93)). Patients with access to OLU had a median OS of 31.1 months versus 8.7 months for patients without access (unadjusted HR: 0.54; (95% CI: 0.41 to 0.70)). CONCLUSION: Contrary to the common assumption, OLU in oncology is typically not primarily intended for patients with exhausted treatment options. Patient characteristics largely differ between patients with and without access to intended OLU. More systematic evaluations of the benefits and harms of OLU in cancer care and the regulation of its access is warranted.

Prediction of RECRUITment In randomized clinical Trials (RECRUIT-IT)-rationale and design for an international collaborative study.

BACKGROUND: Poor recruitment of patients is the predominant reason for early termination of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Systematic empirical investigations and validation studies of existing recruitment models, however, are lacking. We aim to provide evidence-based guidance on how to predict and monitor recruitment of patients into RCTs. Our specific objectives are the following: (1) to establish a large sample of RCTs (target n = 300) with individual patient recruitment data from a large variety of RCTs, (2) to investigate participant recruitment patterns and study site recruitment patterns and their association with the overall recruitment process, (3) to investigate the validity of a freely available recruitment model, and (4) to develop a user-friendly tool to assist trial investigators in the planning and monitoring of the recruitment process. METHODS: Eligible RCTs need to have completed the recruitment process, used a parallel group design, and investigated any healthcare intervention where participants had the free choice to participate. To establish the planned sample of RCTs, we will use our contacts to national and international RCT networks, clinical trial units, and individual trial investigators. From included RCTs, we will collect patient-level information (date of randomization), site-level information (date of trial site activation), and trial-level information (target sample size). We will examine recruitment patterns using recruitment trajectories and stratifications by RCT characteristics. We will investigate associations of early recruitment patterns with overall recruitment by correlation and multivariable regression. To examine the validity of a freely available Bayesian prediction model, we will compare model predictions to collected empirical data of included RCTs. Finally, we will user-test any promising tool using qualitative methods for further tool improvement. DISCUSSION: This research will contribute to a better understanding of participant recruitment to RCTs, which could enhance efficiency and reduce the waste of resources in clinical research with a comprehensive, concerted, international effort.

Contrasting evidence to reimbursement reality for off-label use (OLU) of drug treatments in cancer care: rationale and design of the CEIT-OLU project.

Background: Off-label use (OLU) of a drug reflects a perceived unmet medical need, which is common in oncology. Cancer drugs are often highly expensive and their reimbursement is a challenge for many healthcare systems. OLU is frequently regulated by reimbursement restrictions. For evidence-based healthcare, treatment ought to be reimbursed if there is sufficient clinical evidence for treatment benefit independently of patient factors not related to the treatment indication. However, little is known about the reality of OLU reimbursement and its association with the underlying clinical evidence. Here, we aim to investigate the relationship of reimbursement decisions with the underlying clinical evidence. Methods/ design: We will extract patient characteristics and details on treatment and reimbursement of cancer drugs from over 3000 patients treated in three Swiss hospitals. We will systematically search for clinical trial evidence on benefits associated with OLU in the most common indications. We will describe the prevalence of OLU in Switzerland and its reimbursement in cancer care, and use multivariable logistic regression techniques to investigate the association of approval/rejection of a reimbursement requests to the evidence on treatment effects and to further factors, including type of drug, molecular predictive markers and the health insurer. Discussion: Our study will provide a systematic overview and assessment of OLU and its reimbursement reality in Switzerland. We may provide a better understanding of the access to cancer care that is regulated by health insurers and we hope to identify factors that determine the level of evidence-based cancer care in a highly diverse western healthcare system.