Molecular, Socioeconomic, and Clinical Factors Affecting Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Colorectal Cancer Survival.

Importance: Disparity in overall survival (OS) and differences in the frequency of driver gene variants by race and ethnicity have been separately observed in patients with colorectal cancer; however, how these differences contribute to survival disparity is unknown. Objective: To quantify the association of molecular, socioeconomic, and clinical covariates with racial and ethnic disparities in overall survival among patients with colorectal cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This single-center cohort study was conducted at a tertiary-level cancer center using relevant data on all patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer from January 1, 1973, to March 1, 2023. The relative contribution of variables to the disparity was determined using mediation analysis with sequential multivariate Cox regression models. Main Outcome: OS, from diagnosis date and from start of first-line chemotherapy. Results: The study population of 47 178 patients (median [IQR] age, 57.0 [49-66] years; 20 465 [43.4%] females and 26 713 [56.6%] males; 3.0% Asian, 8.7% Black, 8.8% Hispanic, and 79.4% White individuals) had a median (IQR) follow-up from initial diagnosis of 124 (174) months and OS of 55 (145) months. Compared with White patients, Black patients had worse OS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.16; 95% CI, 1.09-1.24; P <.001), whereas Asian and Hispanic patients had better OS (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.59-0.74; P <.001; and 0.86; 95% CI, 0.81-0.92; P <.001, respectively). When restricted to patients with metastatic disease, the greatest disparity was between Black patients compared with White patients (HR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.06-1.37; P <.001). Evaluating changes in OS disparity over 20 years showed disparity decreasing among Asian, Hispanic, and White patients, but increasing between Black patients and White patients (HRs, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.07-1.31 for 2008-2012; 1.24, 95% CI, 1.08-1.42 for 2013-2017; and 1.50; 95% CI, 1.20-1.87 for 2018-2023). Survival outcomes for first-line chemotherapy were worse for Black patients compared with White patients (median OS, 18 vs 26 months; HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.01-1.70). Among 7628 patients who had clinical molecular testing, APC, KRAS, and PIK3CA showed higher variant frequency in Black patients (false discovery rate [FDR], 0.01; < 0.001; and 0.01, respectively), whereas BRAF and KIT were higher among White patients (FDR, 0.001 and 0.01). Mediation analysis identified neighborhood socioeconomic status as the greatest contributor to OS disparity (29%), followed by molecular characteristics (microsatellite instability status, KRAS variation and BRAF variation, 10%), and tumor sidedness (9%). Conclusions: This single-center cohort study identified substantial OS disparity and differing frequencies of driver gene variations by race and ethnicity. Socioeconomic status had the largest contribution but accounted for less than one-third of the disparity, with substantial contribution from tumor molecular features. Further study of the associations of genetic ancestry and the molecular pathogenesis of colorectal cancer with chemotherapy response is needed.

Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) as a biomarker of response to therapy in advanced Hepatocellular carcinoma treated with Nivolumab.

BACKGROUND: Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) is a promising non-invasive marker for detection, diagnosis, treatment selection, and prognosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine the utility of ctDNA as a prognostic and predictive tool in HCC patients treated with nivolumab. METHODS: We analyzed pre-treatment ctDNA from 44 HCC patients using comprehensive genomic testing on a commercially available platform. We utilized log rank test and univariate Cox models to correlate overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) with ctDNA expressions. RESULTS: Of 44 patients, 77.3% were men with median age of 67 years. All but 3 patients had at least one alteration identified, and TP53 was the most commonly altered gene (52.3%). Median OS was 17.5 months (95% CI: 12.7, NA). Mutations involving PIK3CA, BRCA1, and CCND1 amplification were associated with shorter OS (P 0.0001, 0.0001 and 0.01, respectively). Median PFS time was 4.01 months (95% CI: 3.06, 9.33). Mutations involving KIT and PIK3CA were associated with shorter PFS (P 0.0001 and 0.0004, respectively), while mutation involving CTNNB1 were associated with longer PFS (p= 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: ctDNA profiling may provide a benefit for prediction of survival and progression of HCC patients treated with nivolumab. Future studies are needed for confirmation.

Addition of Metastasis-Directed Therapy to Systemic Therapy for Oligometastatic Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma (EXTEND): A Multicenter, Randomized Phase II Trial.

PURPOSE: The EXTEND trial tested the hypothesis that adding comprehensive metastasis-directed therapy (MDT) to chemotherapy would improve progression-free survival (PFS) over chemotherapy alone among patients with oligometastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). METHODS: EXTEND (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03599765) is a multicenter, phase II basket trial randomly assigning patients with ≤five metastases 1:1 to MDT plus systemic therapy versus systemic therapy. Disease progression was defined by radiologic criteria (RECIST v1.1), clinical progression, or death. The primary end point was PFS in the per-protocol population, evaluated after all patients achieved at least 6 months of follow-up. Exploratory end points included systemic immune response measures. RESULTS: Between March 19, 2019, and February 13, 2023, 41 patients were randomly assigned and 40 were eligible for the primary analysis of PFS (19 patients in the MDT arm; 21 patients in the control arm). At a median follow-up time of 17 months, the median PFS time was 10.3 months (95% CI, 4.6 to 14.0) in the MDT arm versus 2.5 months (95% CI, 1.7 to 5.1) in the control arm. PFS was significantly improved by the addition of MDT to systemic therapy (P = .030 for stratified log-rank test) with a hazard ratio of 0.43 (95% CI, 0.20 to 0.94). No grade ≥3 or greater adverse events related to MDT were observed. Systemic immune activation events were associated with MDT and correlated with improved PFS. CONCLUSION: This study supports the addition of MDT to systemic therapy for patients with oligometastatic PDAC. Induction of systemic immunity is a possible mechanism of benefit. These results warrant confirmatory trials to refine treatment strategy and provide external validation.

Transarterial (chemo)embolisation versus systemic chemotherapy for colorectal cancer liver metastases.

BACKGROUND: The liver is affected by two groups of malignant tumours: primary liver cancers and liver metastases. Liver metastases are significantly more common than primary liver cancer, and five-year survival after radical surgical treatment of liver metastases ranges from 28% to 50%, depending on primary cancer site. However, R0 resection (resection for cure) is not feasible in most people; therefore, other treatments have to be considered in the case of non-resectability. One possible option is based on the concept that the blood supply to hepatic tumours originates predominantly from the hepatic artery. Transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) of the peripheral branches of the hepatic artery can be achieved by administering a chemotherapeutic drug followed by vascular occlusive agents and can lead to selective necrosis of the cancer tissue while leaving normal liver parenchyma virtually unaffected. The entire procedure can be performed without infusion of chemotherapy and is then called bland transarterial embolisation (TAE). These procedures are usually applied over a few sessions. Another possible treatment option is systemic chemotherapy which, in the case of colorectal cancer metastases, is most commonly performed using FOLFOX (folinic acid, 5-fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin) and FOLFIRI (folinic acid, 5-fluorouracil, and irinotecan) regimens applied in multiple sessions over a long period of time. These therapies disrupt the cell cycle, leading to death of rapidly dividing malignant cells. Current guidelines determine the role of TAE and TACE as non-curative treatment options applicable in people with liver-only or liver-dominant metastatic disease that is unresectable or non-ablatable, and in people who have failed systemic chemotherapy. Regarding the treatment modalities in people with colorectal cancer liver metastases, we found no systematic reviews comparing the efficacy of TAE or TACE versus systemic chemotherapy. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the beneficial and harmful effects of transarterial embolisation (TAE) or transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) compared with systemic chemotherapy in people with liver-dominant unresectable colorectal cancer liver metastases. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and three additional databases up to 4 April 2024. We also searched two trials registers and the European Medicines Agency database and checked reference lists of retrieved publications. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised clinical trials assessing beneficial and harmful effects of TAE or TACE versus systemic chemotherapy in adults (aged 18 years or older) with colorectal cancer liver metastases. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality; overall survival (time to mortality); and any adverse events or complications. Our secondary outcomes were cancer mortality; health-related quality of life; progression-free survival; proportion of participants dying or surviving with progression of the disease; time to progression of liver metastases; recurrence of liver metastases; and tumour response measures (complete response, partial response, stable disease, and progressive disease). For the purpose of the review and to perform necessary analyses, whenever possible, we converted survival rates to mortality rates, as this was our primary outcome. For the analysis of dichotomous outcomes, we used the risk ratio (RR); for continuous outcomes, we used the mean difference; and for time to event outcomes, we calculated hazard ratios (HRs), all with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used the standardised mean difference with 95% CIs when the trials used different instruments. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. We based our conclusions on outcomes analysed at the longest follow-up. MAIN RESULTS: We included three trials with 118 participants randomised to TACE versus 120 participants to systemic chemotherapy. Four participants were excluded; one due to disease progression prior to treatment and three due to decline in health. The trials reported data on one or more outcomes. Two trials were performed in China and one in Italy. The trials differed in terms of embolisation techniques and chemotherapeutic agents. Follow-up ranged from 12 months to 50 months. TACE may reduce mortality at longest follow-up (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.94; 3 trials, 234 participants; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain. TACE may have little to no effect on overall survival (time to mortality) (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.01; 1 trial, 70 participants; very low-certainty evidence), any adverse events or complications (3 trials, 234 participants; very low-certainty evidence), health-related quality of life (2 trials, 154 participants; very low-certainty evidence), progression-free survival (1 trial, 70 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and tumour response measures (presented as the overall response rate) (RR 1.81, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.96; 3 trials, 234 participants; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain. No trials reported cancer mortality, proportion of participants dying or surviving with progression of the disease, and recurrence of liver metastases. We found no trials comparing the effects of TAE versus systemic chemotherapy in people with colorectal cancer liver metastases. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence regarding effectiveness of TACE versus systemic chemotherapy in people with colorectal cancer liver metastases is of very low certainty and is based on three trials. Our confidence in the results is limited due to the risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, and imprecision. It is very uncertain whether TACE confers benefits with regard to reduction in mortality, overall survival (time to mortality), reduction in adverse events or complications, improvement in health-related quality of life, improvement in progression-free survival, and tumour response measures (presented as the overall response rate). Data on cancer mortality, proportion of participants dying or surviving with progression of the disease, and recurrence of liver metastases are lacking. We found no trials assessing TAE versus systemic chemotherapy. More randomised clinical trials are needed to strengthen the body of evidence and provide insight into the benefits and harms of TACE or TAE in comparison with systemic chemotherapy in people with liver metastases from colorectal cancer.

Clinical and molecular characteristics of patients with brain metastasis secondary to pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The prognosis for patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is poor. Secondary brain metastasis (Br-M) occurs in less than 1% of patients. Clinical characteristics and molecular alterations have not been characterized in this rare patients' subset. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Foundry software platform was used to retrospectively query electronic health records for patients with Br-M secondary to PDAC from 2005 to 2023; clinical, molecular, and overall survival (OS) data were analyzed. RESULTS: Br-M was diagnosed in 44 patients with PDAC. Median follow-up was 78 months; median OS from initial PDAC diagnosis was 47 months. Median duration from PDAC diagnosis to Br-M detection was 24 months; median OS from Br-M diagnosis was 3 months. At Br-M diagnosis, 82% (n = 36) of patients had elevated CA19-9. Lung was the most common preexisting metastatic location (71%) with Br-M, followed by liver (66%). Br-M were most frequently observed in the frontal lobe (34%, n = 15), cerebellar region (23%, n = 10), and leptomeninges (18%, n = 8). KRAS mutations were detected in 94.1% (n = 16) of patients who had molecular data available (n = 17) with KRASG12V being the most frequent subtype 47% (n = 8); KRASG12D in 29% (n = 5); KRASG12R in 18% (n = 3). Patients who underwent Br-M surgical resection (n = 5) had median OS of 8.6 months, while median OS following stereotactic radiosurgery only (n = 11) or whole-brain radiation only (n = 20) was 3.3 and 2.8 months, respectively. CONCLUSION: Br-M is a late PDAC complication, resulting in an extremely poor prognosis especially in leptomeningeal disease. KRAS was mutated in 94.1% of the patients and the KRASG12V subtype was prevalent.

Introducing the LATITUDES network: a library of assessment tools and training to improve transparency, utility and dissemination in evidence synthesis.

An assessment of the validity of studies is an essential component of most evidence syntheses (systematic reviews) to understand the risk of bias (ROB) and applicability of the evidence. A formal validity assessment requires a structured and comprehensive approach, which can be implemented using an assessment tool, specifically developed for this purpose. Many different tools are available, marking it difficult for researchers to choose the best tool for their evidence synthesis. We have established the LATITUDES Network to assist researchers in identifying the most appropriate tool to use in their evidence synthesis and to support researchers using these tools. The LATITUDES website (www.latitudes-network.org) includes a searchable library of validity assessment tools designed for use in evidence syntheses, bringing tools together in one place and providing researchers with clear information on suitable tools, categorized by study design. The website also provides links to training on the process of validity assessment and a list of tools currently under development. To be included in the LATITUDES library, tools must meet the following criteria: be designed for use in evidence syntheses; assess multidimensional aspects of validity of individual studies or reviews; and be developed for use by the wider research community rather than for a single research group. We highlight 'key' tools, those that are considered to be the most robust and reliable tools based on prespecified criteria agreed in conjunction with our advisory board, an international group of experts in the area of evidence synthesis and ROB tools.

Circulating KRAS G12D but not G12V is associated with survival in metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

While high circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) levels are associated with poor survival for multiple cancers, variant-specific differences in the association of ctDNA levels and survival have not been examined. Here we investigate KRAS ctDNA (ctKRAS) variant-specific associations with overall and progression-free survival (OS/PFS) in first-line metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC) for patients receiving chemoimmunotherapy ("PRINCE", NCT03214250), and an independent cohort receiving standard of care (SOC) chemotherapy. For PRINCE, higher baseline plasma levels are associated with worse OS for ctKRAS G12D (log-rank p = 0.0010) but not G12V (p = 0.7101), even with adjustment for clinical covariates. Early, on-therapy clearance of G12D (p = 0.0002), but not G12V (p = 0.4058), strongly associates with OS for PRINCE. Similar results are obtained for the SOC cohort, and for PFS in both cohorts. These results suggest ctKRAS G12D but not G12V as a promising prognostic biomarker for mPDAC and that G12D clearance could also serve as an early biomarker of response.

Stereotactic radiosurgery and radiotherapy for brainstem metastases: An international multicenter analysis.

Brainstem metastases (BSM) present a significant neuro-oncological challenge, resulting in profound neurological deficits and poor survival outcomes. Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) and fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (FSRT) offer promising therapeutic avenues for BSM despite their precarious location. This international multicenter study investigates the efficacy and safety of SRS and FSRT in 136 patients with 144 BSM treated at nine institutions from 2005 to 2022. The median radiographic and clinical follow-up periods were 6.8 and 9.4 months, respectively. Predominantly, patients with BSM were managed with SRS (69.4%). The median prescription dose and isodose line for SRS were 18 Gy and 65%, respectively, while for FSRT, the median prescription dose was 21 Gy with a median isodose line of 70%. The 12-, 24-, and 36-month local control (LC) rates were 82.9%, 71.4%, and 61.2%, respectively. Corresponding overall survival rates at these time points were 61.1%, 34.7%, and 19.3%. In the multivariable Cox regression analysis for LC, only the minimum biologically effective dose was significantly associated with LC, favoring higher doses for improved control (in Gy, hazard ratio [HR]: 0.86, p < .01). Regarding overall survival, good performance status (Karnofsky performance status, ≥90%; HR: 0.43, p < .01) and prior whole brain radiotherapy (HR: 2.52, p < .01) emerged as associated factors. In 14 BSM (9.7%), treatment-related adverse events were noted, with a total of five (3.4%) radiation necrosis. SRS and FSRT for BSM exhibit efficacy and safety, making them suitable treatment options for affected patients.

The quality of COVID-19 systematic reviews during the coronavirus 2019 pandemic: an exploratory comparison.

BACKGROUND: The unprecedented volume and speed at which COVID-19-related systematic reviews (SRs) may have been produced has raised questions regarding the quality of this evidence. It is feasible that pandemic-related factors may have led to an impairment in quality (reduced internal validity, increased risk of bias [RoB]). This may have serious implications for decision-making related to public health and individual healthcare. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective was to compare the quality of SRs published during the pandemic that were related to COVID-19 with SRs published during the pandemic that were unrelated to COVID-19 (all of which were fully appraised in the KSR Evidence database of SRs in healthcare). Our secondary objective was to compare the quality of SRs published during the pandemic (regardless of research topic), with SRs published pre-pandemic. METHODS: We compared all SRs related to COVID-19 to all SRs unrelated to COVID-19 that (i) were published during the pandemic (between 1st March 2020 and September 14, 2022), (ii) were included in KSR Evidence, and (iii) had been appraised using the ROBIS tool. We then compared all SRs published during the pandemic (regardless of research topic) with a pre-pandemic sample of SRs. RESULTS: For SRs published during the pandemic, we found there was no statistically significant difference in quality between those SRs tagged as being related to COVID-19 and those that were not [relative risk (RR) of low RoB for COVID-19 versus COVID-19-unrelated reviews: 0.94; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.66 to 1.34]. Generally, COVID-19 SRs and COVID-19-unrelated SRs were both of low quality with only 10% of COVID-19 reviews and 11% of COVID-19-unrelated reviews rated as low RoB. However, SRs (regardless of topic) published during the pandemic were of lower quality than those published pre-pandemic (RR for low RoB for 'during pandemic' versus 'pre-pandemic': 0.30; 95% CI: 0.26 to 0.34) with 11% of pandemic and 36% of pre-pandemic SRs rated as low RoB. CONCLUSION: These results suggest COVID-19 and COVID-19-unrelated SRs published during the pandemic are equally of low quality. SRs published during the pandemic were generally lower quality compared with SRs published pre-pandemic irrespective of COVID-19 focus. Moreover, SR quality in general is seriously lacking, and considerable efforts need to be made to substantially improve the quality and rigour of the SR process.