Intrarenal pressure detection during flexible ureteroscopy with fiber optic pressure sensor system in porcine model.

To validate the feasibility of a fiber-optic pressure sensor-based pressure measurement device for monitoring intrarenal pressure and to analyze the effects of ureteral acess sheath (UAS) type, surgical location, perfusion flow rate, and measurement location on intrarenal pressure (IRP). The measurement deviations and response times to transient pressure changes were compared between a fiber-optic pressure sensing device and a urodynamic device IRP in an in vitro porcine kidney and in a water tank. Finally, pressure measurements were performed in anesthetized female pigs using fiber-optic pressure sensing device with different UAS, different perfusion flow rates, and different surgical positions at different renal calyces and ureteropelvic junctions (UPJ). According to our operation, the result is fiber optic pressure sensing devices are highly accurate and sensitive. Under the same conditions, IRP varied among different renal calyces and UPJ (P < 0.05). IRP was lowest at 50 ml/min and highest at 150 ml/min (P < 0.05). Surgical position had a significant effect on IRP (P < 0.05). 12/14 Fr UAS had a lower IRP than 11/13 Fr UAS. Therefore fiber optic pressure sensing devices are more advantageous for IRP measurements. In ureteroscopy, the type of ureteral sheath, the surgical position, the perfusion flow rate, and the location of the measurement all affect the intrarenal pressure value.

The clinicopathologic and molecular features, and treatment outcome of fumarate hydratase-deficient renal cell carcinoma: a retrospective comparison with type 2 papillary renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: To compare clinicopathologic, molecular features, and treatment outcome between fumarate hydratase-deficient renal cell carcinoma (FH-dRCC) and type 2 papillary renal cell carcinoma (T2 pRCC). METHODS: Data of T2 pRCC patients and FH-dRCC patients with additional next-generation sequencing information were retrospectively analyzed. The cancer-specific survival (CSS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were primary endpoint. RESULTS: A combination of FH and 2-succino-cysteine (2-SC) increased the rate of negative predictive value of FH-dRCC. Compared with T2 pRCC cases, FH-dRCC cases displayed a greater prevalence in young patients, a higher frequency of radical nephrectomy. Seven FH-dRCC and two T2 pRCC cases received systemic therapy. The VEGF treatment was prescribed most frequently, with an objective response rate (ORR) of 22.2% and a disease control rate (DCR) of 30%. A combined therapy with VEGF and checkpoint inhibitor reported an ORR of 40% and a DCR of 100%. FH-dRCC cases showed a shortened CSS (P = 0.042) and DFS (P < 0.001). The genomic sequencing revealed 9 novel mutations. CONCLUSIONS: Coupled with genetic detection, immunohistochemical biomarkers (FH and 2-SC) can distinguish the aggressive FH-dRCC from T2 pRCC. Future research is awaited to illuminate the association between the novel mutations and the clinical phenotypes of FH-dRCC in the disease progression.

Development and validation of a nomogram for predicting the impact of tumor size on cancer-specific survival of locally advanced renal cell carcinoma: a SEER-based study.

This study was aimed to integrate tumor size with other prognostic factors into a prognostic nomogram to predict cancer-specific survival (CSS) in locally advanced (≥pT3a Nany M0) renal cell carcinoma (RCC) patients. Based on the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database, 10,800 patients diagnosed with locally advanced RCC were collected. They were randomly divided into a training cohort (n = 7,056) and a validation cohort (n = 3,024). X-tile program was used to identify the optimal cut-off value of tumor size and age. The cut-off of age at diagnosis was 65 years old and 75 years old. The cut-off of tumor size was 54 mm and 119 mm. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses were performed in the training cohort to identify independent prognostic factors for construction of nomogram. Then, the nomogram was used to predict the 1-, 3- and 5-year CSS. The performance of nomogram was evaluated by using concordance index (C-index), area under the Subject operating curve (AUC) and decision curve analysis (DCA). Moreover, the nomogram and tumor node metastasis (TNM) staging system (AJCC 8th edition) were compared. 10 variables were screened to develop the nomogram. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) indicated satisfactory ability of the nomogram. Compared with the AJCC 8th edition of TNM stage, DCA showed that the nomogram had improved performance. We developed and validated a nomogram for predicting the CSS of patients with locally advanced RCC, which was more precise than the AJCC 8th edition of TNM staging system.

Developing real-world comparators for clinical trials in chemotherapy-refractory patients with gastric cancer or gastroesophageal junction cancer.

BACKGROUND: There are few third-line or later (3L+) treatment options for advanced/metastatic (adv/met) gastric cancer/gastroesophageal junction cancers (GC/GEJC). 3L+ Nivolumab demonstrated encouraging results in Asian patients in the ATTRACTION-2 study compared with placebo (12-month survival, 26% vs 11%), and in Western patients in the single-arm CheckMate 032 study (12-month survival, 44%). This analysis aimed to establish comparator cohorts of US patients receiving routine care in real-world (RW) clinical practice. METHODS: A 2-step matching process generated RW cohorts from Flatiron Health's oncology database (January 1, 2011-April 30, 2017), for comparison with each trial: (1) clinical trial eligibility criteria were applied; (2) patients were frequency-matched with trial arms for baseline variables significantly associated with survival. Median overall survival (OS) was calculated by Kaplan-Meier analysis from last treatment until death. RESULTS: Of 742 adv/met GC/GEJC patients with at least 2 prior lines of therapy, matching generated 90 US RW ATTRACTION-2-matched patients (median OS: 3.5 months) versus 163 ATTRACTION-2 placebo patients (median OS: 4.1 months), and 100 US RW CheckMate 032-matched patients (median OS: 2.9 months) versus 42 CheckMate 032 nivolumab-treated patients (median OS: 8.5 months). Baseline characteristics were generally similar between clinical trial arms and RW-matched cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: We successfully developed RW cohorts for comparison with data from clinical trials, with comparable baseline characteristics. Survival in US patients receiving RW care was similar to that seen in Asian patients receiving placebo in ATTRACTION-2; survival with nivolumab in CheckMate 032 appeared favorable compared with US RW clinical practice.

Correction to: Developing real-world comparators for clinical trials in chemotherapy-refractory patients with gastric cancer or gastroesophageal junction cancer.

ping real-world comparators for.

Real-world Treatment Patterns and Clinical Outcomes Across Lines of Therapy in Patients With Advanced/Metastatic Gastric or Gastroesophageal Junction Cancer.

BACKGROUND: First-line (1L) and second-line (2L) therapies for advanced/metastatic gastric cancer (GC) and gastroesophageal junction cancer (GEJC) have modest efficacy, and therapeutic options in subsequent lines are limited as disease progresses. We assessed real-world treatment patterns and outcomes for advanced/metastatic GC/GEJC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Adult patients diagnosed with advanced/metastatic GC/GEJC between January 1, 2011 and April 30, 2018 were identified using the Flatiron Health database. Median overall survival (OS) from start of each line of therapy until death was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Duration of therapy (DoT) was time from start date until end date of each line. RESULTS: We identified 3291 patients with advanced/metastatic GC/GEJC adenocarcinoma. At diagnosis, the median age was 68 years, 60% were white, 53% had initial stage IV disease, and 57% had GC. Of these 3291 patients, most (75%) received at least 1 therapy; 32% received 2L, 14% received third-line (3L) therapy, and 6% received at least 4 lines of therapy (4L+). The median OS from start of 1L was 10.7 months (2L, 7.6 months; 3L, 6.1 months; 4L+, 2.8 months). The median DoT in 1L was 2.2 months (2L, 2.1 months; 3L, 1.7 months; 4L+, 3.0 months). Use of targeted and immunotherapies generally increased progressively with each subsequent line of therapy. CONCLUSION: One-quarter of patients with advanced/metastatic GC/GEJC remained untreated, and only approximately one-half of patients receiving 1L therapy received subsequent treatment. In all lines of therapy, OS was generally poor and DoT was short. More effective treatment options are needed across all lines of therapy for this highly burdensome disease.

Safety of Nivolumab plus Low-Dose Ipilimumab in Previously Treated Microsatellite Instability-High/Mismatch Repair-Deficient Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Early detection and management of treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) in patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors may improve outcomes. In CheckMate 142, nivolumab (3 mg/kg) plus low-dose ipilimumab (1 mg/kg) provided durable clinical benefit (objective response rate [ORR] 55%, median duration of response not reached, 12-month overall survival [OS] rate 85%) and manageable safety for previously treated microsatellite instability-high and/or mismatch repair-deficient (MSI-H/dMMR) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). In-depth safety and additional efficacy outcomes from CheckMate 142 are presented. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Safety assessments included frequency of TRAEs, select TRAEs (sTRAEs), and immune-mediated adverse event incidences; time to onset (TTO); time to resolution (TTR); immune-modulating medication (IMM) use; dose delay; and sTRAE occurrence after resuming therapy. Efficacy assessments included ORR and survival analyses in patients with sTRAEs with or without concomitant IMM treatment and patients without sTRAEs. RESULTS: Among 119 patients, 25%, 23%, 19%, 5%, 5%, and 29% experienced an endocrine, gastrointestinal, hepatic, pulmonary, renal, or skin sTRAE, respectively; the majority (57%) were grade 1/2. sTRAEs occurred early (median TTO, 5.2-12.6 weeks). Nonendocrine sTRAEs resolved in most (>71%) patients (median TTR, 1.5-9.0 weeks). IMMs were used to manage sTRAEs in 22%-56% of patients (most resolved). Of patients with dose delay because of sTRAEs, 25 of 29 resumed treatment. Patients with or without sTRAEs had comparable ORR (57% vs. 52%) and 12-month OS rates (93% vs. 75%). Similar results were observed in patients with or without sTRAEs regardless of IMM use (ORR 52% vs. 57%; OS rates 87% vs. 82%). CONCLUSION: The benefit-risk profile of nivolumab plus low-dose ipilimumab provides a promising treatment option for patients with previously treated MSI-H/dMMR mCRC. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Nivolumab (NIVO) plus low-dose (1 mg/kg) ipilimumab (IPI) received U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval for patients with microsatellite instability-high and/or mismatch repair-deficient (MSI-H/dMMR) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) that progressed following treatment with a fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan based on results from CheckMate 142. In this safety analysis, the majority of select treatment-related adverse events (sTRAEs) occurred early, were managed using evidence-based treatment algorithms, and resolved. Efficacy outcomes were comparable between patients with or without sTRAEs regardless of the use of concomitant immune-modulating medications. The benefit-risk profile of NIVO + low-dose IPI provides a promising treatment option for MSI-H/dMMR mCRC.