A systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of radiation-related lymphopenia on outcomes in pancreatic cancer.

Background: Pancreatic cancer is a devastating disease with a 5-year survival rate of 5-10%. Radiation is commonly used in neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings to improve local control. Studies have shown that circulating lymphocyte count depletion after radiation has been associated with poor tumor control and inferior overall survival (OS) outcomes. Method: To better understand the impact of radiation-associated lymphopenia in pancreatic cancer, the authors undertook this systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical studies that have reported radiation-related lymphopenia in pancreatic cancer. Results: A systematic methodology search of PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library resulted in 2969 abstracts. Nine studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Six studies reported on outcomes in patients undergoing definitive chemoradiation and three studies comparing outcomes in stereotactic body radiotherapy versus definitive chemoradiation. The patients with severe lymphopenia were at increased risk of death with a pooled hazard ratio of 2.33 (95% CI: 1.79, 3.03; I2: 36%; p < 0.001) compared with patients with no severe lymphopenia. The odds of developing severe lymphopenia were 1.12 (95% CI: 0.45, 2.79; I2: 95%; p < 0.81). The pooled mean difference for OS was -6.80 months (95% CI: -10.35, -3.24; I2: 99%; p < 0.002), suggesting that patients who develop grade 3 or 4 lymphopenia have inferior median OS outcomes. Limiting the mean splenic dose to less than 9 Gy as well as various spleen dosimetric parameters such as visit (V)10 <32%, V15 <23% and V20 <15.4% can reduce the incidence of severe lymphopenia. Conclusion: Radiation-related lymphopenia is associated with an increased hazard of death and inferior median OS. Spleen dosimetric parameters correlate with the incidence of severe lymphopenia and with sub-optimal survival outcomes. There is a need to validate these findings in prospective studies.

The mechanistic rationale of drugs, primary endpoints, geographical distribution of clinical trials against severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus-2: A systematic review.

There are numerous ongoing studies assessing treatment options for preventing, treating, and managing complications of coronavirus disease-2019 disease. The objective of this study was to do a systematic review and critical appraisal of the ongoing clinical trials with an aim to provide insight into the various interventions tested, clinical rationale, geographical distribution of the trials as well as the endpoints assessed in the studies. ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and PubMed were assessed till 11 May 2020. The search resulted in 3242 ongoing studies of which 829 studies were included. There are 134 different drug-based interventions being assessed in 463 clinical trials as treatment options China accounts for 35% of all ongoing clinical studies followed by USA 23% and other countries together account for 42%. Amongst the 463 studies assessing drug-based treatment options, studies that are funded by federal and academic institutions are 79.6%, pharmaceutical company-funded studies are 15.11%, and no funding information is available in 5.10%. The definitive outcomes like mortality are being assessed as primary outcome in 22.8% of the studies only and need for ventilator in 6.2% of the studies. Amongst the pharmaceutical company-funded drug-based studies, only 20% of the studies had mortality as the primary outcome. Only 5.5% of the ongoing clinical trials are specifically designed to assess the most vulnerable population like elderly, patients with comorbidities and cancer. Multiple intervention-based clinical studies against severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus-2 are being performed throughout the world with a high concentration of clinical trials in the developed world with concern that of elderly and patients with comorbidities are being underrepresented and definite endpoints like mortality are being assessed in only one-fifth of the studies.

A Systematic Review of Clinical Trials Comparing Radiation Therapy Versus Radical Prostatectomy in Prostate Cancer.

The treatment landscape for localized and regional prostate cancer includes active surveillance, radiation therapy (RT), and radical prostatectomy (RP). Population-based studies comparing RP to radiation reveal conflicting results due to methodological flaws. This systematic review and pooled analysis of studies aim to compare cause-specific survival (CSS), overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS) and toxicity outcomes, comparing RP to RT in the management of prostate cancer. This systematic review search included the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane libraries according to the PRISMA statement with the inception of each database up to June 24, 2023. Randomized phase 2 or 3 clinical trials that compared RP to RT in prostate cancer were included. The forest plot for the Odds ratio (OR) was plotted using the Mantel-Haenszel method, and the Z test was used to assess significance. A fixed effects model was used for meta-analysis. The search yielded seven completed randomized clinical trials and four ongoing trials. The majority of complete trials had low to intermediate-risk patient populations. OR for OS was 1.00 with 95% CI, 0.71-1.41 (P-value: 0.98), CSS OR was 0.99 with 95% CI, 0.45-2.18 (P-value 0.11), OR for DFS was 1.26 with 95% CI, 0.89-1.78 (P-value 0.19) when comparing RP to RT. The rate of distant metastatic disease was 2.3% in the RP versus 2.9% in the RT at 10 years. The rate of second malignant neoplasms was 4.5% in the RP compared to 4.2% in the RT arm at 10 years. RP caused more urinary symptoms, with a predominance of the need for urinary pads and a higher incidence of sexual dysfunction, and RT caused a higher incidence of bowel symptoms, such as blood in stools and fecal incontinence. This study provides evidence that the treatment-related outcomes are similar in patients with low to intermediate-risk prostate cancer when comparing RP to RT. Multidisciplinary treatment approaches and factoring patients' values and preferences should form the cornerstone of the ideal treatment option for each patient with localized prostate cancer. Patients with prostate cancer have an equal chance of being cancer-free and alive at 10 years with either RP or RT. In terms of side effects, RP causes more urine leakage and loss of erections, whereas RT tends to cause more bowel side effects, such as blood in stools and fecal leakage.

Demography, patterns of care, and survival outcomes in patients with salivary duct carcinoma: an individual patient data analysis of 857 patients.

Aim: Salivary duct carcinoma (SDC) is a rare and aggressive malignancy. The optimal treatment protocols are debated. Methodology: A systematic search and individual patient data analysis of published cases of SDC was performed. SPSS v21 was used for statistical analysis. Results: Data of 857 patients available. Median overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) of the entire cohort 42 months and 24 months. Nodal involvement, males, primary size >5 cm, androgen receptor (AR) negativity significantly worse OS. Patients with surgery had a favorable median PFS (p = 0.000) and OS (p = 0.077). Patients with adjuvant radiation had better PFS (30 vs 18 months; p = 0.077). Conclusion: SDC has modest survival. Surgery and adjuvant radiation should be advocated for all patients. AR expression appears prognostic for survival.