Role of Resection Following Focal Progression with Standard Doses of Imatinib in Patients with Advanced Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors: Results of Propensity Score Analyses.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data on the clinical benefits of adding surgical resection in patients with focally progressive gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST). This study aims to compare the clinical outcomes of resection plus imatinib dose escalation or maintenance (S group) with imatinib dose escalation alone (NS group) in patients with advanced GIST following focal progression (FP) with standard doses of imatinib. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 90 patients with advanced GISTs who experienced FP with standard doses of imatinib were included in this retrospective analysis. The primary endpoints were time to imatinib treatment failure (TTF) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Compared with the NS group (n = 52), patients in the S group (n = 38) had a higher proportion of primary tumor site involvement and lower tumor burden at FP. With a median follow-up duration of 31.0 months, patients in the S group had significantly better TTF and OS than patients in the NS group (median TTF: 24.2 vs. 6.5 months, p < .01; median OS: 53.2 vs. 35.1 months, p = .009). Multivariate analysis showed that S group independently demonstrated better TTF (hazard ratio [HR], 0.29; p < .01) and OS (HR, 0.47; p = .01). Even after applying inverse probability of treatment-weighting adjustments, S group demonstrated significantly better TTF (HR, 0.36; p < .01) and OS (HR, 0.58; p = .049). CONCLUSION: Our results suggested that resection following FP with standard doses of imatinib in patients with advanced GIST provides additional benefits over imatinib dose escalation alone. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This is the first study to compare the clinical outcomes of resection plus imatinib dose escalation or maintenance (S group) with imatinib dose escalation alone (NS group) in patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) following focal progression (FP) with standard doses of imatinib. These findings suggest that resection can be safely performed following FP, and the addition of surgical resection provides further clinical benefit over imatinib dose escalation alone. Based on these results, the authors recommend resection following FP in patients with advanced GIST provided that an experienced multidisciplinary team is involved in the patient's treatment.

The Prognosis and the Role of Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Node-Positive Bladder Cancer Treated with Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Followed by Surgery.

PURPOSE: This study aims to evaluate the prognosis of pathologically node-positive bladder cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, the role of adjuvant chemotherapy in these patients, and the value of preoperative clinical evaluation for lymph node metastases. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by partial/radical cystectomy and had pathologically confirmed lymph node metastases between January 2007 and December 2019 were identified and analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 53 patients were included in the study. The median age was 61 years (range, 34 to 81 years) with males comprising 86.8%. Among the 52 patients with post-neoadjuvant/pre-operative computed tomography results, only 33 patients (63.5%) were considered positive for lymph node metastasis. Sixteen patients (30.2%) received adjuvant chemotherapy (AC group), and 37 patients did not (no AC group). With the median follow-up duration of 67.7 months, the median recurrence-free survival (RFS) and the median overall survival (OS) was 8.5 months and 16.2 months, respectively. The 2-year RFS and OS rates were 23.3% and 34.6%, respectively. RFS and OS did not differ between the AC group and no AC group (median RFS, 8.8 months vs. 6.8 months, p=0.772; median OS, 16.1 months vs. 16.3 months, p=0.479). Thirty-eight patients (71.7%) experienced recurrence. Distant metastases were the dominant pattern of failure in both the AC group (91.7%) and no AC group (76.9%). CONCLUSION: Patients with lymph node-positive disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery showed high recurrence rates with limited survival outcomes. Little benefit was observed with the addition of adjuvant chemotherapy.

Comparison of clinical outcomes in patients with localized or locally advanced urothelial carcinoma treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy involving gemcitabine-cisplatin and high dose-intensity MVAC.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy and safety of high dose-intensity combination of methotrexate, vinblastine, adriamycin and cisplatin (HD MVAC) with gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GC) as a neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) or locally advanced upper tract urothelial cancer (UTUC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted for patients with UC (cT2-4aN0-1M0) who received NAC from January 2011 and December 2017 at Asan Medical Center. Pathologic complete response (pCR), down-staging (< ypT2 and no N upstaging), disease-free survival (DFS), OS and safety were compared for each regimen. RESULTS: Out of a total of 277 patients, 176 patients received GC and 41 patients received HD MVAC. With the exception of age (patients receiving HD MVAC were younger; p = 0.002), other baseline characteristics were well balanced between groups. pCR rates were 27.0% for GC and 22.6% for HD MVAC (p = 0.62), and down-staging rate was 50.8% for GC and 58.1% for HD MVAC (p = 0.47). There were no differences in OS (72.1% vs 73.1% for GC vs HD MVAC; p = 0.58) and DFS (54.9% vs 63.3% for GC vs HD MVAC; p = 0.21) at 3 years. HD MVAC with prophylactic G-CSF was associated with a higher incidence of febrile neutropenia (p < 0.001) than GC. The NAC regimen was not an independent prognostic factor for OS. CONCLUSION: Oncologic outcomes were not significantly different between the GC and HD MVAC when used as NAC in MIBC/UTUC.