Impact of EPclin on adjuvant therapeutic decision making and comparison of EPclin to the PREDICT tool.

PURPOSE: Genomic signatures, such as EndoPredict®, may help clinicians to decide which adjuvant treatment is the most appropriate. METHODS: We propose the EndoPredict® assay for unclear cases of adjuvant treatment in patients treated in our comprehensive cancer center. We prospectively and retrospectively report the decision of adjuvant treatment before and after the EndoPredict® assay, respectively, compared to the PREDICT's tool scores. RESULTS: From November 2016 to March 2019, 159 breast cancer tumors were analyzed and presented before and after the EndoPredict® assay. Before the EndoPredict® results, clinicians recommended chemotherapy for 57 patients (57/159, 36%). A total of 108 patients (108/159, 68%) were classified as EPclin high-risk score. There was only a slight agreement between clinicians' decisions and EPclin risk score. The EPclin score led to 37% changes in treatment (59/159); chemotherapy was favored in 80% of cases (47/59). The PREDICT tool recommended chemotherapy for 16 high-risk patients (16/159, 10%). CONCLUSION: Although genomic tests were developed in order to de-escalate adjuvant treatment, in our comprehensive cancer center the use of the EndoPredict® assay led to an increase in prescribed chemotherapy.

Retrieving the Vital Status of Patients with Cancer Using Online Obituaries.

The aim of this study was to develop a methodology to link mortality data from Internet sources with administrative data from electronic health records and to assess the performance of different record linkage methods. We extracted the electronic health records of all adult patients hospitalized at Rennes comprehensive cancer center between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2015 and separated them in two groups (training and test set). We also extracted all available online obituaries from the most exhaustive French funeral home website using web scraping techniques. We used and evaluated three different algorithms (deterministic, approximate deterministic and probabilistic) to link the patients' records with online obituaries. We optimized the algorithms using the training set and then evaluated them in the test set. The overall precision was between 98 and 100%. The three classification algorithms performed better for men than women. The probabilistic classification decreased the number of manual reviews, but slightly increased the number of false negatives. To address the problem of long delays in the publication or sharing of mortality data, online obituary data could be considered for real-time surveillance of mortality in patients with cancer because they are easily available and time-efficient.

A multicentre comparison between Child Pugh and Albumin-Bilirubin scores in patients treated with sorafenib for Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The Albumin-Bilirubin (ALBI) grade was proposed as an objective means to evaluate liver function in patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC). ALBI grade 1 vs 2 were proposed as stratification factors within the Child Pugh (CP) A class. However, the original publication did not provide comparison with the subclassification by points (5-15) within the CP classification. METHODS: We retrospectively analysed data from patients treated with sorafenib for HCC from 17 centres in United Kingdom and France. Overall survival (OS) was analysed using the Kaplan-Meier method and a Cox regression model. Discriminatory abilities of the classifications were assessed with the log likelihood ratio, Harrell's C statistics and Akaike information criterion. RESULTS: Data from 1019 patients were collected, of which 905 could be assessed for both scores. 92% of ALBI grade 1 were CP A5 while ALBI 2 included a broad range of CP scores of which 44% were CP A6. Median OS was 10.2, 7.0 and 3.6 months for CP scores A5, A6 and >A6, respectively (P < 0.001), Hazard Ratio (HR) = 1.60 (95%CI: 1.35-1.89, P < 0.001) for A6 vs A5. Median OS was 10.9, 6.6 and 3.0 months for ALBI grade 1, 2 and 3, respectively (P < 0.001), HR = 1.68 (1.43-1.97, P < 0.001) for grade 2 vs 1. Discriminatory abilities of CP and ALBI were similar in the CP A population, but better for CP in the overall population. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support the use CP class A as an inclusion criterion, and ALBI as a stratification factor in trials of systemic therapy.

Selective internal radiation therapy compared with sorafenib for hepatocellular carcinoma with portal vein thrombosis.

PURPOSE: Tumoural portal vein thrombosis (PVT) is a major prognostic factor in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The efficacy of sorafenib, the only treatment approved at an advanced stage, is limited. Based on previous data, selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT), or (90)Y radioembolization, seems an interesting option. We aimed to compare both treatments in this population. METHODS: We retrospectively compared patients treated in two centres for HCC with tumoural PVT. We compared overall survival (OS) between patients treated with SIRT and patients treated with sorafenib. Analyses were performed before and after 1:1 matching with a propensity score for controlling indication bias, using a Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: A total of 151 patients were analysed, 34 patients treated with SIRT and 117 patients treated with sorafenib only. In the whole population, SIRT was associated with a higher median OS as compared with sorafenib: 18.8 vs 6.5 months (log-rank p < 0.001). There was an imbalance of baseline characteristics between patients treated by SIRT and sorafenib, which justified patient matching with use of a propensity score: 24 patients treated with SIRT could be matched with 24 patients treated with sorafenib. OS was estimated with a median of 26.2 vs 8.7 months in patients treated with SIRT vs sorafenib, respectively (log-rank p = 0.054). Before and after patient matching, the adjusted hazard ratio related to treatment by SIRT was estimated at 0.62 [95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.39-0.97] (p = 0.037) and 0.40 (95 % CI 0.19-0.82) (p = 0.013), respectively. CONCLUSION: SIRT seems more effective than sorafenib in patients presenting with HCC and tumoural PVT. This hypothesis is being tested in prospective randomized trials.

Improving the pre-screening of eligible patients in order to increase enrollment in cancer clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: The performance of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is often hindered by recruitment difficulties. This study aims to explore the pre-screening phase of four prostate cancer RCTs to identify the impact of a systematic pre-selection of eligible patients for RCT recruitment. METHODS: The pre-screening of four RCTs opened at the Comprehensive Cancer Center in Rennes was analyzed retrospectively (French Genitourinary Tumor Group (GETUG) 14, 15, 16, and 17). Data were extracted from electronic multidisciplinary cancer (MDC) reports and manually completed by physicians and medical secretaries. These data were the main source of information for clinicians to discuss treatment alternatives during MDC sessions. The pre-screening decisions made by the clinicians during these MDC meetings were compared with those made after a systematic review of the MDC reports by a clinical research assistant (CRA). Any inconsistencies in decisions between the CRA and the MDC physicians were corrected by the principal investigator (PI). RESULTS: The pre-screening rate was 9.1% during the MDC meetings, while it was estimated to be 12.9% after the final review by the PI, and 29% after the systematic review by the CRA. The study showed that 77% and 67% of the MDC reports did not mention clinical and pathological Tumor, lymph node and metastasis classification of malignant tumors (TNM) staging, respectively, and that 35 of the CRA's 47 proposals rejected by the PI concerned implicit information (not specified in the MDC reports). Only one patient was proposed by the PI, and none by the CRA. CONCLUSIONS: These results confirm that pre-screening could be improved by a systematic review of the medical reports. They also highlight the fact that missing data in electronic MDC reports leads to over-enrollment of non-eligible patients, but not to over-exclusion of eligible patients. Thus, our study confirms the potential gain in using semi-automated pre-selection of MDC reports, in order to avoid missing out on patients eligible for RCTs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trials evaluated in this study were previously registered with clinicaltrials.gov (registration number: NCT00104741 on 3 March 2005; NCT00104715 on 3 March 2005; NCT00423475 on 16 January 2007; and NCT00667069 on 24 April 2008).