Cancer Control in Central and Eastern Europe: Current Situation and Recommendations for Improvement.

: The incidence of many cancers is higher in Western European (WE) countries, but mortality is frequently higher in Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries. A panel of oncology leaders from CEE countries participating in the South Eastern European Research Oncology Group (SEEROG) was formed in 2015, aiming to analyze the current status and trends of oncology care in CEE and to propose recommendations leading to improved care and outcomes. The SEEROG panel, meeting during the 11th Central European Oncology Congress, proposed the following: (a) national cancer control plans (NCCPs) required in all CEE countries, defining priorities in cancer care, including finance allocation considering limited health care budgets; (b) national cancer registries, describing in detail epidemiological trends; (c) efforts to strengthen comprehensive cancer centers; (d) that multidisciplinary care should be mandated by the NCCPs; (e) that smaller hospitals should be connected to multidisciplinary tumor boards via the Internet, providing access to specialized expertise; (f) nationwide primary prevention programs targeting smoking, obesity, and alcohol consumption and centrally evaluated secondary prevention programs for cervical, colorectal, and breast cancers; (g) prioritize education for all involved in cancer care, including oncology nurses, general practitioners, and palliative care providers; (h) establish outpatient care in day hospitals to reduce costs associated with the current inpatient model of care in CEE countries and to improve patients' quality of life; (i) long-term pharmacoeconomic evaluations of new therapies in CEE countries; (j) increase national oncology budgets in view of the higher mortality rates in CEE compared with WE countries; and (k) CEE countries urgently need help from the European Union to increase and monitor overall investment in cancer care. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Significant differences in cancer incidence and mortality have been observed between European countries. While the incidence of many cancer types is higher in Western European (WE) countries, the mortality is generally higher in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE). The primary purpose of this review was to describe the current status and trends of oncology care in the CEE region, to raise awareness among physicians, regulators, and payers, and to propose the most needed changes in order to make the oncology care in CEE closer to the WE standards.

Outcomes for Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Achieving a Complete Response on Targeted Therapy: A Registry-based Analysis.

BACKGROUND: It is currently not known whether treatment with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) can be safely discontinued in patients achieving a complete response (CR). OBJECTIVE: To assess outcomes for patients with mRCC achieving CR on targeted therapy (TT) and the survival of patients discontinuing TT after CR. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A national registry was used to identify patients achieving CR during first-line TT using bevacizumab, sunitinib, sorafenib, or pazopanib. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Relationships with outcomes were analysed using a log-rank test. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 100 patients achieving CR were identified out of 2803 patients. The median time to CR was 10.1 mo. Median progression-free survival (PFS) from TT initiation was 3.8 yr (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.9-4.6 yr) and the 5-yr overall survival (OS) was 80% (95% CI 70-91%). Patients discontinuing TT within 1 mo after achieving CR and those continuing TT beyond CR had similar OS (CI for difference in 2-yr post-CR OS -13% to 19%; p=0.3) and PFS (CI for difference in 2-yr post-CR PFS -29% to 17%; p=0.7). The limitations include the retrospective, registry-based data analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Achievement of CR on TT for mRCC was associated with excellent long-term prognosis. No significant differences in post-CR survival were observed between patients discontinuing TT after the date of CR and those who continued on TT, although the wide CIs cannot exclude important differences between the groups. PATIENT SUMMARY: According to this registry-based analysis, patients with metastatic renal cancer with no signs of disease (complete response) after treatment with targeted agents experience excellent long-term survival even if the treatment does not continue beyond the date of complete response.

Ramucirumab versus placebo as second-line treatment in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma following first-line therapy with sorafenib (REACH): a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: VEGF and VEGF receptor-2-mediated angiogenesis contribute to hepatocellular carcinoma pathogenesis. Ramucirumab is a recombinant IgG1 monoclonal antibody and VEGF receptor-2 antagonist. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of ramucirumab in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma following first-line therapy with sorafenib. METHODS: In this randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, multicentre, phase 3 trial (REACH), patients were enrolled from 154 centres in 27 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had hepatocellular carcinoma with Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage C disease or stage B disease that was refractory or not amenable to locoregional therapy, had Child-Pugh A liver disease, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, had previously received sorafenib (stopped because of progression or intolerance), and had adequate haematological and biochemical parameters. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intravenous ramucirumab (8 mg/kg) or placebo every 2 weeks, plus best supportive care, until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or death. Randomisation was stratified by geographic region and cause of liver disease with a stratified permuted block method. Patients, medical staff, investigators, and the funder were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01140347. FINDINGS: Between Nov 4, 2010, and April 18, 2013, 565 patients were enrolled, of whom 283 were assigned to ramucirumab and 282 were assigned to placebo. Median overall survival for the ramucirumab group was 9·2 months (95% CI 8·0-10·6) versus 7·6 months (6·0-9·3) for the placebo group (HR 0·87 [95% CI 0·72-1·05]; p=0·14). Grade 3 or greater adverse events occurring in 5% or more of patients in either treatment group were ascites (13 [5%] of 277 patients treated with ramucirumab vs 11 [4%] of 276 patients treated with placebo), hypertension (34 [12%] vs ten [4%]), asthenia (14 [5%] vs five [2%]), malignant neoplasm progression (18 [6%] vs 11 [4%]), increased aspartate aminotransferase concentration (15 [5%] vs 23 [8%]), thrombocytopenia (13 [5%] vs one [<1%]), hyperbilirubinaemia (three [1%] vs 13 [5%]), and increased blood bilirubin (five [2%] vs 14 [5%]). The most frequently reported (≥1%) treatment-emergent serious adverse event of any grade or grade 3 or more was malignant neoplasm progression. INTERPRETATION: Second-line treatment with ramucirumab did not significantly improve survival over placebo in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. No new safety signals were noted in eligible patients and the safety profile is manageable. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Co.

Prognostic factors in renal cell carcinoma patients treated with sorafenib: results from the Czech registry.

The aim of this study was to describe the characteristics and outcomes of a large cohort of patients treated with sorafenib in clinical practice and to identify predictive factors associated with prognosis. Patient data were obtained from the national Czech registry (RenIS). Data of virtually all Czech patients receiving targeted therapies are entered into this non-interventional post-registration database. Demographics and clinical data, as well as all treatment sequences and clinical outcomes, are reported in this registry. A total of 836 patients treated with sorafenib before March 2013 were included in the analysis. Median age was 63 years and 70% were men. Most patients had received prior treatment with cytokines, sunitinib or both. Sorafenib was the first-line treatment in 15% of patients. Median overall survival and progression-free survival were 21.7 months and 7.5 months, respectively. Median overall survival and progression-free survival was 26.3 and 8.3 months, respectively, in patients receiving sorafenib as first-line therapy. Cox proportional models identified several parameters associated with poor outcome including time ≤1 year from diagnosis to first-line systemic treatment, performance status ≥2, low hemoglobin, and LDH >1.5 times the upper limit of normal. Our data demonstrate that the outcomes of real-life patients are comparable to those enrolled in clinical trials. Prognostic factors identified in the present study were consistent with previously reported models.

Clinical and laboratory prognostic factors in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with sunitinib and sorafenib after progression on cytokines.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this retrospective study was to analyze prognostic factors in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) sunitinib or sorafenib after progression on cytokine therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A national database of patients treated with targeted agents was used as the data source. A total of 319 patients treated with sunitinib (n = 181) or sorafenib (n = 138) after progression on cytokine therapy were analyzed. RESULTS: Prognostic factors significantly associated with poor overall survival in a multivariable Cox model included the time from diagnosis to the start of treatment with TKIs<1 year, increased neutrophil counts, increased lactate dehydrogenase, and Eastern Oncology Cooperative Group performance status 2 or higher. The parameters showing statistically significant association with progression-free survival included time from diagnosis to the beginning of treatment with TKI<1 year, increased lactate dehydrogenase, and Eastern Oncology Cooperative Group performance status 2 or higher. We have also validated the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium prognostic model in our cohort of patients. CONCLUSION: We demonstrate that the International Database Consortium prognostic model performs well for European patients treated with TKIs, including sunitinib or sorafenib, after progression on cytokines and suggest that a reduction from original 6 down to 4 parameters is possible.