Residual Cancer Burden Class Associated with Survival Outcomes in Women with Different Phenotypic Subtypes of Breast Cancer After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: The residual cancer burden class informs survival outcomes after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. We evaluated the prognostic ability of the RCB for survival outcomes in women with different phenotypic subtypes of breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Additional variables were assessed for inclusion with the RCB to further improve the model's discriminative ability. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of patients completing at least 75% of the recommended cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2016. Phenotypic subtypes were defined by hormone receptor and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status at diagnosis, classified as HR+/HER2-, HER2+, or triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). The RCB class was calculated and survival endpoints of overall survival, recurrence-free survival, and distant recurrence-free survival were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards methods. The discriminative ability of the models was quantified by Harrell's C-index. RESULTS: Overall, 532 women met the inclusion criteria. Median follow-up was 65 months. In univariate models, RCB was significantly associated with OS, RFS, and DRFS. The RCB class had good discriminative ability for OS, RFS, and DRFS survival, with Harrell's C-indices of 0.68, 0.67, and 0.68, respectively. The RCB class discriminated well for each survival endpoint within HER2+ and TNBC, but did not discriminate well for HR+/HER2- (OS Harrell's C-indices of 0.77, 0.75, and 0.52, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The RCB class was prognostic for OS, RFS, and DRFS after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, but prognostic discrimination between patients with subtype HR+/HER2- was not observed during the follow-up period for which the overall event rate was low.

Extremity Soft Tissue Sarcoma: A Multi-Institutional Validation of Prognostic Nomograms.

BACKGROUND: Prognostic nomograms for patients with resected extremity soft tissue sarcoma (STS) include the Sarculator and Memorial Sloan Kettering (MSKCC) nomograms. We sought to validate these two nomograms within a large, modern, multi-institutional cohort of resected primary extremity STS patients. METHODS: Resected primary extremity STS patients from 2000 to 2017 were identified across nine high-volume U.S. institutions. Predicted 5- and 10-year overall survival (OS) and distant metastases cumulative incidence (DMCI), and 4-, 8-, and 12-year disease-specific survival (DSS) were calculated with Sarculator and MSKCC nomograms, respectively. Predicted survival probabilities stratified in quintiles were compared in calibration plots to observed survival assessed by Kaplan-Meier estimates. Cumulative incidence was estimated for DMCI. Harrell's concordance index (C-index) assessed discriminative ability of nomograms. RESULTS: A total of 1326 patients underwent resection of primary extremity STS. Common histologies included: undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma (35%), fibrosarcoma (13%), and leiomyosarcoma (9%). Median tumor size was 8.0 cm (IQR 4.5-13.0). Tumor grade distribution was: Grade 1 (13%), Grade 2 (9%), Grade 3 (78%). Median OS was 172 months, with estimated 5- and 10-year OS of 70% and 58%. C-indices for 5- and 10-year OS (Sarculator) were 0.72 (95% CI 0.70-0.75) and 0.73 (95% CI 0.70-0.75), and 0.72 (95% CI 0.69-0.75) for 5- and 10-year DMCI. C-indices for 4-, 8-, and 12-year DSS (MSKCC) were 0.71 (95% CI 0.68-0.75). Calibration plots showed good prognostication across all outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Sarculator and MSKCC nomograms demonstrated good prognostic ability for survival and recurrence outcomes in a modern, multi-institutional validation cohort of resected primary extremity STS patients. External validation of these nomograms supports their ongoing incorporation into clinical practice.

A multi-institutional validation study of prognostic nomograms for retroperitoneal sarcoma.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Prognostic nomograms for patients undergoing resection of retroperitoneal sarcoma (RPS) include the Sarculator and Memorial Sloan Kettering (MSK) sarcoma nomograms. We sought to validate the Sarculator and MSK nomograms within a large, modern multi-institutional cohort of patients with primary RPS undergoing resection. METHODS: Patients who underwent resection of primary RPS between 2000 and 2017 across nine high-volume US institutions were identified. Predicted 7-year disease-free (DFS) and overall survival (OS) and 4-, 8-, and 12-year disease-specific survival (DSS) were calculated from the Sarculator and MSK nomograms, respectively. Nomogram-predicted survival probabilities were stratified in quintiles and compared in calibration plots to observed survival outcomes assessed by Kaplan-Meier estimates. Discriminative ability of nomograms was quantified by Harrell's concordance index (C-index). RESULTS: Five hundred and two patients underwent resection of primary RPS. Histologies included leiomyosarcoma (30%), dedifferentiated liposarcoma (23%), and well-differentiated liposarcoma (15%). Median tumor size was 14.0 cm (interquartile range [IQR], 8.5-21.0 cm). Tumor grade distribution was: Grade 1 (27%), Grade 2 (17%), and Grade 3 (56%). Median DFS was 31.5 months; 7-year DFS was 29%. Median OS was 93.8 months; 7-year OS was 51%. C-indices for 7-year DFS, and OS by the Sarculator nomogram were 0.65 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.62-0.69) and 0.69 (95%CI: 0.65-0.73); plots demonstrated good calibration for predicting 7-year outcomes. The C-index for 4-, 8-, and 12-year DSS by the MSK nomogram was 0.71 (95%CI: 0.67-0.75); plots demonstrated similarly good calibration ability. CONCLUSIONS: In a diverse, modern validation cohort of patients with resected primary RPS, both Sarculator and MSK nomograms demonstrated good prognostic ability, supporting their ongoing adoption into clinical practice.

Sequential Intravesical Chemotherapy for Treatment Naïve, High-Risk Non-Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer: Oncologic Outcomes, Tolerance, and Comparison to Contemporary Controls.

OBJECTIVE: To assess if receiving sequential intravesical chemotherapy (Gemcitabine-Docetaxel, Gem-Doce) therapy was associated with similar oncologic efficacy to bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) in patients with treatment-naïve, high-risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (HR-NMIBC). METHODS: Single-center, retrospective cohort study of 80 patients with HR-NMIBC initiating first-line Gem-Doce or BCG between August 2020 and August 2023. Surveillance was conducted with cystoscopy, urine cytology, and cross-sectional imaging. The primary oncologic outcome was high-grade bladder tumor recurrence during surveillance. Kaplan-Meier method was applied to determine 12- and 24-month recurrence-free survival (RFS) after initiation of therapy. Tolerance of each intravesical therapies was assessed. RESULTS: About 53/80 (66%) received Gem-Doce and 27/80 (34%) received BCG with overall 18-month median follow-up. There were 10 recurrences after Gem-Doce and 7 after BCG. The RFS at 12- and 24-months for Gem-Doce (12-months: 87%, 24-months: 75%) was not significantly different than BCG (12-months: 85%, 24-months: 81%). Lastly, Gem-Doce had significantly fewer patients with AEs compared to BCG (40% vs 74%). Limitations include retrospective design, small cohort size, and intermediate oncologic follow-up. CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that sequential intravesical Gem-Doce is an oncologically efficacious and, potentially better tolerated, alternative to BCG for treatment-naïve HR-NMIBC.

Multidisciplinary Endocrine Tumor Board: Assessment of the Patient Experience.

Research surrounding tumor boards has focused on patient outcomes and care coordination. Little is known about the patient experience with tumor boards. This survey examined aspects of the patient experience for patients presented at our multidisciplinary endocrine tumor board (ETB). A 15-item survey was distributed via the online patient portal to patients over the age of 18 whose case had been discussed at our ETB over an 18-month period. Descriptive statistics were reported, and a Fisher's exact test was used to examine relationships between variables. A total of 47 patients completed the survey (46%). A majority (72%) report their provider explained what the ETB is, and 77% report being informed their case would be discussed. Most patients were satisfied their case was being discussed (72%). A number of patients did report moderate or severe anxiety knowing their case was being discussed (15%). Sixty-four percent of patients report the ETB recommendations were clearly explained; however, satisfaction with the recommendations was slightly lower (53%). Despite the somewhat low satisfaction with the recommendations, 75% of patients felt more confident in their treatment plan knowing their case was discussed. Finally, if given the chance, 66% responded that they would have been interested in participating in their own ETB discussion. This study provides some insight into the patient experience surrounding tumor board discussions. Overall, patients are satisfied when their case is discussed at ETB. Patients can also experience anxiety about these discussions, and many patients desire to be present for their own discussions.