Blood-based tumor fibrosis markers as diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers in patients with biliary tract cancer.

Biliary tract cancer (BTC) is characterized by a desmoplastic extracellular matrix (ECM). We tested the diagnostic and prognostic use of seven circulating biomarkers of ECM remodeling: pro-peptides of type III collagen (PRO-C3), VI (PRO-C6) and XI (PRO-C11), matrix metalloprotease (MMP) degraded type III collagen (C3M) and type IV collagen (C4M) fragments, granzyme B degraded type IV collagen fragments (C4G) and MMP degraded and citrullinated vimentin (VICM) a marker of macrophage activation. The study included 269 patients with all stages of BTC and 49 patients with benign biliary tract diseases. Serum samples from BTC patients were collected before surgery, or before first- or second-line chemotherapy. C3M, C4M, PRO-C3, PRO-C6, PRO-C11 and VICM levels were elevated in patients with BTC compared to patients with benign disease. Receiver operating characteristics curve analyses identified PRO-C3 (area under curve [AUC] = 0.87) as the ECM marker with the best diagnostic performance. The ECM biomarkers correlated with inflammation biomarkers (C-reactive protein [CRP], interleukin-6 [IL-6] and YKL-40) but not with CA19-9. To investigate prognostic performance, patients were split into three cohorts (first-line, second-line and surgery). Elevated ECM biomarker levels were associated with short overall survival (OS), but only pretreatment PRO-C3 and PRO-C6 were associated with OS in both the first-line and second-line settings when adjusting for CA19-9, performance status and stage in a multivariate Cox-regression analyses. Our results indicate that collagen remodeling is increased in patients with BTC and associated with survival. The collagen pro-peptides (PRO-C3 and PRO-C6) could be used as novel biomarkers in these patients.

Quality of life and mental health in real-world patients with resected stage III/IV melanoma receiving adjuvant immunotherapy.

INTRODUCTION: Treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) has expanded into the adjuvant setting enhancing the importance of knowledge on the immune-related toxicities and their impact on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Large phase 3 trials of patients with resected Stage III/IV melanoma found no effect on HRQoL during adjuvant immunotherapy. This study investigates how HRQoL was affected during and after adjuvant immunotherapy in a real-world setting. METHODS: Patients with resected melanoma treated with adjuvant nivolumab from 2018 to 2021 in Denmark were identified using the Danish Metastatic Melanoma Database (DAMMED). The study was performed as a nationwide cross-sectional analysis as a questionnaire consisting of six different validated questionnaires on HRQoL, cognitive function, fatigue, depression, fear of recurrence, and decision regret was sent to all patients in March 2021. To evaluate HRQoL during and after adjuvant treatment, patients were divided into groups depending on their treatment status when answering the questionnaire; patients in active treatment for 0-6 months, patients in active treatment for >6 months, patients who ended treatment 0-6 months ago, and patients who ended treatment >6 months ago. RESULTS: A total of 271/412 (66%) patients completed the questionnaire. Patients who ended therapy 0-6 months ago had the lowest HRQoL and had more fatigue. Patients in active treatment for >6 months had lower HRQoL and more fatigue than patients who started treatment 0-6 months ago. Patients ending therapy >6 months ago had higher HRQoL and less fatigue compared to patients who ended therapy 0-6 months ago. Multivariable analysis showed an association between HRQoL and treatment status, comorbidity, civil status, and employment status. CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvant nivolumab may affect some aspects of QoL, but the influence seems temporary. Patient characteristics, such as civil status, employment status, and comorbidity were associated with HRQoL.

Determination of temporal reproducibility and variability of cancer biomarkers in serum and EDTA plasma samples using a proximity extension assay.

BACKGROUND: Proximity extension assay (PEA) is a novel antibody-based proteomic technology. Sparse data have been published concerning the matrix effect of serum vs. ethylenediamine tetraacetic acid (EDTA) plasma and the reproducibility of results obtained using PEA technology. METHODS: We analyzed samples with the PEA-based 92-plex Olink® immuno-oncology (I-O) assay. To estimate the matrix effect, we analyzed paired serum and EDTA plasma samples from 12 patients with biliary tract cancer. To evaluate the reproducibility, we used data from 7 studies, where 6-8 serum samples from patients with pancreatic cancer were used as bridging samples on 3 versions of the panel over a 2.5-years period. RESULTS: For the study of serum vs. plasma, 80 proteins were evaluable. The mean serum to EDTA plasma ratio ranged from 0.41-3.01. For 36 proteins, the serum and plasma values were not comparable due to high variability of the ratio, poor correlation, or possible concentration effect. For the bridging samples, the mean intra-study inter-assay coefficient of variation (CV) ranged from 11.3% to 26.1%. The mean inter-study CV was 42.0% before normalization and 26.2% after normalization. Inter-study results were well correlated (r ≥ 0.93), especially for studies using the same version of the panel (r ≥ 0.99). CONCLUSION: For 44 of 92 proteins included in the Olink® I-O panel, the variation between results obtained using serum and EDTA plasma was constant and results were well correlated. Furthermore, samples could be stored for several years and used on different versions of the same PEA panel without it effecting results.

Pioglitazone for prevention or delay of type 2 diabetes mellitus and its associated complications in people at risk for the development of type 2 diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: The term prediabetes is used to describe a population with an elevated risk of developing type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). With projections of an increase in the incidence of T2DM, prevention or delay of the disease and its complications is paramount. It is currently unknown whether pioglitazone is beneficial in the treatment of people with increased risk of developing T2DM. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of pioglitazone for prevention or delay of T2DM and its associated complications in people at risk of developing T2DM. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Chinese databases, ICTRP Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. We did not apply any language restrictions. Further, we investigated the reference lists of all included studies and reviews. We tried to contact all study authors. The date of the last search of databases was November 2019 (March 2020 for Chinese databases). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a minimum duration of 24 weeks, and participants diagnosed with intermediate hyperglycaemia with no concomitant diseases, comparing pioglitazone as monotherapy or part of dual therapy with other glucose-lowering drugs, behaviour-changing interventions, placebo or no intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened abstracts, read full-text articles and records, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We performed meta-analyses with a random-effects model and calculated risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for effect estimates. We evaluated the certainty of the evidence with the GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 27 studies with a total of 4186 randomised participants. The size of individual studies ranged between 43 and 605 participants and the duration varied between 6 and 36 months. We judged none of the included studies as having low risk of bias across all 'Risk of bias' domains. Most studies identified people at increased risk of T2DM by impaired fasting glucose or impaired glucose tolerance (IGT), or both. Our main outcome measures were all-cause mortality, incidence of T2DM, serious adverse events (SAEs), cardiovascular mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction or stroke (NMI/S), health-related quality of life (QoL) and socioeconomic effects. The following comparisons mostly reported only a fraction of our main outcome set. Three studies compared pioglitazone with metformin. They did not report all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, NMI/S, QoL or socioeconomic effects. Incidence of T2DM was 9/168 participants in the pioglitazone groups versus 9/163 participants in the metformin groups (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.40 to 2.38; P = 0.96; 3 studies, 331 participants; low-certainty evidence). No SAEs were reported in two studies (201 participants; low-certainty evidence). One study compared pioglitazone with acarbose. Incidence of T2DM was 1/50 participants in the pioglitazone group versus 2/46 participants in the acarbose group (very low-certainty evidence). No participant experienced a SAE (very low-certainty evidence).One study compared pioglitazone with repaglinide. Incidence of T2DM was 2/48 participants in the pioglitazone group versus 1/48 participants in the repaglinide group (low-certainty evidence). No participant experienced a SAE (low-certainty evidence). One study compared pioglitazone with a personalised diet and exercise consultation. All-cause and cardiovascular mortality, NMI/S, QoL or socioeconomic effects were not reported. Incidence of T2DM was 2/48 participants in the pioglitazone group versus 5/48 participants in the diet and exercise consultation group (low-certainty evidence). No participant experienced a SAE (low-certainty evidence). Six studies compared pioglitazone with placebo. No study reported on QoL or socioeconomic effects. All-cause mortality was 5/577 participants the in the pioglitazone groups versus 2/579 participants in the placebo groups (Peto odds ratio 2.38, 95% CI 0.54 to 10.50; P = 0.25; 4 studies, 1156 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Incidence of T2DM was 80/700 participants in the pioglitazone groups versus 131/695 participants in the placebo groups (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.95; P = 0.04; 6 studies, 1395 participants; low-certainty evidence). There were 3/93 participants with SAEs in the pioglitazone groups versus 1/94 participants in the placebo groups (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.32 to 28.22; P = 0.34; 2 studies, 187 participants; very low-certainty evidence). However, the largest study for this comparison did not distinguish between serious and non-serious adverse events. This study reported that 121/303 (39.9%) participants in the pioglitazone group versus 151/299 (50.5%) participants in the placebo group experienced an adverse event (P = 0.03). One study observed cardiovascular mortality in 2/181 participants in the pioglitazone group versus 0/186 participants in the placebo group (RR 5.14, 95% CI 0.25 to 106.28; P = 0.29; very low-certainty evidence). One study observed NMI in 2/303 participants in the pioglitazone group versus 1/299 participants in the placebo group (RR 1.97: 95% CI 0.18 to 21.65; P = 0.58; very low-certainty evidence). Twenty-one studies compared pioglitazone with no intervention. No study reported on cardiovascular mortality, NMI/S, QoL or socioeconomic effects. All-cause mortality was 11/441 participants in the pioglitazone groups versus 12/425 participants in the no-intervention groups (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.91; P = 0.70; 3 studies, 866 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Incidence of T2DM was 60/1034 participants in the pioglitazone groups versus 197/1019 participants in the no-intervention groups (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.40; P < 0.001; 16 studies, 2053 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Studies reported SAEs in 16/610 participants in the pioglitazone groups versus 21/601 participants in the no-intervention groups (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.32; P = 0.28; 7 studies, 1211 participants; low-certainty evidence). We identified two ongoing studies, comparing pioglitazone with placebo and with other glucose-lowering drugs. These studies, with 2694 participants. may contribute evidence to future updates of this review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Pioglitazone reduced or delayed the development of T2DM in people at increased risk of T2DM compared with placebo (low-certainty evidence) and compared with no intervention (moderate-certainty evidence). It is unclear whether the effect of pioglitazone is sustained once discontinued. Pioglitazone compared with metformin neither showed advantage nor disadvantage regarding the development of T2DM in people at increased risk (low-certainty evidence). The data and reporting of all-cause mortality, SAEs, micro- and macrovascular complications were generally sparse. None of the included studies reported on QoL or socioeconomic effects.

Metformin for prevention or delay of type 2 diabetes mellitus and its associated complications in persons at increased risk for the development of type 2 diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: The projected rise in the incidence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) could develop into a substantial health problem worldwide. Whether metformin can prevent or delay T2DM and its complications in people with increased risk of developing T2DM is unknown. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of metformin for the prevention or delay of T2DM and its associated complications in persons at increased risk for the T2DM. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and the reference lists of systematic reviews, articles and health technology assessment reports. We asked investigators of the included trials for information about additional trials. The date of the last search of all databases was March 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a duration of one year or more comparing metformin with any pharmacological glucose-lowering intervention, behaviour-changing intervention, placebo or standard care in people with impaired glucose tolerance, impaired fasting glucose, moderately elevated glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) or combinations of these. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors read all abstracts and full-text articles and records, assessed risk of bias and extracted outcome data independently. We used a random-effects model to perform meta-analysis and calculated risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes, using 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for effect estimates. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 20 RCTs randomising 6774 participants. One trial contributed 48% of all participants. The duration of intervention in the trials varied from one to five years. We judged none of the trials to be at low risk of bias in all 'Risk of bias' domains. Our main outcome measures were all-cause mortality, incidence of T2DM, serious adverse events (SAEs), cardiovascular mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction or stroke, health-related quality of life and socioeconomic effects.The following comparisons mostly reported only a fraction of our main outcome set. Fifteen RCTs compared metformin with diet and exercise with or without placebo: all-cause mortality was 7/1353 versus 7/1480 (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.41 to 3.01; P = 0.83; 2833 participants, 5 trials; very low-quality evidence); incidence of T2DM was 324/1751 versus 529/1881 participants (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.65; P < 0.001; 3632 participants, 12 trials; moderate-quality evidence); the reporting of SAEs was insufficient and diverse and meta-analysis could not be performed (reported numbers were 4/118 versus 2/191; 309 participants; 4 trials; very low-quality evidence); cardiovascular mortality was 1/1073 versus 4/1082 (2416 participants; 2 trials; very low-quality evidence). One trial reported no clear difference in health-related quality of life after 3.2 years of follow-up (very low-quality evidence). Two trials estimated the direct medical costs (DMC) per participant for metformin varying from $220 to $1177 versus $61 to $184 in the comparator group (2416 participants; 2 trials; low-quality evidence). Eight RCTs compared metformin with intensive diet and exercise: all-cause mortality was 7/1278 versus 4/1272 (RR 1.61, 95% CI 0.50 to 5.23; P = 0.43; 2550 participants, 4 trials; very low-quality evidence); incidence of T2DM was 304/1455 versus 251/1505 (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.37; P = 0.42; 2960 participants, 7 trials; moderate-quality evidence); the reporting of SAEs was sparse and meta-analysis could not be performed (one trial reported 1/44 in the metformin group versus 0/36 in the intensive exercise and diet group with SAEs). One trial reported that 1/1073 participants in the metformin group compared with 2/1079 participants in the comparator group died from cardiovascular causes. One trial reported that no participant died due to cardiovascular causes (very low-quality evidence). Two trials estimated the DMC per participant for metformin varying from $220 to $1177 versus $225 to $3628 in the comparator group (2400 participants; 2 trials; very low-quality evidence). Three RCTs compared metformin with acarbose: all-cause mortality was 1/44 versus 0/45 (89 participants; 1 trial; very low-quality evidence); incidence of T2DM was 12/147 versus 7/148 (RR 1.72, 95% CI 0.72 to 4.14; P = 0.22; 295 participants; 3 trials; low-quality evidence); SAEs were 1/51 versus 2/50 (101 participants; 1 trial; very low-quality evidence). Three RCTs compared metformin with thiazolidinediones: incidence of T2DM was 9/161 versus 9/159 (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.40; P = 0.98; 320 participants; 3 trials; low-quality evidence). SAEs were 3/45 versus 0/41 (86 participants; 1 trial; very low-quality evidence). Three RCTs compared metformin plus intensive diet and exercise with identical intensive diet and exercise: all-cause mortality was 1/121 versus 1/120 participants (450 participants; 2 trials; very low-quality evidence); incidence of T2DM was 48/166 versus 53/166 (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.10 to 2.92; P = 0.49; 332 participants; 2 trials; very low-quality evidence). One trial estimated the DMC of metformin plus intensive diet and exercise to be $270 per participant compared with $225 in the comparator group (94 participants; 1 trial; very-low quality evidence). One trial in 45 participants compared metformin with a sulphonylurea. The trial reported no patient-important outcomes. For all comparisons there were no data on non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke or microvascular complications. We identified 11 ongoing trials which potentially could provide data of interest for this review. These trials will add a total of 17,853 participants in future updates of this review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Metformin compared with placebo or diet and exercise reduced or delayed the risk of T2DM in people at increased risk for the development of T2DM (moderate-quality evidence). However, metformin compared to intensive diet and exercise did not reduce or delay the risk of T2DM (moderate-quality evidence). Likewise, the combination of metformin and intensive diet and exercise compared to intensive diet and exercise only neither showed an advantage or disadvantage regarding the development of T2DM (very low-quality evidence). Data on patient-important outcomes such as mortality, macrovascular and microvascular diabetic complications and health-related quality of life were sparse or missing.

Metformin and second- or third-generation sulphonylurea combination therapy for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: The number of people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is increasing worldwide. The combination of metformin and sulphonylurea (M+S) is a widely used treatment. Whether M+S shows better or worse effects in comparison with other antidiabetic medications for people with T2DM is still controversial. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of metformin and sulphonylurea (second- or third-generation) combination therapy for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. SEARCH METHODS: We updated the search of a recent systematic review from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). The updated search included CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP. The date of the last search was March 2018. We searched manufacturers' websites and reference lists of included trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses and health technology assessment reports. We asked investigators of the included trials for information about additional trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) randomising participants 18 years old or more with T2DM to M+S compared with metformin plus another glucose-lowering intervention or metformin monotherapy with a treatment duration of 52 weeks or more. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors read all abstracts and full-text articles and records, assessed risk of bias and extracted outcome data independently. We used a random-effects model to perform meta-analysis, and calculated risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes, using 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for effect estimates. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE instrument. MAIN RESULTS: We included 32 RCTs randomising 28,746 people. Treatment duration ranged between one to four years. We judged none of these trials as low risk of bias for all 'Risk of bias' domains. Most important events per person were all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, serious adverse events (SAE), non-fatal stroke (NFS), non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) and microvascular complications. Most important comparisons were as follows:Five trials compared M+S (N = 1194) with metformin plus a glucagon-like peptide 1 analogue (N = 1675): all-cause mortality was 11/1057 (1%) versus 11/1537 (0.7%), risk ratio (RR) 1.15 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 2.67); 3 trials; 2594 participants; low-certainty evidence; cardiovascular mortality 1/307 (0.3%) versus 1/302 (0.3%), low-certainty evidence; serious adverse events (SAE) 128/1057 (12.1%) versus 194/1537 (12.6%), RR 0.90 (95% CI 0.73 to 1.11); 3 trials; 2594 participants; very low-certainty evidence; non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) 2/549 (0.4%) versus 6/1026 (0.6%), RR 0.57 (95% CI 0.12 to 2.82); 2 trials; 1575 participants; very low-certainty evidence.Nine trials compared M+S (N = 5414) with metformin plus a dipeptidyl-peptidase 4 inhibitor (N = 6346): all-cause mortality was 33/5387 (0.6%) versus 26/6307 (0.4%), RR 1.32 (95% CI 0.76 to 2.28); 9 trials; 11,694 participants; low-certainty evidence; cardiovascular mortality 11/2989 (0.4%) versus 9/3885 (0.2%), RR 1.54 (95% CI 0.63 to 3.79); 6 trials; 6874 participants; low-certainty evidence; SAE 735/5387 (13.6%) versus 779/6307 (12.4%), RR 1.07 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.18); 9 trials; 11,694 participants; very low-certainty evidence; NFS 14/2098 (0.7%) versus 8/2995 (0.3%), RR 2.21 (95% CI 0.74 to 6.58); 4 trials; 5093 participants; very low-certainty evidence; non-fatal MI 15/2989 (0.5%) versus 13/3885 (0.3%), RR 1.45 (95% CI 0.69 to 3.07); 6 trials; 6874 participants; very low-certainty evidence; one trial in 64 participants reported no microvascular complications were observed (very low-certainty evidence).Eleven trials compared M+S (N = 3626) with metformin plus a thiazolidinedione (N = 3685): all-cause mortality was 123/3300 (3.7%) versus 114/3354 (3.4%), RR 1.09 (95% CI 0.85 to 1.40); 6 trials; 6654 participants; low-certainty evidence; cardiovascular mortality 37/2946 (1.3%) versus 41/2994 (1.4%), RR 0.78 (95% CI 0.36 to 1.67); 4 trials; 5940 participants; low-certainty evidence; SAE 666/3300 (20.2%) versus 671/3354 (20%), RR 1.01 (95% CI 0.93 to 1.11); 6 trials; 6654 participants; very low-certainty evidence; NFS 20/1540 (1.3%) versus 16/1583 (1%), RR 1.29 (95% CI 0.67 to 2.47); P = 0.45; 2 trials; 3123 participants; very low-certainty evidence; non-fatal MI 25/1841 (1.4%) versus 21/1877 (1.1%), RR 1.21 (95% CI 0.68 to 2.14); P = 0.51; 3 trials; 3718 participants; very low-certainty evidence; three trials (3123 participants) reported no microvascular complications (very low-certainty evidence).Three trials compared M+S (N = 462) with metformin plus a glinide (N = 476): one person died in each intervention group (3 trials; 874 participants; low-certainty evidence); no cardiovascular mortality (2 trials; 446 participants; low-certainty evidence); SAE 34/424 (8%) versus 27/450 (6%), RR 1.68 (95% CI 0.54 to 5.21); P = 0.37; 3 trials; 874 participants; low-certainty evidence; no NFS (1 trial; 233 participants; very low-certainty evidence); non-fatal MI 2/215 (0.9%) participants in the M+S group; 2 trials; 446 participants; low-certainty evidence; no microvascular complications (1 trial; 233 participants; low-certainty evidence).Four trials compared M+S (N = 2109) with metformin plus a sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitor (N = 3032): all-cause mortality was 13/2107 (0.6%) versus 19/3027 (0.6%), RR 0.96 (95% CI 0.44 to 2.09); 4 trials; 5134 participants; very low-certainty evidence; cardiovascular mortality 4/1327 (0.3%) versus 6/2262 (0.3%), RR 1.22 (95% CI 0.33 to 4.41); 3 trials; 3589 participants; very low-certainty evidence; SAE 315/2107 (15.5%) versus 375/3027 (12.4%), RR 1.02 (95% CI 0.76 to 1.37); 4 trials; 5134 participants; very low-certainty evidence; NFS 3/919 (0.3%) versus 7/1856 (0.4%), RR 0.87 (95% CI 0.22 to 3.34); 2 trials; 2775 participants; very low-certainty evidence; non-fatal MI 7/890 (0.8%) versus 8/1374 (0.6%), RR 1.43 (95% CI 0.49 to 4.18; 2 trials); 2264 participants; very low-certainty evidence; amputation of lower extremity 1/437 (0.2%) versus 1/888 (0.1%); very low-certainty evidence.Trials reported more hypoglycaemic episodes with M+S combination compared to all other metformin-antidiabetic agent combinations. Results for M+S versus metformin monotherapy were inconclusive. There were no RCTs comparing M+S with metformin plus insulin. We identified nine ongoing trials and two trials are awaiting assessment. Together these trials will include approximately 16,631 participants. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is inconclusive evidence whether M+S combination therapy compared with metformin plus another glucose-lowering intervention results in benefit or harm for most patient-important outcomes (mortality, SAEs, macrovascular and microvascular complications) with the exception of hypoglycaemia (more harm for M+S combination). No RCT reported on health-related quality of life.

MR-guided stereotactic radiotherapy of infra-diaphragmatic oligometastases: Evaluation of toxicity and dosimetric parameters.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The SOFT trial is a prospective, multicenter, phase 2 trial investigating magnetic resonance (MR)-guided stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) for abdominal, soft tissue metastases in patients with oligometastatic disease (OMD) (clinicaltrials.gov ID NCT04407897). We present the primary endpoint analysis of 1-year treatment-related toxicity (TRAE). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with up to five oligometastases from non-hematological cancers were eligible for inclusion. A risk-adapted strategy prioritized fixed organs at risk (OAR) constraints over target coverage. Fractionation schemes were 45-67.5 Gy in 3-8 fractions. The primary endpoint was grade ≥ 4 TRAE within 12 months post-SABR. The association between the risk of gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity and clinical and dosimetric parameters was tested using a normal tissue complication probability model. RESULTS: We included 121 patients with 147 oligometastatic targets, mainly located in the liver (41 %), lymph nodes (35 %), or adrenal glands (14 %). Nearly half of all targets (48 %, n = 71) were within 10 mm of a radiosensitive OAR. No grade 4 or 5 TRAEs, 3.5 % grade 3 TRAEs, and 43.7 % grade 2 TRAEs were reported within the first year of follow-up. We found a significant association between grade ≥ 2 GI toxicity and the parameters GI OAR D0.1cc, D1cc, and D20cc. CONCLUSION: In this phase II study of MR-guided SABR of oligometastases in the infra-diaphragmatic region, we found a low incidence of toxicity despite half of the lesions being within 10 mm of a radiosensitive OAR. GI OAR D0.1cc, D1cc, and D20cc were associated with grade ≥ 2 GI toxicity.

Prognostic Value of Pretreatment Plasma C-Reactive Protein in Patients with Early-Stage Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer incidence is now the highest among all cancers and accountable for 6.6% of all cancer-related deaths worldwide. Studies of the prognostic utility of plasma C-reactive protein (CRP) measurement in early-stage breast cancer have given discrepant results. METHODS: We identified 6,942 patients in the Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group database with early-stage breast cancer diagnosed between 2002 and 2016 who had a measure of pretreatment plasma CRP. Outcomes were recurrence-free interval and survival for a period up to 10 years. We analyzed associations with plasma CRP using Fine-Gray proportional subdistribution hazards model with recurrence-free interval. Data on plasma CRP were analyzed per doubling of concentration and in relation to CRP levels of <3 mg/L, 3 to 10 mg/L, and >10 mg/L and stratified according to standard clinical parameters in sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: A doubling of the plasma CRP concentration was associated with increased risk of recurrence (multivariate adjusted HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.01-1.08) and shorter survival (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.09-1.16) in multivariate analyses. Survival was shorter in patients with plasma CRP levels of 3 to 10 and >10 mg/L versus <3 mg/L, with multivariate adjusted HRs of 1.30; 95% CI, 1.17-1.45 and 1.65; 95% CI, 1.39-1.95, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Elevated plasma CRP measured before treatment in patients with early-stage breast cancer is an independent biomarker of increased risk of recurrence and early death. IMPACT: CRP measures before treatment might be used to individualize follow-up of patients with early-stage breast cancer.

Outcome of adjuvant immunotherapy in a real-world nation-wide cohort of patients with melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials have demonstrated promising outcomes for adjuvant immunotherapy in patients with resected melanoma. Real-life data provide valuable insights to support patient guidance and treatment decisions. METHODS: Observational population-based study examining a national cohort of patients with resected stage III-IV melanoma referred for adjuvant therapy. Data were extracted from the Danish Metastatic Melanoma Database (DAMMED). RESULTS: Between November 2018 and January 2022, 785 patients received adjuvant anti-PD-1. The majority had stage III resected melanoma (87%), normal LDH levels (80%), and performance score 0 (87%). Patients were followed for a median of 25.6 months (95%CI 24-28). The median recurrence-free survival (RFS) and melanoma-specific survival (MSS) were not reached. The RFS was 78% (95%CI 75-81), 66% (63-70), and 59% (55-63); MSS was 97% (95-98), 93% (91-95), and 87% (84-90) at 1-, 2-, and 3-year; respectively. Less than half (42%) of the patients finalized planned therapy, 32% discontinued due to toxicity, and 19% due to melanoma recurrence. Patients discontinuing adjuvant treatment prematurely, without recurrence, had similar outcomes as patients finalizing therapy. In a multivariable analysis, ipilimumab plus nivolumab did not improve outcomes compared to ipilimumab monotherapy as a first-line metastatic treatment after adjuvant anti-PD-1. CONCLUSION: Survival outcomes in real-world patients with melanoma treated with adjuvant anti-PD-1 align with results from the randomized controlled trials. Patients discontinuing therapy prematurely, for other reasons than recurrence, had similar outcomes as patients finalizing planned treatment. First-line metastatic treatment with ipilimumab and nivolumab post-adjuvant anti-PD-1 did not show improved outcomes compared to ipilimumab/anti-PD-1 monotherapy.

Nivolumab With or Without Ipilimumab Combined with Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy in patients with Metastatic Biliary Tract Cancer: A Randomized Phase 2 Study.

PURPOSE: Evaluate the clinical benefits of nivolumab with/without ipilimumab combined with stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) in patients with pretreated metastatic biliary tract cancer (mBTC). EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: The study was a phase 2 randomized trial with Simon's optimal 2-stage design requiring 36 evaluable patients per group after second stage. Sixty-one patients were included from September 2018 to January 2022 and randomized (1:1) to receive SBRT (15 Gy × 1 on day one to a primary or metastatic lesion) and nivolumab (3 mg/kg intravenously on day one and every 2 weeks) with/without ipilimumab (1 mg/kg intravenously on day one and every 6 weeks). Primary endpoint was clinical benefit rate (CBR), defined as the percentage of patients with complete response, partial response or stable disease. Decision to continue accrual into the second stage depended on CBR from first stage. RESULTS: Forty-two patients received SBRT/nivolumab/ipilimumab with a CBR of 31.0% (95% CI, 17.6-47.1). Five patients (11.9%) achieved partial response with median duration of 4.4 months (range, 1.1-21.5). Nineteen patients received SBRT/nivolumab. This group was closed after the initial stage based on a CBR of 10.5% (95% CI, 1.3-33.1). Adverse events were graded with National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0. Grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 13 (31%) and 3 (16%) patients in the SBRT/nivolumab/ipilimumab and SBRT/nivolumab groups, respectively. One patient died from immune-related hepatitis in the SBRT/nivolumab/ipilimumab group. CONCLUSION: Combining SBRT, nivolumab and ipilimumab is well tolerated, feasible, and shows response in a subgroup of patients with mBTC.

Satisfaction with and perceived benefits of needs-assessment related to rehabilitation after chemotherapy among patients with breast cancer.

PURPOSE: To investigate satisfaction with and perceived benefits of a model of needs-assessment related to rehabilitation (NARR) in women with early breast cancer after (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Mixed methods were applied using survey (N = 200) along with interviews (N = 20). The survey included measurement of distress and self-assessed need of and satisfaction with the NARR. Type of experienced side/late effects were registered along with numbers of and reasons for referrals to rehabilitation. Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, and qualitative data were analyzed with thematic analysis. RESULTS: Overall, 217 patients participated in a NARR and 200 (92%) accepted participation in the survey. Furthermore, 20/37 (54%) invited patients were interviewed. After the NARR, 39 patients (20%) were referred to rehabilitation. While satisfaction was high, findings regarding distress and need of the NARR were equivocal and indicated a need for talking about experiences throughout the cancer trajectory. CONCLUSIONS: While only 20% had rehabilitation needs, satisfaction with the NARR was high and patients benefitted from being confirmed in normality of their experiences. It is recommended to address patients' side/late effects after chemotherapy for early breast cancer to identify rehabilitation needs, reduce distress, and improve quality of life.

One fifth of patients with early breast cancer were referred to rehabilitation after needs-assessments conducted 2 months after chemotherapy termination.Higher distress and higher self-reported need were significantly associated with not working and experiencing a higher number of side effects/late effects.It is recommended to address patients' side effects/late effects, including psychological distress, after termination of chemotherapy for early breast cancer to identify rehabilitation needs, reduce distress, and ultimately improve quality of life.

Protein Signatures and Individual Circulating Proteins, including IL-6 and IL-15, Associated with Prognosis in Patients with Biliary Tract Cancer.

Biliary tract cancer (BTC) is a rare gastrointestinal cancer with a dismal prognosis. Biomarkers with clinical utility are needed. In this study, we investigated the association between survival and 89 immuno-oncology-related proteins, with the aim of identifying prognostic biomarkers for BTC. The study included patients with BTC (n = 394) treated at three Danish hospitals. Patients were divided into four cohorts: the first-line discovery cohort (n = 202), first-line validation cohort (n = 118), second-line cohort (n = 56), and surgery cohort (n = 41). Plasma protein levels were measured using a proximity extension assay (Olink Proteomics). Twenty-seven proteins were associated with overall survival (OS) in a multivariate analysis in the discovery cohort. In the first-line validation cohort, high levels of interleukin (IL)-6, IL-15, mucin 16, hepatocyte growth factor, programmed cell death ligand 1, and placental growth factor were significantly associated with poor OS in univariate Cox regression analyses. When adjusting for performance status, location, and stage, the association was significant only for IL-6 (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08-1.46) and IL-15 (HR = 2.23, 95% CI 1.48-3.35). Receiver operating characteristic analyses confirmed IL-6 and IL-15 as the strongest predictors of survival. Combining several proteins into signatures further improved the ability to distinguish between patients with short (<6 months) and long survival (>18 months). The study identified several circulating proteins as prognostic biomarkers in patients, with BTC, IL-6, and IL-15 being the most promising markers. Combining proteins in a prognostic signature improved prognostic performance, but future studies are needed to determine the optimal combination and thresholds.

Combining sCD163 with CA 19-9 Increases the Predictiveness of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma.

The objective of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic and prognostic potential of soluble CD163 (sCD163) in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Preoperative serum samples from 255 patients with PDAC were analyzed for sCD163 using a commercially available enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. The diagnostic value of sCD163 was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. The prognostic significance of sCD163 was evaluated by Cox regression analysis and Kaplan-Meier survival curves. sCD163 was significantly increased in patients with PDAC, across all stages, compared to healthy subjects (stage 1: p value = 0.033; stage 2-4: p value ≤ 0.0001). ROC curves showed that sCD163 combined with CA 19-9 had the highest diagnostic potential compared to sCD163 and CA 19-9 alone both in patients with local PDAC and patients with advanced PDAC. Univariate and multivariate analysis showed no association between sCD163 and overall survival. This study found elevated levels of circulating sCD163 in patients with PDAC, regardless of stage, compared to healthy subjects. This suggests that sCD163 may have a clinical value as a novel diagnostic biomarker in PDAC.

Phase 2 study of ipilimumab, nivolumab, and tocilizumab combined with stereotactic body radiotherapy in patients with refractory pancreatic cancer (TRIPLE-R).

BACKGROUND: Interleukin-6 blockade and radiation combined with immunotherapy may modulate the tumour microenvironment to overcome immune resistance. We assessed the efficacy of ipilimumab, nivolumab, and tocilizumab combined with stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) in patients with refractory pancreatic cancer (PC). METHODS: Patients with PC who had progressive disease (PD) or intolerance to gemcitabine- or fluorouracil-containing regimens were enrolled in Part A of the two-part, single-centre, phase 2 study (NCT04258150). SBRT with 15 Gy was administered on day one of the first cycle. Ipilimumab was administered (1 mg/kg every 6 weeks) for a maximum of two infusions. Nivolumab (6 mg/kg) and tocilizumab (8 mg/kg) were given every four weeks until the PD or unacceptable toxicity, or for up to one year. The primary end-point was the objective response rate, with a threshold of 15%. RESULTS: Twenty-six patients were enrolled and treated between April 17, 2020, and January 25, 2021. The median follow-up time at the time of data cutoff (February 7, 2022) was 4.9 months (interquartile range 2.1-7.7). No responses were observed. Five patients (19%; 95% confidence intervals [CI], 7-39) achieved a stable disease. The median progression-free survival was 1.6 months (95% CI 1.4-1.7), and the median overall survival was 5.3 months (95% CI 2.3-8.0). Overall, 19 (73%) experienced adverse events related to the treatment including two (8%) with grade 3 or higher events. CONCLUSION: The combination of ipilimumab, nivolumab, tocilizumab, and SBRT in patients with PC did not meet the prespecified criteria for expansion for full accrual.

First in man study: Bcl-Xl_42-CAF®09b vaccines in patients with locally advanced prostate cancer.

Background: The B-cell lymphoma-extra-large (Bcl-XL) protein plays an important role in cancer cells' resistance to apoptosis. Pre-clinical studies have shown that vaccination with Bcl-XL-derived peptides can induce tumor-specific T cell responses that may lead to the elimination of cancer cells. Furthermore, pre-clinical studies of the novel adjuvant CAF®09b have shown that intraperitoneal (IP) injections of this adjuvant can improve the activation of the immune system. In this study, patients with hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (PC) received a vaccine consisting of Bcl-XL-peptide with CAF®09b as an adjuvant. The primary aim was to evaluate the tolerability and safety of IP and intramuscular (IM) administration, determine the optimal route of administration, and characterize vaccine immunogenicity. Patients and methods: Twenty patients were included. A total of six vaccinations were scheduled: in Group A (IM to IP injections), ten patients received three vaccines IM biweekly; after a three-week pause, patients then received three vaccines IP biweekly. In Group B (IP to IM injections), ten patients received IP vaccines first, followed by IM under a similar vaccination schedule. Safety was assessed by logging and evaluating adverse events (AE) according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE v. 4.0). Vaccines-induced immune responses were analyzed by Enzyme-Linked Immunospot and flow cytometry. Results: No serious AEs were reported. Although an increase in T cell response against the Bcl-XL-peptide was found in all patients, a larger proportion of patients in group B demonstrated earlier and stronger immune responses to the vaccine compared to patients in group A. Further, we demonstrated vaccine-induced immunity towards patient-specific CD4, and CD8 T cell epitopes embedded in Bcl-XL-peptide and an increase in CD4 and CD8 T cell activation markers CD107a and CD137 following vaccination. At a median follow-up of 21 months, no patients had experienced clinically significant disease progression. Conclusion: The Bcl-XL-peptide-CAF®09b vaccination was feasible and safe in patients with l hormone-sensitive PC. In addition, the vaccine was immunogenic and able to elicit CD4 and CD8 T cell responses with initial IP administration eliciting early and high levels of vaccine-specific responses in a higher number og patients. Clinical trial registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov, identifier NCT03412786.

Randomized Phase II Study of Nivolumab With or Without Ipilimumab Combined With Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for Refractory Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer (CheckPAC).

PURPOSE: To evaluate the clinical benefit of nivolumab with or without ipilimumab in combination with stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) in patients with refractory metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC). METHODS: Between November 2016 and December 2019, patients with refractory mPC were randomly assigned 1:1 to SBRT of 15 Gy with nivolumab or nivolumab/ipilimumab stratified by performance status (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02866383). The primary end point was the clinical benefit rate (CBR), defined as the percentage of patients with complete or partial response (PR) or stable disease, according to RECIST 1.1. Simon's 2-stage phase II optimal design was used independently for both arms, with CBR determining expansion to the second stage. Secondary end points included safety, response rate, duration of response, progression-free survival, and overall survival. Exploratory analyses included biomarkers related to the benefits. RESULTS: Eighty-four patients (41 SBRT/nivolumab and 43 SBRT/nivolumab/ipilimumab) received at least one dose of study treatment. CBR was 17.1% (8.0 to 30.6) for patients receiving SBRT/nivolumab and 37.2% (24.0 to 52.1) for SBRT/nivolumab/ipilimumab. PR was observed in one patient receiving SBRT/nivolumab and lasted for 4.6 months. Six patients receiving SBRT/nivolumab/ipilimumab achieved a PR with a median duration of response of 5.4 months (4.2 to not reached). Grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events occurred in 10 (24.4%) and 13 (30.2%) patients in the SBRT/nivolumab and SBRT/nivolumab/ipilimumab groups, respectively. Programmed cell death ligand-1 expression by tumor proportion score or combined positivity score of ≥ 1% was not associated with clinical benefits. On-treatment decreased serum interleukin-6, interleukin-8, and C-reactive protein levels were associated with better overall survival. CONCLUSION: Clinically meaningful antitumor activity and favorable safety profiles were demonstrated after treatment with SBRT/nivolumab/ipilimumab in patients with refractory mPC. However, the contribution from SBRT is unknown. Further studies are warranted.