Benefit of Metastasectomy in Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Propensity Score Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: To quantify the magnitude of benefit of metastasectomy as compared to medical treatment alone in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We therefore conducted a propensity score analysis of overall survival (OS) in 106 mRCC patients with metachronous metastasis, of whom 36 (34%) were treated with metastasectomy, and 70 (66%) with medical therapy alone. RESULTS: The most frequent metastasectomy procedures were lung resections (n = 13) and craniotomies (n = 6). Median time-to-progression after metastasectomy was 0.7 years (25th-75th percentile: 0.3-2.7). After a median follow-up of 6.2 years and 63 deaths, 5-year OS estimates were 41% and 22% in the metastasectomy and medical therapy group, respectively (log-rank P = .00007; Hazard ratio (HR) = 0.38, 95%CI: 0.21-0.68). Patients undergoing metastasectomy had a significantly higher prevalence of favorable prognostic factors, such as fewer bilateral lung metastases and longer disease-free intervals between nephrectomy and metastasis diagnosis. After propensity score weighting for these differences and adjusting for immortal time bias, the favorable association between metastasectomy and OS became much weaker (HR = 0.62, 95%CI: 0.39-1.00, P = .050). Propensity-score-weighted 5-year OS estimates were 24% and 20% in the metastasectomy and medical therapy group, respectively (log-rank P = .001). In exploratory analyses, the benefit of metastasectomy was confined to patients who achieved complete resection of all known metastases. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of an observational study, these findings support the concept of metastasectomy being associated with an OS benefit in mRCC patients. Metastasectomies not achieving complete resection of all known lesions are likely without OS benefit.

Gemcitabine/nab-Paclitaxel versus FOLFIRINOX for palliative first-line treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer: A propensity score analysis.

BACKGROUND: Gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (GN) and FOLFIRINOX are standard first-line treatment options for advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (aPDAC), but currently no prospective randomised head-to-head comparison between these treatments has yet been performed. METHODS: We conducted a comparative propensity score (PS) analysis of overall (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in a tri-centre cohort of patients with aPDAC undergoing palliative first-line treatment with either GN or FOLFIRINOX. RESULTS: In unadjusted analysis, OS and PFS were highly similar between patients treated with GN (n = 297) and FOLFIRINOX (n = 158). In detail, median, 1- and 2-year OS estimates were 10.1 months, 42% and 18% in the GN group, as compared to 11.2 months, 45% and 12% in the FOLFIRINOX group, respectively (log-rank p = 0.783). Accordingly, median (4.6 versus 4.8 months), 6-month (40% versus 43%) and 1-year (9% versus 9%) PFS estimates did not significantly differ (log-rank p = 0.717). However, patients treated with FOLFIRINOX were significantly younger, had fewer comorbidities, and a better Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status. These imbalances were accounted for by weighting the data with the PS. In PS analysis of survival outcomes, OS and PFS remained comparable between the two treatment groups. In detail, PS-weighted median, 1- and 2-year OS estimates were 10.1 months, 42% and 18% in the GN group, as compared to 10.1 months, 40% and 13% in the FOLFIRINOX group (PS-weighted log-rank p = 0.449). PS-weighted PFS estimates again did not differ (PS-weighted log-rank p = 0.329). CONCLUSION: This real-world comparative effectiveness study indicates that FOLFIRINOX and GN have similar effectiveness in the palliative first-line treatment of aPDAC.

C-Reactive Protein (CRP) Levels in Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Response and Progression in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Bi-Center Study.

BACKGROUND: Biomarkers for predicting response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are scarce and often lack external validation. This study provides a comprehensive investigation of pretreatment C-reactive protein (CRP) levels as well as its longitudinal trajectories as a marker of treatment response and disease outcome in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) undergoing immunotherapy with anti PD-1 or anti PD-L1 agents. METHODS: We performed a retrospective bi-center study to assess the association between baseline CRP levels and anti PD-(L)1 treatment outcomes in the discovery cohort (n = 90), confirm these findings in an external validation cohort (n = 101) and explore the longitudinal evolution of CRP during anti PD-(L)1 treatment and the potential impact of dynamic CRP changes on treatment response and disease outcome in the discovery cohort. Joint models were implemented to evaluate the association of longitudinal CRP trajectories and progression risk. Primary treatment outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), while the objective response rate (ORR) was a secondary outcome, respectively. RESULTS: In the discovery cohort, elevated pretreatment CRP levels emerged as independent predictors of worse PFS (HR per doubling of baseline CRP = 1.37, 95% CI: 1.16-1.63, p < 0.0001), worse OS (HR per doubling of baseline CRP = 1.42, 95% CI: 1.18-1.71, p < 0.0001) and a lower ORR ((odds ratio (OR) of ORR per doubling of baseline CRP = 0.68, 95% CI: 0.51-0.92, p = 0.013)). In the validation cohort, pretreatment CRP could be fully confirmed as a predictor of PFS and OS, but not ORR. Elevated trajectories of CRP during anti PD-(L)1 treatment (adjusted HR per 10 mg/L increase in CRP = 1.22, 95% CI: 1.15-1.30, p < 0.0001), as well as a faster increases of CRP over time (HR per 10 mg/L/month faster increase in CRP levels = 13.26, 95% CI: 1.14-154.54, p = 0.039) were strong predictors of an elevated progression risk, whereas an early decline of CRP was significantly associated with a reduction in PFS risk (HR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.83-0.99, p = 0.036), respectively. CONCLUSION: These findings support the concept that CRP should be further explored by future prospective studies as a simple non-invasive biomarker for assessing treatment benefit during anti PD-(L)1 treatment in advanced NSCLC.

Benefit of second-line systemic chemotherapy for advanced biliary tract cancer: A propensity score analysis.

Whether 2nd-line-chemotherapy (2LCTX) + best-supportive-care (BSC) benefits patients with advanced biliary tract cancer (aBTC) more than BSC alone is unclear. We therefore conducted a propensity-score-based comparative effectiveness analysis of overall survival (OS) outcomes in 80 patients with metastatic, recurrent, or inoperable aBTC, of whom 38 (48%) were treated with BSC + 2LCTX and 42 (52%) with BSC alone. After a median follow-up of 14.8 months and 49 deaths, the crude 6-, 12-, and 18-month Kaplan-Meier OS estimates were 77%, 53% and 23% in the BSC + 2LCTX group, and 29%, 21%, and 14% in patients in the BSC group (p = 0.0003; Hazard ratio (HR) = 0.36, 95%CI:0.20-0.64, p = 0.001). An inverse-probability-of-treatment-weighted (IPTW) analysis was conducted to rigorously account for the higher prevalence of favorable prognostic variables in the 2LCTX + BSC group. After IPTW-weighting, the favorable association between 2LCTX and OS prevailed (adjusted HR = 0.40, 95%CI: 0.17-0.95, p = 0.037). IPTW-weighted 6-, 12-, and 18-month OS estimates were 77%, 58% and 33% in the BSC + 2LCTX group, and 39%, 28% and 22% in the BSC group (p = 0.037). Moreover, the benefit of 2LCTX was consistent across several clinically-relevant subgroups. Within the limitations of an observational study, these findings support the concept that 2LCTX + BSC is associated with an OS benefit over BSC alone in aBTC.

Patterns of venous thromboembolism risk in patients with localized colorectal cancer undergoing adjuvant chemotherapy or active surveillance: an observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromoboembolism (VTE) is a frequent and burdensome complication of metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC). However, the epidemiology of VTE in patients with localized CRC after surgery in curative intent is incompletely understood. In this single-center observational cohort study, we investigate patterns of VTE risk in localized CRC, and define its relationship with baseline risk factors, adjuvant chemotherapy and CRC recurrence. METHODS: Five-hundred-sixteen patients with stage II/III CRC were included retrospectively at the time of surgery, and followed until the occurrence of VTE, CRC recurrence, or death (median age = 65.1 years, stage II and III: n = 151 (29.5%), n = 361 (70.5%); adjCTX: n = 339 (65.7%)). RESULTS: During a median follow-up of 2.7 years, 15 VTEs (2.7%) and 116 recurrences (22.5%) occurred, and 46 patients (8.9%) died. Six-month, 1-year, and 5-year VTE risks were 1.6%, 2.0% and 3.2%, respectively. In competing risk time-to-VTE regression, adjCTX was not associated with an increased risk of VTE (Subdistribution hazard ratio = 0.98, 95% CI:0.33-2.88, p = 0.97). The occurrence of disease recurrence strongly increased the risk of VTE (Multi-state model: Transition hazard ratio (THR) = 13.03, 95% CI:4.39-38.74, p < 0.0001)). Conversely, the onset of VTE did not predict for recurrence (THR = 1.95, 95% CI: 0.62-6.16, p = 0.25). CONCLUSION: VTE risk is very low in localized CRC and does not appear to be increased by adjuvant chemotherapy. Thus, primary thromboprophylaxis is unlikely to result in clinical benefit in this population. The strongest determinant of VTE risk appears to be disease recurrence.