Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 28
Filter
2.
Langenbecks Arch Surg ; 408(1): 288, 2023 Jul 29.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37515739

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The removal of common bile duct stones by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) shows excellent results with low complication rates and is therefore considered a gold standard. However, in case of stones non-removable by ERCP, surgical extraction is needed. The surgical approach is still controversial and clinical guidelines are missing. This study aims to analyze the outcomes of patients treated with choledochotomy or hepaticojejunostomy for common bile duct stones. METHODS: All patients who underwent choledochotomy or hepaticojejunostomy for common bile duct stones at a tertiary referral hospital over 11 years were included. The analyzed data contains basic demographics, diagnostics, surgical parameters, length of hospitalization, and morbidity and mortality. RESULTS: Over the study period, 4375 patients underwent cholecystectomy, and 655 received an ERCP with stone extraction, with 48 of these patients receiving subsequent surgical treatment. ERCP was attempted in 23/30 (77%) of the choledochotomy patients pre/intraoperatively and 11/18 (56%) in hepaticojejunostomy patients. The 30-day major complication rate (Clavien-Dindo > II) was 1/30 (3%) in the choledochotomy group and 2/18 (11%) in the hepaticojejunostomy group. Complications after 30 days occurred in 3/30 (10%) patients and 2/18 (11%), respectively, and no mortality occurred. CONCLUSION: ERCP should still be considered the gold standard, although due to low short- and long-term morbidity rates, choledochotomy and hepaticojejunostomy represent effective surgical solutions for common bile duct stones.


Subject(s)
Cholecystectomy, Laparoscopic , Choledocholithiasis , Gallstones , Laparoscopy , Humans , Tertiary Care Centers , Laparoscopy/methods , Gallstones/diagnostic imaging , Gallstones/surgery , Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde , Common Bile Duct/surgery , Cholecystectomy, Laparoscopic/adverse effects , Choledocholithiasis/diagnostic imaging , Choledocholithiasis/surgery
3.
Eur J Cancer ; 188: 98-107, 2023 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37229837

ABSTRACT

STUDY AIM: To investigate the efficacy of PD-1-directed antibody-based therapy in patients with symptomatic melanoma brain metastases (MBM) and concurrent treatment with corticosteroids. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included patients with cutaneous melanoma with symptomatic MBM and concurrent treatment with corticosteroids who received PD-1-directed antibody-based treatment at the Royal Marsden Hospital London between 2016 and 2021. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS), secondary outcomes were intracranial response rate (ORR) and duration of response (DOR). We used the Kaplan-Meier method to describe survival. RESULTS: Between 2016 and 2021, 256 patients presented with metastatic melanoma, of whom 29 were eligible with symptomatic MBM requiring corticosteroids and receiving ipilimumab plus nivolumab. Median age was 54 (interquartile range 44, 66). Median OS was 5.45months (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.89, 29.40), with 21% of patients (95% CI 9%, 47%) alive after 3years. ORR was 28% (8/29) and DOR was 7.85months (95% CI 7.85, not estimably [NE]). Responding patients had a median OS of 56.4months (95% CI 46.03, NE). Elevated lactate dehydrogenase and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group PS> 2 were associated with poorer outcomes (median OS 29.4 versus 3.12months and 6.44 versus 5.13months), no such association was observed for corticosteroid dose, number of lesions, or line of treatment. CONCLUSION: Patients with symptomatic MBM derive only modest benefit from combination immunotherapy treatment. Nevertheless, those with disease response have the potential to derive long-term benefit, justifying ipilimumab plus nivolumab in this group in the absence of other more effective treatment options.


Subject(s)
Brain Neoplasms , Melanoma , Skin Neoplasms , Humans , Middle Aged , Melanoma/pathology , Ipilimumab/adverse effects , Nivolumab/adverse effects , Skin Neoplasms/pathology , Retrospective Studies , Programmed Cell Death 1 Receptor/therapeutic use , Brain Neoplasms/secondary , Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols/adverse effects
5.
Cancer Discov ; 13(6): 1364-1385, 2023 06 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36977461

ABSTRACT

Understanding the evolutionary pathways to metastasis and resistance to immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in melanoma is critical for improving outcomes. Here, we present the most comprehensive intrapatient metastatic melanoma dataset assembled to date as part of the Posthumous Evaluation of Advanced Cancer Environment (PEACE) research autopsy program, including 222 exome sequencing, 493 panel-sequenced, 161 RNA sequencing, and 22 single-cell whole-genome sequencing samples from 14 ICI-treated patients. We observed frequent whole-genome doubling and widespread loss of heterozygosity, often involving antigen-presentation machinery. We found KIT extrachromosomal DNA may have contributed to the lack of response to KIT inhibitors of a KIT-driven melanoma. At the lesion-level, MYC amplifications were enriched in ICI nonresponders. Single-cell sequencing revealed polyclonal seeding of metastases originating from clones with different ploidy in one patient. Finally, we observed that brain metastases that diverged early in molecular evolution emerge late in disease. Overall, our study illustrates the diverse evolutionary landscape of advanced melanoma. SIGNIFICANCE: Despite treatment advances, melanoma remains a deadly disease at stage IV. Through research autopsy and dense sampling of metastases combined with extensive multiomic profiling, our study elucidates the many mechanisms that melanomas use to evade treatment and the immune system, whether through mutations, widespread copy-number alterations, or extrachromosomal DNA. See related commentary by Shain, p. 1294. This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 1275.


Subject(s)
Brain Neoplasms , Melanoma , Humans , Melanoma/pathology , Mutation , Evolution, Molecular , DNA
6.
Int J Cancer ; 152(12): 2474-2484, 2023 06 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36779785

ABSTRACT

Concerns have been raised that regulatory programs to accelerate approval of cancer drugs in cancer may increase uncertainty about benefits and harms for survival and quality of life (QoL). We analyzed all pivotal clinical trials and all non-pivotal randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for all cancer drugs approved for the first time by the FDA between 2000 and 2020. We report regulatory and trial characteristics. Effects on overall survival (OS), progression-free survival and tumor response were summarized in meta-analyses. Effects on QoL were qualitatively summarized. Between 2000 and 2020, the FDA approved 145 novel cancer drugs for 156 indications based on 190 clinical trials. Half of indications (49%) were approved without RCT evidence; 82% had a single clinical trial only. OS was primary endpoint in 14% of trials and QoL data were available from 25%. The median OS benefit was 2.55 months (IQR, 1.33-4.28) with a mean hazard ratio for OS of 0.75 (95%CI, 0.72-0.79, I2  = 42). Improvement for QoL was reported for 7 (4%) of 156 indications. Over time, priority review was used increasingly and the mean number of trials per indication decreased from 1.45 to 1.12. More trials reported results on QoL (19% in 2000-2005; 41% in 2016-2020). For 21 years, novel cancer drugs have typically been approved based on one single, often uncontrolled, clinical trial, measuring surrogate endpoints. This leaves cancer patients without solid evidence that novel drugs improve their survival or QoL and there is no indication towards improvement.


Subject(s)
Antineoplastic Agents , Neoplasms , United States , Humans , United States Food and Drug Administration , Drug Approval , Neoplasms/drug therapy , Antineoplastic Agents/therapeutic use , Pharmaceutical Preparations
8.
Cell Rep Med ; 3(10): 100781, 2022 10 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36240755

ABSTRACT

Patients with blood cancer continue to have a greater risk of inadequate immune responses following three COVID-19 vaccine doses and risk of severe COVID-19 disease. In the context of the CAPTURE study (NCT03226886), we report immune responses in 80 patients with blood cancer who received a fourth dose of BNT162b2. We measured neutralizing antibody titers (NAbTs) using a live virus microneutralization assay against wild-type (WT), Delta, and Omicron BA.1 and BA.2 and T cell responses against WT and Omicron BA.1 using an activation-induced marker (AIM) assay. The proportion of patients with detectable NAb titers and T cell responses after the fourth vaccine dose increased compared with that after the third vaccine dose. Patients who received B cell-depleting therapies within the 12 months before vaccination have the greatest risk of not having detectable NAbT. In addition, we report immune responses in 57 patients with breakthrough infections after vaccination.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Neoplasms , Humans , Antibodies, Neutralizing , Antibodies, Viral , BNT162 Vaccine , Clinical Studies as Topic , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , Immunity , SARS-CoV-2
10.
Cancers (Basel) ; 14(9)2022 Apr 27.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35565320

ABSTRACT

Purpose: These are the final results of a national registry on cancer patients with COVID-19 in Switzerland. Methods: We collected data on symptomatic COVID-19-infected cancer patients from 23 Swiss sites over a one-year period starting on 1 March 2020. The main objective was to assess the outcome (i.e., mortality, rate of hospitalization, ICU admission) of COVID-19 infection in cancer patients; the main secondary objective was to define prognostic factors. Results: From 455 patients included, 205 patients (45%) had non-curative disease, 241 patients (53%) were hospitalized for COVID-19, 213 (47%) required oxygen, 43 (9%) invasive ventilation and 62 (14%) were admitted to the ICU. Death from COVID-19 infection occurred in 98 patients, resulting in a mortality rate of 21.5%. Age ≥65 years versus <65 years (OR 3.14, p = 0.003), non-curative versus curative disease (OR 2.42, p = 0.012), ICU admission (OR 4.45, p < 0.001) and oxygen requirement (OR 20.28, p < 0.001) were independently associated with increased mortality. Conclusions: We confirmed high COVID-19 severity and mortality in real-world cancer patients during the first and second wave of the pandemic in a country with a decentralized, high-quality, universal-access health care system. COVID-19-associated mortality was particularly high for those of older age in a non-curative disease setting, requiring oxygen or ICU care.

14.
Expert Rev Anticancer Ther ; 22(1): 17-25, 2022 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34904502

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: The treatment of metastatic melanoma has been revolutionized by the introduction of immune checkpoint inhibitors and BRAF/MEK inhibition. Nevertheless, almost half of patients will progress or show primary resistance to treatment. The combination of BRAF/MEK and immune checkpoint inhibition might achieve higher response rates and improve long-term disease control. The IMspire150 trial investigated the combination of atezolizumab, cobimetinib and vemurafenib versus cobimetinib and vemurafenib alone. AREAS COVERED: This review covers the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab, cobimetinib and vemurafenib for patients with advanced or metastatic BRAF mutant melanoma. The combination is compared with the current standard of care including BRAF/MEK inhibition and treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors. EXPERT OPINION: Atezolizumab plus cobimetinib and vemurafenib showed superior progression-free survival in metastatic melanoma compared to cobimetinib and vemurafenib alone. Triplet therapy might be an option in situations of urgent need for disease control, when oncologists choose BRAF/MEK inhibition over immune checkpoint inhibition as first line treatment. At this time results are not mature yet, and longer follow-up including overall survival data is needed. The future role of this combination will also be determined by a comparison with the combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab.


Subject(s)
Melanoma , Skin Neoplasms , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized , Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols/pharmacology , Azetidines , Humans , Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors , Melanoma/drug therapy , Melanoma/genetics , Melanoma/pathology , Mitogen-Activated Protein Kinase Kinases , Mutation , Piperidines , Proto-Oncogene Proteins B-raf/genetics , Skin Neoplasms/drug therapy , Skin Neoplasms/genetics , Skin Neoplasms/pathology , Vemurafenib/therapeutic use
15.
Cancer Cell ; 40(2): 114-116, 2022 02 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34968417
16.
Nat Cancer ; 2: 1321-1337, 2021 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34950880

ABSTRACT

CAPTURE (NCT03226886) is a prospective cohort study of COVID-19 immunity in patients with cancer. Here we evaluated 585 patients following administration of two doses of BNT162b2 or AZD1222 vaccines, administered 12 weeks apart. Seroconversion rates after two doses were 85% and 59% in patients with solid and hematological malignancies, respectively. A lower proportion of patients had detectable neutralizing antibody titers (NAbT) against SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VOCs) vs wildtype (WT). Patients with hematological malignancies were more likely to have undetectable NAbT and had lower median NAbT vs solid cancers against both WT and VOCs. In comparison with individuals without cancer, patients with haematological, but not solid, malignancies had reduced NAb responses. Seroconversion showed poor concordance with NAbT against VOCs. Prior SARS-CoV-2 infection boosted NAb response including against VOCs, and anti-CD20 treatment was associated with undetectable NAbT. Vaccine-induced T-cell responses were detected in 80% of patients, and were comparable between vaccines or cancer types. Our results have implications for the management of cancer patients during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.


Subject(s)
Adaptive Immunity/immunology , Antibodies, Neutralizing/immunology , COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , COVID-19/immunology , Carcinoma, Renal Cell/complications , Kidney Neoplasms/complications , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , BNT162 Vaccine/administration & dosage , BNT162 Vaccine/immunology , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , ChAdOx1 nCoV-19/administration & dosage , ChAdOx1 nCoV-19/immunology , Female , Humans , Immunogenicity, Vaccine/immunology , Longitudinal Studies , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics/prevention & control , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , SARS-CoV-2/physiology , T-Lymphocytes/immunology , T-Lymphocytes/virology , Vaccination/methods
17.
BMC Infect Dis ; 21(1): 1170, 2021 Nov 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34800996

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Convalescent plasma has been widely used to treat COVID-19 and is under investigation in numerous randomized clinical trials, but results are publicly available only for a small number of trials. The objective of this study was to assess the benefits of convalescent plasma treatment compared to placebo or no treatment and all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19, using data from all available randomized clinical trials, including unpublished and ongoing trials (Open Science Framework, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GEHFX ). METHODS: In this collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis, clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), the Cochrane COVID-19 register, the LOVE database, and PubMed were searched until April 8, 2021. Investigators of trials registered by March 1, 2021, without published results were contacted via email. Eligible were ongoing, discontinued and completed randomized clinical trials that compared convalescent plasma with placebo or no treatment in COVID-19 patients, regardless of setting or treatment schedule. Aggregated mortality data were extracted from publications or provided by investigators of unpublished trials and combined using the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman random effects model. We investigated the contribution of unpublished trials to the overall evidence. RESULTS: A total of 16,477 patients were included in 33 trials (20 unpublished with 3190 patients, 13 published with 13,287 patients). 32 trials enrolled only hospitalized patients (including 3 with only intensive care unit patients). Risk of bias was low for 29/33 trials. Of 8495 patients who received convalescent plasma, 1997 died (23%), and of 7982 control patients, 1952 died (24%). The combined risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.97 (95% confidence interval: 0.92; 1.02) with between-study heterogeneity not beyond chance (I2 = 0%). The RECOVERY trial had 69.8% and the unpublished evidence 25.3% of the weight in the meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Convalescent plasma treatment of patients with COVID-19 did not reduce all-cause mortality. These results provide strong evidence that convalescent plasma treatment for patients with COVID-19 should not be used outside of randomized trials. Evidence synthesis from collaborations among trial investigators can inform both evidence generation and evidence application in patient care.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , COVID-19/therapy , Humans , Immunization, Passive , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome , COVID-19 Serotherapy
18.
Res Sq ; 2021 Sep 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34580668

ABSTRACT

Patients with cancer have higher COVID-19 morbidity and mortality. Here we present the prospective CAPTURE study (NCT03226886) integrating longitudinal immune profiling with clinical annotation. Of 357 patients with cancer, 118 were SARS-CoV-2-positive, 94 were symptomatic and 2 patients died of COVID-19. In this cohort, 83% patients had S1-reactive antibodies, 82% had neutralizing antibodies against WT, whereas neutralizing antibody titers (NAbT) against the Alpha, Beta, and Delta variants were substantially reduced. Whereas S1-reactive antibody levels decreased in 13% of patients, NAbT remained stable up to 329 days. Patients also had detectable SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells and CD4+ responses correlating with S1-reactive antibody levels, although patients with hematological malignancies had impaired immune responses that were disease and treatment-specific, but presented compensatory cellular responses, further supported by clinical. Overall, these findings advance the understanding of the nature and duration of immune response to SARS-CoV-2 in patients with cancer.

20.
Nat Commun ; 12(1): 2349, 2021 04 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33859192

ABSTRACT

Substantial COVID-19 research investment has been allocated to randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine, which currently face recruitment challenges or early discontinuation. We aim to estimate the effects of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine on survival in COVID-19 from all currently available RCT evidence, published and unpublished. We present a rapid meta-analysis of ongoing, completed, or discontinued RCTs on hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine treatment for any COVID-19 patients (protocol: https://osf.io/QESV4/ ). We systematically identified unpublished RCTs (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Cochrane COVID-registry up to June 11, 2020), and published RCTs (PubMed, medRxiv and bioRxiv up to October 16, 2020). All-cause mortality has been extracted (publications/preprints) or requested from investigators and combined in random-effects meta-analyses, calculating odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), separately for hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine. Prespecified subgroup analyses include patient setting, diagnostic confirmation, control type, and publication status. Sixty-three trials were potentially eligible. We included 14 unpublished trials (1308 patients) and 14 publications/preprints (9011 patients). Results for hydroxychloroquine are dominated by RECOVERY and WHO SOLIDARITY, two highly pragmatic trials, which employed relatively high doses and included 4716 and 1853 patients, respectively (67% of the total sample size). The combined OR on all-cause mortality for hydroxychloroquine is 1.11 (95% CI: 1.02, 1.20; I² = 0%; 26 trials; 10,012 patients) and for chloroquine 1.77 (95%CI: 0.15, 21.13, I² = 0%; 4 trials; 307 patients). We identified no subgroup effects. We found that treatment with hydroxychloroquine is associated with increased mortality in COVID-19 patients, and there is no benefit of chloroquine. Findings have unclear generalizability to outpatients, children, pregnant women, and people with comorbidities.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Drug Treatment , COVID-19/mortality , Chloroquine/adverse effects , Hydroxychloroquine/adverse effects , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious/mortality , Adult , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/virology , Child , Chloroquine/administration & dosage , Combined Modality Therapy/adverse effects , Combined Modality Therapy/methods , Comorbidity , Female , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine/administration & dosage , International Cooperation , Odds Ratio , Patient Participation/statistics & numerical data , Pregnancy , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious/drug therapy , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious/virology , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...