Intracranial hemorrhage with direct oral anticoagulants in patients with brain tumors.

Essentials Intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) is common in patients with brain tumors. We compared rates of ICH with DOACs and low molecular weight heparin. DOACs were associated with a lower incidence of ICH in primary brain tumors. DOACs appear safe to administer to patients with brain tumors. SUMMARY: Background Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are efficacious in the treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis but are associated with an increased risk of hemorrhage compared with low-molecular-weight heparin in certain malignancies. Whether the DOACs increase the incidence of intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) in patients with brain tumors is not established. Objectives To determine the cumulative incidence of ICH in DOACs compared with Low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) in patients with brain tumors and venous thromboembolism. Patients and methods A retrospective comparative cohort study was performed. Radiographic images for all ICH events were reviewed and the primary endpoint was cumulative incidence of ICH at 12 months following initiation of anticoagulation. Results and conclusions A total of 172 patients with brain tumors were evaluated (42 DOAC and 131 LMWH). In the primary brain tumor cohort (n = 67), the cumulative incidence of any ICH was 0% in patients receiving DOACs vs. 36.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 22.3-51.3%) in those treated with LMWH, with a major ICH incidence of 18.2% (95% CI, 8.4-31.0). In the brain metastases cohort (n = 105), DOACs did not increase the risk of any ICH relative to enoxaparin, with an incidence of 27.8% (95% CI, 5.5-56.7%) compared with 52.9% (95% CI, 37.4-66.2%). Similarly, DOAC did not increase the incidence of major ICH in brain metastases, with a cumulative incidence 11.1% (95% CI, 0.5-40.6%) vs. 17.8% (95% CI, 10.2-27.2%). We conclude that DOACs are not associated with an increased incidence of ICH relative to LMWH in patients with brain metastases or primary brain tumors.

Validation of a new prognostic model to easily predict outcome in renal cell carcinoma: the GRANT score applied to the ASSURE trial population.

Background: Prognostic scores have been developed to estimate the risk of recurrence and the probability of survival after nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma (RCC). The use of these tools, despite being helpful to plan a customized schedule of follow-up, to the patient's tailored counselling and to select individuals who could potentially benefit from adjuvant treatment, currently is not routine, due to their relative complexity and to the lack of histological data (i.e. necrosis). Patients and methods: We developed a simple score called GRade, Age, Nodes and Tumor (GRANT) based on four easily obtained parameters: Fuhrman grade, age, pathological nodal status and pathological tumor size. Patients with 0 or 1 factor are classified as favorable risk, whereas patients with two or more risk factors as unfavorable risk. The large population of RCC patients from the ASSURE adjuvant trial was used as independent dataset for this external validation, to investigate the prognostic value of the new score in terms of disease-free survival and overall survival and to evaluate its possible application as predictive tool. Statistical analyses were carried out by the Department of Biostatistics & Computational Biology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (Boston, USA) for the ASSURE trial patients' population. Results: The performance of the new model is similar to that of the already validated score systems, but its strength, compared with the others already available, is the ease and clarity of its calculation, with great speed of use during the clinical practice. Limitations are the use of the Fuhrman nuclear grade, not valid for rare histologies, and the TNM classification modifications over time. Conclusion: The GRANT score demonstrated its potential usefulness for clinical practice. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier for the ASSURE trial: NCT00326898.

Transforming the Perioperative Treatment Paradigm in Non-Metastatic RCC-A Possible Path Forward.

In 2017, there is no adjuvant systemic therapy proven to increase overall survival in non-metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). The anti-PD-1 antibody nivolumab improves overall survival in metastatic treatment refractory RCC and is generally tolerable. Mouse solid tumor models have revealed a benefit with a short course of neoadjuvant PD-1 blockade compared to adjuvant therapy. Two ongoing phase 2 studies of perioperative nivolumab in RCC patients have shown preliminary feasibility and safety with no surgical delays or complications. The recently opened PROSPER RCC trial (A Phase 3 RandOmized Study Comparing PERioperative Nivolumab vs. Observation in Patients with Localized Renal Cell Carcinoma Undergoing Nephrectomy; EA8143) will examine if the addition of perioperative nivolumab to radical or partial nephrectomy can improve clinical outcomes in patients with high risk localized and locally advanced RCC. With the goal of increasing cure and recurrence-free survival (RFS) rates in non-metastatic RCC, we are executing a three-pronged, multidisciplinary approach of presurgical priming with nivolumab followed by resection and adjuvant PD-1 blockade. We plan to enroll 766 patients with clinical stage ≥T2 or node positive M0 RCC of any histology in this global, randomized, unblinded, phase 3 National Clinical Trials Network study. The investigational arm will receive two doses of nivolumab 240 mg IV prior to surgery followed by adjuvant nivolumab for 9 months. The control arm will undergo the current standard of care: surgical resection followed by observation. Patients are stratified by clinical T stage, node positivity, and histology. The trial is powered to detect a 14.4% absolute benefit in the primary endpoint of RFS from the ASSURE historical control of 55.8% to 70.2% at 5 years (HR = 0.70). The study is also powered to detect a significant overall survival benefit (HR 0.67). Key safety, feasibility, and quality of life endpoints are incorporated. PROSPER RCC exemplifies team science with a host of planned correlative work to investigate the impact of the baseline immune milieu and changes after neoadjuvant priming on clinical outcomes.