A nomogram based on the SII3 and clinical indicators predicts survival in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma treated with PD-1 inhibitors.

Numerous inflammatory indicators have been demonstrated to be strongly correlated with tumor prognosis. However, the association between inflammatory indicators and the prognosis of patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) receiving treatment with programmed death receptor-1 (PD-1) immunosuppressant monoclonal antibodies remains uncertain. Inflammatory indicators in peripheral blood were collected from 161 NPC patients at 3 weeks after initial PD-1 treatment. Through univariate and multivariate analyses, as well as nomogram and survival analyses, we aimed to identify independent prognostic factors related to 1-year progression-free survival (PFS). Subsequently, a prognostic nomogram was devised, and its predictive and discriminating abilities were assessed utilizing calibration curves and the concordance index. Our univariate and multivariate analyses indicated that age (P = .012), M stage (P < .001), and systemic immune-inflammation index (SII) during the third week following initial PD-1 treatment (SII3, P = .005) were independently correlated with the 1-year PFS of NPC patients after PD-1 treatment. Notably, we constructed a novel nomogram based on the SII3, age, and M stage. Importantly, utilizing the derived cutoff point from the nomogram, the high-risk group exhibited significantly shorter PFS than did the low-risk group (P < .001). Furthermore, the nomogram demonstrated a greater concordance index for PFS than did the tumor node metastasis stage within the entire cohort. We successfully developed a nomogram that integrates the SII3 and clinical markers to accurately predict the 1-year PFS of NPC patients receiving PD-1 inhibitor treatment.

Outcomes of patients in nasopharyngeal adenoid cystic carcinoma in the IMRT era: a single-center experience.

OBJECTIVE: Nasopharyngeal adenoid cystic carcinoma (NACC) is a rare malignancy with special biological features. Controversies exist regarding the treatment approach and prognostic factors in the IMRT era. This study aimed to evaluate the long-term outcomes and management approaches in NACC. METHODS: Fifty patients with NACC at our institution between 2010 and 2020 were reviewed. Sixteen patients received primary radiotherapy (RT), and 34 patients underwent primary surgery. RESULTS: Between January 2010 and October 2020, a total of 50 patients with pathologically proven NACC were included in our analysis. The median follow-up time was 58.5 months (range: 6.0-151.0 months). The 5-year overall survival rate (OS) and progression-free survival rate (PFS) were 83.9% and 67.5%, respectively. The 5-year OS rates of patients whose primary treatment was surgery and RT were 90.0% and 67.3%, respectively (log-rank P = 0.028). The 5-year PFS rates of patients whose primary treatment was surgery or RT were 80.8% and 40.7%, respectively (log-rank P = 0.024). Multivariate analyses showed that nerve invasion and the pattern of primary treatment were independent factors associated with PFS. CONCLUSIONS: Due to the relative insensitivity to radiation, primary surgery seemed to provide a better chance of disease control and improved survival in NACC. Meanwhile, postoperative radiotherapy should be performed for advanced stage or residual tumours. Cranial nerve invasion and treatment pattern might be important factors affecting the prognosis of patients with NACC.

Response- and Progression-Based End Points in Trial and Observational Cohorts of Patients With NSCLC.

Importance: Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) are commonly used to assess therapeutic response in clinical trials but not in routine care; thus, RECIST-based end points are difficult to include in observational studies. Clinician-anchored approaches for measuring clinical response have been validated but not widely compared with clinical trial data, limiting their use as evidence for clinical decision-making. Objective: To compare response- and progression-based end points in clinical trial and observational cohorts of patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used patient-level data from the IMpower132 trial (conducted April 7, 2016, to May 31, 2017) and a nationwide electronic health record (EHR)-derived deidentified database (data collected January 1, 2011, to March 31, 2022). Patients in the observational cohort were selected according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria of the IMpower132 trial. All patients in the observational cohort had stage IV NSCLC. Exposure: All patients were randomized to or received first-line carboplatin or cisplatin plus pemetrexed. Main Outcomes and Measures: End points included response rates, duration of response, and progression-free survival, compared between the trial and observational cohorts before and after weighting. Response rates for the observational cohort were derived from the EHR. Results: A total of 769 patients met inclusion criteria, 494 in the observational cohort (median [IQR] age, 67 [60-74] years; 228 [46.2%] female; 45 [9.1%] Black or African American; 352 [71.3%] White; 53 [10.7%] American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, or multiracial) and 275 in the trial cohort (median [IQR] age, 63 [56-68] years; 90 [32.7%] female; 4 [1.5%] Black or African American; 194 [70.5%] White; 65 [23.6%] American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, or multiracial). All 3 end points were comparable between the study cohorts. Trial patients had a higher number of response assessments compared with patients in the weighted observational cohort. The EHR-derived response rate was numerically higher than the objective response rate after weighting (100.3 of 249.3 [40.2%] vs 105 of 275 [38.2%]) due to higher rates of observed partial response than RECIST-based partial response. Among patients with at least 1 response assessment, the EHR-derived response rate remained higher than the objective response rate (100.3 of 193.4 [51.9%] vs 105 of 256 [41.0%]) due to a higher proportion of patients in the observational cohort with no response assessment. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, response- and progression-based end points were similar between clinical trial and weighted observational cohorts, which increases confidence in the reliability of observational end points and can inform their interpretation in relation to trial end points. Additionally, the difference observed in response rates (including vs excluding patients with no response assessment) highlights the importance of future research adopting this 2-way approach when evaluating the relationship of EHR-derived and objective response rates.

Daratumumab and antineoplastic therapy versus antineoplastic therapy only for adults with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma ineligible for transplant.

BACKGROUND: Multiple myeloma (MM) is a haematological malignancy that is characterised by proliferation of malignant plasma cells in the bone marrow. For adults ineligible to receive high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplant, the recommended treatment combinations in first-line therapy generally consist of combinations of alkylating agents, immunomodulatory drugs, and proteasome inhibitors. Daratumumab is a CD38-targeting, human IgG1k monoclonal antibody recently developed and approved for the treatment of people diagnosed with MM. Multiple myeloma cells uniformly over-express CD-38, a 46-kDa type II transmembrane glycoprotein, making myeloma cells a specific target for daratumumab. OBJECTIVES: To determine the benefits and harms of daratumumab in addition to antineoplastic therapy compared to antineoplastic therapy only for adults with newly diagnosed MM who are ineligible for transplant. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, EU Clinical Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, and conference proceedings from 2010 to September 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that compared treatment with daratumumab added to antineoplastic therapy versus the same antineoplastic therapy alone in adult participants with a confirmed diagnosis of MM. We excluded quasi-randomised trials and trials with less than 80% adult participants, unless there were subgroup analyses of adults with MM. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened the results of the search strategies for eligibility. We documented the process of study selection in a flowchart as recommended by the PRISMA statement. We evaluated the risk of bias in included studies with RoB 1 and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. We followed standard Cochrane methodological procedures. MAIN RESULTS: We included four open-label, two-armed randomised controlled trials (34 publications) involving a total of 1783 participants. The ALCYONE, MAIA, and OCTANS trials were multicentre trials conducted worldwide in middle- and high-income countries. The AMaRC 03-16 trial was conducted in one high-income country, Australia. The mean age of participants was 69 to 74 years, and the proportion of female participants was between 40% and 54%. All trials evaluated antineoplastic therapies with or without daratumumab. In the ALCYONE and OCTANS trials, daratumumab was combined with bortezomib and melphalan-prednisone. In the AMaRC 03-16 study, it was combined with bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone, and in the MAIA study, it was combined with lenalidomide and dexamethasone. None of the included studies was blinded (high risk of performance and detection bias). One study was published as abstract only, therefore the risk of bias for most criteria was unclear. The other three studies were published as full texts. Apart from blinding, the risk of bias was low for these studies. Overall survival Treatment with daratumumab probably increases overall survival when compared to the same treatment without daratumumab (hazard ratio (HR) 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 0.76, 2 studies, 1443 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). After a follow-up period of 36 months, 695 per 1000 participants survived in the control group, whereas 792 per 1000 participants survived in the daratumumab group (95% CI 758 to 825). Progression-free survival Treatment with daratumumab probably increases progression-free survival when compared to treatment without daratumumab (HR 0.48, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.58, 3 studies, 1663 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). After a follow-up period of 24 months, progression-free survival was reached in 494 per 1000 participants in the control group versus 713 per 1000 participants in the daratumumab group (95% CI 664 to 760). Quality of life Treatment with daratumumab may result in a very small increase in quality of life after 12 months, evaluated on the EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status scale (GHS), when compared to treatment without daratumumab (mean difference 2.19, 95% CI -0.13 to 4.51, 3 studies, 1096 participants, low-certainty evidence). The scale is from 0 to 100, with a higher value indicating a better quality of life. On-study mortality Treatment with daratumumab probably decreases on-study mortality when compared to treatment without daratumumab (risk ratio (RR) 0.72, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.83, 3 studies, 1644 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). After the longest follow-up available (12 to 72 months), 366 per 1000 participants in the control group and 264 per 1000 participants in the daratumumab group died (95% CI 227 to 304). Serious adverse events Treatment with daratumumab probably increases serious adverse events when compared to treatment without daratumumab (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.37, 3 studies, 1644 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). After the longest follow-up available (12 to 72 months), 505 per 1000 participants in the control group versus 596 per 1000 participants in the daratumumab group experienced serious adverse events (95% CI 515 to 692). Adverse events (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) grade ≥ 3) Treatment with daratumumab probably results in little to no difference in adverse events (CTCAE grade ≥ 3) when compared to treatment without daratumumab (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.02, 3 studies, 1644 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). After the longest follow-up available (12 to 72 months), 953 per 1000 participants in the control group versus 963 per 1000 participants in the daratumumab group experienced adverse events (CTCAE grade ≥ 3) (95% CI 943 to 972). Treatment with daratumumab probably increases the risk of infections (CTCAE grade ≥ 3) when compared to treatment without daratumumab (RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.30 to 1.78, 3 studies, 1644 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). After the longest follow-up available (12 to 72 months), 224 per 1000 participants in the control group versus 340 per 1000 participants in the daratumumab group experienced infections (CTCAE grade ≥ 3) (95% CI 291 to 399). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Overall analysis of four studies showed a potential benefit for daratumumab in terms of overall survival and progression-free survival and a slight potential benefit in quality of life. Participants treated with daratumumab probably experience increased serious adverse events. There were likely no differences between groups in adverse events (CTCAE grade ≥ 3); however, there are probably more infections (CTCAE grade ≥ 3) in participants treated with daratumumab. We identified six ongoing studies which might strengthen the certainty of evidence in a future update of this review.

Clinical outcomes of pomalidomide-based and daratumumab-based therapies in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: A real-world cohort study in China.

BACKGROUND: Comparative investigations evaluating the efficacy of pomalidomide-based (Pom-based) versus daratumumab-based (Dara-based) therapies in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) remain scarce, both in randomized controlled trials and real-world studies. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included 140 RRMM patients treated with Pom-based or Dara-based or a combination of pomalidomide and daratumumab (DPd) regimens in a Chinese tertiary hospital between December 2018 and July 2023. RESULTS: The overall response rates (ORR) for Pom-based (n = 48), Dara-based (n = 68), and DPd (n = 24) groups were 57.8%, 84.6%, and 75.0%, respectively (p = 0.007). At data cutoff on August 1, 2023, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 5.7 months (95% CI: 5.0-6.5) for the Pom-based group, 10.5 months (5.2-15.8) for the Dara-based group, and 6.7 months (4.0-9.3) for the DPd group (p = 0.056). Multivariate analysis identified treatment regimens (Dara-based vs. Pom-based, DPd vs. Pom-based) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) as independent prognostic factors for PFS. In the subgroups of patients aged >65 years, with ECOG PS ≥2, lines of therapy ≥2, extramedullary disease or double-refractory disease (refractory to both lenalidomide and proteasome inhibitors), the superiority of Dara-based regimens over Pom-based regimens was not evident. A higher incidence of infections was observed in patients receiving Dara-based and DPd regimens (Pom-based 39.6% vs. Dara-based 64.7% vs. DPd 70.8%, p = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: In real-world settings, Pom-based, Dara-based, and DPd therapies exhibited favorable efficacy in patients with RRMM. Dara-based therapy yielded superior clinical response and PFS compared to Pom-based therapy.

Gene mutation profiling in microsatellite instability colorectal cancer and its association with the efficacy of immunotherapy: A retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) colorectal cancer (CRC) is known for its heightened responsiveness to immunotherapy. However, establishing robust predictive markers for immunotherapy efficacy remains imperative. This retrospective study aimed to elucidate the genetic landscape of MSI-H CRC and correlate these genetic alterations with immunotherapy outcomes in a cohort of 121 patients. METHODS: We analyzed clinical and molecular data from 121 patients with MSI-H CRC. We conducted a thorough genetic analysis of MSI-H CRC patients, with a specific emphasis on the APC, TP53, RAS, and MMR genes. We further analyzed the relationship between gene mutations and immunotherapy efficacy. The primary endpoints analyzed were objective response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS). All statistical analysis was conducted using SPSS26.0 and R 4.2.0 software. RESULTS: Our findings underscored the complexity of the genetic landscape in MSI-H CRC, shedding light on the intricate interplay of these genes in CRC development. Notably, mutations in MMR genes exhibited a distinctive pattern, providing insights into the underlying mechanisms of MSI-H. Furthermore, our results revealed correlations between specific genetic alterations and immunotherapy outcomes, with a particular focus on treatment response rates and progression-free survival. CONCLUSION: This study represents a significant step toward unraveling the genetic nuances of MSI-H CRC. The distinctive pattern of MMR gene mutations not only adds depth to our understanding of MSI-H CRC but also hints at potential avenues for targeted therapies. This research sets the stage for future investigations aimed at refining therapeutic strategies and improving outcomes for patients with MSI-H CRC.

Prognostic relevance of radiological findings on early postoperative MRI for 187 consecutive glioblastoma patients receiving standard therapy.

Several prognostic factors are known to influence survival for patients treated with IDH-wildtype glioblastoma, but unknown factors may remain. We aimed to investigate the prognostic implications of early postoperative MRI findings. A total of 187 glioblastoma patients treated with standard therapy were consecutively included. Patients either underwent a biopsy or surgery followed by an early postoperative MRI. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were analysed for known prognostic factors and MRI-derived candidate factors: resection status as defined by the response assessment in neuro-oncology (RANO)-working group (no contrast-enhancing residual tumour, non-measurable contrast-enhancing residual tumour, or measurable contrast-enhancing residual tumour) with biopsy as reference, contrast enhancement patterns (no enhancement, thin linear, thick linear, diffuse, nodular), and the presence of distant tumours. In the multivariate analysis, patients with no contrast-enhancing residual tumour or non-measurable contrast-enhancing residual tumour on the early postoperative MRI displayed a significantly improved progression-free survival compared with patients receiving only a biopsy. Only patients with non-measurable contrast-enhancing residual tumour showed improved overall survival in the multivariate analysis. Contrast enhancement patterns were not associated with survival. The presence of distant tumours was significantly associated with both poor progression-free survival and overall survival and should be considered incorporated into prognostic models.

Beneficial effects of maintaining liver function during hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy combined with tyrosine kinase and programmed cell death protein-1 inhibitors on the outcomes of patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Combination therapy is the primary treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (u-HCC). The hepatic functional reserve is also critical in the treatment of HCC. In this study, u-HCC was treated with combined hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC), tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), and programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) inhibitors to analyze the therapeutic response, progression-free survival (PFS), and safety. METHODS: One hundred sixty-two (162) patients with u-HCC were treated by combination therapy of HAIC, TKIs, and PD-1 inhibitors. PFS was assessed by Child-Pugh (CP) classification subgroups and the change in the CP score during treatment. RESULTS: The median PFS was 11.7 and 5.1 months for patients with CP class A (CPA) and CP class B (CPB), respectively (p = 0.013), with respective objective response rates of 61.1 and 27.8% (p = 0.002) and conversion rates of 16 and 0% (p = 0.078). During treatment, the CP scores in patients with CPA worsened less in those with complete and partial response than in those with stable and progressive disease. In the CP score 5, patients with an unchanged CP score had longer PFS than those with a worsened score (Not reached vs. 7.9 months, p = 0.018). CPB was an independent factor negatively affecting treatment response and PFS. Patients with CPA responded better to the combination therapy and had fewer adverse events (AEs) than those with CPB. CONCLUSIONS: Thus, triple therapy is more beneficial in patients with good liver function, and it is crucial to maintain liver function during treatment.

Efficacy and safety of different chemotherapy regimens concurrent with radiotherapy in the treatment of locally advanced cervical cancer.

BACKGROUND: Evaluate the efficacy and safety of different chemotherapy regimens concurrent with radiotherapy in treating locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC). METHODS: Retrospective data was collected from LACC patients who were treated at our institution. These patients were categorized into three groups: the single-agent cisplatin (DDP) chemoradiotherapy group, the paclitaxel plus cisplatin (TP) chemoradiotherapy group, and the nanoparticle albumin-bound (nab-) paclitaxel combined with cisplatin (nPP) chemoradiotherapy group. The primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) and the secondary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR) and incidence of adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: A total of 124 patients were enrolled (32 in the DDP group, 41 in the TP group, and 51 in the nPP group). There were differences in OS (P = 0.041, HR 0.527, 95% CI 0.314-0.884) and PFS (P = 0.003, HR 0.517, 95% CI 0.343-0.779) between the three groups. Notably, the 2-year OS rate was significantly higher in the nPP group compared to the DDP group (92.2% vs. 85.4%, P = 0.012). The 2-year PFS rates showed a marked increase in the TP group (78.0% vs. 59.4%, P = 0.048) and the nPP group (88.2% vs. 59.4%, P = 0.001) relative to the DPP group, with multiple comparisons indicating that the 2-year PFS rate was significantly superior in the nPP group versus the DDP group (88.2% vs. 59.4%, P = 0.001). Moreover, the ORR was also significantly higher in the nPP group than in the DDP group (P = 0.013); and no statistically significant differences were found in the incidence of AEs among the groups (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In LACC treatment, the two cisplatin-based doublet chemotherapy regimens are associated with better outcomes, with the nab-paclitaxel plus cisplatin regimen showing better efficacy than the paclitaxel plus cisplatin regimen. Furthermore, the AEs associated with these regimens were deemed tolerable. These findings could provide a reference for the clinical treatment of LACC. However, further prospective studies are needed to verify it.

Evaluating Oral Probiotic Supplements as Complementary Treatment in Advanced Lung Cancer Patients Receiving ICIs: A Prospective Real-World Study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of oral probiotic supplements in patients undergoing immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for the treatment of advanced lung cancer. METHODS: This prospective real-world study enrolled patients with advanced lung cancer who were receiving ICIs as part of their treatment. The patients were divided into 2 groups: Group OPS received oral probiotic supplements along with ICIs, while Group C did not. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). The secondary outcome measure was the objective response rate (ORR). RESULTS: A total of 253 patients were included in the study, with 71 patients in Group OPS and 182 patients in the control group (Group C). No significant differences were observed in the median PFS between the 2 groups for all patients. However, for small cell lung cancer (SCLC) patients, the median PFS was significantly better in the Group OPS compared to the Group C (11.1 months vs 7.0 months, P = .049). No significant differences were observed in median PFS for the non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) cohort between the 2 groups, but a trend towards better median PFS in Group OPS was noticed (16.5 months vs 12.3 months, P = .56). The ORR for the entire cohort was 58.0%. CONCLUSION: Oral probiotics supplements in combination with ICIs included regimen may improve the outcome in patients with advanced SCLC. The above points should be proved by further study.

This study examined whether the addition of oral probiotic supplements to ICIs could enhance the treatment of advanced lung cancer. A total of 253 patients with advanced lung cancer were involved in the study, with some receiving probiotics in combination with ICIs and others not. The findings revealed that patients with SCLC who took probiotics had significantly better PFS compared to those who did not. Additionally, there was a tendency towards enhanced PFS in NSCLC patients who received probiotics. In conclusion, the study indicates that incorporating oral probiotics with ICIs may lead to better outcomes for patients with advanced SCLC, although further research is necessary to validate these results.This real world study explores whether oral probiotic supplements along with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) can help treat advanced lung cancer. The study included 253 patients with advanced lung cancer receiving ICIs treatment, part of them taking probiotics along with ICIs. The results showed that patients with small cell lung cancer (SCLC) who took probiotics had better progression-free survival (PFS) compared to those who didn't. There was also a trend towards better PFS in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients who took probiotics. Overall, the study suggests that taking oral probiotics along with ICIs may improve outcomes for patients with advanced SCLC, but more research is needed to confirm these findings.

The role of upfront lenalidomide maintenance for primary central nervous system lymphoma following first-line methotrexate treatment: A retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Consolidation therapy improves the duration of response among patients with primary central nervous system lymphoma (PCNSL). Lenalidomide maintenance has shown encouraging results in older patients with PCNSL. Herein, we performed a retrospective, single-center analysis to evaluate the effect of lenalidomide maintenance on the duration of response in patients with newly-diagnosed PCNSL. METHODS: Sixty-nine adult patients with PCNSL who achieved complete remission or partial remission (PR) after induction therapy were enrolled. The median age of patients was 58.0 years. The maintenance group (n = 35) received oral lenalidomide (25 mg/day) for 21 days, every 28 days for 24 months; the observation group did not undergo any further treatment. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 32.6 months, the maintenance group experienced fewer relapse events. However, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was similar between groups (36.1 vs. 30.6 months; hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.446). Lenalidomide maintenance significantly improved PFS and overall survival (OS) only among patients who experienced PR after induction. The median duration of lenalidomide maintenance was 18 months; lenalidomide was well tolerated and minimally impacted the quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: The present study was the first to evaluate lenalidomide maintenance as a frontline treatment among patients with PCNSL, PFS and OS did not improve, although the safety profile was satisfactory.

Discontinuation of imatinib in patients with oligometastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumour who are in complete radiological remission: a prospective multicentre phase II study.

INTRODUCTION: Metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumour (GIST) is considered incurable, and life-long treatment with tyrosine kinase inhibitors is recommended. We investigated whether selected patients with metastatic GIST may remain in durable remission despite imatinib discontinuation. PATIENTS: In this 1-group, prospective, multicentre phase II trial selected patients with oligometastatic (≤3 metastases) GIST discontinued imatinib treatment. Eligible patients had been treated with imatinib >5 years without progression and had no radiologically detectable metastases after metastasectomy, radiofrequency ablation (RFA) or complete response to imatinib. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) 3-years after stopping imatinib. Overall survival (OS) and quality of life (QoL) were secondary endpoints. RESULTS: The trial closed prematurely due to slow accrual. Between January 5, 2017, and June 5, 2019, 13 patients were enrolled, of whom 12 discontinued imatinib. The median follow-up time was 55 months (range, 36 to 69) after study entry. Five (42%) of the 12 eligible patients remained progression free, and seven (58%) progressed with a median time to progression 10 months. Median PFS was 23 months and the estimated 3-year PFS 41%. Six of the seven patients who progressed restarted imatinib, and all six responded. Three-year OS was 100%, and all patients were alive at the time of the study analysis. QoL measured 5 and 11 months after discontinuation of imatinib demonstrated improvement compared to the baseline. INTERPRETATION: A substantial proportion of selected patients with oligometastatic GIST treated with imatinib and metastasis surgery/RFA may remain disease-free for ≥3 years with improved QoL after stopping of imatinib.

Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based treatment beyond progression with prior immunotherapy in patients with driver-gene negative advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: No definite conclusion has yet to be reached for immunotherapy beyond progression(IBP) of first-line immunotherapy as the second-line treatment for advanced NSCLC patients with negative driver genes. Therefore a retrospective study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of IBP in this population and investigated whether the cycles best response and progressive mode of first-line immunotherapy could affect the results. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The clinical data of patients with advanced NSCLC whose response was evaluated as progressive disease (PD) after receiving a PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors as first-line therapy were retrospectively collected and the patients were assigned to the IBP and non-IBP groups. The overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) were evaluated between the two groups. The survival effects of cycles best response and progressive mode of first-line immunotherapy were also evaluated. RESULTS: Between January 2019 and January 2022, a total of 121 patients was evaluated as PD after first-line immunotherapy in our institution; 53 (43.8%) patients were included in the IBP group and 68 (56.2%) patients were included in the non-IBP group. The OS and PFS were no significantly different between the two groups in whole population. Further analysis revealed the OS was prolonged with the prolongation of first-line medication cycle. The median OS was 15.4m (15.4 vs 10.8 p=0.047) 16.1m (16.1 vs 10.8 p=0.039), 16.3m (16.3 vs 10.9 p=0.029) for patients with ≥4, ≥6, ≥8 cycles in first-line immunotherapy, respectively. The advantages of OS and PFS were also seen in the subgroup of PR (best response) and oligo progression of first-line immunotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical outcomes of IBP were similar to those of non-IBP in patients with PD after first-line immnuotherapy in advanced NSCLC. But more cycles, PR as best response and oligo progression in first-line was benefit.

Nivolumab plus chemotherapy or ipilimumab versus chemotherapy in patients with advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (CheckMate 648): 29-month follow-up from a randomized, open-label, phase III trial.

BACKGROUND: First-line nivolumab plus chemotherapy and nivolumab plus ipilimumab both demonstrated significant overall survival (OS) benefit versus chemotherapy in previously untreated patients with advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) in the CheckMate 648 trial, leading to approvals of both nivolumab-containing regimens in many countries. We report longer-term follow-up data. METHODS: This open-label, phase III trial (NCT03143153) enrolled adults with previously untreated, unresectable, advanced, recurrent, or metastatic ESCC. Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to nivolumab plus chemotherapy, nivolumab plus ipilimumab, or chemotherapy. Primary endpoints were OS and progression-free survival (PFS) by blinded independent central review. Hierarchical testing was performed first in patients with tumor cell programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression of ≥1% and then in the overall population. RESULTS: A total of 970 patients were randomly assigned. After 29 months of minimum follow-up, nivolumab plus chemotherapy continued to demonstrate improvement in OS versus chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.59 [95% CI: 0.46-0.76]) in patients with tumor cell PD-L1 expression of ≥1% and in the overall population (HR = 0.78 [95% CI: 0.65-0.93]) and with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy (HR = 0.62 [95% CI: 0.48-0.80]) in patients with tumor cell PD-L1 expression of ≥1% and in the overall population (HR = 0.77 [95% CI: 0.65-0.92]). In patients with tumor cell PD-L1 expression of ≥1%, nivolumab plus chemotherapy demonstrated PFS benefit versus chemotherapy (HR = 0.67 [95% CI: 0.51-0.89]); PFS benefit was not observed with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy (HR = 1.04 [95% CI: 0.79-1.36]). Among all treated patients (n = 936), Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 151 (49%, nivolumab plus chemotherapy), 105 (32%, nivolumab plus ipilimumab), and 110 (36%, chemotherapy) patients. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab plus chemotherapy and nivolumab plus ipilimumab continued to demonstrate clinically meaningful OS benefit versus chemotherapy with no new safety signals identified with longer follow-up, further supporting use as first-line standard treatment options for patients with advanced ESCC.

Progression-free survival after front line, second line and third line in patients with follicular lymphoma treated in clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: The modern-day therapeutic landscape for follicular lymphoma (FL) includes a number of highly effective therapies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We set out to determine progression-free survival (PFS) after front line, second line, and third line of therapy on the basis of relevant biological characteristics and therapeutic choices. Patients (n = 743, 51% females, median 60 years old) diagnosed with grade 1-2 FL between 1997 and 2016 in nine institutions were included. RESULTS: The median PFS1, PFS2, and PFS3 were 8.1 years (95% confidence interval [CI]: 7-9.3 years), 4.2 years (95% CI: 2.8-5.6 years) and 2.2 years (95% CI 1.7-2.8 years). We found longer PFS1 for (1) females, (2) younger age, (3) lower-risk follicular lymphoma international prognostic index (FLIPI), (4) standard intensity (over low intensity) regimens and (5) immunochemotherapy strategies and (6) maintenance rituximab. We found a shorter PFS2 for patients who received front-line immunochemotherapy. Older age at diagnosis correlated with a shorter PFS3. Intensity of front-line chemotherapy, maintenance, or POD24 status did not correlate with PFS2 or PFS3 in this dataset. INTERPRETATION: With current immunochemotherapy strategies, the natural course of FL is characterized by shorter-lasting remissions after each relapse. It will be interesting to see whether new therapies can alter this pattern.

Surgical vs nonsurgical treatment for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma in patients older than 70 years: a propensity score matching analysis.

PURPOSE: With the rising life expectancy and an aging population, it has become increasingly important to investigate treatments suitable for older adult patients with esophageal cancer. This study investigated whether older adult patients who underwent esophagectomy had better clinical outcomes than those who were nonsurgically treated. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) who were 70 years or older and underwent esophagectomy, radiotherapy (RT), and/or chemoradiotherapy (CRT) between January 2018 and December 2019. Patients were divided into 2 groups: the surgery group (S group) and the nonsurgery group (NS group). We then compared the clinical outcomes of the 2 groups. RESULTS: After a median follow-up duration of 36.6 months, the S group showed better overall survival (OS). The 3-year OS was 59% in the S group and 27% in the NS group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.397; 95% CI, 0.278-0.549; P < .0001). In the S group, the median progression-free survival was 38.3 months (95% CI, 30.6-46.1) compared with 12.3 months in the NS group (HR, 0.511; 95% CI, 0.376-0.695; P < .0001). In addition, the number of adverse events in the NS group was higher than that in the S group (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Overall, patients with ESCC at the age of ≥70 years who underwent esophagectomy had significantly better clinical outcomes than those who underwent nonsurgical treatment with RT and/or CRT.

Evaluating the efficacy and safety of nivolumab and ipilimumab combination therapy compared to nivolumab monotherapy in advanced cancers (excluding melanoma): a systemic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab (Nivo) and ipilimumab (Ipi) have revolutionized cancer treatment by targeting different pathways. Their combination shows promising results in various cancers, including melanoma, but not all studies have demonstrated significant benefits. A meta-analysis was performed to assess the effectiveness and safety of Nivo-Ipi compared to Nivo alone in advanced cancer types (excluding melanoma). METHODS: Following PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a meta-analysis up to September 30, 2023, searching databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We focused on advanced solid malignancies (excluding melanoma) with specific Nivo and Ipi dosing. Primary outcomes were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), grades 3-4 adverse events (AEs), and treatment-related discontinuations. Secondary outcomes included specific adverse events. Statistical analysis in Review Manager included hazard ratio (HR) and risk ratio (RR), assessing heterogeneity (Higgins I2). RESULTS: Nine RCTs, involving 2152 patients covering various malignancies, were analyzed. The Nivo plus Ipi group exhibited a median OS of 12.3 months and a median PFS of 3.73 months, compared to monotherapy with 11.67 months and 3.98 months, respectively. OS showed no significant difference between Nivo and Ipi combination and Nivo alone (HR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.88 to 1.08, p = 0.61). PFS had a slight improvement with combination therapy (HR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.82 to 1.00, p = 0.04). Treatment-related cumulative grades 3-4 adverse events were higher with Nivo and Ipi (RR = 1.52, 95% CI: 1.30 to 1.78, p < 0.00001), as were treatment-related discontinuations (RR = 1.99, 95% CI: 1.46 to 2.70, p < 0.0001). Hepatotoxicity (RR = 2.42, 95% CI: 1.39 to 4.24, p = 0.002), GI toxicity (RR = 2.84, 95% CI: 1.44 to 5.59, p = 0.002), pneumonitis (RR = 2.29, 95% CI: 1.24 to 2.23, p = 0.008), dermatitis (RR = 2.96, 95% CI: 1.08 to 8.14, p = 0.04), and endocrine dysfunction (RR = 6.22, 95% CI: 2.31 to 16.71, p = 0.0003) were more frequent with Nivo and Ipi. CONCLUSIONS: Combining nivolumab and ipilimumab did not significantly improve overall survival compared to nivolumab alone in advanced cancers (except melanoma). However, it did show slightly better PFS at the cost of increased toxicity, particularly grades 3-4 adverse events. Specific AEs occurred more frequently in the combination group. Further trials are needed to fully assess this combination in treating advanced cancers.

A phase I/II study of nintedanib and capecitabine for refractory metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Nintedanib is a tyrosine kinase inhibitor with efficacy in bevacizumab-resistant colorectal cancer models. This phase I/II study evaluated the recommended phase II dose and efficacy of nintedanib and capecitabine in refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. METHODS: Key eligibility criteria included refractory metastatic colorectal cancer and ECOG performance status of 1 or lower. The primary endpoint was 18-week progression-free survival (PFS). A 1-sided binomial test (at α = .1) compared the observed 18-week PFS with a historic control of .25. RESULTS: Forty-two patients were enrolled, including 39 at the recommended phase II dose. The recommended phase II dose was established to be nintedanib 200 mg by mouth twice daily and capecitabine 1000 mg/m2 by mouth twice daily. The protocol was evaluated for efficacy in 36 patients. The 18-week PFS was 42% (15/36 patients; P = .0209). Median PFS was 3.4 mo. Median overall survival was 8.9 mo. Sixteen (44%) patients experienced a grade 3/4 adverse event, most commonly fatigue (8%), palmoplantar erythrodysesthesia (8%), aspartate aminotransferase elevation (6%), asthenia (6%), pulmonary embolus (6%), and dehydration (6%). Osteopontin levels at cycle 1, day 1 and cycle 3, day 1 as well as ΔCCL2 levels correlated to disease control at 18 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of nintedanib and capecitabine is well tolerated. Clinical efficacy appears to be superior to regorafenib or tipiracil hydrochloride monotherapy. Further investigation of similar combinations is warranted. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT02393755.

Comparing niraparib versus platinum-taxane doublet chemotherapy as neoadjuvant treatment in patients with newly diagnosed homologous recombination-deficient stage III/IV ovarian cancer: study protocol for cohort C of the open-label, phase 2, randomized controlled multicenter OPAL trial.

BACKGROUND: Maintenance therapy with niraparib, a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor, has been shown to extend progression-free survival in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer who responded to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy, regardless of biomarker status. However, there are limited data on niraparib's efficacy and safety in the neoadjuvant setting. The objective of Cohort C of the OPAL trial (OPAL-C) is to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of neoadjuvant niraparib treatment compared with neoadjuvant platinum-taxane doublet chemotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed stage III/IV ovarian cancer with confirmed homologous recombination-deficient tumors. METHODS: OPAL is an ongoing global, multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase 2 trial. In OPAL-C, patients will be randomized 1:1 to receive three 21-day cycles of either neoadjuvant niraparib or platinum-taxane doublet neoadjuvant chemotherapy per standard of care. Patients with a complete or partial response per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST v1.1) will then undergo interval debulking surgery; patients with stable disease may proceed to interval debulking surgery or alternative therapy at the investigator's discretion. Patients with disease progression will exit the study treatment and proceed to alternative therapy at the investigator's discretion. After interval debulking surgery, all patients will receive up to three 21-day cycles of platinum-taxane doublet chemotherapy followed by niraparib maintenance therapy for up to 36 months. Adult patients with newly diagnosed stage III/IV ovarian cancer eligible to receive neoadjuvant platinum-taxane doublet chemotherapy followed by interval debulking surgery may be enrolled. Patients must have tumors that are homologous recombination-deficient. The primary endpoint is the pre-interval debulking surgery unconfirmed overall response rate, defined as the investigator-assessed percentage of patients with unconfirmed complete or partial response on study treatment before interval debulking surgery per RECIST v1.1. DISCUSSION: OPAL-C explores the use of niraparib in the neoadjuvant setting as an alternative to neoadjuvant platinum-taxane doublet chemotherapy to improve postsurgical residual disease outcomes for patients with ovarian cancer with homologous recombination-deficient tumors. Positive findings from this approach could significantly impact preoperative ovarian cancer therapy, particularly for patients who are ineligible for primary debulking surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03574779. Registered on February 28, 2022.

The burden of skull base chordomas: insights from a meta-analysis of observational studies.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to provide a quantitative synthesis of the survival outcomes for patients with skull base chordomas, focusing on the role of 1) the extent of resection (gross-total [GTR] vs non-GTR), 2) the type of surgery (primary vs revision), 3) tumor histology, and 4) the different use of adjuvant therapies (proton beam radiotherapy [PBRT], photon radiotherapy [RT], or none). METHODS: A systematic review with a meta-analysis was conducted following the 2020 PRISMA guidelines. Observational studies describing adult and pediatric patient cohorts harboring skull base chordomas were included. The primary outcome measures were represented by the 5-year overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) rates. The main intervention effects were represented by the extent of resection (GTR vs non-GTR), type of surgical excision (primary vs revision surgeries), tumor histology, and the different use of adjuvant therapies (PBRT, RT, or none). The pooled estimates were calculated using random forest models. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist for case series. RESULTS: Six hundred forty-four studies were identified through a database and register search. After study selection, 51 studies and 3871 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The overall 5-year OS rate was 73%, which increased to 84% among patients undergoing GTR. The overall 5-year PFS rate was 52%, increasing to 74% for patients receiving GTR. The 5-year OS and PFS rates for patients undergoing PBRT were 86% and 71%, compared with 71% and 54% for patients receiving RT, and 55% and 25% when no adjuvant treatments were used. Patients undergoing their first surgery had 2.13-fold greater chances of being disease-free and 1.4-fold greater chances of being alive at 5 years follow-up compared with patients who received a revision surgery. Patients harboring chondroid chordomas had 1.13- and 1.9-fold greater chances of being alive at 5 years compared with patients with conventional and de-differentiated chordomas, respectively. The overall risk of bias was low in the included studies. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this comprehensive meta-analysis highlight the tremendous impact of GTR and adjuvant PBRT on improving OS and PFS of patients harboring skull base chordomas, with better survival rates demonstrated for patients with chondroid tumors. Even in experienced hands, the rate of surgical morbidity remains high. Proper management in high-volume centers is mandatory to reach the expected resection goal at the first surgical attempt and to reduce surgical morbidity. The introduction of the endoscopic endonasal approach was related to improved surgical and functional outcomes.