Long term response on Regorafenib in non-V600E BRAF mutated colon cancer: a case report.

BACKGROUND: Non-V600E BRAF mutated colorectal cancer (CRC) is a rare disease entity with specific clinical features. These tumors are less likely to have microsatellite instability than CRC with a V600E BRAF mutation and often harbor a KRAS or NRAS mutation. Notably, median overall survival is longer than in wild-type BRAF CRC. Little is known about treatment possibilities in these patients. CASE PRESENTATION: We present the case of a 59 year old patient with a rare mutation in BRAF codon 594, who progressed rapidly on all classical therapies but experienced a clear and long lasting response on treatment with Regorafenib. CONCLUSION: Little is known about therapies that can be effective in the rare non-V600E BRAF mutated CRCs. We present a patient who had a definite response to treatment with Regorafenib. There are no predictive markers that define a subset of CRC patients who benefit most from Regorafenib. The specific features of this non-V600E BRAF mutated CRC may be relevant in the exploration of predictive biomarkers for the efficacy of Regorafenib.

Standardizing eligibility and patient selection for Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy: A Delphi consensus statement.

INTRODUCTION: Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a procedure for minimally invasive drug administration in patients with peritoneal metastasis. Previous studies have emphasized the importance of uniformity in treatment protocols and standardization of this practice. This study aimed to reach a consensus on eligibility, patient selection, and choice of chemotherapy for PIPAC. METHODS: A three-round modified Delphi study was conducted. A steering group formulated a list of baseline statements, addressing the objectives. The steering group consisted of seven expert surgical and medical oncologists. Available evidence and published key opinions were critically reviewed. An international expert panel scored those statements on a 4-point Likert scale. The statements were submitted electronically and anonymously. Consensus was reached if the agreement rate was ≥75%. A minimum Cronbach's alpha of >0.8 was set. RESULTS: Forty-five (45/58; 77.6%) experts participated and completed all rounds. Experts were digestive surgeons (n = 28), surgical oncologists (n = 7), gynecologists (n = 5), medical oncologists (n = 4), and one clinical researcher. Their assessment of 81 preliminary statements in the first round resulted in 41 consolidated statements. In round two, consensus was reached on 40 statements (40/41; 97.6%) with a consensus of ≥80% for each individual statement. In the third round, 40 statements were unanimously approved as definitive. The choice of first- and second-line chemotherapy remained controversial and could not reach consensus. CONCLUSIONS: This International Delphi study provides practical guidance on eligibility and patient selection for PIPAC. Ongoing trial data and long-term results that could contribute to the further standardization of PIPAC are eagerly awaited.

Coaching doctors to improve ethical decision-making in adult hospitalized patients potentially receiving excessive treatment. The CODE stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess whether coaching doctors to enhance ethical decision-making in teams improves (1) goal-oriented care operationalized via written do-not-intubate and do-not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNI-DNACPR) orders in adult patients potentially receiving excessive treatment (PET) during their first hospital stay and (2) the quality of the ethical climate. METHODS: We carried out a stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled trial in the medical intensive care unit (ICU) and 9 referring internal medicine departments of Ghent University Hospital between February 2022 and February 2023. Doctors and nurses in charge of hospitalized patients filled out the ethical decision-making climate questionnaire (ethical decision-making climate questionnaire, EDMCQ) before and after the study, and anonymously identified PET via an electronic alert during the entire study period. All departments were randomly assigned to a 4-month coaching. At least one month of coaching was compared to less than one month coaching and usual care. The first primary endpoint was the incidence of written DNI-DNACPR decisions. The second primary endpoint was the EDMCQ before and after the study period. Because clinicians identified less PET than required to detect a difference in written DNI-DNACPR decisions, a post-hoc analysis on the overall population was performed. To reduce type I errors, we further restricted the analysis to one of our predefined secondary endpoints (mortality up to 1 year). RESULTS: Of the 442 and 423 clinicians working before and after the study period, respectively 270 (61%) and 261 (61.7%) filled out the EDMCQ. Fifty of the 93 (53.7%) doctors participated in the coaching for a mean (standard deviation [SD]) of 4.36 (2.55) sessions. Of the 7254 patients, 125 (1.7%) were identified as PET, with 16 missing outcome data. Twenty-six of the PET and 624 of the overall population already had a written DNI-DNACPR decision at study entry, resulting in 83 and 6614 patients who were included in the main and post hoc analysis, respectively. The estimated incidence of written DNI-DNACPR decisions in the intervention vs. control arm was, respectively, 29.7% vs. 19.6% (odds ratio 4.24, 95% confidence interval 4.21-4.27; P < 0.001) in PET and 3.4% vs. 1.9% (1.65, 1.12-2.43; P = 0.011) in the overall study population. The estimated mortality at one year was respectively 85% vs. 83.7% (hazard ratio 2.76, 1.26-6.04; P = 0.011) and 14.5% vs. 15.1% (0.89, 0.72-1.09; P = 0.251). The mean difference in EDMCQ before and after the study period was 0.02 points (- 0.18 to 0.23; P = 0.815). CONCLUSION: This study suggests that coaching doctors regarding ethical decision-making in teams safely improves goal-oriented care operationalized via written DNI-DNACPR decisions in hospitalized patients, however without concomitantly improving the quality of the ethical climate.

Extended criteria for liver transplantation in hepatocellular carcinoma. A retrospective, multicentric validation study in Belgium.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies indicate that a group of patients with cirrhosis receiving a liver transplantation for hepatocellular cancer (HCC) beyond the Milan Criteria (MC) can achieve a similar outcome compared to patients within these criteria. This study aims to investigate the value of the Asan critera (AC), up-to-7 criteria (UT7), French alpha-foetoprotein (AFP) model and Metroticket 2.0 (MT2.0) model compared to the MC. METHODS: 526 patients transplanted for non-metastatic HCC were analyzed. Patient groups within and beyond MC and extended criteria were determined according to radiological assessment and AFP value at listing. RESULTS: Overall survival (OS) and recurrence (RR) rates were similar between patients within MC and all extended criteria. Five-year OS within MC was 71.3% compared to 70.9% for AC, 71.4% for UT7, 69.7% for AFP-model and 71.0% for MT2.0 criteria. Five-year RR within MC was 12.3% compared to 13.5% for AC, 13.0% for UT7, 14.3% for AFP-model and 13.2% for MT2.0 criteria. Patients beyond MC but within the extended criteria had tendency towards higher recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: All validated extended criteria (AC, UT7, AFP-model and MT2.0) could be proposed as alternatives to the MC with similar outcome. Prospective data are awaited to assess recurrence beyond MC.