Prognostic value of pathological lymph node status and primary tumour regression grading following neoadjuvant chemotherapy - results from the MRC OE02 oesophageal cancer trial.

AIMS: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) remains an important therapeutic option for advanced oesophageal cancer (OC). Pathological tumour regression grade (TRG) may offer additional information by directing adjuvant treatment and/or follow-up but its clinical value remains unclear. We analysed the prognostic value of TRG and associated pathological factors in OC patients enrolled in the Medical Research Council (MRC) OE02 trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: Histopathology was reviewed in 497 resections from OE02 trial participants randomised to surgery (S group; n = 244) or NAC followed by surgery [chemotherapy plus surgery (CS) group; n = 253]. The association between TRG groups [responders (TRG1-3) versus non-responders (TRG4-5)], pathological lymph node (LN) status and overall survival (OS) was analysed. One hundred and ninety-five of 253 (77%) CS patients were classified as 'non-responders', with a significantly higher mortality risk compared to responders [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.05-2.24, P = 0.026]. OS was significantly better in patients without LN metastases irrespective of TRG [non-responders HR = 1.87, 95% CI = 1.33-2.63, P < 0.001 versus responders HR = 2.21, 95% CI = 1.11-4.10, P = 0.024]. In multivariate analyses, LN status was the only independent factor predictive of OS in CS patients (HR = 1.93, 95% CI = 1.42-2.62, P < 0.001). Exploratory subgroup analyses excluding radiotherapy-exposed patients (n = 48) showed similar prognostic outcomes. CONCLUSION: Lymph node status post-NAC is the most important prognostic factor in patients with resectable oesophageal cancer, irrespective of TRG. Potential clinical implications, e.g. adjuvant treatment or intensified follow-up, reinforce the importance of LN dissection for staging and prognostication.

N-Terminal Pro-B-Type Natriuretic Peptide-Guided Therapy in Chronic Heart Failure Reduces Repeated Hospitalizations-Results From TIME-CHF.

BACKGROUND: Although heart failure (HF) patients are known to experience repeated hospitalizations, most studies evaluated only time to first event. N-Terminal B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP)-guided therapy has not convincingly been shown to improve HF-specific outcomes, and effects on recurrent all-cause hospitalization are uncertain. Therefore, we investigated the effect of NT-proBNP-guided therapy on recurrent events in HF with the use of a time-between-events approach in a hypothesis-generating analysis. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Trial of Intensified Versus Standard Medical Therapy in Elderly Patients With Congestive Heart Failure (TIME-CHF) randomized 499 HF patients, aged ≥60 years, left ventricular ejection fraction ≤45%, New York Heart Association functional class ≥I,I to NT-proBNP-guided versus symptom-guided therapy for 18 months, with further follow-up for 5.5 years. The effect of NT-proBNP-guided therapy on recurrent HF-related and all-cause hospitalizations and/or all-cause death was explored. One hundred four patients (49 NT-proBNP-guided, 55 symptom-guided) experienced 1 and 275 patients (133 NT-proBNP-guided, 142 symptom-guided) experienced ≥2 all-cause hospitalization events. Regarding HF hospitalization, 132 patients (57 NT-proBNP-guided, 75 symptom-guided) experienced 1 and 122 patients (57 NT-proBNP-guided, 65 symptom-guided) experienced ≥2 events. NT-proBNP-guided therapy was significant in preventing 2nd all-cause hospitalizations (hazard ratio [HR] 0.83; P = .01), in contrast to nonsignificant results in preventing 1st all-cause hospitalization events (HR 0.91; P = .35). This was not the case regarding HF hospitalization events (HR 0.85 [P = .14] vs HR 0.73 [P = .01]) The beneficial effect of NT-proBNP-guided therapy was seen only in patients aged <75 years, and not in those aged ≥75 years (interaction terms with P = .01 and P = .03 for all-cause hospitalization and HF hospitalization events, respectively). CONCLUSION: NT-proBNP-guided therapy reduces the risk of recurrent events in patients <75 years of age. This included all-cause hospitalization by mainly reducing later events, adding knowledge to the neutral effect on this end point when shown using time-to-first-event analysis only. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: isrctn.org, identifier: ISRCTN43596477.

Novel concept to guide systolic heart failure medication by repeated biomarker testing-results from TIME-CHF in context of predictive, preventive, and personalized medicine.

BACKGROUND: It is uncertain whether repeated measurements of a multi-target biomarker panel may help to personalize medical heart failure (HF) therapy to improve outcome in chronic HF. METHODS: This analysis included 499 patients from the Trial of Intensified versus standard Medical therapy in Elderly patients with Congestive Heart Failure (TIME-CHF), aged ≥ 60 years, LVEF ≤ 45%, and NYHA ≥ II, who had repeated clinical visits within 19 months follow-up. The interaction between repeated measurements of biomarkers and treatment effects of loop diuretics, spironolactone, ß-blockers, and renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors on risk of HF hospitalization or death was investigated in a hypothesis-generating analysis. Generalized estimating equation (GEE) models were used to account for the correlation between recurrences of events in a patient. RESULTS: One hundred patients (20%) had just one event (HF hospitalization or death) and 87 (17.4%) had at least two events. Loop diuretic up-titration had a beneficial effect for patients with high interleukin-6 (IL6) or high high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) (interaction, P = 0.013 and P = 0.001), whereas the opposite was the case with low hsCRP (interaction, P = 0.013). Higher dosage of loop diuretics was associated with poor outcome in patients with high blood urea nitrogen (BUN) or prealbumin (interaction, P = 0.006 and P = 0.001), but not in those with low levels of these biomarkers. Spironolactone up-titration was associated with lower risk of HF hospitalization or death in patients with high cystatin C (CysC) (interaction, P = 0.021). ß-Blockers up-titration might have a beneficial effect in patients with low soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase-1 (sFlt) (interaction, P = 0.021). No treatment biomarker interactions were found for RAS inhibition. CONCLUSION: The data of this post hoc analysis suggest that decision-making using repeated biomarker measurements may be very promising in bringing treatment of heart failure to a new level in the context of predictive, preventive, and personalized medicine. Clearly, prospective testing is needed before this novel concept can be adopted. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: isrctn.org, identifier: ISRCTN43596477.

Circulating biomarkers of distinct pathophysiological pathways in heart failure with preserved vs. reduced left ventricular ejection fraction.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to evaluate whether biomarkers reflecting pathophysiological pathways are different between heart failure with preserved (HFpEF) and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and whether the prognostic value of biomarkers is different in HFpEF vs. HFrEF. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 458 HFrEF (LVEF ≤40%) and 112 HFpEF (LVEF ≥50%) patients aged ≥60 years with NYHA class ≥II from TIME-CHF were included. Endpoints are 18-month overall and HF hospitalization-free survival. After correction for baseline characteristics that differed between the HF types, i.e. age, gender, body mass index, systolic blood pressure, cause of HF, and AF, HFpEF patients exhibited higher soluble interleukin 1 receptor-like 1 [ST2; 37.6 (28.5-54.7) vs. 35.7 (25.6-52.2), P = 0.02], high sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP; 8.54 (3.39-25.86) vs. 6.66 (2.42-15.39), P = 0.01), and cystatin-C [1.94 (1.57-2.37) vs. 1.75 (1.39-2.12), P = 0.01]. In contrast, HFrEF patients exhibited higher NT-proBNP [2142 (1473-4294) vs. 4202 (2239-7411), P < 0.001], high sensitivity troponin T [hsTnT; 27.7 (16.8-48.0) vs. 32.4 (19.2-59.0), P = 0.03], and haemoglobin [124 (110-135) vs. 134 (122-145), P < 0.001]. In addition to these clinical characteristics, NT-proBNP, haemoglobin, cystatin-C, hsTnT, and ST2 improved the area under the curve from 0.86 (0.82-0.89) to 0.91 (0.87-0.94; P < 0.001) for discriminating HFpEF from HFrEF. There were no significant interactions between HFpEF and HFrEF when considering the prognostic value of the investigated biomarkers (P > 0.10 for both endpoints), except for cystatin-C which had less prognostic impact in HFpEF (P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Biomarker levels suggest a different amount of activation of several pathophysiological pathways between HFpEF and HFrEF. No important differences in the prognostic value of biomarkers in HFpEF vs. HFrEF were found except for cystatin-C, and for NT-proBNP in the NT-proBNP-guided study arm only, both of which had less prognostic value in HFpEF. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN43596477.