Stroma AReactive Invasion Front Areas (SARIFA) improves prognostic risk stratification of perioperative chemotherapy treated oesophagogastric cancer patients from the MAGIC and the ST03 trial.

BACKGROUND: Tumour-associated fat cells without desmoplastic stroma reaction at the invasion front (Stroma AReactive Invasion Front Areas (SARIFA)) is a prognostic biomarker in gastric and colon cancer. The clinical utility of the SARIFA status in oesophagogastric cancer patients treated with perioperative chemotherapy is currently unknown. METHODS: The SARIFA status was determined in tissue sections from patients recruited into the MAGIC (n = 292) or ST03 (n = 693) trials treated with surgery alone (S, MAGIC) or perioperative chemotherapy (MAGIC, ST03). The relationship between SARIFA status, clinicopathological factors, overall survival (OS) and treatment was analysed. RESULTS: The SARIFA status was positive in 42% MAGIC trial S patients, 28% MAGIC and 48% ST03 patients after pre-operative chemotherapy. SARIFA status was related to OS in MAGIC trial S patients and was an independent prognostic biomarker in ST03 trial patients (HR 1.974, 95% CI 1.555-2.507, p < 0.001). ST03 patients with lymph node metastasis (ypN + ) and SARIFA-positive tumours had poorer OS than patients with ypN+ and SARIFA-negative tumours (plogrank < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The SARIFA status has clinical utility as prognostic biomarker in oesophagogastric cancer patients irrespective of treatment modality. Whilst underlying biological mechanisms warrant further investigation, the SARIFA status might be used to identify new drug targets, potentially enabling repurposing of existing drugs targeting lipid metabolism.

Hit it hard: qualitative patient perspectives on the optimisation of immune checkpoint inhibition.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors have transformed the treatment landscape of many cancers, including melanoma and renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Randomised trials are evaluating outcomes from reduced ICI treatment schedules with the aim of improving quality of life, tolerability, and cost-effectiveness. This study aims to provide insight into patient and carer's perspectives of these trials. METHODS: Seven focus groups were conducted with 31 people with stage IV melanoma, RCC, or caregivers for people receiving ICI. Transcripts were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Three themes were generated: 1) "Treatment and clinic visits provide reassurance": reducing hospital visits may not improve quality of life. 2) "Assessment of personal risk versus benefit": the decision to participate in an ICI optimisation trial is influenced by treatment response, experience of toxicity and perceived logistical benefits based on the individual's circumstances. 3) "Pre-existing experience and beliefs about how treatment and trials work", including the belief that more treatment is better, influence views around ICI optimisation trials. CONCLUSION: This study provides insight into recruitment challenges and recommends strategies to enhance recruitment for ongoing ICI optimisation trials. These findings will influence the design of future ICI optimisation trials ensuring they are acceptable to patients.

Prognostic and predictive impact of sex in locally advanced microsatellite instability high gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer: An individual patient data pooled analysis of randomized clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Surgery plus peri-operative/adjuvant chemotherapy is the standard of care for locally advanced GC/GEJC, though with unsatisfactory results. dMMR/MSI-high tumors have better prognosis and scant benefit from chemotherapy as compared to pMMR/MSS ones. The differential outcome of therapies in terms of safety and efficacy according to sex is still debated in GC/GEJC patients. METHODS: We previously performed an individual patient data pooled analysis of MAGIC, CLASSIC, ITACA-S, and ARTIST trials including GC/GEJC patients treated with surgery alone or surgery plus peri-operative/adjuvant chemotherapy to assess the value of MSI status. We performed a secondary analysis investigating the prognostic and predictive role of sex (female versus male) in the pooled analysis dataset in the overall population and patients stratified for MSI status (MSI-high versus MSS/MSI-low). Disease-free (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated. RESULTS: Patients with MSI-high tumors had improved survival as compared to MSS/MSI-low ones irrespective of sex, whereas in those with MSS/MSI-low tumors, females had numerically longer OS and DFS (5-year OS was 63.2% versus 57.6%, HR 0.842; p = 0.058, and 5-year DFS was 55.8% versus 50.8%, HR 0.850; p = 0.0504 in female versus male patients). The numerical difference for the detrimental effect of chemotherapy in MSI-high GC was higher in females than males, while the significant benefit of chemotherapy over surgery alone was confirmed in MSS/MSI-low GC irrespective of sex. CONCLUSIONS: This pooled analysis including four randomized trials highlights a relevant impact of sex in the prognosis and treatment efficacy of MSI-high and MSS/MSI-low non-metastatic GC/GEJC.

Getting our ducks in a row: The need for data utility comparisons of healthcare systems data for clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Better use of healthcare systems data, collected as part of interactions between patients and the healthcare system, could transform planning and conduct of randomised controlled trials. Multiple challenges to widespread use include whether healthcare systems data captures sufficiently well the data traditionally captured on case report forms. "Data Utility Comparison Studies" (DUCkS) assess the utility of healthcare systems data for RCTs by comparison to data collected by the trial. Despite their importance, there are few published UK examples of DUCkS. METHODS-AND-RESULTS: Building from ongoing and selected recent examples of UK-led DUCkS in the literature, we set out experience-based considerations for the conduct of future DUCkS. Developed through informal iterative discussions in many forums, considerations are offered for planning, protocol development, data, analysis and reporting, with comparisons at "patient-level" or "trial-level", depending on the item of interest and trial status. DISCUSSION: DUCkS could be a valuable tool in assessing where healthcare systems data can be used for trials and in which trial teams can play a leading role. There is a pressing need for trials to be more efficient in their delivery and research waste must be reduced. Trials have been making inconsistent use of healthcare systems data, not least because of an absence of evidence of utility. DUCkS can also help to identify challenges in using healthcare systems data, such as linkage (access and timing) and data quality. We encourage trial teams to incorporate and report DUCkS in trials and funders and data providers to support them.