Comparison of outcomes for Hispanic and non-Hispanic patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma in the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database.

BACKGROUND: Existing data on the impact of Hispanic ethnicity on outcomes for patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is mixed. The authors investigated outcomes of Hispanic and non-Hispanic White (NHW) patients with advanced RCC receiving systemic therapy at large academic cancer centers using the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database (IMDC). METHODS: Eligible patients included non-Black Hispanic and NHW patients with locally advanced or metastatic RCC initiating systemic therapy. Overall survival (OS) and time to first-line treatment failure (TTF) were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The effect of ethnicity on OS and TTF were estimated by Cox regression hazard ratios (HRs). RESULTS: A total of 1563 patients (181 Hispanic and 1382 NHW) (mostly males [73.8%] with clear cell RCC [81.5%] treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitor [TKI] monotherapy [69.9%]) were included. IMDC risk groups were similar between groups. Hispanic patients were younger at initial diagnosis (median 57 vs. 59 years, p = .015) and less likely to have greater than one metastatic site (60.8% vs. 76.8%, p < .001) or bone metastases (23.8% vs. 33.4%, p = .009). Median OS and TTF was 38.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 28.1-59.2) versus 35.7 months (95% CI, 31.9-39.2) and 7.8 months (95% CI, 6.2-9.0) versus 7.5 months (95% CI, 6.9-8.1), respectively, in Hispanic versus NHW patients. In multivariable Cox regression analysis, no statistically significant differences were observed in OS (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.07; 95% CI, 0.86-1.31, p = .56) or TTF (adjusted HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.89-1.26, p = .50). CONCLUSIONS: The authors did not observe statistically significant differences in OS or TTF between Hispanic and NHW patients with advanced RCC. Receiving treatment at tertiary cancer centers may mitigate observed disparities in cancer outcomes.

Benefit of adjuvant bisphosphonates in early breast cancer treated with contemporary systemic therapy: A meta-analysis of randomized control trials.

Background: The absolute and relative benefits of adjuvant bisphosphonates on disease-free survival and overall survival in patients receiving contemporary systemic therapy for early breast cancer is uncertain. Methods: Data from randomized trials of adjuvant bisphosphonates that recruited patients exclusively after 2000 and reported disease free survival and overall survival was utilized. Five-year disease-free survival and overall survival in bisphosphonates and control group along with associated hazard ratios were extracted. Absolute data were weighted by sample size and hazard ratios were pooled using inverse variance and random effects modelling. Meta-regression comprising linear regression weighted by sample size (mixed effects) was performed to explore association between disease and treatment related factors and absolute differences in benefit from bisphosphonates. Results: Eleven trials comprising 24023 patients were included in the analysis. For disease free survival, pooled hazard ratio was 0.89 (0.81-0.97, p = 0.008) with a 1.5 % weighted mean difference favoring bisphosphonates over control. There was no significant overall survival benefit (0.92, 0.82-1.03, p = 0.16). Among patients receiving anthracycline and taxane based chemotherapy, there were no differences in either disease free survival (0.95, 0.80-1.12) or overall survival (1.04, 0.81-1.32). Meta-regression showed lower benefits in higher risk patients (node-positive, larger tumor size, estrogen receptor-, grade 3 or those receiving chemotherapy). Overall, 1 % (95 % CI 0.75-1.15) of patients experienced osteonecrosis of jaw related to zoledronic acid. Conclusions: Compared to the Early Breast Cancer Trialist's Collaborative Group meta-analysis, benefit from adjuvant bisphosphonates is lower in recent trials especially in higher risk patients receiving contemporary chemotherapy. The balance between benefits and risks of adjuvant bisphosphonates should be considered in individual patients.

An Updated Review of Management of Resectable Stage III NSCLC in the Era of Neoadjuvant Immunotherapy.

Immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have an established role in the treatment of locally advanced and metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). ICIs have now entered the paradigm of early-stage NSCLC. The recent evidence shows that the addition of ICI to neoadjuvant chemotherapy improves the pathological complete response (pCR) rate and survival rate in early-stage resectable NSCLC and is now a standard of care option in this setting. In this regard, stage III NSCLC merits special consideration, as it is heterogenous and requires a multidisciplinary approach to management. As the neoadjuvant approach is being adopted widely, new challenges have emerged and the boundaries for resectability are being re-examined. Consequently, it is ever more important to carefully individualize the treatment strategy for each patient with resectable stage III NSCLC. In this review, we discuss the recent literature in this field with particular focus on evolving definitions of resectability, T4 disease, N2 disease (single and multi-station), and nodal downstaging. We also highlight the controversy around adjuvant treatment in this setting and discuss the selection of patients for adjuvant treatment, options of salvage, and next line treatment in cases of progression on/after neoadjuvant treatment or after R2 resection. We will conclude with a brief discussion of predictive biomarkers, predictive models, ongoing studies, and directions for future research in this space.

What Is Ailing Oncology Clinical Trials? Can We Fix Them?

Evidence from phase three clinical trials helps shape clinical practice. However, a very small minority of patients with cancer participate in clinical trials and many trials are not completed on time due to slow accrual. Issues with restrictive eligibility criteria can severely limit the patients who can access trials, without any convincing evidence that these restrictions impact patient safety. Similarly, regulatory, organizational, and institutional hurdles can delay trial activation, ultimately making some studies irrelevant. Additional issues during trial conduct (e.g., mandatory in-person visits, central confirmation of standard biomarkers, and inflexible drug dosage modification) contribute to making trials non-patient-centric. These real-life observations from experienced clinical trialists can seem nonsensical to investigators and patients alike, who are trying to bring effective drugs to patients with cancer. In this review, we delve into these issues in detail, and discuss potential solutions to make clinical trials more accessible to patients.

The Survival Outcomes of the Metastatic Nonclear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma in the Immunotherapy Era: Princess Margaret Cancer Centre Experience.

Immunotherapy (IO) with or without targeted therapy (TT) is the standard treatment for patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC). The evidence supporting their use in metastatic nonclear cell renal cell carcinoma (nccRCC) subtypes is based on small prospective trials and retrospective analyses. Here, we report survival outcomes for patients with metastatic nccRCC treated with IO and/or TT at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada. Demographics, disease characteristics, and survival outcomes were collected retrospectively. Overall (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and objective response rates (ORR) were calculated. We identified 69 patients with metastatic nccRCC treated with IO and/or TT as the first-line treatment, and 36 (52.1%) patients as the second-line treatment. Median OS of the first line IO recipients (n = 12) and non-IO recipients (n = 57) was not reached (NR) and 17.2 months (95% confidence interval (95% CI): 7.3-27.0; P = 0.23), respectively. Median PFS of first-line IO recipients and non-IO recipients was NR and 4.7 months (95% CI: 3.7-5.6; P = 0.019), respectively. The ORR of IO recipients versus non-IO recipients was 50% versus 12.3% (P = 0.007). Median OS of the second-line IO recipients (n = 8) and non-IO recipients (n = 28) was NR and 6.3 months (95% CI: 3.2-9.3; P = 0.003), respectively. Median PFS of second-line IO recipients and non-IO recipients was 4.8 months (95% CI: 2.7-6.8) and 2.8 months (95% CI: 1.8-3.7; P = 0.014), respectively. ORR of IO recipients and non-IO recipients was 37.5% and 3.5%, respectively; P = 0.028. While the number of patients included in our retrospective review was small, our analysis suggested that patients with nccRCC have improved survival outcomes with IO treatment. Validation of prospective dataset is required before widespread clinical utilization.