The suggestion of mitigating disparity in the liver transplantation field among ABO blood type.

Medical literature highlights differences in liver transplantation (LT) waitlist experiences among ABO blood types. Type AB candidates reportedly have higher LT rates and reduced mortality. Despite liver offering guidelines, ABO disparities persist. This study examines LT access discrepancies among blood types, focusing on type AB, and seeks equitable strategies. Using the United Network for Organ Sharing database (2003-2022), 170 276 waitlist candidates were retrospectively analyzed. Dual predictive analyses (LT opportunity and survival studies) evaluated 1-year recipient pool survival, considering waitlist and post-LT survival, alongside anticipated allocation value per recipient, under 6 scenarios. Of the cohort, 97 670 patients (57.2%) underwent LT. Type AB recipients had the highest LT rate (73.7% vs 55.2% for O), shortest median waiting time (90 vs 198 days for A), and lowest waitlist mortality (12.9% vs 23.9% for O), with the lowest median model for end-stage liver disease-sodium (MELD-Na) score (20 vs 25 for A/O). The LT opportunity study revealed that reallocating type A (or A and O) donors originally for AB recipients to A recipients yielded the greatest reduction in disparities in anticipated value per recipient, from 0.19 (before modification) to 0.08. Meanwhile, the survival study showed that ABO-identical LTs reduced disparity the most (3.5% to 2.8%). Sensitivity analysis confirmed these findings were specific to the MELD-Na score < 30 population, indicating current LT allocation may favor certain blood types. Prioritizing ABO-identical LTs for MELD-Na score < 30 recipients could ensure uniform survival outcomes and mitigate disparities.

To Revise or Not Revise? Isolated Margin Positivity in Localized Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The study determined the proportion of patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) who had margin-positive disease and no other adverse pathologic findings (APF) using institutional and administrative datasets. METHODS: Patients with clinical stage I or II PDAC in the National Cancer Database (NCDB 2010-2020) and those who underwent pancreatectomy at the authors' institution (2010-2021) were identified. Isolated margin positivity (IMP) was defined as a positive surgical margin with no APF (negative nodes, no lymphovascular/perineural invasion). RESULTS: The study included 225 patients from the authors' institution and 23,598 patients from the NCDB. The margin-positive rates were 21.8% and 20.3%, and the IMP rates were 0.4% and 0.5%, respectively. In the institutional cohort, 68.4% of the patients had recurrence, and most of the patients (65.6%) had distant recurrences. The median recurrence-free survival (RFS) was 63.3 months for no APF, not reached for IMP, 14.8 months for negative margins & 1 APF, 20.3 months for positive margins & 2 APFs, and 12.9 months with all APF positive. The patients in the NCDB with IMP had a lower median OS than the patients with no APF (20.5 vs 390 months), but a higher median OS than those with margin positivity plus 1 APF (20.5 vs 18.0 months) or all those with APF positivity (20.5 vs 15.4 months). Based on institutional rates of IMP, any margin positivity, neck margin positivity (NMP), and no APF, the fraction of patients who might benefit from neck margin revision was 1 in 100,000, and those likely to benefit from any margin revision was 1 in 18,500. In the NCDB, those estimated to derive potential benefit from margin revision was 1 in 25,000. CONCLUSIONS: Isolated margin positivity in resected PDAC is rare, and most patients experience distant recurrence. Revision of IMP appears unlikely to confer benefit to most patients.

Preferences and considerations for interval cytoreductive surgery in advanced ovarian cancer: The patient's perspective.

OBJECTIVE: Treatment of advanced-stage ovarian cancer contains cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and chemotherapy. Achieving successful CRS (≤ 1 cm residual disease) is prognostically important, but may not be feasible peri-operatively while still risking complications. Therefore, patients' treatment expectations are important to discuss. We investigated patient considerations for interval CRS. METHODS: Patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer planned for interval CRS completed a questionnaire about the impact of chance of successful CRS, survival benefit and becoming care-dependent on decision-making regarding CRS. The questionnaire included a vignette study, in which patients repeatedly chose between two treatment scenarios with varying levels for chance of successful CRS, survival benefit and risk of complications including stoma. Patient preferences were analyzed, including differences between patients aged < 70 and ≥ 70 years. RESULTS: Among 85 included patients, 31 (37%) patients considered interval CRS worthwhile irrespective of survival benefit and 33 (39%) irrespective of chance of successful surgery. However, 34 patients (41%) considered interval CRS only worthwhile if survival benefit was > 12 months, while 41 (49%) thought so if chance of successful surgery was ≥ 25%. Older patients considered these factors more important. Overall, 27% considered becoming permanently dependent of home care unacceptable. In the vignette study (n = 72) risk of complications and stoma were considered less important than chance of successful CRS and survival benefit. CONCLUSION: Survival benefit, chance of successful surgery and becoming care-dependent are important factors in patient's decision for interval CRS, while risk of complications and stoma are less important. Our results are useful in shared decision-making for interval CRS in ovarian cancer.

Assessing the Performance of Alternative Methods for Estimating Long-Term Survival Benefit of Immuno-oncology Therapies.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine the accuracy and consistency of established methods of extrapolating mean survival for immuno-oncology (IO) therapies, the extent of any systematic biases in estimating long-term clinical benefit, what influences the magnitude of any bias, and the potential implications for health technology assessment. METHODS: A targeted literature search was conducted to identify published long-term follow-up from clinical trials of immune-checkpoint inhibitors. Earlier published results were identified and Kaplan-Meier estimates for short- and long-term follow-up were digitized and converted to pseudo-individual patient data using an established algorithm. Six standard parametric, 5 flexible parametric, and 2 mixture-cure models (MCMs) were used to extrapolate long-term survival. Mean and restricted mean survival time (RMST) were estimated and compared between short- and long-term follow-up. RESULTS: Predicted RMST from extrapolation of early data underestimated observed RMST in long-term follow-up for 184 of 271 extrapolations. All models except the MCMs frequently underestimated observed RMST. Mean survival estimates increased with longer follow-up in 196 of 270 extrapolations. The increase exceeded 20% in 122 extrapolations. Log-logistic and log-normal models showed the smallest change with additional follow-up. MCM performance varied substantially with functional form. CONCLUSIONS: Standard and flexible parametric models frequently underestimate mean survival for IO treatments. Log-logistic and log-normal models may be the most pragmatic and parsimonious solutions for estimating IO mean survival from immature data. Flexible parametric models may be preferred when the data used in health technology assessment are more mature. MCMs fitted to immature data produce unreliable results and are not recommended.

Survival benefit of radical prostatectomy in patients with advanced TURP-diagnosed prostate cancer: a population-based real-world study.

OBJECTIVES: A considerable number of patients are diagnosed with prostate cancer (PCa) by transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). We aimed to evaluate whether radical prostatectomy (RP) brings survival benefits for these patients, especially in the elderly with advanced PCa. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We used the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database to obtain PCa cases diagnosed with TURP. After the propensity matching score (PSM) for case matching, univariate, multivariate, and subgroup analyses were performed to investigate whether RP impacts the survival benefit. RESULTS: 4,677 cases diagnosed with PCa by TURP from 2010 to 2019 were obtained, including 1,313 RP patients and 3,364 patients with no RP (nRP). 9.6% of RP patients had advanced PCa. With or without PSM, cancer-specific mortality (CSM) and overall mortality (OM) were significantly reduced in the RP patients compared to the nRP patients, even for older (> 75 ys.) patients with advanced stages (all p < 0.05). Except for RP, younger age (≤ 75 ys.), being married, and earlier stage (localized) contributed to a significant reduction of CSM risk (all p < 0.05). These survival benefits had no significant differences among patients of different ages, married or single, and at different stages (all p for interaction > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Based on this retrospective population-matched study, we first found that in patients diagnosed with PCa by TURP, RP treatment may lead to a survival benefit, especially a reduction in CSM, even in old aged patients (> 75 ys.) with advanced PCa.

Endobiliary radiofrequency ablation for unresectable malignant biliary strictures: Survival benefit perspective.

Endobiliary radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is an emerging technique in recent years for palliating malignant biliary strictures (MBS) unsuitable for surgical resection. To date, many clinical studies have shown good feasibility and safety of this therapy; but controversy exists on whether survival can be improved in patients with advanced MBS. A comprehensive review of the available literature demonstrates that RFA can effectively prolong the overall survival of extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) and ampullary cancer, especially in cases without distant metastasis. However, this topical therapy does not confer a survival benefit in patients with nonprimary bile duct malignancies, such as liver, gallbladder, or pancreatic cancers. Biliary RFA combined with systemic chemotherapy may have a synergistic effect on the outcome of inoperable CCA. Patients with locally advanced tumors rather than distant metastasis might benefit more from this combination therapy.

[Assessment of liver transplant benefit and a novel strategy for liver donor allocation in acute-on-chronic liver failure].

Acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) is a type of complex clinical syndrome that is mainly characterized by acute deterioration of liver function based on chronic liver disease, hepatic and extrahepatic organ failures, and a high short-term mortality rate. The comprehensive medical treatment efficacy of ACLF is currently limited; thus, liver transplantation is the only viable potential treatment method. However, considering the severe liver donor shortage, economic and social costs, as well as the differences in disease severity and prognosis of different disease courses, it is particularly important to accurately assess the benefits of liver transplantation in patients with ACLF. Early identification and prediction, timing, prognosis, and survival benefits are discussed here by combining the latest research findings so as to optimize the liver transplantation treatment strategy for ACLF.

Updated efficacy and safety data from IMbrave150: Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab vs. sorafenib for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: IMbrave150 demonstrated that atezolizumab plus bevacizumab led to significantly improved overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) compared with sorafenib in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma at the primary analysis (after a median 8.6 months of follow-up). We present updated data after 12 months of additional follow-up. METHODS: Patients with systemic treatment-naive, unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma were randomized 2:1 to receive 1,200 mg atezolizumab plus 15 mg/kg bevacizumab intravenously every 3 weeks or 400 mg sorafenib orally twice daily in this open-label, phase III study. Co-primary endpoints were OS and PFS by independently assessed RECIST 1.1 in the intention-to-treat population. Secondary efficacy endpoints included objective response rates and exploratory subgroup efficacy analyses. This is a post hoc updated analysis of efficacy and safety. RESULTS: From March 15, 2018, to January 30, 2019, 501 patients (intention-to-treat population) were randomly allocated to receive atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (n = 336) or sorafenib (n = 165). On August 31, 2020, after a median 15.6 (range, 0-28.6) months of follow-up, the median OS was 19.2 months (95% CI 17.0-23.7) with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and 13.4 months (95% CI 11.4-16.9) with sorafenib (hazard ratio [HR] 0.66; 95% CI 0.52-0.85; descriptive p <0.001). The median PFS was 6.9 (95% CI 5.7-8.6) and 4.3 (95% CI 4.0-5.6) months in the respective treatment groups (HR 0.65; 95% CI 0.53-0.81; descriptive p < 0.001). Treatment-related grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in 143 (43%) of 329 and 72 (46%) of 156 safety-evaluable patients in the respective groups, and treatment-related grade 5 events occurred in 6 (2%) and 1 (<1%) patients. CONCLUSION: After longer follow-up, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab maintained clinically meaningful survival benefits over sorafenib and had a safety profile consistent with the primary analysis. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT03434379. LAY SUMMARY: The primary analysis of IMbrave150 showed that atezolizumab plus bevacizumab had significantly greater benefits than sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, but survival data were not yet mature. At this updated analysis done 12 months later, median overall survival was 5.8 months longer with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab than sorafenib, and the severity profile of treatment-related side effects remained similar. These updated results confirm atezolizumab plus bevacizumab as the first-line standard of care for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

Liquid Biopsy-based Precision Therapy in Patients with Advanced Solid Tumors: A Real-world Experience from a Community-based Oncology Practice.

BACKGROUND: Liquid biopsy testing offers a significant potential in selecting signal-matched therapies for advanced solid malignancies. The feasibility of liquid biopsy testing in a community-based oncology practice, and its actual impact on selecting signal-matched therapies, and subsequent survival effects have not previously been reported. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted on adult patients with advanced solid cancer tested with a liquid-biopsy assay between December 2018 and 2019, in a community oncology practice. The impact of testing on treatment assignment and survival was assessed at 1-year follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 178 patients underwent testing. A positive test was reported in 140/178 patients (78.7%), of whom 75% had an actionable mutation. The actual overall signal-based matching rate was 17.8%. While 85.7% of patients with no actionable mutation had a signal-based clinical trial opportunity, only 10% were referred to a trial. Survival analysis of lung, breast, and colorectal cancer patients with actionable mutations who received any therapy (n = 66) revealed a survival advantage for target-matched (n = 22) compared to unmatched therapy (n = 44): patients who received matched therapy had significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS) (mPFS: 12 months; 95%CI, 10.6-13.4 vs. 5.0 months; 95%CI, 3.4-6.6; P = .029), with a tendency towards longer overall survival (OS) (mOS: 15 months; 95%CI, 13.5-16.5 vs. 13 months; 95%CI: 11.3-14.7; P = .087). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of liquid biopsy testing is feasible in a US community practice and impacts therapeutic choices in patients with advanced malignancies. Receipt of liquid biopsy-generated signal-matched therapies conferred added survival benefits.

Restricted survival benefit with right-censored data.

The hazard ratio is widely used to quantify treatment effects. However, it may be difficult to interpret for patients and practitioners, especially when the hazard ratio is not constant over time. Alternative measures of the treatment effects have been proposed such as the difference of the restricted mean survival times, the difference in survival proportions at some fixed follow-up time, or the net chance of a longer survival. In this paper, we propose the restricted survival benefit (RSB), a quantity that can incorporate multiple useful measurements of treatment effects. Hence, it provides a framework for a comprehensive assessment of the treatment effects. We provide estimation and inference procedures for the RSB that accommodate censored survival outcomes, using methods of the inverse-probability-censoring-weighted U$U$ -statistic and the jackknife empirical likelihood. We conduct extensive simulation studies to examine the numerical performance of the proposed method, and we analyze data from a randomized Phase III clinical trial (SWOG S0777) using the proposed method.

Home Versus Facility Dialysis and Mortality in Australia and New Zealand.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Mortality is an important outcome for all dialysis stakeholders. We examined associations between dialysis modality and mortality in the modern era. STUDY DESIGN: Observational study comparing dialysis inception cohorts 1998-2002, 2003-2007, 2008-2012, and 2013-2017. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Australia and New Zealand (ANZ) dialysis population. EXPOSURE: The primary exposure was dialysis modality: facility hemodialysis (HD), continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD), automated PD (APD), or home HD. OUTCOME: The main outcome was death. ANALYTICAL METHODS: Cause-specific proportional hazards models with shared frailty and subdistribution proportional hazards (Fine and Gray) models, adjusting for available confounding covariates. RESULTS: In 52,097 patients, the overall death rate improved from ~15 deaths per 100 patient-years in 1998-2002 to ~11 in 2013-2017, with the largest cause-specific contribution from decreased infectious death. Relative to facility HD, mortality with CAPD and APD has improved over the years, with adjusted hazard ratios in 2013-2017 of 0.88 (95% CI, 0.78-0.99) and 0.91 (95% CI, 0.82-1.00), respectively. Increasingly, patients with lower clinical risk have been adopting APD, and to a lesser extent CAPD. Relative to facility HD, mortality with home HD was lower throughout the entire period of observation, despite increasing adoption by older patients and those with more comorbidities. All effects were generally insensitive to the modeling approach (initial vs time-varying modality, cause-specific versus subdistribution regression), different follow-up time intervals (5 year vs 7 year vs 10 year). There was no effect modification by diabetes, comorbidity, or sex. LIMITATIONS: Potential for residual confounding, limited generalizability. CONCLUSIONS: The survival of patients on PD in 2013-2017 appears greater than the survival for patients on facility HD in ANZ. Additional research is needed to assess whether changing clinical risk profiles over time, varied dialysis prescription, and morbidity from dialysis access contribute to these findings.

Gemogenovatucel-T (Vigil) immunotherapy demonstrates clinical benefit in homologous recombination proficient (HRP) ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Recently, Vigil showed significant clinical benefit with improvement in relapse free (RFS) and overall survival (OS) in pre-planned subgroup analysis in stage III/IV newly diagnosed ovarian cancer patients with BRCA wild type (BRCA-wt) molecular profile. Here we analyze homologous recombination (HR) status of patients enrolled in the Phase 2b VITAL study and determine clinical benefit of Vigil in HR proficient (P) patients. METHODS: Patients were previously enrolled in a Phase 2b, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. All were in complete response with Stage III/IV high grade serious, endometroid or clear cell ovarian cancer. HR status was determined using MyChoice®CDx score (<42 = HRP) (Myriad Genetics, Inc., UT). Post-hoc analyses were carried out using Kaplan Meier and restricted mean survival time (RMST) analysis to evaluate RFS and OS based on HR deficiency (D) status. RESULTS: RFS was improved with Vigil (n = 25) in HRP patients compared to placebo (n = 20) (HR = 0.386; 90% CI 0.199-0.750; p = 0.007), results were verified by RMST (p = 0.017). Similarly, OS benefit was observed in Vigil group compared to placebo (HR = 0.342; 90% CI 0.141-0.832; p = 0.019). Results with OS were also verified with RMST (p = 0.008). CONCLUSION: Vigil exhibited clinical benefit in HRP molecular profile patients.

Survival Benefit of Guideline-Concordant Postoperative Radiation for Local Merkel Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative radiation therapy (RT) for early-stage Merkel Cell Carcinoma (MCC) decreases the risk of locoregional recurrence and improve overall survival. However, concordance with RT guidelines is unknown. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The National Cancer Database was queried for stage I/II MCC patients receiving surgical intervention from 2006-2017. The cohort was stratified by patients who had and did not have indication(s) for adjuvant RT of the primary tumor site based on National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. We captured the use of RT, patient demographics, socioeconomic characteristics, and clinical characteristics. Logistic regression, Kaplan-Meier method, and propensity score weighted Cox proportional hazards model examined associations and survival benefits of RT. RESULTS: 2,330 stage I/II MCC patients underwent surgical intervention. 1,858 (79.7%) met National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria for RT of the primary tumor site, of which 1,062 (57.2%) received RT. 472 (20.3%) did not meet criteria for RT, of which 203 (43.0%) received RT. Five-year overall survival advantage was identified for patients who received RT when it was indicated (P < 0.003). There was no evidence of overall survival advantage when patients received guideline-discordant RT (P = 0.478). CONCLUSIONS: Surgical resection with adjuvant RT of the primary tumor site has an overall survival benefit for local MCC when patients meet criteria for RT. This study found a group who received guideline-discordant RT with no survival advantage. Further investigation is warranted to identify the socio-demographic and oncologic reasons for guideline discordance in the treatment of MCC for both under- and over-treatment.

Identification of patients who may benefit the most from adjuvant chemotherapy following resection of incidental gallbladder carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: To develop a scoring system to identify the subset of patients who may benefit the most from adjuvant chemotherapy following curative-intent resection for incidental gallbladder cancer (IGBC). METHODS: A novel scoring system was utilized to stratify patients relative to overall survival (OS), as well as potential benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy following curative resection for IGBC. RESULTS: Among 266 patients with IGBC, a total of 99 (37.2%) patients received adjuvant chemotherapy. Five risk factors were used to develop an integer-based score to predict OS. Risk of death at 5-years incrementally increased among patients in the low (n = 42, 69.0%), medium (n = 64, 56.3%) and high-risk groups (n = 40, 30.0%) (median OS, 99.4 vs. 33.5 vs. 15.6 months, all p < .001). Use of adjuvant chemotherapy did not provide a survival benefit among patients in the low-risk group (median survival, 99.4 vs. 60.7 months, p = .56). In contrast, utilization of adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with an improvement in survival among medium- (median survival, 21.7 vs. 59.5 months, p = .04) and high-risk patients (median survival, 11.6 vs. 20.1 months, p = .01). CONCLUSIONS: While low-risk patients did not benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy, individuals with medium or high-risk scores had an improved survival with the utilization of adjuvant chemotherapy.

Impact of the modified SESAME ultrasound protocol implementation on patients with cardiac arrest in the emergency department.

INTRODUCTION: Point-of-care (POC) ultrasound protocols are commonly used for the initial management of patients with cardiac arrest in the emergency department (ED). However, there is little published evidence regarding any mortality benefit. We compared and studied the effect of implementation of the modified SESAME protocol in terms of clinical outcomes and resuscitation management. METHODS: This was a single-center retrospective observational study. We conducted a pre- and post-intervention study to evaluate changes in patient outcomes and management after educating emergency medicine residents and the faculty about the modified SESAME protocol. The pre-intervention period lasted from March 2018 to February 2019, and the post-intervention period lasted from May 2019 to April 2020. The modified SESAME protocol education was initiated in March 2019. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to examine the associations between independent variables and outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 334 patients were included in this study during a 24-month period. We found no significant differences between the two groups for the primary outcome of survival to hospital admission (pre-intervention group 28.9% versus post-intervention group 28.6%; P = 0.751), survival to hospital discharge (12.1% vs. 12.4%; P = 0.806), and good neurologic outcome at discharge (6.0% vs. 8.1%; P = 0.509). The proportion of resuscitation procedures of thrombolysis, emergency transfusion, tube thoracotomy, and pericardiocentesis during resuscitation increased from 0.6% in the pre-intervention period to 4.9% in the post-intervention period (P = 0.016). CONCLUSION: We did not discover any significant survival benefits associated with the implementation of the modified SESAME protocol; however, early diagnosis of specific pathologies (pericardial effusion, possible pulmonary embolism, tension pneumothorax, and hypovolemia) and accordingly a direct increase in the resuscitation management were seen in this study. Future studies with larger sample sizes are required to examine the clinical outcomes as well as to identify the most effective POC ultrasonography protocols for non-traumatic cardiac arrests.

The value of first-line chemotherapy and targeted therapy in the treatment of breast cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the value (survival benefit and cost) of first-line chemotherapy and targeted therapy in breast cancer at a population level. METHODS: Based on guideline recommendations, a model of optimal utilisation was constructed for first-line chemotherapy and targeted therapy in breast cancer, calculating the survival benefit and average cost of all regimens recommended for each treatment indication at 5 years and at 10 years. RESULTS: Survival benefits from chemotherapy and targeted therapy differ markedly depending on the treatment indications. The cost per life-year gained at 5 years is $38,044 for stages I and II, $33,749 for stage III and $ 151,668 for patients presenting with stage IV breast cancer. The cost per life-year gained at 10 years is $ 13,587 for early breast cancer. The most expensive chemotherapy indication in breast cancer is the treatment of metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer costing $330,978 per LYG for a survival benefit of 11% at 5 years falling to zero survival benefit at 10 years. CONCLUSION: There are large differences in value between the different indications for first-course chemotherapy and targeted therapy in the treatment of breast cancer that should be considered when pricing cancer drugs.

[Exploration and practice of post-marketing survival benefit evaluation of Chinese patent medicine for cancer].

Traditional Chinese medicine(TCM) is an important feature of cancer treatment in China. The methods to tap the advantages of TCM, reasonably evaluate and accurately apply Chinese patent medicines have become current research hotspots and difficulties. TCM takes syndrome differentiation and treatment as the core, with the characteristics of overall regulation and multi-targets efficacy. Therefore, the post-marketing survival benefit evaluation of Chinese patent medicines for cancer is different from that in modern medicine. The primary treatment goals in cancer patients include to improve the disease control rate and prolong their survival time. At present, Chinese patent medicines for cancer patients are lacking indepth studies on survival benefit at the post-marketing stage. In addition, the characteristics of individualized treatment with TCM have also increased the complexity of clinical research on TCM. Therefore, it is of certain practical significance and necessity to evaluate the survival benefit of Chinese patent medicines for cancer after marketing. Based on this, in this paper, we first summarized the technical methodological means of survival benefit evaluation at this stage, and then explored the post-marketing survival benefit evaluation of Chinese patent medicines for cancer from three aspects: the evaluation of cancer treatment effect based on survival time and quality of life, treatment-related toxicity and the auxiliary effect of TCM, and the improvement effect for tumor-related symptoms. Based on the practices of early clinical researches, and according to the insufficient efficacy evaluation of current clinical research on Chinese patent medicines, this paper proposed to improve the evaluation system for clinical researches on Chinese patent medicines, establish the evaluation method with TCM characteristics, clarify the dominant population, lay a theoretical foundation for the evaluation of post-marketing survival benefits of Chinese patent medicines for cancer in the future, and promote the modernization process of TCM.

Impact of ABO-Incompatible Living Donor Kidney Transplantation on Patient Survival.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Compared with recipients of blood group ABO-compatible (ABOc) living donor kidney transplants (LDKTs), recipients of ABO-incompatible (ABOi) LDKTs have higher risk for graft loss, particularly in the first few weeks after transplantation. However, the decision to proceed with ABOi LDKT should be based on a comparison of the alternative: waiting for future ABOc LDKTs (eg, through kidney paired exchange) or for a deceased donor kidney transplant (DDKT). We sought to evaluate the patient survival difference between ABOi LDKTs and waiting for an ABOc LDKT or an ABOc DDKT. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study of adults in the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: 808 ABOi LDKT recipients and 2,423 matched controls from among 245,158 adult first-time kidney-only waitlist registrants who did not receive an ABOi LDKT and who remained on the waitlist or received either an ABOc LDKT or an ABOc DDKT, 2002 to 2017. EXPOSURE: Receipt of ABOi LDKT. OUTCOME: Death. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: We compared mortality among ABOi LDKT recipients versus a weighted matched comparison population using Cox proportional hazards regression and Cox models that accommodated for changing hazard ratios over time. RESULTS: Compared with matched controls, ABOi LDKT was associated with greater mortality risk in the first 30 days posttransplantation (cumulative survival of 99.0% vs 99.6%) but lower mortality risk beyond 180 days posttransplantation. Patients who received an ABOi LDKT had higher cumulative survival at 5 and 10 years (90.0% and 75.4%, respectively) than similar patients who remained on the waitlist or received an ABOc LDKT or ABOc DDKT (81.9% and 68.4%, respectively). LIMITATIONS: No measurement of ABO antibody titers in recipients; eligibility of participants for kidney paired donation is unknown. CONCLUSIONS: Transplant candidates who receive an ABOi LDKT and survive more than 180 days posttransplantation experience a long-term survival benefit compared to remaining on the waitlist to potentially receive an ABOc kidney transplant.

Contemporary conditional cancer-specific survival after radical nephroureterectomy in patients with nonmetastatic urothelial carcinoma of upper urinary tract.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To examine the effect of conditional survival on 5-year cancer-specific survival (CSS) probability after radical nephroureterectomy (RNU) in a contemporary cohort of patients with non-metastatic urothelial carcinoma of the upper urinary tract (UTUC). METHODS: Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database (2004-2015), 6826 patients were identified. Conditional 5-year CSS estimates were assessed after event-free follow-up duration. Multivariable Cox regression (MCR) models predicted cancer-specific mortality (CSM) according to event-free follow-up length. RESULTS: Overall, 956 (14.0%) were T1 low grade(LG)N0 , 1305 (19.1%) T1 high grade(HG)N0 , 1215 (17.8%) T2 N0 , 2249 (32.9%) T3 N0 and 1101 (16.1%) T4 N0 /Tany N1-3 . From baseline, 93.4% to 94.2% in T1 LGN0 provided 5-year CSS and, respectively, 86.2% to 95.3% in T1 HGN0 , 77.5% to 87.8% in T2 N0 , 63.0% to 91.1% in T3 N0 , and 38.8% to 88.2% in T4 N0 /Tany N1-3 . In MCR models, relative to T1 LGN0 , T1 HGN0 (Hazard ratio [HR] 1.7), T2 N0 (HR 3.0), T3 N0 (HR: 5.2), and T4 N0 /Tany N1-3 (HR 11.9) were independent predictors of higher CSM. Conditional HRs decreased to levels equivalent to T1 LGN0 at 3 years vs 5 years of event-free survival for T1 HGN0 and all other groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A direct relationship exists between event-free follow-up and survival probability after RNU. From a clinical perspective, such survival estimates may have particular importance during preoperative counseling.

Survival Benefit of Treatment at or Transfer to a Tertiary Trauma Center among Injured Older Adults.

Objective: It is well established that seriously injured older adults are under-triaged to tertiary trauma centers. However, the survival benefit of tertiary trauma centers (TC) compared to a non-tertiary trauma centers (Non-TCs) remains unclear for this patient population. Using improved methodology and a larger sample, we hypothesized that there was a difference in hospital mortality between injured older adults treated at TCs and those treated at Non-TCs. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of injured older adults (> =55 years) reported to the Oklahoma statewide trauma registry between 2005 and 2014. The outcome of interest was 30-day in-hospital mortality and the exposure variable of interest was level of definitive trauma care (TC vs Non-TC). Overall survival benefit of treatment at a TC as well as the survival benefit of transferring injured older adults to a TC were evaluated using multivariable survival analyses as well as propensity score-adjusted analyses. Results: Of the 25,288 patients eligible for analysis, 43% (10,927) were treated at TCs. Multivariable Cox regression analyses revealed effect modification by age group and time. After adjusting for potential confounders within the age strata, overall, patients treated at TCs were significantly less likely to die within 7 days of admission and this effect was stronger for patients aged 55-64 years (HR 0.41, 95% CI 0.31-0.52) compared to those > =65 years (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.55-0.70). Overall survival benefit of TCs beyond 7 days was also observed (HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.56-0.83). Similarly, for the survival benefit of transferring injured older adults, after adjusting for the propensity to be transferred and other confounders, transfer to a TC was associated with lower 30-day mortality both for patients less than 65 years old (HR 0.36, 95% CI: 0.27-0.49) and those 65 years and older (HR 0.55, 95% CI: 0.48-0.64). Conclusions: Our results suggest a survival benefit for injured older adults treated at TCs. This benefit was also observed for patients transferred from non-tertiary trauma centers. Further research should focus on identifying specific subgroups of patients who would especially benefit from this level of care to minimize trauma triage inefficiencies.