Dendritic Cell Based Tumor Vaccination in Prostate and Renal Cell Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND: More than 200 clinical trials have been performed using dendritic cells (DC) as cellular adjuvants in cancer. Yet the key question whether there is a link between immune and clinical response remains unanswered. Prostate and renal cell cancer (RCC) have been extensively studied for DC-based immunotherapeutic interventions and were therefore chosen to address the above question by means of a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Data was obtained after a systematic literature search from clinical trials that enrolled at least 6 patients. Individual patient data meta-analysis was performed by means of conditional logistic regression grouped by study. Twenty nine trials involving a total of 906 patients were identified in prostate cancer (17) and RCC (12). Objective response rates were 7.7% in prostate cancer and 12.7% in RCC. The combined percentages of objective responses and stable diseases (SD) amounted to a clinical benefit rate (CBR) of 54% in prostate cancer and 48% in RCC. Meta-analysis of individual patient data (n = 403) revealed the cellular immune response to have a significant influence on CBR, both in prostate cancer (OR 10.6, 95% CI 2.5-44.1) and in RCC (OR 8.4, 95% CI 1.3-53.0). Furthermore, DC dose was found to have a significant influence on CBR in both entities. Finally, for the larger cohort of prostate cancer patients, an influence of DC maturity and DC subtype (density enriched versus monocyte derived DC) as well as access to draining lymph nodes on clinical outcome could be demonstrated. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: As a 'proof of principle' a statistically significant effect of DC-mediated cellular immune response and of DC dose on CBR could be demonstrated. Further findings concerning vaccine composition, quality control, and the effect of DC maturation status are relevant for the immunological development of DC-based vaccines

The Effect of Specialized Cancer Treatment Centers on Treatment Efficacy in Hodgkin's Lymphoma

Background: The presumed benefits of centralization and minimum case numbers often guide health-policy decisions, but these benefits remain inadequately documented, particularly in oncology. In this study, we aim to measure the effect of the type of treatment center and/or the number of patients treated in it on the outcome of patients with Hodgkin's lymphoma. Methods: From 1988 to 2002, 8121 patients with newly diagnosed Hodgkin's lymphoma were treated in Germany in multicenter randomized and controlled trials (RCTs) of the German Hodgkin Study Group (GHSG). Center-related effects on progression-free survival (PFS) were assessed univariately with Kaplan-Meier plots and log-rank tests, as well as with a multivariate Cox regression model. Results: The 500 participating centers in Germany included 52 university hospitals, 304 non-university hospitals, and 144 medical practices specializing in hematology and oncology. No significant differences in PFS were found between patients from centers with high or low case numbers (5-year-PFS: 78.7% and 78.6% for centers with fewer than 50 and more than 50 patients, respectively) or from different types of centers [5-year-PFS: university hospital, 77.7%; non-university hospital, 79.4%; practice, 79.8%]. Even after statistical controls for the effect of other known and unknown prognostic factors and validation in further datasets, no center effects were found. Conclusions: The type of center and the minimum number of patients treated in a center have no impact on the treatment outcome of patients with Hodgkin's lymphoma in Germany. In all GHSG centers, regardless of type, the quality standards for successful treatment are apparently met on all levels of patient care

Comparison of first-line chemotherapy including escalated BEACOPP versus chemotherapy including ABVD for people with early unfavourable or advanced stage Hodgkin lymphoma

Background There are two different international standards for the treatment of early unfavourable and advanced stage Hodgkin lymphoma (HL): chemotherapy with escalated BEACOPP (bleomycin/etoposide/doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide/vincristine/procarbazine/prednisone) regimen and chemotherapy with ABVD (doxorubicin/bleomycin/vinblastine/dacarbazine) regimen. Objectives To determine the advantages and disadvantages of chemotherapy including escalated BEACOPP compared to chemotherapy including ABVD in the treatment of early unfavourable or advanced stage HL as first-line treatment. Search methods We searched for randomised controlled trials in MEDLINE, CENTRAL and conference proceedings (January 1985 to July 2013 and for the update to March 2017) and Embase (1985 to November 2008). Moreover we searched trial registries (March 2017; www.controlled-trials.com, www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/search, clinicaltrials.gov, www.eortc.be, www.ghsg.org, www.ctc.usyd.edu.au,www.trialscentral.org/index.html) Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials examining chemotherapy including at least two cycles of escalated BEACOPP regimens compared with chemotherapy including at least four cycles of ABVD regimens as first-line treatment for patients with early unfavourable stage or advanced stage HL. Data collection and analysis The effect measures we used were hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and freedom from first progression. We used risk ratios (RRs) relative risks to analyse harms: treatment-related mortality, secondary malignancies (including myeloid dysplastic syndrome (MDS) or acute myeloid leukaemia (AML)), infertility and adverse events. Quality of life was not reported in any trial, therefore not analysed. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed quality of trials. Main results We screened 1796 records and identified five eligible trials in total i.e. one trial could be added on the previous review. These trials included only adults (16 to 65 years of age). We included all five trials with 3427 people in the meta-analyses: the HD9 and HD14 trials were co-ordinated in Germany, the HD2000 and GSM-HD trials were performed in Italy and the EORTC 20012 was conducted in Belgium. The overall risk of performance and detection bias was low for overall survival (OS), but was high for other outcomes, as therapy blinding was not feasible. The remaining 'Risk of bias' domains were low and unclear. All trials reported results for OS and progression-free survival (PFS). In contrast to the our first published review (2011) the addition of results from the EORTC 20012 BEACOPP escalated increases OS (3142 participants; HR 0.74 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 0.97; high-quality evidence). This means that only 90 (70 to 117) patients will die after five years in the BEACOPP escalated arm compared to 120 in the ABVD arm. This survival advantage is also reflected in an increased PFS with BEACOPP escalated (3142 participants; HR 0.54 (95% CI 0.45 to 0.64); moderate-quality evidence), meaning that after five years only 144 (121 to 168) patients will experience a progress, relapse or death in the BEACOPP escalated arm compared to 250 in the ABVD arm. There is no evidence for a difference for treatment-related mortality (2700 participants, RR 2.15 (95% CI = 0.93 to 4.95), low-quality evidence). Although the occurrence of MDS or AML may increase with BEACOPP escalated (3332 participants, RR 3.90 (95% CI 1.36 to 11.21); low-quality evidence)), there is no evidence for a difference between both regimens for overall secondary malignancies (3332 participants, RR 1.00 (95% CI 0.68 to 1.48), low-quality evidence). However, the observation time of the studies included in the review is too short to be expected to demonstrate differences with respect to second solid tumours which would not be expected to show significance until around 15 years after treatment. We are very uncertain how many female patients will be infertile due to chemotherapy and which arm might be favoured (106 participants, RR 1.37 (95% CI 0.83 to 2.26), very low-quality evidence). This is a very small sample, and the age of the patients was not detailed. No analysis of male fertility was provided. Five trials reported adverse events and the analysis shows that the escalated BEACOPP regimens probably causes more haematological toxicities WHO grade III or IV ((anaemia: 2425 participants, RR 10.67 (95% CI 7.14 to 15.93); neutropenia: 519 participants, RR 1.80 (95% CI 1.52 to 2.13); thrombocytopenia: 2425 participants, RR 18.12 (95% CI 11.77 to 27.92); infections: 2425 participants, RR 3.73 (95% CI 2.58 to 5.38), all low-quality evidence). Only one trial (EORTC 20012) planned to assess quality of life, however, no results were reported. Authors' conclusions Thismeta-analysis providesmoderate-to high-quality evidence that adult patients between 16 and 60 years of age with early unfavourable and advanced stage HL benefit regarding OS and PFS from first-line chemotherapy including escalated BEACOPP. The proven benefit in OS for patients with advanced HL is a new finding of this updated review due to the inclusion of the results from the EORTC 20012 trial. Furthermore, there is only low-quality evidence of a difference in the total number of secondary malignancies, as the followup period might be too short to detect meaningful differences. Low-quality evidence also suggests that people treated with escalated BEACOPP may have a higher risk to develop secondary AML or MDS. Due to the availability of only very low-quality evidence available, we are unable to come to a conclusion in terms of infertility. This review does for the first time suggest a survival benefit. However, it is clear from this review that BEACOPP escalated may be more toxic that ABVD, and very important long-term side effects of second malignancies and infertility have not been sufficiently analysed yet

Combined modality treatment improves tumor control and overall survival in patients with early stage Hodgkin’s lymphoma: a systematic review

Combined modality treatment (CMT) of chemotherapy followed by localized radiotherapy is standard treatment for patients with early stage Hodgkin’s lymphoma. However, the role of radiotherapy has been questioned recently and some clinical study groups advocate chemotherapy only for this indication. We thus performed a systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing chemotherapy alone with CMT in patients with early stage Hodgkin’s lymphoma with respect to response rate, tumor control and overall survival (OS). We searched Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library as well as conference proceedings from January 1980 to February 2009 for randomized controlled trials comparing chemotherapy alone versus the same chemotherapy regimen plus radiotherapy. Progression free survival and similar outcomes were analyzed together as tumor control. Effect measures used were hazard ratios for OS and tumor control as well as relative risks for complete response (CR). Meta-analyses were performed using RevMan5. Five randomized controlled trials involving 1,245 patients were included. The hazard ratio (HR) was 0.41 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25 to 0.66) for tumor control and 0.40 (95% CI 0.27 to 0.59) for OS for patients receiving CMT compared to chemotherapy alone. CR rates were similar between treatment groups. In sensitivity analyses another 6 trials were included that did not fulfill the inclusion criteria of our protocol but were considered relevant to the topic. These trials underlined the results of the main analysis. In conclusion, adding radiotherapy to chemotherapy improves tumor control and OS in patients with early stage Hodgkin’s lymphoma

Cancer-related fatigue in patients with and survivors of Hodgkin's lymphoma: a longitudinal study of the German Hodgkin Study Group

Kreissl S, Mueller H, Goergen H, et al. Cancer-related fatigue in patients with and survivors of Hodgkin's lymphoma: a longitudinal study of the German Hodgkin Study Group. The Lancet. Oncology. 2016;17(10):1453-1462

Cancer-Related Fatigue in Patients With and Survivors of Hodgkin Lymphoma: The Impact on Treatment Outcome and Social Reintegration

Purpose Cancer-related fatigue occurs frequently in patients with Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) and has a major impact on their quality of life. We hypothesized that severe fatigue (sFA) might have an impact on patients' treatment outcome and social reintegration. Methods Of 5,306 patients enrolled in the German Hodgkin Study Group's fifth generation of clinical trials in HL (HD13, HD14, and HD15; nonqualified and older [>60 years] patients excluded), 4,529 provided data on health-related quality of life. We describe sFA (defined as a score >= 50 on the 0 to 100 scale from the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30) before and up to 9 years after therapy and analyze its impact on treatment outcome and social reintegration. Results The proportion of patients reporting sFA was 37% at baseline and ranged from 20% to 24% during follow-up. Baseline sFA was associated with significantly impaired progression-free survival and a trend to impaired overall survival, which can be overcome in patients receiving highly effective HL therapies as applied in our fifth-generation trials. Our analysis revealed a significant negative association of sFA and employment in survivors: 5 years after therapy, 51% and 63% of female and male survivors, respectively, with sFA were working or in professional education, compared with 78% and 90% without sFA, respectively (P < .001 adjusted for age, sex, stage, baseline employment status, and treatment outcome). sFA was also associated with financial problems and the number of visits to a general practitioner and medical specialists. Conclusion sFA is an important factor preventing survivors from social reintegration during follow-up. This observation underscores the need to address fatigue as a significant diagnosis when treating patients with and survivors of cancer. (C) 2016 by American Society of Clinical Oncolog

Recombinant human erythropoiesis-stimulating agents and mortality in patients with cancer: a meta-analysis of randomised trials

BACKGROUND: Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents reduce anaemia in patients with cancer and could improve their quality of life, but these drugs might increase mortality. We therefore did a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials in which these drugs plus red blood cell transfusions were compared with transfusion alone for prophylaxis or treatment of anaemia in patients with cancer. METHODS: Data for patients treated with epoetin alfa, epoetin beta, or darbepoetin alfa were obtained and analysed by independent statisticians using fixed-effects and random-effects meta-analysis. Analyses were by intention to treat. Primary endpoints were mortality during the active study period and overall survival during the longest available follow-up, irrespective of anticancer treatment, and in patients given chemotherapy. Tests for interactions were used to identify differences in effects of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents on mortality across prespecified subgroups. FINDINGS: Data from a total of 13 933 patients with cancer in 53 trials were analysed. 1530 patients died during the active study period and 4993 overall. Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents increased mortality during the active study period (combined hazard ratio [cHR] 1.17, 95% CI 1.06-1.30) and worsened overall survival (1.06, 1.00-1.12), with little heterogeneity between trials (I(2) 0%, p=0.87 for mortality during the active study period, and I(2) 7.1%, p=0.33 for overall survival). 10 441 patients on chemotherapy were enrolled in 38 trials. The cHR for mortality during the active study period was 1.10 (0.98-1.24), and 1.04 (0.97-1.11) for overall survival. There was little evidence for a difference between trials of patients given different anticancer treatments (p for interaction=0.42). INTERPRETATION: Treatment with erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in patients with cancer increased mortality during active study periods and worsened overall survival. The increased risk of death associated with treatment with these drugs should be balanced against their benefits. FUNDING: German Federal Ministry of Education and Research, Medical Faculty of University of Cologne, and Oncosuisse (Switzerland)

Lecture et écriture : les choix des enseignants au début de l’école élémentaire

Comment faire des préconisations en matière de lecture et d’écriture au début de l’école élémentaire sans connaitre les pratiques des enseignants, sans mesurer l’efficacité de ces pratiques, sans saisir la complexité des premiers apprentissages ? Et comment documenter les choix des enseignants ? Dans cette perspective, le présent numéro interroge le point de vue des enseignants et cherche à comprendre comment ces derniers organisent, dans l’espace de la classe, les occasions de développer des compétences à l’écrit, avec quels objectifs, quelle progression, quels modes d’évaluation et quels choix pédagogiques. Au fond, la grande question est celle de la description mais aussi de la compréhension de la complexité des situations scolaires et des apprentissages de l’écrit dans ses diverses dimensions. De ce point de vue, la variété et la richesse des articles de ce numéro sont prometteuses. Certains ont pour caractéristique d’aborder frontalement des questions vives comme celle de l’enseignement de la compréhension ou celle des élèves à profil particulier. D’autres s’intéressent à l’écriture, dans ses aspects graphomoteurs tout comme dans son lien à la lecture. Ont aussi été retenues des contributions analysant des dimensions de l’apprentissage de l’écrit qui défraient moins la chronique quand il s’agit du CP et du CE1 : l’étude de la langue, l’acculturation à l’écrit, la pratique de la poésie, la prise en compte des langues des élèves, l’usage du tableau. Au travers de cinq articles qui nous livrent les premiers résultats de la recherche Lire‑écrire au CP et de cinq autres rendant compte de recherches variées, ce numéro permet d’appréhender, dans leur complexité, les pratiques enseignantes en ce qui concerne le lire et l’écrire au début de l’école obligatoire. Pour ce qui est de l’efficacité de ces pratiques, le questionnement est ici amorcé même si les conséquences des choix des enseignants, notamment sur le développement des compétences littéraciques des élèves, demandent à être explorées plus avant. À ce sujet, le temps scolaire n’étant pas extensible, il est capital de chercher, dès à présent, des effets de seuil et d’aboutir à des propositions équilibrées. L’efficacité est sans doute en effet affaire d’imbrication, de hiérarchisation et de dosage. How to make recommendations regarding reading and writing at the beginning of primary school without knowing teachers’ practices, without measuring the efficiency of their practices, without seizing the complexity of early learnings? And how to document teachers’ choices? The present issue questions teachers’ points of view and tries to understand how they organize, in the classroom, the development of literacy skills, with which objectives, which progress, which modes of evaluation and which educational choices. In fact, the big question is that of the description of the complexity of school situations regarding literacy learning. From this point of view, the variety of papers in this issue is promising. Some of them face issues such as the teaching of understanding or that of the pupils with special needs. Others are interested in the graphomotricity of writing, or in its link with reading. Others deal with the study of grammar, literacy acculturation, the practice of poetry, the use of the blackboard. Five articles deliver the first results of the national research “Reading and writing in 1P” and five others report varied researches. All in all, this issue enables readers to understand literacy teaching practices at the beginning of compulsory education. As for the efficiency of teaching practices, the questioning has now begun, even if the consequences of teachers’ choices, in particular on the development of pupils’ literacy skills, has to be explored further. School time not being stretchable, it is a major issue to look for threshold effects and to end up with well-balanced proposals