Doxorubicin plus dacarbazine, doxorubicin plus ifosfamide, or doxorubicin alone as a first‐line treatment for advanced leiomyosarcoma: A propensity score matching analysis from the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group

Background The optimal treatment for advanced leiomyosarcoma is still debated. Given histotype‐specific prospective controlled data lacking, this study retrospectively evaluated doxorubicin plus dacarbazine, doxorubicin plus ifosfamide, and doxorubicin alone as first‐line treatments for advanced/metastatic leiomyosarcoma treated at European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group (EORTC‐STBSG) sites. Methods The inclusion criteria were a confirmed histological diagnosis, treatment between January 2010 and December 2015, measurable disease (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1), an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤2, and an age ≥ 18 years. The endpoints were progression‐free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and overall response rate (ORR). PFS was analyzed with methods for interval‐censored data. Patients were matched according to their propensity scores, which were estimated with a logistic regression model accounting for histology, grade, age, sex, performance status, tumor site, and tumor extent. Results Three hundred three patients from 18 EORTC‐STBSG sites were identified. One hundred seventeen (39%) received doxorubicin plus dacarbazine, 71 (23%) received doxorubicin plus ifosfamide, and 115 (38%) received doxorubicin. In the 2:1:2 propensity score–matched population (205 patients), the estimated median PFS was 9.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.2‐9.7 months), 8.2 months (95% CI, 5.2‐10.1 months), and 4.8 months (95% CI, 2.3‐6.0 months) with ORRs of 30.9%, 19.5%, and 25.6% for doxorubicin plus dacarbazine, doxorubicin plus ifosfamide, and doxorubicin alone, respectively. PFS was significantly longer with doxorubicin plus dacarbazine versus doxorubicin (hazard ratio [HR], 0.72; 95% CI, 0.52‐0.99). Doxorubicin plus dacarbazine was associated with longer OS (median, 36.8 months; 95% CI, 27.9‐47.2 months) in comparison with both doxorubicin plus ifosfamide (median, 21.9 months; 95% CI, 16.7‐33.4 months; HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.40‐1.06) and doxorubicin (median, 30.3 months; 95% CI, 21.0‐36.3 months; HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.43‐0.99). Adjusted analyses retained an effect for PFS but not for OS. None of the factors selected for multivariate analysis had a significant interaction with the received treatment for both PFS and OS. Conclusions This is the largest retrospective study of first‐line treatment for advanced leiomyosarcoma. In the propensity score–matched population, doxorubicin and dacarbazine showed favorable activity in terms of both ORR and PFS and warrants further evaluation in prospective trials

Impact of the treating institution on survival of patients with "poor-prognosis" metastatic nonseminoma

Background: Because metastatic nonseminomatous germ cell cancer is a rare but treatable cancer, we have explored whether there is an association between the experience of the treating institution with this disease and the long-term clinical outcome of the patients, particularly patients with a poor prognosis. Methods: We analyzed data on 380 patients treated in one of 49 institutions participating in the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer/ Medical Research Council randomized trial of four cycles of bleomycin-etoposide-cisplatin followed by two cycles of etoposide-cisplatin versus three cycles of bleomyein-vincristine-cisplatin followed by three cycles of etoposide-ifosfamide-cisplatin-bleomycin, both treatment regimens given with or without filgrastim (granulocyte colony-stimulating factor). Institutions were divided into four groups based on the total number of patients entered in the trial, The groups were compared by use of the Cox proportional hazards model stratified for treatment with filgrastim and for patient prognosis as defined by the International Germ Cell Consensus Classification Group. With the use of this classification, only 65% of the patients had a poor prognosis. Results: Patients treated in the 26 institutions that entered fewer than five patients into the trial had an overall survival that was statistically significantly morse (two-sided P = .010; hazard ratio = 1.85; 95% confidence interval 1.16-3.03) than that of patients treated in the 23 institutions that entered five patients or more. Overall survival and failure-free survival were similar among institutions that entered at least five patients. The observed effect may be related to differences in adherence to the chemotherapy protocol and in the frequency and extent of surgery for residual masses, although only the differences in dose intensity achieved statistical significance. Conclusions: Patients treated in institutions that entered fewer than five patients into the trial appeared to have poorer survival than those treated in institutions that entered a larger number of patients with "poor-prognosis" nonseminoma

Diagnosis and treatment of melanoma. European consensus-based interdisciplinary guideline - Update 2016

Cutaneous melanoma (CM) is potentially the most dangerous form of skin tumour and causes 90% of skin cancer mortality. A unique collaboration of multi-disciplinary experts from the European Dermatology Forum, the European Association of Dermato-Oncology and the European Organisation of Research and Treatment of Cancer was formed to make recommendations on CM diagnosis and treatment, based on systematic literature reviews and the experts’ experience. Diagnosis is made clinically using dermoscopy and staging is based upon the AJCC system. CMs are excised with 1-2 cm safety margins. Sentinel lymph node dissection is routinely offered as a staging procedure in patients with tumours >1 mm in thickness, although there is as yet no clear survival benefit for this approach. Interferon-alpha treatment may be offered to patients with stage II and III melanoma as an adjuvant therapy, as this treatment increases at least the disease-free survival and less clear the overall survival (OS) time. The treatment is however associated with significant toxicity. In distant metastasis, all options of surgical therapy have to be considered thoroughly. In the absence of surgical options, systemic treatment is indicated. For first-line treatment particularly in BRAF wildtype patients, immunotherapy with PD-1 antibodies alone or in combination with CTLA-4 antibodies should be considered. BRAF inhibitors like dabrafenib and vemurafenib in combination with the MEK inhibitors trametinib and cobimetinib for BRAF mutated patients should be offered as first or second line treatment. Therapeutic decisions in stage IV patients should be primarily made by an interdisciplinary oncology team (’Tumour Board’). (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

Imaging standardisation in metastatic colorectal cancer: A joint EORTC-ESOI-ESGAR expert consensus recommendation

Background: Treatment monitoring in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) relies on imaging to evaluate the tumour burden. Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors provide a framework on reporting and interpretation of imaging findings yet offer no guidance on a standardised imaging protocol tailored to patients with mCRC. Imaging protocol hetero-geneity remains a challenge for the reproducibility of conventional imaging end-points and is an obstacle for research on novel imaging end-points.Patients and methods: Acknowledging the recently highlighted potential of radiomics and arti-ficial intelligence tools as decision support for patient care in mCRC, a multidisciplinary, international and expert panel of imaging specialists was formed to find consensus on mCRC imaging protocols using the Delphi method.Results: Under the guidance of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Imaging and Gastrointestinal Tract Cancer Groups, the European Society of Oncologic Imaging (ESOI) and the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR), the EORTC-ESOI-ESGAR core imaging protocol was identified.Conclusion: This consensus protocol attempts to promote standardisation and to diminish variations in patient preparation, scan acquisition and scan reconstruction. We anticipate that this standardisation will increase reproducibility of radiomics and artificial intelligence studies and serve as a catalyst for future research on imaging end-points. For ongoing and future mCRC trials, we encourage principal investigators to support the dissemination of these im-aging standards across recruiting centres. (c) 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Quality of Life as a Prognostic Indicator of Survival: A Pooled Analysis of Individual Patient Data From Canadian Cancer Trials Group Clinical Trials

Neurolog

Recruiting long-term survivors of European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer phase III clinical trials into quality of life studies: Challenges and opportunities

Objectives: In this pilot study we evaluated the feasibility of and methods for assessing the quality of life of long term survivors of European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) phase III clinical trials. Here we report the results pertaining to the feasibility of conducting such research. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, we recruited long-term, disease-free survivors from two mature EORTC clinical trials in testicular and prostate cancer from centres in Northern and Southern Europe, and the United Kingdom (UK). Results: A number of challenges were encountered in recruiting participating centres, obtaining medical ethical approval and in recruiting survivors and collecting the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) data in a timely manner. The efficiency with which the study could be conducted varied widely across centres and countries. Time to obtain medical ethical approval for the study ranged from 1.5 to 25 months. We encountered most problems with ethical approval in the UK, Italy and Belgium. In most cases, data collection was completed within 3 months (range 10 weeks-1 year). Completed questionnaires were obtained from 68% and 56%, respectively, of the testicular and prostate cancer survivors who were approached. Conclusions: HRQoL research among long-term survivors of EORTC phase III clinical trials is possible, but the process of ethical approval and data collection is a lengthy one. To minimise many of the logistical problems, long-term follow-up of patients should be an integral part of future clinical trials. Moreover, regulations governing medical ethical approval for clinical research within the EU should be carefully evaluated to facilitate long-term follow-up of cancer survivors in Europe

International evaluation of the psychometrics of health-related quality of life questionnaires for use among longterm survivors of testicular and prostate cancer

Experimentele farmacotherapi

Standardised lesion segmentation for imaging biomarker quantitation: a consensus recommendation from ESR and EORTC

Background Lesion/tissue segmentation on digital medical images enables biomarker extraction, image-guided therapy delivery, treatment response measurement, and training/validation for developing artificial intelligence algorithms and workflows. To ensure data reproducibility, criteria for standardised segmentation are critical but currently unavailable. Methods A modified Delphi process initiated by the European Imaging Biomarker Alliance (EIBALL) of the European Society of Radiology (ESR) and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Imaging Group was undertaken. Three multidisciplinary task forces addressed modality and image acquisition, segmentation methodology itself, and standards and logistics. Devised survey questions were fed via a facilitator to expert participants. The 58 respondents to Round 1 were invited to participate in Rounds 2-4. Subsequent rounds were informed by responses of previous rounds. Results/conclusions Items with >= 75% consensus are considered a recommendation. These include system performance certification, thresholds for image signal-to-noise, contrast-to-noise and tumour-to-background ratios, spatial resolution, and artefact levels. Direct, iterative, and machine or deep learning reconstruction methods, use of a mixture of CE marked and verified research tools were agreed and use of specified reference standards and validation processes considered essential. Operator training and refreshment were considered mandatory for clinical trials and clinical research. Items with a 60-74% agreement require reporting (site-specific accreditation for clinical research, minimal pixel number within lesion segmented, use of post-reconstruction algorithms, operator training refreshment for clinical practice). Items with <= 60% agreement are outside current recommendations for segmentation (frequency of system performance tests, use of only CE-marked tools, board certification of operators, frequency of operator refresher training). Recommendations by anatomical area are also specified

Ten-Year Progression-Free and Overall Survival in Patients With Unresectable or Metastatic GI Stromal Tumors: Long-Term Analysis of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer, Italian Sarcoma Group, and Australasian Gastrointestinal Trials Group Intergroup Phase III Randomized Trial on Imatinib at Two Dose Levels.

Purpose To report on the long-term results of a randomized trial comparing a standard dose (400 mg/d) versus a higher dose (800 mg/d) of imatinib in patients with metastatic or locally advanced GI stromal tumors (GISTs). Patients and Methods Eligible patients with advanced CD117-positive GIST from 56 institutions in 13 countries were randomly assigned to receive either imatinib 400 mg or 800 mg daily. Patients on the 400-mg arm were allowed to cross over to 800 mg upon progression. Results Between February 2001 and February 2002, 946 patients were accrued. Median age was 60 years (range, 18 to 91 years). Median follow-up time was 10.9 years. Median progression-free survival times were 1.7 and 2.0 years in the 400- and 800-mg arms, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.91; P = .18), and median overall survival time was 3.9 years in both treatment arms. The estimated 10-year progression-free survival rates were 9.5% and 9.2% for the 400- and 800-mg arms, respectively, and the estimated 10-year overall survival rates were 19.4% and 21.5%, respectively. At multivariable analysis, age (&lt; 60 years), performance status (0 v ≥ 1), size of the largest lesion (smaller), and KIT mutation (exon 11) were significant prognostic factors for the probability of surviving beyond 10 years. Conclusion This trial was carried out on a worldwide intergroup basis, at the beginning of the learning curve of the use of imatinib, in a large population of patients with advanced GIST. With a long follow-up, 6% of patients are long-term progression free and 13% are survivors. Among clinical prognostic factors, only performance status, KIT mutation, and size of largest lesion predicted long-term outcome, likely pointing to a lower burden of disease. Genomic and/or immune profiling could help understand long-term survivorship. Addressing secondary resistance remains a therapeutic challenge