High-Grade Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Neoplasms and Improved Prognostic Stratification With the New World Health Organization 2019 Classification A Validation Study From a Single-Institution Retrospective Analysis

Objectives: There is a pressing need to develop clinical management pathways for grade 3 (G3) gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (GEP NEN). Methods: We performed a retrospective study on patients with metastatic G3 GEP NEN. The relationship between baseline characteristics and progression-free survival and overall survival was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed using the Cox proportional hazards model. Results: We included 142 patients (74 well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors [WDNETs], 68 poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinomas [PDNECs]). Patients with WDNET had prolonged survival compared with PDNEC (median, 24 vs 15 months, P = 0.0001), which persisted in both pancreatic and nonpancreatic cohorts. Well-differentiated morphology, Ki-67 <50% and positive somatostatin receptor imaging were independently associated with prolonged survival. Of the subgroup treated with first-line platinum-based chemotherapy, response rates were favorable (partial response, 47%; stable disease, 30%); there was no significant difference in response rates nor progression-free survival between WDNET and PDNEC despite significantly prolonged overall survival in the WDNET cohort. Conclusions: Our study corroborates the knowledge of 2 prognostically distinct subgroups within the World Health Organization 2019 G3 GEP NEN population, observed in both pancreatic and nonpancreatic gastrointestinal cohorts. Definitive management pathways are needed to reflect the differences between G3 WDNET and PDNEC

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

Osteoclast inhibitors to prevent bone metastases in men with high-risk, non-metastatic prostate cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

<div><p>Background</p><p>In advanced prostate cancer, osteoclast inhibitors prevent and palliate skeletal related events associated with bone metastases. However, it is uncertain whether they play a disease-modifying role earlier in the course of the disease.</p><p>Methods</p><p>Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and ASCO conference proceedings were searched for randomized controlled trials that compared osteoclast inhibitors with placebo and/or standard of care (SOC) in patients with high-risk, non-metastatic prostate cancer. The primary outcome measure was incidence of new bone metastases; secondary outcomes included overall survival (OS), prostate cancer specific survival, mortality unrelated to prostate cancer, toxicity and health related quality of life outcomes. Results are presented as relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).</p><p>Results</p><p>Six randomized controlled trials (5947 participants) were included, five evaluating bisphosphonates and one denosumab. Overall, there was no difference in incidence of bone metastases between participants treated with osteoclast inhibitors versus placebo/SOC (RR 1.09, 95%CI 0.84–1.41, p = 0.51) however significant heterogeneity was observed between studies. The denosumab trial was the largest and only positive trial amongst the included studies (RR 0.83, 95%CI 0.73–0.95, p = 0.007). No significant difference was observed in OS (RR 0.99 95% CI 0.89–1.10, p = 0.84) nor prostate cancer specific survival (RR 1.12 95%CI 0.93–1.36, p = 0.24). Most studies reported increased rates of osteonecrosis of the jaw (5% or less) and hypocalcemia (2% or less) with osteoclast inhibitors.</p><p>Conclusions</p><p>While there is limited evidence that bisphosphonates alter the natural history of high-risk, non-metastatic prostate cancer, denosumab delays onset of bone metastases in this patient population. Neither class of osteoclast inhibitor demonstrated an impact on survival outcomes. Future trials with better defined patient selection and a robust definition for high risk disease is critical.</p></div

Forest plot for incidence of new bone metastases.

<p>Abbreviations: ITAS, intermediate term androgen suppression; STAS, short term androgen suppression; ZA, zoledronic acid.</p

Flow diagram of study selection.

<p>Flow diagram of study selection.</p

Forest plot for prostate cancer specific survival.

<p>Abbreviations: ITAS, intermediate term androgen suppression; STAS, short term androgen suppression; ZA, zoledronic acid.</p

Participant characteristics denoting metastasis risk.

<p>Participant characteristics denoting metastasis risk.</p

Characteristics of included studies.

<p>Characteristics of included studies.</p

Toxicity and HRQOL outcomes.

<p>Toxicity and HRQOL outcomes.</p

Forest plot for mortality unrelated to prostate cancer.

<p>Abbreviations: ITAS, intermediate term androgen suppression; STAS, short term androgen suppression; ZA, zoledronic acid.</p