Comparison of two independent systematic reviews of trials of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2) : The Yale Open Data Access Medtronic Project

Background: It is uncertain whether the replication of systematic reviews, particularly those with the same objectives and resources, would employ similar methods and/or arrive at identical findings. We compared the results and conclusions of two concurrent systematic reviews undertaken by two independent research teams provided with the same objectives, resources, and individual participant-level data. Methods: Two centers in the USA and UK were each provided with participant-level data on 17 multi-site clinical trials of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2). The teams were blinded to each other's methods and findings until after publication. We conducted a retrospective structured comparison of the results of the two systematic reviews. The main outcome measures included (1) trial inclusion criteria; (2) statistical methods; (3) summary efficacy and risk estimates; and (4) conclusions. Results: The two research teams' meta-analyses inclusion criteria were broadly similar but differed slightly in trial inclusion and research methodology. They obtained similar results in summary estimates of most clinical outcomes and adverse events. Center A incorporated all trials into summary estimates of efficacy and harms, while Center B concentrated on analyses stratified by surgical approach. Center A found a statistically significant, but small, benefit whereas Center B reported no advantage. In the analysis of harms, neither showed an increased cancer risk at 48 months, although Center B reported a significant increase at 24 months. Conclusions reflected these differences in summary estimates of benefit balanced with small but potentially important risk of harm. Conclusions: Two independent groups given the same research objectives, data, resources, funding, and time produced broad general agreement but differed in several areas. These differences, the importance of which is debatable, indicate the value of the availability of data to allow for more than a single approach and a single interpretation of the data. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42012002040and CRD42012001907

Polymorphisms in metabolic genes, their combination and interaction with tobacco smoke and alcohol consumption and risk of gastric cancer: a case-control study in an Italian population

Background: The distribution and the potential gene-gene and gene-environment interaction of selected metabolic genetic polymorphisms was investigated in relation to gastric cancer risk in an Italian population. Methods: One hundred and seven cases and 254 hospital controls, matched by age and gender, were genotyped for CYP1A1, CYP2E1, mEH, GSTM1, GSTT1, NAT2 and SULT1A1 polymorphisms. Haplotype analysis was performed for EPHX1 exons 3 and 4, as well as CYP2E1 RsaI (*5 alleles) and CYP2E1 DraI (*5A or *6 alleles). The effect modification by alcohol and cigarette smoking was tested with the heterogeneity test, while the attributable proportion (AP) was used to measure the biological interaction from the gene-gene interaction analysis. Results: Gastric cancer risk was found to be associated with the inheritance of GSTT1 null genotype (OR = 2.10, 95%CI: 1.27-3.44) and the SULT1A1 His/His genotype (OR = 2.46, 95%CI: 1.03-5.90). No differences were observed for the haplotype distributions among cases and controls. For the first time an increased risk was detected among individuals carrying the *6 variant allele of CYP2E1 if ever-drinkers (OR = 3.70; 95%CI: 1.45-9.37) with respect to never-drinkers (OR = 0.18; 95% CI: 0.22-1.46) (p value of heterogeneity among the two estimates = 0.001). Similarly, the effect of SULT1A1 variant genotype resulted restricted to ever-smokers, with an OR of 2.58 (95%CI: 1.27-5.25) for the carriers of His allele among smokers, and an OR of 0.86 (95%CI: 0.45-1.64) among never-smokers (p value of heterogeneity among the two estimates = 0.03). The gene-gene interaction analyses demonstrated that individuals with combined GSTT1 null and NAT2 slow acetylators had an additional increased risk of gastric cancer, with an OR of 3.00 (95%CI: 1.52-5.93) and an AP of 52%. Conclusion: GSTT1, SULT1A1 and NAT2 polymorphisms appear to modulate individual's susceptibility to gastric cancer in this Italian population, particularly when more than one unfavourable genotype is present, or when combined with cigarette smoke. The increased risk for the carriers of CYP2E1*5A or *6 alleles among drinkers need to be confirmed by larger prospective studies

The effect of different dosing regimens of motesanib on the gallbladder: a randomized phase 1b study in patients with advanced solid tumors

Extent: 11 p.BACKGROUND: Gallbladder toxicity, including cholecystitis, has been reported with motesanib, an orally administered small-molecule antagonist of VEGFRs 1, 2 and 3; PDGFR; and Kit. We assessed effects of motesanib on gallbladder size and function. METHODS: Patients with advanced metastatic solid tumors ineligible for or progressing on standard-of-care therapies with no history of cholecystitis or biliary disease were randomized 2:1:1 to receive motesanib 125 mg once daily (Arm A); 75 mg twice daily (BID), 14-days-on/7-days-off (Arm B); or 75 mg BID, 5-days-on/2-days-off (Arm C). Primary endpoints were mean change from baseline in gallbladder size (volume by ultrasound; independent review) and function (ejection fraction by CCK-HIDA; investigator assessment). RESULTS: Forty-nine patients received ≥1 dose of motesanib (Arms A/B/C, n = 25/12/12). Across all patients, gallbladder volume increased by a mean 22.2 cc (from 38.6 cc at baseline) and ejection fraction decreased by a mean 19.2% (from 61.3% at baseline) during treatment. Changes were similar across arms and appeared reversible after treatment discontinuation. Three patients had cholecystitis (grades 1, 2, 3, n = 1 each) that resolved after treatment discontinuation, one patient developed grade 3 acute cholecystitis requiring cholecystectomy, and two patients had other notable grade 1 gallbladder disorders (gallbladder wall thickening, gallbladder dysfunction) (all in Arm A). Two patients developed de novo gallstones during treatment. Twelve patients had right upper quadrant pain (Arms A/B/C, n = 8/1/3). The incidence of biliary “sludge” in Arms A/B/C was 39%/36%/27%. CONCLUSION: Motesanib treatment was associated with increased gallbladder volume, decreased ejection fraction, biliary sludge, gallstone formation, and infrequent cholecystitis. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00448786Lee S. Rosen, Lara Lipton, Timothy J. Price, Neil D. Belman, Ralph V. Boccia, Herbert I. Hurwitz, Joe J. Stephenson Jr., Lori J. Wirth, Sheryl McCoy, Yong-jiang Hei, Cheng-Pang Hsu and Niall C. Tebbut

The impact of surgical delay on resectability of colorectal cancer: An international prospective cohort study

AIM: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has provided a unique opportunity to explore the impact of surgical delays on cancer resectability. This study aimed to compare resectability for colorectal cancer patients undergoing delayed versus non-delayed surgery. METHODS: This was an international prospective cohort study of consecutive colorectal cancer patients with a decision for curative surgery (January-April 2020). Surgical delay was defined as an operation taking place more than 4 weeks after treatment decision, in a patient who did not receive neoadjuvant therapy. A subgroup analysis explored the effects of delay in elective patients only. The impact of longer delays was explored in a sensitivity analysis. The primary outcome was complete resection, defined as curative resection with an R0 margin. RESULTS: Overall, 5453 patients from 304 hospitals in 47 countries were included, of whom 6.6% (358/5453) did not receive their planned operation. Of the 4304 operated patients without neoadjuvant therapy, 40.5% (1744/4304) were delayed beyond 4 weeks. Delayed patients were more likely to be older, men, more comorbid, have higher body mass index and have rectal cancer and early stage disease. Delayed patients had higher unadjusted rates of complete resection (93.7% vs. 91.9%, P = 0.032) and lower rates of emergency surgery (4.5% vs. 22.5%, P < 0.001). After adjustment, delay was not associated with a lower rate of complete resection (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.90-1.55, P = 0.224), which was consistent in elective patients only (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.69-1.27, P = 0.672). Longer delays were not associated with poorer outcomes. CONCLUSION: One in 15 colorectal cancer patients did not receive their planned operation during the first wave of COVID-19. Surgical delay did not appear to compromise resectability, raising the hypothesis that any reduction in long-term survival attributable to delays is likely to be due to micro-metastatic disease