Perioperative fluid management and associated complications in children receiving kidney transplants in the UK

Background: Intravenous fluid administration is an essential part of perioperative care for children receiving a kidney transplant. There is a paucity of evidence to guide optimal perioperative fluid management. This study aimed to identify the volume of perioperative fluids administered across 5 UK paediatric kidney transplant centres and explore associations between fluid volume administered, graft function, and fluid-related adverse events. Methods: Data were collected from five UK paediatric kidney transplant centres on perioperative fluid volumes administered, and incidence of pulmonary oedema, systemic hypertension, and requirement for intensive care support. Children < 18 years of age who received a kidney-only transplant between 1st January 2020 and 31st December 2021 were included. Results: Complete data from 102 children were analysed. The median total volume of fluid administered in 72 h was 377 ml/kg (IQR 149 ml/kg) with a high degree of variability. A negative relationship between total fluid volume administered and day 7 eGFR was noted (p < 0.001). Association between urine volume post-transplant and day 7 eGFR was also negative (p < 0.001). Adverse events were frequent but no significant difference was found in the fluid volume administered to those who developed an adverse event, vs those who did not. Conclusions: This study describes a high degree of variability in perioperative fluid volumes administered to children receiving kidney transplants. Both fluid volume and urine output were negatively associated with short-term graft function. These data contrast traditional interpretation of high urine output as a marker of graft health, and highlight the need for prospective clinical trials to optimise perioperative fluid administration for this group. Graphical Abstract: A higher resolution version of the Graphical abstract is available as Supplementary information [Figure not available: see fulltext.]

Evaluation of p53 protein expression in Barrett esophagus

Background: Loss of heterozygosity of p53 along with aneuploidy is deemed to be the early molecular steps in Barrett metaplasia-dysplasia-adenocarcinoma sequence. Objective biomarkers need to be used along with microscopy for risk stratification to predict the progression of Barrett esophagus (BE) to carcinoma. Aim: This study aims to study p53 protein expression in dysplasia and correlate the same with morphology in BE. Materials and Methods: A time-bound study was conducted from January 2011 to June 2015. All esophageal biopsies showing histological evidence of columnar epithelium with the presence of goblet cells were included. The cases which showed dysplasia were graded on hematoxylin and eosin stain. Evaluation of p53 immunohistochemistry staining was done on all the cases of BE. Dysplasia was correlated with the expression of p53 using Chi-square value (χ2) and Fischer's exact test wherever appropriate. P < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant. Results: Of 829 esophageal biopsies received, 119 were endoscopically suspected to be BE, of which 85 cases were confirmed on microscopy. In our study, there were 75 cases negative for dysplasia (88.2%), 8 with low-grade dysplasia (LGD) (9.4%), and two with high-grade dysplasia (HGD) (2.4%). Three cases of BE had associated adenocarcinoma. Immunostaining with p53 done on all the 85 cases showed positive staining in all cases with LGD, one with HGD and two with adenocarcinoma. In the present study, immunostaining with p53 showed 90% sensitivity, 89.3% specificity, positive predictive value of 52.9%, and negative predictive value of 98.5%. Conclusion: The technical simplicity, easy availability, and comparatively lower cost enhance the role of p53 as a biomarker in risk stratification for patients with BE

Low-cost oral metronomic chemotherapy versus intravenous cisplatin in patients with recurrent, metastatic, inoperable head and neck carcinoma:an open-label, parallel-group, non-inferiority, randomised, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND: Regimens for palliation in patients with head and neck cancer recommended by the US National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) have low applicability (less than 1–3%) in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) because of their cost. In a previous phase 2 study, patients with head and neck cancer who received metronomic chemotherapy had better outcomes when compared with those who received intravenous cisplatin, which is commonly used as the standard of care in LMICs. We aimed to do a phase 3 study to substantiate these findings.METHODS: We did an open-label, parallel-group, non-inferiority, randomised, phase 3 trial at the Department of Medical Oncology, Tata Memorial Center, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, India. We enrolled adult patients (aged 18–70 years) who planned to receive palliative systemic treatment for relapsed, recurrent, or newly diagnosed squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck, and who had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0–1 and measurable disease, as defined by the Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors. We randomly assigned (1:1) participants to receive either oral metronomic chemotherapy, consisting of 15 mg/m² methotrexate once per week plus 200 mg celecoxib twice per day until disease progression or until the development of intolerable side-effects, or 75 mg/m² intravenous cisplatin once every 3 weeks for six cycles. Randomisation was done by use of a computer-generated randomisation sequence, with a block size of four, and patients were stratified by primary tumour site and previous cancer-directed treatment. The primary endpoint was median overall survival. Assuming that 6-month overall survival in the intravenous cisplatin group would be 40%, a non-inferiority margin of 13% was defined. Both intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses were done. All patients who completed at least one cycle of the assigned treatment were included in the safety analysis. This trial is registered with the Clinical Trials Registry-India, CTRI/2015/11/006388, and is completed.FINDINGS: Between May 16, 2016, and Jan 17, 2020, 422 patients were randomly assigned: 213 to the oral metronomic chemotherapy group and 209 to the intravenous cisplatin group. All 422 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis, and 418 patients (211 in the oral metronomic chemotherapy group and 207 in the intravenous cisplatin group) were included in the per-protocol analysis. At a median follow-up of 15·73 months, median overall survival in the intention-to-treat analysis population was 7·5 months (IQR 4·6–12·6) in the oral metronomic chemotherapy group compared with 6·1 months (3·2–9·6) in the intravenous cisplatin group (unadjusted HR for death 0·773 [95% CI 0·615–0·97, p=0·026]). In the per-protocol analysis population, median overall survival was 7·5 months (4·7–12·8) in the oral metronomic chemotherapy group and 6·1 months (3·4–9·6) in the intravenous cisplatin group (unadjusted HR for death 0·775 [95% CI 0·616–0·974, p=0·029]). Grade 3 or higher adverse events were observed in 37 (19%) of 196 patients in the oral metronomic chemotherapy group versus 61 (30%) of 202 patients in the intravenous cisplatin group (p=0·01).INTERPRETATION: Oral metronomic chemotherapy is non-inferior to intravenous cisplatin with respect to overall survival in head and neck cancer in the palliative setting, and is associated with fewer adverse events. It therefore represents a new alternative standard of care if current NCCN-approved options for palliative therapy are not feasible

Low-cost oral metronomic chemotherapy versus intravenous cisplatin in patients with recurrent, metastatic, inoperable head and neck carcinoma:an open-label, parallel-group, non-inferiority, randomised, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND: Regimens for palliation in patients with head and neck cancer recommended by the US National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) have low applicability (less than 1–3%) in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) because of their cost. In a previous phase 2 study, patients with head and neck cancer who received metronomic chemotherapy had better outcomes when compared with those who received intravenous cisplatin, which is commonly used as the standard of care in LMICs. We aimed to do a phase 3 study to substantiate these findings.METHODS: We did an open-label, parallel-group, non-inferiority, randomised, phase 3 trial at the Department of Medical Oncology, Tata Memorial Center, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, India. We enrolled adult patients (aged 18–70 years) who planned to receive palliative systemic treatment for relapsed, recurrent, or newly diagnosed squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck, and who had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0–1 and measurable disease, as defined by the Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors. We randomly assigned (1:1) participants to receive either oral metronomic chemotherapy, consisting of 15 mg/m² methotrexate once per week plus 200 mg celecoxib twice per day until disease progression or until the development of intolerable side-effects, or 75 mg/m² intravenous cisplatin once every 3 weeks for six cycles. Randomisation was done by use of a computer-generated randomisation sequence, with a block size of four, and patients were stratified by primary tumour site and previous cancer-directed treatment. The primary endpoint was median overall survival. Assuming that 6-month overall survival in the intravenous cisplatin group would be 40%, a non-inferiority margin of 13% was defined. Both intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses were done. All patients who completed at least one cycle of the assigned treatment were included in the safety analysis. This trial is registered with the Clinical Trials Registry-India, CTRI/2015/11/006388, and is completed.FINDINGS: Between May 16, 2016, and Jan 17, 2020, 422 patients were randomly assigned: 213 to the oral metronomic chemotherapy group and 209 to the intravenous cisplatin group. All 422 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis, and 418 patients (211 in the oral metronomic chemotherapy group and 207 in the intravenous cisplatin group) were included in the per-protocol analysis. At a median follow-up of 15·73 months, median overall survival in the intention-to-treat analysis population was 7·5 months (IQR 4·6–12·6) in the oral metronomic chemotherapy group compared with 6·1 months (3·2–9·6) in the intravenous cisplatin group (unadjusted HR for death 0·773 [95% CI 0·615–0·97, p=0·026]). In the per-protocol analysis population, median overall survival was 7·5 months (4·7–12·8) in the oral metronomic chemotherapy group and 6·1 months (3·4–9·6) in the intravenous cisplatin group (unadjusted HR for death 0·775 [95% CI 0·616–0·974, p=0·029]). Grade 3 or higher adverse events were observed in 37 (19%) of 196 patients in the oral metronomic chemotherapy group versus 61 (30%) of 202 patients in the intravenous cisplatin group (p=0·01).INTERPRETATION: Oral metronomic chemotherapy is non-inferior to intravenous cisplatin with respect to overall survival in head and neck cancer in the palliative setting, and is associated with fewer adverse events. It therefore represents a new alternative standard of care if current NCCN-approved options for palliative therapy are not feasible

Phase 3 RCT comparing docetaxel-platinum with docetaxel-platinum-5FU as neoadjuvant chemotherapy in borderline resectable oral cancer

Background: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) with TPF (docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5FU) is one of the treatment options in very locally advanced oral cancer with a survival advantage over PF (cisplatin and 5FU). TP (docetaxel and cisplatin) has shown promising results with a lower rate of adverse events but has never been compared to TPF. Methods: In this phase 3 randomized superiority study, adult patients with borderline resectable locally advanced oral cancers were randomized in a 1:1 fashion to either TP or TPF. After the administration of 2 cycles, patients were evaluated in a multidisciplinary clinic and further treatment was planned. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) and secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and adverse events. Results: 495 patients were randomized in this study, 248 patients in TP arm and 247 in TPF arm. The 5-year OS was 18.5% (95% CI 13.8–23.7) and 23.9% (95% CI 18.1-30.1) in TP and TPF arms, respectively (Hazard ratio 0.778; 95% CI 0.637–0.952; P = 0.015). Following NACT, 43.8% were deemed resectable, but 34.5% underwent surgery. The 5-year OS was 50.7% (95% CI 41.5–59.1) and 5% (95%CI 2.9–8.1), respectively, in the surgically resected versus unresected cohort post NACT (P &lt; 0.0001). Grade 3 or above adverse events were seen in 97 (39.1%) and 179 (72.5%) patients in the TP and TPF arms, respectively (P &lt; 0.0001). Conclusion: NACT with TPF has a survival benefit over TP in borderline resectable oral cancers, with an increase in toxicity which is manageable. Patients who undergo surgery achieve a relatively good, sustained survival.</p