46 research outputs found

    Synchronous Versus Metachronous Metastatic Disease: Impact of Time to Metastasis on Patient Outcome-Results from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: Patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) may present with primary metastases (synchronous disease) or develop metastases during follow-up (metachronous disease). The impact of time to metastasis on patient outcome is poorly characterised. OBJECTIVE: To characterise overall survival (OS) and time to treatment failure (TTF) based on time to metastasis in mRCC patients treated with targeted therapy (tyrosine kinase inhibitors [TKIs]). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We used the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) to compare synchronous (metastases within ≤3 mo of initial diagnosis of cancer) versus metachronous disease (evaluated by >3-12 mo, >1-2 yr, >2-7 yr, and >7 yr intervals). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: OS and TFF were assessed using Kaplan-Meier curves. Cox multivariable regressions analyses (MVAs) were adjusted for baseline factors. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Of 7386 patients with mRCC treated with first-line TKIs, 3906 (53%) and 3480 (47%) had synchronous and metachronous metastasis, respectively. More patients with synchronous versus metachronous disease had higher T stage (T1-2: 19% vs 34%), N1 disease (21% vs 6%), presence of sarcomatoid differentiation (15.8% vs 7.9%), Karnofsky performance status <80 (25.9% vs 15.1%), anaemia (62.5% vs 42.3%), elevated neutrophils (18.9% vs 10.9%), elevated platelets (21.6% vs 11.4%), bone metastases (40.4% vs 29.8%), and IMDC poor risk (40.6% vs 11.3%). Synchronous versus metachronous disease by intervals >3-12 mo, >1-2 yr, >2-7 yr, and >7 yr correlated with poor TTF (5.6 mo vs 7.3, 8.0, 10.8, and 13.3 mo, p <  0.0001) and poor OS (median 16.7 mo vs 23.8, 30.2, 34.8, and 41.7 mo, p <  0.0001). In MVAs, the adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) were 1.00 (reference), 0.98 (0.90-1.06), 0.81 (0.73-0.91), 0.74 (0.68-0.81), and 0.60 (0.54-0.67), respectively, for OS (p <  0.0001), and 1.00 (reference), 0.99 (0.92-1.06), 0.98 (0.90-1.07), 0.83 (0.77-0.89), and 0.66 (0.60-0.72), respectively, for TTF (p <  0.0001). Data were collected retrospectively. CONCLUSIONS: Timing of metastases after initial RCC diagnosis may impact the outcomes from targeted therapy in mRCC. PATIENT SUMMARY: We looked at the impact of the timing of metastatic outbreak on survival outcomes in kidney cancer patients treated with targeted therapy. We found that the longer time to metastatic development was associated with improved outcome

    Fourth-Line Therapy in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma (mRCC): Results from the International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC)

    Get PDF
    Background: Fourth-line therapy (4LT) in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) varies significantly due to the lack of data and recommendations to guide treatment decisions. Objective: To evaluate the use and efficacy of 4LT in mRCC patients. Methods: The International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC) dataset was used to identify patients with mRCC treated with 4LT. This is a multicenter, retrospective cohort study. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were calculated using Kaplan-Meier curves. Patients were evaluated for overall response. The six prognostic variables included in the IMDC prognostic model were used to stratify patients into favorable-, intermediate- and poor-risk groups. Exploratory analyses were performed examining the elderly (>70 years old) and non-clear cell RCC subgroups. Proportional hazards regression modelling was performed adjusting these covariates by IMDC criteria measured at initiation of 4th line therapy. Results: 7498 patients were treated with first line targeted therapy and out of these 594 (7.9%) received 4LT. Everolimus was the most frequently used 4LT (16.8%). Sorafenib, axitinib, pazopanib, sunitinib and clinical trial drugs were also used in >10% of patients. The OS of patients on any 4LT was 12.8 months, with a PFS of 4.4 months. The overall response rate (ORR) was 13.7%. Favorable-risk patients using IMDC criteria (5%) displayed an OS of 23.1 months, intermediate-risk patients (66%) had an OS of 13.8 months and poor-risk patients (29%) had an OS of 7.8 (p 70 years and non-clear cell histology did not impact OS. Our study is limited by its retrospective design. Conclusions: 4LT use appears to have activity in mRCC patients. The IMDC continues to be of prognostic value in the fourth-line setting for OS. This study helps to set a benchmark for response rate and survival for which clinical trials can plan sample size calculations and aim to improve upon

    Non-equilibrium statistical mechanics: From a paradigmatic model to biological transport

    Full text link
    Unlike equilibrium statistical mechanics, with its well-established foundations, a similar widely-accepted framework for non-equilibrium statistical mechanics (NESM) remains elusive. Here, we review some of the many recent activities on NESM, focusing on some of the fundamental issues and general aspects. Using the language of stochastic Markov processes, we emphasize general properties of the evolution of configurational probabilities, as described by master equations. Of particular interest are systems in which the dynamics violate detailed balance, since such systems serve to model a wide variety of phenomena in nature. We next review two distinct approaches for investigating such problems. One approach focuses on models sufficiently simple to allow us to find exact, analytic, non-trivial results. We provide detailed mathematical analyses of a one-dimensional continuous-time lattice gas, the totally asymmetric exclusion process (TASEP). It is regarded as a paradigmatic model for NESM, much like the role the Ising model played for equilibrium statistical mechanics. It is also the starting point for the second approach, which attempts to include more realistic ingredients in order to be more applicable to systems in nature. Restricting ourselves to the area of biophysics and cellular biology, we review a number of models that are relevant for transport phenomena. Successes and limitations of these simple models are also highlighted.Comment: 72 pages, 18 figures, Accepted to: Reports on Progress in Physic

    The Physician’s Achilles Heel—Surviving an Adverse Event

    No full text
    Background: Of hospitalized patients in Canada, 7.5% experience an adverse event (AE). Physicians whose patients experience AES often become second victims of the incident. The present study is the first to evaluate how physicians in Canada cope with aes occurring in their patients. Methods: Survey participants included oncologists, surgeons, and trainees at the Foothills Medical Centre, Calgary, AB. The surveys were administered through REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture, version 9.0: REDCap Consortium, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, U.S.A.). The Brief COPE (Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced) Inventory, the IES-R (Impact of Event Scale–Revised), the Causal Dimension Scale, and the Institutional Punitive Response scale were used to evaluate coping strategies, prevalence of post-traumatic stress, and institutional culture with respect to AES. Results: Of 51 responses used for the analysis, 30 (58.8%) came from surgeons and 21 (41.2%) came from medical specialists. On the IES-R, 54.9% of respondents scored 24 or higher, which has been correlated with clinically concerning post-traumatic stress. Individuals with a score of 24 or higher were more likely to report self-blame (p = 0.00026) and venting (p = 0.042). Physicians who perceive institutional support to be poor reported significant post-traumatic stress (p = 0.023). On multivariable logistic regression modelling, self-blame was associated with an IES-R score of 24 or higher (p = 0.0031). No significant differences in IES-R scores of 24 or higher were observed between surgeons and non-surgeons (p = 0.15). The implications of AES for physicians, patients, and the health care system are enormous. More than 50% of our respondents showed emotional pathology related to an AE. Higher levels of self-blame, venting, and perception of inadequate institutional support were factors predicting increased post-traumatic stress after a patient AE. Conclusions: Our study identifies a desperate need to establish effective institutional supports to help health care professionals recognize and deal with the emotional toll resulting from AES

    Effectiveness and Safety of First-Line Pembrolizumab in Older Adults with PD-L1 Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Study of the Alberta Immunotherapy Database

    No full text
    The emergence of immunotherapy revolutionized the treatment of non-small-cell-lung cancer (NSCLC), with multiple landmark clinical trials establishing the efficacy of these agents. However, many patients who receive immunotherapy in clinical practice would be considered clinical trial ineligible. One such population that is often under-represented in clinical trials is older adults. In the current study, we evaluated clinical and safety outcomes in this population. Overall, older adults (>70 years of age) and younger adults had comparable clinical outcomes with an equivalent objective response rate (ORR), time to treatment failure (TTF), and median overall survival (p = 0.67, p = 0.98, and p = 0.91, respectively). Furthermore, the safety outcomes were equivalent between the cohorts with similar rates of immune-related adverse events (irAEs), irAE-related hospitalizations, and all-cause hospitalization (p = 0.99, p = 0.63, and p = 0.74, respectively). While older age was not found to impact overall survival, multivariant analysis revealed that a poor Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) status, low body-mass-index (BMI), and poor/intermediate lung immune prognostic index (LIPI) were all associated with worse survival. In conclusion, age does not impact the efficacy or safety of pembrolizumab in NSCLC, and therefore advanced age should not be a deterrent for treating these patients with pembrolizumab. Physicians and care providers can thus focus on other factors that may influence therapeutic outcomes

    Real-world outcomes of nivolumab and cabozantinib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: results from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium

    No full text
    Objectives: In the present study, we explored the real-world efficacy of the immuno-oncology checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab and the tyrosine kinase inhibitor cabozantinib in the second-line setting. Methods: Using the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (imdc) dataset, a retrospective analysis of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mrcc) treated with nivolumab or cabozantinib in the second line after prior therapy targeted to the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (vegfr) was performed. Baseline characteristics and imdc risk factors were collected. Overall survival (os) and time to treatment failure (ttf) were calculated using Kaplan-Meier curves. Overall response rates (orrs) were determined for each therapy. Multivariable Cox regression analysis was performed to determine survival differences between cabozantinib and nivolumab treatment. Results: The analysis included 225 patients treated with nivolumab and 53 treated with cabozantinib. No significant difference in median os was observed: 22.10 months [95% confidence interval (ci): 17.18 months to not reached] with nivolumab and 23.70 months (95% ci: 15.52 months to not reached) with cabozantinib (p = 0.61). The ttf was also similar at 6.90 months (95% ci: 4.60 months to 9.20 months) with nivolumab and 7.39 months (95% ci: 5.52 months to 12.85 months) with cabozantinib (p = 0.20). The adjusted hazard ratio (hr) for nivolumab compared with cabozantinib was 1.30 (95% ci: 0.73 to 2.3), p = 0.38. When adjusted by imdc criteria and age, the hr was 1.32 (95% ci: 0.74 to 2.38), p = 0.35. Conclusions: Real-world imdc data indicate comparable os and ttf for nivolumab and cabozantinib. Both agents are reasonable therapeutic options for patients progressing after initial first-line vegfr-targeted therapy.status: publishe

    Real-world outcomes of nivolumab and cabozantinib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma:Results from the international metastatic renal cell carcinoma database consortium

    No full text
    Objectives: In the present study, we explored the real-world efficacy of the immuno-oncology checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab and the tyrosine kinase inhibitor cabozantinib in the second-line setting. Methods: Using the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) dataset, a retrospective analysis of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (MRCC) treated with nivolumab or cabozantinib in the second line after prior therapy targeted to the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) was performed. Baseline characteristics and imdc risk factors were collected. Overall survival (OS) and time to treatment failure (TTF) were calculated using Kaplan–Meier curves. Overall response rates (ORRS) were determined for each therapy. Multivariable Cox regression analysis was performed to determine survival differences between cabozantinib and nivolumab treatment. Results: The analysis included 225 patients treated with nivolumab and 53 treated with cabozantinib. No significant difference in median OS was observed: 22.10 months [95% confidence interval (CI): 17.18 months to not reached] with nivolumab and 23.70 months (95% CI: 15.52 months to not reached) with cabozantinib (p = 0.61). The TTF was also similar at 6.90 months (95% CI: 4.60 months to 9.20 months) with nivolumab and 7.39 months (95% CI: 5.52 months to 12.85 months) with cabozantinib (p = 0.20). The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for nivolumab compared with cabozantinib was 1.30 (95% CI: 0.73 to 2.3), p = 0.38. When adjusted by IMDC criteria and age, the HR was 1.32 (95% CI: 0.74 to 2.38), p = 0.35. Conclusions: Real-world IMDC data indicate comparable OS and TTF for nivolumab and cabozantinib. Both agents are reasonable therapeutic options for patients progressing after initial first-line VEGFR-targeted therapy
    corecore