Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: Long-Term Survival Does Not Equal Cure

Background: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma represents 90% of pancreatic cancers and is an important cause of cancer death in the United States. Operative resection remains as the only treatment providing prolonged survival, but even after a curative resection, 5-year survival rates are low. Our aim was to identify the prognostic factors for long-term survival after resection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma related to patients, treatments, and tumor biology. Methods: Retrospective review identified 959 patients who underwent resection of their pancreatic adenocarcinoma between February 1985 and December 2010, of whom 499 were resected before November 2006 and represent the cohort we describe in this study. Patient, tumor, and treatment-related variables were assessed for their associations with 5- and 10-year overall survival. Results: Of the 499 patients, 49% were female and median age was 65 years. The majority of patients had stage IIb disease (60%). Actual 5-year survival after resection of pancreatic adenocarcinoma was 19% (95/499), and actual 10-year survival was 10% (33/329). Significant clinicopathologic factors predicting 5- and 10-year survival were negative margins and negative nodal status. Interestingly, 41% (39/95) of long-term survivors had positive nodes and 24% (23/95) had positive margins. Conclusion: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma demonstrates a very heterogeneous biology, but patients with negative resection margins and node negative cancers are more likely to survive 5 years after resection. However, our series demonstrates that the biology of the cancer rather than simple pathologic factors determine a patient's prognosis

PROMIS CAT in SLE Personal non-commercial use only

ABSTRACT. Objective. The aims of this study were to assess the construct validity and the test-retest reliability of Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) computerized adaptive tests (CAT) in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SL

Prediction of Late Disease Recurrence and Extended Adjuvant Letrozole Benefit by the HOXB13/IL17BR Biomarker

BackgroundBiomarkers to optimize extended adjuvant endocrine therapy for women with estrogen receptor (ER)–positive breast cancer are limited. The HOXB13/IL17BR (H/I) biomarker predicts recurrence risk in ER-positive, lymph node–negative breast cancer patients. H/I was evaluated in MA.17 trial for prognostic performance for late recurrence and treatment benefit from extended adjuvant letrozole.MethodsA prospective–retrospective, nested case-control design of 83 recurrences matched to 166 nonrecurrences from letrozole- and placebo-treated patients within MA.17 was conducted. Expression of H/I within primary tumors was determined by reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction with a prespecified cutpoint. The predictive ability of H/I for ascertaining benefit from letrozole was determined using multivariable conditional logistic regression including standard clinicopathological factors as covariates. All statistical tests were two-sided.ResultsHigh H/I was statistically significantly associated with a decrease in late recurrence in patients receiving extended letrozole therapy (odds ratio [OR] = 0.35; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.16 to 0.75; P = .007). In an adjusted model with standard clinicopathological factors, high H/I remained statistically significantly associated with patient benefit from letrozole (OR = 0.33; 95% CI = 0.15 to 0.73; P = .006). Reduction in the absolute risk of recurrence at 5 years was 16.5% for patients with high H/I (P = .007). The interaction between H/I and letrozole treatment was statistically significant (P = .03).ConclusionsIn the absence of extended letrozole therapy, high H/I identifies a subgroup of ER-positive patients disease-free after 5 years of tamoxifen who are at risk for late recurrence. When extended endocrine therapy with letrozole is prescribed, high H/I predicts benefit from therapy and a decreased probability of late disease recurrence

Diagnostic performance of cardiac imaging methods to diagnose ischaemia-causing coronary artery disease when directly compared with fractional flow reserve as a reference standard: A meta-analysis

Aims The aim of this study was to determine the diagnostic performance of single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT), stress echocardiography (SE), invasive coronary angiography (ICA), coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA), fractional flow reserve (FFR) derived from CCTA (FFRCT), and cardiac magnetic resonance (MRI) imaging when directly compared with an FFR reference standard. Method and results PubMed andWeb of Knowledge were searched for investigations published between 1 January 2002 and 28 February 2015. Studies performing FFR in at least 75% of coronary vessels for the diagnosis of ischaemic coronary artery disease (CAD) were included. Twenty-three articles reporting on 3788 patients and 5323 vessels were identified. Meta-analysis was performed for pooled sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios (LR), diagnostic odds ratio, and summary receiver operating characteristic curves. In contrast to ICA, CCTA, and FFRCT reports, studies evaluating SPECT, SE, and MRI were largely retrospective, single-centre and with generally smaller study samples. On a per-patient basis, the sensitivity of CCTA (90%, 95% CI: 86-93), FFRCT (90%, 95% CI: 85-93), and MRI (90%, 95% CI: 75-97) were higher than for SPECT (70%, 95% CI: 59-80), SE (77%, 95% CI: 61-88), and ICA (69%, 95% CI: 65-75). The highest and lowest perpatient specificity was observed for MRI (94%, 95% CI: 79-99) and for CCTA (39%, 95% CI: 34-44), respectively. Similar specificities were noted for SPECT (78%, 95% CI: 68-87), SE (75%, 95% CI: 63-85), FFRCT (71%, 95% CI: 65-75%), and ICA (67%, 95% CI: 63-71). On a per-vessel basis, the highest sensitivity was for CCTA (pooled sensitivity, 91%: 88-93), MRI (91%: 84-95), and FFRCT (83%, 78-87), with lower sensitivities for ICA (71%, 69-74), and SPECT (57%: 49-64). Per-vessel specificity was highest for MRI (85%, 79-89), FFRCT (78%: 78-81), and SPECT (75%: 69-80), whereas ICA (66%: 64-68) and CCTA (58%: 55-61) yielded a lower specificity. Conclusions In this meta-analysis comparing cardiac imaging methods directly to FFR, MRI had the highest performance for diagnosis of ischaemia-causing CAD, with lower performance for SPECT and SE. Anatomic methods of CCTA and ICA yielded lower specificity, with functional assessment of coronary atherosclerosis by SE, SPECT, and FFRCT improving accuracy