Diagnostic DNA Methylation Biomarkers for Renal Cell Carcinoma:A Systematic Review

CONTEXT: The 5-yr survival of early-stage renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is approximately 93%, but once metastasised, the 5-yr survival plummets to 12%, indicating that early RCC detection is crucial to improvement in survival. DNA methylation biomarkers have been suggested to be of potential diagnostic value; however, their current state of clinical translation is unclear and a comprehensive overview is lacking. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review and summarise all literature regarding diagnostic DNA methylation biomarkers for RCC. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We performed a systematic literature review of PubMed, EMBASE, Medline, and Google Scholar up to January 2019, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies (PRISMA-DTA) guidelines. Included studies were scored according to the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) criteria. Forest plots were generated to summarise diagnostic performance of all biomarkers. Level of evidence (LoE) and potential risk of bias were determined for all included studies. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: After selection, 19 articles reporting on 44 diagnostic DNA methylation biomarkers and 11 multimarker panels were included; however, only 15 biomarkers were independently validated. STARD scores varied from 4 to 13 out of 23 points, with a median of 10 points. Large variation in subgroups, methods, and primer locations was observed. None of the reported biomarkers exceeded LoE III, and the majority of studies reported inadequately. CONCLUSIONS: None of the reported biomarkers exceeded LoE III, indicating their limited clinical utility. Moreover, study reproducibility and further development of these RCC biomarkers are greatly hampered by inadequate reporting. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this report, we reviewed whether specific biomarkers could be used to diagnose the most common form of kidney cancer. We conclude that due to limited evidence and reporting inconsistencies, none of these biomarkers can be used in clinical practice, and further development towards clinical use is hindered

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on breast cancer incidence and tumor stage in the Netherlands and Norway:A population-based study

BACKGROUND: Comparing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the incidence of newly diagnosed breast tumors and their tumor stage between the Netherlands and Norway will help us understand the effect of differences in governmental and social reactions towards the pandemic.METHODS: Women newly diagnosed with breast cancer in 2017-2021 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry and the Cancer Registry of Norway. The crude breast cancer incidence rate (tumors per 100,000 women) during the first (March-September 2020), second (October 2020-April 2021), and Delta COVID-19 wave (May-December 2021) was compared with the incidence rate in the corresponding periods in 2017, 2018, and 2019. Incidence rates were stratified by age group, method of detection, and clinical tumor stage.RESULTS: During the first wave breast cancer incidence declined to a larger extent in the Netherlands than in Norway (27.7% vs. 17.2% decrease, respectively). In both countries, incidence decreased in women eligible for screening. In the Netherlands, incidence also decreased in women not eligible for screening. During the second wave an increase in the incidence of stage IV tumors in women aged 50-69 years was seen in the Netherlands. During the Delta wave an increase in overall incidence and incidence of stage I tumors was seen in Norway.CONCLUSION: Alterations in breast cancer incidence and tumor stage seem related to a combined effect of the suspension of the screening program, health care avoidance due to the severity of the pandemic, and other unknown factors.</p

Exploring the impact of patient-specific clinical features on osimertinib effectiveness in a real-world cohort of patients with EGFR mutated non-small cell lung cancer

Osimertinib is prescribed to patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and a sensitizing EGFR mutation. Limited data exists on the impact of patient characteristics or osimertinib exposure on effectiveness outcomes. This was a Dutch, multicenter cohort study. Eligible patients were ≥18 years, with metastatic EGFRm+ NSCLC, receiving osimertinib. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS) and safety. Kaplan-Meier analyses and multivariate Cox proportional hazard models were performed. In total, 294 patients were included. Primary EGFR-mutations were mainly exon 19 deletions (54%) and p.L858R point mutations (30%). Osimertinib was given in first-line (40%), second-line (46%) or beyond (14%), with median PFS 14.4 (95% CI: 9.4-19.3), 13.9 (95% CI: 11.3-16.1) and 8.7 months (95% CI: 4.6-12.7), respectively. Patients with low BMI (&lt;20.0 kg/m2) had significantly shorter PFS/OS compared to all other subgroups. Patients with a high plasma trough concentration in steady state (Cmin,SS; &gt;271 ng/mL) had shorter PFS compared to a low Cmin,SS (&lt;163 ng/mL; aHR 2.29; 95% CI: 1.13-4.63). A significant longer PFS was seen in females (aHR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.45-0.82) and patients with the exon 19 deletion (aHR = 0.58, 95% CI: 0.36-0.92). A trend towards longer PFS was seen for TP53 wild-type patients, while age did not impact PFS. Patients with a primary EGFR exon 19 deletion had longer PFS, while a low BMI, male sex and a high Cmin,SS were indicative for shorter PFS and/or OS. Age was not associated with effectiveness outcomes of osimertinib.</p

High-Dose Chemotherapy With Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant in Patients With High-Risk Breast Cancer and 4 or More Involved Axillary Lymph Nodes 20-Year Follow-up of a Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial:20-Year Follow-up of a Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance: Trials of adjuvant high-dose chemotherapy (HDCT) have failed to show a survival benefit in unselected patients with breast cancer, but long-term follow-up is lacking. Objective: To determine 20-year efficacy and safety outcomes of a large trial of adjuvant HDCT vs conventional-dose chemotherapy (CDCT) for patients with stage III breast cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This secondary analysis used data from a randomized phase 3 multicenter clinical trial of 885 women younger than 56 years with breast cancer and 4 or more involved axillary lymph nodes conducted from August 1, 1993, to July 31, 1999. Additional follow-up data were collected between June 1, 2016, and December 31, 2017, from medical records, general practitioners, the Dutch national statistical office, and nationwide cancer registries. Analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis. Statistical analysis was performed from February 1, 2018, to October 14, 2019. Interventions: Participants were randomized 1:1 to receive 5 cycles of CDCT consisting of fluorouracil, 500 mg/m 2, epirubicin, 90 mg/m 2, and cyclophosphamide, 500 mg/m 2, or HDCT in which the first 4 cycles were identical to CDCT and the fifth cycle was replaced by cyclophosphamide, 6000 mg/m 2, thiotepa, 480 mg/m 2, and carboplatin, 1600 mg/m 2, followed by hematopoietic stem cell transplant. Main Outcomes and Measures: Main end points were overall survival and safety and cumulative incidence risk of a second malignant neoplasm or cardiovascular events. Results: Of the 885 women in the study (mean [SD] age, 44.5 [6.6] years), 442 were randomized to receive HDCT, and 443 were randomized to receive CDCT. With 20.4 years median follow-up (interquartile range, 19.2-22.0 years), the 20-year overall survival was 45.3% with HDCT and 41.5% with CDCT (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.75-1.06). The absolute improvement in 20-year overall survival was 14.6% (hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.54-0.95) for patients with 10 or more invoved axillary lymph nodes and 15.4% (hazard ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.42-1.05) for patients with triple-negative breast cancer. The cumulative incidence risk of a second malignant neoplasm at 20 years or major cardiovascular events was similar in both treatment groups (20-year cumulative incidence risk for second malignant neoplasm was 12.1% in the HDCT group vs 16.2% in the CDCT group, P =.10), although patients in the HDCT group more often had hypertension (21.7% vs 14.3%, P =.02), hypercholesterolemia (15.7% vs 10.6%, P =.04), and dysrhythmias (8.6% vs 4.6%, P =.005). Conclusions and Relevance: High-dose chemotherapy provided no long-term survival benefit in unselected patients with stage III breast cancer but did provide improved overall survival in very high-risk patients (ie, with ≥10 involved axillary lymph nodes). High-dose chemotherapy did not affect long-term risk of a second malignant neoplasm or major cardiovascular events. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03087409

Predicting the extent of nodal involvement for node positive breast cancer patients: Development and validation of a novel tool

Background: This study aimed to develop an easy to use prediction model to predict the risk of havin

Treatment and overall survival of four types of non-metastatic periampullary cancer:nationwide population-based cohort study

Background: Periampullary adenocarcinoma consists of pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC), distal cholangiocarcinoma (DC), ampullary cancer (AC), and duodenal adenocarcinoma (DA). The aim of this study was to assess treatment modalities and overall survival by tumor origin. Methods: Patients diagnosed with non-metastatic periampullary cancer in 2012–2018 were identified from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. OS was studied with Kaplan–Meier analysis and multivariable Cox regression analyses, stratified by origin. Results: Among the 8758 patients included, 68% had PDAC, 13% DC, 12% AC, and 7% DA. Resection was performed in 35% of PDAC, 56% of DC, 70% of AC, and 59% of DA. Neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant therapy was administered in 22% of PDAC, 7% of DC, 7% of AC, and 12% of DA. Three-year OS was highest for AC (37%) and DA (34%), followed by DC (21%) and PDAC (11%). Adjuvant therapy was associated with improved OS among PDAC (HR = 0.62; 95% CI 0.55–0.69) and DC (HR = 0.69; 95% CI 0.48–0.98), but not AC (HR = 0.87; 95% CI 0.62–1.22) and DA (HR = 0.85; 95% CI 0.48–1.50). Conclusion: This retrospective study identified considerable differences in treatment modalities and OS between the four periampullary cancer origins in daily clinical practice. An improved OS after adjuvant chemotherapy could not be demonstrated in patients with AC and DA

The development of an online decision aid to support persons having a genetic predisposition to cancer and their partners during reproductive decision-making: a usability and pilot study

An online decision aid to support persons having a genetic predisposition to cancer and their partners during reproductive decision-making was developed. A two-phase usability test was conducted among 12 couples (N = 22; 2 persons participated without their partner) at risk for hereditary cancer and 15 health care providers. Couples and health care providers expressed similar suggestions for improvements, and evaluated the modified decision aid as acceptable, easy to use, and comprehensible. The final decision aid was pilot tested (N = 16) with paired sample t tests comparing main outcomes (decisional conflict, knowledge, realistic expectations regarding the reproductive options and decision self-efficacy) before (T0), immediately (T1) and 2 weeks after (T2) use of the decision aid. Pilot testing indicated decreased decisional conflict scores, increased knowledge, and improved realistic expectations regarding the reproductive options, at T1 and T2. No effect was found for couples’ decision self-efficacy. The positive findings during usability testing were thus reflected in the pilot study. The decision aid will be further evaluated in a nationwide pretest–posttest study to facilitate implementation in the onco-genetic counselling setting. Ultimately, it is expected that the decision aid will enable end-users to make an informed decision