Immunophenotype of normal vs. myeloma plasma cells: Toward antibody panel specifications for MRD detection in multiple myeloma

In recent years, several studies on large series of multiple myeloma (MM) patients have demonstrated the clinical utility of flow cytometry monitoring of minimal residual disease (flow-MRD) in bone marrow (BM), for improved assessment of response to therapy and prognostication. However, disturbing levels of variability exist regarding the specific protocols and antibody panels used in individual laboratories. Overall, consensus exists about the utility of combined assessment of CD38 and CD138 for the identification of BM plasma cells (PC); in contrast, more heterogeneous lists of markers are used to further distinguish between normal/reactive PCs and myeloma PCs in the MRD settings. Among the later markers, CD19, CD45, CD27, and CD81, together with CD56, CD117, CD200, and CD307, have emerged as particularly informative; however, no single marker provides enough specificity for clear discrimination between clonal PCs and normal PCs. Accordingly, multivariate analyses of single PCs from large series of normal/reactive vs. myeloma BM samples have shown that combined assessment of CD138 and CD38, together with CD45, CD19, CD56, CD27, CD81, and CD117 would be ideally suited for MRD monitoring in virtually every MM patient. However, the specific antibody clones, fluorochrome conjugates and sources of the individual markers determines its optimal (vs. suboptimal or poor) performance in an eight-color staining. Assessment of clonality, via additional cytoplasmic immunoglobulin (CyIg) κ vs. CyIgλ evaluation, may contribute to further establish the normal/reactive vs. clonal nature of small suspicious PC populations at high sensitivity levels, provided that enough cells are evaluatedGrant sponsor: Red Tematica de Investigacion Cooperativa en Cancer (RTICC) of the Instituto de Salud Carlos III (Ministry of Economy and Competitivity, Madrid, Spain) – FEDER; Grant number: RD12/0036/0048; Grant sponsors: EuroFlow Consortium; the International Myeloma Foundation-Black Swan Research Initiative.Peer Reviewe

Analysing the attributes of Comprehensive Cancer Centres and Cancer Centres across Europe to identify key hallmarks.

There is a persistent variation in cancer outcomes among and within European countries suggesting (among other causes) inequalities in access to or delivery of high-quality cancer care. European policy (EU Cancer Mission and Europe's Beating Cancer Plan) is currently moving towards a mission-oriented approach addressing these inequalities. In this study, we used the quantitative and qualitative data of the Organisation of European Cancer Institutes' Accreditation and Designation Programme, relating to 40 large European cancer centres, to describe their current compliance with quality standards, to identify the hallmarks common to all centres and to show the distinctive features of Comprehensive Cancer Centres. All Comprehensive Cancer Centres and Cancer Centres accredited by the Organisation of European Cancer Institutes show good compliance with quality standards related to care, multidisciplinarity and patient centredness. However, Comprehensive Cancer Centres on average showed significantly better scores on indicators related to the volume, quality and integration of translational research, such as high-impact publications, clinical trial activity (especially in phase I and phase IIa trials) and filing more patents as early indicators of innovation. However, irrespective of their size, centres show significant variability regarding effective governance when functioning as entities within larger hospitals

Colorectal liver metastases: Surgery versus thermal ablation (COLLISION) - a phase III single-blind prospective randomized controlled trial

Background: Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and microwave ablation (MWA) are widely accepted techniques to eliminate small unresectable colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). Although previous studies labelled thermal ablation inferior to surgical resection, the apparent selection bias when comparing patients with unresectable disease to surgical candidates, the superior safety profile, and the competitive overall survival results for the more recent reports mandate the setup of a randomized controlled trial. The objective of the COLLISION trial is to prove non-inferiority of thermal ablation compared to hepatic resection in patients with at least one resectable and ablatable CRLM and no extrahepatic disease. Methods: In this two-arm, single-blind multi-center phase-III clinical trial, six hundred and eighteen patients with at least one CRLM (≤3cm) will be included to undergo either surgical resection or thermal ablation of appointed target lesion(s) (≤3cm). Primary endpoint is OS (overall survival, intention-to-treat analysis). Main secondary endpoints are overall disease-free survival (DFS), time to progression (TTP), time to local progression (TTLP), primary and assisted technique efficacy (PTE, ATE), procedural morbidity and mortality, length of hospital stay, assessment of pain and quality of life (QoL), cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and quality-adjusted life years (QALY). Discussion: If thermal ablation proves to be non-inferior in treating lesions ≤3cm, a switch in treatment-method may lead to a reduction of the post-procedural morbidity and mortality, length of hospital stay and incremental costs without compromising oncological outcome for patients with CRLM. Trial registration:NCT03088150 , January 11th 2017

Introducing a time out consultation with the general practitioner between diagnosis and start of colorectal cancer treatment: Patient-reported outcomes

Objective: To evaluate the introduction of a “time out consultation” with the general practitioner (GP) recommended to patients following the diagnosis of colorectal carcinoma (CRC) before start of treatment. Methods: A prospective study using questionnaires to compare the number of GP consultations, with their content and outcomes before and after the introduction of an additional consultation with the GP to improve decision-making and adequate support. Results: 72 patients before and 98 patients after the introduction of the “time out consultation” participated. Introduction of the consultation increased the number of patients to contact their GP from 67% to 80%, but did not change kind or content of the consultations. Patients felt the consultation was comforting and were more satisfied with the GP after the introduction. There was no difference in outcomes measured by the questionnaires in all patients combined, but men, older patients and patients with palliative treatment options only did improve on specific outcomes after the introduction. Conclusion: The introduction of the “time out consultation” did not change the kind or content of GP consultations before start of CRC treatment, but patients did feel more comforted and satisfied. Subgroups of patients benefited on specific outcomes