Patterns of recurrence following definitive chemoradiation for patients with proximal esophageal cancer

Introduction: The aim of this retrospective study was to determine the patterns of recurrence and overall survival (OS) in patients achieving clinical complete response after treatment with definitive chemoradiation (CRT) for proximal esophageal cancer. Materials and methods: Patients with proximal esophageal cancer treated with CRT between 2004 and 2014 in 11 centers in the Netherlands were included. OS and progression-free survival (PFS) were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Cumulative incidence of first recurrence (locoregional or distant) and locoregional recurrence (LRR) were assessed using competing risk analyses. Results: In 197 of the 200 identified patients, response was evaluated, 133 (68%) showed a complete response. In complete responders, median OS, three-year OS, and PFS were 45.0 months (95% CI 34.8-61.5 months), 58% (95% CI 48-66), and 49% (95% CI 40-57), respectively. Three- and five-year risk of recurrence were respectively 40% (95% CI 31-48), and 45% (95% CI 36-54). Three- and five-year risk of LRR were 26% (95% CI 19-33), and 30% (95% CI 22-38). Eight of 32 patients with an isolated LRR underwent salvage surgery, with a median OS of 32.0 months (95% CI 6.8-not reached). Conclusion: In patients with a complete response after definitive CRT for proximal esophageal cancer, most recurrences were locoregional and developed within the first three years after CRT. These findings suggest to shorten locoregional follow-up from five to three years. (C) 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd

Real-world evidence of adjuvant gemcitabine plus capecitabine vs gemcitabine monotherapy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

The added value of capecitabine to adjuvant gemcitabine monotherapy (GEM) in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) was shown by the ESPAC-4 trial. Real-world data on the effectiveness of gemcitabine plus capecitabine (GEMCAP), in patients ineligible for mFOLFIRINOX, are lacking. Our study assessed whether adjuvant GEMCAP is superior to GEM in a nationwide cohort. Patients treated with adjuvant GEMCAP or GEM after resection of PDAC without preoperative treatment were identified from The Netherlands Cancer Registry (2015-2019). The primary outcome was overall survival (OS), measured from start of chemotherapy. The treatment effect of GEMCAP vs GEM was adjusted for sex, age, performance status, tumor size, lymph node involvement, resection margin and tumor differentiation in a multivariable Cox regression analysis. Secondary outcome was the percentage of patients who completed the planned six adjuvant treatment cycles. Overall, 778 patients were included, of whom 21.1% received GEMCAP and 78.9% received GEM. The median OS was 31.4 months (95% CI 26.8-40.7) for GEMCAP and 22.1 months (95% CI 20.6-25.0) for GEM (HR: 0.71, 95% CI 0.56-0.90; logrank P =.004). After adjustment for prognostic factors, survival remained superior for patients treated with GEMCAP (HR: 0.73, 95% CI 0.57-0.92, logrank P =.009). Survival with GEMCAP was superior to GEM in most subgroups of prognostic factors. Adjuvant chemotherapy was completed in 69.5% of the patients treated with GEMCAP and 62.7% with GEM (P =.11). In this nationwide cohort of patients with PDAC, adjuvant GEMCAP was associated with superior survival as compared to GEM monotherapy and number of cycles was similar

Radiofrequency ablation and chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for locally advanced pancreatic cancer (PELICAN):study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Contains fulltext : 239066.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Approximately 80% of patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) are treated with chemotherapy, of whom approximately 10% undergo a resection. Cohort studies investigating local tumor ablation with radiofrequency ablation (RFA) have reported a promising overall survival of 26-34 months when given in a multimodal setting. However, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effect of RFA in combination with chemotherapy in patients with LAPC are lacking. METHODS: The "Pancreatic Locally Advanced Unresectable Cancer Ablation" (PELICAN) trial is an international multicenter superiority RCT, initiated by the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group (DPCG). All patients with LAPC according to DPCG criteria, who start with FOLFIRINOX or (nab-paclitaxel/)gemcitabine, are screened for eligibility. Restaging is performed after completion of four cycles of FOLFIRINOX or two cycles of (nab-paclitaxel/)gemcitabine (i.e., 2 months of treatment), and the results are assessed within a nationwide online expert panel. Eligible patients with RECIST stable disease or objective response, in whom resection is not feasible, are randomized to RFA followed by chemotherapy or chemotherapy alone. In total, 228 patients will be included in 16 centers in The Netherlands and four other European centers. The primary endpoint is overall survival. Secondary endpoints include progression-free survival, RECIST response, CA 19.9 and CEA response, toxicity, quality of life, pain, costs, and immunomodulatory effects of RFA. DISCUSSION: The PELICAN RCT aims to assess whether the combination of chemotherapy and RFA improves the overall survival when compared to chemotherapy alone, in patients with LAPC with no progression of disease following 2 months of systemic treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch Trial Registry NL4997 . Registered on December 29, 2015. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03690323 . Retrospectively registered on October 1, 2018

Perioperative or adjuvant mFOLFIRINOX for resectable pancreatic cancer (PREOPANC-3):study protocol for a multicenter randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Surgical resection followed by adjuvant mFOLFIRINOX (5-fluorouracil with leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin) is currently the standard of care for patients with resectable pancreatic cancer. The main concern regarding adjuvant chemotherapy is that only half of patients actually receive adjuvant treatment. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy, on the other hand, guarantees early systemic treatment and may increase chemotherapy use and thereby improve overall survival. Furthermore, it may prevent futile surgery in patients with rapidly progressive disease. However, some argue that neoadjuvant therapy delays surgery, which could lead to progression towards unresectable disease and thus offset the potential benefits. Comparison of perioperative (i.e., neoadjuvant and adjuvant) with (only) adjuvant administration of mFOLFIRINOX in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) is needed to determine the optimal approach. METHODS: This multicenter, phase 3, RCT will include 378 patients with resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma with a WHO performance status of 0 or 1. Patients are recruited from 20 Dutch centers and three centers in Norway and Sweden. Resectable pancreatic cancer is defined as no arterial contact and ≤ 90 degrees venous contact. Patients in the intervention arm are scheduled for 8 cycles of neoadjuvant mFOLFIRINOX followed by surgery and 4 cycles of adjuvant mFOLFIRINOX (2-week cycle of oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2, leucovorin 400 mg/m2, irinotecan 150 mg/m2 at day 1, followed by 46 h continuous infusion of 5-fluorouracil 2400 g/m2). Patients in the comparator arm start with surgery followed by 12 cycles of adjuvant mFOLFIRINOX. The primary outcome is overall survival by intention-to-treat. Secondary outcomes include progression-free survival, resection rate, quality of life, adverse events, and surgical complications. To detect a hazard ratio of 0.70 with 80% power, 252 events are needed. The number of events is expected to be reached after the inclusion of 378 patients in 36 months, with analysis planned 18 months after the last patient has been randomized. DISCUSSION: The multicenter PREOPANC-3 trial compares perioperative mFOLFIRINOX with adjuvant mFOLFIRINOX in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials: NCT04927780. Registered June 16, 2021.</p

Progression From Paroxysmal to Persistent Atrial Fibrillation. Clinical Correlates and Prognosis

Objectives: We investigated clinical correlates of atrial fibrillation (AF) progression and evaluated the prognosis of patients demonstrating AF progression in a large population. Background: Progression of paroxysmal AF to more sustained forms is frequently seen. However, not all patients will progress to persistent AF. Methods: We included 1,219 patients with paroxysmal AF who participated in the Euro Heart Survey on AF and had a known rhythm status at follow-up. Patients who experienced AF progression after 1 year of follow-up were identified. Results: Progression of AF occurred in 178 (15%) patients. Multivariate analysis showed that heart failure, age, previous transient ischemic attack or stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and hypertension were the only independent predictors of AF progression. Using the regression coefficient as a benchmark, we calculated the HATCH score. Nearly 50% of the patients with a HATCH score &gt;5 progressed to persistent AF compared with only 6% of the patients with a HATCH score of 0. During follow-up, patients with AF progression were more often admitted to the hospital and had more major adverse cardiovascular events. Conclusions: A substantial number of patients progress to sustained AF within 1 year. The clinical outcome of these patients regarding hospital admissions and major adverse cardiovascular events was worse compared with patients demonstrating no AF progression. Factors known to cause atrial structural remodeling (age and underlying heart disease) were independent predictors of AF progression. The HATCH score may help to identify patients who are likely to progress to sustained forms of AF in the near future. \ua9 2010 American College of Cardiology Foundation

Nationwide comprehensive gastro-intestinal cancer cohorts: the 3P initiative

Background: The increasing sub-classification of cancer patients due to more detailed molecular classification of tumors, and limitations of current trial designs, require innovative research designs. We present the design, governance and current standing of three comprehensive nationwide cohorts including pancreatic, esophageal/gastric, and colorectal cancer patients (NCT02070146). Multidisciplinary collection of clinical data, tumor tissue, blood samples, and patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures with a nationwide coverage, provides the infrastructure for future and novel trial designs and facilitates research to improve outcomes of gastrointestinal cancer patients. Material and methods: All patients aged ≥18 years with pancreatic, esophageal/gastric or colorectal cancer are eligible. Patients provide informed consent for: (1) reuse of clinical data; (2) biobanking of primary tumor tissue; (3) collection of blood samples; (4) to be informed about relevant newly identified genomic aberrations; (5) collection of longitudinal PROs; and (6) to receive information on new interventional studies and possible participation in cohort multiple randomized controlled trials (cmRCT) in the future. Results: In 2015, clinical data of 21,758 newly diagnosed patients were collected in the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Additional clinical data on the surgical procedures were registered in surgical audits for 13,845 patients. Within the first two years, tumor tissue and blood samples were obtained from 1507 patients; during this period, 1180 patients were included in the PRO registry. Response rate for PROs was 90%. The consent rate to receive information on new interventional studies and possible participation in cmRCTs in the future was >85%. The number of hospitals participating in the cohorts is steadily increasing. Conclusion: A comprehensive nationwide multidisciplinary gastrointestinal cancer cohort is feasible and surpasses the limitations of classical study designs. With this initiative, novel and innovative studies can be performed in an efficient, safe, and comprehensive setting

Nationwide comprehensive gastro-intestinal cancer cohorts: the 3P initiative

Background: The increasing sub-classification of cancer patients due to more detailed molecular classification of tumors, and limitations of current trial designs, require innovative research designs. We present the design, governance and current standing of three comprehensive nationwide cohorts including pancreatic, esophageal/gastric, and colorectal cancer patients (NCT02070146). Multidisciplinary collection of clinical data, tumor tissue, blood samples, and patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures with a nationwide coverage, provides the infrastructure for future and novel trial designs and facilitates research to improve outcomes of gastrointestinal cancer patients. Material and methods: All patients aged ≥18 years with pancreatic, esophageal/gastric or colorectal cancer are eligible. Patients provide informed consent for: (1) reuse of clinical data; (2) biobanking of primary tumor tissue; (3) collection of blood samples; (4) to be informed about relevant newly identified genomic aberrations; (5) collection of longitudinal PROs; and (6) to receive information on new interventional studies and possible participation in cohort multiple randomized controlled trials (cmRCT) in the future. Results: In 2015, clinical data of 21,758 newly diagnosed patients were collected in the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Additional clinical data on the surgical procedures were registered in surgical audits for 13,845 patients. Within the first two years, tumor tissue and blood samples were obtained from 1507 patients; during this period, 1180 patients were included in the PRO registry. Response rate for PROs was 90%. The consent rate to receive information on new interventional studies and possible participation in cmRCTs in the future was >85%. The number of hospitals participating in the cohorts is steadily increasing. Conclusion: A comprehensive nationwide multidisciplinary gastrointestinal cancer cohort is feasible and surpasses the limitations of classical study designs. With this initiative, novel and innovative studies can be performed in an efficient, safe, and comprehensive setting

Implementation, participation and satisfaction rates of a web-based decision support tool for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer

Background: The use of decision support tools facilitates shared decision-making, but effective implementation of these tools with adequate patient and provider participation is challenging. Our study aims to effectively implement a newly developed patient-centred decision support tool for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer with sufficient patients’ and providers’ participation and satisfaction. Methods: We conducted a patients’ and oncologists’ needs assessment and developed a decision support tool consisting of a consultation tool and web-based information about treatment options. Between July 2016 (launch) and February 2017, we measured patient participation with log in rates and time spent by online tracking and calculated participation sum scores (low, intermediate and high). Patient satisfaction was voluntarily obtained during online support. We measured oncologist participation in 11 centers by the number of oncologists that handed out at least 1 consultation tool. Satisfaction was measured by structured interviews and a survey. Results: Implementation rates differed between 3 and 72 handed out (median 23) consultation tools per centre with a median patients’ log in rate of 57% (range 39-83%). The majority of patients (68%) had an intermediate high or high participation sum score. The median time spent during online support was highest for questions about patients’ perspective (5 mins) and colorectal cancer information (4 mins). Patient satisfaction was 76%. Oncologists’ participation per centre ranged from 25 to 100%. The average rating of the decision support tool was 7.8 (scale 1 to 10) by participating oncologists and 7.3 by other healthcare providers. Several thresholds for implementation were a negative attitude towards shared decision-making and oncologists’ fixed treatment preferences. Conclusions: Implementation of our decision support tool succeeded and patient and oncologist satisfaction was above average. Patients’ log in rates differed considerably between participating hospitals while patient online participation was generally high. The most important faced challenge remains to overcome providers’ negative attitude towards shared decision-making