Day: 03/28/2022

Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer Second-Line Treatment Options: Is the Difference Only in Cost?

Posted by

0


Abstract

İntroduction

Although pancreatic cancer ranks seventh in cancer-related deaths, it is an extremely fatal disease, and more than 330,000 people die from this disease worldwide. Although there are many first-line treatment studies in the literature, there are almost no prospective studies regarding second-line therapy. Therefore, there is no standard approach in the second-line treatment of pancreatic cancer. We decided to conduct this study to investigate second-line treatments with problems such as cost, treatment efficacy, and toxicity.

Methods

Patients older than 18 years old who applied to Ege University Hospital medical oncology department with a diagnosis of metastatic pancreatic cancer, who received first-line chemotherapy due to their illness, and who had progressed afterwards were included in the study. The files of the patients who applied between 2013 and 2017 were examined.

Results

Our study’s primary endpoint was progression-free survival, and it was found that the median progression-free survival was 3.2 months in the Xelox patients, 3.7 months in the gemcitabine-nab paclitaxel patients, and 3.5 months in the other regimens. When the secondary endpoint was evaluated, overall survival, the median overall survival was 5.9 months in the Xelox patients, 5.3 months in the gemcitabine-nab paclitaxel patients, and 4.8 months in the other regimens.

Conclusion

As a result, second-line treatments were compared, and no statistically significant difference was found between them. For this reason, the side effects of previously used drugs and the side effects of new drugs to be used, as well as their costs, should be evaluated when choosing a treatment.

Thyroidectomy without Radioiodine in Patients with Low-Risk Thyroid Cancer.

Posted by

0


BACKGROUND: In patients with low-risk differentiated thyroid cancer undergoing thyroidectomy, the postoperative administration of radioiodine (iodine-131) is controversial in the absence of demonstrated benefits.

METHODS: In this prospective, randomized, phase 3 trial, we assigned patients with low-risk differentiated thyroid cancer who were undergoing thyroidectomy to receive ablation with postoperative administration of radioiodine (1.1 GBq) after injections of recombinant human thyrotropin (radioiodine group) or to receive no postoperative radioiodine (no-radioiodine group). The primary objective was to assess whether no radioiodine therapy was noninferior to radioiodine therapy with respect to the absence of a composite end point that included functional, structural, and biologic abnormalities at 3 years. Noninferiority was defined as a between-group difference of less than 5 percentage points in the percentage of patients who did not have events that included the presence of abnormal foci of radioiodine uptake on whole-body scanning that required subsequent treatment (in the radioiodine group only), abnormal findings on neck ultrasonography, or elevated levels of thyroglobulin or thyroglobulin antibodies. Secondary end points included prognostic factors for events and molecular characterization.

RESULTS: Among 730 patients who could be evaluated 3 years after randomization, the percentage of patients without an event was 95.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 93.0 to 97.5) in the no-radioiodine group and 95.9% (95% CI, 93.3 to 97.7) in the radioiodine group, a difference of -0.3 percentage points (two-sided 90% CI, -2.7 to 2.2), a result that met the noninferiority criteria. Events consisted of structural or functional abnormalities in 8 patients and biologic abnormalities in 23 patients with 25 events. Events were more frequent in patients with a postoperative serum thyroglobulin level of more than 1 ng per milliliter during thyroid hormone treatment. Molecular alterations were similar in patients with or without an event. No treatment-related adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSIONS: In patients with low-risk thyroid cancer undergoing thyroidectomy, a follow-up strategy that did not involve the use of radioiodine was noninferior to an ablation strategy with radioiodine regarding the occurrence of functional, structural, and biologic events at 3 years. 

Survival After Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy and Primary or Interval Cytoreductive Surgery in Ovarian Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial. 

Posted by

0


Importance: Ovarian cancer has the highest mortality rate among gynecologic malignant tumors. Data are lacking on the survival benefit of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) in women with ovarian cancer who underwent primary or interval cytoreductive surgery.

Objective: To assess the clinical benefit of HIPEC after primary or interval maximal cytoreductive surgery in women with stage III or IV primary advanced ovarian cancer.

Design, Setting, and Participants: In this single-blind randomized clinical trial performed at 2 institutions in South Korea from March 2, 2010, to January 22, 2016, a total of 184 patients with stage III or IV ovarian cancer with residual tumor size less than 1 cm were randomized (1:1) to a HIPEC (41.5 °C, 75 mg/m2 of cisplatin, 90 minutes) or control group. The primary end point was progression-free survival. Overall survival and adverse events were key secondary end points. The date of the last follow-up was January 10, 2020, and the data were locked on February 17, 2020.

Exposures: Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy after cytoreductive surgery.

Main Outcomes and Measures: Progression-free and overall survival.

Results: Of the 184 Korean women who underwent randomization, 92 were randomized to the HIPEC group (median age, 52.0 years; IQR, 46.0-59.5 years) and 92 to the control group (median age, 53.5 years; IQR, 47.5-61.0 years). After a median follow-up of 69.4 months (IQR, 54.4-86.3 months), median progression-free survival was 18.8 months (IQR, 13.0-43.2 months) in the control group and 19.8 months (IQR, 13.7-55.4 months) in the HIPEC group (P = .43), and median overall survival was 61.3 months (IQR, 34.3 months to not reported) in the control group and 69.5 months (IQR, 45.6 months to not reported) in the HIPEC group (P = .52). In the subgroup of interval cytoreductive surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, the median progression-free survival was 15.4 months (IQR, 10.6-21.1 months) in the control group and 17.4 months (IQR, 13.8-31.5 months) in the HIPEC group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.37-0.99; P = .04), and the median overall survival was 48.2 months (IQR, 33.8-61.3 months) in the control group and 61.8 months (IQR, 46.7 months to not reported) in the HIPEC group (hazard ratio, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.29-0.96; P = .04). In the subgroup of primary cytoreductive surgery, median progression-free survival was 29.7 (IQR, 17.2-90.1 months) in the control group and 23.9 months (IQR, 12.3-71.5 months) in the HIPEC group, and the median overall survival was not reached in the control group and 71.3 months (IQR, 45.6 months to not reported) in the HIPEC group.

Conclusions and Relevance: The addition of HIPEC to cytoreductive surgery did not improve progression-free and overall survival in patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. Although the results are from a subgroup analysis, the addition of HIPEC to interval cytoreductive surgery provided an improvement of progression-free and overall survival.

Methylprednisolone Pulses in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients Without Respiratory Failure: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Posted by

0


Background: Corticosteroids are the cornerstone of the treatment of patients with COVID-19 admitted to hospital. However, whether corticosteroids can prevent respiratory worsening in hospitalized COVID-19 patients without oxygen requirements is currently unknown.

Aims: To assess the efficacy of methylprednisolone pulses (MPP) in hospitalized COVID-19 patients with increased levels of inflammatory markers not requiring oxygen at baseline.

Methods: Multicenter, parallel, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted in Spain. Patients admitted for confirmed SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia with raised inflammatory markers (C-reactive protein >60 mg/L, interleukin-6 >40 pg/ml, or ferritin >1,000 µg/L) but without respiratory failure after the first week of symptom onset were randomized to receive a 3-day course of intravenous MPP (120 mg/day) or placebo. The primary outcome was treatment failure at 14 days, a composite variable including mortality, the need for ICU admission or mechanical ventilation, and clinical worsening, this last parameter defined as a PaO2/FiO2 ratio below 300; or a 15% decrease in the PaO2 from baseline, together with an increase in inflammatory markers or radiological progression. If clinical worsening occurred, patients received tocilizumab and unmasked corticosteroids. The secondary outcomes were 28-day mortality, adverse events, need for ICU admission or high-flow oxygen, length of hospital stay, SARS-CoV-2 clearance, and changes in laboratory parameters.

Results: A total of 72 patients were randomized and 71 patients were analyzed (34 in the MPP group and 37 in the placebo group). Twenty patients presented with treatment failure (29.4 in the MPP group vs. 27.0% in the placebo group, p = 0.82), with no differences regarding the time to treatment failure between groups. There were no cases of death or mechanical ventilation requirements at 14 days post-randomization. The secondary outcomes were similar in MPP and placebo groups.

Conclusions: A 3-day course of MPP after the first week of disease onset did not prevent respiratory deterioration in hospitalized COVID-19 patients with an inflammatory phenotype who did not require oxygen.

Association between covid-19 vaccination, SARS-CoV-2 infection, and risk of immune mediated neurological events: population based cohort and self-controlled case series analysis.

Posted by

0


OBJECTIVE: To study the association between covid-19 vaccines, SARS-CoV-2 infection, and risk of immune mediated neurological events.

DESIGN: Population based historical rate comparison study and self-controlled case series analysis.

SETTING: Primary care records from the United Kingdom, and primary care records from Spain linked to hospital data.

PARTICIPANTS: 8 330 497 people who received at least one dose of covid-19 vaccines ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, or Ad.26.COV2.S between the rollout of the vaccination campaigns and end of data availability (UK: 9 May 2021; Spain: 30 June 2021). The study sample also comprised a cohort of 735 870 unvaccinated individuals with a first positive reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction test result for SARS-CoV-2 from 1 September 2020, and 14 330 080 participants from the general population.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcomes were incidence of Bell’s palsy, encephalomyelitis, Guillain-Barré syndrome, and transverse myelitis. Incidence rates were estimated in the 21 days after the first vaccine dose, 90 days after a positive test result for SARS-CoV-2, and between 2017 and 2019 for background rates in the general population cohort. Indirectly standardised incidence ratios were estimated. Adjusted incidence rate ratios were estimated from the self-controlled case series.

RESULTS: The study included 4 376 535 people who received ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, 3 588 318 who received BNT162b2, 244 913 who received mRNA-1273, and 120 731 who received Ad26.CoV.2; 735 870 people with SARS-CoV-2 infection; and 14 330 080 people from the general population. Overall, post-vaccine rates were consistent with expected (background) rates for Bell’s palsy, encephalomyelitis, and Guillain-Barré syndrome. Self-controlled case series was conducted only for Bell’s palsy, given limited statistical power, but with no safety signal seen for those vaccinated. Rates were, however, higher than expected after SARS-CoV-2 infection. For example, in the data from the UK, the standardised incidence ratio for Bell’s palsy was 1.33 (1.02 to 1.74), for encephalomyelitis was 6.89 (3.82 to 12.44), and for Guillain-Barré syndrome was 3.53 (1.83 to 6.77). Transverse myelitis was rare (<5 events in all vaccinated cohorts) and could not be analysed.

CONCLUSIONS: No safety signal was observed between covid-19 vaccines and the immune mediated neurological events of Bell’s palsy, encephalomyelitis, Guillain-Barré syndrome, and transverse myelitis. An increased risk of Bell’s palsy, encephalomyelitis, and Guillain-Barré syndrome was, however, observed for people with SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Thulium Fibre Laser versus Holmium:YAG for Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy: Outcomes from a Prospective Randomised Clinical Trial.

Posted by

0


BACKGROUND: Holmium:yttrium-aluminium-garnet (Ho:YAG) laser is the gold standard for ureterorenoscopic (URS) lithotripsy. Thulium fibre laser (TFL) has recently been introduced as a new technology and may challenge Ho:YAG as the preferred laser owing to favourable properties as demonstrated in preclinical studies.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and compare outcomes after URS lithotripsy with Ho:YAG and TFL.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In a prospective randomised trial, patients aged =18 yr with ureteral and/or renal stones (=5 mm) scheduled to undergo day-case URS lithotripsy were invited to participate. In total, 120 consecutively admitted patients with signed consent were included for randomisation.

INTERVENTION: URS lithotripsy with Ho:YAG or TFL.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary outcome was the stone-free rate (SFR) assessed on noncontrast computed tomography at 3-mo follow-up. Secondary outcomes were the operative time and complications. Outcomes were compared between the groups using the t test and ?2 test.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: After a single session, the SFR was 67% in the Ho:YAG group and 92% in the TFL group, p = 0.001. For ureteral stones, the SFR was 100% in both groups, and for renal stones; 49% (Ho:YAG) and 86% (TFL), p = 0.001. Operative time was shorter using TFL (49 min) compared to Ho:YAG (57 min), p = 0.008. Bleeding that impaired the endoscopic view was the most frequent intraoperative adverse event and occurred in 13 patients (22%) in the Ho:YAG group and three (5%) in the TFL group, p = 0.014.

CONCLUSIONS: In this study, significantly more patients with renal stones achieved stone-free status and fewer experienced intraoperative complications using TFL compared to Ho:YAG. TFL is the emerging laser of choice for stone lithotripsy.