Search

Background and aims: The existing evidence has indicated that hyperthermia ablation (HA) and HA combined with transarterial chemoembolization (HATACE) are the optimal alternative to surgical resection for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in the COVID‐19 crisis. However, the evidence for decision‐making is lacking in terms of comparison between HA and HATACE. Herein, a comprehensive evaluation was performed to compare the efficacy and safety of HATACE with monotherapy. Materials and Methods: Worldwide studies were collected to evaluate the HATACE regimen for HCC due to the practical need for global extrapolation of applicative population. Meta‐analyses were performed using the RevMan 5.3 software (The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark). Results: Thirty‐six studies involving a large sample of 5036 patients were included finally. Compared with HA alone, HATACE produced the advantage of 5‐year overall survival (OS) rate (OR:1.90; 95%CI:1.46,2.46; p < 0.05) without increasing toxicity (p ≥ 0.05). Compared with TACE alone, HATACE was associated with superior 5‐year OS rate (OR:3.54; 95%CI:1.96,6.37; p < 0.05) and significantly reduced the incidences of severe liver damage (OR:0.32; 95%CI:0.11,0.96; p < 0.05) and ascites (OR:0.42; 95%CI:0.20,0.88; p < 0.05). Subgroup analysis results of small (≤3 cm) HCC revealed that there were no significant differences between the HATACE group and HA monotherapy group in regard to the OS rates (p ≥ 0.05). Conclusions: Compared with TACE alone, HATACE was more effective and safe for HCC. Compared with HA alone, HATACE was more effective for non‐small‐sized (>3 cm) HCC with comparable safety. However, the survival benefit of adjuvant TACE in HATACE regimen was not found for the patients with small (≤3 cm) HCC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A combination of programmed cell death protein‐1 (PD‐1)/programmed cell death ligand‐1 (PD‐L1) inhibitors and radiotherapy (RT) is increasingly being used to treat non‐small‐cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, the safety and efficacy of this approach remains controversial. We performed a systematic review and meta‐analysis to summarize the related research. Methods: We searched the China Biology Medicine, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and PubMed databases for all the relevant studies. The Stata software, version 12.0 was used for the meta‐analysis. Results: The study included 20 clinical trials that enrolled 2027 patients with NSCLC. Compared with non‐combination therapy, combination therapy using PD‐1/PD‐L1 inhibitors and RT was associated with prolonged overall survival (OS) (1‐year OS: odds ratio [OR] 1.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.35–2.33, p = 0.000; 2‐year OS: OR 1.77, 95% CI 1.35–2.33, p = 0.000) and progression‐free survival (PFS) (0.5‐year PFS: OR 1.83, 95% CI 1.13–2.98, p = 0.014; 1‐year PFS: OR 2.09, 95% CI 1.29–3.38, p = 0.003; 2‐year PFS: OR 2.47, 95% CI 1.13–5.37, p = 0.023). Combination therapy also improved the objective response rate (OR 2.76, 95% CI 1.06–7.19, p = 0.038) and disease control rate (OR 1.80, 95% CI 1.21–2.68, p = 0.004). This meta‐analysis showed that compared with non‐combination therapy, combination therapy using PD‐1/PD‐L1 inhibitors and RT did not increase the serious adverse event rates (≥grade 3); however, this approach increased the rate of grade 1–2 immune‐related or radiation pneumonitis. Subgroup analyses revealed that the sequence of PD‐1/PD‐L1 inhibitors followed RT outperformed in which concurrent PD‐1/PD‐L1 inhibitor and RT followed PD‐1/PD‐L1 inhibitor. Combination of stereotactic body RT or stereotactic radiosurgery with PD‐1/PD‐L1 inhibitors may be more effective than a combination of conventional RT with PD‐1/PD‐L1 inhibitors in patients with advanced NSCLC. Conclusion: Combination therapy using PD‐1/PD‐L1 inhibitors and RT may improve OS, PFS, and tumor response rates without an increase in serious adverse events in patients with advanced NSCLC. However, combination therapy was shown to increase the incidence of mild pneumonitis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This study's initial results revealed significant decreases in treatment‐related esophagitis and pneumonitis cases in patients with thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) treated with involved‐field irradiation (IFI), compared to elective nodal irradiation (ENI). This report outlines the long‐term trial results, specifically; overall survival (OS), progression‐free survival (PFS), metastasis‐free survival (MFS), and locoregional progression‐free survival (LRFS). Materials and Methods: Stage II–III thoracic ESCC patients were assigned randomly, in a 1:1 ratio, into either the ENI or IFI arm. Radiation therapy was delivered once a day in 1.8‐2.0 Gy fractions to a total dose of 60.0‐66.0 Gy to the gross tumor volume and 50.0‐54.0 Gy to the clinical target volume. The primary endpoints were acute treatment‐related esophagitis and pneumonitis. The results for the primary endpoints were previously published in 2018. In this article, we analyzed the secondary endpoints including PFS, LRFS, MFS, and OS. Results: Between April 2012 and October 2016, 228 patients from nine participating centers in China were enrolled into this study and randomly assigned to two treatment groups. For ENI and IFI groups, respectively, the results showed similarity and were as follows: median PFS (20.3 months vs 21.4 months), OS (32.5 months vs 34.9 months), MFS (28.2 months vs 26.0 months), and LRFS (25.0 months vs 26.6 months). In particular, respective OS rates in the ENI and IFI groups were 84.6% and 82.5% after 1 year, 45.1% and 48.7% after 3 years, and 29.8% and 30.7% at 5 years. PFS rates after 1, 3, and 5 years were 58.9%, 34.2%, and 26.9%, respectively, in the ENI arm compared to 64.4%, 30.8%, and 27.7%, respectively, in the IFI arm. Multivariate analysis identified clinical stage and tumor responses as independent predictors of OS. Meanwhile, tumor location, cStage, and tumor response were identified as independent factors influencing PFS. Conclusion: IFI was associated with similar survival as ENI in patients with thoracic ESCC, suggesting that IFI is an acceptable treatment method for thoracic ESCC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Malignant melanomas (MMs) were the fifth most common cancer in men and the sixth most common cancer in women in 2018, respectively. These are characterized by high metastatic rates and poor prognoses. We systematically reviewed safety and efficacy of carbon‐ion radiotherapy (CIRT) for treating MMs. Eleven studies were eligible for review, and the data showed that MM patients showed better local control with low recurrence and mild toxicities after CIRT. Survival rates were slightly higher in patients with cutaneous or uveal MMs than in those with mucosal MMs. CIRT in combination with chemotherapy produced higher progression‐free survival rates than CIRT only. In younger patients, higher rates of distant metastases of gynecological MMs were observed. The data indicated that CIRT is effective and safe for treating MMs; however, a combination with systemic therapy is recommended to ensure the best possible prognosis for MMs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]