Search

Background Limited data from small series have suggested that brain metastases from biliary tract cancers (BrM-BTC) affect ≤2% of patients with BTC. We sought to review our experience with patients with BrM-BTC and to identify associations of tumor-related molecular alterations with outcomes. Materials and Methods A retrospective review of patients with BTC seen at a tertiary referral center from 2005 to 2021 was performed; patients with BrM-BTC were identified, and clinical and molecular data were collected. Results Twenty-one of 823 patients with BTC (2.6%) developed BrM. For patients with BrM-BTC, median follow-up time was 27.9 months after primary BTC diagnosis and 3.1 months after BrM diagnosis. Median time from primary diagnosis to diagnosis of BrM was 14.4 [range, 1.1-66.0] months. Median overall survival (OS) from primary diagnosis was 31.5 [2.9-99.8] months and median OS from BrM diagnosis was 4.2 [0.2-33.8] months. Patients who underwent BrM-directed therapy trended toward longer OS following BrM diagnosis than patients receiving supportive care only (median 6.5 vs 0.8 months, P = .060). The BrM-BTC cohort was enriched for BRAF (30%), PIK3CA (25%), and GNAS (20%) mutations. patients with BrM-BTC with BRAF mutations trended toward longer OS following BrM diagnosis (median 13.1 vs 4.2 months, P = .131). Conclusion This is the largest series of patients with BrM-BTC to date and provides molecular characterization of this rare subgroup of patients with BTC. Patients with BrM-BTC may be more likely to have BRAF mutations. With advances in targeted therapy for patients with BTC with actionable mutations, continued examination of shifting patterns of failure, with emphasis on BrM, is warranted.

Background Although intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is considered the standard of care for the treatment of squamous cell carcinoma of the anus (SCCA), few large series have reported oncologic outcomes and toxicities. In this retrospective report, we aim to describe outcomes and toxicities after IMRT-based chemoradiation (CRT) for the treatment of SCCA, evaluate the impact of dose escalation (>54 Gy), and compare concurrent fluoropyrimidine in combination with either mitomycin or with cisplatin as chemosensitizers. Methods Patients treated at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center between January 1, 2003 and December 31, 2018 with IMRT-based CRT were included. Median time to locoregional recurrence, time to colostomy, and overall survival were estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method. Results A total of 428 patients were included; median follow-up was 4.4 years. Three hundred and thirty-four patients (78.0%) were treated with concurrent cisplatin and fluoropyrimidine, and 160 (37.4%) with >54 Gy. Two- and 5-year freedom from locoregional failure, freedom from colostomy failure, and overall survival were 86.5% and 81.2%, respectively, 90.0% and 88.3%, respectively, and 93.6% and 85.8%, respectively. Neither dose escalation nor mitomycin-based concurrent chemotherapy resulted in improved outcomes. Mitomycin-based concurrent chemotherapy was associated with in approximately 2.5 times increased grade 3 or greater acute toxicity. Radiation dose >54 Gy was associated with approximately 2.6 times increased Grade 3 or greater chronic toxicity. Conclusions Our results suggest IMRT-based CRT with concurrent fluoropyrimidine and cisplatin is a safe and feasible option for patient with SCCA and may cause less acute toxicity. The role for radiation dose escalation is unclear and requires further study.

Background The use of professional medical writers (PMWs) has been historically low, but contemporary data regarding PMW usage are scarce. In this study, we sought to quantify PMW use in oncologic phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods We performed a database query through ClinicalTrials.gov to identify cancer‐specific phase III RCTs; we then identified whether a PMW was involved in writing the associated trial manuscript reporting primary endpoint results. Results Two‐hundred sixty trials of 600 (43.3%) used a PMW. Industry‐funded trials used PMWs more often than nonindustry trials (54.9% vs. 3.0%, p < .001). Increased PMW usage was further noted among trials meeting their primary endpoint (53.4% vs. 32.9%, p < .001) and trials that led to subsequent Food and Drug Administration approval (63.1% vs. 36.3%, p < .001). By treatment interventions, PMW use was highest among systemic therapy trials (50.2%). Lastly, the use of PMWs increased significantly over time (odds ratio: 1.11/year, p = .001). Conclusion PMW use rates are high among industry‐funded trials. We urge continued and increased transparency in reporting the funding and use of PMWs., Considering the increase in industry‐sponsored cancer clinical trials, the use of professional medical writers for publication of trial results has become an increasingly important topic. This brief communication reports the current rate of involvement of medical writers in publications of cancer clinical trials.

Male breast cancer treatment regimens are often extrapolated from female-based studies because of a paucity of literature analyzing male breast cancer. Using ClinicalTrials.gov, we analyzed breast cancer randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to determine which factors were associated with male-gender inclusion. Of 131 breast cancer RCTs identified, male patients represented 0.087% of the total study population, which is significantly less than the proportion of male patients with breast cancer in the U.S. (0.95%; p < .001). Twenty-seven trials included male patients (20.6%). Lower rates of male inclusion were seen in trials that randomized or mandated hormone therapy as part of the trial protocol compared with trials that did not randomize or mandate endocrine therapy (2.5% vs. 28.6% male inclusion; p < .001). It is imperative for breast cancer clinical trials to include men when allowable in order to improve generalizability and treatment decisions in male patients with breast cancer.