Search

(1) We hypothesized that adding concurrent stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SAbR) would increase the time to progression in patients with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPCA) treated with sipuleucel-T. (2) Patients with a history of prostate cancer (PC), radiographic evidence of metastatic disease, and rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA) > 0.2 ng/dL on castrate testosterone levels were enrolled in this single-arm phase II clinical trial and treated with sipuleucel-T and SAbR. The primary endpoint was time to progression (TTP). Cellular and humoral responses were measured using ELISpot and Luminex multiplex assays, respectively. (3) Twenty patients with mCRPC were enrolled and treated with SAbR to 1−3 sites. Treatment was well tolerated with 51, 8, and 4 treatment-related grade 1, 2, and 3 toxicities, respectively, and no grade 4 or 5 adverse events. At a median follow-up of 15.5 months, the median TTP was 11.2 weeks (95% CI; 6.8−14.0 weeks). Median OS was 76.8 weeks (95% CI; 41.6−130.8 weeks). This regimen induced both humoral and cellular immune responses. Baseline M-MDSC levels were elevated in mCRPC patients compared to healthy donors (p = 0.004) and a decline in M-MDSC was associated with biochemical response (p = 0.044). Responders had lower baseline uric acid levels (p = 0.05). No clear correlation with radiographic response was observed. (4) While the regimen was safe, the PC-antigen-specific immune response induced by SAbR did not yield a synergistic clinical benefit for patients treated with sipuleucel-T compared to the historically reported outcomes.

Background: Disease prevention is a central aspect of primary care practice and is comprised of primary (eg, vaccinations), secondary (eg, screenings), tertiary (eg, chronic condition monitoring), and quaternary (eg, prevention of overmedicalization) levels. Despite rapid digital transformation of primary care practices, digital health interventions (DHIs) in preventive care have yet to be systematically evaluated., Objective: This review aimed to identify and describe the scope and use of current DHIs for preventive care in primary care settings., Methods: A scoping review to identify literature published from 2014 to 2020 was conducted across multiple databases using keywords and Medical Subject Headings terms covering primary care professionals, prevention and care management, and digital health. A subgroup analysis identified relevant studies conducted in US primary care settings, excluding DHIs that use the electronic health record (EHR) as a retrospective data capture tool. Technology descriptions, outcomes (eg, health care performance and implementation science), and study quality as per Oxford levels of evidence were abstracted., Results: The search yielded 5274 citations, of which 1060 full-text articles were identified. Following a subgroup analysis, 241 articles met the inclusion criteria. Studies primarily examined DHIs among health information technologies, including EHRs (166/241, 68.9%), clinical decision support (88/241, 36.5%), telehealth (88/241, 36.5%), and multiple technologies (154/241, 63.9%). DHIs were predominantly used for tertiary prevention (131/241, 54.4%). Of the core primary care functions, comprehensiveness was addressed most frequently (213/241, 88.4%). DHI users were providers (205/241, 85.1%), patients (111/241, 46.1%), or multiple types (89/241, 36.9%). Reported outcomes were primarily clinical (179/241, 70.1%), and statistically significant improvements were common (192/241, 79.7%). Results were summarized across the following 5 topics for the most novel/distinct DHIs: population-centered, patient-centered, care access expansion, panel-centered (dashboarding), and application-driven DHIs. The quality of the included studies was moderate to low., Conclusions: Preventive DHIs in primary care settings demonstrated meaningful improvements in both clinical and nonclinical outcomes, and across user types; however, adoption and implementation in the US were limited primarily to EHR platforms, and users were mainly clinicians receiving alerts regarding care management for their patients. Evaluations of negative results, effects on health disparities, and many other gaps remain to be explored., (©Van C Willis, Kelly Jean Thomas Craig, Yalda Jabbarpour, Elisabeth L Scheufele, Yull E Arriaga, Monica Ajinkya, Kyu B Rhee, Andrew Bazemore. Originally published in JMIR Medical Informatics (https://medinform.jmir.org), 21.01.2022.)

Purpose: To describe clinical and non-clinical factors associated with receipt of breast conserving surgery (BCS) versus mastectomy and time to surgical intervention., Methods: Cross-sectional retrospective study of January 1, 2012 through March 31, 2018 data from the IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounter and Medicare Supplemental Databases. Area Health Resource Files provided non-clinical characteristics and sociodemographic data. Eligibility: Female sex, claim(s) with ICD-9-CM or ICD-10-CM diagnosis of non-metastatic invasive breast cancer, > 6 months of continuous insurance pre- and post-diagnosis, evidence of BCS or mastectomy following initial ICD9/10 code diagnosis. Logistic and quantile multivariable regression models assessed the association between clinical and non-clinical factors and the outcome of BCS and time to surgery, respectively., Results: A total of 53,060 women were included in the study. Compared to mastectomy, BCS was significantly associated with older age (ORs: 1.54 to 2.99, 95% CIs 1.45 to 3.38; ps < .0001) and higher community density of medical genetics (OR: 5.88, 95% CIs 1.38 to 25.00; p = 0.02) or obstetrics and gynecology (OR: 1.13, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.25; p = .02) physicians. Shorter time-to-BCS was associated with living in the South (-2.96, 95% CI -4.39 to -1.33; p < .0001). Longer time-to-BCS was associated with residence in more urban (4.18, 95% CI 0.08 to 8.29; p = 0. 05), educated (9.02, 95% CI 0.13 to 17.91; p = 0.05), or plastic-surgeon-dense (4.62, 95% CI 0.50 to 8.73; p = 0.03) communities., Conclusions: Clinical and non-clinical factors are associated with adoption of BCS and time to treatment, suggesting opportunities to ensure equitable and timely care.

In recent years, the field of artificial intelligence (AI) in oncology has grown exponentially. AI solutions have been developed to tackle a variety of cancer-related challenges. Medical institutions, hospital systems, and technology companies are developing AI tools aimed at supporting clinical decision making, increasing access to cancer care, and improving clinical efficiency while delivering safe, high-value oncology care. AI in oncology has demonstrated accurate technical performance in image analysis, predictive analytics, and precision oncology delivery. Yet, adoption of AI tools is not widespread, and the impact of AI on patient outcomes remains uncertain. Major barriers for AI implementation in oncology include biased and heterogeneous data, data management and collection burdens, a lack of standardized research reporting, insufficient clinical validation, workflow and user-design challenges, outdated regulatory and legal frameworks, and dynamic knowledge and data. Concrete actions that major stakeholders can take to overcome barriers to AI implementation in oncology include training and educating the oncology workforce in AI; standardizing data, model validation methods, and legal and safety regulations; funding and conducting future research; and developing, studying, and deploying AI tools through multidisciplinary collaboration., (© 2021 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Disparities in cardiovascular disease (CVD) and associated health and healthcare delivery outcomes have been partially attributed to differential risk factors, and to prevention and treatment inequities within racial and ethnic (including language) minority groups and low socioeconomic status (SES) populations in urban and rural settings. Digital health interventions (DHIs) show promise in promoting equitable access to high-quality care, optimal utilization, and improved outcomes; however, their potential role and impact has not been fully explored. The role of DHIs to mitigate drivers of the health disparities listed above in populations disproportionately affected by atherosclerotic-related CVD was systematically reviewed using published literature (January 2008-July 2020) from multiple databases. Study design, type and description of the technology, health disparities information, type of CVD, outcomes, and notable barriers and innovations associated with the technology utilized were abstracted. Study quality was assessed using the Oxford Levels of Evidence. Included studies described digital health technologies in a disparity population with CVD and reported outcomes. DHIs significantly improved health (eg, clinical, intermediate, and patient-reported) and healthcare delivery (eg, access, quality, and utilization of care) outcomes in populations disproportionately affected by CVD in 24 of 38 included studies identified from 2104 citations. Hypertension control was the most frequently improved clinical outcome. Telemedicine, mobile health, and clinical decision support systems were the most common types of DHIs identified. DHIs improved CVD-related health and healthcare delivery outcomes in racial/ethnic groups and low SES populations in both rural and urban geographies globally., (© 2020 Heart Rhythm Society. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Prognostic and pathologic risk factors typically guide clinicians and patients in their choice of surveillance or adjuvant chemotherapy when managing high-risk stage II colon cancer. However, variations in treatment and outcomes in patients with stage II colon cancer remain., Objective: This study aimed to assess the survival benefits of treatments concordant with suggested therapeutic options from Watson for Oncology, a clinical decision support system., Design: This is a retrospective observational study of concordance between actual treatment and Watson for Oncology therapeutic options., Setting: This study was conducted at a top-tier cancer center in China., Patients: Postoperative treatment data were retrieved from the electronic health records of 306 patients with high-risk stage II colon adenocarcinoma., Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcomes measured were the treatment patterns plus 3- and 5-year overall and disease-free survival for concordant and nonconcordant cases., Results: Overall concordance was 90%. Most nonconcordant care resulted from adjuvant chemotherapy use (rather than surveillance) in patients with high-level microsatellite instability and ≥70 years old. No difference in overall survival (p = 0.56) or disease-free survival (p = 0.19) was observed between concordance groups. Patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy had significantly higher 5-year overall survival than those undergoing surveillance (94% vs 84%, p = 0.01)., Limitations: This study was limited by the use of retrospective cases drawn from patients presenting for surgery, the lack of complete follow-up data for 58% of patients who could not be included in the analysis, and a survival analysis that assumes no unmeasured correlation between survival and censoring., Conclusions: Watson for Oncology produced therapeutic options highly concordant with human decisions at a top-tier cancer center in China. Treatment patterns suggest that Watson for Oncology may be able to guide clinicians to minimize overtreatment of patients with high-risk stage II colon cancer with chemotherapy. Survival analyses suggest the need for further investigation to specifically assess the association between surveillance, single-agent and multiagent chemotherapy, and survival outcomes in this population. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B291. APOYO A LA DECISIÓN CLÍNICA DEL CÁNCER DE COLON EN ESTADIO II DE ALTO RIESGO: UN ESTUDIO DEL MUNDO REAL SOBRE LA CONCORDANCIA DEL TRATAMIENTO Y LA SUPERVIVENCIA: Los factores de riesgo pronósticos y patológicos generalmente guían a los médicos y pacientes en su elección de vigilancia o quimioterapia adyuvante cuando se trata el cáncer de colon en estadio II de alto riesgo. Sin embargo, las variaciones en el tratamiento y los resultados en pacientes con cáncer de colon en estadio II permanecen.Evaluar los beneficios de supervivencia de los tratamientos concordantes con las opciones terapéuticas sugeridas por "Watson for Oncology" (Watson para la oncología), un sistema de apoyo a la decisión clínica.Estudio observacional retrospectivo de concordancia entre el tratamiento real y las opciones terapéuticas de Watson para oncología.Un centro oncológico de primer nivel en China.Datos de tratamiento postoperatorio de registros de salud electrónicos de 306 pacientes con adenocarcinoma de colon en estadio II de alto riesgo.Patrones de tratamiento más supervivencia global y libre de enfermedad a 3 y 5 años para casos concordantes y no concordantes.La concordancia general fue del 90%. La mayoría de la atención no concordante resultó del uso de quimioterapia adyuvante (en lugar de vigilancia) en pacientes de alto nivel con inestabilidad de microsatélites y pacientes ≥70 años. No se observaron diferencias en la supervivencia global (p = 0,56) o la supervivencia libre de enfermedad (p = 0,19) entre los grupos de concordancia. Los pacientes que recibieron quimioterapia adyuvante tuvieron una supervivencia global a los 5 años significativamente más alta que los que fueron sometidos a vigilancia (94% frente a 84%, p = 0,01).Uso de casos retrospectivos extraídos de pacientes que se presentan para cirugía, falta de datos de seguimiento completos para el 58% de los pacientes que no pudieron ser incluidos en el análisis, y análisis de supervivencia que asume que no exite una correlación no medida entre supervivencia y censura.Watson para Oncología produjo opciones terapéuticas altamente concordantes con las decisiones humanas en un centro oncológico de primer nivel en China. Los patrones de tratamiento sugieren que Watson para Oncología puede guiar a los médicos para minimizar el sobretratamiento de pacientes con cáncer de colon en estadio II de alto riesgo con quimioterapia. Los análisis de supervivencia sugieren la necesidad de realizar mas investigaciónes para evaluar específicamente la asociación entre la vigilancia, la quimioterapia con uno solo o múltiples agentes y los resultados de supervivencia en esta población. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B291. (Traducción-Dr. Gonzalo Hagerman).

Background: In the phase III CORRECT trial, regorafenib significantly improved survival in treatment-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). The CONSIGN study was designed to further characterize regorafenib safety and allow patients access to regorafenib before market authorization., Methods: This prospective, single-arm study enrolled patients in 25 countries at 186 sites. Patients with treatment-refractory mCRC and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) ≤1 received regorafenib 160 mg once daily for the first 3 weeks of each 4-week cycle. The primary endpoint was safety. Progression-free survival (PFS) per investigator assessment was the only efficacy evaluation., Results: In total, 2,872 patients were assigned to treatment and 2,864 were treated. Median age was 62 years, ECOG PS 0/1 was 47%/53%, and 74% had received at least three prior regimens for metastatic disease. Median treatment duration was three cycles. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) led to dose reduction in 46% of patients. Regorafenib-related TEAEs led to treatment discontinuation in 9%. Grade 5 regorafenib-related TEAEs occurred in <1%. The most common grade ≥3 regorafenib-related TEAEs were hypertension (15%), hand-foot skin reaction (14%), fatigue (13%), diarrhea (5%), and hypophosphatemia (5%). Treatment-emergent grade 3-4 laboratory toxicities included alanine aminotransferase (6%), aspartate aminotransferase (7%), and bilirubin (13%). Ongoing monitoring identified one nonfatal case of regorafenib-related severe drug-induced liver injury per DILI Working Group criteria. Median PFS (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 2.7 months (2.6-2.7)., Conclusion: In CONSIGN, the frequency and severity of TEAEs were consistent with the known safety profile of regorafenib. PFS was similar to reports of phase III trials. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01538680., Implications for Practice: Patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) who fail treatment with standard therapies, including chemotherapy and monoclonal antibodies targeting vascular endothelial growth factor or epidermal growth factor receptor, have few treatment options. The multikinase inhibitor regorafenib was shown to improve survival in patients with treatment-refractory mCRC in the phase III CORRECT ( N = 760) and CONCUR ( N = 204) trials. However, safety data on regorafenib for mCRC in a larger number of patients were not available. The CONSIGN trial, carried out prospectively in more than 2,800 patients across 25 countries, confirmed the safety profile of regorafenib from the phase III trials and reinforced the importance of using treatment modifications to manage adverse events., Competing Interests: Disclosures of potential conflicts of interest may be found at the end of this article., (© AlphaMed Press 2018.)

Human cancers are genetically complex and diverse. Although advances in oncologic therapy aim to define and target unique steps in carcinogenesis, oncologists often rely on less discriminate anticancer therapies that have consequences for normal tissues. Even many of the so-called targeted therapies currently employed can adversely affect normal cells, leading to complications that necessitate dose reductions or cessation of specific therapies. This article explores the unintended consequences of currently employed systemic and ablative anticancer therapies that might manifest at imaging examinations of the abdomen and pelvis, including cytotoxic, molecular targeted, and immunologic agents; ablation; and hematopoietic stem cell transplant. Each of these treatments can have both major and minor unintended effects in the targeted organ(s), in local or adjacent structures, or at distant sites. Timely detection and reporting of adverse consequences of anticancer therapies by the astute imager can result in critical treatment modifications and/or lifesaving interventions; therefore, knowledge of these unintended effects is paramount for radiologists interpreting the results of imaging examinations in cancer patients. © RSNA, 2018.

Lung metastases are a rare complication of giant cell tumors of bone. We herein describe an interesting case of histological regression and size reduction of lung metastases originating from a primary giant cell tumor of bone in response to the RANK ligand inhibitor denosumab.