Search

Background There are different clinicopathological characteristics that are associated with the prognosis in patients with breast cancer. To date, the prognostic valor of for epithelial cadherin (E cadherin) expression in invasive lobular breast cancer remains unknown. Methods A retrospective single-center study that included 207 patients with primary invasive lobular breast cancer was conducted. The primary outcome was to report the correlation of the different clinical pathological characteristics including the expression of epithelial-cadherin (E-cadherin) in invasive lobular breast cancer in Mexican women with recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS). Results After 11 years of follow-up of patients with invasive lobular breast cancer, RFS was 89.4% and OS of 96.1%. The best prognosis in RFS was in patients with negative nodes 95.2% (P = 0.0001) and OS was 98.6-100% (P = 0.0001). Regarding tumor size, an RFS of 98.3% was observed in those measuring ≤ 2 cm (P = 0.0001) and OS of 99.2% (P = 0.0001). Negative Her2 was related to an RFS of 92.1% (P = 0.0001), and had better OS of 98.3% (P = 0.0001). Ki67 proliferation index ≤ 14% was associated with an RFS of 93.2% (P = 0.005). Negative lymph vascular invasion (LVI) increases the RFS of 91.8% (P = 0.032). The rate of positive expression of E-cadherin was associated with an increase in the RFS of 97.4%, with a mean of 128.6 ± 2.4 months (95% confidence interval (CI): 123.75 - 133.45 months) compared to the absence of expression E-cadherin: signal log ratio (SLR) 68.9%, a mean of 95 ± 6 months (95% CI: 83.28 - 106.88 months), P

Background: To date, the prognostic value of laterality for testicular germ cell tumors remains unknown. Herein, we describe this prognostic factor in the Mexican population. Methods: A retrospective single-center study that included 37 patients with primary testicular germ cell tumors was conducted. Primary outcome was recurrence-free survival (RFS) at 2 years. Secondary outcomes were RFS by histology, progression-free survival by laterality, and 2-year overall survival. Results: Thirty-seven patients were included, of which five showed relapses. By laterality, the 2-year RFS rate was 100% for left tumors and 77.3% for right tumors, with a trend toward statistical significance (P = 0.058). By histology, the RFS rate was higher for seminomas than non-seminomas (89% vs. 83%, respectively) without this difference being statistically significant. Progression-free survival was higher for right tumors than left tumors (91% vs. 80%, respectively) but without reaching statistical significance. The overall survival rate for the entire cohort was 94.5%. Conclusions: Our study shows that patients with primary germ cell tumors of the right testicle have a higher risk of recurrence than those with primary germ cell tumors of the left testicle, with a trend toward statistical significance. World J Oncol. 2021;12(5):173-177 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/wjon1404

It remains unclear which patients with metastatic germ cell tumours (mGCTs) need prophylactic anticoagulation to prevent venous thromboembolic events (VTEs).To assess the risk and onset of VTEs stratified by risk factors.This multi-institutional retrospective dataset included mGCT patients treated with first-line platinum-based chemotherapy.Patients with prophylactic anticoagulation were excluded.A regression analysis was performed to select risk factors for VTEs. The simulated number needed to treat (NNT) and the number needed to harm (NNH) with prophylactic anticoagulation were calculated based on the cumulative incidences retrieved from this study and hazard rates of recently published trials describing the efficacy of prophylactic anticoagulation to prevent VTEs and the risk of bleeding events.From 1120 patients, 121 (11%) had a VTE, which occurred prior to chemotherapy in 49 (4%) and on or after chemotherapy in 72 (6%). Six patients (1%) had a bleeding event without anticoagulation. After backward regression, the one risk factor for a VTE during or after chemotherapy was the use of a venous access device. The simulated cumulative VTE incidence from prophylactic anticoagulation for patients on or after chemotherapy would translate into an NNT of 45 (95% confidence interval [CI] 36-56) and an NNH of 186 (95% CI 87-506). Limitations are mainly related to the retrospective nature of the study.The mGCTs associated VTEs are most common before and during, but not after, chemotherapy. Avoiding venous access device and/or prophylactic anticoagulation with an acceptable risk-benefit profile may decrease VTE occurring on chemotherapy.We found that venous thromboembolic events (VTEs) occur rarely after chemotherapy. Based on experience of prophylactic anticoagulation in other cancers, we conclude that the risk of VTE in men undergoing chemotherapy for metastatic germ cell tumours can be decreased by thromboprophylaxis with a reasonable risk-benefit profile and by avoidance of venous access devices.

Breast cancer is one of the most common malignant forms of neoplasia worldwide; programmed death protein 1 (PD-1), an inhibitory receptor of T lymphocytes, and its ligand programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1), play an important role in the ability of tumor cells to evade the host's immune system.We conducted a descriptive, observational study using retrospective data and an open evaluation using immunohistochemistry to determine the general prevalence of PD-L1 expression in 63 women with breast cancer who underwent a modified radical mastectomy, or quadrantectomy, with axillary lymph node removal.The prevalence of PD-L1 expression was 32% in patients with breast cancer treated with radical mastectomy. PD-L1 expression was higher in patients with large tumor size (19% for pT1, 37% for pT2, 50% for pT3, and 100% for pT4), metastasis in regional lymph nodes (25% for N0, 38% for N1, 75% for pN2, and 38% for pN3), and higher histological grade carcinoma (0% for grade 1, 23% for grade 2, and 50% for grade 3).These findings suggest that PD-L1 expression is heterogeneous in breast cancer tumors and that its expression varies highly in tumor regions over time. The evaluation of PD-L1 expression is significant, because of the therapeutical implications that could improve the outcomes and prognosis of these patients.

Background Metastatic germ cell tumor (mGCT) patients receiving chemotherapy have increased risk of life‐threatening venous thromboembolism (VTE). Identifying VTE risk factors may guide thromboprophylaxis in this highly curable population. Methods Data were collected from mGCT patients receiving first‐line platinum‐based chemotherapy at 22 centers. Predefined variables included International Germ Cell Cancer Collaborative Group (IGCCCG) risk classification, long‐axis diameter of largest retroperitoneal lymph node (RPLN), Khorana score, and use of indwelling vascular access device (VAD). VTE occurring at baseline, during chemotherapy and within 90 days, was analyzed. Results Data from 1135 patients were collected. Median age was 31 years (range 10‐74). IGCCCG risk was 64% good, 20% intermediate, and 16% poor. VTE occurred in 150 (13%) patients. RPLN >3.5 cm demonstrated highest discriminatory accuracy for VTE (AUC 0.632, P, Venous thromboembolism can cause morbidity in germ cell tumor patients receiving chemotherapy; large retroperitoneal lymphadenopathy (RPLN) and indwelling vascular access devices (VAD) are significant VTE risk factors. VAD insertion should be avoided and thromboprophylaxis can be considered for large RPLN.

In Mexico, about 30% of renal cancer patients are diagnosed in a metastatic state. Despite the recent advances in the treatment of cancer, metastatic renal cancer is still an incurable illness. Thus, identifying prognostic factors helps improve prognosis accuracy and survival prediction for patients.In this study, we retrospectively analyzed 26 patients with histological diagnosis of renal cell carcinoma, including clear cell and other subtypes in stage IV (metastatic), recurrent or unresectable disease. We performed a multivariate analysis of overall survival regarding the congruity between prognostic scales.Our results showed a significant difference in favor of patients with congruity between scales for progression-free survival (18.9 vs. 3.1 months; P = 0.048) and a tendency towards better overall survival in patients with the congruity of both scales compared to the discordant patients (112 vs. 32 months; P = 0.99).This study highlights the discordance between Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center and International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium scales, which was associated with worse prognosis with a significant difference in progression-free survival but not in overall survival.

PURPOSE Patients and providers often lack clinical decision tools to enable effective shared decision making. This is especially true in the rapidly changing therapeutic landscape of metastatic kidney cancer. Using the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) criteria, a validated risk prediction tool for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma, we created and user-tested a novel interactive visualization for clinical use. METHODS An interactive visualization depicting IMDC criteria was created, with the final version including data for more than 4,500 patients. Usability testing was performed with nonmedical lay-users and medical oncology fellow physicians. Subjects used the tool to calculate median survival times based on IMDC criteria. User confidence was surveyed. An iterative user feedback implementation cycle was completed and informed revision of the tool. RESULTS The tool is available at CloViz—IMDC. Initially, 400 lay-users and 15 physicians completed clinical scenarios and surveys. Cumulative accuracy across scenarios was higher for physicians than lay-users (84% v 74%; P = .03). Eighty-three percent of lay-users and 87% of physicians thought the tool became intuitive with use. Sixty-eight percent of lay-users wanted to use the tool clinically compared with 87% of physicians. After revisions, the updated tool was user-tested with 100 lay-users and 15 physicians. Physicians, but not lay-users, showed significant improvement in accuracy in the updated version of the tool (90% v 67%; P = .008). Seventy-two percent of lay-users and 93% of physicians wanted to use the updated tool in a clinical setting. CONCLUSION A graphical method of interacting with a validated nomogram provides prognosis results that can be used by nonmedical lay-users and physicians, and has the potential for expanded use across many clinical conditions.

6590 Background: Epidemiologic studies suggest that Hispanic patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) have worse outcomes than non-Hispanic White patients (NHW). It is unclear if this disparity is related to inherent biological differences or patients’ social determinants of health (SDOH). Utilizing the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database (IMDC) of patients with RCC primarily receiving care at academic medical centers, we investigated outcomes of Hispanic and NHW patients with advanced RCC. Methods: Eligible patients included patients who self-reported being non-Black Hispanic or NHW with locally advanced or metastatic RCC initiating systemic therapy. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) and secondary endpoint was time to treatment failure (TTF) for the first-line therapy. Kaplan Meier curves were constructed for OS and TTF. Cox regression was used to estimate hazard ratios (HR) adjusted for confounding variables. Results: The cohort included 1,563 patients, of which 181 (11.6%) were Hispanic. Most patients were male (74%) with clear cell histology (82%). IMDC risk groups were 18%, 58%, 24% for favorable, intermediate, and poor risk, respectively, and were similar by ethnic groups. Compared to NHW, Hispanic patients were younger at diagnosis (median 57 vs 59 years, p = 0.036), less likely to have > 1 metastatic site (61% vs 77%, p < 0.001) and bone metastases (24% vs 33%, p = 0.009). 1,178 patients (124 Hispanic vs. 1,054 NWH) received treatment before 2018, 385 patients (57 Hispanic vs. 328 NWH) received treatment during or after 2018. With regards to first line therapy, the majority received tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) monotherapy (70%), 10% received immunotherapy (IO) + IO, 9% received TKI + IO, 4% received IO monotherapy, and 8% received other treatments. Median TTF was 7.8 months (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 6.2-9.0) in Hispanic patients and 7.5 months (95% CI: 6.9-8.1) in NHW patients. On multivariable analysis, there was no significant difference in TTF between Hispanic and NHW patients (HR 1.05, 95% CI: 0.89-1.25, p = 0.558). Significant predictors of TTF were presence of unfavorable site of metastases, histology, IMDC risk group, and therapy type. Median OS was 38.0 months (95% CI: 28.1-59.2) in Hispanic patients and 35.7 months (95% CI: 31.9-39.2) in NHW patients. On multivariable analysis, there was no significant difference in OS between Hispanic and NHW patients (HR 1.07, 95% CI: 0.87-1.32, p = 0.544). Significant predictors of OS were number of metastatic sites, presence of unfavorable metastasis, histology, IMDC risk group, and therapy type. Conclusions: In this analysis, we did not detect a difference in OS or TTF for Hispanic patients with RCC. Our data suggest that access to care (as available in a tertiary cancer hospital) can mitigate the historic difference in outcomes in Hispanic versus NWH patients.

402 Background: Recent trials randomising patients (pts) receiving systemic cancer therapy showed that prophylactic anticoagulation (PAK) halves the risk of venous thromboembolic events (VTE) and doubles the risk of bleeding (Khorana et al. & Carrier et al., both NEJM 2019). In pts with metastatic germ cell tumors (mGCT) VTE is a frequent complication but it remains unclear whether PAK should be recommended because the number of mGCT pts in those trials was small. We aimed to determine the risk of VTE before, during and after chemotherapy and in mGCT pts without and with risk factors for VTE (retroperitoneal lymph nodes, Khorana score, venous access device) and to calculate the number needed to treat (NNT) and number needed to harm (NNH) of PAK. Methods: This retrospective analysis included mGCT pts treated with first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. We excluded patients who received PAK, with a known history of coagulopathy or VTE and extracted data about VTE and bleeding events. Cumulative VTE incidence was calculate for patients without and with increasing number of known risk factors for VTEs. NNT and NNH were calculated by assuming similar hazard ratios (HR) to reduce VTEs and increase bleeding as previously published (HR 0.66 and 1.96, Khorana et al., NEJM 2019). Results: Out of 1039 pts, 132 (13%) presented with VTE, 6 (1%) with bleeding. One patients died of VTE and 1 because of bleeding. Patients without any VTE risk factors experience VTE in 20/347 (5%) which translated into a NNT of 55 compared to the NNH of 84 respectively. Before start of chemotherapy 52 (5%) pts (NNT=60) presented with VTE of which 22 were reported symptomatic 21 asymptomatic/incidentally detected VTE on staging scans (9 unknowns). During chemotherapy 79 (8%) pts (NNT=40) were diagnosed with VTE whereas 19 (2%) pts (NNT=162) were diagnosed with VTE after chemotherapy. Conclusions: Our analysis revealed that even mGCT patients without risk factors for VTE show a relevant cumulative VTE incidence of 7%. Especially before and during but not after chemotherapy the benefits of PAK to prevent VTE outweighs the small increased risk of bleeding.

608 Background: The role of CN for mRCC treated with ICI is not well defined. Our aim was to evaluate the role of CN for mRCC treated by ICI or TT using a propensity score-based analysis. Methods: We retrospectively assessed patients who were diagnosed with de novo mRCC and who had started first line systemic therapy (ICI or TT) between 2009 and 2019 using the International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC). Overall Survival (OS) was compared between patients receiving CN and those treated by systemic therapies alone, using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regressions, in the TT and ICI arms separately. In order to account for treatment selection bias, inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) of propensity scores, based on 14 confounding variables, was used and variables were considered balanced if standardized mean difference (SMD) < 0.1. For variables with SMD≥0.1, residual confounding was adjusted for using multivariable models. Results: 3856 patients had been treated by TT (2470 CN+ & 1386 CN-) and 198 by ICI (143 CN+ & 55 CN-). Median follow-up was 38.5 months. After IPTW, baseline characteristics were largely balanced between the CN+ and CN- arms, in the TT and ICI groups (14/14 and 12/14 with SMD < 0.1, respectively). CN was associated with significantly improved OS in both the ICI (Hazard Ratio [HR] = 0.39 [0.19-0.83]) and TT (HR = 0.56 [0.51-0.62]) groups. The interaction term between CN and therapy type (ICI vs TT) was not statistically significant (p = 0.43). The point estimates of the HRs were consistent in sensitivity analyses using multivariable models. Conclusions: In a propensity score-based analysis, CN was found to be associated with a significant OS benefit in patients treated by either ICI or TT. While this study is not a substitute for randomized controlled trials (e.g. CARMENA), the results suggest that CN may still play a role in selected patients in the ICI era.[Table: see text]

Background: Treatment outcomes are poorly characterized in patients with metastatic chromophobe renal cell cancer (chrRCC), a subtype of renal cell carcinoma. Objective: This retrospective series aims to determine metastatic chrRCC treatment outcomes in the targeted therapy era. Methods: A retrospective data analysis was performed using the IMDC dataset of 4970 patients to determine metastatic chrRCC treatment outcomes in the targeted therapy era. Results: 109/4970 (2.2%) patients had metastatic chrRCC out of all patients with mRCC treated with targeted therapy. These patients were compared with 4861/4970 (97.8%) clear cell mRCC (ccRCC) patients. Patients with metastatic chrRCC had a similar OS compared to patients with ccRCC (23.8 months (95% CI 16.7 – 28.1) vs 22.4 months (95% CI 21.4 – 23.4), respectively (p = 0.0908). Patients with IMDC favorable (18%), intermediate (59%) and poor risk (23%) had median overall survivals of 31.4, 27.3, and 4.8 months, respectively (p = 0.028). Conclusions: To the authors’ knowledge, this is the largest series of metastatic chrRCC patients and these results set new benchmarks for survival in clinical trial design and patient counseling. The IMDC criteria risk categories seem to stratify patients into appropriate favourable, intermediate, and poor risk groups, although larger patient numbers are required. It appears that outcomes between metastatic chrRCC and ccRCC are similar when treated with conventional targeted therapies. Patients with metastatic chrRCC can be treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors and enrolled in clinical trials to further measure outcomes in this rare patient population.

BACKGROUND: Sunitinib (SU) and pazopanib (PZ) are standards of care for first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). However, how the efficacy of these drugs translates into effectiveness on a population-based level is unknown.PATIENTS AND METHODS: We used the International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC) to assess overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), response rate (RR) and performed proportional hazard regression adjusting for IMDC prognostic groups. Second-line OS (OS2) and second-line PFS (PFS2) were also evaluated.RESULTS: We obtained data from 7438 patients with mRCC treated with either first-line SU (n = 6519) or PZ (n = 919) with an overall median follow-up of 40.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 39.2-42.1). There were no significant differences in IMDC prognostic groups (p = 0.36). There was no OS difference between SU and PZ (22.3 versus 22.6 months, respectively, p = 0.65). When adjusted for IMDC criteria, the hazard ratio (HR) of death for PZ versus SU was 1.03 (95% CI 0.92-1.17, p = 0.58). There was no PFS difference between SU and PZ (8.4 versus 8.3 months, respectively, p = 0.17). When adjusted for IMDC criteria, the HR for PFS for PZ versus SU was 1.08 (95% CI 0.981-1.19, p = 0.12). There was no difference in RR between SU and PZ (30% versus 28%, respectively, p = 0.15). We also found no difference in any second-line treatment between either post-SU or post-PZ groups for OS2 (13.1 versus 11 months, p = 0.27) and PFS2 (3.7 versus 5.0 months, p = 0.07).CONCLUSIONS: We confirmed in real-world practice that SU and PZ have similar efficacy in the first-line setting for mRCC and do not affect outcomes with subsequent second-line treatment.

527 Background: The International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database (IMDC) Criteria (Heng Criteria) is a validated risk prediction tool for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). It provides valuable prognostic data but clinical application can be challenging due to limited available tools. We created an interactive visualization to facilitate clinical application of IMDC Criteria. Methods: A multi-institutional cohort of 436 patients with mRCC was used to create an interactive visualization depicting IMDC Criteria at the patient level. Usability testing was performed with non-medical lay-users and medical oncology fellows. Subjects used the tool to calculate median survival times based on IMDC Criteria in six increasingly complex clinical scenarios. Confidence using the tool was surveyed and measured along a 5-point Likert scale. Results: The interactive visualization is available at http://faculty.washington.edu/odisho . 400 lay-users and 15 medical oncology fellows completed clinical scenarios and surveys. Overall, lay-users were able to obtain the exact correct answer in 48% of scenarios, compared to 60% of medical oncology fellows. The proportion of exact correct answers decreased with increasing task complexity, but the proportion of answers within 25% of the expected answer remained stable at 68-78% for lay-users and 73-93% for medical oncology fellows. When surveying usability, 65% of lay-users felt it was easy to use, compared to 80% of fellows, and 83%-87% felt it became intuitive with increasing use. Among lay-users, 69-77% were confident selecting lab values and drugs, compared to 87-93% of medical oncology fellows. 75% of lay-users felt it helped them better understand survival in mRCC. 68% of lay-users wanted to use a similar tool with their doctor, while 87% of medical oncologists wanted to use this with patients, and 93% wanted to incorporate it into their clinical practice in some way. Conclusions: A graphical method of interacting with a validated nomogram for mRCC outcomes provides real-time individual level data that can be used by untrained nonmedical users and medical oncologists, with potential for use in the clinic setting.

4570Background: Treatment outcomes are poorly characterized in patients with metastatic chromophobe renal cell cancer (chrRCC), a subtype of renal cell carcinoma. Methods: A retrospective data anal...

e16058Background: Data suggest that large RPLN significantly increase the risk of VTE in pts with mGCT receiving first line platinum based chemotherapy (chemo). This multinational G3 study aims to ...

544 Background: Sunitinib (SU) and Pazopanib (PZ) have been compared head-to-head in the first-line phase III COMPARZ study in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). We compared SU versus PZ, to confirm outcomes and subsequent second-line therapy efficacy in a population-based setting. Methods: We used the IMDC to assess overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), response rate (RR) and performed proportional hazard regression adjusting for IMDC prognostic groups. Second-line OS2 and PFS2 were also evaluated. Results: We obtained data from 3,606 patients with mRCC treated with either first line SU (n=3226) or PZ (n=380) with an overall median follow-up of 43.5 months (m) (CI95% 41.4 – 46.4). IMDC risk group distribution for favorable prognosis was 440 (17.3%) for SU vs 72 (25%) for PZ, intermediate prognosis 1414 (55.6%) for SU vs 153 (53%) for PZ, poor prognosis 689 (27.1%) for SU vs 62 (22%) for PZ, p= 0.0027. We found no difference between SU vs. PZ for OS (20.1 [CI95% 18.76-21.42] vs. 23.68 m [CI95% 19.54 - 28.81] p=0.19), PFS (7.22 [CI95% 6.76 - 7.78] vs. 6.83 m [CI95% 5.58 - 8.27] p=0.49). The RR was similar in both groups (Table 1). Adjusted HR for OS and PFS were 0.952 (CI95% 0.788 – 1.150 p=0.61) and 1.052 (CI95% 0.908 – 1.220 p = 0.49), respectively. We also found no difference in any second-line treatment between either post-SU vs. post-PZ groups for OS2 (12.88 [CI95% 11.89 – 14.19] vs. 12.91 m [CI95% 10.3 – 19.1] p=0.47) and PFS2 (3.67 [CI95% 3.38 – 3.87] vs. 4.53 m [CI95% 3.08 – 5.35] p=0.4). There was no statistical difference in OS2 and PFS2 if everolimus was used after SU or PZ (p = 0.33 and p = 0.41, respectively) or if axitinib was used after SU or PZ (p = 0.73 and p = 0.72, respectively). Conclusions: We confirmed in real world practice, that SU and PZ have similar efficacy in the first-line setting for mRCC and do not affect outcomes with subsequent second-line treatment. [Table: see text]

e19146 Background: Prognosis in patients with lung cancer is poor. Neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (NGAL) and matrix metalloproteinase – 9 (MMP – 9) are proteins involved in the invasion...