Search

Introduction Although contact days—days with health-care contact outside home—are increasingly adopted as a measure of time toxicity and treatment burden, they could also serve as a surrogate of treatment-related harm. We sought to assess the association between contact days and patient-reported outcomes and the prognostic ability of contact days. Methods We conducted a secondary analysis of CO.17 that evaluated cetuximab vs supportive care in patients with advanced colorectal cancer. CO.17 collected European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 instrument data. We assessed the association between number of contact days in a window and changes in physical function and global health status and the association between number of contact days in the first 4 weeks with overall survival. Results There was a negative association between the number of contact days and change in physical function (per each additional contact day: at 4 weeks, 1.50-point decrease; 8 weeks, 1.06-point decrease; P  < .0001 for both) but not with global health status. This negative association was seen in patients receiving cetuximab but not supportive care. More contact days in the first 4 weeks was associated with worse overall survival for all participants and patients receiving cetuximab (per each additional contact day: all participants, adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 1.07, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.05 to 1.10; and cetuximab, adjusted HR = 1.08, 95% CI = 1.05 to 1.11; P  < .0001 for both). Conclusions In this secondary analysis of a clinical trial, more contact days early in the course were associated with declines in physical function and worse survival in all participants and in participants receiving cancer-directed treatment. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00079066. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many research studies have investigated the relationship between baseline factors or exposures, such as patient demographic and disease characteristics, and study outcomes such as toxicities or quality of life, but results from most of these studies may be problematic because of potential confounding effects (eg, the imbalance in baseline factors or exposures). It is important to study whether the baseline factors or exposures have causal effects on the clinical outcomes, so that clinicians can have better understanding of the diseases and develop personalized medicine. Mendelian randomization (MR) provides an efficient way to estimate the causal effects using genetic instrumental variables to handle confounders, but most of the existing studies focus on a single outcome at a time and ignores the correlation structure of multiple outcomes. Given that clinical outcomes like toxicities and quality of life are usually a mixture of different types of variables, and multiple datasets may be available for such outcomes, it may be much more beneficial to analyze them jointly instead of separately. Some well‐established methods are available for building multivariate models on mixed outcomes, but they do not incorporate MR mechanism to deal with the confounders. To overcome these challenges, we propose a Bayesian‐based two‐stage multivariate MR method for mixed outcomes on multiple datasets, called BMRMO. Using simulation studies and clinical applications on the CO.17 and CO.20 studies, we demonstrate better performance of our approach compared to the commonly used univariate two‐stage method. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cancer of unknown primary (CUP) is a syndrome defined by clinical absence of a primary cancer after standardised investigations. Gene expression profiling (GEP) and DNA sequencing have been used to predict primary tissue of origin (TOO) in CUP and find molecularly guided treatments; however, a detailed comparison of the diagnostic yield from these two tests has not been described. Here, we compared the diagnostic utility of RNA and DNA tests in 215 CUP patients (82% received both tests) in a prospective Australian study. Based on retrospective assessment of clinicopathological data, 77% (166/215) of CUPs had insufficient evidence to support TOO diagnosis (clinicopathology unresolved). The remainder had either a latent primary diagnosis (10%) or clinicopathological evidence to support a likely TOO diagnosis (13%) (clinicopathology resolved). We applied a microarray (CUPGuide) or custom NanoString 18‐class GEP test to 191 CUPs with an accuracy of 91.5% in known metastatic cancers for high–medium confidence predictions. Classification performance was similar in clinicopathology‐resolved CUPs – 80% had high–medium predictions and 94% were concordant with pathology. Notably, only 56% of the clinicopathology‐unresolved CUPs had high–medium confidence GEP predictions. Diagnostic DNA features were interrogated in 201 CUP tumours guided by the cancer type specificity of mutations observed across 22 cancer types from the AACR Project GENIE database (77,058 tumours) as well as mutational signatures (e.g. smoking). Among the clinicopathology‐unresolved CUPs, mutations and mutational signatures provided additional diagnostic evidence in 31% of cases. GEP classification was useful in only 13% of cases and oncoviral detection in 4%. Among CUPs where genomics informed TOO, lung and biliary cancers were the most frequently identified types, while kidney tumours were another identifiable subset. In conclusion, DNA and RNA profiling supported an unconfirmed TOO diagnosis in one‐third of CUPs otherwise unresolved by clinicopathology assessment alone. DNA mutation profiling was the more diagnostically informative assay. © 2022 The Authors. The Journal of Pathology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of The Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: Palbociclib was approved in the United States in 2015 to treat estrogen receptor–positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative (HER2–) advanced breast cancer (ABC). This study evaluated outcomes and safety in patients treated with palbociclib in Australia and India with hormone receptor–positive (HR+)/HER2– ABC before palbociclib became commercially available. Methods: Postmenopausal women (≥18 years) with HR+/HER2– ABC who were appropriate candidates for letrozole therapy received palbociclib 125 mg once daily for 21 days followed by 7 days off, and letrozole 2.5 mg once daily (continuous). Safety, tumor response, and patient‐reported outcomes (Australian cohort) were evaluated. Results: In total, 252 patients received palbociclib plus letrozole (Australia, n = 152; India, n = 100). More patients in the Australian versus Indian cohort had received prior chemotherapy (advanced/metastatic setting: 45.9% vs. 32.0%), endocrine therapy (advanced/metastatic setting: 63.2% vs. 54.3%), and advanced/metastatic therapies (61.8% vs. 31.0%). The most frequently reported all‐grade palbociclib‐related treatment‐emergent adverse events were neutropenia (66.7%), fatigue (35.3%), and stomatitis (26.6%); grade 3/4 neutropenia was reported as palbociclib‐related in 62.7% of patients. Febrile neutropenia was reported in six patients (2.4%). Eight patients (3.2%) discontinued because of an adverse event. The objective response rate was 19.4% (95% CI, 14.7%–24.9%) overall and 2.3% in Australian patients with ≥2 lines of prior therapy for metastatic disease. Patient‐reported quality of life scores were maintained throughout the study. Conclusions: In an expanded access setting in Australia and India, palbociclib plus letrozole was well tolerated in patients with HR+/HER2– ABC, with a safety profile consistent with previous reports. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]