Soderberg, Leah

Objectives To assess the effects of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) vs retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for the treatment of renal stones in adults. Methods We performed a comprehensive search of the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases, trials registries, other sources of the grey literature, and conference proceedings up to 23 March 2023. We applied no restrictions on publication language or status. Screening, data extraction, risk‐of‐bias assessment, and certainty of evidence (CoE) rating using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach were done in duplicate by two independent reviewers. This co‐publication focuses on the primary outcomes of this review only. Results We included 42 trials that met the inclusion criteria. Stone‐free rate (SFR): PCNL may improve SFRs (risk ratio [RR] 1.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.08–1.18; I 2 = 71%; 39 studies, 4088 participants; low CoE). Major complications: PCNL probably has little to no effect on major complications (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.59–1.25; I 2 = 15%; 34 studies, 3649; participants; moderate CoE) compared to RIRS. Need for secondary interventions: PCNL may reduce the need for secondary interventions (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.17–0.55; I 2 = 61%; 21 studies, 2005 participants; low CoE) compared to RIRS. Conclusion Despite shortcomings in most studies that lowered our certainty in the estimates of effect to mostly very low or low, we found that PCNL may improve SFRs and reduce the need for secondary interventions while not impacting major complications. Ureteric stricture rates may be similar compared to RIRS. We expect the findings of this review to be helpful for shared decision‐making about management choices for individuals with renal stones.

PURPOSE: Precision oncology promises improved outcomes but the cost-effectiveness and accessibility of targeted therapies is debatable. We report price change patterns from 2015 to 2019 for several oral anticancer medications for common solid tumor malignancies. METHODS: We collected provider utilization and payment data from the public Medicare Part D database and extracted drug price information for commonly prescribed targeted oral anticancer agents for lung, breast, and prostate cancer. We then calculated median Pearson correlation coefficient values for various drugs (containing more than two data points) within each therapeutic class. We also calculated compound annual growth rates (CAGRs) for medication costs within each class and compared them with the consumer price index (CPI). RESULTS: Our study included six epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors (EGFRi; one generic), five anaplastic lymphoma kinase inhibitors (ALKi), two B-Raf inhibitors (BRAFi), three hormonal agents (one generic), three cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i), two poly-ADP-ribose inhibitors (PARPi), and seven antiandrogen agents (two generic). The median (range) Pearson correlation coefficient values for cost of drugs within each therapeutic class were 0.967 (0.915-0.978) for EGFRi, 0.981 (0.966-0.989) for ALKi, 0.996 for BRAFi, 0.994 (0.992-0.999) for CDK4/6i, 0.855 for PARPi, and 0.442 (–0.522 to 0.962) for antiandrogens. Therapies with two or fewer data points (generic erlotinib, dacomitinib, abiraterone, apalutamide, and darolutamide) were excluded. The median CAGRs in costs over the 5-year period were 4.56% (EGFRi), 6.40% (ALKi), 2.58% (BRAFi), 5.48% (hormonal agents), 5.21% (CDK4/6i), 27.29% (PARPi), and 34.8% (antiandrogens). The CPI over 5 years was 2.26%/year, and the average inflation rate was 1.90%/year. CONCLUSION: The median CAGR in costs for modern oral precision-driven cancer therapeutic classes mostly outpaced CPI and the average inflation. Increase in cost within the same class should be weighed against incremental clinical benefit for the patients to ensure that rising costs do not limit access to targeted therapies.

192 Background: Rectal cancer treatment paradigm has been evolving over time. Historically, for locally advanced rectal cancer, standard therapy (ST) consisted of neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy. Recently, total neoadjuvant treatment (TNT) approach that delivers both neoadjuvant chemotherapy (CAPOX or FOLFOX) and chemoradiation (or radiation only) prior to surgery is increasingly being utilized. The prognostic and predictive values of mismatch repair deficient (dMMR) in rectal cancer is not well characterized. Most dMMR patients receive the same treatment as MMR proficient (pMMR) patients although there is limited data that dMMR rectal cancer patients may not have the same level of benefits from neoadjuvant treatment. This retrospective study aims to evaluate the clinicopathological/molecular characteristics, disease response, and clinical outcomes in dMMR localized rectal cancer patients. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on consecutive adult patients with a diagnosis of dMMR rectal cancer who were treated at Mayo Clinic between January 2000 to September 2021. Patients who presented with concurrent primary non-colorectal malignancies were excluded. The distributions of demographics, clinicopathological features, biomarkers, and outcome data were collected. Survival was assessed using Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox models were stratified by treatment arms to determine significance of treatment strategies. Results: Forty-one patients were identified with a median age of 45.3 years. Thirty (73.2%) pts were male. The most common MMR were loss of MSH2 and MSH6 (12/42; 29.3%) followed by loss of MLH1 and PMS2 (10/42; 24.4%) and solitary loss of MSH2 (4/42; 9.8%). The treatment, pathological response, and clinical outcomes are listed in table. With a median follow up of 101 months, only 6 patients (14.3%) died and median overall survival was not reached. Conclusions: Our findings showed dMMR localized rectal cancer responded to both ST and TNT with good clinical outcomes.[Table: see text]