Jabbour, Salma K

PURPOSE External beam radiation therapy (EBRT) has gained delayed acceptance as a recommended first-line treatment modality for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), given limited evidence that it improves overall survival (OS). We analyzed individual patient data (IPD) from an international cohort to assess OS among patients with HCC treated with EBRT. METHODS We performed a systematic review of publications that assessed EBRT, met prespecified technical standards for HCC, and reported OS (search date December 15, 2022). Corresponding authors were invited to submit IPD for the study. We performed Kaplan-Meier survival analyses to determine OS and restricted mean survival time (RMST) stratified by Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage and treatment status (ie, treatment-naïve and experienced). We performed random effects Cox proportional hazards modeling to assess clinical characteristics associated with OS. RESULTS Data were provided on 4,913 patients treated with EBRT with a median follow-up time of 5.0 years. The median OS was 6.8 years (95% CI, 5.7 to 8.7) for BCLC-0 and 4.6 years (95% CI, 4.1 to 5.1) for BCLC-A. Among treatment-naïve patients, the median OS was not reached (95% CI, 8.6 to not reached) for BCLC-0 and was 5.4 years (95% CI, 4.5 to 6.7) for BCLC-A. In multivariable models, more advanced BCLC stage, higher tumor burden, worse performance status, and Child-Pugh class B or C were associated with a higher risk of mortality. Ablative radiation dose and more recent year of treatment were associated with a reduced risk of death. CONCLUSION To our knowledge, this study represents the largest multinational cohort of patients with HCC treated with EBRT. OS outcomes with EBRT for very early- and early-stage HCC appear to be comparable with resection, thermal ablation, and other ablative locoregional therapies. These data support the inclusion of EBRT in the BCLC HCC clinical decision-making process.

Abstract Background Anal squamous cell carcinoma is a rare cancer with increased occurrence of multiple cancers before and after the anal squamous cell carcinoma diagnosis. However, there are limited data on this aspect. This multi-institutional analysis aimed to define the occurrence of malignancies before and after anal squamous cell carcinoma, time trends, and impact on survival and to identify prognostic factors. Methods Initial primary malignancy was defined as a malignancy occurring before the anal squamous cell carcinoma. Second primary malignancy was defined as a distinct primary cancer that developed after anal squamous cell carcinoma diagnosis. Retrospective multi-institutional chart review was done. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival, and prognostic factors were evaluated. Results A total of 647 patients with anal squamous cell carcinoma treated with curative intent were analyzed. Median age was 61.2 years with 72% as females. Of these, 150 (23.3%) patients had multiple malignancies with initial primary malignancy in 16% and second primary malignancy in 8%. Patients without prior cancer had better 5-year PFS (81.2% vs 67.2%, P = .011) and overall survival (81% vs 69%, P = .008) compared with those with prior cancer. Second primary malignancies had a statistically significant adverse impact on PFS (hazard ratio [HR] = 4.22) and overall survival (HR = 3.56). Females had better 5-year PFS (82% vs 70%, P = .016) as compared with males. The median time interval for developing anal squamous cell carcinoma (as second primary malignancy) after initial primary malignancy was 9.32 years. Conclusions Anal squamous cell carcinoma patients have an increased risk of multiple malignancies. These patients who have prior cancers have inferior outcomes. Second primary malignancy is a poor prognostic factor in patients with anal cancer. Second primary malignancy can develop years after treatment of primary anal squamous cell carcinoma.

For patients with locoregionally confined pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), margin-negative surgical resection is the only known curative treatment; however, the majority of patients are not operable candidates at initial diagnosis. Among patients with resectable disease who undergo surgery alone, the 5-year survival remains poor. Adjuvant therapies, including systemic therapy or chemoradiation, are utilized as they improve locoregional control and overall survival. There has been increasing interest in the use of neoadjuvant therapy to obtain early control of occult metastatic disease, allow local tumor response to facilitate margin-negative resection, and provide a test of time and biology to assist with the selection of candidates most likely to benefit from radical surgical resection. However, limited guidance exists regarding the relative effectiveness of treatment options. In this systematic review, the American Radium Society multidisciplinary gastrointestinal expert panel convened to develop Appropriate Use Criteria evaluating the evidence regarding neoadjuvant treatment for patients with PDAC, including surgery, systemic therapy, and radiotherapy, in terms of oncologic outcomes and quality of life. The evidence was assessed using the Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome, and Study (PICOS) design framework and “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses” 2020 methodology. Eligible studies included phases 2 to 3 trials, meta-analyses, and retrospective analyses published between January 1, 2012 and December 30, 2022 in the Ovid Medline database. A summary of recommendations based on the available literature is outlined to guide practitioners in the management of patients with PDAC.

ImportanceSystematic data on the association between anticancer therapies and thromboembolic events (TEEs) in patients with COVID-19 are lacking.ObjectiveTo assess the association between anticancer therapy exposure within 3 months prior to COVID-19 and TEEs following COVID-19 diagnosis in patients with cancer.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis registry-based retrospective cohort study included patients who were hospitalized and had active cancer and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Data were accrued from March 2020 to December 2021 and analyzed from December 2021 to October 2022.ExposureTreatments of interest (TOIs) (endocrine therapy, vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors/tyrosine kinase inhibitors [VEGFis/TKIs], immunomodulators [IMiDs], immune checkpoint inhibitors [ICIs], chemotherapy) vs reference (no systemic therapy) in 3 months prior to COVID-19.Main Outcomes and MeasuresMain outcomes were (1) venous thromboembolism (VTE) and (2) arterial thromboembolism (ATE). Secondary outcome was severity of COVID-19 (rates of intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, 30-day all-cause mortality following TEEs in TOI vs reference group) at 30-day follow-up.ResultsOf 4988 hospitalized patients with cancer (median [IQR] age, 69 [59-78] years; 2608 [52%] male), 1869 had received 1 or more TOIs. Incidence of VTE was higher in all TOI groups: endocrine therapy, 7%; VEGFis/TKIs, 10%; IMiDs, 8%; ICIs, 12%; and chemotherapy, 10%, compared with patients not receiving systemic therapies (6%). In multivariable log-binomial regression analyses, relative risk of VTE (adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 1.33; 95% CI, 1.04-1.69) but not ATE (aRR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.56-1.16) was significantly higher in those exposed to all TOIs pooled together vs those with no exposure. Among individual drugs, ICIs were significantly associated with VTE (aRR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.01-2.07). Also noted were significant associations between VTE and active and progressing cancer (aRR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.01-2.03), history of VTE (aRR, 3.10; 95% CI, 2.38-4.04), and high-risk site of cancer (aRR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.14-1.75). Black patients had a higher risk of TEEs (aRR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.03-1.50) than White patients. Patients with TEEs had high intensive care unit admission (46%) and mechanical ventilation (31%) rates. Relative risk of death in patients with TEEs was higher in those exposed to TOIs vs not (aRR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.91-1.38) and was significantly associated with poor performance status (aRR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.30-2.40) and active/progressing cancer (aRR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.13-2.13).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cohort study, relative risk of developing VTE was high among patients receiving TOIs and varied by the type of therapy, underlying risk factors, and demographics, such as race and ethnicity. These findings highlight the need for close monitoring and perhaps personalized thromboprophylaxis to prevent morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19–related thromboembolism in patients with cancer.

AbstractThe liver is a common site of cancer metastases. Systemic therapy is widely accepted as the standard treatment for liver metastases (LM), although select patients with liver oligometastases may be candidates for potentially curative liver resection. Recent data support the role of nonsurgical local therapies such as ablation, external beam radiotherapy, embolization, and hepatic artery infusion therapy for management of LM. Additionally, for patients with advanced, symptomatic LM, local therapies may provide palliative benefit. The American Radium Society gastrointestinal expert panel, including members representing radiation oncology, interventional radiology, surgical oncology, and medical oncology, performed a systemic review and developed Appropriate Use Criteria for the use of nonsurgical local therapies for LM. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta‐Analyses methodology was used. These studies were used to inform the expert panel, which then rated the appropriateness of various treatments in seven representative clinical scenarios through a well‐established consensus methodology (modified Delphi). A summary of recommendations is outlined to guide practitioners on the use of nonsurgical local therapies for patients with LM.

Although uncommon, extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (EHCC) is a deadly malignancy, and the treatment approaches remain controversial. While surgery remains the only cure, few patients are candidates for resection up front, and there are high rates of both local and distant failure following resection. Herein, we systematically review the available evidence regarding treatment approaches for patients with EHCC, including surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy. The evidence regarding treatment outcomes was assessed using the Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome, and Study design (PICOS) framework. A summary of recommendations based on the available literature is outlined for specific clinical scenarios encountered by providers in the clinic to guide the management of these patients.

ImportanceCytokine storm due to COVID-19 can cause high morbidity and mortality and may be more common in patients with cancer treated with immunotherapy (IO) due to immune system activation.ObjectiveTo determine the association of baseline immunosuppression and/or IO-based therapies with COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm in patients with cancer.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis registry-based retrospective cohort study included 12 046 patients reported to the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry from March 2020 to May 2022. The CCC19 registry is a centralized international multi-institutional registry of patients with COVID-19 with a current or past diagnosis of cancer. Records analyzed included patients with active or previous cancer who had a laboratory-confirmed infection with SARS-CoV-2 by polymerase chain reaction and/or serologic findings.ExposuresImmunosuppression due to therapy; systemic anticancer therapy (IO or non-IO).Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was a 5-level ordinal scale of COVID-19 severity: no complications; hospitalized without requiring oxygen; hospitalized and required oxygen; intensive care unit admission and/or mechanical ventilation; death. The secondary outcome was the occurrence of cytokine storm.ResultsThe median age of the entire cohort was 65 years (interquartile range [IQR], 54-74) years and 6359 patients were female (52.8%) and 6598 (54.8%) were non-Hispanic White. A total of 599 (5.0%) patients received IO, whereas 4327 (35.9%) received non-IO systemic anticancer therapies, and 7120 (59.1%) did not receive any antineoplastic regimen within 3 months prior to COVID-19 diagnosis. Although no difference in COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm was found in the IO group compared with the untreated group in the total cohort (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.56-1.13, and aOR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.41-1.93, respectively), patients with baseline immunosuppression treated with IO (vs untreated) had worse COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm (aOR, 3.33; 95% CI, 1.38-8.01, and aOR, 4.41; 95% CI, 1.71-11.38, respectively). Patients with immunosuppression receiving non-IO therapies (vs untreated) also had worse COVID-19 severity (aOR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.36-2.35) and cytokine storm (aOR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.42-3.79).Conclusions and RelevanceThis cohort study found that in patients with cancer and COVID-19, administration of systemic anticancer therapies, especially IO, in the context of baseline immunosuppression was associated with severe clinical outcomes and the development of cytokine storm.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04354701

Background and Purpose: Chemotherapy followed by margin-negative resection (R0) is the treatment of choice for patients with localized pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Neoadjuvant multiagent chemotherapy (MAC) or MAC then radiotherapy (RT) may optimize surgical candidacy. The purpose of this study was to compare pathologic outcomes of MAC followed by conventionally fractionated radiotherapy (CRT) versus stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for patients with resected PDAC. Methods: Patients diagnosed with nonmetastatic PDAC between 2012 and 2017 and who received preoperative MAC or MAC+RT were identified in the National Cancer Database. Variables associated with R0 and overall survival were identified with logistic regression and Cox analysis (P<0.05). Results: A total of 5273 patients were identified (MAC: 3900, MAC+CRT: 955, MAC+SBRT: 418). The median RT dose/fraction (fx) in the MAC+CRT and MAC+SBRT cohorts was 50.4 Gy/28 fx and 33 Gy/5 fx. Patients receiving MAC+CRT versus MAC+SBRT had similar rates of ypT3-T4 disease (54% vs. 58%, P=0.187), R0 (87% vs. 84%, P=0.168), and pathologic complete response (pathologic complete response; 6% vs. 4%, P=0.052), however, MAC+CRT was associated with less regional lymphatic disease (ypN+: 28% vs. 41%, P<0.001). The median overall survival of patients receiving MAC+CRT versus MAC+SBRT was 24.6 versus 29.5 months (P=0.045). Conclusions: For patients with resected PDAC, MAC+CRT, and MAC+SBRT had similar rates of R0 and pathologic complete response, although MAC+CRT was associated with lower ypN+. Prospective evaluation of neoadjuvant RT regimens with attention to radiation therapy design is warranted.