AbstractVenous thromboembolism (VTE) is a frequent complication of cancer associated with morbidity, mortality, increased hospitalizations and higher health care costs. Cancer patients at increased risk for VTE can be identified using a validated risk assessment score, and the incidence of VTE can be reduced in high-risk settings using anticoagulation. Rivaroxaban is a potent, oral, direct, factor Xa inhibitor approved for the prevention and treatment of thromboembolic events, including VTE. CASSINI is a double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, multicentre study comparing rivaroxaban with placebo in adult ambulatory patients with various cancers who are initiating systemic cancer therapy and are at high risk of VTE (Khorana score ≥ 2). Patients with primary brain tumours or those at risk for bleeding are excluded. Approximately 700 patients will be randomized 1:1 to rivaroxaban 10 mg daily or placebo for up to 6 months if there is no evidence of VTE from compression ultrasonography (CU) during screening or from routine care imaging within 30 days prior to randomization. Mandatory CU will also be performed at weeks 8 and 16 (±7 days), and at study end (±3 days). The primary efficacy hypothesis is that anticoagulation with rivaroxaban reduces the composite of objectively confirmed symptomatic or asymptomatic, lower-extremity, proximal deep-vein thrombosis (DVT); symptomatic, upper-extremity DVT; symptomatic or incidental pulmonary embolism; and VTE-related death compared with placebo. The primary safety objective is to assess major bleeding events (Clinical trial information: NCT02555878).
Untapped Potential of Observational Research to Inform Clinical Decision Making: American Society of Clinical Oncology Research Statement
ASCO believes that high-quality observational studies can advance evidence-based practice for cancer care and are complementary to randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Observational studies can generate hypotheses by evaluating novel exposures or biomarkers and by revealing patterns of care and relationships that might not otherwise be discovered. Researchers can then test these hypotheses in RCTs. Observational studies can also answer or inform questions that either have not been or cannot be answered by RCTs. In addition, observational studies can be used for postmarketing surveillance of new cancer treatments, particularly in vulnerable populations. The incorporation of observational research as part of clinical decision making is consistent with the position of many leading institutions. ASCO identified five overarching recommendations to enhance the role of observational research in clinical decision making: (1) improve the quality of electronic health data available for research, (2) improve interoperability and the exchange of electronic health information, (3) ensure the use of rigorous observational research methodologies, (4) promote transparent reporting of observational research studies, and (5) protect patient privacy.
Use of heparins in patients with cancer: individual participant data meta-analysis of randomised trials study protocol
Introduction Parenteral anticoagulants may improve outcomes in patients with cancer by reducing risk of venous thromboembolic disease and through a direct antitumour effect. Study-level systematic reviews indicate a reduction in venous thromboembolism and provide moderate confidence that a small survival benefit exists. It remains unclear if any patient subgroups experience potential benefits. Methods and analysis First, we will perform a comprehensive systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library, hand search scientific conference abstracts and check clinical trials registries for randomised control trials of participants with solid cancers who are administered parenteral anticoagulants. We anticipate identifying at least 15 trials, exceeding 9000 participants. Second, we will perform an individual participant data meta-analysis to explore the magnitude of survival benefit and address whether subgroups of patients are more likely to benefit from parenteral anticoagulants. All analyses will follow the intention-to-treat principle. For our primary outcome, mortality, we will use multivariable hierarchical models with patient-level variables as fixed effects and a categorical trial variable as a random effect. We will adjust analysis for important prognostic characteristics. To investigate whether intervention effects vary by predefined subgroups of patients, we will test interaction terms in the statistical model. Furthermore, we will develop a risk-prediction model for venous thromboembolism, with a focus on control patients of randomised trials. Ethics and dissemination Aside from maintaining participant anonymity, there are no major ethical concerns. This will be the first individual participant data meta-analysis addressing heparin use among patients with cancer and will directly influence recommendations in clinical practice guidelines. Major cancer guideline development organisations will use eventual results to inform their guideline recommendations. Several knowledge users will disseminate results through presentations at clinical rounds as well as national and international conferences. We will prepare an evidence brief and facilitate dialogue to engage policymakers and stakeholders in acting on findings. Trial registration number PROSPERO CRD42013003526.
Abstract Interest among the zebrafish community in education and science accessibility for all ages has increased. At the 8th Annual Zebrafish Disease Models Conference (ZDM8), a specifically designed session enabled professional scientists, educators, and students to have a venue to present their science, discuss ideas in education, and partner to navigate a scientific meeting as an educational experience. This meeting report describes the format of the Platform Session as well as challenges and future plans to leverage impact of conferences on the local communities.
Abstract P2-18-09: TBCRC 013: A prospective analysis of the role of surgery in stage IV breast cancer
Abstract Background: Retrospective studies suggest that primary breast surgery is associated with improved overall survival (OS) in Stage IV breast cancer. TBCRC 013 is a multi-center prospective registry study evaluating the role of surgery for the primary tumor in Stage IV disease. Methods: From 7/09 - 4/12, 128 eligible pts from 14 sites were enrolled in two cohorts (A: Stage IV with intact primary tumor (n = 112); B: metastases (mets) within 3 months of primary surgery (n = 16)). Baseline patient and tumor characteristics, and surgery of the primary were correlated with 2yr overall survival (OS) using log rank, Kaplan Meier and Cox regression for all patients. Comparisons were also made between cohorts A and B and within cohort A stratified by response to systemic therapy. Responders included those with any response (partial,complete) or stable disease at distant sites. Results: Median pt age was 52yrs(21-79) and median primary tumor size 3.2cm(0.7-15). Phenotypes were ER+ 106 (83%), HER2neg 91(71%), and triple neg 10(8%). 60(47%) had bone-only mets. The only significant baseline difference between cohorts A and B was the presence of palpable nodes (A:62% vs B:0%, p<0.001). There were no differences in age, tumor size, ECOG scores, ER or HER2 status, number or sites of mets between cohorts A and B. At a median follow-up of 25 mo (95%CI, 23-31), 2yr OS for all pts is 86% (80-92) and is superior in cohort B as compared to A, (100% vs 84%, p = 0.03). On multivariate analysis (MVA) including all pts, only surgery, ER and HER2 positivity were associated with improved OS (table). Among 112 pts with an intact primary (Arm A), 17(15%) were non-responsive (NR) to systemic therapy, 3(18%) of whom required palliative surgery at a median time of 10.4mos. 2yr OS among NR was 33% (15-69) as compared to 94% (88-99) in Arm A responders (R) (p<0.001). ER positivity was the only baseline difference between NR (65%) and R (88%) within Arm A (p = 0.02). Among 94(85%) Arm A responders, 39(41%) had elective surgery (median 8.4 mos, 95%CI:6.9-10.3) and only 1 of the remaining 47(2%) required palliation. When limited to Arm A responders, elective surgery was not associated with improved 2yr OS (surgery vs not: 94% vs 92%, p = 0.5). Median time to progression following elective surgery was 12 mos (95%CI,8-19mos). When cohort B (n = 16) and cohort A surgery groups (n = 39) are combined, surgery of the primary tumor is associated with improved 2yr OS (96% vs 74%, p = 0.002). Conclusions: In this prospective registry study, patients diagnosed with mets within 3 months of primary breast surgery have an improved 2yr OS. When all pts having surgery (A + B) are examined, surgery is associated with improved OS on MVA, but when limited to Arm A responders, elective surgery does not improve OS. Given that the number of Arm A responders is small, results from the prospective randomized trial will be needed to address this question. These data also demonstrate that the need for surgical palliation of the primary tumor is uncommon in the modern era. Multivariate Analysis for OSN = 128HR Death (95%CI)pvalueSurgery0.28 (0.10-0.74)0.01ER positivity0.28 (0.10-0.72)0.01HER2 positivity0.21 (0.06-0.74)0.01MVA included: age, tumor size, ECOG, ER, PR, HER2, met sites, and surgery Citation Information: Cancer Res 2013;73(24 Suppl): Abstract nr P2-18-09.
Novel Methylated Biomarkers and a Robust Assay to Detect Circulating Tumor DNA in Metastatic Breast Cancer
Purpose To identify clinical variables that affect a surgeon's decision to recommend arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM). Methods Members of 2 orthopaedic specialty societies were invited to participate in an online survey by e‐mail. The survey consisted of surgeon demographics and case scenarios to evaluate clinical decision making for APM. Posterior probabilities were calculated to determine the effect of clinical factors on the likelihood of recommending APM. Results Of the respondents with valid e‐mail addresses, 733 (19.3%) returned a completed survey, but only 533 (14.1%) met the eligibility criteria (treated or referred an APM candidate within the past year). Respondents were aged 46.7 ± 9.4 and had performed a mean of 115 APMs in the previous year. Posterior probabilities for a combination of 6 clinical indicators identified 3 factors that most influenced a surgeon's decision to recommend APM: radiographic findings, McMurray test, and failure of nonoperative management. Conclusions Significant variation exists among practicing orthopaedic surgeons with regard to decision making for APM. The 3 clinical factors that most influenced a surgeon's decision to recommend APM were normal radiographic findings, failed nonoperative treatment, and the presence of positive physical examination findings (i.e., positive McMurray test, joint line tenderness, and effusion). Level of Evidence Level III, decision analysis.