Clinical oncology最新文献

Aims: Advanced gastroesophageal cancers are still associated with poor outcomes. We aim to study PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in phase III clinical trials that have compared them to chemotherapy in gastric, gastroesophageal junction (GEJ), and esophageal adenocarcinoma.

Materials and methods: On March 28, 2024, we searched: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We only included randomized clinical trials for PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors alone or with chemo vs chemotherapy in advanced gastric, GEJ, or esophageal adenocarcinoma. The primary endpoints were overall survival and progression-free survival. A subgroup analysis was conducted for the following variables: treatment line, type of intervention, age group, gender, ECOG Performance Status, combined positive scores (CPS), microsatellite instability (MSI) status, liver metastasis, and primary tumor location.

Results: Only 10 out of 8,942 articles were included, involving 6,782 patients. PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors showed a significant improvement in the overall survival compared to chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio (HR): 0.86, 95% CI: 0.80-0.93; p = 0.0002). Combining PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors with chemotherapy significantly improved overall and progression-free survival compared to monotherapy (combined therapy HR 0.80; p < 0.00001 vs. monotherapy HR 0.98; p = 0.77). CPS ≥1 had an HR of 0.78 (95% CI: 0.73-0.84; p < 0.00001), CPS ≥10 had an HR of 0.67 (95% CI: 0.59-0.76; p < 0.00001), and MSI-high status had an HR of 0.35 (95% CI: 0.24-0.52; p < 0.00001). Esophageal adenocarcinoma, reported in three trials, did not show significant improvement in the overall survival (HR 0.89; 95% CI: 0.69-1.14; p = 0.37).

Conclusion: PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors have significantly improved overall survival, and combining them with chemotherapy is more effective than monotherapy. Both CPS ≥10 and MSI-H showed an added benefit to overall survival and should be included in biomarker investigations. Clinical trials are needed for second-line treatments and esophageal adenocarcinoma.

Aims: During the COVID-19 public health emergency, we previously identified decreased rates of radiotherapy (RT) peer review (PR) discussion and plan changes in virtual versus in-person PR conferences. To expand on these findings, we continued to prospectively collect data on all PR conferences from 2021 to 2023 and performed a follow-up analysis before and after the transition back to in-person PR.

Materials and methods: A prospectively maintained database of weekly PR cases was queried for consecutive cases reviewed before and after the transition from virtual to in-person conferences. Rates of PR discussion and change recommendations were summarized and compared between the virtual and in-person groups. A survey was developed and administered to assess participants' perceived levels of engagement, opinions on optimal PR format, and preferences for future meetings before and 3 months after the transition back to in-person PR.

Results: In total, 2,103 RT plans were reviewed: 1,590 virtually and 513 after the transition back to in-person. There was no difference in faculty attendance between groups. The proportion of cases with PR discussion increased from virtual (9.8%) to in-person (25.5%) format (p < 0.001). In the virtual group, 8.1% of cases had 1 topic and 1.7% had 2+ topics discussed. This increased to 15.8% and 9.7% during in-person PR, respectively (p < 0.001). The rate of change recommendation also increased from 1.5% (virtual) to 3.3% (in-person, p = 0.016). Among cases with at least 1 topic discussed, there was no difference in changes. Survey-reported distraction significantly decreased from virtual to in-person PR (p < 0.001).

Conclusion: Upon returning to in-person PR conferences, peer discussion and plan change recommendations significantly increased and returned to pre-pandemic levels, and participants' perceived levels of distraction were reduced. In an increasingly virtual world, additional efforts to develop best practices that maximize PR discussion and minimize distraction outside virtual conferences are warranted.

Aims: Variability in the target and organs at risk (OARs) in cervical cancer treatment presents challenges for precise radiotherapy. Adaptive radiotherapy (ART) offers the potential to enhance treatment precision and outcomes. However, the increased workload and a lack of consensus on the most suitable ART approach hinder its clinical adoption. This systematic review aims to assess the current use of adaptive strategies for cervical cancer and define the optimal approach.

Materials and methods: A systematic review of current literature published between January 2012 and May 2023 was conducted. Searches used PubMed/Medline, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases, supplemented with the University of Manchester, Google Scholar, and papers retrieved from reference lists. The review assessed workflows, compared dosimetric benefits, and examined resources for each identified strategy. Excluded were abstracts, conference abstracts, reviews, articles unrelated to ART management, proton therapy, brachytherapy, or qualitative studies. A narrative synthesis involved data tabulation, summarizing selected studies detailing workflow for cervical cancer and dosimetric outcomes for targets and OARs.

Results: Sixteen articles met the inclusion criteria; these were mostly retrospective simulation planning studies, except four studies that had been clinically implemented. We identified five approaches for ART radiotherapy for cervical cancer: reactive and scheduled adaptation, internal target volume (ITV)-based approach using library of plans (LOP), fixed-margin approach using LOP, and real-time adaptation, with each approach reducing irradiated volumes without compromising target coverage compared to the non-ART approach. The LOP-based ITV approach is the most used and clinically assessed.

Conclusion: Identifying the optimal strategy is challenging due to dosimetric assessment limitations. Implementing cervical cancer ART necessitates strategic optimization of clinical benefits and resources through research, including studies to identify the optimal frequency, and prospective evaluations of toxicity.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is already an essential tool in the handling of large data sets in epidemiology and basic research. Significant contributions to radiological diagnosis are emerging alongside increasing use of digital pathology. The future lies in integrating this information together with clinical data relevant to each individual patient. Linkage with clinical protocols will enable personalized management options to be presented to the oncologist of the future. Radiotherapy has the distinction of being the first to have a National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE)-approved AI-based recommendation. There is the opportunity to revolutionize the workflow with many tasks currently undertaken by clinicians taken over by AI-based systems for volume outlining, planning, and quality assurance. Education and training will be essential to understand the AI processes and inputs. Clinicians will however have to feel confident interrogating the AI-derived information and in communicating AI-derived treatment plans to patients.

Aims: Symptomatic radiation cardiotoxicity affects up to 30% patients with lung cancer and several heart substructure doses are associated with reduced overall survival. A greater focus on minimising cardiotoxicity is now possible due to advancements in radiotherapy technology and the new discipline of cardio-oncology, but uptake of emerging data has not been ascertained. A global cross-sectional analysis of Radiation Oncologists who treat lung cancer was therefore conducted by the International Cardio-Oncology Society in order to establish the impact of recently published literature and guidelines on practice.

Materials and methods: A bespoke questionnaire was designed following an extensive review of the literature and from recurring relevant themes presented at Radiation Oncology and Cardio-Oncology research meetings. Six question domains were retained following consensus discussions among the investigators, comprising 55 multiple choice stems: guidelines, cardiovascular assessment, cardiology investigations, radiotherapy planning strategies, primary prevention prescribing and local cardio-oncology service access. An invitation was sent to all Radiation Oncologists registered with ICOS and to Radiation Oncology colleagues of the investigators.

Results: In total 118 participants were recruited and 92% were consultant physicians. The ICOS 2021 expert consensus statement was rated as the most useful position paper, followed by the joint ESC-ESTRO 2022 guideline. The majority (80%) of participants indicated that a detailed cardiovascular history was advisable. Although 69% of respondents deemed the availability of cardiac substructure auto-segmentation to be very/quite important, it was implemented by only a few, with the most common being the left anterior descending coronary artery V15. A distinct cardio-oncology service was available to 39% participants, while the remainder utilised general cardiology services.

Conclusion: The uptake of recent guidelines on cardiovascular optimisation is good, but access to cardiology investigations and consultations, and auto-segmentation, represent barriers to modifying radiotherapy practices in lung cancer to reduce the risk of radiation cardiotoxicity.

Aims: In patients with locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC), curative-intent radiotherapy (RT) or chemoradiotherapy (CRT) is associated with considerable toxicity, and approximately half of the patients die within two years. A better understanding of early mortality is needed to improve patient selection and guide supportive interventions. In this population-based, nationwide cohort study, we investigated the incidence, temporal distribution, and risk factors of early mortality.

Materials and methods: Patients with stage II-III NSCLC treated with curative-intent RT/CRT in Denmark from 2010-2017 were included. Patients treated with preoperative or postoperative RT/CRT or stereotactic body radiation therapy were excluded. Early mortality was defined as all-cause death within 180 days from RT/CRT initiation. Multiple logistic regression was used to assess the impact of clinical and demographic variables.

Results: We included 1742 patients. The early mortality rate was 10%. The temporal distribution of deaths was uniform across the first year following RT/CRT, indicating the absence of a high-risk period. In multivariable analysis, increasing age and performance status, male sex, and unspecified histology (NSCLC not otherwise specified) were associated with an increased risk. By contrast, the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), TNM stage, and treatment period did not significantly alter the risk of early mortality. Overall survival rates improved throughout the inclusion period but early mortality rates did not.

Conclusion: No high-risk period for early mortality could be identified. Early mortality was not associated with CCI and other tools should be explored to quantify comorbidity for risk stratification in this setting.