Journal of Clinical Oncology最新文献

Purpose: Menopausal hormone therapy's influence on ovarian and endometrial cancers remains unsettled. Therefore, we assessed the long-term influence of conjugated equine estrogen (CEE) plus medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) and CEE-alone on ovarian and endometrial cancer incidence and mortality in the Women's Health Initiative randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials.

Materials and methods: Postmenopausal women, age 50-79 years, were entered on two randomized clinical trials evaluating different menopausal hormone therapy regimens. In 16,608 women with a uterus, 8,506 were randomly assigned to once daily 0.625 mg of CEE plus 2.5 mg once daily of MPA and 8,102 placebo. In 10,739 women with previous hysterectomy, 5,310 were randomly assigned to once daily 0.625 mg of CEE-alone and 5,429 placebo. Intervention was stopped for cause before planned 8.5-year intervention after 5.6 years (CEE plus MPA) and after 7.2 years (CEE-alone). Outcomes include incidence and mortality from ovarian and endometrial cancers and deaths after these cancers.

Results: After 20-year follow-up, CEE-alone, versus placebo, significantly increased ovarian cancer incidence (35 cases [0.041%] v 17 [0.020%]; hazard ratio [HR], 2.04 [95% CI, 1.14 to 3.65]; P = .014) and ovarian cancer mortality (P = .006). By contrast, CEE plus MPA, versus placebo, did not increase ovarian cancer incidence (75 cases [0.051%] v 63 [0.045%]; HR, 1.14 [95% CI, 0.82 to 1.59]; P = .44) or ovarian cancer mortality but did significantly lower endometrial cancer incidence (106 cases [0.073%] v 140 [0.10%]; HR, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.56 to 0.92]; P = .01).

Conclusion: In randomized clinical trials, CEE-alone increased ovarian cancer incidence and ovarian cancer mortality, while CEE plus MPA did not. By contrast, CEE plus MPA significantly reduced endometrial cancer incidence.

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported.GETUG-13 established that switching patients with poor-prognosis nonseminomatous germ-cell tumors with an unfavorable marker decline to intensified chemotherapy resulted in improved outcomes. Here, we report the GETUG-13 long-term efficacy and toxicity. Two hundred and sixty-three patients with International Germ Cell Cancer Consensus Group poor prognosis received one cycle of bleomycin, etoposide, and cisplatin (BEP): 51 with a favorable tumor marker decline continued with three cycles of BEP (Fav-BEP) and 203 with an unfavorable decline were randomly treated with three BEP (Unfav-BEP) cycles or a dose-dense regimen (Unfav-dose-dense; two cycles of paclitaxel-BEP-oxaliplatin + two cycles of cisplatin, ifosfamide, and bleomycin). The median follow-up was 7.1 years (range, 0.3-13.3). Five-year progression-free survival (PFS) rates were 58.9% in the Unfav-dose-dense arm and 46.7% in the Unfav-BEP arm (hazard ratio [HR], 0.65 [95% CI, 0.44 to 0.97]; P = .036). Five-year overall survival rates were 70.9% and 61.3% (HR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.46 to 1.20]; P = .22). Side effects evolved favorably, with only three patients in the Unfav-dose-dense arm reporting grade 3 motor neurotoxicity at 1 year and no reported toxicity over grade 1 after year 2. Salvage high-dose chemotherapy plus a stem-cell transplant was used in 8% in the Unfav-dose-dense arm and 17% in the Unfav-BEP arm (P = .035). Long-term outcomes suggest a sustained benefit of intensified chemotherapy in terms of PFS and numerically better survival, with a minimal toxicity and reduced use of salvage high-dose chemotherapy plus stem-cell transplant.

Purpose: Controversy continues regarding the effect of screening mammography on breast cancer outcomes. We evaluated late-stage cancer rate and overall survival (OS) for different screening intervals using a real-world institutional research data mart.

Methods: Patients having both a cancer registry record of new breast cancer diagnosis and prediagnosis screening history between 2004 and 2019 were identified from our institutional research breast data mart. Time interval between the two screening mammograms immediately preceding diagnosis and the time to cancer diagnosis were determined. Screening interval was deemed annual if ≤15 months, biennial if >15 and ≤27 months, intermittent if >27 months, and baseline if only one prediagnosis screen was known. The primary end point was late-stage cancer (TNM stage IIB or worse), and the secondary end point was OS. The association of screening interval and late-stage cancer was analyzed using multivariable logistic regression adjusting for prediagnosis characteristics. Proportional hazards regression was used for survival analysis. Potential lead time was analyzed using survival from a uniform fixed time point.

Results: In total, 8,145 patients with breast cancer had prediagnosis screening mammography in the timeframe. The percentage of late-stage cancers diagnosed increased significantly with screening interval with 9%, 14%, and 19% late stages for annual, biennial, and intermittent groups (P < .001), respectively. The trend persisted regardless of age, race, and menopausal status. Biennial and intermittent groups had substantially worse OS than the annual screened group, with relative hazards of 1.42 (95% CI, 1.11 to 1.82) and 2.69 (95% CI, 2.11 to 3.43), respectively, and 1.39 (95% CI, 1.08 to 1.78) and 2.01 (95% CI, 1.58 to 2.55) after adjustment for potential lead time.

Conclusion: Annual mammographic screening was associated with lower risk of late-stage cancer and better OS across clinical and demographic subgroups. Our study suggests benefit of annual screening for women 40 years and older.

Purpose: Human leukocyte antigen (HLA) mismatching can reduce survival of patients with blood cancer after hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). How recent advances in HCT practice, in particular graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis by post-transplantation cyclophosphamide (PTCy), influence HLA risk associations is unknown.

Patients and methods: The study included 17,292 unrelated HCTs with 6-locus high-resolution HLA typing, performed mainly for acute leukemia or related myeloid neoplasms between 2016 and 2020, including 1,523 transplants with PTCy. HLA risk associations were evaluated by multivariable Cox regression models, with overall survival (OS) as primary end point.

Results: OS was lower in HLA mismatched compared with fully matched transplants (hazard ratio [HR], 1.23 [99% CI, 1.14 to 1.33]; P < .001). This was driven by class I HLA-A, HLA-B, HLA-C (HR, 1.29 [99% CI, 1.19 to 1.41]; P < .001) but not class II HLA-DRB1 and HLA-DQB1 (HR, 1.07 [99% CI, 0.93 to 1.23]; P = .19). Class I antigen-level mismatches were associated with worse OS than allele-level mismatches (HR, 1.36 [99% CI, 1.24 to 1.49]; P < .001), as were class I graft-versus-host peptide-binding motif (PBM) mismatches compared with matches (HR, 1.42 [99% CI, 1.28 to 1.59]; P < .001). The use of PTCy improved GVHD, relapse-free survival compared with conventional prophylaxis in HLA-matched transplants (HR, 0.77 [0.66 to 0.9]; P < .001). HLA mismatching increased mortality in PTCy transplants (HR, 1.32 [1.04 to 1.68]; P = .003) similarly as in non-PTCy transplants (interaction P = .43).

Conclusion: Class I but not class II HLA mismatches, especially at the antigen and PBM level, are associated with inferior survival in contemporary unrelated HCT. These effects are not significantly different between non-PTCy compared with PTCy transplants. Optimized HLA matching should still be considered in modern HCT.

Purpose: Allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT) is the only potentially curative treatment for patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). Several issues must be considered when evaluating the benefits and risks of HSCT for patients with MDS, with the timing of transplantation being a crucial question. Here, we aimed to develop and validate a decision support system to define the optimal timing of HSCT for patients with MDS on the basis of clinical and genomic information as provided by the Molecular International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS-M).

Patients and methods: We studied a retrospective population of 7,118 patients, stratified into training and validation cohorts. A decision strategy was built to estimate the average survival over an 8-year time horizon (restricted mean survival time [RMST]) for each combination of clinical and genomic covariates and to determine the optimal transplantation policy by comparing different strategies.

Results: Under an IPSS-M based policy, patients with either low and moderate-low risk benefited from a delayed transplantation policy, whereas in those belonging to moderately high-, high- and very high-risk categories, immediate transplantation was associated with a prolonged life expectancy (RMST). Modeling decision analysis on IPSS-M versus conventional Revised IPSS (IPSS-R) changed the transplantation policy in a significant proportion of patients (15% of patient candidate to be immediately transplanted under an IPSS-R-based policy would benefit from a delayed strategy by IPSS-M, whereas 19% of candidates to delayed transplantation by IPSS-R would benefit from immediate HSCT by IPSS-M), resulting in a significant gain-in-life expectancy under an IPSS-M-based policy (P = .001).

Conclusion: These results provide evidence for the clinical relevance of including genomic features into the transplantation decision making process, allowing personalizing the hazards and effectiveness of HSCT in patients with MDS.

Purpose: The open-label, phase III EVOKE-01 study evaluated sacituzumab govitecan (SG) versus standard-of-care docetaxel in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) with progression on/after platinum-based chemotherapy, anti-PD-(L)1, and targeted treatment for actionable genomic alterations (AGAs). Primary analysis is reported.

Methods: Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 (stratified by histology, best response to last anti-PD-(L)1-containing regimen, and AGA treatment received or not) to SG (one 10 mg/kg intravenous infusion on days 1 and 8) or docetaxel (one 75 mg/m² intravenous infusion on day 1) in 21-day cycles. Primary end point was overall survival (OS). Key secondary end points were investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate, patient-reported symptom assessment, and safety.

Results: In the intention-to-treat population (SG, n = 299; docetaxel, n = 304), 55.4% had one previous line of therapy. Median follow-up was 12.7 months (range, 6.0-24.0). The primary end point was not met. There was a numerical OS improvement for SG versus docetaxel (median, 11.1 v 9.8 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.84 [95% CI, 0.68 to 1.04]; one-sided P = .0534), consistent across squamous and nonsquamous histologies. Median PFS was 4.1 versus 3.9 months (HR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.77 to 1.11]). An OS benefit was observed for SG (n = 192) versus docetaxel (n = 191) in mNSCLC nonresponsive to last anti-PD-(L)1-containing regimen (3.5-month median OS increase; HR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.58 to 0.97]); this was consistent across histologies. Among patients receiving SG and docetaxel, 6.8% and 14.2% discontinued because of treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), respectively; 1.4% and 1.0%, respectively, had TRAEs leading to death.

Conclusion: Although statistical significance was not met, OS numerically improved with SG versus docetaxel, which was consistent across histologies. Clinically meaningful improvement in OS was noted in mNSCLC nonresponsive to last anti-PD-(L)1-containing regimen. SG was better tolerated than docetaxel and consistent with its known safety profile, with no new safety signals.

The Oncology Grand Rounds series is designed to place original reports published in the Journal into clinical context. A case presentation is followed by a description of diagnostic and management challenges, a review of the relevant literature, and a summary of the authors' suggested management approaches. The goal of this series is to help readers better understand how to apply the results of key studies, including those published in Journal of Clinical Oncology, to patients seen in their own clinical practice.