METHOD: This was a retrospective clinical record review study carried out at a tertiary centre from June 2013 until May 2017. A total of 55 locally recurrent NPC patients (rT1-rT4) underwent EETN performed by single skull base surgeon with curative intention with postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy but without postoperative radiotherapy.
RESULTS: There were 44 (80.0%) males and 11 (20.0%) females, with mean age of 52.5 years. The mean operating time was 180 min (range 150-280 min). 85% (47/55) of patients achieved en bloc tumour resection. 93% (51/55) of patients obtained negative microscopic margin based on postoperative histopathological evaluation. Intraoperatively, one (1.8%) patient had internal carotid artery injury which was successfully stented and had recovered fully without neurological deficit. There were no major postoperative complications reported. During a mean follow-up period of 18-month (range 12-48 months) postsurgery, five patients (9.1%) had residual or recurrence at the primary site. All five patients underwent re-surgery. One patient at rT3 passed away 6 months after re-surgery due to distant metastasis complicated with septicaemia. The 1-year local disease-free rate was 93% and the 1-year overall survival rate was 98%.
CONCLUSIONS: EETN is emerging treatment options for locally recurrent NPC, with relatively low morbidity and encouraging short-term outcome. Long-term outcome is yet to be determined with longer follow-up and bigger cohort study. However, a successful surgical outcome required a very experienced team and highly specialised equipment.
Objective: The objective of this study was to use IHC to compare leptin and leptin receptor expressions in clear cell renal cell carcinomas (ccRCC) in non-obese and obese patients to determine the association between these proteins with the clinicopathological features and prognosis of ccRCC. Patients and Methods. The study involved 60 patients who underwent nephrectomy of which 34 were obese, as assessed using body mass index (BMI). Nephrectomy samples provided tissues of ccRCC and adjacent non-cancerous kidney. The intensity and localization of leptin and leptin receptor protein expressions were evaluated using IHC and correlated with clinicopathological features and clinical outcomes. Aperio ImageScope morphometry and digital pathology were applied to assess the IHC results. The chi-square test was used to determine if there was any significant association between the proteins and the clinicopathological features. The Kaplan-Meier test was used to determine the overall survival, disease-free survival, and recurrence-free survival. A value of p < 0.05 was considered significant.
Results: There was neither significant difference in the overall cellular and nuclear expressions of leptin and leptin receptor between non-cancerous kidney and ccRCC tissues nor in non-obese and obese individuals with ccRCC.
Conclusion: In this present study, it was revealed that leptin and leptin receptor were not associated with tumour characteristics and progression of ccRCC patients. Interestingly, nuclear expression of leptin was significantly associated with overall survival. However, the significance of these proteins as biomarkers in other RCC histotypes is still unclear.
METHODS: Patients with advanced solid cancers were randomized 1:1 to 3-weekly docetaxel 75 mg/m2, with or without sunitinib 12.5 mg daily for 7 days prior to docetaxel, stratified by primary tumour site. Primary endpoints were objective-response (ORR:CR + PR) and clinical-benefit rate (CBR:CR + PR + SD); secondary endpoints were toxicity and progression-free-survival (PFS).
RESULTS: We enrolled 68 patients from 2 study sites; 33 received docetaxel-sunitinib and 35 docetaxel alone, with 33 breast, 25 lung and 10 patients with other cancers. There was no difference in ORR (30.3% vs 28.6%, p = 0.432, odds-ratio [OR] 1.10, 95% CI 0.38-3.18); CBR was lower in the docetaxel-sunitinib arm (48.5% vs 71.4%, p = 0.027 OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.14-1.01). Median PFS was shorter in the docetaxel-sunitinib arm (2.9 vs 4.9 months, hazard-ratio [HR] 2.00, 95% CI 1.15-3.48, p = 0.014) overall, as well as in breast (4.2 vs 5.6 months, p = 0.048) and other cancers (2.0 vs 5.3 months, p = 0.009), but not in lung cancers (2.9 vs 4.1 months, p = 0.597). Median OS was similar in both arms overall (9.9 vs 10.5 months, HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.51-1.67, p = 0.789), and in the breast (18.9 vs 25.8 months, p = 0.354), lung (7.0 vs 6.7 months, p = 0.970) and other cancers (4.5 vs 8.8 months, p = 0.449) subgroups. Grade 3/4 haematological toxicities were lower with docetaxel-sunitinib (18.2% vs 34.3%, p = 0.132), attributed to greater discretionary use of prophylactic G-CSF (90.9% vs 63.0%, p = 0.024). Grade 3/4 non-haematological toxicities were similar (12.1% vs 14.3%, p = 0.792).
CONCLUSIONS: The addition of sunitinib to docetaxel was well-tolerated but did not improve outcomes. The possible negative impact in metastatic breast cancer patients is contrary to results of adding sunitinib to neoadjuvant AC. These negative results suggest that the intermittent administration of sunitinib in the current dose and schedule with docetaxel in advanced solid tumours, particularly breast cancers, is not beneficial.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered ( NCT01803503 ) prospectively on clinicaltrials.gov on 4th March 2013.
METHODS USED TO CONDUCT THE REVIEW: This review was conducted in accordance with the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) recommendation. Electronic databases including MEDLINE, CINAHL, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Databases and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched up to March 2017 for relevant trials. The methodological quality of included trials was assessed by using a modified version of the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale for Case-Control and Cohort Studies. A meta-analysis was conducted using the random-effect model to combine the rate of mortality and length of stay outcomes.
FINDINGS OF THE REVIEW: Nine observational trials involving 2128 patients were considered eligible for inclusion. Although based on low quality evidence, there was a statistically significant difference in favour of the impact of de-escalation on hospital stay but not mortality (MD -5.96 days; 95% CI -8.39 to -3.52).
INTERPRETATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This review highlights the need for more rigorous studies to be carried out before a firm conclusion on the benefit of de-escalation therapy is supported.
METHODS: This study was designed in the form of cross-sectional analysis, in which, cancer survivors were recruited from the Sarawak General Hospital, the largest tertiary and referral public hospital in Sarawak. To capture the financial toxicity of the cancer survivors, the Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) instrument in its validated form was adopted. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was applied to determine the relationship between financial toxicity (FT) and its predictors.
RESULTS: The median age of the 461 cancer survivors was 56 while the median score of COST was 22.0. Besides, finding from multivariable logistic regression revealed that low income households (OR: 6.893, 95% CI, 3.109-15.281) were susceptible to higher risk of financial toxicity, while elderly survivors above 50 years old reported a lower risk in financial toxicity. Also, survivors with secondary schooling (OR:0.240; 95%CI, 0.110-0.519) and above [College or university (OR: 0.242; 95% CI, 0.090-0.646)] suffer a lower risk of FT.
CONCLUSION: Financial toxicity was found to be associated with survivors age, household income and educational level. In the context of cancer treatment within public health facility, younger survivors, households from B40 group and individual with educational attainment below the first level schooling in the Malaysian system of education are prone to greater financial toxicity. Therefore, it is crucial for healthcare policymakers and clinicians to deliberate the plausible risk of financial toxicity borne by the patient amidst the treatment process.