Clinical Medicine Insights Oncology

Leung, David KW; Ko, Ivan CH; Siu, Brian WH; Wong, Chris HM; Yuen, Steffi KK; Ng, Chi Fai; Teoh, Jeremy YC

2024 Clinical Medicine Insights Oncology

doi: 10.1177/11795549241272447pmid: 39247714

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is the most common solid tumour of the kidney and accounts for 3% of all cancers. While immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based combination therapies have emerged as the first-line treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), the role of surgery has become more controversial. This review summarizes the evidence, current role and future directions for surgery in mRCC management. The survival benefits of cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) shown in the interferon era have encountered increasing disputes in the tyrosine-kinase inhibitor (TKI) and ICI eras. Undoubtedly, several systematic reviews based on retrospective data have supported the survival benefits of CN. Nevertheless, 2 prospective trials, CARMENA and SURTIME, proved that sunitinib as the upfront therapy resulted in noninferior survival outcomes compared with immediate CN. The safety of CN does have solid ground in the current literature. Several studies suggested that preoperative systemic therapy did not seem to aggravate perioperative complications or mortality rates, in experienced centres. Meticulous patient selection is the rule of thumb in the modern management of mRCC patients. The limitations of the existing prognostication models, however, must be acknowledged. Clinicians should adopt a multidisciplinary and holistic approach and contemplate all patient, disease, surgeon and socio-economical factors, before deciding who should go for surgery. The advent of metastasis-directed therapy (MDT) and survival benefits of adjuvant pembrolizumab shown in the oligometastatic subgroup, where complete metastasectomy could be achieved (M1 NED), calls for more comparative studies against upfront ICI combinations. In summary, CN brings survival benefits to well-selected good-to-intermediate-risk mRCC patients. Individualized and multidisciplinary care is pivotal.

Zheng, Cheng; Qian, Mengyi; Huang, Tongmin; Liu, Xingchen; Zeng, Xiangman; Chen, Xiaotong; Shen, Yan; Chen, Ping; Wu, Feng; Gu, Lihu

2024 Clinical Medicine Insights Oncology

doi: 10.1177/11795549241272654pmid: 39233761

Background:Patients with gastric cancer (GC) who underwent radical surgery require long-term follow-up (usually 5 years). The purpose of this study was to explore individualized follow-up strategies for patients with GC.Methods:This is a retrospective cohort study that established a clinicopathologic database of patients who underwent gastrectomy from January 2010 to December 2020 at Ningbo No. 2 Hospital. Follow-up was performed until March 2023. The rate of new-onset recurrence of patients with GC was explored annually according to different pTNM stages, defining a recurrence rate of less than 1% as adequate follow-up time.Results:Of the 1606 patients who were eligible, the total number of patients who completed the 5- and 10-year follow-up was 1107 and 586, respectively. A total of 444 cases were diagnosed with recurrence. The recurrence rate for stage IA patients was consistently less than 1% during the follow-up time. The adequate follow-up time (the rate of new-onset recurrence less than 1%) was 5 years for stage IB and IIA patients, and 8 years for stage IIB and IIIA patients, respectively. In contrast, stage IIIB patients were always at risk of recurrence during the follow-up time (>1%). Time to a new recurrence rate for stage IIIC patients was 6 years.Conclusion:Among patients who underwent radical gastrectomy, the rate of new-onset recurrence varied among patients with different pTNM stages. This study suggests that the follow-up of GC can be individualized and refer to pTNM stage.

Narang, Mohit; Horn, Courtney; Lee, Edward

2024 Clinical Medicine Insights Oncology

doi: 10.1177/11795549241275665pmid: 39239468

Zanubrutinib, a next-generation, irreversible, highly potent, and selective Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor, is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat patients with B-cell malignancies in 2 dose regimens: 160 mg twice daily (BID) and 320 mg once daily (QD). Although the 160 mg BID regimen was the recommended phase 2 dose and more widely used in clinical trials, both regimens have yielded similar efficacy and safety. Currently, there is a lack of reported clinician experience on zanubrutinib QD versus BID practice patterns. This article provides perspectives on zanubrutinib dosing through interviews with 2 clinical care professionals at the Maryland Oncology Hematology Center, based on their experiences treating patients with Waldenström macroglobulinemia (WM) or chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL). Zanubrutinib QD is the preferred regimen for some physicians and pharmacists, as it may improve treatment adherence within weeks after initiation compared with BID dosing. According to the clinician interviews provided in this report, patients have reported positive experiences with QD dosing, including a reduced administration burden in those with complicated polypharmacy. Thus, observations from this single center indicate that the zanubrutinib QD regimen may offer benefits to both patients with WM or CLL/SLL and their clinical care teams and should be considered in patients receiving zanubrutinib.

Kong, Jinyu; Liu, Yiwen; Wang, Jian; Qian, Mengfan; Sun, Wei; Xing, Ling

2024 Clinical Medicine Insights Oncology

doi: 10.1177/11795549241275666

Background:Our previous research showed that Porphyromonas gingivalis (P. gingivalis) infection can activate the inflammatory signaling pathway and promotes the malignancy development of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). However, the prognostic significance of inflammatory response-related genes (IRRGs) in P. gingivalis-infected ESCC requires further elucidation. Hence, our study constructed a prognostic signature based on P. gingivalis and IRRGs to forecast the survival of patients with ESCC, which may provide insight into new treatment options for ESCC patients.Methods:Differentially expressed genes (DEGs) were identified in P.gingivalis-infected and P.gingivalis-uninfected ESCC cell by RNA sequencing. A risk model was constructed and validated using the The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) database by using univariate Cox regression analysis, LASSO, and the multivariate Cox regression analysis. Kaplan-Meier analysis was carried out to compare the overall survival (OS) between high-risk and low-risk groups. Single-sample gene set enrichment analysis was used to analyze the immune cell infiltration. The Genomics of Drug Sensitivity in Cancer database was used to predict drug sensitivity.Results:There were 365 DEGs between the P.gingivalis-infected and P.gingivalis-uninfected groups. Four genes including DKK1, ESRRB, EREG, and RELN were identified to construct the prognostic risk model (P = .012, C-index = 0.73). In both the training and validation sets, patients had a considerably shorter OS in the high-risk group than those in the low-risk group (P < .05). A nomogram was established using the risk score, gender, and N stage which could effectively forecast the prognosis of patients (P = .016, C-index = 0.66). The high-risk group displayed lower immune infiltrating cells, such as activated dendritic cells, type 2 T helper cells, and neutrophils (P < .05). A total of 41 drugs, including dactinomycin, luminespib, and sepantronium bromide, had a significant difference in IC50 between the 2 subgroups.Conclusion:We demonstrated the potential of a novel signature constructed from 4 P. gingivalis-related IRRGs for prognostic prediction in ESCC patients.