Overall Survival Odds Ratio Research Articles

Upfront Alternative Donor Transplant versus Immunosuppressive Therapy in Patients with Severe Aplastic Anemia Who Lack a Fully HLA-Matched Related Donor: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Retrospective Studies, on Behalf of the Severe Aplastic Anemia Working Party of the European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation

Idiopathic aplastic anemia is a rare and life-threatening disorder, and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) from a matched sibling donor (MSD) is the standard treatment strategy for young patients. Alternative donor transplantation (ADT) from a matched unrelated donor or an HLA haploidentical donor is not commonly used in the frontline setting. This systematic review/meta-analysis was conducted to compare ADT as an upfront, rather than delayed, treatment strategy in the absence of an MSD to immunosuppressive therapy (IST) in severe aplastic anemia (SAA). We searched PubMed/MEDLINE and Embase (1998 to 2019) for studies that compared the outcomes of ADT with IST as upfront therapy in patients with SAA. We included studies with 5 patients or more in each arm. Studies that included patients with inherited forms of bone marrow failure syndromes were excluded. The primary outcome was the 5-year overall survival (OS) rate. Five studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled 5-year odds ratio (OR) for OS was statistically significant at 0.44 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.23 to 0.85) in favor of upfront ADT. In addition, survival was compared between upfront ADT versus salvage ADT in 6 studies. The pooled 5-year OR for OS was statistically significant at 0.31 (95% CI, 0.15 to 0.64) in favor of upfront ADT. Although this analysis has some limitations, including the retrospective nature of the included studies, the lack of ethnic diversity, the predominantly pediatric population, and the relatively suboptimal IST regimen used in some of the studies, it indicates that upfront ADT is a potential alternative treatment option in young and pediatric SAA patients who lack an HLA identical sibling donor, particularly when optimal IST is not available. © 2021 American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Airflow limitation and survival after surgery for non-small cell lung cancer: Results from a systematic review and lung cancer screening trial (NLST-ACRIN sub-study)

ObjectiveLung cancer remains the single greatest cause of cancer mortality where surgery for early stage non-small cell lung cancer achieves the greatest survival. While there is growing optimism for better outcomes with screening using annual computed tomography, the impact of co-existing airflow limitation on survival remains unknown.To compare survival in non-small cell lung cancer patients undergoing surgery stratified according to the presence or absence of pre-surgery airflow limitation. Materials and MethodsWe undertook a systematic literature search of non-screen lung cancer that encompassed studies reported between January 1946 and January 2017. Full-text articles were identified following eligibility scoring, with data extracted and analysed using a standardised analytical method (PRISMA). The results of this systematic review in non-screen lung cancers were compared to real-world results from a lung cancer screening cohort (N = 10,054), where outcomes following surgery could be compared after stratification according to pre-surgery airflow limitation. ResultsIn the systematic review, 6899 subjects were included from 10 studies; 7 were retrospective, 3 were prospective. Overall survival was 950 (44%) in 2144 people with COPD and 2597 (55%) from 4755 controls (unadjusted P value <0.001). However, the overall meta-analysed random effects odds ratio for overall survival (N = 10) and 5-year survival (N = 4) comparing those with and without COPD was 0.91 (95% CI = 0.84–1.00) and 0.99 (95% CI = 0.79–1.24) respectively. There were no signs of significant heterogeneity (I2 = 19.1%, P = 0.27) nor publication bias as assessed by funnel plot and Egger’s test (P = 0.19). In the lung cancer screening sub-study of 10,054 screening participants we found no difference in 5-year survival in those with and without airflow limitation (84% and 81% respectively, P = 0.64). ConclusionSurvival after surgery for non-small cell lung cancer is comparable between those with and without spirometry evidence of airflow limitation. This finding was replicated in lung cancer diagnosed during screening.

Meta-Analysis of Circulating Endothelial Cells and Circulating Endothelial Progenitor Cells as Prognostic Factors in Lung Cancer.

The aim of this study was to analyze the prognostic implications of pretreatment circulating endothelial cells (CECs) and circulating endothelial progenitor cells (CEPCs) for the survival of patients with lung cancer. Relevant literature was identified using Medline and EMBASE. Patient clinical characteristics, overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) together with CEC and CEPC positive rates before treatment were extracted. STATA 12.0 was used for our analysis and assessment of publication bias. A total of 13 articles (8 for CEC and 5 for CEPC, n=595 and n=244) were pooled for the global meta-analysis. The odds ratio (OR) for OS predicted by pretreatment CECs was 1.641 [0.967, 2.786], while the OR for PFS was 1.168 [0.649, 2.100]. The OR for OS predicted by pretreatment CEPCs was 12.673 [5.274, 30.450], while the OR for PFS was 4.930 [0.931, 26.096]. Subgroup analyses were conducted according to clinical staging. Odds ratio (OR) showed the high level of pretreatment CECs only correlated with the OS of patients with advanced lung cancer (stage III-IV). High counts of CECs seem to be associated only with worse 1-year OS in patients with lung cancer, while high level of pretreatment CEPCs correlate with both worse PFS and OS.

Chemotherapy for Adults with Malignant Glioma: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

Malignant glioma is the most common primary brain tumor in adults and the survival rate has remained very low. Thus, determining the optimal treatment for patients can be challenging. To compare the efficacy of common therapies, we performed network meta-analysis to estimate the efficacy and safety among procarbazine, lomustine, vincristine, temozolomide, bevacizumab plus temozolomide, and placebo for patients with malignant glioma. Relevant studies (as of March, 2014) were identified by searching PubMed, Embase, and Central databases. The primary endpoint of the analysis was the overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) of glioma patients. Nine trials with a total of 3472 patients were included in our network meta-analyses. Compared with placebo, bevacizumab plus temozolomide was associated with the highest estimates of OS and PFS for 12 and 24 months (12 month OS odds ratio [OR]: 2.44; 95% credibility interval [CrIs]: 0.76-9.69; 24 month OS OR: 2.56; 95% CrIs: 1.12?5.24; 12 month PFS OR: 6.76; 95% CrIs: 2.80?17.34; 24 month PFS OR: 3.69; 95% CrIs: 0.62?28.63). However, bevacizumab plus temozolomide did not significantly improve OS or PFS compared to temozolomide alone. Bevacizumab plus temozolomide combination therapy is not significantly more effective than temozolomide alone in improving survival of glioma patients. Moreover, bevacizumab was associated with higher hematologic toxicities. Bevacizumab should be used with caution in glioma patients. Additional randomized controlled trials are required to confirm this finding.

Survival meta-analyses for &gt;1800 malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor patients with and without neurofibromatosis type 1

There are conflicting reports as to whether malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor (MPNST) patients with neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) have worse prognosis than non-NF1 MPNST patients. Large clinical studies to address this problem are lacking due to the rareness of MPNST. We have performed meta-analyses testing the effect of NF1 status on MPNST survival based on publications from the last 50 years, including only nonoverlapping patients reported from each institution. In addition, we analyzed survival characteristics for 179 MPNST patients from 3 European sarcoma centers. The meta-analyses including data from a total of 48 studies and >1800 patients revealed a significantly higher odds ratio for overall survival (OROS) and disease-specific survival (ORDSS) in the non-NF1 group (OROS = 1.75, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.28–2.39, and ORDSS = 1.68, 95% CI = 1.18–2.40). However, in studies published in the last decade, survival in the 2 patient groups has been converging, as especially the NF1 group has shown improved prognosis. For our own MPNST patients, NF1 status had no effect on overall or disease-specific survival. The compiled literature from 1963 to the present indicates a significantly worse outcome of MPNST in patients with NF1 syndrome compared with non-NF1 patients. However, survival for the NF1 patients has improved in the last decade, and the survival difference is diminishing. These observations support the hypothesis that MPNSTs arising in NF1 and non-NF1 patients are not different per se. Consequently, we suggest that the choice of treatment for MPNST should be independent of NF1 status.

The Importance of Clinical Information in Patients with Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumor

The WHO 2010 grading system for gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors(GEP-NETs) is used to evaluate the malignant potential without clinicopathological information. This study was conducted to examine whether the new index is superior to the previous WHO 2004 classification, e.g.for well-differentiated endocrine carcinoma (WEC),involving clinical information. Between 2000 and 2011, 77 patients with sporadic GEP-NETs were treated at our institution and statistically estimated risk factors for overall survival (OS) were evaluated. Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were performed to estimate risk factors for OS. Overall 1-, 3- and 5-year survival rates were 92.8%, 78.4% and 76.0%, respectively. Median OS was 551 days in WEC-patients (odds ratio (OR)for OS=13.1, 95% confidence interval (CI)=2.90-59.5;p=0.001). The median OS was 813 days in G3-patients as compared with 1885 days in G1/G2-patients(OR for OS= 2.64, p=0.002). Multivariate analyses according to baseline characteristics revealed WEC as independent risk factor (OR=9.06, p=0.01). WEC was the only predictor of prognosis with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curves of 0.78(p=0.001). Clinical information was the best predictor for the prognosis of NETs.

Encapsulation is a significant prognostic factor for better outcome in large hepatocellular carcinoma

The aim of this study was to determine the effect of tumor encapsulation of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) on long-term survival. A retrospective review of 1,240 patients who underwent hepatectomy from January 1993 to June 2005 was conducted. There were 891 patients with tumor encapsulation (EC type) and 349 patients without tumor encapsulation (NC type). Clinicopathological factors, surgical outcome, and long-term survival were analyzed. Disease-free survival (DFS) was affected by surgical margin involvement, the presence of surgical complications, vascular invasion, liver cirrhosis, tumor encapsulation, tumor size >5 cm, tumor rupture, and the presence of satellite lesions (all, P < 0.05). Overall survival (OS) was also affected by the same parameters, except for satellite lesions. When the patients were grouped by tumor size >5 or ≤5 cm, the protective effect of encapsulation was only observed when the tumor size was >5 cm [odds ratio (OR) for DFS = 0.75, P = 0.02; OR for OS = 0.68, P < 0.01]. Tumor encapsulation is a significant prognostic factor for HCC >5 cm.

Are experimental treatments for cancer in children superior to established treatments? Observational study of randomised controlled trials by the Children's Oncology Group

Objectives To assess how often new treatments for childhood cancer assessed in phase III randomised trials are superior or inferior to standard treatments and whether the pattern of successes and...

Excision margins in the treatment of primary cutaneous melanoma: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials comparing narrow vs wide excision.

The optimal excision margin for primary cutaneous melanoma remains controversial, although several clinical studies have suggested that wide local excision is unnecessary. Wide excision margins do not improve survival in patients with melanoma. To describe the published evidence and determine the effectiveness of wide surgical margins compared with narrow surgical margins. Systematic review of randomized controlled trials that compared narrow margins with wide excision margins for cutaneous melanoma. Randomized controlled trials available by March 2001. The included trials comprised 2406 participants. Surgical excision of melanoma using narrow excision margins compared with excision using wide excision margins. Effect of width of excision margin on melanoma recurrences, disease-free survival, and overall survival. We identified and analyzed 4 randomized controlled trials. All 4 trials failed to demonstrate statistically significant differences in overall survival and disease-free survival when comparing wide vs narrow excision. Peto pooled odds ratio for overall survival was 0.79 (95% confidence interval, 0.61-1.04) and for disease-free survival was 0.89 (95% confidence interval, 0.69-1.13), indicating a statistically nonsignificant improvement with wide excision. Not one of the included studies showed any statistically significant difference between the 2 groups treated with narrow or wide excision margins with regard to recurrences and survival. However, current evidence is not sufficient to address the optimal surgical margins for all melanomas, and further research is required.