Background Obesity has been associated with an adverse prognosis and reduced efficacy of endocrine therapy in patients with hormone receptor-positive (HR+) breast cancer (BC). This study determines... Show moreBackground Obesity has been associated with an adverse prognosis and reduced efficacy of endocrine therapy in patients with hormone receptor-positive (HR+) breast cancer (BC). This study determines the prognostic and predictive effect of body mass index (BMI) on the disease-free survival (DFS) of postmenopausal HR+ BC patients.Methods Patients were identified from the DATA study (NCT00301457), a randomized controlled trial evaluating the efficacy of 6 vs 3 years of anastrozole after 2 to 3 years of adjuvant tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with HR+ BC. Patients were classified as normal weight (BMI: 18.5-24.9 kg/m2), overweight (25.0-29.9 kg/m2), or obese (>= 30.0 kg/m2). The primary endpoint was DFS, evaluated from randomization (prognostic analyses) or 3 years after randomization onwards (predictive analyses; aDFS) using multivariable Cox regression analyses. P-values were 2-sided.Results This study included 678 normal weight, 712 overweight, and 391 obese patients. After a median follow-up of 13.1 years, overweight and obesity were identified as negative prognostic factors for DFS (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.16; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.97 to 1.38 and HR = 1.26; 95% CI = 1.03 to 1.54, respectively). The adverse prognostic effect of BMI was observed in women aged younger than 60 years, but not in women aged 60 years or older (P-interaction = .009). The effect of extended anastrozole on aDFS was similar in normal weight (HR = 1.00; 95% CI = 0.74 to 1.35), overweight (HR = 0.74; 95% CI = 0.56 to 0.98), and obese patients (HR = 0.97; 95% CI = 0.69 to 1.36) (P-interaction = .24).Conclusion In this study among 1781 HR+ BC patients, overweight and obesity were adverse prognostic factors for DFS. BMI did not impact the efficacy of extended anastrozole. Show less
The added value of capecitabine to adjuvant gemcitabine monotherapy (GEM) in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) was shown by the ESPAC-4 trial. Real-world data on the effectiveness of... Show moreThe added value of capecitabine to adjuvant gemcitabine monotherapy (GEM) in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) was shown by the ESPAC-4 trial. Real-world data on the effectiveness of gemcitabine plus capecitabine (GEMCAP), in patients ineligible for mFOLFIRINOX, are lacking. Our study assessed whether adjuvant GEMCAP is superior to GEM in a nationwide cohort. Patients treated with adjuvant GEMCAP or GEM after resection of PDAC without preoperative treatment were identified from The Netherlands Cancer Registry (2015-2019). The primary outcome was overall survival (OS), measured from start of chemotherapy. The treatment effect of GEMCAP vs GEM was adjusted for sex, age, performance status, tumor size, lymph node involvement, resection margin and tumor differentiation in a multivariable Cox regression analysis. Secondary outcome was the percentage of patients who completed the planned six adjuvant treatment cycles. Overall, 778 patients were included, of whom 21.1% received GEMCAP and 78.9% received GEM. The median OS was 31.4 months (95% CI 26.8-40.7) for GEMCAP and 22.1 months (95% CI 20.6-25.0) for GEM (HR: 0.71, 95% CI 0.56-0.90; logrank P = .004). After adjustment for prognostic factors, survival remained superior for patients treated with GEMCAP (HR: 0.73, 95% CI 0.57-0.92, logrank P = .009). Survival with GEMCAP was superior to GEM in most subgroups of prognostic factors. Adjuvant chemotherapy was completed in 69.5% of the patients treated with GEMCAP and 62.7% with GEM (P = .11). In this nationwide cohort of patients with PDAC, adjuvant GEMCAP was associated with superior survival as compared to GEM monotherapy and number of cycles was similar. Show less
Vos-Geelen, J. de; Geurts, S.M.E.; Putten, M. van; Valkenburg-van Iersel, L.B.J.; Grabsch, H.I.; Mohammad, N.H.; ... ; Lemmens, V.E.P.P. 2019
BACKGROUNDThe management of proximal esophageal cancer differs from that of tumors located in the mid and lower part of the esophagus due to the close vicinity of vital structures. Non-surgical... Show moreBACKGROUNDThe management of proximal esophageal cancer differs from that of tumors located in the mid and lower part of the esophagus due to the close vicinity of vital structures. Non-surgical treatment options like radiotherapy and definitive chemoradiation (CRT) have been implemented. The trends in (non-)surgical treatment and its impact on overall survival (OS) in patients with proximal esophageal cancer are unclear, related to its rare disease status. To optimize treatment strategies and counseling of patients with proximal esophageal cancer, it is therefore essential to gain more insight through real-life studies.AIMTo establish trends in treatment and OS in patients with proximal esophageal cancer.METHODSIn this population-based study, patients with proximal esophageal cancer diagnosed between 1989 and 2014 were identified in the Netherlands Cancer Registry. The proximal esophagus consists of the cervical esophagus and the upper thoracic section, extending to 24 cm from the incisors. Trends in radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and surgery, and OS were assessed. Analyses were stratified by presence of distant metastasis. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression analyses was performed to assess the effect of period of diagnosis on OS, adjusted for patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics.RESULTSIn total, 2783 patients were included. Over the study period, the use of radiotherapy, resection, and CRT in non-metastatic disease changed from 53%, 23%, and 1% in 1989-1994 to 21%, 9%, and 49% in 2010-2014, respectively. In metastatic disease, the use of chemotherapy and radiotherapy increased over time. Median OS of the total population increased from 7.3 mo [95% confidence interval (CI): 6.4-8.1] in 1989-1994 to 9.5 mo (95%CI: 8.1-10.8) in 2010-2014 (logrank P < 0.001). In non-metastatic disease, 5-year OS rates improved from 5% (95%CI: 3%-7%) in 1989-1994 to 13% (95%CI: 9%-17%) in 2010-2014 (logrank P < 0.001). Multivariable regression analysis demonstrated a significant treatment effect over time on survival. In metastatic disease, median OS was 3.8 mo (95%CI: 2.5-5.1) in 1989-1994, and 5.1 mo (95%CI: 4.3-5.9) in 2010-2014 (logrank P = 0.26).CONCLUSIONOS significantly improved in non-metastatic proximal esophageal cancer, likely to be associated with an increased use of CRT. Patterns in metastatic disease did not change significantly over time. Show less
