Background: In all giant-cell-rich lesions (GCRL) occurring in bone, a common underlying excessive RANKL expression is held responsible for the osteolytic activity. Apart from giant cell tumour of... Show moreBackground: In all giant-cell-rich lesions (GCRL) occurring in bone, a common underlying excessive RANKL expression is held responsible for the osteolytic activity. Apart from giant cell tumour of bone (GCTB), systematic outcome analysis of RANKL inhibition in other GCRL is unavailable. The aim of this study is to assess the efficacy and safety of a 1-year denosumab protocol in giant cell lesions of the jaw (GCLJ).Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted compromising patients treated with a 1year protocol of monthly subcutaneously administered 120 mg denosumab. Objective tumour response based on histology and imaging was used to calculate objective tumour response rate, progression-free survival (PFS) and time to progression. Type, severity and frequency of adverse events were recorded in a standardised way to assess safety.Results: Twenty patients, predominantly female (90%), were included. Fifty-five per cent of lesions were located in the mandible; most classified as aggressive lesions (90%). Thirty-five per cent (7/20) of cases were either recurrent after prior treatment or progressive, while on other drug treatment. Objective tumour response rate was 100% after 12 months of treatment. Median PFS was 50.4 months (95% CI 38.0-62.8) with a cumulative PFS rate of 22.6% (95% CI 1.8-43.4) at 5 years follow-up. Median time to progression was 38.4 months (95% CI 26.0 -50.8). Treatment was well tolerated, and none of the patients had to interrupt therapy for toxicity.Conclusion: High-dose denosumab is effective and safe in achieving a complete response in GCLJ within 12 months. The high long-term relapse rate after treatment cessation is the main obstacle for denosumab to become standard treatment for GCLJ. 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Show less
Heus, E. de; Duijts, S.F.A.; Zwan, J.M. van der; Kapiteijn, E.; Dijkum, E.J.M.N. van; Herpen, C.M.L. van; Merkx, M.A.W. 2022
Introduction: Epidemiological discrepancies exist between rare and common cancers. The aim of this population-based study was to compare rare versus common adult solid cancers in the Netherlands,... Show moreIntroduction: Epidemiological discrepancies exist between rare and common cancers. The aim of this population-based study was to compare rare versus common adult solid cancers in the Netherlands, by providing incidence, prevalence and survival rates, evaluating trends in survival and comparing individual entities within domains and families. Methods: All adult patients with malignant solid cancers in the Netherlands between 1995 and 2019 were identified from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Data on patient, tumour and treatment characteristics were collected, and relative survival and survival trends were analysed. Results: A total of 170,628 patients with rare adult solid cancers and 806,023 patients with common adult solid cancers were included. Rare cancers accounted for 18% of all cancer diagnoses (mean incidence), and 15% of the total ten-year cancer prevalence during 2010e2019. Overall 5-year survival was worse for rare cancers than for common cancers (52.0% versus 68.7%). Between 1995e1999 and 2015e2019, 5-year survival rates for rare cancers increased to a lesser extent (from 46.2% to 52.6%, i.e. 6.4%) than for common cancers (56.9%-70.1%, i.e. 13.2%), and for most rare cancer domains compared to common cancer domains. The majority of rare cancer entities did not show an improvement in 5-year survival. Differences for individual entities between domains and families were found. Conclusion: Differences in survival between rare and common cancers indicate major challenges for rare cancer care and emphasise that improvement is highly needed. Observed inequalities need to be overcome by investing in early diagnosis, novel therapies, scientific research and in establishing centres of expertise. Show less
Background: Inevitably, the emergence of COVID-19 has impacted non-COVID care. Because timely diagnosis and treatment are essential, especially for patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) with... Show moreBackground: Inevitably, the emergence of COVID-19 has impacted non-COVID care. Because timely diagnosis and treatment are essential, especially for patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) with fast-growing tumours in a functionally and aesthetically important area, we wished to quantify the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on HNC care in the Netherlands.Material and Methods: This population-based study covered all, in total 8468, newly diagnosed primary HNC cases in the Netherlands in 2018, 2019 and 2020. We compared incidence, patient and tumour characteristics, primary treatment characteristics, and time-to-treatment in the first COVID-19 year 2020 with corresponding periods in 2018 and 2019 (i.e. pre-COVID).Results: The incidence of HNC was nearly 25% less during the first wave (n = 433) than in 2019 (n = 595) and 2018 (n = 598). In April and May 2020, the incidence of oral cavity and laryngeal carcinomas was significantly lower than in pre-COVID years. There were no shifts in tumour stage or alterations in initial treatment modalities.Regardless of the first treatment modality and specific period, the median number of days between first visit to a HNC centre and start of treatment was significantly shorter during the COVID-19 year (26-28 days) than pre-COVID (31-32 days, p < 0.001).Conclusion: The incidence of HNC during the Netherlands' first COVID-19 wave was significantly lower than expected. The expected increase in incidence during the remainder of 2020 was not observed. Despite the overloaded healthcare system, the standard treatment for HNC patients could be delivered within a shorter time interval. (C) 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. Show less
