Risk stratification for prostate cancer management: value of the Cambridge Prognostic Group classification for assessing treatment allocation.

BACKGROUND: The five-tiered Cambridge Prognostic Group (CPG) classification is a better predictor of prostate cancer-specific mortality than the traditional three-tiered classification (low, intermediate, and high risk). We investigated radical treatment rates according to CPG in men diagnosed with non-metastatic prostate cancer in England between 2014 and 2017. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with non-metastatic prostate cancer were identified from the National Prostate Cancer Audit database. Men were risk stratified according to the CPG classification. Risk ratios (RR) were estimated for undergoing radical treatment according to CPG and for receiving radiotherapy for those treated radically. Funnel plots were used to display variation in radical treatment rates across hospitals. RESULTS: A total of 61,999 men were included with 10,963 (17.7%) in CPG1 (lowest risk group), 13,588 (21.9%) in CPG2, 9452 (15.2%) in CPG3, 12,831 (20.7%) in CPG4, and 15,165 (24.5%) in CPG5 (highest risk group). The proportion of men receiving radical treatment increased from 11.3% in CPG1 to 78.8% in CGP4, and 73.3% in CPG5. Men in CPG3 were more likely to receive radical treatment than men in CPG2 (66.3% versus 48.4%; adjusted RR 1.44; 95% CI 1.36-1.53; P < 0.001). Radically treated men in CPG3 were also more likely to receive radiotherapy than men in CPG2 (59.2% versus 43.9%; adjusted RR, 1.18; 95% CI 1.10-1.26). Although radical treatment rates were similar in CPG4 and CPG5 (78.8% versus 73.3%; adjusted RR 1.01; 95% CI 0.98-1.04), more men in CPG5 had radiotherapy than men in CPG4 (79.9% versus 59.1%, adjusted RR 1.26; 95% CI 1.12-1.40). CONCLUSIONS: The CPG classification distributes men in five risk groups that are about equal in size. It reveals differences in treatment practices in men with intermediate-risk disease (CPG2 and CPG3) and in men with high-risk disease (CPG4 and CPGP5) that are not visible when using the traditional three-tiered risk classification.

Short- and long-term mortality after liver transplantation in patients with and without hepatocellular carcinoma in the UK.

BACKGROUND: The increasing demand for liver transplantation has led to considerable changes in characteristics of donors and recipients. This study evaluated the short- and long-term mortality of recipients with and without hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in the UK between 1997 and 2016. METHODS: First-time elective adult liver transplant recipients in the UK were identified and four successive eras of transplantation were compared. Hazard ratios (HRs) comparing the impact of era on short-term (first 90 days) and longer-term (from 90 days to 5 years) mortality were estimated, with adjustment for recipient and donor characteristics. RESULTS: Some 1879 recipients with and 7661 without HCC were included. There was an increase in use of organs donated after circulatory death (DCD), from 0 per cent in era 1 to 35·2 per cent in era 4 for recipients with HCC, and from 0·2 to 24·1 per cent for non-HCC recipients. The 3-year mortality rate decreased from 28·3 per cent in era 1 to 16·9 per cent in era 4 (adjusted HR 0·47, 95 per cent c.i. 0·35 to 0·63) for recipients with HCC, and from 20·4 to 9·3 per cent (adjusted HR 0·44, 0·36 to 0·53) for those without HCC. Comparing era 4 with era 1, improvements were more marked in short-term than in long-term mortality, both for recipients with HCC (0-90 days: adjusted HR 0·20, 0·10 to 0·39; 90 days to 5 years: adjusted HR 0·52, 0·35 to 0·75; P = 0·043) and for non-HCC recipients (0-90 days: adjusted HR 0·32, 0·24 to 0·42; 90 days to 5 years: adjusted HR 0·52, 0·40 to 0·67; P = 0·024). CONCLUSION: In the past 20 years, the mortality rate after liver transplantation has more than halved, despite increasing use of DCD donors. Improvements in overall survival can be explained by decreases in short-term and longer-term mortality.

ANTECEDENTES: La creciente demanda de trasplante hepático ha determinado cambios considerables en las características de los donantes y receptores. En este estudio, se evaluó la mortalidad a corto y a largo plazo de los receptores de trasplante hepático por carcinoma hepatocelular (hepatocelular carcinoma, HCC) y no-HCC en el Reino Unido entre 1997 y 2016. MÉTODOS: Se identificaron los receptores adultos de un primer trasplante hepático electivo en el Reino Unido y se compararon cuatro eras sucesivas de trasplante. Se estimaron los cocientes de riesgos instantáneos ajustados (adjusted hazard ratio, aHR) que comparaban el impacto de la era en la mortalidad a corto plazo (primeros 90 días) y a largo plazo (de 90 días a 5 años) ajustando por las características del receptor y del donante. RESULTADOS: Se incluyeron 1.879 receptores HCC y 7.661 receptores no-HCC. Hubo un aumento en el uso de donantes después de parada cardíaca (donors following circulatory death, DCD) del 0% en la era 1 al 35,2% en la era 4 para los receptores HCC y del 0,2% al 24,1% para los receptores no-HCC. La mortalidad a los 3 años disminuyó de 28,3% en la era 1 a 16,9% en la era 4 (aHR 0,47, i.c. del 95% 0,35-0,63) para receptores HCC y de 20,4% a 9,3% (aHR 0,44, 0,36-0,53) para receptores no-HCC. Comparando la era 1 y la era 4, las mejoras en la mortalidad a corto plazo fueron más marcadas que en la mortalidad a largo plazo, tanto para receptores HCC (aHR 0-90 días 0,20, 0,10-0,39; 90 días-5 años 0,52, 0,35-0,75; P =舁0,04) como para receptores no-HCC (aHR 0-90 días 0,32, 0,24-0,42; 90 días-5 años 0,52, 0,40-0,67; P =舁0,02). CONCLUSIÓN: En los últimos 20 años, la mortalidad después del trasplante de hígado se ha reducido a más de la mitad, a pesar del uso cada vez mayor de donantes DCD. Las mejoras en la supervivencia global pueden explicarse por la disminución de la mortalidad a corto y largo plazo.

Liver transplantation outcomes after transarterial chemotherapy for hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) awaiting liver transplantation is widespread, although evidence that it improves outcomes is lacking and there exist concerns about morbidity. The impact of TACE on outcomes after transplantation was evaluated in this study. METHODS: Patients with HCC who had liver transplantation in the UK were identified, and stratified according to whether they received TACE between 2006 and 2016. Cox regression methods were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for death and graft failure after transplantation adjusted for donor and recipient characteristics. RESULTS: In total, 385 of 968 patients (39·8 per cent) received TACE. Five-year patient survival after transplantation was similar in those who had or had not received TACE: 75·2 (95 per cent c.i. 68·8 to 80·5) and 75·0 (70·5 to 78·8) per cent respectively. After adjustment for donor and recipient characteristics, there were no differences in mortality (HR 0·96, 95 per cent c.i. 0·67 to 1·38; P = 0·821) or graft failure (HR 1·01, 0·73 to 1·40; P = 0·964). The number of TACE treatments (2 or more versus 1: HR 0·97, 0·61 to 1·55; P = 0·903) or the time of death after transplantation (within or after 90 days; P = 0·291) did not alter the outcome. The incidence of hepatic artery thrombosis was low in those who had or had not received TACE (1·3 and 2·4 per cent respectively; P = 0·235). CONCLUSION: TACE delivered to patients with HCC before liver transplant did not affect complications, patient death or graft failure after transplantation.

ANTECEDENTES: La quimioembolización transarterial (transarterial chemoembolization, TACE) en pacientes con carcinoma hepatocelular (hepatocellular carcinoma, HCC) se utiliza como puente al trasplante hepático, aunque falta evidencia de que mejore los resultados y la morbilidad relacionada es motivo de preocupación. En este estudio se evaluó el impacto de la TACE en los resultados tras el trasplante para analizar las complicaciones. MÉTODOS: Se identificaron los receptores de trasplante hepático por HCC en el Reino Unido y se estratificaron según si habían recibido TACE entre 2006 y 2016. Se utilizó el método de regresión de Cox para estimar los cocientes de riesgos instantáneos (hazard ratio, HR) para la mortalidad post-trasplante y el fallo del injerto ajustados por las características del donante y del receptor. RESULTADOS: En total, 385 (39,8%) de 968 pacientes recibieron TACE, observándose similar supervivencia del paciente a los 5 años después del trasplante: 75,2% (i.c. del 95%: 68,8% a 80,5%) con TACE y 75,0% (70,5% a 78,8 %) sin TACE. Después de ajustar según las características del donante y del receptor, no hubo diferencias en la mortalidad (HR: 0,96, 0,67 a 1,38; P = 0,82) o en el fallo del injerto (HR: 1,01, 0,73 a 1,40; P = 0,96). El número de tratamientos con TACE (≥ 2 tratamientos TACE HR: 0,97, 0,61 a 1,55; P = 0,90) o el período de tiempo después del trasplante (mortalidad del paciente antes o después de 90 días; P = 0,29) no alteró el resultado. La incidencia de trombosis de la arteria hepática fue baja en aquellos que recibieron TACE o no (1,3% y 2,5%, respectivamente; P = 0,23). El fallo del injerto debido a eventos oclusivos fue similar en el grupo de pacientes que recibieron TACE (8,0% o 11/137) o que no la recibieron (6,7% o 5/75) TACE (P = 0,74). CONCLUSIÓN: La administración de TACE en pacientes con HCC antes del trasplante hepático no influyó en las complicaciones post-trasplante, la mortalidad del paciente o el fallo del injerto.

Determinants of Variation in the Use of Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Stage III Colon Cancer in England.

AIMS: Adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) for stage III colon cancer is well-established. This study aimed to explore the determinants of ACT use and between-hospital variation within the English National Health Service (NHS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In total, 11 932 patients (diagnosed 2014-2017) with pathological stage III colon cancer in the English NHS were identified from the National Bowel Cancer Audit. Records were linked to Systemic Anti-Cancer Therapy and Hospital Episode Statistics databases. Multi-level logistic regression analyses were carried out to estimate independent factors for ACT use, including age, sex, deprivation, comorbidities, performance status, American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) grade, surgical urgency, surgical access, TNM staging, readmission and hospital-level factors (university teaching hospital, on-site chemotherapy and high-volume centre). A random intercept was modelled for each English NHS hospital (n = 142). Between-hospital variation was explored using funnel plot methodology. Fully adjusted random-intercept models were fitted separately in young (<70 years) and elderly (≥70 years) patients and intra-class correlation coefficients estimated. RESULTS: 60.7% of patients received ACT. Age was the strongest determinant. Compared with patients aged <60 years, those aged 60-64 (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.76, 95% confidence interval 0.63-0.93), 65-69 (aOR 0.63, 95% confidence interval 0.54-0.74), 70-74 (aOR 0.53, 95% confidence interval 0.44-0.62), 75-79 (aOR 0.23, 95% confidence interval 0.19-0.27) and ≥80 years (aOR 0.05, 95% confidence interval 0.04-0.06) were significantly less likely to receive ACT. With adjustment for other factors, ACT use was more likely in patients with higher socioeconomic status, fewer comorbidities, better performance status, lower ASA grade, advanced disease, elective resections, laparoscopic procedures and no unplanned readmissions. Hospital-level factors were non-significant. The observed proportions of ACT administration in the young and elderly were 46-100% (80% of hospitals 74-90%) and 10-81% (80% of hospitals 33-65%), respectively. Risk adjustment did not reduce between-hospital variation. Despite adjustment, age accounted for 9.9% (7.2-13.4%) of between-hospital variation in the elderly compared with 2.7% (1.2-5.7%) in the young. CONCLUSIONS: There is significant between-hospital variation in ACT use for stage III colon cancer, especially for older patients. Advanced age alone seems to be a greater barrier to ACT use in some hospitals.