Neoadjuvant therapy versus upfront surgical strategies in resectable pancreatic cancer: A Markov decision analysis.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant therapy is gaining acceptance as a valid treatment option for borderline resectable pancreatic cancer; however, its value for clearly resectable pancreatic cancer remains controversial. The aim of this study was to use a Markov decision analysis model, in the absence of adequately powered randomized trials, to compare the life expectancy (LE) and quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALE) of neoadjuvant therapy to conventional upfront surgical strategies in resectable pancreatic cancer patients. METHODS: A Markov decision model was created to compare two strategies: attempted pancreatic resection followed by adjuvant chemoradiotherapy and neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by restaging with, if appropriate, attempted pancreatic resection. Data obtained through a comprehensive systematic search in PUBMED of the literature from 2000 to 2015 were used to estimate the probabilities used in the model. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Of the 786 potentially eligible studies identified, 22 studies met the inclusion criteria and were used to extract the probabilities used in the model. Base case analyses of the model showed a higher LE (32.2 vs. 26.7 months) and QALE (25.5 vs. 20.8 quality-adjusted life months) for patients in the neoadjuvant therapy arm compared to upfront surgery. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses for LE and QALE revealed that neoadjuvant therapy is favorable in 59% and 60% of the cases respectively. CONCLUSION(S): Although conceptual, these data suggest that neoadjuvant therapy offers substantial benefit in LE and QALE for resectable pancreatic cancer patients. These findings highlight the value of further prospective randomized trials comparing neoadjuvant therapy to conventional upfront surgical strategies.

A genomic case study of mixed fibrolamellar hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Mixed fibrolamellar hepatocellular carcinoma (mFL-HCC) is a rare liver tumor defined by the presence of both pure FL-HCC and conventional HCC components, represents up to 25% of cases of FL-HCC, and has been associated with worse prognosis. Recent genomic characterization of pure FL-HCC identified a highly recurrent transcript fusion (DNAJB1:PRKACA) not found in conventional HCC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed exome and transcriptome sequencing of a case of mFL-HCC. A novel BAC-capture approach was developed to identify a 400 kb deletion as the underlying genomic mechanism for a DNAJB1:PRKACA fusion in this case. A sensitive Nanostring Elements assay was used to screen for this transcript fusion in a second case of mFL-HCC, 112 additional HCC samples and 44 adjacent non-tumor liver samples. RESULTS: We report the first comprehensive genomic analysis of a case of mFL-HCC. No common HCC-associated mutations were identified. The very low mutation rate of this case, large number of mostly single-copy, long-range copy number variants, and high expression of ERBB2 were more consistent with previous reports of pure FL-HCC than conventional HCC. In particular, the DNAJB1:PRKACA fusion transcript specifically associated with pure FL-HCC was detected at very high expression levels. Subsequent analysis revealed the presence of this fusion in all primary and metastatic samples, including those with mixed or conventional HCC pathology. A second case of mFL-HCC confirmed our finding that the fusion was detectable in conventional components. An expanded screen identified a third case of fusion-positive HCC, which upon review, also had both conventional and fibrolamellar features. This screen confirmed the absence of the fusion in all conventional HCC and adjacent non-tumor liver samples. CONCLUSION: These results indicate that mFL-HCC is similar to pure FL-HCC at the genomic level and the DNAJB1:PRKACA fusion can be used as a diagnostic tool for both pure and mFL-HCC.

Cost effectiveness of personalized treatment in women with early breast cancer: the application of OncotypeDX and Adjuvant! Online to guide adjuvant chemotherapy in Austria.

A Breast Cancer Outcomes model was developed at the ONCOTYROL research center to evaluate personalized test-treatment strategies in Austria. The goal was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a new 21-gene assay (ODX) when used in conjunction with the Adjuvant! Online (AO) decision aid to support personalized decisions about use of adjuvant chemotherapy in early-stage breast cancer patients in Austria. We applied a validated discrete-event-simulation model to a hypothetical cohort of 50 years old women over a lifetime horizon. The test-treatment strategies of interest were defined using three-letter acronyms. The first (second, third) letter indicates whether patients with a low (intermediate, high) risk according to AO were tested using ODX (Y yes, N no). The main outcomes were life-years gained, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs and cost effectiveness. Robustness of the results was tested in sensitivity analyses. Results were compared to a Canadian analysis conducted by the Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment Collaborative (THETA). Five of eight strategies were dominated (i.e., more costly and less effective: NNY, NYN, YNN, YNY, YYN). The base-case analysis shows that YYY (ODX provided to all patients) is the most effective strategy and is cost effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 15,700 EUR per QALY gained. These results are sensitive to changes in the probabilities of distant recurrence, age and costs of chemotherapy. The results of the base-case analysis were comparable to the THETA results. Based on our analyses, using ODX in addition to AO is effective and cost effective in all women in Austria. The development of future genetic tests may require alternative or additional test-treatment strategies to be evaluated.

Evaluation of the SCA instrument for measuring patient satisfaction with cancer care administered via paper or via the Internet.

BACKGROUND: Patients' perspectives provide valuable information on quality of care. This study evaluates the feasibility and validity of Internet administration of Service Satisfaction Scale for Cancer Care (SCA) to assess patient satisfaction with outcome, practitioner manner/skill, information, and waiting/access. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Primary data collected from November 2007 to April 2008. Patients receiving cancer care within 1 year were recruited from oncology, surgery, and radiation clinics at a tertiary care hospital. An Internet-based version of the 16-item SCA was developed. Participants were randomised to Internet SCA followed by paper SCA 2 weeks later or vice versa. Seven-point Likert scale responses were converted to a 0-100 scale (minimum-maximum satisfaction). Response distribution, Cronbach's alpha, and test-retest correlations were calculated. RESULTS: Among 122 consenting participants, 78 responded to initial SCA. Mean satisfaction scores for paper/Internet were 91/90 (outcome), 95/94 (practitioner manner/skill), 89/90 (information), and 86/86 (waiting/access). Response rate and item missingness were similar for Internet and paper. Except for practitioner manner/skill, test-retest correlations were robust r = 0.77 (outcome), 0.74 (information), and 0.75 (waiting/access) (all P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Internet SCA administration is a feasible and a valid measurement of cancer care satisfaction for a wide range of cancer diagnoses, treatment modalities, and clinic settings.