Immunotherapy in mismatch repair-deficient metastatic colorectal cancer - Outcome and novel predictive markers.

BACKGROUND: This study aims to assess predictive markers for response to immunotherapy in dMMR/MSI-H metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A study using two prospective cohorts from MD Anderson Cancer Center and Sheba Medical Center of consecutive patients with dMMR/MSI-H mCRC that were treated with immunotherapy between 2014-2022. Primary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS) and secondary outcome was overall response rate (ORR). Evaluated predictors included ECOG-PS score, RAS/BRAF status, single-agent versus doublet immunotherapy, metastatic sites, disease burden, and CEA levels prior to treatment initiation. Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox proportional hazard regression model were used to analyze the effect of exposure variables on PFS. RESULTS: The study included 153 patients. Median follow-up time was 26 months (IQR 11-48). Median PFS was 51.6 months (95%CI 38.1-NR) and ORR was 58.1%. In a univariate analysis, male sex was associated with worse PFS with a HR of 1.67 (95% CI 1.00-2.79); Right-sided tumors were associated with improved PFS with a HR of 0.56 (95% CI 0.32-0.97); Liver or lung metastasis were associated with worse PFS with HRs of 2.35 (95%CI 1.43-3.88) and 2.30 (95%CI 1.31-4.04), respectively; ECOG-PS score ≥ 2, CEA levels ˃5 µg/L prior to treatment initiation and ≥ 3 metastatic sites were associated with worse PFS with HRs of 2.09 (95%CI 0.98-4.47), 2.23 (95%CI 1.30-3.81) and 3.11 (95%CI 1.61-6.03), respectively. Liver or lung metastasis remained significant in a multivariable model. CONCLUSIONS: Extent of disease (worse PFS with high CEA, poor ECOG-PS and ≥3 metastatic sites) and disease location (worse PFS with liver or lung metastasis and left sided tumor) were associated with immunotherapy outcome in dMMR/MSI-H mCRC.

Role of circulating mitochondria in venous thrombosis in glioblastoma.

BACKGROUND: Many patients with glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) develop deep venous thrombosis or pulmonary emboli. Cell-free circulating mitochondria increase after brain injury and are associated with coagulopathy. OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated whether mitochondria play a role in the GBM-induced hypercoagulable state. METHODS: We examined the correlation between cell-free circulating mitochondria and venous thrombosis in patients with GBM and the impact of mitochondria on venous thrombosis in mice with inferior vena cava stenosis. RESULTS: Using plasma samples of 82 patients with GBM, we found that patients with GBM had a higher number of mitochondria in their plasma (GBM with venous thromboembolism [VTE],: 2.8 × 107 mitochondria/mL; GBM without VTE, 1.9 × 107 mitochondria/mL) than that in healthy control subjects (n = 17) (0.3 × 107 mitochondria/mL). Interestingly, patients with GBM and VTE (n = 41) had a higher mitochondria concentration than patients with GBM without VTE (n = 41). In a murine model of inferior vena cava stenosis, intravenous delivery of mitochondria resulted in an increased rate of venous thrombosis compared with that in controls (70% and 28%, respectively). Mitochondria-induced venous thrombi were neutrophil-rich and contained more platelets than those in control thrombi. Furthermore, as mitochondria are the only source of cardiolipin in circulation, we compared the concentration of anticardiolipin immunoglobulin G in plasma samples of patients with GBM and found a higher concentration in patients with VTE (optical density, 0.69 ± 0.04) than in those without VTE (optical density, 0.51 ± 0.04). CONCLUSION: We concluded that mitochondria might play a role in the GBM-induced hypercoagulable state. We propose that quantifying circulating mitochondria or anticardiolipin antibody concentrations in patients with GBM might identify patients at increased risk of VTE.

Discrepancies in endpoints between clinical trial protocols and clinical trial registration in randomized trials in oncology.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials are an essential part of evidence-based medicine. Hence, to ensure transparency and accountability in these clinical trials, policies for registration have been framed with emphasis on mandatory submission of trial elements, specifically outcome measures. As these efforts evolve further, we sought to evaluate the current status of endpoint reporting in clinical trial registries. METHODS: We reviewed 71 oncology related randomized controlled trials published in three high impact journals. We compared primary (PEP) and non-primary endpoints (NPEP) between the clinical trial protocols of these trials and their corresponding registration in one of the 14 primary global clinical trial registries. A discrepancy was defined as the non-reporting or absence of an endpoint in either the protocol or registry. The primary endpoint was the rate of discrepancy between secondary endpoints in clinical trial protocols and clinical trial registries. RESULTS: Of the 71 clinical trials, a discrepancy in PEP was found in only 4 trials (6%). Secondary endpoint (SEP) differences were found in 45 (63%) trials. Among these 45 trials, 36 (80%) had SEPs that were planned in the protocol but not reported in the registry and 19 (42%) had SEPs with endpoints in the registry that were not found in the protocol. The total number of SEPs that were absent from the corresponding registry and protocol were 84 and 29, respectively. Of these endpoints, 48 (57%) and 9 (31%) were included in the published report of these trials. CONCLUSION: Although recent regulations and enhanced procedures have improved the number and quality of clinical trial registrations, inconsistencies regarding endpoint reporting still exist. Though further guidelines for the registration of clinical trials will help, greater efforts to provide a correct, easily accessible, and complete representation of planned endpoints are needed.