RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: To assess the risk of venous thromboembolic events (VTEs) and bleeding with or without thromboprophylaxis during neoadjuvant chemotherapy in bladder cancer patients scheduled for radical cystectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study in 4886 patients with non-metastatic bladder cancer undergoing cystectomy across 28 centres in 13 countries between 1990 and 2021. Inverse probability weighting analyses were performed to estimate the effect of thromboprophylaxis on VTE and bleeding. RESULTS: In 147 patients (3%) VTEs were recorded within the first year. These occurred a median (interquartile range [IQR]) of 127 (82-198) days after bladder cancer diagnosis. Bleeding events occurred in 131 patients (3%) within the first year. These occurred a median (IQR) of 101 (83-171) days after cancer diagnosis. In inverse probability weighting analyses, compared to patients without thromboprophylaxis during chemotherapy, patients with thromboprophylaxis had not only a lower risk of VTE (hazard ratio [HR] 0.32, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.12-0.81; P = 0.016) but also a lower bleeding risk (HR 0.03, 95% CI 0.09-0.12; P <0.0001). The retrospective nature of the study was its main limitation. CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective analysis, the benefit of thromboprophylaxis during neoadjuvant chemotherapy before cystectomy is in line with data from randomised trials in other malignancies. Our data suggest thromboprophylaxis is protective against VTEs and should be the standard of care during neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Targeted therapies with BRAF plus MEK inhibitors (BRAFi; MEKi) represent the major treatment strategy for patients with BRAF-mutated metastatic melanoma (MM). Previous analyses suggested a correlation between programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression in tumour tissues and the outcome of targeted therapies. This study investigated PD-L1 as a potential predictive biomarker of BRAFi-based targeted therapies in MM patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We analysed two independent cohorts of BRAF V600-mutated MM patients undergoing BRAFi-based therapies for PD-L1 expression in pre-treatment tumour tissues. The oligocentre cohort 1 included 83 patients whose tumour tissues were analysed retrospectively with the anti-PD-L1 antibody clone E1L3N. The multicentre cohort 2 included 58 patients whose tumour tissues were analysed prospectively within the framework of the "Registry of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Dermatologische Onkologie" (ADOREG) and "Tissue Registry in Melanoma" (TRIM) project using the anti-PD-L1 antibody clone 28-8. RESULTS: PD-L1 expression in pre-treatment tumour tissue did not correlate with response or survival to BRAFi-based therapies in both MM patient cohorts. This finding was not influenced by retrospective versus prospective immunohistochemistry analyses, oligocentre versus multicentre cohorts or the different anti-PD-L1 antibody clones used. In cohort 1, PD-L1 positivity was detected in tumour tissue of 41.0% and 18.1% of patients (cut-off 1% and 5%, respectively). In cohort 2, 58.6% and 39.7% of patients showed PD-L1 positivity (cut-off 1% and 5%, respectively). CONCLUSION: In two independent cohorts including a total of 141 MM patients, PD-L1 expression in tumour tissue did not correlate with the outcome of BRAFi-based treatment. Therefore, PD-L1 cannot be recommended for the use as a predictive biomarker of BRAFi-based therapy in BRAF V600-mutated MM.
