logo
TNT Shows Similar Efficacy Across Regimens in Rectal Cancer

TNT Shows Similar Efficacy Across Regimens in Rectal Cancer

Medscape7 days ago
TOPLINE:
In a multicentre study of patients with locally advanced rectal cancer, substantial variation existed in the choice of total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT), but efficacy was comparable across different regimens and consistent with that reported in clinical trials.
METHODOLOGY:
Researchers conducted an international, multicentre study in 21 countries and included 1585 patients (median age, 61 years; 37.1% women) with stage II/III rectal adenocarcinoma from September 2012 to December 2023.
The primary objective focused on the type of TNT administered depending on the regimen, timing and type of chemotherapy, and type of radiotherapy. Secondary objectives encompassed safety and efficacy overall and on the basis of the type of TNT after propensity vector matching.
Efficacy endpoints included pathologic complete response, complete response, local or distant progression at the time of treatment failure, event-free survival (EFS), and overall survival (OS).
Overall, 17.7%, 33.4%, 12%, and 16.2% of patients were treated according to PRODIGE 23-like, RAPIDO-like, OPRA induction-like, and OPRA consolidation-like regimens, respectively.
TAKEAWAY:
Chemotherapy was given as induction, consolidation, and sandwich for 34.5%, 51.0%, and 14.5% of patients, respectively; regimens were single agent (1.1%), doublet (78.8%), and triplet (20.1%). Radiotherapy was delivered as short-course radiotherapy in 37.2% and long-course chemoradiotherapy in 62.8% of cases.
The pathologic complete response rate was 21.3%, and the complete response rate was 23.2%; local and distant progression at the time of treatment failure were 7% and 16.2%, respectively.
Three-year EFS reached 68%, and 5-year OS was 79%.
In the overall population, PRODIGE 23-like regimens showed better survival outcomes than RAPIDO-like regimens (EFS: hazard ratio [HR], 0.68; P = .03; OS: HR, 0.51; P = .04), OPRA induction-like regimens (EFS: HR, 0.66; P = .04; OS: HR, 0.35; P = .003), and OPRA consolidation-like regimens (EFS: HR, 0.64; P = .02; OS: HR, 0.50; P = .05).
After the propensity vector matching analysis of 928 patients (58.5%), no significant differences in survival outcomes were observed between TNT regimens.
IN PRACTICE:
"This case series study illuminates the applicability of TNT to clinical practice," the authors of the study wrote. "TNT decisions should be made based on the individual risk profile and following an accurate discussion about the positives and negatives of each option while considering patient preferences and expectations," they added.
SOURCE:
This study was led by Alessandro Audisio, MD, Université libre de Bruxelles, Institut Jules Bordet-Hôpital Erasme, Brussels, Belgium. It was published online on July 10, 2025, in JAMA Oncology.
LIMITATIONS:
The retrospective design of the study introduced potential data collection errors and biases, which were only partially addressed through remote monitoring and data imputation. The relatively short follow-up period may have prevented the detection of differences in long-term outcomes between TNT regimens. Additionally, variations in treatment delivery, staging methods, and supportive care across institutions complicated direct comparisons. Despite involving multiple countries, the predominant European patient population limited the generalisability of the results.
DISCLOSURES:
This study was sponsored by the Institut Jules Bordet and endorsed by the Oncodistinct Network. Several authors reported receiving personal fees and grants and having other ties with various sources. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Claims Data Fail to Accurately Identify MI Types
Claims Data Fail to Accurately Identify MI Types

Medscape

timean hour ago

  • Medscape

Claims Data Fail to Accurately Identify MI Types

TOPLINE: Clinical auditing reveals significant misclassification in administrative codes for myocardial infarction (MI), with only 39% of type 1 (T1MI) codes and 72% of type 2 (T2MI) codes for the condition accurately reflecting the true diagnosis, researchers found. Nearly half of patients coded for T1MI had T2MI, whereas 26% of T2MI codes represented myocardial injury. METHODOLOGY: Researchers identified 350 randomly sampled patients with T1MI codes and 350 patients with T2MI codes during inpatient encounters using the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems-10th Revision. The analysis included patients aged 65 years and older from October 1, 2017, to May 9, 2024, within eight hospitals in the Mass General Brigham system. Using the 4th Universal Definition of MI, the researchers reviewed the clinical encounters to assess evidence of plaque erosion or thrombus vs oxygen demand-supply imbalance. A second physician review was conducted for 146 challenging and 146 nonchallenging cases. TAKEAWAY: Among the 350 patients coded as having had T1MI, clinical adjudication revealed 138 (39%) as correctly diagnosed; 159 (45%) in fact had T2MI, and 35 (10%) had myocardial injury. Of the 350 patients coded as having had T2MI, 251 (72%) were confirmed, four (1%) were found to have T1MI, and 91 (26%) had myocardial injury. A second physician review demonstrated a high degree of agreement with the initial review, with a 94% agreement in nonchallenging cases and 86% in challenging cases. Hospitals equipped with vs without cardiac catheterization laboratories showed significantly lower misclassification rates (43% vs 58%; P = .0298). IN PRACTICE: 'Among individuals assigned a T1MI claims code, nearly one half have T2MI and many others have myocardial injury; fewer than one half have true T1MI,' the researchers reported. 'Our results also confirm and extend previous work showing that among those with T2MI codes, slightly more than one half have true T2MI, with most of the misclassification related to myocardial injury rather than T1MI. This has critically important implications for epidemiology and public policy' related to acute myocardial infarction. SOURCE: The study was led by Andrea Martinez, MD, of the Department of Medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. It was published online on July 21 in Journal of the American College of Cardiology. LIMITATIONS: The results may not be generalized to other hospital systems and countries, where patterns of misclassification might differ. The researchers noted external validity assessment across multiple healthcare systems and in countries that have already introduced International Classification of Diseases-11th revision coding would be beneficial. While patterns of misclassification might have changed over time, the analysis was intentionally restricted to the period when codes for both T1MI and T2MI were available. DISCLOSURES: The study received support through a grant to Jason Wasfy from the Massachusetts General Hospital Executive Committee on Research. Individual authors reported receiving other grants and support, including grants from industry. This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

5-Grass SLIT Shows Benefit in Allergic Rhinoconjunctivitis
5-Grass SLIT Shows Benefit in Allergic Rhinoconjunctivitis

Medscape

timean hour ago

  • Medscape

5-Grass SLIT Shows Benefit in Allergic Rhinoconjunctivitis

TOPLINE: Five-grass-pollen liquid sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) reduced symptoms and the need for medications to treat symptoms in patients with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (ARC) with or without asthma — while maintaining a favorable safety profile and providing consistent benefits across ages, comorbidities, and treatment durations. METHODOLOGY: Researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of five-grass-pollen liquid SLIT in patients with ARC with or without asthma. Nine studies comparing the efficacy of interventional immunotherapy with that of placebo in this population were included. The key outcomes comprised symptom severity, assessed as the symptom score; a reduction in medication use, assessed as the medication score; and the incidence of adverse events (AEs). TAKEAWAY: A pooled analysis of eight studies showed a significant reduction in symptom score in the interventional immunotherapy group vs the placebo group (standardized mean difference [SMD], -0.34; 95% CI, -0.62 to -0.06; P < .05) over a mean follow-up of 19 months. Analysis of data pooled from six studies showed a significant reduction in use of drugs for symptoms in the interventional immunotherapy group vs the placebo group (SMD, -0.54; 95% CI, -0.97 to -0.10; P < .05) over a mean follow-up of 20 months. AEs occurred in 20.6% of participants in the interventional immunotherapy group vs 17.5% in the placebo group (P = .46), with treatment discontinuation rates due to AEs of 3.0% and 1.8%, respectively (P = .41). Treatment efficacy remained consistent regardless of cumulative dose, treatment duration, or asthma status. IN PRACTICE: '[The findings] suggest that the dose of five-grass SLIT-liquid can be safely adjusted for better adverse event management without compromising treatment outcomes,' the authors of the study wrote. 'This flexibility makes it possible to tailor treatment according to the patient's condition while addressing their needs and expectations,' they added. SOURCE: Danilo Di Bona, with the University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy, was the corresponding author of the study, which was published online on July 17 in the Journal of Investigational Allergology and Clinical Immunology. LIMITATIONS: The analysis had a relatively small sample size, variation in dosages and treatment durations across studies, and incomplete reporting of AEs in some studies. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Stallergenes Greer, a pharmaceutical company. One author declared receiving fees from this company. Some authors reported receiving consulting fees; payments or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events; or support for attending meetings or travel and serving on data safety monitoring boards or advisory boards for various pharmaceutical companies. This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

More Data Cement COVID's Impact on Patients With Cancer
More Data Cement COVID's Impact on Patients With Cancer

Medscape

time2 hours ago

  • Medscape

More Data Cement COVID's Impact on Patients With Cancer

TOPLINE: New data confirm the impact COVID infection can have on patients with cancer and identified several risk factors associated with hospitalization and death. Receipt of chemotherapy as well as a baseline history of stroke, atrial fibrillation, or pulmonary embolism were each associated with nearly double the risk for COVID-related hospitalization. Prior vaccination halved this risk. Older age and earlier hospitalization were associated with a greater risk for death. METHODOLOGY: Patients undergoing active cancer treatment are at increased risk for severe COVID-19 due to immunosuppression, but risk factors for hospitalization and death are not well-defined. Researchers conducted a prospective cohort study involving 1572 patients with cancer (median age, 60 years; 53.4% women), enrolled within 14 days of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test; participants had received active treatment for cancer within 6 weeks before testing or had undergone prior stem cell transplant or CAR T-cell therapy. Patient screening and enrollment took place between May 2020 and February 2022. Treatments included chemotherapy (34.3%), targeted therapy (27.7%), and immunotherapy (10.6%). Breast (23.6%) and lung (13.9%) cancers were the most common cancer types. Overall, 64% of participants had metastatic disease, and at enrollment, 64% had not received a COVID vaccine. Study outcomes were COVID-related hospitalization or death. Risk factors for hospitalization and for death among hospitalized patients were evaluated separately. TAKEAWAY: At 90 days after an initial positive test, COVID-related mortality was 3% and remained stable at subsequent follow-ups. The highest incidence occurred in patients with lymphoma, followed by those with acute leukemia or lung cancer; the lowest incidence occurred in those with other types of solid tumors and blood cancers. Hospitalization for COVID-19 occurred in 18.4% of patients within 90 days of enrollment. The risk for hospitalization was elevated among patients who received chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 1.97) and those with a history of stroke, atrial fibrillation, and pulmonary embolism (HR, 1.78). Vaccination prior to infection reduced the risk for hospitalization by nearly half (HR, 0.52). Hospitalization for COVID-19 within 30 days of infection was associated with an increased risk for death (HR, 14.6). Among patients hospitalized for COVID within 30 days, age 65 years or older was the only significant predictor of COVID-specific death (HR, 3.49). Over the 2-year follow-up, there were 1739 disruptions to cancer treatment; 50.7% of these were attributed to COVID-19, and most occurred within 30 days of a positive test. IN PRACTICE: 'The data from this prospective cohort study confirm and expand previous retrospective case series that have found factors, including hematologic cancers, chemotherapy receipt, and lung cancer, as associated with COVID-19 severity,' the authors of the study wrote, noting that the results 'showed that COVID-19 had a significant impact on patients with cancer, including hospitalization, treatment disruptions, and death.' SOURCE: This study, led by Brian I. Rini, MD, Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, Tennessee, was published online in JAMA Oncology. LIMITATIONS: Information on specific strains was not available. This study lacked a control group of patients without COVID-19, which limited causal inference. Additionally, as participants were enrolled through the National Cancer Institute trial networks, generalizability to a broader population could be limited. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded in part by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act and the National Cancer Institute National Clinical Trials Network, Experimental Therapeutics Clinical Trials Network, and Community Oncology Research Program grants via the U10 funding mechanism. Several authors declared receiving grants and/or personal fees and having other ties with various sources. This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store