METHODS: Predialysis CKD patients were included in this cross-sectional study. Patient demographics, medical/medication histories, and laboratory parameters (serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D), creatinine, phosphate (P), calcium, albumin, and intact-PTH (i-PTH)) were collected and compared among patients with various CKD stages. The association between 25(OH)D and these parameters was determined by multiple linear regression.
RESULTS: A total of 196 patients with mean ± SD eGFR of 26.4 ± 11.2 mL/min/1.73 m2 was included. Vitamin D deficiency (25(OH)D concentration < 15 ng/mL) and insufficiency (25(OH)D concentration 16 - 30 ng/mL) was found in 29.1% and 57.7% of the patients, respectively. Mean ± SD serum 25(OH)D was 20.8 ± 9.3 ng/mL. Female patients had lower vitamin D concentrations than males (16.9 ng/mL vs. 23.9 ng/mL; p < 0.001). Vitamin D levels were also higher in Chinese (22.3 ng/mL) than Malay (17.3 ng/mL) and Indian (13.1 ng/mL) patients (p < 0.05). Nonadjusted analyses showed higher i-PTH concentration in vitamin D deficient patients (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSION: Despite being a sun-rich country all year round, the majority (86.8%) of predialysis CKD patients in Singapore have suboptimal vitamin D status. Lower vitamin D concentrations were found in females and in those with darker skin tone. Vitamin D deficient patients also tended to have higher i-PTH levels.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The clinical characteristics, presenting symptoms and survival of RCC patients (n=151) treated at UMMC from 2003-2012 were analysed. Symptoms evaluated were macrohaematuria, flank pain, palpable abdominal mass, fever, lethargy, loss of weight, anaemia, elevated ALP, hypoalbuminemia and thrombocytosis. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses were performed to determine the prognostic significance of these presenting symptoms. Kaplan Meier and log rank tests were employed for survival analysis.
RESULTS: The 2002 TNM staging was a prognostic factor (p<0.001) but Fuhrman grading was not significantly correlated with survival (p=0.088). At presentation, 76.8% of the patients were symptomatic. Generally, symptomatic tumours had a worse survival prognosis compared to asymptomatic cases (p=0.009; HR 4.74). All symptoms significantly affect disease specific survival except frank haematuria and loin pain on univariate Cox regression analysis. On multivariate analysis adjusted for stage, only clinically palpable abdominal mass remained statistically significant (p=0.027). The mean tumour size of palpable abdominal masses, 9.5±4.3cm, was larger than non palpable masses, 5.3±2.7cm (p<0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: This is the first report which includes survival information of RCC patients from Malaysia. Here the TNM stage and a palpable abdominal mass were independent predictors for survival. Further investigations using a multicentre cohort to analyse mortality and survival rates may aid in improving management of these patients.
METHODS: Clinicopathological data were retrieved from the archived formal pathology reports for surgical specimens diagnosed as invasive ductal carcinoma, NOS. Microvessels were immunohistochemically stained with anti-CD34 antibody and quantified as microvessel density.
RESULTS: At least 50% of 94 cases of invasive breast ductal carcinoma in the study were advanced stage. The majority had poor prognosis factors such as tumor size larger than 50mm (48.9%), positive lymph node metastasis (60.6%), and tumor grade III (52.1%). Higher percentages of estrogen and progesterone receptor negative cases were recorded (46.8% and 46.8% respectively). Her-2 overexpression cases and triple negative breast cancers constituted 24.5% and 22.3% respectively. Significantly higher microvessel density was observed in the younger patient age group (p=0.012). There were no significant associations between microvessel density and other clinicopathological factors (p>0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Majority of the breast cancer patients of this institution had advanced stage disease with poorer prognostic factors as compared to other local and western studies. Breast cancer in younger patients might be more proangiogenic.
METHODS: In this randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 3 trial, done in 209 sites in 29 countries, we randomly assigned patients 2:1 with untreated locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer using a block method (block size of six) and an interactive voice-response system with integrated web-response to pembrolizumab (200 mg) every 3 weeks plus chemotherapy (nab-paclitaxel; paclitaxel; or gemcitabine plus carboplatin) or placebo plus chemotherapy. Randomisation was stratified by type of on-study chemotherapy (taxane or gemcitabine-carboplatin), PD-L1 expression at baseline (combined positive score [CPS] ≥1 or <1), and previous treatment with the same class of chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant or adjuvant setting (yes or no). Eligibility criteria included age at least 18 years, centrally confirmed triple-negative breast cancer; at least one measurable lesion; provision of a newly obtained tumour sample for determination of triple-negative breast cancer status and PD-L1 status by immunohistochemistry at a central laboratory; an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score 0 or 1; and adequate organ function. The sponsor, investigators, other study site staff (except for the unmasked pharmacist), and patients were masked to pembrolizumab versus saline placebo administration. In addition, the sponsor, the investigators, other study site staff, and patients were masked to patient-level tumour PD-L1 biomarker results. Dual primary efficacy endpoints were progression-free survival and overall survival assessed in the PD-L1 CPS of 10 or more, CPS of 1 or more, and intention-to-treat populations. The definitive assessment of progression-free survival was done at this interim analysis; follow-up to assess overall survival is continuing. For progression-free survival, a hierarchical testing strategy was used, such that testing was done first in patients with CPS of 10 or more (prespecified statistical criterion was α=0·00411 at this interim analysis), then in patients with CPS of 1 or more (α=0·00111 at this interim analysis, with partial alpha from progression-free survival in patients with CPS of 10 or more passed over), and finally in the intention-to-treat population (α=0·00111 at this interim analysis). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02819518, and is ongoing.
FINDINGS: Between Jan 9, 2017, and June 12, 2018, of 1372 patients screened, 847 were randomly assigned to treatment, with 566 patients in the pembrolizumab-chemotherapy group and 281 patients in the placebo-chemotherapy group. At the second interim analysis (data cutoff, Dec 11, 2019), median follow-up was 25·9 months (IQR 22·8-29·9) in the pembrolizumab-chemotherapy group and 26·3 months (22·7-29·7) in the placebo-chemotherapy group. Among patients with CPS of 10 or more, median progression-free survival was 9·7 months with pembrolizumab-chemotherapy and 5·6 months with placebo-chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] for progression or death, 0·65, 95% CI 0·49-0·86; one-sided p=0·0012 [primary objective met]). Median progression-free survival was 7·6 and 5·6 months (HR, 0·74, 0·61-0·90; one-sided p=0·0014 [not significant]) among patients with CPS of 1 or more and 7·5 and 5·6 months (HR, 0·82, 0·69-0·97 [not tested]) among the intention-to-treat population. The pembrolizumab treatment effect increased with PD-L1 enrichment. Grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse event rates were 68% in the pembrolizumab-chemotherapy group and 67% in the placebo-chemotherapy group, including death in <1% in the pembrolizumab-chemotherapy group and 0% in the placebo-chemotherapy group.
INTERPRETATION: Pembrolizumab-chemotherapy showed a significant and clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival versus placebo-chemotherapy among patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer with CPS of 10 or more. These findings suggest a role for the addition of pembrolizumab to standard chemotherapy for the first-line treatment of metastatic triple-negative breast cancer.
FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Inc.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine the cost-effectiveness of second-line endocrine therapies for the treatment of postmenopausal women with HR + and HER2 - mBC.
METHODS: A Markov model was developed to analyze the cost-effectiveness of the therapies over a 15-year time horizon from a public healthcare payer's perspective. The efficacy and utility parameters were determined via a systematic search of the literature. Direct medical care costs were used. A discount rate of 2% was applied for costs and outcomes. Subgroup analysis was performed for non-visceral metastasis. A series of sensitivity analyses, including probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) and threshold analysis were performed.
RESULTS: Base-case analyses estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of 3 million and 6 million Japanese yen (JPY)/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained for TOR and FUL 500 mg relative to EXE, respectively. FUL 250 mg and EXE + EVE were dominated. The overall survival (OS) highly influenced the ICER. With a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of 5 million JPY/QALY, the probability of TOR being cost-effective was the highest. Subgroup analysis in non-visceral metastasis revealed 0.4 and 10% reduction in ICER from the base-case results of FUL5 500 mg versus EXE and TOR versus EXE, respectively, while threshold analysis indicated EVE and FUL prices should be reduced 73 and 30%, respectively.
CONCLUSION: As a second-line therapy for postmenopausal women with HR +/HER2 - mBC, TOR may be cost-effective relative to other alternatives and seems to be the most favorable choice, based on a WTP threshold of 5 million JPY/QALY. FUL 250 mg is expected to be as costly and effective as EXE. The cost-effectiveness of EXE + EVE and FUL 500 mg could be improved by a large price reduction. However, the results are highly sensitive to the hazard ratio of OS. Policy makers should carefully interpret and utilize these findings.
METHODS: In this double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 27,395 participants with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease to receive rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) plus aspirin (100 mg once daily), rivaroxaban (5 mg twice daily), or aspirin (100 mg once daily). The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, stroke, or myocardial infarction. The study was stopped for superiority of the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group after a mean follow-up of 23 months.
RESULTS: The primary outcome occurred in fewer patients in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group than in the aspirin-alone group (379 patients [4.1%] vs. 496 patients [5.4%]; hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66 to 0.86; P<0.001; z=-4.126), but major bleeding events occurred in more patients in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group (288 patients [3.1%] vs. 170 patients [1.9%]; hazard ratio, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.40 to 2.05; P<0.001). There was no significant difference in intracranial or fatal bleeding between these two groups. There were 313 deaths (3.4%) in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group as compared with 378 (4.1%) in the aspirin-alone group (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.96; P=0.01; threshold P value for significance, 0.0025). The primary outcome did not occur in significantly fewer patients in the rivaroxaban-alone group than in the aspirin-alone group, but major bleeding events occurred in more patients in the rivaroxaban-alone group.
CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease, those assigned to rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) plus aspirin had better cardiovascular outcomes and more major bleeding events than those assigned to aspirin alone. Rivaroxaban (5 mg twice daily) alone did not result in better cardiovascular outcomes than aspirin alone and resulted in more major bleeding events. (Funded by Bayer; COMPASS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01776424 .).