Arnoud J. Templeton

Prognostic role of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio in breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundThe presence of a high neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) has been associated with increased mortality in several malignancies. Here, we quantify the effect of NLR on survival in patients with breast cancer, and examine the effect of clinicopathologic factors on its prognostic value.MethodsA systematic search of electronic databases was conducted to identify publications exploring the association of blood NLR (measured pre treatment) and overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) among patients with breast cancer. Data from studies reporting a hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) or a P value were pooled in a meta-analysis. Pooled HRs were computed and weighted using generic inverse variance. Meta-regression was performed to evaluate the influence of clinicopathologic factors such as age, disease stage, tumor grade, nodal involvement, receptor status, and NLR cutoff on the HR for OS and DFS. All statistical tests were two-sided.ResultsFifteen studies comprising a total of 8563 patients were included. The studies used different cutoff values to classify high NLR (range 1.9–5.0). The median cutoff value for high NLR used in these studies was 3.0 amongst 13 studies reporting a HR for OS, and 2.5 in 10 studies reporting DFS outcomes. NLR greater than the cutoff value was associated with worse OS (HR 2.56, 95% CIu2009=u20091.96–3.35; Pu2009<u20090.001) and DFS (HR 1.74, 95% CIu2009=u20091.47–2.07; Pu2009<u20090.001). This association was similar in studies including only early-stage disease and those comprising patients with both early-stage and metastatic disease. Estrogen receptor (ER) and HER-2 appeared to modify the effect of NLR on DFS, because NLR had greater prognostic value for DFS in ER-negative and HER2-negative breast cancer. No subgroup showed an influence on the association between NLR and OS.ConclusionsHigh NLR is associated with an adverse OS and DFS in patients with breast cancer with a greater effect on disease-specific outcome in ER and HER2-negative disease. NLR is an easily accessible prognostic marker, and its addition to established risk prediction models warrants further investigation.

Relevance of randomised controlled trials in oncology

Well-designed randomised controlled trials (RCTs) can prevent bias in the comparison of treatments and provide a sound basis for changes in clinical practice. However, the design and reporting of many RCTs can render their results of little relevance to clinical practice. In this Personal View, we discuss the limitations of RCT data and suggest some ways to improve the clinical relevance of RCTs in the everyday management of patients with cancer. RCTs should ask questions of clinical rather than commercial interest, avoid non-validated surrogate endpoints in registration trials, and have entry criteria that allow inclusion of all patients who are fit to receive treatment. Furthermore, RCTs should be reported with complete accounting of frequency and management of toxicities, and with strict guidelines to ensure freedom from bias. Premature reporting of results should be avoided. The bar for clinical benefit should be raised for drug registration, which should require publication and review of mature data from RCTs, post-marketing health outcome studies, and value-based pricing.

Neutrophils in cancer: prognostic role and therapeutic strategies

Expression of high levels of immune cells including neutrophils has been associated with detrimental outcome in several solid tumors and new strategies to decrease their presence and activity are currently under clinical development. Here, we review some of the relevant literature of the role of neutrophils in different stages of the oncogenic process including tumor initiation, growth, proliferation or metastatic spreading and also focus on how neutrophil counts or the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio may be used as a prognostic and predictive biomarker. Strategies to avoid the deleterious effects of neutrophils in cancer and to reduce their activity are discussed. Examples for such strategies include inhibition of CXCR1 and CXCR2 to decrease migration of neutrophils to tumoral areas or the inhibition of granulocyte colony stimulating factor to decrease the amount of neutrophils which has shown efficacy in preclinical models.

Magnitude of Clinical Benefit of Cancer Drugs Approved by the US Food and Drug Administration

BackgroundnIt is uncertain whether drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have clinically meaningful benefit as determined by validated scales such as the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS).nnnMethodsnWe searched the Drugs@FDA website for applications of anticancer drugs from January 2006 to December 2016. Study characteristics, outcomes, and regulatory pathways were collected from drug labels and reports of registration trials. For randomized controlled trials (RCTs), ESMO-MCBS grades were applied. Meaningful benefit was defined as a grade of A or B for (neo)adjuvant intent and 4 or 5 for palliative intent. All statistical tests were two-sided.nnnResultsnWe identified 63 individual drugs for 118 indications. These were supported by 135 studies, among which were 105 RCTs for which ESMO-MCBS could be applied. Only 46 (43.8%) met the ESMO-MCBS meaningful benefit threshold (100% of (neo)adjuvant trials and 38.8% of palliative trials). In palliative therapy trials, meaningful ESMO-MCBS grades were associated with phase III trials (compared with phase II; odds ratio [OR] = 38.45, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.27 to 452.00, P = .004), those with overall survival as their primary end point (compared with intermediate end points; ORu2009=u20098.28, 95% CIu2009=u20092.49 to 27.50, P = .001) and trials of targeted drugs with companion diagnostics (ORu2009=u200911.62, 95% CIu2009=u20092.95 to 45.78, P < .001). Over time, there has been an increase in the number of trials meeting the ESMO-MCBS threshold (Ptrend = .04). There were insufficient (neo)adjuvant studies to perform statistical analysis.nnnConclusionsnThe number of trials meeting the ESMO-MCBS threshold for clinical benefit has improved over time. However, fewer than half of RCTs supporting FDA approval meet the threshold for clinically meaningful benefit.

Is the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio prognostic of survival outcomes in gynecologic cancers? A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUNDnPresence of a high neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) has been associated with increased mortality in several malignancies. Here, we quantify the effect of NLR on survival in patients with gynecologic cancers, and examine the effect of clinico-pathologic factors on its prognostic value.nnnMETHODSnA systematic search of electronic databases was conducted to identify publications exploring the association of pre-treatment blood NLR with overall survival (OS) and event-free survival (EFS) among patients with ovarian, endometrial and cervical cancers. Data from studies reporting a hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) or a p-value (P) were weighted by generic inverse-variance and pooled in a random effects meta-analysis. Subgroup analyses were conducted according to primary tumor type. Meta-regression was performed to evaluate the influence of clinico-pathologic factors on the HR for OS and EFS. All statistical tests were two-sided.nnnRESULTSnTwenty-six studies comprising 10,530 patients were included. Studies used different cut-offs to classify high NLR (range 0.89 to 5.03). The median cut-off for high NLR was 2.95 among twenty-six studies reporting a HR for OS, and 2.79 in seventeen studies reporting EFS outcomes. NLR greater than the cut-off was associated with worse OS (HR 1.65, 95% CI=1.44 to 1.89; P<0.001) and EFS (HR 1.57, 95% CI=1.35 to 1.82; P<0.001). This association was present in all tumor types. Most studies were comprised of patients with both early-stage and advanced disease. In cervical cancer, significant associations between NLR and OS were observed in studies of early- and mixed-stage patients and regression analysis showed a greater magnitude of effect in patients with locally advanced disease and in those who received both chemotherapy and radiation.nnnCONCLUSIONSnHigh NLR is associated with an adverse OS and EFS in patients with gynecologic malignancies.

Efficacy of extended adjuvant therapy with aromatase inhibitors in early breast cancer among common clinicopathologically-defined subgroups: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUNDnRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) have shown improvements in breast cancer outcomes from extending treatment with aromatase inhibitors (AIs) beyond the initial 5years after diagnosis. Consistency of this effect in common clinicopathologically defined subgroups was not been reported systematically.nnnMETHODSnWe identified RCTs comparing extended AIs to placebo or no treatment using a systematic search of MEDLINE and a review of abstracts from key conferences between 2013 and 2016. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for disease-free survival (DFS) were included in a meta-analysis using generic inverse variance and random effects modelling. Pre-specified subgroups included: age (<60±5years versus ≥60±5 years), tumor size (>2cm versus ≤2cm), nodal status (positive versus negative), hormone receptor status (double versus single receptor expression) and receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy (yes versus no).nnnRESULTSnSeven trials comprising 16,349 patients were analyzed. Overall, the effect of extended AIs was similar in all subgroups. Non-significantly greater effect sizes were seen in patients with larger tumors (HR for DFS 0.77 versus 0.88, p for difference=0.44), nodal involvement (HR=0.72 versus 0.83, p for difference=0.22), double hormone receptor expression (HR=0.68 versus 1.01, p for difference=0.31) and receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy (HR=0.71 versus 0.80, p for difference=0.51).nnnCONCLUSIONSnExtended treatment with AIs is associated with similar relative improvements in DFS in all subgroups analyzed. The combination of greater effect size and higher absolute risk of recurrence in node positive and larger tumors will likely translate to higher absolute benefits from extended AIs in these groups.

Prognostic role of telomere length in malignancies: A meta-analysis and meta-regression

Telomere length (TL) has been associated with several health conditions including cancer. To quantify the effect of TL on outcomes in malignancies and explore the role of type of TL measurement we conducted a librarian-led systematic search of electronic databases identified publications exploring the prognostic role of TL on cancer outcomes. Overall survival (OS) was the primary outcome measure while other time-to-event endpoints were secondary outcomes. Data from studies reporting a hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) and/or p-value were pooled in a meta-analysis. HRs were weighted by generic inverse variance and computed by random effects modeling. All statistical tests were two-sided. Sixty-one studies comprising a total of 14,720 patients were included of which 41 (67%) reported OS outcomes. Overall, the pooled HR for OS was 0.88 (95%CI=0.69-1.11, p=0.28). Long (versus short) telomeres were associated with improved outcomes in chronic lymphatic leukemia (CLL) and urothelial cancer (HR=0.45, 95%CI=0.29-0.71 and HR=0.68, 95%CI=0.46-1.00, respectively), conversely worse OS was seen with hepatocellular carcinoma (HR=1.90, 95%CI=1.51-2.38). Pooled HRs (95% CI) for progression-free survival, relapse/disease-free survival, cancer-specific survival, and treatment-free survival were 0.56 (0.41-0.76), 0.76 (0.53-1.10), 0.72 (0.48-1.10), and 0.48 (0.39-0.60), respectively. There was substantial heterogeneity of tissues and methods used for TL measurement and no clear association between TL and outcome was identified in subgroups. In conclusion, there is inconsistent effect of TL on cancer outcomes possibly due to variable methods of measurement. Standardization of measurement and reporting of TL is warranted before the prognostic value of TL can be accurately assessed.

Epidermal growth factor receptor overexpression and outcomes in early breast cancer: A systematic review and a meta-analysis

BACKGROUNDnThe epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) is a member of the ErbB family of membrane tyrosine-kinase receptors. Studies exploring the prognostic role of EGFR-overexpression in early breast cancer have shown variable results, and the true prognostic value of EGFR is unknown.nnnMETHODSnA systematic review of identified publications exploring the association between EGFR-overexpression (as defined from different techniques and cut-offs) and outcomes [disease-free (DFS) and, overall survival (OS)] in women with early breast cancer. The hazard ratios (HR) for DFS and OS were weighted and pooled in a meta-analysis using generic inverse variance and random effects modeling.nnnRESULTSnFifty-three studies comprising 21,418 women were included. EGFR-overexpression was found in 27% of the patients. Primary analysis included studies reporting HRs from multivariable analyses (10 studies including 4857 patients with HRs for OS and 17 studies comprising 8747 patients with HRs for DFS), EGFR-overexpression was associated with worse OS (HR 1.98, 95% CI: 1.59-2.47, pu202f<u202f.001) and DFS (HR 1.59, 95% CI 1.30-1.95, pu202f<u202f.001). The influence of EGFR overexpression on DFS was greater in women with triple negative tumors compared to women with non-triple negative tumors (HR 2.35 versus HR 1.45, respectively; pu202f=u202f.01). Analysis looking at odd ratios for both 5-year and 10-year for DFS and OS showed similar results.nnnCONCLUSIONnEGFR-overexpression appears to be associated with reduced OS and DFS in women with early breast cancer. Patients with triple negative and EGFR-overexpression have poorer OS and DFS than those with triple negative tumors and normal EGFR expression.

Hyperglycaemia and Survival in Solid Tumours: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

AIMSnDiabetes is associated with adverse cancer outcomes. However, the effect of hyperglycaemia in non-diabetic cancer patients is unclear.nnnMATERIALS AND METHODSnA systematic search of electronic databases identified publications exploring the effect of hyperglycaemia on overall survival, disease-free survival (DFS) or progression-free survival (PFS). Data from studies reporting a hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval and/or a P-value were pooled in a meta-analysis using generic inverse-variance and random effects modelling. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on method of hyperglycaemia measurement (HbA1c, other) and stage (early, advanced, mixed). Meta-regression was performed to evaluate the influence of clinical characteristics including baseline diabetes status on the hazard ratio for overall survival.nnnRESULTSnTwelve studies comprising a total of 9872 patients were included. All studies reported hazard ratios for overall survival. Three studies reported DFS; two reported PFS outcomes. Definitions of hyperglycaemia and cut-offs varied between studies. Hyperglycaemia was associated with worse overall survival (hazard ratio 2.05, 95% confidence interval 1.67-2.51; Pxa0<xa00.001) and DFS (hazard ratio 1.98, 95% confidence interval 1.20-3.27; Pxa0=xa00.007), but did not affect PFS (hazard ratio 1.08, 95% confidence interval 0.72-1.62; Pxa0=xa00.71). The association with worse overall survival was maintained in subgroups based on method of hyperglycaemia measurement (subgroup difference Pxa0=xa00.46) and stage (Pxa0=xa00.14). Meta-regression showed a significantly greater magnitude of association between hyperglycaemia and decreased overall survival in studies with higher proportions of women and diabetic patients.nnnCONCLUSIONSnHyperglycaemia is associated with adverse overall survival and DFS in patients with cancer. The therapeutic role of glycaemic control in cancer patients warrants further investigation.

Development and validation of a prognostic model for overall survival in chemotherapy-naïve men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer

BackgroundnPrognostic models are needed that reflect contemporary practice for men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). We sought to identify predictive and prognostic variables for overall survival (OS) in chemotherapy-naïve men with mCRPC treated with enzalutamide.nnnPatients and methodsnPatients from the PREVAIL trial database (enzalutamide versus placebo) were randomly split 2 : 1 into training (nu2009=u20091159) and testing (nu2009=u2009550) sets. Using the training set, 23 predefined variables were analyzed and a multivariable model predicting OS was developed and validated in an independent testing set.nnnResultsnPatient characteristics and outcomes were well balanced between training and testing sets; median OS was 32.7u2009months in each. The final validated multivariable model included 11 independent prognostic variables. Median OS for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups (testing set) defined by prognostic risk tertiles were not yet reached (NYR) (95% CI NYR-NYR), 34.2u2009months (31.5-NYR), and 21.1u2009months (17.5-25.0), respectively. Hazard ratios (95% CI) for OS in the low- and intermediate-risk groups versus high-risk group were 0.20 (0.14-0.29) and 0.40 (0.30-0.53), respectively. Secondary outcomes of response and progression differed widely in model-defined risk groups. Enzalutamide improved outcomes in all prognostic risk groups.nnnConclusionsnOur validated prognostic model incorporates variables routinely collected in chemotherapy-naïve men with mCRPC treated with enzalutamide, identifying subsets of patients with widely differing survival outcomes that provide useful information for external validation, patient care, and clinical trial design.nnnTrial registrationnClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01212991.