| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- de Boniface, J., et al.
(författare)
-
The generalisability of randomised clinical trials: an interim external validity analysis of the ongoing SENOMAC trial in sentinel lymph node-positive breast cancer
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0167-6806 .- 1573-7217. ; 180:1, s. 167-176
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Purpose None of the key randomised trials on the omission of axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) in sentinel lymph-positive breast cancer have reported external validity, even though results indicate selection bias. Our aim was to assess the external validity of the ongoing randomised SENOMAC trial by comparing characteristics of Swedish SENOMAC trial participants with non-included eligible patients registered in the Swedish National Breast Cancer Register (NKBC). Methods In the ongoing non-inferiority European SENOMAC trial, clinically node-negative cT1-T3 breast cancer patients with up to two sentinel lymph node macrometastases are randomised to undergo completion ALND or not. Both breast-conserving surgery and mastectomy are eligible interventions. Data from NKBC were extracted for the years 2016 and 2017, and patient and tumour characteristics compared with Swedish trial participants from the same years. Results Overall, 306 NKBC cases from non-participating and 847 NKBC cases from participating sites (excluding SENOMAC participants) were compared with 463 SENOMAC trial participants. Patients belonging to the middle age groups (p = 0.015), with smaller tumours (p = 0.013) treated by breast-conserving therapy (50.3 versus 47.1 versus 65.2%, p < 0.001) and less nodal tumour burden (only 1 macrometastasis in 78.8 versus 79.9 versus 87.3%, p = 0.001) were over-represented in the trial population. Time trends indicated, however, that differences may be mitigated over time. Conclusions This interim external validity analysis specifically addresses selection mechanisms during an ongoing trial, potentially increasing generalisability by the time full accrual is reached. Similar validity checks should be an integral part of prospective clinical trials. Trial registration: NCT 02240472, retrospective registration date September 14, 2015 after trial initiation on January 31, 2015
|
|
| 3. |
- Karlsson, Joakim, et al.
(författare)
-
Molecular profiling of driver events in metastatic uveal melanoma
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Nature Communications. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 2041-1723. ; 11:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Metastatic uveal melanoma is less well understood than its primary counterpart, has a distinct biology compared to skin melanoma, and lacks effective treatments. Here we genomically profile metastatic tumors and infiltrating lymphocytes. BAP1 alterations are overrepresented and found in 29/32 of cases. Reintroducing a functional BAP1 allele into a deficient patient-derived cell line, reveals a broad shift towards a transcriptomic subtype previously associated with better prognosis of the primary disease. One outlier tumor has ahigh mutational burden associated with UV-damage. CDKN2A deletions also occur, which are rarely present in primaries. A focused knockdown screen is used to investigate overexpressed genesassociated withcopy number gains. Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes are in several cases found tumor-reactive, but expression of the immune checkpoint receptors TIM-3, TIGIT and LAG3 is also abundant. This study represents the largest whole-genome analysis of uveal melanoma to date, and presents an updated view of the metastatic disease. © 2020, The Author(s).
|
|
| 4. |
- Keilholz, U., et al.
(författare)
-
ESMO consensus conference recommendations on the management of metastatic melanoma: under the auspices of the ESMO Guidelines Committee
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Annals of Oncology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0923-7534. ; 31:11, s. 1435-1448
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) held a consensus conference on melanoma on 5-7 September 2019 in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. The conference included a multidisciplinary panel of 32 leading experts in the management of melanoma. The aim of the conference was to develop recommendations on topics that are not covered in detail in the current ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline and where available evidence is either limited or conflicting. The main topics identified for discussion were (i) the management of locoregional disease; (ii) targeted versus immunotherapies in the adjuvant setting; (iii) targeted versus immunotherapies for the first-line treatment of metastatic melanoma; (iv) when to stop immunotherapy or targeted therapy in the metastatic setting; and (v) systemic versus local treatment for brain metastases. The expert panel was divided into five working groups to each address questions relating to one of the five topics outlined above. Relevant scientific literature was reviewed in advance. Recommendations were developed by the working groups and then presented to the entire panel for further discussion and amendment before voting. This manuscript presents the results relating to the management of metastatic melanoma, including findings from the expert panel discussions, consensus recommendations and a summary of evidence supporting each recommendation. All participants approved the final manuscript.
|
|
| 5. |
- Michielin, O., et al.
(författare)
-
ESMO consensus conference recommendations on the management of locoregional melanoma: under the auspices of the ESMO Guidelines Committee
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Annals of Oncology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0923-7534. ; 31:11, s. 1449-1461
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) held a consensus conference on melanoma on 5-7 September 2019 in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. The conference included a multidisciplinary panel of 32 leading experts in the management of melanoma. The aim of the conference was to develop recommendations on topics that are not covered in detail in the current ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline and where available evidence is either limited or conflicting. The main topics identified for discussion were: (i) the management of locoregional disease; (ii) targeted versus immunotherapies in the adjuvant setting; (iii) targeted versus immunotherapies for the first-line treatment of metastatic melanoma; (iv) when to stop immunotherapy or targeted therapy in the metastatic setting; and (v) systemic versus local treatment of brain metastases. The expert panel was divided into five working groups in order to each address questions relating to one of the five topics outlined above. Relevant scientific literature was reviewed in advance. Recommendations were developed by the working groups and then presented to the entire panel for further discussion and amendment before voting. This manuscript presents the results relating to the management of locoregional melanoma, including findings from the expert panel discussions, consensus recommendations and a summary of evidence supporting each recommendation. All participants approved the final manuscript.
|
|
