Integrated Analysis of Molecular and Clinical Prognostic Factors in Stage II/III Colon Cancer.

Background The prognostic potential of individual clinical and molecular parameters in stage II/III colon cancer has been investigated, but a thorough multivariable assessment of their relative impact is missing. Methods Tumors from patients (N = 1404) in the PETACC3 adjuvant chemotherapy trial were examined for BRAF and KRAS mutations, microsatellite instability (MSI), chromosome 18q loss of heterozygosity (18qLOH), and SMAD4 expression. Their importance in predicting relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) was assessed by Kaplan-Meier analyses, Cox regression models, and recursive partitioning trees. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results MSI-high status and SMAD4 focal loss of expression were identified as independent prognostic factors with better RFS (hazard ratio [HR] of recurrence = 0.54, 95% CI = 0.37 to 0.81, P = .003) and OS (HR of death = 0.43, 95% CI = 0.27 to 0.70, P = .001) for MSI-high status and worse RFS (HR = 1.47, 95% CI = 1.19 to 1.81, P < .001) and OS (HR = 1.58, 95% CI = 1.23 to 2.01, P < .001) for SMAD4 loss. 18qLOH did not have any prognostic value in RFS or OS. Recursive partitioning identified refinements of TNM into new clinically interesting prognostic subgroups. Notably, T3N1 tumors with MSI-high status and retained SMAD4 expression had outcomes similar to stage II disease. Conclusions Concomitant assessment of molecular and clinical markers in multivariable analysis is essential to confirm or refute their independent prognostic value. Including molecular markers with independent prognostic value might allow more accurate prediction of prognosis than TNM staging alone.

Comparison of neoadjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy versus radiochemotherapy followed by resection for stage III (N2) NSCLC.

OBJECTIVE: Comparison of prospectively treated patients with neoadjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy vs radiochemotherapy followed by resection for mediastinoscopically proven stage III N2 non-small cell lung cancer with respect to postoperative morbidity, pathological nodal downstaging, overall and disease-free survival, and site of recurrence. METHODS: Eighty-two patients were enrolled between January 1994 to June 2003, 36 had cisplatin and doxetacel-based chemotherapy (group I) and 46 cisplatin-based radiochemotherapy up to 44 Gy (group II), either as sequential (25 patients) or concomitant (21 patients) treatment. All patients had evaluation of absence of distant metastases by bone scintigraphy, thoracoabdominal CT scan or PET scan, and brain MRI, and all underwent pre-induction mediastinoscopy, resection and mediastinal lymph node dissection by the same surgeon. RESULTS: Group I and II comprised T1/2 tumors in 47 and 28%, T3 tumors in 45 and 41%, and T4 tumors in 8 and 31% of the patients, respectively (P=0.03). There was a similar distribution of the extent of resection (lobectomy, sleeve lobectomy, left and right pneumonectomy) in both groups (P=0.9). Group I and II revealed a postoperative 90-d mortality of 3 and 4% (P=0.6), a R0-resection rate of 92 and 94% (P=0.9), and a pathological mediastinal downstaging in 61 and 78% of the patients (P<0.01), respectively. 5y-overall survival and disease-free survival of all patients were 40 and 36%, respectively, without significant difference between T1-3 and T4 tumors. There was no significant difference in overall survival rate in either induction regimens, however, radiochemotherapy was associated with a longer disease-free survival than chemotherapy (P=0.04). There was no significant difference between concurrent vs sequential radiochemotherapy with respect to postoperative morbidity, resectability, pathological nodal downstaging, survival and disease-free survival. CONCLUSIONS: Neoadjuvant cisplatin-based radiochemotherapy was associated with a similar postoperative mortality, an increased pathological nodal downstaging and a better disease-free survival as compared to cisplatin doxetacel-based chemotherapy in patients with stage III (N2) NSCLC although a higher number of T4 tumors were admitted to radiochemotherapy.

Concomitant Cisplatin and Hyperfractionated Radiotherapy in Locally Advanced Head and Neck Cancer: Ten-year Follow-up of a Randomized Phase III Trial (SAKK 10/94)

Purpose/Objective(s): To analyze the long-term outcome of treatment with concomitant cisplatin and hyperfractionated radiotherapy in locally advanced head and neck cancer compared with hyperfractionated radiotherapy alone.Materials/Methods: From July 1994 to July 2000 a total of 224 patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck were randomized to either hyperfractionated radiotherapy (median dose 74.4 Gy; 1.2 Gy twice daily) or the same radiotherapy combined with two cycles of concomitant cisplatin (20mg/m2 for 5 consecutive days of weeks 1 and 5). The primary endpoint was time to any treatment failure; secondary endpoints were locoregional failure, metastatic failure, overall survival, and late toxicity assessed according to RTOG criteria. The trial was registered at the National Institutes of Health (www.clinicaltrials.gov; identifier number: NCT00002654).Results: Median follow-up was 9.5 years (range, 0.1 - 15.4 years). Median time to any treatment failure was not significantly different between treatment arms (p = 0.19). Locoregional control (p\0.05), distant metastasis-free survival (p = 0.02) and cancer specific survival (p = 0.03) were significantly improved in the combined treatment arm, with no difference in late toxicity between treatment arms. However, overall survival was not significantly different (p = 0.19). Conclusions: After long-term follow-up combined treatment with cisplatin and hyperfractionated, radiotherapy maintained an improved locoregional control, distant metastasis-free survival, and cancer specific survival as compared to hyperfractionated radiotherapy alone with no difference in late toxicity.Author Disclosure: P. Ghadjar, None; M. Simcock, None; G. Studer, None; A.S. Allal, None; M. Ozsahin, None; J. Bernier, None; M. To¨ pfer, None; F. Zimmermann, None; C. Glanzmann, None; D.M. Aebersold, None.

III

Cette étude présente une méthode d'analyse comparative destinée à explorer le processus de « différenciation » considéré ici comme un principe fondamental de l'interaction des cultures et de la création littéraire. Celle-ci tire sa capacité de créer des effets de sens toujours nouvellement pertinents de sa façon de se différencier des voix et des façons de dire déjà existantes. L'étude présente les présupposés, fondements théoriques et objectifs d'une telle « comparaison différentielle » qui accorde une importance constitutive aux langues et aux contextes énonciatifs dont émanent les oeuvres littéraires. Le souci d'explorer ce qui est « différentiel » ne mène pas au constat d'irréductibles différences, mais à la découverte du dialogisme intertextuel et interculturel qui sous-tend toute création littéraire. Les études littéraires en reçoivent un nouvel attrait, car elles nous apprennent quelque chose d'essentiel qu' Eduard Glissant résume dans cette formule : « C'est par la différence que fonctionne ce que j'appelle la Relation avec un grand R ».