Comparative analyses of survival differences in patients with urothelial versus non-urothelial upper tract carcinomas: Results from the National Cancer Database (NCDB).

e16582 Background: The true incidence of upper tract cancers in the United States is not well defined, with cancers combined with kidney cancer and ureteral cancers grouped with rare urinary organ cancer. It is estimated to occur at 5% of urothelial carcinomas with a rough estimate of 3750 cases annually. Little data exists for non-urothelial variants of upper tract cancers. Methods: The primary objective of this retrospective review is to evaluate trends and differences between urothelial (UC) versus non-urothelial (nUC) histologies (squamous, sarcomatoid, small cell or neuroendocrine, adenocarcinoma) for upper tract cancers and compare the demographics, disease characteristics, treatment, incidence of stage and survival according to NCDB. Results: Data from diagnosis in year 2004 – 2017 were extracted from the NCDB. A total of 29743 urothelial and 561 non-urothelial cases for upper tract cancers were identified. More men were diagnosed with urothelial carcinoma, UC (62%) and non-urothelial carcinoma, nUC (58%) for non-urothelial carcinoma. The median age was similar for both groups, 73 years (UC) and 72 years (nUC). Majority were Caucasian at 92% (UC) and 91% (nUC) with incidence of 4% in the UC and 6% in the nUC cohorts for African-American patients. Primary surgery with nephroureterectomy occurred more frequently in the UC cohort (85%) compared to the nUC (58%). More patients were diagnosed with stage IV cancer based on the AJCC Clinicopathologic stage grouping in the nUC group (29%) compared to UC at 8.1%, but overall survival was not different for stage IV cancers with median OS of 8.57 mos (CI, 8.05-9.10) for UC vs 7 mos (CI, 5.62 – 9.26) nUC; logrank p = 0.283 although survival was significantly different for earlier stages of Stage 0 & 1 at 80.53 mos UC (CI, 78.13, 83.25) vs 28.98 mos nUC (CI, 20.3, 46.78), p < 0.001; and for stage II & III at median OS of 35.65 mos UC (CI, 33.38, 38.05) vs 15.75 mos nUC (CI, (11.17, 26.87) that is also significantly different though with lesser significance with longer follow-up. Conclusions: Upper tract urothelial cancers compared to non-urothelial cancers have similar poor outcomes upon diagnosis of metastatic disease though outcomes are with urothelial upper tract is better with earlier stage upon diagnosis compared to non-urothelial cancers, highlighting the importance of early diagnosis with perhaps curative intent treatment.

2021 AAHA/AAFP Feline Life Stage Guidelines*

ABSTRACT The guidelines, authored by a Task Force of experts in feline clinical medicine, are an update and extension of the AAFP–AAHA Feline Life Stage Guidelines published in 2010. The guidelines are published simultaneously in the Journal of Feline Medicine and Surgery (volume 23, issue 3, pages 211–233, DOI: 10.1177/1098612X21993657) and the Journal of the American Animal Hospital Association (volume 57, issue 2, pages 51–72, DOI: 10.5326/JAAHA-MS-7189). A noteworthy change from the earlier guidelines is the division of the cat’s lifespan into a five-stage grouping with four distinct age-related stages (kitten, young adult, mature adult, and senior) as well as an end-of-life stage, instead of the previous six. This simplified grouping is consistent with how pet owners generally perceive their cat’s maturation and aging process, and provides a readily understood basis for an evolving, individualized, lifelong feline healthcare strategy. The guidelines include a comprehensive table on the components of a feline wellness visit that provides a framework for systematically implementing an individualized life stage approach to feline healthcare. Included are recommendations for managing the most critical health-related factors in relation to a cat’s life stage. These recommendations are further explained in the following categories: behavior and environmental needs; elimination; life stage nutrition and weight management; oral health; parasite control; vaccination; zoonoses and human safety; and recommended diagnostics based on life stage. A discussion on overcoming barriers to veterinary visits by cat owners offers practical advice on one of the most challenging aspects of delivering regular feline healthcare.

2021 AAHA/AAFP Feline Life Stage Guidelines

The guidelines, authored by a Task Force of experts in feline clinical medicine, are an update and extension of the AAFP–AAHA Feline Life Stage Guidelines published in 2010. The guidelines are published simultaneously in the Journal of Feline Medicine and Surgery (volume 23, issue 3, pages 211–233, DOI: 10.1177/1098612X21993657) and the Journal of the American Animal Hospital Association (volume 57, issue 2, pages 51–72, DOI: 10.5326/JAAHA-MS-7189). A noteworthy change from the earlier guidelines is the division of the cat’s lifespan into a five-stage grouping with four distinct age-related stages (kitten, young adult, mature adult, and senior) as well as an end-of-life stage, instead of the previous six. This simplified grouping is consistent with how pet owners generally perceive their cat’s maturation and aging process, and provides a readily understood basis for an evolving, individualized, lifelong feline healthcare strategy. The guidelines include a comprehensive table on the components of a feline wellness visit that provides a framework for systematically implementing an individualized life stage approach to feline healthcare. Included are recommendations for managing the most critical health-related factors in relation to a cat’s life stage. These recommendations are further explained in the following categories: behavior and environmental needs; elimination; life stage nutrition and weight management; oral health; parasite control; vaccination; zoonoses and human safety; and recommended diagnostics based on life stage. A discussion on overcoming barriers to veterinary visits by cat owners offers practical advice on one of the most challenging aspects of delivering regular feline healthcare.

Type of fiducial marker and clinical outcomes in stereotactic body radiation therapy for pancreatic cancer.

414 Background: Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for pancreatic cancers has been shown to improve local control, and is an important option for treatment, especially for unresectable disease. Verifying the tumor location prior to delivery of SBRT is challenging, so fiducial markers are used to track tumor location. There is currently no standard of which fiducials to use in treatment. This study would like to compare outcomes of patients treated with SBRT using different fiducial markers. Methods: Records of patients diagnosed with primary pancreas cancer who were treated with chemotherapy and SBRT were reviewed from 2006-2019. Patients were excluded if they were treated with Cyberknife, were metastatic at presentation, recurrence /persistent disease after Whipple/radiation therapy, were secondary metastatic disease (from another primary), and if they were resected after SBRT. Patients were categorized according to the fiducial used for tumor tracking during SBRT treatment: gold seeds, intrabiliary stent, or both. Cumulative incidence of local recurrence (CIR) was analyzed with death as competing event, and time to over-all survival was estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves. Results: A total of 129 patients with available fiducial information were included in this study, of which 64 (49.6%) were treated with SBRT using gold seeds, 23 (17.8%) using intrabiliary stent, and 42 (32.6%) using both the seeds and stent. There were no difference between groups in terms of baseline characteristics such as age (p = 0.169), sex (p = 0.293), and stage grouping (p = 0.293). Median follow-up time was 15 months (range: 0.3-37.3 months). The 6- and 12-month CIR were 1.5% (95%CI, 0.1%-7.4%) and 11% (95%CI, 4.8%-20.2%) for patients treated with seeds, 4.3% (95%CI, 0.2%-18.6%) and 30.4% (95%CI, 13.1%-49.8%) for patients treated with stent, and 4.8% (95%CI, 0.8%-14.6%) and 19.5% (95%CI, 9.0%-32.9%) for patients treated with both (p = 0.007). Median time to overall survival was 15.3 months (95%CI, 13-17.8 months) for patients treated with seeds, 21.3 months (95%CI, 14.7-29.6 months) for patients treated with stent, and 15.7 months (95%CI, 11.5-19.7 months) for patients treated with both (p = 0.307). Univariate analysis for predictors of local failure did not show significance for age (p = 0.812), or advanced stage (p = 0.483), but was significant for the presence of seeds (p = 0.006). Conclusions: The type of fiducial marker used for tracking during pancreas SBRT treatment was associated with local failure but no difference in overall survival. Further analysis is warranted to see which clinical factors contribute to this difference.

The effect of the papillary renal cell carcinoma subtype on oncological outcomes

The study aimed to compare the clinicopathological features and prognosis between type I and type II papillary renal cell carcinoma (PRCC) and to investigate whether the subtypes of PRCC would affect oncological outcomes. A total of 102 patients with PRCC were recruited, of which 42 were type I PRCC and 60 type II. The clinicopathological features and oncologic outcomes of the patients were evaluated. The type II cases had a higher WHO/ISUP grading (P < 0.001), T (P = 0.003), N (P = 0.010) stage and stage grouping (P = 0.011) than the type I. During a median follow-up period of 61.4 months, 1-year cancer specific survival (CSS) of the type I was 100%, 5-year CSS was 95.2%, the 1-year CSS of the type II was 96.2%, and 5-year CSS was 75.7%. The univariate analysis showed that subtype, symptoms, TNM, stage grouping, WHO/ISUP grading and surgical methods appeared to affect prognosis of the patients with PRCC. However, multivariate analysis revealed that only stage grouping was the independent risk factor. After the stage grouping factor was adjusted for the analysis, there were no statistically significant differences in CSS (P = 0.214) and PFS (P = 0.190) between the localized type I and type II PRCC groups. Compared with type I PRCC, type II had higher pathological T, N stage and WHO/ISUP grading. However, it was the Stage grouping that made a great difference to oncological outcomes, rather than the subtype of PRCC.

Predicting Lung Cancer Survival Using Probabilistic Reclassification of TNM Editions With a Bayesian Network

PURPOSE The TNM classification system is used for prognosis, treatment, and research. Regular updates potentially break backward compatibility. Reclassification is not always possible, is labor intensive, or requires additional data. We developed a Bayesian network (BN) for reclassifying the 5th, 6th, and 7th editions of the TNM and predicting survival for non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) without training data with known classifications in multiple editions. METHODS Data were obtained from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (n = 146,084). A BN was designed with nodes for TNM edition and survival, and a group of nodes was designed for all TNM editions, with a group for edition 7 only. Before learning conditional probabilities, priors for relations between the groups were manually specified after analysis of changes between editions. For performance evaluation only, part of the 7th edition test data were manually reclassified. Performance was evaluated using sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy. Two-year survival was evaluated with the receiver operating characteristic area under the curve (AUC), and model calibration was visualized. RESULTS Manual reclassification of 7th to 6th edition stage group as ground truth for testing was impossible in 5.6% of the patients. Predicting 6th edition stage grouping using 7th edition data and vice versa resulted in average accuracies, sensitivities, and specificities between 0.85 and 0.99. The AUC for 2-year survival was 0.81. CONCLUSION We have successfully created a BN for reclassifying TNM stage grouping across TNM editions and predicting survival in NSCLC without knowing the true TNM classification in various editions in the training set. We suggest binary prediction of survival is less relevant than predicted probability and model calibration. For research, probabilities can be used for weighted reclassification.