Not all high-risk features have similar adverse effects on OS. T4 tumors and their combination with other HRF achieve the most survival benefit with adjuvant therapy. Type and number of high-risk features should be taken into consideration when recommending adjuvant chemotherapy in stage II colon cancer.

Prior single center or registry studies have shown that living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) decreases waitlist mortality and offers superior patient survival over deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT). The aim of this study was to compare outcomes for adult LDLT and DDLT via systematic review. A meta‐analysis was conducted to examine patient survival and graft survival, MELD, waiting time, technical complications, and postoperative infections. Out of 8600 abstracts, 19 international studies comparing adult LDLT and DDLT published between 1/2005 and 12/2017 were included. U.S. outcomes were analyzed using registry data. Overall, 4571 LDLT and 66,826 DDLT patients were examined. LDLT was associated with lower mortality at 1, 3, and 5 years posttransplant (5‐year HR 0.87 [95% CI 0.81–0.93], p < .0001), similar graft survival, lower MELD at transplant (p < .04), shorter waiting time (p < .0001), and lower risk of rejection (p = .02), with a higher risk of biliary complications (OR 2.14, p < .0001). No differences were observed in rates of hepatic artery thrombosis. In meta‐regression analysis, MELD difference was significantly associated with posttransplant survival (R2 0.56, p = .02). In conclusion, LDLT is associated with improved patient survival, less waiting time, and lower MELD at LT, despite posing a higher risk of biliary complications that did not affect survival posttransplant.

Primary tumor site is associated with response to BT in mCRC. Right-sided primary tumor location is associated with higher mortality regardless of BT type. In patients with wild-type KRAS tumors, treatment with cetuximab benefited only those with left-sided mCRC and was associated with significantly poorer survival among those with right-sided mCRC. Our results underscore the importance of stratification by tumor site for current treatment guidelines and future clinical trials.

While IBR delays time to definitive surgery, its use did not substantially affect time to adjuvant treatment or survival outcomes. Further research is ongoing to mitigate the effects of potential selection bias in favor of IBR.

Background: Both perioperative chemotherapy (PC) and adjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) improve survival in resectable gastric cancer; however, these treatments have never been formally compared. Our objective was to evaluate treatment trends and compare survival outcomes for gastric cancer patients treated with surgery and either PC or CRT.Methods: We performed a retrospective population-based cohort study between 2007 through 2013 using California Cancer Registry data. Patients diagnosed with stage IB-III gastric adenocarcinoma and treated with total or partial gastrectomy were eligible for this study. Based on the type of treatment received, patients were grouped into surgery-only, PC, or CRT. Primary and secondary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and gastric cancer-specific survival (GCCS) respectively. Mortality hazards ratios (HRs) for each of these outcomes were computed using propensity score weighted and covariate-adjusted Cox regression models, stratified by clinical node status.Results: Of 2,146 patients who underwent surgical resection, 1,067 had surgery-only, while 771 and 308 received PC or CRT, respectively. Median OS was 25, 33, and 52 months for surgery-only, PC, and CRT, respectively; P<0.001. Overall, patients treated with PC had significantly poorer survival compared to CRT (HR =1.45; 95% CI: 1.22-1.73). PC was also associated with higher mortality in patients with signet ring histology (HR =1.66; 95% CI: 1.21-2.28) and clinical node negative cancer (HR =1.85; 95% CI: 1.32-2.60). Survival was not different between PC vs. CRT in clinical node positive patients (HR =1.29; 95% CI: 0.84-2.08). Of note, the percentage of patients receiving PC increased from 17.5% in 2007-2008, to 41.5% in 2013-2014; P<0.001. Conclusions: Despite the rapid adoption of PC, overall, CRT is associated with better survival than PC.Specifically, clinical node negative and signet ring histology patients had better survival when treated with CRT compared to PC. Based on these findings, we recommend against indiscriminate adoption of PC and consideration for CRT over PC in clinical node negative patients.

LNR appears to be a simple and readily available measure that could be used in treatment planning for resected GC. CRT offers significant survival advantage over CT among patients with high LN disease burden (LNR of ≥10%).

Background:The Affordable Care Act (ACA) and subsequent Medicaid expansion has increased utilization of public health insurance. Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) increases access to transplant and is associated with improved survival but consistently represents < 5% of LT in the United States.Study design: National registry data were analyzed to evaluate the impact of insurance payor on waitlist mortality and LDLT rates at LDLT centers since implementation of the ACA.

e13571 Background: Clinical trials report average effects of treatments at a population level. However, clinicians must balance treatment benefits against risks to personalize therapy. Here, we present a statistical framework which incorporates real-world data to estimate efficacy and symptom burden for an individual patient. We then assess the potential impact of continuing immunotherapy beyond progression in patients with metastatic solid malignancies on immune-related adverse events, progression, and survival. Methods: We corrected for sampling biases with inverse propensity score weighting (IPTW), and used the IPTW-transformed data to train predictive models of patient outcomes under each option. The models utilize a peer-based similarity based on 222 routinely-collected patient characteristics, such as cancer and treatment specific factors, laboratory tests, demographics, vitals, stage, comorbidities and symptoms, which are extracted from the electronic health record or natural language processing of clinician narratives, and Social Determinants of Health from Census data. We developed our methods on “Dataset A”: 5,919 breast and genitourinary (GU) cancer patients at a tertiary cancer center. We computed individualized treatment effect (ITE) estimates on “Dataset B”: 5,486 breast, GU, and thoracic cancer patients who received immunotherapy. Results: Our approach eliminated biases in Dataset A: the IPTW-transformation reduced the between-group standardized mean difference across identified confounders from an average of 0.225 to an average of 0.022. The similarity model exhibited strong discrimination (ROC-AUC > 0.75), and identified associations between patient characteristics and outcomes that matched clinicians’ expectations. Validations are ongoing to assess the ITE estimates on a held-out subset of Dataset B. These include subgroup analyses for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer and non-small cell lung cancer. Conclusions: We introduce a method to estimate the efficacy and toxicity of interventions, actions, or treatment decisions, which replicates the statistical robustness of a clinical trial while obtaining individualized insights. This framework provides causal estimates of symptom burden and risks of progression and survival to inform clinical decisions, including continuation of immunotherapy beyond progression. After IPTW, confounders in Dataset A were balanced between the treatment groups, with weighted standardized mean differences <0.1. [Table: see text]