Background: Oncolytic viruses (OVs) have shown prospects in advanced and metastatic cancer, and many clinical trials have been carried out. To compare OV therapies comprehensively and provide a categorized profile and ranking of efficacy and safety, a network meta-analysis was conducted. Methods: A total of 5948 studies were screened and 13 randomized controlled trials with 1939 patients, of whom 1106 patients received OV therapies, comparing four OVs (NTX-010, pexastimogene devacirepvec (Pexa-Vec), talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC), and pelareorep) were included in a Bayesian network meta-analysis. Eligible studies reported at least one of the following clinical outcome measures: objective response rate (ORR) and grade ≥ 3 adverse events. Results: Compared to systemic treatments alone, talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) (OR 7.00, 95% CI 1.90–26.00) and T-VEC plus systemic treatment (2.90, 0.80–11.00) showed better objective response rates (ORRs), whereas Pexa-Vec 1 * 10⁹ pfu plus systemic treatment (0.91, 0.26–3.00) and pelareorep plus systemic treatment (1.10, 0.61–2.00) were found to be comparable. The grade ≥ 3 adverse event ranking of the treatments from worst to best was as follows: T-VEC (ranking probability 24%), Pexa-Vec 1 * 10⁹ pfu plus systemic treatment (21%), Pexa-Vec 1 * 10⁹ pfu (17%), T-VEC plus systemic treatment (13%), pelareorep plus systemic treatment (13%), systemic treatments (18%), Pexa-Vec 1 * 10⁸ pfu (12%), and NTX-010 (20%). Conclusions: Compared with other oncolytic virus therapies for patients with advanced or metastatic cancer, T-VEC and T-VEC plus systemic treatment appear to provide the best ORR therapy in terms of monotherapy and combination respectively, but should be given with caution to grade ≥ 3 adverse events. Conversely, combining OVs with chemotherapy or target agents was demonstrated not to improve efficacy compared with chemotherapy or target agents alone. Combining OV therapies with immune-checkpoint inhibitors, instead of chemotherapy or target agents, tended to provide better ORRs without causing severe adverse events. This study will guide treatment choice and optimize future trial designs for investigations of advanced or metastatic cancer.

Dermatologic toxicities resulting in dose reduction or discontinuation of treatment pose challenges for targeted anticancer therapies. We conducted this randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial to investigate the efficacy of topical application of Compound Danxiong Granules (CDG) for treatment of dermatologic toxicities associated with targeted anticancer therapies. One hundred and ten patients with dermatologic toxicities induced by targeted anticancer therapies were randomly assigned to CDG or placebo group. Each crude herb (Rhizoma Chuanxiong, Paeonia suffruticosa Andr., Cortex Phellodendri, Geranium sibiricum L., and Flos Carthami) was prepared as an instant herbal powder. Application of the CDG via topical washes lasted 20 minutes, twice daily, for 10 days. The primary outcome was the total effective rate, defined as reduction in at least one grade of skin toxicity. The total effective rate was 77.61% (52/67) in the CDG group and 27.27% (9/33) in the placebo group (P < 0.0001). Compared to the placebo treatment, CDG treatment achieved a higher total effective rate for hand‐foot skin reaction (95.45% versus 27.27%), acneiform eruption (69.23% versus 30.78%), and paronychia (68.42% versus 22.22%). Topical application of CDG can effectively attenuate dermatologic toxicities induced by targeted anticancer therapies. The effect of CDG was more pronounced in hand‐foot skin reaction.

The relationship between the size of the primary tumor and the prognosis of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) is unclear. In this study, we aimed to investigate the significance of the size of the primary tumor in mRCC. We retrospectively reviewed the data of patients with mRCC who underwent cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) from 2006 to 2013 in a Chinese center (n = 96) and those in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database (from 2004 to 2015, n = 4403). Tumors less than 4 cm in size were defined as small. Prognostic factors were analyzed using univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression analyses. Patients with small tumors had a longer overall survival than other patients, both in the Chinese cohort (median, 30.0 vs 24.0 months, P = 0.026) and the SEER cohort (median, 43.0 vs 23.0 months, P < 0.001). After adjusting for other significant prognostic factors, small tumor size was still an independent protective factor in the Chinese cohort (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.793; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.587–0.998, P = 0.043). In the SEER cohort, multivariate analysis showed that small tumor size was also an independent protective factor (HR, 0.880; 95% CI: 0.654–0.987, P = 0.008). In addition, as a continuous variable, a 1 cm elevation in tumor size translated into a 3.8% higher risk of death (HR, 1.038; 95% CI, 1.029–1.046; P < 0.001). Patients with small tumors may have a favorable prognosis after CN for mRCC. Although CN is not a standard protocol in mRCC, small tumor size may be a candidate when we are deciding to perform CN because of the potential benefit for OS.

Nomogram can be built to predict the pathological T3a upstaging from clinical T1a in patients with localized renal cell carcinoma before surgery. Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) patients with clinical T1a (cT1a) disease who are upstaged to pathological T3a (pT3a) have reduced survivals after partial nephrectomy. We aimed to develop a nomogram-based model predicting pT3a upstaging in RCC patients with preoperative cT1a based on multiple preoperative blood indexes and oncological characteristics. Between 2010 and 2019, 510 patients with cT1a RCC were individually matched according to pT3a upstaging and pathological T1a (pT1a) at a 1:4 ratio using clinicopathologic features. Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regression analysis was used to identify the most important risk factor from 40 peripheral blood indicators, and a predictive model was established. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed with the screened blood parameters and clinical data to identify significant variables. Harrell’s concordance index (C-index) was applied to evaluate the accuracy of the model for predicting pT3a upstaging in patients with cT1a RCC. Out of 40 blood indexes, the top ranked predictor was fibrinogen (FIB). Age, the ratio of the tumor maximum and minimum diameter (ROD), FIB, and tumor size were all independent risk factors for pT3a upstaging in multivariate analysis. A predictive ARFS model (Age, ROD, FIB, tumor Size) was established, and the C-index was 0.756 (95% CI, 0.681-0.831) and 0.712 (95% CI, 0.638-0.785) in the training and validation cohorts, respectively. Older age, higher ROD, increased FIB level, and larger tumor size were independent risk factors for upstaging. The ARFS model has a high prediction efficiency for pT3a upstaging in patients with cT1a RCC.

Objective: For patients with advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC), the dose of targeted agents was recommended in combination with immune checkpoint inhibitors. We performed a network meta‐analysis to describe a categorized safety ranking profile and assess the adaptability of the combination options of targeted agents.Methods: The targeted agents refer to vascular endothelial growth factor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (VEGF‐TKIs) and mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors. Randomized controlled trials comparing these drugs were enrolled in a Bayesian model network meta‐analysis.Results: Nineteen clinical trials with 11 treatments and 10,615 patients were included. For grade ≥ 3 adverse events (AEs), compared with placebo, lenvatinib plus everolimus showed worse safety than all other treatments except for lenvatinib (placebo vs. OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.07–0.78). Everolimus was generally the safest agent (OR 1.23, 95% CI 0.50–3.14). Sorafenib arose the least renal AEs (placebo vs. OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.06–11.64), whereas lenvatinib plus everolimus had the highest risk of renal toxicity (placebo vs. 0.17 95% CI 0.01–1.02). For gastrointestinal symptoms, everolimus was related to much lower toxicity than other agents. In the respiratory safety analysis, tivozanib (placebo vs. OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.07–0.31) and axitinib (OR 5.43, 95% CI 3.26–9.22) were the riskiest agents. In terms of hepatobiliary (placebo vs. OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.09–2.10) and hemotoxicity (placebo vs. OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.14–7.68) related AEs, lenvatinib was found to be the safest treatment compared to placebo.Conclusions: Everolimus, with the best safety of grade ≥ 3, gastrointestinal, and respiratory AEs, was more likely to be considered for combination therapies. Lenvatinib appears to be the safest for blood/lymphatic and hepatobiliary AEs. For patients with renal disorders, sorafenib arises the least renal toxicity AEs. This study will guide treatment options and optimize the trial design for advanced or metastatic RCC.

Purpose: This study aimed to construct a predictive model for recurrence and metastasis in patients with localized clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) based on multiple preoperative blood indexes and oncological characteristics. Patients and Methods: Overall, 442 patients with localized ccRCC between 2013 and 2015 were included. Using least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) Cox regression analysis, the top three risk factors from the peripheral blood indicators were screened to construct a risk score, and a prognostic model was established. Harrell’s concordance index (C-index) was applied to evaluate the predictive accuracy of the model for predicting disease-free survival (DFS) in ccRCC. Results: Out of 38 blood indexes, the top three predictors were fibrinogen (FIB), C-reactive protein (CRP) and neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR). The FIB-CRP-NLR (FCN) score (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.86, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.21– 2.9, P = 0.005) was an independent prognostic factor in multivariate analysis. Furthermore, the FIB-CRP-NLR-T-Grade (FCNTG) risk model combining FCN score, T stage and Furhman grade achieved a higher prognostic accuracy (mean C-index, 0.728) than both the FCN score alone (mean C-index, 0.675) and the stage, size, grade, and necrosis (SSIGN) score (mean C-index, 0.686) in the validation cohort. Conclusion: The FCN score combining peripheral blood indicators of inflammation and coagulation is an independent prognostic marker of ccRCC. The FCNTG model, which systemically incorporates preoperative blood indexes to oncological characteristics, shows its advantages of convenience and high prediction efficiency.