Background To compare the efficacy and toxicity of anti-programmed cell death receptor 1 (PD-1) and anti-programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) versus docetaxel in previously treated patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Materials and methods Phase III randomised clinical trials (RCTs) were identified after systematic review of databases and conference proceedings. A random-effect model was used to determine the pooled HR for overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and duration of response. The pooled OR for overall response and treatment-related side effects were calculated using the inverse-variance method. Heterogeneity was measured using the τ² and I² statistics. Results After the systematic review, we included four phase III RCTs (n=2737) in this meta-analysis. The use of anti-PD-1/anti-PD-L1 agents (atezolizumab, nivolumab and pembrolizumab) was associated with better OS in comparison with docetaxel alone (HR: 0.69; 95% CI 0.63 to 0.75; p<0.00001). Similarly, the PFS and duration of response was significantly longer for patients receiving immunotherapy (HR: 0.85; 95% CI 0.75 to 0.96; p=0.007 and HR:0.32; 95% CI 0.24 to 0.43; p<0.00001, respectively) versus single agent chemotherapy. The overall response rate was also higher for patients who received any anti-PD-1/anti-PD-L1 therapy in comparison with docetaxel (OR: 1.77; 95% CI 1.26 to 2.50; p=0.001). Regarding treatment-related side effects grade 3 or higher, patients who received immunotherapy experienced less events than patients allocated to docetaxel (OR: 0.19; 95% CI 0.12 to 0.30; p<0.00001) Conclusion The use of anti-PD-1/anti-PD-L1 therapy in patients with progressive advanced NSCLC is significantly better than the use of docetaxel in terms of OS, PFS, duration of response and overall response rate.

Montero-Arias F, et al. Allergy Asthma Immunol Res. 2013 Sep;5(5):283-288. http://dx.doi.org/10.4168/aair.2013.5.5.283

High values of neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and platelet-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) have been associated with poor prognosis in certain tumors. Nevertheless, few data exist regarding these prognostic variables in breast cancer patients from Hispanic populations. In this study, we aimed to determine the prognostic value of these two estimates and to establish the best cutoff to categorize patients according to their risk. We retrospectively reviewed 172 consecutive breast cancer patients treated in our center. Pre-treatment NLR and PLR, as well as clinical variables were collected from medical records. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses were performed to assess the relationship between NLR, PLR, overall survival (OS) and disease free survival (DFS), adjusted for potential confounders. The best cut-off point was determined based on the maximization of the Log-rank test statistic. Median follow-up time was 71.3 months. The optimal cut-off for NLR and PLR was 3 and 250, respectively. In univariate analysis, a NLR 3 was associated with poor DFS (Hazard Ratio (HR): 3.92; 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 1.98-7.77; p < 0.001) and reduced OS (HR: 4.20; 95% CI: 2.10-8.38; p < 0.001). Similarly, a PLR 250 was associated with worse DFS (HR: 5.01; 95% CI: 2.33-11.1; p < 0.001) and poorer OS (HR: 5.35; 95% CI: 2.43-11.76; p < 0.001). However, after adjustment for potential confounders, only the PLR was independently associated with worse outcomes. A NLR greater than 3 and a PLR greater than 250 were associated with worse OS and DFS in Hispanic patients with breast cancer.

Thromboembolic disease is a major leading cause of mortality and morbidity in industrialized countries. Currently, the management of these patients is challenging due to the availability of new drugs with proven efficacy and security compared to traditional oral vitamin K antagonists. These compounds are characterized by a predictable pharmacokinetic profile for which blood monitoring is not routinely needed. Nevertheless, some data have suggested inter-patient variability in the anticoagulant effect of these drugs, raising concerns about their effectiveness and safety. Although mass-spectrometry is the gold standard to determine drug plasma concentrations, this method is not widely available in every-day practice and some coagulation assays are commonly used to determine the anticoagulant effect of these drugs. The present review aims to summarize the current knowledge regarding the clinical question of how and when to monitor patients with new anticoagulant oral agents.