The degree of patient-caregiver concordance on the K-AD seemed applicable, and achieved mild to moderate concordance. Our findings are exploratory but suggest the need for EoL discussions where patient-caregiver dyads are encouraged to participate in EoL care decision making.

Background: This study investigated the efficacy and toxicity of sorafenib and sunitinib as primary treatment for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Methods: We identified 49 and 220 patients treated with sorafenib and sunitinib, respectively, as first-line therapy in the Asan Medical Centre from April 2005 to March 2011. Results: Disease control rates of 71 and 74% were achieved with sorafenib and sunitinib, respectively (p = 0.687). After a median follow-up of 27.6 months, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were not significantly different between the sorafenib and the sunitinib group (PFS 8.6 vs. 9.9 months, respectively, p = 0.948, and OS 25.7 vs. 22.6 months, p = 0.774). Patients treated with sorafenib required dose reduction due to toxicities less frequently than those treated with sunitinib (37 vs. 54%, p = 0.034). Haematological toxicity of grade 3 or 4 was more common in the sunitinib group than in the sorafenib group (45 vs. 4%, p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed old age, Heng's risk group, and bone and liver metastases, but not the type of vascular endothelial growth factor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, were independent prognostic factors affecting OS. Conclusion: The results of this study indicate that sorafenib has comparable efficacy to sunitinib in the treatment of mRCC patients and fewer and less severe toxicities, but the number of patients included in the study was small.

Sequential therapy is a standard strategy used to overcome the limitations of targeted agents in metastatic renal cell carcinoma. It remains unclear whether a mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor is a more effective second-line therapy after first-line vascular endothelial growth factor tyrosine kinase inhibitor (VEGF TKI) has failed than the alternative, VEGF TKI. A clinical database was used to identify all patients with renal cell carcinoma who failed at first-line VEGF TKI and then treated with second-line VEGF TKI or mTOR inhibitors in the Asan Medical Center. Patient medical characteristics, radiological response and survival status were assessed. Of the 83 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 41 received second-line VEGF TKI [sunitinib (n = 16) and sorafenib (n = 25)] and 42 were treated with mTOR inhibitors [temsirolimus (n = 11) and everolimus (n = 31)]. After a median follow-up duration of 23.9 months (95 % CI, 17.8-30.0), progression-free survival was 3.0 months for both groups [hazard ratio (HR, VEGF TKI vs. mTOR inhibitor) = 0.97, 95 % CI 0.59-1.62, P = 0.92]. Overall survival was 10.6 months for the VEGF TKI group and 8.2 months for the mTOR inhibitor group (HR = 0.98, 95 % CI 0.57-1.68, P = 0.94). The two groups did not differ significantly in terms of disease control rate (51 % for VEGF TKI and 59 % for mTOR inhibitor, P = 0.75). Second-line VEGF TKI seems to be as effective as mTOR inhibitors and may be a viable option as a second-line agent after first-line anti-VEGF agents have failed.

The accuracy of PET/CT is low and it is not a useful tool in the staging of gastric cancer overall in early gastric cancer and in signet-ring-cell carcinoma. Furthermore, the sensitivity of PET/CT could be inferior to that of CECT in the diagnosis of regional lymph node metastasis.