Retrospective analysis of clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with carcinoma of unknown primary from three tertiary centers in Australia

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundCarcinoma of unknown primary (CUP) remains an important tumor entity and a disproportionate cause of cancer mortality. Little is known about the contemporary clinical characteristics, treatment patterns, and outcomes of CUP patients based on updated international classification guidelines. We evaluated a contemporary CUP cohort to provide insight into current clinical practice and the impact of tissue of origin assignment, site‐specific and empirical therapy in a real‐world setting.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study of CUP patients, as defined by the updated European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) 2023 guidelines, across three tertiary referral centers in Australia between 2015 and 2022. We analyzed clinical characteristics, treatment patterns, and survival outcomes using the Kaplan–Meier method and Cox regression proportional hazard model between favorable and unfavorable risk groups.ResultsWe identified a total of 123 CUP patients (n = 86 unfavorable, n = 37 favorable risk as per the 2023 ESMO guidelines). Sixty‐four patients (52%) were assigned a tissue of origin by the treating clinician. Median progression free survival (PFS) was 6.8 (95% confidence interval (CI) 5.1–12.1) months and overall survival (OS) 10.2 (95% CI 6.0–18.5) months. Unfavorable risk (hazard ratio [HR] 2.9, p = 0.006), poor performance status (HR 2.8, p < 0.001), and non‐squamous histology (HR 2.5, p < 0.05) were associated with poor survival outcome. A total of 70 patients (57%) proceeded to systemic therapy. In patients with non‐squamous histology and unfavorable risk, site‐specific therapy compared to empirical chemotherapy did not improve outcome (median OS 8.2 vs. 11.8 months, p = 0.7).ConclusionsIn this real‐world cohort, CUP presentations were heterogenous. Overall survival and rates of systemic treatment were poor. Poor performance status and unfavorable risk were associated with worse survival. For most patients, site‐specific therapy did not improve survival outcome. Improved and timely access to diagnostic tests and therapeutics for this group of patients is urgently required.