Search

Background CareAcross is a digital platform dedicated to support, inform and engage with cancer patients. It also collects medical and other data, and generates real world evidence. Methods In an effort to collect and analyze information from breast cancer patients regarding side effects in relation to their treatments and supplements intake, we contacted 5373 patients in the UK, Germany, France, Spain and Italy. 547 had triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) and the remaining 4826 had other breast cancer subtypes (non-TNBC). All data was collected anonymously, with strong privacy and security controls. Results Different regimens were given as adjuvant or as systemic treatments. AC treatment was given to 10% of TNBC vs 5% of non-TNBC patients; FEC-T to 18% vs 11%, FEC to 9% vs 7%, taxanes to 39% vs 22% and platinum-based chemotherapy to 14% vs 2%, respectively. Among non-TNBC patients, 12% received Trastuzumab and 52% received hormonal treatment. Some of the patients were asked regarding side effects as well as vitamins and supplements intake. Among them, 136 TNBC patients reported an average of 3.0 side effects (95% CI 2.6-3.5), 22% more than those reported by 1015 non-TNBC patients (2.5 side effects; 95% CI 2.4-2.6); p = 0.03. Similarly, an average of 3.6 vitamins and supplements was reported by 111 TNBC patients (95% CI 2.9-4.3), 15% more compared to 854 non-TNBC patients (3.1 supplements; 95% CI 2.9-3.3); p = 0.22. An analysis of the patients reporting at least 1 side-effect showed 120 TNBC patients with an average of 3.5 side effects (95% CI 3.0-3.9), 17% more than 862 non-TNBC patients (3.0 side effects, 95% CI 2.8-3.1); p = 0.05. Regarding consumption of at least 1 vitamin/supplement, the average intake across 85 TNBC patients was 4.7 (9.5% CI 3.9-5.5), 23% more than 697 non-TNBC patients (3.8 vitamins/supplements, 95% CI 3.5-4.0); p = 0.04. Conclusions The real world evidence obtained through an international analysis shows that TNBC patients receive more toxic treatments due to the aggressive disease, as expected. TNBC patients experience significantly more side effects compared to non-TNBC patients. They also consume more vitamins and supplements; the difference across patients reporting at least one vitamin/supplement was larger and statistically significant. Legal entity responsible for the study Care Across Ltd. Funding Has not received any funding. Disclosure All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Background Real-world data regarding clinical outcomes associated with first-line pembrolizumab (pembro) monotherapy among specific subgroups of NSCLC patients are lacking. Methods A comprehensive clinicopathological database of patients with NSCLC and PD-L1>50% treated with frontline pembro in 14 centers in Italy, Spain, Greece and Switzerland was retrospectively created. Post-progression outcomes have been previously reported. Clinical outcomes in specific subgroups of interest are presented in the current report. Analysis was performed using the SAS 9.3 software. Multivariate analysis was performed with the Cox regression model. Results Among 173 eligible patients, median age at diagnosis was 68 years, 65% were male, 88% were current or former smokers, 25% had an ECOG PS > =2, histology was 67% adeno, 21% squamous, 20% had brain mets, 15% had liver mets at diagnosis and 28% received steroids at the beginning and/or during treatment. Thirty patients (17.4%) received pembro despite having non-metastatic disease (stage I-IIIC), as deemed medically inoperable or ineligible for definite chemo-radiotherapy. Hazard Ratios for OS, with corresponding 95% CIs and p-values for specific subgroups were as follows: Elderly patients ( >70 years): HR = 0.85 (0.52-1.38), p = 0.51; Brain mets: HR = 1.17 (0.63-2.18), p = 0.63; Stage I-IIIC: HR = 0.56 (0.22-1.39), p = 0.21; PS > =2: HR = 1.73 (1.55-1.84), p Conclusions Real-world data in a large retrospective cohort of patients with NSCLC and PD-L1>50% indicate that 1) Pembro frontline is also active in inoperable stage I-IIIC patients, 2) Elderly patients (>70 years) derive similar survival benefit to younger ones, except from those with PS > =2, 3) Steroid use at the beginning and/or during treatment is associated with a three-fold increase in the risk of death. Legal entity responsible for the study The authors. Funding Has not received any funding. Disclosure G. Mountzios: Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: AstraZeneca Greece; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Roche Hellas; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Boehringer Greece; Honoraria (self), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Pfizer Hellas; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Bristol-Myers Squibb; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: MSD Hellas; Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Astellas; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Novartis Greece. G. Banna: Advisory / Consultancy: Janssen; Advisory / Consultancy: Boehringer; Advisory / Consultancy: Roche; Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: BMS; Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: AstraZeneca; Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Pierre Fabre; Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Ipsen. A. Christopoulou: Honoraria (institution), Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Roche; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: MSD; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: PFIZER; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Sanofi; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: BMS; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: NOVARTIS. H. Linardou: Honoraria (self), Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: AstraZeneca; Honoraria (self): Boehringer ; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: BMS; Honoraria (self), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Merck; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: MSD; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Novartis; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Roche. A. Calles: Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: AstraZeneca; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Boehringer; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Pfizer; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Roche; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Lilly; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Novartis; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: MSD; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: BMS. A. Addeo: Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: MSD; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Roche ; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: AstraZeneca; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Takeda; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: BMS. P.A. Kosmidis: Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Pfizer; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: MSD; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: BMS; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Novartis; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Leo. M.C. Garassino: Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Lilly; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Roche ; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: PFIZER; Honoraria (self): MEDSCAPE; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): AstraZeneca; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): MSD Hellas; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): BMS; Research grant / Funding (institution): Clovis; Research grant / Funding (institution): Merck; Research grant / Funding (institution): Otsuka; Research grant / Funding (institution): Bayer; Research grant / Funding (institution): Novartis; Research grant / Funding (institution): Boehringer; Research grant / Funding (institution): GSK. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

The current third consensus on the systemic treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) builds upon and updates similar publications on the subject by the Central European Cooperative Oncology Group (CECOG), which has published such consensus statements in the years 2002 and 2005 (Zielinski CC, Beinert T, Crawford J et al. Consensus on medical treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer--update 2004. Lung Cancer 2005; 50: 129-137). The principle of all CECOG consensus is such that evidence-based recommendations for state-of-the-art treatment are given upon which all participants and authors of the manuscript have to agree (Beslija S, Bonneterre J, Burstein HJ et al. Third consensus on medical treatment of metastatic breast cancer. Ann Oncol 2009; 20 (11): 1771-1785). This is of particular importance in diseases in which treatment options depend on very particular clinical and biologic variables (Zielinski CC, Beinert T, Crawford J et al. Consensus on medical treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer--update 2004. Lung Cancer 2005; 50: 129-137; Beslija S, Bonneterre J, Burstein HJ et al. Third consensus on medical treatment of metastatic breast cancer. Ann Oncol 2009; 20 (11): 1771-1785). Since the publication of the last CECOG consensus on the medical treatment of NSCLC, a series of diagnostic tools for the characterization of biomarkers for personalized therapy for NSCLC as well as therapeutic options including adjuvant treatment, targeted therapy, and maintenance treatment have emerged and strongly influenced the field. Thus, the present third consensus was generated that not only readdresses previous disease-related issues but also expands toward recent developments in the management of NSCLC. It is the aim of the present consensus to summarize minimal quality-oriented requirements for individual patients with NSCLC in its various stages based upon levels of evidence in the light of a rapidly expanding array of individual therapeutic options.

Summary Background Paclitaxel has been demonstrated to have significant activity in recurrent or metastatic head and neck cancer (HNC). In addition, the combination of paclitaxel and cisplatin is active in untreated patients with inoperable HNC. Substitution of carboplatin for cisplatin allows the treatment to be delivered on an outpatient basis. Purpose of the study To evaluate the activity and toxicity of the combination of paclitaxel by three-hour infusion and carboplatin as first-line chemotherapy in patients with recurrent or metastatic HNC. Patients and Methods From March 1994 until August 1996, 49 patients with recurrent or metastatic HNC were treated with paclitaxel (200 mg/m2, by three-hour infusion) followed by carboplatin at an AUC of 7 mg.min/ml, every four weeks. G-CSF was administered prophylactically on days 2 to 12 of each cycle. There were 41 men and 8 women with a median age of 57 years (range 23–73). The majority of the patients were symptomatic and they had recurrent disease locoregionally. Fourteen patients had nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC) and 35 had squamous cell cancers of other areas of the head and neck region (non-NPC). Results At the completion of treatment, two patients with NPC demonstrated complete and six partial responses for an overall response rate of 57% (95% CI 29%–82%). Among patients with non-NPC, the response rate was 23% (95% CI 9%37%). After a median follow up period of 15 months, the median time to progression was 4.3 months in the non-NPC group and 16.5 months in the NPC group. At the time of the analysis, median survival had not been reached in NPC while it was 7.3 months in non-NPC patients. Grade 3–4 toxicities included anemia (2%) and leukopenia, thrombocytopenia, stomatitis, nausea/vomiting and diarrhea (4% each). Conclusions The combination of paclitaxel and carboplatin appears to be well tolerated but only moderately active in patients with advanced non-NPC of the head and neck region. However, its activity appears promising in NPC and deserves further investigation.

Summary Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of the FAP combination chemotherapy as first-line treatment in advanced urothelial cancer. Patients and methods: Thirty-four patients with histologically confirmed advanced urothelial cancer, with measurable disease and without previous chemotherapy entered the study; all 34 are evaluable. The 28 males and 6 females had a median age of 65 (19-75) and a median ECOG performance status of 1 (0-2). Twenty-eight patients had bladder cancer, four had renal pelvic cancer and two ureteral cancer. Thirty patients had transitional cell carcinoma and four mixed, mostly of grade 3. Sites of disease included lymph nodes (18), bladder (9), liver (9), pelvic mass (9), lung (7), etc. The treatment plan was as follows: 5-fluorouracil 500 mg/m2 continuous infusion DlD5 and D22-D26; interferon-a-2b 5 million I.U./m2 D1-D5 followed by 3x /week and then D22-D26; cisplatin 25 mg/m 2 Dl, D8, D15, D22. Cycles were repeated every 36 days. Results: The median number of cycles administered was 3 (1-6). The relative dose intensities for 5-fluorouracil, interferon and cisplatin were 76%, 71% and 75%, respectively. Twentytwo of 34 patients (65%, 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 46% to 80%) had objective responses, including six complete clinical responses (CR) (18%, 95% CI, 7% to 35%) and 16 partial responses (PR) (47%, 95% CI, 30% to 65%). Three patients had stable disease and seven progressed. Two patients discontinued treatment after the first cycle because of toxicity. The median survival is 15.30 months (1.40-37.60), the median time to progression 11.60 months (4.13-37.60), and the median survival of complete responders 20.75+ months (8+ to 38+). The only significant hematologic toxicity was the grade 3—4 neutropenia in 44%. Non-hematologic toxic effects were unremarkable. Conclusion: The FAP combination as first-line chemotherapy is highly active in the treatment of advanced urothelial cancer, and has limited toxicity. Further phase III studies are in progress to compare FAP and M-VAC.