Search

Abstract Studies have shown that the prevalence of RAS and BRAF mutations may differ by tumor sidedness among metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. Both mutation status and tumor sidedness may impact survival and disease progression and RAS mutation status has been shown to predict response to anti‐epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) therapy. A systematic literature review and meta‐analysis were conducted to estimate the pooled prevalence of RAS and BRAF mutations by tumor sidedness in studies of mCRC patients. Forty‐four studies comprising 15 981 mCRC patients tested for RAS and/or BRAF mutations were included in the meta‐analyses. The prevalence of RAS mutations differed significantly by tumor side (32.4% among left‐sided tumors, 41.3% among right‐sided tumors; P = .017), as did the prevalence of KRAS mutations (35.8% among left‐sided tumors, 46.3% among right‐sided tumors; P

Abstract Background Systemic cancer therapies may induce infusion reactions (IRs) or hypersensitivities. Metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients treated with anti‐EGFR therapies, including cetuximab and panitumumab, may be subject to these reactions. We conducted a meta‐analysis to estimate the IR incidence in this population and identify variations in this incidence by patient or study characteristics. Methods A systematic review was conducted to identify observational studies or clinical trials of mCRC patients treated with anti‐EGFR therapies that reported occurrences of IRs, hypersensitivity, or allergy/anaphylaxis. The objective of the study was to estimate the incidence of IRs. Random effects models were used to meta‐analyze the incidence of IRs overall and stratified by therapy type, study design, geographic location, RAS or KRAS mutation status, grade of reaction severity, and terminology used to describe the reaction. Results The pooled estimate for IR incidence was 4.9% (95% confidence interval: 3.6%‐6.5%). Lower‐grade reactions were more common than higher‐grade reactions overall and the incidence of reactions among cetuximab patients was nearly four times that of panitumumab patients (6.1% vs 1.6%). Conclusions IRs occur in approximately 5% of mCRC patients treated with anti‐EGFR therapies, and the incidence varies significantly by grade of severity and therapy type. Studies evaluating these outcomes should consider investigating survival outcomes by IR status to determine its prognostic relevance.

Abstract Introduction This study aimed to describe medical oncologist’s opinions and perceptions regarding the management of dermatologic toxicities among metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients who were treated with panitumumab in the USA and assess if there were differences across demographic and clinical characteristics. Methods We developed a survey based on the current literature and expert opinions regarding the management of dermatologic toxicities. The survey was implemented online in September 2016. Eligible oncologists were board certified and had treated at least five new or continuing patients with mCRC in the last 3 months, among whom at least three patients had received or were currently receiving panitumumab. Results A total of 250 oncologists completed the survey. The data suggest that approximately 82% of patients received recommendations for moisturizer, 88% for sunscreen and 67% for ultraviolet (UV)-protective garments prior to or at the time of initiation of panitumumab therapy. There were minor differences in how dermatologic toxicities were managed across specific demographic or clinical groups. The data also suggest that the management associated with panitumumab use among mCRC patients can be greatly improved. Conclusions Our results highlight the urgent need for heightened education regarding dermatologic toxicity management among oncologists who treated mCRC patients with panitumumab. Easily implemented strategies, such as moisturizer, sunscreen, and UV-protective garments should be recommended to all patients. Funding Amgen, Inc. Plain Language Summary Plain language summary available for this article.

Malaria prevention and iron supplementation are associated with improved maternal and infant outcomes. However, evidence from studies in children suggests iron may adversely modify the risk of malaria. We reviewed the evidence in pregnancy of the association between malaria and markers of iron status, iron supplementation or parenteral treatment.We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Global Health Library, and the Malaria in Pregnancy library to identify studies that investigated the association between iron status, iron treatment or supplementation during pregnancy and malaria. Thirty one studies contributed to the analysis; 3 experimental and 28 observational studies. Iron supplementation was not associated with an increased risk of P. falciparum malaria during pregnancy or delivery in Africa (summary Relative Risk = 0.89, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.66-1.20, I(2) = 78.8%, 5 studies). One study in Asia reported an increased risk of P. vivax within 30 days of iron supplementation (e.g. adjusted Hazard Ratio = 1.75, 95% CI 1.14-2.70 for 1-15 days), but not after 60 days. Iron deficiency (based on ferritin and C-reactive protein) was associated with lower odds for malaria infection (summary Odds Ratio = 0.35, 0.24-0.51, I(2) = 59.2%, 5 studies). With the exception of the acute phase protein ferritin, biomarkers of iron deficiency were generally not associated with malaria infection.Iron supplementation was associated with a temporal increase in P vivax, but not with an increased risk of P. falciparum; however, data are insufficient to rule out the potential for an increased risk of P. falciparum. Iron deficiency was associated with a decreased malaria risk in pregnancy only when measured with ferritin. Until there is more evidence, it is prudent to provide iron in combination with malaria prevention during pregnancy.

Deworming HIV-1 infected individuals may delay HIV-1 disease progression. It is important to determine the prevalence and correlates of HIV-1/helminth co-infection in helminth-endemic areas.HIV-1 infected individuals (CD4>250 cells/ul) were screened for helminth infection at ten sites in Kenya. Prevalence and correlates of helminth infection were determined. A subset of individuals with soil-transmitted helminth infection was re-evaluated 12 weeks following albendazole therapy.Of 1,541 HIV-1 seropositive individuals screened, 298 (19.3%) had detectable helminth infections. Among individuals with helminth infection, hookworm species were the most prevalent (56.3%), followed by Ascaris lumbricoides (17.1%), Trichuris trichiura (8.7%), Schistosoma mansoni (7.1%), and Strongyloides stercoralis (1.3%). Infection with multiple species occurred in 9.4% of infections. After CD4 count was controlled for, rural residence (RR 1.40, 95% CI: 1.08-1.81), having no education (RR 1.57, 95% CI: 1.07-2.30), and higher CD4 count (RR 1.36, 95% CI: 1.07-1.73) remained independently associated with risk of helminth infection. Twelve weeks following treatment with albendazole, 32% of helminth-infected individuals had detectable helminths on examination. Residence, education, and CD4 count were not associated with persistent helminth infection.Among HIV-1 seropositive adults with CD4 counts above 250 cells/mm(3) in Kenya, traditional risk factors for helminth infection, including rural residence and lack of education, were associated with co-infection, while lower CD4 counts were not.