Search

Background Induction chemotherapy followed by concurrent chemoradiation (CRT) (sequential therapy) has been evaluated in the treatment of locoregionally-advanced squamous cell cancer of the head and neck (LA-SCCHN), with docetaxel, cisplatin (P) and 5-flurouracil (F) shown to be superior to PF doublet. Nab-paclitaxel (A) is a novel albumin-bound paclitaxel with a superior therapeutic index to docetaxel. Methods A phase I trial [Clinical trials.gov identifier NCT00731380] to assess the safety and efficacy of nab-paclitaxel+cisplatin+5-fluorouracil (APF) as induction chemotherapy for three cycles, followed by concurrent carboplatin (area-under-curve (AUC) 1.5 weekly) with radiation therapy (RT) (70Gy/35 fractions), was conducted using a 3+3 design in patients with previously untreated LA-SCCHN. Dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) included: standard haematologic and non-haematologic toxicities, treatment delays, inability to complete ⩾95% of RT and skin/mucosal toxicity related to RT assessed from day 1 of treatment to 8weeks after completion of CRT. Results 17 patients with oropharyngeal cancer were enrolled in three dose levels, with 15 patients evaluable for DLT. The median age was 54years (range, 44-65years), 14 patients were male, and 11 patients' tumours were p16 positive and four negative. Grade 3/4 adverse events during APF (%total number of cycles) were hyponatraemia (14%) neutropenia (10%), lymphopaenia (4%) and thrombocytopenia (2%) during 49 evaluable APF cycles. Febrile neutropenia occurred during one cycle of treatment. Conclusion The recommended phase 2 dose of APF is nab-paclitaxel 100mg/m2 days 1 and 8, cisplatin 75mg/mg2 day 1 and 5-fluorouracil 1000mg/m2/day×96h days 1-4, every 3weeks, for three cycles prior to CRT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Induction chemotherapy followed by concurrent chemoradiation (CRT) (sequential therapy) has been evaluated in the treatment of locoregionally-advanced squamous cell cancer of the head and neck (LA-SCCHN), with docetaxel, cisplatin (P) and 5-flurouracil (F) shown to be superior to PF doublet. Nab-paclitaxel (A) is a novel albumin-bound paclitaxel with a superior therapeutic index to docetaxel. Methods A phase I trial [Clinical trials.gov identifier NCT00731380] to assess the safety and efficacy of nab-paclitaxel+cisplatin+5-fluorouracil (APF) as induction chemotherapy for three cycles, followed by concurrent carboplatin (area-under-curve (AUC) 1.5 weekly) with radiation therapy (RT) (70Gy/35 fractions), was conducted using a 3+3 design in patients with previously untreated LA-SCCHN. Dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) included: standard haematologic and non-haematologic toxicities, treatment delays, inability to complete ⩾95% of RT and skin/mucosal toxicity related to RT assessed from day 1 of treatment to 8weeks after completion of CRT. Results 17 patients with oropharyngeal cancer were enrolled in three dose levels, with 15 patients evaluable for DLT. The median age was 54years (range, 44-65years), 14 patients were male, and 11 patients' tumours were p16 positive and four negative. Grade 3/4 adverse events during APF (%total number of cycles) were hyponatraemia (14%) neutropenia (10%), lymphopaenia (4%) and thrombocytopenia (2%) during 49 evaluable APF cycles. Febrile neutropenia occurred during one cycle of treatment. Conclusion The recommended phase 2 dose of APF is nab-paclitaxel 100mg/m2 days 1 and 8, cisplatin 75mg/mg2 day 1 and 5-fluorouracil 1000mg/m2/day×96h days 1-4, every 3weeks, for three cycles prior to CRT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND RET fusions are oncogenic drivers in 1 to 2% of non-small-cell lung cancers (NSCLCs). In patients with RET fusion-positive NSCLC, the efficacy and safety of selective RET inhibition are unknown. METHODS We enrolled patients with advanced RET fusion-positive NSCLC who had previously received platinum-based chemotherapy and those who were previously untreated separately in a phase 1-2 trial of selpercatinib. The primary end point was an objective response (a complete or partial response) as determined by an independent review committee. Secondary end points included the duration of response, progression-free survival, and safety. RESULTS In the first 105 consecutively enrolled patients with RET fusion-positive NSCLC who had previously received at least platinum-based chemotherapy, the percentage with an objective response was 64% (95% confidence interval [CI], 54 to 73). The median duration of response was 17.5 months (95% CI, 12.0 to could not be evaluated), and 63% of the responses were ongoing at a median follow-up of 12.1 months. Among 39 previously untreated patients, the percentage with an objective response was 85% (95% CI, 70 to 94), and 90% of the responses were ongoing at 6 months. Among 11 patients with measurable central nervous system metastasis at enrollment, the percentage with an objective intracranial response was 91% (95% CI, 59 to 100). The most common adverse events of grade 3 or higher were hypertension (in 14% of the patients), an increased alanine aminotransferase level (in 12%), an increased aspartate aminotransferase level (in 10%), hyponatremia (in 6%), and lymphopenia (in 6%). A total of 12 of 531 patients (2%) discontinued selpercatinib because of a drug-related adverse event. CONCLUSIONS Selpercatinib had durable efficacy, including intracranial activity, with mainly low-grade toxic effects in patients with RET fusion-positive NSCLC who had previously received platinum-based chemotherapy and those who were previously untreated. (Funded by Loxo Oncology and others; LIBRETTO-OOl ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03157128.) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: To present findings from a retrospective study conducted by the Ultra-Rare Sarcoma Working Group on metastatic low-grade fibromyxoid sarcoma (LGFMS), sclerosing epithelioid fibrosarcoma (SEF), and hybrid (H)-LGFMS/SEF across 28 global centres., Methods: Patients treated at participating institutions from January 2000 to September 2022 were retrospectively selected. Diagnosis was confirmed by expert pathologists. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS-1) from metastasis detection to first progression or death. PFS-2 was calculated from therapy initiation., Results: A total of 101 patients were identified (32 LGFMS, 50 SEF, 19 H-LGFMS/SEF). Median (m) follow-up was 62.1 months. mPFS-1 was 28.7, 11.8, and 20.3 months for LGFMS, SEF, and H-LGFMS/SEF, respectively. mOS was 145.8, 41.9, and 113.5 months, respectively. Treatments included anthracycline-based chemotherapy, gemcitabine-based chemotherapy (G), pazopanib, trabectedin, others. mPFS-2 was: 20.1, 5.5, and 3.5 months in H-LGFMS/SEF, SEF, and LGFMS, respectively, with anthracyclines; 19.5, 7.7, and 6.9 months in LGFMS, SEF, and H-LGFMS/SEF, respectively, with pazopanib; 12.0, 9.7, and 3.1 months in H-LGFMS/SEF, LGFMS, and SEF, respectively. Occasional responses occurred with ifosfamide/oral cyclophosphamide, and prolonged stable disease with immune checkpoint inhibitors., Conclusions: In this series, the largest available, metastatic LGFMS, SEF, and H-LGFMS/SEF showed different courses. Systemic agents have modest efficacy, informing future trials of novel agents for these tumours., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Next-generation sequencing (NGS) diagnostics have shown clinical utility in predicting survival benefits in patients with certain cancer types who are undergoing targeted drug therapies. Currently, there are no guidelines or recommendations for the use of NGS in patients with metastatic cancer from an Asian perspective. In this article, we present the Asia-Pacific Oncology Drug Development Consortium (APODDC) recommendations for the clinical use of NGS in metastatic cancers., Methods: The APODDC set up a group of experts in the field of clinical cancer genomics to (i) understand the current NGS landscape for metastatic cancers in the Asia-Pacific (APAC) region; (ii) discuss key challenges in the adoption of NGS testing in clinical practice; and (iii) adapt/modify the European Society for Medical Oncology guidelines for local use. Nine cancer types [breast cancer (BC), gastric cancer (GC), nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC), ovarian cancer (OC), prostate cancer, lung cancer, and colorectal cancer (CRC) as well as cholangiocarcinoma and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)] were identified, and the applicability of NGS was evaluated in daily practice and/or clinical research. Asian ethnicity, accessibility of NGS testing, reimbursement, and socioeconomic and local practice characteristics were taken into consideration., Results: The APODDC recommends NGS testing in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Routine NGS testing is not recommended in metastatic BC, GC, and NPC as well as cholangiocarcinoma and HCC. The group suggested that patients with epithelial OC may be offered germline and/or somatic genetic testing for BReast CAncer gene 1 (BRCA1), BRCA2, and other OC susceptibility genes. Access to poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors is required for NGS to be of clinical utility in prostate cancer. Allele-specific PCR or a small-panel multiplex-gene NGS was suggested to identify key alterations in CRC., Conclusion: This document offers practical guidance on the clinical utility of NGS in specific cancer indications from an Asian perspective., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Aims: The protracted COVID-19 pandemic has overwhelmed health systems globally, including many aspects of cancer control. This has underscored the multidimensional nature of cancer control, which requires a more comprehensive approach involving taking a wider perspective of health systems. Here, we investigated aspects of health system resilience in maintaining cancer services globally during the COVID-19 pandemic. This will allow for health systems to be resilient to different types of system stressors/shocks in the future, to allow cancer care to be maintained optimally., Materials and Methods: Using the World Health Organization health system framework (capturing aspects of service delivery, health workforce, information, medical products, vaccines and technologies, financing and governance and leadership), we carried out a comparative analysis of the impact of COVID-19 and the synthesis of the findings in responses in cancer care in 10 countries/jurisdictions across four continents comprising a wide diversity of health systems, geographical regions and socioeconomic status (China, Colombia, Egypt, Hong Kong SAR, Indonesia, India, Singapore, Sri Lanka, UK and Zambia). A combination of literature and document reviews and interviews with experts was used., Results: Our study revealed that: (i) underlying weaknesses of health systems before the pandemic were exacerbated by the pandemic (e.g. economic issues in low- and middle-income countries led to greater shortage of medication and resource constraints compounded by inadequacies of public financing and issues of engagement with stakeholders and leadership/governance); (ii) no universal adaptive strategies were applicable to all the systems, highlighting the need for health systems to design emergency plans based on local context; (iii) despite the many differences between health systems, common issues were identified, such as the lack of contingency plan for pandemics, inadequate financial policies for cancer patients and lack of evidence-based approaches for competing priorities of cancer care/pandemic control., Conclusion: We identified four key points/recommendations to enhance the resilient capacity of cancer care during the COVID-19 pandemic and other system stressors: (i) effective pandemic control approaches in general are essential to maintain the continuity of cancer care during the emergency health crises; (ii) strong health systems (with sufficient cancer care resources, e.g. health workforce, and universal health coverage) are fundamental to maintain quality care; (iii) the ability to develop response strategies and adapt to evolving evidence/circumstances is critical for health system resilience (including introducing systematic, consistent and evidence-based changes, national support and guidance in policy development and implementation); (iv) preparedness and contingency plans for future public health emergencies, engaging the whole of society, to achieve health system resilience for future crises and to transform healthcare delivery beyond the pandemic., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: The number of randomized trials of agents targeting oncogene-addicted tumors has surged in the past 10 years. Using a meta-analysis, we explored whether improvements in objective response rate (ORR) in comparative trials using targeted agents could serve as a potential surrogate endpoint for improvements in progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) in populations with oncogene-addicted cancer., Patients and Methods: Using commercial text mining software I2E, we searched ClinicalTrials.gov and MEDLINE databases for randomized, phase III trials based on prospectively defined criteria, including (i) use of agents targeting EGFR activating mutations, ALK rearrangements, BRAF V600E or V600K mutations, and BCR-ABL fusion protein; (ii) molecularly enriched trial population or subpopulation; (iii) control arm only randomized to chemo/cytotoxic therapy. Correlative analyses were performed using ORR, OS, and PFS data from trials that met these criteria., Results: A total of 62 trials were identified; 15 met all of the prespecified criteria. The ORR effect size (both the difference in ORR between arms and the log odds ratio) and log PFS hazard ratio were strongly correlated: -0.78 (P = 0.0007) for the ORR difference model; -0.74 (P = 0.0017) for the log odds ratio model. ORR effect size was positively correlated with the log OS hazard ratio, but more weakly: -0.67 (P = 0.013) for the ORR difference model and -0.58 (P = 0.036) for the log odds ratio model. Analysis of the treatment effects between OS and PFS found no correlation., Conclusions: These analyses identified a strong correlation between treatment effects on ORR and PFS in randomized clinical trials investigating agents targeting oncogene-driven cancers. A weaker correlation was observed between ORR and OS. These meta-analysis results support the use of a high ORR forming the basis of an initial regulatory approval in biomarker-driven studies., Competing Interests: Disclosure BJS reports personal fees from Loxo Oncology, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Roche/Genentech, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Gritstone Oncology, Amgen, Sanofi/Regeneron, and grants and personal fees from Pfizer, all outside the submitted work. HHL reports personal fees for Advisory Board participation from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, and Eli Lilly; personal fees for Advisory Board and Speaker’s Bureau participation and research funding from Novartis; personal fees for Speaker’s Bureau participation from Guardant Health and Eisai; travel support and research funding from Merck; research funding from Mundipharma, and travel support from Pfizer. YS reports personal fees from Eli Lilly, Roche, AstraZeneca, Takeda, Pfizer, and Merck. ZMT, PF, BKL, and AS report employment and stock ownership with Eli Lilly. JW reports Advisory Board and lecture fees from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Blueprint, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chugai, Ignyta, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Loxo Oncology, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda; and research support to the institution from Bristol Myers Squibb, Johnson and Johnson, Novartis, and Pfizer. JC-HY reports honoraria for speeches and Advisory Boards from Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Bayer, Roche/Genentech, Chugai, Merck, Pfizer, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Ono Pharmaceutical; and honoraria for Advisory Boards from AstraZeneca, Astellas, Merck Serono, Celgene, Merrimack, Yuhan Pharmaceuticals, Daiichi Sankyo, Hansoh, Takeda, and Blueprint Medicines. AD reports honoraria from Advisory Board participation from Ignyta/Genentech/Roche, Loxo Oncology/Bayer/Eli Lilly, Takeda/Ariad/Millenium, TP Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Blueprint Medicines, Helsinn, BeiGene, BerGenBio, Hengrui Therapeutics, Exelixis, Tyra Biosciences, Verastem, MORE Health, AbbVie, 14ner/Elevation Oncology, Remedica Ltd., ArcherDX, Monopteros, Novartis, EMD Serono, Melendi, Liberum, Repare therapeutics; associated research support paid to the institution by Pfizer, Exelixis, GlaxoSmithKline, Teva, Taiho, PharmaMar; CME honoraria from Medscape, OncLive, PeerVoice, Physicians Education Resources, Targeted Oncology, Research to Practice, Axis, PeerView Institute, Paradigm Medical Communications, WebMD, MJH Life Sciences; royalties from Wolters Kluwer; and other support from Merck, Puma, Merus, and Boehringer Ingelheim., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Stereotactic brain radiosurgery provides good local control in patients with limited brain metastases. A newly developed frameless system allows pain-free treatment. We reviewed the effectiveness of this frameless stereotactic brain radiosurgery and identified prognostic factors that may aid better patient selection., Methods: Medical records of patients with brain metastases treated with linear accelerator-based frameless stereotactic brain radiosurgery between January 2010 and July 2015 in a university affiliated hospital in Hong Kong were reviewed. Outcomes including local and distant brain control rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival were analysed. Prognostic factors were identified by univariable and multivariable analyses. Association of outcomes with four common prognostic scores was performed., Results: In this study, 64 patients with 94 lesions were treated with a median dose of 18 Gy (range, 12-22 Gy) in a single fraction. The median follow-up was 11.5 months. One-year actuarial local and distant brain control rates were 72% and 71%, respectively. The median overall survival was 13.0 months. On multivariable analysis, Karnofsky performance status score (>50 vs ≤50) and number of lesions (1-2 vs ≥3) were found to associate significantly with distinct brain progression-free survival (P=0.022, hazard ratio=0.20, 95% confidence interval 0.05-0.80 and P=0.003, hazard ratio=0.31, 95% confidence interval 0.14-0.68, respectively). Overall survival was associated significantly with Basic Score for Brain Metastases (P=0.031), Score Index for Radiosurgery in Brain Metastases (P=0.007), and Graded Prognostic Assessment (P=0.003). Improvement in overall survival was observed in all groups of different prognostic scores., Conclusion: Frameless stereotactic brain radiosurgery is effective in patients with oligo-metastases of brain and should be increasingly considered in patients with favourable prognostic scoring.

An ethnically Chinese patient with newly diagnosed metastatic gastro-intestinal stromal tumour initially treated with imatinib mesylate developed severe interstitial lung disease. As his condition improved after cessation of imatinib mesylate and treatment with corticosteroids, he was started on sunitinib malate. His clinical course was then unfortunately complicated with intra-tumour bleeding. This case report illustrates the dilemmas and complexities associated with treating patients with gastro-intestinal stromal tumours with the new tyrosine kinase inhibitors.

An otherwise well 70-year-old man presented with a non-specific complaint of epistaxis caused by an underlying necrotic natural killer-cell lymphoma complicated by a maggot infestation. He failed to attend for treatment after discharge but re-presented 3 weeks later with an acute exacerbation of his chronic pulmonary obstructive disease. During those 3 weeks his nasal condition had advanced rapidly with extensive tumour infiltration and necrosis affecting his nose and face. The natural clinical course, overall prognosis, and available treatment modalities are briefly discussed.