Search

Background: Belzutifan is a first-in-class hypoxia-inducible factor subunit 2α (HIF-2α) inhibitor approved at a dose of 120 mg once daily for certain adults with VHL disease and adults with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) following therapy with a programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) [or programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1)] inhibitor and a vascular endothelial growth factor tyrosine kinase inhibitor. However, whether the belzutifan dose could be optimized is unclear., Patients and Methods: The phase II LITESPARK-013 study (NCT04489771) enrolled patients with advanced clear cell RCC whose disease progressed after one to three prior systemic therapies, including an anti-PD-(L)1 regimen. Patients were randomly assigned 1 : 1 to receive belzutifan 120 or 200 mg once daily. The primary endpoint was the objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST version 1.1. The secondary endpoints were duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety., Results: Overall, 154 patients were enrolled (120 mg: n = 76; 200 mg: n = 78). The median follow-up was 20.1 months (range 14.8-28.4). The ORR was 23.7% versus 23.1% for the 120 mg and 200 mg groups, respectively [P = 0.5312; -0.5%, 95% confidence interval (CI) -14.0% to 12.9%]. The median DOR was not reached for the 120 mg arm and was 16.1 months (2.1+ to 23.5+) for the 200 mg arm. No between-group differences were observed for PFS [hazard ratio (HR) 0.94, 95% CI 0.63-1.40] or OS (medians not reached; HR 1.11, 95% CI 0.65-1.90). Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events were observed in 35 patients (46.1%) in the 120 mg group and 36 patients (46.2%) in the 200 mg group., Conclusions: The efficacy of belzutifan was similar between the 120 mg dose and the 200 mg dose for previously treated clear cell RCC. Safety at both doses was consistent with the known safety profile of belzutifan. These results further support 120 mg once daily as the preferred dose for belzutifan., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Purpose: People living with cancer and haematological malignancies are at an increased risk of hospitalisation and death following infection with acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Coronavirus third dose vaccine boosters are proposed to boost waning immune responses in immunocompromised individuals and increase coronavirus protection; however, their effectiveness has not yet been systematically evaluated., Methods: This study is a population-scale real-world evaluation of the United Kingdom's third dose vaccine booster programme for cancer patients from 8th December 2020 to 7th December 2021. The cancer cohort comprises individuals from Public Health England's national cancer dataset, excluding individuals less than 18 years. A test-negative case-control design was used to assess the third dose booster vaccine effectiveness. Multivariable logistic regression models were fitted to compare risk in the cancer cohort relative to the general population., Results: The cancer cohort comprised of 2,258,553 tests from 361,098 individuals. Third dose boosters were evaluated by reference to 87,039,743 polymerase chain reaction coronavirus tests. Vaccine effectiveness against breakthrough infections, symptomatic infections, coronavirus hospitalisation and death in cancer patients were 59.1%, 62.8%, 80.5% and 94.5%, respectively. Lower vaccine effectiveness was associated with a cancer diagnosis within 12 months, lymphoma, recent systemic anti-cancer therapy (SACT) or radiotherapy. Patients with lymphoma had low levels of protection from symptomatic disease. In spite of third dose boosters, following multivariable adjustment, individuals with cancer remain at an increased risk of coronavirus hospitalisation and death compared to the population control (OR 3.38, 3.01, respectively. p < 0.001 for both)., Conclusions: Third dose boosters are effective for most individuals with cancer, increasing protection from coronavirus. However, their effectiveness is heterogenous and lower than the general population. Many patients with cancer will remain at the increased risk of coronavirus infections even after 3 doses. In the case of patients with lymphoma, there is a particularly strong disparity of vaccine effectiveness against breakthrough infection and severe disease. Breakthrough infections will disrupt cancer care and treatment with potentially adverse consequences on survival outcomes. The data support the role of vaccine boosters in preventing severe disease, and further pharmacological intervention to prevent transmission and aid viral clearance to limit the disruption of cancer care as the delivery of care continues to evolve during the coronavirus pandemic., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: People with cancer are at increased risk of hospitalisation and death following infection with SARS-CoV-2. Therefore, we aimed to conduct one of the first evaluations of vaccine effectiveness against breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections in patients with cancer at a population level., Methods: In this population-based test-negative case-control study of the UK Coronavirus Cancer Evaluation Project (UKCCEP), we extracted data from the UKCCEP registry on all SARS-CoV-2 PCR test results (from the Second Generation Surveillance System), vaccination records (from the National Immunisation Management Service), patient demographics, and cancer records from England, UK, from Dec 8, 2020, to Oct 15, 2021. Adults (aged ≥18 years) with cancer in the UKCCEP registry were identified via Public Health England's Rapid Cancer Registration Dataset between Jan 1, 2018, and April 30, 2021, and comprised the cancer cohort. We constructed a control population cohort from adults with PCR tests in the UKCCEP registry who were not contained within the Rapid Cancer Registration Dataset. The coprimary endpoints were overall vaccine effectiveness against breakthrough infections after the second dose (positive PCR COVID-19 test) and vaccine effectiveness against breakthrough infections at 3-6 months after the second dose in the cancer cohort and control population., Findings: The cancer cohort comprised 377 194 individuals, of whom 42 882 had breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections. The control population consisted of 28 010 955 individuals, of whom 5 748 708 had SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections. Overall vaccine effectiveness was 69·8% (95% CI 69·8-69·9) in the control population and 65·5% (65·1-65·9) in the cancer cohort. Vaccine effectiveness at 3-6 months was lower in the cancer cohort (47·0%, 46·3-47·6) than in the control population (61·4%, 61·4-61·5)., Interpretation: COVID-19 vaccination is effective for individuals with cancer, conferring varying levels of protection against breakthrough infections. However, vaccine effectiveness is lower in patients with cancer than in the general population. COVID-19 vaccination for patients with cancer should be used in conjunction with non-pharmacological strategies and community-based antiviral treatment programmes to reduce the risk that COVID-19 poses to patients with cancer., Funding: University of Oxford, University of Southampton, University of Birmingham, Department of Health and Social Care, and Blood Cancer UK., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests We declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Stage 1 seminoma is frequently cured by radical orchiectomy; however, the management strategies after this diagnosis vary in terms of the use of adjuvant treatment and the nature of the follow-up protocols. We analyzed stage 1 seminomas treated in the Thames Valley Cancer Network for outcomes to determine whether any factors are predictive of recurrence. We also studied relapses to determine the optimal follow-up schedule and protocol., Materials and Methods: Data were obtained from centers within the Thames Valley Cancer Network for a 12-year period from 2004 to 2016. We identified 501 patients with stage 1 seminoma., Results: Relapses occurred in 6.2% of the patients receiving adjuvant treatment and 6.1% of those who did not. The only statistically significant predictive factor identified for relapse was rete testis invasion, and the risk was greater when only stromal rete invasion was included, rather than pagetoid as well. A trend was seen toward an increased risk with increased tumor size, but the difference was not statistically significant. Recurrences developed within the first 2 years after surgery in nearly 75% of cases and were identified through surveillance computed tomography scans in 54.8% of the patients. All relapses were treated curatively., Conclusion: Active surveillance leads to excellent outcomes for stage 1 seminoma; however, adjuvant treatment should be reserved for those with high-risk disease. Follow-up schedules should include computed tomography imaging during the first 3 years, long-term measurement of tumor markers, and mechanisms for patients to be seen promptly should symptoms of tumor recurrence occur., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Tumour necrosis factor-related apoptosis-inducing ligand (TRAIL) induces apoptosis in cancer cells while sparing normal tissues. Despite promising preclinical results, few patients responded to treatment with recombinant TRAIL (Apo2L/Dulanermin) or TRAIL-R2-specific antibodies, such as conatumumab (AMG655). It is unknown whether this was due to intrinsic TRAIL resistance within primary human cancers or insufficient agonistic activity of the TRAIL-receptor (TRAIL-R)-targeting drugs. Fcγ receptors (FcγR)-mediated crosslinking increases the cancer-cell-killing activity of TRAIL-R2-specific antibodies in vivo. We tested this phenomenon using FcγR-expressing immune cells from patients with ovarian cancer. However, even in the presence of high numbers of FcγR-expressing immune cells, as found in ovarian cancer ascites, AMG655-induced apoptosis was not enabled to any significant degree, indicating that this concept may not translate into clinical use. On the basis of these results, we next set out to determine whether AMG655 possibly interferes with apoptosis induction by endogenous TRAIL, which could be expressed by immune cells. To do so, we tested how AMG655 affected apoptosis induction by recombinant TRAIL. This, however, resulted in the surprising discovery of a striking synergy between AMG655 and non-tagged TRAIL (Apo2L/TRAIL) in killing cancer cells. This combination was as effective in killing cancer cells as highly active recombinant isoleucine-zipper-tagged TRAIL (iz-TRAIL). The increased killing efficiency was due to enhanced formation of the TRAIL death-inducing signalling complex, enabled by concomitant binding of Apo2L/TRAIL and AMG655 to TRAIL-R2. The synergy of AMG655 with Apo2L/TRAIL extended to primary ovarian cancer cells and was further enhanced by combination with the proteasome inhibitor bortezomib or a second mitochondrial-derived activator of caspases (SMAC) mimetic. Importantly, primary human hepatocytes were not killed by the AMG655-Apo2L/TRAIL combination, also not when further combined with bortezomib or a SMAC mimetic. We therefore propose that clinical-grade non-tagged recombinant forms of TRAIL, such as dulanermin, could be combined with antibodies such as AMG655 to introduce a highly active TRAIL-R2-agonistic therapy into the cancer clinic.

Calcific uremic arteriolopathy (CUA) is a rare complication of end-stage renal disease in which thrombosis occurs in calcified arteries, leading to infarction and infection of the affected tissues. This brief report describes a fatal case of CUA which presented with intestinal involvement, significantly before the onset of classical skin lesions. It is essential to raise awareness of this rare but clinically relevant form of presentation of CUA. The diagnostic and treatment issues are discussed in this case.