Search

Hyperglycemia and rash are expected but challenging adverse events of phosphatidylinositol-3-kinase inhibition (such as with alpelisib). Two modified Delphi panels were conducted to provide consensus recommendations for managing hyperglycemia and rash in patients taking alpelisib. Experts rated the appropriateness of interventions on a 1-to-9 scale; median scores and dispersion were used to classify the levels of agreement. Per the hyperglycemia panel, it is appropriate to start alpelisib in patients with HbA1c 6.5% (diabetes) to

Patients with cancer demonstrate particularly poor outcomes from COVID-19. To provide information essential for understanding the biologic underpinnings of this association, we analyzed whole-transcriptome RNA expression data obtained from a large cohort of cancer patients to characterize expression of ACE2, TMPRSS2, and other proteases that are involved in viral attachment to and entry into target cells. We find substantial variability of expression of these factors across tumor types and identify subpopulations expressing ACE2 at very high levels. In some tumor types, especially in gastrointestinal cancers, expression of ACE2 and TMPRSS2 is highly correlated. Furthermore, we found infiltration with T-cell and natural killer (NK) cell infiltration to be particularly pronounced in ACE2-high tumors. These findings suggest that subsets of cancer patients exist with gene expression profiles that may be associated with heightened susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection, in whom malignant tumors function as viral reservoir and possibly promote the frequently detrimental hyper-immune response in patients infected with this virus.

AimTo assess the efficacy of oral NEPA (netupitant-palonosetron 300/0.50 mg) over multiple chemotherapy cycles.MethodsTwo randomized phase III studies evaluated a single dose of oral NEPA given on day 1 in chemotherapy-naive patients receiving anthracycline-cyclophosphamide (AC)-based (Study 1) or highly (HEC)/moderately (MEC) emetogenic chemotherapy (safety Study 2). Oral NEPA was compared with oral palonosetron 0.50 mg (Study 1) or oral aprepitant 125 mg day 1, 80 mg days 2-3/palonosetron 0.50 mg (Study 2; no formal statistical comparisons). Oral dexamethasone was administered in all treatment groups. Complete response (CR; no emesis/no rescue medication), no emesis, and no significant nausea (NSN) rates during acute (0-24 h) and delayed (>24-120 h) phases of chemotherapy cycles 1-4 in each study were evaluated.ResultsIn Study 1, 1450 patients received 5969 chemotherapy cycles; in Study 2, 412 patients received 1961 chemotherapy cycles. In each study, ≥75% of patients completed 4 or more cycles. In Study 1, oral NEPA was superior to palonosetron in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in the acute and delayed phases of cycle 1, with higher rates of CR (all P

PurposeConventional chemotherapy has limited activity in patients with breast cancer and brain metastases (BCBM). Etirinotecan pegol (EP), a novel long-acting topoisomerase-1 inhibitor, was designed using advanced polymer technology to preferentially accumulate in tumor tissue including brain metastases, providing sustained cytotoxic SN38 levels.MethodsThe phase 3 BEACON trial enrolled 852 women with heavily pretreated locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer between 2011 and 2013. BEACON compared EP with treatment of physician's choice (TPC; eribulin, vinorelbine, gemcitabine, nab-paclitaxel, paclitaxel, ixabepilone, or docetaxel) in patients previously treated with anthracycline, taxane, and capecitabine, including those with treated, stable brain metastases. The primary endpoint, overall survival (OS), was assessed in a pre-defined subgroup of BCBM patients; an exploratory post hoc analysis adjusting for the diagnosis-specific graded prognostic assessment (GPA) index was also conducted.ResultsIn the trial, 67 BCBM patients were randomized (EP, n = 36; TPC, n = 31). Treatment subgroups were balanced for baseline characteristics and GPA indices. EP was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of death (HR 0.51; P

PurposeWe assessed adding the multikinase inhibitor sorafenib to gemcitabine or capecitabine in patients with advanced breast cancer whose disease progressed during/after bevacizumab.Experimental designThis double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled phase IIb study (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00493636) enrolled patients with locally advanced or metastatic human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative breast cancer and prior bevacizumab treatment. Patients were randomized to chemotherapy with sorafenib (400 mg, twice daily) or matching placebo. Initially, chemotherapy was gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m(2) i.v., days 1, 8/21), but later, capecitabine (1,000 mg/m(2) orally twice daily, days 1-14/21) was allowed as an alternative. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS).ResultsOne hundred and sixty patients were randomized. More patients received gemcitabine (82.5%) than capecitabine (17.5%). Sorafenib plus gemcitabine/capecitabine was associated with a statistically significant prolongation in PFS versus placebo plus gemcitabine/capecitabine [3.4 vs. 2.7 months; HR = 0.65; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.45-0.95; P = 0.02], time to progression was increased (median, 3.6 vs. 2.7 months; HR = 0.64; 95% CI: 0.44-0.93; P = 0.02), and overall response rate was 19.8% versus 12.7% (P = 0.23). Median survival was 13.4 versus 11.4 months for sorafenib versus placebo (HR = 1.01; 95% CI: 0.71-1.44; P = 0.95). Addition of sorafenib versus placebo increased grade 3/4 hand-foot skin reaction (39% vs. 5%), stomatitis (10% vs. 0%), fatigue (18% vs. 9%), and dose reductions that were more frequent (51.9% vs. 7.8%).ConclusionThe addition of sorafenib to gemcitabine/capecitabine provided a clinically small but statistically significant PFS benefit in HER2-negative advanced breast cancer patients whose disease progressed during/after bevacizumab. Combination treatment was associated with manageable toxicities but frequently required dose reductions.

Background: Cancer treatment requires substantial demands on patients and their caregivers. Mobile apps can provide support for self‐management during oncology treatment, but few have been rigorously evaluated. Methods: A 3‐month randomized controlled trial was conducted at a large cancer center to evaluate the efficacy of an app (LivingWith®) that provides self‐management support during cancer treatment on quality of life and health care utilization. Patients in chemotherapy treatment were randomized into the intervention (n = 113) and control group (n = 111). Intervention group participants agreed to use the app weekly for 3 months, and all participants completed a survey at enrollment and after 3 months to evaluate changes in quality of life and health care utilization. Results: Retention rate was 75.4% with 169 participants completing the follow‐up survey. The intervention group reported 0.74 fewer medical office visits (p = 0.043) and 0.24 fewer visits with a mental health professional (p = 0.061) during the 3 and month intervention compared with controls. There were no significant changes by study group in quality of life, or emergency room and urgent care visits. Among intervention participants, 75.3% reported using the app and on average, used it 11.7 times during the 3‐month intervention. Reasons for not using the app among intervention participants included lack of time, lack of interest in apps, and usability challenges. Conclusions and Relevance: Apps are inexpensive and scalable tools that can provide additional support for individuals coping with complex cancer treatments. This trial provides evidence that a well‐designed oncology support app used during chemotherapy resulted in fewer clinic visits. Still, nearly a quarter of participants randomized to the intervention arm reported never using the app due to personal preference and usability challenges, which points to future opportunities for calibrating target user population and improving user‐centered design. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT04331678. This randomized controlled trial of oncology patients provides evidence that a well‐designed oncology support mobile app used during chemotherapy resulted in fewer clinic visits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Symptom burden differences may contribute to racial disparities in breast cancer survival. We compared symptom changes from before to during chemotherapy among women with breast cancer. Methods: This observational study followed a cohort of Black and White women diagnosed with Stage I-III, hormone receptor-positive breast cancer from a large cancer center in 2007 to 2015, and reported symptoms before and during chemotherapy. We identified patients who experienced a one-standard deviation (SD) increase in symptom burden after starting chemotherapy using four validated composite scores (General Physical Symptoms, Treatment Side Effects, Acute Distress, and Despair). Kitagawa-Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition was used to quantify race differences in symptom changes explained by baseline characteristics (sociodemographic, baseline scores, cancer stage) and first-line chemotherapy regimens. Results: Among 1,273 patients, Black women (n = 405, 31.8%) were more likely to report one-SD increase in General Physical Symptoms (55.6% vs. 48.2%, P = 0.015), Treatment Side Effects (74.0% vs. 63.4%, P < 0.001), and Acute Distress (27.4% vs. 20.0%, P = 0.010) than White women. Baseline characteristics and first-line chemotherapy regimens explained a large and significant proportion of the difference in Acute Distress changes (93.7%, P = 0.001), but not General Physical Symptoms (25.7%, P = 0.25) or Treatment Side Effects (16.4%, P = 0.28). Conclusions: Black women with early-stage breast cancer were more likely to experience significant increases in physical and psychological symptom burden during chemotherapy. Most of the difference in physical symptom changes remained unexplained by baseline characteristics, which suggests inadequate symptom management among Black women. Impact: Future studies should identify strategies to improve symptom management among Black women and reduce differences in symptom burden. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]