Search

Background: Effective treatments are needed to improve outcomes for high-grade glioma and low-grade glioma. The activity and safety of dabrafenib plus trametinib were evaluated in adult patients with recurrent or progressive BRAFV600E mutation-positive high-grade glioma and low-grade glioma.Methods: This study is part of an ongoing open-label, single-arm, phase 2 Rare Oncology Agnostic Research (ROAR) basket trial at 27 community and academic cancer centres in 13 countries (Austria, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, and the USA). The study enrolled patients aged 18 years or older with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0, 1, or 2. Patients with BRAFV600E mutation-positive high-grade glioma and low-grade glioma received dabrafenib 150 mg twice daily plus trametinib 2 mg once daily orally until unacceptable toxicity, disease progression, or death. In the high-grade glioma cohort, patients were required to have measurable disease at baseline using the Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology high-grade glioma response criteria and have been treated previously with radiotherapy and first-line chemotherapy or concurrent chemoradiotherapy. Patients with low-grade glioma were required to have measurable non-enhancing disease (except pilocytic astrocytoma) at baseline using the Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology low-grade glioma criteria. The primary endpoint, in the evaluable intention-to-treat population, was investigator-assessed objective response rate (complete response plus partial response for high-grade glioma and complete response plus partial response plus minor response for low-grade glioma). This trial is ongoing, but is closed for enrolment, NCT02034110.Findings: Between April 17, 2014, and July 25, 2018, 45 patients (31 with glioblastoma) were enrolled into the high-grade glioma cohort and 13 patients were enrolled into the low-grade glioma cohort. The results presented here are based on interim analysis 16 (data cutoff Sept 14, 2020). In the high-grade glioma cohort, median follow-up was 12·7 months (IQR 5·4-32·3) and 15 (33%; 95% CI 20-49) of 45 patients had an objective response by investigator assessment, including three complete responses and 12 partial responses. In the low-grade glioma cohort, median follow-up was 32·2 months (IQR 25·1-47·8). Nine (69%; 95% CI 39-91) of 13 patients had an objective response by investigator assessment, including one complete response, six partial responses, and two minor responses. Grade 3 or worse adverse events were reported in 31 (53%) patients, the most common being fatigue (five [9%]), decreased neutrophil count (five [9%]), headache (three [5%]), and neutropenia (three [5%]).Interpretation: Dabrafenib plus trametinib showed clinically meaningful activity in patients with BRAFV600E mutation-positive recurrent or refractory high-grade glioma and low-grade glioma, with a safety profile consistent with that in other indications. BRAFV600E testing could potentially be adopted in clinical practice for patients with glioma.Funding: Novartis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Previously, the tyrosine kinase inhibitor sunitinib failed to show clinical benefit in patients with recurrent glioblastoma. Low intratumoural sunitinib accumulation in glioblastoma patients was reported as a possible explanation for the lack of therapeutic benefit. We designed a randomized phase II/III trial to evaluate whether a high-dose intermittent sunitinib schedule, aimed to increase intratumoural drug concentrations, would result in improved clinical benefit compared to standard treatment with lomustine. Patients with recurrent glioblastoma were randomized 1:1 to high-dose intermittent sunitinib 300 mg once weekly (Q1W, part 1) or 700 mg once every two weeks (Q2W, part 2) or lomustine. The primary end-point was progression-free survival. Based on the pre-planned interim analysis, the trial was terminated for futility after including 26 and 29 patients in parts 1 and 2. Median progression-free survival of sunitinib 300 mg Q1W was 1.5 months (95% CI 1.4-1.7) compared to 1.5 months (95% CI 1.4-1.6) in the lomustine arm ( P = 0.59). Median progression-free survival of sunitinib 700 mg Q2W was 1.4 months (95% CI 1.2-1.6) versus 1.6 months (95% CI 1.3-1.8) for lomustine ( P = 0.70). Adverse events (≥grade 3) were observed in 25%, 21% and 31% of patients treated with sunitinib 300 mg Q1W, sunitinib 700 mg Q2W and lomustine, respectively ( P = 0.92). To conclude, high-dose intermittent sunitinib treatment failed to improve the outcome of patients with recurrent glioblastoma when compared to standard lomustine therapy. Since lomustine remains a poor standard treatment strategy for glioblastoma, innovative treatment strategies are urgently needed., Competing Interests: The authors report no competing interests., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Guarantors of Brain.)

Background: Many patients with incurable cancer have symptoms affecting their health-related quality of life. The eHealth application 'Oncokompas' supports patients to take an active role in managing their palliative care needs, to reduce symptoms and improve health-related quality of life (HRQOL). This randomized controlled trial was conducted to determine the efficacy of Oncokompas compared to care as usual among incurably ill cancer patients with a life expectancy of more than three months., Methods: Patients were recruited in six hospitals in the Netherlands. Eligible patients were randomly assigned to the intervention (direct access to Oncokompas) or the control group (access to Oncokompas after three months). The primary outcome measure was patient activation (i.e., patients' knowledge, skills and confidence for self-management). Secondary outcomes were general self-efficacy and HRQOL. Measures were assessed at baseline, two weeks after randomization, and three months after the baseline measurement. Linear mixed models were used to compare longitudinal changes between both groups from baseline to the three-month follow-up., Findings: In total, 219 patients were eligible of which 138 patients completed the baseline questionnaire (response rate 63%), and were randomized to the intervention (69) or control group (69). There were no significant differences between the intervention and control group over time in patient activation (estimated difference in change T0-T2; 1·8 (90% CI: -1·0 to 4·7)), neither in general self-efficacy and HRQOL. Of the patients in the intervention group who activated their account, 74% used Oncokompas as intended. The course of patient activation, general self-efficacy, and HRQOL was not significantly different between patients who used Oncokompas as intended versus those who did not., Interpretation: Among incurably ill cancer patients with a life expectancy of more than three months and recruited in the hospital setting, Oncokompas did not significantly improve patient activation, self-efficacy, or HRQOL., Funding: ZonMw, Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (844001105)., Competing Interests: IVdL reports grants from the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw), the Dutch Cancer Society (KWF Kankerbestrijding), Bristol Myers Squibb, Danone Ecofund/Nutricia. ABC reports grants from Roche. FdV reports grants from Foundation STOPbraintumors.org and AbbVIe, BMS, Novartis, EORTC, Vaximm and BioClin Therapeutics. FdV reports participation on a DSMB during the conduct of this study, and leaderships or fiduciary roles in other boards and commissions. All other authors declare no competing interests., (© 2022 The Author(s).)

Purpose: Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) have poor efficacy in patients with glioblastoma (GBM). Here, we studied whether this is predominantly due to restricted blood-brain barrier penetration or more to biological characteristics of GBM., Patients and Methods: Tumor drug concentrations of the TKI sunitinib after 2 weeks of preoperative treatment was determined in 5 patients with GBM and compared with its in vitro inhibitory concentration (IC50) in GBM cell lines. In addition, phosphotyrosine (pTyr)-directed mass spectrometry (MS)-based proteomics was performed to evaluate sunitinib-treated versus control GBM tumors., Results: The median tumor sunitinib concentration of 1.9 μmol/L (range 1.0-3.4) was 10-fold higher than in concurrent plasma, but three times lower than sunitinib IC50s in GBM cell lines (median 5.4 μmol/L, 3.0-8.5; P = 0.01). pTyr-phosphoproteomic profiles of tumor samples from 4 sunitinib-treated versus 7 control patients revealed 108 significantly up- and 23 downregulated (P < 0.05) phosphopeptides for sunitinib treatment, resulting in an EGFR-centered signaling network. Outlier analysis of kinase activities as a potential strategy to identify drug targets in individual tumors identified nine kinases, including MAPK10 and INSR/IGF1R., Conclusions: Achieved tumor sunitinib concentrations in patients with GBM are higher than in plasma, but lower than reported for other tumor types and insufficient to significantly inhibit tumor cell growth in vitro. Therefore, alternative TKI dosing to increase intratumoral sunitinib concentrations might improve clinical benefit for patients with GBM. In parallel, a complex profile of kinase activity in GBM was found, supporting the potential of (phospho)proteomic analysis for the identification of targets for (combination) treatment., (©2022 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: For the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) during the delayed phase (24-120 hours) after moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC), the use of 3-day dexamethasone (DEX) is often recommended. This study compared the efficacy and safety of two DEX-sparing regimens with 3-day DEX, focusing on delayed nausea., Patients and Methods: This open-label, randomized, phase III study was designed to demonstrate noninferiority of two DEX-sparing regimens: ondansetron + DEX on day 1 + metoclopramide on days 2-3 (MCP arm), and palonosetron + DEX on day 1 (PAL arm) versus ondansetron on day 1 + DEX on days 1-3 (DEX arm) in chemotherapy-naïve patients receiving MEC. Primary efficacy endpoint was total control (TC; no emetic episodes, no use of rescue medication, no nausea) in the delayed phase. Noninferiority was defined as a lower 95% CI greater than the noninferiority margin set at -20%. Secondary endpoints included no vomiting, no rescue medication, no (significant) nausea, impact of CINV on quality of life, and antiemetics-associated side effects., Results: Treatment arms were comparable for 189 patients analyzed: predominantly male (55.7%), median age 65.0 years, colorectal cancer (85.7%), and oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy (81.5%). MCP demonstrated noninferiority to DEX for delayed TC (MCP 56.1% vs. DEX 50.0%; 95% CI, -11.3%, 23.5%). PAL also demonstrated noninferiority to DEX (PAL 55.6% vs. DEX 50.0%; 95% CI, -12.0%, 23.2%). There were no statistically significant differences for all secondary endpoints between treatment arms., Conclusion: This study showed that DEX-sparing regimens are noninferior to multiple-day DEX in terms of delayed TC rate in patients undergoing MEC. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier. NCT02135510., Implications for Practice: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in the delayed phase (24-120 hours after chemotherapy) remains one of the most troublesome adverse effects associated with cancer treatment. In particular, delayed nausea is often poorly controlled. The role of dexamethasone (DEX) in the prevention of delayed nausea after moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) is controversial. This study is the first to include nausea assessment as a part of the primary study outcome to better gauge the effectiveness of CINV control and patients' experience. Results show that a DEX-sparing strategy does not result in any significant loss of overall antiemetic control: DEX-sparing strategies incorporating palonosetron or multiple-day metoclopramide are safe and at least as effective as standard treatment with a 3-day DEX regimen with ondansetron in controlling delayed CINV-and nausea in particular-following MEC., (© 2020 The Authors. The Oncologist published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of AlphaMed Press.)

Background: Previous research has suggested that clinical assessment of emotions in patients with cancer is suboptimal. However, it is a possibility that well-trained and experienced doctors and nurses do recognize emotions but that they do not evaluate all emotions as necessitating professional mental health care. This implies that the sensitivity of clinical assessment should be tested against the need for professional mental health care as reference standard, instead of emotional distress. We hypothesized that the observed sensitivity of clinical assessment of emotions would be higher when tested against need for professional mental health care as reference standard, compared with emotional distress as reference standard., Patients and Methods: A consecutive series of patients starting with chemotherapy were recruited during their routine clinical care, at a department of medical oncology. Clinical assessment of emotions by medical oncologists and nurses was derived from the patient file. Emotional distress and need for professional mental health care were assessed using the Distress Thermometer and Problem List., Results: Clinical assessment resulted in notes on emotions in 42.2% of the patient files with 36.2% of patients experiencing emotional distress and 10.8% expressing a need for professional mental health care (N = 185). As expected, the sensitivity of clinical assessment of emotions was higher with the reference standard "need for professional mental health care" compared with "emotional distress" (P < .001). For specificity, equivalent results were obtained with the two reference standards (P = .63)., Conclusions: Clinical assessment of emotions in patients with cancer may be more accurate than previously concluded., (© 2020 The Authors. Psycho-Oncology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Patients with a newly diagnosed glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) have a high risk of recurrent disease with a dismal outcome despite intensive treatment of sequential surgery and chemoradiotherapy with temozolomide (TMZ), followed by TMZ as a single agent. Bevacizumab (BV) may increase response rates to chemotherapy in the recurrent treatment setting of GBM. We hypothesized that a neoadjuvant treatment strategy for patients with newly diagnosed GBM using chemoradiotherapy plus BV would improve resectability and thus survival. We performed a phase II trial of the treatment strategy of BV plus chemoradiation to determine the safety of this combination in patients who had already undergone primary surgery for their GBM., Methods: After a biopsy (6 patients) or a resection (13 patients) of a newly diagnosed GBM, 19 patients received radiotherapy (30 fractions of 2 Gy) in combination with daily TMZ 75 mg/m(2) and BV 10 mg/kg on days 1, 14, and 28, followed by 6 monthly cycles of TMZ 150-200 mg/m(2) on days 1-5., Results: The overall response rate was 26%. Three patients had a complete response after resection, and in two patients, a complete response after resection followed by chemoradiation plus BV was seen. No grade 3-4 toxicities were observed during combination treatment. The median progression-free survival was 9.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.3-14.4 months). The median overall survival was 16 months (95% CI: 8.1-26.3 months), similar to a matched control group that received standard chemoradiotherapy from our institution., Conclusion: Combination of bevacizumab with radiotherapy and TMZ is safe and feasible in patients with newly diagnosed GBM, but because of low response rates, this treatment strategy does not favor a neoadjuvant approach., (©AlphaMed Press; the data published online to support this summary is the property of the authors.)