Search

BACKGROUND: The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO)-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (MCBS) has been accepted as a robust tool to evaluate the magnitude of clinical benefit reported in trials for oncological therapies. However, the ESMO-MCBS hitherto has only been validated for solid tumours. With the rapid development of novel therapies for haematological malignancies, we aimed to develop an ESMO-MCBS version that is specifically designed and validated for haematological malignancies. METHODS: ESMO and the European Hematology Association (EHA) initiated a collaboration to develop a version for haematological malignancies (ESMO-MCBS:H). The process incorporated five landmarks: field testing of the ESMO-MCBS version 1.1 (v1.1) to identify shortcomings specific to haematological diseases, drafting of the ESMO-MCBS:H forms, peer review and revision of the draft based on re-scoring (resulting in a second draft), assessment of reasonableness of the scores generated, final review and approval by ESMO and EHA including executive boards. RESULTS: Based on the field testing results of 80 haematological trials and extensive review for feasibility and reasonableness, five amendments to ESMO-MCBS were incorporated in the ESMO-MCBS:H addressing the identified shortcomings. These concerned mainly clinical trial endpoints that differ in haematology versus solid oncology and the very indolent nature of nevertheless incurable diseases such as follicular lymphoma, which hampers presentation of mature data. In addition, general changes incorporated in the draft version of the ESMO-MCBS v2 were included, and specific forms for haematological malignancies generated. Here we present the final approved forms of the ESMO-MCBS:H, including instructions. CONCLUSION: The haematology-specific version ESMO-MCBS:H allows now full applicability of the scale for evaluating the magnitude of clinical benefit derived from clinical studies in haematological malignancies.

Appendiceal neuroendocrine tumors (aNETs) are an uncommon neoplasm that is relatively indolent in most cases. They are typically diagnosed in younger patients than other neuroendocrine tumors and are often an incidental finding after an appendectomy. Although there are numerous clinical practice guidelines on management of aNETs, there is continues to be a dearth of evidence on optimal treatment. Management of these tumors is stratified according to risk of locoregional and distant metastasis. However, there is a lack of consensus regarding tumors that measure 1-2 cm. In these cases, some histopathological features such as size, tumor grade, presence of lymphovascular invasion, or mesoappendix infiltration must also be considered. Computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging scans are recommended for evaluating the presence of additional disease, except in the case of tumors smaller than 1 cm without additional risk factors. Somatostatin receptor scintigraphy or positron emission tomography with computed tomography should be considered in cases with suspected residual or distant disease. The main point of controversy is the indication for performing a completion right hemicolectomy after an initial appendectomy, based on the risk of lymph node metastases. The main factor considered is tumor size and 2 cm is the most common threshold for indicating a colectomy. Other factors such as mesoappendix infiltration, lymphovascular invasion, or tumor grade may also be considered. On the other hand, potential complications, and decreased quality of life after a hemicolectomy as well as the lack of evidence on benefits in terms of survival must be taken into consideration. In this review, we present data regarding the current indications, outcomes, and benefits of a colectomy.

Cristina Saavedra,1,2 Jorge Barriuso,1,3 Mairéad G McNamara,1,3 Juan W Valle,1,3 Angela Lamarca1,31Medical Oncology Department, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK; 2Medical Oncology Department, Ramon Y Cajal University Hospital, Madrid, Spain; 3Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UKAbstract: Neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) are rare cancers with an associated prolonged survival in some patients. A proportion of patients diagnosed with NETs will present with carcinoid syndrome symptoms, characterized by diarrhea, flushing and/or wheezing. This review summarizes the current treatment options for carcinoid syndrome, focusing on the latest novel treatment option, telotristat ethyl. In addition, information on patient-reported outcomes and impact of carcinoid syndrome on quality of life (QOL) and improvement of following treatment with telotristat ethyl are reviewed. This article also provides an overview of the current QOL questionnaires for patients with NETs and addresses unmet needs in this field of patient-reported outcomes.Keywords: telotristat ethyl, carcinoid syndrome, NET, diarrhea

Background: The European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) is a validated, widely used tool developed to score the clinical benefit from cancer medicines reported in clinical trials. ESMO-MCBS scores assume valid research methodologies and quality trial implementation. Studies incorporating flawed design, implementation, or data analysis may generate outcomes that exaggerate true benefit and are not generalisable. Failure to either indicate or penalise studies with bias undermines the intention and diminishes the integrity of ESMO-MCBS scores. This review aimed to evaluate the adequacy of the ESMO-MCBS to address bias generated by flawed design, implementation, or data analysis and identify shortcomings in need of amendment. Methods: As part of a refinement of the ESMO-MCBS, we reviewed trial design, implementation, and data analysis issues that could bias the results. For each issue of concern, we reviewed the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 approach against standards derived from Helsinki guidelines for ethical human research and guidelines from the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use, the Food and Drugs Administration, the European Medicines Agency, and European Network for Health Technology Assessment. Results: Six design, two implementation, and two data analysis and interpretation issues were evaluated and in three, the ESMO-MCBS provided adequate protections. Seven shortcomings in the ability of the ESMO-MCBS to identify and address bias were identified. These related to (i) evaluation of the control arm, (ii) crossover issues, (iii) criteria for non-inferiority, (iv) substandard post-progression treatment, (v) post hoc subgroup findings based on biomarkers, (vi) informative censoring, and (vii) publication bias against quality-of-life data. Conclusion: Interpretation of the ESMO-MCBS scores requires critical appraisal of trials to understand caveats in trial design, implementation, and data analysis that may have biased results and conclusions. These will be addressed in future iterations of the ESMO-MCBS. © 2021 The Author(s)

Purpose: The limited knowledge of the molecular alterations that characterize poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinomas has limited the clinical development of targeted agents directed to driver mutations. Here we aim to identify new molecular targets in colon neuroendocrine carcinomas (co-NEC) and proof the efficacy of matching drugs. Experimental Design: We performed a multi-omic analysis of co-NEC to identify genetic or epigenetic alterations that could be exploited as effective drug targets. We compared co-NEC samples with colorectal carcinomas (CRC) to identify neuroendocrinespecific traits. Patients with co-NEC and patient-derived xenografts were treated with a BRAFV600E-blocking drug to demonstrate sensitivity. Results: co-NEC and CRC are similar in their mutational repertoire, although co-NECs are particularly enriched in BRAFV600E mutations. We report for the first time that V600EBRAF-mutant co-NECs may benefit from BRAF inhibition in monotherapy and how EGFR status is essential to predict innate sensitivity and acquired resistance by a differential methylation of its gene regulatory regions. Conclusions: The identification of V600E BRAF mutations in high-grade co-NECs has allowed the description of radiological responses to combination therapy of BRAF and MEK inhibitors in basket clinical trials. However, the molecular rationale for this treatment combination was based on the presence of the BRAF mutation and the efficacy observed in other cancer types such as melanoma. Future drug development in this setting should test BRAF inhibitors upfront and the addition of anti-EGFR antibodies instead of MEK inhibitors for an efficient blockade of acquired resistance.

The last years have witnessed a breakthrough in the development of cell-based tolerance-inducing cell therapies for the treatment of autoimmune diseases and solid-organ transplantation. Indeed, the use of tolerogenic dendritic cells (tolDC) and regulatory macrophages (Mreg) is currently being tested in Phase I and Phase II clinical trials worldwide, with the aim of finding an effective therapy able to abrogate the inflammatory processes causing these pathologies without compromising the protective immunity of the patients. However, there exists a wide variety of different protocols to generate human tolDC and Mreg and, consequently, the characteristics of each product are heterogeneous. For this reason, the identification of biomarkers able to define their functionality (tolerogenicity) is of great relevance, on the one hand, to guarantee the safety of tolDC and Mreg before administration and, on the other hand, to compare the results between different cell products and laboratories. In this article, we perform an exhaustive review of protocols generating human tolDC and Mreg in the literature, aiming to elucidate if there are any common transcriptomic signature or potential biomarkers of tolerogenicity among the different approaches. However, and although several effectors seem to be induced in common in some of the most reported protocols to generate both tolDC or Mreg, the transcriptomic profile of these cellular products strongly varies depending on the approach used to generate them.