Search

Purpose: Patients with oligometastasis may have prolonged survival with multisite stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR). Evidence to support this paradigm is scarce in squamous cell carcinomas of the head and neck cancers (HNSCC). The multicentre open-label randomised, GORTEC 2014-04 (NCT03070366) phase II study assesses survival without definitive quality of life (QoL) deterioration of omitting upfront chemotherapy in oligometastatic HNSCC patients by using SABR-alone., Methods and Materials: Eligible participants (≥18 years-old with 1-3 oligometastases, ECOG score 0-2), were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive chemo-SABR or SABR-alone. Salvage treatments were left to physician's appreciation. The standard therapy was considered to be systemic therapy and SABR (chemo-SABR; EXTREME regimen). The primary endpoint was one-year (± 3 months) OS rate without definitive deterioration (i.e. without subsequent better QoL score) of the global QLCQ-C30 QoL score., Results: Between Sept, 2015 & Oct, 2022, 69 participants were assigned to receive chemo-SABR (N=35) or SABR-alone (N=34); 57 had lung-only metastases (82.6%), 40 had isolated metastasis (58.0%). Median baseline QoL score was 66.7 (IQR[50.0-83.3]). Median follow-up was 55.3months (95%CI:45.0-69.7). Of participants (N=59) evaluable for the primary endpoint, 16/29 (55.2%, 90%CI:0.38-0.71), and 16/30 (53.3%, 90%CI:0.37-0.69) were alive and free of QoL deterioration at one year in the SABR-alone and chemo-SABR arms. However, QoL deterioration was deeper with chemo-SABR (50.0;IQR[41.7-66.7] than SABR-alone (16.7;IQR[16.7-41.7]). In intent-to-treat analysis (N=69), median survival was 42.3 months (95%CI:26.5-not reached) with chemo-SABR and 41.1months (95%CI:32.1-66.9) with SABR-alone; median PFS were 12.9 (95%CI:7.5-17.3) and 7.4months (95%CI:4.2-15.6) in the chemo-SABR and SABR-alone arms, respectively. Rates of severe treatment-related toxicities were 21/35 (60.0%) with chemo-SABR and 3/34 (8.8%, no grade 5) with SABR-alone., Conclusion: Using SABR-alone, omission of upfront EXTREME-based chemotherapy and maintenance cetuximab in oligometastatic HNSCC patients resulted in similar survival but much less severe QoL deterioration and fewer toxicity rates. SABR alone could be a reasonable alternative in oligometastatic HNSCC patients., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest JT, XSS: travel expenses by Merck; MB: travel expenses by MSD; YP Personal financial Interests for advisory board with MSD, BMS et Merck Serono; FH: Personal financial Interests for advisory board with MSD, BMS et Merck Serono; YT: Personal financial Interests for speaker role with Merck Serono, Seagen and for advisory board with MSD; CB: Personal financial Interests for speaker role with Astra Zeneca, BMS, MSD, Merck Serono, for Advisory Board with Astra Zeneca, Merck Serono, MSD; JF: Personal financial Interests for advisory board with AstraZeneca, Hookipa, Innate Pharma, Merck Serono, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Non-Financial Interests as principal Investigator for Astrazeneca, Calliditas, Isa, Meru, MSD, Pfizer; FRF: Personal financial Interests for advisory board with Merck Serono; JB: Personal financial Interests for advisory role for Merck Serono, Roche, MSD, Astra Zeneca, Nanobiotix, BMS; AF, DV, SR, JCF, JC, AR, SG, SC none, (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Purpose: Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is a common side effect of cancer and cancer treatment that significantly impairs the quality of life and can persist for years after treatment completion. Although fatigue is often associated with cancer treatment, it is also a result of the disease itself, even before intervention. CRF at the time of diagnosis may affect treatment timing or completion and is a consistent predictor of post-treatment fatigue at any time. The mechanisms underlying CRF are multidimensional and not well understood, particularly at the time of diagnosis., Methods: Sixty-five breast cancer patients at the time of diagnosis were included. The participants completed self-assessment questionnaires about CRF, sleep disturbances, and emotional symptoms and wore an accelerometer to assess levels of spontaneous physical activity and sleep quality. During the experimental session, the participants underwent cognitive, neuromuscular, and exercise metabolism evaluations., Results: Using augmented backward elimination regression, this study found that emotional symptoms and perceived sleep disturbances were the strongest predictors of CRF (adjusted r 2  = 0.51). Neuromuscular fatigability and sleep disturbance were also associated with physical dimensions, whereas cognitive performance was associated with cognitive dimensions., Conclusion: At the time of diagnosis, emotional and cognitive dimensions are over-represented compared to the general population, and specific subdimensions have specific predictors that support the idea of distinct mechanisms. Evaluating CRF subdimensions and their potential mechanisms at the time of diagnosis would be particularly relevant for identifying high-risk patients and offering them appropriate interventions., Trial Registration: This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04391543) in May, 2020., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Darolutamide and enzalutamide are second-generation androgen receptor inhibitors with activity in men with castrate-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) and different toxicity profiles., Objective: ODENZA is a prospective, randomized, multicenter, cross-over, phase 2 trial designed to assess preference between darolutamide and enzalutamide in men with asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic metastatic CRPC (mCRPC)., Design, Setting, and Participants: Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either darolutamide 1200 mg/d for 12 wk followed by enzalutamide 160 mg/d for 12 wk or enzalutamide followed by darolutamide. In both arms, the second treatment was given in absence of cancer progression., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: The primary endpoint was patient preference between the two drugs, as assessed by a preference questionnaire (p value calculated with the Prescott test). After week 24, patients entered an extension period during which they received their preferred treatment until progression or toxicity. The main secondary objectives included reasons for patient preference, response at week 12, tolerance of each drug, and measurement compared with baseline of cognitive outcomes assessed using tablet questionnaires., Results and Limitations: Overall, 249 patients, with a median age of 72 yr, were randomized. Among the 200 patients who fulfilled the preplanned criteria for the evaluation of the primary endpoint of preference, 97 (49% [41; 56]), 80 (40% [33; 47]), and 23 (12% [7; 16]) chose darolutamide, chose enzalutamide, and had no preference, respectively (p = 0.92). Reduced fatigue, easier administration, and better quality of life were the main criteria that influenced patient choice. A moderate benefit in episodic memory from darolutamide was observed for the acquisition of new information (least square [LS] means difference = 2.2, effect size = 0.5) and for the recall of that information after a brief delay (LS means difference = 0.7, effect size = 0.3). Using the Brief Fatigue Inventory questionnaire, patients reported greater fatigue with enzalutamide (3.3 [3.0; 3.6]) than with darolutamide (2.7 [2.4; 3.0]). There was no difference in terms of depression, seizures, and falls., Conclusions: The study did not show a difference in preference between the two treatments. In men with mCRPC, darolutamide was associated with a clinically meaningful benefit in episodic memory and less fatigue compared with enzalutamide., Patient Summary: Preference between darolutamide and enzalutamide was well balanced in men with castrate-resistant prostate cancer. Darolutamide was associated with a significant benefit in verbal learning and less fatigue compared with enzalutamide., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

What Is This Summary About?: This summary describes the results from the TALAPRO-2 research study (also known as a clinical trial). The TALAPRO-2 study tested the combination of two medicines called talazoparib plus enzalutamide. This combination of medicines was used as the first treatment for adult patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. The combination of talazoparib plus enzalutamide was compared with a placebo plus enzalutamide., What Is Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer?: Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer is a type of cancer that starts in the prostate and has spread to other parts of the body. Castration-resistant means that the cancer continues to grow even when testosterone levels in the blood are reduced to very low levels. Taking medicines to lower testosterone levels in the blood is a standard treatment for men with advanced prostate cancer., What Are the Aims of the Talapro-2 Trial?: TALAPRO-2 looked at if combining talazoparib plus enzalutamide would increase the length of time patients lived before their cancer got worse or they died compared with a placebo plus enzalutamide. Researchers looked at how treatment affected the size and number of tumors and the length of time before patients needed to change to a new cancer medicine. Researchers also looked at any side effects patients had during the study., What Are the Key Takeaways?: A total of 805 patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer took part in the study. Compared with patients who took a placebo plus enzalutamide, the group of patients who took talazoparib plus enzalutamide had a 37% reduced risk of their cancer getting worse or dying. Some patients had tumors that at the start of the study could be measured with scans. Sixty-two percent of patients who took talazoparib plus enzalutamide had their tumors decrease or shrink to the point that they could no longer be seen on scans versus 44% of patients who took a placebo plus enzalutamide. Patients who took talazoparib plus enzalutamide were more likely to have a longer time before they needed to change to a new cancer medicine. The most common side effects of talazoparib plus enzalutamide were low levels of red blood cells (66% of patients) and neutrophils (36% of patients), and excessive tiredness or exhaustion (34% of patients). Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03395197 (TALAPRO-2) (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Preclinical evidence has suggested an interplay between the androgen receptor, which largely drives the growth of prostate cancer cells, and poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase. This association provides a rationale for their co-inhibition for the treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), an area of unmet medical need. The phase 3 TALAPRO-2 study investigated combining the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor talazoparib with enzalutamide versus enzalutamide alone as first-line treatment of mCRPC. Patients were prospectively assessed for tumor alterations in DNA damage response genes involved in homologous recombination repair (HRR). Two cohorts were enrolled sequentially: an all-comers cohort that was enrolled first (cohort 1; N = 805 (169 were HRR-deficient)), followed by an HRR-deficient-only cohort (cohort 2; N = 230). We present results from the alpha-controlled primary analysis for the combined HRR-deficient population (N = 399). Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to talazoparib or placebo, plus enzalutamide. The primary endpoint, radiographic progression-free survival, was met (median not reached at the time of the analysis for the talazoparib group versus 13.8 months for the placebo group; hazard ratio, 0.45; 95% confidence interval, 0.33 to 0.61; P < 0.0001). Data for overall survival, a key secondary endpoint, are immature but favor talazoparib (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.46 to 1.03; P = 0.07). Common adverse events in the talazoparib group were anemia, fatigue and neutropenia. Combining talazoparib with enzalutamide significantly improved radiographic progression-free survival in patients with mCRPC harboring HRR gene alterations, supporting talazoparib plus enzalutamide as a potential first-line treatment for these patients. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03395197 ., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Aim: The adrenal gland is a common site of metastasis with a rate of up to 27% in autopsy series. The incidence of these metastases is increasing due to greater use of Positron Emission Tomography scans and improved overall survival of patients with metastatic cancers. Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is a non-invasive treatment option for metastasis. The aim of this study is to assess prognostic factors influencing local control, progression-free and overall survival in oligometastatic patients treated with SBRT for an adrenal metastasis., Methods: In this multicentric retrospective study, we included patients with adrenal metastases treated with SBRT between 2010 and 2021 in eleven french centers. All primary tumors were included., Results: A total of 110 patients treated for 121 adrenal lesions were included. Non-small-cell lung cancer was the predominant histologic type (55.4 %). Eighty-two percent of patients had at least 2 metastatic sites. The median Planning Target Volume was 70 cm 3 with a median prescription dose of 40 Gray (Gy). The mean Biologically Effective Dose (BED) 10 dose was 74.2 Gy. Local control at 1 and 2 years was 85.9 % and 72.5 % respectively. The median overall survival and progression-free survival were 31.6 and 8.5 months respectively. Local control was significantly improved by systemic treatment one month before or after SBRT (p = 0.009) and by a BED10 greater than or equal to 50 Gy (p = 0.003).In multivariate analysis, oligometastatic presentation (p = 0.009) and a metachronous metastatic presentation (p = 0.008) were independent factors for progression-free survival.Tolerance was excellent, no grade 3 and 4 toxicities were described due to SBRT., Conclusion: Stereotactic radiotherapy of adrenal metastases makes possible a local control of more than 85% at one year and was well tolerated. The factors influencing survival in oligometastatic patients still need to be found in order to better select those who benefit the most from this type of treatment., Competing Interests: 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., (© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology.)

Introduction: In October 2020, the French Health Authority granted early access outside of the clinical trial setting for dostarlimab, a programmed death-1 inhibitor. Dostarlimab was approved by the European Medicines Agency (in April 2021) as monotherapy for patients with post-platinum mismatch repair deficient/microsatellite instability-high advanced/recurrent endometrial cancer, based on the results of the GARNET trial (NCT02715284)., Methods: This was a real-world descriptive analysis of patients granted cohort temporary authorization of use to receive dostarlimab between November 2020 and June 2021. Physicians could complete follow-up forms at each treatment cycle to provide clinical information, safety, and efficacy data. Safety and disease progression data were also captured through pharmacovigilance reports., Results: Of 95 temporary authorization of use requests made by 80 oncologists in 59 French hospitals, 87 patients were eligible, and 80 received≥1 dose of dostarlimab. Based on treatment response assessments received (n=43), the mean (standard deviation) time from treatment initiation to response evaluation was 11 (6) weeks. The disease control rate (complete plus partial responses plus stable disease rates) was 56% (n=24/43), and the overall response rate was 35% (n=15/43); both consistent with those reported in the GARNET trial. No new safety signals were reported., Discussion: The enrolment of 80 patients in an 8-month period highlights the need for access to novel treatment regimens in France for these patients post-platinum. Prospective randomized studies are ongoing to assess the efficacy and safety of dostarlimab and other checkpoint inhibitors as first-line treatment in patients with endometrial cancer., (Copyright © 2023 Société Française du Cancer. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Background: Initial TRITON2 (NCT02952534) results demonstrated the efficacy of rucaparib 600 mg BID in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) associated with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA) or other DNA damage repair (DDR) gene alteration., Objective: To present the final data from TRITON2., Design, Setting, and Participants: TRITON2 enrolled patients with mCRPC who had progressed on one or two lines of next-generation androgen receptor-directed therapy and one taxane-based chemotherapy., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR; as per the modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumor Version 1.1/Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group 3 criteria in patients with measurable disease by independent radiology review [IRR]); prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response rate (≥50% decrease from baseline [PSA50]) was a key secondary endpoint., Results and Limitations: As of July 27, 2021 (study closure), TRITON2 had enrolled 277 patients, grouped by mutated gene: BRCA (n = 172), ATM (n = 59), CDK12 (n = 15), CHEK2 (n = 7), PALB2 (n = 11), or other DDR gene (Other; n = 13). ORR by IRR was 46% (37/81) in the BRCA subgroup (95% confidence interval [CI], 35-57%), 100% (4/4) in the PALB2 subgroup (95% CI, 40-100%), and 25% (3/12) in the Other subgroup (95% CI, 5.5-57%). No patients within the ATM, CDK12, or CHEK2 subgroups had an objective response by IRR. PSA50 response rates (95% CI) in the BRCA, PALB2, ATM, CDK12, CHEK2, and Other subgroups were 53% (46-61%), 55% (23-83%), 3.4% (0.4-12), 6.7% (0.2-32%), 14% (0.4-58%), and 23% (5.0-54%), respectively., Conclusions: The final TRITON2 results confirm the clinical benefit and manageable safety profile of rucaparib in patients with mCRPC, including those with an alteration in BRCA or select non-BRCA DDR gene., Patient Summary: Almost half of TRITON2 patients with BRCA-mutated metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer had a complete or partial tumor size reduction with rucaparib; clinical benefits were also observed with other DNA damage repair gene alterations., (Crown Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

What Is This Summary About?: Squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) is the most common type of head and neck cancer. About half of the people with locally advanced (LA) SCCHN will have surgery to remove their cancer. For people who do not have surgery, chemoradiotherapy is the standard treatment, with the aim of fully removing the cancer. However, in many people, this treatment does not completely kill the cancer. This summary presents the main results of a phase 2 study of a medicine called xevinapant, which is under investigation as a potential future medicine for people with this type of cancer., What Did the Researchers Want to Find Out?: In this study, researchers wanted to find out whether xevinapant plus chemoradiotherapy could stop the cancer from growing back or getting worse in the years after treatment completion in people with LA SCCHN. They also looked at whether people with this type of cancer had side effects from taking this medicine. Short-term results were collected 18 months after treatment with chemoradiotherapy ended. These results showed that people who received xevinapant plus chemoradiotherapy were less likely to have their cancer grow back, or get worse in the part of the body where it was first found, than people who received liquid placebo-which looked and tasted the same as the active medicine (in this case, xevinapant), but did not contain any medicine-plus chemoradiotherapy. Researchers then continued to collect information for a longer amount of time (at least 3 years). They wanted to see if treatment with xevinapant plus chemoradiotherapy was stopping the cancer from growing back or getting worse and helping people live longer. After this, people were monitored for a further 2 years to see if they were alive 5 years after treatment., What Were the Main Findings of the Study?: The results showed that people with this type of cancer who were treated with xevinapant plus chemoradiotherapy were less likely to die, lived longer on average, and were less likely to have their cancer get worse. A phase 3 study, named TrilynX, in a larger group of people, is currently taking place to confirm the results of this study. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02022098 (Debio 1143-201 Dose-finding and Efficacy Phase I/II Trial) (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Background: Co-inhibition of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) and androgen receptor activity might result in antitumour efficacy irrespective of alterations in DNA damage repair genes involved in homologous recombination repair (HRR). We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of talazoparib (a PARP inhibitor) plus enzalutamide (an androgen receptor blocker) versus enzalutamide alone in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC)., Methods: TALAPRO-2 is a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial of talazoparib plus enzalutamide versus placebo plus enzalutamide as first-line therapy in men (age ≥18 years [≥20 years in Japan]) with asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic mCRPC receiving ongoing androgen deprivation therapy. Patients were enrolled from 223 hospitals, cancer centres, and medical centres in 26 countries in North America, Europe, Israel, South America, South Africa, and the Asia-Pacific region. Patients were prospectively assessed for HRR gene alterations in tumour tissue and randomly assigned (1:1) to talazoparib 0·5 mg or placebo, plus enzalutamide 160 mg, administered orally once daily. Randomisation was stratified by HRR gene alteration status (deficient vs non-deficient or unknown) and previous treatment with life-prolonging therapy (docetaxel or abiraterone, or both: yes vs no) in the castration-sensitive setting. The sponsor, patients, and investigators were masked to talazoparib or placebo, while enzalutamide was open-label. The primary endpoint was radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) by blinded independent central review, evaluated in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was evaluated in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03395197) and is ongoing., Findings: Between Jan 7, 2019, and Sept 17, 2020, 805 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned (402 to the talazoparib group and 403 to the placebo group). Median follow-up for rPFS was 24·9 months (IQR 21·9-30·2) for the talazoparib group and 24·6 months (14·4-30·2) for the placebo group. At the planned primary analysis, median rPFS was not reached (95% CI 27·5 months-not reached) for talazoparib plus enzalutamide and 21·9 months (16·6-25·1) for placebo plus enzalutamide (hazard ratio 0·63; 95% CI 0·51-0·78; p<0·0001). In the talazoparib group, the most common treatment-emergent adverse events were anaemia, neutropenia, and fatigue; the most common grade 3-4 event was anaemia (185 [46%] of 398 patients), which improved after dose reduction, and only 33 (8%) of 398 patients discontinued talazoparib due to anaemia. Treatment-related deaths occurred in no patients in the talazoparib group and two patients (<1%) in the placebo group., Interpretation: Talazoparib plus enzalutamide resulted in clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in rPFS versus standard of care enzalutamide as first-line treatment for patients with mCRPC. Final overall survival data and additional long-term safety follow-up will further clarify the clinical benefit of the treatment combination in patients with and without tumour HRR gene alterations., Funding: Pfizer., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests NA has received an honorarium for consultancy since May, 2020, from the following: Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, AVEO, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Calithera Biosciences, Eisai, EMD Serono, Exelixis, Foundation Medicine, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, Immunomedics, Janssen, Lilly, and MEI Pharma, and research funding (institution) from Arvinas, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Calithera Biosciences, Celldex, Clovis Oncology, CRISPR Therapeutics, Eisai, EMD Serono, Exelixis, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Immunomedics, Janssen, Lava, Lilly, Merck, Nektar, Neoleukin, Novartis, ORIC Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, Rexahn, Roche, Sanofi, Seagen, Takeda, and TRACON. AAA reports honoraria from Aculeus Therapeutics, Amgen, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Janssen, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Noxopharm, Pfizer, Sanofi, Telix Pharmaceuticals, and Tolmar; consulting fees from Aculeus Therapeutics, Astellas Pharma, Janssen, and Novartis; participation on advisory boards for Amgen, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Janssen, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Noxopharm, Pfizer, Sanofi, Telix, and Tolmar; participation on a data safety monitoring board for OncoSec; research funding (institution unless stated otherwise) from Aptevo Therapeutics, Astellas Pharma (investigator), AstraZeneca (investigator), Bionomics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Exelixis, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Hinova Pharmaceuticals, Ipsen, Janssen, Lilly, MedImmune, Merck Serono (investigator), MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Synthorx; and travel, accommodations, and/or expenses from Amgen, Astellas Pharma, Janssen, Merck Serono, Novartis, Pfizer, and Tolmar; and receiving medical writing services from Astellas Pharma, Exelixis, and Pfizer; he is Chair of the Urologic Oncology Group for the Clinical Oncology Society of Australia, and Chair of the Translational Research Subcommittee and on the Scientific Advisory Committee for the ANZUP Cancer Trials Group. JC reports a consulting or advisory role for Advanced Accelerator Applications/Novartis, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Johnson & Johnson, MSD Oncology, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi; participation in speakers' bureau for Astellas Pharma, Bayer, and Johnson & Johnson; research funding (institution) from AB Science, Aragon Pharmaceuticals, AROG Pharmaceuticals, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Bayer, Blueprint Medicines, BN ImmunoTherapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim España, Bristol Myers Squibb International Corporation, Clovis Oncology, Cougar Biotechnology, Deciphera, Exelixis, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Incyte, Janssen-Cilag International, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Laboratoires Leurquin Mediolanum, Lilly, MedImmune, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Nanobiotix, Novartis Farmacéutica, Pfizer, Puma Biotechnology, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, SFJ Pharmaceuticals Group, and Teva; and travel, accommodations, and/or expenses from AstraZeneca, BMS, Ipsen, and Roche. APF reports honoraria from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche; a consulting or advisory role for Bayer, Ipsen, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche; stock or stock options in Brazilian Information Oncology; and research funding from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, CAPES – CNPq, Foundation Medicine, Ipsen, MSD, and Roche; and travel, accommodations and/or expenses from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, BMS, Ipsen, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche. NM reports honoraria (personal) from Sanofi; research funding (institution) from Amgen, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Chugai Pharma, Eisai, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, PRA Health Science, Roche, Seagen, Taiho, and Takeda; and travel, accommodations, and/or expenses (personal) from Pfizer. DH reports honoraria (personal) from Advanced Accelerator Applications/Novartis, Astellas Pharma, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, EUSA Pharma, Ferring, Ipsen, Janssen, MSD, and Novartis; participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Eisai, Ipsen, Janssen, Novartis, Organon, Pfizer, and Roche; and research funding (institution) from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, and Roche. UDG reports a consulting or advisory role for Amgen, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Clovis Oncology, Dompé Farmaceutici, Eisai, Ipsen, Janssen, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and PharmaMar; research funding (institution) from AstraZeneca, Roche, and Sanofi; and travel, accommodations, and/or expenses from Ipsen and Pfizer. PCCF reports a consulting or advisory role for MSD and travel, accommodations, and/or expenses from Pfizer. RJJ reports honoraria from Astellas Pharma, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Janssen, Merck Serono, MSD, Pfizer, and Roche; a consulting or advisory role for Astellas Pharma, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Janssen, Merck Serono, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche; research funding from Astellas Pharma, Bayer, Clovis Oncology, Exelixis, and Roche; and travel, accommodations, and/or expenses from Bayer and Janssen. NDS reports a consulting or advisory role for AbbVie, Alessa Therapeutics, Akido, Amgen, Arquer, Asieris, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boston Scientific, Bristol Myers Squibb, CG Oncology, Clarity Pharmaceuticals, Clovis Oncology, Dendreon, Exact Imaging, Exact Sciences, FerGene, FIZE Medical, Foundation Medicine, GenesisCare, Genentech, Guardant Ferring, ImmunityBio, Incyte, Invitae, Janssen, Lantheus, Lilly, Mdxhealth, Merck, Minomic, Myovant Sciences, Myriad Genetics, Nymox, Pacific Edge Biotechnology, Pfizer, Photocure, PlatformQ, Profound, Promaxo, Propella Therapeutics, Protara, Sanofi, Sesen Bio, Speciality Networks, Telix Pharmaceuticals, Tolmar, UroGen Pharma, Vaxiion, and Vessi; providing expert testimony for Ferring; and leadership or other fiduciary role in other board, society, committee, or advocacy group with Photocure. CD reports participation on advisory boards for Astellas Pharma, Bayer, Janssen, and Pfizer; and research funding from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Dendreon, Hengrui Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, Laekna Therapeutics, Myovant Sciences, and Pfizer. SZ reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Amgen (personal and institution), Bayer, (personal and institution), Bristol Myers Squibb (institution), Eisai (personal), Janssen (personal), MSD (institution), Novartis (personal), and Pfizer (institution); participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Amgen (personal and institution), Bayer (personal and institution), Bristol Myers Squibb (institution), Eisai (personal), Janssen (personal), MSD (institution), Novartis (personal), and Pfizer (institution); research funding (institution) from Eisai; and travel, accommodations, and/or expenses from Amgen, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Ipsen, Janssen, Merck, MSD, and Pfizer. JO reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS Norway, Eisai, Ipsen, Janssen-Cilag, Merck, and Roche; participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Eisai, Ipsen, Janssen-Cilag, Merck, and Roche; and travel, accommodations, and/or expenses from Astellas Pharma. XL, CGH, NDiS, and FZ are employees of Pfizer and may hold Pfizer stock/stock options. KF reports honoraria (institution) for participation in advisory boards and talks from Advanced Accelerator Applications/Novartis, Amgen, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Clovis Oncology, Daiichi Sankyo, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi; and honoraria (personal) for participation in advisory boards from Arvinas, CureVac, MacroGenics, and Orion. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: The objective of this study was a multicentric evaluation of professional practices, analyzing the irradiation technique itself and its impact on survival and recurrence sites, in primary central nervous system lymphomas (PCNSLs)., Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the technical and clinical records of 79 PCNSL patients included in the database of the national expert network for oculocerebral lymphoma ('LOC') who were treated with brain radiotherapy as first-line treatment for newly diagnosed primary central nervous system lymphoma between 2011 and 2018., Results: The number of patients treated with brain radiotherapy gradually decreased over time. The heterogeneity of radiotherapy prescriptions was significant, and 55% of them did not comply with published recommendations in terms of irradiation dose and/or volume. The proportion of complete responders to induction chemotherapy treated with reduced-dose radiotherapy increased over time. Partial brain radiotherapy was associated with significantly lower overall survival in univariate analysis. In partial responders to induction chemotherapy, increasing the total dose to the brain >30 Gy and adding a boost to the WBRT induced a trend toward improved progression-free and overall survival. Five recurrences (13%) occurred exclusively in the eyes, all in patients whose eyes had been excluded from the irradiation target volume and including 2 patients without ocular involvement at diagnosis., Conclusion: The visibility of recommendations for prescribing brain radiotherapy for the treatment of newly diagnosed primary central nervous system lymphoma needs to be improved to harmonize practices and improve their quality. We propose an update of the recommendations.

Introduction: We report long-term efficacy and overall survival (OS) results from a randomised, double-blind, phase 2 study (NCT02022098) investigating xevinapant plus standard-of-care chemoradiotherapy (CRT) vs. placebo plus CRT in 96 patients with unresected locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (LA SCCHN)., Methods: Patients were randomised 1:1 to xevinapant 200 mg/day (days 1-14 of a 21-day cycle for 3 cycles), or matched placebo, plus CRT (cisplatin 100 mg/m 2 every 3 weeks for 3 cycles plus conventional fractionated high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy [70 Gy/35 F, 2 Gy/F, 5 days/week for 7 weeks]). Locoregional control, progression-free survival, and duration of response after 3 years, long-term safety, and 5-year OS were assessed., Results: The risk of locoregional failure was reduced by 54% for xevinapant plus CRT vs. placebo plus CRT but did not reach statistical significance (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.46; 95% CI, 0.19-1.13; P = .0893). The risk of death or disease progression was reduced by 67% for xevinapant plus CRT (adjusted HR 0.33; 95% CI, 0.17-0.67; P = .0019). The risk of death was approximately halved in the xevinapant arm compared with placebo (adjusted HR 0.47; 95% CI, 0.27-0.84; P = .0101). OS was prolonged with xevinapant plus CRT vs. placebo plus CRT; median OS not reached (95% CI, 40.3-not evaluable) vs. 36.1 months (95% CI, 21.8-46.7). Incidence of late-onset grade ≥3 toxicities was similar across arms., Conclusions: In this randomised phase 2 study of 96 patients, xevinapant plus CRT demonstrated superior efficacy benefits, including markedly improved 5-year survival in patients with unresected LA SCCHN., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Evidence regarding the analgesic effect of distraction through immersion in virtual reality (VR) for care-induced pain has been documented in several phase 2 trials, but comparison with standard treatments in large, randomized studies is needed., Objective: In this open-label, multicenter, randomized, phase 3 trial, we evaluated the safety and efficacy of a novel VR therapy solution for distraction in the context of bone marrow biopsy., Methods: Bliss is a VR software with 4 imaginary interactive environments in 3 dimensions with binaural sound (head-mounted display). Efficacy regarding pain intensity was evaluated using a visual analog scale (VAS; score from 0 to 10) immediately after the biopsy. Secondary end points were anxiety and tolerance. Modified intention-to-treat analysis was performed., Results: Overall, 126 patients with previously documented untreated or suspected malignant hemopathy between September 6, 2018, and May 18, 2020, were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive pain prevention with a mixture of nitrous oxide/oxygen (MEOPA; n=63) or VR (n=63) before and during the bone marrow biopsy. We excluded 8 patients from the final analysis (3 in the MEOPA group and 5 in the VR group). All patients received local anesthesia (lidocaine) before biopsy. Follow-up was limited to 1 month after the biopsy. Participants' median age was 65.5 (range 18-87) years, and 54.2% (64/118) of patients were male. The average pain intensity was 3.5 (SD 2.6, 95% CI -1.6 to 8.6) for the MEOPA group and 3.0 (SD 2.4, 95% CI -1.7 to 7.7) for the VR group, without any significant differences in age, sex, center, and hemopathy (P=.26). Concerning anxiety, 67.5% (79/117; fear of pain questionnaire) of the patients were afraid before the biopsy, and anxiety scores were moderate to very high in 26.3% (30/114; revised Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory questionnaire) of the patients before the biopsy and 9.0% (10/114) after the biopsy for all patients, without a significant difference between the 2 groups (P=.83). Immersion in VR was well tolerated by the majority (54/57, 95%) of patients in the VR group., Conclusions: The intensity of pain did not significantly differ between both arms. VR was well tolerated, and the satisfaction of patients, nurses, and physicians was very high. VR could be an alternative treatment in case of contraindication or intolerance to MEOPA., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03483194; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03483194., (©Katell Le Du, Anne-Lise Septans, Frédéric Maloisel, Hélène Vanquaethem, Anna Schmitt, Marielle Le Goff, Aline Clavert, Marie Zinger, Hugues Bourgeois, Olivier Dupuis, Fabrice Denis, Stéphane Bouchard. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 15.02.2023.)

Background: To evaluate potential synergistic effect of pembrolizumab with radiotherapy (RT) compared with a standard-of-care (SOC) cetuximab-RT in patients with locally advanced-squamous cell carcinoma of head and neck (LA-SCCHN)., Patients and Methods: Patients with nonoperated stage III-IV SCC of oral cavity, oropharynx, hypopharynx, and larynx and unfit for receiving high-dose cisplatin were enrolled. Patients received once-daily RT up to 69.96 Gy in 33 fractions with weekly cetuximab (cetuximab-RT arm) or 200 mg Q3W pembrolizumab during RT (pembrolizumab-RT arm). The primary endpoint was locoregional control (LRC) rate 15 months after RT. To detect a difference between arms of 60%-80% in 15-month LRC, inclusion of 66 patients per arm was required to achieve a power of at least 0.85 at two-sided significance level of 0.20., Results: Between May 2016 and October 2017, 133 patients were randomized to cetuximab-RT (n = 66) and pembrolizumab-RT (n = 67). Two patients (one in each arm) were not included in the analysis (a consent withdrawal and a progression before treatment start). The median age was 65 years (interquartile range 60-70 years), 92% were smokers, 60% were oropharynx (46% of oropharynx with p16+) and 75% were stage IV. Median follow-up was 25 months in both arms. The 15-month LRC rate was 59% with cetuximab-RT and 60% with pembrolizumab-RT ]odds ratio 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.43-2.59; P = 0.91]. There was no significant difference between arms for progression-free survival (hazard ratio 0.85, 95% CI 0.55-1.32; P = 0.47) and for overall survival (hazard ratio 0.83, 95% CI 0.49-1.40; P = 0.49). Toxicity was lower in the pembrolizumab-RT arm than in the cetuximab-RT arm: 74% versus 92% patients with at least one grade ≥3 adverse events (P = 0.006), mainly due to mucositis, radiodermatitis, and rash., Conclusion: Compared with the SOC cetuximab-RT, pembrolizumab concomitant with RT did not improve the tumor control and survival but appeared less toxic in unfit patients with LA-SCCHN., Competing Interests: Disclosure YT has an advisory/consultancy role with and has received honoraria from Merck & Co. (Kenilworth, NJ); AM reports consulting or advisory role for Merck KGaA (Darmstadt, Germany), BMS, AstraZeneca, Merck & Co. (Kenilworth, NJ); research funding from AstraZeneca. AC has an advisory/consultancy role with or has received honoraria from Sanofi Aventis, Takeda, BMS, Merck & Co. (Kenilworth, NJ), Roche, Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Astellas, Ipsen. XL has an advisory/consultancy role with Aquilab and Nanobiotix. AR has an advisory/consultancy role with Lilly, Merck KGaA (Darmstadt, Germany), Seagen, BMS, Astellas, Ipsen. JG has an advisory/consultancy role with Merck KGaA, Nanobiotix, Roche; is an invited speaker for Merck & Co. (Kenilworth, NJ). JBo has an advisory/consultancy role with BMS, Merck & Co. (Kenilworth, NJ), Merck KGaA (Darmstadt, Germany), AstraZeneca, Debiopharm, Roche, and Nanobiotix. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Evidence on the efficacy of postoperative radiotherapy (PORT) in low-intermediate risk squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity (OSCC) remains inconclusive. Members of a task force from two national radio-oncology Associations (AIRO and GORTEC) defined 14 clinically relevant questions to identify "gray areas" pertinent to the indication for PORT in this clinical setting. Consequently, a literature review was performed on the topic. The resulting statements were then rated by an Expert Panel (EP) using a modified Delphi method. Only radiation oncologists were part of the discussion and voting on the scenarios. There was agreement on the 14 statements at the first round of voting. The task force then decided to propose clinical cases for the two more controversial statements that had received a lower agreement to better capture the Experts' attitudes. The clinical cases highlighted a more significant decisional heterogeneity. However, the good level of consensus reached among the two Associations gives relevant support in informing clinical choices while acknowledging general indications cannot fit all clinical situations and do not replace multidisciplinary discussion., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest 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 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Thanks to the success of checkpoint inhibitors, immunotherapy now plays a major role in the management of a large number of solid tumors, while the number of indications continues to grow and new combinations could, in the near future, further modify treatment standards. However, the response rates of immunotherapies as monotherapy are modest and their use is increasingly considered in combination with other cancer treatments (chemotherapy, surgery, radiotherapy or certain targeted therapies). Combinations with radiotherapy seem particularly attractive because there is a strong experimental rationale linking part of the efficacy of ionizing radiation to an induced stimulation of both of the innate and adaptive response. Many early phases and a number of large randomized combination trials have published efficacy and safety results, while important trials are still ongoing and will provide answers in the near future. This short review recalls the experimental biological rationale for immuno-radiotherapy and highlights some of the fundamental directions being explored, then presents the clinical efficacy and safety results available to date, those expected in the near future, and finally outlines the outlook in this rapidly evolving field., (Copyright © 2022 Société française de radiothérapie oncologique (SFRO). Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Background: Several reports have suggested that radiotherapy after reconstructive surgery for head and neck cancer (HNC), could have deleterious effects on the flaps with respect to functional outcomes. To predict and prevent toxicities, flap delineation should be accurate and reproducible. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the interobserver variability of frequent types of flaps used in HNC, based on the recent GORTEC atlas. Materials and methods: Each member of an international working group (WG) consisting of 14 experts delineated the flaps on a CT set from six patients. Each patient had one of the five most commonly used flaps in HNC: a regional pedicled pectoralis major myocutaneous flap, a local pedicled rotational soft tissue facial artery musculo-mucosal (FAMM) (2 patients), a fasciocutaneous radial forearm free flap, a soft tissue anterolateral thigh (ALT) free flap, or a fibular free flap. The WG's contours were compared to a reference contour, validated by a surgeon and a radiologist specializing in HNC. Contours were considered as reproducible if the median Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC) was > 0.7. Results: The median volumes of the six flaps delineated by the WG were close to the reference contour value, with approximately 50 cc for the pectoral, fibula, and ALT flaps, 20 cc for the radial forearm, and up to 10 cc for the FAMM. The volumetric ratio was thus close to the optimal value of 100% for all flaps. The median DSC obtained by the WG compared to the reference for the pectoralis flap, the FAMM, the radial forearm flap, ALT flap, and the fibular flap were 0.82, 0.40, 0.76, 0.81, and 0.76, respectively. Conclusions: This study showed that the delineation of four main flaps used for HNC was reproducible. The delineation of the FAMM, however, requires close cooperation between radiologist, surgeon and radiation oncologist because of the poor visibility of this flap on CT and its small size.

Purpose: The PARP inhibitor rucaparib is approved in the United States for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and a deleterious germline and/or somatic BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA) alteration. While sequencing of tumor tissue is considered the standard for identifying patients with BRCA alterations (BRCA + ), plasma profiling may provide a minimally invasive option to select patients for rucaparib treatment. Here, we report clinical efficacy in patients with BRCA + mCRPC identified through central plasma, central tissue, or local genomic testing and enrolled in TRITON2., Patients and Methods: Patients had progressed after next-generation androgen receptor-directed and taxane-based therapies for mCRPC and had BRCA alterations identified by central sequencing of plasma and/or tissue samples or local genomic testing. Concordance of plasma/tissue BRCA status and objective response rate and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response rates were summarized., Results: TRITON2 enrolled 115 patients with BRCA + identified by central plasma ( n = 34), central tissue ( n = 37), or local ( n = 44) testing. Plasma/tissue concordance was determined in 38 patients with paired samples and was 47% in 19 patients with a somatic BRCA alteration. No statistically significant differences were observed between objective and PSA response rates to rucaparib across the 3 assay groups. Patients unable to provide tissue samples and tested solely by plasma assay responded at rates no different from patients identified as BRCA + by tissue testing., Conclusions: Plasma, tissue, and local testing of mCRPC patients can be used to identify men with BRCA + mCRPC who can benefit from treatment with the PARP inhibitor rucaparib., (©2021 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is the most common side effect of cancer and cancer treatment. CRF prevalence is up to 50% in breast cancer patients and can continue several years after cancer remission. This persistent subjective sense of exhaustion is multifactorial. Numerous parameters have been evidenced to be related to CRF across biological, physical, psychological, social and/or behavioral dimensions. Although CRF has been studied for many years, the majority of previous studies focused on only one dimension, i.e., physical function. Moreover, few studies investigated CRF longitudinally with repeated measures. These are the two main obstacles that limit the understanding of CRF mechanisms. The purpose of this study is to create a biopsychosocial model of CRF with simultaneous and longitudinal anthropometric, clinical, biological, physical, psychological and sociological parameters., Methods: BIOCARE FActory is a multicentric prospective study that will consist of an 18-month follow-up of 200 women diagnosed with breast cancer. Four visits will be scheduled at diagnosis, after treatments, and 12 and 18 months after diagnosis. The same procedure will be followed for each visit. Each session will be composed of anthropometric data collection, a semi-structured interview, cognitive tests, postural control tests, neuromuscular fatigability tests and a cardiorespiratory fitness test. Clinical and biological data will be collected during medical follow-ups. Participants will also complete questionnaires to assess psychological aspects and quality of life and wear an actigraphy device. Using a structural equation modeling analysis (SEM), collected data will build a biopsychosocial model of CRF, including the physiological, biological, psychological, behavioral and social dimensions of CRF., Discussion: This study aims to highlight the dynamics of CRF and its correlates from diagnosis to post treatment. SEM analysis could examine some relations between potential mechanisms and CRF. Thus, the biopsychosocial model will contribute to a better understanding of CRF and its underlying mechanisms from diagnosis to the aftermaths of cancer and its treatments., Trial Registration: This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT04391543 ), May 2020., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: Oligorecurrent pelvic nodal relapse in prostatic cancer is a challenge for regional salvage treatments. Androgen depriving therapies (ADTs) are a mainstay in metastatic prostate cancer, and salvage pelvic radiotherapy may offer long ADT-free intervals for patients harboring regional nodal relapses., Objective: To assess the efficacy of the combination of ADT and salvage radiotherapy in men with oligorecurrent pelvic node relapses of prostate cancer., Design, Setting, and Participants: We performed an open-label, phase II trial of combined high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy and ADT (6 mo) in oligorecurrent (five or fewer) pelvic node relapses in prostate cancer, detected by fluorocholine positron-emission tomography computed tomography imaging., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: The primary endpoint was 2-yr progression-free survival defined as two consecutive prostate-specific antigen levels above the level at inclusion and/or clinical evidence of progression as per RECIST 1.1 and/or death from any cause., Results and Limitations: Between August 2014 and July 2016, 67 patients were recruited in 15 centers. Half of the patients had received prior prostatic irradiation. The median age was 67.7 yr. After a median follow-up of 49.4 mo, 2- and 3-yr progression-free survival rates were 81% and 58%, respectively. Median progression-free survival was 45.3 mo. The median biochemical relapse-free survival (BRFS) was 25.9 mo. At 2 and 3 yr, the BRFS rates were 58% and 46%, respectively. Grade 2 + 2-yr genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities were 10% and 2%, respectively., Conclusions: Combined high-dose salvage pelvic radiotherapy and ADT appeared to prolong tumor control in oligorecurrent pelvic node relapses in prostate cancer with limited toxicity. After 3 yr, nearly half of patients were in complete remission. Our study showed initial evidence of benefit, but a randomized trial is required to confirm this result., Patient Summary: In this report, we looked at the outcomes of combined high-dose salvage pelvic radiotherapy and 6-mo-long hormone therapy in oligorecurrent pelvic nodal relapse in prostatic cancer. We found that 46% of patients presenting with oligorecurrent pelvic node relapses in prostate cancer were in complete remission after 3 yr following combined treatment at the cost of limited toxicity., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Background: Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is the most reported side effect of cancer and its treatments. This distressing sense of exhaustion critically impairs quality of life and can persist for years after treatment completion. Mechanisms of CRF are multidimensional (eg, physical, psychological, or behavioral), suggesting the need for a complex assessment. Nevertheless, CRF remains assessed mainly with 1-dimensional questionnaires. The purpose of this study was to test whether neuromuscular parameters enhance a model including well-known predictors of CRF., Patients and Methods: Forty-five participants with cancer history completed self-assessment questionnaires about quality of life, CRF, sleep disturbances, and emotional symptoms. They also completed a 5-minute handgrip fatiguing test composed of 60 maximal voluntary contractions to assess neuromuscular fatigability. Hierarchical linear regression analyses were performed to determine whether the neuromuscular fatigability threshold improved the FA12 score prediction beyond that provided by anxiety/depression and sleep disturbances., Results: The hierarchical linear regression analysis evidenced that a model including anxiety/depression, sleep disturbances, and neuromuscular fatigability explained 56% of CRF variance. In addition, the results suggest that the mechanisms leading to CRF may be different from one person to another., Conclusion: Results revealed that sleep disturbances, emotional symptoms, and neuromuscular fatigability were the most important CRF predictors in cancer patients. This information could be useful for healthcare professionals offering tailored, individual support to patients with CRF., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Head and neck reconstructive surgery using a flap is increasingly common. Best practices and outcomes for postoperative radiotherapy (poRT) with flaps have not been specified. We aimed to provide consensus recommendations to assist clinical decision-making highlighting areas of uncertainty in the presence of flaps., Material and Methods: Radiation, medical, and surgical oncologists were assembled from GORTEC and internationally with the Head and Neck Cancer International Group (HNCIG). The consensus-building approach covered 59 topics across four domains: (1) identification of postoperative tissue changes on imaging for flap delineation, (2) understanding of tumor relapse risks and target volume definitions, (3) functional radiation-induced deterioration, (4) feasibility of flap avoidance., Results: Across the 4 domains, international consensus (median score ≥ 7/9) was achieved only for functional deterioration (73.3%); other consensus rates were 55.6% for poRT avoidance of flap structures, 41.2% for flap definition and 11.1% for tumor spread patterns. Radiation-induced flap fibrosis or atrophy and their functional impact was well recognized while flap necrosis was not, suggesting dose-volume adaptation for the former. Flap avoidance was recommended to minimize bone flap osteoradionecrosis but not soft-tissue toxicity. The need for identification (CT planning, fiducials, accurate operative report) and targeting of the junction area at risk between native tissues and flap was well recognized. Experts variably considered flaps as prone to tumor dissemination or not. Discrepancies in rating of 11 items among international reviewing participants are shown., Conclusion: International GORTEC and HNCIG-endorsed recommendations were generated for the management of flaps in head and neck radiotherapy. Considerable knowledge gaps hinder further consensus, in particular with respect to tumor spread patterns., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: CirCe01 trial aimed to assess the clinical utility of circulating tumour cell (CTC)-based monitoring in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients beyond the third line of chemotherapy (LC)., Methods: CirCe01 was a prospective, multicentre, randomised trial (NCT01349842) that included patients with MBC after two systemic LC. Patients with ≥5 CTC/7.5 mL (CellSearch®) were randomised between the CTC-driven and the standard arm. In the CTC arm, changes in CTC count were assessed at the first cycle of each LC; patients in whom CTC levels predicted early tumour progression had to switch to a subsequent LC., Results: Greater than or equal to 5 CTC/7.5 mL were observed in N = 101/204 patients. In the CTC arm (N = 51), 43 (83%) and 18 (44%) patients completed CTC monitoring in the third and fourth lines, respectively, and 18 (42%) and 11 (61%) of these patients, respectively, had no CTC response. Thirteen (72%) and 5 (46%) of these patients underwent early switch to the next LC. Overall survival was not different between the two arms (hazard ratio = 0.95, 95% confidence interval = [0.6;1.4], p = 0.8). In subgroup analyses, patients with no CTC response who switched chemotherapy experienced longer survival than patients who did not., Conclusions: Due to the limited accrual and compliance, this trial failed to demonstrate the clinical utility of CTC monitoring., Clinical Trial Registration: NCT, NCT01349842, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01349842 , registered 9 May 2011.

Background: Based on the hypothesis of synergistic effect of avelumab with cetuximab and radiotherapy, this new combination is tested in a randomised trial against two well-established standard of care (SOC) in locally advanced squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck (LA-SCCHN)., Methods: This phase III trial comprises two cohorts of patients deemed fit to receive cisplatin (100 mg/m 2 Q3W) (cohort 1) or unfit to cisplatin (cohort 2). The SOC was Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) with cisplatin in cohort 1 (arm A) and with weekly cetuximab in cohort 2 (arm D). In both cohorts, experimental arms (arms B and C) were IMRT with cetuximab and avelumab (10 mg/kg day 7 and every 2 weeks) followed by avelumab every two weeks for 12 months. A safety phase was planned among the first 41 patients in experimental arms by monitoring grade ≥IV adverse events (AEs) with an unacceptable rate of 35%., Results: Between September 2017 and August 2018, 82 patients with LA-SCCHN were randomised including 41 patients in experimental arms. All patients of experimental arms except one (arm C) received entire radiotherapy as planned. Most common grade ≥III AEs were mucositis, radio-dermatitis, and dysphagia. Grade ≥IV AEs occurred in 5/41 (12%) patients, all in arm C (no grade V). This rate was acceptable according to the hypotheses of the safety phase. In the SOC arms, grade ≥IV AEs occurred in 3/21 patients (14%) in arm A and 2/20 (10%) in arm D. One grade V haemorrhage occurred in arm A., Conclusion: The avelumab-cetuximab-RT combination was tolerable for patients with LA-SCCHN, and the approval was given for continuing the trial without modification. CLINICALTRIAL.GOV: NCT02999087., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement All authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: BRCA1 or BRCA2 ( BRCA ) alterations are common in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and may confer sensitivity to poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors. We present results from patients with mCRPC associated with a BRCA alteration treated with rucaparib 600 mg twice daily in the phase II TRITON2 study., Methods: We enrolled patients who progressed after one to two lines of next-generation androgen receptor-directed therapy and one taxane-based chemotherapy for mCRPC. Efficacy and safety populations included patients with a deleterious BRCA alteration who received ≥ 1 dose of rucaparib. Key efficacy end points were objective response rate (ORR; per RECIST/Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group 3 in patients with measurable disease as assessed by blinded, independent radiology review and by investigators) and locally assessed prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response (≥ 50% decrease from baseline) rate., Results: Efficacy and safety populations included 115 patients with a BRCA alteration with or without measurable disease. Confirmed ORRs per independent radiology review and investigator assessment were 43.5% (95% CI, 31.0% to 56.7%; 27 of 62 patients) and 50.8% (95% CI, 38.1% to 63.4%; 33 of 65 patients), respectively. The confirmed PSA response rate was 54.8% (95% CI, 45.2% to 64.1%; 63 of 115 patients). ORRs were similar for patients with a germline or somatic BRCA alteration and for patients with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 alteration, while a higher PSA response rate was observed in patients with a BRCA2 alteration. The most frequent grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse event was anemia (25.2%; 29 of 115 patients)., Conclusion: Rucaparib has antitumor activity in patients with mCRPC and a deleterious BRCA alteration, but with a manageable safety profile consistent with that reported in other solid tumor types.

Introduction: Reconstructive surgery in head and neck cancers frequently involves the use of autologous flaps to improve functional outcomes. However, the literature suggests that postoperative radiotherapy deteriorates functional outcomes due to flap atrophy and fibrosis. Data on patterns of relapse after postoperative radiotherapy with a flap are lacking, resulting in heterogenous delineation of postoperative clinical target volumes (CTV). Flap delineation is unusual in routine practice and there are no guidelines on how to delineate flaps. Therefore, we aim to propose a guideline for flap delineation in head and neck cancers to assess dose-effects more accurately with respect to flaps., Material and Methods: Common flaps were selected. They were delineated by radiation oncologists and head and neck surgeons based on operative reports, on contrast-enhanced planning CTs and checked by a radiologist. Each flap was divided into its vascular pedicle and its soft tissue components (fat, fascia/ muscle, skin, bone)., Results: Delineation (body and pedicle) of Facial Artery Musculo-Mucosal, pectoralis, radial forearm, anterolateral thigh, fibula and scapula flaps was performed. Based on information provided in operative reports, i.e. tissue components, size and location, flaps can be identified. The various tissue components of each flap can be individualized to facilitate the delineation., Conclusion: This atlas could serve as a guide for the delineation of flaps and may serve to conduct studies evaluating dose-effects, geometric patterns of failure or functional outcomes after reconstructive surgery. Changes in postoperative CTV definitions might be needed to improve risk/benefit ratio in the future based on surgery-induced changes., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest 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 © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Debio 1143 is an orally available antagonist of inhibitor of apoptosis proteins with the potential to enhance the antitumour activity of cisplatin and radiotherapy. The radiosensitising effect of Debio 1143 is mediated through caspase activation and TNF, IFNγ, CD8 T cell-dependent pathways. We aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of Debio 1143 in combination with standard chemoradiotherapy in patients with high-risk locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck., Methods: This double-blind, multicentre, randomised, phase 2 study by the French Head and Neck Radiotherapy Oncology Group (GORTEC) was run at 19 hospitals in France and Switzerland. Eligible patients were aged 18-75 years with locoregionally advanced, squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (characterised as non-metastatic, measurable stage III, IVa, or IVb [limited to T ≥2, N0-3, and M0] disease), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, a history of heavy tobacco smoking (>10 pack-years) with no previous or current treatment for invasive head and neck cancer, and no previous treatment with inhibitor of apoptosis protein antagonists. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive oral Debio 1143 (200 mg per day on days 1-14 of 21-day cycles, for three cycles) or oral placebo (20 mg/mL, administered at the same dosing schedule) using a stochastic minimisation technique according to node involvement and primary tumour site, and HPV-16 status in patients with an oropharyngeal primary tumour site. All patients received standard high-dose cisplatin chemoradiotherapy. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with locoregional control 18 months after chemoradiotherapy, analysed in the intention-to-treat population (primary analysis), and repeated in the per-protocol population. Responses were assessed according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (version 1.1). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02022098, and is still active but not recruiting., Findings: Between Jan 25, 2016, and April 24, 2017, 48 patients were randomly assigned to the Debio 1143 group and 48 to the placebo group (one patient in the placebo group did not receive the study drug and was not included in the safety analysis). Median duration of follow-up was 25·0 months (IQR 19·6-29·4) in the Debio 1143 group and 24·2 months (6·6-26·8) in the placebo group. Locoregional control 18 months after chemoradiotherapy was achieved in 26 (54%; 95% CI 39-69) of 48 patients in the Debio 1143 group versus 16 (33%; 20-48) of 48 patients in the placebo group (odds ratio 2·69 [95% CI 1·13-6·42], p=0·026). Grade 3 or worse adverse events were reported in 41 (85%) of 48 patients in the Debio 1143 group and in 41 (87%) of 47 patients in the placebo group. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were dysphagia (in 24 [50%] patients in the Debio 1143 group vs ten [21%] in the placebo group), mucositis (in 15 [31%] vs ten [21%]), and anaemia (in 17 [35%] vs 11 [23%]). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events were recorded in 30 (63%) of 48 patients in the Debio 1143 group and 28 (60%) of 47 in the placebo group. In the placebo group, two (4%) deaths were due to adverse events (one multiple organ failure and one asphyxia; neither was considered to be related to treatment). No deaths due to adverse events occurred in the Debio 1143 group., Interpretation: To our knowledge, this is the first treatment regimen to achieve superior efficacy in this disease setting against a high-dose cisplatin chemoradiotherapy comparator in a randomised trial. These findings suggest that inhibition of inhibitor of apoptosis proteins is a novel and promising approach in this poor prognostic population and warrant confirmation in a phase 3 study with the aim of expanding the therapeutic options for these patients., Funding: Debiopharm., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CRT) is the standard of care (SoC) in locally advanced (LA) head and neck squamous cell carcinomas (HNSCC). This trial was designed to test whether dose-escalated IMRT and cisplatin could improve locoregional control without increasing complications over 3D-radiotherapy., Methods: Patients were randomized between 70 Gy/35F in 7 weeks with 3D-RT (Arm A) versus 75 Gy/35F with IMRT (Arm B). Both arms received 50 Gy in 25 fractions followed by a sequential boost of 20 Gy/10F in Arm A and 25 Gy/10F to gross tumor volume in Arm B, as well as 3 cycles of cisplatin at 100 mg/m2 during RT. The primary endpoint was locoregional progression (LRP)., Results: 188 patients were randomized: 85% oropharynx and 73% stage IVa. P16 status was documented for 137 oropharyngeal tumors with P16+ in 53 (39%) patients; and 90% were smokers. Median follow-up was 60.5 months. Xerostomia was markedly decreased in arm B (p < 0.0001). The 1-year grade ≥2 xerostomia (RTOG criteria) was 63% vs 23% and 3-year 45% vs 11% in arms A and B, respectively. Xerostomia LENT-SOMA scale was also reduced in arm B. Dose-escalated IMRT did not reduce LRP with an adjusted HR of 1.13 [95%CI = 0.64-1.98] (p = 0.68). Survival was not different (adjusted HR: 1.19 [95%CI = 0.78-1.81], p = 0.42). No interaction between p16 and treatment effect was found., Conclusion: Dose-escalated IMRT did not improve LRC in LA-HNSCC patients treated with concomitant CRT over standard 3D-RT. This trial reinforces the evidence showing IMRT reduces xerostomia in LA-HNSCC treated with radiotherapy. Clinicaltrial.gov: NCT00158678., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest 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 © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Targeting the programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1)/programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) axis has demonstrated clinical benefit in recurrent/metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (R/M HNSCC). Combining immunotherapies targeting PD-L1 and cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4) has shown evidence of additive activity in several tumor types. This phase III study evaluated the efficacy of durvalumab (an anti-PD-L1 monoclonal antibody) or durvalumab plus tremelimumab (an anti-CTLA-4 monoclonal antibody) versus standard of care (SoC) in R/M HNSCC patients., Patients and Methods: Patients were randomly assigned to receive 1 : 1 : 1 durvalumab (10 mg/kg every 2 weeks [q2w]), durvalumab plus tremelimumab (durvalumab 20 mg/kg q4w plus tremelimumab 1 mg/kg q4w × 4, then durvalumab 10 mg/kg q2w), or SoC (cetuximab, a taxane, methotrexate, or a fluoropyrimidine). The primary end points were overall survival (OS) for durvalumab versus SoC, and OS for durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus SoC. Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate, and duration of response., Results: Patients were randomly assigned to receive durvalumab (n = 240), durvalumab plus tremelimumab (n = 247), or SoC (n = 249). No statistically significant improvements in OS were observed for durvalumab versus SoC [hazard ratio (HR): 0.88; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.72-1.08; P = 0.20] or durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus SoC (HR: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.85-1.26; P = 0.76). The 12-month survival rates (95% CI) were 37.0% (30.9-43.1), 30.4% (24.7-36.3), and 30.5% (24.7-36.4) for durvalumab, durvalumab plus tremelimumab, and SoC, respectively. Treatment-related adverse events (trAEs) were consistent with previous reports. The most common trAEs (any grade) were hypothyroidism for durvalumab and durvalumab plus tremelimumab (11.4% and 12.2%, respectively), and anemia (17.5%) for SoC. Grade ≥3 trAE rates were 10.1%, 16.3%, and 24.2% for durvalumab, durvalumab plus tremelimumab, and SoC, respectively., Conclusion: There were no statistically significant differences in OS for durvalumab or durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus SoC. However, higher survival rates at 12 to 24 months and response rates demonstrate clinical activity for durvalumab., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02369874., Competing Interests: Disclosures AstraZeneca contributed to the study drug, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, and writing of this manuscript. All authors had full access to all the data in the study and full responsibility for the decision to submit. RLF: consulting or advisory role—Aduro Biotech, Inc.; Amgen; AstraZeneca/MedImmune; Bain Capital Life Sciences; Bristol-Myers Squibb; EMD Serono; GlaxoSmithKline; Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc; Lilly; MacroGenics; Merck; Nanobiotix; Numab Therapeutics AG; Oncorus, Inc.; Ono Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd.; Pfizer; PPD (Benitec, Immunicum); Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Tesaro; Torque Therapeutics Inc.; TTMS. Research funding—AstraZeneca/MedImmune; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Merck; Tesaro; TTMS; VentiRx. RH: consulting or advisory role—AstraZeneca; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Celgene; Genentech; Bayer; Eisai; Merck; Pfizer; AstraZeneca; EMD Serono; Nanobiotix; GlaxoSmithKline. Research funding—AstraZeneca (Inst); Boehringer Ingelheim (Inst); Bristol-Myers Squibb (Inst); Merck (Inst); Pfizer (Inst); Genentech (Inst). CE: consulting or advisory role—AstraZeneca; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Innate Pharma; MSD Oncology. MT: honoraria—Bayer; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Eisai; Merck Serono; Takeda. Consulting or advisory role—Bayer; Boehringer Ingelheim; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Merck Sharp & Dohme; Ono Pharmaceutical; Pfizer. Research funding—AstraZeneca (Inst); Bayer (Inst); Boehringer Ingelheim (Inst); Eisai (Inst); Merck Sharp & Dohme (Inst); NanoCarrier (Inst); Novartis (Inst); Ono Pharmaceutical (Inst); Pfizer (Inst). MD: no relationships to disclose. T-EC: consulting or advisory role—Amgen; Astellas Pharma; AstraZeneca; Boehringer Ingelheim; Bristol-Myers Squibb; GlaxoSmithKline/Novartis; Janssen; Lilly; Merck Serono; Merck Sharp & Dohme; Novartis; Pfizer; Roche; Sanofi. Travel, accommodations, expenses—A&D Pharma; Amgen; AstraZeneca; Boehringer Ingelheim; Ipsen; Merck; Pfizer; Sanofi; Servier. JF: leadership—Glycotope GmbH. Honoraria—AstraZeneca; Bristol-Myers Squibb. PMC: consulting or advisory role—Abbvie; Bristol-Myers Squibb; LEO Pharma; Merck Sharp & Dohme; Vifor Pharma. Speakers' Bureau—AstraZeneca; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme. Research funding—AstraZeneca. Patents, royalties, other intellectual property —NIH/NCI. RM: consulting or advisory role—AstraZeneca; Bayer; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Merck KGaA; Merck Sharp & Dohme; Nanobiotix; Roche. Speakers' Bureau—Merck KGaA. Travel, accommodations, expenses—Merck KGaA. Research funding: Merck KGaA. SK: no relationships to disclose. LZ: no relationships to disclose. AD: consulting or advisory role—Bristol-Myers Squibb; Merck KGaA. JS: employed by AstraZeneca. HM: employed by AstraZeneca. SW: employed by AstraZeneca. NM: employed by AstraZeneca. LL: consulting or advisory role—Amgen; AstraZeneca; Bayer; Boehringer Ingelheim; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Debiopharm Group; Eisai; Merck Serono; Merck Sharp & Dohme; Novartis; Roche; SOBI. Research funding—Amgen (Inst); AstraZeneca (Inst); Boehringer Ingelheim (Inst); Eisai (Inst); Merck Serono (Inst); MSD (Inst); Novartis (Inst); Roche (Inst). Travel, accommodations, expenses—Amgen; Bayer; Debiopharm Group; Merck Serono; SOBI. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Genomic alterations in DNA damage repair (DDR) genes other than BRCA may confer synthetic lethality with PARP inhibition in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). To test this hypothesis, the phase II TRITON2 study of rucaparib included patients with mCRPC and deleterious non- BRCA DDR gene alterations., Patients and Methods: TRITON2 enrolled patients who had progressed on one or two lines of next-generation androgen receptor-directed therapy and one taxane-based chemotherapy for mCRPC. Key endpoints were investigator-assessed radiographic response per modified RECIST/PCWG3 and PSA response (≥50% decrease from baseline)., Results: TRITON2 enrolled 78 patients with a non- BRCA DDR gene alteration [ ATM ( n = 49), CDK12 ( n = 15), CHEK2 ( n = 12), and other DDR genes ( n = 14)]. Among patients evaluable for each endpoint, radiographic and PSA responses were observed in a limited number of patients with an alteration in ATM [2/19 (10.5%) and 2/49 (4.1%), respectively], CDK12 [0/10 (0%) and 1/15 (6.7%), respectively], or CHEK2 [1/9 (11.1%) and 2/12 (16.7%), respectively], including no radiographic or PSA responses in 11 patients with confirmed biallelic ATM loss or 11 patients with ATM germline mutations. Responses were observed in patients with alterations in the DDR genes PALB2, FANCA, BRIP1 , and RAD51B ., Conclusions: In this prospective, genomics-driven study of rucaparib in mCRPC, we found limited radiographic/PSA responses to PARP inhibition in men with alterations in ATM, CDK12 , or CHEK2 . However, patients with alterations in other DDR-associated genes (e.g., PALB2 ) may benefit from PARP inhibition. See related commentary by Sokolova et al., p. 2439 ., (©2020 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Purpose: Carfilzomib is a novel generation proteasome inhibitor. The Carmysap trial demonstrated that twice-weekly KMP (carfilzomib, melphalan, prednisone) might challenge the MPV (melphalan, prednisone, bortezomib) standard. We sought to study KMP weekly, allowing to increase carfilzomib's dose with maintained efficacy and improved safety profile., Patients and Methods: IFM2012-03, a phase I multicenter study of KMP weekly in elderly patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (eNDMM), aimed to determine the MTD of carfilzomib. Carfilzomib was given intravenously at 36, 45, 56, and 70 mg/m 2 /day on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 with melphalan and prednisone, for nine 35-day induction cycles, followed by carfilzomib maintenance for 1 year. Three dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) determined MTD at the lower dose., Results: Thirty eNDMMs were treated, 6 per cohort at 36, 45, and 56 mg/m 2 and 12 at 70 mg/m². There was one DLT at 36 mg/m 2 (lymphopenia), one at 45 mg/m 2 (lysis syndrome), two at 56 mg/m 2 (cardiac insufficiency and febrile neutropenia), and two at 70 mg/m 2 (vomiting and elevated liver enzymes). The safety profile was acceptable; however, specific attention must be paid to the risk of cardiovascular events, especially for elderly patients. The overall response rate was 93.3%, with 46.6% complete response., Conclusions: The MTD dose of carfilzomib was 70 mg/m 2 in this KMP weekly study in eNDMM. Response rates, and especially CR rate, were remarkable in this population, and would benefit from being assessed in a larger-scale study. The IFM2012-03 study demonstrated that the MTD of carfilzomib weekly is 70 mg/m 2 in eNDMM, and 56 mg/m 2 for patients older than 75 years. Carfilzomib used weekly in combination has a good efficacy and safety profile in eNDMM., (©2019 American Association for Cancer Research.)

The risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) is higher in myeloma patients receiving immunomodulatory compounds. A VTE prophylaxis using low-molecular-weight heparin or aspirin is therefore proposed. Apixaban is an oral direct anti-Xa. Several studies have shown the efficacy and safety of apixaban in VTE prophylaxis compared to enoxaparin. The objective of this prospective phase 2 pilot study was to assess the risk of VTE and bleeding in patients with myeloma treated with immunomodulatory compounds lenalidomide (len) or thalidomide (thal), using apixaban in a preventive scheme. Myeloma patients requiring Melphalan-Prednisone-Thalidomide in the first line, or Lenalidomide-Dexamethasone in the relapse setting received apixaban, 2.5 mg x 2/day for 6 months. Venous (pulmonary embolism-PE, or symptomatic proximal or distal deep vein thrombosis-DVT, or all proximal asymptomatic events detected by systematic proximal bilateral compression ultrasound) or arterial thrombotic events, and bleeding events (ISTH 2005) were registered. One hundred and four patients were enrolled (mean age 69.8 ± 7.8 years), 11 in first line and 93 in relapse. Two venous thrombotic events were observed, for example, an asymptomatic proximal DVT and a symptomatic distal DVT, in the context of apixaban stopped 14 days before, due to lenalidomide-induced thrombocytopenia. No PE or arterial cardiovascular events were reported. Only one major and 11 CRNM hemorrhages were reported. These data must now be confirmed on a randomized large study., (© 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Purpose: Limited pelvic nodal relapse of prostatic cancer is a paramount challenge for locoregional salvage treatments. Salvage whole pelvis radiation therapy as considered in the BLINDED trial is an attractive option, but there are concerns about its toxicity. This article describes early toxicity with the technique., Methods and Materials: BLINDED was a prospective multicenter phase 2 trial investigating high-dose salvage pelvic irradiation with an additional dose to the fluorocholine-based positron emission tomography-positive pelvic lymph nodes, combined with 6-month androgen blockade. The prescribed dose was 54 Gy in 1.8 Gy fractions with up to 66 Gy in 2.2 Gy fractions to the pathologic pelvic lymph nodes. Early toxicity was defined as toxicity until 1 year after radiation therapy. Patients quality of life was assessed using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer questionnaires (QLQ-C30 and QLQ-PR25)., Results: Seventy-four patients were recruited in 15 French radiation oncology departments between August 2014 and July 2016. Seven were excluded before treatment because of violation of the inclusion criteria. The intention-to-treat analysis therefore included 67 patients. Half had received prior prostatic irradiation. Median age was 67.7 ± 6.5 years. Grade 2 acute urinary toxicity was observed in 9 of 67 patients (13.4%), and grade 2 1-year toxicity occurred in 4 of 67 patients (6%). Three patients (4.4%) had grade 3 urinary toxicity. Grade 2 acute digestive toxicity was observed in 10 of 67 patients (14.9%), and grade 2 1-year toxicity occurred in 4 of 67 patients (6%). Patients with prior prostate bed irradiation did not exhibit increased urinary or digestive toxicity. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer questionnaire scores at 1 year did not worsen significantly., Conclusions: The acute and 1-year toxicity of the BLINDED protocol was satisfactory, even in patients with a history of prostatic irradiation., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: We report phase 1b data from patients enrolled in the JAVELIN Solid Tumor clinical trial (NCT01772004) with unresectable stage IIIC or IV melanoma that had progressed after ≥1 line of therapy for metastatic disease., Patients and Methods: Patients received avelumab (10 mg/kg)-a human anti-PD-L1 antibody. Assessments included objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety., Results: As of December 31, 2016, 51 patients were treated and followed for a median of 24.2 months (range, 16.1-31.5). Most patients had cutaneous (n = 28 [54.9%]) or ocular (n = 16 [31.4%]) melanoma and had received a median of 2 prior lines of therapy (range, 0-4), including ipilimumab (n = 26 [51.0%]). The confirmed ORR was 21.6% (95% CI, 11.3-35.3; complete response, 7.8%; partial response, 13.7%). The median duration of response was not estimable (95% CI, 2.6 months-not estimable). Median PFS and OS were 3.1 months (95% CI, 1.4-6.3) and 17.2 months (95% CI, 6.6-not estimable), respectively. Subgroup analyses suggested meaningful clinical activity (ORR [95% CI]) in patients with non-ocular melanoma (31.4% [16.9-49.3]), PD-L1-positive tumors (42.1% [20.3-66.5]), or prior ipilimumab therapy (30.8% [14.3-51.8]). Thirty-nine patients (76.5%) had a treatment-related adverse event (TRAE), most commonly infusion-related reaction (29.4%), fatigue (17.6%), and chills (11.8%); 4 patients (7.8%) had a grade 3 TRAE. Five patients (9.8%) had an immune-related TRAE (all were grade 1/2). No grade 4 TRAEs or treatment-related deaths were reported., Conclusion: Avelumab showed durable responses, promising survival outcomes, and an acceptable safety profile in patients with previously treated metastatic melanoma., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01772004 .

Purpose: Both concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CT-RT) and cetuximab radiotherapy (cetux-RT) have been established as the standard of care for the treatment of locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. It was not known whether the addition of induction chemotherapy before cetux-RT could improve outcomes compared with standard of care CT-RT., Patients and Methods: The current trial was restricted to patients with nonmetastatic N2b, N2c, or N3 squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck and fit for taxotere, cisplatin, fluorouracil (TPF). Patients were randomly assigned to receive three cycles of TPF followed by cetux-RT versus concurrent carboplatin fluorouracil and RT as recommended in National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. The trial was powered to detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.66 in favor of TPF plus cetux-RT for progression-free survival at 2 years. The inclusion of 180 patients per arm was needed to achieve 80% power at a two-sided significance level of .05., Results: Between 2009 and 2013, 370 patients were included. All patients and tumors characteristics were well balanced between arms. There were more cases of grade 3 and 4 neutropenia in the induction arm, and the induction TPF was associated with 6.6% treatment-related deaths. With a median follow-up of 2.8 years, 2-year progression-free survival was not different between both arms (CT-RT, 0.38 v TPF + cetux-RT, 0.36; HR, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.73 to 1.20]; P = .58). HR was 0.98 (95% CI, 0.74 to 1.3; P = .90) for locoregional control and 1.12 (95% CI, 0.86 to 1.46; P = .39) for overall survival. These effects were observed regardless of p16 status. The rate of distant metastases was lower in the TPF arm (HR, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.30 to 0.99]; P = .05)., Conclusion: Induction TPF followed by cetux-RT did not improve outcomes compared with CT-RT in a population of patients with advanced cervical lymphadenopathy.

Purpose To investigate the effect of adding concurrent chemotherapy (CT) to cetuximab plus radiotherapy (RT; CT-cetux-RT) compared with cetuximab plus RT (cetux-RT) in locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (LA-SCCHN). Patients and Methods In this phase III randomized trial, patients with N0-2b, nonoperated, stage III or IV (nonmetastatic) LA-SCCHN were enrolled. Patients received once-daily RT up to 70 Gy with weekly cetuximab or with weekly cetuximab and concurrent carboplatin and fluorouracil (three cycles). To detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.64 for progression-free survival (PFS) with 85% power at a two-sided significance level of P = .05, 203 patients needed to be included in each arm. Results Four hundred six patients were randomly assigned to either CT-cetux-RT or cetux-RT. Patient and tumor characteristics were well balanced between arms, including p16 status. With a median follow-up of 4.4 years, the HR for PFS favored the CT-cetux-RT arm (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.94; P = .015), with 3-year PFS rates of 52.3% and 40.5% and median PFS times of 37.9 and 22.4 months in the CT-cetux-RT and cetux-RT arms, respectively. The HR for locoregional control was 0.54 (95% CI, 0.38 to 0.76; P < .001) in favor of CT-cetux-RT. These benefits were observed regardless of p16 status for oropharynx carcinomas. Overall survival (HR, 0.80; P = .11) and distant metastases rates (HR, 1.19; P = .50) were not significantly different between the two arms. The CT-cetux-RT arm, compared with cetux-RT, had a higher incidence of grade 3 or 4 mucositis (73% v 61%, respectively; P = .014) and of hospitalizations for toxicity (42% v 22%, respectively; P < .001). Conclusion The addition of concurrent carboplatin and fluorouracil to cetux-RT improved PFS and locoregional control, with a nonsignificant gain in survival. To our knowledge, this is the first evidence of a clinical benefit for treatment intensification using cetux-RT as a backbone in LA-SCCHN.

Background: Intravenous rituximab is the standard of care in B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and is administered over 1·5-6 h. A subcutaneous formulation could reduce patients' treatment burden and improve resource utilisation in health care. We aimed to show the pharmacokinetic non-inferiority of subcutaneous rituximab to intravenous rituximab in follicular lymphoma and to provide efficacy and safety data., Methods: SABRINA is a two-stage, randomised, open-label phase 3 study at 113 centres in 30 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and had histologically confirmed, previously untreated, CD20-positive grade 1, 2, or 3a follicular lymphoma; Eastern Co-operative Oncology Group performance statuses of 0-2; bidimensionally measurable disease (by CT or MRI); life expectancy of 6 months or more; adequate haematological function for 28 days or more; and one or more symptoms requiring treatment according to the Groupe d'Etudes des Lymphomes Folliculaires criteria. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by investigators or members of the research team via a dynamic randomisation algorithm to 375 mg/m 2 intravenous rituximab or 1400 mg subcutaneous rituximab, plus chemotherapy (six-to-eight cycles of cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone [CHOP] or eight cycles of cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone [CVP]), every 3 weeks during induction, then rituximab maintenance every 8 weeks. Randomisation was stratified by selected chemotherapy, Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index, and region. The primary endpoint for stage 2 was overall response (ie, confirmed complete response, unconfirmed complete response, and partial response) at the end of induction. Efficacy analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. Pooled data from stages 1 and 2 are reported on the basis of the clinical cutoff date of the last patient completing the maintenance phase of the study. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01200758; new patients are no longer being recruited, but some patients are still being followed up., Findings: Between Feb 15, 2011, and May 15, 2013, 410 patients were randomly assigned, 205 to intravenous rituximab and 205 to subcutaneous rituximab. Investigator-assessed overall response at the end of induction was 84·9% (95% CI 79·2-89·5) in the intravenous group and 84·4% (78·7-89·1) in the subcutaneous group. The frequency of adverse events was similar in both groups (199 [95%] of 210 in the intravenous group vs 189 [96%] of 197 in the subcutaneous group); the frequency of adverse events of grade 3 or higher was also similar (116 [55%] vs 111 [56%]). The most common grade 3 or higher adverse event was neutropenia, which occurred in 44 patients (21%) in the intravenous group and 52 (26%) in the subcutaneous group. Serious adverse events occurred in 72 patients (34%) in the intravenous group and 73 (37%) in the subcutaneous group. Administration-related reactions occurred in 73 patients (35%) in the intravenous group and 95 (48%) patients in the subcutaneous group (mainly grade 1 or 2 local injection-site reactions)., Interpretation: Intravenous and subcutaneous rituximab had similar efficacy and safety profiles, and no new safety concerns were noted. Subcutaneous administration does not compromise the anti-lymphoma activity of rituximab when given with chemotherapy., Funding: F Hoffmann-La Roche., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

In newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM), patients ineligible for front-line autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT), melphalan and prednisone (MP) with thalidomide (MPT) or bortezomib (VMP) are standard first-line therapeutic options. Despite new treatment regimens incorporating bortezomib or lenalidomide, MM remains incurable. The FIRST study demonstrated significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for the combination of lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone (Rd) until progression vs. MPT in transplant-ineligible ndMM patients. However, to date no head-to-head randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have compared Rd or MPT versus VMP. We conducted a network meta-analysis using RCTs identified through a systematic literature review to evaluate the relative efficacy of Rd versus other regimens on survival endpoints in previously untreated MM patients ineligible for ASCT. In this analysis, Rd was associated with a significant PFS and survival advantage versus other first-line treatments (VMP, MPT, MP), challenging the role of alkylators in this setting.

Introduction: There is no predictive factor of response to bevacizumab in metastatic colorectal cancer. Nevertheless, preclinical studies demonstrated an interaction between primary tumor and metastatic sites for the neoangiogenesis regulation. The primary objective of our study was to identify an effect of up-front primary tumor resection (UPTR) on bevacizumab efficacy., Patients and Methods: Between 2008 and 2010, we retrospectively analyzed progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of 316 patients with synchronous and metachronous metastatic colorectal cancer according to bevacizumab addition to first-line chemotherapy and UPTR., Results: Among 206 patients with UPTR, the addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy significantly improved OS compared to chemotherapy alone (29.8 vs. 23.9 months respectively; hazard ratio [HR] 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.40-0.83; P = .003). This effect was confirmed in multivariate analysis. There was also a nonsignificant trend toward improved PFS (9.7 vs. 8.4 months respectively; HR 0.71; 95% CI, 0.50-1.02; P = .062). Conversely, among 110 patients without UPTR, the addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy had no effect on OS compared to chemotherapy alone (18.2 vs. 19.3 months respectively; HR 0.96; 95% CI, 0.65-1.42; P = .853). Bevacizumab significantly improved PFS (8.1 vs. 5.7 months respectively; HR 0.66; 95% CI, 0.45-0.96; P = .032) without confirmation in multivariate analysis., Conclusion: In this retrospective study, bevacizumab seems to improve OS only in patients with UPTR, which could suggest a complementarity of both therapeutic modalities for antiangiogenic effect., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Although the same simple laws govern cancer outcome (cell division repeated again and again), each tumour has a different outcome before as well as after irradiation therapy. The linear-quadratic radiosensitivity model allows an assessment of tumor sensitivity to radiotherapy. This model presents some limitations in clinical practice because it does not take into account the interactions between tumour cells and non-tumoral bystander cells (such as endothelial cells, fibroblasts, immune cells...) that modulate radiosensitivity and tumor growth dynamics. These interactions can lead to non-linear and complex tumor growth which appears to be random but that is not since there is not so many tumors spontaneously regressing. In this paper we propose to develop a deterministic approach for tumour growth dynamics using chaos theory. Various characteristics of cancer dynamics and tumor radiosensitivity can be explained using mathematical models of competing cell species., (Copyright © 2012 Société française de radiothérapie oncologique (SFRO). Published by Elsevier SAS. All rights reserved.)

The oncologist is confronted daily by questions related to the fact that any patient presents a specific evolution for his cancer: he is challenged by very different, unexpected and often unpredictable outcomes, in some of his patients. The mathematical approach used today to describe this evolution has recourse to statistics and probability laws: such an approach does not ultimately apply to one particular patient, but to a given more or less heterogeneous population. This approach therefore poorly characterizes the dynamics of this disease and does not allow to state whether a patient is cured, to predict if he will relapse and when this could occur, and in what form, nor to predict the response to treatment and, in particular, to radiation therapy. Chaos theory, not well known by oncologists, could allow a better understanding of these issues. Developed to investigate complex systems producing behaviours that cannot be predicted due to a great sensitivity to initial conditions, chaos theory is rich of suitable concepts for a new approach of cancer dynamics. This article is three-fold: to provide a brief introduction to chaos theory, to clarify the main connecting points between chaos and carcinogenesis and to point out few promising research perspectives, especially in radiotherapy., (Copyright © 2012 Société française de radiothérapie oncologique (SFRO). Published by Elsevier SAS. All rights reserved.)