Search

Summary: Background: The DRUG Access Protocol provides patients with cancer access to registered anti-cancer drugs that are awaiting reimbursement in the Netherlands and simultaneously collects prospective real-world data (RWD). Here, we present RWD from PD-1 blocker cemiplimab in patients with locally advanced or metastatic cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (laCSCC; mCSCC). Methods: Patients with laCSCC or mCSCC received cemiplimab 350 mg fixed dose every three weeks. Primary endpoints were objective clinical benefit rate (CBR), defined as objective response (OR) or stable disease (SD) at 16 weeks, physician-assessed CBR, defined as clinician’s documentation of improved disease or SD based on evaluation of all available clinical parameters at 16 weeks, objective response rate (ORR), and safety, defined as grade ≥ 3 treatment related adverse events (TRAEs) occurring up to 30 days after last drug administration. Secondary endpoints included duration of response (DoR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Findings: Between February 2021 and December 2022, 151 patients started treatment. Objective and physician-assessed CBR were 54.3% (95% CI, 46.0–62.4) and 59.6% (95% CI, 51.3–67.5), respectively. ORR was 35.1% (95% CI, 27.5–43.3). After a median follow-up of 15.2 months, median DoR was not reached. Median PFS and OS were 12.2 (95% CI, 7.0-not reached) and 24.2 months (95% CI, 18.8-not reached), respectively. Sixty-eight TRAEs occurred in 29.8% of patients. Most commonly reported TRAE was a kidney transplant rejection (9.5%). Interpretation: Cemiplimab proved highly effective and safe in this real-world cohort of patients with laCSCC or mCSCC, confirming its therapeutic value in the treatment of advanced CSCC in daily clinical practice. Funding: The DRUG Access Protocol is supported by all participating pharmaceutical companies: Bayer, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi.

Abstract Background Ongoing research in the field of both localized, locally advanced and metastatic renal cell carcinoma has resulted in the availability of multiple treatment options. Hence, many questions are still unanswered and await further research. A nationwide collaborative registry allows to collect corresponding data. For this purpose, the Dutch PROspective Renal Cell Carcinoma cohort (PRO-RCC) has been founded, for the prospective collection of long-term clinical data, patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient reported experience measures (PREMs). Methods PRO-RCC is designed as a multicenter cohort for all Dutch patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Recruitment will start in the Netherlands in 2023. Importantly, participants may also consent to participation in a ‘Trial within cohorts’ studies (TwiCs). The TwiCs design provides a method to perform (randomized) interventional studies within the registry. The clinical data collection is embedded in the Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR). Next to the standardly available data on RCC, additional clinical data will be collected. PROMS entail Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL), symptom monitoring with optional ecological momentary assessment (EMA) of pain and fatigue, and optional return to work- and/or nutrition questionnaires. PREMS entail satisfaction with care. Both PROMS and PREMS are collected through the PROFILES registry and are accessible for the patient and the treating physician. Trial registration Ethical board approval has been obtained (2021_218) and the study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05326620). Discussion PRO-RCC is a nationwide long-term cohort for the collection of real-world clinical data, PROMS and PREMS. By facilitating an infrastructure for the collection of prospective data on RCC, PRO-RCC will contribute to observational research in a real-world study population and prove effectiveness in daily clinical practice. The infrastructure of this cohort also enables that interventional studies can be conducted with the TwiCs design, without the disadvantages of classic RCTs such as slow patient accrual and risk of dropping out after randomization.

Abstract Background Cancer rates and expenditures are increasing, resulting in debates on the exact value of this care. Perspectives on what exactly constitutes worthwhile values differ. This study aims to explore all values–elements regarding new oncological treatments for patients with cancer and all stakeholders involved and to assess their implications in different decision‐making procedures. Method Thirty‐one individual in‐depth interviews were conducted with different stakeholders to identify values within oncology. A focus group with seven experts was performed to explore its possible implications in decision‐making procedures. Results The overarching themes of values identified were impact on daily life and future, costs for patients and loved ones, quality of life, impact on loved ones, societal impact and quality of treatments. The expert panel revealed that the extended exploration of values that matter to patients is deemed useful in patient‐level decision‐making, information provision, patient empowerment and support during and after treatment. For national reimbursement decisions, implications for the broad range of values seems less clear. Conclusion Clinical values are not the only ones that matter to oncological patients and the stakeholders in the field. We found a much broader range of values. Proper recognition of values that count might add to patient‐level decision‐making, but implications for reimbursement decisions are less clear. The results could be useful to guide clinicians and policymakers when it comes to decision‐making in oncology. Making more explicit which values counts for whom guarantees a more systematic approach to decision‐making on all levels.

BackgroundMesenchymal Consensus Molecular Subtype 4 (CMS4) colon cancer is associated with poor prognosis and therapy resistance. In this proof-of-concept study, we assessed whether a rationally chosen drug could mitigate the distinguishing molecular features of primary CMS4 colon cancer.MethodsIn the ImPACCT trial, informed consent was obtained for molecular subtyping at initial diagnosis of colon cancer using a validated RT-qPCR CMS4-test on three biopsies per tumor (Phase-1, n=69 patients), and for neoadjuvant CMS4-targeting therapy with imatinib (Phase-2, n=5). Pre- and post-treatment tumor biopsies were analyzed by RNA-sequencing and immunohistochemistry. Imatinib-induced gene expression changes were associated with molecular subtypes and survival in an independent cohort of 3232 primary colon cancer.ResultsThe CMS4-test classified 52/172 biopsies as CMS4 (30%). Five patients consented to imatinib treatment prior to surgery, yielding 15 pre- and 15 post-treatment samples for molecular analysis. Imatinib treatment caused significant suppression of mesenchymal genes and upregulation of genes encoding epithelial junctions. The gene expression changes induced by imatinib were associated with improved survival and a shift from CMS4 to CMS2.ConclusionImatinib may have value as a CMS-switching drug in primary colon cancer and induces a gene expression program that is associated with improved survival.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have provided tremendous clinical benefit in several cancer types. However, systemic activation of the immune system also leads to several immune-related adverse events. Of these, ICI-mediated colitis (IMC) occurs frequently and is the one with the highest absolute fatality. To improve current treatment strategies, it is important to understand the cellular mechanisms that induce this form of colitis. In this review, we discuss important pathways that are altered in IMC in mouse models and in human colon biopsy samples. This reveals a complex interplay between several types of immune cells and the gut microbiome. In addition to a mechanistic understanding, patients at risk should be identifiable before ICI therapy. Here we propose to focus on T-cell subsets that interact with bacteria after inducing epithelial damage. Especially, intestinal resident immune cells are of interest. This may lead to a better understanding of IMC and provides opportunities for prevention and management.

Abstract Background In the earlier randomized controlled Physical Activity during Cancer Treatment (PACT) study, we found beneficial effects of an 18-week supervised exercise program on fatigue in patients with newly diagnosed breast or colon cancer undergoing adjuvant treatment. The present study assessed long-term effects of the exercise program on levels of fatigue and physical activity 4 years after participation in the PACT study. Methods The original study was a two-armed, multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing an 18-week supervised exercise program to usual care among 204 breast cancer patients and 33 colon cancer patients undergoing adjuvant treatment. Of the 237 PACT participants, 197 participants were eligible and approached to participate in the 4-year post-baseline measurements, and 128 patients responded. We assessed fatigue and physical activity levels at 4 years post-baseline and compared this to levels at baseline, post-intervention (18 weeks post-baseline), and at 36 weeks post-baseline. Results Intention-to-treat mixed linear effects model analyses showed that cancer patients in the intervention group reported significantly higher moderate-to-vigorous total physical activity levels (141.46 min/week (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.31, 281.61, effect size (ES) = 0.22) after 4 years compared to the usual care group. Furthermore, cancer patients in the intervention group tended to experience less physical fatigue at 4 years post-baseline compared to the usual care group (− 1.13, 95% CI –2.45, 0.20, ES = 0.22), although the result was not statistically significant. Conclusion Patients with breast or colon cancer who participated in the 18-week exercise intervention showed significant higher levels of moderate-to-vigorous total physical activity levels and a tendency towards lower physical fatigue levels 4 years post-baseline. Our result indicate that exercising during chemotherapy is a promising strategy for minimizing treatment-related side effects, both short and long term. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN43801571, Dutch Trial Register NTR2138. Trial registered on 9 December 2009.

Background: Cancer rates and expenditures are increasing, resulting in debates on the exact value of this care. Perspectives on what exactly constitutes worthwhile values differ. This study aims to explore all values–elements regarding new oncological treatments for patients with cancer and all stakeholders involved and to assess their implications in different decision‐making procedures. Method: Thirty‐one individual in‐depth interviews were conducted with different stakeholders to identify values within oncology. A focus group with seven experts was performed to explore its possible implications in decision‐making procedures. Results: The overarching themes of values identified were impact on daily life and future, costs for patients and loved ones, quality of life, impact on loved ones, societal impact and quality of treatments. The expert panel revealed that the extended exploration of values that matter to patients is deemed useful in patient‐level decision‐making, information provision, patient empowerment and support during and after treatment. For national reimbursement decisions, implications for the broad range of values seems less clear. Conclusion: Clinical values are not the only ones that matter to oncological patients and the stakeholders in the field. We found a much broader range of values. Proper recognition of values that count might add to patient‐level decision‐making, but implications for reimbursement decisions are less clear. The results could be useful to guide clinicians and policymakers when it comes to decision‐making in oncology. Making more explicit which values counts for whom guarantees a more systematic approach to decision‐making on all levels. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]