Search

Supplementary Figure from Safety and Activity of PolyPEPI1018 Combined with Maintenance Therapy in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: an Open-Label, Multicenter, Phase Ib Study

Supplementary Table from Safety and Activity of PolyPEPI1018 Combined with Maintenance Therapy in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: an Open-Label, Multicenter, Phase Ib Study

Purpose:Although chemotherapy is standard of care for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), immunotherapy has no role in microsatellite stable (MSS) mCRC, a “cold” tumor. PolyPEPI1018 is an off-the-shelf, multi-peptide vaccine derived from 7 tumor-associated antigens (TAA) frequently expressed in mCRC. This study assessed PolyPEPI1018 combined with first-line maintenance therapy in patients with MSS mCRC.Patients and Methods:Eleven patients with MSS mCRC received PolyPEPI1018 and Montanide ISA51VG adjuvant subcutaneously, combined with fluoropyrimidine/biologic following first-line induction with chemotherapy and a biologic (NCT03391232). In Part A of the study, 5 patients received a single dose; in Part B, 6 patients received up to three doses of PolyPEPI1018 every 12 weeks. The primary objective was safety; secondary objectives were preliminary efficacy, immunogenicity at peripheral and tumor level, and immune correlates.Results:PolyPEPI1018 vaccination was safe and well tolerated. No vaccine-related serious adverse event occurred. Eighty percent of patients had CD8+ T-cell responses against ≥3 TAAs. Increased density of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes were detected post-treatment for 3 of 4 patients’ liver biopsies, combined with increased expression of immune-related gene signatures. Three patients had objective response according to RECISTv1.1, and 2 patients qualified for curative surgery. Longer median progression-free survival for patients receiving multiple doses compared with a single dose (12.5 vs. 4.6 months; P = 0.017) suggested a dose–efficacy correlation. The host HLA genotype predicted multi-antigen–specific T-cell responses (P = 0.01) indicative of clinical outcome.Conclusions:PolyPEPI1018 added to maintenance chemotherapy for patients with unresectable, MSS mCRC was safe and associated with specific immune responses and antitumor activity warranting further confirmation in a randomized, controlled setting.

Objective: This study sought to understand the patients’ perspective of what contributes to an absence of discussions of sexual orientation (SO), gender identity (GI), and sexual health in cancer care. Methods: Patients were recruited from oncology, gynecology, and a gender transition clinic to participate in semistructured interviews, which were analyzed with qualitative methods. Results: A total of 25 patients were interviewed, shedding light on 2 themes. The first was that these conversations are important but infrequent. One patient explained, “…. we know people who have had sex changes…[they] would have appreciated that question.” In response to whether sexual health was ever brought up, one patient responded, “No doctor ever has.” Patients described unaddressed issues: “There have been times, you know, we’ve wondered if it was okay to make love.” The second theme consisted of 4 pragmatic, patient-provided points to facilitate discussions: (1) implementation of a scale of 1 to 10 (with 10 being comfortable) to first gauge patients’ comfort in talking about SO, GI, and sexual health; (2) having the health-care provider explore the topic again over-time; (3) making sure the health-care provider is comfortable, as such comfort appears to enhance the patient’s comfort (“I have a doctor here, a female doctor, who just matter of fact will ask if I get erections and so on because of the medication she’s giving me);” and (4) eliminating euphemisms (one patient stated, “I don’t know what you mean by ‘sexual health’.”). Conclusion: Oncology health-care providers have a unique opportunity and responsibility to address SO, GI, and sexual health.

Purpose: Although chemotherapy is standard of care for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), immunotherapy has no role in microsatellite stable (MSS) mCRC, a “cold” tumor. PolyPEPI1018 is an off-the-shelf, multi-peptide vaccine derived from 7 tumor-associated antigens (TAA) frequently expressed in mCRC. This study assessed PolyPEPI1018 combined with first-line maintenance therapy in patients with MSS mCRC. Patients and Methods: Eleven patients with MSS mCRC received PolyPEPI1018 and Montanide ISA51VG adjuvant subcutaneously, combined with fluoropyrimidine/biologic following first-line induction with chemotherapy and a biologic (NCT03391232). In Part A of the study, 5 patients received a single dose; in Part B, 6 patients received up to three doses of PolyPEPI1018 every 12 weeks. The primary objective was safety; secondary objectives were preliminary efficacy, immunogenicity at peripheral and tumor level, and immune correlates. Results: PolyPEPI1018 vaccination was safe and well tolerated. No vaccine-related serious adverse event occurred. Eighty percent of patients had CD8+ T-cell responses against ≥3 TAAs. Increased density of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes were detected post-treatment for 3 of 4 patients’ liver biopsies, combined with increased expression of immune-related gene signatures. Three patients had objective response according to RECISTv1.1, and 2 patients qualified for curative surgery. Longer median progression-free survival for patients receiving multiple doses compared with a single dose (12.5 vs. 4.6 months; P = 0.017) suggested a dose–efficacy correlation. The host HLA genotype predicted multi-antigen–specific T-cell responses (P = 0.01) indicative of clinical outcome. Conclusions: PolyPEPI1018 added to maintenance chemotherapy for patients with unresectable, MSS mCRC was safe and associated with specific immune responses and antitumor activity warranting further confirmation in a randomized, controlled setting.

147 Background: PolyPEPI1018 is an off-the-shelf, multi-peptide vaccine containing 12 immunogenic epitopes derived from 7 cancer testis antigens (CTAs) frequently expressed in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC). PolyPEPI1018 successfully induced anticancer immunity and triggered recruitment and infiltration of cytotoxic T cells into the tumor of MSS mCRC subjects demonstrating also early evidence of clinical activity, in first-line mCRC. Here we report the initial results of the phase Ib study of PolyPEPI1018 vaccine plus trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS-102) in late-stage mCRC patients. Methods: Patients with MSS mCRC who have progressed on ≤2 lines of prior chemotherapy regimen for mCRC received PolyPEPI1018 subcutaneously on days 1 and 15 and TAS-102 orally twice daily on days 1-5 and 8-12 of a 28-day cycle. Treatment continued for up to 7 cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Immunomonitoring was performed at both blood and tumor levels prior to- and on study treatment. The primary endpoint of the study was safety and tolerability. Data on objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and correlation studies will be also presented. Results: 15 patients (67% male) started treatment. At baseline, median age was 55 years (range 31–71), 73% had liver metastases and the primary tumor site was colon-sigmoid in 40% and rectum in 33%. The combination was well-tolerated; most common side effect related to PolyPEPI1018 was Grade (Gr) 1-2 local skin reactions in 93% of patients. Gr 3 events. There were no Gr 4 or 5 events. The ORR was 0% and the DCR was 50%. The mPFS was 2.5 months (95%CI 2.1-NR). At the data cut-off (September 7, 2022), the mOS has not been reached; median follow-up was 4.0 months (95% CI 2.2-4.4). Post-treatment, vaccine-specific T cell responses were detected ex vivo in the PBMC of 4/5 subjects tested. In addition, one subject who had no detectable T cell response at peripheral level, responded at the tumor level with more than 300% increase of both CD3+ and CD8+ tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes compared to baseline. Patients with increased PFS (≥ 16 weeks) had robust vaccine-specific T cell responses. Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first phase Ib study investigating combination of a cancer vaccine with TAS-102 chemotherapy in advanced MSS mCRC. Our results show that PolyPEPI1018 plus TAS-102 was well-tolerated with few grade 3 AEs beyond what is expected with TAS-102 monotherapy. PolyPEPI1018 induced immunological responses at both peripheral and tumor level, albeit no objective tumor responses could be detected. The study is on-going for the collection of overall survival data. Clinical trial information: NCT05130060 .

227 Background: Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) consists of small fragments of DNA released into the plasma from cancer cells. Tumor informed ctDNA testing by whole exome sequencing of the primary tumor coupled with multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based next generation sequencing of cell free DNA in serum, can detect and quantify ctDNA, allowing for detection of minimal residual disease (MRD). Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of 120 patients with colorectal cancer who had at least one tumor-informed ctDNA MRD assay completed between May 6, 2019, and July 1, 2022, at Mayo Clinic, Rochester. Disease recurrence was defined as radiographic evidence consistent with recurrence with or without biopsy confirmation. Data are presented descriptively, including number of ctDNA assays completed, ctDNA positivity prior to disease recurrence, and ctDNA concordance with carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA). The study protocol was exempt after review by the Mayo Clinic Institutional Review Board. Results: One-hundred twenty patients were included in the study with median age at initial disease diagnosis of 67.0 years. Sixty-four percent were male and 94% were white. At time of initial diagnosis, 10 had stage I, 23 stage II, 60 stage III, and 25 stage IV disease. In 120 patients, 476 ctDNA assays were performed, and 110 recurrences were observed among 62 patients. There were 39 instances in which ctDNA was obtained prior to clinical detection of recurrence and of these, at least one ctDNA assay was positive in 28 cases (72%). CEA was obtained prior to recurrence in 88 instances and was elevated in only 39 cases (44%). Among 37 instances where both ctDNA and CEA testing were obtained prior to recurrence, ctDNA was positive in 27 cases (73%) while CEA was positive in 14 cases (38%). ctDNA was positive in 83% of recurrences involving liver and 62.5% of recurrences involving only the lungs. ctDNA and CEA positivity are shown by location of recurrence. ctDNA and CEA were discordant in 44% of instances in which the assays were completed within 2-weeks of each other. Results of a ctDNA assay impacted management decisions in 16% of cases. Conclusions: ctDNA detected 72% of recurrences with higher rates of detection in liver versus lung metastasis. ctDNA performed superiorly to serum CEA in detection of recurrence, suggesting a role in disease surveillance. However, ctDNA impacted disease management in only 16% of patients, suggesting need for better patient selection and further study for ctDNA-based disease management strategy (more details will be reported). [Table: see text]

Background Nanoliposomal irinotecan (Nal-IRI) is a preferred second-line treatment for metastatic pancreas cancer. It is unclear, however, whether patients who had received irinotecan derive benefit. Methods Medical records of metastatic pancreas cancer patients who had received irinotecan and then Nal-IRI were reviewed. The primary endpoint was overall survival after the initiation of Nal-IRI (an a priori threshold of >4 months defined success); adverse events and quotes from the medical record on decision-making were also recorded. Results Sixty four patients met eligibility criteria with a median age of 65 years (range: 36, 80 years). The median overall survival from initiation of Nal-IRI was 5.1 months (95% confidence interval (CI): 4.3, 5.6 months). An exploratory comparison, based on no cancer progression with irinotecan versus progression, showed improved survival with Nal-IRI in the former group: 6.1 months (95% CI: 5.1, 9.3 months) versus 4.3 months (95% CI: 2.3, 4.8 months); p = 0.0006. Nal-IRI adverse events occurred as expected. Qualitative data illustrate several themes, including “limited treatment options,” which appeared to drive the decision to prescribe Nal-IRI. Conclusion Nal-IRI might be considered in pancreas cancer patients who had received irinotecan, particularly in the absence of disease progression with the latter.

192 Background: Rectal cancer treatment paradigm has been evolving over time. Historically, for locally advanced rectal cancer, standard therapy (ST) consisted of neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy. Recently, total neoadjuvant treatment (TNT) approach that delivers both neoadjuvant chemotherapy (CAPOX or FOLFOX) and chemoradiation (or radiation only) prior to surgery is increasingly being utilized. The prognostic and predictive values of mismatch repair deficient (dMMR) in rectal cancer is not well characterized. Most dMMR patients receive the same treatment as MMR proficient (pMMR) patients although there is limited data that dMMR rectal cancer patients may not have the same level of benefits from neoadjuvant treatment. This retrospective study aims to evaluate the clinicopathological/molecular characteristics, disease response, and clinical outcomes in dMMR localized rectal cancer patients. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on consecutive adult patients with a diagnosis of dMMR rectal cancer who were treated at Mayo Clinic between January 2000 to September 2021. Patients who presented with concurrent primary non-colorectal malignancies were excluded. The distributions of demographics, clinicopathological features, biomarkers, and outcome data were collected. Survival was assessed using Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox models were stratified by treatment arms to determine significance of treatment strategies. Results: Forty-one patients were identified with a median age of 45.3 years. Thirty (73.2%) pts were male. The most common MMR were loss of MSH2 and MSH6 (12/42; 29.3%) followed by loss of MLH1 and PMS2 (10/42; 24.4%) and solitary loss of MSH2 (4/42; 9.8%). The treatment, pathological response, and clinical outcomes are listed in table. With a median follow up of 101 months, only 6 patients (14.3%) died and median overall survival was not reached. Conclusions: Our findings showed dMMR localized rectal cancer responded to both ST and TNT with good clinical outcomes.[Table: see text]

402 Background: Pancreas cancer is an aggressive malignancy with limited therapeutic options. Nanoliposomal irinotecan (Nal-IRI) is a preferred second-line treatment, and current guidelines recommend its use in the absence of prior irinotecan. This study aimed to assess whether patients who had received regular irinotecan derive benefit from Nal-IRI. Methods: Medical records of metastatic pancreas cancer patients who had received regular irinotecan and then Nal-IRI were reviewed. The following information was extracted from each medical record: patient demographics, confirmation of a diagnosis of exocrine pancreas cancer, initial cancer stage, dates of administration of the drugs of interest, adverse events that occurred with Nal-IRI treatment, reasons for stopping regular irinotecan, and reasons for starting and stopping Nal-IRI. The primary endpoint was overall survival after the initiation of Nal-IRI (an a priori threshold of > 4 months defined success). Survival data were censored based on date of last follow up. Direct quotes from the medical record were documented to provide insight on prescribing Nal-IRI when guidelines advised the contrary. Results: Sixty four patients met eligibility criteria with a median age of 65 years (range: 36, 80 years). Prior to Nal-IRI, 61 patients had received FOLFIRINOX, and 3 FOLFIRI. Of these, 32 patients manifested progressive disease on regular irinotecan-based therapy. Nal-IRI was prescribed with a fluoropyrimidine; only one patient received monotherapy. At time of analysis, 54 patients had died. Median overall survival from initiation of Nal-IRI was 5.1 months (95% confidence interval (CI): 5.6, 4.3, months). An exploratory comparison, based on no cancer progression with regular irinotecan versus progression, showed improved survival with Nal-IRI in the former group: 6.1 months (95% CI: 9.3, 5.1 months) versus 4.3 months (95% CI: 4.8, 2.3 months); p=0.0006. Nal-IRI adverse events occurred as expected. Qualitative data illustrated several themes, including “limited treatment options,” which appeared to drive the decision to prescribe Nal-IRI. Conclusions: Nal-IRI might be considered in pancreas cancer patients who had received regular irinotecan, particularly in the absence of disease progression with the latter.

4048 Background: PolyPEPI1018 is an off-the-shelf, multi-peptide vaccine containing 12 immunogenic epitopes derived from 7 cancer testis antigens (CTAs) frequently expressed in patients with CRC. Here we report the final results of the phase I study of PolyPEPI1018 vaccine as an add-on to maintenance therapy in mCRC patients. Methods: 11 patients with MSS mCRC were vaccinated with PolyPEPI1018 just after the transition to maintenance therapy with fluoropyrimidine/bevacizumab after first-line combo chemotherapy and bevacizumab. Part A: n = 5, single dose; Part B: n = 6, 3 doses, Q12W. Primary endpoint was safety. Immunomonitoring was performed at both blood and tumor levels, as well as prospectively predicted. Results: The vaccine was well tolerated; most common side effects were transient skin reactions. No vaccine-related SAE occurred. Pre-existing immune responses were boosted by the vaccine for 7/10 patients. De novo responses were also induced, overall, 80% of patients had CD8+ T cell responses against at least 3 CTAs. The magnitude of immune responses as well as the density and the ratio of CD8+/CD3+ tumor infiltrating T cells increased with multiple vaccine doses. Three patients had objective tumor response according to RECIST v1.1: one of them in the single dose group and two of them in the 3 doses group. Both patients in the 3 doses group qualified for curative surgery. One of them had no viable tumor cells in his primary tumor at the time of surgery. Post-trial follow-up revealed PFS of at least 12 months for 3 patients. mPFS was longer for patients receiving multiple doses (9.9 months) compared to single dose (6.1 months). Both measured and predicted multiantigenic immune responses tend to correlate with PFS and tumor volume reduction. Conclusions: PolyPEPI1018 was effective in restoring immunological responses to CTAs in patients’ with spontaneous immunity against. Treatment with PolyPEPI1018 vaccine and maintenance therapy was safe and demonstrated evidence of early clinical activity in MSS mCRC tumors. Data support further randomized trials with PolyPEPI1018. Clinical trial information: NCT03391232 .

Introduction Coronary vasospasm associated with fluoropyrimidine (FP)-based chemotherapy is a potentially serious complication and reported to occur more often with infusional 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) or capecitabine than with bolus 5-FU. Given the additional benefit of oxaliplatin over FP alone in the management of colorectal cancer, retaining oxaliplatin in the treatment regimen is desirable, but the safety of combining bolus 5-FU with oxaliplatin in patients with FP-induced vasospasm is not well established. We performed a retrospective review to explore the safety of substituting FLOX (bolus 5-FU, oxaliplatin, leucovorin) for FOLFOX (infusional 5-FU, oxaliplatin, leucovorin) and CAPOX (capecitabine, oxaliplatin) in patients who had FP-induced coronary vasospasm. Patients and Methods The pharmacy database of Mayo Clinic was queried to identify patients who developed coronary vasospasm associated with FOLFOX or CAPOX between January 2011 and January 2018 and were subsequently treated with FLOX. Detailed information was obtained on these patients by retrospective electronic chart review. Results A total of 10 patients (median age, 56.5 years; range, 36-77 years) were identified, 9 with FOLFOX and 1 with CAPOX. Among the patients treated with FOLFOX, 8 patients had chest pain as the presenting complaint that had started within 48 hours of beginning of the 5-FU infusion. In 9 of 10 patients, coronary vasospasm occurred with the first cycle of therapy. All patients made full recovery after discontinuation of infusional 5-FU or capecitabine. All patients subsequently received FLOX with 7 median bolus 5-FU doses (range, 2-22 doses) and 7 median oxaliplatin doses (range, 2-12 doses) at 7 days to 18 months after the event, with 7 patients treated within 4 weeks of the event. FLOX did not cause any cardiovascular adverse events in any of the 10 patients. Conclusion Bolus 5-FU in combination with oxaliplatin is safe in patients who have experienced coronary vasospasm with infusional 5-FU or capecitabine.

Objective: A growing number of cancer antineoplastic agents can cause life-threatening acute infusion reactions. Because previous studies have not studied these reactions from the perspective of patients, this study was undertaken with that objective in mind. Methods: Patients who had an acute infusion reaction were interviewed based on the Leventhal model. Once saturation of content was achieved, interviews were transcribed and analyzed with qualitative methodology. Results: Twenty-one patients were enrolled. Most were women (n = 15); the median age was 58 years, and paclitaxel was the most common inciting agent. Three themes emerged. First, these reactions are frightening; patients made remarks such as “I was just thinking oh my God, I am dying.” Second, prior education about these reactions seemed to mitigate this fear, “Basically everything the nurses told me potentially could happen, like happened. So, I was prepared.” Third, when health-care providers were prompt and attentive during the reaction, patients described less fear with future chemotherapy, “So no, I’m really not fearful about going in tomorrow because I know they’ll be there and they’ll be watching me.” Conclusion: These reactions evoke fear which can be mitigated with education prior to and with prompt responsiveness during the acute infusion reaction.

Background This study evaluated the safety, tolerability, immunogenicity and initial efficacy of PolyPEPI1018 as an add-on to maintenance therapy in subjects with mCRC. PolyPEPI1018 peptide vaccine contains 12 unique epitopes derived from 7 conserved cancer antigens frequently expressed in mCRC. The predictive value of the novel Personal EPItopes (PEPI) test was also explored. Methods mCRC patients in first line setting received up to 3 doses of PolyPEPI1018 vaccine (0.2 mg/peptide) 12 weeks apart, just after the transition to maintenance therapy with fluoropyrimidine and bevacizumab. Vaccine-specific T cell responses were first predicted by PEPI test (using the patient’s complete HLA genotype) then measured by ELISpot and Intracellular Cytokine Staining (ICS) after one cycle of vaccination. Tumour responses were evaluated by RECIST. Results Eleven patients were vaccinated with PolyPEPI1018. The vaccine was well tolerated; common adverse events were transient skin reactions and flu-like syndrome. No grade 3+ adverse events related to the vaccine occurred. Initial analysis of 8 patients after a single dose demonstrated that 100% of patients had CD4+ T cell response and 75% had CD8+ T cell responses against at least 3 antigens. Both CD8+ and CD4+ T cells were polyfunctional based on the secretion of multiple cytokines determined by ex vivo ICS. PEPI test correctly predicted ELISpot-measured CD8+ T cell responses (PPV = 65%, p = 0.049). Of the 5 patients who received at least 2 doses of the vaccine, 3 experienced Stable disease and 2 had unexpected tumour size reduction. Patients experiencing tumour shrinkage had higher number of predicted antigens than those without tumour response. Conclusions PolyPEPI1018 was safe, well-tolerated and induced unprecedented broad polyfunctional CRC-specific T cell responses, similar to personalized neoantigen vaccines. The candidate biomarker demonstrated high accuracy for the prediction of subject’s vaccine-specific CD8+ T cell responses and indicated patient’s clinical responses. Based on these encouraging results further development of the PolyPEPI1018 vaccine with companion diagnostic is planned. Clinical trial identification NCT03391232. Legal entity responsible for the study TreosBio. Funding Treos Bio. Disclosure J. Hubbard: Research grant / Funding (institution): Taiho Oncology; Research grant / Funding (institution): TreosBio; Advisory / Consultancy, Honoraria to Mayo Clinic: Bayer; Research grant / Funding (institution): Senhwa Pharmaceuticals; Research grant / Funding (institution): Boston Biomedical; Research grant / Funding (institution): Effector Therapeutics; Research grant / Funding (institution): Merck. E.R. Tőke: Full / Part-time employment: TreosBio. Z. Csiszovszki: Full / Part-time employment: TreosBio. O. Lorincz: Full / Part-time employment: TreosBio. L. Molnar: Full / Part-time employment: TreosBio. E. Somogyi: Full / Part-time employment: TreosBio. M. Megyesi: Full / Part-time employment: TreosBio. K. Pantya: Full / Part-time employment: TreosBio. J. Toth: Full / Part-time employment: TreosBio. P. Pales: Full / Part-time employment: TreosBio. I. Miklos: Full / Part-time employment: TreosBio. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Should counselors with interpersonal trauma histories work with similarly traumatized clients? How does the work affect them? Current research is inconsistent. This study examines 101 sexual assault and domestic violence counselors’ recalled motivations for trauma work, their reported subjective personal changes, and their secondary and vicarious trauma symptoms and burnout. Counselors motivated by interpersonal trauma report both more symptoms and positive changes (including dealing with their own trauma). Those seeking personal meaning report becoming more hypervigilant and self-isolating. Those saying they learned from clients rate symptoms lower, suggesting stress inoculation. Supervisors of trauma counselors should facilitate learning from clients separately from processing the counselor’s trauma.

Patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) frequently experience treatment-related adverse events (AEs), which may lead to nonadherence or discontinuation from their treatment regimen. In the phase 3 CORRECT study, the addition of regorafenib to best supportive care (BSC) significantly increased overall survival and progression-free survival compared with placebo plus BSC in patients with mCRC who had progressed on all approved standard care therapies. Although regorafenib showed an acceptable safety profile, patients experienced treatment-related AEs such as hand-foot skin reaction, hypertension, oral mucositis, diarrhea, fatigue, and liver abnormalities. The goal of this article is to help oncology nurses implement a strategic, proactive approach to AE management in patients mCRC treated with regorafenib. The article reviews the most common AEs associated with regorafenib in patients who participated in the CORRECT study and provides a strategy and practical measures that nurses can apply to AE management. In addition, the article provides direction and guidance for educating patients and their caregivers on recognizing and managing potential side effects of regorafenib.

The decision to utilize parenteral nutrition in patients with advanced cancer is difficult. There are variable opinions in the literature. Those who routinely care for cancer patients often confront the challenges of discussing these interventions with patients and their families. We review results from previous randomized controlled trials, published guidelines, and recent work that describes the emotional challenges patients and families face as they make such decisions with their healthcare providers.