Search

Background Biliary tract cancers (BTCs) are a rare group of cancers with limited data with respect to advanced unresectable cholangiocarcinoma (CCA). Materials and Methods The study is a retrospective study of patients with advanced unresectable/metastatic CCA, who received first-line palliative chemotherapy (CT1) from January 2014 to March 2019 at the Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai. Baseline clinical characteristics, chemotherapeutic regimens, and toxicities were evaluated. Results One hundred and forty patients satisfied criteria for evaluation. Median age of the entire cohort was 57 years (range: 32–80). There were 87 patients (62.1%) with intrahepatic CCA, 35 patients (25%) with perihilar CCA, and 14 patients (10%) with distal CCA. One hundred and twelve patients (80%) had metastatic disease at presentation. Commonest CT1 regimens were gemcitabine–cisplatin (GC) in 89 patients (63.5%) and gemcitabine–oxaliplatin (GO) in 34 patients (24.3%). Sixty-three patients (45%) received second-line chemotherapy. With a median follow-up of 27 months, median progression-free survival for the entire cohort was 7.56 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 6.23–8.88), and median OS was 12.16 months (95% CI: 10.08–14.24). Common chemotherapy-related grade 3/4 side effects included vomiting in 25 patients (17.9%), diarrhea in 23 patients (16.4%), and thrombocytopenia in 22 patients (15.7%). Conclusion The current study in advanced CCAs is the largest of its nature from India. The common regimens used as first line were GC and GO. Tolerance and overall survival appear similar to previously published data.

Background There is limited data on outcomes in cancer patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) from lower middle‐income countries (LMICs). Patients and Methods This was an observational study, conducted between 12 April and 10 June 2020 at Tata Memorial centre, Mumbai, in cancer patients undergoing systemic therapy with laboratory confirmed COVID‐19. The objectives were to evaluate cumulative 30‐day all‐cause mortality, COVID‐19 attributable mortality, factors predicting mortality, and time to viral negativity after initial diagnosis. Results Of the 24 660 footfalls and 7043 patients evaluated, 230 patients on active systemic therapy with a median age of 42 (1‐75) years were included. COVID‐19 infection severity, as per WHO criteria, was mild, moderate, and severe in 195 (85%), 11 (5%), and 24 (11%) patients, respectively. Twenty‐three patients (10%) expired during follow‐up, with COVID‐19 attributable mortality seen in 15 patients (6.5%). There were no mortalities in the pediatric cohort of 31 (14%) patients. Advanced stage cancer being treated with palliative intent vs others [30‐day mortality 24%% vs 5%, odds ratio (OR) 5.6, 95% CI 2.28‐13.78, P, COVID‐19 attributable mortality in cancer patients on systemic therapy in LMICs appears lower than published data and slightly more than an unselected patient's cohort. Delayed recovery in terms of SARS COV‐2 negativity is seen in these patients. Treating Cancer remains the priority.

Purpose The objective of this study was to assess the proportion of patients developing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) after receiving chemotherapy for gastrointestinal (GI) cancers, despite receiving antiemetic prophylaxis (AEP) as per the standard guidelines. Patients and Methods Between April 2019 and March 2020, all patients planned for chemotherapy were eligible for enrolment in the study. The primary endpoint of the study was the assessment of complete response (CR) rates. Results Overall, 1,276 consecutive patients were screened for this study, while 738 patients fulfilling the eligibility criteria were included. A total of 23.2% of the whole cohort failed to achieve CR. Also, 28.2, 16.9, and 16.6% of patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC), low emetogenic chemotherapy (LEC), and high emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC), respectively, failed to achieve CR. The differences in failure to achieve CR was statistically significant between MEC and HEC (p < 0.001) groups. Among MEC group, there was no difference between those who received oxaliplatin (27.8%) versus nonoxaliplatin regimens (25.8%) in terms of failure rates (p = 0.613). Conclusion Approximately one-fourth of patients failed to achieve a complete response from CINV in GI cancers despite using guideline-based AEP. Patients receiving MEC had the highest failure rates suggesting a need to improve AEP in these patients.

Geriatric 8 (G8) and Vulnerable Elders Survey-13 (VES-13) are quick and easy-to-use screening tools, developed and validated in older patients living in North America and Europe for predicting abnormalities in the subsequent geriatric assessment. The applicability of these screening tools in older Indian patients with cancer is not known.An observational study in 308 Indian patients with cancer aged ≥60 years, who were evaluated in the Geriatric Oncology clinic at the Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, India, between June 2018 and November 2020. Patients underwent the G8 and VES-13 screening tools followed by a geriatric assessment. The objectives were to determine the diagnostic accuracy of the G8/VES-13 screening tools to detect an abnormal geriatric assessment, to determine their association with the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS)/Cancer Aging and Research Group (CARG) scores, to determine the optimal cut-off value on the G8 scale for older Indian patients with cancer, and to determine whether an abnormal G8/VES-13 score was associated with shorter survival. We also aimed to assess the utility of combining the G8 and VES-13 scores to predict for an abnormal geriatric assessment and poorer survival.The sensitivity and specificity of the G8 (cut-off, ≤14) score were 84.4% and 17.6%, respectively, whereas those for the VES-13 score (≥3) were 34.9% and 82.4%, respectively. The appropriate abnormal G8 cut-off score was noted to be 12. Abnormal G8 (≤14) and VES-13 scores were not associated with an abnormal subsequent geriatric assessment [p = 0.736 (G8)], while abnormal G8 (≤14) scores did not predict for worse survival outcomes. Lowering the cut-off of the G8 score to12 and/or combining an abnormal G8 (12) with the VES-13 score were found to be associated with an abnormal subsequent geriatric assessment [p0.001 (G8), p0.001(G8 + VES-13)] and predicted for worse survival.An abnormal G8 cut-off score12 is therefore appropriate in older Indian patients with cancer. G812 predicts for the presence of non-oncological vulnerabilities and shorter survival. Lowering the cutoff of G8 to 12translated to a 35% reduction in the number of patients undergoing a complete geriatric assessment. Combined with VES-13, the G8 can be reliably used to identify those patients who would benefit the most from a geriatric assessment and help in optimal resource utilization especially in busy Indian centers.

Capecitabine-temozolomide (CAPTEM) chemotherapy, alone or with concurrent peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT), has activity in advanced WHO grade 2 and grade 3 neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs). The objective of this study was to evaluate the activity of the CAPTEM in patients with grade 2 and grade 3 NENs and identify prognostic factors.A retrospective analysis of patients with metastatic grade 2 and grade 3 NENs, who were having baseline significant dual uptake on 68Ga-DOTATATE/18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-PET-CT scan and treated with CAPTEM chemotherapy between January 2014 and December 2019 at Tata Memorial Hospital, was conducted. The clinical variables and survival data were collected. Progression-free survival (PFS) was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method.A total of 68 patients received the CAPTEM regimen, of whom 29 patients (43%) received CAPTEM alone and 39 patients (57%) received concurrent PRRT. The primary sites were pancreas in 32 (47%) and small intestine in 12 (18%) patients. Mean Ki-67 index was 12.6% (range: 3-50). Forty-five patients (65%) were treatment naïve. There were no significant differences in baseline clinical variables between patients treated with CAPTEM alone or with CAPTEM-PRRT. Both regimens were well tolerated. With a median follow-up of 22.1 months, the median PFS for the entire cohort was 27.5 months. There was no statistical difference in the median PFS between patients receiving CAPTEM alone or CAPTEM-PRRT (33.7 vs. 22 months; p = 0.199). A Ki-67 index of5% predicted for inferior PFS on multivariate analysis (24 versus 73.8 months; p = 0.04; hazard ratio -3.77; 95% confidence interval: 1.07-13.26).CAPTEM, alone or concurrent with PRRT, has a significant activity in grade 2 and grade 3 NENs with dual SSTR and 18FDG expression. A Ki-67 index5% predicts strongly for inferior outcomes and should be further explored as a prognostic cutoff in grade 2 NENs. Early initiation of CAPTEM should be considered in this group of tumors with significant baseline 18FDG expression.

Background: Patients with cancer are at a higher risk of severe forms of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and mortality. Therefore, widespread COVID-19 vaccination is required to attain herd immunity. Objectives: We aimed to evaluate the uptake of the COVID-19 vaccine in Indian patients with cancer and to collect information regarding vaccine hesitancy and factors that contributed to vaccine hesitancy. Materials and Methods: This was a questionnaire-based survey conducted between May 7, 2021 and June 10, 2021 in patients aged 45 years and over, with solid tumors. The primary end points of the study were the proportion of Indian patients with cancer aged 45 years and older who had not received the COVID-19 vaccine, and the reasons why these patients had not received the COVID-19 vaccine. Our secondary end points were the proportion of patients with a history of COVID-19 infection, and the proportion of the patients who had vaccine hesitancy. Additionally, we attempted to assess the factors that could impact vaccine hesitancy. Results: A total of 435 patients were included in the study. Of these, 348 (80%) patients had not received even a single dose of the COVID-19 vaccine; 66 (15.2%) patients had received the first dose, and 21 (4.8%) had received both the doses. Approximately half (47.1%) of the patients reported that they took the COVID-19 vaccine based on the advice from a doctor. The reasons for not taking the COVID-19 vaccine could be considered as vaccine hesitancy in 259 (77%) patients. The two most common reasons were fear in 124 (38%) patients (fear of side-effects and of the impact of the vaccine on the cancer/therapy) and lack of information in 87 (26.7%) patients. On the multivariate analysis, the two factors found to be significantly associated with vaccine hesitancy were a lower educational level (OR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1–3.17; P = 0.048) and a lack of prior advice regarding the COVID-19 vaccine (OR, 2.80; 95% CI, 1.73–4.53; P < 0.001). Conclusion: Vaccine hesitancy is present in over half of our patients, and the most common reasons are a fear of the vaccine impacting the cancer therapy, fear of side-effects, and lack of information. Widespread vaccination can only be attained if systematic programs for education and dissemination of information regarding the safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine are given as much importance as fortification of the vaccination supply and distribution system.