Search

Muhammet Ozer,1 Suleyman Yasin Goksu,2 Rick Y Lin,3 Ruveyda Ayasun,4 Doga Kahramangil,5 Sherise C Rogers,5,6 Jesus C Fabregas,5,6 Brian H Ramnaraign,5,6 Thomas J George,5,6 Michael Feely,7 Roniel Cabrera,8 Sergio Duarte,9 Ali Zarrinpar,9 Ilyas Sahin5,6 1Department of Medical Oncology, Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA; 2Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA; 3Department of Medicine, University of Florida Health Cancer Center, Gainesville, FL, USA; 4Laura and Isaac Perlmutter Cancer Center, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, NY, USA; 5Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA; 6University of Florida Health Cancer Center, Gainesville, FL, USA; 7Department of Pathology, Immunology, and Laboratory Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA; 8Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA; 9Department of Surgery, College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USACorrespondence: Ilyas Sahin, Department of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, 32608, USA, Email i.sahin@ufl.eduBackground: Advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) generally has a dismal prognosis. Bone metastases from HCC are infrequent, with a poorer prognosis. However, the survival influencing factors are not yet well understood.Aim: The aim of the present study was to assess the clinical features and tumor characteristics of HCC patients with bone metastasis.Methods: A cohort of 170,576 adult patients with HCC was studied using the National Cancer Database (NCDB) spanning from 2010 to 2019, and within this group, 5285 patients (3.1%) were diagnosed with bone metastasis. We performed the Kaplan–Meier method to calculate the median overall survival (OS). We included demographics (age at diagnosis, gender, race, insurance status), comorbidity score, and treatment characteristics.Results: Of a total of 5285 HCC patients with bone metastasis, 86.2% were male and 61.2% were non-Hispanic white. Most patients (55.1%) were below 65, and 89% had a total Charlson-Deyo comorbidity score of under 3. Among patients with known tumor grade, 24.8% had well-differentiated tumors, and 36.1% had poorly differentiated tumors. Chemotherapy was administrated to 39.5% of patients. In univariate analysis, patients with well-differentiated tumors had better OS compared to poorly differentiated tumors (5.4 months vs 3.0 months, p = 0.001). Patients who received single or multiagent chemotherapy were significantly associated with improved OS compared to patients who did not receive chemotherapy (7.0 and 8.5 months vs 1.94 months, respectively). We also found mortality difference between age, comorbidity scores, facility types and race groups.Conclusion: In this cohort analysis of NCDB data, we found better OS in treatment receipt, lower tumor grade, younger age, non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic race, treatment at academic facility and lower comorbidity score in HCC patients with bone metastasis. The study results may have a consequential impact on the treatment decisions for HCC patients with bone metastasis.Keywords: hepatocellular carcinoma, HCC, bone metastasis

The University of Florida Health conducted a pragmatic implementation of a pharmacogenetics (PGx) panel-based test to guide medications used for supportive care prescribed to patients undergoing chemotherapy. The implementation was in the context of a pragmatic clinical trial for patients with non-hematologic cancers being treated with chemotherapy. Patients were randomized to either the intervention arm or control arm and received PGx testing immediately or at the end of the study, respectively. Patients completed the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) to assess quality of life (QoL). A total of 150 patients received PGx testing and enrolled in the study. Clinical decision support and implementation infrastructure were developed. While the study was originally planned for 500 patients, we were underpowered in our sample of 150 patients to test differences in the patient-reported MDASI scores. We did observed a high completion rate (92%) of the questionnaires; however, there were few medication changes (n = 6 in the intervention arm) based on PGx test results. Despite this, we learned several lessons through this pragmatic implementation of a PGx panel-based test in an outpatient oncology setting. Most notably, patients were less willing to undergo PGx testing if the cost of the test exceeded $100. In addition, to enhance PGx implementation success, reoccurring provider education is necessary, clinical decision support needs to appear in a more conducive way to fit in with oncologists' workflow, and PGx test results need to be available earlier in treatment planning., (© 2024 The Author(s). Clinical and Translational Science published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

Background: Gallbladder carcinoma (GBC) is a rare, aggressive malignancy comprising 0.5% of gastrointestinal cancers. It has poor survival outcomes due to its insidious onset, lack of standardized screening, and limited therapies. Advanced-stage diagnosis with liver, lymph node, and peritoneal metastasis is common, while bone metastasis is rare. The knowledge on bone metastasis in GBC is limited to case reports and small series, and its clinical significance is largely unexplored., Methods: The study extracted the demographic and clinical variables of patients with metastatic (M1) gallbladder adenocarcinoma from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database between 2011 and 2020. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the demographic characteristics. The multivariate Cox regression analysis was used to calculate the hazard ratio. The overall survival (OS) was assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method, and the log-rank test was utilized to compare the survival between the groups., Results: A total of 2724 patients were included in the study. A total of 69% of the patients were female, and the median age was 68 (range 24-90+). A total of 7.4% of the patients had bone metastasis on diagnosis. The multivariate Cox analysis identified bone metastasis as an independent mortality risk factor in metastatic GBC (HR 1.50, p < 0.001). The patients were divided into two age groups: a younger age group (18-74 years) and an older age group (75+ years). In the younger group, the median OS with and without bone metastasis was 3 and 5 months, respectively ( p < 0.0001). In the older age group, there was no significant difference in the OS between the patients with and without bone metastasis ( p = 0.35). In the younger group who were treated with chemotherapy, the patients with bone metastasis had a significantly worse OS (median OS 5 months vs. 8 months, p < 0.0001). In the untreated group, the patients with bone metastasis in the younger age group had a significantly worse OS (median OS 1 month vs. 2 months, p = 0.014). In the patients with bone metastasis, those who did not receive chemotherapy had a significantly worse OS than those who were treated with chemotherapy in both age groups (younger age group: median OS 1 month vs. 5 months, p < 0.0001 and older age group: median OS 1 month vs. 5 months, p = 0.041)., Conclusions: Our findings suggest that the presence of bone metastasis in gallbladder adenocarcinoma is an independent prognostic factor associated with unfavorable survival outcomes in the younger age group (18-74 years). However, in the older age group (75+ years), the presence of bone metastasis did not impact the survival. Treatment with chemotherapy was associated with extended survival in all patients. Thus, early detection and aggressive management of bone metastasis, including the consideration of chemotherapy, may be crucial in improving the OS and quality of life for individuals with gallbladder adenocarcinoma.

Muscle-invasive bladder cancer is a life-threatening disease best managed with multimodal therapy. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy prior to cystectomy significantly improves survival with the greatest benefit noted in patients with a complete pathologic response noted at cystectomy. While radical cystectomy is currently an important part of the treatment plan, surgical morbidity remains high. Accurate prediction of complete responses to chemotherapy would enable avoiding the morbidity of radical cystectomy. Multiple clinical, pathologic, molecular, and radiographic predictors have been evaluated. Clinical and standard pathologic findings have not been found to be accurate predictors of complete response. To date, tumor genomic findings have been the most promising and have led to multiple clinical trials to evaluate if bladder preservation is possible in select patients. Radiomics has shown initial promise with larger validation series needed. These predictors can be further characterized as treatment specific and non-treatment specific. With the potential changing landscape of neoadjuvant therapy prior to radical cystectomy and the limitations of individual predictors of a complete response, a panel of several biomarkers may enhance patient selection for bladder preservation. The aim of this review is to summarize predictors of complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy represents a significant advance in cancer care. The interaction between PD-1 and PD-L1 induces immune tolerance and the inhibition of this interaction is an effective treatment strategy for numerous malignancies. Despite its demonstrated potential, immunotherapy is not clinically effective in immunogenically 'cold' tumors such as pancreatic cancer, prostate cancer and neuroendocrine tumors. Through the inhibition of VEGF, it may be possible to potentiate the effect of immune checkpoint blockade in tumors that have traditionally shown a lack of clinical response to immunotherapy. This signal-seeking, single-arm, prospective clinical trial aims to determine the objective response of tivozanib and atezolizumab in advanced immunogenically cold solid tumors. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT05000294 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Importance: The introduction of biosimilars and novel delivery devices between 2014 and 2019 may have changed the utilization of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF)., Objective: To assess utilization trends of G-CSFs for primary prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia (FN) among patients with cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy with commercial or Medicare insurance., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study assessed G-CSF utilization trends overall and stratified by regimen febrile neutropenia risk level. Associations between patient characteristics and G-CSF use were evaluated. Patients with cancer, including breast, lung, colorectal, esophageal and gastric, pancreatic, prostate, ovarian, and non-Hodgkin lymphomas, initiating myelosuppressive chemotherapy courses were included from the 2014 to 2019 commercial insurance and 2014 to 2018 Medicare fee-for-service claims databases. Data were analyzed from March to June 2021., Exposures: Year of chemotherapy initiation., Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were use and trends of G-CSFs for primary prophylaxis, from completion to 3 days after in the first chemotherapy cycle., Results: In total, 86 731 chemotherapy courses (mean [SD] age, 57.7 [11.5] years; 57 838 [66.7%] women and 28 893 [33.3%] men) were identified from 82 410 patients in the commercial insurance database and 32 398 chemotherapy courses (mean [SD] age, 71.8 [8.3] years; 18 468 [57.0%] women and 13 930 [43.0%] men) were identified from 30 279 patients in the Medicare database. Among the commercially insured population, 39 639 patients (45.7%) received G-CSFs, and 12 562 patients (38.8%) received G-CSFs among Medicare insured patients. Overall G-CSF use increased significantly throughout the study period in both populations, from 45.1% (95% CI, 44.4%-45.7%) of patients in 2014 to 47.5% (95% CI, 46.5%-48.5%) of patients in 2019 (P = .001) in the commercially insured population and from 36.0% (95% CI, 34.2%-38.0%) of patients in 2014 to 39.1% (95% CI, 38.1%-40.1%) of patients in 2018 (P < .001) in the Medicare population. The greatest increases in G-CSF use were observed among patients with high FN risk, from 75.0% (95% CI, 74.1%-76.0%) of patients to 83.2% (95% CI, 82.0%-84.2%) of patients (P < .001) among the commercially insured population and 75.3% (95% CI, 71.8%-78.6%) of patients to 86.2% (95% CI, 84.7%-87.6%) of patients (P < .001) among the Medicare population. Use of G-CSFs decreased in the commercially insured population among patients with intermediate FN risk (from 27.5% [95% CI, 26.4%-28.5%] of patients to 20.4% [95% CI, 19.1%-21.7%] of patients; P < .001) or low FN risk (from 19.3% [95% CI, 18.3%-20.4%] of patients to 16.3% [95% CI, 14.7%-18.0%] of patients; P < .001) and remained stable in the Medicare population (intermediate risk: from 26.4% [95% CI, 23.8%-29.2%] of patients to 28.4% [95% CI, 27.0%-29.8%] of patients; P = .35; low risk: from 19.6% [95% CI, 17.0%-22.4%] of patients to 20.9% [95% CI, 19.6%-22.3%] of patients; P = .58). Factors associated with increased odds of G-CSF use included older age (commercial insurance: adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.50 [95% CI, 1.41-1.59]; Medicare: aOR, 1.36 [95% CI, 1.08-1.71]), receiving a regimen with high FN risk (commercial insurance: aOR, 16.01 [95% CI, 15.17-16.90]; Medicare: aOR, 17.17 [95% CI, 15.76-18.71]), and history of neutropenia (commercial insurance: 3.90 (3.67-4.15); Medicare: 3.82 (3.50-4.18)., Conclusions and Relevance: This cross-sectional study found that utilization of G-CSFs increased among patients with cancer with high FN risk in both a commercially and Medicare-insured population, but 14% to 17% of patients still did not receive preventive treatment.

Patients with autoimmune disorders, multiple comorbidities, poor performance status, advanced age, and infection with SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) each represent unique subgroups of patients with cancer to whom little is known of the effects, benefits, and complications of checkpoint inhibitor (CPI) therapy. Although prospective trials are lacking in these populations, retrospective data and cohort series suggest that these patients can safely receive and benefit from CPI therapy. Here, we review the relevant data available and offer clinical recommendations in managing these complex patients with CPI therapy, where otherwise indicated., Competing Interests: Jonathan A. ChatzkelTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Merck, Lilly David DeRemerLeadership: Hematology Oncology Pharmacy Association (HOPA)Honoraria: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Pharmacy Times, Pharmacy Times Thomas J. GeorgeResearch Funding: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Lilly, Bayer, Incyte, Tesaro, Pharmacyclics, Ipsen, Seattle Genetics, GenentechOpen Payments Link: https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov/physician/321938/summaryNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Lessons Learned: Treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) typically involves multiple lines of therapy with eventual development of treatment resistance. In this single-arm, phase II study involving heavily pretreated patients, the combination of sorafenib and capecitabine yielded a clinically meaningful progression-free survival of 6.2 months with an acceptable toxicity profile. This oral doublet therapy is worthy of continued investigation for clinical use in patients with mCRC., Background: Capecitabine (Cape) is an oral prodrug of the antimetabolite 5-fluorouracil. Sorafenib (Sor) inhibits multiple signaling pathways involved in angiogenesis and tumor proliferation. SorCape has been previously studied in metastatic breast cancer., Methods: This single-arm, phase II study was designed to evaluate the activity of SorCape in refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Patients received Sor (200 mg p.o. b.i.d. max daily) and Cape (1,000 mg/m 2 p.o. b.i.d. on days 1-14) on a 21-day treatment cycle. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) with preplanned comparison with historical controls., Results: Forty-two patients were treated for a median number of 3.5 cycles (range 1-39). Median PFS was 6.2 (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.3-7.9) months, and overall survival (OS) was 8.8 (95% CI, 4.3-12.2) months. One patient (2.4%) had partial response (PR), and 22 patients (52.4%) had stable disease (SD) for a clinical benefit rate of 54.8% (95% CI, 38.7%-70.2%). Hand-foot syndrome was the most common adverse event seen in 36 patients (85.7%) and was grade ≥ 3 in 16 patients (38.1%). One patient (2.4%) had a grade 4 sepsis, and one patient (2.4%) died while on treatment., Conclusion: SorCape in this heavily pretreated population yielded a reasonable PFS with manageable but notable toxicity. The combination should be investigated further., (© AlphaMed Press; the data published online to support this summary are the property of the authors.)

There have been significant advancements in precision medicine and approaches to medication selection based on pharmacogenetic results. With the availability of direct-to-consumer genetic testing and growing awareness of genetic interindividual variability, patient demand for more precise, individually tailored drug regimens is increasing. The University of Florida (UF) Health Precision Medicine Program (PMP) was established in 2011 to improve integration of genomic data into clinical practice. In the ensuing years, the UF Health PMP has successfully implemented several single-gene tests to optimize the precision of medication prescribing across a variety of clinical settings. Most recently, the UF Health PMP launched a custom-designed pharmacogenetic panel, including pharmacogenes relevant to supportive care medications commonly prescribed to patients undergoing chemotherapy treatment, referred to as "GatorPGx." This tutorial provides guidance and information to institutions on how to transition from the implementation of single-gene pharmacogenetic testing to a preemptive panel-based testing approach. Here, we demonstrate application of the preemptive panel in the setting of an adult solid tumor oncology clinic. Importantly, the information included herein can be applied to other clinical practice settings., (© 2020 The Authors Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics © 2020 American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)