Search

Background: At the time of AtTEnd trial design, standard treatment for advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer included carboplatin and paclitaxel chemotherapy. This trial assessed whether combining atezolizumab with chemotherapy might improve outcomes in this population. Methods: AtTEnd was a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial done in 89 hospitals in 11 countries across Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and Asia. Enrolled patients were aged 18 years or older, and had advanced or recurrent endometrial carcinoma or carcinosarcoma, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–2, and received no previous systemic chemotherapy for recurrence. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) using an interactive web response system (block size of six) to either atezolizumab 1200 mg or placebo given intravenously with chemotherapy (carboplatin at area under the curve of 5 or 6 and paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 intravenously on day 1 every 21 days) for 6–8 cycles, then continued until progression. Stratification factors were country, histological subtype, advanced or recurrent status, and mismatch repair (MMR) status. Participants and treating clinicians were masked to group allocation. The hierarchically tested co-primary endpoints were progression-free survival (in patients with MMR-deficient [dMMR] tumours, and in the overall population) and overall survival (in the overall population). Primary analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population, defined as all randomly assigned patients who gave their full consent to participation in the study and data processing. Safety was assessed in all patients included in the intention-to-treat population who received at least one dose of study treatment. Here, we report the primary progression-free survival and the interim overall survival results. This study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03603184. Findings: Between Oct 3, 2018, and Jan 7, 2022, 551 patients were r

BACKGROUND: The global COVID-19 pandemic disproportionately affected certain populations and its management differed between countries. This national study describes characteristics and outcomes of COVID-19 in patients with cancer in Australia. METHODS: We performed a multicentre cohort study of patients with cancer and COVID-19 from March 2020 to April 2022. Data were analysed to determine varying characteristics between cancer types and changes in outcomes over time. Multivariable analysis was performed to determine risk factors associated with oxygen requirement. FINDINGS: 620 patients with cancer from 15 hospitals had confirmed COVID-19. There were 314/620 (50.6%) male patients, median age 63.5 years (IQR 50-72) and majority had solid organ tumours (392/620, 63.2%). The rate of COVID-19 vaccination (≥1 dose) was 73.4% (455/620). Time from symptom onset to diagnosis was median 1 day (IQR 0-3), patients with haematological malignancy had a longer duration of test positivity. Over the study period, there was a significant decline in COVID-19 severity. Risk factors associated with oxygen requirement included male sex (OR 2.34, 95% CI 1.30-4.20, p = 0.004), age (OR 1.03, 95% CI 1.01-1.06, p = 0.005); not receiving early outpatient therapy (OR 2.78, 95% CI 1.41-5.50, p = 0.003). Diagnosis during the omicron wave was associated with lower odds of oxygen requirement (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.13-0.43, p < 0.0001). INTERPRETATION: Outcomes from COVID-19 in patients with cancer in Australia over the pandemic have improved, potentially related to changing viral strain and outpatient therapies. FUNDING: This study was supported by research funding from MSD.

INTRODUCTION: Health economic outcomes of real-world treatment sequencing of androgen receptor-targeted agents (ARTA) and docetaxel (DOC) remain unclear. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Data from the electronic Castration-resistant Prostate cancer Australian Database (ePAD) were analyzed including median overall survival (mOS) and median time-to-treatment failure (mTTF). Mean total costs (mTC) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) of treatment sequences were estimated using the average sample method and Zhao and Tian estimator. RESULTS: Of 752 men, 441 received ARTA, 194 DOC, and 175 both sequentially. Of participants treated with both, first-line DOC followed by ARTA was the more common sequence (n = 125, 71%). mOS for first-line ARTA was 8.38 years (95% CI: 3.48, not-estimated) vs. 3.29 years (95% CI: 2.92, 4.02) for DOC. mTTF was 15.7 months (95% CI: 14.2, 23.7) for the ARTA-DOC sequence and 18.2 months (95% CI: 16.2, 23.2) for DOC-ARTA. In first-line, ARTA cost an additional $13,244 per mTTF month compared to DOC. In second-line, ARTA cost $6726 per mTTF month. The DOC-ARTA sequence saved $2139 per mTTF compared to ARTA-DOC, though not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: ICERs show ARTA had improved clinical benefit compared to DOC but at higher cost. There were no significant cost differences between combined sequences.

BACKGROUND: Cancer of unknown primary (CUP) is a heterogeneous group of metastatic cancers where a primary tissue of origin (TOO) is uncertain. Most patients with CUP have limited treatment options and poor survival outcomes. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) can be efficacious in some patients with CUP, but the optimal predictive biomarkers are unknown. We therefore assessed immune and genomic biomarkers as well as predicted TOO in patients with CUP, including a subset treated with ICIs. METHODS: Patients with CUP were subject to gene-expression profiling (GEP) and DNA panel sequencing. Immune and stromal-related gene expression was explored by NanoString, including genes associated with immunotherapy response (IR) in other solid malignancies. ICI responsive cancer types were assigned based on Food and Drug Administration-approved indications, and either detection of a latent primary tumor or the TOO was suspected based on genomics informed pathology review. Tumor mutation burden (TMB) and gene mutations were also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 219 patients with CUP were included, 215 assessed for TOO in a previous study, with the majority (163) receiving both RNA and DNA tests. Of GEP profiled cases, 33% (59/175) had a high IR gene-expression score. Of the DNA sequenced cases, 16% (32/203) had high TMB (>10 mutations/Mb), including two with mismatch repair deficiency. Low correlation was observed between TMB and an IR score (R=0.26, p<0.001). Among 110 CUPs with a latent primary or suspected TOO, 47% (52/110) belonged to ICI-responsive cancer types. More than half of the CUPs had at least one feature that may predict ICI response (high IR score, high TMB, ICI-responsive cancer type). Among patients with CUP treated with ICIs, 8/28 (29%) responded (2 complete responses and 6 partial responses). Among non-responders, 9 had stable and 11 had progressive disease. All responders had a high IR score (7/8) and/or high TMB (3/8), while most (5/8) belonged to ICI-responsi

INTRODUCTION: This systematic review aims to summarise the available literature on the effect of geriatric assessment (multidimensional health assessment across medical, social, and functional domains; "GA") or comprehensive geriatric assessment (geriatric assessment with intervention or management recommendations; "CGA") compared to usual care for older adults with cancer on care received, treatment completion, adverse treatment effects, survival and health-related quality of life. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PubMed was conducted to identify randomised controlled trials or prospective cohort comparison studies on the effect of GA/CGA on care received, treatment, and cancer outcomes for older adults with cancer. RESULTS: Ten studies were included: seven randomised controlled trials (RCTs), two phase II randomised pilot studies, and one prospective cohort comparison study. All studies included older adults receiving systemic therapy, mostly chemotherapy, for mixed cancer types (eight studies), colorectal cancer (one study), and non-small cell lung cancer (one study). Integrating GA/CGA into oncological care increased treatment completion (three of nine studies), reduced grade 3+ chemotherapy toxicity (two of five studies), and improved quality of life scores (four of five studies). No studies found significant differences in survival between GA/CGA and usual care. GA/CGA incorporated into care decisions prompted less intensive treatment and greater non-oncological interventions, including supportive care strategies. DISCUSSION: GA/CGA integrated into the care of an older adult with cancer has the potential to optimise care decisions, which may lead to reduced treatment toxicity, increased treatment completion, and improved health-related quality of life scores.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the healthcare experiences, quality of life, and psychosocial needs of patients with cancer of unknown primary (CUP) early after diagnosis; comparing their experiences to patients with advanced cancer of a known primary (non-CUP control patients) and published general population reference data where available. METHODS: This study was a cross-sectional, multi-site study comparing CUP patients (n = 139) compared to non-CUP controls (n = 45). Demographic, clinical information and patient-reported outcome questionnaire data were collected at baseline. RESULTS: Differences in healthcare experienced were found between CUP and non-CUP controls with CUP patients reporting higher scores for unmet medical communication/information needs compared with non-CUP control patients (p = 0.013) as well as greater uncertainty in illness (p = 0.042). Whilst no differences were found between CUP and non-CUP controls on the EORTC and PROMIS measures, of those that 'received written information about your cancer…' and asked '…how useful was it?' fewer CUP patients reported finding the information useful 40% vs 61%, and more were likely to not have received written information at all 59% vs 32%; (p = 0.002). Additionally, of those that found information about their cancer online, fewer patients with CUP reported finding it useful 32% vs 48% control patients (p = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: CUP patients have unmet medical communication/information needs and greater uncertainty in illness but do not differ in health-related quality of life domains compared to patients with advanced cancer of a known primary.

BACKGROUND: There are few readily modifiable risk factors for epithelial ovarian cancer; preclinical studies suggest bisphosphonates could have chemopreventive actions. Our study aimed to assess the association between use of nitrogen-based bisphosphonate medicine and risk of epithelial ovarian cancer, overall and by histotype. METHODS: We conducted a case-control study nested within a large, linked administrative dataset including all Australian women enrolled for Medicare, Australia's universal health insurance scheme, between July 2002 and December 2013. We included all women with epithelial ovarian cancer diagnosed at age 50 years and older between July 1, 2004, and December 31, 2013 (n = 9367) and randomly selected up to 5 controls per case, individually matched to cases by age, state of residence, area-level socioeconomic status, and remoteness of residence category (n = 46 830). We used prescription records to ascertain use of nitrogen-based bisphosphonates (ever use and duration of use), raloxifene, and other osteoporosis medicines (no nitrogen-based bisphosphonates, strontium and denosumab). We calculated adjusted odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) using conditional logistic regression. RESULTS: Ever use of nitrogen-based bisphosphonates was associated with a reduced risk of epithelial ovarian cancer compared with no use (OR = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.75 to 0.88). There was a reduced risk of endometrioid (OR = 0.51, 95% CI = 0.33 to 0.79) and serous histotypes (OR = 0.84, 95% CI = 0.75 to 0.93) but no association with the mucinous or clear cell histotypes. CONCLUSION: Use of nitrogen-based bisphosphonates was associated with a reduced risk of endometrioid and serous ovarian cancer. This suggests the potential for use for prevention, although validation of our findings is required.

Introduction: Novel antiandrogens abiraterone and enzalutamide are commonly prescribed in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Current data suggest similar efficacy between treatments, with selection often based on toxicity profiles and patient comorbidities. We aimed to describe real-world prescribing patterns in Australian patients receiving novel antiandrogens. Method(s): Patients receiving novel antiandrogens for mCRPC were identified from the multi-centre electronic CRPC Australian Database (ePAD). Descriptive statistics were used to report baseline characteristics, treatment choice and adverse events. Groups were compared using Chi-square, Fisher's exact or Mann-Whitney tests. Time-to-event analyses utilised Kaplan-Meier curves and were compared through log-rank tests. Result(s): Of 812 patients receiving first-line mCRPC therapy, 503 received abiraterone (n=180) or enzalutamide (n=323). Overall, 140 (28%) had prior ischemic heart disease (IHD), 509 (81%) had >=1 cardiovascular risk factor and 20 (4%) had documented cognitive impairment. Compared to enzalutamide, those receiving abiraterone were older (79 vs 76 years; p=0.007), more commonly had ECOG performance status 2 (22% vs 12%; p=0.003) and were more likely to have prior stroke history (13% vs 6%; p=0.007). IHD was a prospectively documented reason for preferentially selecting enzalutamide in 10%, while older age and cognitive impairment influenced abiraterone choice in 38% and 6% respectively. PSA50 response rate was lower in the abiraterone group (47% vs 58%; p=0.03) but there were no significant differences in time to treatment failure or overall survival. Overall, 92 (18%) experienced adverse events leading to dose modification (n=47) or cessation (n=45), with clinically significant cardiac failure more frequent with abiraterone (4% vs 1%, p=0.04) and fatigue with enzalutamide (9% vs 4%; p=0.005). Conclusion(s): Our data reflect real-world prescribing practices for n

Background: Doublet chemotherapy in combination with a biologic agent has been a standard of care in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer for over a decade. The evidence for a "lighter" treatment approach is limited to mono-chemotherapy plus bevacizumab in the RAS unselected population. Anti-EGFR antibodies have activity as monotherapy or in combination with chemotherapy in RAS wildtype metastatic colorectal cancer; however their role in first-line treatment in combination with 5-fluorouracil monotherapy or when given alone has not been well studied. MONARCC aims to investigate this approach in an elderly population. Methods/design: MONARCC is a prospective, open-label, multicentre, non-comparative randomised phase II trial. Eligible patients aged >=70 with unresectable metastatic, untreated, RAS/BRAF wildtype metastatic colorectal cancer will be randomised 1:1 to receive panitumumab alone or panitumumab plus infusional 5-fluorouracil. RAS and BRAF analyses will be performed in local laboratories. Comprehensive Health Assessment and Limited Health Assessments will be performed at baseline and at 16 weeks, respectively, to assess frailty. The Patient Symptom Questionnaire and Overall Treatment Utility are to be undertaken at different timepoints to assess the impact of treatment-related toxicities and quality of life. Treatment will be delivered every 2 weeks until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity (as determined by treating clinician or patient), delay of treatment of more than 6 weeks, or withdrawal of consent. The primary end point is 6-month progression-free survival in both arms. Secondary end points include overall survival, time to treatment failure, objective tumour response rate as defined by RECIST v1.1 and safety (adverse events). Tertiary and correlative endpoints include the feasibility and utility of a comprehensive geriatric assessment, quality of life and biological substudies. Discussion(s): MONARCC investigates the activity and tolera

BACKGROUND: Doublet chemotherapy in combination with a biologic agent has been a standard of care in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer for over a decade. The evidence for a "lighter" treatment approach is limited to mono-chemotherapy plus bevacizumab in the RAS unselected population. Anti-EGFR antibodies have activity as monotherapy or in combination with chemotherapy in RAS wildtype metastatic colorectal cancer; however their role in first-line treatment in combination with 5-fluorouracil monotherapy or when given alone has not been well studied. MONARCC aims to investigate this approach in an elderly population. METHODS/DESIGN: MONARCC is a prospective, open-label, multicentre, non-comparative randomised phase II trial. Eligible patients aged ≥70 with unresectable metastatic, untreated, RAS/BRAF wildtype metastatic colorectal cancer will be randomised 1:1 to receive panitumumab alone or panitumumab plus infusional 5-fluorouracil. RAS and BRAF analyses will be performed in local laboratories. Comprehensive Health Assessment and Limited Health Assessments will be performed at baseline and at 16 weeks, respectively, to assess frailty. The Patient Symptom Questionnaire and Overall Treatment Utility are to be undertaken at different timepoints to assess the impact of treatment-related toxicities and quality of life. Treatment will be delivered every 2 weeks until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity (as determined by treating clinician or patient), delay of treatment of more than 6 weeks, or withdrawal of consent. The primary end point is 6-month progression-free survival in both arms. Secondary end points include overall survival, time to treatment failure, objective tumour response rate as defined by RECIST v1.1 and safety (adverse events). Tertiary and correlative endpoints include the feasibility and utility of a comprehensive geriatric assessment, quality of life and biological substudies. DISCUSSION: MONARCC investigates the activity and tolerabili

Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neurotoxicity (CIPN) is a treatment related toxicity that burdens the quality of life of cancer survivors. Unfortunately, no efficacious treatment (symptomatic or preventive) is available for this condition for many reasons. First, a still incomplete pathogenetic knowledge hampers the recognition of a strong biological rationale for clinical trials. Second, there are some methodological issues in clinical trial design that still need to be addressed. In this chapter we will present an overview of strategies that were undertaken in the past and some that are now undergoing clinical investigation for prevention of CIPN. This is a complex challenge that will require multidisciplinary collaborative research between basic scientists, health care professionals, and patient representatives.

Cancer has become a prevalent disease, affecting millions of new patients globally each year. The COVID-19 pandemic is having far-reaching impacts around the world, causing substantial disruptions to health and health care systems that are likely to last for a prolonged period. Early data have suggested that having cancer is a significant risk factor for mortality from severe COVID-19. A diverse group of medical oncologists met to formulate detailed practical advice on systemic anticancer treatments during this crisis. In the context of broad principles, issues including risks of treatment, principles of prioritizing resources, treatment of elderly patients, and psychosocial impact are discussed. Detailed treatment advice and options are given at a tumor stream level. We must maintain care for patients with cancer as best we can and recognize that COVID-19 poses a significant competing risk for death that changes conventional treatment paradigms.Copyright © 2020 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.