PATIENTS AND METHODS: KEYNOTE-122 was an open-label, randomized study conducted at 29 sites, globally. Participants with platinum-pretreated recurrent and/or metastatic NPC were randomly assigned (1 : 1) to pembrolizumab or chemotherapy with capecitabine, gemcitabine, or docetaxel. Randomization was stratified by liver metastasis (present versus absent). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), analyzed in the intention-to-treat population using the stratified log-rank test (superiority threshold, one-sided P = 0.0187). Safety was assessed in the as-treated population.
RESULTS: Between 5 May 2016 and 28 May 2018, 233 participants were randomly assigned to treatment (pembrolizumab, n = 117; chemotherapy, n = 116); Most participants (86.7%) received study treatment in the second-line or later setting. Median time from randomization to data cut-off (30 November 2020) was 45.1 months (interquartile range, 39.0-48.8 months). Median OS was 17.2 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 11.7-22.9 months] with pembrolizumab and 15.3 months (95% CI 10.9-18.1 months) with chemotherapy [hazard ratio, 0.90 (95% CI 0.67-1.19; P = 0.2262)]. Grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 12 of 116 participants (10.3%) with pembrolizumab and 49 of 112 participants (43.8%) with chemotherapy. Three treatment-related deaths occurred: 1 participant (0.9%) with pembrolizumab (pneumonitis) and 2 (1.8%) with chemotherapy (pneumonia, intracranial hemorrhage).
CONCLUSION: Pembrolizumab did not significantly improve OS compared with chemotherapy in participants with platinum-pretreated recurrent and/or metastatic NPC but did have manageable safety and a lower incidence of treatment-related adverse events.
METHODS/AIMS: An international survey of oncology pharmacists and technicians was conducted via the International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practitioners and collaborating global pharmacy organisations to determine the impact that the coronavirus of 2019 has had on pharmacy service delivery, pharmacy practitioners and oncology practice.
RESULTS: The survey received 862 responses from 40 different countries from September to October 2020. The majority of respondents were pharmacists (n = 841, 97.6%), with 24% involved in the direct care of patients with the coronavirus of 2019. Of the survey participants, 55% increased their time working remotely, with remote activities including dispensing, patient assessment/follow-up and attending multi-disciplinary rounds. Respondents reported a 72% increase in the use of technology to perform remote patient interaction activities and that participation in educational meetings and quality improvement projects was reduced by 68% and 44%, respectively. Workforce impacts included altered working hours (50%), cancelled leave (48%) and forced leave/furloughing (30%). During the pandemic, respondents reported reduced access to intensive care (19%) and anti-cancer (15%) medications. In addition, 39% of respondents reported reduced access to personal protective equipment, including N95 masks for chemotherapy compounding. Almost half of respondents (49%) reported that cancer treatments were delayed or intervals were altered for patients being treated with curative intent. A third of practitioners (30%) believed that patient outcomes would be adversely impacted by changes to pharmacy services. Sixty-five percent of respondents reported impacts on their mental health, with 12% utilising support services.
CONCLUSION: The coronavirus of 2019 pandemic has altered the way oncology pharmacy services are delivered. These results demonstrate the adaptability of the oncology pharmacy profession and highlight the importance of formal evaluation of the varied practice models to determine the evidence-based practices that enhance pharmacy services and, thus, should be reinstated as soon as practical and reasonable.
METHODS: We assessed interactions between the taxonomic and functional potential profiles of the gut microbiome (profiled via shotgun metagenomic sequencing), gut transit time (measured via the blue dye method), cardiometabolic health and diet in 863 healthy individuals from the PREDICT 1 study.
RESULTS: We found that gut microbiome taxonomic composition can accurately discriminate between gut transit time classes (0.82 area under the receiver operating characteristic curve) and longer gut transit time is linked with specific microbial species such as Akkermansia muciniphila, Bacteroides spp and Alistipes spp (false discovery rate-adjusted p values <0.01). The blue dye measure of gut transit time had the strongest association with the gut microbiome over typical transit time proxies such as stool consistency and frequency.
CONCLUSIONS: Gut transit time, measured via the blue dye method, is a more informative marker of gut microbiome function than traditional measures of stool consistency and frequency. The blue dye method can be applied in large-scale epidemiological studies to advance diet-microbiome-health research. Clinical trial registry website https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03479866 and trial number NCT03479866.
METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The measurement challenge has been established as an international resource to offer a common set of anonymised mammogram images for measurement and analysis. To date, full field digital mammogram images and core data from 1650 cases and 1929 controls from five countries have been collated. The measurement challenge is an ongoing collaboration and we are continuing to expand the resource to include additional image sets across different populations (from contributors) and to compare additional measurement methods (by challengers). The intended use of the measurement challenge resource is for refinement and validation of new and existing mammographic measurement methods. The measurement challenge resource provides a standardised dataset of mammographic images and core data that enables investigators to directly compare methods of measuring mammographic density or other mammographic features in case/control sets of both raw and processed images, for the purposes of the comparing their predictions of breast cancer risk.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Challengers and contributors are required to enter a Research Collaboration Agreement with the University of Melbourne prior to participation in the measurement challenge. The Challenge database of collated data and images are stored in a secure data repository at the University of Melbourne. Ethics approval for the measurement challenge is held at University of Melbourne (HREC ID 0931343.3).