Displaying publications 1 - 20 of 32 in total

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Wu YL, Zhou C, Liam CK, Wu G, Liu X, Zhong Z, et al.
    Ann Oncol, 2015 Sep;26(9):1883-1889.
    PMID: 26105600 DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdv270
    BACKGROUND: The phase III, randomized, open-label ENSURE study (NCT01342965) evaluated first-line erlotinib versus gemcitabine/cisplatin (GP) in patients from China, Malaysia and the Philippines with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

    PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients ≥18 years old with histologically/cytologically confirmed stage IIIB/IV EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2 were randomized 1:1 to receive erlotinib (oral; 150 mg once daily until progression/unacceptable toxicity) or GP [G 1250 mg/m(2) i.v. days 1 and 8 (3-weekly cycle); P 75 mg/m(2) i.v. day 1, (3-weekly cycle) for up to four cycles]. Primary end point: investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS). Other end points include objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and safety.

    RESULTS: A total of 217 patients were randomized: 110 to erlotinib and 107 to GP. Investigator-assessed median PFS was 11.0 months versus 5.5 months, erlotinib versus GP, respectively [hazard ratio (HR), 0.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22-0.51; log-rank P < 0.0001]. Independent Review Committee-assessed median PFS was consistent (HR, 0.42). Median OS was 26.3 versus 25.5 months, erlotinib versus GP, respectively (HR, 0.91, 95% CI 0.63-1.31; log-rank P = .607). ORR was 62.7% for erlotinib and 33.6% for GP. Treatment-related serious adverse events (AEs) occurred in 2.7% versus 10.6% of erlotinib and GP patients, respectively. The most common grade ≥3 AEs were rash (6.4%) with erlotinib, and neutropenia (25.0%), leukopenia (14.4%), and anemia (12.5%) with GP.

    CONCLUSION: These analyses demonstrate that first-line erlotinib provides a statistically significant improvement in PFS versus GP in Asian patients with EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC (NCT01342965).

  2. Tan CK, Beh SP, Lee RY, Pei Jye V, Damoderam S, Mohd Naseri NI, et al.
    Ann Oncol, 2018 Nov;29 Suppl 9:ix98.
    PMID: 32178214 DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdy438.016
  3. Yoon SYY, Ahmad Bashah NS, Wong SW, Mariapun S, Padmanabhan H, Hassan T, et al.
    Ann Oncol, 2018 Nov;29 Suppl 9:ix176.
    PMID: 32177935 DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdy483.004
  4. Cardoso F, Paluch-Shimon S, Senkus E, Curigliano G, Aapro MS, André F, et al.
    Ann Oncol, 2020 Dec;31(12):1623-1649.
    PMID: 32979513 DOI: 10.1016/j.annonc.2020.09.010
  5. Smith Byrne K, Appleby PN, Key TJ, Holmes MV, Fensom GK, Agudo A, et al.
    Ann Oncol, 2019 Jun 01;30(6):983-989.
    PMID: 31089709 DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdz121
    BACKGROUND: Microseminoprotein-beta (MSP), a protein secreted by the prostate epithelium, may have a protective role in the development of prostate cancer. The only previous prospective study found a 2% reduced prostate cancer risk per unit increase in MSP. This work investigates the association of MSP with prostate cancer risk using observational and Mendelian randomization (MR) methods.

    PATIENTS AND METHODS: A nested case-control study was conducted with the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) with 1871 cases and 1871 matched controls. Conditional logistic regression analysis was used to investigate the association of pre-diagnostic circulating MSP with risk of incident prostate cancer overall and by tumour subtype. EPIC-derived estimates were combined with published data to calculate an MR estimate using two-sample inverse-variance method.

    RESULTS: Plasma MSP concentrations were inversely associated with prostate cancer risk after adjusting for total prostate-specific antigen concentration [odds ratio (OR) highest versus lowest fourth of MSP = 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.51-0.84, Ptrend = 0.001]. No heterogeneity in this association was observed by tumour stage or histological grade. Plasma MSP concentrations were 66% lower in rs10993994 TT compared with CC homozygotes (per allele difference in MSP: 6.09 ng/ml, 95% CI 5.56-6.61, r2=0.42). MR analyses supported a potentially causal protective association of MSP with prostate cancer risk (OR per 1 ng/ml increase in MSP for MR: 0.96, 95% CI 0.95-0.97 versus EPIC observational: 0.98, 95% CI 0.97-0.99). Limitations include lack of complete tumour subtype information and more complete information on the biological function of MSP.

    CONCLUSIONS: In this large prospective European study and using MR analyses, men with high circulating MSP concentration have a lower risk of prostate cancer. MSP may play a causally protective role in prostate cancer.

  6. Chan ATC, Lee VHF, Hong RL, Ahn MJ, Chong WQ, Kim SB, et al.
    Ann Oncol, 2023 Mar;34(3):251-261.
    PMID: 36535566 DOI: 10.1016/j.annonc.2022.12.007
    BACKGROUND: Pembrolizumab previously demonstrated robust antitumor activity and manageable safety in a phase Ib study of patients with heavily pretreated, programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive, recurrent or metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). The phase III KEYNOTE-122 study was conducted to further evaluate pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy in patients with platinum-pretreated, recurrent and/or metastatic NPC. Final analysis results are presented.

    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.

  7. Chajès V, Assi N, Biessy C, Ferrari P, Rinaldi S, Slimani N, et al.
    Ann Oncol, 2017 Nov 01;28(11):2836-2842.
    PMID: 28950350 DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdx482
    BACKGROUND: Intakes of specific fatty acids have been postulated to impact breast cancer risk but epidemiological data based on dietary questionnaires remain conflicting.

    MATERIALS AND METHODS: We assessed the association between plasma phospholipid fatty acids and breast cancer risk in a case-control study nested within the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition study. Sixty fatty acids were measured by gas chromatography in pre-diagnostic plasma phospholipids from 2982 incident breast cancer cases matched to 2982 controls. Conditional logistic regression models were used to estimate relative risk of breast cancer by fatty acid level. The false discovery rate (q values) was computed to control for multiple comparisons. Subgroup analyses were carried out by estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor expression in the tumours.

    RESULTS: A high level of palmitoleic acid [odds ratio (OR) for the highest quartile compared with the lowest OR (Q4-Q1) 1.37; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.14-1.64; P for trend = 0.0001, q value = 0.004] as well as a high desaturation index (DI16) (16:1n-7/16:0) [OR (Q4-Q1), 1.28; 95% C, 1.07-1.54; P for trend = 0.002, q value = 0.037], as biomarkers of de novo lipogenesis, were significantly associated with increased risk of breast cancer. Levels of industrial trans-fatty acids were positively associated with ER-negative tumours [OR for the highest tertile compared with the lowest (T3-T1)=2.01; 95% CI, 1.03-3.90; P for trend = 0.047], whereas no association was found for ER-positive tumours (P-heterogeneity =0.01). No significant association was found between n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids and breast cancer risk, overall or by hormonal receptor.

    CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that increased de novo lipogenesis, acting through increased synthesis of palmitoleic acid, could be a relevant metabolic pathway for breast tumourigenesis. Dietary trans-fatty acids derived from industrial processes may specifically increase ER-negative breast cancer risk.

  8. Yoshino T, Argilés G, Oki E, Martinelli E, Taniguchi H, Arnold D, et al.
    Ann Oncol, 2021 12;32(12):1496-1510.
    PMID: 34411693 DOI: 10.1016/j.annonc.2021.08.1752
    The most recent version of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Clinical Practice Guidelines for the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of localised colon cancer was published in 2020. It was decided by both the ESMO and the Japanese Society of Medical Oncology (JSMO) to convene a special virtual guidelines meeting in March 2021 to adapt the ESMO 2020 guidelines to take into account the ethnic differences associated with the treatment of localised colon cancer in Asian patients. These guidelines represent the consensus opinions reached by experts in the treatment of patients with localised colon cancer representing the oncological societies of Japan (JSMO), China (CSCO), India (ISMPO), Korea (KSMO), Malaysia (MOS), Singapore (SSO) and Taiwan (TOS). The voting was based on scientific evidence and was independent of the current treatment practices and drug availability and reimbursement situations in the different Asian countries.
  9. Karim Z, Zulkifli NA, Sheikh Abdul Kadir SH, Abd Khalil K, Musa M
    Ann Oncol, 2018 Nov;29 Suppl 9:ix55.
    PMID: 32178067 DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdy432.026
  10. Dalvi R, Li CK, Yonemori K, Ariffin H, Lyu CJ, Farid M, et al.
    Ann Oncol, 2018 Nov;29 Suppl 9:ix121.
    PMID: 32177767 DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdy442.001
  11. Passaro A, Wang J, Wang Y, Lee SH, Melosky B, Shih JY, et al.
    Ann Oncol, 2024 Jan;35(1):77-90.
    PMID: 37879444 DOI: 10.1016/j.annonc.2023.10.117
    BACKGROUND: Amivantamab plus carboplatin-pemetrexed (chemotherapy) with and without lazertinib demonstrated antitumor activity in patients with refractory epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in phase I studies. These combinations were evaluated in a global phase III trial.

    PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 657 patients with EGFR-mutated (exon 19 deletions or L858R) locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC after disease progression on osimertinib were randomized 2 : 2 : 1 to receive amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy, chemotherapy, or amivantamab-chemotherapy. The dual primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) of amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy versus chemotherapy. During the study, hematologic toxicities observed in the amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy arm necessitated a regimen change to start lazertinib after carboplatin completion.

    RESULTS: All baseline characteristics were well balanced across the three arms, including by history of brain metastases and prior brain radiation. PFS was significantly longer for amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy versus chemotherapy [hazard ratio (HR) for disease progression or death 0.48 and 0.44, respectively; P < 0.001 for both; median of 6.3 and 8.3 versus 4.2 months, respectively]. Consistent PFS results were seen by investigator assessment (HR for disease progression or death 0.41 and 0.38 for amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy, respectively; P < 0.001 for both; median of 8.2 and 8.3 versus 4.2 months, respectively). Objective response rate was significantly higher for amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy versus chemotherapy (64% and 63% versus 36%, respectively; P < 0.001 for both). Median intracranial PFS was 12.5 and 12.8 versus 8.3 months for amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy versus chemotherapy (HR for intracranial disease progression or death 0.55 and 0.58, respectively). Predominant adverse events (AEs) in the amivantamab-containing regimens were hematologic, EGFR-, and MET-related toxicities. Amivantamab-chemotherapy had lower rates of hematologic AEs than amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy.

    CONCLUSIONS: Amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy improved PFS and intracranial PFS versus chemotherapy in a population with limited options after disease progression on osimertinib. Longer follow-up is needed for the modified amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy regimen.

  12. Elhusseiny KM, Abd-Elhay FA, Kamel MG, Abd El Hamid Hassan HH, Muhammad El Tanany HH, Hong HT, et al.
    Ann Oncol, 2018 Nov;29 Suppl 9:ix104.
    PMID: 32177708 DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdy438.035
Related Terms
Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator (afdal@afpm.org.my)

External Links