STUDY DESIGN: An observational study.

PLACE AND DURATION OF STUDY: Pediatric Oncology Ward, Shaukat Khanum Cancer Hospital, Lahore, from January 2015 to July 2017.

METHODOLOGY: Patients aged 1-15 years, diagnosed with ALL, were included. Studied variables were cytogenetic type and MRD outcome in patients with ALL. Patients under one year of age and more than 15 years, or those having comorbidities, were excluded.

RESULTS: Total 150 patients' data were retrieved from the Hospital database. One hundred and thirty-three belonged to age 1 to 5 years group (89%) and 17 (11%) were in 5 to 10 years group. The mean age of the patient was 4.3 +3.1 years. One hundred and two (68%) were males; whereas, 48 (32%) were females. Pre B acute lymphoblastic leukemia was diagnosed in 139 (93%) patients and 11(7%) were diagnosed with Pre T acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Standard risk was observed in 120 (80%) patients and 30 (20%) patients were on high risk as per National Cancer Institute (NCI) Guidelines. Regimen A was used in 125 (83.3%), Regimen B in 16 (10.7%), and Regimen C in 9 (6%) patients. BCR-ABL was positive in 2 (1.30%), TEL-AML in 68 (45%), MLL in 5 (3.30%), and normal in 54 (36%). MRD at day 29 was negative in 40 (93%) and positive in 3 (7%). The karyotyping was done in 128 (85%) patients, out of which 68 (53%) were hyperploids, 41 (32%) euploid, and 19 (15%) were hypoploid. Death was observed in 22 (15%) patients. Nineteen (86%) deaths were due to fungal and bacterial sepsis; and disease-related deaths were noted in 3 (14%) patients.

METHODS: Patients with advanced solid cancers were randomized 1:1 to 3-weekly docetaxel 75 mg/m2, with or without sunitinib 12.5 mg daily for 7 days prior to docetaxel, stratified by primary tumour site. Primary endpoints were objective-response (ORR:CR + PR) and clinical-benefit rate (CBR:CR + PR + SD); secondary endpoints were toxicity and progression-free-survival (PFS).

RESULTS: We enrolled 68 patients from 2 study sites; 33 received docetaxel-sunitinib and 35 docetaxel alone, with 33 breast, 25 lung and 10 patients with other cancers. There was no difference in ORR (30.3% vs 28.6%, p = 0.432, odds-ratio [OR] 1.10, 95% CI 0.38-3.18); CBR was lower in the docetaxel-sunitinib arm (48.5% vs 71.4%, p = 0.027 OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.14-1.01). Median PFS was shorter in the docetaxel-sunitinib arm (2.9 vs 4.9 months, hazard-ratio [HR] 2.00, 95% CI 1.15-3.48, p = 0.014) overall, as well as in breast (4.2 vs 5.6 months, p = 0.048) and other cancers (2.0 vs 5.3 months, p = 0.009), but not in lung cancers (2.9 vs 4.1 months, p = 0.597). Median OS was similar in both arms overall (9.9 vs 10.5 months, HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.51-1.67, p = 0.789), and in the breast (18.9 vs 25.8 months, p = 0.354), lung (7.0 vs 6.7 months, p = 0.970) and other cancers (4.5 vs 8.8 months, p = 0.449) subgroups. Grade 3/4 haematological toxicities were lower with docetaxel-sunitinib (18.2% vs 34.3%, p = 0.132), attributed to greater discretionary use of prophylactic G-CSF (90.9% vs 63.0%, p = 0.024). Grade 3/4 non-haematological toxicities were similar (12.1% vs 14.3%, p = 0.792).

CONCLUSIONS: The addition of sunitinib to docetaxel was well-tolerated but did not improve outcomes. The possible negative impact in metastatic breast cancer patients is contrary to results of adding sunitinib to neoadjuvant AC. These negative results suggest that the intermittent administration of sunitinib in the current dose and schedule with docetaxel in advanced solid tumours, particularly breast cancers, is not beneficial.

A 47-year-old gentleman of Malay ethnicity with no known pre-morbidities, presented to the haematology unit with a 2-month history of night fever, loss of weight, malaise, anorexia and abdominal swelling. Abdominal examination revealed a periumbilical and lower epigastric swelling measuring 6x6 cms. The swelling was non-tender, firm in consistency and smooth on palpation. The Contrast Enhanced Computed Tomography (CECT) imaging revealed an enlarged mesenteric mass measuring 5.8x6.9x5.7 cm and multiple enlarged aorta-caval lymph nodes. The mesenteric tumour histology and immunohistochemistry were consistent with lymphocyte depleted HL. He completed six cycles of intravenous ABVD polychemotherapy consisting of doxorubicin (Adriamycin) 25mg/m2, Bleomycin 10mg/m2, Vinblastine 6mg/m2 and Dacarbazine 375mg/m2. The Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography (FDG PET /CT) imaging post 2 cycles and 6 cycles of ABVD polychemotherapy showed complete metabolic response to chemotherapy.

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.

PATIENTS AND METHODS: Three hundred sixty-nine children with favorable-risk BCP-ALL (age 1-9 years, no extramedullary disease, and no high-risk genetics) who cleared minimal residual disease (≤0.01%) at the end of remission induction were enrolled into Ma-Spore (MS) ALL trials. One hundred sixty-seven standard-risk (SR) patients (34% of Malaysia-Singapore ALL 2003 study [MS2003]) were treated with the MS2003-SR protocol and received 120 mg/m2 of anthracyclines during delayed intensification while 202 patients (42% of MS2010) received an anthracycline-free successor protocol. The primary outcome was a noninferiority margin of 1.15 in 6-year event-free survival (EFS) between the MS2003-SR and MS2010-SR cohorts.

RESULTS: The 6-year EFS of MS2003-SR and MS2010-SR (anthracycline-free) cohorts was 95.2% ± 1.7% and 96.5% ± 1.5%, respectively (P = .46). The corresponding 6-year overall survival was 97.6% and 99.0% ± 0.7% (P = .81), respectively. The cumulative incidence of relapse was 3.6% and 2.6%, respectively (P = .42). After adjustment for race, sex, age, presenting WBC, day 8 prednisolone response, and favorable genetic subgroups, the hazard ratio for MS2010-SR EFS was 0.98 (95% CI, 0.84 to 1.14; P = .79), confirming noninferiority. Compared with MS2003-SR, MS2010-SR had significantly lower episodes of bacteremia (30% v 45.6%; P = .04) and intensive care unit admissions (1.5% v 9.5%; P = .004).