CASE REPORT: In this case series, we report on two cases of WT which had poor response to pre-operative chemotherapy. Both cases underwent surgery after pre-operative chemotherapy and recovery was uneventful during a two-year follow-up.
DISCUSSION: Both patients had chemotherapy prior planned surgery, but had unfortunate poor tumour response. The tumour progressed in size which required a radical nephrectomy. The histology report for the first case had more than 60% blastemal cells remaining despite giving pre-operative chemotherapy with no focal anaplasia. This showed poor response to chemotherapy evidenced by the high number of blastemal cells. The second case was a stromal type WT which is known for poor response and may lead to enhancement of growth and maturation induced by chemotherapy. These were the possible reason of poor response of WT in these two cases.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness and tolerability of scalp cooling among breast cancer patients in our study population.
METHODS: Consecutive breast cancer patients receiving FE75C, FE100C, FE100C-D, docetaxel75 or docetaxel, and cyclophosphamide (TC) at our treatment center were recruited and allocated to the treatment (scalp cooling, DigniCapTM system) or control group in this prospective nonrandomized controlled study. The assessment of alopecia was carried out using the World Health Organization grading system and clinical photographs.
RESULTS: Seventy patients were recruited, but only 25 completed the study and were evaluable for analysis. Five of 12 patients (42%) in the scalp cooling group managed to preserve hair. Two of three patients who received FE75C and TC regimens had minimal hair loss. All patients treated with FE100C had severe hair loss. Half of all patients who received scalp cooling throughout chemotherapy rated the treatment as reasonably well tolerated. The most common reason for discontinuing scalp cooling was intolerance to its side effects.
CONCLUSION: Scalp cooling is potentially effective in reducing CIA caused by docetaxel, TC, and FE75C chemotherapy regimen. However, it was not well tolerated by our study population. The dropout rate was high, and this needs to be taken into consideration when pursuing further trials in a similar setting.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Here we reported the initial experience of aflibercept / FOLFIRI in combination. We evaluated treatment-related adverse events (AEs), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).
RESULTS: The majority of the patients experienced gastrointestinal toxicity (grade 1-2), with diarrhea (52%), mucositis (52%), and nausea/vomiting (20%) being largely observed. Neutropenia (16%) and febrile neutropenia (8%) were common grade 3-4 hematological events. Aflibercept-related toxicity was managed as per practice guidelines. No grade 5 event was reported. Median PFS was 6.12 months (95% CI, 4.80-7.20) and OS was 12 months (95% CI, 9.80-14.18). The partial response (PR), stable disease (SD), and progressive disease (PD) rates were 25% (95% CI: 23.4-27.0), 37.5% (95% CI: 31.6-43.3), and 37.5% (95% CI: 22.5-52.5), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Aflibercept/FOLFIRI can be administered safely in a second line setting to Malaysian patients with mCRC, as the AEs experienced were generally reversible and manageable. The safety and efficacy outcomes were consistent with those observed in Western populations.
METHODS: In three double-blind phase 3 studies, patients receiving HEC or MEC were randomized 1:1 to receive oral rolapitant 180 mg or placebo prior to chemotherapy plus 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone therapy. Patients completed the FLIE questionnaire on day 6 of cycle 1. Endpoints included FLIE total score, nausea and vomiting domain scores, and the proportion of patients with no impact on daily life (total score >108 [range 18-126]). We performed a prespecified analysis of the MEC/anthracycline-cyclophosphamide (AC) study and a post hoc analysis of two pooled cisplatin-based HEC studies.
RESULTS: In the pooled HEC studies, rolapitant significantly improved the FLIE total score (114.5 vs 109.3, p
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients who were treated with adjuvant taxane-based chemotherapy for early breast cancer stages I, II or III from 2007-2011 in UMMC were identified from our UMMC Breast Cancer Registry. The TRD and FN rates were then determined retrospectively from medical records. TRD was defined as death occurring during or within 30 days of completing chemotherapy as a consequence of the chemotherapy treatment. FN was defined as an oral temperature >38.5°C or two consecutive readings of >38.0°C for 2 hours and an absolute neutrophil count <0.5x109/L, or expected to fall below 0.5x109/L.
RESULTS: A total of 622 patients received adjuvant chemotherapy during this period. Of these patients 209 (33.6%) received taxane-based chemotherapy. 4 taxane-based regimens were used namely the FEC-D, TC, TAC and AC-PCX regimens. The commonest regimen employed was the FEC-D regimen accounting for 79.9% of the patients. The FN rate was 10% and there was no TRD.
CONCLUSION: Adjuvant taxane-based chemotherapy in UMMC for early breast cancer has a FN rate of 10%. Primary prophylactic G-CSF should be considered for patients with any additional risk factor for FN.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who were treated with first line palliative chemotherapy for de novo MBC from 2002-2011 in UMMC were identified from the UMMC Breast Cancer Registry. Information collected included patient demographics, histopathological features, treatment received, including the different chemotherapy regimens, and presence of FN and TRD. FN was defined as an oral temperature >38.5° or two consecutive readings of >38.0° for 2 hours and an absolute neutrophil count <0.5x109/L, or expected to fall below 0.5x109/L (de Naurois et al, 2010). TRD was defined as death occurring during or within 30 days of the last chemotherapy treatment, as a consequence of the chemotherapy treatment. Statistical analysis was performed using the SPSS version 18.0 software. Survival probabilities were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and differences in survival compared using log-rank test.
RESULTS: Between 1st January 2002 and 31st December 2011, 424 patients with MBC were treated in UMMC. A total of 186 out of 221 patients with de novo MBC who received first line palliative chemotherapy were analyzed. The mean age of patients in this study was 49.5 years (range 24 to 74 years). Biologically, ER status was negative in 54.4% of patients and Her-2 status was positive in 31.1%. A 5-flourouracil, epirubicin and cyclophosphamide (FEC) chemotherapy regimen was chosen for 86.6% of the cases. Most patients had multiple metastatic sites (58.6%). The main result of this study showed a FN rate of 5.9% and TRD rate of 3.2%. The median survival (MS) for the entire cohort was 19 months. For those with multiple metastatic sites, liver only, lung only, bone only and brain only metastatic sites, the MS was 18, 24, 19, 24 and 8 months respectively (p-value= 0.319).
CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, we surmise that FEC is a safe regimen with acceptable FN and TRD rates for de novo MBC.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Adults with advanced/metastatic EGFR-mutant NSCLC, acquired resistance to first-/second-generation EGFR inhibitors, and MET gene copy number (GCN) ≥5, MET:CEP7 ≥2, or MET IHC 2+/3+ were randomized to tepotinib 500 mg (450 mg active moiety) plus gefitinib 250 mg once daily, or chemotherapy. Primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS). MET-amplified subgroup analysis was preplanned.
RESULTS: Overall (N = 55), median PFS was 4.9 months versus 4.4 months [stratified HR, 0.67; 90% CI, 0.35-1.28] with tepotinib plus gefitinib versus chemotherapy. In 19 patients with MET amplification (median age 60.4 years; 68.4% never-smokers; median GCN 8.8; median MET/CEP7 2.8; 89.5% with MET IHC 3+), tepotinib plus gefitinib improved PFS (HR, 0.13; 90% CI, 0.04-0.43) and overall survival (OS; HR, 0.10; 90% CI, 0.02-0.36) versus chemotherapy. Objective response rate was 66.7% with tepotinib plus gefitinib versus 42.9% with chemotherapy; median duration of response was 19.9 months versus 2.8 months. Median duration of tepotinib plus gefitinib was 11.3 months (range, 1.1-56.5), with treatment >1 year in six (50.0%) and >4 years in three patients (25.0%). Seven patients (58.3%) had treatment-related grade ≥3 adverse events with tepotinib plus gefitinib and five (71.4%) had chemotherapy.
CONCLUSIONS: Final analysis of INSIGHT suggests improved PFS and OS with tepotinib plus gefitinib versus chemotherapy in a subgroup of patients with MET-amplified EGFR-mutant NSCLC, after progression on EGFR inhibitors.
METHODS: OPTIM1SE was a prospective, open-label, observational study. Patients with untreated KRAS wild-type mCRC and distant metastases were treated per locally approved labels and monitored for 3 years via electronic medical records. The primary endpoint was the overall response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints included safety, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS).
RESULTS: From November 19, 2013, to June 30, 2016, 520 patients were enrolled in 51 sites. Patients were mostly male (61.2%), with a mean age of 58.5 (±12.0) years; 420 patients received leucovorin, 5-FU, and irinotecan-based regimens and 94 received leucovorin, 5-FU, and oxaliplatin. The most common primary tumor site was the rectum (38.8%), with liver metastases (65.0%). ORR was 45.4% (95% CI, 41.1%-49.7%), including 26 patients (5.0%) with a complete response. Median PFS was 9.9 months (95% CI, 8.2-11.0); median OS (mOS) was 30.8 months (95% CI, 27.9-33.6). Higher mOS was associated with tumors of left compared with right-sided origin (hazard ratio, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.49-0.99]); higher ORR was also associated with liver metastases compared with all other metastases (55.4% vs. 40.2%). Adverse events were consistent with the known safety profile of cetuximab.
CONCLUSION: Cetuximab-based 5-FU regimens were effective first-line treatments for mCRC in routine practice, particularly in patients with left-sided disease and liver metastases only.
METHODS: MAGNITUDE (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03748641) is a phase III, randomized, double-blinded study that evaluates niraparib and abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (niraparib + AAP) in patients with (HRR+, n = 423) or without (HRR-, n = 247) HRR-associated gene alterations, as prospectively determined by tissue/plasma-based assays. Patients were assigned 1:1 to receive niraparib + AAP or placebo + AAP. The primary end point, radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) assessed by central review, was evaluated first in the BRCA1/2 subgroup and then in the full HRR+ cohort, with secondary end points analyzed for the full HRR+ cohort if rPFS was statistically significant. A futility analysis was preplanned in the HRR- cohort.
RESULTS: Median rPFS in the BRCA1/2 subgroup was significantly longer in the niraparib + AAP group compared with the placebo + AAP group (16.6 v 10.9 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.53; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.79; P = .001). In the overall HRR+ cohort, rPFS was significantly longer in the niraparib + AAP group compared with the placebo + AAP group (16.5 v 13.7 months; HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.96; P = .022). These findings were supported by improvement in the secondary end points of time to symptomatic progression and time to initiation of cytotoxic chemotherapy. In the HRR- cohort, futility was declared per the prespecified criteria. Treatment with niraparib + AAP was tolerable, with anemia and hypertension as the most reported grade ≥ 3 adverse events.
CONCLUSION: Combination treatment with niraparib + AAP significantly lengthened rPFS in patients with HRR+ mCRPC compared with standard-of-care AAP.
[Media: see text].
METHODS: EMPOWER-Lung 1 was a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial. We enrolled patients (aged ≥18 years) with histologically confirmed squamous or non-squamous advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with PD-L1 tumour expression of 50% or more. We randomly assigned (1:1) patients to intravenous cemiplimab 350 mg every 3 weeks for up to 108 weeks, or until disease progression, or investigator's choice of chemotherapy. Central randomisation scheme generated by an interactive web response system governed the randomisation process that was stratified by histology and geographical region. Primary endpoints were overall survival and progression free survival, as assessed by a blinded independent central review (BICR) per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1. Patients with disease progression on cemiplimab could continue cemiplimab with the addition of up to four cycles of chemotherapy. We assessed response in these patients by BICR against a new baseline, defined as the last scan before chemotherapy initiation. The primary endpoints were assessed in all randomly assigned participants (ie, intention-to-treat population) and in those with a PD-L1 expression of at least 50%. We assessed adverse events in all patients who received at least one dose of their assigned treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03088540.
FINDINGS: Between May 29, 2017, and March 4, 2020, we recruited 712 patients (607 [85%] were male and 105 [15%] were female). We randomly assigned 357 (50%) to cemiplimab and 355 (50%) to chemotherapy. 284 (50%) patients assigned to cemiplimab and 281 (50%) assigned to chemotherapy had verified PD-L1 expression of at least 50%. At 35 months' follow-up, among those with a verified PD-L1 expression of at least 50% median overall survival in the cemiplimab group was 26·1 months (95% CI 22·1-31·8; 149 [52%] of 284 died) versus 13·3 months (10·5-16·2; 188 [67%] of 281 died) in the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·57, 95% CI 0·46-0·71; p<0·0001), median progression-free survival was 8·1 months (95% CI 6·2-8·8; 214 events occurred) in the cemiplimab group versus 5·3 months (4·3-6·1; 236 events occurred) in the chemotherapy group (HR 0·51, 95% CI 0·42-0·62; p<0·0001). Continued cemiplimab plus chemotherapy as second-line therapy (n=64) resulted in a median progression-free survival of 6·6 months (6·1-9·3) and overall survival of 15·1 months (11·3-18·7). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events were anaemia (15 [4%] of 356 patients in the cemiplimab group vs 60 [17%] of 343 in the control group), neutropenia (three [1%] vs 35 [10%]), and pneumonia (18 [5%] vs 13 [4%]). Treatment-related deaths occurred in ten (3%) of 356 patients treated with cemiplimab (due to autoimmune myocarditis, cardiac failure, cardio-respiratory arrest, cardiopulmonary failure, septic shock, tumour hyperprogression, nephritis, respiratory failure, [n=1 each] and general disorders or unknown [n=2]) and in seven (2%) of 343 patients treated with chemotherapy (due to pneumonia and pulmonary embolism [n=2 each], and cardiac arrest, lung abscess, and myocardial infarction [n=1 each]). The safety profile of cemiplimab at 35 months, and of continued cemiplimab plus chemotherapy, was generally consistent with that previously observed for these treatments, with no new safety signals INTERPRETATION: At 35 months' follow-up, the survival benefit of cemiplimab for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer was at least as pronounced as at 1 year, affirming its use as first-line monotherapy for this population. Adding chemotherapy to cemiplimab at progression might provide a new second-line treatment for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.
FUNDING: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Sanofi.