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.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered ( NCT01803503 ) prospectively on clinicaltrials.gov on 4th March 2013.
METHODS: This is a retrospective observational study of NSCLC patients with sensitising EGFR mutation experiencing disease progression (PD) whilst on first- or second-generation EGFR-TKIs with subsequent investigations to detect acquired T790M mutation at the University of Malaya Medical Centre from 1st January 2015 to 31st December 2017.
RESULTS: A total of 87 patients were included. Upon PD, acquired T790M mutation was found in 55 (63.2%) patients and was significantly more common in patients who achieved partial response (PR) whilst on the EGFR-TKIs (p = 0.008) or had new lung metastasis upon PD (p = 0.048). It was less frequent in patients who developed new symptomatic brain lesions (p = 0.021). Patients with exon 19 deletion were more likely to acquire T790M mutation compared to those with exon 21 L858R point mutation (p = 0.077). Multivariate analysis revealed PR whilst on EGFR-TKI treatment was an independent predictor of acquiring T790M mutation (p = 0.021), whereas development of new symptomatic brain lesions (p = 0.034) or new lymph node metastases (p = 0.038) upon PD was independently against acquiring T790M mutation. Patients with exon 19 deletion were more likely to acquire T790M mutation compared to those with exon 21 L858R point mutation (odds ratio: 2.3, 95% confidence interval: 0.84-6.25, p = 0.104).
CONCLUSION: The best tumour response of PR to first- or second-generation EGFR-TKI treatment independently predicts acquired T790M mutation. Patients with exon 19 deletion are likely to acquire T790M mutation. This would prove useful for clinicians to prognosticate and plan subsequent treatments for patients with advanced NSCLC harbouring EGFR mutations.
METHODS: This is a multicenter observational study of first-line afatinib in Malaysian patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutant advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients' demographic, clinical and treatment data, as well as resistance mechanisms to afatinib were retrospectively captured. The statistical methods included Chi-squared test and independent t-test for variables, Kaplan-Meier curve and log-rank test for survival, and Cox regression model for multivariate analysis.
RESULTS: Eighty-five patients on first-line afatinib from 1st October 2014 to 30th April 2018 were eligible for the study. EGFR mutations detected in tumors included exon 19 deletion in 80.0%, exon 21 L858R point mutation in 12.9%, and rare or complex EGFR mutations in 7.1% of patients. Among these patients, 18.8% had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2-4, 29.4% had symptomatic brain metastases and 17.6% had abnormal organ function. Afatinib 40 mg or 30 mg once daily were the most common starting and maintenance doses. Only one-tenth of patients experienced severe side-effects with none having grade 4 toxicities. The objective response rate was 76.5% while the disease control rate was 95.3%. At the time of analysis, 56 (65.9%) patients had progression of disease (PD) with a median progression-free survival (mPFS) of 14.2 months (95% CI, 11.85-16.55 months). Only 12.5% of the progressed patients developed new symptomatic brain metastases. The overall survival (OS) data was not mature. Thirty-three (38.8%) patients had died with a median OS of 28.9 months (95% CI, 19.82-37.99 months). The median follow-up period for the survivors was 20.0 months (95% CI, 17.49-22.51 months). Of patients with PD while on afatinib, 55.3% were investigated for resistance mechanisms with exon 20 T790 M mutation detected in 42.0% of them.
CONCLUSIONS: Afatinib is an effective first-line treatment for patients with EGFR-mutant advanced NSCLC with a good response rate and long survival, even in patients with unfavorable clinical characteristics. The side-effects of afatinib were manageable and T790 M mutation was the most common resistance mechanism causing treatment failure.
METHODS: ASCO convened a multidisciplinary, multinational Expert Panel that reviewed existing guidelines and conducted a modified ADAPTE process and a formal consensus process with additional experts for one round of formal ratings.
RESULTS: Existing sets of guidelines from 12 guideline developers were identified and reviewed; adapted recommendations from six guidelines form the evidence base and provide evidence to inform the formal consensus process, which resulted in agreement of 75% or more on all recommendations.
RECOMMENDATIONS: For nonmaximal settings, the recommended treatments for colon cancer stages nonobstructing, I-IIA: in basic and limited, open resection; in enhanced, adequately trained surgeons and laparoscopic or minimally invasive surgery, unless contraindicated. Treatments for IIB-IIC: in basic and limited, open en bloc resection following standard oncologic principles, if not possible, transfer to higher-level facility; in emergency, limit to life-saving procedures; in enhanced, laparoscopic en bloc resection, if not possible, then open. Treatments for obstructing, IIB-IIC: in basic, resection and/or diversion; in limited or enhanced, emergency surgical resection. Treatment for IIB-IIC with left-sided: in enhanced, may place colonic stent. Treatment for T4N0/T3N0 high-risk features or stage II high-risk obstructing: in enhanced, may offer adjuvant chemotherapy. Treatment for rectal cancer cT1N0 and cT2n0: in basic, limited, or enhanced, total mesorectal excision principles. Treatment for cT3n0: in basic and limited, total mesorectal excision, if not, diversion. Treatment for high-risk patients who did not receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy: in basic, limited, or enhanced, may offer adjuvant therapy. Treatment for resectable cT3N0 rectal cancer: in enhanced, base neoadjuvant chemotherapy on preoperative factors. For post-treatment surveillance, a combination of medical history, physical examination, carcinoembryonic antigen testing, imaging, and endoscopy is performed. Frequency depends on setting. Maximal setting recommendations are in the guideline. Additional information can be found at www.asco.org/resource-stratified-guidelines .
NOTICE: It is the view of the American Society of Clinical Oncology that health care providers and health care system decision makers should be guided by the recommendations for the highest stratum of resources available. The guidelines are intended to complement but not replace local guidelines.
METHODS: American Society of Clinical Oncology convened a multidisciplinary, multinational panel of medical oncology, surgical oncology, surgery, gastroenterology, health technology assessment, cancer epidemiology, pathology, radiology, radiation oncology, and patient advocacy experts. The Expert Panel reviewed existing guidelines and conducted a modified ADAPTE process and a formal consensus-based process with additional experts (Consensus Ratings Group) for two round(s) of formal ratings.
RESULTS: Existing sets of guidelines from eight guideline developers were identified and reviewed; adapted recommendations form the evidence base. These guidelines, along with cost-effectiveness analyses, provided evidence to inform the formal consensus process, which resulted in agreement of 75% or more.
CONCLUSION: In nonmaximal settings, for people who are asymptomatic, are ages 50 to 75 years, have no family history of colorectal cancer, are at average risk, and are in settings with high incidences of colorectal cancer, the following screening options are recommended: guaiac fecal occult blood test and fecal immunochemical testing (basic), flexible sigmoidoscopy (add option in limited), and colonoscopy (add option in enhanced). Optimal reflex testing strategy for persons with positive screens is as follows: endoscopy; if not available, barium enema (basic or limited). Management of polyps in enhanced is as follows: colonoscopy, polypectomy; if not suitable, then surgical resection. For workup and diagnosis of people with symptoms, physical exam with digital rectal examination, double contrast barium enema (only in basic and limited); colonoscopy; flexible sigmoidoscopy with biopsy (if contraindication to latter) or computed tomography colonography if contraindications to two endoscopies (enhanced only).
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: A total of 110 Malaysian breast cancer patients were enrolled in the present study, and their blood samples were investigated for different single nucleotide polymorphisms using polymerase chain reaction restriction fragment length polymorphism. AEs were evaluated using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0.
RESULTS: Fatigue, nausea, oral mucositis, and vomiting were the most common nonhematologic AEs. Rash was associated with heterozygous and mutant genotypes of ABCB1 3435C>T (P < .05). Moreover, patients carrying the GG genotype of ABCB1 2677G>A/T reported more fatigue than those carrying the heterozygous genotype GA (P < .05). The presence of ABCB1 3435-T, ABCC2 3972-C, ABCC2 1249-G, and ABCB1 2677-G alleles was significantly associated with nausea and oral mucositis. The coexistence of ABCB1 3435-C, ABCC2 3972-C, ABCC2 1249-G, and ABCB1 2677-A was significantly associated with vomiting (P < .05).
CONCLUSION: The prevalence of nonhematologic AEs in breast cancer patients treated with docetaxel has been relatively high. The variant allele of ABCB1 3435C>T polymorphism could be a potential predictive biomarker of docetaxel-induced rash, and homozygous wild-type ABCB1 2677G>A/T might predict for a greater risk of fatigue. In addition, the concurrent presence of specific alleles could be predictive of vomiting, nausea, and oral mucositis.
METHODS: A double-blind randomized study was carried out with 140 colorectal cancer patients on chemotherapy. Subjects were separated into two groups to receive either placebo or MCP [30 billion colony-forming unit (CFUs) per sachet] at a dose of two sachets daily for 4 weeks, and omega-3 fatty acid at a dose of 2 g daily for 8 weeks. Outcomes measured were quality of life, side effects of chemotherapy and levels of inflammatory markers such as interleukin-6 (IL-6), tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) and C-reactive protein.
RESULTS: The supplementation with MCP and omega-3 fatty acid improved the overall quality of life and alleviated certain side effects of chemotherapy. The supplementation with MCP and omega-3 fatty acid also managed to reduce the level of IL-6 (P = 0.002). There was a significant rise in the placebo group's serum TNF-α (P = 0.048) and IL-6 (P = 0.004).
CONCLUSION: The combined supplementation with MCP and omega-3 fatty acid may improve quality of life, reduce certain inflammatory biomarkers and relieve certain side effects of chemotherapy in colorectal patients on chemotherapy.
OBJECTIVE: To study the association between plasma AAG level and non-haematological AEs of docetaxel in Malaysian breast cancer patients of three major ethnic groups (Malays, Chinese and Indians).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred and twenty Malaysian breast cancer patients receiving docetaxel as single agent chemotherapy were investigated for AAG plasma level using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay technique. Toxicity assessment was determined using Common Terminology Criteria of Adverse Events v4.0. The association between AAG and toxicity were then established.
RESULTS: There was interethnic variation of plasma AAG level; it was 182 ± 85 mg/dl in Chinese, 237 ± 94 mg/dl in Malays and 240 ± 83 mg/dl in Indians. It was found that low plasma levels of AAG were significantly associated with oral mucositis and rash.
CONCLUSIONS: This study proposes plasma AAG as a potential predictive biomarker of docetaxel non-haematological AEs namely oral mucositis and rash.
METHODS: The ACT-ONE trial is a randomized, double-blind, parallel group, placebo-controlled, phase II multicentre trial in patients (25-80 years) with stages III or IV colorectal cancer or non-small cell lung cancer-related cachexia that tested two doses of espindolol (a novel non-selective β blocker with central 5-HT1a and partial β2 receptor agonist effects). The primary endpoint was the difference in the rate of weight change over 16 weeks (linear mixed-effect model for repeated measures) between high-dose espindolol and placebo.
RESULTS: Eighty-seven patients were randomized centrally in blocks in a ratio 3:2:1 [42 high dose, 10 mg twice daily (bd):31 placebo:14 low dose, 2.5 mg bd]. High-dose espindolol produced a statistically and clinically significant weight gain (+0.54 kg/4 weeks, 95% CI 0.38-0.70) compared with a weight loss on placebo (-0.21 kg/4 weeks, 95% CI -0.37-0.05); P