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.

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 .

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.

OBJECTIVE: To compare cardiac safety and efficacy between SB3 and TRZ for patients with ERBB2-positive early or locally advanced breast cancer after up to 6 years of follow-up.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This prespecified secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial, conducted from April 2016 to January 2021, included patients with ERBB2-positive early or locally advanced breast cancer from a multicenter double-blind, parallel-group, equivalence phase 3 randomized clinical trial of SB3 vs TRZ with concomitant neoadjuvant chemotherapy who completed neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment.

INTERVENTIONS: In the original trial, patients were randomized to either SB3 or TRZ with concomitant neoadjuvant chemotherapy for 8 cycles (4 cycles of docetaxel followed by 4 cycles of fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide). After surgery, patients continued SB3 or TRZ monotherapy for 10 cycles of adjuvant treatment per previous treatment allocation. Following neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment, patients were monitored for up to 5 years.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcomes were the incidence of symptomatic congestive heart failure and asymptomatic, significant decrease in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). The secondary outcomes were event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS: A total of 538 female patients were included (median age, 51 years [range, 22-65 years]). Baseline characteristics were comparable between the SB3 and TRZ groups. Cardiac safety was monitored for 367 patients (SB3, n = 186; TRZ, n = 181). Median follow-up was 68 months (range, 8.5-78.1 months). Asymptomatic, clinically significant LVEF decreases were rarely reported (SB3, 1 patient [0.4%]; TRZ, 2 [0.7%]). No patient experienced symptomatic cardiac failure or death due to a cardiovascular event. Survival was evaluated for the 367 patients in the cardiac safety cohort and an additional 171 patients enrolled after a protocol amendment (538 patients [SB3, n = 267; TRZ, n = 271]). No difference was observed in EFS or OS between treatment groups (EFS: hazard ratio [HR], 0.84; 95% CI, 0.58-1.20; P = .34; OS: HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.36-1.05; P = .07). Five-year EFS rates were 79.8% (95% CI, 74.8%-84.9%) in the SB3 group and 75.0% (95% CI, 69.7%-80.3%) in the TRZ group, and OS rates were 92.5% (95% CI, 89.2%-95.7%) in the SB3 group and 85.4% (95% CI, 81.0%-89.7%) in the TRZ group.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial, SB3 demonstrated cardiac safety and survival comparable to those of TRZ after up to 6 years of follow-up in patients with ERBB2-positive early or locally advanced breast cancer.

METHODS: In a double-blind, phase III trial, 453 patients with advanced HCC and progression during or after treatment with or intolerance to sorafenib or oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive pembrolizumab (200 mg) or placebo once every 3 weeks for ≤ 35 cycles plus best supportive care. The primary end point was overall survival (one-sided significance threshold, P = .0193 [final analysis]). Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR; one-sided significance threshold, P = .0134 and .0091, respectively [second interim analysis]; RECIST version 1.1, by blinded independent central review).

RESULTS: Median overall survival was longer in the pembrolizumab group than in the placebo group (14.6 v 13.0 months; hazard ratio for death, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.63 to 0.99; P = .0180). Median PFS was also longer in the pembrolizumab group than in the placebo group (2.6 v 2.3 months; hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.92; P = .0032). ORR was greater in the pembrolizumab group (12.7% [95% CI, 9.1 to 17.0]) than in the placebo group (1.3% [95% CI, 0.2 to 4.6]; P < .0001). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 66.9% of patients (grade 3, 12.0%; grade 4, 1.3%; grade 5, 1.0%) in the pembrolizumab group and 49.7% of patients (grade 3, 5.9%; grade 4, 0%; grade 5, 0%) in the placebo group.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 19-item electronic survey was sent to two research committee members from the 14 representative national radiation oncology organizations (N = 28) that are a part of FARO.

RESULTS: Thirteen of the 14 member organizations (93%) and 20 of 28 members (71.5%) responded to the questionnaire. Only 50% of the members stated that an active research environment existed in their country. Retrospective audits (80%) and observational studies (75%) were the most common type of research conducted in these centers. Lack of time (80%), lack of funding (75%), and limited training in research methodology (40%) were cited as the most common hindrances in conducting research. To promote research initiatives in the collaborative setting, 95% of the members agreed to the creation of site-specific groups, with head and neck (45%) and gynecological cancers (25%) being the most preferred disease sites. Projects focused on advanced external beam radiotherapy implementation (40%), and cost-effectiveness studies (35%) were cited as some of the potential areas for future collaboration. On the basis of the survey results, after result discussion and the FARO officers meeting, an action plan for the research committee has been created.

METHODS: This retrospective study examined data of patients with ALK-positive NSCLC from 18 major hospitals (public, private, or university teaching hospitals) throughout Malaysia between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2020 from the National Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgical Database (NCTSD). Data on baseline characteristics, treatments, radiological findings, and pathological findings were collected. Overall survival (OS) and time on treatment (TOT) were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS: There were 1581 NSCLC patients in the NCTSD. Based on ALK gene-rearrangement test results, only 65 patients (4.1%) had ALK-positive advanced NSCLC. Of these 65 patients, 59 received standard-of-care treatment and were included in the analysis. Crizotinib was the most commonly prescribed ALK inhibitor, followed by alectinib and ceritinib. Patients on ALK inhibitors had better median OS (62 months for first-generation inhibitors, not reached at time of analysis for second-generation inhibitors) compared to chemotherapy (27 months), but this was not statistically significant (P=0.835) due to sample-size limitations. Patients who received ALK inhibitors as first-line therapy had significantly longer TOT (median of 11 months for first-generation inhibitors, not reached for second-generation inhibitors at the time of analysis) compared to chemotherapy (median of 2 months; P<0.01).

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.

METHODS: This retrospective study of patients with NSCLC from 18 major hospitals (public, private or university teaching hospitals) enrolled in Malaysia's National Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgical Database (NCTSD) assessed the efficacy of lower doses of afatinib on treatment outcomes in a real-world clinical practice. Data on clinical characteristics, afatinib dosing, and treatment outcomes for patients included in NCTSD from 1st January 2015 to 31st December 2020 were analyzed.

RESULTS: Of the 133 patients studied, 94.7% had adenocarcinoma. Majority of the patients (60.9%) had EGFR exon 19 deletion and 23.3% had EGFR exon 21 L858R point mutation. The mean age of patients was 64.1 years and majority (83.5%) had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2-4 at diagnosis. The most common afatinib starting doses were 40 mg (37.6%), 30 mg (29.3%), and 20 mg (26.3%) once daily (OD), respectively. A quarter of patients had dose reduction (23.3%) due to side effects or cost constraints. Majority of the patients had partial response to afatinib (63.2%) whilst 2.3% had complete response. Interestingly, the objective response rate was significantly higher (72.3%) with afatinib OD doses of less than 40 mg compared to 40 mg (54.0%) (P=0.032). Patients on lower doses of afatinib were two times more likely to achieve an objective response [odds ratio =2.64; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.20-5.83; P=0.016]. These patients had a numerically but not statistically longer median time to treatment failure (TTF). Median TTF (95% CI) for the overall cohort was 12.4 (10.02-14.78) months. Median overall survival (95% CI) was 21.30 (15.86-26.75) months.

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).

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.

OBJECTIVE: Our study aimed to examine the effect of mindful gratitude journaling on suffering, psychological distress and quality of life of patients with advanced cancer.

METHODS: We conducted a parallel-group, blinded, randomised controlled trial at the University of Malaya Medical Centre, Malaysia. Ninety-two adult patients with advanced cancer, and an overall suffering score ≥4/10 based on the Suffering Pictogram were recruited and randomly assigned to either a mindful gratitude journaling group (N=49) or a routine journaling group (N=43).

RESULTS: After 1 week, there were significant reductions in the overall suffering score from the baseline in both the intervention group (mean difference in overall suffering score=-2.0, 95% CI=-2.7 to -1.4, t=-6.125, p=0.000) and the control group (mean difference in overall suffering score=-1.6, 95% CI=-2.3 to -0.8, t=-4.106, p=0.037). There were also significant improvements in the total Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale score (mean difference=-3.4, 95% CI=-5.3 to -1.5, t=-3.525, p=0.000) and the total Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Spiritual Well-Being score (mean difference=7.3, 95% CI=1.5 to 13.1, t=2.460, p=0.014) in the intervention group after 7 days, but not in the control group.

CONCLUSION: The results provide evidence that 7 days of mindful gratitude journaling could positively affect the state of suffering, psychological distress and quality of life of patients with advanced cancer.

METHODS: The Mainstreaming Genetic Counselling for Ovarian Cancer Patients (MaGiC) study is a prospective, two-arm observational study comparing oncologist-led and genetics-led counselling. This study included 790 multiethnic patients with ovarian cancer from 23 sites in Malaysia. We compared the impact of different method of delivery of genetic counselling on the uptake of genetic testing and assessed the feasibility, knowledge and satisfaction of patients with ovarian cancer.

RESULTS: Oncologists were satisfied with the mainstreaming experience, with 95% indicating a desire to incorporate testing into their clinical practice. The uptake of genetic testing was similar in the mainstreaming and genetics arm (80% and 79%, respectively). Patient satisfaction was high, whereas decision conflict and psychological impact were low in both arms of the study. Notably, decisional conflict, although lower than threshold, was higher for the mainstreaming group compared with the genetics arm. Overall, 13.5% of patients had a pathogenic variant in BRCA1 or BRCA2, and there was no difference between psychosocial measures for carriers in both arms.