MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study looked at patients who had palliative chemotherapy with either cisplatin/5FU or carboplatin/5FU for metastatic and recurrent SCCHN and NPC. It included patients who were treated at UKMMC from 1st January 2004 to 31st December 2009 with either palliative IV cispaltin 75 mg/m2 D1 only plus IV 5FU 750 mg/m2 D1-5 infusion or IV Carboplatin AUC 5 D1 only plus IV 5FU 500 mg/m2 D1-2 infusion plus IV 5FU 500 mg/m2 D1-2 bolus. The specific objectives were to determine the efficacy of palliative chemotherapy in terms of overall response rate (ORR), median progression free survival (PFS) and median overall survival (OS) and to evaluate the toxicities of both regimens.
RESULTS: A total of 41 patients were eligible for this study. There were 17 in the cisplatin/5FU arm and 24 in the carboplatin/5FU arm. The ORR was 17.7 % for cisplatin/5FU arm and 37.5 % for carboplatin/5FU arm (p-value=0.304). The median PFS was 7 months for cisplatin/5FU and 9 months for carboplatin/5FU (p-value=1.015). The median OS was 10 months for cisplatin/5FU arm and 12 months for carboplatin/5FU arm (p-value=0.110). There were 6 treatment-related deaths (6/41=14.6%), four in the carboplatin/5FU arm (4/24=16.7%) and 2 in the cisplatin/5FU arm (2/17=11.8%). Grade 3 and 4 hematologic toxicity was also more common with carboplatin/5FU group, this difference being predominantly due to grade 3-4 granulocytopenia (41.6% vs. 0), grade 3-4 anemia (37.5% vs. 0) and grade 3-4 thrombocytopenia (16.6% vs. 0).
CONCLUSIONS: Carboplatin/5FU is not inferior to cisplatin/5FU with regard to its efficacy. However, there was a high rate of treatment-related deaths with both regimens. A better alternative needs to be considered.
METHODS: This retrospective study of Stage III breast cancer patients was conducted over a 5 year period from 1998 to 2002. The survival data were obtained from the National Registry of Births and Deaths with the end-point of the study in April 2006. The Kaplan Meier method was applied for survival analysis. Cox regression analysis by stepwise selection was performed to identify important prognostic factors.
RESULTS: Out of a 155 evaluable patients, 74 (47.7%) had primary surgery, 62 (40%) had neoadjuvant chemotherapy, 10 patients (6.5%) were given Tamoxifen as the primary treatment, while 9 patients (5.8%) defaulted any form of treatment. After neoadjuvant chemotherapy, 9 patients defaulted further treatment, leaving 53 evaluable patients. Out of these 53 evaluable patients, 5 patients (9.4%) had complete pathological response, 5 (9.4%) a complete clinical response, and 26 (49.1%) had partial response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The 5-year survival in the primary surgery group was 56.7 % compared to 44.7% in the neoadjuvant chemotherapy group (p<0.01). The important prognostic factors were race, size of tumour, nodal status, estrogen receptor status and response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
CONCLUSION: Patients who had primary surgery had better survival than those who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy, which may be due to bias in the selection of patients for neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Out of a total of 155 patients, 25.1% defaulted part of the treatment, or did not receive optimal treatment, emphasizing the importance of psychosocial support and counselling for this group of patients.
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.
METHODOLOGY: We conducted a longitudinal observational study in gut microbiota profile in a group of paediatric patients diagnosed with ALL using 16 s ribosomal RNA sequencing and compared these patients' microbiota pattern with age and ethnicity-matched healthy children. Temporal changes of gut microbiota in these patients with ALL were also examined at different time-points in relation to chemotherapy.
RESULTS: Prior to commencement of chemotherapy, gut microbiota in children with ALL had larger inter-individual variability compared to healthy controls and was enriched with bacteria belonging to Bacteroidetes phylum and Bacteroides genus. The relative abundance of Bacteroides decreased upon commencement of chemotherapy. Restitution of gut microbiota composition to resemble that of healthy controls occurred after cessation of chemotherapy. However, the microbiota composition (beta diversity) remained distinctive and a few bacteria were different in abundance among the patients with ALL compared to controls despite completion of chemotherapy and presumed restoration of normal health.
CONCLUSION: Our findings in this pilot study is the first to suggest that gut microbiota profile in children with ALL remains marginally different from healthy controls even after cessation of chemotherapy. These persistent microbiota changes may have a role in the long-term wellbeing in childhood cancer survivors but the impact of these changes in subsequent health perturbations in these survivors remain unexplored.
Methods: In vitro models of breast cancer cell lines (MCF-7, MDA-MB-231) and normal fibroblast cell line (NIH/3T3) were employed. Cellular localization and cytotoxicity studies were conducted prior to inspection on the radiosensitization effects and generation of reactive oxygen species (ROS) on three proposed radiosensitizers: BiONPs, Cis, and BiONPs-Cis combination (BC). The optimal, non-cytotoxic concentration of BiONPs (0.5 mM) and the 25% inhibitory concentration of Cis (1.30 µM) were applied. The radiosensitization effects were evaluated by using a 0.38 MeV Iridium-192 HDR brachytherapy source over a prescribed dose range of 0 Gy to 4 Gy.
Results: The cellular localization of BiONPs was visualized by light microscopy and accumulation of the BiONPs within the vicinity of the nuclear membrane was observed. Quantification of the sensitization enhancement ratio extrapolated from the survival curves indicates radiosensitization effects for MCF-7 and MDA-MB-231 when treated with BiONPs, Cis, and BC. However, NIH/3T3 cells exhibited contradictive behavior as it only reacted towards the BC combination. Nonetheless, the MCF-7 cell line loaded with BC shows the highest SER of 4.29. ROS production analysis, on the other hand, shows that Cis and BC radiosensitizers generated the highest free radicals in comparison to BiONPs alone.
Conclusion: A BiONPs-Cis combination was unveiled as a novel approach that offers promising radiosensitization enhancement that will increase the efficiency of tumor control while preserving the normal tissue at a reduced dose. This data is the first precedent to prove the synergetic implication of BiONPs, Cis, and HDR brachytherapy that will be beneficial for future chemoradiotherapy strategies in cancer care.
METHODS: Thirty-two female Sprague Dawley rats at age 21-days old were administered intraperitoneally with N-Methyl-N-Nitroso Urea (NMU), dosed at 70mg/kg body weight. The rats were divided into 4 groups; Group 1 (Control, n=8), Group 2 (Sirolimus, n=8), Group 3 (Sunitinib, n=8) and Group 4 (Sirolimus+Sunitinib, n=8), being treated twice when the tumor reached the size of 14.5±0.5 mm and subsequently sacrificed after 5 days. The protein expressions of ER, PgR and HER2/neu of the tumor tissues were evaluated by using immunohistochemistry analysis.
RESULTS: Treatment with sirolimus alone lowered expressions of ER and PgR of breast cancer and reduced tumor size. There was no significant difference of ER and PgR expressions between control and sunitinib treated tumor. Sunitinib treated tumors reduce in diameter after the first treatment, however the diameter increases after the second treatment. Histologically, sunitinib treated tumor did not show any aggressive invasive carcinoma of no special type (NST) histological subtypes. In addition, all NMU-induced tumors are HER2/neu-negative scoring.
CONCLUSION: Sirolimus is neither synergistic nor additive with sunitinib for breast cancer treatment.
.
AIMS OF THE STUDY: To analyse pre-treatment clinical features of DLBCL patients that are predictive of R-CHOP therapy resistance and early disease relapse after R-CHOP therapy treatment.
METHODS USED TO CONDUCT THE STUDY: A total of 698 lymphoma patients were screened and 134 R-CHOP-treated DLBCL patients were included. The Lugano 2014 criteria was applied for assessment of treatment response. DLBCL patients were divided into R-CHOP resistance/early relapse group and R-CHOP sensitive/late relapse group.
RESULTS OF THE STUDY: 81 of 134 (60%) were R-CHOP sensitive/late relapse, while 53 (40%) were R-CHOP resistance/early relapse. The median follow-up period was 59 months ± standard error 3.6. Five-year overall survival rate of R-CHOP resistance/early relapse group was 2.1%, while it was 89% for RCHOP sensitive/late relapse group. Having more than one extranodal site of DLBCL disease is an independent risk factor for R-CHOP resistance/early relapse [odds ratio = 5.268 (1.888-14.702), P = .002]. The commonest extranodal sites were head and neck, gastrointestinal tract, respiratory system, vertebra and bones. Advanced age (>60 years), advanced disease stage (lll-lV), raised pre-treatment lactate dehydrogenase level, bone marrow involvement of DLBCL disease high Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group status (2-4) and high R-IPI score (3-5) showed no significant association with R-CHOP therapy resistance/early disease relapse (multivariate analysis: P > .05).
CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: DLBCL patients with more than one extranodal site are 5.268 times more likely to be R-CHOP therapy resistance or experience early disease relapse after R-CHOP therapy. Therefore, correlative studies are warranted in DLBCL patients with more than one extranodal site of disease to explore possible underlying mechanisms of chemoresistance.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: FORUM is a randomized, controlled, open-label, international, multicenter, phase III, noninferiority study. Patients ≤ 18 years at diagnosis, 4-21 years at HSCT, in complete remission pre-HSCT, and with an HLA-compatible related or unrelated donor were randomly assigned to myeloablative conditioning with fractionated 12 Gy TBI and etoposide versus fludarabine, thiotepa, and either busulfan or treosulfan. The noninferiority margin was 8%. With 1,000 patients randomly assigned in 5 years, 2-year minimum follow-up, and one-sided alpha of 5%, 80% power was calculated. A futility stopping rule would halt random assignment if chemoconditioning was significantly inferior to TBI (EudraCT: 2012-003032-22; ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01949129).
RESULTS: Between April 2013 and December 2018, 543 patients were screened, 417 were randomly assigned, 212 received TBI, and 201 received chemoconditioning. The stopping rule was applied on March 31, 2019. The median follow-up was 2.1 years. In the intention-to-treat population, 2-year overall survival (OS) was significantly higher following TBI (0.91; 95% CI, 0.86 to 0.95; P < .0001) versus chemoconditioning (0.75; 95% CI, 0.67 to 0.81). Two-year cumulative incidence of relapse and treatment-related mortality were 0.12 (95% CI, 0.08 to 0.17; P < .0001) and 0.02 (95% CI, < 0.01 to 0.05; P = .0269) following TBI and 0.33 (95% CI, 0.25 to 0.40) and 0.09 (95% CI, 0.05 to 0.14) following chemoconditioning, respectively.
CONCLUSION: Improved OS and lower relapse risk were observed following TBI plus etoposide compared with chemoconditioning. We therefore recommend TBI plus etoposide for patients > 4 years old with high-risk ALL undergoing allogeneic HSCT.