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.

METHOD: We searched PubMed, Embase, EBSCOhost and ClinicalTrials.gov for the eligible RCTs which compared the efficacy and safety of combined atezolizumab and nab-paclitaxel with nab-paclitaxel alone. The outcomes analyzed included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR) and treatment-related adverse effects (AEs).

RESULTS: A total of six RCTs were included in this MA. For efficacy, although OS was not significantly prolonged with combined atezolizumab and nab-paclitaxel (HR 0.90, 95% CI [0.79, 1.01], p=0.08), this combination therapy significantly improved PFS (HR 0.72, 95% CI [0.59, 0.87], p=0.0006) and ORR (RR 1.25, 95% CI [0.79, 1.01] p<0.00001). For safety, any AEs, haematological, gastrointestinal, and liver AEs showed no statistically significant differences between the atezolizumab and nab-paclitaxel combination group and nab-paclitaxel alone group. However, serious AEs, high grade, dermatological, pulmonary, endocrine, and neurological AEs were significantly lower with nab-paclitaxel alone compared to atezolizumab and nab-paclitaxel combined (p-value range from <0.00001 to 0,02).

CONCLUSION: Atezolizumab combined with nab-paclitaxel was associated with improved outcomes in the treatment of TNBC; however, this combination resulted in more toxicity compared to nab-paclitaxel alone. While nab-paclitaxel alone produced chemotherapy-related AEs, the combination of atezolizumab with nab-paclitaxel produced AEs, especially immune-related AEs such as haematological, pulmonary, endocrine, and neurological AEs.

METHODS: This is an observational retrospective study carried out in a general hospital on 117 solid tumor patients who admitted between January 2003 to December 2006. The main statistical tests used were Chi- square test and Fisher' s Exact test. The significance of the result will be when the P<0.05, while the confidence interval for this study was 95%.

RESULTS: The highest chemotherapeutic regimen was (5-FU+epirubicin+cyclophosphamide) (47, 40.2%) followed by (gemcitabine+cisplatin) (6, 5.1%) and many others. Majority of the patients receive their chemotherapy schedule of administration was one day schedule (90, 76.9%) followed by more than one day schedule (27, 23.1%).

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

PATIENTS AND METHODS: Sixty-two patients with AML excluding acute promyelocytic leukemia were retrospectively analyzed. Patients in the earlier cohort (n = 36) were treated on the Medical Research Council (MRC) AML12 protocol, whereas those in the recent cohort (n = 26) were treated on the Malaysia-Singapore AML protocol (MASPORE 2006), which differed in terms of risk group stratification, cumulative anthracycline dose, and timing of hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation for high-risk patients.

RESULTS: Significant improvements in 10-year overall survival and event-free survival were observed in patients treated with the recent MASPORE 2006 protocol compared to the earlier MRC AML12 protocol (overall survival: 88.0% ± 6.5% vs 50.1% ± 8.6%, P = .002; event-free survival: 72.1% ± 9.0 vs 50.1% ± 8.6%, P = .045). In univariate analysis, patients in the recent cohort had significantly lower intensive care unit admission rate (11.5% vs 47.2%, P = .005) and numerically lower relapse rate (26.9% vs 50.0%, P = .068) compared to the earlier cohort. Multivariate analysis showed that treatment protocol was the only independent predictive factor for overall survival (hazard ratio = 0.21; 95% confidence interval, 0.06-0.73, P = .014).

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).