BRD4-IRF1 axis regulates chemoradiotherapy-induced PD-L1 expression and immune evasion in non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Chemoradiotherapy-induced PD-L1 upregulation leads to therapeutic resistance and treatment failure. The PD-1/PD-L1 blocking antibodies sensitize cancers to chemoradiotherapy by blocking extracellular PD-1 and PD-L1 binding without affecting the oncogenic function of intracellular PD-L1. Reversing the chemoradiation-induced PD-L1 expression could provide a new strategy to achieve a greater anti-tumour effect of chemoradiotherapy. Here, we aimed to identify candidate small molecular inhibitors that might boost the anti-tumour immunity of chemoradiotherapy by decreasing treatment-induced PD-L1 expression in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: A drug array was used to recognize compounds that can suppress the cisplatin-induced and radiation-induced PD-L1 expression in NSCLC via the flow cytometry-based assay. We examined whether and how targeting bromodomain containing 4 (BRD4) inhibits chemoradiation-induced PD-L1 expression and evaluated the effect of BRD4 inhibition and chemoradiation combination in vivo. RESULTS: BRD4 inhibitors JQ1 and ARV-771 were identified as the most promising drugs both in the cisplatin and radiation screening projects in two NSCLC cell lines. Targeting BRD4 was supposed to block chemoradiotherapy inducible PD-L1 expression by disrupting the recruitment of BRD4-IRF1 complex to PD-L1 promoter. A positive correlation between BRD4 and PD-L1 expression was observed in human NSCLC tissues. Moreover, BRD4 inhibition synergized with chemoradiotherapy and PD-1 blockade to show a robust anti-tumour immunity dependent on CD8+ T cell through limiting chemoradiation-induced tumour cell surface PD-L1 upregulation in vivo. Notably, the BRD4-targeted combinatory treatments did not show increased toxicities. CONCLUSION: The data showed that BRD4-targeted therapy synergized with chemoradiotherapy and anti-PD-1 antibody by boosting anti-tumour immunity in NSCLC.

Guideline conformity to the Stupp regimen in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma multiforme in China.

Aims: To determine how consistently Chinese glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) patients were treated according to the Stupp regimen. Patients and methods: The proportion of treatments conforming to the Stupp regimen and reasons for nonconformity were evaluated in 202 newly diagnosed GBM patients. Results: Only 15.8% of GBM patients received treatments compliant with the Stupp regimen. The main deviations were temozolomide dosages >75 mg/m2 (58/120; 48.3%) and treatment durations <42 days (84/120; 70.0%) in the concomitant phase and temozolomide dosages <150 mg/m2 (89/101; 88.1%) in the maintenance phase. Median overall survival (27.09 vs 18.21 months) and progression-free survival (14.27 vs 12.10 months) were longer in patients who received Stupp regimen-compliant treatments. Conclusion: Increased conformity to the Stupp regimen is needed for GBM patients in China.

Lay abstract In 2005 the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer 26981 study led to US FDA approval for the use of temozolomide in combination with radiotherapy to treat glioblastoma multiforme (GBM). The Stupp regimen consists of fractionated focal irradiation in daily fractions of 2 Gy given 5 days/week for 6 weeks (a total of 60 Gy), plus concomitant daily temozolomide (75 mg/m²/day, 7 days/week from the first to the last day of radiotherapy), followed by six cycles of adjuvant temozolomide (150­200 mg/m²/day for 5 days during each 28-day cycle). In 2012 the Chinese guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of glioma of the CNS recommended the Stupp regimen as first-line therapy for newly diagnosed GBM. In the present study, compliance of GBM treatments with the Stupp regimen in 28 Chinese centers from 2012­2016 was evaluated. Only 15.8% of GBM patients received treatments compliant with the Stupp regimen. The main deviations related to temozolomide dosages and treatment durations in the concomitant and maintenance phases. Median overall survival (27.09 vs 18.21 months) and progression-free survival (14.27 vs 12.10 months) were longer in patients who received Stupp regimen-compliant treatments.

Platinum ineligibility in squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: consensus from Central America and the Caribbean.

The high incidence of head and neck cancer in Central America and the Caribbean, together with limitations in the healthcare system for patients with locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (LA SCCHN) in this region necessitate a consensus of opinion based on a review of the literature on therapy with cisplatin plus radiation. Such an approach will ensure appropriate selection of patients who can benefit from therapy and reduce the incidence of related adverse events. Therefore, we recorded the opinion of experts in the region in order to identify needs and challenges in the treatment of LA SCCHN.

Chemotherapy in Combination With Radiotherapy for Definitive-Intent Treatment of Stage II-IVA Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: CSCO and ASCO Guideline.

PURPOSE: The aim of this joint guideline is to provide evidence-based recommendations to practicing physicians and other healthcare providers on definitive-intent chemoradiotherapy for patients with stage II-IVA nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). METHODS: The Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology (CSCO) and ASCO convened an expert panel of radiation oncology, medical oncology, surgery, and advocacy representatives. The literature search included systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and randomized controlled trials published from 1990 through 2020. Outcomes of interest included survival, distant and locoregional disease control, and quality of life. Expert panel members used this evidence and informal consensus to develop evidence-based guideline recommendations. RESULTS: The literature search identified 108 relevant studies to inform the evidence base for this guideline. Five overarching clinical questions were addressed, which included subquestions on radiotherapy (RT), chemotherapy sequence, and concurrent, induction, and adjuvant chemotherapy options. RECOMMENDATIONS: Evidence-based recommendations were developed to address aspects of care related to chemotherapy in combination with RT for the definitive-intent treatment of stage II to IVA NPC.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/head-neck-cancer-guidelines.

Rationale for concurrent chemoradiotherapy for patients with stage III non-small-cell lung cancer.

When treating patients with unresectable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), those with a good performance status and disease measured within a radical treatment volume should be considered for definitive concurrent chemoradiotherapy (cCRT). This guidance is based on key scientific rationale from two large Phase 3 randomised studies and meta-analyses demonstrating the superiority of cCRT over sequential (sCRT). However, the efficacy of cCRT comes at the cost of increased acute toxicity versus sequential treatment. Currently, there are several documented approaches that are addressing this drawback, which this paper outlines. At the point of diagnosis, a multidisciplinary team (MDT) approach can enable accurate assessment of patients, to determine the optimal treatment strategy to minimise risks. In addition, reviewing the Advisory Committee on Radiation Oncology Practice (ACROP) guidelines can provide clinical oncologists with additional recommendations for outlining target volume and organ-at-risk delineation for standard clinical scenarios in definitive cCRT (and adjuvant radiotherapy). Furthermore, modern advances in radiotherapy treatment planning software and treatment delivery mean that radiation oncologists can safely treat substantially larger lung tumours with higher radiotherapy doses, with greater accuracy, whilst minimising the radiotherapy dose to the surrounding healthy tissues. The combination of these advances in cCRT may assist in creating comprehensive strategies to allow patients to receive potentially curative benefits from treatments such as immunotherapy, as well as minimising treatment-related risks.

Primary treatment and relative survival by stage and age in vulvar squamous cell carcinoma: A population-based SweGCG study.

OBJECTIVE: Vulvar cancer affects mainly elderly women and with an ageing population the incidence has increased. We explored the primary treatment patterns and relative survival of patients with vulvar squamous cell carcinoma (VSCC) by stage and age-group. METHODS: A population-based nationwide study on women diagnosed with VSCC between 2012 and 2016 and registered in the Swedish Quality Registry for Gynecologic Cancer (SQRGC). Main outcome was 5-year relative survival (RS) estimated by the Pohar Perme method. The relative risk of excess mortality (EMRR) between different groups was analyzed by Poisson regression. The age-standardized relative survival (AS-RS) was estimated for the total cohort. RESULTS: Median follow-up time was 41 months. The study population included 657 women; 33% were ≥ 80 years old. FIGO stage I was most common (55%). Primary surgery was performed in 96% stage I, 65% stage II, 80% stage III and 28% stage IV. In women ≥80 years, exploration of the groins and chemoradiotherapy was less often performed. They also received lower mean doses of radiation than younger women. The 5-year AS-RS was 74%. 5-year RS was 84% for stage I, 60% for stage II, 54% for stage III and 35% for stage IV. The EMRR for women ≥80 years compared with women <60 years was 4.3 (p < 0.001); 4.9 (p < 0.001) for stages I-II and 3.5(p = 0.007) for stage III. CONCLUSIONS: In general, primary treatment of patients with vulvar squamous cell carcinoma in Sweden adhered to guidelines. Areas of improvement include treatment for stage II and for the very old.

Model-based optimization of combination protocols for irradiation-insensitive cancers.

Alternations in the p53 regulatory network may render cancer cells resistant to the radiation-induced apoptosis. In this theoretical study we search for the best protocols combining targeted therapy with radiation to treat cancers with wild-type p53, but having downregulated expression of PTEN or overexpression of Wip1 resulting in resistance to radiation monotherapy. Instead of using the maximum tolerated dose paradigm, we exploit stochastic computational model of the p53 regulatory network to calculate apoptotic fractions for both normal and cancer cells. We consider combination protocols, with irradiations repeated every 12, 18, 24, or 36 h to find that timing between Mdm2 inhibitor delivery and irradiation significantly influences the apoptotic cell fractions. We assume that uptake of the inhibitor is higher by cancer than by normal cells and that cancer cells receive higher irradiation doses from intersecting beams. These two assumptions were found necessary for the existence of protocols inducing massive apoptosis in cancer cells without killing large fraction of normal cells neighboring tumor. The best found protocols have irradiations repeated every 24 or 36 h with two inhibitor doses per irradiation cycle, and allow to induce apoptosis in more than 95% of cancer cells, killing less than 10% of normal cells.

Proposals for managing patients with thoracic malignancies during COVID-19 pandemic.

The objective of this document is to formalize a degraded mode management for patients with thoracic cancers in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. The proposals are based on those of the French High Council for Public Health, on published data outside the context of COVID-19, and on a concerted analysis of the risk-benefit ratio for our patients by a panel of experts specialized on thoracic oncology under the aegis of the French-Language Society of Pulmonology (SPLF)/French-language oncology group. These proposals are evolving (10 April 2020) according to the situations encountered, which will enrich it, and are to be adapted to our institutional organisations and to the evolution of resources during the COVID-19 epidemic. Patients with symptoms and/or COVID-19+ are not discussed in this document and are managed within the framework of specific channels.

Metformin as an Alternative Radiosensitizing Agent to 5-Fluorouracil During Neoadjuvant Treatment for Rectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemoradiation for locally advanced rectal cancer combining 5-fluorouracil with radiation increases tumor regression compared with radiation alone. However, it occurs at the cost of significant treatment-related toxicity. Patients with rectal cancer using metformin have been associated with improved response to radiotherapy. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the radiosensitizing effects of metformin in vitro and in vivo and compare it with a standard combination of radiation/5-fluorouracil. DESIGN: Colorectal cancer cell lines SW480, HT29, and HCT116 were used as models. Cell viability was compared under treatments with radiation, radiation/5-fluorouracil, metformin, radiation/metformin, and radiation/5-fluorouracil/metformin. Nude mice were injected subcutaneously with SW480 cells and treated for 1 week with radiation/5-fluorouracil, metformin, radiation/metformin, or radiation/5-fluorouracil/metformin. Tumor volume was evaluated for 4 weeks after treatment completion. The phosphorylation status of key proteins of the PI3K/Akt/mTOR pathway was determined by immunoblots. SETTINGS: This was an experimental study conducted in vitro and in vivo. PATIENTS: Animal models/cell lines were used. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The end point was to investigate how metformin compares with 5-fluorouracil as a radiosensitizer. RESULTS: All cell lines significantly decreased cell viability after treatment with radiation/metformin when compared with radiation alone. Radiation/metformin was superior to radiation/5-fluorouracil in SW480 (37% vs 74%; p < 0.001). In HT29 and in HCT116, radiation/metformin was inferior to radiation/5-fluorouracil (40.0% vs 13.8%, p < 0.001 and 40.0% vs 7.0%, p < 0.001), mainly because of increased 5-fluorouracil toxicity (≤20% of cell viability). In vivo assays indicated that radiation/metformin treatment was comparable with radiation/5-fluorouracil (557 vs 398 mm; p > 0.05) and that the addition of metformin to the standard radiation/5-fluorouracil did not improve tumor response (349 mm; p > 0.05). Metformin exerted strong PI3K/Akt/mTOR pathway inactivation effects after 24-hour exposure (increasing pAMPK, p < 0.01; decreasing pAkt, p < 0.01; and pS6, p <0.05). LIMITATIONS: In vitro and in vivo chemoradiation regimens cannot be directly translated to human delivery methods. CONCLUSIONS: Metformin enhances tumor response to radiation in vitro and in vivo. Metformin is an attractive alternative radiosensitizing agent to be considered in future studies/trials. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B219. LA METFORMINA COMO AGENTE RADIOSENSIBILIZADOR ALTERNATIVO A 5FU DURANTE EL TRATAMIENTO NEOADYUVANTE PARA CÁNCER DE RECTO: La quimiorradiación neoadyuvante para el cáncer de recto localmente avanzado que combina 5FU con radiación aumenta la regresión tumoral en comparación con la radiación sola. Sin embargo, se produce a costa de una toxicidad significativa relacionada con el tratamiento. Los pacientes con cáncer de recto que usan metformina se han asociado con una mejor respuesta a la radioterapia.Evaluar los efectos radiosensibilizantes de metformina in vitro e in vivo y compararlo con la combinación estándar de radiación / 5FU.Se usaron como modelos las líneas celulares de cáncer colorrectal SW480, HT29 y HCT116. La viabilidad celular se comparó en tratamientos con radiación, radiación / 5FU, metformina, radiación / metformina y radiación / 5FU / metformina. A los ratones desnudos se les inyectó por vía subcutánea células SW480 y fueron tratados durante una semana con radiación / 5FU, metformina, radiación / metformina o radiación / 5FU / metformina. El volumen tumoral se evaluó durante 4 semanas después de la finalización del tratamiento. El estado de fosforilación de las proteínas clave de la vía PI3K / Akt / mTOR se determinó mediante inmunotransferencias.Estudio experimental in vitro e in vivo.Modelo animal / líneas celulares.El punto final fue investigar cómo la metformina se compara con 5FU como un radiosensibilizador.Todas las líneas celulares disminuyeron significativamente la viabilidad celular después del tratamiento con radiación / metformina en comparación con la radiación sola. La radiación / metformina fue superior a la radiación / 5FU en SW480 (37% frente a 74%; p <0,001). En el HT29 y el HCT116 la radiación / metformina fue inferior a la radiación / 5FU (40% vs 13.8%, p <0.001 y 40% vs 7%, p <0.001; respectivamente), debido principalmente al aumento de la toxicidad de 5FU (≤20% de la célula viabilidad). Los ensayos in vivo indicaron que el tratamiento con radiación / metformina era comparable a la radiación / 5FU (557 vs 398 mm, p > 0.05), y que la adición de metformina a la radiación estándar / 5FU no mejoró la respuesta tumoral (349 mm, p > 0.05). La metformina ejerció fuertes efectos de inactivación de la vía PI3K / Akt / mTOR después de 24 horas de exposición (aumentando pAMPK p < 0.01, disminuyendo pAkt, p < 0.01; y pS6, p < 0.05).Los regímenes de CRT in vitro e in vivo no se pueden traducir directamente a los métodos de entrega en humanos.La metformina mejora la respuesta tumoral a la radiación in vitro e in vivo. La metformina es un agente alternativo de radiosensibilización atractivo para ser considerado en futuros estudios / ensayos. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B219. (Traducción-Dr Gonzalo Hagerman).

Taxane-based or platinum-based combination chemotherapy given concurrently with radiation followed by surgery resulting in high cure rates in esophageal cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) is one standard option for localized esophageal or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancer patients but an optimal concurrent chemotherapy combination is not established. METHODS: 412 patients with resectable (cT1N1M0 or cT2-4N0-3M0) esophageal or GEJ cancer treated at the MDACC between October 2002 and June 2016 were analyzed. Exposures: CRT with DF or FOX followed by surgery (trimodality; TMT). Main outcomes and measures: Primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). Univariate and multivariate Cox analyses were performed. RESULTS: Of the 412 patients analyzed, 264 (64%) received DF and 148 (36%) FOX. The median age was 60 years, and 95% had adenocarcinoma. The clinical complete response, positron-emission tomography response, and pathologic complete response rates were 73%, 73%, and 30%, respectively. Median follow-up was 60.4 months. Median OS for the entire cohort was 81.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 56.3-122.0); 81.6 months (95% CI, 55.9-not estimable) for the DF group and 67.7 months (95% CI, 41.6-not estimable) for the FOX group (P = .24). The median DFS was 45.6 months (95% CI, 33.1-61.7) for the entire cohort; 49.5 months (95% CI, 38.6-70.3) for DF and 33.0 months (95% CI, 18.1-70.4; P = .38) for FOX. Higher tumor location (unfavorable) and clinical complete response (favorable) were prognostic for both OS and DFS in the multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION: At our high-volume center, the outcome of 412 TMT esophageal cancer patients was excellent. Taxane-based chemotherapy produces nonsignificant favorable trend.

European interdisciplinary guideline on invasive squamous cell carcinoma of the skin: Part 2. Treatment.

In order to update recommendations on treatment, supportive care, education and follow-up of patients with invasive cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC), a multidisciplinary panel of experts from the European Dermatology Forum, the European Association of Dermato-Oncology and the European Organization of Research and Treatment of Cancer was formed. Recommendations were based on evidence-based literature review, guidelines and expert consensus. Treatment recommendations are presented for common primary cSCC (low risk, high risk), locally advanced cSCC, regional metastatic cSCC (operable or inoperable) and distant metastatic cSCC. For common primary cSCC (the most frequent cSCC type), first-line treatment is surgical excision with postoperative margin assessment or microscopically controlled sugery. Safety margins containing clinical normal-appearing tissue around the tumour during surgical excision and negative margins as reported in the pathology report are necessary to minimise the risk of local recurrence and metastasis. In case of positive margins, a re-excision shall be done, for operable cases. Lymph node dissection is recommended for cSCC with cytologically or histologically confirmed regional nodal involvement. Radiotherapy should be considered as curative treatment for inoperable cSCC, or for non-surgical candidates. Anti-PD-1 antibodies are the first-line systemic treatment for patients with metastatic or locally advanced cSCC who are not candidates for curative surgery or radiation, with cemiplimab being the first approved systemic agent for advanced cSCC by the Food and Drug Administration/European Medicines Agency. Second-line systemic treatments for advanced cSCC include epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors (cetuximab) combined with chemotherapy or radiation therapy. Multidisciplinary board decisions are mandatory for all patients with advanced disease who require more than surgery. Patients should be engaged with informed decisions on management and be provided with best supportive care to optimise symptom management and improve quality of life. Frequency of follow-up visits and investigations for subsequent new cSCC depend on underlying risk characteristics.

Management of rectal cancer in Canada: an evidence-based comparison of clinical practice guidelines

Background: Rectal cancer requires a multidisciplinary and multimodality treatment approach. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) provide a framework for delivering consistent, evidence-based health care. We compared provincial/territorial CPGs across Canada to identify areas of variability and evaluate their quality. Methods: We retrieved CPGs from Canadian organizations responsible for cancer care oversight and evaluated their quality and developmental methodology using the AGREE-II instrument. Recommendations for diagnostic and staging investigations, treatment by stage, and post-treatment surveillance of stage I­III rectal cancers were abstracted and compared. Results: We identified 7 sets of CPGs for analysis, varying in content, presentation, quality, and year last updated. Differences were noted in locoregional staging: 4 recommended magnetic resonance imaging over endorectal ultrasonography, 2 recommended either modality, and 3 specified scenarios for one over the other. Recommendations also varied for use of staging computed tomography of the chest versus chest radiography and for surgical management and indications for transanal excision. Recommendations for neoadjuvant therapy in stage II/III disease also differed: 3 guidelines recommended long-course chemoradiation over short-course radiation therapy alone, while 3 others recommended short-course radiation in specific clinical scenarios. Adjuvant chemotherapy for stage II/III disease was uniformly recommended, with variable protocols. The use of proctosigmoidoscopy and interval/duration of endoscopic post-treatment surveillance varied among guidelines. Conclusion: Canadian CPGs vary in their recommendations for staging, treatment, and surveillance of rectal cancer. Some of these differences reflect areas with limited definitive evidence. Consistent guidelines with uniform implementation across provinces/territories may lead to more equitable care to patients.

Contexte: Le cancer rectal requiert une approche thérapeutique multidisciplinaire et multimodalité. Les guides de pratique clinique (GPC) procurent un cadre pour assurer la prestation de soins de santé constants reposant sur des données probantes. Nous avons comparé les GPC des provinces et des territoires canadiens pour identifier les secteurs où ils varient et pour en évaluer la qualité. Méthodes: Nous avons obtenu les GPC des organisations canadiennes responsables des soins oncologiques et nous avons évalué leur qualité et la méthodologie de leur élaboration au moyen de l'outil AGREE II (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation). Nous avons extrait et comparé les recommandations en ce qui concerne les épreuves diagnostiques et la stadification, les traitements en fonction du stade et la surveillance post-thérapeutique du cancer rectal de stade I à III. Résultats: Nous avons recensé 7 GPC aux fins de cette analyse; leur contenu, leur présentation, leur qualité et l'année de leur plus récente mise à jour variaient. Des différences ont été observées au plan de la stadification locorégionale : 4 recommandaient l'imagerie par résonnance magnétique plutôt que l'échographie endorectale, 2 recommandaient l'une ou l'autre et 3 précisaient des circonstances où utiliser l'une plutôt que l'autre. Les recommandations variaient aussi pour ce qui est de l'utilisation de la scintigraphie c. radiographie thoracique de stadification, de la prise en charge chirurgicale et des indications de l'excision transanale. Les recommandations variaient également en ce qui concerne le traitement néoadjuvant pour la maladie de stade II/III : 3 guides recommandaient un traitement par chimioradiothérapie à long terme plutôt qu'une brève radiothérapie seule, tandis que 3 autres recommandaient une radiothérapie brève dans certains cas particuliers. La chimiothérapie adjuvante pour la maladie de stade II/III était uniformément recommandée, mais les protocoles variaient. L'utilisation de la proctosigmoïdoscopie et l'intervalle/durée de la surveillance endoscopique post-thérapeutique variaient d'un guide à l'autre. Conclusion: Les GPC canadiens varient quant à leurs recommandations pour la stadification, le traitement et la surveillance du cancer rectal. Certaines de ces différences témoignent du manque de données probantes concluantes dans certains secteurs. L'uniformisation des guides et de leur application entre les provinces et les territoires pourrait faciliter une prestation plus équitable des soins aux patients.

The impact of current treatment modalities on the outcomes of patients with melanoma brain metastases: A systematic review.

Patients with melanoma brain metastases (MBM) still have a very poor prognosis. Several treatment modalities have been investigated in an attempt to improve the management of MBM. This review aimed to evaluate the impact of current treatments for MBM on patient- and tumor-related outcomes, and to provide treatment recommendations for this patient population. A literature search in the databases PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane was conducted up to January 8, 2019. Original articles published since 2010 describing patient- and tumor-related outcomes of adult MBM patients treated with clearly defined systemic therapy were included. Information on basic trial demographics, treatment under investigation and outcomes (overall and progression-free survival, local and distant control and toxicity) were extracted. We identified 96 eligible articles, comprising 95 studies. A large variety of treatment options for MBM were investigated, either used alone or as combined modality therapy. Combined modality therapy was investigated in 71% of the studies and resulted in increased survival and better distant/local control than monotherapy, especially with targeted therapy or immunotherapy. However, neurotoxic side-effects also occurred more frequently. Timing appeared to be an important determinant, with the best results when radiotherapy was given before or during systemic therapy. Improved tumor control and prolonged survival can be achieved by combining radiotherapy with immunotherapy or targeted therapy. However, more randomized controlled trials or prospective studies are warranted to generate proper evidence that can be used to change the standard of care for patients with MBM.

Drug-drug interactions in patients undergoing chemoradiotherapy and the impact of an expert team intervention.

Background Several studies have examined the drug-drug interaction patterns in different patient populations and treatment settings; however, there is a need, particularly in the field of oncology and radiotherapy, for evaluating methods targeted towards preventing potential drug-drug interactions. One of the measures proposed is identifying potential interactions using computer programs and their evaluation by pharmacologists or clinical pharmacists, thereby providing clinically relevant information to the treating physician regarding the required prescription changes. Objective To determine the prevalence of potential drug-drug interactions in patients receiving chemoradiotherapy and assess the usefulness of expert team recommendations in minimizing interactions. Setting Patients admitted to the radiotherapy and oncology ward of a tertiary care teaching hospital in Karnataka, India. Method We conducted a prospective, cross-sectional study of prescriptions written for patients receiving chemoradiotherapy. Prescriptions containing two or more drugs, at least one of the drugs being an anticancer drug, were analyzed. They were screened for potential drug-drug interactions using the Lexicomp® drug interaction software. The interactions were classified as X, drug combination to be avoided; D, modification of therapy to be considered; and C, therapy to be monitored, as per the Lexicomp criteria. Main outcome measure The number of drug-drug interactions detected that were accepted by the treating radio-oncologist as requiring prescription change before and after the prescription review by an expert team. Results Two hundred twenty-three prescriptions were screened for the presence of drug-drug interactions; 106 prescriptions (47.53%) containing 620 drugs and 211 drug-drug interactions were identified. Of the 211 interactions identified, 6.64% (14/211), 18.48% (39/211), and 74.88% (158/211) drug-drug interactions belonged to category X, D, and C, respectively. Twenty-seven (50.94%) of the 53 category X and D interactions identified were accepted the oncologist as requiring a change in the prescription; an additional 13 (24.53%) interactions were identified as significant by the expert team, and 11 (84.62%) of these were accepted by the oncologist. Conclusion A system of alerting the treating physician to a potential drug-drug interaction leads to avoidance of prescription of the interacting drug combination, and the assistance by an expert team adds significantly to avoidance of clinically relevant drug interactions.

Concurrent cisplatin or cetuximab with radiotherapy for HPV-positive oropharyngeal cancer: Medical resource use, costs, and quality-adjusted survival from the De-ESCALaTE HPV trial.

BACKGROUND: The De-ESCALaTE HPV trial confirmed the dominance of cisplatin over cetuximab for tumour control in patients with human papillomavirus (HPV)-positive oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC). Here, we present the analysis of health-related quality of life (HRQoL), resource use, and health care costs in the trial, as well as complete 2-year survival and recurrence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Resource use and HRQoL data were collected at intervals from the baseline to 24 months post treatment (PT). Health care costs were estimated using UK-based unit costs. Missing data were imputed. Differences in mean EQ-5D-5L utility index and adjusted cumulative quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test and linear regression, respectively. Mean resource usage and costs were compared through two-sample t-tests. RESULTS: 334 patients were randomised to cisplatin (n = 166) or cetuximab (n = 168). Two-year overall survival (97·5% vs 90·0%, HR: 3.268 [95% CI 1·451 to 7·359], p = 0·0251) and recurrence rates (6·4% vs 16·0%, HR: 2·67 [1·38 to 5·15]; p = 0·0024) favoured cisplatin. No significant differences in EQ-5D-5L utility scores were detected at any time point. At 24 months PT, mean difference was 0·107 QALYs in favour of cisplatin (95% CI: 0·186 to 0·029, p = 0·007) driven by the mortality difference. Health care costs were similar across all categories except the procurement cost and delivery of the systemic agent, with cetuximab significantly more expensive than cisplatin (£7779 [P < 0.001]). Consequently, total costs at 24 months PT averaged £13517 (SE: £345) per patient for cisplatin and £21064 (SE: £400) for cetuximab (mean difference £7547 [95% CI: £6512 to £8582]). CONCLUSIONS: Cisplatin chemoradiotherapy provided more QALYs and was less costly than cetuximab bioradiotherapy, remaining standard of care for nonsurgical treatment of HPV-positive OPSCC.

Anal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: Radiation Therapy Alone Must Be Avoided.

BACKGROUND: Anal squamous cell carcinoma (ASCC) is the most common histological subtype of anal cancer. Rates have been observed to increase in recent years. Combined chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) is currently the gold standard of treatment. The aim of this study is to assess ASCC prevalence, treatment trends, and overall survival (OS) in the United States. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with stage I-IV ASCC were identified from the National Cancer Database from 2004 to 2015. The primary outcome was 5-year OS, which was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier survival curves, log-rank test, and Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: 34,613 cases were included (stage I: 21.45%; II: 41.00%; III: 31.62%; IV: 5.94%), with an increasing trend in prevalence. CCRT was the most used treatment. Multimodal treatment, combining surgery with CCRT, offered the best OS rates for stage I, II, and IV cancers (I: 84.87%; II: 75.12%; IV: 33.08%), comparable with survival of stage III patients treated with CCRT (III: 61.14%). Radiation alone had the worse OS rates, and on adjusted analysis, radiation treatment alone had the greatest risk of mortality (I: hazard ratio, 2.01; 95% confidence interval, 1.14-3.54; P = 0.016; II: 2.05, 1.44-2.93, P < 0.001; IV: 1.99, 0.99-4.02, P = 0.054). CONCLUSIONS: ASCC has increased in prevalence, notably in stage III and IV disease. Although CCRT is the most commonly used treatment type for all stages of ASCC, multimodal treatment offers better OS in stages I, II, and IV. Treatment with radiation alone offers the worst OS no matter the stage and should no longer be used as a solitary treatment modality.