The treatment landscape of advanced angiosarcoma in Asia-A multi-national collaboration from the Asian Sarcoma Consortium.

Angiosarcoma (AS) is a rare disease with a dismal prognosis. The treatment landscape and prognostic factors for advanced AS, including locally advanced, unresectable, and metastatic disease remain elusive. The Asian Sarcoma Consortium is an international collaborative effort to understand the sarcoma treatment landscape in Asia. We undertook a retrospective chart review of AS patients seen in 8 sarcoma academic centers across Asia. Patients with complete clinical, treatment, and follow-up data were enrolled. Overall, 276 advanced AS patients were included into this study; 84 (30%) of the patients had metachronous metastatic AS. The median age was 67 y; primary sites of AS was cutaneous in 55% and visceral in 45% of patients. In total, 143 (52%) patients received at least 1 line of systemic chemotherapy. The most common first-line chemotherapy regimen used was paclitaxel (47.6%) followed by liposomal doxorubicin (19.6%). The median overall survival (OS) was 7.8 mo. Significant prognostic factors for OS included age > 65 (hazard ratio (HR) 1.54, P = .006), male gender (HR 1.39, P = .02), and a cutaneous primary AS site (HR 0.63, P = .004). The median progression-free survival (PFS) for first-line chemotherapy was 3.4 mo. PFS for single vs combination or paclitaxel vs liposomal doxorubicin chemotherapy regimens were comparable. This study provides an insight into the treatment patterns and prognostic factors of advanced AS patients in Asia. Prognosis of advanced AS remains poor. Data from this study serve as a benchmark for future clinical study design.

SHP-1 promoter 2 methylation in cerebrospinal fluid for diagnosis of leptomeningeal epithelial-derived malignancy (carcinomatous meningitis).

Current diagnostic methods for leptomeningeal metastasis (LM) from epithelial-derived malignancy (EDM) have limited sensitivity. Here, we explored SHP-1 promoter 2 methylation (SHP1P2)-an epithelial-specific methylation marker previously proven as risk stratification and potential diagnostic marker in non-small cell lung cancer-for EDM with LM. We prospectively recruited 136 patients who were diagnosed EDM with LM (n = 25), EDM without LM (n = 14), non-EDM with LM (n = 8), and benign meningeal diseases (n = 89). The primary cancer sites for EDM with LM were lung (n = 17), breast (n = 5), and colon (n = 3). We performed quantitative analyses of cell-free (cfSHP1P2) and whole fraction (wSHP1P2) from cerebrospinal fluid (CSF); results were correlated with the clinicopathological data, including CSF cytology. Median cfSHP1P2 and wSHP1P2 were 3.08 [range: 0-163.5] and 9.35 [0.69-91.63] ng/ml, respectively, in EDM with LM; 0 [0-0.08] and 0.23 [0-7.84] ng/ml in EDM without LM; and were undetectable in most cases of benign meningeal diseases and non-EDM with LM. The cut-off values of 0.22 ng/ml for methylated cfSHP1P2 and 0.59 ng/ml for wSHP1P2 were the best to discriminate EDM with LM from EDM without LM (sensitivity: 79-100 %; specificity: 83-100 %), as well as from other benign conditions (sensitivity: 85-100 % specificity: 78-100 %). CSF cytology yielded 76 % sensitivity for diagnosing EDM with LM. Further validation of CSF SHP1P2 methylation detection as a role of adjunctive tool for LM from EDM should be interested based on our study.

Immunogenicity of ChAdOx1-nCoV-19 vaccine in solid malignancy patients by treatment regimen versus healthy controls: A prospective, multicenter observational study.

Background: Limited data exists regarding the efficacy of ChAdOx1-nCoV-19 vaccine against Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS­CoV­2) in solid cancer patients. We aimed to assess the immunogenicity of the ChAdOx1-nCoV-19 vaccine and the impact of different anticancer therapies for solid malignancies on immune response. Methods: This prospective, longitudinal observational study of immunogenicity following ChAdOx1-nCoV-19 vaccination among 385 solid cancer patients on active cancer treatment was conducted in two oncology centers. Participants received the first dose between June 18 and July 27, 2021 and the second dose at 8-10 weeks later. Blood samples were evaluated for total immunoglobulins against the receptor-binding of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein (anti-RBD total-Ig) before, and 4-week after the first- and second-doses. The primary endpoint was the geometric mean titers (GMT) of antibody among solid cancer patients compared to healthy controls and the impact of different cancer treatment types. Findings: Among solid cancer patients, the antibody level increased more slowly to significantly lower levels than achieved in healthy controls. The GMT at 4-weeks post-vaccination in cancer vs. healthy were 224.5 U/ml (95%CI 176.4-285.6) vs. 877.1 U/ml (95%CI 763.5-1008), p<0.0001), respectively. For different types of cancer treatments, chemotherapy agents, especially anthracyclines (GMR 0.004; 95%CI 0.002-0.008), paclitaxel (GMR 0.268; 95%CI 0.123-0.581), oxaliplatin (GMR 0.340; 95%CI 0.165-0.484), and immunotherapy (GMR 0.203; 95%CI 0.109-0.381) showed significantly lower antibody response. Anti-HER2, endocrine therapy and 5-fluouracil or gemcitabine, however, had less impact on the immune response. Interpretation: Suboptimal and heterogeneous immunologic responses were observed in cancer patients being treated with different systemic treatments. Immunotherapy or chemotherapy significantly suppressed the antibody response. Funding: Quality Improvement Fund, King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, The Thai Red Cross Society and Center of Excellence in Clinical Virology at Chulalongkorn University and Chulalongkorn Medical Oncology Research Fund.

What is the best systemic treatment for newly diagnosed inflammatory breast cancer?-a narrative review.

OBJECTIVE: The propose of this review to discuss of the systemic treatment options for newly diagnosed inflammatory breast cancer (IBC) including the recent data of immune checkpoint inhibitor, CDK4/6 inhibitor and anti-HER2 therapy. Aim to provide a pragmatic treatment in a gray area or concerning issues of real-world practice. BACKGROUND: IBC is a rare and aggressive disease. Upfront systemic treatment followed by surgery and radiation therapy or "Tri-modality" treatment is a standard of care for newly diagnosed IBC. Due to its rarity, the data of systemic treatment for IBC has been extrapolated mostly from non-IBC clinical trials. METHODS: We summarized the recent data of systemic treatment stratified by concerning topics and breast cancer subtypes. Some topics are less likely to have strong data from IBC clinical trial to supports. Therefore, we interpolate the non-IBC data to support our review. CONCLUSIONS: IBC is challenging in the clinical management. The development of novel systemic treatment is urgently needed, especially for IBC-specific clinical trials.