Social supports in patients with cancer attending an Irish cancer center: a cross-sectional study.

A positive association has been demonstrated between social supports, quality of life, and survival outcomes in cancer. This study assessed levels of social supports among patients with cancer in an Irish institution, with an age- and gender-specific stratification. The study highlights relatively low levels of perceived socio-emotional support and social connectedness, but good levels of tangible and informational support in our cohort of patients with cancer. Cancer clinicians should consider social supports as a factor when deciding upon cancer therapies and surveillance programs, and link in available support services for individuals with low levels of social supports where feasible.

Prospective evaluation of the tolerability and efficacy of niraparib dosing based on baseline body weight and platelet count: Results from the PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 trial.

BACKGROUND: The PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 (NCT02655016) trial was amended to prospectively evaluate the safety and efficacy of an individualized starting dose (ISD) regimen of niraparib for first-line maintenance therapy in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer. METHODS: In the phase 3 PRIMA trial, patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer with a complete/partial response to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy (N = 733) were initially treated with a fixed starting dose (FSD) regimen of 300 mg once daily. Subsequently, the protocol was amended so newly enrolled patients received an ISD: 200 mg once daily in patients with baseline body weight < 77 kg or baseline platelet count < 150,000/µL, and 300 mg once daily in all other patients. Efficacy and safety outcomes were assessed by starting dose. RESULTS: Overall, 475 (64.8%) patients were assigned to an FSD (niraparib, n = 317; placebo, n = 158) and 258 (35.2%) were assigned to an ISD (niraparib, n = 170; placebo, n = 88). Efficacy in patients who received FSD or ISD was similar for the overall (FSD hazard ratio [HR], 0.59 [95% CI, 0.46-0.76] vs. ISD HR, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.48-0.98]) and the homologous recombination-deficient (FSD HR, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.30-0.64] vs. ISD HR, 0.39 [95% CI, 0.22-0.72]) populations. In patients with low body weight/platelet count, rates of grades ≥3 and 4 hematologic treatment-emergent adverse events, dose interruptions, and dose reductions were lower for those who received ISD than for those who received FSD. CONCLUSIONS: In PRIMA, similar dose intensity, similar efficacy, and improved safety were observed with the ISD compared with the FSD regimen.

Efficacy of niraparib by time of surgery and postoperative residual disease status: A post hoc analysis of patients in the PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between surgical timing and postoperative residual disease status on the efficacy of niraparib first-line maintenance therapy in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer at high risk of recurrence. METHODS: Post hoc analysis of the phase 3 PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 (NCT02655016) study of niraparib in patients with newly diagnosed primary advanced ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancer with a complete/partial response to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. Progression-free survival (PFS) was assessed by surgical status (primary debulking surgery [PDS] vs neoadjuvant chemotherapy/interval debulking surgery [NACT/IDS]) and postoperative residual disease status (no visible residual disease [NVRD] vs visible residual disease [VRD]) in the intent-to-treat population. RESULTS: In PRIMA (N = 733), 236 (32.2%) patients underwent PDS, and 481 (65.6%) received NACT/IDS before enrollment. Median PFS (niraparib vs placebo) and hazard ratios (95% CI) for progression were similar in PDS (13.7 vs 8.2 months; HR, 0.67 [0.47-0.96]) and NACT/IDS (14.2 vs 8.2 months; HR, 0.57 [0.44-0.73]) subgroups. In patients who received NACT/IDS and had NVRD (n = 304), the hazard ratio (95% CI) for progression was 0.65 (0.46-0.91). In patients with VRD following PDS (n = 183) or NACT/IDS (n = 149), the hazard ratios (95% CI) for progression were 0.58 (0.39-0.86) and 0.41 (0.27-0.62), respectively. PFS was not evaluable for patients with PDS and NVRD because of sample size (n = 37). CONCLUSIONS: In this post hoc analysis, niraparib efficacy was similar across PDS and NACT/IDS subgroups. Patients who had NACT/IDS and VRD had the highest reduction in the risk of progression with niraparib maintenance.

Niraparib Population Pharmacokinetics and Exposure-Response Relationships in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Advanced Ovarian Cancer.

PURPOSE: Niraparib is a poly(adenosine diphosphate [ADP]-ribose) polymerase inhibitor approved for the maintenance treatment of advanced ovarian cancer (OC). Niraparib was originally approved in recurrent OC at a fixed starting dose (FSD) of 300 mg once daily (QD). This analysis characterized the population pharmacokinetics (PK) of niraparib and evaluated the relationships between exposure, efficacy, and safety to support clinical use of an individualized dosing strategy, in which the starting dose of niraparib was adjusted based on patient characteristics to improve the benefit-risk profile. METHODS: A population PK model was developed by pooling data from four niraparib clinical trials (PN001 [n = 104], QUADRA [n = 455], NOVA [n = 403], and PRIMA [n = 480]) in patients with solid tumors, including OC. Exposure-response analyses were conducted to explore the relationships of niraparib exposure with progression-free survival (PFS) and adverse events in the PRIMA study. A multivariate logistic regression model was also developed to estimate the probability of grade ≥3 thrombocytopenia, using data from patients enrolled in PRIMA and NOVA. The impact of an individualized starting dose (ISD) regimen (200 mg QD in patients with body weight [BW] <77 kg or platelet count [PLT] <150,000/µL, or 300 mg QD in patients with BW ≥77 kg and PLT ≥150,000/µL) on systemic exposure, efficacy, and safety was assessed. FINDINGS: Niraparib disposition was best described by a 3-compartment model with linear elimination. Key covariates included baseline creatinine clearance, BW, albumin, and age, all of which had minor effects on niraparib exposure. Comparable model-predicted exposure up to the time of disease progression/death or censoring in the 300-mg FSD and 200-/300-mg ISD groups was consistent with the lower rate of dose reduction in the ISD groups. No consistent niraparib exposure-response relationship was observed for efficacy in all PRIMA patients (first-line OC), and no statistically significant difference was seen in PFS curves for patients receiving a niraparib dose of 200 mg versus 300 mg. In the multivariate regression model, performed using combined data from PRIMA and NOVA, higher niraparib exposure (area under the concentration-time curve at steady-state [AUCss]), lower BW, and lower PLT were associated with an increased risk of grade ≥3 thrombocytopenia. IMPLICATIONS: Population PK and exposure-response analyses support use of an ISD to improve the safety profile of niraparib, including reducing the rate of grade ≥3 thrombocytopenia, without compromising efficacy. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01847274 (NOVA), NCT00749502 (PN001), NCT02655016 (PRIMA), NCT02354586 (QUADRA), www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov.

The prognostic value of the derived neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (dNLR) in patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: The (derived) neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (dNLR) is a potential predictive biomarker in the era of checkpoint inhibitors (CPI). An elevated dNLR is associated with worse outcomes across several malignancies. However, there is no clearly defined cut-off in the clinical setting. AIM: To compare outcomes in patients prescribed CPI with a baseline dNLR0 > 3 and dNLR0 ≤ 3. The dNLR6 was measured 6 weeks later to determine its impact on patient overall survival (OS). METHODS: Prospectively maintained pharmacy databases in a regional cancer centre were interrogated for patients who were prescribed CPI in the advanced setting between January 2017 and May 2020. RESULTS: There were 121 patients with advanced cancer and a median age of 68 (range 30 to 88) years. Forty-four percent (n = 53) received prior systemic therapy. Patients with an initial dNLR0 > 3 when compared with a dNLR0 ≤ 3 had significantly shorter median progression-free survival (PFS), 3 vs. 14 months (p = 0.001) and median OS, 6.4 vs. 30.2 months (p = 0.001). Patients with an initial dNLR0 > 3 and increased dNLR at 6 weeks (dNLR6) had significantly reduced median PFS (3.5 vs. 14.7 months, p = 0.03) and OS (5.7 vs. 16.3, p = 0.03) when compared with those whose dNLR decreased. In the dNLR0 ≤ 3 cohort, any increased dNLR when compared with decreased dNLR after 6 weeks of CPI had significantly reduced PFS (8.4 months vs. NR, p = 0.01) and OS (24.2 months vs. NR, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Lower pre-CPI treatment dNLR is associated with improved OS. A decrease in dNLR during treatment confers improved OS.

Pilot study of bevacizumab in combination with docetaxel and cyclophosphamide as adjuvant treatment for patients with early stage HER-2 negative breast cancer, including analysis of candidate circulating markers of cardiac toxicity: ICORG 08-10 trial.

BACKGROUND: Combining bevacizumab and chemotherapy produced superior response rates compared with chemotherapy alone in metastatic breast cancer. As bevacizumab may cause hypertension (HTN) and increase the risk of cardiac failure, we performed a pilot study to evaluate the feasibility and toxicity of a non-anthracycline-containing combination of docetaxel with cyclophosphamide and bevacizumab in early stage breast cancer patients. METHODS: Treatment consisted of four 3-weekly cycles of docetaxel and cyclophosphamide (75/600 mg/m2). Bevacizumab was administered 15 mg/kg intravenously on day 1, and then every 3 weeks to a total of 18 cycles of treatment. Serum biomarker concentrations of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), cardiac troponin-I (cTnI), myeloperoxidase (MPO), and placental growth factor (PlGF) were quantified using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) in 62 patients at baseline and whilst on treatment to determine their utility as biomarkers of cardiotoxicity, indicated by left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). RESULTS: A total of 106 patients were accrued in nine sites. Median follow up was 65 months (1-72 months). Seventeen protocol-defined relapse events were observed, accounting for an overall disease-free survival (DFS) rate of 84%. The DFS rates for hormone receptor positive (HR+) and triple-negative (TN) patients were 95% versus 43%, respectively. The median time to relapse was 25 (12-54) months in TN patients versus 38 (22-71) months in HR+ patients. There have been 13 deaths related to breast cancer . The overall survival (OS) rate was 88%. The 5-year OS rate in HR+ versus TN was 95% versus 57%. None of the measured biomarkers predicted the development of cardiotoxicity. CONCLUSIONS: We observed a low relapse rate in node-positive, HR+ patients; however, results in TN breast cancer were less encouraging. Given the negative results of three large phase III trials, it is unlikely that this approach will be investigated further. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00911716.

The genetics of colorectal cancer.

Colon cancer is a common disease that can be sporadic, familial, or inherited. Recent advances have contributed to the understanding of the molecular basis of these various patterns of colon cancer. Germline genetic mutations are the basis of inherited colon cancer syndromes; an accumulation of somatic mutations in a cell is the basis of sporadic colon cancer; and, in Ashkenazi Jewish persons, a mutation that was previously thought to be a polymorphism may cause familial colon cancer. Mutations of three different classes of genes have been described in colon cancer etiology: oncogenes, suppressor genes, and mismatch repair genes. Knowledge of many of the specific mutations responsible for colon carcinogenesis allows an understanding of the phenotypic manifestations observed and forms the basis of genetic testing for inherited disease. Although genetic testing is possible and available, it is only an adjunct to the clinical management of persons at risk for colon cancer and patients with colon cancer. As a result of advances in the understanding of the molecular causes of colon cancer and the availability of colon cancer screening methods such as colonoscopy, it should be possible to prevent the vast majority of colon cancer in our society. Practicing clinicians should recognize the patterns of clinical colon cancer, understand its causes, and be able to use genetic testing and endoscopic screening for prevention.