Anti-cancer therapy made easier: a 25-year update.

In 1993, the Internal Medicine Journal published 'Chemotherapy made easier', outlining developments in supportive care of patients undergoing chemotherapy. This described the contemporary state of anti-emetics, colony stimulating factors, cardiac toxicity, neurotoxicity, development of drug analogues and venous access devices. Twenty-five years later, we update the measures that improve the tolerability of the plethora of new anti-cancer therapies, which have extended well beyond traditional chemotherapy agents to include immunotherapy and targeted therapies. Optimisation of supportive care is paramount to allow safe delivery with the least possible impact on quality of life of these new treatments, many of which have resulted dramatically improved outcomes across multiple cancer types. This state of the art update summarises advances in supportive care therapies relating to improving the patient experience during and after anti-cancer treatment, including new anti-emetics, hair preservation techniques, bone marrow support and improved venous access devices; the ongoing challenge of neurotoxicity; and the advent of multidisciplinary sub-specialised fields such as cardio-oncology and oncofertility. Supportive care medications for immuno-oncology therapies is a new section; these highly effective (although not universally so) agents were a mere illusion in 1993.

Real-World Data on Outcomes in Metastatic Castrate-Resistant Prostate Cancer Patients Treated With Abiraterone or Enzalutamide: A Regional Experience.

BACKGROUND: Both abiraterone and enzalutamide have shown to improve overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) regardless of previous treatment with chemotherapy (COU-AA3011, COU-AA3022, AFFIRM3 and PREVAIL4). The data regarding the impact of these treatments in the real world setting is scarce. This study assessed the real world survival and disease outcomes in mCRPC patients in a regional health service in Victoria with the use of abiraterone and enzalutamide. METHODS: This retrospective clinical audit included 75 patients with diagnosis of mCRPC treated with either abiraterone or enzalutamide between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2019, at Goulburn Valley Health. Patients were stratified according to the drug received, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status, Gleason score, burden of disease at diagnosis, presence of visceral metastases and use of previous chemotherapy. The primary end point was PSA response (defined as a reduction in the PSA level from baseline by 50% or more). The secondary outcomes were PSA PFS, radiographic PFS, and OS. RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients received enzalutamide, and the other 38 received abiraterone. Only 20% of patients in either group had visceral metastases. 32% of patients receiving enzalutamide had a high burden of disease, compared to 53% receiving abiraterone. 38% of patients in the enzalutamide group and 53% in the abiraterone group had received prior chemotherapy. PSA response rates were higher in the enzalutamide group than abiraterone group (70.3% vs 37.8%). Both PSA and radiographic PFS were longer in the enzalutamide group than abiraterone group; 7 months vs 5 months for both end points. OS was also found to be longer in patients receiving enzalutamide; 30 months compared to only 13 months in patients receiving abiraterone. CONCLUSION: Both abiraterone and enzalutamide have shown to result in significant PSA response rates, as well as PFS and OS benefit in mCRPC patients in the real world setting. The difference in responses and survival benefit are probably impacted by the unbalanced burden of disease.