Supplement Use and Increased Risks of Cancer: Unveiling the Other Side of the Coin.

There is a rising trend in the consumption of dietary supplements, especially among adults, with the purpose of improving health. While marketing campaigns tout the potential health benefits of using dietary supplements, it is critical to evaluate the potential harmful effects associated with these supplements as well. The majority of the scarce research on the potential harmful effects of vitamins focuses on the acute or chronic toxicities associated with the use of dietary supplements. Quality research is still required to further investigate the risks of long-term use of dietary supplements, especially the risk of developing cancers. The present review concentrates on studies that have investigated the association between the risk of developing cancers and associated mortality with the risk of dietary supplements. Such an association has been reported for several vitamins, minerals, and other dietary supplements. Even though several of these studies come with their own shortcomings and critics, they must draw attention to further investigate long-term adverse effects of dietary supplements and advise consumers and healthcare providers to ponder the extensive use of dietary supplements.

Patient-reported outcomes in metastatic renal cell carcinoma trials using combinations versus sunitinib as first-line treatment.

Over the past 5 years, several new immunotherapy treatments have been tested for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Clinical trials assessing combinations of different immunotherapies, or of an immunotherapy with a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), have reported improved clinical outcomes compared with the standard of care - that is, treatments using TKIs alone. However, to understand the holistic impact of new treatments on patients, physicians must also consider effects on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). As patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) on HRQoL are often treated as a secondary outcome in clinical trials, their collection and reporting are non-standardized and, therefore, difficult to compare and interpret. However, results from six clinical trials indicate that two immunotherapy treatments overwhelmingly outperform sunitinib in HRQoL measurements: nivolumab plus cabozantinib (CheckMate 9ER) and atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (IMmotion151). An additional two treatments generally outperform sunitinib: nivolumab plus ipilimumab (CheckMate 214) and lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (CLEAR). Of three studies that reported no difference from sunitinib, two suffered design flaws that might have obscured HRQoL benefits (JAVELIN Renal 101 and KEYNOTE-426). To ensure future HRQoL data are of the highest quality and comparable across trials, future studies should adopt best practices for the design, analysis and reporting of PROMs.

The Role of Chemotherapy Plus Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Oncogenic-Driven NSCLC: A University of California Lung Cancer Consortium Retrospective Study.

Introduction: There is a paucity of data on immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) plus doublet chemotherapy (C) in patients with advanced lung cancer whose tumor harbors an actionable mutation. We sought to provide insight into the role of this combination in relation to chemotherapy alone in this patient population. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study at the five University of California National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included overall survival (OS) and significant adverse events. Adverse events in patients who received a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) post-ICI were also captured. Results: A total of 246 patients were identified, 170 treated with C plus ICI and 76 treated with C alone. Driver alterations included EGFR (54.9%), KRAS (32.9%), ALK (5.3%), HER2/ERBB2 (2.9%), ROS1 (1.2%), MET (1.2%), RET (0.8%), and BRAF non-V600 (0.8%). The overall PFS and OS hazard ratios were not significant at 1.12 (95% confidence interval 0.83-1.51; p = 0.472) and 0.86 (95% confidence interval: 0.60-1.24, p = 0.429), respectively. No significant differences in PFS or OS were observed in the mutational subgroups. Grade 3 or greater adverse events were lower in the C plus ICI group. The multivariate analysis for PFS and OS revealed a performance status (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group) score of 2, and previous TKI treatment was associated with poorer outcomes with C plus ICI. Conclusions: Our study suggests that patients with oncogenic-driven NSCLC, primarily those with EGFR-driven tumors, treated with a TKI should not subsequently receive C plus ICI. Analysis from prospective clinical trials will provide additional information on the role of ICIs in this group of patients.

Cancer Drug Approvals That Displaced Existing Standard-of-Care Therapies, 2016-2021.

Importance: Although several cancer drugs receive US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval each month, it is unclear how many of these cancer drugs transform the treatment landscape significantly by tumor group. Specifically, it remains unclear how many of these newly approved cancer drugs displace the existing standard-of-care therapies for their indication vs being added to existing therapies. Objective: To examine how many cancer drugs displace the standard-of-care therapies vs being added to existing therapy or filling breaks in systemic treatments in the metastatic setting, adjuvant setting, or maintenance setting. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective cross-sectional study using landmark trials leading to FDA approval of cancer drugs between May 1, 2016, and May 31, 2021. The study evaluated all FDA approvals for cancer drugs between May 1, 2016, and May 31, 2021, using the FDA Oncology (Cancer)/Hematologic Malignancies Approval Notifications website. All clinical trials leading to FDA approval of cancer drugs during this period were examined. Main Outcomes and Measures: A drug was determined to have displaced the prior standard-of-care therapy by evaluating the comparator arm (or lack thereof) in the clinical trial leading to the drug's approval and also by reviewing National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guidelines. Cancer drug approvals were categorized as first-line displacing if a drug was approved for use in the first-line setting and displaced the prior standard-of-care drug for an indication, first-line drug alternatives/new if a drug was approved for use in the first-line setting but did not displace the standard of care at the time of approval or was a new drug that was first of its class for an approved indication, add on if a drug was approved in combination with a previously approved therapy for a disease or if a drug was approved for use in the adjuvant or maintenance settings, and later line if a drug was approved for use in the second-, third-, or later-line settings. Results: Between May 1, 2016, and May 31, 2021, there were 207 FDA cancer drug approvals in oncology and malignant hematology. Of these 207 approvals, 28 drugs (14%) were first-line displacing therapies. A total of 32 drugs (15%) were first-line drug alternatives/new drugs. A total of 61 drugs (29%) were add-on therapies. Finally, 86 drugs (42%) were approved as later-line therapies. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, most cancer drug approvals between 2016 and 2021 were in the later-line settings as opposed to displacing the current standard-of-care therapy for the approved indication. These later-line drugs may benefit patients with few alternatives but add to the cost of care because competition in the drug markets is a key factor in leading to lower drug prices.

Outcomes of Adults With Relapsed/Refractory Acute Myeloid Leukemia Treated With Venetoclax Plus Hypomethylating Agents at a Comprehensive Cancer Center.

Relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is a devastating disease with a poor prognosis and represents a major unmet medical need. We report on a real-world academic center experience of treating 25 patients with relapsed/refractory AML using venetoclax in combination with decitabine or azacitidine, which is not otherwise widely evaluated in the current literature. Our patients come from a large, socioeconomically and geographically diverse area including the majority of Northern California. Most had ELN Adverse Risk (52%) or Intermediate Risk (44%) AML, and most had an ECOG Performance Status of 1 (64%). Over half (52%) had prior hypomethylating agent exposure, and 40% had Secondary AML. We observed an overall response rate of 52%, with eight patients (32%) achieving composite complete remission. Median overall survival was 5.5 months, and for patients achieving composite complete remission this was 21.6 months. One-year estimated overall survival was 38%. Three patients were able to proceed directly to stem cell transplant for consolidation, and all three were alive at last follow-up, ranging 13.8-24.0 months. We found venetoclax in combination with hypomethylating agents to be well tolerated and potentially efficacious in securing long-term remissions for patients with relapsed/refractory AML.