RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are widely used in cancer patients despite accumulating data showing that they can impact the efficacy of major anticancer drugs. This is particularly important with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and immune checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs). RESULTS: Most TKIs require gastric acidity for their absorption and some retrospective series demonstrated that coprescription decreases the survival benefit of some TKI use (erlotinib, gefitinib and pazopanib). Relations between microbiota, the immune system, and the efficacy of immunotherapy are now obvious, just as modifications to gut flora after PPIs use are well-known. Many retrospective articles, including articles based on individual-participant data from randomized studies, demonstrated that patients treated with CPIs have a poorer outcome (overall survival, progression-free survival and response rate) when they received PPIs concomitantly, while there was no impact of such coprescription among patients in control arms, not treated with immunotherapies. Similar data were also observed in patients treated with palbociclib. CONCLUSION: For these interactions, it is very important to use the precautionary principle and warn patients and physicians about this. In patients who require acid suppression because of severe symptoms, using antacids or H2 blockers could be recommended.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias , Inhibidores de la Bomba de Protones , Humanos , Inhibidores de la Bomba de Protones/administración & dosificación , Inhibidores de la Bomba de Protones/uso terapéutico , Neoplasias/tratamiento farmacológico , Inhibidores de Proteínas Quinasas/uso terapéutico , Interacciones Farmacológicas , Inhibidores de Puntos de Control Inmunológico/uso terapéutico , Antineoplásicos/uso terapéuticoRESUMEN
In controlled phase II trials, major prognostic factors need to be well balanced between arms. The main procedures used are SPBR (Stratified Permuted Block Randomization) and minimization. First, we provide a systematic review of the treatment allocation procedure used in gastrointestinal oncology controlled phase II trials published in 2019. Second, we performed simulations using data from six phase II studies to measure the impacts of imbalances and bias on the efficacy estimations. From the 40 articles analyzed, all mentioned randomization in both the title and abstract, the median number of patients included was 109, and 77.5% were multicenter. Of the 27 studies that reported at least one stratification variable, 10 included the center as a stratification variable, 10 used minimization, 9 used SBR, and 8 were unspecified. In real data studies, the imbalance increased with the number of centers. The total and marginal imbalances were higher with SBR than with minimization, and the difference increased with the number of centers. The efficiency estimates per arm were close to the original trial estimate in both procedures. Minimization is often used in cases of numerous centers and guarantees better similarity between arms for stratification variables for total and marginal imbalances in phase II trials.
Asunto(s)
Ensayos Clínicos Fase II como Asunto , Humanos , Ensayos Clínicos Fase II como Asunto/métodos , Pronóstico , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Neoplasias Gastrointestinales/tratamiento farmacológico , Proyectos de Investigación , Neoplasias del Sistema Digestivo/tratamiento farmacológicoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Despite modern systemic chemotherapy, survival remains poor for patients with advanced isolated peritoneal metastases from the gastrointestinal tract. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) with oxaliplatin. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a phase 1/2, open label, non-comparative, dose escalation and expansion trial of PIPAC with oxaliplatin in patients with a peritoneal cancer index (PCI) of more than 5, 13 and 15 for respectively a gastric, small bowel and colorectal primary cancer, and who had received at least three months of systemic chemotherapy. PIPAC cycle lengths were 4-6 weeks with systemic chemotherapy allowed 15 days after each PIPAC. PCI and oxaliplatin tumor concentration were assessed every PIPAC cycle. The main endpoints were tolerability, tumor response, and survival. RESULTS: Between 2017 and 2020, 34 patients were enrolled in three centers, in this phase 1/2 study, of whom 25 were evaluable at the recommended dose determined in the phase I trial (90 mg/m2 plus systemic 5-FU). Before inclusion, patients received a median of 2 [1-4] chemotherapy lines and had a median PCI of 22.5 [7-29]. At this dose, the safety profile showed acceptable tolerability. Eight patients (32 %) had grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events. Minor (grade 1/2) adverse events were mainly abdominal pain (n = 19, 76 %) and nausea (n = 16, 64 %). Median PFS was 6.1 months and median OS was 13 months. CONCLUSION: In patients with advanced and refractory peritoneal metastasis, PFS of 6.1 months is encouraging. A prospective randomized phase II study is required.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Longer times between diagnosis and treatments of cancer patients have been estimated as effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, relatively few studies attempted to estimate actual delay to treatment at the patient level. OBJECTIVE: To assess changes in delays to first treatment and surgery among newly diagnosed patients with localized breast cancer (BC) during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We used data from the PAPESCO-19 multicenter cohort study, which included patients from 4 French comprehensive cancer centers. We measured the delay to first treatment as the number of days between diagnosis and the first treatment regardless of whether this was neoadjuvant chemotherapy or surgery. COVID-19 pandemic exposure was estimated with a composite index that considered both the severity of the pandemic and the level of lockdown restrictions. We ran generalized linear models with a log link function and a gamma distribution to model the association between delay and the pandemic. RESULTS: Of the 187 patients included in the analysis, the median delay to first treatment was 42 (IQR:32-54) days for patients diagnosed before and after the start of the 1st lockdown (N = 99 and 88, respectively). After adjusting for age and centers of inclusion, a higher composite pandemic index (> = 50 V.S. <50) had only a small, non-significant effect on times to treatment. Longer delays were associated with factors other than the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSION: We found evidence of no direct impact of the pandemic on the actual delay to treatment among patients with localized BC.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias de la Mama , COVID-19 , Tiempo de Tratamiento , Humanos , COVID-19/epidemiología , Femenino , Neoplasias de la Mama/terapia , Neoplasias de la Mama/epidemiología , Persona de Mediana Edad , Tiempo de Tratamiento/estadística & datos numéricos , Anciano , Francia/epidemiología , Adulto , Pandemias , SARS-CoV-2/aislamiento & purificación , Estudios de CohortesRESUMEN
In a multicenter prospective cohort of cancer patients (CP; n = 840) and healthcare workers (HCWs; n = 935) vaccinated against COVID-19, we noticed the following: i/after vaccination, 4.4% of HCWs and 5.8% of CP were infected; ii/no characteristic was associated with post-vaccine COVID-19 infections among HCWs; iii/CP who developed infections were younger, more frequently women (NS), more frequently had gastrointestinal, gynecological, or breast cancer and a localized cancer stage; iv/CP vaccinated while receiving chemotherapy or targeted therapy had (NS) more breakthrough infections after vaccination than those vaccinated after these treatments; the opposite was noted with radiotherapy, immunotherapy, or hormonotherapy; v/most COVID-19 infections occurred either during the Alpha wave (11/41 HCW, 20/49 CP), early after the first vaccination campaign started, or during the Omicron wave (21/41 HCW, 20/49 CP), more than 3 months after the second dose; vi/risk of infection was not associated with values of antibody titers; vii/the outcome of these COVID-19 infections after vaccination was not severe in all cases. To conclude, around 5% of our CPs or HCWs developed a COVID-19 infection despite previous vaccination. The outcome of these infections was not severe.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Biliary tract cancers are rare, heterogeneous cancers with poor prognoses. Bintrafusp alfa, a first-in-class bifunctional fusion protein composed of the extracellular domain of TGF-ßRII (a TGF-ß "trap") fused to a human IgG1 monoclonal antibody blocking programmed death ligand 1, was evaluated in patients with locally advanced/metastatic chemorefractory biliary tract cancers. APPROACH AND RESULTS: This multicenter, single-arm, open-label, phase 2 study (NCT03833661) enrolled adults with locally advanced or metastatic biliary tract cancer that was intolerant to or had failed first-line systemic platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients received 1200 mg bintrafusp alfa intravenously Q2W. The primary endpoint was confirmed objective response according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1 assessed by IRC. Secondary endpoints included duration of response, durable response rate, safety, progression-free survival, and overall survival.Between March 2019 and January 2020, 159 patients were enrolled. Median follow-up was 16.1 (range, 0.0-19.3) months; 17 patients (10.7%; 95% CI: 6.4%-16.6%) achieved an objective response. Median duration of response was 10.0 (range, 1.9-15.7) months; 10 patients (6.3%; 95% CI: 3.1%-11.3%) had a durable response (≥6 mo). Median progression-free survival was 1.8 months (95% CI: 1.7-1.8 mo); median overall survival was 7.6 months (95% CI: 5.8-9.7 mo). Overall survival rates were 57.9% (6 mo) and 38.8% (12 mo). Grade ≥3 adverse events occurred in 26.4% of patients, including one treatment-related death (hepatic failure). Frequent grade ≥3 adverse events included anemia (3.8%), pruritus (1.9%), and increased alanine aminotransferase (1.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Although this study did not meet its prespecified primary endpoint, bintrafusp alfa demonstrated clinical activity as second-line treatment in this hard-to-treat cancer, with durable responses and a manageable safety profile.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias de los Conductos Biliares , Neoplasias del Sistema Biliar , Adulto , Humanos , Anticuerpos Monoclonales/uso terapéutico , Supervivencia sin Progresión , Factores Inmunológicos , Neoplasias del Sistema Biliar/tratamiento farmacológico , Neoplasias del Sistema Biliar/patología , Criterios de Evaluación de Respuesta en Tumores Sólidos , Neoplasias de los Conductos Biliares/tratamiento farmacológicoRESUMEN
The standard of care of first-line systemic therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is currently changing with the results of the IMbrave150 trial which are demonstrating superiority of the atezolizumab-bevacizumab combination over sorafenib, modifying this line of treatment for the first time in over 10 years. Recently, other immunotherapy-based combinations (durvalumab-tremelimumab, lenvatinib-pembrolizumab, cabozantinib-atezolizumab, and camrelizumab-rivoceranib) reported results in phase III studies, and might challenge this new standard of care. This revolution will lead to a considerable change in practice, and highlight challenges for future drug development. In this review, we will, firstly, describe results of the different combinations, and discuss the difficulties in selecting the first-line treatment. We will then present the different recommendations about second-line treatment following the first-line immunotherapy-based combination, discussing the rationale for the differences in existing recommendations. We will finally discuss the challenges for future drug development in advanced HCC.
RESUMEN
This 38-year-old man has a familial BRCA2 mutation. He presented with skin erythema, polyarthritis, dactylitis, and febrile erythema nodosum; a biopsy of a liver metastase revealed acinar cell carcinoma of the pancreas. After FOLFIRINOX, olaparib was initiated, and 24 months after, the patient was PS 0 and asymptomatic.
RESUMEN
In this prospective, real-life cohort study, we followed 523 cancer patients (CP) and 579 healthcare workers (HCW) from two cancer centers to evaluate the biological and clinical results of the COVID-19 vaccination campaign. Seventy percent of the CP and 90% of the HCW received an mRNA vaccine or the AZD1222 vaccine. Seropositivity was high after the first vaccine among HCW and poor among CP. The second dose resulted in almost 100% seropositivity in both cohorts. Antibody response was higher after the second injection than the first in both populations. Despite at least two doses, 8 CP (1.5%) and 14 HCW (2.4%) were infected, corresponding either to a weak level of antibody or a new strain of virus (particularly the Omicron variant of concern). Sixteen CP and three HCW were hospitalized but none of them died from COVID-19. To conclude, this study showed that two doses of COVID-19 vaccines were crucially necessary to attain sufficient seropositivity. However, the post-vaccination antibody level declines in individuals from the two cohorts and could not totally prevent new SARS-CoV-2 infections.
RESUMEN
The absorption of pazopanib depends on gastric pH. PPIs are frequently prescribed for cancer patients to modify gastric acidity, decreasing pazopanib absorption. The aim of our study was, retrospectively, to investigate the impact of PPIs on the clinical efficacy and safety of pazopanib in a cohort of patients treated in our health center. Of the 147 patients who were included retrospectively, 79 (54%) did not take PPIs concomitantly with pazopanib (cohort 1), while 68 (46%) patients did take PPIs concomitantly with pazopanib (cohort 2). The efficacy parameters were lower in patients taking pazopanib and PPIs: the i/tumor response was statistically different between the two cohorts (p = 0.008), in particular, with 19% vs. 3% of the objective response and 24% vs. 43% of progression in cohorts 1 and 2, respectively; ii/median overall survival was 17.6 (95% CI: 12.5−32.8) months in cohort 1 and 8.6 months (95% CI: 5.9−18.6) in cohort 2 (HR = 1.7 [95% CI: 1.2−2.5]; p < 0.006); on multivariable analysis, overall survival was associated with performance status, PPI intake, tumor location, hemoglobin, and PMN/lymphocyte ratio. In contrast, the dose reduction for toxicity and severe adverse events were (non-significantly) less frequent in cohort 1. To conclude, our study shows that combining PPIs with pazopanib has an adverse effect on overall survival. The clinical modifications that were observed are in line with a decrease in pazopanib absorption due to PPIs. This co-medication should be avoided.
RESUMEN
Background: Cancer patients (CPs) are considered more vulnerable and as a high mortality group regarding COVID-19. In this analysis, we aimed to describe asymptomatic COVID (+) CPs and associated factors. Methods: We conducted a prospective study in CPs and health care workers (HCWs) in 4 French cancer centers (PAPESCO [PAtients et PErsonnels de Santé des Centres de Lutte Contre le Cancer pendant l'épidémie de COvid-19] study). This analysis used data recorded between June 17, 2020 and November 30, 2020 in CPs (first 2 waves, no variants). At inclusion and quarterly, CPs reported the presence of predefined COVID-19 symptoms and had a blood rapid diagnostic test; a reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) was done in case of suspected infection. Results: A total 878 CPs were included; COVID-19 prevalence was similar in both CPs (8%) and HCWs (9.5%); of the 70 CPs (8%) who were COVID (+), 29 (41.4%) were and remained asymptomatic; 241/808 of the COVID (-) (29.8%) were symptomatic. 18 COVID (+) were hospitalized (2% of CPs), 1 in intensive care unit (ICU) and 1 died (0.1% of CPs and 2.4% of symptomatic COVID [+] CPs). Only the inclusion center was associated with clinical presentation (in Nancy, Angers, Nantes, and Clermont-Ferrand: 65.4%, 35%, 28.6%, and 10% CPs were asymptomatic, respectively). Conclusions: Seroprevalence of COVID-19 in CPs was similar to that observed in HCWs; mortality related to COVID-19 among CPs was 0.1%. More than 40% of COVID (+) CPs were asymptomatic and one third of COVID (-) CPs had symptoms. Only geographic origin was associated with the presence or absence of symptoms. Social distancing and protective measures must be applied in CPs at home and when hospitalized.
RESUMEN
Multikinase inhibitors (MKIs), and particularly tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and immune checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs), are currently some of the major breakthroughs in cancer treatment. Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) revolutionised the treatment of acid-related diseases, but are frequently overused for epigastric pain or heartburn. However, long-term acid suppression from using PPIs may lead to safety concerns, and could have a greater impact in cancer patients undergoing therapy, like bone fractures, renal toxicities, enteric infections, and micronutrient deficiencies (iron and magnesium). Moreover, acid suppression may also affect the pharmacokinetics of drugs (at least during acid suppression) and decrease the absorption of many molecularly-targeted anticancer therapies, which are mostly weak bases with pH-dependent absorption. This type of drug-drug interaction may have detrimental effects on efficacy, with major clinical impacts described for some orally administrated targeted therapies (erlotinib, gefitinib, pazopanib, palbociclib), and conflicting results with many others, including capecitabine. Furthermore, the long-term use of PPIs results in severe alterations to the gut microbiome and recent retrospective analyses have shown that the benefit of using CPIs was suppressed in patients treated with PPIs. These very expensive drugs are of great importance because of their efficacy. As the use of PPIs is not essential, we must apply the precautionary principle. All these data should encourage medical oncologists to refrain from prescribing PPIs, explaining to patients the risks of interaction in order to prevent inappropriate prescription by another physician.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Nowadays, resection of two (liver and peritoneum) concomitant colorectal cancer metastatic sites is no longer contraindicated. However, the oncologic outcomes of resecting peritoneal metastases (PM) occurring more than six months after resection of liver metastases (LM) are unknown. AIM: The aim of this study was to compare patients with complete cytoreductive surgery (CRS) with or without a history of previous liver resection (LR). METHODS: Analysis from a prospective database of 74 patients with metachronous PM treated with CRS between 2010 and 2020. RESULTS: All patients had PM metachronous to primary, 64 patients underwent CRS alone (CRSa) and 10 CRS more than six months after LR (LR-CRS). There was no statistical difference between the groups for clinical or therapeutic characteristics. There were more signet ring cell/mucinous adenocarcinomas in the CRSa group than in the LR-CRS group (19% vs. 0%, p = 0.049). The median peritoneal cancer index (PCI) was 4 and 6 (p = 0.749) in the LR-CRS and CRSa groups, respectively. Median overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were not statistically different between the two groups with 43.6 and 13 months for the CRSa group and 31.1 months and 9.4 months for LR-CRS. Advanced age was an independent negative prognostic factor for OS and high PCI was limit significant. No prognostic factor for DFS was found. CONCLUSIONS: LR before CRS has no major prognostic impact. Resection of iterative liver and peritoneum metastases can achieve long-term survival.
Asunto(s)
Carcinoma de Células en Anillo de Sello , Neoplasias Colorrectales , Hipertermia Inducida , Neoplasias Hepáticas , Neoplasias Peritoneales , Neoplasias Colorrectales/patología , Terapia Combinada , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos de Citorreducción , Humanos , Neoplasias Hepáticas/secundario , Neoplasias Peritoneales/secundario , Peritoneo/patología , Pronóstico , Estudios Retrospectivos , Tasa de SupervivenciaRESUMEN
Background: Cancer patients may fail to distinguish COVID-19 symptoms such as anosmia, dysgeusia/ageusia, anorexia, headache, and fatigue, which are frequent after cancer treatments. We aimed to identify symptoms associated with COVID-19 and to assess the strength of their association in cancer and cancer-free populations. Methods: The multicenter cohort study PAPESCO-19 included 878 cancer patients and 940 healthcare workers (HCWs). At baseline and quarterly thereafter, they reported the presence or absence of 13 COVID-19 symptoms observed over 3 months and the results of routine screening RT-PCR, and they were systematically tested for SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies. We identified the symptom combinations significantly associated with COVID-19. Results: Eight percent of cancer patients were COVID-19 positive, and 32% were symptomatic. Among the HCWs, these proportions were 9.5 and 52%, respectively. Anosmia, anorexia, fever, headache, and rhinorrhea together accurately discriminated (c-statistic = 0.7027) COVID-19 cases from cancer patients. Anosmia, dysgeusia/ageusia, muscle pain, intense fatigue, headache, and chest pain better discriminated (c-statistic = 0.8830) COVID-19 cases among the HCWs. Anosmia had the strongest association in both the cancer patients (OR = 7.48, 95% CI: 2.96-18.89) and HCWs (OR = 5.71, 95% CI: 2.21-14.75). Conclusions: COVID-19 symptoms and their diagnostic performance differ in the cancer patients and HCWs. Anosmia is associated with COVID-19 in cancer patients, while dysgeusia/ageusia is not. Cancer patients deserve tailored preventive measures due to their particular COVID-19 symptom pattern.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Careful selection of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients prior to chemoembolization treatment is a daily reality, and is even more necessary with new available therapeutic options in HCC. AIM: To propose two new models to better stratify patients and maximize clinical benefit: "6 and 12" and "pre/post-TACE-predict" (TACE, transarterial chemoembolization). METHODS: We evaluated and compared their performance in predicting overall survival with other systems {Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC), Albumin-Bilirubin (ALBI) and NIACE [Number of tumor(s), Infiltrative HCC, alpha-fetoprotein, Child-Pugh (CP), and performance status]} in two HCC French cohorts of different stages enrolled between 2010 and 2018. RESULTS: The cohorts included 324 patients classified as BCLC stages A/B (cohort 1) and 137 patients classified as BCLC stages B/C (cohort 2). The majority of the patients had cirrhosis with preserved liver function. "Pre-TACE-predict" and "6 and 12" models identified three distinct categories of patients exhibiting different prognosis in cohort 1. However, their prognostic value was no better than the BCLC system or NIACE score. Liver function based on CP and ALBI grades significantly impacted patient survival. Conversely, the "post-TACE-predict" model had a higher predictive value than other models. The stratification ability as well as predictive performance of these new models in an intermediate/advanced stage population was less efficient (cohort 2). CONCLUSION: The newly proposed "Pre-TACE-predict" and "6 and 12" models offer an interesting stratification into three categories in a recommended TACE population, as they identify poor candidates, those with partial control and durable response. The models' contribution was reduced in a population with advanced stage HCCs.
Asunto(s)
Prescripciones de Medicamentos/estadística & datos numéricos , Neoplasias/tratamiento farmacológico , Inhibidores de la Bomba de Protones/administración & dosificación , Estudios Transversales , Francia , Humanos , Aceptación de la Atención de Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Prevalencia , Inhibidores de la Bomba de Protones/uso terapéuticoRESUMEN
Temporal and spatial tumor heterogeneity can be observed in pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor. We report the case of a young woman with long term stabilization of a G2 metastatic pancreatic NET that, after pregnancy, suddenly progressed into one single liver metastasis corresponding to a transformation into G3 large-cell neuroendocrine cancer. The patient underwent liver resection (the progressive and one dormant metastasis). With a 45 months follow-up the patient is without evolutive disease. Exome sequencing of the two metastases revealed completely different genomic signatures and gene alterations: the dormant metastasis was MSS without any gene alteration; the poorly differentiated tumor was MSI, with gain of many mutations including MEN1, BCL2, MLH1 and TP53 corresponding to a mutational signature 11. Could temozolomide play a role in this transformation?
RESUMEN
Oxaliplatin, a platinum-based chemotherapeutic agent, is responsible for induced peripheral sensory neuropathy. Only a few cases of ophthalmologic toxicity have been reported. We report here two cases of sudden transient vision loss after oxaliplatin administration, in one case intraperitoneally. These symptoms likely reflect optic neuritis that could be included in the spectrum of oxaliplatin-induced neuropathy.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND/AIM: FOLFOX (5-Fluorouracile and oxaliplatin) exhibits promising activity in advanced well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors (NETs). This retrospective study aimed to analyze the outcome of metastatic enteropancreatic NETs patients treated with FOLFOX. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively identified patients treated with FOLFOX for NETs of enteropancreatic or unknown origin among those referred to our Regional Multidisciplinary Tumor Board. RESULTS: Among 48 patients, most often pancreatic NETs (n=33, 68.8%), the median Ki67 index was 10%. The median number cycle of FOLFOX was 6 and median follow-up was 34.8 months. Disease control rate (DCR) was 83.3%. Median PFS and OS were 12.6 and 29.4 months respectively. Median chemotherapy break was 14.1 months. No significant difference was observed between PFS and the following criteria: Ki67 index, primary tumor site, alkaline phosphatase levels, primary tumor surgery and 18F-FDG PET positivity. CONCLUSION: FOLFOX exhibits a high DCR and a short duration of treatment with a relative long chemotherapy break in patients with metastatic enteropancreatic NETs.