Prevention of allergic reactions during oxaliplatin desensitization through inhibition of Bruton tyrosine kinase.

BACKGROUND: Acute infusion reactions to oxaliplatin, a chemotherapeutic used to treat gastrointestinal cancers, are observed in about 20% of patients. Rapid drug desensitization (RDD) protocols often allow the continuation of oxaliplatin in patients with no alternative options. Breakthrough symptoms, including anaphylaxis, can still occur during RDD. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to evaluate whether pretreatment with acalabrutinib, a Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor, can prevent anaphylaxis during RDD in a patient sensitized to oxaliplatin. METHODS: A 52-year-old male with locally advanced gastric carcinoma developed anaphylaxis during his fifth cycle of oxaliplatin. As he required 6 additional cycles to complete his curative-intent treatment regimen, he underwent RDD to oxaliplatin but still developed severe acute reactions. The risks and benefits of adding acalabrutinib before and during RDD were reviewed, and the patient elected to proceed. RESULTS: With acalabrutinib taken before and during the RDD, the patient was able to tolerate oxaliplatin RDD without complication. Consistent with its mechanism of action, acalabrutinib completely blocked the patient's positive skin prick response to oxaliplatin. Acalabrutinib did not alter the percentage of circulating basophils (1.24% vs 0.98%) before the RDD but did protect against basopenia (0.74% vs 0.09%) after the RDD. Acalabrutinib was associated with a drastic reduction in the ability of basophils to upregulate CD63 in vitro following incubation with oxaliplatin (0.11% vs 2.38%) or polyclonal anti-human IgE antibody (0.08% vs 44.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Five doses of acalabrutinib, 100 mg, orally twice daily starting during the evening 2 days before and continuing through RDD allowed a sensitized patient to receive oxaliplatin successfully and safely.

The effect of neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage on smoking status, quit attempts, and receipt of cessation support among adults with cancer: Results from nine ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group trials.

BACKGROUND: Tobacco use is associated with adverse outcomes among patients diagnosed with cancer. Socioeconomic determinants influence access and utilization of tobacco treatment; little is known about the relationship between neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage (NSD) and tobacco assessment, assistance, and cessation among patients diagnosed with cancer. METHODS: A modified Cancer Patient Tobacco Use Questionnaire (C-TUQ) was administered to patients enrolled in nine ECOG-ACRIN clinical trials. We examined associations of NSD with (1) smoking status, (2) receiving tobacco cessation assessment and support, and (3) cessation behaviors. NSD was classified by tertiles of the Area Deprivation Index. Associations between NSD and tobacco variables were evaluated using logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 740 patients completing the C-TUQ were 70% male, 94% White, 3% Hispanic, mean age 58.8 years. Cancer diagnoses included leukemia 263 (36%), lymphoma 141 (19%), prostate 131 (18%), breast 79 (11%), melanoma 69 (9%), myeloma 53 (7%), and head and neck 4 (0.5%). A total of 402 (54%) never smoked, 257 (35%) had formerly smoked, and 81 (11%) were currently smoking. Patients in high disadvantaged neighborhoods were approximately four times more likely to report current smoking (odds ratio [OR], 3.57; 95% CI, 1.69-7.54; p = .0009), and more likely to report being asked about smoking (OR, 4.24; 95% CI, 1.64-10.98; p = .0029), but less likely to report receiving counseling (OR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.02-0.58; p = .0086) versus those in the least disadvantaged neighborhoods. CONCLUSIONS: Greater neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage was associated with smoking but less cessation support. Increased cessation support in cancer care is needed, particularly for patients from disadvantaged neighborhoods.

Combination of pembrolizumab and pelareorep promotes anti-tumour immunity in advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC).

BACKGROUND: We previously reported activity of pelareorep, pembrolizumab and chemotherapy. Patients developed new T-cell clones and increased peripheral T-cell clonality, leading to an inflamed tumour. To evaluate a chemotherapy-free regimen, this study assesses if pelareorep and pembrolizumab has efficacy by inducing anti-tumour immunological changes (NCT03723915). METHODS: PDAC patients who progressed after first-line therapy, received iv pelareorep induction with pembrolizumab every 21-days. Primary objective is overall response rate. Secondary objectives included evaluation of immunological changes within tumour and blood. RESULTS: Clinical benefit rate (CBR) was 42% amongst 12 patients. One patient achieved partial response (PR) and four stable disease (SD). Seven progressed, deemed non-responders (NR). VDAC1 expression in peripheral CD8+ T cells was higher at baseline in CBR than NR but decreased in CBR upon treatment. On-treatment peripheral CD4+ Treg levels decreased in CBR but not in NR. Analysis of tumour demonstrated PD-L1+ cells touching CD8+ T cells, and NK cells were more abundant post-treatment vs. baseline. A higher intensity of PD-L1 in tumour infiltrates at baseline, particularly in CBR vs. NR. Finally, higher levels of soluble (s)IDO, sLag3, sPD-1 observed at baseline among NR vs. CBR. CONCLUSION: Pelareorep and pembrolizumab showed modest efficacy in unselected patients, although potential immune and metabolic biomarkers were identified to warrant further evaluation.

How do patients interpret and respond to a single-item global indicator of cancer treatment tolerability?

BACKGROUND: There is increasing interest in patient-reported measures of cancer treatment tolerability. A global measure of bother, the FACT GP5 item ("I am bothered by side effects of treatment") is potentially useful for regulatory, research, and clinical use. To understand this item's appropriateness for capturing treatment tolerability, we conducted cognitive interviews on this item with 3 samples of cancer patients. METHODS: Patients with ovarian cancer (Study 1: N = 21; on treatment), lymphoma (Study 2: N = 14; on treatment), and colorectal or lung cancer (Study 3: N = 16; treatment naïve) were interviewed about GP5's understandability and relevance to their treatment side effects. What patients think about when answering GP5 was also assessed. In all studies, the interview included both structured and open-ended questions. Qualitative data were coded to extract themes and responses to structured questions were tallied. RESULTS: Most patients on treatment (Studies 1 and 2) reported that the GP5 item wording is appropriate (88%) and its meaning is clear (97%). They were very confident or confident in their response (97%) and stated that GP5 was relevant to their cancer experience (97%). When answering GP5, patients considered their treatment and specific side effects. A large proportion (40%) of the treatment-naïve (Study 3) patients reported that GP5 was not relevant to their cancer treatment, and the largest proportion responded to GP5 thinking of negative side effect expectancies. CONCLUSION: This study provides assurance that GP5 is a useful indicator of treatment tolerability, and is meaningful to people with cancer, especially once they have started treatment.

A review of movement disorders in chemotherapy-induced neurotoxicity.

Chemotherapy agents used in the standard treatments for many types of cancer are neurotoxic and can lead to lasting sensory and motor symptoms that compromise day-to-day movement functions in cancer survivors. To date, the details of movement disorders associated with chemotherapy are known largely through self-reported symptoms and functional limitations. There are few quantitative studies of specific movement deficits, limiting our understanding of dysfunction, as well as effective assessments and interventions. The aim of this narrative review is to consolidate the current understanding of sensorimotor disabilities based on quantitative measures in cancer survivors who received chemotherapy. We performed literature searches on PubMed and found 32 relevant movement studies. We categorized these studies into three themes based on the movement deficits investigated: (1) balance and postural control; (2) gait function; (3) upper limb function. This literature suggests that cancer survivors have increased postural sway, more conservative gait patterns, and suboptimal hand function compared to healthy individuals. More studies are needed that use objective measures of sensorimotor function to better characterize movement disabilities and investigate the underlying causes, as required for developing targeted assessments and interventions. By updating our understanding of movement impairments in this population, we identify significant gaps in knowledge that will help guide the direction of future research.

Ipilimumab and Gemcitabine for Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: A Phase Ib Study.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains resistant to chemotherapy and immunotherapy individually because of its desmoplastic stroma and immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment. Synergizing cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4) immune checkpoint blockade with chemotherapy could overcome these barriers. Here we present results of a phase Ib trial combining ipilimumab and gemcitabine in advanced PDAC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a single-institution study with a 3 + 3 dose-escalation design. The primary objective was to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). Secondary objectives included determining the toxicity profile, objective response rate (ORR), median progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Twenty-one patients were enrolled, 13 during dose escalation and 8 at the MTD. The median age was 66 years, 62% were female, 95% had stage IV disease, and 67% had received at least one prior line of therapy. The primary objective to establish the MTD was achieved at doses of ipilimumab 3 mg/kg and gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 . The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were anemia (48%), leukopenia (48%), and neutropenia (43%). The ORR was 14% (3/21), and seven patients had stable disease. Median response duration for the three responders was 11 months, with one response duration of 19.8 months. Median PFS was 2.78 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.61-4.83 months), and median OS was 6.90 months (95% CI, 2.63-9.57 months). CONCLUSION: Gemcitabine and ipilimumab is a safe and tolerable regimen for PDAC with a similar response rate to gemcitabine alone. As in other immunotherapy trials, responses were relatively durable in this study. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Gemcitabine and ipilimumab is a safe and feasible regimen for treating advanced pancreatic cancer. Although one patient in this study had a relatively durable response of nearly 20 months, adding ipilimumab to gemcitabine does not appear to be more effective than gemcitabine alone in advanced pancreatic cancer.

Telemedicine in Oncology and Reimbursement Policy During COVID-19 and Beyond.

The first confirmed case of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the United States was reported on January 20, 2020. As of September 17, 2020, there were more than 6.6 million confirmed cases and 196,277 deaths. Limited data are available on outcomes of immunocompromised patients, but early published reports from China indicate that those with cancer have a 3.5 times higher risk of ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, or death than those without cancer. Because of the uncertain behavior of COVID-19, it has become imperative for practices to limit exposure to vulnerable patients. Telemedicine has been one of the cornerstones of caring for patients with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic. This review provides an overview of reimbursement policy by public and private payers before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, describes implications in cancer care, and offers considerations for future reimbursement policy.

Physicians' perspectives on medication adherence and health promotion among cancer survivors.

BACKGROUND: Cancer survivors face an increased risk of cardiovascular events compared with the general population. Adopting a healthy lifestyle may reduce these risks, and guidelines encourage health-promotion counseling for cancer survivors, but the extent of physician adherence is unclear. METHODS: This mixed-method study surveyed 91 physicians, including 30 primary care physicians (PCPs), 30 oncologists, and 31 specialists (urologists, dermatologists, and gynecologists). Interviews also were conducted with 12 oncologists. RESULTS: Most PCPs (90%) reported recommending health promotion (eg, weight loss, smoking cessation) to at least some cancer survivors, whereas few oncologists (26.7%) and specialists (9.7%) said they ever did so (P < .001). Although most physicians believed that at least 50% of cancer survivors would be adherent to medication regimens to prevent cancer recurrence, they also believed that, if patients were trying to lose weight, they would not remain medication-adherent. In interviews, oncologists expressed fear that providing health-promotion advice would distress or overwhelm patients. Additional health-promotion barriers identified by thematic analysis included: identifying cancer as oncologists' focal concern, time pressure, insufficient behavior change training, and care coordination challenges. Facilitators included perceiving a patient benefit and having health-promotion resources integrated into the cancer care system. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians often do not have the time, expertise, or resources to address health promotion with cancer survivors. Research is needed to evaluate whether health-promotion efforts compromise medical regimen adherence, as physicians' responses suggest.

Implementing electronic health record-integrated screening of patient-reported symptoms and supportive care needs in a comprehensive cancer center.

BACKGROUND: Oncology practice can be enhanced by the integration of the assessment of patient-reported symptoms and concerns into the electronic health record (EHR) and clinical workflows. METHODS: Adult oncology outpatients (n = 6825) received 38,422 invitations to complete assessments through the EHR patient portal. Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System computer adaptive tests were administered to assess fatigue, pain interference, physical function, depression, and anxiety. Checklists identified psychosocial, nutritional, and informational needs. In real time, assessment results were populated in the EHR, and clinicians were notified of elevated symptoms and needs. RESULTS: In all, 3521 patients (51.6%) completed 8162 assessments; approximately 55% of the responding patients completed 2 or more within 32 months. Fatigue, pain, anxiety, and depression scores were comparable to those of the general population (approximately 5% of assessments triggered clinical alerts across those domains); mean scores indicated a lower level of physical function (with severe scores prompting alerts in nearly 5% of assessments). More than half of assessments triggered an alert based on patient endorsement of supportive care needs, with the majority of those being nutritional (41.82% of assessments). Patient endorsement of supportive care needs was associated with significantly higher anxiety, depression, fatigue, and pain interference scores and lower physical function scores. Patients who triggered clinical alerts tended to be younger and more recently diagnosed, to have greater comorbidities, and to be a racial/ethnic minority. Patients who triggered clinical alerts had more health care service encounters in the ensuing month. CONCLUSIONS: EHR integration facilitated the assessment and reporting of patient-reported symptoms and needs within routine oncology outpatient care.

Comparison of Cancer Burden and Nonprofit Organization Funding Reveals Disparities in Funding Across Cancer Types.

BACKGROUND: Nonprofit organizations (NPOs) in oncology are vital for patient advocacy and funding research for rare cancers, young investigators, and innovative projects. However, some cancers may be underfunded relative to their burden. This study examined the alignment of cancer burden by histology with NPO funding for each histology. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This nationwide, cross-sectional study conducted from October 2017 through February 2018 included all oncology NPOs with >$5 million in annual revenue. Total revenue from NPOs supporting individual cancer types with the incidence, mortality, and person-years of life lost (PYLL) for each cancer type was compared using scatter plots and Pearson correlation coefficients. Correlation of expenditure types (eg, fundraising, patient education) with revenue was assessed using Pearson correlation coefficients. Effect of disease association with a stigmatized behavior (eg, lung cancer and smoking) was evaluated using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: A total of 119 cancer-related NPOs were included, generating approximately $6 billion in annual revenue in 2015. Cancers with the largest revenue were breast cancer ($460 million; 33.2%), leukemia ($201 million; 14.5%), pediatric cancers ($177 million; 12.8%), and lymphoma ($145 million; 10.5%). Breast cancer, leukemia, lymphoma, and pediatric cancers were all well funded compared with their incidence, mortality, and PYLL. Gastrointestinal (colorectal, pancreas, and hepatobiliary), gynecologic (ovarian, cervical, and endometrial), brain, and lung cancers were poorly funded in all 3 metrics. All cancers associated with a stigmatized behavior were poorly funded in at least 2 metrics. Increased spending on fundraising, administrative costs, patient education, and treatment was highly correlated with increased revenue (Pearson correlation coefficients all >0.92). CONCLUSIONS: NPO funding by cancer type is not proportionate with individual cancer burden on society. Disease stigma negatively impacts funding. A significant need exists to increase awareness and funding for many undersupported but common and highly lethal cancers.

Financial toxicity in cancer care: Prevalence, causes, consequences, and reduction strategies.

Financial toxicity is the adverse impact of a cancer diagnosis on a patient's financial well-being resulting from direct or indirect costs. Potential consequences of financial toxicity include material loss, psychological distress, and/or maladaptive coping strategies. This review will summarize the prevalence, causes, and consequences of financial toxicity, with an emphasis on strategies to anticipate and reduce its burden. Improvement will require multilevel, coordinated efforts between stakeholders including patients, providers, health systems, payers, manufacturers, and policymakers.

Survivorship Guidance for Patients with Colorectal Cancer.

OPINION STATEMENT: Effective therapy for treatment of colorectal cancer includes comprehensive and evidence-based therapies that may include a combination of surgery, chemotherapy, targeted therapy, and/or radiation. However, in order to provide patients with the highest quality of care, providers must consider all aspects of survivorship care including: surveillance for recurrence/second primaries, genetic counseling, psychosocial/physical late effects of cancer and its therapies, and preventative lifestyle strategies. Health systems, providers, and researchers need to identify systematic methods of addressing the unique needs of the survivorship population that include multidisciplinary teams including supportive oncology (i.e., psychologists, social workers), specialties (i.e., cardiology), and primary care physicians.

Innovating Cancer Care Delivery: the Example of the 4R Oncology Model for Colorectal Cancer Patients.

OPINION STATEMENT: Care delivery innovation is necessary to address the growing complexity of cancer care across specialties and integrate new diagnostics, treatments, and services into care delivery. Informed by Cancer Care Delivery Research (CCDR), multilevel intervention research, and other disciplines, this article describes the 4-step cancer care delivery innovation cycle. The cycle guides collaborative efforts of cancer clinicians, researchers, patients, and other stakeholders to systematically define care delivery problems and formulate, test, and implement care innovations to effectively address problems. We illustrate the 4 steps of the innovation cycle with the example of developing the 4R Oncology Model for colorectal cancer (4R is Right Information and Right Care for the Right Patient at the Right Time). The 4R is a multilevel intervention informed by CCDR, the team science, and lessons learned from other models, such as survivorship care planning. We offer additional considerations for balancing the need to innovate with concerns about constrained resources and overextended workforce. We suggest to focus on care delivery models which are synergistic with other efforts and do not require extensive information systems support in earlier cycles of development.

Promoting the Shared-Care Model for Adolescent and Young Adults With Cancer: Optimizing Referrals and Care Coordination With Primary Care Providers.

BACKGROUND: The "shared-care model" for patients with cancer involves care coordination between primary care providers (PCPs) and oncologists, with the goal of optimizing survivorship care. However, a high proportion of adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer survivors do not have a PCP. Study objectives were to increase the percentage of AYAs with a PCP documented in the electronic medical record (EMR) via the use of a best practice advisory (BPA) or "stopgap" intervention; to increase communication between providers by the number of routed clinic notes; and to assess oncology providers' attitudes/beliefs about the model and intervention. METHODS: Data were collected for the 6 months before implementation of the BPA to determine the percentage of AYAs with a PCP and the number of notes routed to providers (time point 1 [T1]). The same data were collected at time point 2 (T2) after the BPA had been implemented for 6 months. Oncology providers participated in an education video module and an online survey at T1 and a survey at T2. RESULTS: At T1, 47.1% of 756 AYAs had a documented PCP in the EMR. At T2, the percentage increased to 55.1% (P<.002). The number of routed notes did not change significantly from T1 to T2. Providers that completed the intervention survey agreed/strongly agreed that the shared-care model is a desirable model of care (T1 = 86%; T2 = 93%) and that a BPA is useful for facilitating PCP referrals (T1 = 76%; T2 = 39%). CONCLUSIONS: This BPA is feasible for increasing the percentage of AYAs with a PCP documented in the EMR and could potentially lead to increased PCP referral and communication among providers for the benefit of long-term survivorship care. Providers generally agree with the shared-care model; however, the BPA implementation requires modification.

Immuno-oncology and Its Opportunities for Interventional Radiologists: Immune Checkpoint Inhibition and Potential Synergies with Interventional Oncology Procedures.

Immunotherapy, specifically the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors, offers a new approach to fighting cancer. Although the results of treatment with immune checkpoint inhibition alone have been remarkable for certain cancers, these results are not universal. Preclinical and early clinical studies indicate the potential for synergistic effects when immune checkpoint inhibition is combined with immunogenic local therapies such as ablation and embolization. This review offers an overview of immunology as it relates to immune checkpoint inhibition and the possibilities for synergy when combined with interventional radiology treatments.

Angiogenic Response following Radioembolization: Results from a Randomized Pilot Study of Yttrium-90 with or without Sorafenib.

PURPOSE: To compare the regulation of serum angiogenic factors in patients with unresectable early hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treated with yttrium-90 ((90)Y) radioembolization alone vs with sorafenib. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a single-center pilot study, 23 patients with unresectable HCC awaiting orthotopic liver transplantation were prospectively randomized to receive radioembolization alone (n = 12) or radioembolization with sorafenib (n = 11). Serum angiogenic markers (angiopoietin-2 [Ang-2], hepatocyte growth factor, interleukin [IL]-6, IL-8, c-reactive protein, platelet-derived growth factor [PDGF], and vascular endothelial growth factor [VEGF]) were assayed at baseline and at 2 and 4 weeks after radioembolization ((90)Y alone, n = 6; (90)Y plus sorafenib, n = 7). RESULTS: In the (90)Y-alone group, all growth factors were elevated above baseline levels at 2 and 4 weeks: VEGF increased 36% vs baseline at 2 weeks and 22% at 4 weeks, and PDGF increased 24% at 2 weeks and 3% at 4 weeks. In the (90)Y/sorafenib arm, Ang-2 and PDGF decreased at 2 weeks and the remainder increased. By 4 weeks, only PDGF remained below baseline levels. VEGF increased 49% at 2 weeks and 28% at 4 weeks, and PDGF decreased 31% at 2 weeks and 39% at 4 weeks. Differences were statistically significant for hepatocyte growth factor (P = .03) and PDGF (P = .02) at 2 weeks and for IL-6 (P = .05) at 4 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: Radioembolization is associated with a mild increase in angiogenic markers. The addition of sorafenib blunts PDGF response; other factors such as VEGF remain unaffected. The predominant effect of sorafenib may be through downregulation of PDGF and not VEGF.

Single- versus Triple-Drug Chemoembolization for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Comparing Outcomes by Toxicity, Imaging Response, and Survival.

PURPOSE: To determine the efficacy of single- versus triple-drug chemoembolization for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma, as measured by toxicity, tumor response, time to progression (TTP), and overall survival (OS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A single-center retrospective review was performed on 337 patients who underwent chemoembolization over a 14-year period; 172 patients underwent triple-drug conventional transarterial chemoembolization, and 165 patients underwent single-agent doxorubicin chemoembolization. Imaging characteristics and clinical follow-up after conventional transarterial chemoembolization were evaluated to determine TTP. Imaging response was determined per World Health Organization and European Association for the Study of Liver criteria. OS from time of first chemoembolization was calculated. RESULTS: Median TTP was similar between groups: 7.9 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 7.1-9.4) and 6.8 months (95% CI, 4.6-8.6) for triple- and single-drug regimens, respectively (P > .05). For single-agent conventional transarterial chemoembolization, median OS varied significantly by Barcelona Clinic for Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage: A, 40.8 months; B, 36.4 months; C, 10.9 months (P < .01). Median OS for triple-drug therapy also varied significantly by BCLC: A, 28.9 months; B, 18.1 months; C, 9.0 months (P < .01). Single-drug conventional transarterial chemoembolization demonstrated longer median OS compared with triple-drug therapy (P < .05) for BCLC A/B patients. CONCLUSIONS: Single-agent chemoembolization with doxorubicin and ethiodized oil demonstrates acceptable efficacy as measured by TTP and OS. Results compare favorably with traditional triple-drug therapy.