Nanoliposomal irinotecan (Nal-IRI)-based chemotherapy after irinotecan -based chemotherapy in patients with pancreas cancer.

BACKGROUND: Nanoliposomal irinotecan (Nal-IRI) is a preferred second-line treatment for metastatic pancreas cancer. It is unclear, however, whether patients who had received irinotecan derive benefit. METHODS: Medical records of metastatic pancreas cancer patients who had received irinotecan and then Nal-IRI were reviewed. The primary endpoint was overall survival after the initiation of Nal-IRI (an a priori threshold of >4 months defined success); adverse events and quotes from the medical record on decision-making were also recorded. RESULTS: Sixty four patients met eligibility criteria with a median age of 65 years (range: 36, 80 years). The median overall survival from initiation of Nal-IRI was 5.1 months (95% confidence interval (CI): 4.3, 5.6 months). An exploratory comparison, based on no cancer progression with irinotecan versus progression, showed improved survival with Nal-IRI in the former group: 6.1 months (95% CI: 5.1, 9.3 months) versus 4.3 months (95% CI: 2.3, 4.8 months); p = 0.0006. Nal-IRI adverse events occurred as expected. Qualitative data illustrate several themes, including "limited treatment options," which appeared to drive the decision to prescribe Nal-IRI. CONCLUSION: Nal-IRI might be considered in pancreas cancer patients who had received irinotecan, particularly in the absence of disease progression with the latter.

Completion of Genetic Testing and Incidence of Pathogenic Germline Mutation among Patients with Early-Onset Colorectal Cancer: A Single Institution Analysis.

Over the past 20 years, rates of early-onset colorectal cancer (eoCRC), defined as <50 years of age at diagnosis, have increased, with 16-25% associated with a pathogenic germline variant (PGV) resulting in a hereditary cancer syndrome. In the present study, we sought to further characterize PGVs observed in patients with eoCRC. We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients with a history of CRC referred for genetic counseling at Mayo Clinic Rochester between April 2019 and April 2022. Three hundred and three CRC patients were referred to medical genetics, including 124 with a history of eoCRC. Only 84 patients (68%) with eoCRC referred for genetic counseling completed genetic testing, with an average of 48 genes evaluated. PGVs were identified in 27.4% with eoCRC, including 8.3% with Lynch syndrome (LS). Other detected PGVs known to increase the risk of CRC included MUTYH (4.8%), CHEK2 (3.6%), APC, BMPR1A, and TP53 (1.3% each). Among those with aoCRC, 109 patients (61%) completed genetic testing, among which 88% had either a dMMR tumor, personal history of an additional LS malignancy, or family history of LS malignancy, with PGVs detected in 23% of patients. This study reinforces the importance for all patients with CRC, especially those with eoCRC, to undergo germline testing.

Safety and Activity of PolyPEPI1018 Combined with Maintenance Therapy in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: an Open-Label, Multicenter, Phase Ib Study.

PURPOSE: Although chemotherapy is standard of care for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), immunotherapy has no role in microsatellite stable (MSS) mCRC, a "cold" tumor. PolyPEPI1018 is an off-the-shelf, multi-peptide vaccine derived from 7 tumor-associated antigens (TAA) frequently expressed in mCRC. This study assessed PolyPEPI1018 combined with first-line maintenance therapy in patients with MSS mCRC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eleven patients with MSS mCRC received PolyPEPI1018 and Montanide ISA51VG adjuvant subcutaneously, combined with fluoropyrimidine/biologic following first-line induction with chemotherapy and a biologic (NCT03391232). In Part A of the study, 5 patients received a single dose; in Part B, 6 patients received up to three doses of PolyPEPI1018 every 12 weeks. The primary objective was safety; secondary objectives were preliminary efficacy, immunogenicity at peripheral and tumor level, and immune correlates. RESULTS: PolyPEPI1018 vaccination was safe and well tolerated. No vaccine-related serious adverse event occurred. Eighty percent of patients had CD8+ T-cell responses against ≥3 TAAs. Increased density of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes were detected post-treatment for 3 of 4 patients' liver biopsies, combined with increased expression of immune-related gene signatures. Three patients had objective response according to RECISTv1.1, and 2 patients qualified for curative surgery. Longer median progression-free survival for patients receiving multiple doses compared with a single dose (12.5 vs. 4.6 months; P = 0.017) suggested a dose-efficacy correlation. The host HLA genotype predicted multi-antigen-specific T-cell responses (P = 0.01) indicative of clinical outcome. CONCLUSIONS: PolyPEPI1018 added to maintenance chemotherapy for patients with unresectable, MSS mCRC was safe and associated with specific immune responses and antitumor activity warranting further confirmation in a randomized, controlled setting.

Chemotherapy Acute Infusion Reactions: A Qualitative Report of the Perspectives of Patients With Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: A growing number of cancer antineoplastic agents can cause life-threatening acute infusion reactions. Because previous studies have not studied these reactions from the perspective of patients, this study was undertaken with that objective in mind. METHODS: Patients who had an acute infusion reaction were interviewed based on the Leventhal model. Once saturation of content was achieved, interviews were transcribed and analyzed with qualitative methodology. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients were enrolled. Most were women (n = 15); the median age was 58 years, and paclitaxel was the most common inciting agent. Three themes emerged. First, these reactions are frightening; patients made remarks such as "I was just thinking oh my God, I am dying." Second, prior education about these reactions seemed to mitigate this fear, "Basically everything the nurses told me potentially could happen, like happened. So, I was prepared." Third, when health-care providers were prompt and attentive during the reaction, patients described less fear with future chemotherapy, "So no, I'm really not fearful about going in tomorrow because I know they'll be there and they'll be watching me." CONCLUSION: These reactions evoke fear which can be mitigated with education prior to and with prompt responsiveness during the acute infusion reaction.

The counselor's trauma as counseling motivation: vulnerability or stress inoculation?

Should counselors with interpersonal trauma histories work with similarly traumatized clients? How does the work affect them? Current research is inconsistent. This study examines 101 sexual assault and domestic violence counselors' recalled motivations for trauma work, their reported subjective personal changes, and their secondary and vicarious trauma symptoms and burnout. Counselors motivated by interpersonal trauma report both more symptoms and positive changes (including dealing with their own trauma). Those seeking personal meaning report becoming more hypervigilant and self-isolating. Those saying they learned from clients rate symptoms lower, suggesting stress inoculation. Supervisors of trauma counselors should facilitate learning from clients separately from processing the counselor's trauma.