Bioequivalence of a hybrid pegylated liposomal doxorubicin hydrochloride injection and Caelyx®: A single-dose, randomized, multicenter, open-label, two-period crossover study in patients with advanced ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the bioequivalence of a hybrid pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) hydrochloride injection with reference product Caelyx®. METHODS: This multicenter, open-label, balanced, randomized, two-treatment, two-period, two-sequence, single-dose, crossover, bioequivalence study was conducted in female patients aged ≥18 years and ≤75 years with ovarian cancer, whose disease progressed or recurred after platinum-based chemotherapy, and who were scheduled to start PLD therapy. Patients were intravenously infused drugs over 1 h at 50 mg/m2 dose two hours after breakfast on the first day of the chemotherapy cycle in period-I and crossed over to the other arm in period-II (day 29). Pharmacokinetic (PK) analyses were performed using two separate, validated liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry methods for encapsulated and unencapsulated doxorubicin. RESULTS: Both the test and reference formulations were well-tolerated and safe. The pharmacokinetic analysis for both encapsulated and unencapsulated doxorubicin was conducted in 50 patients and PK parameters were found to be comparable between test and reference products. The geometric mean ratios (90% confidence interval) of hybrid PLD/Caelyx® were; maximum measured plasma concentration (Cmax): 91.94-97.28%, area under the plasma concentration versus time from time 0 to t (AUC0-t): 95.19-103.67%, AUC from time 0 to ∞ (AUC0-∞): 95.13-103.66% for encapsulated doxorubicin and for unencapsulated doxorubicin Cmax: 92.08-116.46%, AUC0-t: 91.91-108.28%, AUC0-∞: 93.45-110.05%. CONCLUSION: The PLD formulation was found to be bioequivalent to Caelyx®.

Practical Consensus Recommendations for Optimizing Risk versus Benefit of Chemotherapy in Patients with HR Positive Her2 Negative Early Breast Cancer in India.

Breast cancer is a public health challenge globally as well as in India. Improving outcome and cure requires appropriate biomarker testing to assign risk and plan treatment. Because it is documented that significant ethnic and geographical variations in biological and genetic features exist worldwide, such biomarkers need to be validated and approved by authorities in the region where these are intended to be used. The use of western guidelines, appropriate for the Caucasian population, can lead to inappropriate overtreatment or undertreatment in Asia and India. A virtual meeting of domain experts discussed the published literature, real-world practical experience, and results of opinion poll involving 185 oncologists treating breast cancer across 58 cities of India. They arrived at a practical consensus recommendation statement to guide community oncologists in the management of hormone positive (HR-positive) Her2-negative early breast cancer (EBC). India has a majority (about 50%) of breast cancer patients who are diagnosed in the premenopausal stage (less than 50 years of age). The only currently available predictive test for HR-positive Her2-negative EBC that has been validated in Indian patients is CanAssist Breast. If this test gives a score indicative of low risk (< 15.5), adjuvant chemotherapy will not increase the chance of metastasis-free survival and should not be given. This is applicable even during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

Practice patterns and outcomes with the use of regorafenib in metastatic colorectal cancer: Results from the Regorafenib in Metastatic colorectal cancer - An Indian exploratory analysis study.

BACKGROUND: Regorafenib is considered a standard of care as third-line therapy in metastatic colorectal cancers (mCRCs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was based on a computerized clinical data form sent to oncologists across the country for entry of anonymized patient data. The data entry form was conceived and generated by the coordinating center's (Tata Memorial Hospital) gastrointestinal medical oncologists and disseminated through personal contacts at academic conferences as well as through E-mail to various oncologists across India. RESULTS: A total of 19 physicians contributed data resulting in 80 patients receiving regorafenib who were available for the evaluation of practice patterns. The median age was 55 years (range: 24-75). Majority had received oxaliplatin-based (97.5%), irinotecan-based (87.5%), and targeted therapy (65%), previously. Patients were primarily started on reduced doses of regorafenib upfront (160 mg - 28.8%, 120 mg - 58.8%, and 80 mg - 12.5%). The median duration of treatment (treatment duration) with regorafenib was 3.1 months (range: 0.5-18), while the median progression free survival was 3.48 months (range: 2.6-4.3). Forty-five percent of patients required dose modifications due to toxicities, and the most common were (all grades) hand-foot syndrome (68.8%), fatigue (46.3%), mucositis (37.6%), and diarrhea (31.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Majority of physicians in this collaborative study from India used a lower dose of regorafenib at the outset in patients with mCRC. Despite a lower dose, there was a significant requirement for dose reduction. Duration of treatment with regorafenib as an efficacy end point in this study is similar to available data from other regions as it is the side effect profile.