Use of camel urine is of no benefit to cancer patients: observational study and literature review.

Background: Complementary and alternative medicine is widely used in Saudi Arabia. One of the common practices is the use of camel urine alone or mixed with camel milk for the treatment of cancer, which is often supported by religious beliefs. Aims: To observe and follow-up cancer patients who insisted on using camel urine, and to offer some clinically relevant recommendations. Methods: We observed 20 cancer patients (15 male, 5 female) from September 2020 to January 2022 who insisted on using camel urine for treatment. We documented the demographics of each patient, the method of administering the urine, reasons for refusing conventional treatment, period of follow-up, and the outcome and side effects. Results: All the patients had radiological investigations before and after their treatment with camel urine. All of them used a combination of camel urine and camel milk, and treatment ranged from a few days to 6 months. They consumed an average of 60 ml urine/milk per day. No clinical benefit was observed after the treatment; 2 patients developed brucellosis. Eleven patients changed their mind and accepted conventional antineoplastic treatment and 7 were too weak to receive further treatment; they died from the disease. Conclusion: Camel urine had no clinical benefits for any of the cancer patients, it may even have caused zoonotic infection. The promotion of camel urine as a traditional medicine should be stopped because there is no scientific evidence to support it.

The current landscape of systemic therapy for recurrent glioblastoma: A systematic review of randomized-controlled trials.

AIM: Conduct a systematic review of the effectiveness of systemic therapies for adult recurrent glioblastoma (rGBM). METHODS: We electronically searched for randomized controlled trials from three major databases and four conferences from 2009-Dec 2020. Two independent reviewers conducted screening, data extraction, and quality assessment. RESULTS: 48 randomized trials were identified. Outcome reporting was inconsistent: overall survival (OS) in 46 studies, progression free survival in 37 studies, 6-month PFS in 30 studies, objective response rate in 28 studies, and 6-month OS in 7 studies. Network meta-analysis was not feasible due to heterogeneity in outcome reporting and single-study linkages. Most studies compared lomustine (8 studies), bevacizumab (18), or temozolomide (8) with other treatments. The median OS across all studies ranged from 3 to 17.6 months. CONCLUSIONS: Based on level one evidence, there is no superior systemic regimen for rGBM. rGBM is a heterogeneous population with no single regimen demonstrating OS benefit. Registration number: CRD42020148512.

Oral magnesium supplements for cancer treatment-induced hypomagnesemia: Results from a pilot randomized trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Optimal management of cancer treatment-induced hypomagnesemia (hMg) is not known. We assessed the feasibility of using a novel pragmatic clinical trials model to compare two commonly used oral Mg replacement strategies. METHODS: Patients with grade 1 to 3 hMg while receiving either platinum-based chemotherapy or epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors (EGFRI) were randomized to oral magnesium oxide (MgOx) or oral magnesium citrate (MgCit). The trial methodology utilized the integrated consent model. Feasibility would be successful if; accrual rate was ≥5 patients a month and if measures of patient and physician engagement, were > 50%. Secondary endpoints included; comparison of Mg levels, cardiac arrhythmias, and rates of treatment delay/hospitalizations. RESULTS: From July 2016 to December 2017, an average of 1 patient a month was accrued. All 15 eligible and approached patients consented to participate in the study (100% engagement) and 7/15 were randomized to MgOx and 8/15 to MgCit. The percentage of physicians who approached patients for the study was 4 of 6 (66.6% engagement). The mean slope of change in Mg (mmol/L/day) was 0.0022 (95% CI: -0.0001 to 0.0044) for MgOx and 0.0006 (95% CI, -0.0012 to 0.0024) for MgCit (P = .2123). Three patients (20%) required IV magnesium while on the study (2 MgCit and 1 MgOx). Grade 1 diarrhea occurred in 3 patients in the MgCit arm. CONCLUSION: Despite oral magnesium tolerability and meeting most of its feasibility endpoints, this study did not meet its target accrual rate. Alternative designs would be necessary for a definitive efficacy study.

A multi-centre study comparing granulocyte-colony stimulating factors to antibiotics for primary prophylaxis of docetaxel-cyclophosphamide induced febrile neutropenia.

BACKGROUND: Primary febrile neutropenia (FN) prophylaxis with ciprofloxacin or granulocyte-colony stimulating factors (G-CSF) is recommended with docetaxel-cyclophosphamide (TC) chemotherapy for early-stage breast cancer (EBC). A pragmatic randomised trial compared the superiority of G-CSF to ciprofloxacin and a cost-utility analysis were conducted. METHODS: EBC patients receiving TC chemotherapy were randomised to ciprofloxacin or G-CSF. The primary outcome was a composite of FN and non-FN treatment-related hospitalisation. Secondary outcomes included; rates of FN, non-FN treatment-related hospitalisation, chemotherapy dose reductions/delays/discontinuations. Primary analysis was performed with the intention to treat population. Cost-utility analyses were conducted from the Canadian public payer perspective. RESULTS: 458 eligible patients were randomised: 228 to ciprofloxacin and 230 to G-CSF. For the primary endpoint there was non-statistically significant difference (Risk difference = -6.7%, 95%CI = -13.5%-0.1%, p = 0.061) between ciprofloxacin patients (46,20.2%) and G-CSF (31,13.5%). Patients receiving ciprofloxacin were more likely to experience FN (36/228, 15.8% vs 13/230, 5.7%) than patients receiving G-CSF (p < 0.001). Non-FN treatment-related hospitalisation occurred in 40/228 (17.5%) of ciprofloxacin patients vs 28/230 (12.2%) of G-CSF patients (p = 0.12). There were no differences in other secondary outcomes. G-CSF was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of C$1,760,796 per one quality-adjusted life year gained. CONCLUSION: The primary endpoint of superiority of G-CSF over ciprofloxacin was not demonstrated. While there were reduced FN rates with G-CSF, there were no differences in chemotherapy dose delays/reductions or discontinuations. With the commonly used willingness to pay value of C$50,000/QALY, G-CSF use was not cost-effective compared to ciprofloxacin and deserves scrutiny from the payer perspective.

Mortality and morbidity of curative and palliative anticancer treatments during the COVID-19 pandemic: A multicenter population-based retrospective study.

Administration of effective anticancer treatments should continue during pandemics. However, the outcomes of curative and palliative anticancer treatments during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic remain unclear. The present retrospective observational study aimed to determine the 30-day mortality and morbidity of curative and palliative anticancer treatments during the COVID-19 pandemic. Between March 1 and June 30, 2020, all adults (n=2,504) with solid and hematological malignancies irrespective of cancer stage and type of anticancer treatments at five large comprehensive cancer centers in Saudi Arabia were included. The 30-day mortality was 5.1% (n=127) for all patients receiving anticancer treatment, 1.8% (n=24) for curative intent, 8.6% (n=103) for palliative intent and 13.4% (n=12) for COVID-19 cases. The 30-day morbidity was 28.2% (n=705) for all patients, 17.9% (n=234) for curative intent, 39.3% (n=470) for palliative intent and 75% (n=77) for COVID-19 cases. The 30-day mortality was significantly increased with male sex [odds ratio (OR), 2.011; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.141-3.546; P=0.016], body mass index (BMI) <25 (OR, 1.997; 95% CI, 1.292-3.087; P=0.002), hormone therapy (OR, 6.315; 95% CI, 0.074-2.068; P=0.001) and number of cycles (OR, 2.110; 95% CI, 0.830-0.948; P=0.001), but decreased with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG-PS) of 0-1 (OR, 0.157; 95% CI, 0.098-0.256; P=0.001), stage I-II cancer (OR, 0.254; 95% CI, 0.069-0.934; P=0.039) and curative intent (OR, 0.217; 95% CI, 0.106-0.443; P=0.001). Furthermore, the 30-day morbidity significantly increased with age >65 years (OR, 1.420; 95% CI, 1.075-1.877; P=0.014), BMI <25 (OR, 1.484; 95% CI, 1.194-1.845; P=0.001), chemotherapy (OR, 1.397; 95% CI, 1.089-5.438; P=0.032), hormone therapy (OR, 1.527; 95% CI, 0.211-1.322; P=0.038) and immunotherapy (OR, 1.859; 95% CI, 0.648-4.287; P=0.038), but decreased with ECOG-PS of 0-1 (OR, 0.502; 95% CI, 0.399-0.632; P=0.001), breast cancer (OR, 0.569; 95% CI, 0.387-0.836; P=0.004) and curative intent (OR, 0.410; 95% CI, 0.296-0.586; P=0.001). The mortality risk was lowest with curative treatments. Therefore, such treatments should not be delayed. The morbidity risk doubled with palliative treatments and was highest among COVID-19 cases. Mortality appeared to be driven by male sex, BMI <25, hormonal therapy and number of cycles, while morbidity increased with age >65 years, BMI <25, chemotherapy, hormonal therapy and immunotherapy. Therefore, oncologists should select the most effective anticancer treatments based on the aforementioned factors.

A prospective multi-centre, randomized study comparing the addition of tapering dexamethasone to other standard of care therapies for taxane-associated pain syndrome (TAPS) in breast cancer patients.

PURPOSE: Taxane-associated pain syndrome (TAPS) is common with docetaxel and is characterised by myalgias and arthralgias starting 2-3 days after treatment and can last for up to 7 days. Anecdotal evidence suggests that corticosteroids can reduce TAPS. This multicentre, randomized trial evaluated the effect of additional tapering dexamethasone on TAPS. METHODS: 130 breast cancer patients commencing docetaxel were randomized to dexamethasone premedication (8 mg/twice daily for 3 days) or dexamethasone premedication followed by tapering dexamethasone (4 mg/daily for 2 days followed by 2 mg/daily for 2 days). The primary endpoint was absolute change in FACT-Taxane questionnaire during the first chemotherapy cycle. Secondary endpoints: proportion of patients with clinically significant TAPS, QoL, pain and toxicity. RESULTS: 110/130 patients had complete data included in the primary analysis. The fall in FACT-Taxane scores was lower in the experimental group on day 5 (p = 0.05), but not on day 7 (p = 0.21). There was no difference in FACT-Taxane scores over the entire study duration (p = 0.59). Fewer patients in the experimental arm reported TAPS on day 5 (30 vs. 47%). There was a borderline significant attenuation of impairment of QoL with experimental treatment on day 5 (p = 0.06), but not day 7 (p = 0.53). Tapered schedule was associated with more dyspepsia and insomnia. CONCLUSION: A tapering schedule of dexamethasone was associated with a brief reduction in docetaxel-associated symptoms which was observed only during dexamethasone exposure and did not persist after discontinuation of the drug. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03348696.

Long-term impact of bone-modifying agents for the treatment of bone metastases: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: Bone-modifying agents (BMAs) for bone metastases are commonly prescribed for many years even though randomized clinical trials are only 1-2 years in duration. A systematic review on the risk-benefit of BMA use for > 2 years in breast cancer or castrate-resistant prostate cancer was conducted. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched (1970-February 2019) for randomized and observational studies, and case series reporting on BMA efficacy (skeletal-related events and quality of life) and toxicity (osteonecrosis of the jaw, renal impairment, hypocalcemia, and atypical femoral fractures) beyond 2 years. RESULTS: Of 2107 citations, 64 studies were identified. Three prospective and 9 retrospective studies were eligible. Data beyond 2 years was limited to subgroup analyses in all studies. Only one study (n = 181) reported skeletal-related event rates based on bisphosphonate exposure, with decreased rates from 27.6% (0-24 months) to 15.5% (> 24 months). None reported on quality of life. All 12 studies (denosumab (n = 948), zoledronate (n = 1036), pamidronate (n = 163), pamidronate-zoledronate (n = 522), ibandronate (n = 118)) reported ≥ 1 toxicity outcome. Seven bisphosphonate studies (n = 1077) and one denosumab study (n = 948) reported on osteonecrosis of the jaw. Across three studies (n = 1236), osteonecrosis of the jaw incidence ranged from 1 to 4% in the first 2 years to 3.8-18% after 2 years. Clinically significant hypocalcemia ranged from 1 to 2%. Severe renal function decline was ≤ 3%. Atypical femoral fractures were rare. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence informing the use of BMA beyond 2 years is heterogeneous and based on retrospective analysis. Prospective randomized studies with greater emphasis on quality of life are needed. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019126813.

Thirty-Day Mortality After Curative and Palliative Anti-Cancer Treatment: Data Interpretation and Lessons for Clinical Implementation.

PURPOSE: Despite advancements in cancer therapeutics, mortality and morbidity due to anti-cancer treatments still occur but are not frequently reported. We aimed to report the 30-day mortality and morbidity of all curative and palliative anti-cancer treatments. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Adults with solid and hematological malignancies from two large cancer centers in Saudi Arabia, irrespective of the cancer stage and treatment type, were included in this retrospective observational study. RESULTS: Between December 1, 2019 and February 29, 2020, 1694 patients from King Abdullah Medical City in Makkah and King Fahad Medical City in Riyadh were included in the study. Among them, 77.5% were younger than 65 years of age; 72.8% were female; the prevalence of obesity, diabetes, and hypertension was 35%, 34%, and 28%, respectively; and 66.5% of patients had breast and gastrointestinal cancers. Fifty-nine (3.5%) patients died within 30 days of receiving anti-cancer treatment. Of them, 9 (0.3%) were treated with curative intent, and 50 (3%) were treated with palliative intent. CONCLUSION: Our results emphasize the need to address preventable metabolic changes and implement innovative, predictive, preventive, and personalized medicine (PPPM) approaches focusing on patient profiles. Reporting the 30-day outcomes of all anti-cancer treatments will also allow the identification of factors underlying mortality and morbidity and lead to an improvement in oncological outcomes via innovative programs designed to improve clinical decision-making.

A randomized trial comparing vascular access strategies for patients receiving chemotherapy with trastuzumab for early-stage breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Trastuzumab-based chemotherapy is usually administered through either a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) or a totally implanted vascular access device (PORT). As the most effective type of access is unknown, a feasibility trial, prior to conducting a large pragmatic trial, was undertaken. METHODS: The trial methodology utilized the integrated consent model incorporating oral consent. Patients receiving trastuzumab-based neo/adjuvant chemotherapy for early-stage breast cancer were randomized to a PICC or PORT insertion. Feasibility was reflected through a combination of endpoints; however, the a priori definition of feasibility was > 25% of patients approached agreed to randomization and > 25% of physicians approached patients. Secondary outcomes included rates of line-associated complications such as thrombotic events requiring anticoagulation, line infections or phlebitis. RESULTS: During the study period, 4/15 (26.7%) medical oncologists approached patients about study participation. Of 59 patients approached, 56 (94.9%) agreed to randomization, 29 (51.8%) were randomized to PICC and 27 (48.2%) to PORT access. Overall, 17.2% (5/29) and 14.8% (4/27) of patients had at least one line-associated complication in the PICC and PORT arms respectively. The study was terminated early due to slow accrual. CONCLUSION: The study met its feasibility endpoints with respect to patient and physician engagement. However, the slow rate of accrual (56 patients in 2 years) means that conducting a large pragmatic trial would require additional strategies to make such a study possible. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02632435.

Fibroblast Growth Factor Receptor 3 Mutation as a Prognostic Indicator in Patients with Urothelial Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Fibroblast growth factor receptor 3 (FGFR3) mutations have been implicated in urothelial tumorigenesis. FGFR3 inhibitors are being explored in clinical trials. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to study the association between FGFR3 mutations and survival in urothelial carcinoma. DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We performed a systematic literature search of PubMed, Cochrane, Ovid, and Web of Science from January 1985 to October 2018. The search terms were as follows: targeted therapies, FGFR and its subtypes, urothelial, bladder, and cancer. We included case-control or cohort studies of FGFR3 mutations in urothelial carcinoma. We included studies reporting hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for outcomes comparing FGFR3 mutations with FGFR3 wild type. Two reviewers performed article selection. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: We assessed heterogeneity among study-specific HRs using I 2 statistic. We used a random effect model to obtain HR and 95% CI for event-free survival (EFS), composed of recurrence-free and progression-free survival. Statistical tests were two sided. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Eleven studies (seven retrospective and four prospective) comprising 2162 patients were included. Analysis was performed for two groups. The first group included 1651 patients with non-muscle-invasive (NMI) urothelial carcinomas (886 [53.6%] had FGFR3 mutations). Compared with FGFR3 wild type, FGFR3 mutation did not influence EFS (HR = 0.99, CI = 0.77-1.28, p =  0.96). There was no significant heterogeneity (I 2 = 25%). The second group included 511 patients with NMI and muscle-invasive (MI) urothelial carcinomas (151 [30%] had FGFR3 mutations). FGFR3 mutation was not prognostic (HR = 1.54, CI = 0.41-5.81, p =  0.52). There was heterogeneity (I 2 = 91%). CONCLUSIONS: There is no association between FGFR3 mutation and EFS in NMI urothelial carcinoma, and in NMI and MI urothelial carcinoma groups. PATIENT SUMMARY: Fibroblast growth factor receptor 3 (FGFR3) mutation is not associated with a worse survival outcome in urothelial carcinoma. This is important as FGFR inhibitors are emerging as a new treatment option.

A multicentre, randomized pilot trial comparing vascular access strategies for early stage breast cancer patients receiving non-trastuzumab containing chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: All vascular access strategies foradministering chemotherapy in early stage breast cancer (EBC) are associated with risks and benefits. As the most effective type of access is unknown a feasibility trial, prior to conducting a large pragmatic trial, was undertaken. METHODS: The trial methodology utilized broad eligibility criteria and the integrated consent model incorporating oral consent. EBC patients receiving non-trastuzumab-containing chemotherapy were randomized to peripheral access or central line insertion. The a priori definition of feasibility was: > 25% of patients approached agreed to randomisation and > 25% of physicians approached patients. Secondary outcomes included rates of line-associated complications. RESULTS: Of 159 patients approached, 150 (94.3%) agreed to randomisation, 77 (51.3%) were randomized to peripheral and 73 (48.7%) to central access. 6/26 (23.1%) of medical oncologists approached patients. Rates of complications per chemotherapy cycles in the peripheral vs central access groups with risk difference (RD) (95% CI) were: thrombotic events requiring anticoagulation [1 (0.3%) vs. 3 (1.0%), RD - 0.7(- 1.9,0.5)], line infections [0 (0%) vs. 1 (0.3%), RD - 0.3(- 0.9,0.3)], phlebitis [2 (0.6%) vs. 0 (0%), RD 0.3(- 0.3,0.8)], and tissue infiltrations [4 (1.1%) vs. 1 (0.3%), RD 0.8(- 0.4,2.1)]. Overall, 8.0% (6/75) and 7.7% (5/65) of patients had at least one of these complications in the peripheral and central access arms respectively [RD - 0.9(- 9.4,7.6)]. The study was terminated early due to slow accrual. CONCLUSION: While meeting its a priori feasibility criteria for patient engagement, the slow accrual means that conducting a large pragmatic trial would require overcoming the barriers to physician recruitment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02688998.

Creating a pragmatic trials program for breast cancer patients: Rethinking Clinical Trials (REaCT).

BACKGROUND: The proportion of breast cancer patients enrolled in clinical trials is falling. The Rethinking Clinical Trials (REaCT) program was developed to challenge some of the contemporary barriers responsible for this fall in accrual. In this article, we review the successes and challenges our program has faced. METHODS: The REaCT program was created to improve care and outcomes for cancer patients through surveys of patients and healthcare providers, systematic reviews, economic evaluations, and the performance of pragmatic randomized trials with patient-centered outcomes. Likely, the greatest difference to conventional trial methodologies has been our widespread use of the integrated consent model (ICM) incorporating oral consent. RESULTS: Between 2014 and 2018, the program has recruited over 2000 patients to 15 randomized studies at 11 Canadian cancer centers. The REaCT program has completed and published five patient surveys, six healthcare provider surveys, ten systematic reviews, performed four economic evaluations, opened 15 clinical trials comparing standard of care interventions (two surgical, two adjuvant chemotherapy, five adjuvant supportive care, one radiology, two vascular devices, two palliative supportive care, and one molecular diagnostics). Patient surveys have shown high levels of satisfaction with the ICM. CONCLUSION: The REaCT program was developed to tackle important practice questions that will better guide optimal practice and to increase the availability of pragmatic clinical trials. While many challenges remain, future strategies will involve including more study sites and efforts to integrate novel information technology strategies.