ABSTRACT
Afatinib, a second-generation covalent EGFR TKI, has been approved for the treatment of the three "uncommon" EGFR mutations (G719X, S768I, and L861Q) based on one pooled retrospective analysis of three prospective trials (LUX-Lung 2, 3 and 6). The confirmed overall response rate, as assessed by independent radiology review, was 66% (95% confidence interval: 47-81). Among the 21 responders, the proportion of patients with response duration of ≥12 months was 52% and the proportion with response durations of ≥18 months was 33%. Of note, all patients received afatinib at 40 or 50 mg once daily which is higher than the approved dose of 40 mg once daily and the usual 30 mg once daily starting dose by most thoracic oncologists. Given the approval of afatinib for "uncommon" EGFR mutations was based on the limited number of patients analyzed, the retrospective nature of the analysis, lack of randomized phase 2 or 3 trial, there remains uncertainty as to whether afatinib, chemotherapy or other next-generation EGFR TKIs is the optimal treatment. This uncertainty also hinders the development of future treatment of these "uncommon" mutations because of the uncertainty that afatinib is the optimal treatment and hence should be the standard of care control arm in future randomized trials. Finally, the ACHILLES/TORG1834 provided us with the first randomized trial result that afatinib achieved superior progression-free survival over platinum-based chemotherapy (10.6 months vs 5.7 months, HR = 0.42; 95% CI: 0.256-0.694; P = 0.0007). However, ACHILLES should mostly be considered as phase 2 trial given the limited number (N = 109) of patients enrolled. Furthermore, the PFS benefit seemed to be with the 40 mg daily dose (HR = 0.128; 95% CI: 0.050-0.327) and not with the 30 mg daily dose (HR = 0.704; 95% CI: 0.352-1.406). Further investigation of the 30 once daily dosing for the treatment of uncommon EGFR mutations is needed.
ABSTRACT
Introduction The objective of this study was to identify barriers that affect adherence to the management of diabetic retinopathy (DR) in an urban ophthalmology clinic. Patient beliefs regarding diabetic eye care, transportation to the eye clinic, the COVID-19 pandemic, and treatment with panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) or anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) injections were investigated. Materials and methods The original Compliance with Annual Diabetic Eye Exams Survey (CADEES) included 44 statements designed with a 5-point Likert scale to assess patients' beliefs and understanding of their eye health and the importance of diabetic eye examinations. This survey was modified to include additional statements regarding the COVID-19 pandemic and free-response questions about transportation barriers and patients' subjective experiences with PRP or anti-VEGF injections. A total of 365 patients with a diagnosis of any stage of DR from SLUCare Ophthalmology were identified as potential participants to complete the telephone survey. Patients were classified as non-adherent if they did not have a dilated eye examination within the past year, missed a scheduled follow-up appointment for DR care within the past year, or missed an appointment for anti-VEGF injections or PRP. The mean Likert scores for each CADEES statement were compared between the adherent and non-adherent groups using independent samples t-tests. Demographics and clinical indicators were also reported and compared between the two groups. Results Out of 365 patients, 68 completed the modified CADEES. Twenty-nine patients were adherent, and 39 patients were non-adherent. Results from six of the 54 CADEES statements were significantly different between the adherent and non-adherent groups. These statements addressed patients' perception of their eye health, self-confidence in making an eye appointment, knowing someone with diabetic eye complications, self-confidence in controlling blood sugar, ability to use public transportation during the COVID-19 pandemic, and prioritizing eye health during the pandemic. There were no significant differences in clinical indicators or demographics between the adherent and non-adherent groups. Of the participants, 39.7% offered reasons for why transportation to the eye clinic was difficult. Patients suggested three novel reasons for missing eye appointments that were not specifically addressed in the CADEES. Fourteen unique barriers were reported for non-adherence with PRP or anti-VEGF injections. Conclusions The CADEES is a thorough tool for evaluating social barriers impacting adherence with DR appointments in an urban ophthalmology clinic. The survey did not identify any clinical or demographic risk factors for non-adherence in this patient population. Decreased patient self-efficacy may lead to non-adherence with the management of DR. The COVID-19 pandemic impacted the adherence of a small percentage of patients.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: As survival rates for women with breast cancer (BC) continue to improve, sexual dysfunction including low sexual desire is becoming more prevalent. BC diagnosis, treatment, and treatment-induced changes have been shown to affect sexual desire in BC survivors. Understanding low sexual desire and current treatment options will allow practitioners to address it efficaciously to allow for an improved quality of life in women with BC. OBJECTIVES: To review the literature regarding the prevalence, predictors, and current treatments for low sexual desires in BC survivors. METHODS: We performed a PubMed search for English-language articles in peer-reviewed journals between 2005-2021. We used the following keywords: "breast cancer" and "sexual function," "sexual dysfunction," "hypoactive sexual desire disorder", "sex drive" or "sexual desire." Articles featuring a study or survey that evaluated sex drive in women BC survivors or patients, its identification, management or treatment, were reviewed. RESULTS: A total of 37 studies that evaluated the relationship between BC, its treatments and treatment-induced effects on BC survivors and sexual desire were included. Studies indicate that low sexual desire persists throughout the timeline of BC survivors, from BC diagnosis to after treatment. Surgical treatment, body image, and adjuvant hormone therapy are a few factors that influence low sexual desire in BC survivors. Treatment options are efficacious at varying levels and include non-pharmacologic, pharmacologic, and hormonal therapies. CONCLUSIONS: Low sexual desire is prevalent in BC patients and survivors. More research is needed to better evaluate the safety and efficacy of treatment options, particularly pharmacologic and hormonal therapy. Luo F, Link M, Grabenhorst C, et al. Low Sexual Desire in Breast Cancer Survivors and Patients: A Review. Sex Med Rev 2022;10:367-375.
