Molecular Targeting of the Fibroblast Growth Factor Receptor Pathway across Various Cancers.

Fibroblast growth factor receptors (FGFRs) are a family of receptor tyrosine kinases that are involved in the regulation of cell proliferation, survival, and development. FGFR alterations including amplifications, fusions, rearrangements, and mutations can result in the downstream activation of tyrosine kinases, leading to tumor development. Targeting these FGFR alterations has shown to be effective in treating cholangiocarcinoma, urothelial carcinoma, and myeloid/lymphoid neoplasms, and there are currently four FGFR inhibitors approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). There have been developments in multiple agents targeting the FGFR pathway, including selective FGFR inhibitors, ligand traps, monoclonal antibodies, and antibody-drug conjugates. However, most of these agents have variable and low responses, with some intolerable toxicities and acquired resistances. This review will summarize previous clinical experiences and current developments in agents targeting the FGFR pathway, and will also discuss future directions for FGFR-targeting agents.

Pancreatic adverse events in patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Background and Aim: The inhibition of cytotoxic T-lymphocyte associated antigen-4 (CTLA-4) and programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) has been a target for multiple drugs to enhance the T-cell antitumor activity. However, these immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) come with a panel of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) that include mainly endocrine, skin, and gastrointestinal effects. We report seven cases of pancreatic irAEs in patients treated with ICIs at our institute. Methods: This is a case series; data was collected through chart review by 3 different data collectors and was analyzed separately by 2 physicians. Results: Of these seven cases, two had diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), while five had pancreatitis diagnosed by a substantial rise in serum lipase. Pancreatitis was asymptomatic in two cases. A pancreatic biopsy in one case revealed type 2 autoimmune pancreatitis. The ICIs used included pembrolizumab, nivolumab, durvalumab, and avelumab. Treatment included steroids and holding the ICI therapy: three cases had complete resolution of pancreatitis while two cases required either a prolonged taper or a second course of prednisone for recurrence of pancreatitis. On the other hand, the DKA cases were treated with withdrawal of the ICI and starting insulin with no steroid therapy. Conclusions: Pancreatitis and DKA are rare adverse events of ICIs that can be controlled by holding the ICI with or without starting steroids. Rechallenging the patient with the same ICI is possible in selected cases.

Analysis of Outcomes Associated With Outpatient Management of Nonoperatively Treated Patients With Appendicitis.

Importance: In the Comparison of Outcomes of Antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) trial, which found antibiotics to be noninferior, approximately half of participants randomized to receive antibiotics had outpatient management with hospital discharge within 24 hours. If outpatient management is safe, it could increase convenience and decrease health care use and costs. Objective: To assess the use and safety of outpatient management of acute appendicitis. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study, which is a secondary analysis of the CODA trial, included 776 adults with imaging-confirmed appendicitis who received antibiotics at 25 US hospitals from May 1, 2016, to February 28, 2020. Exposures: Participants randomized to antibiotics (intravenous then oral) could be discharged from the emergency department based on clinician judgment and prespecified criteria (hemodynamically stable, afebrile, oral intake tolerated, pain controlled, and follow-up confirmed). Outpatient management and hospitalization were defined as discharge within or after 24 hours, respectively. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes compared among patients receiving outpatient vs inpatient care included serious adverse events (SAEs), appendectomies, health care encounters, satisfaction, missed workdays at 7 days, and EuroQol 5-dimension (EQ-5D) score at 30 days. In addition, appendectomy incidence among outpatients and inpatients, unadjusted and adjusted for illness severity, was compared. Results: Among 776 antibiotic-randomized participants, 42 (5.4%) underwent appendectomy within 24 hours and 8 (1.0%) did not receive their first antibiotic dose within 24 hours, leaving 726 (93.6%) comprising the study population (median age, 36 years; range, 18-86 years; 462 [63.6%] male; 437 [60.2%] White). Of these participants, 335 (46.1%; site range, 0-89.2%) were discharged within 24 hours, and 391 (53.9%) were discharged after 24 hours. Over 7 days, SAEs occurred in 0.9 (95% CI, 0.2-2.6) per 100 outpatients and 1.3 (95% CI, 0.4-2.9) per 100 inpatients; in the appendicolith subgroup, SAEs occurred in 2.3 (95% CI, 0.3-8.2) per 100 outpatients vs 2.8 (95% CI, 0.6-7.9) per 100 inpatients. During this period, appendectomy occurred in 9.9% (95% CI, 6.9%-13.7%) of outpatients and 14.1% (95% CI, 10.8%-18.0%) of inpatients; adjusted analysis demonstrated a similar difference in incidence (-4.0 percentage points; 95% CI, -8.7 to 0.6). At 30 days, appendectomies occurred in 12.6% (95% CI, 9.1%-16.7%) of outpatients and 19.0% (95% CI, 15.1%-23.4%) of inpatients. Outpatients missed fewer workdays (2.6 days; 95% CI, 2.3-2.9 days) than did inpatients (3.8 days; 95% CI, 3.4-4.3 days) and had similar frequency of return health care visits and high satisfaction and EQ-5D scores. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings support that outpatient antibiotic management is safe for selected adults with acute appendicitis, with no greater risk of complications or appendectomy than hospital care, and should be included in shared decision-making discussions of patient preferences for outcomes associated with nonoperative and operative care. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02800785.

Self-selection vs Randomized Assignment of Treatment for Appendicitis.

Importance: For adults with appendicitis, several randomized clinical trials have demonstrated that antibiotics are an effective alternative to appendectomy. However, it remains unknown how the characteristics of patients in such trials compare with those of patients who select their treatment and whether outcomes differ. Objective: To compare participants in the Comparison of Outcomes of Antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) randomized clinical trial (RCT) with a parallel cohort study of participants who declined randomization and self-selected treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: The CODA trial was conducted in 25 US medical centers. Participants were enrolled between May 3, 2016, and February 5, 2020; all participants were eligible for at least 1 year of follow-up, with all follow-up ending in 2021. The randomized cohort included 1094 adults with appendicitis; the self-selection cohort included patients who declined participation in the randomized group, of whom 253 selected appendectomy and 257 selected antibiotics. In this secondary analysis, characteristics and outcomes in both self-selection and randomized cohorts are described with an exploratory analysis of cohort status and receipt of appendectomy. Interventions: Appendectomy vs antibiotics. Main Outcomes and Measures: Characteristics among participants randomized to either appendectomy or antibiotics were compared with those of participants who selected their own treatment. Results: Clinical characteristics were similar across the self-selection cohort (510 patients; mean age, 35.8 years [95% CI, 34.5-37.1]; 218 female [43%; 95% CI, 39%-47%]) and the randomized group (1094 patients; mean age, 38.2 years [95% CI, 37.4-39.0]; 386 female [35%; 95% CI, 33%-38%]). Compared with the randomized group, those in the self-selection cohort were less often Spanish speaking (n = 99 [19%; 95% CI, 16%-23%] vs n = 336 [31%; 95% CI, 28%-34%]), reported more formal education (some college or more, n = 355 [72%; 95% CI, 68%-76%] vs n = 674 [63%; 95% CI, 60%-65%]), and more often had commercial insurance (n = 259 [53%; 95% CI, 48%-57%] vs n = 486 [45%; 95% CI, 42%-48%]). Most outcomes were similar between the self-selection and randomized cohorts. The number of patients undergoing appendectomy by 30 days was 38 (15.3%; 95% CI, 10.7%-19.7%) among those selecting antibiotics and 155 (19.2%; 95% CI, 15.9%-22.5%) in those who were randomized to antibiotics (difference, 3.9%; 95% CI, -1.7% to 9.5%). Differences in the rate of appendectomy were primarily observed in the non-appendicolith subgroup. Conclusions and Relevance: This secondary analysis of the CODA RCT found substantially similar outcomes across the randomized and self-selection cohorts, suggesting that the randomized trial results are generalizable to the community at large. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02800785.

Patient Factors Associated With Appendectomy Within 30 Days of Initiating Antibiotic Treatment for Appendicitis.

IMPORTANCE: Use of antibiotics for the treatment of appendicitis is safe and has been found to be noninferior to appendectomy based on self-reported health status at 30 days. Identifying patient characteristics associated with a greater likelihood of appendectomy within 30 days in those who initiate antibiotics could support more individualized decision-making. OBJECTIVE: To assess patient factors associated with undergoing appendectomy within 30 days of initiating antibiotics for appendicitis. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this cohort study using data from the Comparison of Outcomes of Antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) randomized clinical trial, characteristics among patients who initiated antibiotics were compared between those who did and did not undergo appendectomy within 30 days. The study was conducted at 25 US medical centers; participants were enrolled between May 3, 2016, and February 5, 2020. A total of 1552 participants with acute appendicitis were randomized to antibiotics (776 participants) or appendectomy (776 participants). Data were analyzed from September 2020 to July 2021. EXPOSURES: Appendectomy vs antibiotics. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Conditional logistic regression models were fit to estimate associations between specific patient factors and the odds of undergoing appendectomy within 30 days after initiating antibiotics. A sensitivity analysis was performed excluding participants who underwent appendectomy within 30 days for nonclinical reasons. RESULTS: Of 776 participants initiating antibiotics (mean [SD] age, 38.3 [13.4] years; 286 [37%] women and 490 [63%] men), 735 participants had 30-day outcomes, including 154 participants (21%) who underwent appendectomy within 30 days. After adjustment for other factors, female sex (odds ratio [OR], 1.53; 95% CI, 1.01-2.31), radiographic finding of wider appendiceal diameter (OR per 1-mm increase, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.00-1.18), and presence of appendicolith (OR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.28-3.10) were associated with increased odds of undergoing appendectomy within 30 days. Characteristics that are often associated with increased risk of complications (eg, advanced age, comorbid conditions) and those clinicians often use to describe appendicitis severity (eg, fever: OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.82-1.98) were not associated with odds of 30-day appendectomy. The sensitivity analysis limited to appendectomies performed for clinical reasons provided similar results regarding appendicolith (adjusted OR, 2.41; 95% CI, 1.49-3.91). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This cohort study found that presence of an appendicolith was associated with a nearly 2-fold increased risk of undergoing appendectomy within 30 days of initiating antibiotics. Clinical characteristics often used to describe severity of appendicitis were not associated with odds of 30-day appendectomy. This information may help guide more individualized decision-making for people with appendicitis.

Redundant Imaging in Transient Ischemic Attack: Evidence From the Nationwide Emergency Department Sample.

PURPOSE: Increasing emergency department (ED) compliance with transient ischemic attack (TIA) imaging guidelines has previously been demonstrated, along with a substantial rise in imaging utilization over the past decade. The purpose of this study was to characterize the most commonly used combinations of imaging studies during ED workup of TIA and to quantify prevalence of redundant imaging (RI). METHODS: TIA discharges from EDs in the United States from 2006 to 2017 were identified in the Nationwide Emergency Department Sample. Brain and neurovascular imaging obtained during the encounter was identified using Current Procedural Terminology codes. RI was defined as an ED encounter with any duplicate cross-sectional brain, brain-vascular, or neck-vascular imaging. Patient demographics and hospital characteristics were incorporated into a multivariable logistic regression analysis to identify significant associations with RI. RESULTS: There were 184,870 discharges with TIA from EDs in 2017. RI (brain) was observed in 55,513 (30%) of encounters. RI (brain-vascular) and RI (neck-vascular) imaging was identified in 5,149 (2.8%) and 1,325 (0.7%) of encounters, respectively. Decreased odds of obtaining RI was observed in Medicaid patients (odds ratio [OR]: 0.72, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.64-0.81), non-trauma centers (OR: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.26-0.93), rural hospital locations (OR: 0.18, 95% CI: 0.11-0.29), and weekend encounters (OR: 0.9, 95% CI: 0.85-0.96). Trend analysis from 2006 to 2017 demonstrated a rise in RI (brain) from 2.3% of encounters in 2006 to 30% of encounters in 2017. RI for patients discharged from EDs with TIA in 2017 resulted in additional charges of approximately US$8,670,832. CONCLUSION: Increased imaging utilization for TIA workup across EDs in the United States is associated with rising use of redundant imaging. We identify imaging practices that could be targeted to mitigate health care expenditures while adhering to TIA imaging guidelines.

A Randomized Trial Comparing Antibiotics with Appendectomy for Appendicitis.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotic therapy has been proposed as an alternative to surgery for the treatment of appendicitis. METHODS: We conducted a pragmatic, nonblinded, noninferiority, randomized trial comparing antibiotic therapy (10-day course) with appendectomy in patients with appendicitis at 25 U.S. centers. The primary outcome was 30-day health status, as assessed with the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaire (scores range from 0 to 1, with higher scores indicating better health status; noninferiority margin, 0.05 points). Secondary outcomes included appendectomy in the antibiotics group and complications through 90 days; analyses were prespecified in subgroups defined according to the presence or absence of an appendicolith. RESULTS: In total, 1552 adults (414 with an appendicolith) underwent randomization; 776 were assigned to receive antibiotics (47% of whom were not hospitalized for the index treatment) and 776 to undergo appendectomy (96% of whom underwent a laparoscopic procedure). Antibiotics were noninferior to appendectomy on the basis of 30-day EQ-5D scores (mean difference, 0.01 points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.001 to 0.03). In the antibiotics group, 29% had undergone appendectomy by 90 days, including 41% of those with an appendicolith and 25% of those without an appendicolith. Complications were more common in the antibiotics group than in the appendectomy group (8.1 vs. 3.5 per 100 participants; rate ratio, 2.28; 95% CI, 1.30 to 3.98); the higher rate in the antibiotics group could be attributed to those with an appendicolith (20.2 vs. 3.6 per 100 participants; rate ratio, 5.69; 95% CI, 2.11 to 15.38) and not to those without an appendicolith (3.7 vs. 3.5 per 100 participants; rate ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.45 to 2.43). The rate of serious adverse events was 4.0 per 100 participants in the antibiotics group and 3.0 per 100 participants in the appendectomy group (rate ratio, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.67 to 2.50). CONCLUSIONS: For the treatment of appendicitis, antibiotics were noninferior to appendectomy on the basis of results of a standard health-status measure. In the antibiotics group, nearly 3 in 10 participants had undergone appendectomy by 90 days. Participants with an appendicolith were at a higher risk for appendectomy and for complications than those without an appendicolith. (Funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute; CODA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02800785.).

The value of immunotherapy in head and neck cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Head and neck squamous cell carcinomas (HNSCC) previously had limited treatment options once patients had progressed on systemic chemotherapy. With recent advances, immunotherapy now plays an important role in the treatment of advanced disease with improved outcomes as compared to cytotoxic chemotherapy. AREAS COVERED: This article reviews the effects of the immune system and how it influences the development and response to HNSCC therapy. We additionally provide a summary of immunotherapy treatments available as well as their applicable clinical trials that led to their approval. EXPERT COMMENTARY: The challenges that need to be addressed in order to maximize the benefits of immunotherapy in HNSCC are the selection criteria for immune checkpoint inhibitors and the optimization of combination regimens of immunotherapeutics or chemo-immunotherapy. Furthermore, there remains to be a lack of knowledge in how to incorporate molecular biomarkers as predictors of response to HNSCC immunotherapy.

What Will We Expect From Novel Therapies to Esophageal and Gastric Malignancies?

Esophageal cancer and gastric cancer are aggressive diseases for which treatment approaches are facing a new era. Some molecular pathways, such as VEGF, EGFR, fibroblast growth factor receptor, PIK3CA, and PARP-1, have been studied, and novel targeted drugs are presumed to be developed in the near future. From The Cancer Genome Atlas report, 80% of Epstein-Barr virus tumors and 42% of tumors with microsatellite instability have PIK3CA mutations, suggesting that this pathway could be reevaluated as a possible target for new systemic treatment of gastric cancer. Notably, higher PARP-1 expression can be found in gastric cancer, which might be related to more advanced disease and worse prognosis. In addition, PD-L1 expression, high microsatellite instability, and mismatch repair deficiency can be found in gastric cancer, thus suggesting that immunotherapy may also play a role in those patients. We discuss trends related to the potential of novel therapies for patients with esophageal and gastric cancers in the near future.

Routine interim disease assessment in patients undergoing induction chemotherapy for acute myeloid leukemia: Can we do better?

The presence of >5% blasts at "day 14" (D14), in patients undergoing induction chemotherapy for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is problematic. It is unclear if a second course of chemotherapy for early persistent disease will alter outcome in these patients. We conducted a retrospective study of AML patients undergoing induction chemotherapy where diagnostic, interim (around day 14), and recovery (days 21-42) bone marrow (BM) evaluations were available for review. Of the 113 patients included in the final analysis, 99 (87.6%) achieved CR at hematologic recovery. At D14, 90 patients (79.6%) had <5% blasts and of these, 87 (96.7%) ultimately achieved CR. At D14, Twenty-three (20.4%) patients had residual leukemia (>5% blasts). Of these, 11 (47.8%) received a second course of chemotherapy (double induction [DI]) and 12 (52.2%) were observed until count recovery (single induction [SI]). No significant difference in CR rates was observed between these two groups (58.3% DI group vs. 45.5% SI group, P value = 0.684). In our analysis, D14 BM evaluation did not uniformly identify patients with primary induction failure. To unequivocally determine the value of a D14 marrow assessment in AML, prospective studies in the context of large cooperative group trials are required. Considering our findings and similar reports from others, we propose that D14 marrow assessment should be individualized, and that other factors, such as cytogenetics and early peripheral blood blast clearance should be considered, to identify patients most likely to benefit from interim disease assessment during AML induction therapy.

A multicentre study of primary breast diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in the rituximab era.

Primary breast diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is a rare subtype of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) with limited data on pathology and outcome. A multicentre retrospective study was undertaken to determine prognostic factors and the incidence of central nervous system (CNS) relapses. Data was retrospectively collected on patients from 8 US academic centres. Only patients with stage I/II disease (involvement of breast and localized lymph nodes) were included. Histologies apart from primary DLBCL were excluded. Between 1992 and 2012, 76 patients met the eligibility criteria. Most patients (86%) received chemotherapy, and 69% received immunochemotherapy with rituximab; 65% received radiation therapy and 9% received prophylactic CNS chemotherapy. After a median follow-up of 4·5 years (range 0·6-20·6 years), the Kaplan-Meier estimated median progression-free survival was 10·4 years (95% confidence interval [CI] 5·8-14·9 years), and the median overall survival was 14·6 years (95% CI 10·2-19 years). Twelve patients (16%) had CNS relapse. A low stage-modified International Prognostic Index (IPI) was associated with longer overall survival. Rituximab use was not associated with a survival advantage. Primary breast DLBCL has a high rate of CNS relapse. The stage-modified IPI score is associated with survival.