Rechallenges without desensitization following platinum-based chemotherapy reactions.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing interest in non-desensitization protocols as a potential way to reintroduce chemotherapy following hypersensitivity reactions (HSR). OBJECTIVE: To provide insight into the potential utility of non-desensitization reintroduction, particularly at institutions where allergy consultation may not be available. METHODS: For 70 patients with platinum HSR who underwent rechallenge with standard (≤2 hours), extended (1-bag, 1-step, 4-6 hours), or titrated (4-to-5-bag and -step, 6-7.5 hours) infusions between 1/2014 and 7/2019, demographics and clinical characteristics were reviewed and initial and breakthrough reactions (BTR) were graded using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0 (CTCAE v5.0). Tolerance (no BTR) and completion (dose completed despite BTR) were compared using Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: Patients (mean [standard deviation] age 57 [13] years, initial HSR grade 2 [1]), were rechallenged with standard (n = 8), extended (n = 23), or titrated (n = 22) infusions after oxaliplatin HSR; and standard (n = 5) or titrated (n = 12) after carboplatin HSR. Tolerance and completion were higher for extended versus (vs) standard (tolerance-87%-vs-8%, p < 0.005; completion-96%-vs-38%, p < 0.005) and titrated versus standard (tolerance-76%-vs-8%, p < 0.005; completion-79%-vs-38%, p < 0.05) infusions. CONCLUSIONS: Extended and titrated infusions may increase reintroduction safety compared to standard infusions. Further investigation into extended infusions may provide a safe alternative to standard infusions in patients who may not have access to desensitization at their institution.

TERT promoter mutations and other prognostic factors in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma treated with an immune checkpoint inhibitor.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) can achieve durable responses in a subset of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (aUC). The use of tumor genomic profiling in clinical practice may help suggest biomarkers to identify patients most likely to benefit from ICI. METHODS: We undertook a retrospective analysis of patients treated with an ICI for aUC at a large academic medical center. Patient clinical and histopathological variables were collected. Responses to treatment were assessed for all patients with at least one post-baseline scan or clear evidence of clinical progression following treatment start. Genomic profiling information was also collected for patients when available. Associations between patient clinical/genomic characteristics and objective response were assessed by logistic regression; associations between the characteristics and progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were examined by Cox regression. Multivariable analyses were performed to identify independent prognostic factors. RESULTS: We identified 119 aUC patients treated with an ICI from December 2014 to January 2020. Genomic profiling was available for 78 patients. Overall response rate to ICI was 29%, and median OS (mOS) was 13.4 months. Favorable performance status at the start of therapy was associated with improved OS (HR 0.46, p=0.025) after accounting for other covariates. Similarly, the presence of a TERT promoter mutation was an independent predictor of improved PFS (HR 0.38, p=0.012) and OS (HR 0.32, p=0.037) among patients who had genomic profiling available. Patients with both a favorable performance status and a TERT promoter mutation had a particularly good prognosis with mOS of 21.1 months as compared with 7.5 months in all other patients (p=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: The presence of a TERT promoter mutation was an independent predictor of improved OS in a cohort of aUC patients treated with an ICI who had genomic data available. Most of the clinical and laboratory variables previously shown to be prognostic in aUC patients treated with chemotherapy did not have prognostic value among patients treated with an ICI. Genomic profiling may provide important prognostic information and affect clinical decision making in this patient population. Validation of these findings in prospective patient cohorts is needed.

Combination pertuzumab, trastuzumab, and taxane for metastatic breast cancer after first progression: a single institution's experience.

BACKGROUND: The addition of pertuzumab to trastuzumab and taxane therapy was shown to be an effective first-line treatment for patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer. OBJECTIVE: Describe the progression-free survival of pertuzumab, trastuzumab, and taxane therapy for previously treated HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer. METHODS: This case-series reviews 19 patients with metastatic breast cancer receiving treatment with pertuzumab, trastuzumab, taxane after progression and exposure to previous lines of HER2-directed therapy. Progression-free survival and adverse effects such as changes in ejection fraction and episodes of neutropenic fever were assessed. RESULTS: The median progression-free survival of pertuzumab, trastuzumab, taxane therapy for previously treated metastatic breast cancer was 4.1 months. The mean baseline left ventricular ejection fraction change experienced by patients was -1%. Neutropenic fever events were not encountered. CONCLUSIONS: Pertuzumab, trastuzumab, and taxane therapy seems to confer progression-free survival benefit for previously treated metastatic breast cancer. The use of the dual anti-HER2 antibodies, pertuzumab and trastuzumab, in addition to cytotoxic chemotherapy agents for previously treated metastatic breast cancer should be further evaluated.