Differentiated thyroid carcinoma: what the nonspecialists needs to know.

Differentiated thyroid carcinoma (DTC) accounts for most cases of thyroid cancer, and the heterogeneity of DTC requires that management decisions be taken by a multidisciplinary team involving endocrinologists, head and neck surgeons, nuclear medicine physicians, pathologists, radiologists, radiation oncologists, and medical oncologists. It is important for nonspecialists to recognize and refer patients with DTC who will benefit from a specialized approach. Recent advances in knowledge and changes in management of DTC call for the need to raise awareness on the part of these nonspecialist physicians, including general endocrinologists and medical oncologists at large. We provide an overview of diagnostic and therapeutic principles in DTC, especially those that bear direct implication on day-to-day management of these patients by generalists. Patients with DTC may be broadly categorized as having localized, locally persistent/recurrent, or metastatic disease. Current recommendations for DTC include a three-tiered system that classifies patients with localized disease into low, intermediate, or high risk of persistent or recurrent disease. Risk stratification should be performed at baseline and repeated on an ongoing basis, depending on clinical evolution. One of the overarching goals in the management of DTC is the need to personalize treatment by tailoring its modality and intensity according to ongoing prognostic stratification, evolving knowledge about the disease, and patient characteristics and preference. In metastatic disease that is refractory to radioactive iodine, thyroid tumors are being reclassified into molecular subtypes that better reflect their biological properties and for which molecular alterations can be targeted with specific agents.

Metformin plus lrinotecan in patients with refractory colorectal cancer: a phase 2 clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with refractory colorectal (CRC) cancer have few treatment options. This trial tests the combination of metformin and irinotecan in this setting. METHODS: A phase 2 single-arm trial was conducted, patients received metformin 2500 mg orally a day plus irinotecan 125 mg/m2 intravenously weekly D1 and D8 every 21 days. The primary endpoint was the disease control rate according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 at 12 weeks. RESULTS: Between December 2015 and January 2018, 41 patients were enrolled. Seventeen patients (41%) met the primary endpoint of disease control in 12 weeks; hence, the study was deemed positive. The median progression-free survival was 3.3 months (CI 95%, 2.0-4.5 months), and the median overall survival was 8.4 months (CI 95%, 5.9-10.8 months). Both mutation RAS status and disease control at 12 weeks impacted overall survival in the multivariate model (HR 2.28, CI 95%, 1.12-4.7, p = 0.02; and HR 0.21, CI 95%, 0.08-0.5, p = 0.001, respectively). The most common adverse event was diarrhoea (29.2% grade 3). CONCLUSIONS: In this trial, metformin plus irinotecan demonstrated disease control in patients with refractory CRC. Further trials with optimised diarrhoea control are needed to confirm these results.

Prevention strategies for chemotherapy-induced hand-foot syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective randomised trials.

PURPOSE: Hand-foot syndrome (HSF) is a distinctive adverse event relatively frequent to some chemotherapeutic agents as capecitabine, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, sorafenib and other tyrosine-kinase inhibitors. Since the prevention of HFS would be crucial to avoid treatment interruptions and delays, many studies have been conducted with this purpose. METHODS: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to analyze the clinical efficacy of prevention strategies for HFS, through a wide search of electronic databases as well as congress abstracts. The endpoints evaluated were the dichotomic data for mild (Grade 1), moderate to severe (Grades 2 to 3) and all-grade HFS. Meta-analysis was calculated through RevMan v5.1 software. RESULTS: Amongst 295 studies identified, only ten met the inclusion criteria. Celecoxib prevented both moderate to severe (odds ratio [OR] 0.39, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.20-0.73, P = 0.003) and all-grade HFS (OR 0.47, 95 % CI 0.29-0.78, P = 0.003), whereas pyridoxine and topical urea/lactic acid formulations failed to prove efficacy. There were no proven benefits in mild HFS. The use of topical antiperspirant has not been shown to improve results, according to a single trial. CONCLUSIONS: From all available possibilities for the prevention of HFS, celecoxib appears to be the most promising, with statistically significant results. Larger, multicentric studies are required to reinforce this finding.

Ramucirumab monotherapy for previously treated advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (REGARD): an international, randomised, multicentre, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and VEGF receptor-2 (VEGFR-2)-mediated signalling and angiogenesis can contribute to the pathogenesis and progression of gastric cancer. We aimed to assess whether ramucirumab, a monoclonal antibody VEGFR-2 antagonist, prolonged survival in patients with advanced gastric cancer. METHODS: We did an international, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial between Oct 6, 2009, and Jan 26, 2012, at 119 centres in 29 countries in North America, Central and South America, Europe, Asia, Australia, and Africa. Patients aged 24-87 years with advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma and disease progression after first-line platinum-containing or fluoropyrimidine-containing chemotherapy were randomly assigned (2:1), via a central interactive voice-response system, to receive best supportive care plus either ramucirumab 8 mg/kg or placebo, intravenously once every 2 weeks. The study sponsor, participants, and investigators were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00917384. FINDINGS: 355 patients were assigned to receive ramucirumab (n=238) or placebo (n=117). Median overall survival was 5·2 months (IQR 2·3-9·9) in patients in the ramucirumab group and 3·8 months (1·7-7·1) in those in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·776, 95% CI 0·603-0·998; p=0·047). The survival benefit with ramucirumab remained unchanged after multivariable adjustment for other prognostic factors (multivariable HR 0·774, 0·605-0·991; p=0·042). Rates of hypertension were higher in the ramucirumab group than in the placebo group (38 [16%] vs nine [8%]), whereas rates of other adverse events were mostly similar between groups (223 [94%] vs 101 [88%]). Five (2%) deaths in the ramucirumab group and two (2%) in the placebo group were considered to be related to study drug. INTERPRETATION: Ramucirumab is the first biological treatment given as a single drug that has survival benefits in patients with advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma progressing after first-line chemotherapy. Our findings validate VEGFR-2 signalling as an important therapeutic target in advanced gastric cancer. FUNDING: ImClone Systems.

Imatinib-induced bone edema: case report and review of literature.

Imatinib mesylate represents a revolution in the management of patients with metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs). More recently, postoperative imatinib has been shown to improve both disease-free and overall survivals in patients with a high risk of recurrence. This article presents a well-documented case of a patient with painful and reversible bone edema related to imatinib.

Neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The addition of neurokinin-1 receptor (NK1R) antagonists to antiemetic regimens has substantially reduced chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). We sought to systematically review the overall impact of NK1R antagonists on CINV prevention. METHODS: We systematically searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases, and meeting proceedings for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated NK1R antagonists plus standard antiemetic therapy for CINV prevention. Complete response (CR) to therapy was defined as the absence of emesis and the absence of rescue therapy. The endpoints were defined as CR in the overall phase (during the first 120 hours of chemotherapy), CR in the acute phase (first 24 hours), and the delayed phase (24-120 hours) after chemotherapy, nausea, and toxicity. Subgroup analyses evaluated the type of NK1R antagonist used, the emetogenic potential of the chemotherapy regimen, and prolonged use of 5-HT3 (serotonin) receptor antagonists, a class of standard antiemetic agents. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model. Statistical tests for heterogeneity were one-sided; statistical tests for effect estimates and publication bias were two-sided. RESULTS: Seventeen trials (8740 patients) were included in this analysis. NK1R antagonists increased the CR rate in the overall phase from 54% to 72% (OR = 0.51, 95% CI = 0.46 to 0.57, P < .001). CR and nausea were improved in all phases and subgroups. The expected side effects from NK1R antagonists did not statistically significantly differ from previous reports; however, this analysis suggests that the incidence of severe infection increased from 2% to 6% in the NK1R antagonist group (three RCTs with a total of 1480 patients; OR = 3.10; 95% CI = 1.69 to 5.67, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: NK1R antagonists increased CINV control in the acute, delayed, and overall phases. They are effective for both moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy regimens. Their use might be associated with increased infection rates; however, additional appraisal of specific data from RCTs is needed.

Is there a role for consolidative radiotherapy in the treatment of aggressive and localized non-Hodgkin lymphoma? A systematic review with meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy is the mainstay of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) treatment. Based on expert opinion, the use of radiotherapy (RT) is currently preferred in some institutions as consolidative treatment for patients with localized disease. The lack of conclusive data coming from conflicting studies about the impact of treatment demands a systematic review, which could provide the most reliable assessment for clinical decision-making. We evaluate the addition of RT post-CT, for aggressive and localized NHL (ALNHL). METHODS: Randomized controlled trials (RCT) that evaluated chemotherapy alone versus chemotherapy plus RT were searched in databases. The outcomes were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR) and toxicity. Risk ratio (RR) and hazard ratio (HR) with their respective 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using a fized-effect model. RESULTS: Four trials (1,796 patients) met the inclusion criteria. All trials tested the use of RT after systemic therapy comprising anthracycline-based chemotherapy. This systematic review showed that RT enhances PFS after chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] 0.81; 95% CI 0.67-0.98; p = 0.03), with no impact on ORR and OS. Some heterogeneity between trials could limit the conclusions about OS. Toxicity data could not be pooled due to differences in reporting adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review with meta-analysis shows no improvement in survival when adding RT to systemic therapy for ALNHL. Our conclusions are limited by the available data. Further evaluations of new RT technologies and its association with biologic agents are needed.

Independent radiologic review in metastatic colorectal cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: To perform a meta-analysis addressing evaluation bias in local radiologic assessment (LRA) of lesions when compared with independent radiologic review (IRR) in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, the Cochrane Library, and Web sites for major medical meetings were searched for RCTs of chemotherapy for metastatic CRC that reported response evaluation by both LRA and IRR. The risk ratios (RRs) of response in the experimental (RR(exp)) and control (RR(cont)) arms were calculated (response rate in LRA divided by response rate in IRR) for each selected study. The ratio of RR of response was calculated (RR of response of LRA divided by RR of response of IRR). The random-effects model was applied. Meta-regression was used to examine the effect of study characteristics on outcomes. RESULTS: LRA and IRR results were concordant (13 studies; 7742 patients; ratio of RR of response = 0.97; 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 0.90, 1.04; P = .35). However, LRA overestimated tumor response independently of therapy allocation (interaction test, P = .81) both in control (RR(cont), 1.163; 95% CI: 1.086, 1.246; P < .001) and experimental (RR(exp), 1.156; 95% CI: 1.093, 1.222; P < .001) therapies. Meta-regression did not show any effect of trial characteristics on effects. CONCLUSION: LRA yields higher response rates in RCTs testing chemotherapy for metastatic CRC, although there was no sign of bias toward experimental therapy. The need for IRR to control evaluation bias must be reappraised.

Bevacizumab in metastatic colorectal cancer and carcino-embryonic antigen kinetics: case report and review of literature.

Bevacizumab-containing treatment is one of the approved first-line options for the management of metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC). Carcino-embryonic antigen (CEA) is a reasonable tumour marker for monitoring the efficacy of treatment. We report here a case of a 58-year-old male patient with metastatic CRC. He received first-line chemotherapy consisting of the mFOLFOX6 regimen plus bevacizumab. Initially he had an increase in CEA after which the level reduced, suggesting the occurrence of a CEA flare. The patient experienced a good response to therapy. In recent literature, CEA flare was identified as a good predictor of response to first-line chemotherapy.

Camptothecins compared with etoposide in combination with platinum analog in extensive stage small cell lung cancer: systematic review with meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Superiority of camptothecin regimens over etoposide-both combined with platinum analogs-in extensive disease small cell lung cancer has been a matter of debate with contradictory findings in randomized trials. A systematic review was sought to elucidate this issue. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials comparing first-line camptothecin-platinum doublets versus etoposide-platinum doublets in patients with extensive disease small cell lung cancer were searched in MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and CENTRAL databases, European Society of Medical Oncology, American Society of Clinical Oncology, and International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer meeting sites. Meta-analyses were performed using fixed-effects model. Subgroup analyses were undertaken comparing each type of camptothecin to etoposide-based regimens. The outcomes of interest were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), response rate (RR), and toxicities. RESULTS: Eight studies (3086 patients) were included. The meta-analysis of topotecan regimens (TP) was not reliable due to impending heterogeneity. Meta-analysis of trials testing irinotecan combinations (IP) versus etoposide regimens (EP; 1561 patients) stated an OS improvement in favor of IP arm, though with considerable heterogeneity, whose origin seemed to be a Japanese trial. In the analyses without that study (1407 patients left), IP brought a significant improvement in OS (hazard ratio = 0.87; 95% confidence interval 0.78-0.97; p = 0.02; I = 0). IP also increased PFS (hazard ratio = 0.83; 95% confidence interval 0.73-0.95; p = 0.006; I = 0%). There was no impact in RR (absolute RR 56% with IP; 53% with EP; p = 0.17). IP caused more diarrhea (p < 0.0001) but less hematological toxicities (p < 0.001) than EP. CONCLUSIONS: The present meta-analysis demonstrates statistically significant OS and PFS benefits of IP over EP regimens in western and eastern patients. Specific characteristics of safety profile should be taken into account when administrating IP chemotherapy.

Optimal duration of first-line chemotherapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The optimal duration of first-line chemotherapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has been a matter for debate for nearly 20 years. In order to elucidate this issue, a meta-analysis comparing the different durations of same treatments was performed. METHODS: We searched for all published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different durations of first-line treatment of advanced NSCLC. The MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS and CENTRAL databases were searched for RCTs comparing a defined number of cycles of chemotherapy versus continuing treatment until disease progression, or a defined number of cycles versus a higher number of cycles of the same chemotherapy. Trials including biological agents were excluded. RESULTS: Seven trials that included 1559 patients were analysed. Treatment for more than 4 cycles was associated with a non-statistically significant decrease in the hazard of mortality relative to shorter treatment (hazard ratio (HR)=0.97; 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.84-1.11; P=.65). In those treated with third-generation chemotherapy through the whole study time, treatment for more than 4 cycles was associated with a non-statistically significant increase in mortality (HR=1.08; 95% CI=0.90-1.28; P=.28). Patients receiving more chemotherapy had significant longer progression-free survival (HR=.75; 95% CI=0.60-0.85; P<0.0001) than the group with shorter duration of treatment. In an intent-to-treat analysis, there was no difference in the overall response rate between the groups (odds ratio (OR)=0.78; 95% CI=0.60-1.01; P=.96). Longer treatment was associated with more severe leucopaenia but with no significant increase in non-haematological toxicities. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with advanced NSCLC the use of more than 4 cycles of first-line chemotherapy with third-generation regimens significantly increases progression-free survival but not overall survival and is associated with higher incidence of adverse events. There is no evidence to support continuous chemotherapy until progression in patients with lung cancer.