Guiding Principles for Community Building in Global Oncology.

With the escalating incidence and prevalence of cancer worldwide disproportionately affecting low- and middle-income countries, there is an urgent need for the global oncology community to foster bidirectional partnerships and an equitable exchange of knowledge, resources, and expertise. A dedicated Global Oncology Community of Practice (CoP) can serve as a self-organizing, grassroots approach for members, with common goals and values, to coordinate efforts, maximize impact, and ensure sustainable outcomes. It is imperative, however, when outlining goals and priorities to adhere to an ethical and appropriate framework during community building efforts to avoid perpetuating inequities and power imbalances. This article reviews the core guiding principles for ASCO's Global Oncology CoP which includes responsibility, amplification, accessibility, sustainability, and decolonization.

Combining lapatinib and palbociclib inhibits cell proliferation and invasion via AKT signaling pathway in endocrine-resistant breast cancer cells.

Endocrine therapy plays a critical role in patients with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. Endocrine-resistant breast cancer cells exhibit more HER2 signaling proteins (pAKT and pERK) and mesenchymal biomarkers than wild-type cell lines. In head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, the combination of lapatinib and palbociclib demonstrated synergistic inhibitory effects on cell proliferation and suppressed ERK1/2 phosphorylation. The combination of lapatinib and palbociclib at half-maximal inhibitory concentrations resulted in an increasing cytotoxic effect on cell proliferation. Furthermore, invasion activity was significantly decreased when combining two drugs at nontoxic concentrations more than either single drug alone did. The combination also remarkably suppressed epithelial-mesenchymal transition transcription factors, such as Snail and pAKT, more than monotherapy. Combining drugs, particularly lapatinib and palbociclib for targeting endocrine-resistant breast cancer cells whose tumors overexpressed HER2 after resistance to hormonal therapy, demonstrated better antiproliferative, anti-invasive effects, and suppression of EMT protein and pAKT than a single drug. These results could be from the interruption of the EMT process via the AKT pathway. Thus, this study provides preliminary data for applying this combination to patients with endocrine-resistant breast cancer in further clinical trials.

Safety Following COVID-19 Booster Vaccine with BNT162b2 Compared to mRNA-1273 in Solid Cancer Patients Previously Vaccinated with ChAdOx1 or CoronaVac.

Safety data following the COVID-19 booster mRNA vaccine in solid cancer patients are scarce. We prospectively evaluated adverse events after a booster dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine as compared to the mRNA-1273 vaccine in solid malignancy patients who had previously received two doses of ChAdOx1 or heterogenous CoronaVac/ChAdOx1. Data regarding solicited and unsolicited adverse events were collected using questionnaires. The primary endpoint was the difference in incidence and severity of adverse events between BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines. A total of 370 subjects were enrolled, including 172 (47%) and 198 (54%) patients receiving booster doses of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines, respectively. The overall incidence of adverse events in the two groups was comparable (BNT162b2 vs. mRNA-1273; 63% vs. 66%, p = 0.6). There was no significant difference in severity, and the majority of adverse events reported were classed as mild to moderate. Tenderness at the injection site was the only reaction that had a statistically higher reported incidence after the mRNA-1273 vaccine than after the BNT162b2 vaccine (56% vs. 41%, p = 0.003). In conclusion, a booster dose of the mRNA vaccine, either BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273, in solid cancer patients previously vaccinated with ChAdOx1 and CoronaVac appears safe, and no new safety concerns were observed.

Immunogenicity after a Third COVID-19 mRNA Booster in Solid Cancer Patients Who Previously Received the Primary Heterologous CoronaVac/ChAdOx1 Vaccine.

No data regarding the efficacy of a third mRNA vaccine for solid cancer patients previously primed with the heterologous CoronoVac/ChAdOx1 vaccination implemented in Thailand during the shortage of vaccine supply are available. Forty-four cancer patients who previously received the heterologous CoronaVac-ChAdOx1 regimen were boosted with a third mRNA COVID vaccine, either BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273. Anti-RBD IgG was measured immediately before, two weeks after, and four weeks after the third dose. The antibody response was compared to 87 age- and gender-matched cancer patients who were primed with the homologous ChAdOx1/ChAdOx1 regimens. Post-third dose anti-RBD IgG levels significantly increased compared to pre-third dose levels. There was no statistical difference in post-third dose antibody titers or neutralization levels between these two primary series regimens. Treatment with chemotherapy was associated with a lower antibody response compared to endocrine therapy/biologics. Similar antibody levels were observed after a third booster with either BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 following heterologous CoronaVac/ChAdOx1 vaccination. There was no statistical difference in the immune response following the third-dose vaccination between cancer patients and healthy individuals who received the same heterologous CoronaVac/ChAdOx1 vaccination. In conclusion, a similar degree of enhanced immunogenicity was observed after a third mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in solid cancer patients who previously received the heterologous CoronaVac/ChAdOx1 regimens.

Durability of Immune Response to ChAdOx1-nCoV-19 Vaccine in Solid Cancer Patients Undergoing Anticancer Treatment.

There are limited data available about the durability of the immune response after administration of the widely used adenovirus-vectored ChAdOx1-nCoV-19 vaccine in cancer patients. This prospective longitudinal observational study analyzed follow-up data of immunogenic responses 12 weeks after the second dose of the ChAdOx1-nCoV-19 vaccine in 290 oncological patients compared to healthy controls. The study aimed to assess the persistence of the humoral immune response three months after the second dose, and omicron neutralization was also evaluated. Three months after completion of the second vaccine dose, the geometric mean titer of SARS-CoV-2 binding total Ig statistically decreased by 42% compared to those at 4 weeks, and was lower than that of the healthy control. Six percent of patients became seronegative for anti-RBD total Ig. Only 5% (2 of 40 samples) tested positive for surrogate neutralization against SAR-CoV-2 Omicron BA.2. Across different therapy types, a waning in immunogenicity was observed within three months after the second dose of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine, rendering it insufficient at that point to protect against the SAR-CoV-2 Omicron BA.2 variant.

Immunogenicity of ChAdOx1-nCoV-19 vaccine in solid malignancy patients by treatment regimen versus healthy controls: A prospective, multicenter observational study.

Background: Limited data exists regarding the efficacy of ChAdOx1-nCoV-19 vaccine against Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS­CoV­2) in solid cancer patients. We aimed to assess the immunogenicity of the ChAdOx1-nCoV-19 vaccine and the impact of different anticancer therapies for solid malignancies on immune response. Methods: This prospective, longitudinal observational study of immunogenicity following ChAdOx1-nCoV-19 vaccination among 385 solid cancer patients on active cancer treatment was conducted in two oncology centers. Participants received the first dose between June 18 and July 27, 2021 and the second dose at 8-10 weeks later. Blood samples were evaluated for total immunoglobulins against the receptor-binding of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein (anti-RBD total-Ig) before, and 4-week after the first- and second-doses. The primary endpoint was the geometric mean titers (GMT) of antibody among solid cancer patients compared to healthy controls and the impact of different cancer treatment types. Findings: Among solid cancer patients, the antibody level increased more slowly to significantly lower levels than achieved in healthy controls. The GMT at 4-weeks post-vaccination in cancer vs. healthy were 224.5 U/ml (95%CI 176.4-285.6) vs. 877.1 U/ml (95%CI 763.5-1008), p<0.0001), respectively. For different types of cancer treatments, chemotherapy agents, especially anthracyclines (GMR 0.004; 95%CI 0.002-0.008), paclitaxel (GMR 0.268; 95%CI 0.123-0.581), oxaliplatin (GMR 0.340; 95%CI 0.165-0.484), and immunotherapy (GMR 0.203; 95%CI 0.109-0.381) showed significantly lower antibody response. Anti-HER2, endocrine therapy and 5-fluouracil or gemcitabine, however, had less impact on the immune response. Interpretation: Suboptimal and heterogeneous immunologic responses were observed in cancer patients being treated with different systemic treatments. Immunotherapy or chemotherapy significantly suppressed the antibody response. Funding: Quality Improvement Fund, King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, The Thai Red Cross Society and Center of Excellence in Clinical Virology at Chulalongkorn University and Chulalongkorn Medical Oncology Research Fund.

Vaccine-Related adverse events following AZD1222 (ChAdOx1-nCoV-19) Covid-19 vaccine in solid malignancy patients receiving cancer treatment, as compared to age-matched healthy controls.

The study aimed to evaluate vaccine-related adverse events (VRAEs) following ChAdOx1-nCoV-19 vaccine in solid cancer patients receiving treatment compared to healthy controls. 399 cancer patients and 90 healthy volunteers were enrolled. In the overall population, the incidence of VRAEs was significantly lower in cancer patients than in healthy volunteers (57% vs 80%, P < .001). Because the mean age of the cancer patients was higher than the healthy volunteers (59 vs 48 years, P < .001), we analyzed age-matched comparison and found that there was no significant difference of VRAEs between two groups (74% vs 79%, P .32). Most VRAEs were of mild severity in both groups. The most common local VRAE was pain at the injection site in both groups, and the most common systemic VRAE was fatigue in the cancer cohort, while myalgia was the most common VRAE among the healthy controls. In the cancer cohort, fever was the only VRAE that led to interruption of the cancer treatment (in two cases). Among the cancer treatment types, patients undergoing chemotherapy-containing regimens had a lower likelihood of experiencing VRAEs. In summary, the overall incidence of VRAEs following ChAdOx1-nCoV-19 vaccine in actively treated cancer patients was comparable to healthy controls after adjusting for age. The VRAEs that occurred rarely interfered with the cancer treatment. These findings substantiate that vaccination with AZD1222 is safe in cancer patients undergoing treatment.

The Effect of Intravenous Mannitol Combined With Normal Saline in Preventing Cisplatin-Induced Nephrotoxicity: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial.

PURPOSE: Nephrotoxicity is a major dose-limiting toxicity among patients with cancer who were treated with cisplatin. Although no standard approach is available to prevent cisplatin-induced nephrotoxicity, administering intravenous isotonic saline is recommended. Additionally, mannitol combined with hydration has been evaluated, but none of them have been established. Our study aimed to determine the efficacy of mannitol combined hydration to prevent cisplatin-induced nephrotoxicity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study was a phase II, randomized, placebo-controlled design. All patients with solid cancers who were treated with cisplatin (n = 48) were randomly assigned to receive either placebo (n = 25) or 20 g of mannitol (n = 23) after completing 2 L of prehydration and receiving cisplatin. Serum creatinine, blood urea nitrogen, electrolyte, and glomerular filtration rate (GFR) were measured at baseline and days 2 and 7. Moreover, GFR was calculated based on the 24-hour urine creatinine clearance rate to assess renal function at baseline and 48 hours after receiving cisplatin. Severity of nausea and vomiting was evaluated using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. RESULTS: No difference was found regarding baseline characteristics between the two groups. Seven of 23 patients (37.4%) in the mannitol group and 10 of 25 patients (40%) in the placebo group increased serum creatinine level ≥ 0.3 mg/dL at 48 hours after intervention (P value = .48). Patients receiving mannitol exhibited significantly lower incidence of 24-hour urine GFR below 60 mL/min/1.73 m than those in the placebo group (13.6% v 48.0% in the placebo group; P value = .012). Univariate analysis showed the greatest benefit for administering mannitol among patients receiving cisplatin > 80 mg/m2, or patients receiving concomitant radiation. CONCLUSION: Mannitol combined with hydration significantly prevented cisplatin-induced nephrotoxicity. Additionally, mannitol should be particularly considered among patients with cancer, treated with cisplatin > 80 mg/m2, or patients receiving concomitant radiation.

Single dose dexamethasone prophylaxis of postembolisation syndrome after chemoembolisation in hepatocellular carcinoma patient: A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Even in the immuno-oncology era, transcatheter arterial chemoembolisation (TACE) is the most effective way to treat intermediate stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Postembolisation syndrome (PES) is the most common side effect from TACE and there is still no standard prevention guideline. AIM: To evaluate the efficacy of single dose intravenous dexamethasone regimen to prevent PES after TACE among patients with HCC. METHODS: This study enrolled patients with HCC who had eligible indication for TACE without macrovascular invasion/extrahepatic metastasis. Patients were randomly assigned to either an intravenous single dose of dexamethasone 8 mg or placebo one hour before TACE. The primary outcome was a negative result of PES at 48 h after TACE, which was defined as score < 2 of Southwest Oncology Group toxicity coding criteria using fever, nausea, vomiting and pain to calculated. And the secondary end point was duration of admission between two groups. RESULTS: One hundred patients were randomly assigned 1:1. Under intention-to-treat analysis, 49 patients were randomly assigned to the dexamethasone and 51 to the placebo groups. Both groups were similar for baseline characteristics. The negative PES rate was significantly higher in the dexamethasone group than in the placebo group (63.3% vs 29.4%; P = 0.005). Mean Southwest Oncology Group toxicity coding PES was 2.14 (95%CI: 1.41-2.8) vs 3.71 (95%CI: 2.97-4.45) between the dexamethasone and placebo groups, respectively. Cumulative incidence of fever was significantly lower in dexamethasone group with P < 0.001, pain, nausea and vomiting were also lower in the dexamethasone group compared with the placebo group (P = 0.16, P = 0.11, and P = 0.49). The dexamethasone regimen was generally well tolerated by patients with HCC patients including those with hepatitis B virus infection and well-controlled diabetes mellitus. CONCLUSION: Single dose dexamethasone was effective at preventing PES among patients with HCC treated with TACE. The study showed no adverse events of special interest related to dexamethasone.