Dostarlimab in the treatment of recurrent or primary advanced endometrial cancer.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors have demonstrated significant clinical activity across various tumor subtypes; however, their utility in gynecologic malignancies has thus far proven modest. Since the identification of a molecular subclassification system for endometrial cancer (EC), research in immune checkpoint inhibitor therapies has been focusing on certain subgroups predictive for response, particularly microsatellite instability hypermutated/DNA mismatch repair-deficient subtype. Dostarlimab, a PD-1 inhibitor, has demonstrated preliminary evidence of clinical activity and acceptable safety profile in patients with across recurrent EC, particularly microsatellite instability-hypermutated/DNA mismatch repair-deficient EC. This review outlines existing data for the efficacy and safety of dostarlimab in recurrent or advanced-stage EC.

Manage wisely: poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor (PARPi) treatment and adverse events.

Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors (PARPi) have transformed the treatment landscape in front-line and recurrent high-grade serous ovarian cancer. Maintenance strategies with PARPi have been assessed in randomized phase III trials in ovarian cancer; switch maintenance in the case of olaparib, niraparib, and rucaparib; and concurrent followed by continuation maintenance with veliparib. These studies have shown progression-free survival advantage with PARPi maintenance, with no major adverse changes in the quality of life; however, overall survival data remain immature to date. PARPi have also been incorporated in clinical practice as a single-agent treatment strategy in high-grade serous ovarian cancer, mainly in women who harbor alterations in the BRCA1/2 genes or have alterations in the homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) pathway. Contemporary studies are looking into potentially synergistic combination strategies with anti-angiogenics and immune checkpoint inhibitors, among others. The expansion of PARPi treatment has not been limited to ovarian cancer; talazoparib is licensed in patients with HER2-negative breast cancer with germline BRCA mutations (BRCAm), and front-line olaparib maintenance in patients with pancreatic cancer with germline BRCAm. Numerous studies assessing PARPi either in monotherapy or in combination with other agents are ongoing in multiple tumors, including prostate, endometrial, brain, and gastric cancers. Many patients are being treated with PARPi, some for prolonged periods of time. As a result, a thorough knowledge of the potential short- and long-term adverse events and their management is warranted to improve patient safety, treatment efficacy, and towards maintaining an appropriate dose intensity.

Inadequate pain management in cancer patients attending an outpatient palliative radiotherapy clinic.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to assess the prevalence of undertreated cancer pain in an outpatient palliative radiotherapy clinic using the Pain Management Index (PMI). METHODS: A retrospective analysis of a prospective database to assess pain management was done on patients with cancer pain enrolled from January 2009 to March 2015 using recorded pain intensity (0-10) and baseline pain medications. The pain intensities were categorized into no pain (0), mild pain (1), moderate pain (2), and severe pain (3), and an analgesic score was assigned to the most potent pain medication the patient was taking during the time of data collection. "0" was assigned to no analgesics, "1" to non-opioids, "2" to weak opioids, and "3" for strong opioids based on the WHO guidelines. The PMI was calculated for each patient by subtracting the pain score from the analgesic score. A negative value indicated undertreatment, and a value of 0 or greater corresponded to adequate pain management. RESULTS: Three hundred fifty-four patients were included in the study. The incidence of inadequate pain management was 33.3 %, similar to that reported in our previous studies. Additionally, 106 patients were taking strong opioids and reporting severe pain despite being the PMI reporting adequately treated. CONCLUSION: The rate of undertreatment is similar to that reported in past studies; however, the rates have shown a slight increase in our palliative radiotherapy clinic since the last assessment. Inadequate management of cancer pain continues to be a problem.

Update on the management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting - focus on palonosetron.

PURPOSE: Nausea and vomiting are major adverse effects of chemotherapy and can greatly impact patients' quality of life. Although chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prevalence is high, treatment remains difficult. Palonosetron is a 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor antagonist (5-HT3RA) approved for treatment of CINV. The purpose of this review is to discuss existing and emerging therapeutic options, and examine studies focusing on palonosetron with regards to efficacy, pharmacology, tolerability, safety, and patient-derived outcomes. METHODS: A literature search was conducted using Ovid MEDLINE and EMBASE to identify relevant studies using palonosetron alone or in combination with other antiemetics. Studies were extracted if they included complete response (CR), complete control (CC), no nausea, no vomiting, and no rescue medications as an endpoint. Studies were also included if safety endpoints were examined. RESULTS: Palonosetron alone has been shown to improve CR and CC rates for patients receiving low, moderate, or high emetogenic chemotherapy. Rates were further improved with the addition of dexamethasone, a corticosteroid. Furthermore, the addition of neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists, such as netupitant markedly improved efficacy profiles compared to palonosetron alone. Aprepitant is an antiemetic that has exhibited positive results in combination with palonosetron. Recently, a new drug consisting of netupitant and palonosetron (NEPA) has demonstrated significantly more efficacious prevention of CINV. Regardless of the combination, palonosetron has been well tolerated. The most common adverse events were constipation, headache, fatigue, and dizziness, with the majority of patients describing them as only mild or moderate. CONCLUSION: Palonosetron, alone or with other antiemetics, has improved CINV treatment due to its ability to significantly reduce delayed phases of CINV, compared to similar 5-HT3RAs. Palonosetron is both more effective than first generation 5-HT3RAs and safer, as it results in a smaller prolongation of the QTc interval, compared to other 5-HT3RAs.