Weight-centric prevention of cancer.

Background: The link between excess adiposity and carcinogenesis has been well established for multiple malignancies, and cancer is one of the main contributors to obesity-related mortality. The potential role of different weight-loss interventions on cancer risk modification has been assessed, however, its clinical implications remain to be determined. In this clinical review, we present the data assessing the effect of weight loss interventions on cancer risk. Methods: In this clinical review, we conducted a comprehensive search of relevant literature using MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases for relevant studies from inception to January 20, 2024. In this clinical review, we present systematic reviews and meta-analysis, randomized clinical trials, and prospective and retrospective observational studies that address the effect of different treatment modalities for obesity in cancer risk. In addition, we incorporate the opinions from experts in the field of obesity medicine and oncology regarding the potential of weight loss as a preventative intervention for cancer. Results: Intentional weight loss achieved through different modalities has been associated with a reduced cancer incidence. To date, the effect of weight loss on the postmenopausal women population has been more widely studied, with multiple reports indicating a protective effect of weight loss on hormone-dependent malignancies. The effect of bariatric interventions as a protective intervention for cancer has been studied extensively, showing a significant reduction in cancer incidence and mortality, however, data for the effect of bariatric surgery on certain specific types of cancer is conflicting or limited. Conclusion: Medical nutrition therapy, exercise, antiobesity medication, and bariatric interventions, might lead to a reduction in cancer risk through weight loss-dependent and independent factors. Further evidence is needed to better determine which population might benefit the most, and the amount of weight loss required to provide a clinically significant preventative effect.

Advances in the care of breast cancer survivors.

Breast cancer survivors may experience significant after effects from diagnoses of breast cancer and cancer directed therapies. This review synthesizes the evidence about optimal management of the sequelae of a diagnosis of breast cancer. It describes the side effects of chemotherapy and endocrine therapy and evidence based strategies for management of such effects, with particular attention to effects of therapies with curative intent. It includes strategies to promote health and wellness among breast cancer survivors, along with data to support the use of integrative oncology strategies. In addition, this review examines models of survivorship care and ways in which digital tools may facilitate communication between clinicians and patients. The strategies outlined in this review are paramount to supporting breast cancer survivors' quality of life.

Changes in amount and intensity of physical activity over time in breast cancer survivors.

BACKGROUND: Physical activity is associated with decreased breast cancer recurrence and mortality, as well as fewer treatment-related symptoms. Nevertheless, most breast cancer survivors do not meet physical activity guidelines. The purpose of this manuscript is to characterize physical activity trends over time in breast cancer survivors. METHODS: Mayo Clinic Breast Disease Registry participants received surveys at baseline and at 1 and 4 years after diagnosis; breast cancer recurrence and/or metastatic disease were exclusion criteria. Participants were considered to be meeting guidelines if they self-reported at least 150 minutes of moderate-intensity (eg, fast walking) and/or strenuous (eg, jogging) physical activity per week. Statistical analyses include analysis of covariance methods, paired t tests, conditional logistic regression models, and McNemar tests of homogeneity. RESULTS: A total of 171 participants were included in the analysis. The amount of total physical activity decreased over time (P = .07). Mild-intensity physical activity (eg, easy walking) decreased most over time (P = .05). Among participants aged 18-49 years, mild-intensity (P = .05) and moderate-intensity (P = .02) physical activity decreased over time. Strenuous-intensity physical activity levels decreased over time among participants with a normal body mass index (P = .002) and with obesity (P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: We found a trend-level decrease in total physical activity over time, driven mostly by a decrease in mild-intensity physical activity. Young breast cancer survivors are especially likely to reduce their physical activity over time. Further research on implementing physical activity guidelines in clinical practice is warranted.

Dietary supplement use and recommendations for discontinuation in an integrative oncology clinic.

PURPOSE: This project evaluated the dietary supplement (DS) use of patients referred to an integrative oncology program and documented the frequency and reasons for recommending stopping DS. Many patients with cancer are taking dietary supplements and may not disclose such to their care teams. There is potential for harm in several ways: (1) interactions with their medications that may increase side effects, (2) interactions with their treatment that may lead to decreased efficacy, and 3) direct toxicity from the supplement. METHODS: Patient data (N = 100) were collected prospectively from an Integrative Oncology Clinic. The number and type of DS were documented. Using the Natural Medicines Database, we determined whether supplements interacted with the patient's other medications or cancer therapies. We calculated the percentage of patients in which a recommendation for discontinuation (DC) of DS was provided, along with the supporting reasons. RESULTS: We found that 91% of patients took DS, averaging 5.5 per patient (range 0-20). In 35% of patients, we recommended stopping some of their DS or other therapies, the reasons being: DC antioxidants, vitamin B12/iron while on chemo/RT (unless deficient or part of protocol) 32%; DC due to taking excess amounts (i.e., fat-soluble vitamins, calcium, iron) 13.5%; DC supplements with known toxicity (i.e., laetrile, Miracle mineral solution) 13.5%; DC due to interactions with other medications (i.e., anticoagulants) 13.5%; DC DS with potential to increase cancer growth (i.e., estrogenic potential in those with hormone-sensitive cancers, glutamine) 11%; DC due to potential for increased toxicity with chemotherapy (i.e., increased risk of bleeding, CIPN) 11%; DC probiotics, immune stimulants, and cannabis while on immunotherapy 5.4%. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with cancer referred to an integrative oncology clinic use large numbers of DS with the potential for adverse effects and/or decreasing efficacy of treatments. This study highlights the prevalence of DS usage in cancer patients referred to an integrative oncology clinic and demonstrates the need for counseling about safe supplement use.

Factors Associated With Physical Activity Levels in Patients With Breast Cancer.

Physical activity (PA) is associated with improvement in breast cancer treatment-related symptoms and survival, yet most breast cancer survivors do not meet national PA guidelines. This study aimed to identify characteristics of participants that were associated with an increased likelihood of meeting PA guidelines. Adults with breast cancer seen at Mayo Clinic (Rochester, MN) were surveyed regarding their PA participation, and those who self-reported at least 150 minutes of moderate and/or strenuous aerobic PA weekly on average were considered to be "meeting guidelines". Three thousand participants returned PA data. Younger age, completion of the survey 7-12 years after diagnosis, absence of recurrence, no bilateral mastectomy, absence of metastatic disease, and lower BMI at the time of survey completion were associated with PA participation (P < .05 in univariate and multivariate analyses). Findings were similar when a threshold of 90 minutes was applied. These results may inform the development of targeted PA-facilitating interventions.

Olaparib With or Without Cediranib Versus Platinum-Based Chemotherapy in Recurrent Platinum-Sensitive Ovarian Cancer (NRG-GY004): A Randomized, Open-Label, Phase III Trial.

PURPOSE: Platinum-based chemotherapy is the standard of care for platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer, but complications from repeated platinum therapy occur. We assessed the activity of two all-oral nonplatinum alternatives, olaparib or olaparib/cediranib, versus platinum-based chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: NRG-GY004 is an open-label, randomized, phase III trial conducted in the United States and Canada. Eligible patients had high-grade serous or endometrioid platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to platinum-based chemotherapy, olaparib, or olaparib/cediranib. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) in the intention-to-treat population. Secondary end points included activity within germline BRCA-mutated or wild-type subgroups and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). RESULTS: Between February 04, 2016, and November 13, 2017, 565 eligible patients were randomly assigned. Median PFS was 10.3 (95% CI, 8.7 to 11.2), 8.2 (95% CI, 6.6 to 8.7), and 10.4 (95% CI, 8.5 to 12.5) months with chemotherapy, olaparib, and olaparib/cediranib, respectively. Olaparib/cediranib did not improve PFS versus chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] 0.86; 95% CI, 0.66 to 1.10; P = .077). In women with germline BRCA mutation, the PFS HR versus chemotherapy was 0.55 (95% CI, 0.32 to 0.94) for olaparib/cediranib and 0.63 (95% CI, 0.37 to 1.07) for olaparib. In women without a germline BRCA mutation, the PFS HR versus chemotherapy was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.73 to 1.30) for olaparib/cediranib and 1.41 (95% CI, 1.07 to 1.86) for olaparib. Hematologic adverse events occurred more commonly with chemotherapy; however, nonhematologic adverse events were higher with olaparib/cediranib. In 489 patients evaluable for PROs, patients receiving olaparib/cediranib scored on average 1.1 points worse on the NFOSI-DRS-P subscale (97.5% CI, -2.0 to -0.2, P = .0063) versus chemotherapy; no difference between olaparib and chemotherapy was observed. CONCLUSION: Combination olaparib/cediranib did not improve PFS compared with chemotherapy and resulted in reduced PROs. Notably, in patients with a germline BRCA mutation, both olaparib and olaparib/cediranib had significant clinical activity.

Correction to: First results on survival from a large Phase 3 clinical trial of an autologous dendritic cell vaccine in newly diagnosed glioblastoma.

Following publication of the original article [1], the authors reported an error in the spelling of one of the author names. In this Correction the incorrect and correct author names are indicated and the author name has been updated in the original publication. The authors also reported an error in the Methods section of the original article. In this Correction the incorrect and correct versions of the affected sentence are indicated. The original article has not been updated with regards to the error in the Methods section.

First results on survival from a large Phase 3 clinical trial of an autologous dendritic cell vaccine in newly diagnosed glioblastoma.

BACKGROUND: Standard therapy for glioblastoma includes surgery, radiotherapy, and temozolomide. This Phase 3 trial evaluates the addition of an autologous tumor lysate-pulsed dendritic cell vaccine (DCVax®-L) to standard therapy for newly diagnosed glioblastoma. METHODS: After surgery and chemoradiotherapy, patients were randomized (2:1) to receive temozolomide plus DCVax-L (n = 232) or temozolomide and placebo (n = 99). Following recurrence, all patients were allowed to receive DCVax-L, without unblinding. The primary endpoint was progression free survival (PFS); the secondary endpoint was overall survival (OS). RESULTS: For the intent-to-treat (ITT) population (n = 331), median OS (mOS) was 23.1 months from surgery. Because of the cross-over trial design, nearly 90% of the ITT population received DCVax-L. For patients with methylated MGMT (n = 131), mOS was 34.7 months from surgery, with a 3-year survival of 46.4%. As of this analysis, 223 patients are ≥ 30 months past their surgery date; 67 of these (30.0%) have lived ≥ 30 months and have a Kaplan-Meier (KM)-derived mOS of 46.5 months. 182 patients are ≥ 36 months past surgery; 44 of these (24.2%) have lived ≥ 36 months and have a KM-derived mOS of 88.2 months. A population of extended survivors (n = 100) with mOS of 40.5 months, not explained by known prognostic factors, will be analyzed further. Only 2.1% of ITT patients (n = 7) had a grade 3 or 4 adverse event that was deemed at least possibly related to the vaccine. Overall adverse events with DCVax were comparable to standard therapy alone. CONCLUSIONS: Addition of DCVax-L to standard therapy is feasible and safe in glioblastoma patients, and may extend survival. Trial registration Funded by Northwest Biotherapeutics; Clinicaltrials.gov number: NCT00045968; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00045968?term=NCT00045968&rank=1 ; initially registered 19 September 2002.