Efficacy of administration sequence: Sacituzumab Govitecan and Trastuzumab Deruxtecan in HER2-low metastatic breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend that patients with HER2-low metastatic breast cancer (MBC) receive sequentially two antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs): Sacituzumab Govitecan (SG) and Trastuzumab Deruxtecan (T-DXd), despite a similar payload. However, the effectiveness of one after another is unknown. METHODS: ADC-Low is a multicentre, retrospective study evaluating the efficacy of SG and T-DXd, one after another, with or without intermediary lines of chemotherapy, in patients with HER2-low MBC. RESULTS: One hundred and seventy-nine patients were included: the majority with HR-negative tumours received SG first (ADC1) (n = 100/108) while most with HR-positive tumours received T-DXd first (n = 56/71). Median progression-free survival 2 was short: 2.7 months (95% CI: 2.4-3.3) in the whole population, respectively, 3.1 (95% CI: 2.6-3.6) and 2.2 months (95% CI: 1.9-2.7) for patients receiving T-DXd or SG second (ADC2). Intermediary lines of chemotherapy between ADC1 and ADC2 had no impact. Primary resistance to ADC2 occurred in 54.4% of patients. Certain patients showed initial response to ADC2. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical benefit of sequentially administered SG and T-DXd is limited for most patients. Nevertheless, a subset of patients might benefit-on the short term-from a second ADC. Additional studies are needed to identify patients who could benefit from two ADCs with similar payloads.

Time to deterioration in cancer randomized clinical trials for patient-reported outcomes data: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: The time to deterioration (TTD) approach has been proposed as a modality of longitudinal analysis of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in cancer randomized clinical trials (RCTs). The objective of this study was to perform a systematic review of how the TTD approach has been used in phase III RCTs to analyze longitudinal PRO data. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library and through manual search to identify studies published between January 2014 and June 2018. All phase III cancer RCTs including a PRO endpoint using the TTD approach were considered. We collected general information about the study, PRO assessment and the TTD approach, such as the event definition, the choice of reference score and whether the deterioration was definitive or not. RESULTS: A total of 1549 articles were screened, and 39 studies were finally identified as relevant according to predefined criteria. Among these 39 studies, 36 (92.3%) were in advanced and/or metastatic cancer. Several different deterioration definitions were used in RCTs, 10 studies (25.6%) defined the deterioration as "definitive", corresponding to a deterioration maintained over time until the last PRO assessment available for each patient. The baseline score was explicitly stated as the reference score to qualify the deterioration for most studies (n = 31, 79.5%). CONCLUSION: This review highlights the lack of standardization of the TTD approach for the analysis of PRO data in RCTs. Special attention should be paid to the definition of "deterioration", and this should be based on the specific cancer setting.

Perioperative docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil compared to standard chemotherapy for resectable gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Even though the perioperative chemotherapy improves the overall survival (OS) compared to surgery alone in patients with a resectable gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma (GEA), prognosis of these patients remains poor. Docetaxel (D), cisplatin (C), and 5-fluorouracil (F) regimen improves OS compared to CF among patients with advanced GEA. We evaluated the potential interest of a perioperative DCF regimen, compared to standard (S) regimens, in resectable GEA patients. METHODS: We identified 459 patients treated with preoperative DCF or S regimens. The primary endpoint was OS. Propensity scores were estimated with a logistic regression model in which all baseline covariates were included. We then used two methods to take PS into account and thus make DCF and S patients comparable. OS analyses were performed with Kaplan-Meier and Cox models in propensity score matched samples, and inverse probability of treatment weighted (IPTW) samples. RESULTS: In the propensity score matched sample, the p-value from the log rank test for OS was 0.0961, and the 3-year OS rate was 73% and 55% in DCF and S groups, respectively. The multivariate Cox regression underlined a Hazard Ratio of 0.55 (95% CI 0.27-1.13) for DCF patients compared to S patients. The results from IPTW analyses showed that DCF was significantly and independently associated with OS (HR = 0.52; 95% CI 0.40-0.69). CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective multicenter, hypothesis-generating study, the propensity score analyses underlined encouraging results in favor of DCF compared to S regimens regarding OS. This promising result should be validated in a phase-3 trial.

[Practices and attitudes regarding HPV vaccination among general practitioners from Besançon]. / Pratiques et attitudes des médecins généralistes de Besançon vis-à-vis de la vaccination anti-HPV.

OBJECTIVES: To assess opinions, practices and difficulties of general practitioners (GP) of Besançon concerning human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A survey among the 140 GP of Besançon, France, was conducted in 2015. RESULTS: A percentage of 77.1 reported being favourable to HPV vaccination and 72.9% practices HPV vaccination. The 2 main concerns about HPV vaccination for GP are the fear of side effects (for 40.6% of GP) and the doubt on efficacy. According to GP, the hepatitis B vaccination controversy, the fear of side effects, the limited clinical efficacy experience and the lack of confidence in health authorities are concerns about HPV vaccination for 77.1%, 76%, 74% and 49% of patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: Courses for GP on HPV vaccination must be pursued and reinforced. A school-based program could be developed to facilitate communication between GP and patients to improve HPV vaccination coverage.

Endpoints in cancer clinical trials.

Endpoints are measurable clinical and biological findings that are used for the development and assessment of treatment options. In the treatment of cancer, endpoints can be classified into two categories: "patient-centered clinical endpoints" including overall survival (OS) and health-related quality of life (QoL), and "tumor-centered clinical endpoints" such as progression-free survival. Surrogate endpoints are tumor-centered clinical endpoints that can be used as substitutes for patient-centered clinical endpoints, particularly OS. The choice of endpoints in oncology trials is a major problem. The published Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) best-practice guidelines encourage the reporting of clearly defined primary and secondary outcome measures. OS is the gold standard of endpoints but as increasing numbers of effective salvage treatments become available for many types of cancer, much larger numbers of patients are included; this requires a longer follow-up period and increases the cost of clinical trials. Thus, tumor-centered clinical endpoints that can be assessed earlier and used as surrogates for overall survival are increasingly studied, but most of them currently lack standardized definitions to enable cross comparison of results among different clinical trials and they have not been validated as surrogate endpoints. In addition, the variability of their definition can strongly impact the trial's conclusions by affecting both statistical power and estimation. In this context, QoL constitutes an available and useful surrogate endpoint for trials to ensure treatment benefit from both the patient and public health points of view. Methodological research should be pursued to develop standard outcome definitions for use in cancer clinical trials and to define a standardized longitudinal analysis of QoL data.