Diagnosis of Malnutrition According to GLIM Criteria Predicts Complications and 6-Month Survival in Cancer Outpatients.

Background and Aims: Malnutrition is a condition that has a great impact on oncology patients. Poor nutritional status is often associated with increased morbidity and mortality, increased toxicity, and reduced tolerance to chemotherapy, among other complications. The recently developed GLIM criteria for malnutrition aim to homogenize its diagnosis, considering the baseline disease status. We aimed to evaluate the performance of these new criteria for the prediction of complications and mortality in patients with cancer. Methods: This work is a prospective, single-center study. All outpatients under active treatment for head and neck, upper gastrointestinal, and colorectal tumors between February and October 2020 were recruited. These patients were followed up for 6 months, assessing the occurrence of complications and survival based on GLIM diagnoses of malnutrition. Results: We enrolled 165 outpatients, 46.66% of whom were malnourished. During the 6-month follow-ups, patients with malnutrition (46.7%, according to GLIM criteria) had a ~3-fold increased risk of hospital admission (p < 0.001) and occurrence of severe infection (considered as those requiring hospitalization, intravenous antibiotics, and/or drainage by interventional procedures) (p = 0.002). Similarly, malnourished patients had a 3.5-fold increased risk of poor pain control and a 4.4-fold increased need for higher doses of opioids (both p < 0.001). They also had a 2.6-fold increased risk of toxicity (p = 0.044) and a 2.5-fold increased likelihood of needing a dose decrease or discontinuation of cancer treatment (p = 0.011). The 6-month survival of malnourished patients was significantly lower (p = 0.023) than in non-malnourished patients. Conclusions: Diagnoses of malnutrition according to the GLIM criteria in oncology patients undergoing active treatment predict increased complications and worse survival at 6-month follow-ups, making them a useful tool for assessing the nutritional status of oncology patients.

Clinical Factors Associated With Long-Term Benefit in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Treated With Axitinib: Real-World AXILONG Study.

BACKGROUND: Axitinib monotherapy obtained approval in pre-treated mRCC patients and recently in combination with pembrolizumab or avelumab in the first-line setting. However, patient profiles that may obtain increased benefit from this drug and its combinations still need to be identified. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective multicentre analysis describing clinical characteristics associated with axitinib long-responder (LR) population by comparing two extreme-response sub-groups (progression-free survival [PFS] ≥9 months vs. disease progression/refractory patients [RP]). A multivariate logistic-regression model was used to analyse clinical factors. Efficacy and safety were also analysed. RESULTS: In total, 157 patients who received axitinib in second or subsequent line were evaluated (91 LR and 66 RP). Older age at start of axitinib and haemoglobin levels > LLN were independent predictive factors for LR in multivariate analyses. In LR patients, median (m) PFS was 18.1 months, median overall survival was 36.0 months and objective response rate (ORR) was 45.5%. In 59 LR patients receiving axitinib in second-line, mPFS was 18.7 months, mOS was 44.8 months and ORR was 43.9%. mOS was significantly longer in second line compared to subsequent lines (44.8 vs. 26.5 months; P = .009). In LR vs. RP, mPFS with sunitinib in first-line was correlated with mPFS with axitinib in second-line (27.2 vs. 10.9 months P < .001). The safety profile was manageable and consistent with known data. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms the long-term benefits of axitinib in a selected population, helping clinicians to select the best sequential approach and patients who could obtain a greater benefit from axitinib.

Comparation of different malnutrition screening tools according to GLIM criteria in cancer outpatients.

BACKGROUND: Many studies have assessed different malnutrition screening tools in oncologic patients. However, very few have been carried out using the new GLIM criteria for malnutrition. The objective of our study is to compare the most recommended screening tools with respect to the new GLIM criteria for malnutrition in cancer patients. METHODS: Observational, cross-sectional, and single-center study carried out at the Medical Oncology Department at the Lozano Blesa Hospital in Zaragoza. We recruited 165 patients with tumors of the upper-gastrointestinal-tract, colorectal, and head-and-neck region undergoing outpatient treatment. All of them received MST, MUST, Nutriscore, MNA and CONUT screening tools, as well as the GLIM diagnostic criteria, which was used as the gold standard. RESULTS: MNA-SF showed the best sensitivity (0.99) and lowest specificity while CONUT had the best specificity (0.89) and lowest sensitivity to detect cancer-related malnutrition. We observed high variability in the diagnostic capabilities of Nutriscore when tumor location was considered, reducing sensitivity in patients with colorectal cancer compared to those with tumors of the upper-gastrointestinal-tract or head-and-neck location (0.25, 0.83, and 0.91 respectively). The highest index of agreement between the screening tools was found between MST, MUST and Nutriscore tests. Regarding the GLIM criteria, the highest agreement index was presented by MUST tool (0.66), while CONUT presented the lowest (0.12). CONCLUSIONS: Selecting the screening tool according to the type of cancer and its location may allow us to optimize its use and increase its performance, exploiting the advantages of each of them in the different populations.

Circulating Levels of the Interferon-γ-Regulated Chemokines CXCL10/CXCL11, IL-6 and HGF Predict Outcome in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Patients Treated with Antiangiogenic Therapy.

Sunitinib and pazopanib are standard first-line treatments for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Nonetheless, as the number of treatment options increases, there is a need to identify biomarkers that can predict drug efficacy and toxicity. In this prospective study we evaluated a set of biomarkers that had been previously identified within a secretory signature in mRCC patients. This set includes tumor expression of c-Met and serum levels of HGF, IL-6, IL-8, CXCL9, CXCL10 and CXCL11. Our cohort included 60 patients with mRCC from 10 different Spanish hospitals who received sunitinib (n = 51), pazopanib (n = 4) or both (n = 5). Levels of biomarkers were studied in relation to response rate, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). High tumor expression of c-Met and high basal serum levels of HGF, IL-6, CXCL11 and CXCL10 were significantly associated with reduced PFS and/or OS. In multivariable Cox regression analysis, CXCL11 was identified as an independent biomarker predictive of shorter PFS and OS, and HGF was an independent predictor of reduced PFS. Correlation analyses using our cohort of patients and patients from TCGA showed that HGF levels were significantly correlated with those of IL-6, CXCL11 and CXCL10. Bioinformatic protein-protein network analysis revealed a significant interaction between these proteins, all this suggesting a coordinated expression and secretion. We also developed a prognostic index that considers this group of biomarkers, where high values in mRCC patients can predict higher risk of relapse (HR 5.28 [2.32-12.0], p < 0.0001). In conclusion, high plasma HGF, CXCL11, CXCL10 and IL-6 levels are associated with worse outcome in mRCC patients treated with sunitinib or pazopanib. Our findings also suggest that these factors may constitute a secretory cluster that acts coordinately to promote tumor growth and resistance to antiangiogenic therapy.

GLIM vs ESPEN criteria for the diagnosis of early malnutrition in oncological outpatients.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Malnutrition is one of the most prevalent problems among oncological patients. It reduces the response to treatments and negatively impacts survival. In 2019, a consensus criteria for diagnosing malnutrition (GLIM criteria) were proposed by most scientific nutrition societies. The objective of our work is 1) to assess the diagnostic capacity of the GLIM criteria in ambulatory patients with cancer and 2) to compare the GLIM with the ESPEN criteria to evaluate the contributions of these new criteria with respect to the existing ones. METHODS: Observational, cross-sectional, and single-center study carried out at the Medical Oncology Department in the Lozano Blesa Clinical Hospital in Zaragoza (Spain). One hundred and sixty-five outpatients with tumors in the upper gastrointestinal tract, head and neck, and colorectal locations were recruited. All of them received the MST, MUST, and Nutriscore screening tools along with the ESPEN and GLIM diagnostic criteria. RESULTS: The prevalence of malnutrition was 46.7% according to the GLIM criteria and 21.2% using the ESPEN tool. Patients diagnosed by GLIM had a higher body mass index (BMI, 24.3 kg/m2) and muscle mass (MM, 16.1 kg/m2) than those diagnosed by ESPEN (21.2 kg/m2 and 14.3 kg/m2 respectively, both p = 0.001). The MST, MUST, and Nutriscore tools had a higher degree of concordance with GLIM compared to ESPEN (MST 0.53 vs 0.26; MUST 0.36 vs 0.66; Nutriscore 0.28 vs 0.54). CONCLUSIONS: The found prevalence of malnutrition in cancer patients is higher using the GLIM instead of ESPEN criteria. This disparity can be explained at least in part by the difficulty of the ESPEN criteria for malnutrition to diagnose patients with high baseline BMI or MM. The use of criteria with greater sensitivity, such as the new GLIM criteria, could help early diagnosis and thus early intervention in cancer patients.

Expert recommendations on the management of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who progress after CHAARTED or LATITUDE.

OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to provide practical recommendations on the management of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) who have progressed after docetaxel plus androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) or abiraterone plus ADT. METHODS: Systematic literature review (SLR), nominal group meeting, and Delphi process. A panel of 12 experts was established who defined the scope, users, and sections of the document. We performed an SLR in order to assess the efficacy and safety of available drugs in patients with mCRPC. Abstracts from the American Society of Oncology and European Society for Medical Oncology meetings were also examined. The results were discussed during an expert meeting in which 14 recommendations were generated. The level of agreement with the recommendations was also tested by 13 additional experts following the Delphi process. Recommendations were voted by means of scores ranging from 0 (total disagreement) to 10 (total agreement). We defined agreement when at least 70% of the experts voted ⩾7. Next, we assigned a level of evidence and grade to the recommendation using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine Levels of Evidence, following which the final document was drafted. RESULTS: The literature search did not find any articles meeting the inclusion criteria. Finally, 13 out of 14 recommendations were accepted after two Delphi rounds (two were modified after the first round). They pertain to general and individual case-based treatment recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: In mCRPC patients who have progressed after docetaxel or abiraterone plus ADT in the metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer setting, these recommendations may support treatment decision-making, due to the lack of evidence or other globally accepted sequencing algorithms.

Pazopanib: Evidence review and clinical practice in the management of advanced renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Pazopanib is indicated in the first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC). The aim of this study was to review the efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics of pazopanib and see how these aspects are linked to clinical practice. METHODS: A non-exhaustive systematic review was conducted according to the three topics. No publication restrictions were imposed and the selected languages were Spanish and English. After that, a summary of the main results and findings of the review was presented and discussed during three meetings (one for each topic) with 13 medical oncologists that usually treat mRCC. At these meetings, a questionnaire on the first-line use of pazopanib in clinical practice was also drawn up. After the meetings, the questionnaire was completed by 60 specialist medical oncologists in renal cancer. RESULTS: The efficacy and safety of pazopanib have been demonstrated in several clinical trials, and subsequently confirmed in studies in real-world clinical practice. In addition to its clinical benefit and good safety profile, quality of life results for pazopanib, which compare favorably to sunitinib, make it a good option in the first-line treatment of patients. Special populations have been included in studies conducted with pazopanib, and it is safe for use in elderly patients, poor functional status, kidney failure, and mild or moderate hepatic impairment, and in patients with concomitant cardiovascular disease. The results of the questionnaire have shown that pazopanib is perceived as an effective drug, in which quality of life (QoL) outcomes are valued above all. CONCLUSIONS: This paper offers a comprehensive and critical summary of efficacy, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of pazopanib in the treatment of mRCC. Pazopanib is an effective treatment with an acceptable safety profile. Its QoL and tolerability results offer certain advantages when compared with other therapeutic alternatives, and its use appears to be safe in different patient profiles.

Novel potential predictive markers of sunitinib outcomes in long-term responders versus primary refractory patients with metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Several potential predictive markers of efficacy of targeted agents in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) have been identified. Interindividual heterogeneity warrants further investigation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Multicenter, observational, retrospective study in patients with clear-cell mRCC treated with sunitinib. Patients were classified in two groups: long-term responders (LR) (progression-free survival (PFS)≥22 months and at least stable disease), and primary refractory (PR) (progressive disease within 3-months of sunitinib onset). Objectives were to compare baseline clinical factors in both populations and to correlate tumor expression of selected signaling pathways components with sunitinib PFS. RESULTS: 123 patients were analyzed (97 LR, 26 PR). In the LR cohort, overall response rate was 79% and median duration of best response was 30 months. Median PFS and overall survival were 43.2 (95% confidence intervals[CI]:37.2-49.3) and 63.5 months (95%CI:55.1-71.9), respectively. At baseline PR patients had a significantly lower proportion of nephrectomies, higher lactate dehydrogenase and platelets levels, lower hemoglobin, shorter time to and higher presence of metastases, and increased Fuhrman grade. Higher levels of HEYL, HEY and HES1 were observed in LR, although only HEYL discriminated populations significantly (AUC[ROC]=0.704; cut-off=34.85). Increased levels of hsa-miR-27b, hsa-miR-23b and hsa-miR-628-5p were also associated with prolonged survival. No statistical significant associations between hsa-miR-23b or hsa-miR-27b and the expression of c-Met were found. CONCLUSIONS: Certain mRCC patients treated with sunitinib achieve extremely long-term responses. Favorable baseline hematology values and longer time to metastasis may predict longer PFS. HEYL, hsa-miR-27b, hsa-miR-23b and hsa-miR-628-5p could be potentially used as biomarkers of sunitinib response.

The role of mTOR inhibition as second-line therapy in metastatic renal carcinoma: clinical evidence and current challenges.

INTRODUCTION: Sequential treatment with targeted agents is the standard of care for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Although first-line therapy with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) is recommended for most patients, eventually all patients become resistant to them. Therefore, optimal selection of second-line therapy is crucial. Areas covered: We have reviewed the recent literature through pubmed search and recent congress presentations to briefly describe the clinical evidence for mTOR inhibition as a valid strategy in the treatment of mRCC after progression during anti-VEGFR therapy. In addition, we outline the management of adverse events associated with these agents, highlighting the importance of switching to an alternative mechanism of action to overcome resistance to TKI and to decrease cumulative toxicity associated with sequential treatments of the same type. Expert commentary: The choice of subsequent therapy after progression to first-line is not clear. Although the new drugs cabozantinib and nivolumab have shown to be superior that everolimus, still it is unknown which patients may benefit from these therapies in second-line, so treatment should be personalized to each patient and should consider approaches with different mechanisms of action.

The Wide Experience of the Sequential Therapy for Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

Sequential targeted therapies are the standard of care for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Several drugs are available for patients whose disease progresses while they receive initial tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy; these include nivolumab (an inhibitor of PD-1 receptor), everolimus (an inhibitor of the mechanistic target of rapamycin) or additional TKIs. Until now, there has been no clinical evidence to support the use of one strategy versus another, so investigators and physicians rely on experience, judgement and findings from molecular analyses to select the appropriate treatment. However, with the arrival of nivolumab and cabozantinib that provide an overall survival higher than other alternative treatments, therapeutic strategies may have changed. Here, we discuss findings from preclinical and clinical studies that might help clinicians to choose the optimal treatment approach for patients with mRCC who progress to initial therapy.

Quality of life and supportive care for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

In recent years, a key issue in the management of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) has been the assessment of health-related quality of life (HRQoL), particularly following the introduction of targeted therapies that have brought significant improvements in progression-free survival and quality of life in these patients. HRQoL is becoming one of the main factors influencing choice of therapy, and HRQoL experienced during first-line treatment may affect the choice of the second-line therapy. Consequently, several trials have been conducted to evaluate the impact of approved targeted therapies for mRCC on HRQoL, and this measure is being introduced with increasing frequency in the trial design. With respect to agents used after progression on cytokines, sunitinib and temsirolimus have yielded better HRQoL scores, and sorafenib and pazopanib have shown stable HRQoL scores compared with placebo. Regarding targeted agents approved for patients who progress on a first-line tyrosine kinase inhibitor, everolimus has shown to delay and reduce the degree of Karnofsky performance status deterioration compared with placebo. Moreover, evidence obtained from these trials shows that tumor response and delay in disease progression affect HRQoL. In this article, we review the different HRQoL scales used to evaluate patients with mRCC along with the results obtained in clinical trials. Given that HRQoL is determined not only by treatment-related effects but also by mRCC symptoms and its clinical complications, the characteristics and appropriate treatment of the most commonly experienced symptoms, including anorexia, fatigue, pain, anemia, and venous thromboembolism, are also reviewed.

Assessment of the evolution of cancer treatment therapies.

Cancer therapy has been characterized throughout history by ups and downs, not only due to the ineffectiveness of treatments and side effects, but also by hope and the reality of complete remission and cure in many cases. Within the therapeutic arsenal, alongside surgery in the case of solid tumors, are the antitumor drugs and radiation that have been the treatment of choice in some instances. In recent years, immunotherapy has become an important therapeutic alternative, and is now the first choice in many cases. Nanotechnology has recently arrived on the scene, offering nanostructures as new therapeutic alternatives for controlled drug delivery, for combining imaging and treatment, applying hyperthermia, and providing directed target therapy, among others. These therapies can be applied either alone or in combination with other components (antibodies, peptides, folic acid, etc.). In addition, gene therapy is also offering promising new methods for treatment. Here, we present a review of the evolution of cancer treatments, starting with chemotherapy, surgery, radiation and immunotherapy, and moving on to the most promising cutting-edge therapies (gene therapy and nanomedicine). We offer an historical point of view that covers the arrival of these therapies to clinical practice and the market, and the promises and challenges they present.

Prognostic significance and diagnostic value of protein S-100 and tyrosinase in patients with malignant melanoma.

OBJECTIVES: The utility of many molecules as tumor markers in melanoma has been investigated with different results. The aims of this study was to compare the value of tyrosinase mRNA by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) in peripheral blood and of serum S-100 protein in patients with melanoma at different stages of disease. METHODS: We have studied 90 peripheral blood samples corresponding to 90 patients that had been diagnosed with melanoma. The clinical staging at the time of blood sampling was performed according to the American Join Committee on Cancer guidelines. S-100 protein in serum was measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (normal range: 0-0.150 microg) and the presence of tyrosinase mRNA was assessed by RT-PCR. RESULTS: Median progression-free survival was 281 days for tyrosinase positive patients and it has not been reached for tyrosinase negative patients (P = 0.03). Median progression free survival was 213 days for patients with elevated serum S-100 and it has not been reached for patients with normal level of serum S-100 (P < 0.001). Median overall survival (OS) was 396 days for tyrosinase positive patients and it has not been reached for negative patients (P = 0.0096). Median OS was 282 days for patients with elevated serum S-100 and it has not been reached for patients with normal level of serum S-100 (P < 0.001). In a multivariate analysis, both markers have significant prognostic value for time to progression and for survival (chi(2) test). CONCLUSIONS: RT-PCR for tyrosinase mRNA and S-100 are significant prognostic factors for progression-free survival and OS in melanoma. S-100 has higher sensitivity and specificity than tyrosinase.

Common variants on chromosome 5p12 confer susceptibility to estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer.

We carried out a genome-wide association study of breast cancer predisposition with replication and refinement studies involving 6,145 cases and 33,016 controls and identified two SNPs (rs4415084 and rs10941679) on 5p12 that confer risk, preferentially for estrogen receptor (ER)-positive tumors (OR = 1.27, P = 2.5 x 10(-12) for rs10941679). The nearest gene, MRPS30, was previously implicated in apoptosis, ER-positive tumors and favorable prognosis. A recently reported signal in FGFR2 was also found to associate specifically with ER-positive breast cancer.

Gemcitabine/capecitabine in patients with metastatic breast cancer pretreated with anthracyclines and taxanes.

PURPOSE: Gemcitabine and capecitabine are 2 anticancer drugs with a mechanism of action involving metabolism of pyrimidine nucleotides. Both are among the few agents active in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) progressing after therapy with anthracyclines and taxanes. We have conducted a phase II trial of gemcitabine/capecitabine in patients with disease progression after treatment with anthracyclines and taxanes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Treatment included gemcitabine 2000 mg/m2 on day 1 every 3 weeks and capecitabine 2500 mg/m2 daily (divided into 2 doses) on days 1-14 every 3 weeks; treatment was administered until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity was documented. All patients received concomitant oral pyridoxine 300 mg twice daily to prevent hand-foot syndrome (HFS). Of 39 patients treated, 33 had received previous treatment with anthracyclines, 6 had medical contraindication to anthracyclines, 35 had previously received taxanes, and 23 had received vinorelbine. Fourteen patients had previous high-dose chemotherapy with stem cell rescue and 5 had previously received trastuzumab. Patients were 31-79 years of age (median, 55 years) and, altogether, were given 386 courses of therapy (range, 1-36 courses per patient; median, 6 courses). RESULTS: Grade 3/4 toxicities included HFS (11 courses, 6 patients), stomatitis (6 courses, 2 patients), diarrhea (5 courses, 4 patients), anemia (5 courses, 2 patients), thrombocytopenia (5 courses, 2 patients), and neutropenia (1 course, 1 patient). Response rate (all 39 patients were evaluable) was 48.7% (partial response, n = 19; stable disease, n = 7; progressive disease, n = 13). Thirty-six patients died because of disease progression, and 3 are alive with progressive disease. Median follow-up was 26 months or until death. Median duration of response was 15 months (range, 3-26 months). Median time to disease progression was 5 months (range, 1-26 months). Median overall survival duration was 10 months (range, 1-37 months). CONCLUSION: In this cohort of patients heavily pretreated with anthracyclines and taxanes, the response rate to gemcitabine/capecitabine is encouraging, although response duration is limited.