Clinical Value Of Apatinib As A Salvage Treatment In Patients With Chemo-Refractory Advanced Cervical Cancer.

PURPOSE: Apatinib is effective and safe for several advanced or metastatic cancers, but its therapeutic value in cervical cancer is still unknown. The aim of the study was to assess the therapeutic value of apatinib in patients with chemo-refractory advanced cervical cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective study of patients with advanced cervical cancer treated with apatinib between April 2015 and December 2018 at the First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, China. Patients had to have failed at least 2 lines of chemotherapy prior to receiving apatinib. The clinical tumor response was evaluated after 4 weeks of apatinib treatment, and then every 8 weeks (two cycles). Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and adverse events were evaluated. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients were included in this study. The median PFS was 5.8 months (95% CI, 4.65-6.95), and the median OS was 12.2 months (95% CI, 8.99-15.41). ORR was 48% and DCR was 96%. Complete response was not observed. The most common adverse events in this study (all grades) were hand-foot syndrome (48%), hypertension (20%), and mouth mucositis (20%). CONCLUSION: Apatinib monotherapy showed good therapeutic value with tolerable adverse events for patients with chemo-refractory advanced cervical cancer.

Therapeutic effect of whole brain radiotherapy on advanced NSCLC between EGFR TKI-naïve and TKI-resistant.

BACKGROUND: The development of epidermal growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) has dramatically improved the prognosis of patients with EGFR-mutant non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The purpose of this study is to investigate the clinical outcome with or without EGFR-TKI resistance before WBRT and the sequence between EGFT-TKIs and whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) of EGFR-mutant NSCLC patients who developed multiple brain metastases (BMs). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Three hundred forty-four EGFR-mutant NSCLC patients with multiple BMs were reviewed. Enrolled patients were divided into TKI-naïve group and TKI-resistant group. The intracranial progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed via the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: For patients with multiple BMs treated by WBRT, the median intracranial PFS and OS were longer in the TKI-naïve group than those in the TKI-resistant group, but there were no statistically significant between two groups (Intracranial PFS: 7.7 vs. 5.4 months, p = 0.052; OS: 11.2 vs. 9.2 months, p = 0.106). For patients with Lung-molGPA 0-2, no significant differences in median intracranial PFS (6.2 vs. 5.2 months, p = 0.123) and OS (7.8 vs. 6.7 months, p = 0.514) between TKI-naïve and TKI-resistant groups. For patients with Lung-molGPA 2.5-4, intracranial PFS: 12.8 vs. 10.1 months; OS: 23.3 vs. 15.3 months. CONCLUSIONS: Our study found that there were no difference in intracranial PFS and OS in all patients between the two groups of TKI-naïve and TKI-resistant. But for patients in subgroup of Lung-molGPA 2.5-4, there were a better intracranial PFS and OS in TKI-naïve group.

The effect of the primary tumor location on the survival of colorectal cancer patients after radical surgery.

Background and Objectives: Colorectal cancer is one of the most common cancers and the leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide. The impact of the primary tumor location on the prognosis of patients with colorectal cancer has long been a concern, but studies have led to conflicting conclusions. Methods: In total, 465 colorectal cancer patients who received radical surgery were reviewed in this study. Enrolled patients were divided into two groups according to the tumor location. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed via the Kaplan-Meier method. A Cox regression model was employed to evaluate the independent prognostic factors for DFS and OS. Results: The right colorectal cancer (RCC) and left colorectal cancer (LCC) groups comprised 202 and 140 patients, respectively. Univariate and multivariate analyses revealed that the tumor location and TNM stage were independent predictors of DFS and OS. Subgroup analyses by stage demonstrated that there were significant differences in DFS and OS between patients with stage II and III RCC and LCC, but not for those with stage I colorectal cancer. Conclusions: Patients with stage II and III LCC had better survival than those with RCC. However, this improvement in DFS and OS was not observed in patients with stage I colorectal cancer.

Induction chemotherapy plus concurrent chemoradiotherapy versus induction chemotherapy plus volumetric modulated arc therapy alone in the treatment of stage II-IVB nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients: a retrospective controlled study.

BACKGROUND: In the era of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), the role of additional concurrent chemotherapy (CC) to radiotherapy (RT) after induction chemotherapy (IC) compared to IC followed by RT alone remains unclear for stage II-IVB nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and toxicities of IC/RT and IC/CCRT in the treatment of NPC with volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). METHODS: From January 2012 to March 2016, a total of 217 NPC patients were retrospectively assessed. Of the 217 patients, 139 patients received IC followed by VMAT alone and 78 patients received IC plus CCRT. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and toxicities were assessed. RESULTS: The 5-year OS, PFS rates were 57.5%, 41.8% and 47.8%, 38.4% for the IC/RT and IC/CCRT arms, respectively, without significant difference in survival between the two groups (both p > 0.05). Multivariate analysis indicated that treatment modality (IC/RT vs. IC/CCRT) was not an independent prognostic factor for OS or PFS. Grade 3-4 leukopenia/neutropenia (3.60% vs. 20.51%, p < 0.001), gastrointestinal disorder (nausea/vomiting/diarrhea, 2.16% vs. 41.03%, p < 0.001), mucositis (29.50% vs. 47.44%, p = 0.01) and xerostomia (34.53% vs. 48.72%, p = 0.04) were more frequent in the IC/ CCRT arm than in the IC/RT arm during VMAT. CONCLUSIONS: No significant difference in OS and PFS was observed between IC plus VMAT alone and IC/CCRT in the treatment of stage II-IVB NPC patients, however, more side effects were observed in the IC/CCRT arm.