Progression-free survival assessment by local investigators versus blinded independent central review in randomized clinical trials in metastatic breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: In randomized clinical trials (RCTs), blinded independent central review (BICR) is used to minimize heterogeneity and bias associated with radiological response evaluation by local investigators. However, BICR adds costs and complexity to the trial management. We assessed the discrepancy index between progression-free survival (PFS) assessment by local investigators and by BICR in RCTs conducted in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane databases and conference proceedings (ASCO, SABCS, ESMO) was performed up to January 4, 2023 (PROSPERO: CRD42021229865). All RCTs published from 2000 to 2022, including MBC patients treated in first- or second-line, and reporting PFS assessed by local investigators and BICR were included. A discrepancy index between BICR-assessed and investigator-assessed HR was calculated for each trial and an overall combined DI was obtained using a fixed-effects model. The agreement between hazard ratios (HR) of PFS assessed by local investigators and BICR was measured using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). RESULTS: We analyzed 24 studies including 13,168 patients. Among them, 19 (79%) were in first-line, 18 (75%) were phase III trials and 23 (96%) had PFS as primary endpoint. The overall combined discrepancy index was 0.97 (95%CI 0.85-1.10; ICC 0.831, p < 0.001) suggesting no statistically significant difference in PFS assessment between local investigators and BICR. This result was consistent across all analyzed subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: The good concordance between local investigator and BICR assessments supports the reliability of local investigator-assessed PFS as primary endpoint for RCTs in MBC and questions the practical utility of implementing BICR in all RCTs.

First-in-human study of SBRT and adenosine pathway blockade to potentiate the benefit of immunochemotherapy in early-stage luminal B breast cancer: results of the safety run-in phase of the Neo-CheckRay trial.

BACKGROUND: Luminal B breast cancer (BC) presents a worse prognosis when compared with luminal A BC and exhibits a lower sensitivity to chemotherapy and a lower immunogenicity in contrast to non-luminal BC subtypes. The Neo-CheckRay clinical trial investigates the use of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) directed to the primary tumor in combination with the adenosine pathway inhibitor oleclumab to improve the response to neo-adjuvant immuno-chemotherapy in luminal B BC. The trial consists of a safety run-in followed by a randomized phase II trial. Here, we present the results of the first-in-human safety run-in. METHODS: The safety run-in was an open-label, single-arm trial in which six patients with early-stage luminal B BC received the following neo-adjuvant regimen: paclitaxel q1w×12 → doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide q2w×4; durvalumab (anti-programmed cell death receptor ligand 1 (PD-L1)) q4w×5; oleclumab (anti-CD73) q2w×4 → q4w×3 and 3×8 Gy SBRT to the primary tumor at week 5. Surgery must be performed 2-6 weeks after primary systemic treatment and adjuvant therapy was given per local guidelines, RT boost to the tumor bed was not allowed. Key inclusion criteria were: luminal BC, Ki67≥15% or histological grade 3, MammaPrint high risk, tumor size≥1.5 cm. Primary tumor tissue samples were collected at three timepoints: baseline, 1 week after SBRT and at surgery. Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, PD-L1 and CD73 were evaluated at each timepoint, and residual cancer burden (RCB) was calculated at surgery. RESULTS: Six patients were included between November 2019 and March 2020. Median age was 53 years, range 37-69. All patients received SBRT and underwent surgery 2-4 weeks after the last treatment. After a median follow-up time of 2 years after surgery, one grade 3 adverse event (AE) was reported: pericarditis with rapid resolution under corticosteroids. No grade 4-5 AE were documented. Overall cosmetical breast evaluation after surgery was 'excellent' in four patients and 'good' in two patients. RCB results were 2/6 RCB 0; 2/6 RCB 1; 1/6 RCB 2 and 1/6 RCB 3. CONCLUSIONS: This novel treatment combination was considered safe and is worth further investigation in a randomized phase II trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03875573.

Real-world clinical outcomes of patients with stage I HER2-positive breast cancer treated with adjuvant paclitaxel and trastuzumab.

Up to 20% of breast cancer overexpress HER2 protein, making it a reliable target for antibody-based treatments. In early HER2-positive breast cancer avoiding anthracycline-based chemotherapy is a challenge. Based on the single-arm phase II APT trial results, adjuvant paclitaxel/trastuzumab is an accepted regimen for patients with stage I HER2-positive disease. In our retrospective study of 240 patients, the median tumor size was 12.0 mm (IQR 9 -15), and 204 (85%) had estrogen receptor-positive disease. After a median follow-up of 4.6 years, 3-year real-world disease-free survival, distant DFS, and overall survival were 98.8% (95% confidence interval (CI), 96.2-99.6), 99.2% (95% CI, 96.7-99.8), and 98.3% (95% CI, 96.2-99.6), respectively. In a real-world setting, an adjuvant paclitaxel/trastuzumab regimen was associated with low recurrence rates among women with stage I, HER2-positive breast cancer. Additionally, we reviewed other treatment optimization strategies attempted or ongoing in HER2-positive breast cancer.

CDK4/6 and PI3K inhibitors: A new promise for patients with HER2-positive breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: HER2-positive (HER2+) breast cancer represents a heterogeneous breast cancer subtype, including both oestrogen receptor (ER) positive and negative tumours. A deeper understanding of the crosstalk between ER and HER2 receptor pathways has led to the development of treatment strategies consisting of a simultaneous blockade of both signalling pathways, as a reasonable approach to prevent the onset of mechanisms of resistance. METHODS: This review was based on the material searched on PubMed, MEDLINE and Embase databases and on conference proceedings from major oncology conferences up to 15 December 2020. The search strategy included the following keywords: 'HER2-positive breast cancer', 'CDK4-6 inhibitors' and 'PI3K inhibitors', and was adapted for use with different bibliographic databases. RESULTS: CDK4/6 and PI3K inhibitors are two classes of agents already approved in patients with hormone receptor positive, HER2-negative breast cancer. Recently, promising data with their use have been also shown in HER2+ disease. Results from preclinical and clinical studies are shedding light on the role of these classes of agents in HER2+ breast cancer, and are paving the road for a forthcoming change in clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment landscape for HER2+ breast cancer is rapidly changing, and CDK4/6 and PI3K inhibitors represent a new promising strategy to improve patients' outcomes.

Efficacy and safety of sorafenib in elderly patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of sorafenib in elderly patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). METHODS: We analyzed data from a cohort of patients with advanced HCC treated using systemic treatment according to the local institutional protocol. Patients were divided into two groups, Group A, individuals <70 years of age, and Group B, individuals 70 years of age or older at the time of treatment initiation. Efficacy, measured based on overall survival (OS) and time to treatment failure (TTF), and toxicity were compared between groups. RESULTS: A total of 238 patients with advanced HCC who received sorafenib between 2007 and 2018 were evaluated. The median age for Group A was 59.1 years and that for Group B 73.6 years. The major prognostic characteristics were balanced between the groups. There were no significant differences in OS between Group A (8.0 months, 95%CI 6.34-9.3) and Group B (9.0 months, 95%CI 5.38-12.62), p=0.433, or in TTF between Group A (3.0 months, 95%CI 2.39-3.60) and Group B (3.0 months, 95%CI 1.68-4.32), p=0.936. There were no significant differences between Groups A and B with respect to the incidence of adverse events or treatment discontinuation because of toxicity. CONCLUSION: Efficacy and safety of sorafenib did not differ significantly between younger and older patients with HCC. Our data suggest that age alone should not restrict clinical decision-making for patients with advanced HCC.

Efficacy and safety of sorafenib in elderly patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of sorafenib in elderly patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). METHODS: We analyzed data from a cohort of patients with advanced HCC treated using systemic treatment according to the local institutional protocol. Patients were divided into two groups, Group A, individuals <70 years of age, and Group B, individuals 70 years of age or older at the time of treatment initiation. Efficacy, measured based on overall survival (OS) and time to treatment failure (TTF), and toxicity were compared between groups. RESULTS: A total of 238 patients with advanced HCC who received sorafenib between 2007 and 2018 were evaluated. The median age for Group A was 59.1 years and that for Group B 73.6 years. The major prognostic characteristics were balanced between the groups. There were no significant differences in OS between Group A (8.0 months, 95%CI 6.34-9.3) and Group B (9.0 months, 95%CI 5.38-12.62), p=0.433, or in TTF between Group A (3.0 months, 95%CI 2.39-3.60) and Group B (3.0 months, 95%CI 1.68-4.32), p=0.936. There were no significant differences between Groups A and B with respect to the incidence of adverse events or treatment discontinuation because of toxicity. CONCLUSION: Efficacy and safety of sorafenib did not differ significantly between younger and older patients with HCC. Our data suggest that age alone should not restrict clinical decision-making for patients with advanced HCC.

Real-world evidence on first-line treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma with non-clear cell and sarcomatoid histologies: are sunitinib and pazopanib interchangeable?

INTRODUCTION: Non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (nccRCC) and sarcomatoid renal cell carcinoma (sRCC) are underrepresented in clinical trials. Treatment approaches are frequently extrapolated from data of clear cell renal cell carcinoma, in which pazopanib is non-inferior to sunitinib. We aim to compare the effectiveness of first-line sunitinib and pazopanib for nccRCC and sRCC. METHODS: We evaluated a retrospective cohort of patients with metastatic nccRCC and sRCC treated with first-line sunitinib or pazopanib at an academic cancer centre. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and response rate were measured. Kaplan-Meier and log-rank analyses were used for time-to-event data. Cox regression was used for prognostic factors. RESULTS: Fifty-three patients were included; 16 (30.1%) treated with sunitinib and 37 (69.9%) with pazopanib. Forty-six (86.8%) patients had nccRCC and 7 (13.2%) had sRCC. The majority had intermediate or poor International Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk (93%).Median PFS was 6.6 months with sunitinib and 4.9 months with pazopanib (HR 1.75; P = 0.078). Treatment with pazopanib was associated with inferior OS in comparison with sunitinib (median OS: 30.4 months versus 8.7 months; HR 2.71, 95% CI 1.31-5.58, P = 0.007). These results were confirmed in subgroup analysis of patients with papillary, chromophobe and MiT family translocation histologies (median OS: 38.7 months versus 14.7 months; HR 3.16, 95% CI 1.20-8.29, P = 0.019). Unclassified and sarcomatoid histologies had inferior OS (median: 6.9 and 1.1 months, respectively) regardless of the treatment used. CONCLUSION: In this patient cohort, pazopanib was associated with inferior OS in comparison with sunitinib for metastatic nccRCC. Larger trials are ideally warranted to confirm these results.

Safety and efficacy of cytotoxic chemotherapy in hepatocellular carcinoma after first-line treatment with sorafenib.

BACKGROUND: Before the targeted therapies era, cytotoxic chemotherapy (CCT) was an option for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), even with the lack of supporting evidence. Since the last decade, sorafenib has been established as the first-line therapy. Although new agents are being incorporated, CCT is still considered in regions where new drugs are not available or for patients who progressed through the approved therapies and remain in good clinical condition. We aimed to describe our experience regarding the use of CCT as second-line treatment after sorafenib. METHODS: A database of 273 patients was evaluated. Patients that received CCT after sorafenib progression were selected for the analysis. Descriptive statistics was used for categorical and continue variables. Median survival was estimated with Kaplan-Meier curves. Variables were found to be significant if the two-sided p value was ≤ 0.05 on multivariate testing using the Cox regression model. RESULTS: Forty-five patients received CCT; 33 (73.3%) had Child-Pugh classification A, and 34 (75.6%) had stage C according to the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) staging system. The most used regimen was doxorubicin in 25 patients (55.6%). Median overall survival (OS) was 8.05 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.73 - 9.88 months). The 6-month and 1-year survival probability was 52.4% and 27.36%, respectively. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) 0-1 and disease control with sorafenib was independently associated with better OS in patients treated with CCT. Any-grade toxicities were observed in 82.2% and grade 3-4 in 44.4% of the patients. CONCLUSION: In accordance with previous studies, CCT had a notable rate of adverse events. The poor prognosis of this cohort suggests that CCT may not alter the natural history of HCC after sorafenib progression.

Analysis of Efficacy and Toxicity Profile of First-Line Sunitinib or Pazopanib in Metastatic Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma in the Brazilian Population.

Purpose Sunitinib and pazopanib are multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) that act against vascular endothelial growth factor receptors and are standard first-line treatment options for metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). The Brazilian public health system diverges from the randomized clinical trials in the availability of first and subsequent lines of treatment and in clinical and demographic characteristics of patients. Therefore, it is essential to describe the history of advanced ccRCC during and after TKI treatment in this population. Methods We performed a retrospective analysis of patients with advanced ccRCC treated with a first-line TKI (either sunitinib or pazopanib) between February 2009 and March 2017 in a single academic Brazilian cancer center (Instituto do Câncer do Estado de São Paulo). Results Of the 222 patients, 109 were treated with sunitinib and 113 with pazopanib. The median duration of treatment and overall survival (OS) were 6.4 and 15.2 months for sunitinib and 6.7 and 14.2 months for pazopanib, respectively. Discontinuation of treatment occurred secondarily to progressive disease or death in 64.2% of patients using sunitinib and in 54.8% of patients using pazopanib. Adverse events were responsible for discontinuation of treatment in 28.4% of patients in the sunitinib group and in 22.1% in the pazopanib group. According to Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center risk categories, the OS was 32.9 months, 15.9 months, and 8.1 months for low risk, intermediate risk, and poor risk, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.13 to 2.26; P < .001). Conclusion The use of TKI inhibitors as first-line treatment of metastatic RCC is effective and feasible in the Brazilian public health. However, the median OS of our population is considerably lower compared with the prospective trials that evaluated the same drugs.

Cystic brain metastases in ALK-rearranged non-small cell lung cancer.

The central nervous system (CNS) is a common site of disease progression in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-rearrangement treated with crizotinib. Cystic brain metastases (CBM) have been recently identified as one possible variant of this disease. An illustrative case report is presented along with a literature review performed in order to track relevant papers about CBM in ALK-rearranged NSCLC, including possible pathophysiology, differential diagnosis and treatment options for this condition. Three case reports have been published describing six ALK-rearranged NSCLC patients presenting with CBM, all of which were under treatment with crizotinib by the time of CBM diagnosis. Treatment with CNS-penetrating tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) resulted in CNS disease control in three of the six cases reported either as single therapy or in combination with radiation therapy (RT). Investigation of differential diagnoses of CBM might be necessary, which include inflammatory and demyelinating disorders, primary brain tumours and infectious diseases, especially neurocysticercosis that might mimic CBM images. Treatment options include RT, CNS-penetrating TKIs and invasive procedures, such as stereotactic drainage. Thus, CBM are associated with ALK-rearranged NSCLC, particularly in patients who use crizotinib and should prompt investigation of differential diagnosis. CNS-penetrating TKIs are effective in the control of solid brain metastases and also seem to be active in CBM as single therapy or in combination with RT.

Near-drowning-associated pneumonia with bacteremia caused by coinfection with methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus and Edwardsiella tarda in a healthy white man: a case report.

BACKGROUND: Edwardsiella tarda is an Enterobacteriaceae found in aquatic environments. Extraintestinal infections caused by Edwardsiella tarda in humans are rare and occur in the presence of some risk factors. As far as we know, this is the first case of near-drowning-associated pneumonia with bacteremia caused by coinfection with methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus and Edwardsiella tarda in a healthy patient. CASE PRESENTATION: A 27-year-old previously healthy white man had an episode of fresh water drowning after acute alcohol consumption. Edwardsiella tarda and methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus were isolated in both tracheal aspirate cultures and blood cultures. CONCLUSION: This case shows that Edwardsiella tarda is an important pathogen in near drowning even in healthy individuals, and not only in the presence of risk factors, as previously known.

Immune thrombocytopenia and autoimmune thyroid disease: a controversial overlap.

Immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) is an entity characterized by a platelet count of less than 100 × 10(9)/L in the absence of other causes of thrombocytopenia, such as viral infections, rheumatic diseases, or drugs. Grave's disease is also an autoimmune condition in which thrombocytopenia is often observed. Moreover, in the literature, many reports show a marked interference of the thyroid dysfunction (mainly hyperthyroidism) in the control of thrombocytopenia. Although this issue still remains debatable, the authors report the case of a young woman with a previous diagnosis of ITP with a brilliant initial response to corticotherapy. Some years after this diagnosis, the patient presented thyrotoxicosis due to Grave's disease and the thrombocytopenia relapsed, but this time there was no response to the glucocorticoids. Only after the radioiodine I-131 thyroid ablation the control of thrombocytopenia was achieved. The authors call attention to this overlap and for testing thyroid function in every patient with an unexpected negative response to corticotherapy.

Treatment priorities in oncology: do we want to live longer or better?

OBJECTIVES: Despite the progress achieved in the fight against cancer over the past several years, assessing the needs, goals and preferences of patients with cancer is of the utmost importance for the delivery of health care. We sought to assess priorities regarding quantity versus quality of life among Brazilian patients, comparing them with individuals without cancer. METHODS: Using a questionnaire presenting four hypothetical cancer cases, we interviewed cancer patients, oncology health-care professionals and laypersons, most of whom had administrative functions in our hospital. RESULTS: A total of 214 individuals participated: 101 patients, 44 health-care professionals and 69 laypersons. The mean ages in the three groups were 56, 34 and 31 years old, respectively (p<0.001). The patients had gastrointestinal (25%), breast (22%), hematologic (10%), lung (8%) or other tumors (36%) and the tumor-node- metastasis (TNM) stage was I, II, III or IV in 22%, 13%, 34% and 31% of cases, respectively. Treatment priorities differed significantly among the three groups (p = 0.005), with survival time being a higher priority for patients than for the other two groups and with opposite trends regarding quality of life. In multivariate analysis, the age and sex distributions were not associated with the choice to maximize quality of life. In this limited sample of cancer patients, there were no associations between treatment priorities and disease stages. CONCLUSIONS: Both survival time and quality of life appeared to be important to cancer patients, oncology health-care professionals and laypersons, but survival time seemed to have higher priority for people diagnosed with cancer than for healthy people. Additionally, survival seemed to be more important than quality of life for all three groups assessed.

Treatment priorities in oncology: do we want to live longer or better?

OBJECTIVES: Despite the progress achieved in the fight against cancer over the past several years, assessing the needs, goals and preferences of patients with cancer is of the utmost importance for the delivery of health care. We sought to assess priorities regarding quantity versus quality of life among Brazilian patients, comparing them with individuals without cancer. METHODS: Using a questionnaire presenting four hypothetical cancer cases, we interviewed cancer patients, oncology health-care professionals and laypersons, most of whom had administrative functions in our hospital. RESULTS: A total of 214 individuals participated: 101 patients, 44 health-care professionals and 69 laypersons. The mean ages in the three groups were 56, 34 and 31 years old, respectively (p<0.001). The patients had gastrointestinal (25%), breast (22%), hematologic (10%), lung (8%) or other tumors (36%) and the tumor-node- metastasis (TNM) stage was I, II, III or IV in 22%, 13%, 34% and 31% of cases, respectively. Treatment priorities differed significantly among the three groups (p = 0.005), with survival time being a higher priority for patients than for the other two groups and with opposite trends regarding quality of life. In multivariate analysis, the age and sex distributions were not associated with the choice to maximize quality of life. In this limited sample of cancer patients, there were no associations between treatment priorities and disease stages. CONCLUSIONS: Both survival time and quality of life appeared to be important to cancer patients, oncology health-care professionals and laypersons, but survival time seemed to have higher priority for people diagnosed with cancer than for healthy people. Additionally, survival seemed to be more important than quality of life for all three groups assessed. .