Sequencing and combination of current small-molecule inhibitors for chronic lymphocytic leukemia: Where is the evidence?

Small-molecule inhibitors have revolutionized the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), a landscape once dominated by chemoimmunotherapy (i.e., an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody in combination with systemic chemotherapy) in fit and unfit individuals. Key challenges include the management of refractory disease as well as the optimization of the therapy sequence. Decreased responsiveness has been observed with prolonged treatment, especially with Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) and phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K) inhibitors which are given continuously, while venetoclax, an agent that targets dysregulations in intrinsic apoptosis signaling, has a fixed duration when combined with anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies or BTK inhibitors. Combination therapy aims to synergistically target different oncogenic signaling pathways to abrogate the proliferation of resistant clones and thereby allows for fixed-duration treatments. An advantage of fixed-duration therapy is the potential to decrease financial and drug-induced toxicities. Sequencing of therapies is important to individualize treatment decisions based on factors such as age, comorbidities, tolerability, and patient preferences. However, to date, there are limited data to guide the rational sequencing or combination of these therapies, since conventional chemoimmunotherapy or chemotherapy regimens were used as comparators against these small-molecule inhibitors in trials that led to their regulatory approvals. In this article, we examined and evaluated the current evidence for sequencing versus the combination of small-molecule inhibitors for CLL by conducting comprehensive searches of the United States National Library of Medicine PubMed database, key meeting abstracts, and clinical practice guidelines. We also summarized findings from expert opinions to elucidate best practices for clinical scenarios with limited evidence to guide treatment selection.

Real-world data of cardio-oncologic interventions for cardiovascular adverse events with oral oncolytics.

BACKGROUND: Oral cancer therapy-related cardiovascular (CV) toxicity has a wide variety of presentations including arrhythmia, cardiomyopathy, and myocardial infarction, but clinical evidence related to its management is limited. The purpose of this IRB-approved, single-center, retrospective, cohort study was to characterize cardio-oncologic interventions for CV adverse events related to oral oncolytics. METHODS: The cohort included 67 patients who were admitted to a multi-hospital health system between June 1, 2016 and July 31, 2021, had at least one medical record order of oral oncolytics considered to have cardiotoxic potential, and had an ICD10 code for a cardiotoxic event added to their electronic medical records after initiation of oral oncolytics. RESULTS: The majority (97%) had pre-existing cardiovascular disease (CVD) or a CV risk factor. The three most common classes of oral oncolytics were aromatase inhibitors (36%), BCR-ABL inhibitors (16%), and VEGFR inhibitors (13%). New-onset or worsening heart failure (HF) (n = 31), which occurred after a median of 148 days (Interquartile range (IQR) 43-476 days) was the most common cardiotoxic event. The most frequent interventions were pharmacological treatment of the CV adverse event (n = 44) and treatment interruption (n = 18), but guideline-directed medication therapy for HF could be further optimized. CONCLUSION: Pre-existing CVD or CV risk factors predispose oncology patients to CV adverse events. Real-world practice reveals that CV adverse events require temporary interruption of treatment and initiation of pharmacologic treatment. A multidisciplinary, patient-centered approach that includes discussion of risks/benefits of treatment continuation, and initiation of guideline-directed treatment is recommended until high-quality, drug-specific data for monitoring and treatment become available.

The Impact of Infections in Patients Treated with Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab for Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

Background: The therapeutic landscape of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC) continues to evolve. Atezolizumab, an anti-programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-1) immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI), in combination with bevacizumab, has substantially improved outcomes. This study aims to evaluate the incidence, risk factors, and outcomes in patients who develop infections while receiving atezolizumab and bevacizumab for uHCC. Methods: Patients who received atezolizumab and bevacizumab for uHCC at a single hospital network were included. Types and rates of infections were reported. Covariates compared among infected and non-infected cohorts included age, sex, race, comorbidities, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status, immunosuppressive use, chronic infections, number of cycles of ICIs given, antibiotic or antiviral therapies at ICI initiation, and line of therapy (first-line, second-line, greater than second-line). Results: Out of 810 evaluable patients, 34 uHCC patients were treated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. The mean ± SD age was 66.29 ± 9.39; 28 (82.35%) were males. There were 17 (50%) patients with reported infection, with bacterial infection occurring in 12 (70.59%) patients and COVID-19 in 4 (23.5%). Of the infected patients, eight (47.06%) had one infection, five (29.41%) had two infections, and two (11.76%) had three or more infections. Infected and non-infected patients received a median of 12 (IQR: 5-17) and 4 (IQR: 3-12) ICI cycles (p = 0.18), respectively. Infections did not negatively impact OS or PFS but resulted in treatment delays and discontinuation in 11 (64.71%) and 7 (41.18%) patients, respectively. At the last follow-up, 19 (55.88%) patients died, 9 (52.94%) in the non-infected group vs. 10 (58.82%) in the infected group (p = 1.0). Conclusions: While a broad array of infections occurred in 50% of the patients in this cohort, it did not negatively impact survival outcomes. However, it did impact morbidity, with more all-cause admissions and treatment delays.

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: the latest on diagnosis, molecular profiling, and systemic treatments.

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is currently the fourth leading cause of death in the United States and is expected to be ranked second in the next 10 years due to poor prognosis and a rising incidence. Distant metastatic PDAC is associated with the worst prognosis among the different phases of PDAC. The diagnostic options for PDAC are convenient and available for staging, tumor response evaluation, and management of resectable or borderline resectable PDAC. However, imaging is crucial in PDAC diagnosis, monitoring, resectability appraisal, and response evaluation. The advancement of medical technologies is evolving, hence the use of imaging in PDAC treatment options has grown as well as the utilization of ctDNA as a tumor marker. Treatment options for metastatic PDAC are minimal with the primary goal of therapy limited to symptom relief or palliation, especially in patients with low functional capacity at the point of diagnosis. Molecular profiling has shown promising potential solutions that would push the treatment boundaries for patients with PDAC. In this review, we will discuss the latest updates from evidence-based guidelines regarding diagnosis, therapy response evaluation, prognosis, and surveillance, as well as illustrating novel therapies that have been recently investigated for PDAC, in addition to discussing the molecular profiling advances in PDAC.

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors for Solid Tumors in the Adjuvant Setting: Current Progress, Future Directions, and Role in Transplant Oncology.

The rationale for administering immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in the adjuvant setting is to eradicate micro-metastases and, ultimately, prolong survival. Thus far, clinical trials have demonstrated that 1-year adjuvant courses of ICIs reduce the risk of recurrence in melanoma, urothelial cancer, renal cell carcinoma, non-small cell lung cancer, and esophageal and gastroesophageal junction cancers. Overall survival benefit has been shown in melanoma while survival data are still not mature in other malignancies. Emerging data also show the feasibility of utilizing ICIs in the peri-transplant setting for hepatobiliary malignancies. While ICIs are generally well-tolerated, the development of chronic immune-related adverse events, typically endocrinopathies or neurotoxicities, as well as delayed immune-related adverse events, warrants further scrutiny regarding the optimal duration of adjuvant therapy and requires a thorough risk-benefit determination. The advent of blood-based, dynamic biomarkers such as circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) can help detect minimal residual disease and identify the subset of patients who would likely benefit from adjuvant treatment. In addition, the characterization of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, and ctDNA-adjusted blood tumor mutation burden (bTMB) has also shown promise in predicting response to immunotherapy. Until additional, prospective studies delineate the magnitude of overall survival benefit and validate the use of predictive biomarkers, a tailored, patient-centered approach to adjuvant ICIs that includes extensive patient counseling on potentially irreversible adverse effects should be routinely incorporated into clinical practice.

Targeting the androgen receptor signaling pathway in advanced prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: This article summarizes current androgen receptor (AR)-directed therapies that have received regulatory approval for the treatment of advanced prostate adenocarcinoma (herein referred to as prostate cancer, PC). SUMMARY: PC is an androgen-dependent malignancy in which ligands including testosterone and dihydrotestosterone bind to AR, initiating androgen-AR complex translocation to the nucleus followed by AR-mediated transcription of target genes. Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), including gonadotropin hormone-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists with or without AR antagonists (antiandrogens), GnRH antagonists, or bilateral orchiectomy, forms the backbone of treatment for patients with metastatic castration-naive PC and/or castration-resistant PC (CRPC). ADT is also an option for high-risk, early-stage PC after prostatectomy and/or radiation. While ADT is often very effective as initial therapy, resistance ultimately develops despite suppression of gonadal and/or adrenal androgens, leading to CRPC, which is characterized by mechanisms such as reactivation of the AR signaling pathway, AR gene overexpression, and mutations in the ligand-binding domain of AR that lead to disease progression, resulting in increased symptom burden and ultimately death. However, disease in patients with CRPC is still dependent on androgen signaling, and these patients continue on ADT to maintain a castrate level of serum testosterone. Novel hormonal therapies including agents that target AR directly (eg, AR antagonists) are often added to ADT in this setting. Targeting the AR signaling pathway led to the development of second-generation AR antagonists, examples of which include enzalutamide, apalutamide, and darolutamide. These agents do not exhibit partial agonism, possess a higher affinity for AR, and are postulated to improve survival outcomes relative to their first-generation counterparts for patients with CRPC. Lastly, the emergence of ADT, including second-generation AR antagonists, has led to the development of supportive care for treatment-related adverse effects. CONCLUSION: Major advances have been made in targeting the AR signaling pathway in patients with advanced PC. Further studies are warranted to identify the optimal sequencing of therapies to maximize treatment benefit. Mitigation of treatment-related adverse effects presents new opportunities to advance clinical pharmacy practice.

Pancreatic Tumorigenesis: Precursors, Genetic Risk Factors and Screening.

Pancreatic cancer (PC) is a highly malignant and aggressive tumor. Despite medical advancement, the silent nature of PC results in only 20% of all cases considered resectable at the time of diagnosis. It is projected to become the second leading cause in 2030. Most pancreatic cancer cases are diagnosed in the advanced stages. Such cases are typically unresectable and are associated with a 5-year survival of less than 10%. Although there is no guideline consensus regarding recommendations for screening for pancreatic cancer, early detection has been associated with better outcomes. In addition to continued utilization of imaging and conventional tumor markers, clinicians should be aware of novel testing modalities that may be effective for early detection of pancreatic cancer in individuals with high-risk factors. The pathogenesis of PC is not well understood; however, various modifiable and non-modifiable factors have been implicated in pancreatic oncogenesis. PC detection in the earlier stages is associated with better outcomes; nevertheless, most oncological societies do not recommend universal screening as it may result in a high false-positive rate. Therefore, targeted screening for high-risk individuals represents a reasonable option. In this review, we aimed to summarize the pathogenesis, genetic risk factors, high-risk population, and screening modalities for PC.