Quality of life in caregivers of patients receiving chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy.

OBJECTIVE: Informal family caregivers provide critical support for patients receiving chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy. However, caregivers' experiences are largely unstudied. This study examined quality of life (QOL; physical functioning, pain, fatigue, anxiety, and depression), caregiving burden, and treatment-related distress in caregivers in the first 6 months after CAR T-cell therapy, when caregivers were expected to be most involved in providing care. Relationships between patients' clinical course and caregiver outcomes were also explored. METHODS: Caregivers completed measures examining QOL and burden before patients' CAR T-cell therapy and at days 90 and 180. Treatment-related distress was assessed at days 90 and 180. Patients' clinical variables were extracted from medical charts. Change in outcomes was assessed using means and 99% confidence intervals. Association of change in outcomes with patient clinical variables was assessed with backward elimination analysis. RESULTS: A total of 99 caregivers (mean age 59, 73% female) provided data. Regarding QOL, pain was significantly higher than population norms at baseline but improved by day 180 (p < .01). Conversely, anxiety worsened over time (p < .01). Caregiver burden and treatment-related distress did not change over time. Worsening caregiver depression by day 180 was associated with lower patient baseline performance status (p < .01). Worse caregiver treatment-related distress at day 180 was associated with lower performance status, intensive care unit admission, and lack of disease response at day 90 (ps < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Some CAR T-cell therapy caregivers experience pain, anxiety, and burden, which may be associated patients' health status. Further research is warranted regarding the experience of CAR T-cell therapy caregivers.

Alliance A011801 (compassHER2 RD): postneoadjuvant T-DM1 + tucatinib/placebo in patients with residual HER2-positive invasive breast cancer.

This report describes the rationale, purpose and design of A011801 (CompassHER2 RD), an ongoing prospective, multicenter, Phase III randomized trial. Eligible patients in the United States (US) and Canada with high-risk (defined as ER-negative and/or node-positive) HER2-positive (HER2+) residual disease (RD) after a predefined course of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and HER2-directed treatment are randomized 1:1 to adjuvant T-DM1 and placebo, versus T-DM1 and tucatinib. Patients have also received adjuvant radiotherapy and/or endocrine therapy, if indicated per standard of care guidelines. The primary objective of the trial is to determine if the invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) with T-DM1 plus tucatinib is superior to iDFS with T-DM1 plus placebo; other outcomes of interest include overall survival (OS), breast cancer-free survival (BCFS), distant recurrence-free survival (DRFS), brain metastases-free survival (BMFS) and disease-free survival (DFS). Correlative biomarker, quality of life (QoL) and pharmacokinetic (PK) end points are also evaluated.

Lay abstract In this research study (A011801; CompassHER2 RD), patients with early stage HER2-positive breast cancer who already received treatment with chemotherapy and anti-HER2 targeted therapies followed by surgery are mainly enrolled. If cancer is still present in the breast and/or lymph nodes at the time of surgery, there is a higher risk of a recurrence in the future, and enrollment on A011801 is an option. Usually, if there is tumor remaining after chemotherapy and anti-HER2 targeted therapies, the main treatment is the use of an FDA-approved intravenous drug called T-DM1. Additional treatment may also include radiotherapy and/or medications to block the activity of estrogen. The usual treatment approach reduces the likelihood of breast cancer recurring in the future. This study has been performed to answer the following question: Is the combination of T-DM1 and a newer drug tucatinib better than usual treatment with T-DM1 alone at preventing cancer from returning? Study participants will receive treatment with T-DM1 and placebo (a pill that looks like the study drug but contains no medication) or T-DM1 and tucatinib, for up to 14 cycles, unless their breast cancer returns or the side effects become too severe. Research bloods are taken on study along with standard blood work, and we also request a stored tumor sample from the original biopsy and from the breast cancer surgery for research purposes. Optional Quality of Life Questionnaires are also included in the trial. After the study, participants finish T-DM1 and placebo, or T-DM1 and tucatinib, and their doctor will continue to follow their condition with clinic visits every 6 months for 10 years and watch for side effects and for signs of breast cancer recurring. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT04457596 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Management of well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors.

Neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) are a heterogeneous group of epithelial neoplasms with predominantly neural and endocrine differentiation that have the ability to produce peptide hormones and other biologically active substances. The histologic characterization of NETs based on differentiation and grading is crucial to determining prognosis and treatment. Surgery still offers the best chance of cure for patients with NETs, and tumor resection is the preferred approach when possible. For locally advanced or metastatic disease, approaches to treatment can vary widely depending on the extent of disease and goals of therapy. A better understanding of the biology of NETs acquired over the last decade has facilitated the development of targeted therapies, such as everolimus and a variety of tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Furthermore, the field of theranostics has led to dramatic improvements in our diagnostic and treatment abilities. Chemotherapy has a role in the treatment of NETs, evidenced by the benefit shown with the combination of temozolomide and capecitabine to treat pancreatic NETs. Somatostatin analogues are a mainstay of treatment because they reduce secretory products and have antiproliferative effects on NET cells. In this work, we aim to review the landscape for the diagnosis and treatment of well-differentiated NETs.

Second-line therapies in advanced biliary tract cancers.

Biliary tract cancers constitute approximately 3% of gastrointestinal malignancies with poor prognosis. Surgical therapy is the main form of treatment in localised disease; however, for patients with advanced stage or unresectable disease, locoregional and systemic chemotherapeutics are primary treatment options. Although the combination of gemcitabine and cisplatin is a standard regimen of choice, there are no consensus guidelines that help in choosing an appropriate second-line therapy. Substantial progress has been made in the past decade to understand the tumorigenesis and genetic landscape of each biliary tract cancer subtype, which facilitates precision medicine for this cancer. Common genes implicated in biliary tract cancer tumorigenesis include IDH1, IDH2, FGFR1, FGFR2, FGFR3, EPHA2, BAP1, ARID1B, ELF3, PBRM1, PRKACA, PRKACB, HER2, and BRAF. With the advancements in molecular pathogenesis of biliary tract cancer, especially in an era of personalised medicine, many questions are yet to be answered in advanced stages of the cancer: what subset of patients might benefit from second-line drugs, how to choose an optimal second-line regimen, and their effects on quality of life. This Review seeks to summarise available literature and discuss the potential second-line systemic therapy options for advanced biliary tract cancer on the basis of advancements of our knowledge on molecular pathogenesis and tumorigenesis.

Association between facility volume and mortality of patients with classic Hodgkin lymphoma.

BACKGROUND: Prior studies in oncology have shown that a higher annual facility patient volume is associated with reduced mortality. Because classic Hodgkin lymphoma is uncommon but highly curable, this study used the National Cancer Database (2003-2014) to analyze whether such a relationship exists for this disease. METHODS: The facilities were classified by quartiles, and random intercepts were used to account for clustering of patients within facilities. A Cox regression model was used to determine the volume-outcome relationship. RESULTS: There were 47,633 patients with classic Hodgkin lymphoma treated at 1310 facilities. The first quartile (Q1), which included 58.4% of the facilities, treated 3 or fewer patients per year, whereas the fourth quartile (Q4), which included 5.9% of the facilities, treated more than 9 patients per year. Compared with the patients treated at Q4 facilities, those treated at lower quartile facilities had a higher risk of death (hazard ratio for the third quartile [HR], 1.19; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-1.29; HR for the second quartile, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.19-1.38; HR for Q1, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.2-1.39) after adjustments for all other factors (P < .0001). Compared with facilities treating 10 patients per year, facilities treating 40 patients per year had approximately 27% lower overall mortality rates. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with classic Hodgkin lymphoma treated at high-volume centers had lower overall mortality than those treated at lower volume centers. Because this is a highly curable malignancy, such differences may suggest a benefit from referral to higher volume facilities or the emulation of their care models.

A Novel Clinically Based Staging System for Gallbladder Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Current staging systems for gallbladder cancer (GBC) are primarily based on surgical pathology and therefore are not relevant for unresectable patients and those undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy. METHODS: Patients with a confirmed diagnosis of GBC managed at a tertiary referral center (2000-2016) were included. Independent predictors of overall survival (OS) were identified using multivariable analysis (MVA). A combination of these variables was then assessed to identify a set of factors that provided maximal accuracy in predicting OS, and a nomogram and a new staging system were created based on these factors. Harrell's C-statistic was calculated to evaluate the predictive accuracy of the nomogram and staging system. RESULTS: A total of 528 patients were included in the final analysis. On MVA, factors predictive of poor OS were older age, ECOG performance status, hemoglobin level <9 g/dL, presence of metastases, and alkaline phosphatase (ALP) level >200 U/L. A nomogram and a 4-tier staging system predictive of OS were created using age at diagnosis, ECOG status, tumor size, presence or absence of metastasis, and ALP level. The C-statistic for this novel staging system was 0.71 compared with 0.69 for the TNM staging system (P=.08). In patients who did not undergo surgery, the C-statistics of the novel and TNM staging systems were 0.60 and 0.51, respectively (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: We created a novel, clinically based staging system for GBC based on nonoperative information at the time of diagnosis that was superior to the TNM staging system in predicting OS in patients who did not undergo surgery, and that performed on par with TNM staging in surgical patients.

Regulatory and Clinical Experiences with Biosimilar Filgrastim in the U.S., the European Union, Japan, and Canada.

Biosimilar filgrastims are primarily indicated for chemotherapy-induced neutropenia prevention. They are less expensive formulations of branded filgrastim, and biosimilar filgrastim was the first biosimilar oncology drug administered in European Union (EU) countries, Japan, and the U.S. Fourteen biosimilar filgrastims have been marketed in EU countries, Japan, the U.S., and Canada since 2008, 2012, 2015, and 2016, respectively. We reviewed experiences and policies for biosimilar filgrastim markets in EU countries and Japan, where uptake has been rapid, and in the U.S. and Canada, where experience is rapidly emerging. U.S. regulations for designating biosimilar interchangeability are under development, and such regulations have not been developed in most other countries. Pharmaceutical substitution is allowed for new filgrastim starts in some EU countries and in Canada, but not Japan and the U.S. In EU countries, biosimilar adoption is facilitated with favorable hospital tender offers. U.S. adoption is reportedly 24%, while the second filgrastim biosimilar is priced 30% lower than branded filgrastim and 20% lower than the first biosimilar filgrastim approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Utilization is about 60% in EU countries, where biosimilar filgrastim is marketed at a 30%-40% discount. In Japan, biosimilar filgrastim utilization is 45%, primarily because of 35% discounts negotiated by Central Insurance and hospital-only markets. Overall, biosimilar filgrastim adoption barriers are small in many EU countries and Japan and are diminishing in Canada in the U.S. Policies facilitating improved U.S. adoption of biosimilar filgrastim, based on positive experiences in EU countries and Japan, including favorable insurance coverage; larger price discount relative to reference filgrastim pricing; closing of the "rebate trap" with transparent pricing information; formal educational efforts of patients, physicians, caregivers, and providers; and allowance of pharmaceutical substitution of biosimilar versus reference filgrastim, should be considered. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: We reviewed experiences and policies for biosimilar filgrastims in Europe, Japan, Canada, and the U.S. Postmarketing harmonization of regulatory policies for biosimilar filgrastims has not occurred. Acceptance of biosimilar filgrastims for branded filgrastim, increasing in the U.S. and in Canada, is commonplace in Japan and Europe. In the U.S., some factors, accepted in Europe or Japan, could improve uptake, including acceptance of biosimilars as safe and effective; larger cost savings, decreasing "rebate traps" where pharmaceutical benefit managers support branded filgrastim, decreased use of patent litigation/challenges, and allowing pharmacists to routinely substitute biosimilar for branded filgrastim.

Phase 1 trial of enzalutamide in combination with gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel for the treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer.

Background Androgens were shown to play a key role in the growth and progression of pancreatic cancer. We evaluated the safety and tolerability of the combination of enzalutamide, a novel androgen receptor (AR) antagonist with gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel as a first-line treatment in advanced pancreatic cancer. Methods We used the standard 3 + 3 dose escalation design with cohort expansion to evaluate 2 dose levels of enzalutamide: 80 mg and 160 mg/day orally (phase 1a) in combination with gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel in metastatic pancreatic cancer patients. In the expansion phase (phase 1b), AR+ was a pre-requisite criterion. We also evaluated the full pharmacokinetic (PK) profile for nab-paclitaxel and enzalutamide. Results We enrolled 24 patients, 12 patients in phase 1a and 12 patients in phase 1b. The median age was 68 (range, 32-84) years. No DLTs were observed. Grade 3/4 treatment related adverse events included neutropenia (44%), anemia (40%), leukopenia (24%), nausea and vomiting (20%), diarrhea (16%), infections (12%), thrombocytopenia (8%), thromboembolic event (8%), hypertension (8%), hypokalemia (8%), hyponatremia (8%), and ALT elevation (8%). Median overall survival and progression-free survival was 9.73 [95%CI:9.73-13.5] and 7.53 (95%CI:6.05-12.8) months, respectively. PK analysis suggests that the combination therapy does not impact the kinetics of either drug evaluated. Enzalutamide reached steady-state levels between day 22 and 29 and the mean half-life of nab-paclitaxel was 19.6 ± 4.7 h. Conclusions Enzalutamide 160 mg daily in combination with gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel can be safely administered with no unexpected toxicities. We also noticed preliminary signals of efficacy with this combination.

Association Between Hospital Volume, Therapy Types, and Overall Survival in Stage III and IV Cutaneous Malignant Melanoma.

BACKGROUND: The advent of targeted therapies and immunomodulatory agents has revolutionized the management of advanced cutaneous malignant melanoma (MMel) by prolonging overall survival. This study evaluated the therapeutic and survival disparities among patients with advanced MMel based on hospital volume using the National Cancer Database (NCDB). METHODS: A retrospective analysis using regression models and Kaplan-Meier estimates was performed from the data obtained from the NCDB on patients with MMel diagnosed in 2004 through 2015. RESULTS: A total of 40,676 patients with MMel were treated at 1,260 facilities. Multivariable analysis showed that facility volume was an independent predictor of overall survival (P<.0001). Compared with patients treated at high-volume facilities (tertile 3 [T3]), those with stage III disease (n=27,528) treated at intermediate- and low-volume facilities (T2 and T1, respectively) had a significantly higher risk of death (T2 hazard ratio [HR], 1.15; 95% CI, 1.09-1.20; T1 HR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.17-1.29). Compared with patients treated at T3 facilities, those with stage IV disease (n=13,148) treated at lower-tertile facilities had a significantly higher risk of death (T2 HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.10-1.21; T1 HR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.23-1.36). Further, patients with stage IV disease treated at T3 facilities (vs T1 facilities) were more likely to receive chemotherapy (38% vs 28%) and immunotherapy (23% vs 10%) (P<.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with advanced-stage MMel treated at high-volume facilities had significantly improved survival and were more likely to receive chemotherapy and immunotherapy.

Association Between Treatment Facility Volume, Therapy Types, and Overall Survival in Patients With Stage IIIA Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: There is significant heterogeneity in the treatment of stage IIIA non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This study evaluated the therapeutic and survival disparities in patients with stage IIIA NSCLC based on the facility volume using the National Cancer Database. METHODS: Patients with stage IIIA NSCLC diagnosed from 2004 through 2015 were included. Facilities were classified by tertiles based on mean patients treated per year, with low-volume facilities treating ≤8 patients, intermediate-volume treating 9 to 14 patients, and high-volume treating ≥15 patients. Cox multivariate analysis was used to determine the volume-outcome relationship. RESULTS: Analysis included 83,673 patients treated at 1,319 facilities. Compared with patients treated at low-volume facilities, those treated at high-volume centers were more likely to be treated with surgical (25% vs 18%) and trimodality (12% vs 9%) therapies. In multivariate analysis, facility volume was independently associated with all-cause mortality (P<.0001). Median overall survival by facility volume was 15, 16, and 19 months for low-, intermediate-, and high-volume facilities, respectively (P<.001). Compared with patients treated at high-volume facilities, those treated at intermediate- and low-volume facilities had a significantly higher risk of death (hazard ratio, 1.09 [95% CI, 1.07-1.11] and 1.11 [95% CI, 1.09-1.13], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated for stage IIIA NSCLC at high-volume facilities were more likely to receive surgical and trimodality therapies and had a significant improvement in survival.

Association between treatment facility volume, therapy types and overall survival in patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: To determine the association between the number of patients with intra-hepatic cholangiocarcinoma (IHCC) treated annually at a treatment facility (volume) and overall survival (outcome). METHODS: Patients with IHCC reported to the National Cancer Database (years 2004-2015) were included. We classified facilities by tertiles (T; mean IHCC patients treated/year): T1: <2.56; T2: 2.57-5.39 and T3: ≥5.40. Volume-outcome relationship was determined by using Cox regression adjusting for patient demographics, comorbidities, tumor characteristics, insurance type and therapy received. RESULTS: There were 11,344 IHCC patients treated at 1106 facilities. On multivariable analysis, facility volume was independently associated with all-cause mortality (p < 0.001). The unadjusted median OS by facility volume was: T1: 5 months (m), T2: 8.1 m, and T3: 13.1 m (p < 0.001). Compared with patients treated at T3 facilities, patients treated at lower-tertile facilities had significantly higher risk of death [T2 hazard ratio (HR), 1.12 [95% CI, 1.05-1.23]; T1 HR, 1.21 [95% CI, 1.11-1.33]. Patients treated at high-volume centers were more likely to get surgery (34.6 vs 13.1%) and adjuvant therapy. CONCLUSION: IHCC patients treated at high-volume facilities had a significant improvement in OS and were more likely to receive surgery and adjuvant therapy as compared to that of patients at low-volume facilities.

A prognostic scoring model for survival after locoregional therapy in de novo stage IV breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The role of locoregional treatment (LRT) remains controversial in de novo stage IV breast cancer (BC). We sought to analyze the role of LRT and prognostic factors of overall survival (OS) in de novo stage IV BC patients treated with LRT utilizing the National Cancer Data Base (NCDB). The objective of the current study is to create and internally validate a prognostic scoring model to predict the long-term OS for de novo stage IV BC patients treated with LRT. METHODS: We included de novo stage IV BC patients reported to NCDB between 2004 and 2015. Patients were divided into LRT and no-LRT subsets. We randomized LRT subset to training and validation cohorts. In the training cohort, a seventeen-point prognostic scoring system was developed based on the hazard ratios calculated using Cox-proportional method. We stratified both training and validation cohorts into two "groups" [group 1 (0-7 points) and group 2 (7-17 points)]. Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test were used to compare OS between the two groups. Our prognostic score was validated internally by comparing the OS between the respective groups in both the training and validation cohorts. RESULTS: Among 67,978 patients, LRT subset (21,200) had better median OS as compared to that of no-LRT (45 vs. 24 months; p < 0.0001). The group 1 and group 2 in the training cohort showed a significant difference in the 3-year OS (p < 0.0001) (68 vs. 26%). On internal validation, comparable OS was seen between the respective groups in each cohort (p = 0.77). CONCLUSIONS: Our prognostic scoring system will help oncologists to predict the prognosis in de novo stage IV BC patients treated with LRT. Although firm treatment-related conclusions cannot be made due to the retrospective nature of the study, LRT appears to be associated with a better OS in specific subgroups.

Trials, Tribunals, and Opportunities for Lung Cancer KRASG12C Brain Metastases.

The activity of KRAS inhibitors against brain metastases is relatively unexplored. The recent work on preclinical models and preliminary data from the ongoing KRYSTAL-1 phase Ib clinical trial support the potential of adagrasib (MRTX849) to penetrate the central nervous system and provide control of KRASG12C brain metastases. See related article by Sabari et al., p. 3318.

First-Line Targeted Therapy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Role of Atezolizumab/Bevacizumab Combination.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is an aggressive malignancy accounting for 90% of primary liver malignancies. Therapeutic options for HCC are primarily based on the baseline functional status, the extent of disease at presentation and the underlying liver function that is clinically evaluated by the Barcelona-Clinic Liver Cancer system and Child−Pugh score. In patients with advanced HCC, the United States Food and Drug Administration (US-FDA) approved systemic therapies include the combination of atezolizumab−bevacizumab, sorafenib, and lenvatinib in the first line setting while cabozantinib, regorafenib, ramucirumab (in patients with alfa-fetoprotein [AFP] > 400 ng/mL), pembrolizumab, nivolumab, and nivolumab-ipilimumab combination are reserved for patients who progressed on sorafenib. European Medical Agency (EMA) approved the use of atezolizumab−bevacizumab, sorafenib, and lenvatinib in the first line setting, while cabozantinib, regorafenib, and ramucirumab (in patients with alfa-fetoprotein [AFP] > 400 ng/mL) are approved for use in patients that progressed on first-line therapy. In the first line setting, sorafenib demonstrated a median overall survival (OS) benefit of 3 months as compared to that of best supportive care in randomized phase III trials, while lenvatinib was shown to be non-inferior to sorafenib. Recently, phase 3 studies with immunotherapeutic agents including atezolizumab plus a bevacizumab combination and tremelimumab plus durvalumab combination demonstrated a better OS and progression free survival (PFS) compared to sorafenib in the first-line setting, making them attractive first-line options in advanced HCC. In this review, we outlined the tumorigenesis and immune landscape of HCC in brief and discussed the role and rationale of combining immunotherapy and anti-VEGF therapy. We further expanded on potential limitations and the future directions of immunotherapy in combination with targeted agents in the management of advanced HCC.

Systemic Therapy in Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Patient Selection and Key Considerations.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the leading causes of cancer-related mortality worldwide. Most patients with HCC have advanced disease at initial diagnosis, and sorafenib has been the only systemic treatment option for more than a decade in patients with advanced, unresectable HCC. However, there has been a dramatic change in the treatment algorithm in the last several years, given new drug approvals in the field. Most importantly, the combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab has demonstrated clinically meaningful benefits in terms of response rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival compared to sorafenib in the first-line setting. Recently a phase III trial showed that the combination of durvalumab with a single dose of tremelimumab improved overall survival compared to sorafenib, while durvalumab monotherapy was found to be noninferior to sorafenib, making it an attractive alternative single agent in selected patient populations. As immunotherapy makes its way into the therapeutic landscape of HCC, other novel targeted therapies, such as lenvatinib, cabozantinib, ramucirumab, and regorafenib, have also been approved by regulatory authorities for treatment of advanced, unresectable HCC. This review article focuses on the first-line systemic treatment options for HCC while addressing some of the most important questions aimed at optimization of HCC treatment.

Time to first treatment is an independent prognostic factor for Multiple Myeloma (MM).

INTRODUCTION: Multiple myeloma (MM) is an incurable plasma cell neoplasm. In this study, we aimed to analyze the impact of time to initiation of systemic therapy for MM on overall survival (OS). METHODS: We identified cases diagnosed with MM from the National Cancer Database from 2004 to 2013. RESULTS: A total of 38,178 MM patients were included in the analysis. The median time to systemic therapy in our cohort was 17 days (range 0-120). The median OS for patients who initiated therapy > 30-days after diagnosis was longer than those who received it ≤ 7 days (46 vs. 27-month, p < 0.001). On multivariable analysis, patients who received treatment ≤ 7 days from diagnosis had worse mortality compared with those receiving treatment > 30 days (HR 1.5; 95% CI 1.4-1.6). CONCLUSIONS: In our study, time to initiation of systemic therapy was an independent prognostic factor in MM. Similar to other lymphoid malignancies, this metric may be a surrogate for high-risk disease in MM, and future trials may need to investigate time-to-treatment as a factor to allow enrollment of potentially sick patients.