High-Risk Peritoneal Mesothelioma: Does Metronomic Chemotherapy Have a Role?

Objective: To evaluate the feasibility, tolerance, and efficacy of OMCT (oral metronomic chemotherapy) after CRS + HIPEC for peritoneal mesothelioma in patients with poor prognostic factors: PCI > 20, incomplete CRS, poor performance status, or progression on systemic chemotherapy. Methods: A retrospective analysis of patients undergoing CRS + HIPEC for peritoneal mesothelioma and receiving OMCT for poor risk factors. Results: Sixteen patients underwent CRS + HIPEC between 2013 and 2017. The median PCI was 31.5. Complete cytoreduction (CC-0/1) was obtained in 8 patients (50%). All 16 received HIPEC except one patient with baseline renal dysfunction.Thirteen patients had PCI > 20 where only 5 had CC-0/1. Of 8 suboptimal cytoreduction (CC-2/3), 7 received OMCT (6 for progression on chemotherapy and one for mixed histology). Three patients had PCI < 20 and all had CC-0/1 clearance. Only one received OMCT for progression on adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients receiving OMCT for progression on adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) were in poor PS.The median follow-up was 13.4 months. Five are alive with the disease (three are on OMCT). Six are alive without disease (2 are on OMCT). The mean OS was 24.3 months and the mean DFS was 18 months. Outcomes were similar between CC-0/1 and CC-2/3 groups, OMCT vs no OMCT groups.All patients receiving OMCT for progression on neoadjuvant chemotherapy had better survival (alive at 12, 20, 32, 36 months) compared to those receiving OMCT for progression on the ACT (p = 0.012). Conclusion: OMCT is a good alternative in high-volume peritoneal mesothelioma with incomplete cytoreduction and progression on chemotherapy. OMCT may improve outcomes in these scenarios when started early.

Sequencing of Systemic Therapies in the Management of Advanced Prostate Cancer in India: a Delphi-Based Consensus.

INTRODUCTION: With the availability of an increasing number of therapeutic options for advanced prostate cancer (APC), optimal sequencing and combination of therapies have emerged to be the areas of challenges. In the Indian context, there is a dearth of consensus recommendations to guide clinicians regarding optimal sequencing of therapy in APC management. A Delphi-based consensus regarding optimal therapy sequencing in APC management was developed by an expert panel of medical oncologists from across India. METHODS: An expert scientific committee of 11 medical oncologists and an expert panel of 53 medical oncologists from India constituted the panel for the Delphi consensus. In the first phase, a questionnaire with 41 clinical statements was developed in several critical controversial areas in APC treatment. In the second phase, 29 clinical statements were reworked and sent to eight experts to obtain their opinions on best practices. The consensus ratings were based on a 9-point Likert scale. Based on the overall response, statements with a mean score of ≥ 7 with 1 outlier were considered as "consensus." RESULTS: Degarelix was the preferred androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). While ADT plus docetaxel was the preferred option for metastatic castrate-sensitive/naïve prostate cancer patients with high-volume disease, ADT with abiraterone was the preferred choice for low-volume disease. Docetaxel was the preferred first-line treatment option in men who received ADT alone in the castrate-sensitive/naïve setting. For patients progressing on or after docetaxel for metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (without prior abiraterone or enzalutamide), the experts reached a consensus on the use of enzalutamide as the preferred second-line treatment option. No consensus was reached for the third-line treatment options. CONCLUSION: This article is intended to serve as a guide to help clinicians discuss with their patients as part of the shared and multidisciplinary decision-making for improved APC management in India.

Expert survey on management of prostate cancer in India: Real-world insights into practice patterns.

To gain insights on the diverse practice patterns and treatment pathways for prostate cancer (PC) in India, the Urological Cancer Foundation convened the first Indian survey to discuss all aspects of PC, with the objective of guiding clinicians on optimizing management in PC. A modified Delphi method was used, wherein a multidisciplinary panel of oncologists treating PC across India developed a questionnaire related to screening, diagnosis and management of early, locally advanced and metastatic PC and participated in a web-based survey (WBS) (n = 62). An expert committee meeting (CM) (n = 48, subset from WBS) reviewed the ambiguous questions for better comprehension and reanalyzed the evidence to establish a revote for specific questions. The threshold for strong agreement and agreement was ≥90% and ≥75% agreement, respectively. Sixty-two questions were answered in the WBS; in the CM 31 questions were revoted and 4 questions were added. The panelists selected answers based on their best opinion and closest to their practice strategy, not considering financial constraints and access challenges. Of the 66 questions, strong agreement was reached for 17 questions and agreement was achieved for 22 questions. There were heterogeneous responses for 27 questions indicative of variegated management approaches. This is one of the first Indian survey, documenting the diverse clinical practice patterns in the management of PC in India. It aims to provide guidance in the face of technological advances, resource constraints and sparse high-level evidence.

LACE versus BEAM conditioning in relapsed and refractory lymphoma transplant: retrospective multicenter analysis of toxicity and efficacy.

We compared the lomustine, cytarabine, cyclophosphamide and etoposide (LACE) and BCNU, etoposide, cytarabine, melphalan (BEAM) conditioning regimens for toxicity, engraftment kinetics, and efficacy in 139 patients undergoing autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant for primary refractory or relapsed lymphoma. Ninety-two patients with Hodgkin lymphoma and 47 with non-Hodgkin lymphoma were enrolled. Seventy-five patients received LACE while 64 received BEAM. The incidence of grade 3-4 oral mucositis (9 vs 38%; P < 0.001) and parenteral nutrition requirement (32 vs 69%; P < 0.001) were significantly lower in the LACE cohort. The median days to myeloid (10 vs 11; P = 0.007) and platelet engraftment (13 vs 15; P = 0.026) were shorter for the LACE cohort. Transplant-related mortality in the LACE group was 9% compared to 13% in patients treated with BEAM (P = NS). The probability of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) at 5 years for entire cohort was 46 and 41%, respectively. Probability of OS (LACE 46% vs BEAM 47%; P = NS) and PFS (LACE 37% vs BEAM 47%; P = NS) at 5 years was comparable between two groups. We conclude that LACE has better toxicity profile compared to BEAM and results in similar long-term survival in primary refractory or relapsed lymphoma transplant.