Kim M, Kim YJ, Suh KJ, et al. Phase 2 trial of avelumab in combination with gemcitabine in advanced leiomyosarcoma as a second-line treatment (EAGLES, Korean Cancer Study Group UN18-06). Cancer. 2025;131(1):e35609. doi:10.1002/cncr.35609
In the original title of the article, the Korean Cancer Study Group clinical trial number was incorrectly listed as “UN18-09.” The correct clinical trial number is “UN1806.”
The authors apologize for this error.
This erratum corrects the following:
Luskin MR, Yin J, Lozanski G, et al. Incorporation of alemtuzumab into frontline therapy of adult acute lymphoblastic leukemia: results of Cancer and Leukemia Group B 10102 (Alliance), a phase 1/2 study. Cancer. 2025;131(4):e35750. doi:10.1002/cncr.35750
The article ’s title was originally published in truncated fashion (“Results of Cancer and Leukemia Group B 10102 (Alliance), a Phase 1/2 Study”). The revised full title appears below and should read: “Incorporation of Alemtuzumab into Frontline Therapy of Adult Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia: Results of Cancer and Leukemia Group B 10102 (Alliance), a Phase 1/2 Study.” The full title as listed above is correct.
We apologize for this error.
People of African ancestry are overrepresented among lives lost prematurely and persons unnecessarily afflicted with the highest burden of cancer among nonindigenous Americans. Amid the growing advancements in cancer discoveries and innovations, the persistence of cancer disparities affecting Black/African American populations is particularly disturbing and disappointing.
Ashing and colleagues in the Alliance of Black Community Outreach and Engagement Scientific Directors of National Cancer Institute–designated cancer centers discuss the excessive cancer burden in Black populations and propose a Cancer Moonshot–focused framework.
The paper posits for research to remedy cancer disparities, there are three critical areas that require action: (1) examine Black/African American heterogeneity; (2) eradicate policies and practices that are biased toward Black/African American populations and limit access to clinical studies/trials; and (3) embrace community engagement and collaborations.
This paper extends a call to action focused on eight critical areas for making significant strides to reduce cancer disparities in Black/African American communities: (1) implementation of policies for inclusion, accountability, and coverage; (2) removal of unnecessary barriers to clinical research participation; (3) introduction of continuing clinical research engagement training; (4) broad deployment of provider communication tools and resources for effective patient communication and referrals; (5) diversification of the scientific and clinical workforce; (6) practice of multisectoral and team science; (7) inclusion of community engagement in science; and (8) development of broad and authentic partnerships with our Black/African American communities. Taken together, these pillars support improved engagement with multistakeholder Black/African American communities to close disparities gaps and achieve health equity and justice.
The association between health literacy and all-cause mortality among cancer patients remains unclear.
This is a retrospective cohort study of 9603 patients diagnosed with prostate, lung, breast, renal, colorectal, brain, head and neck, bladder, pancreatic, liver, sarcoma, and gastric cancers who were screened for health literacy between 2008 and 2018, using the Brief Health Literacy Screen (BHLS). Higher scores (range, 3–15) indicate higher health literacy. The association between all-cause mortality and health literacy was estimated using multivariable Cox proportional hazards models.
A total of 8608 (89%) patients were non-Hispanic White. The median follow-up was 3.1 years. Patients with a BHLS score of 15 had a median survival improvement of 9.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.0–13.2 months) compared to those with a score of 9. Lower BHLS scores (9 vs. 15) were associated with higher mortality in stages II (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 2.6 [95% CI, 1.5–5.1]) and III (aHR 2.9 [95% CI, 1.4-6.0]) prostate cancer; stages I (aHR 1.7 [95% CI, 1.1–2.5]) and IV (aHR, 1.6 [95% CI, 1.2–2.1]) lung cancer; stage I colorectal cancer (aHR, 2.2 [95% CI, 1.3–4.7]); stage I renal cancer (aHR, 1.8 [95% CI, 1.1–3.4]); stages I (aHR, 2.6 [95% CI, 1.3–7.1]) and IV (aHR, 1.7 [95% CI, 1.2–2.7]) head and neck cancer; stage II bladder cancer (aHR, 1.6 [95% CI, 1.0–2.8]); stage I liver cancer (aHR, 4.1 [95% CI, 1.9–9.3]); and all stages of breast cancer.
Lower health literacy was associated with higher all-cause mortality among patients with 12 different types of cancer, varying by cancer type and stage.
Insomnia is common during and after childhood cancer and associated with negative health outcomes and impaired quality of life. Many adolescents and young adults do not receive treatment. Internet-delivered cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (iCBT-i) can fill this gap. This study assesses the effectiveness of the iCBT-i intervention “iSleep youth”.
Patients (12–30 years old) with an Insomnia Severity Index ≥8, ≥6 months after treatment, and <10 years after diagnosis were 1:1 randomized to iSleep youth or the wait list-control group. iSleep youth consists of five online sessions with a coach. Outcomes were sleep efficiency (actigraph-based), insomnia, fatigue, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Differences over time between iSleep youth and controls, 3 months (T3) and 6 months (T6) from baseline, were assessed with linear mixed models, controlling for age, sex, and time since end of treatment. iSleep youth also had a follow-up measurement after 12 months (T12).
Fifty-four (response rate, 49%) patients participated: 68.9% females, mean age, 18.5 years (SD = 3.5), and mean time since end of treatment 3.8 years (SD = 2.3). No significant effects between the two groups were found for sleep efficiency. However, iSleep youth had a beneficial effect on insomnia severity at T3 (β = –0.79) and T6 (β = –0.55), on fatigue at T3 (β = –1.08) and T6 (β = –0.52) and on HRQOL at T3 (β = 0.46) and T6 (β = 0.62). The scores did not change from T6 to T12 in iSleep youth.
iSleep youth is effective in treating insomnia and concurrent fatigue in adolescents and young adults after childhood cancer and should be implemented.
Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer-related mortality in both men and women. Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is notorious for its early metastatic spread, aggressive biology, and high frequency of disease relapse, resulting in inferior outcomes. In the last few years, immunotherapy for extensive-stage SCLC has offered a glimmer of hope by improving survival by approximately 2 months. In 2024, therapeutic breakthroughs for SCLC led to a meaningful impact for patients, offering potential for long-term survival. Here, the authors report the top advances from 2024, including the practice-changing implementation of consolidative durvalumab immunotherapy for limited-stage SCLC, lessons learned from the timing of immunotherapy with radiation using LU-005, how the delta-like ligand 3 bispecific T-cell engager tarlatamab affects the relapsed landscape, the addition of lurbinectedin to atezolizumab immunotherapy for extensive-stage SCLC, and the promising role of antibody–drug conjugates. In a forward-thinking approach, the authors discuss the feasibility of biomarker selection with the Southwest Oncology Group SWOG S1929 study and how precision medicine may inform consolidative treatments for extensive-stage SCLC through neuroendocrine subtyping with the Southwest Oncology Group SWOG S2409 (PRISM) trial. Finally, they conclude with the exciting role of advocacy with the newly formed advocacy group Small Cell SMASHERS, amplifying support for SCLC. In 2024, the scientific revolution for SCLC has arrived, spearheading a new era of change for this disease.
Radical prostatectomy (RP) and radiotherapy (RT) are standard-of-care treatments for localized prostate cancer. The authors studied the utilization and total health care and patient-incurred costs of RP and RT in the United States using the Merative MarketScan Medicare (Medicare Supplemental and Coordination of Benefits [MDCR]) and Commercial (Commercial Claims and Encounters [CCAE]) databases.
Men were identified who had nonmetastatic prostate cancer treated with RP, external-beam RT (EBRT), brachytherapy (BT), EBRT combined with BT (EBRT + BT), stereotactic body RT (SBRT), or proton-beam therapy (PBT) between 2009 and 2022. Year-to-year treatment utilization was compared using the Kendall Tau-b test. Mean total health care and patient out-of-pocket costs within 12 months of treatment were compared using the Kruskal–Wallis test.
In the MDCR database, 44,937 patients were identified who received treatment with RP (n = 12,879), EBRT (n = 26,193), BT (n = 926), EBRT + BT (n = 4706), PBT (n = 57), or SBRT (n = 176). Between 2009 and 2021, EBRT use increased from 52.5% to 62.2% (p for trend < .001), SBRT increased from 0.4% to 0.5% (p < .001), BT decreased from 3.1% to 1.0% (p < .001), and EBRT + BT decreased from 14.8% to 6.8% (p < 0.001); whereas use remained similar for RP (from 29.1% to 29.4%; p = .82) and PBT (from 0.1% to 0.1%; p = .93). In the CCAE database, 75,626 patients were identified who received treatment with RP (n = 50,278), EBRT (n = 16,985), BT (n = 1243), EBRT + BT (n = 6811), PBT (n = 92), or SBRT (n = 217). EBRT use increased from 20.0% to 24.9% (p < .001), SBRT increased from 0.1% to 0.8% (p < .001), BT decreased from 2.5% to 0.7% (p < .001), and EBRT + BT decreased from 10.6% to 7.4% (p < .001); whereas use remained similar for RP (from 66.8% to 66.1%; p for trend = .82), and PBT (from 0.1% to 0.1%; p for trend = .76). In the MDCR and CCAE databases, PBT had the highest total cost, whereas BT had the lowest.
Between 2009 and 2021, there was increasing use of EBRT and SBRT, whereas use of RP remained stable. Although BT was the least costly, its utilization as monotherapy and combined with EBRT declined.
The addition of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) to cytoreductive surgery significantly improved overall survival in comparison with cytoreductive surgery alone in platinum-sensitive patients with recurrent ovarian cancer, according to evidence from a randomized trial conducted by UNICANCER/CHIPOR investigators.1
This is the first prospective, randomized evidence showing an improved survival benefit with the addition of HIPEC in patients undergoing complete cytoreductive surgery for their first late-relapsing ovarian cancer, say the authors led by Jean-Marc Classe, MD, PhD, surgeon and professor of oncology at the Institut de Cancérologie de l’Ouest.
The study found a nearly 10-month improvement in overall survival with the addition of HIPEC (cisplatin [75 mg/m2] in serum [2 L/m2] at 41 ±1°C for 60 min) to complete cytoreductive surgery. At a median follow-up of 6.2 years, patients treated with HIPEC plus cytoreductive surgery had a median overall survival of 54.3 months versus 45.8 months for those treated with cytoreductive surgery alone.
The results are based on 415 patients randomized to cytoreductive surgery alone (n = 208) or with HIPEC (n = 207) for first relapse of epithelial ovarian cancer. All patients had completed at least 6 months of platinum-based chemotherapy. The authors note that the trial population was highly chemosensitive, with approximately one half having a platinum-free interval of more than 19 months, most (three quarters) having a high-grade serous histology, and one quarter having the BRCA mutation.
“When treating patients with late first relapse of serous or high-grade serous or high-grade endometrioid ovarian cancer amenable to complete cytoreductive surgery at specialist centers, platinum-based HIPEC should be considered to extend overall survival,” state the authors.
Elise Kohn, MD, head of Gynecologic Cancer Therapeutics in the Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program at the National Cancer Institute, says, “I am not convinced about HIPEC and do not support it because there are so many biases in the trials, and it is difficult to dissect them.”
For example, she questions why HIPEC is effective. Could it be the heat? The intraperitoneal (location of) chemotherapy? “These trials never control for all variables,” she says.
“I think that oncologists should remain skeptical and only use HIPEC in the setting of a trial or only when being very transparent with a patient about what the evidence shows, that the patients involved had a very good prognosis altogether, and other issues such as toxicity,” Dr Kohn says.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：