Seminars in oncology最新文献

Prostate cancer is the second most common cause of cancer-related mortality in men. In patients undergoing a failure after radical treatment, one of the therapeutic option is androgen deprivation: despite initial response rates, a progression to a state of castration resistance is observed in most of the patients. In the present article, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of all clinical trials assessing treatment for nmCRPC with next-generation androgen receptor inhibitors. We performed a review and meta-analysis of phase III randomized controlled trials comparing new agents (apalutamide, enzalutamide, darolutamide) with placebo as control arm, in the setting of nmCRPC. Patients treated with next-generation ARIs had a 26% reduction in the risk of death compared with placebo; compared with other ARIs, darolutamide had the lowest rate of grade 3 and 4 AEs and the lowest therapy discontinuation rate due to any grade AEs. This meta-analysis shows that treatment with new ARIs is safe and significantly reduces the risk of death and of metastasis onset in nmCRPC patients. Under way studies on new biomarkers such as genomic classifiers will probably allow the stratification in more specific subsets of disease. New imaging modalities such as PSMA-PET have shown greater sensibility and specificity than conventional imaging in metastases detection. All patients were randomized in a 2:1 fashion, with a total of 2,694 who underwent next-generation ARIs (806 apalutamide, 955 darolutamide, 933 enzalutamide) and 1,423 in the placebo arm.

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to significant disruptions across all levels of medical training. International fellows in subspecialty training programs are essential members of the frontline physician workforce, but may face additional and unique challenges as a result of being away from their home country. In this study, we aimed to understand the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the wellbeing of international fellows in the Hematology and/or Oncology fellowship program at the PMCC.

Methods

In collaboration with our staff psychiatrist, we conducted an online survey of hematology and/or oncology fellows at the PMCC from July 6 to August 10, 2020. The survey consisted of 60 questions divided into 4 sections: demographics, wellbeing assessment using the validated Short Warwick Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale (SWEMWBS), fellowship specific questions (personal and professional) and coping strategies using the validated brief COPE scale.

Results

Overall 24/52 (46%) fellows completed the survey: 21/24 were international fellows with 48% from Asia, 3/24 were Canadian fellows but away from home; 54% were male; 48% were aged 31–35 years; 65% were married, 48% had children. Mean SWEMWBS score was 21, indicating lower overall wellbeing than the general population who had a score of 23.6. Compared to their pre-COVID status, many reported a decline in their wellbeing (63%), sense of guilt for not being with their family (45%) or helping their country (41%), stress in personal relationships (26%), fatigue (50%), sleep disorders (38%) and loss of interest in daily activities (38%). Personal events were altered by almost 80%; and 20% planned to extend their fellowship. According to the Brief-COPE scale, during the pandemic, most fellows used more adaptive coping mechanisms (mean score 39.2) as opposed to maladaptive ones (mean score 21.8).

Conclusions

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has negatively affected the overall wellbeing of international fellows. Understanding the specific challenges and coping mechanisms used by international fellows may help institutions develop better targeted strategies to promote wellbeing, professional development and ensure high-quality patient care during unprecedented times like the COVID pandemic.

Background

COVID-19 was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization on March 11th, 2020. Global social lockdowns were instigated to reduce spread and prevent health-services from becoming overwhelmed. People having treatment for cancer are known to have heightened psychological/emotional burden. The combined impact of managing pandemic regulations alongside this may present additional burden. The purpose of this systematic review is to examine current evidence of the psychological and emotional impact of COVID-19 on people with cancer, early in the pandemic.

Methods

Five electronic databases were searched (Embase, Global Health, HMIC, PsychINFO, CINAHL) from September 2019 to October 2021. Qualitative, quantitative and mixed-method primary research studies exploring emotional and psychological impacts of COVID-19 on cancer patients, limited to English language, were included. Quality appraisal was conducted using the MMAT.

Results

Fifty-one papers, with 27,356 people from 21 countries treated for cancer, were included. 43 studies were quantitative with a survey method approach, six studies qualitative and four used a mixed methods design. MMAT score was mostly two or three. Four themes were identified: Emotional aspects and Quality of Life; Psychosocial aspects; Impact of COVID-19 on self; Impact of COVID-19 on cancer, with themes overlapping.

Conclusion

Whilst emotional/psychological impacts such as anxiety, isolation, employment fears, and uncertainty about the future were potentially universal concerns early in the pandemic, they may have been particularly acute for people living with cancer and represent complex, overlapping factors. As COVID-19 continues to impact health-services and society, it is important to focus on any ongoing impact to the experience of cancer patients. Most of the studies reviewed used tools that do not provide deeper understanding of how and why emotional states of people with cancer were affected. Further qualitative work may reveal patterns of what was unique to cancer patients during the pandemic, compared to general populations.

Immunotherapy with immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) has revolutionized the landscape of cancer treatment, dramatically improving the prognosis of patients with several solid tumors. Sex and gender are variables that affect immune responses to both foreign and self-antigens and growing preclinical and clinical evidence show that they also affect efficacy and tolerability of anticancer immunotherapy in patients with several advanced solid tumors. Despite such strong biological rationale and available evidence highlighting the need to take into account sex-based differences in the context of both research and clinical practice for anticancer immunotherapy, we described here an impressive under-representation of women enrolled in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) testing such drugs over the last 10 years. We critically discuss limitations the under-representation of women has on the generalization of results of RCTs to female patients, as well as the importance in the future of ensuring increased enrollment of women in trials, including sex as stratifying factor in trials design, and guaranteeing sex-specific analysis of efficacy and safety results, in order to avoid less than optimal treatment of women with cancer.

The development of deintensified therapies aiming at reducing the treatment-related toxicity while not impairing the outcome is an unmet need in HPV+ oropharyngeal carcinoma patients. Several deintensification approaches have been explored in this setting, including induction chemotherapy with reduced chemoradiation dose in responding pts. The findings of the studies conducted so far show that the available deescalated therapy should be based on the disease risk profile. At present, we still lack robust high level data to infer that the cited interventions are equivalent or superior to standard of care treatments. However, literature data suggest that approximately 70% of low-risk patients might receive a deintensified approach by including either surgery or induction chemotherapy. In the context of high-risk disease, more than 80% of patients may undergo a deintensified loco-regional treatment by neoadjuvant systemic therapy. Epidemiological data suggest that in the next decades, most of the HPV-related OPSCC patients will be made of old and possibly frail individuals. However, this patient population was excluded from most of the studies conducted so far. Therefore, there is a strong need for clinical trials to define risk-based deescalation strategies in this population and in younger patients as well.

Multiple systemic immune-oncology (IO) combination therapies have demonstrated overall survival (OS) benefits in metastatic renal clear cell carcinoma (mRCC). However, the magnitude of benefits over time has not been compared in a structured fashion. To assess OS and progression free survival (PFS) efficacy as reflected by hazard ratios [HR]) according to the duration of follow-up over time for each of four IO combination therapies. A systematic PubMed (MEDLINE) literature review was performed (January, 1, 2016 to February, 20, 2022). Only phase III randomized clinical trials with proven OS benefit relative to sunitinib were included. These search criteria yielded four eligible RCTs: CheckMate 214 (nivolumab plus ipilimumab), Keynote 426 (pembrolizumab plus axitinib), CheckMate 9ER (nivolumab plus cabozantinib), CLEAR (lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab). OS and PFS HRs were tabulated for all four studies including all reported timepoints. Median follow-up ranged from 25–68 months for CheckMate 214 (5 timepoints), 13–43 months for Keynote 426 (3 timepoints), 18–33 months for CheckMate 9ER (3 timepoints) and 27–34 months for CLEAR (2 timepoints). Respective OS and PFS HRs were 0.68–0.72 and 0.98–0.86, 0.53–0.73 and 0.69–0.68, 0.60–0.70 and 0.51–0.56, 0.66–0.72 and 0.39–0.47 for CheckMate 214, Keynote 426, CheckMate 9ER and CLEAR. Regarding OS HRs virtually no change was recorded over time for CheckMate 214, but a decrease in magnitude occurred in the three IO-TKI remaining studies. Regarding PFS HRs, no benefit was recorded for CheckMate 214. Statistically significant benefit was recorded in the remaining IO-TKI studies. However, it also decreased with longer follow-up. It remains to be seen, whether further ‘slippage’ of efficacy will persist as the data matures further for all IO-TKI combinations.

Purpose

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been a constant health threat since its emergence. Amongst risk factors proposed, a diagnosis of cancer has been worrisome. We report the impact of cancer and other risk factors in US Veterans receiving care at Veterans Administration (VA) Hospitals, their adjusted odds ratio (aOR) for infection and death, and report on the impact of vaccines on the incidence and severity of COVID-19 infections in Veterans without/with cancer.

Methods

We conducted a cohort study of US Veterans without/with cancer by mining VA COVID-19 Shared Data Resource (CSDR) data using the VA Informatics and Computing Infrastructure (VINCI). Our observation period includes index dates from 14DEC2020 to 25JAN2022, encompassing both the delta and omicron waves in the US.

Results

We identified 915,928 Veterans, 24% of whom were African Americans who had undergone COVID testing–688,541 were and 227,387 were not vaccinated. 157,072 had a cancer diagnosis in the preceding two years. Age emerged as the major risk factor, with gender, BMI, and (Elixhauser) comorbidity contributing less. Among veterans with solid tumors other than lung cancer, risks of infection and death within 60 days were comparable to Veterans without cancer. However, those with hematologic malignancies fared worse. Vaccination was highly effective across all cancer cohorts; the respective rates of infection and death after infection were 8% and 5% among the vaccinated compared to 47% and 10% in the unvaccinated. Amongst vaccinated, increased risk of infection was noted in both, Veterans with hematologic malignancy treated with chemotherapy (HR, 2.993, P < 0.0001) or targeted therapies (HR, 1.781, P < 0.0001), and in solid tumors treated with either chemotherapy (HR 2.328, 95%CI 2.075–2.611, P < 0.0001) or targeted therapies (HR 1.328, P < 0.0001) when compared to those not on treatment.

Conclusions

Risk for COVID-19 infection and death from infection vary based on cancer type and therapies administered. Importantly and encouragingly, the duration of protection from infection following vaccination in Veterans with a diagnosis of cancer was remarkably like those without a cancer diagnosis. Veterans with hematologic malignancies are especially vulnerable, with lower vaccine effectiveness (VE).

Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is the most common type of lung cancer accounting for almost 80%–85% of all lung cancer cases. Unfortunately, more than half of the patients will be diagnosed with advanced disease at the time of presentation, which makes their disease incurable. Historically, the 5 year overall survival for advanced NSCLC was 5%. However, there has been a significant increase in our understanding of the genetic basis of NSCLC, which has led to development of both immunotherapy and targeted therapy agents. This has improved the 5 year overall survival to become within the range of 15%–50% depending on certain mutations and biomarkers. Over the last decade the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved almost 20 new targeted therapies and clinical trials are still undergoing to evaluate more novel agents. In this review, we will present recent updates on novel targeted therapies.

Immunotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has revolutionized treatment for those with advanced disease, and recent data have emerged providing evidence for its benefits in earlier stages of the disease. Several pivotal clinical trials provide compelling data that adaptive immune cells may be highly effective and possibly even curative for NSCLC. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) can unleash highly reactive memory immune responses to tumor antigens with durable effects against advanced or recurrent disease. Despite these encouraging results, many critical questions remain in the field including, for example, how to identify the subsets of NSCLC patients who most benefit from ICI treatment, and how ICI efficacy might be enhanced by utilizing combinations or sequencing of agents. A deeper understanding of biological mechanisms involved in lung cancer offers a unique opportunity to further explore the interaction between the adaptive immune landscape and NSCLC. Given the high incidence of lung cancer in Veterans and many Veterans being treated with immunotherapy for this disease, it is timely to have their adequate representation in future clinical trials. New clinical trials focused on Veterans can assist in exploring ways to mitigate resistant mechanisms as well as to investigate predictive and prognostic biomarkers for response to ICIs and other treatments. This paper will review current data and indications for immunotherapy in NSCLC, introduce new areas of research within immunotherapy, and discuss its applicability to the Veteran population.