Current Treatment Options in Oncology最新文献

Opinion statement: Soft tissue sarcoma (STS), a substantial group of aggressive and rare tumors with tissue heterogeneity, is infrequently represented in clinical trials with an urgent necessity for newer treatment options. Lurbinectedin, an analog of trabectedin, is currently approved, in various countries, as a single agent, for the treatment of patients with relapsed small cell lung cancer (SCLC). However, preclinical and phase I and phase II trials have demonstrated the efficacy of lurbinectedin in different tumor types, including STS. The better understanding of the pathophysiology and evolution of STS as well as the mechanism of action of lurbinectedin in addition to the available data regarding the activity of this drug in this subset of patients will pave the way to newer therapeutic options and strategies.

Opinion statement: PSMA-PET has been a practice-changing imaging biomarker for the management of men with PCa. Research suggests improved accuracy over conventional imaging and other PET radiotracers in many contexts. With multiple approved PSMA-targeting radiotracers, PSMA PET will become even more available in clinical practice. Its increased use requires an understanding of the prospective data available and caution when extrapolating from prior trial data that utilized other imaging modalities. Future trials leveraging PSMA PET for treatment optimization and management decision-making will ultimately drive its clinical utility.

Opinion statement: Homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) is an important biomarker guiding selection of ovarian cancer patients who will derive the most benefit from poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi). HRD prevents cells from repairing double-stranded DNA damage with high fidelity, PARPis limit single-stranded repair, and together these deficits induce synthetic lethality. Germline or somatic BRCA mutations represent the narrowest definition of HRD, but do not reflect all patients who will have a durable PARPi response. HRD can also be defined by its downstream consequences, which are measured by different metrics depending on the test used. Ideally, all patients will undergo genetic counseling and germline testing shortly after diagnosis and have somatic testing sent once an adequate tumor sample is available. Should barriers to one test be higher, pursuing germline testing with reflex to somatic testing for BRCA wildtype patients or somatic testing first strategies are both evidence-based. Ultimately both tests offer complementary information, germline testing should be pursued for any patient with a history of ovarian cancer, and somatic testing is valuable at recurrence if not performed in the upfront setting. There is a paucity of data to suggest superiority of one germline or somatic assay; therefore, selection should optimize turnaround time, cost to patients, preferred result format, and logistical burden. Each clinic should implement a standard testing strategy for all ovarian cancer patients that ensures HRD status is known at the time of upfront chemotherapy completion to facilitate comprehensive counseling about anticipated maintenance PARPi benefit.

Opinion statement: Localized high-risk (HR) prostate cancer (PCa) is a heterogenous disease state with a wide range of presentations and outcomes. Historically, non-surgical management with radiotherapy and androgen deprivation therapy was the treatment option of choice. However, surgical resection with radical prostatectomy (RP) and pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) is increasingly utilized as a primary treatment modality for patients with HRPCa. Recent studies have demonstrated that surgery is an equivalent treatment option in select patients with the potential to avoid the side effects from androgen deprivation therapy and radiotherapy combined. Advances in imaging techniques and biomarkers have also improved staging and patient selection for surgical resection. Advances in robotic surgical technology grant surgeons various techniques to perform RP, even in patients with HR disease, which can reduce the morbidity of the procedure without sacrificing oncologic outcomes. Clinical trials are not only being performed to assess the safety and oncologic outcomes of these surgical techniques, but to also evaluate the role of surgical resection as a part of a multimodal treatment plan. Further research is needed to determine the ideal role of surgery to potentially provide a more personalized and tailored treatment plan for patients with localized HR PCa.

Opinion statement: Sentinel lymph node mapping (SLNM) and dissection (SLND) should be used as an alternative to full inguinofemoral lymph node dissection (IFLND) in select patients with early-stage vulvar cancer. IFLND is associated with high postoperative complications such as wound breakdown, lymphedema, lymphocyst formation, and infection. SLND in select patients offers a safe, effective, and less morbid alternative. Candidates for SLND include patients with a unifocal vulvar tumor less than four centimeters, clinically negative lymph nodes, and no prior inguinofemoral surgeries. SLND should ideally be performed by a high-volume SLN surgeon. Most commonly, SLND is performed using both radiocolloid lymphoscintigraphy (e.g., Technetium-99) and a visual tracer such as blue dye; however, near infrared imaging with indocyanine green injection is becoming more widely adopted. Further prospective studies are needed to examine the safety and efficacy of various techniques for SLND. SLND has been demonstrated to be cost-effective, especially when including perioperative complications. Further studies are needed to demonstrate quality of life differences between IFLND and SLND.

Opinion statement: Our understanding of paraneoplastic neurologic syndromes (PNS) has blossomed over the past few decades. Clinicians have access to more robust diagnostic criteria and have a heightened index of suspicion for these disorders. Nonetheless, treatment, which typically includes immunosuppression, and response to treatment, varies. Due to persistent difficulty in making a definitive diagnosis, we favor empiric treatment when a possible diagnosis of PNS is suspected, and other alternative causes have substantially been excluded (e.g., infections, toxic-metabolic derangements, metastasis, or leptomeningeal disease). Treatment of the underlying cancer, if identified, is the first therapeutic step and can prevent disease worsening and in rare cases, can reverse neurologic symptoms. In addition to anti-cancer treatment, first line immunotherapies, which include corticosteroids, intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG), or plasma exchange (PLEX) are typically used. If partial or no benefit is seen, second line immunotherapeutic agents such as rituximab are considered. Additionally, the severity of the initial presentation and possible risk for relapse influences the use of the latter agents. Symptomatic management is also an important component in our practice and will depend on the syndrome being treated. One of the more novel entities we are facing currently is the management of immune checkpoint (ICI)-induced PNS. In those cases, current American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines are followed.

Opinion statement: Malignant fungating wounds (MFW) are severe skin conditions generating tremendous distress in oncological patients with advanced cancer stages because of pain, malodor, exudation, pruritus, inflammation, edema, and bleeding. The classical therapeutic approaches such as surgery, opioids, antimicrobials, and application of different wound dressings are failing in handling pain, odor, and infection control, thus urgently requiring the development of alternative strategies. The aim of this review was to provide an update on the current therapeutic strategies and the perspectives on developing novel alternatives for better malignant wound management. The last decade screened literature evidenced an increasing interest in developing natural treatment alternatives based on beehive, plant extracts, pure vegetal compounds, and bacteriocins. Promising therapeutics can also be envisaged by involving nanotechnology due to either intrinsic biological activities or drug delivery properties of nanomaterials. Despite recent progress in the field of malignant wound care, the literature is still mainly based on in vitro and in vivo studies on small animal models, while the case reports and clinical trials (less than 10 and only one providing public results) remain scarce. Some innovative treatment approaches are used in clinical practice without prior extensive testing in fungating wound patients. Extensive research is urgently needed to fill this knowledge gap and translate the identified promising therapeutic approaches to more advanced testing stages toward creating multidimensional wound care strategies.

Opinion statement: High-risk localized prostate cancer is a challenging clinical entity to treat, with heterogeneous responses to an evolving array of multidisciplinary treatment approaches. In addition, this disease state is growing in incidence due to a variety of factors, including shifting recommendations that discouraged routine prostate cancer screening. Current guidelines now incorporate an informed decision-making process for prostate cancer screening and evaluation. More work is underway to improve targeted screening for certain at-risk populations and to implement greater personalization in the use of diagnostic tools. Once diagnosed with high-risk localized disease, a multimodality treatment paradigm is warranted. Radiation-in its various forms and combinations-plays a large and continually evolving role in the management of high-risk prostate cancer, yet treatment outcomes are still suboptimal. There is a growing need to improve upon current treatment approaches, and better personalize a particular treatment recommendation based on both tumor and patient characteristics, as well as patient preference and goals of therapy. Given that treatment generally requires more than one therapy, there are notable implications on long-term quality of life, especially with respect to overlapping and cumulative side effects of local and systemic therapies, respectively. The desire for aggressive therapy to optimize cancer control outcomes must be weighed against the risk of morbidities and overtreatment and discussed with each patient so that an informed decision about treatment and care can be determined. High-level evidence to support treatment recommendations, where available, is critical for a data-driven and tailored approach to address all goals of care.

Opinion statement: Antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) are a novel class of targeted cancer therapies with the ability to selectively deliver a cytotoxic drug to a tumor cell using a monoclonal antibody linked to a cytotoxic payload. The technology of ADCs allows for tumor-specificity, improved efficacy, and decreased toxicity compared to standard chemotherapy. Common toxicities associated with ADC use include ocular, pulmonary, hematologic, and neurologic toxicities. Several ADCs have been approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the management of patients with recurrent or metastatic gynecologic cancers, a population with poor outcomes and limited effective treatment options. The first FDA-approved ADC for recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer was tisotumab vedotin, a tissue factor-targeting agent, after demonstrating response in the innovaTV 204 trial. Mirvetuximab soravtansine targets folate receptor alpha and is approved for use in patients with folate receptor alpha-positive, platinum-resistant, epithelial ovarian cancer based on results from the SORAYA trial. While there are no FDA-approved ADCs for the treatment of uterine cancer, trastuzumab deruxtecan, an anti-human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) agent, is actively being investigated. In this review, we will describe the structure and mechanism of action of ADCs, discuss their toxicity profiles, review ADCs both approved and under investigation for the management of gynecologic cancers, and discuss mechanisms of ADC resistance.

Opinion statement: Biliary tract cancers are molecularly and anatomically diverse cancers which include intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, extrahepatic (perihilar and distal) cholangiocarcinoma, and gallbladder cancer. While recognized as distinct entities, the rarer incidence of these cancers combined with diagnostic challenges in classifying anatomic origin has resulted in clinical trials and guideline recommended strategies being generalized patients with all types of biliary tract cancer. In this review, we delve into the unique aspects, subtype-specific clinical trial outcomes, and multidisciplinary management of patients with extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. When resectable, definitive surgery followed by adjuvant chemotherapy (sometimes with selective radiation/chemoradiation) is current standard of care. Due to high recurrence rates, there is growing interest in the use of upfront/neoadjuvant therapy to improve surgical outcomes and to downstage patients who may not initially be resectable. Select patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma are being successfully treated with novel approaches such as liver transplant. In the advanced disease setting, combination gemcitabine and cisplatin remains the standard base for systemic therapy and was recently improved upon with the addition of immune checkpoint blockade to the chemotherapy doublet in the recently reported TOPAZ-1 and KEYNOTE-966 trials. Second-line all-comer treatments for these patients remain limited in both options and efficacy, so clinical trial participation should be strongly considered. With increased use of molecular testing, detection of actionable mutations and opportunities to receive indicated targeted therapies are on the rise and are the most significant driver of improved survival for patients with advanced stage disease. Though these targeted therapies are currently reserved for the second or later line, future trials are looking at moving these to earlier treatment settings and use in combination with chemotherapy and immunotherapy. In addition to cross-disciplinary management with surgical, medical, and radiation oncology, patient-centered care should also include collaboration with advanced endoscopists, palliative care specialists, and nutritionists to improve global patient outcomes.