Current Treatment Options in Oncology最新文献

Opinion statement: Patients with biochemical recurrent prostate cancer (BCR) are a heterogeneous group, whereby a personalized approach to management is critical. Patients with high-risk features such as PSA doubling time (PSADT) ≤ 9-12 months warrant earlier imaging for metastasis detection and consideration for intensified therapy (beyond intermittent androgen deprivation alone) during this phase of BCR-only disease. The BCR phase represents a unique opportunity to impact disease survival and delay metastasis progression. There is compelling evidence from the EMBARK trial that ADT monotherapy is no longer the optimal consideration for high-risk BCR patients.

Opinion statement: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is safe for patients with locally advanced colon cancer (LACC). The FOxTROT trial demonstrated a reduction in residual and recurrent cancer at 2 years with neoadjuvant chemotherapy for patients with cT3-4 LACC. Preoperative chemotherapy should be avoided, if possible, for patients with dMMR LACC, as over 50% of dMMR cancers have no pathologic response. Early universal testing of MMR status is critical to selecting the appropriate neoadjuvant therapy. Concerns about CT staging of LACC have limited uptake of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, as approximately 25% of patients with cT3-T4 cancer on CT have low-risk stage II disease. Development of CT criteria for malignant nodes should reduce the risk of over-staging. A multidisciplinary approach is needed to identify patients for neoadjuvant therapy. Neoadjuvant immunotherapy is safe and results in dramatic pathologic responses in patients with dMMR LACC. Longer follow-up is needed to determine if the exceptionally high pathologic response rates observed will translate into long-term remission. Remarkably, neoadjuvant immunotherapy has been found to cause major pathologic responses in a subset of patients with pMMR LACC, indicating the potential to cure more patients with this common cancer. Patients with cT4 LACC, whether stage II or III, have a substantial risk of recurrence despite adjuvant fluoropyrimidine plus oxaliplatin chemotherapy. We recommend neoadjuvant systemic therapy for all patients with cT4b LACC (dMMR and pMMR). Features of T4b disease are routinely reported by radiology. We use three cycles of FOLFOX chemotherapy for patients with cT4b pMMR LACC, due to the high rate of compliance and improvement in residual and recurrent disease. Patients with cT4b dMMR LACC should receive neoadjuvant immunotherapy, if there are no contraindications. Clinical trials of neoadjuvant therapy for LACC are of great interest and should provide training for radiologists to identify eligible patients. Results are anticipated from multiple ongoing trials of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and targeted therapy for pMMR LACC and immunotherapy for dMMR LACC.

Opinion statement: Monoclonal antibody (mAb) therapy is now considered a main component of cancer therapy in Australia. Although traditionally thought of as pure signalling inhibitors, a large proponent of these medications function through antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity (ADCC). Currently, most protocols and institutional guidelines for ADCC-mediated mAbs promote the use of corticosteroids as premedication: this is implemented to reduce infusion-related reactions (IRRs) and antiemesis prophylaxis and combat concurrently administered chemotherapy-related syndromes. Concerningly, the inhibitory effects of ADCC by corticosteroids are well documented; henceforth, it is possible the current standard of care is misaligned to the literature surrounding ADCC. Subsequently, clinicians' decisions to act in contrast to this literature may be reducing the efficacy of mAbs. The literature suggests that the redundant use of corticosteroids should be cautioned against when used in conjunction with ADCC-mediated mAbs-this is due to the consequent reduction in anti-tumour activity. Owing to the fact IRRs typically occur upon initial infusion, the authors advocate for individual clinicians and institutional protocols to considering augmenting their practice to corticosteroid premedication at the first dose only, unless clinically indicated. Additionally, product information (PI) and consumer medicine information (CMI) documents distributed by Australian and international regulatory agencies should consider disclosing the risk of concurrent steroids with these medications. Moreover, the authors suggest considering alternative medications for the management of side effects.

Opinion statement: The standard of treatment for node-positive endometrial cancer (FIGO Stage IIIC) in North America has been systemic therapy with or without additional external beam radiation therapy (RT) given as pelvic or extended field RT. However, this treatment paradigm is rapidly evolving with improvements in systemic chemotherapy, the emergence of targeted therapies, and improved molecular characterization of these tumors. The biggest question facing providers regarding management of stage IIIC endometrial cancer at this time is: what is the best management strategy to use with regard to combinations of cytotoxic chemotherapy, immunotherapy, other targeted therapeutics, and radiation that will maximize clinical benefit and minimize toxicities for the best patient outcomes? While clinicians await the results of ongoing clinical trials regarding combined immunotherapy/RT as well as management based on molecular classification, we must make decisions regarding the best treatment combinations for our patients. Based on the available literature, we are offering stage IIIC patients without measurable disease postoperatively both adjuvant chemotherapy and IMRT with carboplatin, paclitaxel, and with or without pembrolizumab/dostarlimab as primary adjuvant therapy. Patients with measurable disease post operatively, high risk histologies, or stage IV disease receive chemoimmunotherapy, and vaginal brachytherapy is added for those with uterine risk factors for vaginal recurrence. In the setting of endometrioid EC recurrence more than 6 months after treatment, patients with pelvic nodal and vaginal recurrence are offered IMRT and brachytherapy without chemotherapy. For measurable recurrence not suitable for pelvic radiation alone, chemoimmunotherapy is preferred as standard of care.

Opinion statement: An important subgroup of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas (PDACs) harbor pathogenic variants in BRCA1, BRCA2, or PALB2. These tumors are exquisitely sensitive to platinum-based chemotherapy and patients may experience deep and durable responses to this treatment. PARP inhibitors offer potential respite from the cumulative toxicities of chemotherapy as they significantly extend progression-free survival compared to a chemotherapy holiday. Given the lack of proven survival benefit, the decision to use a maintenance PARP inhibitor rather than continue chemotherapy should be individualized. Interestingly, in both published clinical trials of maintenance PARP inhibitors, there is a striking range of interpatient benefit: Even in the platinum-sensitive setting, roughly 25% of tumors appear to be PARP inhibitor refractory (progressive disease within 2 months of starting treatment), 50% sustain moderate benefit (up to 2 years), and 25% are hyper-responsive (more than 2 years of benefit). This finding highlights the need to refine our understanding of which patients will respond to maintenance PARP inhibitors, both by being able to identify biallelic loss and by deepening our knowledge of resistance mechanisms and who develops them. Recent data supports that reversion mutations are common in PARP inhibitor refractory patients, but we have little understanding of the mechanisms that drive delayed resistance and long-term responses. Identifying which patients are more prone to certain mechanisms of resistance and tackling them with specific treatment strategies are areas of active investigation. Additionally, given that PARP inhibitors have limited overall efficacy for most patients, upfront combination strategies are an important future strategy.

Opinion Statement

Urothelial carcinoma is the predominant cancer of the urinary tract but when divergent and subtype histology (non-urothelial) are identified at time of pathologic diagnosis, therapeutic and diagnostic challenges transpire. To this end, pathologic review to confirm any non-urothelial histology is key since these subtypes can often be overlooked. Few prospective trials are dedicated to understanding these non-urothelial histologic types; however, current, and past trials did allow patients with these non-urothelial histologic types to enroll, and inferences can be made about treatment efficacy and survival. Existing treatment regimens for non-urothelial bladder cancers are akin to standard urothelial cancer regimens using surgical approaches for localized disease and platinum-based chemotherapy for advanced disease. The reported clinical trials, that will be discussed, center on non-urothelial histologic types. These studies, albeit limited, provide critical insight into tumor biology and response to standard platinum-based chemotherapy, immune checkpoint inhibitors, and antibody drug conjugates. The inclusion of non-urothelial histologic types will be essential for clinical trials in development to provide further therapeutic advances and provide essential efficacy data.

Opinion statement: Desmoid tumors are rare tumors with a tendency to infiltrate locally. The lack of a standard treatment approach makes choosing the most appropriate treatment for patients challenging. Most experts recommend watchful observation for asymptomatic patients as spontaneous regression of tumor is observed in up to 20% of patients. Upfront resection of the desmoid tumor has fallen out of favor due to high morbidity and high relapse rates associated with the tumor. Systemic therapy has evolved over several decades. Where chemotherapy, hormonal therapy, and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were used over the last several decades, tyrosine kinase inhibitors came to the forefront within the last decade. Most recently, gamma-secretase inhibitors have shown significant clinical benefit in patients with desmoid tumors, bringing forth an entirely new mechanistic approach. Several Wnt pathway inhibitors are also under development. Invasive approaches like cryoablation have also shown clinical benefit in patients with extra-abdominal desmoid tumors in recent years. The recent approval of nirogacestat has ushered in a new era of treatment for patients diagnosed with desmoid tumors. Several new molecules are expected to be approved over the coming years.

Opinion statement: Metformin is a first-line drug in the clinical treatment of type 2 diabetes. Its main molecular mechanism involves the activation of adenosine 5'-monophosphate-activated protein kinase (AMPK), which regulates cell energy metabolism. Many clinical studies have shown that metformin can reduce the incidence and mortality of cancer in patients with or without diabetes. In vitro studies also confirmed that metformin can inhibit proliferation, promote apoptosis, and enhance the response of cells to chemical drugs and other anticancer effects on a variety of leukemia cells. In recent years, leukemia has become one of the most common malignant diseases. Although great progress has been made in therapeutic approaches for leukemia, novel drugs and better treatments are still needed to improve the therapeutic efficacy of these treatments. This article reviews the application status and possible mechanism of metformin in the treatment of leukemia to further understand the anticancer mechanism of metformin and expand its clinical application.

Opinion statement: The integration of targeted therapy into the multimodal management of craniopharyngiomas represents a significant advancement in the field of neuro-oncology. Historically, the management of these tumors has been challenging due to their proximity to vital brain structures, necessitating a delicate balance between tumor control and the preservation of neurological function. Traditional treatment modalities, such as surgical resection and radiation, while effective, carry their own set of risks, including potential damage to surrounding healthy tissues and the potential for long-term side effects. Recent insights into the molecular biology of craniopharyngiomas, particularly the discovery of the BRAF V600E mutation in nearly all papillary craniopharyngiomas, have paved the way for a targeted systemic treatment approach. However, advances have been limited for adamantinomatous craniopharyngiomas. The success of BRAF/MEK inhibitors in clinical trials underscores the potential of these targeted therapies not only to control tumor growth but also to reduce the need for more invasive treatments, potentially minimizing treatment-related complications. However, the introduction of these novel therapies also brings forth new challenges, such as determining the optimal timing, sequencing, and duration of targeted treatments. Furthermore, there are open questions regarding which specific BRAF/MEK inhibitors to use, the potential need for combination therapy, and the strategies for managing intolerable adverse events. Finally, ensuring equitable access to these therapies, especially in healthcare systems with limited resources, is crucial to prevent widening healthcare disparities. In conclusion, targeted therapy with BRAF/MEK inhibitors holds great promise for improving outcomes and quality of life for patients with BRAF-mutated craniopharyngiomas. However, additional research is needed to address the questions that remain about its optimal use and integration into comprehensive treatment plans.

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.