Cancer treatment reviews最新文献

Inequities in preventive cancer screening, diagnosis, treatment, and inferior cancer outcomes continue to pose challenges across the cancer continuum. While the exact reasons for these inferior outcomes are unknown, multiple barriers to various domains of social determinants of health (SDOH) play a vital role, leading to inequities in cancer care. These include barriers to transportation, housing, and food insecurities, contributing to delays in preventive screening and treatment. Furthermore, aggressive biologies also exist across various racial profiles with accompanying germline mutations. For example, African Americans (AAs) have a higher incidence of triple-negative breast cancer subtype and a high prevalence of BRCA1/2 gene mutations, increasing the risk of multiple cancers, warranting high-risk screening for these populations. Unfortunately, other barriers, such as financial insecurities, low health literacy rates, and lack of awareness, lead to delays in cancer screening and genetic testing, even with available high-risk screening and risk reduction procedures. In addition, physicians receive minimal interdisciplinary training to address genetic assessment, interpretation of the results, and almost no additional training in addressing the unique needs of racial minorities, leading to suboptimal delivery of genetic assessment provision resources among AAs. In this review, we discuss the confluence of factors and barriers limiting genetic testing among AAs and highlight the prevalence of germline mutations associated with increased risk of breast cancer among AAs, reflecting the need for multi-panel germline testing as well as education regarding hereditary cancer risks in underserved minorities.

Background

The developmental workflow of the currently performed phase 1, 2 and 3 cancer trial stages lacks essential information required for the determination of the optimal efficacy threshold of new anticancer regimens. Due to this there is a serious risk of overdosing and/or treating for an unnecessary long time, leading to excess toxicity and a higher financial burden for society. But often post-approval de-escalation trials for dose-optimization and treatment de-intensification are not performed due to failing resources and time. Therefore, the developmental workflow needs to be restructured toward cautious systemic cancer treatment escalation, in order to guarantee optimal efficacy and sustainability.

Methods

In this manuscript we discuss opportunities to produce the information needed for cautious escalation, based on models of cancer growth and cancer kill kinetics as well as exploratory biomarkers, for the purpose of designing the optimal phase 3 superiority trial. Subsequently, we compare the sample size needed for a phase 3 superiority trial, followed by a necessary de-escalation trial with the sample size needed for a multi-arm phase 3 trial with intervention arms of differing intensity. All essential items are structured within a Framework for Cautious Escalation (FCE). The discussion uses illustrations from the breast cancer setting, but aims to be applicable for all cancers.

Results

The FCE is a promising model of clinical development in oncology to prevent overtreatment and associated issues, especially with regard to the number of repetitive treatment cycles. It will hopefully increase the relevance and success rate of clinical trials, to deliver improved patient-centric outcomes.

We are witnessing a revolution in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Indeed, several immune-based combinations (ICI [immune checkpoint inhibitor] + ICI, or ICI + antiangiogenic agents) have been approved as first-line therapy for mRCC after demonstrating superior efficacy over the previous standard.

Despite all the improvements made, safety remains a critical issue, adverse events (AEs) being the main reason for drug discontinuations or dose reductions, ultimately resulting in an increased risk of losing efficacy. Thus, a good understanding of the AEs associated with the use of immune-based combinations, their prevention, and management, are key in order to maximize therapeutic effectiveness.

Among these AEs, renal ones are relatively frequent, but always difficult to be diagnosed, not to take into account that it is often difficult to determine which drug is to blame for such toxicities.

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a common finding in patients with RCC, either as a pre-existing condition and/or as a consequence of cancer and its treatment; furthermore, CKD, especially in advanced stages and in patients undergoing dialysis, may influence the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics properties of anticancer agents. Finally, managing cancer therapy in kidney transplanted patients is another challenge.

In this review, we discuss the therapy management of immune-based combinations in patients with CKD, on dialysis, or transplanted, as well as their renal toxicities, with a focus on their prevention, detection and practical management, taking into account the crucial role of the consulting nephrologist within the multidisciplinary care of these patients.

In treating diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), oncologists have traditionally relied on the chemotherapy backbone of R-CHOP as standard of care. The two dangers that the hematologist must navigate between are the aggressive disease (Charybdis that in the absence of therapy systematically destroys all the ships) and the toxicity of the therapies (Scylla with its six monstrous heads that devours six crew members at a time), and hematologists have to navigate very carefully between both. Therefore, three different strategies were employed with the goal of improving cure rates: de-escalating regimens, escalating regimens, and replacement strategies. With a replacement strategy, a breakthrough in treatment was identified with polatuzumab vedotin (anti-CD79B antibody/drug conjugate) plus R-CHP. However, this regimen still did not achieve the elusive universal cure rate. Fortunately, advances in genomic and molecular technologies have allowed for an improved understanding of the heterogenous molecular nature of the disease to help develop and guide more targeted, precise, and individualized therapies. Additionally, new pharmaceutical technologies have led to the development of novel cellular therapies, such as chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, that could be more effective, while maintaining an acceptable safety profile. Thus, we aim to highlight the challenges of DLBCL therapy as well as the need to address therapeutic regimens eventually no longer tethered to a chemotherapy backbone. In the intersection of artificial intelligence and multi-omics (genomics, epigenomics, transcriptomics, proteomics, metabolomics), we propose the need to analyze multidimensional biologic data to launch a decisive attack against DLBCL in a targeted and individualized fashion.

Background

Radiation therapy (RT) is essential in treating advanced lung cancer, but may lead to radiation pneumonitis (RP). This systematic review investigates the use of pulmonary function tests (PFT) and other parameters to predict and mitigate RP, thereby improving RT planning.

Methods

A systematic review sifted through PubMed and on BioMed Central, targeting articles from September 2005 to December 2022 containing the keywords: Lung Cancer, Radiotherapy, and pulmonary function test.

Results

From 1153 articles, 80 were included. RP was assessed using CTCAEv.4 in 30 % of these. Six studies evaluated post-RT quality of life in lung cancer patients, reporting no decline. Patients with RP and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) generally exhibited poorer overall survival. Notably, forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) and diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (DLCO) declined 24 months post-RT, while forced vital capacity (FVC) stayed stable. In the majority of studies, age over 60, tumors located in the lower part of the lung, and low FEV1 before RT were associated with a higher risk of RP. Dosimetric factors (V5, V20, MLD) and metabolic imaging emerged as significant predictors of RP risk. A clinical checklist blending patient and tumor characteristics, PFT results, and dosimetric criteria was proposed for assessing RP risk before RT.

Conclusion

The review reveals the multifactorial nature of RP development following RT in lung cancer. This approach should guide individualized management and calls for a prospective study to validate these findings and enhance RP prevention strategies.

Despite recent molecular and immunological advancements, prognosis of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients remains poor. In this context, several retrospective and phase II studies suggested that after failure of an upfront anti-EGFR based regimen, a subset of patients can still benefit from further anti-EGFR blockade.

Several translational studies involving circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis demonstrated that cancer clones harboring mutations driving anti-EGFR resistance, which can arise under anti-EGFR agents selective pressure, often decay after anti-EGFR discontinuation potentially restoring sensitivity to this therapeutic strategy. Accordingly, several retrospective analyses and a recent prospective trial demonstrated that ctDNA RAS and BRAF wild-type mCRC patients are those benefitting the most from anti-EGFR rechallenge. Indeed, in molecularly selected patients, anti-EGFR rechallenge strategy achieved up to 30 % response rate, with a progression free survival longer than 4 months and an overall survival longer than 1 year, which favorably compared with other standard therapeutic options available for heavily pretreated patients. Anti-EGFR is also well tolerated with no unexpected toxicities compared to the upfront setting. However, several open questions remain to be addressed towards a broader applicability of anti-EGFR strategy in the everyday clinical practice such as the identification of the best rechallenge regimen, the right placement in mCRC therapeutic algorithm, the best ctDNA screening panel.

In our systematic review, we revised available data from clinical trials assessing anti-EGFR rechallenge activity in chemo-refractory mCRC patients, discussing as well potential future scenarios and development to implement this therapeutic approach. Particularly, we discussed the role of ctDNA as a safe, timely and comprehensive tool to refine patient’s selection and the therapeutic index of anti-EGFR rechallenge.

Desmoid tumors (DT) are rare, slow-growing, locally invasive soft tissue tumors that often pose significant therapeutic challenges. Traditional management strategies including active surveillance, surgery, radiotherapy, and systemic therapy which are associated with varying recurrence rates and high morbidity. Given the challenging nature of DT and the modest outcomes associated with current treatment strategies, there has been a growing interest in the field of γ-secretase inhibitors as a result of its action on the Wnt/β-catenin signaling pathway. In this review article, we will shed the light on the pathogenesis and molecular biology of DT, discuss its symptoms and diagnosis, and provide a comprehensive review of the traditional therapeutic approaches. We will also delve into the mechanisms of action of γ-secretase inhibitors, its efficacy, and the existing preclinical and clinical data available to date on the use of these agents, as well as the potential challenges and future prospects in the treatment landscape of these tumors.

The Cancer Drug Development Forum (CDDF)’s ‘Histology independent drug development – is this the future for cancer drugs?’ workshop was set up to explore the current landscape of histology independent drug development, review the current regulatory landscape and propose recommendations for improving the conduct of future trials.

The first session considered lessons learnt from previous trials, including innovative solutions for reimbursement. The session explored why overall survival represents the most valuable endpoint, and the importance of duration of response, which can be captured with swimmer and spider plots.

The second session on biomarker development and treatment optimisation considered current regulations for companion diagnostics, FDA guidance on histology independent drug development in oncology, and the need to establish cut-offs for the biomarker of tumour mutational burden to identify the patients most likely to benefit from PDL1 treatment.

The third session reviewed novel trial designs, including basket, umbrella and platform trials, and statistical approaches of hierarchical modelling where homogeneity between study cohorts enables information to be borrowed between cohorts. The discussion highlighted the need to agree ‘common assessment standards’ to facilitate pooling of data across studies.

In the fourth session, the sharing of data sets was recognised as a key step for improving equity of access to precision medicines across Europe. The session considered how the European Health Data Space (EHDS) could streamline access to medical records, emphasizing the importance of introducing greater accountability into the digital space.

In conclusion the workshop proposed 11 recommendations to facilitate histology agnostic drug development.

Surgery with or without adjuvant chemotherapy is the standard treatment for early-stage colon cancer. However, evidence has recently emerged for neoadjuvant chemotherapy, with the results of randomised clinical trials sparking debates within multidisciplinary teams and splitting the gastrointestinal oncology community. Further to a systematic search of the literature, we provide a thorough and in-depth analysis of the findings from these trials, highlighting the advantages and disadvantages of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. We conclude that, while there is a potential value of moving systemic therapy from the post-operative to the pre-operative setting, the available evidence does not justify a shift in the treatment paradigm of early-stage colon cancer, and surgery with or without adjuvant chemotherapy should remain the standard approach for these patients.