57 research outputs found

    Mocetinostat for patients with previously treated, locally advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma and inactivating alterations of acetyltransferase genes

    Full text link
    BackgroundThe authors evaluated mocetinostat (a class I/IV histone deacetylase inhibitor) in patients with urothelial carcinoma harboring inactivating mutations or deletions in CREB binding protein [CREBBP] and/or E1A binding protein p300 [EP300] histone acetyltransferase genes in a singleâ arm, openâ label phase 2 study.MethodsEligible patients with platinumâ treated, advanced/metastatic disease received oral mocetinostat (at a dose of 70 mg 3 times per week [TIW] escalating to 90 mg TIW) in 28â day cycles in a 3â stage study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02236195). The primary endpoint was the objective response rate.ResultsGenomic testing was feasible in 155 of 175 patients (89%). Qualifying tumor mutations were CREBBP (15%), EP300 (8%), and both CREBBP and EP300 (1%). A total of 17 patients were enrolled into stage 1 (the intentâ toâ treat population); no patients were enrolled in subsequent stages. One partial response was observed (11% [1 of 9 patients; the population that was evaluable for efficacy comprised 9 of the 15 planned patients]); activity was deemed insufficient to progress to stage 2 (null hypothesis: objective response rate of â ¤15%). All patients experienced â ¥1 adverse event, most commonly nausea (13 of 17 patients; 77%) and fatigue (12 of 17 patients; 71%). The median duration of treatment was 46 days; treatment interruptions (14 of 17 patients; 82%) and dose reductions (5 of 17 patients; 29%) were common. Mocetinostat exposure was lower than anticipated (doseâ normalized maximum serum concentration [Cmax] after TIW dosing of 0.2 ng/mL/mg).ConclusionsTo the authorsâ knowledge, the current study represents the first clinical trial using genomicâ based selection to identify patients with urothelial cancer who are likely to benefit from selective histone deacetylase inhibition. Mocetinostat was associated with significant toxicities that impacted drug exposure and may have contributed to modest clinical activity in these pretreated patients. The efficacy observed was considered insufficient to warrant further investigation of mocetinostat as a single agent in this setting.After the genomicâ based selection of patients with urothelial cancer with inactivating mutations/deletions in the histone acetyltransferase genes CREBBP and/or EP300, singleâ agent mocetinostat appears to be associated with significant toxicities that limit drug exposure. This may have contributed to the limited activity noted in the current phase 2 study (response rate of 11%) among heavily pretreated patients with platinumâ refractory disease.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/147860/1/cncr31817_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/147860/2/cncr31817.pd

    Malignant neuroendocrine tumour of the appendix in childhood with loco-regional lymph node invasion

    Get PDF
    The virtual slide(s) for this article can be found here: http://www.diagnosticpathology.diagnomx.eu/vs/1006600359152743 ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13000-015-0287-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users

    Psychosocial impact of undergoing prostate cancer screening for men with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations.

    Get PDF
    OBJECTIVES: To report the baseline results of a longitudinal psychosocial study that forms part of the IMPACT study, a multi-national investigation of targeted prostate cancer (PCa) screening among men with a known pathogenic germline mutation in the BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes. PARTICPANTS AND METHODS: Men enrolled in the IMPACT study were invited to complete a questionnaire at collaborating sites prior to each annual screening visit. The questionnaire included sociodemographic characteristics and the following measures: the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), Impact of Event Scale (IES), 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36), Memorial Anxiety Scale for Prostate Cancer, Cancer Worry Scale-Revised, risk perception and knowledge. The results of the baseline questionnaire are presented. RESULTS: A total of 432 men completed questionnaires: 98 and 160 had mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, respectively, and 174 were controls (familial mutation negative). Participants' perception of PCa risk was influenced by genetic status. Knowledge levels were high and unrelated to genetic status. Mean scores for the HADS and SF-36 were within reported general population norms and mean IES scores were within normal range. IES mean intrusion and avoidance scores were significantly higher in BRCA1/BRCA2 carriers than in controls and were higher in men with increased PCa risk perception. At the multivariate level, risk perception contributed more significantly to variance in IES scores than genetic status. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to report the psychosocial profile of men with BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations undergoing PCa screening. No clinically concerning levels of general or cancer-specific distress or poor quality of life were detected in the cohort as a whole. A small subset of participants reported higher levels of distress, suggesting the need for healthcare professionals offering PCa screening to identify these risk factors and offer additional information and support to men seeking PCa screening

    International Survey on Frailty Assessment in Patients with Cancer.

    No full text
    BACKGROUND: Frailty negatively affects the outcomes of patients with cancer, and its assessment might vary widely in the real world. The objective of this study was to explore awareness and use of frailty screening tools among the ONCOassist healthcare professionals (HCPs) users. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We sent 2 emails with a cross-sectional 15-item survey in a 3-week interval between April and May 2021. Differences in the awareness and use of tools according to respondents' continents, country income, and job types were investigated. RESULTS: Seven hundred thirty-seven HCPs from 91 countries (81% physicians, 13% nurses, and 5% other HCPs) completed the survey. Three hundred and eighty-five (52%) reported assessing all or the majority of their patients; 518 (70%) at baseline and before starting a new treatment. Three hundred and four (43%) HCPs were aware of performance status (PS) scores only, 309 (42%) age/frailty/comorbidity (AFC) screening, and 102 (14%) chemotoxicity predictive tools. Five hundred and thirty-seven (73%) reported using tools; 423 (57%) just PS, 237 (32%) AFC, and 60 (8%) chemotoxicity ones. Reasons for tools non-use (485 responders) were awareness (70%), time constraints (28%), and uselessness (2%). There were significant differences in awareness and use of screening tools among different continents, country income, job types, and medical specialties (P < .001 for all comparisons). CONCLUSION: Among selected oncology HCPs, there is still a worldwide lack of knowledge and usage of frailty screening tools, which may differ according to their geography, country income, and education. Targeted initiatives to raise awareness and education are needed to implement frailty assessment in managing patients with cancer
    • …
    corecore