“New” metastases are associated with a poorer prognosis than growth of pre-existing metastases in patients with metastatic breast cancer treated with chemotherapy

Introduction: Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) endpoints often only weakly correlate. This analysis investigates how different progression events impact on OS, using data from two phase 3 studies with eribulin in women with advanced/metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Methods: In Study 301, 1102 women with ≤2 prior chemotherapies for advanced/MBC were randomized to eribulin mesylate (1.4 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 every 21 days) or capecitabine (1.25 g/m2 twice daily on days 1-14 every 21 days). Study 305/EMBRACE enrolled 762 patients following two to five prior chemotherapies for advanced/MBC, randomized to eribulin (as above) or treatment of physician's choice. We analyzed OS and PFS post hoc for patients whose disease progressed due to development of "new" metastases, growth of pre-existing lesions, and patients with no reported disease progression. Results: In both clinical studies, development of new metastases was associated with an increased risk of death (p < 0.0001). The time to development of new metastasis or death was significantly longer with eribulin than the comparator in Study 305 (p = 0.0017), but not in Study 301 (p = 0.46). Significantly longer OS was observed in the eribulin compared with the comparator arm for the new metastases subgroup in Study 301 (p = 0.008), but not in Study 305 (p = 0.16), compared with other progression subgroups. Conclusions: Patients with MBC progressing with new metastases have a worse prognosis than those whose disease progresses due to growth of existing lesions or patients with no reported disease progression. These findings have potentially important implications for the interpretation of clinical study data and clinical practice.SCOPUS: ar.jinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

Cancer immunotherapy:From the lab to clinical applications - Potential impact on cancer centres' organisation

This report covers the Immunotherapy sessions of the 2016 Organisation of European Cancer Institutes (OECI) Oncology Days meeting, which was held on 15th–17th June 2016 in Brussels, Belgium. Immunotherapy is a potential cancer treatment that uses an individual’s immune system to fight the tumour. In recent years significant advances have been made in this field in the treatment of several advanced cancers. Cancer immunotherapies include monoclonal antibodies that are designed to attack a very specific part of the cancer cell and immune checkpoint inhibitors which are molecules that stimulate or block the inhibition of the immune system. Other cancer immunotherapies include vaccines and T cell infusions. This report will summarise some of the research that is going on in this field and will give us an update on where we are at present

Study protocol for THINK : a multinational open-label phase I study to assess the safety and clinical activity of multiple administrations of NKR-2 in patients with different metastatic tumour types

Introduction: NKR-2 are autologous T cells genetically modified to express a chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) comprising a fusion of the natural killer group 2D (NKG2D) receptor with the CD3 zeta signalling domain, which associates with the adaptor molecule DNAX-activating protein of 10 kDa (DAP10) to provide co-stimulatory signal upon ligand binding. NKG2D binds eight different ligands expressed on the cell surface of many tumour cells and which are normally absent on non-neoplastic cells. In preclinical studies, NKR-2 demonstrated long-term antitumour activity towards a breadth of tumour indications, with maximum efficacy observed after multiple NKR-2 administrations. Importantly, NKR-2 targeted tumour cells and tumour neovasculature and the local tumour immunosuppressive microenvironment and this mechanism of action of NKR-2 was established in the absence of preconditioning. Methods and analysis: This open-label phase I study will assess the safety and clinical activity of NKR-2 treatment administered three times, with a 2-week interval between each administration in different tumour types. The study will contain two consecutive segments: a dose escalation phase followed by an expansion phase. The dose escalation study involves two arms, one in solid tumours (five specific indications) and one in haematological tumours (two specific indications) and will include three dose levels in each arm: 3x10(8), 1x10(9) and 3x10(9) NKR-2 per injection. On the identification of the recommended dose in the first segment, based on dose-limiting toxicity occurrences, the study will expand to seven different cohorts examining the seven different tumour types separately. Clinical responses will be determined according to standard Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) criteria for solid tumours or international working group response criteria in haematological tumours. Ethics approval and dissemination: Ethical approval has been obtained at all sites. Written informed consent will be taken from all participants. The results of this study will be disseminated through presentation at international scientific conferences and reported in peer-reviewed scientific journals

Health-related quality of life in patients with locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer treated with etirinotecan pegol versus treatment of physician’s choice: Results from the randomised phase III BEACON trial

Background: Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) enhances understanding of treatment effects that impact clinical decision-making. Although the primary end-point was not achieved, the BEACON (BrEAst Cancer Outcomes with NKTR-102) trial established etirinotecan pegol, a long-acting topoisomerase-1 (TOP1) inhibitor, as a promising therapeutic for patients with advanced/metastatic breast cancer (MBC) achieving clinically meaningful benefits in median overall survival (OS) for patients with stable brain metastases, with liver metastases or ≥ 2 sites of metastatic disease compared to treatment of physician’s choice (TPC). Reported herein are the findings from the preplanned secondary end-point of HRQoL. Patients and methods: HRQoL, assessed by European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (QLQ-C30) (version 3.0) supplemented by the breast cancer-specific Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-BR23), was evaluated post randomisation in 733 of 852 patients with either anthracycline-, taxane- and capecitabine-pretreated locally recurrent or MBC randomised to etirinotecan pegol (n = 378; 145 mg/m2 every 3 weeks (q3wk)) or single-agent TPC (n = 355). Patients completed assessments at screening, every 8 weeks (q8wk) during treatment, and end-of-treatment. Changes from baseline were analysed, and the proportions of patients achieving differences (≥5 points) in HRQoL scores were compared. Results: Differences were seen favouring etirinotecan pegol up to 32 weeks for global health status (GHS) and physical functioning scales (P &lt; 0.02); numerical improvement was reported in other functional scales. The findings from HRQoL symptom scales were consistent with adverse event profiles; etirinotecan pegol was associated with worsening gastrointestinal symptoms whereas TPC was associated with worsened dyspnoea and other systemic side-effects. Analysis of GHS and physical functioning at disease progression showed a decline in HRQoL in both treatment arms, with a mean change from baseline of −9.4 and −10.8 points, respectively. Conclusion: There was evidence of benefit associated with etirinotecan pegol compared with current standard of care agents in multiple HRQoL measurements, including global health status and physical functioning, despite worse gastrointestinal symptoms (e.g. diarrhoea). Patients in both arms had a decline in HRQoL at disease progression. Study number: NCT01492101

ESMO Clinical Research Observatory (ECRO): improving the efficiency of clinical research through rationalisation of bureaucracy

During the last years, there has been a dramatic increase in the administrative and bureaucratic burden associated with cli

Oncological care organisation during COVID-19 outbreak

Funding: This work was supported by Fonds de la Recherche Scientifique (grant to CEO) and Fondation Léon Fredericq (grant to GJ and CEO).Background: COVID-19 appeared in late 2019, causing a pandemic spread. This led to a reorganisation of oncology care in order to reduce the risk of spreading infection between patients and healthcare staff. Here we analysed measures taken in major oncological units in Europe and the USA. Methods: A 46-item survey was sent by email to representatives of 30 oncological centres in 12 of the most affected countries. The survey inquired about preventive measures established to reduce virus spread, patient education and processes employed for risk reduction in each oncological unit. Results: Investigators from 21 centres in 10 countries answered the survey between 10 April and 6 May 2020. A triage for patients with cancer before hospital or clinic visits was conducted by 90.5% of centres before consultations, 95.2% before day care admissions and in 100% of the cases before overnight hospitalisation by means of phone calls, interactive online platforms, swab test and/or chest CT scan. Permission for caregivers to attend clinic visits was limited in many centres, with some exceptions (ie, for non-autonomous patients, in the case of a new diagnosis, when bad news was expected and for terminally ill patients). With a variable delay period, the use of personal protective equipment was unanimously mandatory, and in many centres, only targeted clinical and instrumental examinations were performed. Telemedicine was implemented in 76.2% of the centres. Separated pathways for COVID-19-positive and COVID-19-negative patients were organised, with separate inpatient units and day care areas. Self-isolation was required for COVID-19-positive or symptomatic staff, while return to work policies required a negative swab test in 76.2% of the centres. Conclusion: Many pragmatic measures have been quickly implemented to deal with the health emergency linked to COVID-19, although the relative efficacy of each intervention should be further analysed in large observational studies

Neratinib Plus Paclitaxel vs Trastuzumab Plus Paclitaxel in Previously Untreated Metastatic ERBB2-Positive Breast Cancer: The NEfERT-T Randomized Clinical Trial

Abstract Importance Efficacious ERBB2 (formerly HER2 or HER2/neu)-directed treatments, in addition to trastuzumab and lapatinib, are needed. Objective To determine whether neratinib, an irreversible pan-ERBB tyrosine kinase inhibitor, plus paclitaxel improves progression-free survival compared with trastuzumab plus paclitaxel in the first-line treatment of recurrent and/or metastatic ERBB2-positive breast cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants In the randomized, controlled, open-label NEfERT-T trial conducted from ..

The use of chemotherapy regimens carrying a moderate or high risk of febrile neutropenia and the corresponding management of febrile neutropenia: an expert survey in breast cancer and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma

The use of chemotherapy regimens with moderate or high risk of febrile neutropenia (defined as having a FN incidence of 10% or more) and the respective incidence and clinical management of FN in breast cancer and NHL has not been studied in Belgium. The existence of a medical need for G-CSF primary and secondary prophylaxis with these regimens was investigated in a real-life setting.Journal ArticleMulticenter StudyResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov'tSCOPUS: ar.jinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

Sorafenib in advanced melanoma: a Phase II randomised discontinuation trial analysis

The effects of sorafenib – an oral multikinase inhibitor targeting the tumour and tumour vasculature – were evaluated in patients with advanced melanoma enrolled in a large multidisease Phase II randomised discontinuation trial (RDT). Enrolled patients received a 12-week run-in of sorafenib 400 mg twice daily (b.i.d.). Patients with changes in bi-dimensional tumour measurements <25% from baseline were then randomised to sorafenib or placebo for a further 12 weeks (ie to week 24). Patients with ⩾25% tumour shrinkage after the run-in continued on open-label sorafenib, whereas those with ⩾25% tumour growth discontinued treatment. This analysis focussed on secondary RDT end points: changes in bi-dimensional tumour measurements from baseline after 12 weeks and overall tumour responses (WHO criteria) at week 24, progression-free survival (PFS), safety and biomarkers (BRAF, KRAS and NRAS mutational status). Of 37 melanoma patients treated during the run-in phase, 34 were evaluable for response: one had ⩾25% tumour shrinkage and remained on open-label sorafenib; six (16%) had <25% tumour growth and were randomised (placebo, n=3; sorafenib, n=3); and 27 had ⩾25% tumour growth and discontinued. All three randomised sorafenib patients progressed by week 24; one remained on sorafenib for symptomatic relief. All three placebo patients progressed by week-24 and were re-started on sorafenib; one experienced disease re-stabilisation. Overall, the confirmed best responses for each of the 37 melanoma patients who received sorafenib were 19% stable disease (SD) (ie n=1 open-label; n=6 randomised), 62% (n=23) progressive disease (PD) and 19% (n=7) unevaluable. The overall median PFS was 11 weeks. The six randomised patients with SD had overall PFS values ranging from 16 to 34 weeks. The most common drug-related adverse events were dermatological (eg rash/desquamation, 51%; hand-foot skin reaction, 35%). There was no relationship between V600E BRAF status and disease stability. DNA was extracted from the biopsies of 17/22 patients. Six had V600E-positive tumours (n=4 had PD; n=1 had SD; n=1 unevaluable for response), and 11 had tumours containing wild-type BRAF (n=9 PD; n=1 SD; n=1 unevaluable for response). In conclusion, sorafenib is well tolerated but has little or no antitumour activity in advanced melanoma patients as a single agent at the dose evaluated (400 mg b.i.d.). Ongoing trials in advanced melanoma are evaluating sorafenib combination therapies