Draft Genome Sequences of Salinivibrio proteolyticus, Salinivibrio sharmensis, Salinivibrio siamensis, Salinivibrio costicola subsp. alcaliphilus, Salinivibrio costicola subsp. vallismortis, and 29 New Isolates Belonging to the Genus Salinivibrio

The draft genome sequences of 5 type strains of species of the halophilic genus Salinivibrio and 29 new isolates from different hypersaline habitats belonging to the genus Salinivibrio have been determined. The genomes have 3,123,148 to 3,641,359 bp, a G+C content of 49.2 to 50.9%, and 2,898 to 3,404 open reading frames (ORFs).España, Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación CGL2013-46941-

First-Line Trastuzumab Plus an Aromatase Inhibitor, With or Without Pertuzumab, in Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Positive and Hormone Receptor-Positive Metastatic or Locally Advanced Breast Cancer (PERTAIN): A Randomized, Open-Label Phase II Trial

To assess pertuzumab plus trastuzumab and an aromatase inhibitor (AI) in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive and hormone receptor-positive metastatic/locally advanced breast cancer (MBC/LABC)

Electronic health records and patient registries in medical oncology departments in Spain

We aimed to evaluate the current situation of electronic health records (EHRs) and patient registries in the oncology departments of hospitals in Spain. This was a cross-sectional study conducted from December 2018 to September 2019. The survey was designed ad hoc by the Outcomes Evaluation and Clinical Practice Section of the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM) and was distributed to all head of medical oncology department members of SEOM. We invited 148 heads of oncology departments, and 81 (54.7%) questionnaires were completed, with representation from all 17 Spanish autonomous communities. Seventy-seven (95%) of the respondents had EHRs implemented at their hospitals; of them, over 80% considered EHRs to have a positive impact on work organization and clinical practice, and 73% considered that EHRs improve the quality of patient care. In contrast, 27 (35.1%) of these respondents felt that EHRs worsened the physician-patient relationship and conveyed an additional workload (n = 29; 37.6%). Several drawbacks in the implementation of EHRs were identified, including the limited inclusion of information on both outpatients and inpatients, information recorded in free text data fields, and the availability of specific informed consent. Forty-six (56.7%) respondents had patient registries where they recorded information from all patients seen in the department. Our study indicates that EHRs are almost universally implemented in the hospitals surveyed and are considered to have a positive impact on work organization and clinical practice. However, EHRs currently have several drawbacks that limit their use for investigational purposes. Not applicable The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12094-021-02614-9

Predicting serious complications in patients with cancer and pulmonary embolism using decision tree modelling: the EPIPHANY Index

Background: Our objective was to develop a prognostic stratification tool that enables patients with cancer and pulmonary embolism (PE), whether incidental or symptomatic, to be classified according to the risk of serious complications within 15 days. Methods: The sample comprised cases from a national registry of pulmonary thromboembolism in patients with cancer (1075 patients from 14 Spanish centres). Diagnosis was incidental in 53.5% of the events in this registry. The Exhaustive CHAID analysis was applied with 10-fold crossvalidation to predict development of serious complications following PE diagnosis. Results: About 208 patients (19.3%, 95% confidence interval (CI), 17.1-21.8%) developed a serious complication after PE diagnosis. The 15-day mortality rate was 10.1%, (95% CI, 8.4-12.1%). The decision tree detected six explanatory covariates: Hestia-like clinical decision rule (any risk criterion present vs none), Eastern Cooperative Group performance scale (ECOG-PS; = 2), O-2 saturation (= 90%), presence of PE-specific symptoms, tumour response (progression, unknown, or not evaluated vs others), and primary tumour resection. Three risk classes were created (low, intermediate, and high risk). The risk of serious complications within 15 days increases according to the group: 1.6, 9.4, 30.6%; P<0.0001. Fifteen-day mortality rates also rise progressively in low-, intermediate-, and high-risk patients: 0.3, 6.1, and 17.1%; P<0.0001. The cross-validated risk estimate is 0.191 (s.e. = 0.012). The optimism-corrected area under the receiver operating characteristic curve is 0.779 (95% CI, 0.717-0.840). Conclusions: We have developed and internally validated a prognostic index to predict serious complications with the potential to impact decision-making in patients with cancer and PE

A Phase I/II Clinical Trial to evaluate the efficacy of baricitinib to prevent respiratory insufficiency progression in onco-hematological patients affected with COVID19: a structured summary of a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Objectives: Baricitinib is supposed to have a double effect on SARS-CoV2 infection. Firstly, it reduces the inflammatory response through the inhibition of the Januse-Kinase signalling transducer and activator of transcription (JAK-STAT) pathway. Moreover, it reduces the receptor mediated viral endocytosis by AP2-associated protein kinase 1 (AAK1) inhibition. We propose the use of baricinitib to prevent the progression of the respiratory insufficiency in SARS-CoV2 pneumonia in onco-haematological patients. In this phase Ib/II study, the primary objective in the safety cohort is to describe the incidence of severe adverse events associated with baricitinib administration. The primary objective of the randomized phase (baricitinib cohort versus standard of care cohort) is to evaluate the number of patients who did not require mechanical oxygen support since start of therapy until day +14 or discharge (whichever it comes first). The secondary objectives of the study (only randomized phase of the study) are represented by the comparison between the two arms of the study in terms of mortality and toxicity at day+30. Moreover, a description of the immunological related changes between the two arms of the study will be reported. Trial design: The trial is a phase I/II study with a safety run-in cohort (phase 1) followed by an open label phase II randomized controlled trial with an experimental arm compared to a standard of care arm

A retrospective, multicenter study of the efficacy of lapatinib plus trastuzumab in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer patients previously treated with trastuzumab, lapatinib, or both: the Trastyvere study

[Purpose]: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of lapatinib (L) and trastuzumab (T) combination in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients previously treated with T and/or L.[Materials and methods]: We conducted a retrospective, post-authorized, multicenter study including patients with HER2-positive MBC or locally advanced breast cancer (ABC) treated with the combination of L–T. Concomitant endocrine therapy, as well as brain metastasis and/or prior exposure to L, were allowed.[Results]: One hundred and fifteen patients from 14 institutions were included. The median age was 59.8 years. The median number of prior T regimens in the advanced setting was 3 and 73 patients had received a prior L regimen. The clinical benefit rate (CBR) was 34.8% (95% CI 26.1–43.5). Among other efficacy endpoints, the overall response rate was 21.7%, and median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival were 3.9 and 21.6 months, respectively. Heavily pretreated and ≥ 3 metastatic organ patients showed lower CBR and PFS than patients with a low number of previous regimens and < 3 metastatic organs. Moreover, CBR did not significantly change in L-pretreated compared with L-naïve patients (31.5% versus 40.5% for L-pretreated versus L-naïve). Grade 3/4 adverse events were reported in 19 patients (16.5%).[Conclusion]: The combination of L–T is an effective and well-tolerated regimen in heavily pretreated patients and remains active among patients progressing on prior L-based therapy. Our study suggests that the L–T regimen is a safe and active chemotherapy-free option for MBC patients previously treated with T and/or L.This work was supported by GlaxoSmithKline plc (GSK) through a contract with Medica Scientia Innovation Research (MedSIR), an academic research organization focused on independent clinical research development

Palbociclib in combination with endocrine therapy versus capecitabine in hormonal receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor 2-negative, aromatase inhibitor-resistant metastatic breast cancer: a phase III randomised controlled trial—PEARL

Background: Palbociclib plus endocrine therapy (ET) is the standard treatment of hormone receptor-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, metastatic breast cancer (MBC). However, its efficacy has not been compared with that of chemotherapy in a phase III trial. Patients and methods: PEARL is a multicentre, phase III randomised study in which patients with aromatase inhibitor (AI)-resistant MBC were included in two consecutive cohorts. In cohort 1, patients were randomised 1 : 1 to palbociclib plus exemestane or capecitabine. On discovering new evidence about estrogen receptor-1 (ESR1) mutations inducing resistance to AIs, the trial was amended to include cohort 2, in which patients were randomised 1 : 1 between palbociclib plus fulvestrant and capecitabine. The stratification criteria were disease site, prior sensitivity to ET, prior chemotherapy for MBC, and country of origin. Co-primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) in cohort 2 and in wild-type ESR1 patients (cohort 1 + cohort 2). ESR1 hotspot mutations were analysed in baseline circulating tumour DNA. Results: From March 2014 to July 2018, 296 and 305 patients were included in cohort 1 and cohort 2, respectively. Palbociclib plus ET was not superior to capecitabine in both cohort 2 [median PFS: 7.5 versus 10.0 months; adjusted hazard ratio (aHR): 1.13; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.85-1.50] and wild-type ESR1 patients (median PFS: 8.0 versus 10.6 months; aHR: 1.11; 95% CI: 0.87-1.41). The most frequent grade 3-4 toxicities with palbociclib plus exemestane, palbociclib plus fulvestrant and capecitabine, respectively, were neutropenia (57.4%, 55.7% and 5.5%), hand/foot syndrome (0%, 0% and 23.5%), and diarrhoea (1.3%, 1.3% and 7.6%). Palbociclib plus ET offered better quality of life (aHR for time to deterioration of global health status: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.53-0.85). Conclusions: There was no statistical superiority of palbociclib plus ET over capecitabine with respect to PFS in MBC patients resistant to AIs. Palbociclib plus ET showed a better safety profile and improved quality of life

Health-related quality of life with palbociclib plus endocrine therapy versus capecitabine in postmenopausal patients with hormone receptor–positive metastatic breast cancer: Patient-reported outcomes in the PEARL study

Background: The PEARL study showed that palbociclib plus endocrine therapy (palbociclib/ET) was not superior to capecitabine in improving progression-free survival in postmenopausal patients with metastatic breast cancer resistant to aromatase inhibitors, but was better tolerated. This analysis compared patient-reported outcomes. Patients and methods: The PEARL quality of life (QoL) population comprised 537 patients, 268 randomised to palbociclib/ET (exemestane or fulvestrant) and 269 to capecitabine. Patients completed the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BR23 and EQ-5D-3L questionnaires. Changes from the baseline and time to deterioration (TTD) were analysed using linear mixed-effect and stratified Cox regression models, respectively. Results: Questionnaire completion rate was high and similar between treatment arms. Significant differences were observed in the mean change in global health status (GHS)/QoL scores from the baseline to cycle 3 (2.9 for palbociclib/ET vs. -2.1 for capecitabine (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4–8.6; P = 0.007). The median TTD in GHS/QoL was 8.3 months for palbociclib/ET versus 5.3 months for capecitabine (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.55–0.89; P = 0.003). Similar improvements for palbociclib/ET were also seen for other scales as physical, role, cognitive, social functioning, fatigue, nausea/vomiting and appetite loss. No differences were observed between the treatment arms in change from the baseline in any item of the EQ-5D-L3 questionnaire as per the overall index score and visual analogue scale. Conclusion: Patients receiving palbociclib/ET experienced a significant delay in deterioration of GHS/QoL and several functional and symptom scales compared with capecitabine, providing additional evidence that palbociclib/ET is better tolerated. Trial registration number: NCT02028507 (ClinTrials.gov). EudraCT study number: 2013-003170-27. © 2021 The Author(s

Evaluating the addition of bevacizumab to endocrine therapy as first-line treatment for hormone receptor–positive metastatic breast cancer: a pooled analysis from the LEA (GEICAM/2006-11_GBG51) and CALGB 40503 (Alliance) trials

Background: Randomised trials comparing the efficacy of standard endocrine therapy (ET) versus experimental ET + bevacizumab (Bev) in 1st line hormone receptor–positive patients with metastatic breast cancer have thus far shown conflicting results. Patients and methods: We pooled data from two similar phase III randomised trials of ET ± Bev (LEA and Cancer and Leukemia Group B 40503) to increase precision in estimating treatment effect. Primary end-point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end-points were overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), clinical benefit rate (CBR) and safety. Exploratory analyses were performed within subgroups defined by patients with recurrent disease, de novo disease, prior endocrine sensitivity or resistance and reported grades III–IV hypertension and proteinuria. Results: The pooled sample consisted of 749 patients randomised to ET or ET + Bev. Median PFS was 14.3 months for ET versus 19 months for ET + Bev (unadjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.66–0.91; p < 0.01). ORR and CBR with ET and ET + Bev were 40 versus 61% (p < 0.01) and 64 versus 77% (p < 0.01), respectively. There was no difference in OS (HR 0.96; 95% CI 0.77–1.18; p = 0.68). PFS was superior for ET + Bev for endocrine-sensitive patients (HR 0.68; 95% CI 0.53–0.89; p = 0.004). Grade III–IV hypertension (2.2 versus 20.1%), proteinuria (0 versus 9.3%), cardiovascular (0.5 versus 4.2%) and liver events (0 versus 2.9%) were significantly higher for ET + Bev (all p < 0.01). Hypertension and proteinuria were not predictors of efficacy (interaction test p = 0.33). Conclusion: The addition of Bev to ET increased PFS overall and in endocrine-sensitive patients but not OS at the expense of significant additional toxicity. Trials registration: ClinicalTrial.Gov NCT00545077 and NCT00601900