CDK 4/6 inhibitors as single agent in advanced solid tumors

Cyclin-dependent kinases (CDK) 4/6 inhibitors, namely abemaciclib, palbociclib, and ribociclib, interfere with cell cycle progression, induce cell senescence and might promote cancer cell disruption by a cytotoxic T cells-mediated effect. Phase III randomized clinical trials have proven that CDK4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i) in combination with several endocrine agents improve treatment efficacy over endocrine agents alone for hormone receptor positive (HR+) HER2 negative (HER2-) metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Based on such results, these combinations have been approved for clinical use. Preclinical studies in cell cultures and mouse models proved that CDK4/6i are active against a broad spectrum of solid tumors other than breast cancer, including liposarcoma, rhabdomyosarcoma, non-small cell lung cancer, glioblastoma multiforme, esophageal cancer, and melanoma. The role of CDK4/6i in monotherapy in several solid tumors is currently under evaluation in phase I, II, and III trials. Nowadays, abemaciclib is the only of the three inhibitors that has received approval as single agent therapy for pretreated HR+ HER2- MBC. Here we review biological, preclinical and clinical data on the role of CDK4/6 inhibitors as single agents in advanced solid tumors

Safety and immunogenicity of the COVID-19 vaccine BNT162b2 for patients with breast and gynecological cancer on active anticancer therapy: Results of a prospective observational study

Background: Vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are highly effective. Nevertheless, immunocompromised participants were excluded from randomized controlled clinical trials. This study evaluates the efficacy and safety of the Pfizer/BioNTech BNT162b2 (BNT162b2) vaccine in patients with breast and gynecological cancer treated with active anticancer therapy versus a control cohort of healthy participants. Methods: Immune responses to the BNT162b2 vaccine in patients with breast cancer (n = 44) or a gynecological malignancy (n = 6) on active anticancer therapy (28 on chemotherapy, mostly anthracycline- or taxane-based, and 22 on target therapy) and in a control cohort of participants without cancer (n = 67) were investigated by SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody titers measured by S1-binding immunoglobulin G (IgG) concentrations assessed using the LIAISON XL tools (DiaSorin S.p.A.). Response was assessed after a second dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine administered before and at least 3 weeks after the vaccine dose. Results: Overall, 43/50 (86%) patients of the cancer cohort (74% in the breast cancer group and 100% in the gynecological malignancy group) developed IgG antibodies after the second dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine. There were no statistically significant differences in responder rates between patients treated with chemotherapy and those on target therapy. The majority of patients who received chemotherapy with or without target therapy, 21/28 (75%), developed a reliable antibody titer after a vaccine. All seven non-responder patients were undergoing an anthracycline-based regimen. Based on IgG levels (0-400 AU/ml), patients were classified as negative ('non-responders'), weakly positive, or strongly positive ('responders'). No delay in cancer therapy schedule or reported side effects were recorded after BNT162b2 vaccine administration. All healthy participants were strongly positive. Responder rates differed significantly between the two study cohorts (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Most patients develop antibody titers after the second immunization. However, given the persistence of non-responders or weak responders, additional immunization booster seems to be required, along with proactive planning in the vaccination schedule, with vaccine administration spaced out over time with respect to chemotherapy

Endocrine‐based treatments in clinically‐relevant subgroups of hormone receptor‐positive/HER2‐negative metastatic breast cancer: systematic review and meta‐analysis

A precise assessment of the efficacy of first‐/second‐line endocrine therapies (ET) ± target therapies (TT) in clinically‐relevant subgroups of hormone receptor‐positive (HR+)/HER2‐negative metastatic breast cancer (MBC) has not yet been conducted. To improve our current knowledge and support clinical decision‐making, we thus conducted a systematic literature search to identify all first‐/second‐line phase II/III randomized clinical trials (RCT) of currently approved or most promising ET ± TT. Then, we performed a meta‐analysis to assess progression‐free (PFS) and/or overall survival (OS) benefit in several clinically‐relevant prespecified subgroups. Thirty‐five RCT were included (17,595 patients). Pooled results show significant reductions in the risk of relapse or death of 26–41% and 12–27%, respectively, depending on the clinical subgroup. Combination strategies proved to be more effective than single‐agent ET (PFS hazard ratio (HR) range for combinations: 0.60–0.65 vs. HR range for single agent ET: 0.59–1.37; OS HR range for combinations: 0.74–0.87 vs. HR range for single agent ET: 0.68–0.98), with CDK4/6‐inhibitors(i) + ET being the most effective regimen. Single agent ET showed comparable efficacy with ET+TT combinations in nonvisceral (p = 0.63) and endocrine sensitive disease (p = 0.79), while mTORi‐based combinations proved to be a valid therapeutic option in endocrine‐resistant tumors, as well as PI3Ki + ET in PIK3CA‐mutant tumors. These results strengthen international treatment guidelines and can aid therapeutic decision‐making

Endocrine-Based Treatments in Clinically-Relevant Subgroups of Hormone Receptor-Positive/HER2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

peer reviewedA precise assessment of the efficacy of first-/second-line endocrine therapies (ET) ± target therapies (TT) in clinically-relevant subgroups of hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (MBC) has not yet been conducted. To improve our current knowledge and support clinical decision-making, we thus conducted a systematic literature search to identify all first-/second-line phase II/III randomized clinical trials (RCT) of currently approved or most promising ET ± TT. Then, we performed a meta-analysis to assess progression-free (PFS) and/or overall survival (OS) benefit in several clinically-relevant prespecified subgroups. Thirty-five RCT were included (17,595 patients). Pooled results show significant reductions in the risk of relapse or death of 26-41% and 12-27%, respectively, depending on the clinical subgroup. Combination strategies proved to be more effective than single-agent ET (PFS hazard ratio (HR) range for combinations: 0.60-0.65 vs. HR range for single agent ET: 0.59-1.37; OS HR range for combinations: 0.74-0.87 vs. HR range for single agent ET: 0.68-0.98), with CDK4/6-inhibitors(i) + ET being the most effective regimen. Single agent ET showed comparable efficacy with ET+TT combinations in non-visceral (p = 0.63) and endocrine sensitive disease (p = 0.79), while mTORi-based combinations proved to be a valid therapeutic option in endocrine-resistant tumors, as well as PI3Ki + ET in PIK3CA-mutant tumors. These results strengthen international treatment guidelines and can aid therapeutic decision-making

Three vs. Four Cycles of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Localized Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer Undergoing Radical Cystectomy: A Retrospective Multi-Institutional Analysis

Three or four cycles of cisplatin-based chemotherapy is the standard neoadjuvant treatment prior to cystectomy in patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Although NCCN guidelines recommend 4 cycles of cisplatin-gemcitabine, three cycles are also commonly administered in clinical practice. In this multicenter retrospective study, we assessed a large and homogenous cohort of patients with urothelial bladder cancer (UBC) treated with three or four cycles of neoadjuvant cisplatin-gemcitabine followed by radical cystectomy, in order to explore whether three vs. four cycles were associated with different outcomes

Neutrophil percentage-to-albumin ratio predicts mortality in bladder cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by radical cystectomy

To investigate the prognostic role of neutrophil percentage-to-albumin ratio (NPAR) in muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) and radical cystectomy (RC)

Timing of surgery following SARS‐CoV‐2 infection: an international prospective cohort study

Peri-operative SARS-CoV-2 infection increases postoperative mortality. The aim of this study was to determine the optimal duration of planned delay before surgery in patients who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection. This international, multicentre, prospective cohort study included patients undergoing elective or emergency surgery during October 2020. Surgical patients with pre-operative SARS-CoV-2 infection were compared with those without previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. The primary outcome measure was 30-day postoperative mortality. Logistic regression models were used to calculate adjusted 30-day mortality rates stratified by time from diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection to surgery. Among 140,231 patients (116 countries), 3127 patients (2.2%) had a pre-operative SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis. Adjusted 30-day mortality in patients without SARS-CoV-2 infection was 1.5% (95%CI 1.4–1.5). In patients with a pre-operative SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis, mortality was increased in patients having surgery within 0–2 weeks, 3–4 weeks and 5–6 weeks of the diagnosis (odds ratio (95%CI) 4.1% (3.3–4.8), 3.9% (2.6–5.1) and 3.6% (2.0–5.2), respectively). Surgery performed ≥ 7 weeks after SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis was associated with a similar mortality risk to baseline (odds ratio (95%CI) 1.5% (0.9– 2.1%)). After a ≥ 7 week delay in undertaking surgery following SARS-CoV-2 infection, patients with ongoing symptoms had a higher mortality than patients whose symptoms had resolved or who had been asymptomatic (6.0% (95%CI 3.2–8.7) vs. 2.4% (95%CI 1.4–3.4) vs. 1.3% (95%CI 0.6–2.0%), respectively). Where possible, surgery should be delayed for at least 7 weeks following SARS-CoV-2 infection. Patients with ongoing symptoms ≥ 7 weeks from diagnosis may benefit from further delay

Mortality and pulmonary complications in patients undergoing surgery with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection: an international cohort study

Background: The impact of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) on postoperative recovery needs to be understood to inform clinical decision making during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. This study reports 30-day mortality and pulmonary complication rates in patients with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods: This international, multicentre, cohort study at 235 hospitals in 24 countries included all patients undergoing surgery who had SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed within 7 days before or 30 days after surgery. The primary outcome measure was 30-day postoperative mortality and was assessed in all enrolled patients. The main secondary outcome measure was pulmonary complications, defined as pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, or unexpected postoperative ventilation. Findings: This analysis includes 1128 patients who had surgery between Jan 1 and March 31, 2020, of whom 835 (74·0%) had emergency surgery and 280 (24·8%) had elective surgery. SARS-CoV-2 infection was confirmed preoperatively in 294 (26·1%) patients. 30-day mortality was 23·8% (268 of 1128). Pulmonary complications occurred in 577 (51·2%) of 1128 patients; 30-day mortality in these patients was 38·0% (219 of 577), accounting for 81·7% (219 of 268) of all deaths. In adjusted analyses, 30-day mortality was associated with male sex (odds ratio 1·75 [95% CI 1·28–2·40], p\textless0·0001), age 70 years or older versus younger than 70 years (2·30 [1·65–3·22], p\textless0·0001), American Society of Anesthesiologists grades 3–5 versus grades 1–2 (2·35 [1·57–3·53], p\textless0·0001), malignant versus benign or obstetric diagnosis (1·55 [1·01–2·39], p=0·046), emergency versus elective surgery (1·67 [1·06–2·63], p=0·026), and major versus minor surgery (1·52 [1·01–2·31], p=0·047). Interpretation: Postoperative pulmonary complications occur in half of patients with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection and are associated with high mortality. Thresholds for surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic should be higher than during normal practice, particularly in men aged 70 years and older. Consideration should be given for postponing non-urgent procedures and promoting non-operative treatment to delay or avoid the need for surgery. Funding: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, NIHR Academy, Sarcoma UK, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Abstract Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries