Safety of titanium dioxide nanoparticles in cosmetics

Titanium dioxide (TiO2) is widely used in a variety of products including cosmetics. TiO2 in its nanoparticle form (nano-TiO2) is now the only form used as an ultraviolet (UV) filter in sunscreens, but also in some day creams, foundations and lip balms. While its efficacy as a UV filter is proven in the prevention of skin cancers and sunburns, some concerns have been raised about its safety. Indeed, considering its small size, nano-TiO2 is suspected to penetrate dermal, respiratory or gastrointestinal barriers, disseminate in the body and therefore constitute a potential risk to the consumer. At the skin level, most studies performed in humans or animals showed that nano-TiO2 did not penetrate beyond the outer layers of stratum corneum to viable cells and did not reach the general circulation, either in healthy or in compromised skin. The Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) considers nano-TiO2 as a non-sensitizer and as mild- or non-irritant to skin and concludes in no evidence of carcinogenicity (supported by the European Chemicals Agency), mutagenicity or reproductive toxicity after dermal exposure to nano-TiO2. According to the SCCS, nano-TiO2 from sunscreens does not present any health risk when applied on the skin at a concentration up to 25%. However, the SCCS does not recommend the use of nano-TiO2 in formulations that may lead to exposure of the consumer's lungs by inhalation (sprayable products and powders). Indeed, even if human data are sparse and inconsistent, lung inflammation was reported in animals. In 2016, the EU Cosmetic Regulation made nano-TiO2 as an authorized UV filter, except in products that could lead to exposure of the lungs. After oral exposure, nano-TiO2 absorption and toxicity are limited. The incidental oral exposure to nano-TiO2 contained in lip balms is thus not expected to induce adverse health effects

Safety review of phenoxyethanol when used as a preservative in cosmetics

Phenoxyethanol, or 2-phenoxyethanol, has a large spectrum of antimicrobial activity and has been widely used as a preservative in cosmetic products for decades. It is effective against various Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria, as well as against yeasts, and has only a weak inhibitory effect on resident skin flora. According to the European Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety, phenoxyethanol is safe for all consumers \u2013 including children of all ages \u2013 when used as a preservative in cosmetic products at a maximum concentration of 1%. Adverse systemic effects have been observed in toxicological studies on animals but only when the levels of exposure were many magnitudes higher (around 200-fold higher) than those to which consumers are exposed when using phenoxyethanol-containing cosmetic products. Despite its widespread use in cosmetic products, phenoxyethanol is a rare sensitizer. It can be considered as one of the most well-tolerated preservatives used in cosmetic products

Prospective assessment of a gene signature potentially predictive of clinical benefit in metastatic melanoma patients following MAGE-A3 immunotherapeutic (PREDICT)

Background: Genomic profiling of tumor tissue may aid in identifying predictive or prognostic gene signatures (GS) in some cancers. Retrospective gene expression profiling of melanoma and non-small-cell lung cancer led to the characterization of a GS associated with clinical benefit, including improved overall survival (OS), following immunization with the MAGE-A3 immunotherapeutic. The goal of the present study was to prospectively evaluate the predictive value of the previously characterized GS. Patients and methods: An open-label prospective phase II trial ('PREDICT') in patients with MAGE-A3-positive unresectable stage IIIB-C/IV-M1a melanoma. Results: Of 123 subjects who received the MAGE-A3 immunotherapeutic, 71 (58.7%) displayed the predictive GS (GS +). The 1-year OS rate was 83.1%/83.3% in the GS+/GS- populations. The rate of progression-free survival at 12 months was 5.8%/4.1% in GS+/GS- patients. The median time-to-treatment failure was 2.7/2.4 months (GS+/GS-). There was one complete response (GS-) and two partial responses (GS+). The MAGE-A3 immunotherapeutic was similarly immunogenic in both populations and had a clinically acceptable safety profile. Conclusion: Treatment of patients with MAGE-A3-positive unresectable stage IIIB-C/IV-M1a melanoma with the MAGE-A3 immunotherapeutic demonstrated an overall 1-year OS rate of 83.5%. GS- and GS+ patients had similar 1-year OS rates, indicating that in this study, GS was not predictive of outcome. Unexpectedly, the objective response rate was lower in this study than in other studies carried out in the same setting with the MAGE-A3 immunotherapeutic. Investigation of a GS to predict clinical benefit to adjuvant MAGE-A3 immunotherapeutic treatment is ongoing in another melanoma study. This study is registered at www.clinicatrials.gov NCT00942162

Health-related quality of life impact of cobimetinib in combination with vemurafenib in patients with advanced or metastatic BRAFV600 mutation-positive melanoma

Background: In the coBRIM study, cobimetinib plus vemurafenib (C+V) significantly improved survival outcomes vs placebo and vemurafenib (P+V) in patients with advanced/metastatic BRAF(V600)-mutated melanoma. An analysis of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) from coBRIM is reported.Methods: Patients completing the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30) at baseline and >= 1 time point thereafter constituted the analysis population. Change from baseline >= 10 points was considered clinically meaningful.Results: Mean baseline scores for all QLQ-C30 domains were similar between arms. Most on-treatment scores for QLQ-C30 domains were also comparable between arms. A transient deterioration in role function in cycle 1 day 15 (C1D15; -14.7 points) in the P+V arm and improvement in insomnia in the C+V arm at C2D15 (-12.4 points) was observed. Among patients who experienced a >= 10-point change from baseline (responders), between-group differences were greatest for insomnia (16%), social functioning (10%), fatigue (9%) and pain (7%), all favouring C+V. Diarrhoea, photosensitivity reaction, pyrexia, and rash did not meaningfully affect global health status (GHS). Serous retinopathy was associated with a transient decrease in GHS at C1D15 assessment.Conclusions: In patients with advanced/metastatic BRAFV600-mutated melanoma, treatment with C+V maintained HRQOL compared with P+V, with superior efficacy

Phenotypic and functional analysis of lymphocytes infiltrating osteolytic tumors: use as a possible therapeutic approach of osteosarcoma

BACKGROUND: Osteosarcoma is the most common type of primary bone tumor. The use of aggressive chemotherapy has drastically improved the prognosis of the patients with non-metastatic osteosarcomas, however the prognosis of the patients with metastasis is still very poor. Then, new and more effective treatments for curing osteosarcoma, such as immunotherapy are needed. Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL) have been involved in the control of tumor development and already assessed with success for the treatment of several cancers including melanoma. While TIL represent a fascinating therapeutic approach in numerous malignant pathologies, there is few report concerning adult bone-associated tumors including osteosarcoma. METHODS: Human TIL were isolated and characterized (phenotype, lytic activity) from twenty-seven patients with bone-associated tumors (osteosarcoma, Ewing's sarcoma, giant cell tumor, chondrosarcoma, plasmocytoma and bone metastases). Similar experiments were performed using rat osteosarcoma model. RESULTS: While TIL with a main CD4(+ )profile were easily isolated from most of the tumor samples, only TIL extracted from osteosarcoma were cytotoxic against allogeneic tumor cells. In all cases, TIL lytic activity was significantly higher compared to autologous peripheral blood leukocytes. Similar data were observed in rat osteosarcoma model where TIL were characterized by a main CD4(+ )profile and high lytic activity against allogeneic and autologous tumor cells. Moreover, rat TIL expansion was not accompanied by refractoriness to further activation stimulus mainly by tumor antigens. CONCLUSION: These results demonstrated that TIL therapy could be a very efficient strategy for the treatment of adult osteosarcoma

Guidelines on the use of extracorporeal photopheresis

Peer reviewe

Pimasertib Versus Dacarbazine in Patients With UnresectableNRAS-Mutated Cutaneous Melanoma: Phase II, Randomized, Controlled Trial with Crossover

This study investigated the efficacy and safety of pimasertib (MEK1/MEK2 inhibitor) versus dacarbazine (DTIC) in patients with untreated NRAS-mutated melanoma. Phase II, multicenter, open-label trial. Patients with unresectable, stage IIIc/IVM1 NRAS-mutated cutaneous melanoma were randomized 2:1 to pimasertib (60 mg; oral twice-daily) or DTIC (1000 mg/m2 ; intravenously) on Day 1 of each 21-day cycle. Patients progressing on DTIC could crossover to pimasertib. Primary endpoint: investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS); secondary endpoints: overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), quality of life (QoL), and safety. Overall, 194 patients were randomized (pimasertib n = 130, DTIC n = 64), and 191 received treatment (pimasertib n = 130, DTIC n = 61). PFS was significantly improved with pimasertib versus DTIC (median 13 versus 7 weeks, respectively; hazard ratio (HR) 0.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.42–0.83; p = 0.0022). ORR was improved with pimasertib (odds ratio 2.24, 95% CI 1.00–4.98; p = 0.0453). OS was similar between treatments (median 9 versus 11 months, respectively; HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.61–1.30); 64% of patients receiving DTIC crossed over to pimasertib. Serious adverse events (AEs) were more frequent for pimasertib (57%) than DTIC (20%). The most common treatment-emergent AEs were diarrhea (82%) and blood creatine phosphokinase (CPK) increase (68%) for pimasertib, and nausea (41%) and fatigue (38%) for DTIC. Most frequent grade ≥3 AEs were CPK increase (34%) for pimasertib and neutropenia (15%) for DTIC. Mean QoL scores (baseline and last assessment) were similar between treatments. Pimasertib has activity in NRAS-mutated cutaneous melanoma and a safety profile consistent with known toxicities of MEK inhibitors. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01693068