Off-Label Prescription of Genetically Modified Organism Medicines in Europe:Emerging Conflicts of Interest?

Recently, the first human medicine containing a genetically modified organism (GMO medicine) was authorized for use in the European market. Just as any medicinal product, the market authorization for a GMO medicine contains a precise description of the therapeutic use for which the medicinal product is intended. Within this use, the application of the GMO medicine is permitted, without the need for the institution to obtain a specific permit. In practice, however, medicinal products are also frequently prescribed for treatment outside the registered therapeutic use, a practice that is referred to as "off-label use." While off-label use of conventional medicines is permitted and has been very useful, the off-label use of GMO medicines is not covered in the European Union (EU) legislation or guidelines and falls under each member state's national environmental legislation. This implies that in the Netherlands and most other EU member states, an environmental permit will be required for any institution that uses the GMO medicine outside the registered application(s). In the Netherlands, this permit is identical to the permits required for the execution of clinical trials involving nonregistered GMOs. The application procedure for such permit is time-consuming. This process can therefore limit the therapeutic options for medical professionals. As a consequence, desired treatment regimens could be withheld for certain patient (groups). To make future off-label use of GMO medicines permissible in a way that is acceptable for all stakeholders, regulators should adopt a proactive attitude and formulate transparent legislative procedures for this. Only then the field can maintain the public acceptance of GMO medicines, while maintaining the freedom to operate of medical professionals

Application of PET Tracers in Molecular Imaging for Breast Cancer

Purpose of Review: Molecular imaging with positron emission tomography (PET) is a powerful tool to visualize breast cancer characteristics. Nonetheless, implementation of PET imaging into cancer care is challenging, and essential steps have been outlined in the international “imaging biomarker roadmap.” In this review, we identify hurdles and provide recommendations for implementation of PET biomarkers in breast cancer care, focusing on the PET tracers 2-[18F]-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose ([18F]-FDG), sodium [18F]-fluoride ([18F]-NaF), 16α-[18F]-fluoroestradiol ([18F]-FES), and [89Zr]-trastuzumab. Recent Findings: Technical validity of [18F]-FDG, [18F]-NaF, and [18F]-FES is established and supported by international guidelines. However, support for clinical validity and utility is still pending for these PET tracers in breast cancer, due to variable endpoints and procedures in clinical studies. Summary: Assessment of clinical validity and utility is essential towards implementation; however, these steps are still lacking for PET biomarkers in breast cancer. This could be solved by adding PET biomarkers to randomized trials, development of imaging data warehouses, and harmonization of endpoints and procedures

Detection of Dural Metastases Before the Onset of Clinical Symptoms by 16 alpha-[F-18]Fluoro-17 beta-Estradiol PET in a Patient With Estrogen Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer

We offer an illustrative case about estrogen receptor (ER) imaging (also known as 16 alpha-[F-18]fluoro-17 beta-estradiol ([F-18]-FES) PET) and the detection of metastatic lesions in the dural region. We present a case of a woman with ER-positive metastatic breast cancer and high [F-18]-FES uptake in the dural region on PET imaging, without associated clinical symptoms. These lesions were missed on [F-18]-FDG PET because of physiological [F-18]-FDG uptake in the brain. This case highlighted some difficulties in the interpretation of imaging of brain metastases and demonstrated the added value of [F-18]-FES PET imaging. [F-18]-FES PET could be used to prove the presence of ER-positive metastases in the brain

Anti-tumor treatment and healthcare consumption near death in the era of novel treatment options for patients with melanoma brain metastases

BACKGROUND: Effective systemic treatments have revolutionized the management of patients with metastatic melanoma, including those with brain metastases. The extent to which these treatments influence disease trajectories close to death is unknown. Therefore, this study aimed to gain insight into provided treatments and healthcare consumption during the last 3 months of life in patients with melanoma brain metastases. METHODS: Retrospective, single-center study, including consecutive patients with melanoma brain metastases diagnosed between June-2015 and June-2018, referred to the medical oncologist, and died before November-2019. Patient and tumor characteristics, anti-tumor treatments, healthcare consumption, presence of neurological symptoms, and do-not-resuscitate status were extracted from medical charts. RESULTS: 100 patients were included. A BRAF-mutation was present in 66 patients. Systemic anti-tumor therapy was given to 72% of patients during the last 3 months of life, 34% in the last month, and 6% in the last week. Patients with a BRAF-mutation more frequently received systemic treatment during the last 3 (85% vs. 47%) and last month (42% vs. 18%) of life than patients without a BRAF-mutation. Furthermore, patients receiving systemic treatment were more likely to visit the emergency room (ER, 75% vs. 36%) and be hospitalized (75% vs. 36%) than those who did not. CONCLUSION: The majority of patients with melanoma brain metastases received anti-tumor treatment during the last 3 months of life. ER visits and hospitalizations occurred more often in patients on anti-tumor treatment. Further research is warranted to examine the impact of anti-tumor treatments close to death on symptom burden and care satisfaction

Image Quality and Interpretation of [18F]-FES-PET:Is There any Effect of Food Intake?

BACKGROUND: High physiological 16α-[18F]-fluoro-17β-estradiol ([18F]-FES) uptake in the abdomen is a limitation of this positron emission tomography (PET) tracer. Therefore, we investigated the effect of food intake prior to PET acquisition on abdominal background activity in [18F]-FES-PET scans. METHODS: Breast cancer patients referred for [18F]-FES-PET were included. Three groups were designed: (1) patients who consumed a chocolate bar (fatty meal) between tracer injection and imaging (n = 20), (2) patients who fasted before imaging (n = 20), and (3) patients without diet restrictions (control group, n = 20). We compared the physiological [18F]-FES uptake, expressed as mean standardized uptake value (SUVmean), in the abdomen between groups. RESULTS: A significant difference in [18F]-FES uptake in the gall bladder and stomach lumen was observed between groups, with the lowest values for the chocolate group and highest for the fasting group (p = 0.015 and p = 0.011, respectively). Post hoc analysis showed significant differences in the SUVmean of these organs between the chocolate and fasting groups, but not between the chocolate and control groups. CONCLUSION: This exploratory study showed that, compared to fasting, eating chocolate decreases physiological gall bladder and stomach [18F]-FES uptake; further reduction through a normal diet was not seen. A prospective study is warranted to confirm this finding

Re-Irradiation in Patients with Recurrent Rectal Cancer is Safe and Feasible

BACKGROUND: There is no consensus yet for the best treatment regimen in patients with recurrent rectal cancer (RRC). This study aims to evaluate toxicity and oncological outcomes after re-irradiation in patients with RRC in our center. Clinical (cCR) and pathological complete response (pCR) rates and radicality were also studied. METHODS: Between January 2010 and December 2018, 61 locally advanced RRC patients were treated and analyzed retrospectively. Patients received radiotherapy at a dose of 30.0-30.6 Gy (reCRT) or 50.0-50.4 Gy chemoradiotherapy (CRT) in cases of no prior irradiation because of low-risk primary rectal cancer. In both groups, patients received capecitabine concomitantly. RESULTS: In total, 60 patients received the prescribed neoadjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy followed by surgery, 35 patients (58.3%) in the reRCT group and 25 patients (41.7%) in the long-course CRT group. There were no significant differences in overall survival (p = 0.82), disease-free survival (p = 0.63), and local recurrence-free survival (p = 0.17) between the groups. Patients in the long-course CRT group reported more skin toxicity after radiotherapy (p = 0.040). No differences were observed in late toxicity. In the long-course CRT group, a significantly higher cCR rate was observed (p = 0.029); however, there was no difference in the pCR rate (p = 0.66). CONCLUSIONS: The treatment of RRC patients with re-irradiation is comparable to treatment with long-course CRT regarding toxicity and oncological outcomes. In the reCRT group, less cCR was observed, although there was no difference in pCR. The findings in this study suggest that it is safe and feasible to re-irradiate RRC patients

Positron emission tomography of tumour [18F]fluoroestradiol uptake in patients with acquired hormone-resistant metastatic breast cancer prior to oestradiol therapy

Purpose Whereas anti-oestrogen therapy is widely applied to treat oestrogen receptor (ER) positive breast cancer, paradoxically, oestrogens can also induce tumour regression. Upregulation of ER expression is a marker for oestrogen hypersensitivity. We, therefore, performed an exploratory study to evaluate positron emission tomography (PET) with the tracer 16 alpha-[F-18] fluoro-17 beta-oestradiol (F-18-FES) as potential marker to select breast cancer patients for oestradiol therapy. Methods Eligible patients had acquired endocrine-resistant metastatic breast cancer that progressed after >= 2 lines of endocrine therapy. All patients had prior ER-positive histology. Treatment consisted of oestradiol 2 mg, three times daily, orally. Patients underwent F-18-FES-PET/CT imaging at baseline. Tumour F-18-FES-uptake was quantified for a maximum of 20 lesions and expressed as maximum standardised uptake value (SUVmax). CT-scan was repeated every 3 months to evaluate treatment response. Clinical benefit was defined as time to radiologic or clinical progression >= 24 weeks. Results F-18-FES uptake, quantified for 255 lesions in 19 patients, varied greatly between lesions (median 2.8; range 0.6-24.3) and between patients (median 2.5; range 1.1-15.5). Seven (37 %) patients experienced clinical benefit of oestrogen therapy, eight progressed (PD), and four were non-evaluable due to side effects. The positive and negative predictive value PPV/NPV) of F-18-FES-PET for response to treatment were 60 % (95 % CI: 31-83 %) and 80 % (95 % CI: 38-96 %), respectively, using SUVmax >1.5. Conclusion F-18-FES-PET may aid identification of patients with acquired antihormone resistant breast cancer that are unlikely to benefit from oestradiol therapy

Value of 18F-FES-PET to solve clinical dilemmas in breast cancer patients:a retrospective study

Background: Breast cancer (BC) is a heterogeneous disease, in which estrogen receptor (ER) expression plays an important role in the majority of breast tumors. A clinical dilemma may arise when a metastasis biopsy to determine the ER status cannot be performed safely or when ER heterogeneity is suspected between tumor lesions. Whole-body ER imaging, such as 16α-18F-fluoro-17β-estradiol (18F-FES) positron emission tomography (PET), may have added value in these situations. However, the role of this imaging technique in routine clinical practice remains to be further determined. Therefore, we assessed the value of 18F-FES-PET by evaluating if the physician's clinical dilemma that remained after standard workup was solved by the 18F-FES-PET scan. Methods: In this retrospective study, 18F-FES-PET scans, performed in patients with (suspected) ER+ metastatic BC with remaining clinical dilemma after standard workup, at the University Medical Center of Groningen between November 2009 and January 2019, were included. We investigated whether the physician's clinical dilemma was solved, defined as 1) 18F-FES-PET provided a solution for the clinical dilemma, and/or 2) a treatment decision was based directly on the 18F-FES-PET. In addition, category of clinical dilemma, and rate of 18F-FES positive or negative PET scans were reported, and related to frequency of solved dilemmas. Results: One hundred 18F-FES-PET scans were performed in 83 patients. Clinical dilemma categories were: 1) inability to determine extent of (suspected) metastatic disease with standard workup (n = 52), 2) unclear ER status of the tumor (n = 31), and 3) inability to determine which primary tumor caused metastases (n = 17). Dilemmas were solved by 18F-FES-PET in 87/100 cases (87%). In 81/87 cases a treatment decision was made based directly on the 18F-FES-PET (treatment change: n = 51 cases; continuance: n = 30 cases). The frequency of solved dilemmas was not related to the clinical dilemma category (P = 0.334). However, the frequency of solved dilemmas was related to whether scans were 18F-FES positive (n = 63) or negative (n = 37; p<0.001). Conclusion: For various indications, the 18F-FES-PET scan can help to solve the vast majority of clinical dilemmas that may remain after standard workup. Therefore, the 18F-FES-PET scan has added value in BC patients presenting with a clinical dilemma

Value of screening and follow-up brain MRI scans in patients with metastatic melanoma

BACKGROUND: Novel treatments make long‐term survival possible for subsets of patients with melanoma brain metastases. Brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) may aid in early detection of brain metastases and inform treatment decisions. This study aimed to determine the impact of screening MRI scans in patients with metastatic melanoma and follow‐up MRI scans in patients with melanoma brain metastases. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included patients diagnosed with metastatic melanoma or melanoma brain metastases between June 2015 and January 2018. The impact of screening MRI scans was evaluated in the first 2 years after metastatic melanoma diagnosis. The impact of follow‐up MRI scans was examined in the first year after brain metastases diagnosis. The number of MRI scans, scan indications, scan outcomes, and changes in treatment strategy were analyzed. RESULTS: In total, 116 patients had no brain metastases at the time of the metastatic melanoma diagnosis. Twenty‐eight of these patients (24%) were subsequently diagnosed with brain metastases. Screening MRI scans detected the brain metastases in 11/28 patients (39%), of which 8 were asymptomatic at diagnosis. In the 96 patients with melanoma brain metastases, treatment strategy changed after 75/168 follow‐up MRI scans (45%). In patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors, the number of treatment changes after follow‐up MRI scans was lower when patients had been treated longer. CONCLUSION(S): Screening MRI scans aid in early detection of melanoma brain metastases, and follow‐up MRI scans inform treatment strategy. In patients with brain metastases responding to immune checkpoint inhibitors, treatment changes were less frequently observed after follow‐up MRI scans. These results can inform the development of brain imaging protocols for patients with immune checkpoint inhibitor sensitive tumors

Serial [F-18]-FDHT-PET to predict bicalutamide efficacy in patients with androgen receptor positive metastatic breast cancer

Background: The androgen receptor (AR) is a potential target in metastatic breast cancer (MBC), and 16 beta-[F-18]-fluoro-5 alpha-dihydrotestosterone positron emission tomography ([F-18]-FDHT-PET) can be used for noninvasive visualisation of AR. [F-18]-FDHT uptake reduction during AR-targeting therapy reflects AR occupancy and might be predictive for treatment response. We assessed the feasibility of [F-18]-FDHT-PET to detect changes in AR availability during bicalutamide treatment and correlated these changes with treatment response. Patients and methods: Patients with AR thorn MBC, regardless of oestrogen receptor status, received an [F-18]-FDHT-PET at baseline and after 4-6 weeks bicalutamide treatment. Baseline [F-18]-FDHT uptake was expressed as maximum standardised uptake value. Percentage change in tracer uptake, corrected for background activity (SUVcor), between baseline and follow-up PET scan (% reduction), was assessed per-patient and lesion. Clinical benefit was determined in accordance with Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST) 1.1 or clinical evaluation (absence of disease progression for >= 24 weeks). Results: Baseline [F-18]-FDHT-PET in 21 patients detected 341 of 515 lesions found with standard imaging and 21 new lesions. Follow-up [F-18]-FDHT- PET was evaluable in 17 patients with 349 lesions, showing a decrease in median SUVcor from 1.3 to 0.7 per-patient and lesion (P <0.001). Median % reduction per-patient was - 45% and per-lesion -39%. In patients with progressive disease (n Z 11), median % reduction was -30% versus -53% for patients who showed clinical benefit (in accordance with RECIST (n = 3) or clinical evaluation (n = 3); P Z 0.338). Conclusion: In this feasibility study, a bicalutamide-induced reduction in [F-18]-FDHT uptake could be detected by follow-up [F-18]-FDHT-PET in patients with AR thorn MBC. However, this change could not predict bicalutamide response. (C) 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd