European practice patterns and barriers to smoking cessation after a cancer diagnosis in the setting of curative versus palliative cancer treatment

Background: Smoking cessation after a cancer diagnosis is associated with improved overall survival. Few studies have reported oncologists' cessation practice patterns, but differences between the curative and palliative settings have not been described. We aimed to study the oncologist's perceptions on patients' tobacco use, current practices and barriers to providing smoking cessation support, while distinguishing between treatment with curative (C) and palliative (P) intent.Methods: In 2019, an online 34-item survey was sent to approximately 6235 oncologists from 16 European countries. Responses were descriptively reported and compared by treatment setting.Results: Responses from 544 oncologists were included. Oncologists appeared to favour addressing tobacco in the curative setting more than in the palliative setting. Oncologists believe that continued smoking impacts treatment outcomes (C: 94%, P: 74%) and that cessation support should be standard cancer care (C: 95%, P: 63%). Most routinely assess tobacco use (C: 93%, P: 78%) and advise patients to stop using tobacco (C: 88%, P: 54%), but only 24% (P) -39% (C) routinely discuss medication options, and only 18% (P)-31% (C) provide cessation support. Hesitation to remove a pleasurable habit (C: 13%, P: 43%) and disbelieve on smoking affecting outcomes (C: 3%, P: 14%) were disparate barriers between the curative and palliative settings (p Conclusion: Oncologists appear to favour addressing tobacco use more in the curative setting; however, they discuss medication options and/or provide cessation support in a minority of cases. All patients who report current smoking should have access to evidence-based smoking cessation support, also patients treated with palliative intent given their increasing survival. </div

31st Annual Meeting and Associated Programs of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC 2016) : part two

Background The immunological escape of tumors represents one of the main ob- stacles to the treatment of malignancies. The blockade of PD-1 or CTLA-4 receptors represented a milestone in the history of immunotherapy. However, immune checkpoint inhibitors seem to be effective in specific cohorts of patients. It has been proposed that their efficacy relies on the presence of an immunological response. Thus, we hypothesized that disruption of the PD-L1/PD-1 axis would synergize with our oncolytic vaccine platform PeptiCRAd. Methods We used murine B16OVA in vivo tumor models and flow cytometry analysis to investigate the immunological background. Results First, we found that high-burden B16OVA tumors were refractory to combination immunotherapy. However, with a more aggressive schedule, tumors with a lower burden were more susceptible to the combination of PeptiCRAd and PD-L1 blockade. The therapy signifi- cantly increased the median survival of mice (Fig. 7). Interestingly, the reduced growth of contralaterally injected B16F10 cells sug- gested the presence of a long lasting immunological memory also against non-targeted antigens. Concerning the functional state of tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs), we found that all the immune therapies would enhance the percentage of activated (PD-1pos TIM- 3neg) T lymphocytes and reduce the amount of exhausted (PD-1pos TIM-3pos) cells compared to placebo. As expected, we found that PeptiCRAd monotherapy could increase the number of antigen spe- cific CD8+ T cells compared to other treatments. However, only the combination with PD-L1 blockade could significantly increase the ra- tio between activated and exhausted pentamer positive cells (p= 0.0058), suggesting that by disrupting the PD-1/PD-L1 axis we could decrease the amount of dysfunctional antigen specific T cells. We ob- served that the anatomical location deeply influenced the state of CD4+ and CD8+ T lymphocytes. In fact, TIM-3 expression was in- creased by 2 fold on TILs compared to splenic and lymphoid T cells. In the CD8+ compartment, the expression of PD-1 on the surface seemed to be restricted to the tumor micro-environment, while CD4 + T cells had a high expression of PD-1 also in lymphoid organs. Interestingly, we found that the levels of PD-1 were significantly higher on CD8+ T cells than on CD4+ T cells into the tumor micro- environment (p < 0.0001). Conclusions In conclusion, we demonstrated that the efficacy of immune check- point inhibitors might be strongly enhanced by their combination with cancer vaccines. PeptiCRAd was able to increase the number of antigen-specific T cells and PD-L1 blockade prevented their exhaus- tion, resulting in long-lasting immunological memory and increased median survival

A case report of a patient with metastatic ocular melanoma who experienced a response to treatment with the BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib

Background: Conjunctival malignant melanoma (CMM) is a rare malignancy and in the advanced setting there is no effective treatment. In contrast, half of cutaneous melanomas have BRAF mutations and treatment with BRAF inhibitors is established for patients with disseminated disease. The most common form of ocular melanoma, uveal melanoma, lacks these mutations, however, their presence has been reported for CMM. Case presentation: We used the BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib to treat a 53 year-old female suffering from a BRAFV600E mutated metastatic CMM. The patient benefited from the treatment, a response was evident within a week and she experienced a progression free survival of four months. Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first described case of response to vemurafenib treatment in a patient with ocular melanoma

Treatment exposures, number of treatment cycles and median delivered dose of the study drugs.

<p>*NA = not applicable</p><p>** Administered dose / planned dose according to the protocol per cohort (%)</p><p>*** Median administered dose / planned dose according to the protocol per patient per cohort (%)</p><p>Treatment exposures, number of treatment cycles and median delivered dose of the study drugs.</p

Summary of maximum grade for study related toxicity during treatment cycle number 1.

<p>*Represents the number of subjects (of total n = 12) experiencing adverse event during cycle number 1 with lenalidomide and gemcitabine.</p><p>**Graded using NCI CTCAE V 3.0</p><p>ALAT = Alanine aminotransferase; ASAT = Aspartate aminotransferase</p><p>Summary of maximum grade for study related toxicity during treatment cycle number 1.</p

Summary of maximum grade for toxicity (aggregate for all treatment cycles) (NCI CTCAE.V3.0.).

<p>*G = Grade</p><p>**Represents the number of subjects experiencing adverse event with lenalidomide and gemcitabine.</p><p>*** One patient with grade 4 gastrointestinal perforation underwent acute surgery, died postoperatively day 6 in acute respiratory insufficiency.</p><p>Summary of maximum grade for toxicity (aggregate for all treatment cycles) (NCI CTCAE.V3.0.).</p

Tumoral cubilin is a predictive marker for treatment of renal cancer patients with sunitinib and sorafenib

Purpose Tyrosine kinase inhibitors like sunitinib and sorafenib are commonly used to treat metastatic renal cell cancer patients. Cubilin is a membrane protein expressed in the proximal renal tubule. Cubilin and megalin function together as endocytic receptors mediating uptake of many proteins. There is no established predictive marker for metastatic renal cell cancer patients and the purpose of the present study was to assess if cubilin can predict response to treatment with tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Methods Cubilin protein expression was analyzsed in tumor tissue from a cohort of patients with metastatic renal cell cancer (n = 139) using immunohistochemistry. One hundred and thirty six of the patients were treated with sunitinib or sorafenib in the first- or second-line setting. Thirty of these were censored because of toxicity leading to the termination of treatment and the remaining (n = 106) were selected for the current study. Results Fifty-three (50%) of the tumors expressed cubilin in the membrane. The median progression-free survival was 8 months in patients with cubilin expressing tumors and 4 months in the cubilin negative group. In addition, the overall survival was better for patients with cubilin positive tumors. We also found that the fraction of cubilin negative patients was significantly higher in the non-responding group (PFS ≤3 months) compared to responding patients (PFS &gt;3 months). Conclusions We show for the first time that tumoral expression of cubilin is a positive predictive marker for treatment of metastatic renal cell cancer patients with sunitinib and sorafenib

Improved survival without increased toxicity with influenza vaccination in cancer patients treated with checkpoint inhibitors

In international guidelines, influenza vaccination is recommended to cancer patients receiving antitumor treatment. Whether this recommendation should include patients treated with the recently introduced and now widely used checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) is unclear. The immune hyperactivation after vaccination in a patient on CPI treatment may strengthen the antitumor immunity and improve patients ' prognosis. On the other hand, the hyperactivation might increase the risk for immune-related adverse events (IRAEs). Furthermore, there is a risk for decreased antitumor effect by the phenomenon of antigenic competition. Only results from few studies addressing survival have been reported and the results from studies on IRAEs are contradictory. We performed a multi-center retrospective cohort study at three Swedish centers in patients with metastatic cancer. All patients previously not treated with CPIs and who received monotherapy with a PD-1 or PD-L1 blocker between January 1st, 2016 until May 31st, 2019 were included. The most common type of malignancy was melanoma (47.8%) followed by non-small cell lung cancer (31.0%). Statistically significant longer PFS and OS were observed in multivariate analyses at 6-month landmark time in the vaccinated compared to the non-vaccinated group after adjustment for age, gender, comorbidity, performance status, CNS metastasis and line of treatment (p = .041 and 0.028, respectively). Furthermore, the incidence of any IRAE grade was comparable between vaccinated and non-vaccinated group (p = .85). In conclusion, the current study indicates that survival improves with influenza vaccination while not increasing the risk for side effects in cancer patients treated with checkpoint inhibitors. Hence, our results strongly support influenza vaccination in cancer patients receiving checkpoint inhibitors

Survival after introduction of adjuvant treatment in stage III melanoma: a nationwide registry-based study

Background Adjuvant treatments with PD-1 and BRAF+MEK inhibitors statistically significantly prolong recurrence-free survival in stage III cutaneous melanoma. Yet, the effect on overall survival is still unclear. Based on recurrence-free survival outcomes, these treatments have been approved and widely implemented. The treatments have considerable side effects and costs, and overall survival effect remains a highly anticipated outcome. Methods Clinical and histopathological parameters were obtained from the Swedish Melanoma Registry for patients diagnosed with stage III melanoma between 2016 and 2020. The patients were divided depending on if they were diagnosed before or from July 2018, based on the timepoint when adjuvant treatment was introduced in Sweden. Patients were followed up until the end of 2021. In this cohort study, melanoma-specific and overall survival were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox-regression analyses. Results There were 1371 patients diagnosed with stage III primary melanoma in Sweden in 2016-2020. The 2-year overall survival rates, comparing the 634 patients in the precohort and the 737 in the postcohort, were 84.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 81.4% to 87.3%) and 86.1% (95% CI = 83.4% to 89.0%), respectively, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.91 (95% CI = 0.70 to 1.19, P = .51). Further, no statistically significant overall or melanoma-specific survival differences were seen when comparing the precohort and the postcohort in different subgroups for age, sex, or tumor characteristics. Conclusions In this nationwide population-based and registry-based study, no survival benefit was detected in patients diagnosed before or after the implementation of adjuvant treatment in stage III melanoma. These findings encourage a careful assessment of the current recommendations on adjuvant treatment.Funding Agencies|Regional Cancer Centers (RCC) in Sweden; Swedish Cancer society [20 0156 F, 21 1486 Pj]; Region Stockholm [20200638]; Cancer Research Funds of Radiumhemmet [194092, 224023]; [2021-YF0069]</p