Nodal Langerhans cell neoplasm: detailing the diagnostic quandaries

Langerhans cells, found in the supra-basal region of the mucous membranes in the epidermis of the skin, in lymph nodes and thymus, function as antigen-presenting cells within the histiocyte system. Tumors derived from Langerhans cells (LC) can be divided according to the degree of cytological atypia and clinical behavior into Langerhans cell histiocytosis (LCH) and Langerhans cell sarcoma (LCS). LCS is rare, and the nodal presentation is even rarer with challenging histological characteristics. LCS has a dismal overcome despite intensive chemotherapy. Herein, we report a case of a 29-year-old male who presented with generalized lymphadenopathy initially considered as a lymphoma. An outright definitive diagnosis could not be attained in the initial histomorphological and immunohistochemical evaluation, fraught with differential diagnoses. The key to decoding the precise neoplasm was a combination of the cytopathologic features, review of the histomorphology, and extensive immunohistochemical assessment in conjunction with the clinical and positron emission tomography (PET) scan findings. The best diagnosis proffered was a Langerhans cell histiocytosis progressing to Langerhans cell sarcoma. This case highlights the grey zone areas in LC neoplasms, the diagnostic conundrums encountered, the indispensable role of meticulous pathological analysis, and the importance of ancillary studies in hammering out the final diagnosis

Prognostic Impact of Baseline Liver Metastasis in ALK Fusion-Positive Metastatic Lung Cancer: A Retrospective Review

Abstract Akhil Kapoor Introduction The prognosis of anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) fusion-positive metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) patients has improved drastically since the introduction of targeted therapies. Apart from age, performance status, and type of driver mutation in a mNSCLC, prognosis also depends on baseline metastatic sites number as well as location with liver metastases being a poor prognostic factor. However, the clinical and prognostic association of baseline liver metastases in ALK fusion-positive mNSCLC is not well known. Material and Methods We performed a retrospective analysis of ALK fusion-positive mNSCLC patients to assess prognostic impact of liver metastases. Records were obtained from lung cancer audit database and electronic medical records. Patients were started on either chemotherapy, ALK-directed tyrosine kinase inhibitors, or given best supportive care as per the clinical scenario. Radiological response was assessed every 2 to 3 months or earlier at clinical suspicion of progressive disease. Adverse events were evaluated as per Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v4.02. Results A total of 441 patients were screened, out of which 76 had baseline liver metastases. Median age was 49 years with 64.5% males. Median progression-free survival (mPFS) was 14.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 8.9–19.4) in patients with baseline liver metastases. In patients who received first-line ALK inhibitor therapy versus who received first-line chemotherapy, mPFS was significantly better in the ALK-directed therapy subgroup, 15.3 months (95% CI 11.7–18.9) versus 5.9 months (95% CI 2.7–9.1), respectively (hazard ratio [HR] 0.3 [95% CI 0.17–0.54]; p < 0.001). Median overall survival (mOS) was 27.6 months (95% CI 17.4–37.7) in patients with baseline liver metastases which was not statistically significant from patients without baseline liver metastases which was 32.3 months (95% CI 28.8–35.7) (HR 1.32 [95% CI 0.91–1.9]; p = 0.22). Use of ALK-directed therapy in patients with baseline liver metastases resulted in better OS, mOS not reached versus 15.7 months (95% CI 2.7–28.8) in the chemotherapy group (HR 0.33 [95% CI 0.16—0.67]; p < 0.001). Conclusion In patients with ALK fusion-positive mNSCLC, baseline liver metastases was not found to be an independent prognostic factor. However, the use of ALK-directed therapy resulted in a significantly better PFS and OS as compared with chemotherapy in patients with baseline liver metastases. This underscores the importance of the use of ALK-directed therapy whenever feasible in this group of patients

A real‐world data of Immune checkpoint inhibitors in solid tumors from India

Abstract Background Checkpoint inhibitors (Nivolumab and Pembrolizumab) are approved for multiple indications in solid tumors. However access to these therapies is limited in low and middle income countries. Hence we performed an audit to identify accessibility, adverse event rates, compliance, progression free survival and overall survival in solid tumors. Methods This was a single center retrospective analysis of prospective data base of patients with non‐melanoma solid tumors who were treated with immunotherapy from August 2015 to November 2018. Adverse events during immunotherapy were documented and graded using CTCAE (Common terminology criteria for adverse events), v. 4.02. The response rates to immunotherapy, toxicities and the time to onset and resolution of toxicities were also evaluated as secondary endpoints. Results Out of 9610 patients, only 155 patients (1.61%) could receive immunotherapy. The most common malignancies included metastatic non‐small cell lung cancer, metastatic renal cell carcinoma, metastatic urothelial carcinoma and relapsed/recurrent head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Median overall survival in patients who received immunotherapy in non‐melanoma solid malignancies was 5.37 months (95% CI, 3.73–9.73). Poor performance status at baseline was the only adverse prognostic factor. The median progression free survival was 2.57 months (95% CI, 1.73–3.83). Immunotherapy was well tolerated with most common side effects being fatigue 14.8% and anorexia 5.8%. The cumulative incidence of immune related adverse events like hepatitis, pneumonitis, colitis and nephritis was less than 10%. Conclusion Real‐world data in Indian setting confirms the benefit of immunotherapy in patients with advanced non‐melanoma solid tumors

Low-cost oral metronomic chemotherapy versus intravenous cisplatin in patients with recurrent, metastatic, inoperable head and neck carcinoma:an open-label, parallel-group, non-inferiority, randomised, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND: Regimens for palliation in patients with head and neck cancer recommended by the US National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) have low applicability (less than 1–3%) in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) because of their cost. In a previous phase 2 study, patients with head and neck cancer who received metronomic chemotherapy had better outcomes when compared with those who received intravenous cisplatin, which is commonly used as the standard of care in LMICs. We aimed to do a phase 3 study to substantiate these findings.METHODS: We did an open-label, parallel-group, non-inferiority, randomised, phase 3 trial at the Department of Medical Oncology, Tata Memorial Center, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, India. We enrolled adult patients (aged 18–70 years) who planned to receive palliative systemic treatment for relapsed, recurrent, or newly diagnosed squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck, and who had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0–1 and measurable disease, as defined by the Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors. We randomly assigned (1:1) participants to receive either oral metronomic chemotherapy, consisting of 15 mg/m² methotrexate once per week plus 200 mg celecoxib twice per day until disease progression or until the development of intolerable side-effects, or 75 mg/m² intravenous cisplatin once every 3 weeks for six cycles. Randomisation was done by use of a computer-generated randomisation sequence, with a block size of four, and patients were stratified by primary tumour site and previous cancer-directed treatment. The primary endpoint was median overall survival. Assuming that 6-month overall survival in the intravenous cisplatin group would be 40%, a non-inferiority margin of 13% was defined. Both intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses were done. All patients who completed at least one cycle of the assigned treatment were included in the safety analysis. This trial is registered with the Clinical Trials Registry-India, CTRI/2015/11/006388, and is completed.FINDINGS: Between May 16, 2016, and Jan 17, 2020, 422 patients were randomly assigned: 213 to the oral metronomic chemotherapy group and 209 to the intravenous cisplatin group. All 422 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis, and 418 patients (211 in the oral metronomic chemotherapy group and 207 in the intravenous cisplatin group) were included in the per-protocol analysis. At a median follow-up of 15·73 months, median overall survival in the intention-to-treat analysis population was 7·5 months (IQR 4·6–12·6) in the oral metronomic chemotherapy group compared with 6·1 months (3·2–9·6) in the intravenous cisplatin group (unadjusted HR for death 0·773 [95% CI 0·615–0·97, p=0·026]). In the per-protocol analysis population, median overall survival was 7·5 months (4·7–12·8) in the oral metronomic chemotherapy group and 6·1 months (3·4–9·6) in the intravenous cisplatin group (unadjusted HR for death 0·775 [95% CI 0·616–0·974, p=0·029]). Grade 3 or higher adverse events were observed in 37 (19%) of 196 patients in the oral metronomic chemotherapy group versus 61 (30%) of 202 patients in the intravenous cisplatin group (p=0·01).INTERPRETATION: Oral metronomic chemotherapy is non-inferior to intravenous cisplatin with respect to overall survival in head and neck cancer in the palliative setting, and is associated with fewer adverse events. It therefore represents a new alternative standard of care if current NCCN-approved options for palliative therapy are not feasible

Low-cost oral metronomic chemotherapy versus intravenous cisplatin in patients with recurrent, metastatic, inoperable head and neck carcinoma:an open-label, parallel-group, non-inferiority, randomised, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND: Regimens for palliation in patients with head and neck cancer recommended by the US National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) have low applicability (less than 1–3%) in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) because of their cost. In a previous phase 2 study, patients with head and neck cancer who received metronomic chemotherapy had better outcomes when compared with those who received intravenous cisplatin, which is commonly used as the standard of care in LMICs. We aimed to do a phase 3 study to substantiate these findings.METHODS: We did an open-label, parallel-group, non-inferiority, randomised, phase 3 trial at the Department of Medical Oncology, Tata Memorial Center, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, India. We enrolled adult patients (aged 18–70 years) who planned to receive palliative systemic treatment for relapsed, recurrent, or newly diagnosed squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck, and who had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0–1 and measurable disease, as defined by the Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors. We randomly assigned (1:1) participants to receive either oral metronomic chemotherapy, consisting of 15 mg/m² methotrexate once per week plus 200 mg celecoxib twice per day until disease progression or until the development of intolerable side-effects, or 75 mg/m² intravenous cisplatin once every 3 weeks for six cycles. Randomisation was done by use of a computer-generated randomisation sequence, with a block size of four, and patients were stratified by primary tumour site and previous cancer-directed treatment. The primary endpoint was median overall survival. Assuming that 6-month overall survival in the intravenous cisplatin group would be 40%, a non-inferiority margin of 13% was defined. Both intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses were done. All patients who completed at least one cycle of the assigned treatment were included in the safety analysis. This trial is registered with the Clinical Trials Registry-India, CTRI/2015/11/006388, and is completed.FINDINGS: Between May 16, 2016, and Jan 17, 2020, 422 patients were randomly assigned: 213 to the oral metronomic chemotherapy group and 209 to the intravenous cisplatin group. All 422 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis, and 418 patients (211 in the oral metronomic chemotherapy group and 207 in the intravenous cisplatin group) were included in the per-protocol analysis. At a median follow-up of 15·73 months, median overall survival in the intention-to-treat analysis population was 7·5 months (IQR 4·6–12·6) in the oral metronomic chemotherapy group compared with 6·1 months (3·2–9·6) in the intravenous cisplatin group (unadjusted HR for death 0·773 [95% CI 0·615–0·97, p=0·026]). In the per-protocol analysis population, median overall survival was 7·5 months (4·7–12·8) in the oral metronomic chemotherapy group and 6·1 months (3·4–9·6) in the intravenous cisplatin group (unadjusted HR for death 0·775 [95% CI 0·616–0·974, p=0·029]). Grade 3 or higher adverse events were observed in 37 (19%) of 196 patients in the oral metronomic chemotherapy group versus 61 (30%) of 202 patients in the intravenous cisplatin group (p=0·01).INTERPRETATION: Oral metronomic chemotherapy is non-inferior to intravenous cisplatin with respect to overall survival in head and neck cancer in the palliative setting, and is associated with fewer adverse events. It therefore represents a new alternative standard of care if current NCCN-approved options for palliative therapy are not feasible

Phase 3 RCT comparing docetaxel-platinum with docetaxel-platinum-5FU as neoadjuvant chemotherapy in borderline resectable oral cancer

Background: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) with TPF (docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5FU) is one of the treatment options in very locally advanced oral cancer with a survival advantage over PF (cisplatin and 5FU). TP (docetaxel and cisplatin) has shown promising results with a lower rate of adverse events but has never been compared to TPF. Methods: In this phase 3 randomized superiority study, adult patients with borderline resectable locally advanced oral cancers were randomized in a 1:1 fashion to either TP or TPF. After the administration of 2 cycles, patients were evaluated in a multidisciplinary clinic and further treatment was planned. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) and secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and adverse events. Results: 495 patients were randomized in this study, 248 patients in TP arm and 247 in TPF arm. The 5-year OS was 18.5% (95% CI 13.8–23.7) and 23.9% (95% CI 18.1-30.1) in TP and TPF arms, respectively (Hazard ratio 0.778; 95% CI 0.637–0.952; P = 0.015). Following NACT, 43.8% were deemed resectable, but 34.5% underwent surgery. The 5-year OS was 50.7% (95% CI 41.5–59.1) and 5% (95%CI 2.9–8.1), respectively, in the surgically resected versus unresected cohort post NACT (P &lt; 0.0001). Grade 3 or above adverse events were seen in 97 (39.1%) and 179 (72.5%) patients in the TP and TPF arms, respectively (P &lt; 0.0001). Conclusion: NACT with TPF has a survival benefit over TP in borderline resectable oral cancers, with an increase in toxicity which is manageable. Patients who undergo surgery achieve a relatively good, sustained survival.</p