Which patients are prone to undergo disproportionate recurrent CT imaging and should we worry?

Purpose: To identify the spectrum of patients who undergo disproportionate recurrent computed tomography (CT) imaging, and to explore the cumulative effects of radiation exposure and intravenously injected contrast agents in these patients. Methods: This retrospective study investigated all patients who had undergone 40 or more CT scans at a tertiary care center between 2007–2017. Results: Fifty-six patients who had undergone a median of 47 (range: 40–92) CT scans were included. The main reason for CT scanning in all patients was oncological, and 55 patients (98.2 %) had metastatic disease. Twenty-six patients (45.6) had received chemotherapy, 35 (62.5 %) radiation therapy, 38 (67.9 %) targeted therapy, 12 (21.4 %) liver tumor microwave ablation, 44 (78.6 %) major surgery, and 34 (60.7 %) had participated in a therapeutic trial. Mean cumulative effective dose was 187.4 mSv (range: 120.7–278.4 mSv). Median estimated radiation-induced lifetime attributable risk (LAR) of cancer incidence was 1.0 % (range: 0.20–2.36 %). Mean estimated radiation-induced LAR of cancer mortality was 0.68 % (range: 0.18–1.37 %). Mean cumulative volume of intravenously injected iomeprol was 2339 mL (range: 540−3605 mL). Three patients (5.4 %) had developed severely decreased kidney function (estimated glomerular filtration rate between 15 and 29 mL/min per 1.73 m² for at least 3 months). Conclusion: Patients with metastatic disease who experience a relatively long survival may be prone to undergo disproportionate recurrent CT imaging. The non-negligible CT radiation-induced cancer risk and mortality should be taken into account in these patients, while the effect of cumulatively administered CT contrast agents on kidney function requires further investigation

Reconsider radiation exposure from imaging during immune checkpoint inhibitor trials to reduce risk of secondary cancers in long-term survivors?

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have improved outcomes for patients with advanced cancers, and results in increasing numbers of long-term survivors. For registration studies, progression-free survival and disease-free survival often serve as primary endpoints. This requires repeated computed tomography (CT) scans for tumour imaging which might lead to major radiation exposure. To determine this, all immune checkpoint inhibitors trials that led to FDA approval were retrieved up to July 29, 2019. From the available protocols, imaging modalities and schedules used in each trial were identified. The anticipated cumulative number of scans made after 1, 3, 5, and 10 years study participation were calculated. The percentage of lifetime attributable cancer risk was calculated using the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation VII report. Fifty-one trials were identified, from which 39 protocols were retrieved. Four were adjuvant trials. All protocols required repeated chest-abdomen imaging and specified CT scans as preferred imaging modality. Median calculated cumulative numbers of chest-abdomen CT scans after 1, 3, 5, and 10 years study participation were 7, 16, 24 and 46, respectively. For ages 20-70 years at study entry, the average lifetime attributable cancer risk after 1 year of study participation ranged from 1.11 to 0.40% for men and from 1.87 to 0.46% for women. At 10 years study participation, this risk increased to a range of 5.91 to 1.96% for men and 9.64 to 2.32% for women. Given high imaging radiation exposure for long-term survivors in current ICI trials an adaptive imaging interval and imaging termination rules should be considered for long-term survivors

Lessons learnt from scoring adjuvant colon cancer trials and meta-analyses using the ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale V.1.1

Click here to listen to the Podcast BACKGROUND: Form 1 of the European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) serves to grade therapies with curative intent. Hitherto only few trials with curative intent have been field tested using form 1. We aimed to evaluate the applicability of the scale and to assess the reasonableness of the generated scores in early colon cancer, in order to identify shortcomings that may be rectified in future amendments. METHODS: Adjuvant studies were identified in PubMed, Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency registration sites, as well as ESMO and National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. Studies meeting inclusion criteria were graded using form 1 of the ESMO-MCBS V.1.1 and field tested by ESMO Colorectal Cancer Faculty. Shortcomings of the scale were identified and evaluated. RESULTS: Eighteen of 57 trials and 7 out of 14 meta-analyses identified met criteria for ESMO-MCBS V.1.1 grading. In stage III colon cancer, randomised clinical trials and meta-analyses of modulated 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) based chemotherapy versus surgery scored ESMO-MCBS grade A and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses comprising oxaliplatin added to this 5-FU backbone showed a more modest additional overall survival benefit (grade A and B). For stage II colon cancer, the findings are less consistent. The fluoropyrimidine trials in stage II were graded 'no evaluable benefit' but the most recent meta-analysis demonstrated a 5.4% survival advantage after 8 years follow-up (grade A). RCTs and a meta-analysis adding oxaliplatin demonstrated no added benefit. Exploratory toxicity evaluation and annotation was problematic given inconsistent toxicity reporting and limited results of late toxicity. Field testers (n=37) reviewed the scores, 25 confirmed their reasonableness, 12 found them mostly reasonable. Moreover, they identified the inability of crediting improved convenience in non-inferiority trials as a shortcoming. CONCLUSION: Form 1 of the ESMO-MCBS V.1.1 provided very reasonable grading for adjuvant colon cancer studies

Molecular imaging to support cancer immunotherapy

The advent of immune checkpoint inhibitors has reinvigorated the field of immuno-oncology. These monoclonal antibody-based therapies allow the immune system to recognize and eliminate malignant cells. This has resulted in improved survival of patients across several tumor types. However, not all patients respond to immunotherapy therefore predictive biomarkers are important. There are only a few Food and Drug Administration-approved biomarkers to select patients for immunotherapy. These biomarkers do not consider the heterogeneity of tumor characteristics across lesions within a patient. New molecular imaging tracers allow for whole-body visualization with positron emission tomography (PET) of tumor and immune cell characteristics, and drug distribution, which might guide treatment decision making. Here, we summarize recent developments in molecular imaging of immune checkpoint molecules, such as PD-L1, PD-1, CTLA-4, and LAG-3. We discuss several molecular imaging approaches of immune cell subsets and briefly summarize the role of FDG-PET for evaluating cancer immunotherapy. The main focus is on developments in clinical molecular imaging studies, next to preclinical studies of interest given their potential translation to the clinic

Immune checkpoint inhibitor-mediated polymyalgia rheumatica versus primary polymyalgia rheumatica:Comparison of disease characteristics and treatment requirement

Objectives: To compare clinical characteristics, imaging findings and treatment requirements of patients with immune checkpoint inhibitor-mediated polymyalgia rheumatica (ICI-PMR) and primary PMR.Methods: This single centre, retrospective cohort study compared ICI-PMR in patients with cancer (n = 15) to patients with primary PMR (n = 37). A comparison was made between clinical symptoms, laboratory markers, ultrasonography, 18F-FDG-PET/CT findings and treatment requirements related to PMR.Results: Patients with ICI-PMR less frequently fulfilled the EULAR/ACR classification criteria for PMR (66.7%) than patients with primary PMR (97.3%). Morning stiffness, weight loss and elevation of the ESR were less frequently seen in patients with ICI-PMR. No differences were observed regarding the presence of inflammatory lesions on ultrasound of the shoulders and hips between the two groups. The Leuven and the Leuven/Groningen 18F-FDG-PET/CT scores were significantly lower in the ICI-PMR group. Finally, the ICI-PMR group could be managed with lower glucocorticoid doses than the primary PMR group, while this treatment could be discontinued more quickly.Conclusion: Our findings indicate that ICI-PMR may have a milder course with less intense inflammation than primary PMR. ICI-PMR can be managed with a relatively low glucocorticoid dose. Our study underscores that ICI-PMR should be regarded as a PMR-like syndrome

Opportunities on the horizon for the management of early colon cancer

There is a clear unmet need to improve early colon cancer management. This review encompasses the current systemic treatment landscape and summarises novel and pivotal trials. The Immunoscore and circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) are studied to evaluate which patients should receive no, 3, or 6 months of adjuvant treatment. Several trials also test escalating treatment strategies for non-cleared ctDNA following standard adjuvant chemotherapy. Advances made in treating patients with metastatic colon cancer are now being translated to the early colon cancer setting. Two ongoing RCTs study immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in patients with microsatellite instable high (MSI-H) early colon cancer as adjuvant treatment. Neo-adjuvant treatment is being studied in several ongoing RCTs as well. The complete response rate in patients with MSI-H tumours following ICI in neoadjuvant trials has potential organ-sparing implications

Urine as Sample Type for Molecular Diagnosis of Natural Yellow Fever Virus Infections.

</p

Monoclonal antibody biosimilars for cancer treatment

Summary: Monoclonal antibodies are important cancer medicines. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) approved 48 and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 56 anticancer monoclonal antibody-based therapies. Their high prices burden healthcare systems and hamper global drug access. Biosimilars could retain costs and expand the availability of monoclonal antibodies. In Europe, five rituximab biosimilars, six trastuzumab biosimilars, and eight bevacizumab biosimilars are available as anti-cancer drugs. To gain insight into the biosimilar landscape for cancer treatment, we performed a literature search and analysis. In this review, we summarize cancer monoclonal antibodies’ properties crucial for the desired pharmacology and point out sources of variability. The analytical assessment of all EMA-approved bevacizumab biosimilars is highlighted to illustrate this variability. The global landscape of investigational and approved biosimilars is mapped, and the challenges for access to cancer biosimilars are identified

Potential, Limitations and Risks of Cannabis-Derived Products in Cancer Treatment

The application of cannabis products in oncology receives interest, especially from patients. Despite the plethora of research data available, the added value in curative or palliative cancer care and the possible risks involved are insufficiently proven and therefore a matter of debate. We aim to give a recommendation on the position of cannabis products in clinical oncology by assessing recent literature. Various types of cannabis products, characteristics, quality and pharmacology are discussed. Standardisation is essential for reliable and reproducible quality. The oromucosal/sublingual route of administration is preferred over inhalation and drinking tea. Cannabinoids may inhibit efflux transporters and drug-metabolising enzymes, possibly inducing pharmacokinetic interactions with anticancer drugs being substrates for these proteins. This may enhance the cytostatic effect and/or drug-related adverse effects. Reversely, it may enable dose reduction. Similar interactions are likely with drugs used for symptom management treating pain, nausea, vomiting and anorexia. Cannabis products are usually well tolerated and may improve the quality of life of patients with cancer (although not unambiguously proven). The combination with immunotherapy seems undesirable because of the immunosuppressive action of cannabinoids. Further clinical research is warranted to scientifically support (refraining from) using cannabis products in patients with cancer