A randomized phase III study of the docetaxel/carboplatin combination versus docetaxel single-agent as second line treatment for patients with advanced/metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>To compare the activity and toxicity of docetaxel/carboplatin (DC) doublet vs single agent docetaxel (D) as second-line treatment in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Patients pre-treated with front-line platinum-free regimens, were randomized to receive either docetaxel/carboplatin (DC), (docetaxel 50 mg/m²; carboplatin AUC4; both drugs administered on days 1 and 15) or docetaxel single-agent (D), (docetaxel 50 mg/m²on days 1 and 15).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Response rate was similar between the two arms (DC vs D: 10.4% vs 7.7%; p = 0.764). After a median follow-up time of 28.0 months for DC arm and 34.5 months for D arm, progression free survival (PFS) was significantly higher in the DC arm (DC vs D:3.33 months vs 2.60 months; p-value = 0.012), while no significant difference was observed in terms of overall survival (OS) (DC vs D: 10.3 months vs 7.70 months; p-value = 0.550). Chemotherapy was well-tolerated and grade III/IV toxicities were relatively infrequent. No toxic deaths were observed.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>This study has not achieved its primary objective of significant OS prolongation with docetaxel/carboplatin combination over single-agent docetaxel in patients who had not received front-line docetaxel; however, the docetaxel/carboplatin combination was associated with a significant clinical benefit in terms of PFS.</p

Practical Recommendations for Optimal Thromboprophylaxis in Patients with COVID-19: A Consensus Statement Based on Available Clinical Trials.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been shown to be strongly associated with increased risk for venous thromboembolism events (VTE) mainly in the inpatient but also in the outpatient setting. Pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis has been shown to offer significant benefits in terms of reducing not only VTE events but also mortality, especially in acutely ill patients with COVID-19. Although the main source of evidence is derived from observational studies with several limitations, thromboprophylaxis is currently recommended for all hospitalized patients with acceptable bleeding risk by all national and international guidelines. Recently, high quality data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) further support the role of thromboprophylaxis and provide insights into the optimal thromboprophylaxis strategy. The aim of this statement is to systematically review all the available evidence derived from RCTs regarding thromboprophylaxis strategies in patients with COVID-19 in different settings (either inpatient or outpatient) and provide evidence-based guidance to practical questions in everyday clinical practice. Clinical questions accompanied by practical recommendations are provided based on data derived from 20 RCTs that were identified and included in the present study. Overall, the main conclusions are: (i) thromboprophylaxis should be administered in all hospitalized patients with COVID-19, (ii) an optimal dose of inpatient thromboprophylaxis is dependent upon the severity of COVID-19, (iii) thromboprophylaxis should be administered on an individualized basis in post-discharge patients with COVID-19 with high thrombotic risk, and (iv) thromboprophylaxis should not be routinely administered in outpatients. Changes regarding the dominant SARS-CoV-2 variants, the wide immunization status (increasing rates of vaccination and reinfections), and the availability of antiviral therapies and monoclonal antibodies might affect the characteristics of patients with COVID-19; thus, future studies will inform us about the thrombotic risk and the optimal therapeutic strategies for these patients

Hyperimmune immunoglobulin for hospitalised patients with COVID-19 (ITAC): a double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3, randomised trial

BACKGROUND: Passive immunotherapy using hyperimmune intravenous immunoglobulin (hIVIG) to SARS-CoV-2, derived from recovered donors, is a potential rapidly available, specific therapy for an outbreak infection such as SARS-CoV-2. Findings from randomised clinical trials of hIVIG for the treatment of COVID-19 are limited. METHODS: In this international randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, hospitalised patients with COVID-19 who had been symptomatic for up to 12 days and did not have acute end-organ failure were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either hIVIG or an equivalent volume of saline as placebo, in addition to remdesivir, when not contraindicated, and other standard clinical care. Randomisation was stratified by site pharmacy; schedules were prepared using a mass-weighted urn design. Infusions were prepared and masked by trial pharmacists; all other investigators, research staff, and trial participants were masked to group allocation. Follow-up was for 28 days. The primary outcome was measured at day 7 by a seven-category ordinal endpoint that considered pulmonary status and extrapulmonary complications and ranged from no limiting symptoms to death. Deaths and adverse events, including organ failure and serious infections, were used to define composite safety outcomes at days 7 and 28. Prespecified subgroup analyses were carried out for efficacy and safety outcomes by duration of symptoms, the presence of anti-spike neutralising antibodies, and other baseline factors. Analyses were done on a modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population, which included all randomly assigned participants who met eligibility criteria and received all or part of the assigned study product infusion. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04546581. FINDINGS: From Oct 8, 2020, to Feb 10, 2021, 593 participants (n=301 hIVIG, n=292 placebo) were enrolled at 63 sites in 11 countries; 579 patients were included in the mITT analysis. Compared with placebo, the hIVIG group did not have significantly greater odds of a more favourable outcome at day 7; the adjusted OR was 1·06 (95% CI 0·77–1·45; p=0·72). Infusions were well tolerated, although infusion reactions were more common in the hIVIG group (18·6% vs 9·5% for placebo; p=0·002). The percentage with the composite safety outcome at day 7 was similar for the hIVIG (24%) and placebo groups (25%; OR 0·98, 95% CI 0·66–1·46; p=0·91). The ORs for the day 7 ordinal outcome did not vary for subgroups considered, but there was evidence of heterogeneity of the treatment effect for the day 7 composite safety outcome: risk was greater for hIVIG compared with placebo for patients who were antibody positive (OR 2·21, 95% CI 1·14–4·29); for patients who were antibody negative, the OR was 0·51 (0·29–0·90; pinteraction=0·001). INTERPRETATION: When administered with standard of care including remdesivir, SARS-CoV-2 hIVIG did not demonstrate efficacy among patients hospitalised with COVID-19 without end-organ failure. The safety of hIVIG might vary by the presence of endogenous neutralising antibodies at entry. FUNDING: US National Institutes of Health

Artificial Intelligence-Based Treatment Decisions: A New Era for NSCLC

Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is the leading cause of cancer-related mortality among women and men, in developed countries, despite the public health interventions including tobacco-free campaigns, screening and early detection methods, recent therapeutic advances, and ongoing intense research on novel antineoplastic modalities. Targeting oncogenic driver mutations and immune checkpoint inhibition has indeed revolutionized NSCLC treatment, yet there still remains the unmet need for robust and standardized predictive biomarkers to accurately inform clinical decisions. Artificial intelligence (AI) represents the computer-based science concerned with large datasets for complex problem-solving. Its concept has brought a paradigm shift in oncology considering its immense potential for improved diagnosis, treatment guidance, and prognosis. In this review, we present the current state of AI-driven applications on NSCLC management, with a particular focus on radiomics and pathomics, and critically discuss both the existing limitations and future directions in this field. The thoracic oncology community should not be discouraged by the likely long road of AI implementation into daily clinical practice, as its transformative impact on personalized treatment approaches is undeniable

New Insights into SARS-CoV-2 and Cancer Cross-Talk: Does a Novel Oncogenesis Driver Emerge?

Since the pandemic&rsquo;s onset, a growing population of individuals has recovered from SARS-CoV-2 infection and its long-term effects in some of the convalescents are gradually being reported. Although the precise etiopathogenesis of post-acute COVID-19 sequelae (PACS) remains elusive, the mainly accepted rationale is that SARS-CoV-2 exerts long-lasting immunomodulatory effects, promotes chronic low-grade inflammation, and causes irreversible tissue damage. So far, several viruses have been causally linked to human oncogenesis, whereas chronic inflammation and immune escape are thought to be the leading oncogenic mechanisms. Excessive cytokine release, impaired T-cell responses, aberrant activation of regulatory signaling pathways (e.g., JAK-STAT, MAPK, NF-kB), and tissue damage, hallmarks of COVID-19 disease course, are also present in the tumor microenvironment. Therefore, the intersection of COVID-19 and cancer is partially recognized and the long-term effects of the virus on oncogenesis and cancer progression have not been explored yet. Herein, we present an up-to-date review of the current literature regarding COVID-19 and cancer cross-talk, as well as the oncogenic pathways stimulated by SARS-CoV-2

The changing treatment of metastatic her2-positive breast cancer

Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-overexpressing breast cancer has been historically associated with an aggressive disease course with common distant metastasis and poor prognosis. HER2-targeting therapies have significantly changed treatment and drastically improved outcomes for this group of patients. However, primary or acquired resistance to anti-HER2 regimens leads almost universally to disease progression, often with difficult to treat central nervous system (CNS) metastases. The current review summarized the existing therapeutic options for HER2-positive metastatic disease in the first, second and further line setting. Furthermore, novel agents currently under development were presented, which have demonstrated encouraging results in heavily pretreated patients or specific subgroups, such as HR-positive/HER2-positive tumors and CNS disease