Chicken pox infection in patients undergoing chemotherapy: A retrospective analysis from a tertiary care center in India

SummaryThere is paucity of data on the incidence, severity and management of chicken pox in patients receiving active chemotherapy for cancer.From October 2010 to October 2011, patients were included in this study if they developed a chicken pox infection during their chemotherapy. The details of patients’ cancer diagnosis and treatment along with clinical and epidemiological data of the chicken pox infections were assessed from a prospectively maintained database.Twenty-four patients had a chicken pox infection while receiving chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy. The median age of the patients was 21 years, and two-thirds of the patients had solid tumor malignancies.Overall, eight (33%) patients had complications, six (25%) patients had febrile neutropenia, four (17%) had diarrhea/mucositis, and four (17%) had pneumonia. The median time for recovery of the infection and complications in the patients was 9.5 days (5–29 days), whereas for neutropenic patients, it was 6.5 days (3–14 days). The median time for recovery from chicken pox infections in neutropenic patients was 10 days (5–21 days), compared with 8.5 days (0–29 days) in non-neutropenic patients (P=0.84). The median time for recovery from infections was 8.5 days in patients with comorbidities (N=4), which was the same for patients with no comorbidities.The clinical presentation and complication rates of chicken pox in cancer patients, who were on active chemotherapy, are similar to the normal population. The recovery from a varicella infection and complications may be delayed in patients with neutropenia. The varicella infection causes a therapy delay in 70% of patients. Aggressive antiviral therapy, supportive care and isolation of the index cases remain the backbone of treatment

Metronomic adjuvant chemotherapy evaluation in locally advanced head and neck cancers post radical chemoradiation – a randomised trial

Background: Locally advanced head and neck cancers treated with radical chemoradiation have unsatisfactory outcomes. Oral metronomic chemotherapy improves outcomes in comparison to maximum tolerated dose chemotherapy in the palliative setting. Limited evidence suggests that it may do so in an adjuvant setting. Hence this randomized study was conducted. Methods: Patients of head and neck (HN) cancer with primary in oropharynx, larynx or hypopharynx, with PS 0–2 post radical chemoradiation with documented complete response were randomized 1:1 to either observation or oral metronomic adjuvant chemotherapy (MAC) for 18 months. MAC consisted of weekly oral methotrexate (15 mg/m2) and celecoxib (200 mg PO BD). The primary endpoint was OS and the overall sample size was 1038. The study had 3 planned interim analyses for efficacy and futility. Trial registration- Clinical Trials Registry- India (CTRI): CTRI/2016/09/007315 [Registered on: 28/09/2016] Trial Registered Prospectively. Findings: 137 patients were recruited and an interim analysis was done. The 3 year PFS was 68.7% (95% CI 55.1–79.0) versus 60.8% (95% CI 47.9–71.4) in the observation and metronomic arm respectively (P value = 0.230). The hazard ratio was 1.42 (95% CI 0.80–2.51; P value = 0.231). The 3 year OS was 79.4% (95% CI 66.3–87.9) versus 62.4% (95% CI 49.5–72.8) in the observation and metronomic arm respectively (P value = 0.047). The hazard ratio was 1.83 (95% CI 1.0–3.36; P value = 0.051). Interpretation: In this phase 3 randomized study, oral metronomic combinations of weekly methotrexate and daily celecoxib failed to improve the PFS or OS. Hence observation post-complete response post radical chemoradiation remains the standard of care. Funding: ICON funded this study.</p

Metronomic adjuvant chemotherapy evaluation in locally advanced head and neck cancers post radical chemoradiation – a randomised trial

Background: Locally advanced head and neck cancers treated with radical chemoradiation have unsatisfactory outcomes. Oral metronomic chemotherapy improves outcomes in comparison to maximum tolerated dose chemotherapy in the palliative setting. Limited evidence suggests that it may do so in an adjuvant setting. Hence this randomized study was conducted. Methods: Patients of head and neck (HN) cancer with primary in oropharynx, larynx or hypopharynx, with PS 0–2 post radical chemoradiation with documented complete response were randomized 1:1 to either observation or oral metronomic adjuvant chemotherapy (MAC) for 18 months. MAC consisted of weekly oral methotrexate (15 mg/m2) and celecoxib (200 mg PO BD). The primary endpoint was OS and the overall sample size was 1038. The study had 3 planned interim analyses for efficacy and futility. Trial registration- Clinical Trials Registry- India (CTRI): CTRI/2016/09/007315 [Registered on: 28/09/2016] Trial Registered Prospectively. Findings: 137 patients were recruited and an interim analysis was done. The 3 year PFS was 68.7% (95% CI 55.1–79.0) versus 60.8% (95% CI 47.9–71.4) in the observation and metronomic arm respectively (P value = 0.230). The hazard ratio was 1.42 (95% CI 0.80–2.51; P value = 0.231). The 3 year OS was 79.4% (95% CI 66.3–87.9) versus 62.4% (95% CI 49.5–72.8) in the observation and metronomic arm respectively (P value = 0.047). The hazard ratio was 1.83 (95% CI 1.0–3.36; P value = 0.051). Interpretation: In this phase 3 randomized study, oral metronomic combinations of weekly methotrexate and daily celecoxib failed to improve the PFS or OS. Hence observation post-complete response post radical chemoradiation remains the standard of care. Funding: ICON funded this study.</p

RMAC study:A randomized study for evaluation of metronomic adjuvant chemotherapy in recurrent head and neck cancers post salvage surgical resection in those who are ineligible for re-irradiation

Background: Adjuvant re-chemoradiation after salvage surgery improves disease-free survival in recurrent head and neck cancer. However, most patients are ineligible for re-irradiation and are kept on observation. We investigated the efficacy of metronomic adjuvant chemotherapy (MAC) in this group of patients compared to observation. Methods: This was a randomized integrated phase II/III clinical trial. Adults with recurrent head and neck cancer, who had undergone salvage surgery, but were ineligible for adjuvant re-irradiation were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either MAC arm or observation. MAC consisted of weekly oral methotrexate (at a dose of 15 mg per square meter of body surface area) and celecoxib (at a dose of 200 mg orally twice daily) for 6 months. The primary endpoint of phase 2 was disease-free survival (DFS) while that of phase 3 was overall survival (OS). For phase 2, to detect an improvement in the hazard ratio (HR) 0.67 with MAC, with a type 1 error of 10% (1-sided), type 2 error of 30%, 105 patients were required. While for phase 3, with a target HR of 0.77, with a type 1 error of 5%, type 2 error of 20%, 318 patients were required. Here we report the results of phase 2 part of the study. Results: At a median follow up of 30.2 months (95% confidence interval (CI), 25.3 to 35.1) the 1 year and 2-year DFS were 57.4% (95% CI, 42.8–69.5) and 37.6% (95% CI, 24.1–51) in MAC arm whereas the corresponding numbers were 62.3% (95% CI, 47.8 to 73.8) and 54.2%(95% CI, 39.8 to 66.5) in observation arm, respectively (hazard ratio for progression, 1.45; 95% CI, 0.87 to 2.47; P = 0.15). In the MAC arm, the 1 and 2 year OS was 78.7% (95% CI, 64.9 to 87.6) and 48% (95% CI, 34.1 to 62).The corresponding figures in the observation arm were 79.2% (95% CI, 65.7 to 87.9) and 65.5% (95% CI, 50.9 to 76.7) (hazard ratio for death, 1.7, 95% CI, 0.94 to 3.08; P = 0.08). Conclusion: The adjuvant 6-month metronomic schedule was ineffective in improving outcomes in recurrent head and neck cancers post salvage surgery who are ineligible for re-radiation. Trial registration. Clinical trial registry of India (CTRI)- CTRI/2016/04/006872 [Registered on 26/4/2016] © 2022 Elsevier Lt

RMAC study:A randomized study for evaluation of metronomic adjuvant chemotherapy in recurrent head and neck cancers post salvage surgical resection in those who are ineligible for re-irradiation

Background: Adjuvant re-chemoradiation after salvage surgery improves disease-free survival in recurrent head and neck cancer. However, most patients are ineligible for re-irradiation and are kept on observation. We investigated the efficacy of metronomic adjuvant chemotherapy (MAC) in this group of patients compared to observation. Methods: This was a randomized integrated phase II/III clinical trial. Adults with recurrent head and neck cancer, who had undergone salvage surgery, but were ineligible for adjuvant re-irradiation were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either MAC arm or observation. MAC consisted of weekly oral methotrexate (at a dose of 15 mg per square meter of body surface area) and celecoxib (at a dose of 200 mg orally twice daily) for 6 months. The primary endpoint of phase 2 was disease-free survival (DFS) while that of phase 3 was overall survival (OS). For phase 2, to detect an improvement in the hazard ratio (HR) 0.67 with MAC, with a type 1 error of 10% (1-sided), type 2 error of 30%, 105 patients were required. While for phase 3, with a target HR of 0.77, with a type 1 error of 5%, type 2 error of 20%, 318 patients were required. Here we report the results of phase 2 part of the study. Results: At a median follow up of 30.2 months (95% confidence interval (CI), 25.3 to 35.1) the 1 year and 2-year DFS were 57.4% (95% CI, 42.8–69.5) and 37.6% (95% CI, 24.1–51) in MAC arm whereas the corresponding numbers were 62.3% (95% CI, 47.8 to 73.8) and 54.2%(95% CI, 39.8 to 66.5) in observation arm, respectively (hazard ratio for progression, 1.45; 95% CI, 0.87 to 2.47; P = 0.15). In the MAC arm, the 1 and 2 year OS was 78.7% (95% CI, 64.9 to 87.6) and 48% (95% CI, 34.1 to 62).The corresponding figures in the observation arm were 79.2% (95% CI, 65.7 to 87.9) and 65.5% (95% CI, 50.9 to 76.7) (hazard ratio for death, 1.7, 95% CI, 0.94 to 3.08; P = 0.08). Conclusion: The adjuvant 6-month metronomic schedule was ineffective in improving outcomes in recurrent head and neck cancers post salvage surgery who are ineligible for re-radiation. Trial registration. Clinical trial registry of India (CTRI)- CTRI/2016/04/006872 [Registered on 26/4/2016] © 2022 Elsevier Lt

Nimotuzumab-cisplatin-radiation versus cisplatin-radiation in HPV negative oropharyngeal cancer

BACKGROUND: Addition of nimotuzumab to weekly cisplatin and radiation improves outcomes in head and neck cancer. HPV negative oropharyngeal cancer has unsatisfactory treatment outcomes and is a candidate for escalation of treatment. We wanted to determine whether the addition of nimotuzumab to cisplatin-radiation could improve outcomes in these poor-risk tumors.METHODS: This was a subgroup analysis of a phase 3 randomized study. In this study, locally advanced head and neck cancer patients undergoing definitive chemoradiation were randomly allocated to weekly cisplatin (30 mg/m2 IV)- radiation (66–70 Gy) {CRT arm} or nimotuzumab (200 mg weekly) -weekly cisplatin (30 mg/m2)-radiation (66–70 Gy) {NCRT arm}. The data of HPV negative oropharyngeal cancer was extracted from the database of this study for the analysis. HPV testing was done with p16 immunohistochemistry (IHC) staining and reported according to the CAP criteria. The outcomes assessed were progression-free survival (PFS), disease-free survival (DFS), locoregional control, and overall survival (OS). Interaction test was performed between the study arms and HPV status prior to doing any HPV specific analysis for each of the studied outcomes. Kaplan Meier estimates for 2 year OS with 95% CI was calculated. The hazard ratio was obtained using COX regression analysis.RESULTS: We had 187 HPV negative oropharyngeal cancers, 91 in the CRT arm and 96 in NCRT arm. The interaction test was significant for PFS (p = 0.000), locoregional control (p = 0.007) and overall survival (p = 0.002) but not for DFS (p = 0.072). The 2- year PFS was 31.5% (95%CI 21.5–42) in CRT arm versus 57.2% (95%CI 45.8–67.1) in NCRT arm (HR -0.54; 95%CI 0.36–0.79, p = 0.002). The 2-year LRC was 41.4% (95%CI 29.8–52.6) in the CRT arm versus in 60.4% (95%CI 48.7–70.2) in the NCRT arm (HR -0.61; 95%CI 0.4–0.94, p = 0.024). The addition of nimotuzumab also lead to an improvement in 2-year OS from 39.0% (95%CI 28.4–49.6) to 57.6% (95%CI 46.3–67.4) (HR-0.63, 95%CI 0.43–0.92, p = 0.018).CONCLUSIONS: The addition of nimotuzumab to weekly cisplatin-radiation improves outcomes inclusive of OS in HPV negative oropharyngeal cancers.<br/

Nimotuzumab-cisplatin-radiation versus cisplatin-radiation in HPV negative oropharyngeal cancer

BACKGROUND: Addition of nimotuzumab to weekly cisplatin and radiation improves outcomes in head and neck cancer. HPV negative oropharyngeal cancer has unsatisfactory treatment outcomes and is a candidate for escalation of treatment. We wanted to determine whether the addition of nimotuzumab to cisplatin-radiation could improve outcomes in these poor-risk tumors.METHODS: This was a subgroup analysis of a phase 3 randomized study. In this study, locally advanced head and neck cancer patients undergoing definitive chemoradiation were randomly allocated to weekly cisplatin (30 mg/m2 IV)- radiation (66–70 Gy) {CRT arm} or nimotuzumab (200 mg weekly) -weekly cisplatin (30 mg/m2)-radiation (66–70 Gy) {NCRT arm}. The data of HPV negative oropharyngeal cancer was extracted from the database of this study for the analysis. HPV testing was done with p16 immunohistochemistry (IHC) staining and reported according to the CAP criteria. The outcomes assessed were progression-free survival (PFS), disease-free survival (DFS), locoregional control, and overall survival (OS). Interaction test was performed between the study arms and HPV status prior to doing any HPV specific analysis for each of the studied outcomes. Kaplan Meier estimates for 2 year OS with 95% CI was calculated. The hazard ratio was obtained using COX regression analysis.RESULTS: We had 187 HPV negative oropharyngeal cancers, 91 in the CRT arm and 96 in NCRT arm. The interaction test was significant for PFS (p = 0.000), locoregional control (p = 0.007) and overall survival (p = 0.002) but not for DFS (p = 0.072). The 2- year PFS was 31.5% (95%CI 21.5–42) in CRT arm versus 57.2% (95%CI 45.8–67.1) in NCRT arm (HR -0.54; 95%CI 0.36–0.79, p = 0.002). The 2-year LRC was 41.4% (95%CI 29.8–52.6) in the CRT arm versus in 60.4% (95%CI 48.7–70.2) in the NCRT arm (HR -0.61; 95%CI 0.4–0.94, p = 0.024). The addition of nimotuzumab also lead to an improvement in 2-year OS from 39.0% (95%CI 28.4–49.6) to 57.6% (95%CI 46.3–67.4) (HR-0.63, 95%CI 0.43–0.92, p = 0.018).CONCLUSIONS: The addition of nimotuzumab to weekly cisplatin-radiation improves outcomes inclusive of OS in HPV negative oropharyngeal cancers.<br/

Sustainable care for children with cancer: a Lancet Oncology Commission.

We estimate that there will be 13·7 million new cases of childhood cancer globally between 2020 and 2050. At current levels of health system performance (including access and referral), 6·1 million (44·9%) of these children will be undiagnosed. Between 2020 and 2050, 11·1 million children will die from cancer if no additional investments are made to improve access to health-care services or childhood cancer treatment. Of this total, 9·3 million children (84·1%) will be in low-income and lower-middle-income countries. This burden could be vastly reduced with new funding to scale up cost-effective interventions. Simultaneous comprehensive scale-up of interventions could avert 6·2 million deaths in children with cancer in this period, more than half (56·1%) of the total number of deaths otherwise projected. Taking excess mortality risk into consideration, this reduction in the number of deaths is projected to produce a gain of 318 million life-years. In addition, the global lifetime productivity gains of US$2580 billion in 2020-50 would be four times greater than the cumulative treatment costs of$594 billion, producing a net benefit of $1986 billion on the global investment: a net return of$3 for every $1 invested. In sum, the burden of childhood cancer, which has been grossly underestimated in the past, can be effectively diminished to realise massive health and economic benefits and to avert millions of needless deaths

Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation: Need for Research & Potential Applications. It’s status in India

Stem cells are undifferentiated cells that through replications have the capabilities of both self-renewal and differentiation into mature specialized cells. Broadly, there are two types of stem cells, embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells. Embryonic stem cell biology has been associated with ethical controversy and also their growth is difficult to control. Adult stem cells are located in tissues throughout the body and function as a reservoir to replace damaged or aging cells. Embryonic stem cells are by definitions, the master cells capable of differentiating into every type of cells either in-vitro or in-vivo. Several lines of evidence suggests, however, that adult stem cells and even terminally differentiated somatic cells under appropriate micro-environmental cues are able to be reprogrammed and contribute to a much wider spectrum of differentiated progeny than previously anticipated. Hematopoietic Stem Cells (HSCs), for example, from different sources have been shown to cross the tissue boundaries and give rise to the cells of the other germ layers.In the past few years, the plasticity of adult cells in several post-natal tissues has attracted special attention in regenerative medicine. Stem cell therapies represent a new field of biomedical science which could provide in the future the cure for diseases until now considered incurable. The reconstitution of adult stem cells may be promising source for the regeneration of damaged tissues and for the resolution of organ dysfunction. However, there are two major limitations to the use of such cells:- (i) They are rare and (ii) Only a few types exist that can be isolated without harming the patient.Due to the inability to efficiently and safely harvest or expand stem cells from most adult organs (e.g. liver, gastrointestinal tract, heart, brain), the majority of human stem cell trials have focused on clinical applications for HSCs, mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), or both, which can be easily obtained in clinically sufficient numbers from peripheral blood, bone marrow, umbilical cord blood or placenta. HSCs can give rise to muscle, liver cells, astrocytes, etc, especially when co-cultured with the particular tissue progenitor cells and in presence of MSCs