Biases in study design, implementation, and data analysis that distort the appraisal of clinical benefit and ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) scoring

BACKGROUND: The European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) is a validated, widely used tool developed to score the clinical benefit from cancer medicines reported in clinical trials. ESMO-MCBS scores assume valid research methodologies and quality trial implementation. Studies incorporating flawed design, implementation, or data analysis may generate outcomes that exaggerate true benefit and are not generalisable. Failure to either indicate or penalise studies with bias undermines the intention and diminishes the integrity of ESMO-MCBS scores. This review aimed to evaluate the adequacy of the ESMO-MCBS to address bias generated by flawed design, implementation, or data analysis and identify shortcomings in need of amendment. METHODS: As part of a refinement of the ESMO-MCBS, we reviewed trial design, implementation, and data analysis issues that could bias the results. For each issue of concern, we reviewed the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 approach against standards derived from Helsinki guidelines for ethical human research and guidelines from the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use, the Food and Drugs Administration, the European Medicines Agency, and European Network for Health Technology Assessment. RESULTS: Six design, two implementation, and two data analysis and interpretation issues were evaluated and in three, the ESMO-MCBS provided adequate protections. Seven shortcomings in the ability of the ESMO-MCBS to identify and address bias were identified. These related to (i) evaluation of the control arm, (ii) crossover issues, (iii) criteria for non-inferiority, (iv) substandard post-progression treatment, (v) post hoc subgroup findings based on biomarkers, (vi) informative censoring, and (vii) publication bias against quality-of-life data. CONCLUSION: Interpretation of the ESMO-MCBS scores requires critical appraisal of trials to understand caveats in trial design, implementation, and data analysis that may have biased results and conclusions. These will be addressed in future iterations of the ESMO-MCBS.SCOPUS: re.jinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

Synthesis of Recommendations From 25 Countries and 31 Oncology Societies: How to Navigate Through Covid-19 Labyrinth

Introduction: Pandemic COVID-19 is an unexpected challenge for the oncological community, indicating potential detrimental effects on cancer patients. Our aim was to summarize the converging key points providing a general guidance in order to support decision making, pertaining to the oncologic care in the middle of a global outbreak. Methods: We did an international online search in twenty five countries that have managed a surge in cancer patient numbers. We collected the recommendations from thirty one medical oncology societies. Results: By synthesizing guidelines for a) oncology service delivery adjustments, b) general and specific treatment adaptations, and c) discrepancies from guidelines comparison, we present a clinical synopsis with the forty more crucial statements. A Covid-19 risk stratification base was also created in order to obtain a quick, objective patient assessment and a risk-benefit evaluation on a case-by-case basis. Conclusions: In an attempt to face these complex needs and due to limited understanding of COVID-19, a variability of recommendations based on general epidemiological and infectious disease principles rather than definite cancer-related evidence has evolved. Additionally, the absence of an effective treatment or vaccine requires the development of cancer management guidance, capitalizing on comprehensive COVID-19 oncology experience globally

Bone and soft tissue sarcomas during pregnancy: A narrative review of the literature

Bone or soft tissue sarcomas are rarely diagnosed during pregnancy. Until today 137 well documented cases have been reported in the English literature between 1963 and 2014. Thirty-eight pregnant mothers were diagnosed with osteosarcoma, Ewing's sarcoma or chondrosarcoma, whereas 95 other cases of soft tissue sarcomas of various types have been documented. We present the clinical picture and therapeutic management of this coexistence. © 201

Immunotherapy Efficacy in the Initial Lines of Treatment in Advanced Upper Gastrointestinal Malignancies: A Systematic Review of the Literature

Background: The therapeutic role of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) has represented the cutting edge of clinical research in upper gastrointestinal (GI) malignancies, with these agents now included in the armamentarium of treatment options for advanced gastric and esophageal cancers. Methods: We performed a systematic literature review and pooled analysis to map out the currently available robust clinical evidence for the use of ICIs in upper GI cancers. Immunotherapy (IO), either as monotherapy or in combination with chemotherapy, and its role in first-line, maintenance, and second-line settings, as well as in specific clinical and biological subgroups, were critically appraised. All statistical tests were 2-sided. Results: ICIs, in combination with chemotherapy, have provided statistically significant overall survival benefit in the first-line setting in gastric and gastro-esophageal adenocarcinomas (hazard ratio [HR] ¼ 0.83, 95% confidence interval [CI] ¼ 0.76 to 0.90, P < .001; based on 4 studies) and esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (HR ¼ 0.72, 95% CI ¼ 0.64 to 0.81, P < .001; based on 3 studies), albeit with heterogeneous efficacy according to biomarker expression. Patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, and in particular high programmed cell death ligand-1 expression, derive survival benefit when treated with IO in the second-line setting (HR ¼ 0.74, 95% CI ¼ 0.68 to 0.82, P < .001; for any level of programmed cell death ligand-1 expression). Clinical trials interrogating the combination of IO with chemotherapy in second-line treatment should be seriously considered in upper GI adenocarcinomas. The role of maintenance IO after initial disease control is still unclear and cannot be recommended. Impressive response rates and survival benefit from IO have been reported in patients with microsatellite instability-high tumors (HR ¼ 0.33, 95% CI ¼ 0.19 to 0.57, P < .001), and this warrants further prospective biomarker-driven studies. Conclusions: IO is changing the treatment landscape in upper GI malignancies. The rapidly developing evidence in the field needs to be critically appraised while further validation of the existing information from ongoing trials is awaited. © The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press

Behind the numbers and the panic of a viral pandemic: Fixed restrictive oncology guidance may jeopardize patients’ survival

To protect cancer patients from COVID-19exposure, prioritization strategies are being implemented at global level. Measures include use of tele-health services, deferring elective surgeries, delaying non life-saving therapies, interrupting maintenance and supportive care regimens and suspending screening and regular follow-up visits. Nonetheless, the risk of infection may not always outweigh oncology treatment benefit. Lives of most oncology patients depend on their ability to receive medical, surgical and radiotherapy care. Postponing screening, follow-up and radical surgeriesincreasepatients’riskofdevelopingmetastaticdisease. Aviral pandemic lasts long time andexhibits seasonal and geographical variations. Though vaccines will be available only in the 2021, a global, aggressive, all-embracing and protracted slowdown of oncologic activities will severely jeopardize patients’ outcomes. A present international oncologists’ panel, ECPC and FAVO, strongly suggest that Hospital measures in a specific geographical area/Nation should be in line with the local epidemic, and restrictions adopted should be adapted and stratified over time. © 2020 Zerbinis Publications. All rights reserved

Supplementary Material for: Exploring Immune-Related Adverse Events: A Case of Febrile Neutropenia in Melanoma Patient Receiving Immunotherapy

The introduction of Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) has opened a new chapter in cancer treatment. Nevertheless, their use may result in immune-related adverse events (irAEs) with multifactorial determinants, complex mechanisms, and varying clinical implications. In specific cancer types, like melanoma, irAEs exhibit a complex relationship with patient outcomes. We present a case of febrile neutropenia following ICI therapy in a patient with metastatic melanoma, underscoring the intricate clinical landscape associated with irAEs in the context of cancer immunotherapy. More specifically, a 68-year-old man was diagnosed with metastatic malignant melanoma and administered a combination of Nivolumab and Ipilimumab. However, after a single dose, the patient was hospitalized due to febrile neutropenia. The patient eventually recovered, but a diagnosis of myelosuppression related to prior immunotherapy led to treatment discontinuation. Subsequently, the patient transitioned to a second-line therapy. This case contributes to our comprehension of rare yet potentially severe hematological immune-related adverse events and their influence on immunotherapy outcomes. Such insights will guide future diagnostic and therapeutic strategies in the field of immunotherapy

AGAPP: efficacy of first-line cisplatin, 5-fluorouracil with afatinib in inoperable gastric and gastroesophageal junction carcinomas. A Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group study

Purpose: Gastric cancer is the fifth most common neoplasm worldwide with high rates of mortality. Afatinib, a low molecular, irreversible potent inhibitor of ErbB trans-membrane receptor family, has shown promising results according to preclinical and phase I clinical trial data when combined with chemotherapy. We aimed at evaluating the safety and efficacy of the combination of cisplatin, 5FU with afatinib in molecularly unselected patients with advanced gastric cancer. Methods: Patients with locally advanced or metastatic gastric/gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma received first line combination therapy of cisplatin, 5FU and afatinib every 21 days, followed by afatinib maintenance monotherapy. The primary endpoint was the Objective Response Rate (ORR); secondary endpoints included Overall Survival (OS), Progression Free Survival (PFS) and the safety profile. Unplanned exploratory analysis of HER2 and tumor mutational profile was performed. Results: Among 55 patients (ITT population) enrolled, 19 (34.5%) achieved an objective tumor response; stable disease was observed in 16 patients (29.1%) and progressive disease in 10 patients (18.2%). The ORR in the per protocol population (PP) was 42.9%. Within a median follow-up of 56 months, the median PFS and OS in the ITT population was 5.0 and 8.7 months, respectively. Seven of the 47 HER2 informative cases carried HER2 positive tumors while TP53, BRCA2 and SMAD4 were the most frequently mutated genes. The most common toxicities were neutrophil count and white blood cell decrease occurring in 56.4% of patients, followed by anemia (50.9%), hyperglycemia (40%), and diarrhea (38.2%). Conclusions: The combination of cisplatin/5FU with afatinib did not surpass the benchmarks of efficacy of the contemporary therapeutic regimens that are being applied for the treatment of patients with advanced gastric cancer. However, the observed efficacy and the improved safety profile support that our administration schedule may be further investigated to overcome toxicity problems when integrating afatinib to cytotoxic chemotherapy. Clinical trial registration: NCT01743365. © 2021 Acta Oncologica Foundation

A challenging task - Identifying carcinoma of unknown primary (CUP) patients according to ESMO guidelines: The CUPISCO trial experience

BACKGROUND: CUPISCO is an ongoing randomized phase II trial (NCT03498521) comparing molecularly guided therapy versus platinum-based chemotherapy in patients newly diagnosed with "unfavorable" cancer of unknown primary (CUP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with an unfavorable CUP diagnosis, as defined by the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO), and available cancer tissue for molecular sequencing are generally eligible. Potential patients with CUP entering screening undergo a review involving reference histopathology and clinical work-up by a central eligibility review team (ERT). Patients with "favorable" CUP, a strongly suspected primary site of origin, lack of tissue, or unmet inclusion criteria are excluded. RESULTS: As of April 30, 2020, 628 patients had entered screening and 346 (55.1%) were screen failed. Screen fails were due to technical reasons (n = 89), failure to meet inclusion and exclusion criteria not directly related to CUP diagnosis (n = 89), and other reasons (n = 33). A total of 124 (35.8%) patients were excluded because unfavorable adeno- or poorly differentiated CUP could not be confirmed by the ERT. These cases were classified into three groups ineligible because of (a) histologic subtype, such as squamous and neuroendocrine, or favorable CUP; (b) evidence of a possible primary tumor; or (c) noncarcinoma histology. CONCLUSION: Experience with CUPISCO has highlighted challenges with standardized screening in an international clinical trial and the difficulties in diagnosing unfavorable CUP. Reconfirmation of unfavorable CUP by an ERT in a clinical trial can result in many reasons for screen failures. By sharing this experience, we aim to foster understanding of diagnostic challenges and improve diagnostic pathology and clinical CUP algorithms. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: A high unmet need exists for improved treatment of cancer of unknown primary (CUP); however, study in a trial setting is faced with the significant challenge of definitively distinguishing CUP from other cancer types. This article reports the authors' experience of this challenge so far in the ongoing CUPISCO trial, which compares treatments guided by patients' unique genetic signatures versus standard chemotherapy. The data presented will aid future decision-making regarding diagnosing true CUP cases; this will have far-reaching implications in the design, execution, and interpretation of not only CUPISCO but also future clinical studies aiming to find much-needed treatment strategies