First-line Treatment For Patients Research Articles

Real-world dostarlimab use in advanced/recurrent endometrial cancer in France

In October 2020, the French Health Authority granted early access outside of the clinical trial setting for dostarlimab, a programmed death-1 inhibitor. Dostarlimab was approved by the European Medicines Agency (in April 2021) as monotherapy for patients with post-platinum mismatch repair deficient/microsatellite instability-high advanced/recurrent endometrial cancer, based on the results of the GARNET trial (NCT02715284). This was a real-world descriptive analysis of patients granted cohort temporary authorization of use to receive dostarlimab between November 2020 and June 2021. Physicians could complete follow-up forms at each treatment cycle to provide clinical information, safety, and efficacy data. Safety and disease progression data were also captured through pharmacovigilance reports. Of 95 temporary authorization of use requests made by 80 oncologists in 59 French hospitals, 87 patients were eligible, and 80 received≥1 dose of dostarlimab. Based on treatment response assessments received (n=43), the mean (standard deviation) time from treatment initiation to response evaluation was 11 (6) weeks. The disease control rate (complete plus partial responses plus stable disease rates) was 56% (n=24/43), and the overall response rate was 35% (n=15/43); both consistent with those reported in the GARNET trial. No new safety signals were reported. The enrolment of 80 patients in an 8-month period highlights the need for access to novel treatment regimens in France for these patients post-platinum. Prospective randomized studies are ongoing to assess the efficacy and safety of dostarlimab and other checkpoint inhibitors as first-line treatment in patients with endometrial cancer.

Analyzing Flow Cytometry or Targeted Gene Expression Data Influences Clinical Discoveries-Profiling Blood Samples of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma Patients.

Monitoring the therapeutic response of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) patients is crucial to determine treatment strategies. Several studies have examined the effectiveness of FOLFIRINOX as a first-line treatment in patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer, but little attention has been paid to the immunologic alterations in peripheral blood caused by this chemotherapy regimen. Furthermore, the influence of the measurement type (e.g., flow cytometry and targeted gene expression) on the clinical discoveries is unknown. Therefore, we aimed to scrutinize the influence of using flow cytometry or targeted immune gene expression to study the immunological changes in blood samples of PDAC patients who were treated with a single-cycle FOLFIRINOX combined with lipegfilgrastim (FFX-Lipeg). Whole-blood samples from 44 PDAC patients were collected at two time points: before the first FOLFIRINOX cycle and 14 days after the first cycle. EDTA blood tubes were used for multiplex flow cytometry analyses to quantify 18 immune cell populations and for complete blood count tests as the standard clinical routine. The flow cytometry data were analyzed with FlowJo software. In addition, Tempus blood tubes were used to isolate RNA and measure 1230 immune-related genes using NanoString Technology®. Data quality control, normalization, and analysis were performed using nSolver™ software and the Advanced Analysis module. FFX-Lipeg treatment increased the number of neutrophils and monocytes, as shown by flow cytometry and complete blood count in concordance with elevated gene expression measured via targeted gene expression profiling analysis. Interestingly, flow cytometry analysis showed an increase in the number of B and T cells after treatment, while targeted gene expression analysis showed a decrease in B and T cell-specific gene expression. Targeted gene expression complements flow cytometry analysis to provide a comprehensive understanding of the effects of FFX-Lipeg. Flow cytometry and targeted gene expression showed increases in neutrophils and monocytes after FFX-Lipeg. The number of lymphocytes is increased after treatment; nevertheless, their cell-specific gene expression levels are downregulated. This highlights that different techniques influence clinical discoveries. Therefore, it is important to carefully select the measurement technique used to study the effect of a treatment.

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors Serve as the First-Line Treatment for Advanced Head and Neck Cancer.

Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy has demonstrated substantial benefits for certain patients. We try to evaluate the merits and demerits of each immunotherapy to aid clinical treatment. We conducted a comprehensive search of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases for randomized clinical trials published as of June 10, 2023. Our study included published clinical trials of ICI monotherapy or combination therapy, along with data on treatment-related adverse events (TRAE). Data regarding survival efficacy and adverse events of each randomized controlled trial (RCT) were collected. The Bayesian random effects model was utilized for the network meta-analysis (NMA). This study incorporated 19 RCTs, involving 5900 patients. Among 14 treatment regimens, Pembrolizumab combined with chemotherapy emerged as the most promising primary treatment for overall survival (OS) and objective response rate (ORR). Toripalimab combined with chemotherapy exhibited the highest likelihood of becoming the primary treatment for extending progression-free survival (PFS). Durvalumab showed the lowest probability of adverse events, suggesting a safer profile compared with other drugs. Camrelizumab combined with chemotherapy demonstrated a heightened risk of adverse events. Dual ICI Nivolumab/Ipilimumab surpassed Durvalumab/Tremelimumab in terms of ORR and adverse events. The standard of care (SOC) regimen did not exhibit strong performance across the four outcome indicators. Our analysis suggests that the integration of chemotherapy agents with ICIs enhances its efficacy as a first-line treatment for patients with advanced head and neck cancer (HNC). 1 Laryngoscope, 134:749-761, 2024.

Comparing biweekly single-dose actinomycin D with multiday methotrexate therapy for low-risk gestational trophoblastic neoplasia (FIGO Score 0–4): study protocol for a prospective, multicentre, randomized trial

BackgroundSingle-agent chemotherapy using methotrexate or actinomycin D is the first-line treatment for patients with low-risk gestational trophoblastic neoplasia. Various methotrexate-based and actinomycin D-based single-agent regimens can be used. However, there is insufficient evidence to determine the superior regimen. To guide doctors in selecting a single-agent chemotherapy regimen for patients with low-risk gestational trophoblastic neoplasia, we will compare two regimens.MethodsWe will conduct a multicentre, randomized, prospective clinical trial. Selected low-risk gestational trophoblastic neoplasia patients (FIGO score 0–4) will be randomized 1:1 to a biweekly single-dose actinomycin D group or a multiday methotrexate therapy group. The actinomycin D group will receive IV pulse actinomycin D (1.25 mg/m2) every 14 days, and the methotrexate group will receive methotrexate (50 mg) intramuscularly on days 1, 3, 5, and 7 (4 doses per cycle) and leucovorin (15 mg) intramuscularly on days 2, 4, 6, and 8. This process will be repeated every 14 days. The primary endpoints will include the complete remission rate by single-agent therapy and the overall complete remission rate. The secondary endpoints will include the duration needed to achieve complete remission after single-agent chemotherapy, number of courses needed to achieve complete remission after single-agent chemotherapy, incidence and severity of adverse effects, effects on menstrual conditions and ovarian function based on the anti-Mullerian hormone level, and patient-reported quality of life.DiscussionPrevious clinical trials comparing biweekly single-dose actinomycin D with multiday methotrexate therapy for treating low-risk gestational trophoblastic neoplasia patients failed to meet the expected case number. Through this multicentre study, the complete remission ratio and efficacy difference between biweekly single-dose actinomycin D and multiday methotrexate therapy will be obtained. This study will also provide the basis for formulating a preferred regimen for treating patients with low-risk gestational trophoblastic neoplasia.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04562558, Registered on 13 September 2020 (Protocol version 2020–9-24, version 1.0).

Circulating miR-146a predicts glucocorticoid response in thyroid eye disease.

Thyroid eye disease (TED) is an immune-mediated disorder of the eye. Intravenous glucocorticoid (GC) is the first-line treatment for patients with active moderate-to-severe TED. However, the response rate is between 50% and 80%. There are still no simple and reliable markers of responsiveness to GC therapy. We aimed to explore the possible role of miR-146a and miR-21 as predictors of responsiveness to GC treatment in TED. We carried out a prospective longitudinal study on 30 consecutive adult patients with active moderate-to-severe TED and eligible for GC therapy. All patients received the standard GC treatment with methylprednisolone i.v. In cases of progressive worsening of Gorman Score for diplopia or with duction restriction <30° in at least two consecutive controls, patients also underwent orbital radiotherapy. Response to GC treatment was defined as a decrease of two or more points in the clinical activity score (CAS) or CAS <4/10 at 24 weeks. Circulating miRNAs were extracted from patients' serum and quantified by real-time PCR. Twenty-three (77%) patients responded to GC. Thyroid surgery, higher CAS, greater proptosis and higher pre-treatment circulating levels of miR-146a emerged as predictive factors of responsiveness to GC. A ROC analysis revealed that miR-146a could predict responsiveness to GC with a positive predictive value of 100%. This is the first study investigating the role of pre-treatment circulating miR-21 and miR-146a to predict responsiveness to GC in TED. miR-146a emerged as a simple, objective, new marker of GC sensitivity that could be used to avoid ineffective administration of GC therapy to TED patients.

Comparison analysis of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors plus lenvatinib or gemcitabine/cisplatin as first-line treatment for patients with advanced intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.

Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) is a highly aggressive primary liver cancer, with increasing incidence worldwide. Effective first-line treatments for advanced ICC patients are currently limited. Therefore, our study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of programmed death-1 (PD-1)/programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors in combination with gemcitabine/cisplatin (GC) and lenvatinib as first-line treatment in advanced ICC patients. This retrospective cohort study included 51 advanced ICC patients, among whom 25 patients were administered with PD-1/PD-L1 plus lenvatinib and 26 patients were administered with PD-1/PD-L1 plus GC. Baseline characteristics including demographic information, medical history, clinical characteristics, laboratory data, and imaging examination were collected. The primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and sixth- and ninth-month overall survival (OS) rate. Survival curve was plotted by the Kaplan-Meier method. A Cox proportion risk model was performed to investigate independent risk factors of PFS and OS. The secondary outcomes were objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and adverse events. The median age of advanced ICC patients in our study was 58.0 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] = 48.0-72.4) years, with 33 male and 18 female patients. Patients in the PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors plus lenvatinib group were more likely to be in ECOG grade above 1, develop ascites, and have an elevated level of ALT. The ORR was 16.0% in the PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors plus lenvatinib group and 23.1% in the GC group (p = 0.777). The DCR was 52.0% in the lenvatinib group and 46.2% in the GC group (p = 0.676). The combination treatment of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors plus lenvatinib was associated with longer PFS than the GC group; however, it was not statistically significant (lenvatinib: 9.5 months, GC: 5.1 months, p = 0.454). The sixth-month and ninth-month OS rates were 82.0% and 76.9% in the lenvatinib group and 87.4% and 71.5% in the GC group. After adjusting for confounders, multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that ECOG grade above 1 was an independent risk factor for PFS (hazard ratio [HR]= 3.388, 95% CI = 1.312-8.746, p = 0.012) and OS (HR = 4.220, 95% CI = 1.131-15.742, p = 0.032). PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in combination with lenvatinib or GC all demonstrated significant efficacy and safety as first-line treatment in patients with advanced ICC. As for patients who refuse or are intolerant to chemotherapy, PD-1/PD-L1 plus lenvatinib would be recommended.

Bintrafusp Alfa Versus Pembrolizumab in Patients With Treatment-Naive, Programmed Death-Ligand 1–High Advanced NSCLC: A Randomized, Open-Label, Phase 3 Trial

IntroductionBintrafusp alfa, a first-in-class bifunctional fusion protein composed of the extracellular domain of TGF-βRII (a TGF-β “trap”) fused to a human immunoglobulin G1 monoclonal antibody blocking programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), has exhibited clinical activity in a phase 1 expansion cohort of patients with PD-L1–high advanced NSCLC. MethodsThis adaptive phase 3 trial (NCT03631706) compared the efficacy and safety of bintrafusp alfa versus pembrolizumab as first-line treatment in patients with PD-L1–high advanced NSCLC. Primary end points were progression-free survival according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 per independent review committee and overall survival. ResultsPatients (N = 304) were randomized one-to-one to receive either bintrafusp alfa or pembrolizumab (n = 152 each). The median follow-up was 14.3 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 13.1–16.0 mo) for bintrafusp alfa and 14.5 months (95% CI: 13.1–15.9 mo) for pembrolizumab. Progression-free survival by independent review committee was not significantly different between bintrafusp alfa and pembrolizumab arms (median = 7.0 mo [95% CI: 4.2 mo–not reached (NR)] versus 11.1 mo [95% CI: 8.1 mo–NR]; hazard ratio = 1.232 [95% CI: 0.885–1.714]). The median overall survival was 21.1 months (95% CI: 21.1 mo–NR) for bintrafusp alfa and 22.1 months (95% CI: 20.4 mo–NR) for pembrolizumab (hazard ratio = 1.201 [95% CI: 0.796–1.811]). Treatment-related adverse events were higher with bintrafusp alfa versus pembrolizumab; grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 42.4% versus 13.2% of patients, respectively. The study was discontinued at an interim analysis as it was unlikely to meet the primary end point. ConclusionsFirst-line treatment with bintrafusp alfa did not exhibit superior efficacy compared with pembrolizumab in patients with PD-L1–high, advanced NSCLC.

Efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors for advanced non-small cell lung cancer with or without PD-L1 selection: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are standard treatments for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC); however, evidence regarding their relative efficacy and safety is lacking. This study compared the efficacy and safety of all currently available ICI treatments in patients with advanced NSCLC to identify optimal treatment regimens. PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase databases were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up to August 8, 2022. The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary outcomes included objective response rate (ORR) and adverse events (AEs). Forty RCTs involving 22,526 patients were selected, and a total of 26 treatment regimens were identified. Treatment with anti-programmed cell death protein-1 (anti-PD-1) provided superior OS compared with anti-programmed death ligand 1 (anti-PD-L1) treatment. ICIs plus platinum-based chemotherapy (PBC) were superior to ICIs treatment alone, although the addition of PBC increased treatment toxicity. Cemiplimab ranked first for OS and lowest for any-grade AEs in advanced NSCLC patients without PD-L1 selection. Regarding grade ≥3 AEs, the toxicity of ICI monotherapy or ICI-ICI combination was consistently lower than that of the other treatments. For patients without PD-L1 selection, cemiplimab showed the best OS, pembrolizumab plus docetaxel (Pem-DXT) showed the best PFS, and atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and PBC (Atezo-Beva-PBC) showed the best ORR. Pembrolizumab plus PBC and Atezo-Beva-PBC were the most likely optimal treatments for OS and PFS in patients with PD-L1 expression <1%, respectively. In patients with PD-L1 expression ≥1%, treatment regimens containing anti-PD-1 provided superior OS benefits compared with those of anti-PD-L1 treatment, and sintilimab plus PBC (Sint-PBC) provided the best OS benefit; as for PFS, ICI plus PBC consistently showed greater PFS benefits than ICI or PBC alone. For patients with anti-PD-L1 expression of 1-49%, camrelizumab plus PBC provided the best benefit for OS and PFS among included treatment. Durvalumab-tremelimumab-PBC and Atezo-Beva-PBC respectively presented the highest OS and PFS for patients with PD-L1 expression ≥50%. Moreover, cemiplimab and Atezo-Beva-PBC yielded the best OS and PFS benefits as first-line treatments for patients with advanced NSCLC, respectively. Although ICI plus PBC likely resulted in superior survival outcomes compared to ICI treatment alone, it did increase toxicity. Cemiplimab presented a well-balanced efficacy and safety profile in advanced NSCLC treatment. Our findings with the current ICIs comparisons will aid future trials for cancer immunotherapy. PROSPERO, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/ , CRD42022323879.

Phase 3 CLEAR study in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma: outcomes in subgroups for the lenvatinib-plus-pembrolizumab and sunitinib arms.

The phase 3 CLEAR study demonstrated that lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab significantly improved efficacy versus sunitinib as first-line treatment for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Prognostic features including presence and/or site of baseline metastases, prior nephrectomy, and sarcomatoid features have been associated with disease and treatment success. This subsequent analysis explores outcomes in patients with or without specific prognostic features. In CLEAR, patients with clear cell RCC were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive either lenvatinib (20 mg/day) plus pembrolizumab (200 mg every 3 weeks), lenvatinib (18 mg/day) plus everolimus (5 mg/day), or sunitinib alone (50 mg/day, 4 weeks on, 2 weeks off). In this report, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and objective response rate (ORR) were all assessed in the lenvatinib-plus-pembrolizumab and the sunitinib arms, based on baseline features: lung metastases, bone metastases, liver metastases, prior nephrectomy, and sarcomatoid histology. In all the assessed subgroups, median PFS was longer with lenvatinib-plus-pembrolizumab than with sunitinib treatment, notably among patients with baseline bone metastases (HR 0.33, 95% CI 0.21-0.52) and patients with sarcomatoid features (HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.18-0.84). Median OS favored lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab over sunitinib irrespective of metastatic lesions at baseline, prior nephrectomy, and sarcomatoid features. Of interest, among patients with baseline bone metastases the HR for survival was 0.50 (95% CI 0.30-0.83) and among patients with sarcomatoid features the HR for survival was 0.91 (95% CI 0.32-2.58); though for many groups, median OS was not reached. ORR also favored lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab over sunitinib across all subgroups; similarly, complete responses also followed this pattern. Efficacy outcomes improved following treatment with lenvatinib-plus-pembrolizumab versus sunitinib in patients with RCC-irrespective of the presence or absence of baseline lung metastases, baseline bone metastases, baseline liver metastases, prior nephrectomy, or sarcomatoid features. These findings corroborate those of the primary CLEAR study analysis in the overall population and support lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab as a standard of care in 1L treatment for patients with advanced RCC. ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT02811861.

Safety and Tolerability of Low-Dose Radiation and Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy + Sintilimab for Treatment-Naive Stage IV PD-L1+ Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Patients.

Low-dose radiation therapy (LDRT) may enhance the synergistic anti-tumor effect of combined immunotherapy and stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). The safety and efficacy of this novel triple-combination therapy were evaluated for the first time as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This prospective phase 1 study enrolled 29 patients and included a dose-escalation and dose-expansion phase. Patients received SBRT (30 Gy/3f) to small lesions and LDRT (2 Gy/1f, 4 Gy/2f, or 10 Gy/5f) to a large lesion concurrently, followed by sintilimab (a PD-1 inhibitor). The primary endpoint was safety and tolerability; secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). No dose-limiting toxicities were observed during the dose-escalation phase; 4 Gy/2f was the recommended LDRT dose. Median follow-up was 15.6 months. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 96.6% (28/29) of patients (grade ≥ 3, 20.7% [6/29]); two patients (6.9%) discontinued due to TRAEs. Seven patients experienced pneumonitis (grade 2, n = 6; grade 3, n = 1). Immune-related adverse events were noted in 58.6% (17/29) of patients. In patients with tumor assessment (n = 28), ORR and confirmed ORR were 60.7% and 57.1%, respectively. Median PFS was 8.6 months (95% confidence interval 3.7-16.5), and median OS was not reached. Exploratory analyses suggested both expanded and newly emerging TCR clonotypes were associated with better PFS. The findings indicate that the novel SBRT + LDRT + sintilimab therapy is safe and promising in patients with PD-L1-positive, driver gene-negative primary metastatic NSCLC.

Adherence to ECCO Guidelines for Management of Iron Deficiency and Anemia in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases Among Israeli Adult and Pediatric Gastroenterologists.

The consensus guidelines of the European Crohn's and Colitis Organization (ECCO) for the diagnosis and treatment of iron deficiency anemia (IDA) were published in 2015. We examined the management practices of both adult gastroenterologists (AGs) and pediatric gastroenterologists (PGs) in Israel in treating ID among patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). An 18-question multiple-choice anonymous questionnaire was electronically delivered to AGs and PGs. Questions explored 3 areas of interest: physician demographics, adherence to ECCO guidelines, and management practices of IDA in patients with IBD. Completed questionnaires were returned by 72 AGs and 89 PGs. Practice setting and years of practice were similar. A large majority of AGs and PGs (89% and 92%, respectively) measure complete blood count (CBC) and serum ferritin (S-Fr) at least every 3 months in outpatients with active IBD, as recommended by the ECCO guidelines. In contrast, in IBD patients in remission, only 53% and 26% of AGs and PGs, respectively ( P < 0.001), reported adherence to ECCO guidelines, measuring CBC and S-Fr every 6 months. The ECCO treatment guidelines recommend that intravenous (IV) iron should be considered the first-line treatment in patients with clinically active IBD, with previous oral iron intolerance and those with a hemoglobin level <10 g/dL. Study results indicate that only 43% of AGs recommend IV iron for these indications, compared to 54% of PGs ( P > 0.1). In this study we have demonstrated a relatively low level of adherence to ECCO guideline recommendations among both AGs and PGs, regarding the management of IDA in patients with IBD.

Empagliflozin improves insulin sensitivity in patients with recent acute coronary syndrome and newly detected dysglycaemia

BackgroundEmpagliflozin reduces the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) and high cardiovascular risk via mechanisms which have not been fully explained. The mechanisms of such benefit have not been fully understood, and whether empagliflozin can be safely administered as first-line treatment in patients with CVD at the initial stages of glycaemic perturbations remains to be established. We investigated the effects of empagliflozin on insulin resistance, insulin sensitivity and β-cell function indexes in patients with a recent acute coronary event and newly detected dysglycaemia, i.e., impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) or T2DM.MethodsForty-two patients (mean age 67.5 years, 19% females) with a recent myocardial infarction (n = 36) or unstable angina (n = 6) and newly detected dysglycaemia were randomized to either empagliflozin 25 mg daily (n = 20) or placebo (n = 22). Patients were investigated with stress-perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance imaging before randomization, 7 months after the start of study drug and 3 months following its cessation. Indexes of insulin resistance, sensitivity and β-cell function were calculated based on glucose and insulin values from 2-hour oral glucose tolerance tests (OGTT) and fasting C-peptide. The differences in glucose, insulin, C-peptide, mannose levels and indexes between the two groups were computed by repeated measures ANOVA including an interaction term between the treatment allocation and the time of visit.ResultsAfter 7 months, empagliflozin significantly decreased glucose and insulin values during the OGTT, whereas C-peptide, mannose and HbA1c did not differ. Empagliflozin significantly improved insulin sensitivity indexes but did not impact insulin resistance and β-cell function. After cessation of the drug, all indexes returned to initial levels. Insulin sensitivity indexes were inversely correlated with left ventricular mass at baseline.ConclusionsEmpagliflozin improved insulin sensitivity indexes in patients with a recent coronary event and drug naïve dysglycaemia. These findings support the safe use of empagliflozin as first-line glucose-lowering treatment in patients at very high cardiovascular risk with newly diagnosed dysglycaemia.Trial registration numberEudraCT number 2015-004571-73.

Effects of metformin on vitamin B12 levels, including dose and duration of therapy: a narrative review

Background: Metformin, a biguanide derivative medication, is administered worldwide as the first-line treatment for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Despite its many advantages, it is not devoid of side effects. As many studies have evidenced thus far, metformin treatment may increase the risk of vitamin B12 deficiency, with the prevalence of this deficiency varying from 1.8% to 53.2%. We performed a review of studies to summarize their results and present dose and duration associations between metformin therapy and serum cobalamin levels. Aim of the study: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship between metformin and vitamin B12 deficiency from a historical perspective.Material and Methods: Thirty articles focused on vitamin B12 deficiency during metformin therapy, collected from the PubMed database from 1971 to July 2021, were analyzed.Results: Based on the literature reviewed, we observed a prevalence of vitamin B12 deficiency with metformin use ranging from 1.8% to 53.2%, with a median of 11.2%. In studies with follow-up longer than six months, the incidence of vitamin B12 deficiency during metformin treatment was approximately 6–10%. The vast majority of studies showed an inverse correlation between dose and length of metformin intake and serum vitamin B12 levels. The findings of three out of 16 analyzed studies proved dose-only associations, and the other three showed time-only effects. Two studies found no relationship with these variables.Conclusions: Patients undergoing long-term metformin therapy, especially at high doses, should have their vitamin B12 levels measured regularly to protect them from complications resulting from cobalamin deficiency.

First-line nivolumab, paclitaxel, carboplatin, and bevacizumab for advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer: Updated survival analysis of the ONO-4538-52/TASUKI-52 randomized controlled trial.

ONO-4538-52/TASUKI-52 was performed in Japan, Korea, and Taiwan to determine the oncological effectiveness and safety of combining nivolumab or placebo with bevacizumab plus platinum chemotherapy for the initial (first-line) treatment of patients with advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (nsNSCLC). At the interim analysis (minimum follow-up, 7.4 months), the independent radiology review committee-assessed progression-free survival was significantly longer in the nivolumab arm, but overall survival (OS) data were immature. Here, we present the updated OS data. Patients with treatment-naïve stage IIIB/IV or recurrent nsNSCLC without driver mutations in ALK, EGFR, or ROS1, were randomized 1:1 to receive either nivolumab or placebo. Patients in both arms received paclitaxel, carboplatin, and bevacizumab, administered 3-weekly for a maximum of 6 cycles. Nivolumab/placebo and bevacizumab were subsequently continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Overall, 550 patients were randomized. At the time of the analysis (minimum follow-up: 19.4 months), the median OS was longer in the nivolumab arm than in the placebo arm (30.8 vs. 24.7 months; hazard ratio 0.74, 95% confidence interval 0.58-0.94). The 12-month OS rates were 81.3% vs. 76.3% in the nivolumab vs. placebo arms, respectively. The respective 18-month OS rates were 69.0% vs. 61.9%. Nivolumab plus platinum chemotherapy and bevacizumab demonstrated longer OS vs. the placebo combination. We believe this regimen is viable as a standard, first-line treatment for patients with advanced nsNSCLC without driver mutations in ALK, EGFR, or ROS1.

PD-1/PD-L1 Inhibitors as Monotherapy in the First-Line Treatment of Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients with High PD-L1 Expression: An Expert Position Statement.

There are currently three first-line immunotherapy options used as monotherapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with high programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression (≥50%). This manuscript aims to evaluate the available data on atezolizumab (AT), cemiplimab (CEMI), and pembrolizumab (PEMBRO) and to study the results obtained during pivotal trials, especially regarding patient subgroups. Nominal group and Delphi techniques were used. Eight Spanish experts in lung cancer (the scientific committee of the project) analyzed the use of immunotherapy monotherapy as first-line treatment in patients with NSCLC and high PD-L1 expression. The expert scientific committee formulated several statements based on a scientific review and their own clinical experience. Subsequently, 17 additional Spanish lung cancer experts were selected to appraise the committee's statements through two Delphi rounds. They completed a Delphi round via an online platform and voted according to a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 10 (strongly agree). The statements were approved if ≥70% of experts voted 7 or more. A total of 20 statements were proposed covering the following areas: (1) general characteristics of pivotal clinical trials; (2) overall main outcomes of pivotal clinical trials; and (3) subgroup analysis. All statements reached consensus in the first round. AT, CEMI, and PEMBRO as monotherapy can be considered the standard of care in patients with advanced NSCLC and high PD-L1 expression (≥50%). Moreover, some differences noted among the drugs analyzed in this document might facilitate treatment decision-making, especially in clinically relevant patient subgroups, when using PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors. The high level of agreement reached among experts supports the proposed statements.

TTCC-2019-02: real-world evidence of first-line cetuximab plus paclitaxel in recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck.

The aim of this study was to confirm the efficacy of the ERBITAX scheme (paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 weekly and cetuximab 400 mg/m2 loading dose, and then 250 mg/m2 weekly) as first-line treatment for patients with recurrent/metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) who are medically unfit for cisplatin-based (PT) chemotherapy. This retrospective, non-interventional study involved 16 centers in Spain. Inclusion criteria were to have started receiving ERBITAX regimen from January 2012 to December 2018; histologically confirmed SCCHN including oral cavity, oropharynx, hypopharynx, and larynx; age ≥18 years; and platinum (PT) chemotherapy ineligibility due to performance status, comorbidities, high accumulated dose of PT, or PT refractoriness. A total of 531 patients from 16 hospitals in Spain were enrolled. The median age was 66 years, 82.7% were male, and 83.5% were current/former smokers. Patients were ineligible to receive PT due to ECOG 2 (50.3%), comorbidities (32%), PT cumulative dose ≥ 225 mg/m2 (10.5%), or PT refractoriness (7.2%). Response rate was 37.7%. Median duration of response was 5.6 months (95% CI: 4.4-6.6). With a median follow-up of 8.7 months (95% CI: 7.7-10.2), median PFS and OS were 4.5 months (95% CI: 3.9-5.0) and 8.9 months (95% CI: 7.8-10.3), respectively. Patients treated with immunotherapy after ERBITAX had better OS with a median of 29.8 months compared to 13.8 months for those who received other treatments. The most common grade ≥ 3 toxicities were acne-like rash in 36 patients (6.8%) and oral mucositis in 8 patients (1.5%). Five (0.9%) patients experienced grade ≥ 3 febrile neutropenia. This study confirms the real-world efficacy and tolerability of ERBITAX as first-line treatment in recurrent/metastatic SCCHN when PT is not feasible. Immunotherapy after treatment with ERBITAX showed remarkable promising survival, despite potential selection bias.

Place of fulvestrant in the treatment of patients with metastatic luminal Her2-negative breast cancer

Hormone therapy alone or in combination with targeted agents (CDK4/6 inhibitors, alpelisib, everolimus) is currently the standard treatment of metastatic luminal Her2-negative breast cancer. Aromatase inhibitors and fulvestrant are the main hormone therapy agents. Fulvestrant belongs to a special class of antiestrogens – selective estrogen receptor degraders (SERD) and does not have estrogen receptor agonist activity, unlike tamoxifen. In addition, the efficacy of fulvestrant does not depend on the presence of ESR1 mutations in the tumor. The combination of aromatase inhibitors with CDK4/6 inhibitors is the standard first-line treatment in patients with hormone-sensitive tumors, that is, with progression of more than 1 year after the end of adjuvant hormone therapy. Whereas fulvestrant ± CDK4/6 inhibitors are used for disease progression on adjuvant hormonal therapy in the 1st line or as 2nd line for progression on aromatase inhibitor therapy for metastatic cancer. The choice of treatment for patients with a PIK3CA mutation with progression on the 1st line of fulvestrant with a CDK4/6 inhibitor is difficult. This article presents a clinical example of the use of a combination of fulvestrant and alpelisib in a patient with secondary hormone resistance (progression on the adjuvant therapy with aromatase inhibitors) and progression on the first-line therapy with fulvestrant and palbociclib. Carrying out therapy with fulvestrant and alpelisib as the 2nd line provided a long-term (for 14 months) stabilization of the tumor process.

The cost-effectiveness of cemiplimab plus chemotherapy as the first-line treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

Background: The EMPOWER-LUNG 3 clinical trial has shown that cemiplimab plus chemotherapy (CCT) significantly extended overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) for patients with advanced non-small cell cancer (NSCLC) compared to placebo plus chemotherapy (PCT). However, the cost-effectiveness of this new treatment option remains unknown. Thus, we evaluated the cost-effectiveness of CCT versus (vs.) PCT as the first-line treatment for patients with advanced NSCLC from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Methods: We constructed a Markov model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of CCT as the first-line treatment for patients with advanced NSCLC. The transition probabilities were extracted from the survival data of the EMPOWER-LUNG 3 trial. The drugs' costs were referred from national tender prices, while other model input parameters were derived from the EMPOWER-LUNG 3 trial and published literature. The outcome parameters mainly included quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed to evaluate the robustness of the model outcomes. Results: Compared to PCT, in the CCT regimen, an additional $79,667 was spent in terms of the total cost and with an additional 0.31 QALYs, resulting in an ICER value of $253,148/QALY. Sensitivity analysis indicated that the hazard ratio (HR) of OS, the cost of cemiplimab (100mg), and the HR of PFS, all significantly impacted the model's results. The probability of CCT (vs. PCT) being cost-effective was 0% at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $38,201/QALYs in China. The scenario analysis showed that when the price of cemiplimab was reduced to less than $184.09/100mg, the CCT regimen could be considered cost-effective as the first-line treatment for patients with advanced NSCLC compared to the PCT. Conclusion: In China, the CCT was not cost-effective as the first-line treatment for patients with advanced NSCLC.

High-dose chemotherapy sensitizes locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma to PD-1 blockade for a higher pathological complete response rate and survival

BackgroundPD-1 inhibitor and chemotherapy demonstrated durable antitumor activity with a manageable safety profile as the first-line treatment in patients with advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). The present study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of PD-1 inhibitors plus different dose intensity neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the treatment of locally advanced ESCC. MethodsPatients with locally advanced but resectable thoracic ESCC, staged as T3 or T4a, N0–3, and M0 or M1 lymph node metastasis (confined to the supraclavicular lymph nodes), were enrolled in this study. The eligible patients received tislelizumab plus different dose intensity chemotherapy for a 21-day cycle with repeated 2–4 cycles before surgery. The primary endpoints are pathological complete response (pCR) and major pathological response (MPR), and the secondary endpoints are objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and disease-free survival (DFS). ResultsFrom November 2019 to February 2022, 122 cases received at least two cycles neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy and were evaluated by imaging examination. Subsequently, 99 patients underwent surgery and were evaluated by pathological evaluation. According to chemotherapy dose intensity, the patients were divided into three cohorts: cohort 1 (<80% dose intensity), cohort 2 (80–90% dose intensity), cohort 3 (90–100% dose intensity). All surgery patients underwent minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE). The average pCR was identified in 22.22%; 16% had pCR in cohort 1, 17.65% had pCR in cohort 2, and 30.00% had pCR in cohort 3. MPR was observed in 9 (36.00%) patients in cohort 1, 18 (52.94%) patients in cohort 2, 22 (55.00%) patients in cohort 3. In univariable and multivariable analysis, dose intensity was significantly associated with MPR (p = 0.048) in patients who underwent esophagectomy. For surviving patients, the median follow-up was 13.76 months after esophagectomy. Compared to cohort 1, cohorts 2 and 3 had better DFS (p = 0.056). In addition, the prognosis of patients with MPR was better than that of patients without MPR (p = 0.014). ConclusionsThe robust antitumor activity of neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy for locally advanced but resectable thoracic ESCC was confirmed. More than 80% of chemotherapy dose intensity combined with immunotherapy resulted in a high pCR rate and prolonged DFS.

Sintilimab plus bevacizumab and CapeOx (BBCAPX) on first-line treatment in patients with RAS mutant, microsatellite stable, metastatic colorectal cancer: study protocol of a randomized, open-label, multicentric study

BackgroundRat sarcoma viral oncogene homolog (RAS) gene mutation is a common molecular event in colorectal cancer (CRC). The prognosis of mCRC (metastatic colorectal cancer) patients with RAS mutation is poor and capecitabine and oxaliplatin (CapeOx) plus bevacizumab has shown to be one of the standard therapeutic regimens as first line for these patients with objective response rate (ORR) of ~ 50% and median progression-free survival (mPFS) of 8–9 months. Immunotherapy, especially anti-programmed death 1 (PD-1) monoclonal antibody has demonstrated ground-breaking results in deficient mismatch repair (dMMR) / microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) mCRC patients. However, the response rate of in microsatellite stable (MSS) patients is extremely low. In addition, preclinical studies have demonstrated that anti-Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents, such as bevacizumab, can induce tumor vascular normalization and enhance antitumor immunity. Previous study indicated the combination of chemotherapy, anti-VEGF agents (bevacizumab) with immune checkpoint inhibitors may have promising clinical activity in RAS mutant, MSS refractory mCRC patients. Based on these evidences, we will explore the combination of CapeOx with bevacizumab and sintilimab (anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody) in RAS mutant, MSS mCRC patients as first-line therapy.MethodsThis is a randomized, open-label, multicentric clinical trial. In the sintilimab arm, patients will receive sintilimab in combination with CapeOx and bevacizumab. In the control arm, patients will receive CapeOx and bevacizumab. This trial will recruit 494 patients from 20 centers and randomly (1:1) disseminated into two groups. The primary endpoint is the PFS. The secondary endpoints include overall survival, safety, ORR, and disease control rate.DiscussionThis study may provide new ideas for optimizing oncology treatment planning for RAS mutant, MSS mCRC patients in the first-line set.Trial registrationThis study is short for BBCAPX and has been registered at clinicaltrials.gov registry with identifier NCT05171660.