Use Of Cytotoxic Chemotherapy Research Articles

Abstract 1878: CTPS1: An unexplored vulnerability in breast and ovarian cancer

Abstract Breast and ovarian cancer represent the most common cancer types in women worldwide and are among the top fatal cancers. Despite the use of cytotoxic chemotherapy and targeted agents, recurrence is frequent and survival rates for patients with advanced metastatic disease are dismal. These realities highlight the need to identify novel biomarkers and therapeutic vulnerabilities in such tumors and to develop alternative treatment strategies. We took an unbiased approach to tackle this problem in which we leveraged publically available (DepMap) and in-house generated genome-wide CRISPR screens conducted in over 1000 cancer cell lines. We initially focused on the identification of essential genes that were unique to triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) cells and whose expression levels were associated with worse patient outcomes. This interrogation revealed six genes (CTPS1, RHOA, PRKRA, RAD9A, HUS1, and RAD1) meeting these initial criteria. The essentiality of these genes was validated using gene-specific siRNAs in a panel of TNBC cells and knockdown of CTPS1 was shown to elicit the most inhibitory effect. CTPS1 depletion resulted in a rapid S-phase cell cycle arrest followed by apoptosis, not only in TNBC cells but also in highly aggressive ovarian cancer cells which share many molecular features with TNBC. CTPS1 converts uridine triphosphate to cytidine triphosphate, forming an essential nucleic acid required for multiple cellular processes. CTPS1 mRNA expression was substantially elevated in tumor vs. normal tissue, for both breast and ovarian cancer. Using over 40 breast and ovarian cancer cell lines, RT-PCR analyses confirmed increased expression of CTPS1 in TNBC and most ovarian cancer cell lines compared to other disease sub-types and “normal” cell line/tissue controls. Interestingly, chemoresistant and PARP inhibitor-resistant models exhibited the highest levels of CTPS1 among all cells analyzed. We subsequently identified and acquired STP938, a first-in-class highly selective CTPS1 inhibitor being developed by Step-Pharma. STP938 was found to elicit potent anti-cancer effects at nM concentrations across many cell line and patient-derived models, in both 2D and 3D culture systems. RNAseq analysis in aggressive cell line models following STP938 treatment or CTPS1 knockdown revealed significant regulation of genes related to DNA replication and the cell cycle pathways suggesting that combinatorial/sequential treatments of STP938 with replication stress/DNA damage response related drugs may be synergistic. STP938 is currently being developed for the treatment of lymphoma, and our findings support the repurposing of STP938 for breast and ovarian cancer, an avenue that we are currently developing. Citation Format: Xiyin Wang, Michael Emch, Lauren Voll, Rebecca Russell, Esther Rodman, Nicole Pearson, Xiaonan Hou, Scott Kaufmann, Saravut Weroha, Philip Beer, John Hawse. CTPS1: An unexplored vulnerability in breast and ovarian cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2024; Part 1 (Regular Abstracts); 2024 Apr 5-10; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(6_Suppl):Abstract nr 1878.

Impact of Arsenic Trioxide in the Treatment of Higher Risk Acute Promyelocytic Leukemia

INTRODUCTION: Acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) accounts for 5-8% of all cases of acute myeloid leukemia (AML). The combination of all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA) and arsenic trioxide (ATO) without chemotherapy is currently the reference treatment of standard APL (ie with baseline white blood count (WBC)<10 G/L), curing about 90% of the patients. However, the prognosis of high-risk APL (ie with WBC>10 G/L) remains more challenging, with higher rates of early death and relapse. Here we compared the French practices for the treatment of high-risk APL patients whether patients were treated with ATRA-Chemo or ATRA-ATO according to physician decision, and evaluate the response rates, overall survival (OS) and leukemia-free survival (LFS) in the real-life settings. PATIENTS AND METHODS: ATO (in combination with ATRA) became accessible in France for the first line treatment of standard risk APL in 2012, but some patients with high-risk APL also received the same combination (generally with some form of cytoreductive chemotherapy) from that date. We retrospectively analyzed cases of high-risk APL diagnosed between 2010 and 2021 in 12 French centers, constituting a cohort of 135 patients with diagnostic of APL confirmed by cytogenetic, FISH and molecular biology assays. RESULTS: Among the 135 patients with WBC>10 G/L, 88 (65%) were classified as APL variant according to FAB classification. Median age was 46 years (range 18-89) and 62 % were male. Median diagnostic WBC was 39.1 G/L (range 10-270) and median platelet count was 27 G/L (range 5-344). At diagnosis, 112 patients (83%) had hemorrhagic manifestations and disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) was observed in 124 patients (92%). Pulmonary and cerebral leucostasis were reported in 10 (7%) and 14 (10%) patients, respectively. Eighty-five patients received corticosteroid prophylaxis (81 (95%) with Dexamethasone and 5 (5%) with Prednisolone). Induction therapy consisted in ATRA-ATO for 50 patients (38%) while 85 patients (62%) were treated with ATRA combined with chemotherapy (anthracycline and cytarabin) but without ATO. All patients treated with ATO were cytoreduced: 7 with Hydroxyurea (14%), 17 with Idarubicin (34%) and 26 with both (52%). 29 patients treated without ATO during induction were cytoreduced with Hydroxurea (34%). Most patients experienced one or more adverse events during induction, including sepsis (49 in the ATO group versus 71 in the non ATO group, 98% versus 83.5%, p=0.01), differentiation syndrome (20 in the ATO group versus 27 in the non ATO group, 40% versus 31.7%, p=0.33), transaminase increased (14 in ATO group versus 11 in the non ATO group, 28% versus 12.9%, p=0.03), and bleeding (7 in the ATO group versus 13 in the non ATO group, 14% versus 15.3%, p=0.8). Following induction, 110 patients (81%) achieved complete remission (CR): 45 in the ATO group and 65 in the non ATO group (90% versus 76.4%, p=0.052). One patient (receiving ATRA with chemotherapy) was refractory, and 24 patients experienced early death (5 in the ATO group and 19 in the non ATO group, 10% versus 22.3%, p=0.069) mostly due to hemorrhage or sepsis. Median time between diagnosis and early death was 4.5 days (0-42). Relapse was observed in 6 (5.5 %) patients (5 patients treated without ATO and 1 patient with ATO during induction). After a median follow-up of 34.6 months (0-121.1), OS at 3 years was significantly higher for the ATO group (89.9% (81.8-98.7) versus 75.1% (66.3-84.9) for the non ATO group, p= 0.035, Figure). LFS at 3 years was significantly higher for the ATO group (87.6% (78.7-97.4) versus 71.2% (62-81.7) for the non ATO group, p=0.028). CONCLUSIONS: The survival outcomes were significantly poorer in high-risk APL patients treated without ATO during induction, regardless of the cytoreduction strategy. The toxicity profile of ATO was acceptable. Combining ATO and ATRA limits the use of cytotoxic chemotherapy, which could reduce myelosuppression and long-term complications such as cardiotoxicity and secondary myeloid neoplasms. Early disease-related mortality, due to haemorrhagic or infectious complications, remains the major issue for these patients but tend to be reduced in those receiving ATRA-ATO based regiment. This retrospective study shows that ATO-ATRA and limited chemotherapy could be a better approach than ATRA and standard intensive chemotherapy in terms of early deaths, LFS and OS.

Effect on hospital outcomes of hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients with Clostridium difficile infection.

e20003 Background: Hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) recipients are at increased risk of Clostidium difficile infection (CDI) due to use of cytotoxic chemotherapy, broad-spectrum antibiotics, and sustained neutropenia. Because of the immunocompromised nature of these patients, the prevalence rates of CDI in HSCT recipients are high. In this study we evaluate the impact of CDI on in-hospital outcomes. Methods: We included all patients with a prior diagnosis or a procedure code for HSCT using ICD-10 codes from National Inpatient Sample. We excluded patients admitted for less than 14 days to exclude admissions for elective chemotherapy or catheter placement. Patients were stratified into two groups based on the presence of CDI. Information was collected regarding patient demographics, Charlson comorbidities, underlying hematologic disease, resource utilization (LOS and total hospitalization charges), and outcomes. The outcomes included sepsis, shock, acute kidney injury, ICU admission, and in-hospital mortality. The association between CDI and outcomes was studied using multivariate analysis. Results: 62,415 patients were included in the study. Of them, 5,275 (8.5%) patients developed CDI. The majority of the patients with CDI were White (70.4%), men (57.1%), and aged between 45-64 years (52.5%). Patients with CDI had a higher incidence of sepsis (21.1% vs. 16.5%), shock (8.1% vs. 5.8%), AKI (23.8% vs. 19.4%), ICU admission (9.6% vs. 7.6%) and in-hospital mortality (5.8% vs. 4%). After adjusting for confounding factors, CDI was associated with a 32% higher odds of in-hospital mortality (aOR-1.32, 95% CI-1.01-1.74, p-0.046). CDI was also associated with 26% higher odds of developing shock (aOR-1.26, 95% CI-1.01-1.72, p-0.013) and 27% higher odds of developing AKI (aOR-1.27, 95% CI-1.09-1.49,p-0.002). No statistically significant difference was noted in the risk of ICU admission between the two groups. Patients with CDI had a longer length of stay (29.5 days vs. 24.8 days, p < 0.001) and higher hospitalization charges ($400,017 vs. $508,090, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Our study suggested a relationship between CDI and worse outcomes in HSCT recipients. Physicians should be aware of this association and promptly recognize and initiate treatment in these patients to improve outcomes. [Table: see text]

Management of febrile neutropenia in canine and feline oncology patients

Background: The use of cytotoxic chemotherapy is becoming increasingly common in veterinary practice. Although the majority of patients will tolerate chemotherapy without significant adverse events, febrile neutropenia can be life threatening. Therefore, vets who are administering chemotherapy should be aware of how to manage this condition.Aim of the article: This article guides practitioners on how to diagnose febrile neutropenia in oncology patients and outlines the approach to treatment and ongoing management of cases.

Beware clonal haematopoiesis following chronic lymphocytic leukaemia treatment

Clonal myeloid haematopoiesis co-existing with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) is not rare and is associated with high risks for development of therapy-related myeloid neoplasms (t-MNs) after cytotoxic chemotherapy. This has serious implications for the use of these therapies in newly diagnosed CLL patients. Therapy-related myeloid neoplasms are devastating conditions. Their development following cytotoxic chemotherapy for various neoplasms often ultimately leads to treatment-refractory acute myeloid leukaemia and is usually lethal for afflicted patients. These neoplasms often develop following exposure to alkylating agents or anthracyclines,1 but they have been reported following single-agent fludarabine.2 T-MNs typically present after prior cytotoxic therapy given in an adjuvant context or for relatively indolent neoplasms, and thus their development is particularly distressing for many otherwise cancer-free or cancer-controlled patients. Effective long-term control of t-MNs is difficult to achieve, and at present always requires allogeneic haematopoietic transplant. The paper by Voso et al.3 regarding clonal haematopoiesis of indeterminant potential (CHIP) as a risk factor for t-MNs following chemotherapy for CLL is thus timely and worthy of attention from all physicians who manage CLL. CHIP has (unsurprisingly) been associated with increased risks of t-MN. The current report is, however, the first reported study of t-MN following therapy for CLL. It is worth noting that this experience is based upon 15 patients who were selected only for the availability of pretreatment genomic material. Amongst the relevant 13 patients whose t-MN followed the use of cytotoxic therapy, a prior mutation consistent with myeloid CHIP was present in 10, or 77%. Mutations compatible with CHIP were found in 34 of 285 cases of CLL not developing t-MN. The authors thus appropriately conclude that CHIP seems to be a significant risk factor for the development of t-MN following cytotoxic therapy for CLL. This work presents a detailed description of the mutations found in prechemotherapy haematopoietic material. The authors are conservative in terms of attributing these mutations to the CLL or the myeloid elements found in the available pretreatment cells. They correctly observe that mutations of TP53 and SF3B1 could in principle arise either from clonal CLL cells or from a myeloid CHIP clone, and thus cannot be firmly identified as having driven the development of the t-MN. Data found in their table S4, however, show that in two patients (#6 and #8), mutations in TP53 (two cases) and in SF3B1 (one case), were identical in pretreatment samples of CLL containing cells and in the t-MN material. The same mutated sequences were found in these two paired samples in both cases and for both genes. Thus, although we cannot be completely certain, it seems very likely that in fact the pretreatment mutation was found in myeloid cells that were subsequently transformed in response to the exposure to cytotoxic agents, leading to the t-MN. These findings have important implications for the management of CLL and other neoplasms. First, CHIP is reasonably common in patients who are candidates to receive cytotoxic agents. Pre-existing CHIP clearly poses very significant risks for the development of t-MN and most of these secondary neoplasms will prove to be lethal for affected patients. Thus, particularly in older patients with higher risks of CHIP, it seems reasonable to consider screening patients for myeloid clonal states prior to offering cytotoxic therapy for management. Notably, there are now alternative systemic therapies available for CLL (and many other neoplasms) which do not involve cytotoxic therapy and thus should not pose the same risk of potential secondary neoplasm. Another and potentially provocative conclusion is that mutations of TP53 or SF3B1 found in pretreatment blood or other tissues from CLL patients may not necessarily represent changes in the CLL clone but may be situated in associated myeloid cells. This issue in it itself may affect decisions concerning CLL management, as TP53 mutations are associated with poor prognosis and as this finding in a CLL patient may potentially increase the desire for aggressive therapy. Finally, in such patients the use of cytotoxic chemotherapy in disease management might have disastrous downstream consequences, leading to a lethal t-MN. The development of effective systemic targeted therapies for CLL not employing cytotoxic or mutagenic agents has revolutionized the therapy of CLL. The application of these agents has already greatly reduced the use of potentially leukaemogenic therapies. Recently, however, it has been asserted that “In fit patients with immunoglobulin heavy chain mutation, it is still acceptable to use the chemotherapy regimen with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (FCR) and, in those who [are] not fit or are not IgVH-mutated, bendamustine-rituximab regimen”.4 Given the availability of effective non-cytotoxic agents for management of essentially all CLL patients, haematologists and oncologists managing this group of highly treatable but fragile patients should take pause, and note the findings described by Voso et al.

Real-world use of enzalutamide in men with nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in Japan

BackgroundThe purpose of the study is to evaluate real-world effectiveness and safety of enzalutamide in men with nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) in Japan.MethodsThis was a retrospective evaluation of medical records from men in Japan who started enzalutamide treatment from November 1, 2014, to March 31, 2018, and received androgen deprivation therapy throughout. The primary endpoint was time to prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression. Secondary endpoints included PSA response rate, time to first use of new antineoplastic therapy, time to first use of cytotoxic chemotherapy, and enzalutamide treatment duration. An exploratory analysis of metastasis-free survival (MFS) was also performed. Adverse events (AEs) were analyzed to assess safety.ResultsBased on data from medical records of 205 men in Japan, median time to PSA progression was 27 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 19–not reached [NR]), with 82.5% and 52.0% of men achieving PSA response rates of ≥ 50% and ≥ 90%, respectively. Median time to first use of new antineoplastic therapy was 36 months (95% CI 27−NR) and median enzalutamide treatment duration was 13 months (interquartile range: 7–24). Median time to first use of cytotoxic chemotherapy was NR (95% CI 41−NR). Median MFS was 29 months (95% CI 23−35). In total, 51.7% of men experienced AEs, with malaise (18.5%), decreased appetite (10.7%), and nausea (4.9%) the most frequently reported.ConclusionsThis is the first study to demonstrate the real-world effectiveness and safety of enzalutamide in men with nmCRPC in Japan, further informing healthcare providers about available treatment options for this patient population.

Expression of programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) and programmed cell death 1 ligand (PD-L1) in adenocarcinomas of the gastroesophageal junction change significantly after neoadjuvant treatment

BackgroundThe effects of cytotoxic chemotherapy on the expression of programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) and its ligand (PD-L1) in cancer cells and peritumoral cells are unclear. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on PD-1 and PD-L1 expression in adenocarcinomas of the gastroesophageal junction. MethodsPD-1 and PD-L1 expression in cancer cells and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in paired diagnostic biopsies and surgical specimens from patients with pretreated and curatively resected adenocarcinomas of the gastroesophageal junction were evaluated by immunohistochemistry. ResultsPaired tumor samples were available from 40 patients. PD-1 expression in cancer cells (p < 0.001; Exact Symmetry Test) and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (p < 0.001; Exact Symmetry Test) increased significantly after neoadjuvant therapy. Furthermore, we observed a significant decrease in PD-L1 expression in cancer cells (p = 0.003) after neoadjuvant therapy was observed. ConclusionIn this study we could show that tumor-cell expression of PD-1 and PD-L1 was significantly altered in patients with adenocarcinomas of the gastroesophageal junction after receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Based on these observations, patients might profit from the combined use of cytotoxic chemotherapy and the blockade of the PD-1 axis.

Network meta-analysis (NMA) comparing the efficacy of enzalutamide versus apalutamide, darolutamide, and bicalutamide for treatment of nonmetastatic (nm) castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC).

101 Background: Enzalutamide is a potent androgen receptor (AR) inhibitor, targeting multiple steps in AR signaling. In recent years, the EMA and FDA approved enzalutamide for the management of adults with CRPC, irrespective of metastatic status, based on the Phase 3 PROSPER clinical trial results. To provide indirect evidence on the relative efficacy of enzalutamide vs bicalutamide or the second-generation AR antagonists apalutamide and darolutamide for the management of nmCRPC, a NMA was performed using published data from their Phase 3 clinical trials. Methods: NMA enables indirect comparison of ≥3 interventions across a network of studies, identified by systematic literature review and based on a common comparator, to estimate relative effects between interventions. This NMA compared data from PROSPER (enzalutamide vs placebo [PBO]), SPARTAN (apalutamide vs PBO), ARAMIS (darolutamide vs PBO), and STRIVE (enzalutamide vs bicalutamide) studies, following NICE technical support document 2. Four key endpoints (metastasis-free survival [MFS], overall survival [OS], time to prostate-specific antigen progression [TTPP], and time to first use of cytotoxic chemotherapy [TTCH]) were assessed. It was assumed that there was no variation between studies that could influence the size of treatment effect. Fixed-effect models were developed and implemented under a Bayesian framework. Results: MFS, OS, and TTCH outcomes of PROSPER, SPARTAN, and ARAMIS were compared between androgen deprivation treatment alone and in combination with enzalutamide/apalutamide/darolutamide. TTPP of PROSPER, SPARTAN, ARAMIS, and STRIVE was compared between enzalutamide, apalutamide, darolutamide, bicalutamide, and PBO. Enzalutamide showed significant benefit vs PBO for all endpoints measured (median hazard ratio [HR] 0.29, 0.73, 0.54, 0.07 for MFS, OS, TTCH, TTPP respectively, Table), vs darolutamide for MFS HR 0.71, and vs darolutamide HR 0.51 and bicalutamide HR 0.18 for TTPP. OS for enzalutamide vs apalutamide was not statistically different HR 0.94. Conclusions: Enzalutamide showed significant therapeutic benefit; MFS, OS, TTCH, and TTPP were better vs PBO and MFS and/or TTPP were longer compared to darolutamide and bicalutamide. No statistically significant differences were observed between enzalutamide and apalutamide. This NMA may facilitate the development and testing of treatment strategies for nmCRPC. [Table: see text]

Luteolin suppresses androgen receptor-positive triple-negative breast cancer cell proliferation and metastasis by epigenetic regulation of MMP9 expression via the AKT/mTOR signaling pathway

BackgroundTriple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) represents up to 20% of all breast cancers. This cancer lacks the expression of the estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2. The current therapeutic strategy for patients with this subtype is the use of cytotoxic chemotherapy and surgery. Luteolin is a natural herbal flavonoid and a potential therapeutic candidate for multiple diseases. The use of a treatment that combines Chinese herbal medicine and western medicine is rising in Asia. PurposeThe present study evaluates the effects and molecular mechanisms involved with luteolin treatment and evaluates whether this herb affects androgen receptor-positive breast cancer cell proliferation or metastasis. Study DesignIn vitro evaluation of the effect of luteolin on androgen receptor-positive TNBC cell proliferation and metastasis MethodsCell viability analysis was used for the cytotoxicity test. Colony formation and Bromodeoxyuridine (BrdU) staining-based proliferation experiments were used for cell proliferation. Wound healing and transwell assays were used for in vitro migration/invasion. The RT-qPCR analysis was used for gene expression. Furthermore, ChIP-qPCR analysis was used for epigenetic modification of gene promoters. ResultsLuteolin significantly inhibited the proliferation and metastasis of androgen receptor-positive TNBC. Furthermore, luteolin inactivated the AKT/mTOR signaling pathway and reversed the epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT). The combination of luteolin and inhibitors of AKT/mTOR synergistically repressed an androgen receptor-positive TNBC cell proliferation and metastasis. Luteolin also downregulated MMP9 expression by decreasing the levels of the AKT/mTOR promoting H3K27Ac and H3K56A on the MMP9 promoter region. ConclusionOur findings indicate that luteolin inhibited the proliferation and metastasis of androgen receptor-positive TNBC by regulating MMP9 expression through a reduction in the levels of AKT/mTOR-inducing H3K27Ac and H3K56Ac.

Head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.

Most head and neck cancers are derived from the mucosal epithelium in the oral cavity, pharynx and larynx and are known collectively as head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). Oral cavity and larynx cancers are generally associated with tobacco consumption, alcohol abuse or both, whereas pharynx cancers are increasingly attributed to infection with human papillomavirus (HPV), primarily HPV-16. Thus, HNSCC can be separated into HPV-negative and HPV-positive HNSCC. Despite evidence of histological progression from cellular atypia through various degrees of dysplasia, ultimately leading to invasive HNSCC, most patients are diagnosed with late-stage HNSCC without a clinically evident antecedent pre-malignant lesion. Traditional staging of HNSCC using the tumour-node-metastasis system has been supplemented by the 2017 AJCC/UICC staging system, which incorporates additional information relevant to HPV-positive disease. Treatment is generally multimodal, consisting of surgery followed by chemoradiotherapy (CRT) for oral cavity cancers and primary CRT for pharynx and larynx cancers. The EGFR monoclonal antibody cetuximab is generally used in combination with radiation in HPV-negative HNSCC where comorbidities prevent the use of cytotoxic chemotherapy. The FDA approved the immune checkpoint inhibitors pembrolizumab and nivolumab for treatment of recurrent or metastatic HNSCC and pembrolizumab as primary treatment for unresectable disease. Elucidation of the molecular genetic landscape of HNSCC over the past decade has revealed new opportunities for therapeutic intervention. Ongoing efforts aim to integrate our understanding of HNSCC biology and immunobiology to identify predictive biomarkers that will enable delivery of the most effective, least-toxic therapies.

UK Experience of an Alternative ATO Dosing Regimen in APL.

The introduction of all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA), and more recently of arsenic trioxide (ATO) in the treatment of Acute Promyelocytic Leukaemia (APL), has been instrumental in achieving the high cure rates recently reported. For the majority of patients, it is now possible to successfully treat this disease “chemo-free” without the use of cytotoxic chemotherapy as reflected in current clinical guidelines. The Sanz risk score developed by the GIMEMA and PETHEMA groups categorizes patients into three risk groups—low, intermediate, and high and correlates with relapse-free survival (RFS). Low- and intermediate-risk APL are now often considered together as ‘standard-risk’ defined by a white blood cell count (WBC) of less than 10 x 109/L. High-risk APL has a WBC greater than 10 x 109/L. In the UK our approach for patients with standard risk APL is to treat with ATRA and ATO without the use of cytotoxic chemotherapy. This approach is based on results from two large randomized clinical trials. The GIMEMA APL0406 trial showed an overall survival advantage compared to anthracycline-based chemotherapy plus ATRA. The UK NCRI AML17 trial which used an attenuated dose of ATO demonstrated a significant reduction in relapse and improved relapse-free survival. In the UK, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence approved both ATO plus ATRA regimens for re-imbursement for standard risk Acute Promyelocytic Leukaemia (APL). We use the AML17 schedule in standard-risk patients upfront and also in patients with relapsed Acute Promyelocytic Leukaemia (APL) previously treated with chemotherapy or in those with molecular persistence. The treatment of high-risk Acute Promyelocytic Leukaemia (APL) remains an area of contention as ATO is not approved for this indication. These patients have a greater risk of complications during remission induction with ATO including differentiation syndrome. The optimal approach is to incorporate chemotherapy early into the treatment schedule with either Gemtuzumab Ozogamicin (GO) as in the high-risk arm of the NCRI AML17 trial and MD Anderson Cancer Centre studies or Idarubicin as in the Australian APML4 study.

Impacto de la Covid-19 en pacientes adultos con neoplasias hematológicas: informe del registro Covid-19 de la asociación madrileña de hematología y hemoterapia (AMHH)

Background: Preliminary studies on patients with COVID-19 and haematological malignancies (HM) show a high mortality in this population. The AMHH aimed to collect data from adult patients with HM. Objective: The primary outcome was mortality and evaluation of potential predictive parameters of mortality. Methods: This was a multicentre registry-based study with prospective data collection admitted to 27 Italian hospitals within the Madrid region between Feb 28 and May 25, 2020, with laboratory-confirmed and symptomatic COVID-19. This case series included consecutive patients with HM aged ≥18 years. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards model was used to identify factors associated with mortality. Results: Of 833 patients reported, 697 were enrolled with a median follow-up of 43 days (IQR 32-53). Median age was 72 years (IQR 60–79), 413 (60%) patients were male, and 479 (69%) and 218 (31%) had lymphoid and myeloid malignancies, respectively. Most (87%) patients were managed as inpatients. Overall, 230 (33%) of 697 patients died. When compared with the general population with COVID-19, the HM patients have 3-fold higher rates of mortality (33% vs 10%). In multivariable analyses, older age (hazard ratio 5.20, 95% CI 2.12–12.8); diagnosis of acute myeloid leukaemia (2.22, 1.31–3.74), recent use of cytotoxic chemotherapy (1.50, 0.99–2.29) or MoAb (2.02, 1.14–3.60), and severe or critical COVID-19 who did not receive antiviral therapy (HR 2.20, 95% CI 1.44-3.35) were associated with worse overall survival. Conclusion: This study adds to the evidence that patients with HM have worse outcomes than the general population with COVID-19. The high mortality among HM patients with these risk factors highlights the need for aggressive infection prevention strategies, at least until effective vaccination or treatment strategies are available.

Nonmetastatic, Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer and Survival with Darolutamide

BackgroundDarolutamide is a structurally distinct androgen-receptor inhibitor that is approved for the treatment of nonmetastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer. In the planned primary analysis of a phase 3 trial, the median metastasis-free survival was significantly longer with darolutamide (40.4 months) than with placebo (18.4 months). The data for the analysis of overall survival were immature at the time of the primary analysis.MethodsIn this double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we randomly assigned 1509 men, in a 2:1 ratio, to receive darolutamide (955 patients) or placebo (554 patients) while they continued to receive androgen-deprivation therapy. After the results of the primary end-point analysis were found to be positive, unblinding of the treatment assignments occurred, and patients in the placebo group were permitted to cross over to receive open-label darolutamide treatment. At the time of this prespecified final analysis, which had been planned to be performed after approximately 240 deaths had occurred, overall survival and all other secondary end points were evaluated.ResultsThe median follow-up time was 29.0 months. At the time of unblinding of the data, all 170 patients who were still receiving placebo crossed over to receive darolutamide; 137 patients who had discontinued placebo before unblinding had occurred received at least one other life-prolonging therapy. Overall survival at 3 years was 83% (95% confidence interval [CI], 80 to 86) in the darolutamide group and 77% (95% CI, 72 to 81) in the placebo group. The risk of death was significantly lower, by 31%, in the darolutamide group than in the placebo group (hazard ratio for death, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.88; P=0.003). Darolutamide was also associated with a significant benefit with respect to all other secondary end points, including the time to first symptomatic skeletal event and the time to first use of cytotoxic chemotherapy. The incidence of adverse events after the start of treatment was similar in the two groups; no new safety signals were observed.ConclusionsAmong men with nonmetastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer, the percentage of patients who were alive at 3 years was significantly higher among those who received darolutamide than among those who received placebo. The incidence of adverse events was similar in the two groups. (Funded by Bayer HealthCare and Orion Pharma; ARAMIS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02200614.)

Abstract CT403: Outcome of cancer patients infected with COVID-19, including toxicity of cancer treatments

Abstract Background: The SARS-CoV-2 outbreak in Paris’ region significantly affected Gustave Roussy cancer center. Here, we report the Gustave Roussy experience during the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak. This outbreak has led to a rapid reorganization of cancer patients’ (pts) management, with two concurrent objectives. First, protect cancer pts, who may experience more severe form of the disease, from being infected by the SARS-CoV-2. Second, protect cancer pts from losing the chance to receive optimal, if not standard, cancer care. Methods: Cancer pts with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection were admitted at Gustave Roussy starting March, 12th. Screening indications have been adapted over the time. All the COVID19 pts positively tested and managed at Gustave Roussy between March 14th (1st positive case) and April 15th have been included in a redcap database. Pts and underlying oncological and COVID19 diseases characteristics have been collected. Cancer and COVID-19 managements, and outcomes have been assessed. The primary endpoint of this analysis was the clinical deterioration, defined as the need for O2 supplementation of 6l/min or more, or death of any cause. Results: Overall, 7,251 cancer pts were managed at Gustave Roussy during this period of time, with 3616 being hospitalized. Based on our testing strategy, 1302 pts have been tested with 12% of them found positive for SARS-CoV-2. Among the first 137 cancer pts diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2, most cases were female (58%) with a median age of 61 years, including 36 pts (26%) ≥ 70 years. Most frequent underlying cancers were solid tumors (115) including breast (23), GI (18), head and neck (17), GU (17), GYN (17) malignancies or hemopathies (22). At time of COVID diagnosis, 79 pts (58%) had metastatic/active cancer and 56 pts (41%) were considered in remission/treated with curative intent. The diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection was made by RT-PCR or thoracic CT scan alone in 93.4% and 6.6% of the cases, respectively. The majority of the pts was hospitalized (75%) and treated with HCQ/AZI (40; 30%) with inclusion in the ONCOVID trial (EudraCT: 2020-01250-21), IL-6 inhibitor (10), antiviral (6) or steroids (13). Fifteen pts were admitted in ICU (11%). Clinical deterioration occurred in 34 pts (24.8%) and was associated with hematological underlying disease, CRP at diagnosis of COVID19 &amp;gt;50 and the use of cytotoxic chemotherapy within &amp;lt;3mo. At data cut-off (April, 20th 2020), 95 (69.3%), 20 (14.6%), and 22 (16.1%) pts were discharged, had died, or were still hospitalized, respectively. All the deaths were considered related to the SARS-CoV-2 infection. Conclusions: Globally, the rate of the SARS-CoV-2 infection in our cancer patients’ population does not seem to be higher compared to the global population. We have not found evidence that COVID19 is more lethal or aggressive in cancer patients that underwent usual SARS-Cov-2 treatment. We believe that adequate testing and protective measures, along with the low rate of SARS-cov-2-treatment-related adverse events (5.5%), justify an optimal management of the cancer patients’ underlying tumor. Citation Format: Fabrice Barlesi, Stéphanie Foulon, Arnauld Bayle, Bertrand Gachot, Fanny Pommeret, Christophe Willekens, Annabelle Stoclin, Mansouria Merad, Franck GriscelliI, Jean-Baptise Micol, Roger Sun, Thomas Nihouarn, Corinne Balleygier, Fabrice André, Florian Scotte, Benjamin Besse, Jean-Charles Soria, Laurence Albiges. Outcome of cancer patients infected with COVID-19, including toxicity of cancer treatments [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research 2020; 2020 Apr 27-28 and Jun 22-24. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(16 Suppl):Abstract nr CT403.

Invasive fungal infections in the immunocompromised host: Mechanistic insights in an era of changing immunotherapeutics.

The use of cytotoxic chemotherapy in the treatment of malignant and inflammatory disorders is beset by considerable adverse effects related to nonspecific cytotoxicity. Accordingly, a mechanistic approach to therapeutics has evolved in recent times with small molecular inhibitors of intracellular signaling pathways involved in disease pathogenesis being developed for clinical use, some with unparalleled efficacy and tolerability. Nevertheless, there are emerging concerns regarding an association with certain small molecular inhibitors and opportunistic infections, including invasive fungal diseases. This is perhaps unsurprising, given that the molecular targets of such agents play fundamental and multifaceted roles in orchestrating innate and adaptive immune responses. Nevertheless, some small molecular inhibitors appear to possess intrinsic antifungal activity and may therefore represent novel therapeutic options in future. This is particularly important given that antifungal resistance is a significant, emerging concern. This paper is a comprehensive review of the state-of-the-art in the molecular immunology to fungal pathogens as applied to existing and emerging small molecular inhibitors.

Congress of Neurological Surgeons Systematic Review and Evidence-Based Guidelines on the Role of Chemotherapy in the Management of Adults With Newly Diagnosed Metastatic Brain Tumors.

Should patients with brain metastases receive chemotherapy in addition to whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) for the treatment of their brain metastases? This recommendation applies to adult patients with newly diagnosed brain metastases amenable to both chemotherapy and radiation treatment. Level 1: Routine use of chemotherapy following WBRT for brain metastases is not recommended. Level 3: Routine use of WBRT plus temozolomide is recommended as a treatment for patients with triple negative breast cancer. Should patients with brain metastases receive chemotherapy in addition to stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) for the treatment of their brain metastases? Level 1: Routine use of chemotherapy following SRS is not recommended. Level 2: SRS is recommended in combination with chemotherapy to improve overall survival and progression free survival in lung adenocarcinoma patients. Should patients with brain metastases receive chemotherapy alone? Level 1: Routine use of cytotoxic chemotherapy alone for brain metastases is not recommended as it has not been shown to increase overall survival.Please see the full-text version of this guideline (https://www.cns.org/guidelines/guidelines-treatment-adults-metastatic-brain-tumors/chapter_5) for the target population of each recommendation.

Therapy of acute myeloid leukemia: therapeutic targeting of tyrosine kinases

ABSTRACTIntroduction: Tyrosine kinases (TKs) drive cell survival and proliferation in many normal and malignant cell types. TKs are frequently mutated in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and hence are increasingly targeted. The management of AML has dramatically improved because of TKI-targeted treatment.Areas Covered: This review provides a biological background for TK inhibitors (TKIs) in AML and reviews their use in the clinic. TK expression and mutation in AML are explored with a focus on TKs associated with specific AML subsets and treatment outcomes. TKIs that specifically target FLT3, c-Kit, and Jak2 are discussed. TKI targeting of specific genes mutated in individual cases and general ‘untargeted’ use of these agents are highlighted. Lastly, the mechanisms TKI drug resistance in AML are explored.Expert Opinion: The use of TKIs in the clinic is improving outcomes for many patients. An improved understanding of tyrosine kinase biology and the expanding use of TKIs are likely to dramatically improve outcomes in the coming decade. TKIs and other targeted agents could gradually supplant the use of cytotoxic chemotherapy for AML.

Emerging patient-specific treatment modalities in head and neck cancer – a systematic review

ABSTRACTIntroduction: Head and neck cancer (HNC) is an immunosuppressive disease that demonstrates heterogeneous molecular characteristics and features of tumor–host interaction. Beside radiotherapy and surgery, the current standard of care in systemic treatment involves the use of cytotoxic chemotherapy, monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), and tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). There are also other modalities being developed under the category of immunotherapy, but they are overshadowed by the recent advancements of immune checkpoint inhibitors.Areas covered: This systematic review covers recent advancements in ‘patient-specific’ treatment modalities, which can be only administered to a given patient.Expert opinion: Currently, patient-specific treatment modalities in HNC mainly consist of active immunotherapy using adoptive cell therapies and/or gene engineered vectors. Despite the slow pace of development, the interest continues in these treatment modalities. The future of HNC treatment is expected to be guided by biomarkers and personalized approaches with tailored combinations of local treatments (radiotherapy, surgery), systemic agents and immune system modulation. Systematic research is required to generate robust data and obtain a high-level of evidence for the effectiveness of such treatment modalities.

Validation and assessment of discordance of the 8th edition AJCC (American Joint Committee on Cancer) clinical and pathologic staging systems in patients with p16+ oropharyngeal cancer treated with surgery and adjuvant radiation at a single institution

Major updates have been made in the latest (8th) edition of the American Joint Commission on Cancer (AJCC) manual for staging of oropharynx squamous cell cancer (OPSCC)[1, 2] which are based on changes in epidemiology of OPSCC related to the emergence of Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) as the major cause for OPSCC.[3, 4] It is now recognized that patients with HPV positive oropharyngeal cancer (HPV+OPSCC) have superior survival compared to patients with HPV negative oropharynx cancer (HPV-OPSCC).[5] One of the key characteristics of patients with HPV+OPSCC is a markedly improved prognosis despite advanced nodal disease when compared to patients with HPV-disease.[3, 6–8] Traditional risk factors predictive of outcome, such as positive margins and extranodal extension (ENE), are not accurate predictors of outcome in HPV+ patients.[9] Previous studies have reported that the AJCC 7th edition staging system has limited ability to differentiate prognosis accurately among stages in the HPV+OPSCC population.[6–8] As a result, a new clinical staging system (International Collaboration on Oropharyngeal cancer Network for Staging, ICON-S) and a new pathological staging system (HPV-Path) were introduced in 2016 specifically for HPV+OPSCC patients. The ICON-S staging system was developed from a study of 1907 HPV+OPSCC patients using an adjusted hazard ratio model that considered age, smoking status and use of cytotoxic chemotherapy.[10] This staging model was created from data of patients treated primarily with chemoradiation. In contrast, the HPV-Path system was created from a multi-institutional dataset of HPV+OPSCC patients treated with surgery, and thus the staging system was based on pathological variables that were not available in the ICON-S study.[11] The parameters of both staging systems have been incorporated into the new 8th edition of the AJCC staging system for OPSCC.[1, 2] The ICON-S system is the new AJCC 8th edition clinical staging system and the HPV-Path system the pathological staging system. A recent report has suggested the two staging systems result in discordant staging[12] The objective of our study was to validate the new clinical and pathological staging systems in an independent cohort of HPV+OPSCC patients who had received surgery as the initial treatment modality. We also determined which staging system was more appropriate for patients treated with surgery and evaluated the degree of discordance between the clinical and pathological staging systems.

Recent advances in medical therapy for metastatic urothelial cancer

Cytotoxic chemotherapy has been the mainstay of medical therapy for metastatic urothelial cancer. Currently, the gemcitabine/cisplatin regimen is widely used worldwide as the standard first-line medical treatment. Very recently, in 2017, pembrolizumab, a highly selective, humanized monoclonal IgG4κ isotype antibody against programmed death 1, was approved as a second-line treatment to be used after platina-based chemotherapy for metastatic urothelial cancer in Japan. Based on its promising anti-tumor efficacy and manageable safety profile as demonstrated in the phase III KEYNOTE-045 trial, pembrolizumab therapy is expected to be rapidly introduced for treating metastatic urothelial cancer in clinical practice. The paradigm of medical treatment for patients with metastatic UC is dramatically changing through the introduction of this and other immune-checkpoint inhibitors. In this article, we provide a brief overview of these immune-checkpoint inhibitors and a comprehensive summary of the use of cytotoxic chemotherapy for metastatic urothelial cancer, including ongoing clinical trials.