Search

Oral mucositis (OM) remains a significant toxicity among patients being treated with radiotherapy (RT) alone or with concomitant chemotherapy (CRT) for cancers of the head and neck (HNC). Given its clinical significance as an unmet need and its potential commercial viability, the pharmaceutical industry has been actively pursuing an effective intervention. Despite this interest and activity, only a few agents have been studied in Phase III trials (n = 6). The objective of this study was to identify common features that differentiate successful and failed Phase III OM trials. We used the United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Public Search database to search patents with "oral mucositis" in the claims. We then searched ClinicalTrials.gov and PubMed to determine if Phase III or Phase II trial data for identified biologics/drugs had been published. We assessed each Phase III and Phase II trial for characteristics that may be associated with trial success or failure. We considered a study as a "success" if the primary endpoint reached statistical significance, and we considered a study as "failure" if the primary endpoint did not reach statistical significance. Of the three successful Phase III trials, one investigated avasopasem manganese (Galera Therapeutics) and two examined palifermin (Amgen). The three failed trials included those evaluating dusquetide (Soligenix), iseganan hydrochloride (IntraBiotics Pharmaceuticals), and clonidine (Monopar Therapeutics). We found that differences in the level of sponsor funding, patient inclusion criteria including radiation source and concomitant chemotherapy regimen, and concordance of primary efficacy outcomes between Phase II and Phase III trials influenced outcomes. To properly design clinical trials for OM in HNC patients, it is important that researchers and sponsors take note of specific study characteristics associated with success or failure, particularly with Phase III trials where the risks and costs are the highest. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives Immune-related adverse events (irAEs) are common. Oral irAEs tend to cluster in patients who experience concurrent toxicities. We aimed to characterize the frequency and trajectory of non-oral irAEs in patients who developed oral irAEs, assess their relationship with non-oral irAEs, and compare those characteristics with patients without oral irAEs. Methods A retrospective chart review was conducted to identify patients who started ICIT between December 11, 2011, and September 15, 2019 (n  = 4683) in the Mass General Brigham Registered Patient Data Registry. Demographic information, cancer diagnosis, ICIT regimen, treatment duration, and time and number of infusions to irAE onset were recorded. Non-oral irAEs were categorized into 13 groups. Patients with melanoma, pulmonary cancer, or head and neck cancer who had oral irAEs were then matched with those without oral irAEs to compare the prevalence of concomitant non-oral irAEs. Results Three hundred and fourteen patients with oral irAEs with a mean age of 65.9 ± 12.6 years (43.3% females) were included. Patients with multiple oral irAEs were more likely to have non-oral irAEs (OR: 2.7, 95% CI, 1.3-3.5), including cutaneous (OR: 1.7, 95% CI, 1.1-3.0), rheumatological (OR: 2.2, 95% CI, 1.1-4.2), thyroid (OR: 2.4, 95% CI, 1.2-4.9), and neurological irAEs (OR: 2.5, 95% CI, 1.0-6.3). Compared to matched patients with non-oral irAEs, patients with oral irAEs were more likely to have cutaneous (OR: 1.7, 95% CI, 1.0-2.8) and thyroid (OR: 2.86, 95% CI, 1.1-7.5) irAEs. The development of oral and non-oral irAEs is often coincidental. Conclusion Patients who have non-oral irAEs should be monitored for development of oral irAEs for prompt management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: The mammalian/mechanistic target of the rapamycin (mTOR) pathway is made up of many components that have far-reaching biological consequences, such as cell division, growth, and metabolism. The results of experiments performed years ago showed that inhibitors of the mTOR pathway have a negative effect on tumor cells, which sparked interest in the development of a class of drugs called mTOR inhibitors as anti-cancer therapies. mTOR inhibitors are now part of oncologists' armamentarium for various types of cancers, but patients who use these drugs are at a high risk of developing painful mouth sores. In this paper, we provide a hypothesis as to why these sores develop, how their development compares to other common mouth sores such as canker sores, why other parts of the body are not affected, and how treatment may work. It has been 24 years since rapamycin (sirolimus) was approved to mitigate solid organ transplant rejection and 16 years since mTOR (mammalian/mechanistic target of rapamycin) inhibitors reached patients as a cancer therapy. While the clinical benefits of mTOR inhibitors (mTORi) are robust, so too are their toxicities. Among the most common issues is the development of ulcers of the oral mucosa (mTOR-inhibitor associated stomatitis; mIAS). These lesions are distinct from those of other anti-cancer agents, occur with regularity, and impact patient outcomes. mIAS' pathogenesis has been the subject of speculation, and its similar presentation to recurrent aphthous stomatitis (RAS) has led to the hypothesis that it might serve as a surrogate to better understand RAS. Based on a review of the literature, the current manuscript provides a hypothesis regarding the mechanisms by which mTORis uniquely initiate mucosal injury and an explanation for the observation that steroids (also an immunosuppressive) are effective in its treatment through a non-immunologic mechanism. Unexplained unique features of mIAS are discussed in this review in the context of future investigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]