Search

Coronavirus pandemic has increased human disease burden, as well as economic distress globally. Being in an immunocompromised state, patients with cancer comprise an important at-risk population for novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection. It is necessary to modify individualized clinical management for every cancer patient in the context of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Simultaneously, additional safety precautions for the cancer care providers are mandatory. This review will provide general recommendations in the Indian context optimizing the same.

In order to overcome the polysorbate induced hypersensitivity reactions with chemotherapy drugs, novel drug-delivery mechanisms have been developed in the last decade. D-alpha-tocopheryl polyethylene glycol succinate (TPGS) is formed by esterification of alpha-tocopheryl succinate and polyethylene glycol 1000.This was a real-world retrospective analysis designed to evaluate safety and efficacy of TPGS-docetaxel in various cancers. Patients hospitalized between June 2018 and May 2019 were included in the data set. While the efficacy was assessed by the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors criteria, safety was assessed by the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria-adverse event (AE) criteria.A total of 61 patients who received at least one dose of TPGS-docetaxel were incorporated into the analysis set. The dose of TPGS docetaxel ranged from 20 mg/m2 to 120 mg/m2, commonly prescribed dose being 75 mg/m2. While 25 (40.98%) patients had a partial response, 17 (27.86%) patients had stable disease. Five (8.19%) patients progressed and 4 (6.55%) patients died during the chemotherapy, which was adjudicated to be unrelated to the drug as opined by the treating clinician. AE were reported in 42 patients in the safety data set. There were no AEs pertaining to hypersensitivity reported during the study. One AE of Grade 3 hand foot syndrome was encountered.The preliminary evidence suggests that the novel TPGS-based docetaxel formulation is efficacious in various cancers, and importantly, it has an enhanced safety profile, as it is devoid of polysorbate 80 induced hypersensitivity reactions.

Metastatic breast cancer (MBC) is cancer that has spread from the breast to another part of the body or has come back in another distant location. Treatment options for MBC depend on several factors, including where the cancer has spread, the patient's overall health, and the levels of hormone receptors and HER2 in the tumour. Over-expression of HER2 is generally considered to be a negative prognostic feature because it accompanies an increase in breast cancer mortality. However, the development of agents that specifically target HER2 has improved the management of patients with these tumours.[7],[8],[9],[10] This expert group used data from published literature, practical experience and opinion of a large group of academic oncologists to arrive at these practical consensus recommendations in regards with the use of these agents and the management of HER2 positive MBC for the benefit of community oncologists.

Context: The distribution of various subtypes of lymphomas in India is different from other parts of the world. There is scarce multicentric data on the pattern and outcomes of lymphomas in India. Aims: The aim of this study is to evaluate the histopathological and the clinical pattern and treatment outcomes of lymphomas in India based on the retrospective data collected from a multicenter registry. Materials and Methods: Retrospective data was collected at 13 public and private hospitals in India for patients diagnosed with lymphoma between January 2005 and December 2009. The data collection was performed in the setting of a multicenter lymphoma registry Survival analyses were performed using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank test. Results: Non-Hodgkin′s lymphoma (NHL) constituted 83.17% and Hodgkin′s lymphoma (HL) for 16.83% of the 1733 registered and analyzed cases. Diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) was the most common NHL (55%) followed by follicular lymphoma (11%). CHOP was the most common chemotherapy regimen administered (84%) while rituximab was used in 42.7% of those with DLBCL. Survival analysis of treatment naïve DLBCL patients (n = 791) was performed. Of these, 29% were lost to follow-up, 20% with active disease. The median follow-up in surviving patients is 31 (range: 1-88) months. Median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in DLBCL patients has not reached. There was no significant difference in median PFS (69 months vs. 61 months, P = 0.1341), but OS was significant not reached (NR) vs. NR, P = 0.0012) within international prognostic index high or intermediate subgroups. Rituximab use was associated with significantly prolonged PFS (NR vs. 82 months, P = 0.0123), but not OS (NR vs. NR, P = 0.2214). Cox regression analysis in treatment naïve DLBCL patients showed a performatnce status, stage and receipt of six or more cycles of chemotherapy to be significantly associated with OS and all of the preceding plus rituximab use significantly associated with PFS. Conclusions: Our analysis confirms previous reports of distribution of lymphoma subtypes in India and suggests that patients who are able to receive the full course of chemotherapy achieve a better outcome. This indicates the importance of ensuring compliance to treatment utilizing various measures including patient and family counseling. Prospective studies are required to confirm these findings.