Search

Laura Merlini,1 Giacomo Cartenì,2 Stefano Iacobelli,3 Caterina Stelitano,4 Mario Airoldi,5 Peter Balcke,6 Felix Keil,7 Ferdinand Haslbauer,8 Laura Belton,9 Beatriz Pujol10 1Department of Medical Oncology, Ospedale Civile S, Bortolo, Vicenza, 2Department of OncoHematology, Azienda Ospedaliera di Rilievo Nazionale "Antonio Cardarelli", Napoli, 3Department of Medical Oncology, Ospedale Clinicizzato SS Annunziata, Chieti, 4Department of Hematology, Azienda Ospedaliera "Bianchi Melacrino Morelli", Reggio Calabria, 5Department of Medical Oncology, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Le Molinette, Torino, Italy; 61st Medical Department, General Hospital St Pölten and Karl Landsteiner Institute of Oncology, St Pölten, 73rd Medical Department (Hematology and Oncology), Hanusch Krankenhaus der Wiener Gebietskrankenkasse, Vienna, 8Department of Oncology, Landeskrankenhaus Vöcklabruck, Vöcklabruck, Austria; 9Contract biostatistician, Amgen Ltd, Uxbridge, UK; 10Research and Development Haematology/Oncology, Amgen Europe, Zug, Switzerland Purpose: To describe the prevalence and management of anemia in cancer patients. Methods: This cross-sectional, observational survey was conducted in Italy and Austria. Centers prespecified one day, during a 4-month enrollment window, to report specific data collected during normal clinical practice for patients with non-myeloid tumors attending for chemotherapy (±radiotherapy) treatment. The primary endpoint was the prevalence of anemia as determined using a prespecified algorithm: hemoglobin (Hb) ≤10 g/dL on/within 3 days prior to visit; ongoing anemia treatment; physician diagnosis of anemia, together with ≥1 anemia symptom. Results: Between November 18, 2010 and March 18, 2011, data for 1412 patients were collected (Italy n = 1130; Austria n = 282). Most patients (n = 1136; 80%) had solid tumors; 809 (57%) had received ≤ 3 chemotherapy cycles. The prevalence of anemia was 32% (95% confidence interval: 29.4%–34.2%); 196 patients (14%) were deemed anemic based on Hb ≤10 g/dL, 131 (9%) on ongoing anemia treatment, and 121 (9%) on physician diagnosis/anemia symptom. Overall, 1153 patients (82%) had Hb data; mean (standard deviation [SD]) Hb levels were 11.7 (1.7) g/dL. In total, 456 patients (32%) had anemia symptoms: fatigue (n = 392; 28%), depression (n = 122; 9%), and dyspnea (n = 107; 8%) were most common. Fifty-one patients (4%) had had their current chemotherapy cycle delayed due to anemia. On visit day, or ≤ 28 days prior, 91 (6%), 188 (13%), and 81 patients (6%) had evidence of whole blood/red blood cell transfusion, erythropoiesis-stimulating agent use, or iron use, respectively. Conclusion: On the prespecified study day, one-third of patients with non-myeloid tumors undergoing chemotherapy were found to be anemic and 13% had evidence of erythropoiesis-stimulating agent use then or in the 28 days prior. Keywords: erythropoiesis-stimulating agent, hemoglobin, iron, management, transfusion

Background: STEPAUT, an Austrian non-interventional study, evaluated the safety and efficacy of everolimus plus exemestane in patients with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer (ABC) recurring/progressing on/after nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitors (NSAIs) in routine clinical practice., Methods: Postmenopausal women with HR+, HER2- ABC progressing on/after NSAIs receiving everolimus plus exemestane in accordance with routine practice and the current version of Summary of Product Characteristics were eligible. Planned individual observation period corresponded to the duration of treatment until formal study end., Results: Overall, 236 patients (median age: 65 years) were enrolled at 17 sites across Austria. The median progression-free survival (mPFS) in the overall population was 9.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 8.6-10.7 months). The mPFS (95% CI) in patients who received everolimus 10 and 5 mg was 9.9 months (7.3-11.5 months) and 8 months (4.7-10.7 months), respectively. The median time to progression was numerically longer in patients who had a therapy break (11.9 months, 95% CI: 10.0-14.6 months) versus those who did not have any therapy break (10.7 months, 95% CI: 8.9-12.6 months). Patients experienced grade 1 (53.7%), grade 2 (35.9%), grade 3 (9.9%), grade 4 (0.2%) adverse events (AEs). The most common AEs of any grade were stomatitis, mucositis (53.8%), rash, exanthema (29.7%), loss of appetite, nausea (28.4%)., Conclusions: Real-world safety and efficacy data from STEPAUT were consistent with results from BOLERO-2, supporting everolimus plus exemestane as a suitable treatment option for HR+, HER2- ABC recurring/progressing on/after NSAIs., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest GS has received grants and personal fees from Novartis during the conduct of this study; DE has received personal fees and non-financial support from Pfizer and Novartis and personal fees from Roche, Celgene, and Pierre Fabre, outside the submitted work; RB has received grants and personal fees from Novartis during the conduct of the study; personal fees from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Celgene, EISAI, Daiichi, Pfizer, and Roche, outside the submitted work; GP has received honoraria from Novartis, Amgen, Roche, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca, outside the conduct of this study; EP has received honoraria from Novartis during the conduct of the study; RG has received grant and personal fees from Roche, Celgene, Merck, Astra Zeneca, Novartis, Amgen, AbbVie, BMS, MSD, Takeda, Merck, Sandoz, outside the conduct of this study; AL has received grants from Novartis during the conduct of the study; KH, MH, and BM report employment with Novartis Pharma GmbH during the conduct of this study; MG has received grants from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche; and personal fees from Accelsiors, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Eli-Lilly, Ipsen, Nano String Technologies, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche, outside the submitted work. All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Although retreatment with alemtuzumab in relapsing B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) may be beneficial, there has thus far been no thorough analysis available on this topic. Data were collected from 30 chemotherapy-pretreated patients with progressive CLL who had received alemtuzumab twice in consecutive, distinct therapy lines. The median dose of alemtuzumab retreatment was 402 mg (range, 43-1,090 mg). Retreatment with alemtuzumab induced an overall response rate of 47%. From the start of alemtuzumab retreatment, median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 6.3 and 20.0 months, respectively. Response rates, PFS and OS upon alemtuzumab retreatment were correlated with response to initial alemtuzumab treatment, the time interval between the initial course of alemtuzumab and start of retreatment, and the hemoglobin concentration prior to retreatment. Reported toxicities from 24 cases included infections (50%), febrile reactions upon alemtuzumab administration (38%), exanthema (21%), and grade 4 neutropenia (13%) and thrombocytopenia (17%). We conclude that alemtuzumab retreatment represents an effective and tolerable therapeutic option for selected patients with CLL.