Search

AIM There is scarcity of research for the nutritional management of pelvic radiotherapy in gynaecological malignancies and delivery of specialised nutrition care is limited due to the current knowledge gap in guidelines. This study aimed to better understand the nutritional risk, weight changes and pattern of nutrition impact symptoms occurring at various treatment timepoints in this population, to inform an effective model of care. METHODS This retrospective, observational study included women with gynaecological cancers receiving pelvic radiotherapy at a tertiary hospital from January 2017 to December 2018 (n = 104). Information was collected on: first day of radiotherapy; weekly during treatment; acute-phase post-treatment (0-6 weeks); and intermediate-phase post-treatment (6 weeks to 6 months). This study reported on incidence of clinically significant weight change (±5%), documented nutrition impact symptoms and the current nutrition care model (nutrition screening, referral, assessment and interventions). RESULTS Clinically significant weight loss was experienced by 38% (n = 40/104) of patients prior to commencing treatment and 19% (n = 14/73) during treatment. Diarrhoea (n = 40/79), fatigue (n = 54/79), nausea (n = 38/79) and pain (n = 31/79) were frequently reported during treatment, and fatigue (n = 33/92) and pain (n = 25/92) continued acutely post-treatment. Despite high rates of weight loss and prevalence of nutrition impact symptoms, only 38% (n = 40/104) of patients were referred to a dietitian. CONCLUSIONS A considerable proportion of patients with gynaecological cancers are at nutrition risk before and during treatment due to clinically significant weight loss and prevalence of nutrition impact symptoms experienced. This highlights the importance of nutrition-risk screening and access to specialised dietetic care as part of their model of care.

INTRODUCTION: Bone metastases occur frequently in castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) and may lead to skeletal-related events (SREs), including symptomatic skeletal events (SSEs). Bone-modifying agents (BMAs) delay SREs and SSEs. However, the real-world use of BMAs is debated given the absence of demonstrated survival advantage and potential adverse events (AEs). Our retrospective study examined BMA use and SSE rates in Australian patients with CRPC. METHODS: Patients with CRPC and bone metastases were identified from the electronic CRPC Australian Database. Patient characteristics, treatment patterns and AEs were analysed. Descriptive statistics reported baseline characteristics, SSE rates and BMA use. Comparisons between groups used t-tests and Chi-square analyses. Overall survival was calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: A total of 532 eligible patients were identified with a median age of 73 years (range: 44-97 years). BMAs were prescribed in 232 men (46%), 183 of whom received denosumab. Patients receiving first-line docetaxel for CRPC were more likely to commence BMAs than those receiving abiraterone or enzalutamide (51% vs 31% vs 38%; p = 0.004). SSEs occurred in 148 men (28%), most commonly symptomatic lesions requiring intervention (75%). At the time of initial SSEs, only 28% were receiving BMAs. Patients treated at sites with lower BMA use (

Background Hormonal therapies are commonly prescribed to patients with metastatic granulosa cell tumours (GCT), based on high response rates in small retrospective studies. Aromatase inhibitors (AIs) are reported to have high response rates and an accepted treatment option. We report the results of a phase 2 trial of an AI in recurrent/metastatic GCTs. Methods 41 patients with recurrent ER/PR + ve GCT received anastrozole 1 mg daily until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was clinical benefit rate (CBR) at 12 weeks, evaluated by RECIST1.1 criteria. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), CBR duration, quality of life and toxicity. Results The CBR at 12 weeks in 38 evaluable patients was 78.9%, which included one (2.6%; 95% CI: 0.5–13.5%) partial response and 76.3% stable disease. Two additional patients without measurable disease were stable, based on inhibin. Median PFS was 8.6 m (95% CI 5.5–13.5 m). There were delayed responses observed after 12 weeks with a total of 4 pts. (10.5%; 95% CI 4.2%–24.1%) with a RECIST partial response; 23 (59%) patients were progression-free at 6 months. The adverse effects were predominantly low grade. Conclusions This is the first prospective trial of hormonal therapy in GCTs. Although there was a high CBR, the objective response rate to anastrozole was much lower than the pooled response rates of >70% to AIs reported in most retrospective series and case reports. PARAGON demonstrates the importance of prospective trials in rare cancers and the need to reconsider the role of AIs as single agents in GCTs.

The efficacy and safety of nivolumab plus cabozantinib as compared with those of sunitinib in the treatment of previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma are not known.In this phase 3, randomized, open-label trial, we randomly assigned adults with previously untreated clear-cell, advanced renal-cell carcinoma to receive either nivolumab (240 mg every 2 weeks) plus cabozantinib (40 mg once daily) or sunitinib (50 mg once daily for 4 weeks of each 6-week cycle). The primary end point was progression-free survival, as determined by blinded independent central review. Secondary end points included overall survival, objective response as determined by independent review, and safety. Health-related quality of life was an exploratory end point.Overall, 651 patients were assigned to receive nivolumab plus cabozantinib (323 patients) or sunitinib (328 patients). At a median follow-up of 18.1 months for overall survival, the median progression-free survival was 16.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 12.5 to 24.9) with nivolumab plus cabozantinib and 8.3 months (95% CI, 7.0 to 9.7) with sunitinib (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.64; P0.001). The probability of overall survival at 12 months was 85.7% (95% CI, 81.3 to 89.1) with nivolumab plus cabozantinib and 75.6% (95% CI, 70.5 to 80.0) with sunitinib (hazard ratio for death, 0.60; 98.89% CI, 0.40 to 0.89; P = 0.001). An objective response occurred in 55.7% of the patients receiving nivolumab plus cabozantinib and in 27.1% of those receiving sunitinib (P0.001). Efficacy benefits with nivolumab plus cabozantinib were consistent across subgroups. Adverse events of any cause of grade 3 or higher occurred in 75.3% of the 320 patients receiving nivolumab plus cabozantinib and in 70.6% of the 320 patients receiving sunitinib. Overall, 19.7% of the patients in the combination group discontinued at least one of the trial drugs owing to adverse events, and 5.6% discontinued both. Patients reported better health-related quality of life with nivolumab plus cabozantinib than with sunitinib.Nivolumab plus cabozantinib had significant benefits over sunitinib with respect to progression-free survival, overall survival, and likelihood of response in patients with previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma. (Funded by Bristol Myers Squibb and others; CheckMate 9ER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03141177.).

131 Background: The phase 3, randomized KEYLYNK-010 trial (NCT03834519) of pembro + ola vs next-generation hormonal agent (NHA) abi or enza did not significantly improve rPFS or OS in molecularly unselected pts with mCRPC treated with prior NHA and docetaxel. The study was stopped for futility after the second prespecified interim analysis. PROs for pembro + ola vs NHA in KEYLYNK-010 are presented. Methods: Pts were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive pembro 200 mg IV Q3W for ≤35 cycles (~2 y) + ola 300 mg orally BID or NHA (either abi 1000 mg orally QD + prednisone 5 mg orally BID, if pt previously received enza, or enza 160 mg orally QD if pt previously received abi). PROs were evaluated in pts who received ≥1 dose of study treatment and had ≥1 PRO assessment. FACT-P and BPI-SF were administered at baseline, Q3W until wk 24, Q6W until wk 72, and Q12W thereafter for ≤2 y. Time to pain progression (TTPP) based on BPI-SF was a prespecified secondary end point. Prespecified exploratory end points included least squares mean (LSM) change from baseline to wk 15 for FACT-P total and subscales scores (FACT-G total, TOI, FAPSI-6, FWB, PWB, and PCS) and BPI-SF scores (pain interference, pain severity, and worst pain), and time to deterioration (TTD) and overall improvement rate in FACT-P total and subscale scores. Differences were evaluated using 2-sided nominal P values not controlled for multiplicity. Results: A total of 793 pts were randomly assigned to pembro + ola (n = 529) or NHA (n = 264). As of January 18, 2022, median follow-up was 18.7 mo (range, 6.1-31.7). In all randomized pts, completion rate for FACT-P and BPI-SF at baseline and wk 15 was >84% and >57%, respectively. No differences were observed in the median TTPP for pembro + ola (13.5 mo [95% CI, 9.7-NR]) vs NHA (12.0 mo [95% CI, 10.1-NR]; HR, 0.95 [0.72-1.26]). No LSM differences were observed in FACT-P total scores (pembro + ola, –4.62 [95% CI, –6.47 to –2.77] vs NHA, –5.86 [95% CI, –8.58 to –3.13]) or BPI-SF scores (Table). There were no differences in TTD in FACT-P total, FACT-G total, TOI, FAPSI-6, FWB, PWB, and PCS scores between groups. A numerically higher proportion of pts had improved + stable FACT-P total scores for pembro + ola (44.0%) vs NHA (39.0%). FACT-P and BPI-SF scores were generally maintained across all evaluated time points up to wk 81. Conclusions: No clinically meaningful changes from baseline were observed in HRQoL or disease-related symptom scores with either pembro + ola or NHA. PRO scores were generally similar between pembro + ola and NHA at all analyzed time points, suggesting HRQoL was maintained in heavily pretreated pts receiving pembro + ola. Clinical trial information: NCT03834519 . [Table: see text]

Vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors have provided an effective standard of care for the treatment of metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Survival is prolonged with emergence of modern immuno-oncology combination regimens. Prognostic risk assessment is essential for choosing between these therapies to determine the most appropriate first line treatment option, with selection based on International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium Risk Category. We review the current subsidized first line treatments for mRCC in Australia and consider the evidence for treatment selection and sequencing.

This is a contemporaneous review of the frontline treatment of epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC), specifically on the importance of optimal surgical cytoreductive surgery, the pivotal role of platinum-based adjuvant chemotherapy (which encompasses intraperitoneal and dose-dense regimens) and the emergence of neo-adjuvant chemotherapy. Additionally, the benefit of concurrent and maintenance bevacizumab in the suboptimally debullked stage III and stage IV EOC setting is also reviewed. The article also discusses the increasing importance of prognostic and predictive molecular biomarkers in the future management of EOC.

Olaparib is the first oral poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor to be approved as maintenance monotherapy for treatment of patients with platinum-sensitive relapsed BRCA-mutated (BRCAm) serous ovarian cancer. This review provides practical guidance on the use of olaparib (capsule formulation) in the maintenance setting. The article focuses on the key toxicities that can arise with olaparib therapy and recommendations for their management. Nausea, vomiting, fatigue and anemia are the most commonly reported adverse events in olaparib clinical trials and are generally mild to moderate and transient in nature in most patients. Implementation of an effective and timely management plan can control many of the side effects. It is vital that health care providers effectively communicate the potential side effects of olaparib, as well as educate patients on management strategies to combat these symptoms. To this end, realistic expectations regarding the potential side effects need to be set, with an understanding that dose interruptions and modifications may be required to allow patients to continue receiving treatment.

CAN-003 was a randomized, open-label, Phase 2 trial evaluating the safety, efficacy and immune outcomes of CVac, a mucin 1 targeted-dendritic cell (DC) treatment as a maintenance therapy to patients with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). Patients (n = 56) in first (CR1) or second clinical remission (CR2) were randomized (1:1) to standard of care (SOC) observation or CVac maintenance treatment. Ten doses were administered over 56 weeks. Both groups were followed for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Fifty-six patients were randomized: 27 to SOC and 29 to CVac. Therapy was safe with only seven patients with Grade 3–4 treatment-emergent adverse events. A variable but measurable mucin 1 T cell-specific response was induced in all CVac-treated and some standard of care (SOC) patients. Progression free survival (PFS) was not significantly longer in the treated group compared to SOC group (13 vs. 9 months, p = 0.36, hazard ratio [HR] = 0.73). Analysis by remission status showed in the CR1 subgroup a median PFS of 18 months (SOC) vs. 13 months (CVac); p = 0.69 (HR = 1.18; CI 0.52–2.71). However CR2 patients showed a longer median PFS in the CVac-treated group (median PFS not yet reached, >13 vs. 5 months; p = 0.04, HR = 0.32 CI). OS for CR2 patients at 42 months of follow-up showed a difference of 26 months for SOC vs. > 42 months for CVac-treated (as median OS had not been reached; HR = 0.17 (CI 0.02–1.4) with a p = 0.07). CVac, a mucin 1-dendritic cell maintenance treatment was safe and well tolerated in ovarian cancer patients. A variable but observed CVac-derived, mucin 1-specific T cell response was measured. Notably, CR2 patients showed an improved PFS and lengthened OS. Further studies in CR2 ovarian cancer patients are warranted (NCT01068509). NCT01068509 . Study Initiation Date (first patient screened): 20 July 2010. Study Completion Date (last patient observation): 20 August 2013, the last patient observation for progression-free survival; 29 April 2015, the last patient was documented regarding overall survival.