Search

Background: The aim of this study was to determine the safety and efficacy of fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) in combination with systemic therapies (ST) for brain metastases (BM)., Methods: Ninety-nine patients (171 BM) received SRT and concurrent ST (group 1) and 95 patients (131 BM) received SRT alone without concurrent ST (group 2). SRT was planned on a linear accelerator, using volumetric modulated arc therapy. All ST were allowed including chemotherapy (CT), immunotherapy (IT), targeted therapy (TT) and hormonotherapy (HT). Treatment was considered to be concurrent if the timing between the drug administration and SRT did not exceed 1 month. Local control (LC), freedom for distant brain metastases (FFDBM), overall survival (OS) and radionecrosis (RN) were evaluated., Results: After a median follow-up of 11.9 months (range 0.7-29.7), there was no significant difference between the two groups. However, patients who received concurrent IT (n = 30) had better 1-year LC, OS, FFDBM but a higher RN rate compared to patients who did not: 96% versus 78% (p = 0.02), 89% versus 77% (p = 0.02), 76% versus 53% (p = 0.004) and 80% versus 90% (p = 0.03), respectively. In multivariate analysis, concurrent IT (p = 0.022) and tumor volume < 2.07 cc (p = 0.039) were significantly correlated with improvement of LC. The addition of IT to SRT compared to SRT alone was associated with an increased risk of RN (p = 0.03)., Conclusion: SRT delivered concurrently with IT seems to be associated with improved LC, FFDBM and OS as well as with a higher rate of RN.

Background: Patients with severe renal impairment or undergoing hemodialysis are usually excluded from clinical trials. Available data regarding safety and activity of systemic therapies (ST) in hemodialyzed patients are scarce., Methods: Clinical data were searched through PubMed database until April 2020 according to PRISMA criteria. Efficacy, safety and pharmacokinetic (PK) assessment of ST were reported., Results: Among 270 references, 56 reports were evaluated in full text: 41 were included for efficacy and 42 for safety analysis (sunitinib n = 68, bevacizumab n = 6, everolimus n = 28, temsirolimus n = 17, sorafenib n = 55, axitinib n = 13, pazopanib n = 13, nivolumab n = 18, cabozantinib n = 0, lenvatinib n = 0, and ipilimumab n = 0). Twelve of the reports included PK assessment among dialyzed patients. Hemodialysis did not seem to modify the expected efficacy and safety of each compound among patients undergoing hemodialysis. PK assessments were not modified in comparison with a population not undergoing dialysis., Conclusion: Targeted and Immune therapies seem to be effective and can be used among patients undergoing hemodialysis. Due to frailty and comorbidities associated to chronic hemodialysis enhanced vigilance for these therapies within this specific population is recommended. Dedicated prospective clinical trials would definitely help to obtain data with a higher level of evidence., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Klajer E.: Pfizer and Ipsen Garnier L.: No conflict of interest Goujon M.: BMS and Ipsen Schurmann-Constans F.: Ipsen, Novartis, PfizerMery B.: No conflict of interest N Guyen Tan Hon: No conflict of interest Mouillet G: BMS Ipsen, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche, (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

In 2010, modified RECIST (mRECIST) criteria were proposed as a way of adapting the RECIST criteria to the particularities of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We intended to overcome some limitations of RECIST in measuring tumour shrinkage with local and systemic therapies, and also to refine the assessment of progression that could be misinterpreted with conventional RECIST 1.1, due to clinical events related to the natural progression of chronic liver disease (development of ascites, enlargement of lymph nodes, etc.). mRECIST has served its purpose since being adopted or included in clinical practice guidelines (European, American and Asian) for the management of HCC; it has also been instrumental for assessing response and time-to-event endpoints in several phase II and III investigations. Nowadays, mRECIST has become the standard tool for measurement of radiological endpoints at early/intermediate stages of HCC. At advanced stages, guidelines recommend both methods. mRECIST has been proven to capture higher objective response rates in tumours treated with molecular therapies and those responses have shown to be independently associated with better survival. With the advent of novel treatment approaches (i.e. immunotherapy) and combination therapies there is a need to further refine and clarify some concepts around the performance of mRECIST. Similarly, changes in the landscape of standard of care at advanced stages of the disease are pointing towards progression-free survival as a potential primary endpoint in some phase III investigations, as effective therapies applied beyond progression might mask overall survival results. Strict recommendations for adopting this endpoint have been reported. Overall, we review the performance of mRECIST during the last decade, incorporating novel clarifications and refinements in light of emerging challenges in the study and management of HCC., (Copyright © 2019 European Association for the Study of the Liver. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Treatment of advanced melanoma has been transformed by novel systemic therapies. The purpose of this study is to describe the current utilization patterns of immunotherapies with respect to survival outcomes in advanced melanoma. We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients with Stage 3 and 4 melanoma at our institution (2009-2019). Primary outcomes included overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS). Kaplan–Meier survival analysis and Cox proportional hazards regression analysis evaluated associations between covariates and survival outcomes. Of 244 patients, 5-y OS was 62.4%. Lymphovascular invasion (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.462, P = 0.030) was associated with shorter PFS whereas female gender (HR = 0.324, P = 0.010) was associated with longer PFS. Residual tumor (HR = 146, P = 0.006) and Stage 4 disease (HR = 3.349, P = 0.011) were associated with shorter OS. Use of immunotherapy increased from 2% to 23% over the study period, and use of neoadjuvant immunotherapy also increased up to 2016. Timing of immunotherapy administration was not significantly associated with survival. Of the 193 patients who received 2 or more treatment types, the most common treatment sequence was surgery followed by immunotherapy (n = 117, 60.6%). Immunotherapy is increasingly used for treatment of advanced melanoma. In this heterogeneous cohort, there was no significant association between timing of immunotherapy and survival outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a rare and aggressive malignancy associated with poor prognosis and a 5-year survival rate of 12%. Many drugs have been tested over the years with conflicting results. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of current therapies in MPM and how to best interpret the data available on these drugs. Furthermore, we focused on promising treatments under investigation, such as immunotherapy with targets different from anti-PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors, vaccines, target therapies, and metabolism-based strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has high mortality. The option of systemic therapy has increased significantly over the past five years. Sorafenib was the first multikinase inhibitor, introduced in 2007, as a treatment option for HCC, and it was the only effective systemic treatment for more than ten years. It was not until 2017 that several breakthroughs were made in the development of systemic strategies. Lenvatinib, another multikinase inhibitor, stood out successfully after sorafenib, and has been applied to clinical use in the first-line setting. Other multikinase inhibitors such as regorafenib, ramucirumab and cabozantinib, were approved in quick succession as second-line therapies. Concurrently, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have readily become established treatments for many solid tumors, including HCC. The most studied ICIs to date, target programmed cell death-1 (PD-1), its ligand PD-L1, and cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4). These ICIs have demonstrated efficacy in treating advanced HCC. More recently, combination of bevacizumab and atezolizumab (ICI targeting PD-L1) was approved as the gold-standard first-line therapy. Combination of ICIs with nivolumab and ipilimumab was also approved in the second-line setting for those who failed sorafenib. At the moment, numerous clinical trials in advanced HCC are underway, which will bring continuous change to the management, and increase the survival, for patients with advanced HCC. Our review article: (1) summarizes United States Food and Drug Administration (US FDA) approved systemic therapies in advanced HCC, (2) reports the evidence of currently approved treatments, (3) discusses potential drugs/drug combinations being currently tested in phase III clinical trials, and (4) proposes possible future directions in drug development for advanced HCC.

Simple Summary: In this review, we detail the data on a new treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. A new combination of therapies, based on immunotherapy, has recently emerged as efficacious treatment. While being very interesting for patients, this raises new questions: how should we select the most appropriate treatment for each patient? What treatment can we offer after failure of these new treatments? How can we develop new combinations? The standard of care of first-line systemic therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is currently changing with the results of the IMbrave150 trial which are demonstrating superiority of the atezolizumab-bevacizumab combination over sorafenib, modifying this line of treatment for the first time in over 10 years. Recently, other immunotherapy-based combinations (durvalumab-tremelimumab, lenvatinib-pembrolizumab, cabozantinib-atezolizumab, and camrelizumab-rivoceranib) reported results in phase III studies, and might challenge this new standard of care. This revolution will lead to a considerable change in practice, and highlight challenges for future drug development. In this review, we will, firstly, describe results of the different combinations, and discuss the difficulties in selecting the first-line treatment. We will then present the different recommendations about second-line treatment following the first-line immunotherapy-based combination, discussing the rationale for the differences in existing recommendations. We will finally discuss the challenges for future drug development in advanced HCC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has high mortality. The option of systemic therapy has increased significantly over the past five years. Sorafenib was the first multikinase inhibitor, introduced in 2007, as a treatment option for HCC, and it was the only effective systemic treatment for more than ten years. It was not until 2017 that several breakthroughs were made in the development of systemic strategies. Lenvatinib, another multikinase inhibitor, stood out successfully after sorafenib, and has been applied to clinical use in the first-line setting. Other multikinase inhibitors such as regorafenib, ramucirumab and cabozantinib, were approved in quick succession as second-line therapies. Concurrently, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have readily become established treatments for many solid tumors, including HCC. The most studied ICIs to date, target programmed cell death-1 (PD-1), its ligand PD-L1, and cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4). These ICIs have demonstrated efficacy in treating advanced HCC. More recently, combination of bevacizumab and atezolizumab (ICI targeting PD-L1) was approved as the gold-standard first-line therapy. Combination of ICIs with nivolumab and ipilimumab was also approved in the second-line setting for those who failed sorafenib. At the moment, numerous clinical trials in advanced HCC are underway, which will bring continuous change to the management, and increase the survival, for patients with advanced HCC. Our review article: (1) summarizes United States Food and Drug Administration (US FDA) approved systemic therapies in advanced HCC, (2) reports the evidence of currently approved treatments, (3) discusses potential drugs/drug combinations being currently tested in phase III clinical trials, and (4) proposes possible future directions in drug development for advanced HCC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a rare and aggressive malignancy associated with poor prognosis and a 5-year survival rate of 12%. Many drugs have been tested over the years with conflicting results. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of current therapies in MPM and how to best interpret the data available on these drugs. Furthermore, we focused on promising treatments under investigation, such as immunotherapy with targets different from anti-PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors, vaccines, target therapies, and metabolism-based strategies.

Abstract Background The aim of this study was to determine the safety and efficacy of fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) in combination with systemic therapies (ST) for brain metastases (BM). Methods Ninety-nine patients (171 BM) received SRT and concurrent ST (group 1) and 95 patients (131 BM) received SRT alone without concurrent ST (group 2). SRT was planned on a linear accelerator, using volumetric modulated arc therapy. All ST were allowed including chemotherapy (CT), immunotherapy (IT), targeted therapy (TT) and hormonotherapy (HT). Treatment was considered to be concurrent if the timing between the drug administration and SRT did not exceed 1 month. Local control (LC), freedom for distant brain metastases (FFDBM), overall survival (OS) and radionecrosis (RN) were evaluated. Results After a median follow-up of 11.9 months (range 0.7–29.7), there was no significant difference between the two groups. However, patients who received concurrent IT (n = 30) had better 1-year LC, OS, FFDBM but a higher RN rate compared to patients who did not: 96% versus 78% (p = 0.02), 89% versus 77% (p = 0.02), 76% versus 53% (p = 0.004) and 80% versus 90% (p = 0.03), respectively. In multivariate analysis, concurrent IT (p = 0.022) and tumor volume

Cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas (cSCC) represent one of the most diagnosed non-melanoma skin cancers and its incidence is increasing globally. Whereas early stage and low risk cSCC is typically treated with surgery, and in some cases other localized therapeutic modalities, locally advanced or metastatic cSCC is a cause of significant morbidity and mortality that requires a different approach to therapy. Therapeutic attempts at treating advanced cSCC include a multi-disciplinary approach with considerations for surgery, radiation, and systemic therapies. In this review, we will discuss the various systemic therapies that have been trialed for advanced cSCC, beginning with the early cytotoxic and platinum-based agents as well as their corresponding limitations. We will then review the targeted approaches using EGFR inhibitors prior to discussing the more recent immunotherapeutics that have shown good tumor responses in this often-lethal disease.

The standard of care of first-line systemic therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is currently changing with the results of the IMbrave150 trial which are demonstrating superiority of the atezolizumab-bevacizumab combination over sorafenib, modifying this line of treatment for the first time in over 10 years. Recently, other immunotherapy-based combinations (durvalumab-tremelimumab, lenvatinib-pembrolizumab, cabozantinib-atezolizumab, and camrelizumab-rivoceranib) reported results in phase III studies, and might challenge this new standard of care. This revolution will lead to a considerable change in practice, and highlight challenges for future drug development. In this review, we will, firstly, describe results of the different combinations, and discuss the difficulties in selecting the first-line treatment. We will then present the different recommendations about second-line treatment following the first-line immunotherapy-based combination, discussing the rationale for the differences in existing recommendations. We will finally discuss the challenges for future drug development in advanced HCC.

The availability of efficacious systemic therapies for metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma has heralded improved survival for Australians. The Pharmaceutical Benefits Schedule registry was interrogated to assess nation‐wide prescribing patterns. Sunitinib remained the most commonly prescribed agent. Prescribing rates were significantly lower in Northern Territory than in other states, raising questions of disparities in access to care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is challenging. Several randomized clinical trials are investigating the efficacy of systemic therapy, immunotherapy, and locoregional therapy as monotherapy or combined with other modalities in the treatment of HCC. Systemic therapy is the preferred treatment in advanced disease. To date, multiple first-line and second-line agents received Food and Drug Administration approval. For over a decade, sorafenib was the only first-line agent. In May 2020, combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab has been approved as a first-line systemic regimen. Lenvatinib is another first-line agent that has multikinase activity. Second-line agents include cabozantinib, regorafenib, ramucirumab, and nivolumab. Adoptive cell transfer therapy is a highly specific immunotherapy that has shown antitumor activity against HCC. Oncolytic viruses are genetically modified viruses that infect cancer cells and induce apoptosis. Locoregional therapies such as transarterial chemoembolization and radioembolization have shown a potential benefit in selected patients with advanced HCC. In this review, we aim to summarize the treatment options available for advanced HCC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Keratinocyte cancers – basal and cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (BCC, cSCC) – are the most common forms of non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC) and there has been a significant increase in their incidence globally in recent decades. Although the majority of BCC and cSCC are cured with conventional surgery or radiotherapy, certain tumour or patient-determined factors may result in these modalities being inadequate or inappropriate, for example, locally advanced or metastatic disease, high tumour multiplicity, patient comorbidities and patient preferences. In these clinical circumstances, systemic treatment may be indicated, and over the past 10 years a number of new systemic agents have been approved. Nonetheless, effective systemic therapy for keratinocyte cancers remains an area of significant unmet clinical need. Improved understanding of the molecular and immune pathogenesis underlying tumour growth and development is critical for driving future advances and is a research priority. The aim of this review is to provide clinicians with an overview of systemic treatments for BCC and cSCC and will focus on current evidence for conventional chemotherapy, targeted therapies, immunotherapy, adjuvant and neoadjuvant therapy, chemoprevention and future prospects for novel systemic treatment approaches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) arises from a number of cirrhosis-related and non-cirrhosis-related exposures and is one of the leading causes of cancer-related deaths worldwide. Achieving a durable cure currently relies on either resection or transplantation, but since most patients will be diagnosed with inoperable disease, there is great interest in achieving more effective systemic therapies. At a molecular level, HCC is heterogeneous, but initial treatment strategies, including the use of multi-targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors and checkpoint inhibitors, have been fairly homogenous, depending on general host factors and overall tumor burden rather than specific molecular signatures. Over the past 2 decades, however, there has been significant success in identifying key molecular targets, including driver mutations involving the telomerase reverse transcriptase, p53, and beta-catenin genes, and significant work is now being devoted to translating these discoveries into the development of robust and well-tolerated targeted therapies. Furthermore, multi-modal therapies have also begun to emerge, harnessing possible synergism amongst a variety of different treatment classes. As the findings of these landmark trials become available over the next several years, the landscape of the systemic management of advanced HCC will change significantly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Hepatocellular carcinoma is a frequent and poor prognosis tumor, with most patients facing up, soon or later, to systemic therapies. So far, systemic therapies based on tyrosine kinase inhibitor monotherapies have been of modest benefit. The aim of this review article was to characterize the profile of efficacy and safety of immuno-oncology-based monotherapies that failed to demonstrate significant benefit, for comparison with the immuno-oncology-based combinational strategies. One of them has proven its drastic benefit in phase-3, whereas others have only shown promising data in phase-1/2, although the corresponding phase-3 results are pending. We showed that objective response rates and duration of response are important parameters for increased median overall survival and long survivals. We also pointed out that, being aware that there is an urgent unmet need for biomarkers, the pattern of safety and quality of life will guide the physician for the choice on the possible future combinations. Hepatocellular carcinoma is a poor prognosis tumor. Systemic therapies are frequently used due to frequent recurrences after surgical or radiologic treatments. Anti-angiogenic tyrosine kinase inhibitors have shown efficacy in monotherapy, but with very low rates of long survival and exceptional recovery. Immuno-oncology based on immune checkpoint inhibitors has revolutionized the systemic therapies since showing long survival rates without any tumor progression or recurrence for some patients in partial or complete response, and possibly for some patients in stable disease. However, the rate of responders under immuno-oncology monotherapy is too low to increase significantly the median overall survival of the treated patients. The immuno-oncology-based combinations with different types of immune checkpoint inhibitors (PD-1/PD-L1 and CTLA-4 inhibitors such as nivolumab, pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, durvalumab, ipilimumab, tremelimumab), or the association of immune checkpoint inhibitors plus anti-angiogenic agents (bevacizumab, lenvatinib, cabozantinib), have led to a breakthrough in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. Indeed, the first phase-3 trial, combining atezolizumab with bevacizumab, has dramatically changed the outcome of patients. Data from several other types of combinations assessed in phase-3 trials are pending, and if positive, will drastically arm the physicians to efficiently treat the patients, and disrupt the current algorithm of hepatocellular carcinoma treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]