Search

Personalized medicine aims to match the right drug with the right patient by using specific features of the individual patient's tumor. However, current strategies of personalized therapy matching provide treatment opportunities for less than 10% of patients with cancer. A promising method may be drug profiling of patient biopsy specimens with single-cell resolution to directly quantify drug effects. We prospectively tested an image-based single-cell functional precision medicine (scFPM) approach to guide treatments in 143 patients with advanced aggressive hematologic cancers. Fifty-six patients (39%) were treated according to scFPM results. At a median follow-up of 23.9 months, 30 patients (54%) demonstrated a clinical benefit of more than 1.3-fold enhanced progression-free survival compared with their previous therapy. Twelve patients (40% of responders) experienced exceptional responses lasting three times longer than expected for their respective disease. We conclude that therapy matching by scFPM is clinically feasible and effective in advanced aggressive hematologic cancers. Significance: This is the first precision medicine trial using a functional assay to instruct n-of-one therapies in oncology. It illustrates that for patients lacking standard therapies, high-content assay-based scFPM can have a significant value in clinical therapy guidance based on functional dependencies of each patient's cancer. See related commentary by Letai, p. 290. This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 275

Objective Pain depicts a severe physical symptom but its relationship to mental health problems is not well studied in cancer patients. The aim of this study was to investigate the prevalence of pain and its correlation with symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, anxiety, and psychological distress in a large sample of cancer patients. Methods From 2010 to 2019, cancer patients who received outpatient treatment at the Medical University of Vienna, were assessed with the Post-Traumatic Symptom Scale (PTSS-10) and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scales (HADS). A visual analogue scale was used to assess pain perception. For statistical analysis, linear regression models were applied to log-transformed data. Results Of the 846 cancer patients included in the study, 63.5% experienced pain (mild 43.5%, moderate 13.6%, severe 6.4%). About a third (31,2%) of the total sample presented with significant PTSD symptoms. Significant symptoms of depression, anxiety, and distress were present in 13.9%, 15.1%, and 25.3%, respectively. Women more often reported symptoms of PTSD, anxiety, and distress. Pain scores were significantly related to symptoms of PTSD, depression and psychological distress (all with p Conclusions Results show a high prevalence of experienced pain and indicate a clear association of elevated pain levels with psychiatric symptoms in oncological patients in a large Austrian sample. In order to decrease experienced pain and to enable better treatment of mental health problems in cancer patients, diagnostic procedures and interventions based on a biopsychosocial model need to be intensified. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Background: Aggressive hematological malignancies in relapsed/refractory setting bear a dire prognosis with low cure rates and short survival. Matching these patients to therapies is challenged by complexity due to spatial and temporal tumor evolution and incomplete understanding of genotype to phenotype correlations. Direct functional testing could address these impediments. The EXALT trial is an interventional, one-arm study designed to assess the clinical value of next generation functional drug screening (ngFDS). An interim analysis on 17 patients suggested a clinical benefit (Snijder et al., Lancet Hematol. 2017). Methods: We applied image-based ngFDS to quantify differential ex-vivo sensitivity of primary patient tumor cells to respective non-tumor cells towards 136 small molecule drugs, including EMA approved for any indication or experimental. We screened bone marrow, peripheral blood or lymph node material from 143 patients who suffered from late stage aggressive hematological malignancies (acute leukemias, aggressive B- and T-cell lymphomas) , discussed the results in a multidisciplinary tumor board and recommended treatments to physicians (A). The primary endpoint of this study was the percentage of patients reaching a PFS-ratio (PFS(ngFDS treatment)/PFS(previous treatment)) of ≥1.3 with an H0 hypothesis < 15% patients. The secondary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR) defined as proportion of patients reaching complete remission (CR) or partial remission (PR). Additionally, we performed a post hoc analysis to evaluate the matching of ngFDS to drugs used in actual treatment (matching score of received treatment). Results: 56 (39%) patients were evaluable and treated according to ngFDS based recommendations. With 30 of 56 (54%) ngFDS guided patients experiencing a PFS ratio of ≥1.3, the primary study endpoint was reached. 11 patients (37%) had ongoing response at censoring date (B). The median follow-up was 718 days. The median number of days from sampling to treatment was 21 (range 4-77). The ngFDS treatment regimens consisted of a median of 2 drugs (range: 1-6). ORR was 55% for all evaluable ngFDS treated patients, 60% for the lymphoid subgroup and 41% for the myeloid subgroup. Patients on ngFDS guided treatment with performance status ECOG ≤ 1 had a median PFS of 207 days compared to a median PFS of 29 days for patients with higher ECOG (p < 0.001, C). 24 of 39 (62%) patients with ECOG ≤ 1 had a PFS ratio of ≥1.3 (D). In disease specific subgroup analysis median PFS of T-cell lymphoma patients was 235 days versus 60 days for B-cell lymphoma patients (p = 0.018, E). Age (≤60 vs. >60), sex, lineage (myeloid vs. lymphoid), number of previous treatment lines (≤2 vs. >2), and clinical presentation (leukemia vs. lymphoma) did not have an impact on PFS of ngFDS guided treatment. Post hoc analysis including additional 17 non-ngFDS treated patients demonstrated that only patients receiving treatment with a positive ngFDS matching score demonstrated clinical benefit (HR: 0.53, p=0.005; vs. HR: 1.4, p=0.4). ngFDS matched treatments resulted in higher PFS for patients with tumor samples that had a cancer cell fraction of 10-50% in comparison to patients with samples of lower or higher cancer cell percentage (HR:0.35, p=0.01). Conclusion: ngFDS could be integrated in the routine clinical work flow. ngFDS guided treatments led to high rates of PFS prolongation compared to previous treatments of individual patients. ngFDS guided treatment is feasible and effective in patients with late stage aggressive hematological malignancies. These results prompted a prospective randomized trial comparing treatment guidance based on ngFDS or comprehensive genomic profiling or physician's choice (EXALT-2 trial, NCT04470947). Figure Disclosures Vladimer: Allcyte GmbH: Current Employment, Current equity holder in private company, Other: Founder. Jaeger:Karyopharm: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; True North: Honoraria, Research Funding; Miltenyi: Consultancy, Honoraria; CDR Life AG: Consultancy, Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Infinity: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria. Krall:Allcyte GmbH: Current Employment, Current equity holder in private company, Other: Founder. Valent:Allcyte GmbH: Research Funding; Cellgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria. Wolf:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Zielinski:MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Imugene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Ariad: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Merrimack: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Merck KGaA: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Fibrogen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Tesaro: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Shire: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Eli Lilly: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Athenex: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Superti-Furga:Allcyte GmbH: Current equity holder in private company, Other: Founder. Snijder:Allcyte GmbH: Current equity holder in private company, Other: Founder. Staber:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene/ BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; msd: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria.

Objective Post‐traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a severe psychiatric disorder, which might develop after a traumatic event, like cancer diagnosis, and threatens the patient's psychological and/or physiological integrity. Anxiety, depression, and mental distress are known to be common in cancer patients; however, the frequency of PTSD was not investigated thoroughly in this patient group so far. Here, we aim to screen cancer patients for PTSD symptoms and determine a possible correlation with anxiety, depression, and distress. Methods The study was performed at the Divisions of Hematology and Oncology of the Medical University of Vienna from 2010 to 2018. Following written consent, patients were asked to fill out the validated self‐assessment questionnaire for PTSS‐10 and HADS. The study was approved by the institutional ethics committee of the Medical University of Vienna (EC Nr: 2255/2016). Results A total of 1017 adult cancer patients (513 male, 504 female) were included in a cross‐sectional single‐center study. Mean age was 57.6 years (SD 14.4 years); 31.7%, 14.6%, 13.2%, and 27.4% of patients outscored the predefined thresholds for self‐assessed cases of PTSD, anxiety, depression, and distress, respectively. Compared with men, women showed a higher prevalence of symptoms for PTSD (38.9% vs 24.5%; P

Objective To evaluate effects of remote monitoring of adjuvant chemotherapy related side effects via the Advanced Symptom Management System (ASyMS) on symptom burden, quality of life, supportive care needs, anxiety, self-efficacy, and work limitations. Design Multicentre, repeated measures, parallel group, evaluator masked, stratified randomised controlled trial. Setting Twelve cancer centres in Austria, Greece, Norway, Republic of Ireland, and UK. Participants 829 patients with non-metastatic breast cancer, colorectal cancer, Hodgkin’s disease, or non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma receiving first line adjuvant chemotherapy or chemotherapy for the first time in five years. Intervention Patients were randomised to ASyMS (intervention; n=415) or standard care (control; n=414) over six cycles of chemotherapy. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was symptom burden (Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale; MSAS). Secondary outcomes were health related quality of life (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy—General; FACT-G), Supportive Care Needs Survey Short-Form (SCNS-SF34), State-Trait Anxiety Inventory—Revised (STAI-R), Communication and Attitudinal Self-Efficacy scale for cancer (CASE-Cancer), and work limitations questionnaire (WLQ). Results For the intervention group, symptom burden remained at pre-chemotherapy treatment levels, whereas controls reported an increase from cycle 1 onwards (least squares absolute mean difference −0.15, 95% confidence interval −0.19 to −0.12; P Conclusions Significant reduction in symptom burden supports the use of ASyMS for remote symptom monitoring in cancer care. A “medium” Cohen’s effect size of 0.5 showed a sizable, positive clinical effect of ASyMS on patients’ symptom experiences. Remote monitoring systems will be vital for future services, particularly with blended models of care delivery arising from the covid-19 pandemic. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02356081 .