Search

Background: The non-inferiority of dexamethasone (DEX) on day 1, with or without low-dose DEX on days 2 and 3, combined with oral NEPA (netupitant/palonosetron), compared with the guideline-consistent use of DEX was demonstrated in cisplatin. Here, we complete the analysis by assessing the impact of emesis on daily lives of patients receiving DEX-sparing regimens using the Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE). Methods: Chemotherapy-naïve patients undergoing cisplatin (≥70 mg/m2), were given NEPA and DEX (12 mg) on day 1 and randomized to receive either 1) no further DEX (DEX1), 2) oral DEX (4 mg daily) on days 2–3 (DEX3), or 3) DEX (4 mg twice daily) on days 2–4 (DEX4; control). Patients completed the FLIE questionnaire on day 6 of cycle 1. Endpoints included the FLIE nausea domain, vomiting domain, and overall combined domain scores, as well as the proportion of patients with no impact on daily life (NIDL; overall score > 108). This was a protocol-planned analysis. Results: In the DEX1 group, no significant differences were observed in the FLIE nausea score (48.9 [±1.8; SE] vs. 53.7 [±1.5]), vomiting score (56.6 [±1.4] vs. 58.7 [±0.8]) and overall score (105.6 [±2.8] vs.112.4 [±1.9]) versus DEX4 control; similar results were observed in the DEX3 group for nausea score (49.6 [±1.7]), vomiting score (58.2 [±1]) and overall score (107.8 [±2.4]) versus control. There were no significant between-group differences in the proportion of patients reporting NIDL. Conclusion: Reducing DEX, when administered with NEPA, does not seem to adversely impact the daily functioning in patients undergoing cisplatin. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.govNCT04201769. Registration date: 17/12/2019 - Retrospectively registered.

Background: To reduce the overall exposure to dexamethasone (DEX) in patients receiving cisplatin-based chemotherapy, we evaluated the noninferiority of DEX on day 1, with or without low-dose DEX on days 2 and 3, combined with an oral fixed-dose combination of netupitant and palonosetron (NEPA), compared with the guideline-consistent use of 4-day DEX. Patients and Methods: In this open-label, multicenter study, chemotherapy-naïve patients undergoing high-dose cisplatin (≥70 mg/m2), were given NEPA and DEX (12 mg) on day 1 and randomized (1:1:1 ratio) to receive either (a) no further DEX (DEX1), (b) oral DEX (4 mg daily) on days 2–3 (DEX3), or (c) DEX (4 mg twice daily) on days 2–4 (DEX4). The primary efficacy endpoint was complete response (CR: no emesis and no rescue medication) during the 5-day overall phase. The noninferiority margin was set at −15% difference (DEX1 or DEX3 minus DEX4). Secondary efficacy endpoints included complete protection (CP: CR and none or mild nausea). Results: Two-hundred twenty-eight patients, 76 in each arm, were assessable. Noninferiority was met for both DEX-sparing regimens and the reference arm, with overall phase CR rates of 76.3% in each of the DEX1 and DEX3 arms and 75.0% in the DEX4 arm (95% confidence interval, −12.3% to 15% for each comparison). During the overall phase, CP rates were similar between groups. Conclusion: A simplified regimen of NEPA plus single-dose DEX offers comparable chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting prevention throughout 5 days post-chemotherapy with the advantage of sparing patients additional doses of DEX in the high–emetic-risk setting of cisplatin-based chemotherapy. Implications for Practice: Dexamethasone (DEX) has traditionally played an integral role in the management of chemotherapy-induced emesis. Although generally considered safe, even short-term DEX use is associated with various side effects, and some evidence suggests that concurrent steroids may reduce the efficacy of immunotherapi

Background: Previous studies on oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidines as adjuvant therapy in older patients with stage III colon cancer (CC) produced conflicting results. Patients and methods: We assessed the impact of age on time to tumour recurrence (TTR), disease-free survival (DFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival (OS) in 2360 patients with stage III CC (1667 aged <70 years and 693 ≥ 70 years) randomised to receive 3 or 6 months of FOLFOX or CAPOX within the frame of the phase III, TOSCA study. Results: Older patients compared with younger ones presented more frequently an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status equal to 1 (10.5% vs 3.3%, p < 0.001), a greater number of right-sided tumours (40.9% vs 26.6%, p < 0.001), and were at higher clinical risk (37.2% vs 33.2%, p = 0.062). The treatments were almost identical in the two cohorts (p = 0.965). We found a greater proportion of dose reductions (46.7% vs 41.4%, p = 0.018), treatment interruptions (26.1% vs 19.3%, p < 0.001) and a higher proportion of recurrences (24.2% vs 20.3%, p = 0.033) in the older patients. The multivariable analysis of the TTR did not indicate a statistically significant effect of age (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.19; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.98–1.44; p = 0.082). The HR comparing older with younger patients was 1.34 (95% CI: 1.12–1.59; p = 0.001) for DFS, 1.58 (95% CI: 1.26–1.99; p < 0.001) for OS, and 1.28 (95% CI: 0.96–1.70; p = 0.089) for CSS. Conclusions: Worse prognostic factors and reduced treatment compliance have a negative impact on the efficacy of oxaliplatin-based adjuvant therapy in older patients.

Metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) is a poor prognostic disease with limited treatments and un-certain therapeutic algorithms. We performed a systematic review and multiple Bayesian network meta-analyses according to treatment line to establish an optimal therapeutic sequencing strategy for this lethal disease. We included 125 first-line trials (37,812 patients) and 33 s/further-lines trials (11,321 patients). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall response rates (ORR), overall survival (OS) and safety, for first and further lines, separately. We also estimated separate treatment rankings for the first and subsequent lines according to each endpoint, based on (surface under the cumulative ranking curve) SUCRA values. No first-line treatment was associated with superior PFS and OS than paclitaxel +/- bevacizumab. Platinum-based polychemotherapies were generally superior in terms of ORR, at the cost of higher toxicity.. PARP-inhibitors in germline-BRCA1/2-mutant patients, and immunotherapy + chemotherapy in PD-L1 -positive mTNBC, performed similar to paclitaxel +/- bevacizumab. In PD-L1-positive mTNBC, pembrolizumab + chemotherapy was better than atezolizumab + nab-paclitaxel in terms of OS according to SUCRA values. In second/further-lines, sacituzumab govitecan outperformed all other treatments on all endpoints, followed by PARP-inhibitors in germline-BRCA1/2-mutant tumors. Trastuzumab deruxtecan in HER2-low mTNBC performed similarly and was the best advanced-line treatment in terms of PFS and OS after sacituzumab govitecan, ac-cording to SUCRA values. Moreover, comparisons with sacituzumab govitecan, talazoparib and olaparib were not statistically significant. The most effective alternatives or candidates for subsequent lines were represented by nab-paclitaxel (in ORR), capecitabine (in PFS) and eribulin (in PFS and OS).

Background: The risk of venous thromboembolic events (VTE) during adjuvant chemotherapy for colorectal cancer (CRC) is unknown. We aim to evaluate if the Khorana score (KS) can predict this risk, and if it represents a prognostic factor for overall survival (OS) through a post hoc analysis of the phase III TOSCA trial of different durations (3- versus 6-months) of adjuvant chemotherapy. Methods: A logistic regression model was used to test the associations between the risk of VTE and the KS. The results are expressed as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). To assess the effect of the KS on OS, multivariable analyses using Cox regression models were performed. The results are expressed as hazard ratios (HR) with 95% CI. Results: Among 1380 CRC patients with available data, the VTE risk (n = 72 events: 5.2%) was similar in the two duration arms (5.5% versus 4.9%), with 0.2% of patients belonging to the high-risk KS group. Rates of VTE were similar in the low- and intermediate-risk groups (4.8% versus 6.4%). KS did not represent an independent predictive factor for VTE occurrence. Chemotherapy duration was not associated with VTE risk. In addition, KS was not prognostic for OS in multivariate analysis (HR: 0.92, 95% CI, 0.63–1.36; p = 0.6835). Conclusions: The use of the KS did not predict VTEs in a low–moderate thromboembolic risk population as CRC. These data did not support the use of KS to predict VTE during adjuvant chemotherapy, and suggest that other risk assessment models should be researched.

Background: NEPA is an oral fixed-dose combination of netupitant, a new highly selective neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, and palonosetron. This study was conducted to evaluate whether the efficacy of NEPA against chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in cycle 1 would be maintained over subsequent chemotherapy cycles in breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide (AC). The study also describes the relationship between efficacy on day 1 through 5 (overall period) and control of CINV on day 6 through 21 (very late period) in each cycle. Methods: In this multicentre, phase II study, patients received both NEPA and dexamethasone (12 mg intravenously) just before chemotherapy. The primary efficacy endpoint was overall complete response (CR; no emesis and no rescue medication use) in cycle 1. Sustained efficacy was evaluated during the subsequent cycles by calculating the rate of CR in cycles 2-4 and by assessing the probability of sustained CR over multiple cycles. The impact of both overall CR and risk factors for CINV on the control of very late events (vomiting and moderate-to-severe nausea) were also examined. Results: Of the 149 patients enrolled in the study, 139 were evaluable for a total of 552 cycles; 97.8% completed all 4 cycles. The proportion of patients with an overall CR was 70.5% (90% CI, 64.1 to 76.9) in cycle 1, and this was maintained in subsequent cycles. The cumulative percentage of patients with a sustained CR over 4 cycles was 53%. NEPA was well tolerated across cycles. In each cycle, patients with CR experienced a significantly better control of very late CINV events than those who experienced no CR. Among the patients with CR, the only predictor for increased likelihood of developing very late CINV was pre-chemotherapy (anticipatory) nausea (adjusted odds ratio = 0.65-0.50 for no CINV events on cycles 3 and 4). Conclusion: The high anti-emetic efficacy seen with the NEPA regimen in the first cycle was m

A precise assessment of the efficacy of first-/second-line endocrine therapies (ET) +/- target therapies (TT) in clinically-relevant subgroups of hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (MBC) has not yet been conducted. To improve our current knowledge and support clinical decision-making, we thus conducted a systematic literature search to identify all first-/second-line phase II/III randomized clinical trials (RCT) of currently approved or most promising ET +/- TT. Then, we performed a meta-analysis to assess progression-free (PFS) and/or overall survival (OS) benefit in several clinically-relevant prespecified subgroups. Thirty-five RCT were included (17,595 patients). Pooled results show significant reductions in the risk of relapse or death of 26-41% and 12-27%, respectively, depending on the clinical subgroup. Combination strategies proved to be more effective than single-agent ET (PFS hazard ratio (HR) range for combinations: 0.60-0.65 vs. HR range for single agent ET: 0.59-1.37; OS HR range for combinations: 0.74-0.87 vs. HR range for single agent ET: 0.68-0.98), with CDK4/6-inhibitors(i) + ET being the most effective regimen. Single agent ET showed comparable efficacy with ET+TT combinations in non-visceral (p = 0.63) and endocrine sensitive disease (p = 0.79), while mTORi-based combinations proved to be a valid therapeutic option in endocrine-resistant tumors, as well as PI3Ki + ET in PIK3CA-mutant tumors. These results strengthen international treatment guidelines and can aid therapeutic decision-making.

Simple Summary Anthracyclines are among the most active chemotherapies in breast cancer (BC). However, they can cause structural and cumulative dose-related cardiac damage; hence, they require careful administration after preliminary functional cardiac assessment and subsequent monitoring, along with a limitation in the cumulative dose delivered. Non-pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (NPLD) has been precisely developed to optimize the doxorubicin toxicity profile, while retaining its therapeutic efficacy, thanks to a reduced diffusion in normal tissues with preserved drug penetrance into cancer sites. This has allowed administration of NPLD beyond a conventional doxorubicin maximum cumulative dose, as well as in patients with cardiac comorbilities or anthracycline pretreatment. At present, NPLD is approved in Europe and Canada in combination with cyclophosphamide as the first line of metastatic HER2-negative BC. However, given the increasing complexity of the therapeutic scenario in this setting, we have carefully revised the most updated literature on the topic and dissected the potential role of NPLD in the evolving therapeutic algorithms. Anthracyclines are among the most active chemotherapies (CT) in breast cancer (BC). However, cardiotoxicity is a risk and peculiar side effect that has been limiting their use in clinical practice, especially after the introduction of taxanes. Non-pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (NPLD) has been developed to optimize the toxicity profile induced by anthracyclines, while maintaining its unquestionable therapeutic index, thanks to its delivering characteristics that increase its diffusion in tumor tissues and reduce it in normal tissues. This feature allows NPLD to be safely administered beyond the standard doxorubicin maximum cumulative dose of 450-480 mg/m(2). Following three pivotal first-line phase III trials in HER2-negative metastatic BC (MBC), this drug was finally approved in combination with cyclophosphamide in this specific