Search

An immunosuppressive microenvironment causes poor tumor T cell infiltration and is associated with reduced patient overall survival in colorectal cancer. How to improve treatment responses in these tumors is still a challenge. Using an integrated screening approach to identify cancer-specific vulnerabilities, we identified complement receptor C5aR1 as a druggable target, which when inhibited improved radiotherapy, even in tumors displaying immunosuppressive features and poor [CD8.sup.+] T cell infiltration. While C5aR1 is well-known for its role in the immune compartment, we found that C5aR1 is also robustly expressed on malignant epithelial cells, highlighting potential tumor cell-specific functions. C5aR1 targeting resulted in increased NF-[kappa]B-dependent apoptosis specifically in tumors and not normal tissues, indicating that, in malignant cells, C5aR1 primarily regulated cell fate. Collectively, these data revealed that increased complement gene expression is part of the stress response mounted by irradiated tumors and that targeting C5aR1 could improve radiotherapy, even in tumors displaying immunosuppressive features., Introduction The composition of the tumor microenvironment (TME) affects treatment responses in cancer (1-3). Immunosuppressive TME features, which act as a barrier to extensive [CD8.sup.+] T cell infiltration typically characterize [...]

Aim: Neoadjuvant rectal (NAR) score is an early surrogate for longer‐term outcomes in rectal cancer undergoing radiotherapy and resection. In an era of increasing organ preservation, resection specimens are not always available to calculate the NAR score. Post‐treatment magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) re‐staging of regression is subjective, limiting reproducibility. We explored the potential for a novel MRI‐based NAR score (mrNAR) adapted from the NAR formula. Methods: Locally advanced rectal cancer patients undergoing neoadjuvant therapy (nCRT) and surgery were retrospectively identified between 2008 and 2020 in a single cancer network. mrNAR was calculated by adapting the NAR formula, replacing pathological (p) stages with post‐nCRT MR stages (ymr). Cox regression assessed relationships between clinicopathological characteristics, NAR and mrNAR with overall survival (OS) and recurrence‐free survival (RFS). Results: In total, 381 NAR and 177 mrNAR scores were calculated. On univariate analysis NAR related to OS (hazard ratio [HR] 2.05, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.33–3.14, p = 0.001) and RFS (HR 2.52, 95% CI 1.77–3.59, p = 0.001). NAR 3‐year OS <8 was 95.3%, 8–16 was 88.6% and >16 was 80%. mrNAR related to OS (HR 2.96, 95% CI 1.38–6.34, p = 0.005) and RFS (HR 2.99, 95% CI 1.49–6.00, p = 0.002). 3‐year OS for mrNAR <8 was 96.2%, 8–16 was 92.4% and >16 was 78%. On multivariate analysis, mrNAR was a stage‐independent predictor of OS and RFS. mrNAR corresponded to NAR score category in only 15% (positive predictive value 0.23) and 47.5% (positive predictive value 0.48) of cases for categories <8 and >16, respectively. Conclusions: Neoadjuvant rectal score is validated as a surrogate end‐point for long‐term outcomes. mrNAR categories do not correlate with NAR but have stage‐independent prognostic value. mrNAR may represent a novel surrogate end‐point for future neoadjuvant treatments that focus on organ preservation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: Eribulin mesylate is a synthetic analog of halichondrin B and is licensed for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer that has progressed following treatment with anthracyclines and taxanes. It was not deemed to be cost effective based on a cost analysis by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in England and therefore it is not funded routinely by the National Health Service. The establishment of the Cancer Drugs Fund in England subsequently enabled access. As with any new chemotherapy drug that enters clinical practice for metastatic breast cancer (MBC) it is often used in heavily pretreated patients and the experience in a routine clinical setting can differ from that in a clinical study. We therefore present the experience of the first 25 cases treated at our institution via the Cancer Drugs Fund.Materials& Methods: A total of 25 patients were treated and in the 22 assessable cases the objective response rate was 18% (four out of 22), with a clinical benefit rate of 41.0% (9 out of 22).Results: The median time-to-progression and overall survival were 4.08 months and 5.89 months, respectively. There was a significant difference in clinical benefit rate (odds ratio: 0.065; 95% CI: 0-0.529; p = 0.0055), as well as time-to-progression (hazard ratio: 9.18; 95% CI: 2.26-37.38; p = 0.002 adjusted for age at diagnosis and interval between initial MBC diagnosis and commencing eribulin) favoring those patients who had not been rechallenged. There was no significant difference in overall survival (hazard ratio: 1.16; 95% CI: 0.44-3.05; p = 0.770 adjusted for age at diagnosis and interval between initial diagnosis of MBC and commencing eribulin).Conclusion: Eribulin mesylate shows clinical activity; however, there appears to be differences in terms of benefit in patients based on whether patients have been rechallenged with an anthracycline and/or a taxane. These data require confirmation in larger patient groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND Several prognostic indices have been devised to optimize patient selection for phase 1 oncology trials with no consensus as to the optimal score and none qualifying as a marker of treatment response. METHODS Multivariate predictors of overall survival (OS) were tested on 118 referred patients to develop the Hammersmith Score (HS). The score's ability to predict OS, progression-free survival (PFS), and 90-day mortality (90DM) was compared with other prognostic indices. Changes in HS were recalculated during treatment. RESULTS Albumin < 35 g/L, lactate dehydrogenase > 450 U/L, and sodium < 135 mmol/L emerged as independent prognostic factors. These were used with equal weighting to devise the HS, a compound prognostic index ranging from 0 to 3. High (HS = 2-3) score predicted worse OS (hazard ratio [HR] = 6.5, P < .001), PFS (HR = 2.8, P = .01), and 90DM (OR = 9.0, P < .001). HS was a more accurate multivariate predictor of OS (HR = 6.4, P < .001, C-index = 0.72), PFS (HR = 2.7, P = .03), and 90DM (area under the ROC curve 0.703) compared with other scores. Worsening of the HS during treatment predicted for shorter OS ( P < .001). HS retained prognostic and predictive ability following external validation. CONCLUSIONS HS is a simple, validated index to optimize patient selection and predict survival benefit from phase 1 oncology treatments. Prospective validation is ongoing. Cancer 2014;120:262-270. © 2013 American Cancer Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Dexamethasone premedication is required with paclitaxel to prevent infusion-related hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs). Both oral dexamethasone (PO-D; 20 mg 12 and 6 hours before paclitaxel) and intravenous dexamethasone (IV-D; 20 mg 30 minutes before paclitaxel) regimens are used. The optimal premedication regimen and management of patients after HSR are unclear., Methods: Data on HSRs in women receiving paclitaxel, 175 mg/m², every 3 weeks at Imperial College Healthcare Trust from May 2011 to February 2012 were obtained from the pharmacy database. During this period, dexamethasone premedication for paclitaxel was administered orally (PO-D; 20 mg 12 and 6 hours before paclitaxel) from May to August 2011, then changed to intravenous dexamethasone (IV-D; 20 mg 30 minutes before paclitaxel) for 3 months, and then reverted to PO-D from November 2011. There were 93 and 55 patients who received PO-D and IV-D before paclitaxel, respectively. Hypersensitivity reaction rates were pooled with those from published studies for analysis. Gynecologic oncology centers in the UK and Canada were surveyed regarding premedication and post-HSR management. A Markov Monte-Carlo simulation model compared costs and benefits of different strategies., Results: Hypersensitivity reaction rates with PO-D and IV-D were 5.4% (5/93) versus 14.5% (8/55) (P = 0.07) in Imperial College Healthcare Trust patients, and 6.8% (20/290) versus 14.1% (30/212) (P = 0.009) on pooled analysis with data from 2 additional studies (502 patients), respectively. However, IV-D is the most common premedication regimen used in the UK and Canada (48.5% and 34.2% of centers). Post-HSR paclitaxel on a desensitization protocol is a cost-effective alternative to discontinuing paclitaxel altogether., Conclusion: Oral dexamethasone seems to be superior to IV-D in preventing HSRs. Post-HSR patients should be considered for desensitization.