Search

INTRODUCTION: Niraparib first-line maintenance (1LM) therapy has demonstrated clinical benefit for patients with ovarian cancer (OC) in clinical trial and real-world settings, but data on factors associated with real-world patient outcomes remain limited. This analysis identified patient characteristics associated with time to next treatment (TTNT), a proxy for real-world progression-free survival, in patients with OC treated with 1LM niraparib monotherapy. METHODS: This retrospective observational study used a USA nationwide electronic health record-derived deidentified database and included adult patients diagnosed with OC who initiated 1LM niraparib monotherapy after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients were followed until the earliest occurrence of last clinical activity, death, or end of study period. TTNT was measured from 1LM niraparib initiation to the start of second-line treatment or death. Cox proportional hazards models assessed univariable and multivariable associations between baseline characteristics and TTNT. RESULTS: Of 7872 patients diagnosed with OC, 526 met the eligibility criteria and were included in this analysis. Median (IQR) duration of follow-up was 14.1 (7.4-23.6) months. In univariable analyses, age, BRCA/homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) status, socioeconomic status, stage at initial diagnosis, cytoreductive surgery type, and residual disease status were significantly associated with observed TTNT and were introduced into the multivariable model with other clinically relevant variables. In the multivariable analysis, BRCA/HRD status, cytoreductive surgery type, and residual disease status were significantly associated with observed TTNT after covariate adjustment. Conversely, age, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, disease stage, niraparib starting dose status, and first-line bevacizumab use were not associated with observed TTNT. CONCLUSION: This real-world, retrospective, observational analysis offers valuable insights on prognostic factors associated with TTNT in patients with OC treated with 1LM niraparib monotherapy after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. Future studies are needed to examine how additional patient characteristics associated with clinical outcomes may guide treatment decisions and improve outcomes.

Background: Hepatocellular carcinoma poses a significant public health burden in China, necessitating the economic evaluation of new therapeutic strategies for policy-makers and clinicians. The international, randomized phase 3 trial CARES-310 revealed that camrelizumab plus rivoceranib provided a substantial clinical benefit in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, but the economic outcome remains unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of camrelizumab plus rivoceranib versus sorafenib as first-line treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (CARES-310) from the perspective of the Chinese health care system. Methods: A partitioned survival model was developed to estimate the lifetime cost and clinical outcomes of camrelizumab plus rivoceranib versus sorafenib in first-line treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Survival data from the CARES-310 trial were used to create a hypothetical cohort of 543 patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma for modeling disease progression. The life-year, quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was used to measure the model's outcome, with the willingness-to-pay threshold set at 3 times China's gross domestic product (GDP) per capita (US$36 780). Univariate, multivariable probabilistic sensitivity analyses, and subgroup analysis were performed to assess parameter uncertainty, complemented by a scenario analysis using health utilities reported in literature. Results: The camrelizumab group yielded an additional 0.239 QALYs at an added cost of US$8340 compared with sorafenib, resulting in an ICER of US$34 897/QALY. Univariate sensitivity analysis indicated that the model results were most sensitive to the utility of progression-free survival in the camrelizumab group, sorafenib cost, and camrelizumab cost. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed a 56% probability of cost-effectiveness of camrelizumab plus rivoceranib among all patients. The results of the subgroup analysis demonstrated camrelizumab plus rivoceranib was the most cost-effective in the subgroup with albumin-bilirubin grade 2. Conclusions: At a willingness-to-pay threshold of US$36 780/QALY, camrelizumab plus rivoceranib is likely to be a cost-effective option compared with sorafenib as first-line treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in China. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Women of childbearing age with juvenile absence epilepsy (JAE) face treatment challenges due to limited access to safe and effective anti‐seizure medications (ASMs). In a previous study we compared the effectiveness of levetiracetam (LEV) and lamotrigine (LTG) in women with idiopathic generalized epilepsy (IGE), highlighting a superiority of LEV in juvenile myoclonic epilepsy. In this study, we specifically reanalyzed, through a Bayesian approach and by expanding the previously published cohort, the comparative effectiveness of these ASMs as initial monotherapy in JAE. Methods: We conducted a multicenter, retrospective, comparative effectiveness study on women of childbearing age diagnosed with JAE and prescribed LEV or LTG as the initial ASM. Inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) Bayesian Cox proportional hazard models were employed to evaluate treatment failure (TF) due to ineffectiveness and ASM retention. The patients' center of provenance and year of prescription were considered as random effect factors. Posterior probabilities and relative log‐risk distribution were computed, and the distribution of posterior draws was analyzed to assess the evidence supporting LTG superiority over LEV. Results: Of 123 patients, those treated with LTG (n = 67) demonstrated lower TF and higher ASM retention than those treated with LEV (n = 56), with the IPTW‐weighted Bayesian Cox proportional hazards model showing a 99.2% posterior probability of LTG being superior on TF and a 99.5% probability on ASM retention. Additional analyses on ≥50% and ≥75% seizure reduction through IPTW‐weighted Bayesian logistic regression largely confirmed these findings, whereas the two ASMs did not show evident differences in terms of seizure freedom. The two ASMs showed comparable safety profiles, with only a minority of patients discontinuing treatment due to side effects. Significance: Bayesian reanalysis supports LTG as first‐line monotherapy for JAE in women of childbearing age, emphasizing the importance of individualized treatment strategies in women with IGE. This study underscores the value of Bayesian methods in refining clinical research and treatment decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Several national and international guidelines recommend lipidocolloid technology with a nano-oligosaccharide factor (TLC-NOSF) dressings (UrgoStart dressing range, Laboratoires Urgo, France) for treating patients with chronic wounds. However, these dressings are still often reported as second-line options, potentially leading to loss of opportunity for patients and additional costs for payers. This review aimed to explore the reported wound healing and patient outcomes as well as the related costs when the dressings were used as first-line treatment in patients with different types of chronic wounds. Method: A systematic review of the literature was conducted. Databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Emcare, and Google Scholar) were searched up to 1 February 2024, without any language or time period limitations. Studies were eligible if the evaluated dressings had been used as a first-line treatment for chronic wounds, that is, as an integral part of the standard of care (SoC) at the patient's first presentation and/or in recent wounds. The main evaluation criteria included: wound healing rate; time to reach wound closure; change in patients' quality of life (QoL); and associated costs. The quality of evidence of the included studies was appraised using well-recognised risk-of-bias tools suitable for different study designs. A narrative synthesis describes the findings in three sections depending on the type of comparison. This report followed the principles of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Results: A total of 17 studies published between 2017 and 2024 met the eligibility criteria. A comparative analysis between TLC-NOSF dressings and standard dressings, both of which were used as first-line treatment, was reported in nine studies. A comparative analysis between the use of TLC-NOSF dressings as first-line and second-line treatments was reported in eight studies, and five studies reported a systematic use of the TLC-NOSF dressing as first-line treatment without a control group. Overall, the included studies had a relatively low risk of bias for the respective types of evidence. Data of 10,191 patients of both sexes and different age groups with a total of 10,203 wounds (diabetic foot ulcers, leg ulcers, pressure injuries, and other types of chronic wounds) were included in the analysis: 7775 treated with the evaluated dressing and 2428 treated with a comparator dressing. The data suggested that using TLC-NOSF as a first-line treatment for chronic wounds consistently resulted in significantly higher healing rates, shorter healing times, and cost savings compared with standard dressings used under similar conditions. Real-life evidence confirmed the results obtained in clinical trials and economic models, within similar ranges, regardless of the settings involved or of the characteristics of the patients and wounds treated. The wound healing rates ranged around 70-80% by week 20/24 and time-to-heal was reported on average around seven weeks, with slightly longer times reported in wounds with a more severe prognosis. Furthermore, the dressings were shown to improve patient QoL, and were well tolerated and accepted, supporting a wider adoption approach. Conclusion: The results of this review are aligned with the current guidelines recommending the use of TLC-NOSF dressings in the treatment of patients with chronic wounds. They support its wider implementation as a first-line treatment and as an integral part of SoC for these wounds in the daily practice of all centres involved in their management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: β-glucan has been reported to be a potential natural immune modulator for tumor growth inhibition. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of b-glucan plus immunotherapy and chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of advanced gastric adenocarcinoma. Methods: This is a phase IB, prospective, single-arm, investigator-initiated trail. Advanced gastric adenocarcinoma patients received β-glucan, camrelizumab, oxaliplatin, oral S-1 every 3 weeks. The curative effect was evaluated every 2 cycles. The primary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR) and safety, with secondary endpoints were median progression-free survival (mPFS) and median overall survival (mOS). The exploratory endpoint explored biomarkers of response to treatment efficacy. Results: A total of 30 patients had been enrolled, including 20 (66.7%) males and all patients with an ECOG PS score of ≥1. The ORR was 60%, the mPFS was 10.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 9.52-11.27), the mOS was 14.0 months (95% CI, 11.09-16.91). A total of 19 patients (63.3%) had TRAEs, with 9 patients (30%) with grade ≥ 3. The most common TRAEs were nausea (53.3%). After 2 cycles of treatment, the levels of IL-2, IFN-γ and CD4+ T cells significantly increased (P < 0.05). Furthermore, biomarker analysis indicated that patient with better response and longer OS exhibited lower GZMA expression at baseline serum. Conclusions: This preliminary study demonstrates that β-glucan plus camrelizumab and SOX chemotherapy offers favorable efficacy and a manageable safety profile in patients with advanced gastric adenocarcinoma, and further studies are needed to verify its efficacy and safety. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Chemotherapy remains the standard first-line treatment for pancreatic adenocarcinoma, but with limited efficacy. We aimed to explore the feasibility of adding the PARP inhibitor fuzuloparib to mFOLFIRINOX in the locally advanced/metastatic (LA/M) setting. Methods This was the dose-escalation and -expansion, phase 1b portion of a phase 1b/2 study. Patients were given oral fuzuloparib at escalating doses starting at 30 mg twice daily (BID) plus intravenous mFOLFIRINOX q2w for 8–12 cycles, followed by maintenance fuzuloparib at 150 mg BID. Cohorts at the maximal tolerated dose (MTD) and lower dose of fuzuloparib were expanded. Primary endpoints were dose-limiting toxicity (DLT), MTD, and recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D). Results As of data cutoff on Jan 15, 2023, 39 patients were recruited. 12 patients were enrolled during dose escalation (30 mg [n = 4]; 60 mg [n = 6]; 100 mg [n = 2]). DLT occurred in 1 patient in 60 mg cohort and 1 patient in 100 mg cohort. 60 mg BID was determined to be the MTD, and then 60 and 30 mg cohorts were expanded to 22 and 15 patients, respectively. The most common grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events were hematologic toxicities. Efficacy in 60 mg cohort seemed to be most favorable, with an objective response rate of 50.0% (95% CI, 26.0–74.0) and disease control rate of 94.4% (95% CI, 72.7–99.9). Conclusions First-line fuzuloparib plus mFOLFIRINOX followed by maintenance fuzuloparib was generally safe and showed encouraging anti-tumor activity in patients with LA/M pancreatic adenocarcinoma. The RP2D of fuzuloparib combination was 60 mg BID. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04228601.

Aim: The combination of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) and plerixafor is one of the approaches for hematopoietic stem cell mobilization in patients with multiple myeloma (MM), non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL), and Hodgkin's lymphoma (HL). This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the ability of G-CSF+plerixafor to mobilize peripheral blood (PB) CD34+ cells and examine its safety profile. Methods: We performed a database search using the terms 'granulocyte colony stimulating factor', 'G-CSF', 'AMD3100', and 'plerixafor', published up to May 1, 2023. The methodology is described in further detail in the PROSPERO database (CRD42023425760). Results: Twenty-three studies were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. G-CSF+plerixafor resulted in more patients achieving the predetermined apheresis yield of CD34+ cells than G-CSF alone (OR, 5.33; 95%, 4.34-6.55). It was further discovered that G-CSF+plerixafor could mobilize more CD34+ cells into PB, which was beneficial for the next transplantation in both randomized controlled (MD, 18.30; 95%, 8.74-27.85) and single-arm (MD, 20.67; 95%, 14.34-27.00) trials. Furthermore, G-CSF+plerixafor did not cause more treatment emergent adverse events than G-CSF alone (OR, 1.25; 95%, 0.87-1.80). Conclusions: This study suggests that the combination of G-CSF and plerixafor, resulted in more patients with MM, NHL, and HL, achieving the predetermined apheresis yield of CD34+ cells, which is related to the more effective mobilization of CD34+ cells into PB. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Introduction Niraparib first-line maintenance (1LM) therapy has demonstrated clinical benefit for patients with ovarian cancer (OC) in clinical trial and real-world settings, but data on factors associated with real-world patient outcomes remain limited. This analysis identified patient characteristics associated with time to next treatment (TTNT), a proxy for real-world progression-free survival, in patients with OC treated with 1LM niraparib monotherapy. Methods This retrospective observational study used a USA nationwide electronic health record-derived deidentified database and included adult patients diagnosed with OC who initiated 1LM niraparib monotherapy after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients were followed until the earliest occurrence of last clinical activity, death, or end of study period. TTNT was measured from 1LM niraparib initiation to the start of second-line treatment or death. Cox proportional hazards models assessed univariable and multivariable associations between baseline characteristics and TTNT. Results Of 7872 patients diagnosed with OC, 526 met the eligibility criteria and were included in this analysis. Median (IQR) duration of follow-up was 14.1 (7.4–23.6) months. In univariable analyses, age, BRCA/homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) status, socioeconomic status, stage at initial diagnosis, cytoreductive surgery type, and residual disease status were significantly associated with observed TTNT and were introduced into the multivariable model with other clinically relevant variables. In the multivariable analysis, BRCA/HRD status, cytoreductive surgery type, and residual disease status were significantly associated with observed TTNT after covariate adjustment. Conversely, age, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, disease stage, niraparib starting dose status, and first-line bevacizumab use were not associated with observed TTNT. Conclusion This real-world, retrospective, observational analysis offers valuable insights on prognostic factors associated with TTNT in patients with OC treated with 1LM niraparib monotherapy after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. Future studies are needed to examine how additional patient characteristics associated with clinical outcomes may guide treatment decisions and improve outcomes.

Abstract Objective To evaluate the safety of first-line systemic therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer through network meta-analysis. Methods The literature from PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases was searched from the inception of the databases to August 15, 2023, and strict inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied to screen studies. The Cochrane Bias Risk Assessment Tool (RoB 2.0) was used to evaluate the quality of the included literature. Network meta-analysis was conducted using Stata 15.0 and R4.3.1 software to compare the incidence of adverse events (AEs) among different treatment regimens. Results A total of 53 randomized controlled trials, involving 17,351 patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), were ultimately included, encompassing 29 different therapeutic approaches. According to SUCRA rankings, the CAPOX regimen is most likely to rank first in terms of safety, while the FOLFOXIRI + panitumumab regimen is most likely to rank last. In terms of specific AEs, the CAPOX regimen, whether used alone or in combination with targeted drugs (bevacizumab and cetuximab), is associated with a reduced risk of neutropenia and febrile neutropenia, as well as an increased risk of thrombocytopenia and diarrhea. The FOLFOX regimen, with or without bevacizumab, is linked to an increased risk of neutropenia and peripheral sensory neuropathy. The FOLFIRI/CAPIRI + bevacizumab regimen is associated with a reduced risk of peripheral sensory neuropathy. S-1 and S-1 + oxaliplatin are well-tolerated in terms of gastrointestinal reactions. The FOLFOXIRI regimen, whether used alone or in combination with targeted drugs, is associated with various AEs. Conclusion In summary, the CAPOX regimen may be the safest option among the first-line systemic treatment regimens for mCRC patients, while the FOLFOXIRI + panitumumab regimen may be associated with a higher incidence of grade 3 or higher AEs.

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy has led to significant improvement in outcomes for patients with nononcogene‐driven advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The rate of crossover and receipt of postprotocol ICI in frontline trials for advanced NSCLC has not been systematically evaluated. Methods: ClinicalTrials.gov was used to identify phase 3 studies evaluating the use of immunotherapy or combination chemoimmunotherapy against chemotherapy alone in the frontline management of advanced NSCLC. Data on outcomes, rate of crossover and/or subsequent post‐protocol receipt of immunotherapy, and the start dates of these clinical trials were then extracted. Results: Twenty‐three frontline trials in nononcogene‐driven advanced NSCLC were identified. Six trials with ICI monotherapy/dual ICI therapy and 17 trials evaluating chemotherapy/ICI in first‐line advanced NSCLC were included in the analysis. The crossover rate ranged 0% to 54% in ICI monotherapy/dual ICI trials and 0% to 52% in chemotherapy/ICI trials. Nineteen of 23 trials provided information on subsequent postprotocol therapies. Among the trials not allowing crossover, postprotocol ICI was administered to 17% to 45.8% of patients. Information regarding the eventual receipt of ICI therapy was available for 22 of 23 trials. Of 6631 patients, 2507 (37.8%) randomized to the control arm eventually received ICI therapy. Conclusion: The rate of crossover and postprotocol ICI use was low in frontline trials for first‐line NSCLC incorporating ICI. Given the proven improved overall survival of ICI in a broad population, there is a need to ensure availability of this life‐prolonging therapy in future trials, either by crossover treatment or postprotocol administration. The rate of crossover and postprotocol immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) use was low in ICI monotherapy/dual ICI and chemotherapy/ICI trials for first‐line non–small cell lung cancer. Given the proven improved overall survival of immunotherapy in a broad population, there is a need to ensure availability of this life‐prolonging therapy in future trials, either by crossover treatment or postprotocol administration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Inhibitors of programmed cell death 1 (PD1) and its ligand (PDL1) have exhibited favorable long-term survival in many types of advanced-stage cancer and current approvals have to date been granted in certain tumour types irrespective of PD-L1 status. Methods: We extracted the following information: study sample size, trial period, cancer types, intervention of treatment, type of PD-L1 antibody, immunohistochemistry (IHC) scoring method, number and percentage of PDL1 < 1% population, and median follow-up time. PD-L1 expression was defined as percentage of number of PD-L1-stained tumor cells (TPS), area of tumor infiltrated by PD-L1-stained immune cells (IPS), number of PD-L1-stained cells (tumor cells, lymphocytes and macrophages; CPS). Different trials used distinct method to define low PD-L1 expression. The risk of bias of the included trials was assessed by using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for RCTs. Results: Here, a total of 34 trials were included to extract individual patient data (IPD) to evaluate the survival benefit of first line PD1/PDL1 inhibitors vs. standardof-care (SOC) in patients with PDL1 < 1%. In term of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 monotherapy, OS (HR = 0.90, 0.81-1.01) and PFS (HR = 1.11, 0.97-1.27) between PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor group and SOC group were comparable. In term of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 combination therapy, PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor group exhibited longer OS (median 19.5 months vs. 16.3 months; HR = 0.83, 0.79-0.88, p < 0.001) and PFS than those of SOC group (median 8.11 months vs. 6.96 months; HR = 0.82, 0.77-0.87, p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis showed that survival benefit was mainly observed in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) (HROS=0.74;HRPFS=0.69; p < 0.001), small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) (HROS=0.58, p < 0.001; HRPFS = 0.55, p = 0.030), esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) (HROS = 0.62, p = 0.005; HRPFS = 0.79, p < 0.001), melanoma (HROS =0.53, p < 0.001) and nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) (HRPFS = 0.35, p = 0.013). Conclusion: Anti-PD-1/PD-L1 combinational therapy rather than monotherapy exhibit survival benefit in the low PD-L1 population in the first-line setting, and the survival benefit was mainly observed in specific tumor types. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) plus chemotherapy is effective in advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction (G/GEJ) cancer. This study aims to evaluate the clinical effect of first-line immunotherapy in combination with chemotherapy for advanced G/GEJ cancer. Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, Embase and Cochrane databases were systematically searched from the inception of the databases to December 2021. Randomized trials comparing ICI plus chemotherapy with chemotherapy in first-line treatment for advanced G/GEJ cancer were included. The outcomes were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and adverse events (AEs). Analyses were performed in Stata 14.0 software. The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42022300907. Results: Five trials were included for analysis, involving 2, 814 patients. ICI plus chemotherapy can significantly improve OS (hazards ratio [HR], 0.86; 95% CI 0.78-0.94; P =.002), PFS (HR, 0.79; 95% CI 0.63-0.99; P ＜.001) and ORR (relative ratio [RR], 1.20; 95% CI 1.11-1.30; P <.001). In safety analyses, there were no significant differences in incidence of all AEs, treatment-related adverse event (TRAE), TRAE of grade 3 or higher, serious TRAE and TRAE leading to death between two arms (P >.05). Conclusions: ICI plus chemotherapy is more effective first-line treatment for advanced G/GEJ cancer in contrast to chemotherapy regrading to improving OS, PFS and ORR, without increasing TRAE risk. This study will redefine the role of ICI in combination with chemotherapy in the first-line setting for G/GEJ cancer, and provide reference for clinical treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To evaluate the safety of first-line systemic therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer through network meta-analysis. Methods: The literature from PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases was searched from the inception of the databases to August 15, 2023, and strict inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied to screen studies. The Cochrane Bias Risk Assessment Tool (RoB 2.0) was used to evaluate the quality of the included literature. Network meta-analysis was conducted using Stata 15.0 and R4.3.1 software to compare the incidence of adverse events (AEs) among different treatment regimens. Results: A total of 53 randomized controlled trials, involving 17,351 patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), were ultimately included, encompassing 29 different therapeutic approaches. According to SUCRA rankings, the CAPOX regimen is most likely to rank first in terms of safety, while the FOLFOXIRI + panitumumab regimen is most likely to rank last. In terms of specific AEs, the CAPOX regimen, whether used alone or in combination with targeted drugs (bevacizumab and cetuximab), is associated with a reduced risk of neutropenia and febrile neutropenia, as well as an increased risk of thrombocytopenia and diarrhea. The FOLFOX regimen, with or without bevacizumab, is linked to an increased risk of neutropenia and peripheral sensory neuropathy. The FOLFIRI/CAPIRI + bevacizumab regimen is associated with a reduced risk of peripheral sensory neuropathy. S-1 and S-1 + oxaliplatin are well-tolerated in terms of gastrointestinal reactions. The FOLFOXIRI regimen, whether used alone or in combination with targeted drugs, is associated with various AEs. Conclusion: In summary, the CAPOX regimen may be the safest option among the first-line systemic treatment regimens for mCRC patients, while the FOLFOXIRI + panitumumab regimen may be associated with a higher incidence of grade 3 or higher AEs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To compare in a phase III trial the efficacy and safety of nanoparticle albumin‐bound (nab)‐paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (GA) with that of carboplatin plus gemcitabine (GCb) as a first‐line treatment for patients with cisplatin‐ineligible metastatic urothelial cancer (mUC). Patients and Methods: Treatment‐naive, cisplatin‐ineligible patients with mUC were assigned randomly to either the GA (both nab‐paclitaxel 125 mg/m2 and gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 on Days 1 and 8, every 21 days) or GCb group (carboplatin area under the free carboplatin plasma concentration versus time curve of 4.5 on Day 1, gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 on Days 1 and 8, every 21 days). The primary endpoint was progression‐free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), overall survival (OS), safety, and patient‐reported outcomes (PROs). Results: The trial was terminated early because of slow accrual after 54 patients were enrolled: 26 in in the GA group and 28 in the GCb groups. The median PFS was 6.7 vs 5.9 months for the GA and GCb groups, respectively (P = 0.248). The median OS time was 12.1 vs 10.7 months for the GA and GCb groups, respectively (P = 0.837). The ORR and DCR were 40% vs 46.4% (P = 0.637) and 72% vs 68% (P = 0.188) in the GA and GCb groups, respectively. Patients treated with GA showed significantly lower incidence of Grade 3–4 thrombocytopenia and does reduction and delay. Although peripheral sensory neuropathy was higher in the GA arm, no Grade 3 neuropathy occurred. There was no difference in the PROs between the two groups. Conclusion: While not powered for comparison, first‐line GA showed similar efficacy and better tolerability and might be considered a rational alternative to GCb. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The use of [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 radioligand therapy has become increasingly recognized as a viable therapeutic approach for patients in the advanced stages of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). However, there is limited data regarding its effectiveness and safety in earlier lines. This study aims to present our institution's experience with [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 as a first-line systemic therapy for mCRPC. Methods: We collected and analyzed data from consecutive mCRPC patients who underwent first-line treatment with [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 at our center from 2015 to 2023. The various outcome measures included best prostate-specific antigen-response rate (PSA-RR) (proportion of patients achieving a ≥ 50% decline in PSA); objective radiographic response rate (ORR) (proportion of patients achieving complete or partial radiographic responses); radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) (measured from treatment initiation until radiographic progression or death from any cause); overall survival (OS) (measured from treatment initiation until death from any cause); and adverse events. Results: Forty treatment-naïve mCRPC patients with PSMA-positive disease on [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT were included (median age: 68.5 years, range: 45–78; median PSA: 41 ng/mL, range: 1-3028). These patients received a median cumulative activity of 22.2 GBq (range: 5.55–44.4) [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 over 1–6 cycles at 8–12 week intervals. A ≥ 50% decline in PSA was observed in 25/40 (62.5%) patients (best PSA-RR). Radiographic responses were evaluated for thirty-eight patients, with thirteen showing partial responses (ORR 34.2%). Over a median follow-up of 36 months, the median rPFS was 12 months (95% confidence interval, CI: 9–15), and the median OS was 17 months (95% CI: 12–22). Treatment-emergent grade ≥ 3 anemia, leucopenia, and thrombocytopenia were noted in 4/40 (10%), 1/40 (2.5%), and 3/40 (7.5%) patients, respectively. Conclusion: The findings suggest that [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 is a safe and effective option as a first-line treatment in mCRPC. Further trials are needed to definitively establish its role as an upfront treatment modality in this setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Approximately 80% of patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PA) are diagnosed with locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic disease at presentation. First-, second-, and third-line chemotherapies are beneficial for patients. Gemcitabine (GEM)-based regimens played an indispensable role over the last two decades. There are several options for second-line treatment, such as a combination of oxaliplatin, fluorouracil (FU), and folinic acid (FOLFOX). However, the prognosis is still poor. Therefore, GEM as a targeted reference should be a reasonable potential approach. This study aimed to establish a first-line, second-line treatment model for future drug screening. Materials and Methods: We cultured SW1990 cells and compared the inhibitory effect on cell proliferation between the GEM-FOLFOX group, i.e., GEM treatment was followed by FOLFOX addition, and FOLFOX-GEM group, i.e., GEM was added after FOLFOX. Furthermore, we evaluated the inhibitory effect of both groups by changing onset of treatment with drugs, i.e., at early start (24 h after seeding cells) with that at delayed start (48 h after seeding cells), or by changing treatment duration i.e., long treatment duration (24 h) with that of shortened treatment duration (12 h). We quantified the expression of an antiapoptotic gene B cell CLL/lymphoma 2 (Bcl-2) using Real-Time quantitative polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Results: The GEM-FOLFOX group showed higher inhibition than the FOLFOX-GEM group, irrespective of delayed treatment or shortened treatment duration. Bcl-2 expression was more inhibited in the GEM-FOLFOX group. Conclusions: We developed a first-line, second-line treatment model for screening novel drugs that could have similar or better futuristic potential than GEM.

AbstractAim The combination of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) and plerixafor is one of the approaches for hematopoietic stem cell mobilization in patients with multiple myeloma (MM), non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL), and Hodgkin’s lymphoma (HL). This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the ability of G-CSF + plerixafor to mobilize peripheral blood (PB) CD34+ cells and examine its safety profile.Methods We performed a database search using the terms ‘granulocyte colony stimulating factor’, ‘G-CSF’, ‘AMD3100’, and ‘plerixafor’, published up to May 1, 2023. The methodology is described in further detail in the PROSPERO database (CRD42023425760).Results Twenty-three studies were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. G-CSF + plerixafor resulted in more patients achieving the predetermined apheresis yield of CD34+ cells than G-CSF alone (OR, 5.33; 95%, 4.34–6.55). It was further discovered that G-CSF + plerixafor could mobilize more CD34+ cells into PB, which was beneficial for the next transplantation in both randomized controlled (MD, 18.30; 95%, 8.74–27.85) and single-arm (MD, 20.67; 95%, 14.34–27.00) trials. Furthermore, G-CSF + plerixafor did not cause more treatment emergent adverse events than G-CSF alone (OR, 1.25; 95%, 0.87–1.80).Conclusions This study suggests that the combination of G-CSF and plerixafor, resulted in more patients with MM, NHL, and HL, achieving the predetermined apheresis yield of CD34+ cells, which is related to the more effective mobilization of CD34+ cells into PB.

Background: Given the superior performance of various therapies over sorafenib in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and the absence of direct comparisons, it is crucial to explore the efficacy of these treatments in phase III randomized clinical trials. Objectives: The goal is to identify which patients are most likely to benefit significantly from these emerging therapies, contributing to more personalized and informed clinical decision-making. Design: Systematic review and network meta-analysis Data sources and methods: PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and international conference databases have been searched from 1 January 2010 to 1 December 2023. Results: After screening, 17 phase III trials encompassing 18 treatments were included. In the whole-population network meta-analysis, the newly first-line tremelimumab plus durvalumab (Tre + Du) was found to be comparable with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (Atezo + Beva) in providing the best overall survival (OS) benefit [hazard ratio (HR) 1.35, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.93–1.92]. Concerning OS benefits, sintilimab plus bevacizumab biosimilar (Sint + Beva), camrelizumab plus rivoceranib (Camre + Rivo), and lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (Lenva + Pemb) appear to exhibit similar effects to Tre + Du and Atezo + Beva. In the context of progression-free survival, Atezo + Beva seemed to outperform Tre + Du (HR: 0.66 CI: 0.49–0.87), while the effects are comparable to Sint + Beva, Camre + Rivo, and Lenva + Pemb. Upon comparison between Asia-Pacific and non-Asia-Pacific cohorts, as well as between hepatitis B virus (HBV)-infected and non-HBV-infected populations, immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based treatments seemed to exhibit heightened efficacy in the Asia-Pacific group and among individuals with HBV infection. However, combined ICI-based therapies did not show more effectiveness than molecular-targeted drugs in patients without macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread. As for grades 3–5 adverse events, combined therapies showed comparable safety to sorafenib and lenvatinib. Conclusion: Compared with sorafenib and lenvatinib, combination therapies based on ICIs significantly improved the prognosis of advanced HCC and demonstrated similar safety. At the same time, the optimal treatment approach should be tailored to individual patient characteristics, such as etiology, tumor staging, and serum alpha-fetoprotein levels. With lower incidence rates of treatment-related adverse events and non-inferior efficacy compared to sorafenib, ICI monotherapies should be prioritized as a first-line treatment approach for patients who are not suitable candidates for ICI-combined therapies. Trial registration: PROSPERO, CRD42022288172. Plain language summary: Lay summary/Key points The efficiency of various systemic therapies in advanced HCC patients with specific characteristics remains to be explored. This study revealed that the efficacy of ICI combined therapies is influenced by factors such as tumor staging, etiology, patient demographics, and more. Additionally, ICI monotherapies should be prioritized as a first-line treatment approach for patients who are not suitable candidates for ICI combined therapies. Complementing to recent guidelines, this study indicated that several critical factors needed to be took into consideration for patients with advanced HCC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of JBES: Brazilian Journal of Health Economics / Jornal Brasileiro de Economia da Saúde is the property of JBES: Brazilian Journal of Health Economics and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Aim: To explore the incorporation of novel agents in the first-line setting for acute myeloid leukemia patients. Materials & methods: Observational study based on data from a multi-country cross-sectional retrospective web-based survey sent to 518 physicians in Europe between 2020 and 2021. Information from 2040 patients was analyzed. Results: 604 patients (29.6%) received novel agents in both intensive and non-intensive setting. Comorbidities were not a barrier for the use of novel agents. The presence of tumor mutations was observed to be an important element for treatment decision. Conclusion: There is a progressive incorporation of novel agents for newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia patients. We now have new treatments for patients suffering from a type of blood cancer called acute myeloid leukemia (acronym AML). They are available as the first choice of therapy. In this study we explored how these new treatments are included in daily patient care. We reviewed the data of 2040 patients in Europe, obtained from an online survey sent to physicians in two waves (between 2020 and 2021). The use of these new AML treatments was more frequent in patients who presented some specific gene alterations (changes in their DNA sequence) and were in worse health due to other diseases and old age. Most of the new treatments were administered together with other milder chemotherapies. The results of this study help us understand how new AML treatments are being used. Observational study with 2040 AML patients showed incorporation of novel therapies into 1st line in combination with hypomethylating agents. Presence of tumor mutations observed to be an important element for treatment decision. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: The cost–effectiveness of avelumab first-line maintenance treatment for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma in Scotland was assessed. Materials & methods: A partitioned survival model was developed comparing avelumab plus best supportive care (BSC) versus BSC alone, incorporating JAVELIN Bladder 100 trial data, costs from national databases and published literature and clinical expert validation of assumptions. Incremental cost–effectiveness ratio (ICER) was estimated using lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALY). Results: Avelumab plus BSC had incremental costs of £9446 and a QALY gain of 0.63, leading to a base-case (deterministic) ICER of £15,046 per QALY gained, supported by robust sensitivity analyses. Conclusion: Avelumab first-line maintenance is likely to be a cost-effective treatment for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma in Scotland. This study looked at the costs of avelumab when given as maintenance treatment for people in Scotland with advanced urothelial carcinoma, compared with the longer survival and other benefits that it provides. Researchers estimated the costs and treatment benefits expected with avelumab using data from a clinical trial called JAVELIN Bladder 100, national databases, data from previously published studies and expert opinions. Costs associated with using avelumab maintenance treatment for people with advanced urothelial carcinoma in Scotland were considered to be acceptable based on the benefits it provides. These results support the use of avelumab first-line maintenance as a standard treatment for people with advanced urothelial carcinoma in Scotland. Avelumab first-line maintenance is a cost-effective treatment option for patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma in Scotland #BladderCancer [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To evaluate current first-line treatment strategies in advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC), and to review other promising treatments under investigations. Materials and methods: We reviewed all relevant pivotal first-line systemic therapy trials, and studies investigating the role of cytoreductive nephrectomy, metastectomy, and ablative radiotherapy in advanced or metastatic RCC. Results: In total we identified 21 relevant studies, investigating both systemic and non-systemic therapies, including treatments under investigations. Conclusion: Metastatic RCC (mRCC) is a highly heterogeneous disease that is notoriously difficult to treat, however, the discovery of novel targeted therapies over the past decade have revolutionised its management. The International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC) is a prognostic model that is commonly used in both clinical trials and routine clinical care to risk-stratify patients with mRCC, which has helped with therapy selection for mRCC patients over the past decade. However, with an improved understanding of tumour biology and genetics, this has prompted a shift from cytokine therapy to receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors, and now to Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors (ICIs). Recent promising results from clinical studies with ICI combination treatments have transformed the treatment landscape for the management of intermediate- and poor- risk clear cell RCC, however, further research is still needed for favourable-risk, and non-clear cell patients. Level of evidence: Not applicable [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To analyze treatment persistence and treatment outcomes of vedolizumab as first-line biological treatment in Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC) patients in a Finnish real-world setting. Methods: Observational, retrospective, multi-center chart review study that included adult CD and UC patients initiating vedolizumab as first-line biological treatment between 2014 and 2020. Results: The cohort consisted of 54 CD and 69 UC patients. At month 12, treatment persistence was 84.9 % in CD and 64.7 % in UC. Most vedolizumab discontinuations (CD, n = 11; UC, n = 26) were due to inefficacy. Discontinuations due to adverse events were rare (n

Abstract Background This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and side effects of first-line afatinib treatment in a real-world setting in Vietnam. Methods This retrospective study was conducted across nine hospitals in Vietnam. Advanced epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutant non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients who received afatinib as first-line therapy between April 2018 and June 2022 were included, and patient medical records were reviewed. Key outcomes were overall response rate (ORR), time-to-treatment failure (TTF), and tolerability. Results A total of 343 patients on first-line afatinib were eligible for the study. EGFR exon 19 deletion (Del19) alone was detected in 46.9% of patients, L858R mutation alone in 26.3%, and other uncommon EGFR mutations, including compound mutations, in 26.8%. Patients with brain metastases at baseline were 25.4%. Patients who received 40 mg, 30 mg, and 20 mg as starting doses of afatinib were 58.6%, 39.9%, and 1.5%, respectively. The ORR was 78.1% in the overall population, 82.6% in the Del19 mutation subgroup, 73.3% in the L858R mutation subgroup, and 75.0% in the uncommon mutation subgroup (p > 0.05). The univariate and multivariate analyses indicate that the ORR increased when the starting dose was 40 mg compared to starting doses below 40 mg (83.9% vs. 74.3%, p = 0.034). The median TTF (mTTF) was 16.7 months (CI 95%: 14.8–18.5) in all patients, with a median follow-up time of 26.2 months. The mTTF was longer in patients in the common EGFR mutation subgroup (Del19/L858R) than in those in the uncommon mutation subgroup (17.5 vs. 13.8 months, p = 0.045) and in those without versus with brain metastases at baseline (17.5 vs. 15.1 months, p = 0.049). There were no significant differences in the mTTF between subgroups based on the starting dose of 40 mg and 0.05). The most common treatment-related adverse events (any grade/grade ≥ 3) were diarrhea (55.4%/3.5%), rash (51.9%/3.2%), paronychia (35.3%/5.0%), and stomatitis (22.2%/1.2%). Conclusions Afatinib demonstrated clinical effectiveness and good tolerability in Vietnamese EGFR-mutant NSCLC patients. In our real-world setting, administering a starting dose below 40 mg might result in a reduction in ORR; however, it might not have a significant impact on TTF.

Abstract Background Pediatric low-grade glioma (pLGG) is essentially a single pathway disease, with most tumors driven by genomic alterations affecting the mitogen-activated protein kinase/ERK (MAPK) pathway, predominantly KIAA1549::BRAF fusions and BRAF V600E mutations. This makes pLGG an ideal candidate for MAPK pathway-targeted treatments. The type I BRAF inhibitor, dabrafenib, in combination with the MEK inhibitor, trametinib, has been approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration for the systemic treatment of BRAF V600E-mutated pLGG. However, this combination is not approved for the treatment of patients with tumors harboring BRAF fusions as type I RAF inhibitors are ineffective in this setting and may paradoxically enhance tumor growth. The type II RAF inhibitor, tovorafenib (formerly DAY101, TAK-580, MLN2480), has shown promising activity and good tolerability in patients with BRAF-altered pLGG in the phase 2 FIREFLY-1 study, with an objective response rate (ORR) per Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology high-grade glioma (RANO-HGG) criteria of 67%. Tumor response was independent of histologic subtype, BRAF alteration type (fusion vs. mutation), number of prior lines of therapy, and prior MAPK-pathway inhibitor use. Methods LOGGIC/FIREFLY-2 is a two-arm, randomized, open-label, multicenter, global, phase 3 trial to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of tovorafenib monotherapy vs. current standard of care (SoC) chemotherapy in patients

Olaparib, a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor, in combination with the antiangiogenic agent bevacizumab, is approved as maintenance therapy for patients with newly diagnosed stage III or IV epithelial ovarian cancer who have homologous recombination deficient tumors with a deleterious or suspected deleterious BRCA mutation and/or genomic instability based on the long-lasting survival benefit observed in the PAOLA-1 trial. Despite treatment with olaparib and bevacizumab showing an acceptable safety profile, the rate of discontinuations due to adverse events was relatively high, and toxicity related to this regimen may restrict its clinical use. Proper management of olaparib/bevacizumab-related adverse events is important for the improvement of quality of life and maximization of the efficacy of maintenance therapy. Here, we summarize the safety results of the PAOLA-1 study, focusing on treatment discontinuation reasons and adverse event profiles. We sought to shed light on toxicity monitoring and prevention, providing concise recommendations for the clinical management of the most relevant side effects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and side effects of first-line afatinib treatment in a real-world setting in Vietnam. Methods: This retrospective study was conducted across nine hospitals in Vietnam. Advanced epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutant non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients who received afatinib as first-line therapy between April 2018 and June 2022 were included, and patient medical records were reviewed. Key outcomes were overall response rate (ORR), time-to-treatment failure (TTF), and tolerability. Results: A total of 343 patients on first-line afatinib were eligible for the study. EGFR exon 19 deletion (Del19) alone was detected in 46.9% of patients, L858R mutation alone in 26.3%, and other uncommon EGFR mutations, including compound mutations, in 26.8%. Patients with brain metastases at baseline were 25.4%. Patients who received 40 mg, 30 mg, and 20 mg as starting doses of afatinib were 58.6%, 39.9%, and 1.5%, respectively. The ORR was 78.1% in the overall population, 82.6% in the Del19 mutation subgroup, 73.3% in the L858R mutation subgroup, and 75.0% in the uncommon mutation subgroup (p > 0.05). The univariate and multivariate analyses indicate that the ORR increased when the starting dose was 40 mg compared to starting doses below 40 mg (83.9% vs. 74.3%, p = 0.034). The median TTF (mTTF) was 16.7 months (CI 95%: 14.8–18.5) in all patients, with a median follow-up time of 26.2 months. The mTTF was longer in patients in the common EGFR mutation subgroup (Del19/L858R) than in those in the uncommon mutation subgroup (17.5 vs. 13.8 months, p = 0.045) and in those without versus with brain metastases at baseline (17.5 vs. 15.1 months, p = 0.049). There were no significant differences in the mTTF between subgroups based on the starting dose of 40 mg and < 40 mg (16.7 vs. 16.9 months, p > 0.05). The most common treatment-related adverse events (any grade/grade ≥ 3) were diarrhea (55.4%/3.5%), rash (51.9%/3.2%), paronychia (35.3%/5.0%), and stomatitis (22.2%/1.2%). Conclusions: Afatinib demonstrated clinical effectiveness and good tolerability in Vietnamese EGFR-mutant NSCLC patients. In our real-world setting, administering a starting dose below 40 mg might result in a reduction in ORR; however, it might not have a significant impact on TTF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Pediatric low-grade glioma (pLGG) is essentially a single pathway disease, with most tumors driven by genomic alterations affecting the mitogen-activated protein kinase/ERK (MAPK) pathway, predominantly KIAA1549::BRAF fusions and BRAF V600E mutations. This makes pLGG an ideal candidate for MAPK pathway-targeted treatments. The type I BRAF inhibitor, dabrafenib, in combination with the MEK inhibitor, trametinib, has been approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration for the systemic treatment of BRAF V600E-mutated pLGG. However, this combination is not approved for the treatment of patients with tumors harboring BRAF fusions as type I RAF inhibitors are ineffective in this setting and may paradoxically enhance tumor growth. The type II RAF inhibitor, tovorafenib (formerly DAY101, TAK-580, MLN2480), has shown promising activity and good tolerability in patients with BRAF-altered pLGG in the phase 2 FIREFLY-1 study, with an objective response rate (ORR) per Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology high-grade glioma (RANO-HGG) criteria of 67%. Tumor response was independent of histologic subtype, BRAF alteration type (fusion vs. mutation), number of prior lines of therapy, and prior MAPK-pathway inhibitor use. Methods: LOGGIC/FIREFLY-2 is a two-arm, randomized, open-label, multicenter, global, phase 3 trial to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of tovorafenib monotherapy vs. current standard of care (SoC) chemotherapy in patients < 25 years of age with pLGG harboring an activating RAF alteration who require first-line systemic therapy. Patients are randomized 1:1 to either tovorafenib, administered once weekly at 420 mg/m2 (not to exceed 600 mg), or investigator's choice of prespecified SoC chemotherapy regimens. The primary objective is to compare ORR between the two treatment arms, as assessed by independent review per RANO-LGG criteria. Secondary objectives include comparisons of progression-free survival, duration of response, safety, neurologic function, and clinical benefit rate. Discussion: The promising tovorafenib activity data, CNS-penetration properties, strong scientific rationale combined with the manageable tolerability and safety profile seen in patients with pLGG led to the SIOPe-BTG-LGG working group to nominate tovorafenib for comparison with SoC chemotherapy in this first-line phase 3 trial. The efficacy, safety, and functional response data generated from the trial may define a new SoC treatment for newly diagnosed pLGG. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05566795. Registered on October 4, 2022. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To investigate real-world time to next treatment in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia initiating first-line (1L) ibrutinib or acalabrutinib. Materials & methods: US specialty pharmacy electronic medical records (21/11/2018–30/4/2022) were used; patients initiated 1L on/after 21/11/2019 (acalabrutinib approval). Results: Among 710 patients receiving ibrutinib, 5.9% initiated next treatment (mean time to initiation = 9.2 months); among 373 patients receiving acalabrutinib, 7.5% initiated next treatment (mean time to initiation = 5.9 months). Adjusting for baseline characteristics, acalabrutinib-treated patients were 89% more likely to initiate next treatment (hazard ratio = 1.89; p = 0.016). Conclusion: This study addresses a need for real-world comparative effectiveness between 1L ibrutinib and acalabrutinib and shows that next treatment (a clinically meaningful measure for real-world progression) occurred less frequently with 1L ibrutinib. Ibrutinib and acalabrutinib are oral medications taken once-daily and twice-daily, respectively. They are recommended as initial treatment for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). The goal of this study was to compare the efficacy of these treatments as initial treatment for CLL. To meet this goal, real-world US specialty pharmacy electronic medical records between 11/21/2018–4/30/2022 were used. Patients treated with ibrutinib or acalabrutinib as initial treatment for CLL were studied. Treatment had to be started on or after the date of acalabrutinib approval for CLL (11/21/2019). Time to next treatment was used to estimate real-world disease progression. It was defined as the time from the initiation of initial treatment with ibrutinib or acalabrutinib to the initiation of a next treatment. Study results showed that patients were observed for a median of up to 1.5 years. Over this period, next treatment was more likely for acalabrutinib (7.5%) compared with ibrutinib (5.9%). After adjusting for differences in patient characteristics, next treatment was 89% more likely with acalabrutinib than ibrutinib. This study addresses a need to compare the effectiveness of initial treatment with ibrutinib and acalabrutinib in the real-world. It helps better contextualize results from clinical trial data and shows that next treatment occurred less frequently with ibrutinib. A real-world study using US specialty pharmacy electronic medical records found that first-line patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia initiated on acalabrutinib were 89% more likely to initiate next treatment relative to those initiated on ibrutinib. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: The OPTIM1SE study observed long‐term real‐world outcomes of cetuximab‐based infusional 5‐fluorouracil (5‐FU) regimens for first‐line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) across Asia‐Pacific and Middle East regions, aiming to characterize their use, effectiveness, and safety in routine practice. Methods: OPTIM1SE was a prospective, open‐label, observational study. Patients with untreated KRAS wild‐type mCRC and distant metastases were treated per locally approved labels and monitored for 3 years via electronic medical records. The primary endpoint was the overall response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints included safety, progression‐free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Results: From November 19, 2013, to June 30, 2016, 520 patients were enrolled in 51 sites. Patients were mostly male (61.2%), with a mean age of 58.5 (±12.0) years; 420 patients received leucovorin, 5‐FU, and irinotecan–based regimens and 94 received leucovorin, 5‐FU, and oxaliplatin. The most common primary tumor site was the rectum (38.8%), with liver metastases (65.0%). ORR was 45.4% (95% CI, 41.1%–49.7%), including 26 patients (5.0%) with a complete response. Median PFS was 9.9 months (95% CI, 8.2–11.0); median OS (mOS) was 30.8 months (95% CI, 27.9–33.6). Higher mOS was associated with tumors of left compared with right‐sided origin (hazard ratio, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.49–0.99]); higher ORR was also associated with liver metastases compared with all other metastases (55.4% vs. 40.2%). Adverse events were consistent with the known safety profile of cetuximab. Conclusion: Cetuximab‐based 5‐FU regimens were effective first‐line treatments for mCRC in routine practice, particularly in patients with left‐sided disease and liver metastases only. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The World Health Organization officially declared an end to the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency three years after the initial outbreak of COVID-19. Healthcare providers worldwide were overwhelmed during the pandemic, which greatly affected the mental health and turnover intention of nurses. Conducting a systematic review of psychological distress in first-line nurses during the pandemic may facilitate future research on pandemic-related resilience. Purpose: A systematic review of the literature on psychological distress among first-line nurses caring for patients with COVID-19 was conducted. Methods: This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 Statement. We searched the CINAHL, PubMed, Embase, and Airiti Library databases using the English and Chinese keywords ("COVID-19 first-line nurse" OR "COVID-19 frontline nurse") AND ("psychological distress" OR "PTSD" OR "depression" OR "anxiety" OR "insomnia" OR "stress" OR "burnout" OR "fear") to identify Chinese and English articles published between December 2019 and March 2023. The quality of the included studies was assessed using tools from the Joanna Briggs Institute. Results: A total of 20 articles covering 16 quantitative studies and 4 qualitative studies were included in the analysis. The quantitative findings revealed that first-line nurses experienced high task load and moderate or above-average burnout. Between 19.1% and 72.3% of the first-line nurses reported stress, and more than 30% experienced insomnia. At the peak of the pandemic, anxiety and distress levels were high. At 8-week follow-ups, while anxiety had decreased, distress levels had not. Qualitative findings included the identification of fear as a common symptom of psychological distress in first-line nurses. Conclusions/ Implications for Practice: Further research is needed to better support frontline caregivers and facilitate their recovery from the moderate to severe psychological distress associated with pandemics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BackgroundDespite anti-retroviral treatment coverage in resource-limited countries being highly appreciated, the occurrence of first-line virological failure remains a priority agenda. Therefore, this study serves as an input for evidence of virological failure among children.ObjectiveThis study aimed to assess the incidence and predictors of virological failure among children receiving first-line anti-retroviral treatment in public comprehensive specialized hospitals found in Northeast Ethiopia through a retrospective follow-up study.MethodsA multicenter institution-based retrospective follow-up study was conducted on the medical records of 481 human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected children who were on first-line anti-retroviral therapy from 1 January 2017 to 31 December 2021. Data were retrieved from 15 May to 15 June 2022 at three public comprehensive specialized hospitals. Study participants were recruited using a simple random sampling technique. STATA-14 was used to analyze the data, which was entered using EpiData version 4.6.2.0. The Kaplan–Meier estimator was used to estimate the survival. Both bivariable and multivariable Cox regression models were fitted to identify predictors. Finally, adjusted hazards ratios (AHRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed, and variables with a P-value of

Abstract Background The aim of the study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab plus chemotherapy as first-line treatment for patients with advanced gastric, gastroesophageal junction (GEJ), or esophageal adenocarcinoma from the perspective of Chinese and US society. Methods To conduct the analysis, a state-transitioned Markov model, which included three mutually exclusive health states (progression-free survival (PFS), progressive disease (PD), and death), was developed. Cycle length was set at 3 weeks and lifetime horizon was set at 10 years. Costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated in the analysis. Willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds in the model were set at $37,653.00/QALY in China and $100,000.00/QALY in the US, respectively. Meanwhile, one-way sensitivity analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to investigate the robustness of the model. Results Over a lifetime horizon, the ICERs of nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone were $430,185.04/QALY and $944,089.78/QALY in China and the US, respectively. Cost of nivolumab and utility for the PFS state had the most significant impact on ICERs both in the US and China based on the results of the one-way sensitivity analyses. In the probabilistic sensitivity analyses, the proportions of nivolumab plus chemotherapy being cost-effective compared with chemotherapy alone were 0%. Conclusions In conclusion, nivolumab plus chemotherapy is unlikely to be a cost-effective treatment option compared with chemotherapy alone in the first-line setting of advanced gastric, GEJ, or esophageal adenocarcinoma.

TP53 aberrations [del(17p) or TP53 mutation] predict poor survival with chemoimmunotherapy in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL). We evaluated long-term efficacy and safety of first-line ibrutinib-based therapy in patients with CLL bearing TP53 aberrations in a pooled analysis across four studies: PCYC-1122e, RESONATE-2 (PCYC-1115/16), iLLUMINATE (PCYC-1130) and ECOG-ACRIN E1912. The pooled analysis included 89 patients with TP53 aberrations receiving first-line treatment with single-agent ibrutinib (n = 45) or ibrutinib in combination with an anti-CD20 antibody (n = 44). All 89 patients had del(17p) (53% of 89 patients) and/or TP53 mutation (91% of 58 patients with TP53 sequencing results available). With a median follow-up of 49·8 months (range, 0·1-95·9), median progression-free survival was not reached. Progression-free survival rate and overall survival rate estimates at four years were 79% and 88%, respectively. Overall response rate was 93%, including complete response in 39% of patients. No new safety signals were identified in this analysis. Forty-six percent of patients remained on ibrutinib treatment at last follow-up. With median follow-up of four years (up to eight years), results from this large, pooled, multi-study data set suggest promising long-term outcomes of first-line ibrutinib-based therapy in patients with TP53 aberrations. Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01500733, NCT01722487, NCT02264574 and NCT02048813).

Abstract Aim This study was aimed to evaluate the safety and the efficacy of gemcitabine and oxaliplatin (GEMOX) combined with donafenib plus tislelizumab as the first‐line treatment for patients with unresectable biliary tract cancer (BTC). Methods This is a prospective single‐center exploratory study. Eligible patients (Stage III/IV BTC, at least one measurable disease according to RECIST v1.1, etc.) received gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 IV Q3W, oxaliplatin 100 mg/m2 IV Q3W, donafenib 200 mg PO BID, and tislelizumab 200 mg IV Q3W until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent whichever occurred first. The primary endpoint was safety and secondary endpoints included disease control rate (DCR), objective response rate (ORR), conversion rate, and overall survival (OS). Results A total of 13 patients were enrolled. The median follow‐up time was 420 days (range 345–487). The median duration of treatment was four cycles (range 1–15). The incidence of ≥Grade 3 treatment‐related adverse events (TRAEs) was 53.8% and no Grade 5 TRAE. The most frequent Grade 3–4 TRAEs were rash (4/13, 30.8%), platelet count decreased (2/13, 15.4%), and fatigue (2/13, 15.4%). Tumor response was assessed in eight evaluable patients; ORR was 25.0% (95% CI, 3.2%–65.1%) and DCR 87.5% (95% CI, 47.3%–99.7%). The median PFS was 4.8 months (95% CI, 1.25‐NE). Three Stage III patients underwent subsequent surgery with a conversion rate of 23.1%. The median OS was not estimable. Conclusions GEMOX combined with donafenib plus tislelizumab as the first‐line therapy for unresectable BTC showed manageable toxicity and encouraging efficacy especially in terms of promising conversion rate in Stage III patients.

Olaparib, a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor, in combination with the antiangiogenic agent bevacizumab, is approved as maintenance therapy for patients with newly diagnosed stage III or IV epithelial ovarian cancer who have homologous recombination deficient tumors with a deleterious or suspected deleterious BRCA mutation and/or genomic instability based on the long-lasting survival benefit observed in the PAOLA-1 trial. Despite treatment with olaparib and bevacizumab showing an acceptable safety profile, the rate of discontinuations due to adverse events was relatively high, and toxicity related to this regimen may restrict its clinical use. Proper management of olaparib/bevacizumab-related adverse events is important for the improvement of quality of life and maximization of the efficacy of maintenance therapy. Here, we summarize the safety results of the PAOLA-1 study, focusing on treatment discontinuation reasons and adverse event profiles. We sought to shed light on toxicity monitoring and prevention, providing concise recommendations for the clinical management of the most relevant side effects.

Introduction: Osimertinib may be effective in treating central nervous system (CNS) metastasis, but its efficacy in treating radiation therapy (RT)-naive metastasis is unclear. The OCEAN study assessed the efficacy of osimertinib against RT-naive CNS metastasis in patients previously treated (T790M cohort) and untreated patients (first-line cohort) with EGFR mutation. Here, we report the results of the first-line cohort. Methods: Previously untreated patients with RT-naive CNS metastasis and EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC were treated with osimertinib. The brain metastasis response rate (BMRR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival in the first-line cohort were secondary end points. Results: A total of 26 patients were enrolled in the study between September 2019 and July 2020. The median age was 72.0 years with 80.8% female. There were 20 patients who had multiple CNS metastases. BMRR assessed by PAREXEL criteria was 76.9% (90% confidence interval [CI]: 63.3%–90.5%), BMRR assessed by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors was 76.9% (95% CI: 54.0%–99.8%), and median PFS of CNS metastasis was 22.0 months (95% CI: 9.7 mo–not reached). The overall response rate was 64.0% (95% CI: 45.2%–82.8%), median PFS was 11.5 months (95% CI: 6.9 mo–not reached), and median survival time was 23.7 months (95% CI: 16.5 mo–not reached). Paronychia and increased creatinine level were the most frequent nonhematological toxicities observed in 13 patients (50%). Grade three and higher adverse events were less than 10%, and there were no treatment-related deaths. Pneumonitis was observed in five patients (19.2%). Conclusions: These results suggest that osimertinib is effective in untreated patients with RT-naive asymptomatic CNS metastasis in a clinical practice first-line setting. Trial registration: UMIN identifier: UMIN000024218. jRCT identifier: jRCTs071180017.

Purpose This study evaluated whether combination therapy is more effective than monotherapy in elderly patients with metastatic or recurrent gastric cancer (MRGC) as first-line chemotherapy. Materials and Methods Elderly (≥ 70 years) chemo-naïve patients with MRGC were allocated to receive either combination therapy (group A: 5-fluorouracil [5-FU]/oxaliplatin, capecitabine/oxaliplatin, capecitabine/cisplatin, or S-1/cisplatin) or monotherapy (group B: 5-FU, capecitabine, or S-1). In group A, starting doses were 80% of standard doses, and they could be escalated to 100% at the discretion of the investigator. Primary endpoint was to confirm superior overall survival (OS) of combination therapy vs. monotherapy. Results After 111 of the planned 238 patients were randomized, enrollment was terminated due to poor accrual. In the full-analysis population (group A [n=53] and group B [n=51]), median OS of combination therapy vs. monotherapy was 11.5 vs. 7.5 months (hazard ratio [HR], 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56 to 1.30; p=0.231). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 5.6 vs. 3.7 months (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.83; p=0.005). In subgroup analyses, patients aged 70-74 years tended to have superior OS with combination therapy (15.9 vs. 7.2 months, p=0.056). Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred more frequently in group A vs. group B. However, among severe TRAEs (≥ grade 3), there were no TRAEs with a frequency difference of > 5%. Conclusion Combination therapy was associated with numerically improved OS, although statistically insignificant, and a significant PFS benefit compared with monotherapy. Although combination therapy showed more frequent TRAEs, there was no difference in the frequency of severe TRAEs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The aim of the study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab plus chemotherapy as first-line treatment for patients with advanced gastric, gastroesophageal junction (GEJ), or esophageal adenocarcinoma from the perspective of Chinese and US society. Methods: To conduct the analysis, a state-transitioned Markov model, which included three mutually exclusive health states (progression-free survival (PFS), progressive disease (PD), and death), was developed. Cycle length was set at 3 weeks and lifetime horizon was set at 10 years. Costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated in the analysis. Willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds in the model were set at $37,653.00/QALY in China and $100,000.00/QALY in the US, respectively. Meanwhile, one-way sensitivity analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to investigate the robustness of the model. Results: Over a lifetime horizon, the ICERs of nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone were $430,185.04/QALY and $944,089.78/QALY in China and the US, respectively. Cost of nivolumab and utility for the PFS state had the most significant impact on ICERs both in the US and China based on the results of the one-way sensitivity analyses. In the probabilistic sensitivity analyses, the proportions of nivolumab plus chemotherapy being cost-effective compared with chemotherapy alone were 0%. Conclusions: In conclusion, nivolumab plus chemotherapy is unlikely to be a cost-effective treatment option compared with chemotherapy alone in the first-line setting of advanced gastric, GEJ, or esophageal adenocarcinoma. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background The efficacy and toxicity profiles for extensive‐stage small cell lung cancer (ES‐SCLC) are unclear. We aimed to address this gap through a Bayesian network meta‐analysis. Methods We performed network analysis from randomized controlled trials comparing these treatments: PD‐(L)1 inhibitor, CTLA‐4 inhibitor, CXCR inhibitor, PARP inhibitor, CDK inhibitor, chemotherapy, and their combinations. Pooled estimations of progression‐free survival, overall survival, objective response rate, and toxicity (systematic and specific) were conducted within the Bayesian framework. Results Twenty‐five trials involving 9 strategies were included. In terms of progression‐free survival and overall survival, PD‐(L)1 inhibitor combined with cisplatin/carboplatin (P) and etoposide (E) shown the acknowledged superiority than other treatments. The addition of CTLA‐4 inhibitor (ipilimumab) to EP had the highest response rate among these regimens, and the combination of chemotherapy (irinotecan) and cisplatin/carboplatin had the greatest probability of performing considerable systematic security. The secondary endpoint was specific adverse events, including vomiting, fatigue, thrombocytopenia, constipation, and decreased appetite; hence we depicted the specific toxicity profile of each regimen. In addition, we identified the differences between PD‐1 inhibitors and PD‐L1 inhibitors in prolonging overall survival time for the central nervous system (CNS)/liver metastases patients. Conclusions EP combined with PD‐(L)1 inhibitor followed by CTLA‐4 inhibitors or anti‐angiogenesis was the considerable treatment with considerable efficacy and safety for ES‐SCLC. Each treatment has a unique specific toxicity profile, which needs more attention.

Camrelizumab combination therapy for advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) has considerable survival benefits. This study investigated the cost-effectiveness of camrelizumab combination therapy versus chemotherapy alone as a first-line treatment for patients with ESCC from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. A three-state partitioned survival model was developed to estimate total costs, life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and incremental net health benefits (INHBs) over a 20-year time horizon. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were also performed. Camrelizumab plus chemotherapy increased QALYs by 0.30 (0.43 LYs), with an incremental cost of $9,272. The ICERs for camrelizumab plus chemotherapy vs chemotherapy alone was $31,062/QALY ($21,599/LY), and the INHB was 0.05 QALY at the cost-effective threshold of $37,653/QALY (3 times China's GDP per capita). One-way sensitivity analyses showed that the ICER was the most sensitive to utility values in the PFS state. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses suggested that camrelizumab combination therapy had a probability of 74.04% cost-effectiveness at a threshold of $37,653/QALY. Scenario analyses confirmed that the findings were robust. Camrelizumab combination therapy is likely to have a cost-effectiveness advantage over chemotherapy alone for previously untreated advanced or metastatic ESCC in China. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Real‐world data on the first‐line treatment of patients with advanced non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are still limited. The NEPTUN study evaluated effectiveness and safety of first‐line nab‐paclitaxel (Abraxane) plus carboplatin (nab‐P/C) in patients with advanced NSCLC in routine clinical practice in Germany. Patients included in our study were aged ≥18 years, diagnosed with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC and with decision for first‐line nab‐P/C in routine clinical practice. Primary objective was 6‐month progression‐free survival rate (PFS6), secondary objectives included overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR) and safety. From 2016 to 2019, 408 patients from 75 sites were enrolled. PFS6 was 39.5% (95% CI: 34.2‐44.8), median PFS was 5.1 months (95% CI: 4.6‐5.6), ORR was 42.9% (95% CI: 37.7‐48.2). Median OS was 10.5 months (95% CI: 9.2‐11.6). In subgroup analyses, median OS for squamous vs non‐squamous histology was 11.5 months (95% CI: 9.2‐13.8) vs 9.8 months (95% CI: 8.1‐11.3) and for patients aged ≥70 vs <70 years median OS was 12.4 months (95% CI: 9.8‐15.1) vs 9.6 months (95% CI: 7.7‐11.1). Adverse events (AEs) related to nab‐paclitaxel were reported in 247 (66.4%) patients, while carboplatin‐related AEs were documented in 224 (60.2%) patients. Most frequently related AEs were leukopenia (22.3%) for nab‐paclitaxel and anemia (20.2%) for carboplatin. Nab‐P/C‐related deaths were reported in 2 (0.5%) patients (sepsis and neutropenic sepsis). No new or unexpected safety signals emerged. These results support the effectiveness and safety of first‐line nab‐P/C in patients with advanced NSCLC reported in the pivotal trial and highlight the clinical value of this regimen in the real‐world setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this paper was to assess the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab in first-line for microsatellite-instability-high or mismatch-repair-deficient metastatic colorectal cancer. We have considered the pivotal phase III randomized controlled trial of pembrolizumab in first-line for microsatellite-instability-high mismatch-repair-deficient metastatic colorectal cancer. The last available update of each trial was considered as the original source. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated as the ratio between the difference of the costs in the intervention and in the control groups (pharmacy costs) and the difference between the effect in the intervention and in the control groups (progression-free survival). The costs of drugs are at the Pharmacy of the Mater Salutis Hospital of Legnago (VR, Italy) and are expressed in euros (€). Three hundred and seven patients were considered in the pivotal phase III randomized controlled trial. Pembrolizumab obtained a cost per month progression-free survival gained ranged from 6471 € towards mFOLFOX (5-FU, oxaliplatin and leucovorin) plus cetuximab to 7886 € towards mFOLFOX. To sum up, combining pharmacological costs of drugs with the measure of efficacy represented by progression-free survival, at the actual prize pembrolizumab cannot be considered cost-effectiveness for first-line treatment for microsatellite-instability-high mismatch-repair-deficient metastatic colorectal cancer. A reduction in pharmacological costs is mandatory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Pembrolizumab alone (IO-mono) or in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy (CT-IO) is first-line standard of care for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with PD-L1 ≥ 50%. This retrospective multicentre study assessed real-world use and efficacy of both strategies. Methods: Patients with advanced NSCLC PD-L1 ≥ 50% from eight hospitals who had received at least one cycle of IO-mono or CT-IO were included. Overall survival (OS) and real-word progression-free-survival were estimated using Kaplan–Meier methodology. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs, and a Cox model with inverse propensity treatment weighting was carried out. Results: Among the 243 patients included, 141 (58%) received IO-mono and 102 (42%) CT-IO. Younger patients, those with symptomatic disease and brain metastases were more likely to be proposed CT-IO. With a median follow-up of 11.5 months (95% CI 10.4–13.3), median OS was not reached, but no difference was observed between groups (p = 0.51). Early deaths at 12 weeks were 11% (95% CI 4.6–16.9) and 15.2% (95% CI 9.0–20.9) in CT-IO and IO groups (p = 0.32). After adjustment for age, gender, performance status, histology, brain metastases, liver metastases and tobacco status, no statistically significant difference was found for OS between groups, neither in the multivariate adjusted model [HR 1.07 (95% CI 0.61–1.86), p = 0.8] nor in propensity adjusted analysis [HR 0.99 (95% CI 0.60–1.65), p = 0.99]. Male gender (HR 2.01, p = 0.01) and PS ≥ 2 (HR 3.28, p < 0.001) were found to be negative independent predictive factors for OS. Conclusion: Younger patients, those with symptomatic disease and brain metastases were more likely to be proposed CT-IO. However, sparing the chemotherapy in first-line does not appear to impact survival outcomes, even regarding early deaths. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: This study was aimed to evaluate the safety and the efficacy of gemcitabine and oxaliplatin (GEMOX) combined with donafenib plus tislelizumab as the first‐line treatment for patients with unresectable biliary tract cancer (BTC). Methods: This is a prospective single‐center exploratory study. Eligible patients (Stage III/IV BTC, at least one measurable disease according to RECIST v1.1, etc.) received gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 IV Q3W, oxaliplatin 100 mg/m2 IV Q3W, donafenib 200 mg PO BID, and tislelizumab 200 mg IV Q3W until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent whichever occurred first. The primary endpoint was safety and secondary endpoints included disease control rate (DCR), objective response rate (ORR), conversion rate, and overall survival (OS). Results: A total of 13 patients were enrolled. The median follow‐up time was 420 days (range 345–487). The median duration of treatment was four cycles (range 1–15). The incidence of ≥Grade 3 treatment‐related adverse events (TRAEs) was 53.8% and no Grade 5 TRAE. The most frequent Grade 3–4 TRAEs were rash (4/13, 30.8%), platelet count decreased (2/13, 15.4%), and fatigue (2/13, 15.4%). Tumor response was assessed in eight evaluable patients; ORR was 25.0% (95% CI, 3.2%–65.1%) and DCR 87.5% (95% CI, 47.3%–99.7%). The median PFS was 4.8 months (95% CI, 1.25‐NE). Three Stage III patients underwent subsequent surgery with a conversion rate of 23.1%. The median OS was not estimable. Conclusions: GEMOX combined with donafenib plus tislelizumab as the first‐line therapy for unresectable BTC showed manageable toxicity and encouraging efficacy especially in terms of promising conversion rate in Stage III patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: First-line dual NRTI + NNRTI-based ART has shown good virological effectiveness; however, toxicity is common and is often the most common reason for modification of first-line ART. Aims: The purpose of this study is to revisit low-dose efavirenz (EFV) in the era of dolutegravir (DTG) by investigating anti-retroviral therapy (ART) switch strategies for outcomes of virological effectiveness and safety in virologically suppressed Indian persons living with HIV (PLH) on first-line dual nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTI) + non-NRTI (NNRTI)-based ART. Methods: A phase-IV comparative study of consecutive cases who switched their first-line NNRTI-based ART to either EFV-400 or DTG with a dual NRTI backbone between October 2020 to December 2021 and underwent at least 48 weeks of follow-up. The study is a non-randomised trial, wherein ART regimens were based on physician choice, patient preference and drug availability. Results: A total of 102 [DTG arm: 52; EFV-400 arm: 50; intention-to-treat (ITT) population] participants met the inclusion criteria. At 48-week follow-up, virological failure was not observed in either arm. Virological suppression to < 200 cp/mL was attained in 97.9% (n = 48/49; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 89.1–99.9) and 95.9% (n = 47/49; 95% CI: 86.02–99.5) of patients, respectively, in the DTG and-EFV-400 arm (ITT-populations). There was no significant difference in mean change from baseline in body weight and body mass index between DTG and-EFV-400 arms. The proportion of patients who gained ≥ 10% of their baseline body weight at 24 weeks of exposure to DTG was 16% (n = 8, 95% CI: 5.8 to 26.2) and that to EFV-400 was 10% (n = 5, 95% CI: 1.7 to 18.3) with a difference in proportions: 6.0% (95% CI: −7.1–19.1)]. There was a significant decrease at 24 weeks in mean fasting levels of lipid fractions in the DTG arm as compared to EFV-400 [total cholesterol: − 24.3 mg/dL, 95% CI: −35.2 to − 13.3 vs. −6.9 mg/dL, 95% CI: −17.9–4.1 (P = 0.029) and triglycerides:−35.9 mg/dL, 95% CI: −60.9 to − 10.9 vs. 8.6 mg/dL, 95% CI: −16.6 to 33.8 (P = 0.014)]. Adverse events (AEs) of any grade including laboratory derangements to DTG were experienced by 6% (n = 3, 95% CI: −0.6 to 12.6) and that to EFV-400 by 8% (n = 4, 95% CI: 0.5 to 15.5) with a difference in proportions: 2.0% (95% CI: −7.9 to 11.9). Grades 3–4-AE occurred in two patients, both in the EFV-400 arm. Central nervous system AEs were not observed in the DTG arm and occurred in two patients in the EFV-400 arm. Two patients in the EFV-400 arm discontinued the regimen due to AEs. Conclusion: Both DTG and EFV-400-based first-line ART show good virological effectiveness and safety profiles in patients who are virologically suppressed on dual NRTI + NNRTI-based first-line ART.