Oncology practice during COVID-19 pandemic: a fast response is the best response

SUMMARY The first confirmed case of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Brasil was reported on February 25th, 2020, and by April 3rd, 8076 were confirmed in the country. As COVID-19 disease incidence escalates in Brasil, management of cancer patients requires immediate action and oncology clinics are urged to establish a contingency plan. We have installed a COVID-19 Management Committee to elaborate and implement best practices to assist cancer outpatients as well as to provide a safe environment for clinical staff and other employees at the outpatient clinics. The challenges of cancer treatment in the midst of COVID-19 global pandemic highlight the importance of a rapid response by institutions, where organizational structure, strategic planning, agility in guidelines implementation and alternative ways to protect and support clinical staff, employees and patients may be the key to mitigate pandemic effects.

RESUMO O primeiro caso confirmado de Doença Associada ao Coronavírus 2019 (COVID-19) no Brasil foi confirmado em 25 de fevereiro de 2020 e em 3 de abril já haviam 8076 casos confirmados no país. A medida que a incidência de COVID-19 aumenta no Brasil, o tratamento de pacientes com câncer exige ação imediata e as clínicas oncológicas são instadas a estabelecer um plano de contingência. Instalamos um Comitê de Manejo de COVID-19 para elaborar e implementar as melhores práticas para ajudar pacientes ambulatoriais com câncer, bem como proporcionar um ambiente seguro para a equipe clínica e outros funcionários das clínicas ambulatoriais. Os desafios do tratamento do câncer em meio à pandemia global do COVID-19 destacam a importância de uma resposta rápida das instituições, onde a estrutura organizacional, o planejamento estratégico, a agilidade na implementação de diretrizes e formas alternativas de proteger e apoiar a equipe clínica, funcionários e pacientes podem ser a chave para mitigar os efeitos da pandemia.

A "miracle" cancer drug in the era of social media: A survey of Brazilian oncologists' opinions and experience with phosphoethanolamine / Uma "milagrosa" droga contra o câncer na era da mídia social: uma pesquisa sobre a opinião e a experiência dos oncologistas brasileiros com a fosfoetanolamina

Summary Introduction: Patients who are treating cancer have often used alternative therapies. In the internet era, information can be broadcasted widely, and this happened with phosphoethanolamine in Brazil, where this substance was claimed by the population to be the "cure for cancer." Method: This is a cross-sectional study developed by the Brazilian Society of Clinical Oncology (SBOC). An objectively structured questionnaire was sent by e-mail and SMS to active MDs members of the SBOC. Descriptive statistics was used to evaluate the data. Statistical significance between the variables was tested by Pearson's Chi-squared test (p<0.05 was considered significance). Results: The survey was sent to 1,072 oncologists, and 398 (37.1%) answered at least part of it. One hundred and fifteen (28.9%) had followed patients who had used phosphoethanolamine. Among these, 14 (12.2%) observed adverse events and four (3.5%) attributed clinical benefit to the substance. Most of the oncologists (n=331; 83.2%) believe that it should only be used as part of a clinical trial protocol. Most physicians did not recommend this drug to their patients (n=311; 78.1%). Oncologists in Southeast, South and Midwest Brazil were more likely to have patients taking the drug compared to the Northern and Northeastern regions. Conclusion: This is the first survey to assess the opinion and experience of oncologists about this alternative therapy. Most oncologists in Brazil do not believe that synthetic phosphoethanolamine is active in cancer treatment, do not recommend its use without proper evaluation, and state that it should only be available to patients in the context of clinical trials.

Resumo Introdução: Alguns pacientes com diagnóstico de câncer utilizam terapias alternativas. Na era da internet, as informações podem se dissipar de forma rápida e abrangente, como foi o caso da fosfoetanolamina no Brasil, onde foi aclamada pela população como sendo a "cura para o câncer". Método: Trata-se de um estudo transversal desenvolvido pela Sociedade Brasileira de Oncologia Clínica (SBOC). Através de e-mail e SMS, enviou-se um questionário com perguntas objetivas para oncologistas membros ativos da SBOC. Os dados foram avaliados por meio de estatística descritiva. A significância estatística entre as variáveis ​​foi testada pelo teste Qui-quadrado de Pearson (p<0,05 foi considerado significativo). Resultados: O questionário foi enviado para 1.072 oncologistas, tendo 398 (37,1%) respondido pelo menos parte dele. Cento e quinze (28,9%) tinham pacientes que fizeram uso da fosfoetanolamina. Desses, 14 (12,2%) observaram eventos adversos e quatro (3,5%) atribuíram benefício clínico para a substância. A maioria (n=331; 83,2%) acreditava que ela só deveria ser utilizada dentro de um ensaio clínico. A principal recomendação dada aos pacientes foi contra o seu uso (n=311; 78,1%). Oncologistas das regiões Sudeste, Sul e Centro-Oeste tiveram mais pacientes que tomaram a substância quando comparados com as regiões Norte e Nordeste. Conclusão: Este é o primeiro estudo que avalia a opinião dos oncologistas sobre essa terapia alternativa e sua experiência. A maioria dos oncologistas brasileiros não acredita que a fosfoetanolamina sintética seja ativa no tratamento do câncer, não recomendando seu uso sem avaliação adequada, e afirmam que a substância só deve estar disponível no contexto de ensaios clínicos.

Efficient blockade of akt signalling is a determinant factor to overcome resistance to matuzumab

BACKGROUND: Clinical studies have shown antineoplastic effectiveness of monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) against EGFR for different indications. Several MAbs directed to EGFR were developed recently, such as matuzumab, but there is still lack of information on preclinical data on its combination with chemo-radiation. Thus, the present study intended to examine the molecular pathways triggered by matuzumab alone or associated to chemo-radiotherapy in gynecological cell lines and its impact on cell growth and signaling. RESULTS: Combination of matuzumab with radiation and cisplatin did not enhance its cytostatic effects on A431, Caski and C33A cells (high, intermediate and low EGFR expression, respectively) in clonogenic assays, when compared to controls. The lack of effect was mediated by persistent signaling through EGFR due to its impaired degradation. In spite of the fact that matuzumab inhibited phosphorylation of EGFR, it had no effect upon cell viability. To analyze which downstream molecules would be involved in the EGFR signaling in the presence of matuzumab, we have tested it in combination with either PD98059 (MAPK inhibitor), or LY294002 (PI3K inhibitor). Matuzumab exhibited a synergic effect with LY294002, leading to a reduction of Akt phosphorylation that was followed by a decrease in A431 and Caski cells survival. The combination of PD98059 and matuzumab did not show the same effect suggesting that PI3K is an important effector of EGFR signaling in matuzumab-treated cells. Nonetheless, matuzumab induced ADCC in Caski cells, but not in the C33A cell line, suggesting that its potential therapeutic effects in vitro are indeed dependent on EGFR expression. CONCLUSIONS: Matuzumab combined with chemoradiation did not induce cytotoxic effects on gynecological cancer cell lines in vitro, most likely due to impaired EGFR degradation. However, a combination of matuzumab and PI3K inhibitor synergistically inhibited pAkt and cell survival, suggesting that the use of PI3K/Akt inhibitors could overcome intrinsic resistance to matuzumab in vitro. Altogether, data presented here can pave the way to a rational design of clinical strategies in patients with resistant profile to anti-EGFR inhibitors based on combination therapy