ABSTRACT
Background & Aim: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) revolutionized solid tumor treatment, however, in many tumors only partial response is achieved. Allocetra-OTS has an immune modulating effect on macrophages and dendritic cells and showed an excellent safety profile in patients including patients with sepsis and Covid-19. Here we investigated the anti-tumoral effect of Allocetra-OTS cellular therapy, in peritoneal solid tumor animal models. Methods, Results & Conclusion(s): Allocetra-OTS is manufactured from enriched mononuclear fractions and induced to undergo early apoptosis. Balb/c mice were inoculated intraperitoneally (IP) with AB12 (mesothelioma) with pLenti-PGK-V5-Luc-Neo and treated with anti- CTLA4 with or without Allocetra-OTS. Mice were monitored daily for clinical score and weekly using IVIS (Fig.1). Kaplan-Meier log rank test was done for survival. For Allocetra-OTS preparation, enriched mononuclear fractions were collected by leukapheresis from healthy eligible human donors and induced to undergo early apoptosis. Anti- CTLA4 standalone therapy significantly improved survival (Fig.2) from mean 34+/-9 to 44.9 +/-20 days. However, OTS standalone therapy was non-inferior and improved survival to 52.3 +/-20 days. Anti-CTLA4 + Allocetra-OTS combination therapy, ameliorated survival to 86.7+/-20 days with complete cancer remission in 60-100% of mice. Similar anti- tumoral effects of Allocetra-OTS were seen in mesothelioma model in a combination therapy with either anti-PD1 or cisplatin and using anti-PD1 in ID8 ovary cancer model. Based on single cell analysis confirmed by flow cytometry and pathology, the mechanism of action seems to be related or at least associated with an increase in f/480high peritoneal macrophages and a decrease in recruited macrophages, and to f/480high infiltration of the tumor. However, further studies are needed to confirm these observations. During IP tumor progression, Allocetra-OTS as a standalone therapy or in combination with ICI, or cisplatin, significantly reduced tumor size and resulted in complete remission in up to 100% treated mice. Similar results were obtained in ID8 ovary cancer. Based on excellent safety profile in > 50 patients treated in prior clinical trials for sepsis and Covid-19, Phase I/II clinical trial of Allocetra-OTS plus chemotherapy has started and three patient already recruited. A second phase I/II clinical trial of Allocetra- OTS plus anti-PD1, as a second- and third-line therapy in various cancers, was initiated in Q1 2023. [Figure presented]Copyright © 2023 International Society for Cell & Gene Therapy
ABSTRACT
Cancer remains one of the most prevalent diseases in the United States and a leading cause of death. Large prospective studies have found significant correlations between dietary intake and cancer. Chronic inflammation promotes pro-cancer inflammatory environments and nutrition can influence inflammation, with the intake of certain food items increasing inflammatory biomarkers. The objective of this research was to explore the relationship between inflammatory diet score measured by the Dietary Inflammatory index and all-cause mortality, cancer-specific mortality, and cancer recurrence among cancer survivors. Web of Science, Medline, CINHAL, and PsycINFO databases were searched to collect potentially eligible sources that focus on dietary inflammation and cancer outcomes. All sources were uploaded to Covidence software and screened by two independent blinded reviewers. The quality of the sources was assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa scale and relevant data was extracted and transferred to the Comprehensive Meta Analysis software and a random effects model was used to perform meta-analysis. Of the 1444 studies imported into the Covidence software, 13 passed all the screening stages and were included in the final analysis. Eight studies reported on pre-diagnosis diet while five others reported on postdiagnosis diet. Five studies reported on colorectal cancer, four on breast cancer, two on ovarian cancer, one on endometrial cancer and one on prostate cancer. Meta-analysis of the studies found that being in the highest postdiagnosis DII score indicating pro-inflammatory diet significantly increased the risk of all-cause death among cancer survivors by 33.5% (HR = 1.335, 95% CI = 1.049, 1.698, n = 6). Analysis did not show a statistically significant association between DII score and cancer mortality or recurrence (HR = 1.097, 95% CI = 0.939, 1.281, n = 6). Analysis by cancer subtype found a significant correlation between postdiagnosis DII score and all-cause mortality among the breast cancer survivors (HR = 1.335, 95% CI = 1.041, 1.711, n = 3) though there were no significant associations between DII and the outcomes of interest from the other cancer types. The meta-analysis concludes that being in the highest postdiagnosis DII score group significantly increased the risk of all-cause death among cancer survivors. This suggests that risk of all-cause mortality could be reduced for cancer survivors by consuming more anti-inflammatory food components and reducing consumption of pro-inflammatory foods. These findings also warrant more research in this field to clarify the relationship between dietary inflammation as measured by the DII and cancer outcomes, particularly cancer-specific mortality.
ABSTRACT
Background/Aims Upadacitinib (UPA), an oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, demonstrated efficacy and safety in patients (pts) with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and prior inadequate response or intolerance to >=1 biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) at week (wk) 56 in the phase 3 SELECT-PsA 2 study. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of UPA at wk 104 from the ongoing long-term extension of SELECTPsA 2. Methods Pts were randomized to UPA 15mg (UPA15), UPA 30mg (UPA30), or placebo (PBO) for 24 wks;PBO pts were then switched to UPA15 or UPA30. For continuous UPA treatment groups, efficacy endpoints at wk 104 were analyzed using non-responder imputation (NRI) and as observed (AO) (binary endpoints) or mixed-effect model repeated measures (MMRM) and AO (continuous endpoints). Treatmentemergent adverse events (TEAEs) were summarized for pts who received >=1 dose of study drug using visit-based cut-off at wk 104. Results A total of 641 pts received >=1 dose of study drug. At wk 104, 38.4% of all patients had discontinued study drug, with the highest discontinuation observed in patients randomized to PBO at baseline (all PBO: 46.7%). The most common reasons for discontinuation were lack of efficacy (UPA15: 12.3%, UPA30: 8.7%, all PBO: 21.7%) and adverse event (UPA15: 10.9%, UPA30: 13.3%, all PBO: 12.7%). The proportion of UPA pts that achieved ACR20/50/70, MDA, PASI75/90/100, and resolution of dactylitis and enthesitis were generally similar, or further improved, with 104 wks of treatment vs 56 wks. Similarly, mean change from baseline in HAQ-DI, patient's assessment of pain, BASDAI, and ASDAS was improved with UPA treatment. At 104 wks of therapy, clinical responses were largely similar with UPA15 and UPA30. Generally, safety data at wk 104 were consistent with that reported at wk 56. Rates of serious infection, herpes zoster, hepatic disorder, anemia, neutropenia, lymphopenia, and CPK elevation remained numerically higher with UPA30 vs UPA15, while rates of malignancies, MACE, and VTE were similar for both UPA groups. One death was reported with UPA15 (unexplained due to lack of information;however, the patient had recently been diagnosed with ovarian cancer) and two with UPA30 (pancytopenia and COVID-19 pneumonia). Conclusion In PsA pts with prior inadequate response or intolerance to>=1 bDMARD, clinical responses were maintained with UPA15 and UPA30 up to two years of treatment. No new safety signals were identified in this long-term extension.
ABSTRACT
The proceedings contain 358 papers. The topics discussed include: role of early prophylactic aspirin on Covid-19 outcome in antenatal patients - an audit of a hospital in India;partial intestinal obstruction complicating pregnancy: diagnostic dilemma and management;a case report of uterine rupture recognized during cesarean section at the site of a previous hysteroscopy-related perforation;menstrual characteristics and its related morbidities among adolescent girls living in North Borneo, Malaysia: a questionnaire-based study;the volume of posterior cervical varicose correlates with intraoperative blood loss in placenta previa;implications of large fibroids in pregnancy: a multidisciplinary approach;unexpected ovarian malignancy in postmenopausal women following laparoscopic surgery for adnexal masses - a review of 5 years;post radiotherapy outcome on cervical cancer stage IIIB patients with and without paraaortic lymph nodes enlargement;and evaluation of the relationship between thrombocytosis and clinico-pathological factors of patients with epithelial ovarian cancer.
ABSTRACT
Background: On March 2020, the federal government of Kosovo declared a nationwide lockdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic until May 2020. Since the lockdown, examinations and routine checkups have been restricted. This resulted in a severe decline in patient referrals to the hospitals. We want to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the rate of newly diagnosed gynecological cancers. Method(s): The data are taken from our patient database. Data from 752 patients from the only cancer centre in Kosovo with newly diagnosed gynaecological cancer between 2019, 2020 and 2021 were collected. Incidence, age group, stages of diagnosis and geographical distribution were compared between the time before and after the COVID-19 outbreak. Result(s): Our results showed a slight decline in newly diagnosed cancers in 2020 as compared with 2019 and 2021: -17 % in 2020 versus an increase of 18% in 2019. We expected to have a major increase in 2021 but data shows that it was a slight increase of 17%. As we not expected after the COVID-19 pandemic we have a strong decline of metastatic new cases of 39% in 2021 compared to 2020 and a 60% decline in 2020 compared to 2019. The results show a slight increase of 13 % in the early stages from 2020 to 2021 and the same rates come up from 2019 to 2020. In all three years in a row the dominant type of cancer according to localization is corpus uteri then cervix uteri and ovarian cancer with respectively 39%, 26%, and 33% in 2019, 36%, 33%, and 29% in 2020 and the last, 40%, 26% and 32% in 2021. The groupages have a slight shift from 45-49 years old the peak of new cases in 2021. Conclusion(s): The lockdown led to a slight decrease in the number of newly diagnosed cases. The decreased accessibility of the medical services has not led to significant higher number of metastatic new diagnosed cases, on contrary lower metastatic cases and higher number of early cases and slight increase on advanced cases were presented in 2021. The impact on incidence were not significantly higher in 2021 despite the lockdown. Therefore, new strategies to manage early cancer detection are needed to optimize cancer care in a time of pandemic in the future. Effective, appropriate and affordable cancer prevention and control strategies are urgently needed in Kosovo for gynaecological cancer especially cervical cancer. Legal entity responsible for the study: The authors. Funding(s): Has not received any funding. Disclosure: All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.Copyright © 2023 European Society for Medical Oncology
ABSTRACT
Background: It has been almost three years since the COVID-19 outbreak, yet evidence of its impact on the cancer care landscape remains scant. The present single-center study examines patterns in gynecological cancer diagnoses before and during the pandemic. Method(s): All female patients diagnosed in our academic hospital with gynecological cancer, between January 2017 and December 2020, were retrospectively identified. Pre-defined subgroup analyses were performed in patients who had been newly diagnosed during 2020 and in the pre-pandemic 3-year period. The study was approved by the Institutional Ethical Committee and was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and the International Conference on Harmonization for Good Clinical Practice. Result(s): In total, 1,193 women were included in this case-control study;1,001 (83.91%) were identified in the pre-pandemic period as a control, while 192 (16.09%) cases were allocated in the pandemic group. The two cohorts were similar regarding demographic and clinical characteristics. For the pre-pandemic period, the mean yearly number of patients with newly identified cancer was highest for endometrial (149;44.61%), followed by ovarian (92;27.5%) carcinomas. During the first year of the pandemic, the number of new diagnoses significantly decreased by 42.5% (from 334 to 192) for all types of malignancies combined (one sample t-test p-value= 0.014). Declines ranged from 36.96% to 49% for ovarian and endometrial cancer, respectively. Conclusion(s): This is the first study to appraise a timely snapshot of the effect of COVID-19 on newly diagnosed gynecological tumors in a European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO)-certified center in Greece, demonstrating an alarmingly sharp decline in the number of new cases during the pandemic. It is of utmost importance the gynecologic oncologists to ensure the continuum of care for their patients. [Formula presented] Legal entity responsible for the study: The authors. Funding(s): Has not received any funding. Disclosure: All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.Copyright © 2023 European Society for Medical Oncology
ABSTRACT
Ongoing research into the use of messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines for the treatment of cancer has been expediated by the coronavirus pandemic because similar technology was used in the development of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. So how close are we now to the widespread clinical use of mRNA anti-cancer vaccines?.Copyright © 2023 Wiley Interface Ltd.
ABSTRACT
Background: The COVID-19 pandemic influenced patient health care decisions, but there is little information about the pandemic's impact on decisions about cancer risk reduction. This includes women at elevated risk of breast or ovarian cancer considering risk-reducing salpingooophorectomy (RRSO), risk-reducing salpingectomy (RRS), or other preventive measures. During the pandemic patients needed to balance their concerns about cancer risk reduction with their risks associated with elective health procedures, a risk which changed as vaccines became available. Method(s): To address the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer prevention decision making, we recruited N=396 pre-menopausal women with a personal history of breast cancer or familial history suggestive of increased breast and/or ovarian cancer risk between 4/2019 and 3/2022. We conducted a discrete choice experiment in which patients were asked to choose between two scenarios that specified type of surgery (RRSO, RRS vs. non-surgical surveillance), age of menopause (natural versus immediate), quality of menopausal symptoms (mild, moderate, severe), and risk of ovarian cancer, heart disease, or osteoporosis. Risk of ovarian cancer for the scenarios provided varied in discrete intervals from 0% to 40%. We examined temporal trends during the pandemic using interactions with time coinciding approximately with the beginning of pandemic, peak vaccination period, and the Omicron wave. Result(s): We identified significant temporal interactions on a woman's prevention decisions. In 2019, women at higher risk of ovarian cancer were more likely to choose prevention scenarios that favored lower ovarian cancer risk (odds ratio [OR] = 0.48;95% CI = 0.37, 0.69 per 10% increase in ovarian cancer risk difference). This association decreased through the pre-vaccine period of 2020 by OR=2.61/month (95% CI = 1.21, 5.65). By June 2020, the effect of a 10% increase in ovarian cancer risk on intervention choice had attenuated substantially (OR=0.84, 95% CI 0.67, 1.00). By January 2022, the effect strengthened (OR= 0.69, 95% CI .49, .88), but had not reached pre-pandemic levels. Before 3/2020, natural age of menopause (versus immediate) had a strong impact on the choice of a scenario (OR=3.56, 95% CI 1.65-7.65). At the beginning of the pandemic, the effect was reduced by 0.47/month (95% CI 0.22-0.99). The rate of attenuation slowed over time, such that the effect of having a natural age of menopause on choice was OR= 1.56 (95% CI 0.65, 2.46) by January 2022. Tests for temporal interactions were statistically significant for both ovarian cancer risk and age of menopause. Conclusion(s): Our results suggest that over the course of the pandemic, women seemed more accepting of higher risks of ovarian cancer and immediate (post treatment) menopause when considering preventive options. There was an inverse U shape curve of the effect of ovarian cancer risk on choices over time (Figure A), but the strength of the relationship had not reached prepandemic levels by January 2022. This may reflect patient tolerance for side effects as the pandemic evolved. These results suggest that factors such as ovarian cancer risk and delay of menopause influenced personal prevention choices, but that these choices were influenced by events related to events that hallmarked the COVID-19 pandemic.
ABSTRACT
Background: Integrative therapies are shown to support cancer patients' treatment plans, help with side effect management, and improve patients' quality of life ([1-9]). In 2017, the American Society of Clinical Oncology endorsed the Association of Integrative Oncology's Clinical Practice Guidelines highlighting their importance in breast cancer care. Recent studies suggest that more evidence is needed to bring attention to the role of integrative therapies in advanced breast cancer care [4, 7, 8, 10]. This analysis explores participants' experiences with a wellness program implemented by Unite for HER (UFH), a non-profit organization that delivers integrative therapies and support services such as whole food nutrition services, medical acupuncture, oncology massage therapy, counseling, reiki, meditation, yoga, and fitness classes to patients with breast, metastatic breast, and ovarian cancer. As of April 2022, there were over 1,700 women diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) participating in UFH locally and nationally. Method(s): UFH members completed a survey about the impact of the UFH Wellness Program on the overall quality of life, including measures on side-effect management, OTC/prescription drug utilization rate, stress reduction, changes to wellness habits, and the social and emotional challenges associated with living with MBC. In total, 119 unique UFH members with MBC answered online surveys distributed by email in 2020 and 2021. Survey questions were designed to evaluate the impact of the UFH Wellness Program. Descriptive analyses of survey questions and openended comments were conducted to assess program impact. Result(s): All respondents were MBC patients/survivors. No other demographic information was collected. While 2020 respondents received mostly in-person services for part of their program, all 2021 respondents received primarily virtual services due to the Covid-19 restrictions. Despite the inaccessibility of in-person services, the satisfaction levels with the wellness program did not drop significantly in 2021. More than two-thirds of respondents (80% in 2020, 67% in 2021) indicated that the therapies offered through UFH Wellness Program significantly improved the side effects of their treatment for MBC. Notably, more than a quarter of respondents (28% in 2020, 26% in 2021) specified that due to UFH integrative therapies they were able to reduce or eliminate one or more OTC/prescription drugs to manage side effects. At the same time, the majority reported experiencing reduced levels of stress after utilizing integrative therapies offered by UFH (93% in 2020, 81% in 2021), as well as improvements in their emotional wellbeing (95% in 2020, 83% in 2021), and quality of life during or after treatment for MBC (97% in 2020, 96% in 2021). Also, 86% of respondents in both years indicated that UFH services, such as nutrition counseling, cooking classes, and exercise classes, helped them adopt and maintain healthier habits in their life. Furthermore, a qualitative analysis of open-ended comments found that 1) respondents expressed deep gratitude and appreciation for UFH integrative therapies, 2) noted that they would otherwise not be able to access such therapies due to financial barriers, and 3) helped them feel better prepared to cope with the psychosocial aspects of their MBC experience. Discussion(s): These results suggest that integrative therapies such as those offered by UFH can play a significant role in improving patients' outcomes by reducing stress and drug utilization to manage side effects and improving patients' well-being and quality of life during metastatic breast cancer treatment. These findings highlight the importance of choosing integrative oncology programs to support MBC patients' needs in managing the psychosocial and physical side effects of the disease.
ABSTRACT
Case report - Introduction: This case highlights the dilemma of keeping rheumatoid arthritis disease under control in active cancer cases and establishing a consistent multidisciplinary dialogue during a pandemic and staffing crises. During chemotherapy and active cancer treatment, disease-modifying therapies (conventional and biologic) are often stopped. In some cases, the potential benefits versus risks of restarting usual therapies have to be balanced against risks of suppressing disease activity with highdose steroids. Risks of infection (common and atypical) need to be considered. Case report - Case description: A is a 67-year-old female nonsmoker diagnosed with seropositive rheumatoid arthritis (RF, anti - CCP positive) in 2008. Other conditions include type 2 diabetes, atrial fibrillation (on warfarin), hypothyroidism and obstructive sleep apnoea. Due to active disease, despite triple therapy (methotrexate, sulphasalazine and hydroxychloroquine), anti-TNF therapy (etanercept) commenced in 2009 with primary non-response. However, she responded well to B-cell therapy (rituximab) in conjunction with oral methotrexate (25mg weekly) receiving annual infusions from 2010 to 2016. In 2017, an elective sleeve gastrectomy procedure for high BMI was abandoned after peritoneal deposits of concern were noted. Histology and CT imaging were consistent with a primary peritoneal malignancy (Stage 3c low-grade serous adenocarcinoma). Treatment involved debulking surgery (total abdominal hysterectomy, bilateral salpinoophorectomy, omentectomy) and tamoxifen. Treatment for rheumatoid arthritis stalled during this period but as frequent steroids were required for active joint inflammation, in agreement with the oncologists, she had a rituximab cycle in 2018. Unfortunately, in 2019 she had signs of cancer progression (elevated tumour markers, CT imaging) and has subsequently started carboplatin chemotherapy. She has been unable to continue methotrexate or rituximab pending completion of the chemotherapy cycles (ongoing). However, her arthritis is now uncontrolled without increased steroids. Due to recurrent flares, her maintenance dose has been increased from 5mg to 7.5-10mg prednisolone daily until we can establish if it is safe and appropriate to recommence her usual arthritis regime. Even without disease-modifying therapy like methotrexate and rituximab, risk of infection (including atypical ones) is still significant with the combination of chemotherapy and steroids. Risk of progressive joint damage and adverse quality of life with active arthritis also needs to be considered. Staffing crises, exacerbated by COVID pandemic issues, have added to complexity of decision making and coordination of regular multidisciplinary discussions regarding treatment. Case report - Discussion: Cancer is a known association in rheumatoid arthritis patients with a twofold higher risk of lymphoma compared to the general population. Whether condition or treatment affects risk remains unclear as immune dysregulation is relevant in both autoimmunity and cancer. Paraneoplastic, recent onset arthritis, chemotherapy- or immunotherapy-induced arthralgia/arthritis are also well documented. This case had a seropositive rheumatoid arthritis phenotype quite a few years prior to cancer diagnosis. Primary peritoneal cancer is uncommon, often presenting as in this case as an incidental finding. It is usually treated like ovarian cancer Whilst methotrexate has been implicated in lung cancer, melanoma and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, overall safety data suggest any risk is quite low (e.g., EBV-associated lymphoproliferative disorders usually resolve with drug discontinuation). It is also a known chemotherapeutic agent. Anti-TNF treatment algorithms generally exclude patients with recent cancer. Rituximab, originally developed as a cancer drug, is not thought to affect risk of cancer development or progression. Treatment with disease-modifying therapy (conventional and biologics) is often withheld in patients with active malignancy undergoing chemotherapy due to a theo etical risk of potentiated immunosuppression and toxicity, particularly cytopaenias. However, maintaining arthritis control with glucocorticoids also has short- and long-term risks. Combining chemotherapy agents like carboplatin with methotrexate has been used for urothelial carcinoma and can be well tolerated with close monitoring of haematological parameters. Thus, it could be argued this patient is at risk of infections whichever treatment approach is taken and regaining control of arthritis with recommencement of methotrexate and rituximab is much better for her quality of life. Regular multidisciplinary discussions are important to outline risks versus benefits of combined treatment. This may be difficult in practice during staffing crises. Covid risk in patients receiving rituximab and/or chemotherapy, timing and response to COVID vaccination are also important considerations. Case report - Key learning points: . Primary peritoneal cancer is uncommon and can present as an incidental finding . Whilst treatment for progressive cancer is important, withholding rheumatoid arthritis treatment can have a significant adverse impact on quality of life . Morbidity and mortality risks of stopping treatment versus combined treatment (cancer therapy and disease-modifying therapy) ideally needs to be fully discussed and agreed with the patient and all care providers - lack of "named" providers, restructuring, redeployment, multi-specialty care and a global pandemic can make coordination of this difficult.
ABSTRACT
Background: Dostarlimab is a programmed death 1 (PD-1) inhibitor approved in the EU as a monotherapy in patients (pts) with dMMR/MSI-H AR EC that has progressed on or after platinum-based chemotherapy;and in the US as a monotherapy in pts with dMMR AR EC that has progressed on or after platinum-based chemotherapy or dMMR solid tumors that have progressed on or after prior treatment, with no satisfactory alternative treatment options. We report on PFS and OS in 2 expansion cohorts of the GARNET trial that enrolled pts with EC. Methods: GARNET is a multicenter, open-label, single-arm phase 1 study. Pts were assigned to cohort A1 (dMMR/MSI-H EC) or A2 (MMRp/MSS EC) based on local immunohistochemistry assessment. Pts received 500 mg of dostarlimab IV every 3 weeks for 4 cycles, then 1000 mg every 6 weeks until disease progression, discontinuation, or withdrawal. PFS and OS are secondary efficacy endpoints. Results: 153 pts with dMMR/MSI-H and 161 pts with MMRp/MSS EC were enrolled and treated. The efficacy-evaluable population included 143 pts with dMMR/MSI-H EC and 156 pts with MMRp/MSS EC with measurable disease at baseline and ≥6 mo of follow-up. Median follow-up was 27.6 mo for dMMR/MSI-H and 33.0 mo for MMRp/MSS EC (Table). For pts with dMMR/MSI-H EC, median PFS (mPFS) was 6.0 mo, with 3-year estimated PFS rate of 40.1%. With 37.3% of pts experiencing an event, mOS was not reached;estimated 3-year OS was >50%. For pts with MMRp/MSS EC, mPFS was 2.7 mo. mOS was 16.9 mo with 68.9% of pts experiencing an event. Safety has been previously reported. [Formula presented] Conclusions: Dostarlimab demonstrated durable antitumor activity in dMMR/MSI-H and MMRp/MSS AR EC. dMMR/MSI-H was associated with longer PFS and OS than MMRp/MSS as expected. Clinical trial identification: NCT02715284. Editorial acknowledgement: Writing and editorial support, funded by GlaxoSmithKline (Waltham, MA, USA) and coordinated by Heather Ostendorff-Bach, PhD, of GlaxoSmithKline, was provided by Shannon Morgan-Pelosi, PhD, and Jennifer Robertson, PhD, of Ashfield MedComms, an Ashfield Health company (Middletown, CT, USA). Legal entity responsible for the study: GlaxoSmithKline. Funding: GlaxoSmithKline. Disclosure: A.V. Tinker: Financial Interests, Institutional, Sponsor/Funding: AstraZeneca;Financial Interests, Personal, Other: AstraZeneca, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline. B. Pothuri: Financial Interests, Institutional, Funding: AstraZeneca, Celsion, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, Genentech/Roche, Karyopharm, Merck, Mersana, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Tesaro/GSK;Financial Interests, Personal, Other: Arquer Diagnostics, AstraZeneca, Atossa, Clovis Oncology, Deciphera, Elevar Therapeutics, Imab, Mersana, Tesaro/GSK, Merck, Sutro Biopharma, Tora, GOG Partners;Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: Arquer Diagnostics, AstraZeneca, Atossa, Deciphera, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, Elevar Therapeutics, Imab, Merck, Mersana, Sutro Biopharma, Tesaro/GSK, Toray;Financial Interests, Personal, Leadership Role: GOG Partners, NYOB Society Secretary, SGO Clinical Practice Committee Chair, SGO COVID-19 Taskforce Co-Chair. L. Gilbert: Financial Interests, Institutional, Funding: Alkermes, AstraZeneca, Clovis, Esperas, IMV, ImmunoGen Inc, Karyopharm, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mersana, Novocure GmbH, OncoQuest Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, Roche, Tesaro;Financial Interests, Personal, Other: Merck, Alkermes, AstraZeneca, Eisai, Eisai-Merck, GlaxoSmithKline. R. Sabatier: Financial Interests, Institutional, Funding: AstraZeneca, Eisai;Financial Interests, Personal, Other: AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche;Non-Financial Interests, Personal, Other: AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Roche. J. Brown: Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Role: Caris, Clovis, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline;Financial Interests, Personal, Funding: GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech. S. Ghamande: Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Role: Seattle Genetics;Financial Interests, Personal, Speaker’s Bureau: GlaxoSmithKline;Financial Interests, Institutional, Funding: Abbv e, Advaxis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Clovis, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Roche, Seattle Genetics, Takeda. C. Mathews: Financial Interests, Institutional, Research Grant: Astellas, AstraZeneca, Deciphera, Moderna, GSK, Regeneron, Seattle Genetics;Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: IMAB biopharma. D. O'Malley: Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: AstraZeneca, Tesaro/GSK, Immunogen, Ambry, Janssen/J&J, Abbvie, Regeneron, Amgen, Novocure, Genentech/Roche, GOGFoundation, Iovance, Eisai, Agenus, Merck, SeaGen, Novartis, Mersana, Clovis, Elevar, Takeda, Toray, INXMED, SDP Oncology (BBI), Arquer Diagnostics, Roche Diagnostics MSA, Sorrento, Corcept Therapeutics, Celsion Corp;Financial Interests, Personal, Funding: AstraZeneca, Tesaro/GSK, Immunogen, Janssen/J&J, Abbvie, Regeneron, Amgen, Novocure, Genentech/Roche, VentiRx, Array Biopharma, EMD Serono, Ergomed, Ajinomoto Inc, Ludwig Cancer Research, Stemcentrx, Inc, Cerulean Pharma, GOGFoundation, Bristol-Myers Squibb Co, Serono Inc, TRACON Pharmaceuticals, Yale University, New Mexico Cancer Care Alliance, INC Research, Inc, inVentiv Health Clinical, Iovance, PRA Intl, Eisai, Agenus, Merck, GenMab, SeaGen, Mersana, Clovis, SDP Oncology (BBI);Financial Interests, Personal, Other: Myriad Genetics, Tarveda. V. Boni: Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: OncoArt, Guidepoint Global;Financial Interests, Personal, Speaker’s Bureau: Solti;Financial Interests, Personal, Other: START, Loxo, IDEAYA Biosciences;Financial Interests, Institutional, Research Grant: Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Loxo, Novartis, CytomX Therapeutics, Pumo Biotechnology, Kura Oncology, GlaxoSmithKline, Roche/Genentech, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Menarini, Synthon, Janssen Oncology, Merck, Lilly, Merus, Pfizer, Bayer, Incyte, Merus, Zenith Epigenetics, Genmab, AstraZeneca, Seattle Genetics, Adaptimmune, Alkermes, Amgen, Array BioPharma, Boehringer Ingelheim, BioNTech AG, Boston Biomedical. A. Gravina: Financial Interests, Personal, Other: Gentili, Pfizer. S. Banerjee: Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: Amgen, Genmab, Immunogen, Mersana, Merck Sereno, MSD, Roche, Tesaro, AstraZeneca, GSK, Oncxerna;Financial Interests, Personal, Invited Speaker: Clovis, Pfizer, Tesaro, AstraZeneca, GSK, Takeda, Amgen, Medscape, Research to Practice, Peerview;Financial Interests, Personal, Stocks/Shares: PerciHealth;Financial Interests, Institutional, Research Grant: AstraZeneca, GSK, Tesaro;Non-Financial Interests, Principal Investigator, Phase II clinical trial Global lead, ENGOTov60/GOG3052/RAMP201: Verastem;Non-Financial Interests, Principal Investigator, ENGOT-GYN1/ATARI phase II international trial (academic sponsored): Astrazeneca;Non-Financial Interests, Advisory Role: Epsilogen;Non-Financial Interests, Other, Member of membership committee: ESGO;Non-Financial Interests, Advisory Role, Medical advisor to UK ovarian cancer charity: Ovacome Charity;Non-Financial Interests, Other, Received research funding from UK based charity I have provided medical advice (non-remunerated): Lady GardenFoundation Charity. R. Miller: Financial Interests, Personal, Other: AZD, Clovis Oncology, Ellipses, GlaxoSmithKline, MSD, Shionogi, AZD, GlaxoSmithKline;Financial Interests, Personal, Speaker’s Bureau: AZD, Clovis Oncology, GSK, Roche. J. Pikiel: Financial Interests, Personal, Other: Amgen, Clovis Oncology, GlaxoSmithKline, Incyte, Novartis, Odonate Therapeutics, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche. M.R. Mirza: Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: AstraZeneca, Biocad, GSK, Karyopharm, Merck, Roche, Zailab;Financial Interests, Personal, Invited Speaker: AstraZeneca, GSK, Karyopharm;Financial Interests, Personal, Stocks/Shares: Karyopharm;Financial Interests, Institutional, Research Grant: GSK, AstraZeneca, ultimovacs, Apexigen;Financial Interests, Institutional, Invited Speaker: Deciphera;Non-Financial Interests, Advisory Role: Ultimovacs, Apexigen. T. Duan: Financial Interests, Personal, Full or part-time Employment: GlaxoSmithKline. G. Antony: Financial Interests, Personal, Fu l or part-time Employment: GlaxoSmithKline. S. Zildjian: Financial Interests, Personal, Full or part-time Employment: GlaxoSmithKline. E. Zografos: Financial Interests, Personal, Full or part-time Employment: GlaxoSmithKline. J. Veneris: Financial Interests, Personal, Full or part-time Employment: GlaxoSmithKline. A. Oaknin: Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, Mersana Therapeutics, PharmaMar, Roche, Tesaro, Merck Sharps & Dohme de España, SA, Agenus, Sutro, Corcept Therapeutics, EMD Serono, Novocure, prIME Oncology, Sattucklabs, Itheos, Eisai, F. Hoffmann-La Roche,;Financial Interests, Personal, Other, Travel and accomodation: AstraZeneca, PharmaMar, Roche;Financial Interests, Institutional, Funding: Abbvie Deutschland, Advaxis Inc., Aeterna Zentaris, Amgen, Aprea Therapeutics AB, Clovis Oncology Inc, EISAI limited LTD, F. Hoffmann –La Roche LTD, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Immunogen Inc, Merck, Sharp & Dohme de España SA, Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc, PharmaMar SA, Tesaro Inc., Bristol Myers Squibb;Non-Financial Interests, Leadership Role, Executive Board member as a Co-Chair: GEICO;Non-Financial Interests, Leadership Role, Phase II Committee and Cervix Cancer Committee Representative on behalf of GEICO: GCIG;Non-Financial Interests, Officer, Chair of Gynaecological Track ESMO 2019. Scientific Track Member Gynaecological Cancers ESMO 2018, ESMO 2020, ESMO 2022. Member of Gynaecological Cancers Faculty and Subject Editor Gyn ESMO Guidelines.: ESMO;Non-Financial Interests, Member: ESMO, ASCO, GCIG, SEOM, GOG.
ABSTRACT
Objectives: Immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) has demonstrated efficacy in a small fraction of patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (PROC), some with durable responses. The receptor tyrosine kinase AXL and its sole ligand, GAS6, are possible mediators of T cell exclusion and an attractive target due to the expected synergy between AXL inhibition and immune targeting agents. The recommended phase II dose (RP2D), safety, and efficacy of the combination of AXL inhibition via AVB-S6-500 with durvalumab (MEDI4736) were evaluated in patients with PROC. Methods: In this open-label Phase Ib open-label study, patients with PROC received AVB-S6-500 and durvalumab therapy in escalating dosing regimens guided by a Bayesian optimal interval (BOIN) design: durvalumab (1500 mg Q4W) and AVB-S6-500 (10mg/kg Q2W, 15mg/kg Q2W, 20mg/kg Q2W) with durvalumab infused prior to AVB-S6-500. The response was evaluated using modified RECIST v1.1. Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) studies were collected, and PD-L1 status and tumor/tumor microenvironment AXL and GAS6 staining pre and on-treatment were assessed. Results: Eleven patients with epithelial ovarian cancer (six clear cells [55%], four high-grade serous [36%], one endometrioid histology [1%]) received treatment per protocol. The median number of prior lines of therapy was 3 (range: 1-5);73% (8/11) of patients had received prior bevacizumab. There were no DLTs noted over the 6-week period and no grade ≥3 adverse events attributed to study drugs. Five patients experienced an immune-related AE, most commonly liver enzyme elevations (36%). Infusion reaction with AVB-S6- 500 was noted in the first two subjects, prompting the institution of a premedication regimen, after which only one of the nine additional patients experienced an infusion reaction. Dose delays greater than one week occurred in six (55%) patients;three patients experienced delays for cancer-related complications (small bowel obstruction, pneumonia, severe fatigue), while three patients experienced delays for non-medical causes (COVID/travel, weather). Patients received therapy for a median of two cycles (range: 1-6), and there were no responses noted across all dosing levels. One patient had stable disease, with a duration of response of three months. Only two patients had strong (2+) AXLstaining on pretreatment biopsy, both with high-grade serous histology. The majority of serum AXL levels were within previously demonstrated ranges (range: 5.6-112ng/mL), though two patients had comparatively high levels (102, 112ng/mL). PK/PD analysis revealed expected AVB-S6-500 levels at initial postdose (C1D1), but low levels at trough (C2D1 predose) when compared to prior AVB-S6-500 data [1]. Conclusions: The combination of AVB-S6-500 and durvalumab was tolerable in this PROC patient population at all dosing levels tested. Exploratory studies to correlate lack of response to AXL-GAS6 pathway alterations, tumor microenvironment, and clinical characteristics, such as prior treatment, dosing delays, burden of disease, and ascites, are ongoing.
ABSTRACT
Background: Upadacitinib (UPA), an oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, demonstrated efficacy and safety in patients (pts) with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and prior inadequate response or intolerance to ≥1 biologic disease-modifying antirheu-matic drug (bDMARD) at week (wk) 56 in the phase 3 SELECT-PsA 2 study.1 Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of UPA at wk 104 from the ongoing long-term extension of SELECT-PsA 2. Methods: Pts were randomized to UPA 15 mg (UPA15), UPA 30 mg (UPA30), or placebo (PBO) for 24 wks;PBO pts were then switched to UPA15 or UPA30. For continuous UPA treatment groups, efficacy endpoints at wk 104 were analyzed using non-responder imputation (NRI) and as observed (AO) (binary endpoints) or mixed-effect model repeated measures (MMRM) and AO (continuous endpoints). Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were summarized for pts who received ≥1 dose of study drug using visit-based cut-off at wk 104. Results: A total of 641 pts received ≥1 dose of study drug. At wk 104, 38.4% of all patients had discontinued study drug, with the highest discontinuation observed in patients randomized to PBO at baseline (all PBO: 46.7%). The most common reasons for discontinuation were lack of efficacy (UPA15: 12.3%, UPA30: 8.7%, all PBO: 21.7%) and adverse event (UPA15: 10.9%, UPA30: 13.3%, all PBO: 12.7%). The proportion of UPA pts that achieved ACR20/50/70, MDA, PASI75/90/100, and resolution of dactylitis and enthesitis were generally similar, or further improved, with 104 wks of treatment vs 56 wks1 (Table 1). Similarly, mean change from baseline in HAQ-DI, patient's assessment of pain, BASDAI, and ASDAS was improved with UPA treatment. At 104 wks of therapy, clinical responses were largely similar with UPA15 and UPA30. Generally, safety data at wk 104 (Figure 1) were consistent with that reported at wk 56.1 Rates of serious infection, herpes zoster, hepatic disorder, anemia, neutropenia, lymphopenia, and CPK elevation remained numerically higher with UPA30 vs UPA15, while rates of malignancies, MACE, and VTE were similar for both UPA groups. One death was reported with UPA15 (unexplained due to lack of information;however, the patient had recently been diagnosed with ovarian cancer) and 2 with UPA30 (pancytopenia and COVID-19 pneumonia). Conclusion: In PsA pts with prior inadequate response or intolerance to ≥1 bDMARD, clinical responses were maintained with UPA15 and UPA30 up to 2 years of treatment. No new safety signals were identifed in this long-term extension.
ABSTRACT
Background: Few cases of digital ischemia and gangrene associated with primary solid tumors have been described in literature[3]. The exact mechanism of severe occurrence has not been completely understood and the available treatment options have an extremely limited utility [1,2].In the most cases the patients were elderly women with adenocarcinomas of digestive or gynaecologic apparatuses [4]. Objectives: We describe a new case of digital gangrene as unusual presentation of ovarian cancer in a 36 years old woman. Methods: 36 years old female was admitted to our Reheumatology deparment with blackish Blackish discoloration of the toes of one week duration. She had history of COVID-19 infection 8 months prior to the presentation then developed hemoptysis, picture suggestive of ILD, generalized anasarca and skin rash;accordingly an initial diagnosis of post COVID-19 vasculitis was made by dermatologist. The blood tests were ESR:21 mm/hr, CRP:25.7, D.Dimer:8.8, Ferri-tin:575 ng/ml, lymphopenia:0.9, S.Creatinine:2, 24 h urinary protein: 325 mg/24h and all autoimmune markers were negative except anti nuclear antibody (ANA) with titer:1/160. Further assessment revealed that she had multiple site coag-ulopathy;internal jugular vein thrombosis, bilateral lower limbs Deep Venous Thrombosis (DVT). Neck ultrasound surprisingly showed bilateral enlarged suspicious looking supraclavicular lymph node with lost hilum which was Biopsied for histopathological correlation which revealed focally necrotizing adenocarci-noma with signifcant signet ring differentiation. Searching for the primary malignancy, tumor markers were sent CA125: 584 u/ml (up to 35), Pelvi-abdominal Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) revealed Left ovarian mass measuring 3.6 x 3.4 x 4.4 cm highly suspicious of malignant neoplastic growth for histopatho-logical correlation, Suspicious looking pelviabdominal lymph nodes mostly representing malignant lymphadenopathy, Scattered peritoneal nodules suspicious of metastatic deposits. Results: During admision the patient received full dose anticoagulation (Low Molecular Weight Heparin: 60 iu/12 h). Upon diagnosis we arrange the transferal to the oncology department to continue her management plan. Unfortunately;the case was terminal for palliative therapy and she died after 2 weeks. Conclusion: Bluish discoloration of digits and toes may be a clue for diagnosis of many diseases not only vasculitis. Malignancy can disturb the immune system in a way that mimic any systemic connective tissue disease. Acute insult aggressive multiple site deep venous thrombosis (DVT) necessitate thinking outside the box and consider other causes of coagulopathy like visceral malignancy.
ABSTRACT
Background: The announcement of the pandemic by WHO had a great impact on global mental health. Mental disorders like stress, anxiety, depressive symptoms, insomnia, denial, anger, and fear affected the population worldwide. Cognitive-behavioral techniques are effective in improving the control of symptoms, the affective state and coping with the disease. Methods: Female patients were offered to take part in the study by their oncologists. Inclusion criteria included female patients who were diagnosed with cancer during the last 5 years. Intervention included - Online group psychotherapy which was conducted for 3 consecutive months, three times per week, using the interactive ZOOM platform. The Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) quality of life questionnaire QLQ-C30 was used to assess QoL of participants. We asked patients to fill the ERTC questionnaire twice, before the first and after the last psychotherapy sessions. Results: Total of 25 patients aged 18-55 were included in the study, 72% were receiving hormonal therapy, and 28% were receiving chemotherapy. Majority of patients (18) were diagnosed with breast, 4 with cervical and 1 with uterine and 2 with ovarian cancer in last 5 years. All patients were white Caucasian females. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) showed no difference between groups on pre-RS score;But the study showed significant improvement in post RS (EORTC QLQ-C30) in patients with hormone therapy (Goodness of Fit-R square-0.4471, P-value- 0.0024, 95% Confidence Intervals-0.4200 to 1.626), compare to patients with chemotherapy (Goodness of Fit-R square-0.003372, P-value- 0.9016, 95% Confidence Intervals-1.743 to 1.929).All measures were presented as mean with standard deviation and the level of significance was defined as DELTA(D) = 0.05. Conclusions: According to our research, group psychotherapy had a positive effect on quality of life of cancer patients undergoing hormonal therapy and showed no significant impact on patients treated with chemotherapy. More research and a larger sample size is needed for a better interpretation of results.