Pembrolizumab in combination with gemcitabine for patients with HER2-negative advanced breast cancer: GEICAM/2015-04 (PANGEA-Breast) study.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated a new chemoimmunotherapy combination based on the anti-PD1 monoclonal antibody pembrolizumab and the pyrimidine antimetabolite gemcitabine in HER2- advanced breast cancer (ABC) patients previously treated in the advanced setting, in order to explore a potential synergism that could eventually obtain long term benefit in these patients. METHODS: HER2-negative ABC patients received 21-day cycles of pembrolizumab 200 mg (day 1) and gemcitabine (days 1 and 8). A run-in-phase (6 + 6 design) was planned with two dose levels (DL) of gemcitabine (1,250 mg/m2 [DL0]; 1,000 mg/m2 [DL1]) to determine the recommended phase II dose (RP2D). The primary objective was objective response rate (ORR). Tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) density and PD-L1 expression in tumors and myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) levels in peripheral blood were analyzed. RESULTS: Fourteen patients were treated with DL0, resulting in RP2D. Thirty-six patients were evaluated during the first stage of Simon's design. Recruitment was stopped as statistical assumptions were not met. The median age was 52; 21 (58%) patients had triple-negative disease, 28 (78%) visceral involvement, and 27 (75%) ≥ 2 metastatic locations. Progression disease was observed in 29 patients. ORR was 15% (95% CI, 5-32). Eight patients were treated ≥ 6 months before progression. Fourteen patients reported grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events. Due to the small sample size, we did not find any clear association between immune tumor biomarkers and treatment efficacy that could identify a subgroup with higher probability of response or better survival. However, patients that experienced a clinical benefit showed decreased MDSCs levels in peripheral blood along the treatment. CONCLUSION: Pembrolizumab 200 mg and gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m2 were considered as RP2D. The objective of ORR was not met; however, 22% patients were on treatment for ≥ 6 months. ABC patients that could benefit of chemoimmunotherapy strategies must be carefully selected by robust and validated biomarkers. In our heavily pretreated population, TILs, PD-L1 expression and MDSCs levels could not identify a subgroup of patients for whom the combination of gemcitabine and pembrolizumab would induce long term benefit. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov and EudraCT (NCT03025880 and 2016-001,779-54, respectively). Registration dates: 20/01/2017 and 18/11/2016, respectively.

Use of bevacizumab as a first-line treatment for metastatic breast cancer.

OBJECTIVE: During clinical practice, it can be challenging, given the lack of response biomarkers, to identify the patients with metastatic breast cancer (mbca) who would benefit most from the addition of bevacizumab to first-line standard chemotherapy. The aim of the present review was to summarize the relevant scientific evidence and to discuss the experience of a group of experts in using bevacizumab to treat mbca. METHODS: A panel of 17 Spanish oncology experts met to discuss the literature and their experience in the use of bevacizumab as first-line treatment for mbca. During the meeting, discussions focused on three main issues: the profile of the patients who could benefit most from bevacizumab, the optimal bevacizumab treatment duration, and the safety profile of bevacizumab. RESULTS: The subset of mbca patients who would benefit the most from the addition of bevacizumab to first-line standard chemotherapy are those with clinically defined aggressive disease. Treatment with bevacizumab should be maintained until disease progression or the appearance of unacceptable toxicity. In the mbca setting, the toxicity profile of bevacizumab is well known and can be managed in clinical practice after adequate training. CONCLUSIONS: This expert group recommends administering bevacizumab as first-line treatment in patients with clinically aggressive disease.

First evidence of oncologic neuropathic pain prevalence after screening 8615 cancer patients. Results of the On study.

BACKGROUND: Thirty percent to ninety percent of cancer patients suffer from pain, including neuropathic pain (NP), which results in great burden for cancer patients. Thus, it was of great interest to determine NP prevalence in cancer patients in Spain, to raise awareness of the condition, and aiming to improve management of cancer NP. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A 1-month follow-up prospective epidemiological multicenter study was conducted to assess prevalence and management of NP in Spanish oncologic units. The first 10 cancer patients at each unit diagnosed with NP by the validated Douleur Neuropathique 4 questionnaire (DN4) were recruited. RESULTS: Of 8615 screened patients, 2567 (30%) suffered from pain. From these, 33% had NP according to investigators and 19% according to DN4 test. Three hundred and sixty-six patients (mean age 62.6 years; 61.2% male) were recruited. Pain decrease at 1 month was greater in patients with metastases (P<0.01) and depended on treatment (P<0.05), with 'oxycodone' showing 50.4% pain relief. CONCLUSIONS: NP prevalence in cancer pain is 33%. DN4 reports only about half the cancer NP cases diagnosed by clinicians. Pharmaceutical treatment of cancer pain, including NP, has a greater effect in patients with metastases and seems to depend on the specific treatment used.

Segundas líneas en cáncer de ovario ¿hay un estándar? / No disponible

La recaída del cáncer de ovario es habitualmente incurable y el tratamiento se basa en el empleo dequimioterapia paliativa. En pacientes con recaídas consideradas platinosensibles (más de 6 meses trasla última dosis de platino) existe suficiente evidencia científica para recomendar una combinación dequimioterapia basada en carboplatino, pues se ha demostrado un impacto en la supervivencia. Por elcontrario, en las pacientes con progresión a platino (refractarias) o con recaídas antes de 6 meses (resistentes)el tratamiento recomendado es la monoterapia secuencial con los fármacos activos en segundalínea. La ausencia de tratamiento estándar en este contexto hace que la elección se deba basar encriterios de toxicidad, calidad de vida y preferencia de la paciente