Baseline basophil and basophil-to-lymphocyte status is associated with clinical outcomes in metastatic hormone sensitive prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Biomarkers have the potential to provide clinical guidance, but there is limited data for biomarkers in metastatic hormone sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). METHODS: We performed a retrospective multicenter review from Winship Cancer Institute at Emory University and Georgia Cancer Center for Excellence at Grady Memorial Hospital (2014-2020) in the United States of America (USA). We collected demographics, disease characteristics, and laboratory data, including complete blood counts (CBC) at the start of upfront therapy. We evaluated overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) associated with baseline lab values. RESULTS: 165 patients were included with a median follow-up time of 33.5 months (mo). 105 (63.6%) had Gleason scores of 8-10 and 108 (65.9%) were classified as high-volume disease. 92 patients received upfront docetaxel (55.8%) and 73 received upfront abiraterone (44.2%). Univariate analyses (UVA) and multivariable analyses (MVA) identified worse clinical outcomes (CO) associated with elevated basophils and basophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (BLR). Based on MVA, elevated basophils (defined as ≥0.1, optimal cut) were associated with a hazard ratio (HR) of 3.51 (95% CI 1.65-7.43, P 0.001) for OS and HR of 1.88 (95% CI 1.05-3.38, P 0.034) for PFS. Our MVA also found that BLR ≥0.0142 was associated with HR 2.11 (95% CI 1.09-4.10, P 0.028) for OS; however, PFS was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: We conclude that elevated baseline basophils and BLR are associated with worse clinical outcomes in mHSPC. Although results require further validation, BLR is a potential prognostic biomarker.

Clinical Outcomes and Racial Disparities in Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer in the Era of Novel Treatment Options.

BACKGROUND: Docetaxel (DOC) and abiraterone (ABI) in the upfront setting have separately improved clinical outcomes for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), but there are no studies comparing drug efficacies or the influence of racial disparities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective multicenter review from Winship Cancer Institute at Emory University and Georgia Cancer Center for Excellence at Grady Memorial Hospital (2014-2020) for patients with mHSPC treated with either upfront DOC or ABI. Outcomes evaluated were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and prostate-specific antigen complete response (PSA CR). RESULTS: A total of 168 patients were included, consisting of 92 (54.8%) Black patients and 76 (45.2%) non-Black patients (69 White and 7 Asian or Hispanic). Ninety-four (56%) received DOC and 74 (44%) received ABI. Median follow-up time was 22.8 months with data last reviewed June 2020. For OS, there was no significant difference between ABI versus DOC and Black versus non-Black patients. For PFS, DOC was associated with hazard ratio (HR) 1.7 compared with ABI for all patients based on univariate association and HR 2.27 compared with ABI for Black patients on multivariable analysis. For PSA CR, Black patients were less likely to have a CR (odds ratio [OR] = 0.27). CONCLUSION: ABI and DOC have similar OS with a trend toward better PFS for ABI in a cohort composed of 54% Black patients. Racial disparities were observed as prolonged PFS for Black patients treated with ABI, more so compared with all patients, and less PSA CR for Black patients. A prospective trial comparing available upfront therapies in a diverse racial population is needed to help guide clinical decision-making in the era of novel treatment options. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Overall survival is similar for abiraterone and docetaxel when used as upfront therapy in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer in a cohort composed of 54% Black patients. There is a trend towards improved progression-free survival for abiraterone in all patients and Black patients. Non-Black patients were more likely to achieve prostate-specific antigen (PSA) complete response regardless of upfront therapy.

Syndecan-1 facilitates breast cancer metastasis to the brain.

PURPOSE: Although survival rates for patients with localized breast cancer have increased, patients with metastatic breast cancer still have poor prognosis. Understanding key factors involved in promoting breast cancer metastasis is imperative for better treatments. In this study, we investigated the role of syndecan-1 (Sdc1) in breast cancer metastasis. METHODS: To assess the role of Sdc1 in breast cancer metastasis, we silenced Sdc1 expression in the triple-negative breast cancer human MDA-MB-231 cell line and overexpressed it in the mouse mammary carcinoma 4T1 cell line. Intracardiac injections were performed in an experimental mouse metastasis model using both cell lines. In vitro transwell blood-brain barrier (BBB) and brain section adhesion assays were utilized to specifically investigate how Sdc1 facilitates brain metastasis. A cytokine array was performed to evaluate differences in the breast cancer cell secretome when Sdc1 is silenced. RESULTS: Silencing expression of Sdc1 in breast cancer cells significantly reduced metastasis to the brain. Conversely, overexpression of Sdc1 increased metastasis to the brain. We found that silencing of Sdc1 expression had no effect on attachment of breast cancer cells to brain endothelial cells or astrocytes, but migration across the BBB was reduced as well as adhesion to the perivascular regions of the brain. Loss of Sdc1 also led to changes in breast cancer cell-secreted cytokines/chemokines, which may influence the BBB. CONCLUSIONS: Taken together, our study demonstrates a role for Sdc1 in promoting breast cancer metastasis to the brain. These findings suggest that Sdc1 supports breast cancer cell migration across the BBB through regulation of cytokines, which may modulate the BBB. Further elucidating this mechanism will allow for the development of therapeutic strategies to combat brain metastasis.

A phase II study of the safety and efficacy of the multidrug resistance inhibitor VX-710 combined with doxorubicin and vincristine in patients with recurrent small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Tumors with multidrug resistance (MDR) frequently up-regulate efflux proteins, including MDR-associated protein (MRP-1) and P-glycoprotein (Pgp). MDR represents an obstacle to successful chemotherapy treatment and is reversible in Pgp- or MRP-1-expressing cells by the inhibitor VX-710. A Phase II study was designed to evaluate VX-710 in combination with doxorubicin and vincristine in patients with sensitive, recurrent small cell lung cancer (SCLC). METHODS: Eligible patients had recurrent SCLC after a response to first-line chemotherapy. Stage 1 safety evaluation was completed with planned expansion if 9 responses were confirmed in the first 35 patients. Patients were treated every 21 days until progression or intolerable adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: Thirty-six patients were enrolled from 1998 to 2000. Neutropenia was the major toxicity, occurring in 26 of 36 patients (72%). Neutropenia was more severe (30% vs 20% grade 4) and developed earlier (58% vs 38% in Cycle 1) among the 15 patients who were enrolled prior to an amendment that required neutropenia prophylaxis. Four patients died on study: 2 from infections likely related to therapy and 2 from cancer progression. Seven of 36 patients (19%) had partial responses; 6 patients sustained responses through 6 cycles of treatment, with 1 response lasting 3 years. Three additional patients had unconfirmed responses, and 4 patients had stable disease. The median survival was 6 months. No correlative (99m)Tc-sestamibi uptake in tumor tissue was observed with the addition of VX-710 in this study. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of VX-710 to doxorubicin and vincristine therapy did not significantly enhance antitumor activity or survival. Although there were durable responses, criteria were not met to proceed with Stage 2 expansion.

Discordance in monogamy beliefs, sexual concurrency, and condom use among young adult substance-involved couples: implications for risk of sexually transmitted infections.

OBJECTIVES AND GOAL: The objectives of this study were to examine the association between individual and partnership characteristics with condom use, sexual concurrency, and discordance in monogamy perceptions among out-of-treatment, young adult, drug-involved couples to gain a better understanding of how discordance in monogamy beliefs may influence HIV/sexually transmitted infection risk. STUDY DESIGN: Data were collected from 94 predominantly black heavy alcohol and/or drug users (AOD) and their steady partners recruited through street outreach in Durham, North Carolina, and a methadone clinic in Raleigh, North Carolina. RESULTS: One third was wrong about partners' monogamy intentions. Greater lifetime number of substances, longer relationship duration, and at least weekly relationship conflict were associated with inconsistent condom use, and discordant monogamy beliefs were associated with consistent condom use. CONCLUSIONS: Many individuals misperceive their partners' monogamy intentions, although this misperception may be reflective of greater HIV/sexually transmitted infection protection. Interventions for couples should focus on strategies appropriate for committed long-term relationships, including increasing awareness of partner risk behavior, negotiating safety, and conflict resolution skills.

The role of the liposomal anthracyclines and other systemic therapies in the management of advanced breast cancer.

For patients whose breast cancers are not responsive to endocrine therapy, there are a large number of cytotoxic drugs that will induce a response. In spite of the introduction of new, very active drugs such as the taxanes, vinorelbine, capecitabine, gemcitabine, and trastuzumab, the anthracyclines are still as active as any--and more active than most--drugs used to treat breast cancer. Their inclusion in combinations to treat early and advanced disease prolongs survival. However, they cause nausea, vomiting, alopecia, myelosuppression, mucositis, and cardiomyopathies. There is no evidence that increasing the dose of conventional anthracyclines or any other of the cytotoxics beyond standard doses will improve outcomes. Schedule may be more important than dose in determining the benefit of cytotoxics used to treat breast cancer. Weekly schedules and continuous infusions of 5-fluorouracil and doxorubicin may have some advantages over more intermittent schedules. Liposomal formations of doxorubicin reduce toxicity, including cardiotoxicity; theoretically they should also be more effective because of better targeting of tumor over normal tissues. Both pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (Doxil/Caelyx [PLD]) and liposomal doxorubicin (Myocet [NPLD]) appeared to be as effective as conventional doxorubicin and much less toxic in multiple phase II and phase III studies. PLD has been evaluated in combinations with cyclophosphamide, the taxanes, vinorelbine, gemcitabine, and trastuzumab, and NPLD has been evaluated in combination with cyclophosphamide and trastuzumab. Both liposomal anthracyclines are less cardiotoxic than conventional doxorubicin. The optimal dose of PLD is lower than that of conventional doxorubicin or NPLD. Patients treated with PLD have almost no alopecia, nausea, or vomiting, but its use is associated with stomatitis and hand-foot syndrome, which can be avoided or minimized with the use of proper dose-schedules. In contrast, the optimal dose-schedule of NPLD is nearly identical to that of conventional doxorubicin. The toxicity profile of NPLD is similar to that of conventional doxorubicin, but toxicities are less severe and NPLD is better tolerated than conventional doxorubicin at higher doses.

Phase III comparison of two irinotecan dosing regimens in second-line therapy of metastatic colorectal cancer.

PURPOSE: Randomized trials in fluorouracil (FU)-refractory colorectal cancer demonstrate significant survival advantages for patients receiving irinotecan. We prospectively compared the efficacy and tolerability of two irinotecan regimens (once a week for 4 weeks followed by a 2-week rest period [weekly] v once every 3 weeks) in such patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This multicenter, open-label, phase III study randomly assigned patients in a 1:2 ratio to irinotecan given either weekly (125 mg/m(2)) or once every 3 weeks (350 mg/m(2), or 300 mg/m(2) in patients who were >/= 70 years of age, who had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status equal to 2, or who had prior pelvic irradiation). RESULTS: With median follow-up of 15.8 months, there was no significant difference in 1-year survival (46% v 41%, respectively; P =.42), median survival (9.9 v 9.9 months, respectively; P =.43), or median time to progression (4.0 v 3.0 months, respectively; P =.54) between the two regimens. Grade 3/4 diarrhea occurred in 36% of patients treated weekly and in 19% of those treated once every 3 weeks (P =.002). Grade 3/4 neutropenia occurred in 29% of patients treated weekly and 34% of those treated once every 3 weeks (P =.35). Treatment-related mortality occurred in five patients (5.3%) receiving irinotecan weekly and three patients (1.6%) given therapy once every 3 weeks (P =.12). Global quality of life was not statistically different between treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Irinotecan schedules of weekly and of once every 3 weeks demonstrated similar efficacy and quality of life in patients with FU-refractory, metastatic colorectal cancer. The regimen of once every 3 weeks was associated with a significantly lower incidence of severe diarrhea.