Immune checkpoint inhibitors in high-grade upper tract urothelial carcinoma: Paradigm shift emphasizing organ preservation.

Objective: The aim was to evaluate the role of immune check point inhibitors (ICIs) in patients with high-grade upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) who are managed endoscopically when nephroureterectomy (NU) is not feasible, such as in patients who are either not candidates for NU or decline extirpative surgery. Methods: All patients diagnosed with high-grade UTUC and managed endoscopically between January 1996 and August 2022 were included in the study. Subsequently, patients were categorised based on their use of ICIs into group 1 (patients who did not receive ICIs) and group 2 (patients who received ICIs). Survival outcomes were assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis, while a multivariable regression model was employed to analyse the impact of clinical characteristics on survival. Results: A total of 29 patients were enrolled, with 14 in group 1 and 15 in group 2. Both groups exhibited similar demographic and disease characteristics, including multifocality, laterality and initial tumour size. The median follow-up period was 29.2 months. Notably, group 2 demonstrated significantly enhanced overall and metastasis-free survival rates compared to group 1. At 47.8 months, the overall survival rate was 0% (all patients died) in group 1, whereas it was 85.7% in group 2. Similarly, the metastasis-free survival rate was 0% (all patients had metastatic disease) in group 1 at 40.6 months, whereas it reached 78.0% in group 2. The multivariable analysis indicated a correlation between ICI usage and improved survival outcomes, with a hazard ratio of 0.002. Conclusion: Utilisation of adjuvant ICIs in the setting of endoscopically treated patients with high-grade UTUC is associated with significantly improved survival rates. ICIs should be considered in this patient population, however, more studies with larger sample size are warranted.

Health-related quality of life and disease symptoms in postmenopausal women with HR(+), HER2(-) advanced breast cancer treated with everolimus plus exemestane versus exemestane monotherapy.

OBJECTIVE: Everolimus (EVE)+exemestane (EXE; n = 485) more than doubled median progression-free survival versus placebo (PBO) + EXE (n = 239), with a manageable safety profile and no deterioration in health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) in patients with hormone-receptor-positive (HR(+)) advanced breast cancer (ABC) who recurred or progressed on/after nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor (NSAI) therapy. To further evaluate EVE + EXE impact on disease burden, we conducted additional post-hoc analyses of patient-reported HRQOL. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: HRQOL was assessed using EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BR23 questionnaires at baseline and every 6 weeks thereafter until treatment discontinuation because of disease progression, toxicity, or consent withdrawal. Endpoints included the QLQ-C30 Global Health Status (QL2) scale, the QLQ-BR23 breast symptom (BRBS), and arm symptom (BRAS) scales. Between-group differences in change from baseline were assessed using linear mixed models with selected covariates. Sensitivity analysis using pattern-mixture models determined the effect of study discontinuation on/before week 24. Treatment arms were compared using differences of least squares mean (LSM) changes from baseline and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) at each timepoint and overall. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT00863655. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Progression-free survival, survival, response rate, safety, and HRQOL. RESULTS: Linear mixed models (primary model) demonstrated no statistically significant overall difference between EVE + EXE and PBO + EXE for QL2 (LSM difference = -1.91; 95% CI = -4.61, 0.78), BRBS (LSM difference = -0.18; 95% CI = -1.98, 1.62), or BRAS (LSM difference = -0.42; 95% CI = -2.94, 2.10). Based on pattern-mixture models, patients who dropped out early had worse QL2 decline on both treatments. In the expanded pattern-mixture model, EVE + EXE-treated patients who did not drop out early had stable BRBS and BRAS relative to PBO + EXE. KEY LIMITATIONS: HRQOL data were not collected after disease progression. CONCLUSIONS: These analyses confirm that EVE + EXE provides clinical benefit without adversely impacting HRQOL in patients with HR(+) ABC who recurred/progressed on prior NSAIs versus endocrine therapy alone.

Health-related quality of life of patients with advanced breast cancer treated with everolimus plus exemestane versus placebo plus exemestane in the phase 3, randomized, controlled, BOLERO-2 trial.

BACKGROUND: The randomized, controlled BOLERO-2 (Breast Cancer Trials of Oral Everolimus) trial demonstrated significantly improved progression-free survival with the use of everolimus plus exemestane (EVE + EXE) versus placebo plus exemestane (PBO + EXE) in patients with advanced breast cancer who developed disease progression after treatment with nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitors. This analysis investigated the treatment effects on health-related quality of life (HRQOL). METHODS: Using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) questionnaire, HRQOL was assessed at baseline and every 6 weeks thereafter until disease progression and/or treatment discontinuation. The 30 items in 15 subscales of the QLQ-C30 include global health status wherein higher scores (range, 0-100) indicate better HRQOL. This analysis included a protocol-specified time to definitive deterioration (TDD) analysis at a 5% decrease in HRQOL versus baseline, with no subsequent increase above this threshold. The authors report additional sensitivity analyses using 10-point minimal important difference decreases in the global health status score versus baseline. Treatment arms were compared using the stratified log-rank test and Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for trial stratum (visceral metastases, previous hormone sensitivity), age, sex, race, baseline global health status score and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, prognostic risk factors, and treatment history. RESULTS: Baseline global health status scores were found to be similar between treatment groups (64.7 vs 65.3). The median TDD in HRQOL was 8.3 months with EVE + EXE versus 5.8 months with PBO + EXE (hazard ratio, 0.74; P = .0084). At the 10-point minimal important difference, the median TDD with EVE + EXE was 11.7 months versus 8.4 months with PBO + EXE (hazard ratio, 0.80; P = .1017). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with advanced breast cancer who develop disease progression after treatment with nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitors, EVE + EXE was associated with a longer TDD in global HRQOL versus PBO + EXE.

Efficacy and safety of palonosetron as salvage treatment in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving low emetogenic chemotherapy (LEC).

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of intravenous (IV) palonosetron in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients with cancer who had incomplete control of CINV during their previous cycle of low emetogenic chemotherapy (LEC). METHODS: Patients with histologically or cytologically confirmed cancer, ≥18 years of age, with a Karnofsky Performance Scale score of ≥50% who had received LEC that induced vomiting and/or at least moderate nausea during their previous treatment cycle received palonosetron 0.25 mg IV 30 min before chemotherapy. Outcomes were recorded in patient diaries over 120 h and at an end-of-study visit on days 6, 7, or 8 after LEC administration. The primary efficacy variable was the complete response rate, defined as no emetic episodes and no rescue medication at 0-24 h (acute post-chemotherapy phase), 24-120 h (delayed phase), and 0-120 h (overall). RESULTS: Complete responses among the intent-to-treat study population (n = 34) were recorded for 88.2 % of patients in the acute phase, 67.6% in the delayed phase, and 67.6% overall. No emetic episodes occurred in 91.2 and 79.4% of patients during the acute and delayed phases, respectively, and no nausea in 73.5 and 52.9%, respectively. Palonosetron was well tolerated; only two patients experienced treatment-related adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Among the patients with cancer who had a history of CINV with LEC, palonosetron was effective in preventing CINV in both the acute and delayed post-chemotherapy phases, and was well tolerated. Randomized comparative studies in larger populations of patients receiving LEC are needed to confirm these findings.