Redo craniotomy or bevacizumab for symptomatic steroid-refractory true or pseudoprogression following IMRT for glioblastoma.

BACKGROUND: There is minimal evidence to support decision making for symptomatic steroid-refractory pseudoprogression or true progression occurring after intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for glioblastoma (GBM). This study audited the survival outcome of patients managed with redo craniotomy (RedoSx) or bevacizumab (BEV) for steroid-refractory mass effect after IMRT for GBM. METHODS: Patients with GBM managed between 2008 and 2019 with the EORTC-NCIC Protocol were entered into a prospective database. Patients with symptomatic steroid-refractory mass effect within 6 months of IMRT managed with either RedoSx or BEV were identified for analysis. For the primary endpoint of median overall survival (OS) postintervention, outcome was analyzed in regards to potential prognostic factors, and differences between groups were assessed by log-rank analyses. RESULTS: Of the 399 patients managed with the EORTC-NCIC Protocol, 78 required an intervention within 6 months of IMRT completion for either true or pseudoprogression (49 with RedoSx and 29 with BEV). Subsequently, 20 of the 43 patients managed with RedoSx when BEV was clinically available, required salvage with BEV within 6 months after RedoSx. Median OS postintervention was 8.7 months (95% CI: 7.84-11.61) for the total group; and 8.7 months (95% CI: 6.8-13.1) for RedoSx and 9.4 months (95% CI: 7.8-13.6) for BEV (P = .38). Subsequent use of BEV in RedoSx patients was not associated with improved survival compared with RedoSx alone (P = .10). Age, time from IMRT, and ECOG performance status were not associated with OS. In the RedoSx patients, immunohistochemical features such as Ki-67% reduction correlated with survival. The presence of pure necrosis and residual tumor cells only had improved survival compared with the presence of gross tumor (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: At time of symptomatic steroid-refractory true or pseudoprogression following IMRT for GBM, BEV was equivalent to RedoSx in terms of OS. Pseudoprogression with residual cells at RedoSx was not associated with worse outcome compared to pure necrosis.

A patient-derived subrenal capsule xenograft model can predict response to adjuvant therapy for cancers in the head of the pancreas.

BACKGROUND: Although gemcitabine is commonly used as adjuvant therapy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma and pancreaticobiliary-type periampullary cancers, not all patients appear to benefit. This translational study evaluates the potential of a patient-derived subrenal capsule pancreatic cancer xenograft (SRCPCX) model to identify within eight weeks after surgery those tumours which will respond to gemcitabine. METHODS: SRCPCXs from 32 pancreatectomy patients were established in six to ten NOD/SCID mice per patient. After four weeks the mice were randomly assigned to receive gemcitabine or saline for four more weeks. After eight weeks, gemcitabine response in the grafts was evaluated by the percentage of tumour growth inhibition (%TGI), histological morphology and immunohistochemical markers (Ki-67, CK7 and cleaved caspase-3). These were collated into an Overall Response. Survival was assessed by Kaplan-Meier and Cox multivariate analyses. RESULTS: 375 of 450 pieces of tissue from 27 of 31 patients were evaluable. In 90% of patients, histopathological and immunostaining features of saline-treated control grafts were concordant with their original tumours. At follow up, six of 15 patients whose tumours had an Overall Response to gemcitabine died, compared with ten of 12 whose tumours did not respond (P = 0.025, Fisher's exact test). This was associated with improved survival on Kaplan-Meier analysis (P = 0.013). Cox multivariate analysis indicated that Overall Response, stage and grade were independent predictors of survival. CONCLUSION: This SRCPCX model retains major histopathological and immunohistochemical characteristics of the original tumour and when a combination of measures is used, enables early assessment of tumour sensitivity to gemcitabine in pancreatic cancers.

Bisphosphonates and other bone agents for breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Bone is the most common site of metastatic disease associated with breast cancer (BC). Bisphosphonates inhibit osteoclast-mediated bone resorption, and novel targeted therapies such as denosumab, inhibit key pathways in the vicious cycle of bone metastases. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of bisphosphonates on skeletal-related events (SREs), bone pain, quality of life (QoL), recurrence and survival in women with breast cancer with bone metastases (BCBM), advanced breast cancer (ABC) without clinical evidence of bone metastases and early breast cancer (EBC).To assess the effect of denosumab on SREs, bone pain and (QoL) in women with (BCBM). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Specialised Register maintained by the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group (CBCGSR), MEDLINE, EMBASE and the WHO International Cancer Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) on 30 April 2011. We conducted additional handsearching of journals and proceedings of key meetings. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing: (a) bisphosphonates and control, or different bisphosphonates in women with BCBM; (b) denosumab and bisphosphonates in women with BCBM; (c) bisphosphonates and control in women with ABC; (d) bisphosphonates and control in women with EBC; and (e) early versus delayed bisphosphonate treatment in women with EBC. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors (MW and NP) independently assessed the trials and extracted the data. We collected toxicity information from the trials. MAIN RESULTS: We included thirty-four RCTs. In nine studies (2806 patients with BCBM), comparing bisphosphonates with placebo or no bisphosphonates, bisphosphonates reduced the SRE risk by 15% (risk ratio (RR) 0.85; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 0.94; P = 0.001). This benefit was most certain with intravenous (i.v.) zoledronic acid (4 mg) (RR 0.59; 95% CI 0.42 to 0.82); i.v. pamidronate (90 mg) (RR 0.77; 95% CI 0.69 to 0.87); and i.v. ibandronate (RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.67 to 0.96). A direct comparison of i.v. zoledronic acid and i.v. pamidronate confirmed at least equivalent efficacy in a single large study. In three studies (3405 patients with BCBM), compared with bisphosphonates, subcutaneous (s.c.) denosumab was more effective in reducing the risk of SREs (RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.72 to 0.85; P < 0.00001).Bisphosphonates reduced the SRE rate in 12 studies (median reduction 28%, range 14% to 48%), with statistically significant reductions reported in 10 studies. Women with BCBM treated with bisphosphonates showed significant delays in the median time to SREs. Compared with placebo or no bisphosphonates, treatment with bisphosphonates significantly improved bone pain in six out of eleven studies. Improvements in global QoL with bisphosphonates compared to placebo were reported in two out of five studies (both ibandronate studies). Treatment with bisphosphonates did not appear to affect survival in women with BCBM. Compared to i.v. zoledronic acid, denosumab also significantly reduced the SRE rate, delayed the time to SREs and prolonged the time in developing pain for patients with no or mild pain at baseline; but there was no difference in survival between patients treated with denosumab and zoledronic acid.Bisphosphonates in women with ABC without clinically evident bone metastases did not reduce the incidence of bone metastases, or improve survival in three studies (320 patients).In seven studies (7847 patients with EBC), currently there is no evidence supporting bisphosphonates in reducing the incidence of bone metastases compared to no bisphosphonates (RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.82 to 1.07; P = 0.36). In three studies (2190 patients with EBC), early bisphosphonate treatment also did not significantly reduce the incidence of bone metastases compared to delayed bisphosphonate treatment (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.40 to 1.33; P = 0.31). Currently, there is insufficient evidence to make a conclusion about the role of adjuvant bisphosphonates in reducing visceral metastases, locoregional recurrence and total recurrence, or improving survival. There was strong heterogeneity in EBC studies examining the outcomes of total recurrence and survival.Reported toxicity was generally mild. Renal toxicity and osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) have been identified as potential problems with bisphosphonate use. ONJ was reported at similar rates for patients on denosumab compared to zoledronic acid. This highlighted a need for maintaining good oral care, prior to and during treatment, for patients who received long-term bone agents. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In women with clinically evident BCBM, bisphosphonates (oral and i.v.) and denosumab (s.c.) reduced the risk of developing SREs, as well as delaying the time to SREs. Some bisphosphonates may also reduce bone pain and may improve QoL. The optimal timing and duration of treatment for patients with BCBM remains uncertain. There is currently insufficient evidence to support the routine use of bisphosphonates as adjuvant treatment for patients with EBC. However, a number of large clinical trials investigating bisphosphonates in EBC have completed accrual and are awaiting results.