Explore the vast range of titles available.

Bruton's tyrosine-kinase (BTK) is a non-receptor tyrosine kinase recently associated with glioma tumorigenesis and a novel prognostic marker for poor survival in patients with glioma. The p65BTK is a novel BTK isoform involved in different pathways of drug resistance of solid tumors, thus we aimed to investigate the expression and the putative role of p65BTK in tumors of the central nervous system (CNS). We selected a large cohort of patients with glial tumors ( = 71) and analyzed the expression of p65BTK in different histotypes and correlation with clinical parameters. Sections were stained with glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), p53, epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), S100, vimentin, and epithelial membrane antigen (EMA) antibodies. Glioma stem cell (GSC) lines, isolated from glioblastoma multiforme (GBM), were treated with different concentrations of ibrutinib, a specific inhibitor of BTK, in order to evaluate their metabolic activity, mitotic index and mortality. Moreover, an orthotopic xenotransplant of GSC from human GBM was used to evaluate the expression of p65BTK in the brain of immunodeficient mice. p65BTK was expressed in GSC and in gemistocytes in human gliomas at different histological grade. We found a significant correlation between BTK expression and low-grade (LG) tumors ( ≤ 0.05) and overall survival (OS) of patients with grade III gliomas ( ≤ 0.05), suggestive of worst prognosis. Interestingly, the expression of p65BTK remained restricted exclusively to gemistocytic cells in the xenograft mouse model. Ibrutinib administration significantly reduced metabolic activity and mitotic index and increased mortality in GSC, highlighting the specific role of p65BTK in cell proliferation and survival. In conclusion, our data demonstrated that p65BTK is expressed in glioma tumors, restricted to gemistocytic cells, has a key role in GSC and has a bad prognostic value, thus highlighting the importance of future research for targeted therapy of human gliomas.

To evaluate clinical outcomes in patients with localized prostate cancer (LPC) treated with 3D conformal high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy (BT) as monotherapy. From March 2004 to November 2017, 277 men with LPC underwent 3D conformal HDR-BT as monotherapy, with a temporary implant. The dose prescription was: 38 Gy in 4 fractions (149 patients), 27 Gy in 2 fractions (41 patients), and 19-20 Gy in a single fraction (87 patients). Biochemical progression-free survival (bPFS), progression-free survival (PFS), and cancer-specific survival (CSS) were calculated. Acute and late genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity assessment were performed using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v5.0. The mean age was 67 (range, 47-81) years. Overall, 145 patients were low-risk, 116 intermediate-risk, and 16 high-risk prostate cancer. After a median follow-up of six years (range, 6-160 months), bPFS, PFS, and CSS were 81%, 96%, and 97%, respectively. Dose prescription, initial prostate specific antigen (iPSA) ≥ 9,5 ng/ml, and high-risk disease resulted in prognostic factors regarding bPFS. Only G2-G3 acute or late GI and GU toxicities were observed. HDR-BT as monotherapy is a valid and safe treatment modality for localized prostate cancer. After a long follow-up, patients receiving 19-20 Gy in a single fraction had a lower biochemical control rate compared to patients receiving 38 Gy in 4 fractions or 27 Gy in 2 fractions. Randomized prospective trials with a longer follow-up are necessary to confirm our results, and define total doses and dose per fraction for HDR-BT in patients with LPC.

Osimertinib was compared with standard EGFR blockers among patients with non–small-cell lung cancer with activating mutations in EGFR . The median overall survival was 38.6 months with osimertinib and 31.8 months with erlotinib or gefitinib. This 20% lower risk of death was noted despite the crossover of patients from standard therapy to osimertinib during subsequent therapy.

Cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6iss) are widely used in first-line metastatic breast cancer. For patients with progression under CDK4/6is, there is currently no standard treatment recommended at the category 1 level in international guidelines. The purpose of this article is to review the cellular mechanisms underlying the resistance to CDK4/6is, as well as treatment strategies and the clinical data about the efficacy of subsequent treatments after CDK4/6is-based therapy. In the first part, this review mainly discusses cell-cycle-specific and cell-cycle-non-specific resistance to CDK4/6is, with a focus on early and late progression. In the second part, this review analyzes potential therapeutic approaches and the available clinical data on them: switching to other CDK4/6is, to another single hormonal therapy, to other target therapies (PI3K, mTOR and AKT) and to chemotherapy.

Bevacizumab is approved in combination with chemotherapy for the treatment of ovarian cancer, either in first-line therapy or for patients with recurrent disease not previously treated with the same drug. We aimed to test the value of continuing bevacizumab beyond progression after first-line treatment with the same drug. In our open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial done at 82 sites in four countries, we enrolled women (aged ≥18 years) who had previously received first-line platinum-based therapy including bevacizumab, and had recurrent (≥6 months since last platinum dose), International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics stage IIIB–IV ovarian cancer with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0–2. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive a carboplatin-based doublet intravenously (carboplatin area under the concentration curve [AUC] 5 on day 1 plus paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 on day 1, every 21 days; carboplatin AUC 4 on day 1 plus gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8, every 21 days; or carboplatin AUC 5 on day 1 plus pegylated liposomal doxorubicin 30 mg/m2 on day 1, every 28 days), or a carboplatin-based doublet plus bevacizumab (10 mg/kg intravenous every 14 days combined with pegylated liposomal doxorubicin–carboplatin, or 15 mg/kg every 21 days combined with gemcitabine–carboplatin or paclitaxel–carboplatin). Evaluable disease according to RECIST 1.1 guidelines was required before randomisation. Randomisation was done through the trial website with a minimisation procedure, stratified by centre, time of recurrence, performance status, and type of second-line chemotherapy. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival, analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01802749 and EudraCT 2012-004362-17. Between Dec 6, 2013, and Nov 11, 2016, 406 patients were recruited (203 [50%] assigned to the bevacizumab group and 203 [50%] to the standard chemotherapy group). 130 patients (64%) in the bevacizumab group and 131 (65%) in the standard chemotherapy group had progressed after receiving a last dose of platinum more than 12 months before, and 146 patients (72%) in the bevacizumab group and 147 (72%) in the standard chemotherapy group had progressed after completion of first-line bevacizumab maintenance. 161 participants (79%) progressed in the standard chemotherapy group, as did 143 (70%) in the bevacizumab group. Median progression-free survival was 8·8 months (95% CI 8·4–9·3) in the standard chemotherapy group and 11·8 months (10·8–12·9) in the bevacizumab group (hazard ratio 0·51, 95% CI 0·41–0·65; log-rank p<0·0001). Most common grade 3–4 adverse events were hypertension (20 [10%] in the standard chemotherapy group vs 58 (29%) in the bevacizumab group), neutrophil count decrease (81 [41%] vs 80 [40%]), and platelet count decrease (43 [22%] vs 61 [30%]). 68 patients (33%) died in the standard chemotherapy group and 79 (39%) died in the bevacizumab group; two deaths (1%) in the standard chemotherapy group and one death (<1%) in the bevacizumab group were deemed to be treatment-related. Continuing bevacizumab beyond progression combined with chemotherapy in patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer improves progression-free survival compared with standard chemotherapy alone and might be considered in clinical practice. Hoffmann–La Roche and Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro.

To assess response rates and survival in patients with recurrent platinum-sensitive epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) who received PARP inhibitor (PARP-i) maintenance and who subsequently underwent salvage chemotherapy for disease progression after PARPi. This retrospective investigation analyzed 103 patients who were treated in five Italian Gynecologic centers. The PARPi used was olaparib in 46 patients, niraparib in 55, and rucaparib in 2. The interval time between the last cycle of pre- PARPi platinum-based chemotherapy and the diagnosis of progression during PARPi maintenance was defined as platinum-free interval (PFI). Of the 28 patients with PFI <6 months, 23 received chemotherapy (non-platinum single agent, 20; trabectedin + pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD), 3). Forty-two of the 43 patients with PFI 6-12 months underwent chemotherapy (platinum-based chemotherapy,11; trabectedin + PLD, 10; non platinum-single agent, 21). Thirty-one of the 32 patients with PFI >12 months received chemotherapy (platinum-based chemotherapy, 23; trabectedin + PLD, 3; non platinum - single agent, 5). An objective response was found in 13.0%, 26.2% and 41.9 % of the patients with PFI <6 months, 6-12 months, and >12 months (p= 0.03), respectively, and the corresponding median survivals after PARPi were 8.9 months, 17.5 months and 24.1 months (p= 0.002), respectively. Before the PARPi era, some randomized trials on platinum rechallenge in patients with recurrent EOC after more than 6 months from the last platinum cycle have shown response rates ranging from 47.2% to 66%. Response rates to chemotherapy for progression after PARPi appear to be lower than those expected according to PFI.

At the time of AtTEnd trial design, standard treatment for advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer included carboplatin and paclitaxel chemotherapy. This trial assessed whether combining atezolizumab with chemotherapy might improve outcomes in this population. AtTEnd was a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial done in 89 hospitals in 11 countries across Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and Asia. Enrolled patients were aged 18 years or older, and had advanced or recurrent endometrial carcinoma or carcinosarcoma, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–2, and received no previous systemic chemotherapy for recurrence. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) using an interactive web response system (block size of six) to either atezolizumab 1200 mg or placebo given intravenously with chemotherapy (carboplatin at area under the curve of 5 or 6 and paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 intravenously on day 1 every 21 days) for 6–8 cycles, then continued until progression. Stratification factors were country, histological subtype, advanced or recurrent status, and mismatch repair (MMR) status. Participants and treating clinicians were masked to group allocation. The hierarchically tested co-primary endpoints were progression-free survival (in patients with MMR-deficient [dMMR] tumours, and in the overall population) and overall survival (in the overall population). Primary analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population, defined as all randomly assigned patients who gave their full consent to participation in the study and data processing. Safety was assessed in all patients included in the intention-to-treat population who received at least one dose of study treatment. Here, we report the primary progression-free survival and the interim overall survival results. This study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03603184. Between Oct 3, 2018, and Jan 7, 2022, 551 patients were randomly assigned to atezolizumab (n=362) or placebo (n=189). Two patients in the atezolizumab group were excluded from all analyses due to lack of consent. Median follow-up was 28·3 months (IQR 21·2–37·6). 81 (23%) patients in the atezolizumab group and 44 (23%) patients in the placebo group had dMMR disease by central assessment. In the dMMR population, median progression-free survival was not estimable (95% CI 12·4 months–not estimable [NE]) in the atezolizumab group and 6·9 months (6·3–10·1) in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·36, 95% CI 0·23–0·57; p=0·0005). In the overall population, median progression-free survival was 10·1 months (95% CI 9·5–12·3) in the atezolizumab group and 8·9 months (8·1–9·6) in the placebo group (HR 0·74, 95% CI 0·61–0·91; p=0·022). Median overall survival was 38·7 months (95% CI 30·6–NE) in the atezolizumab group and 30·2 months (25·0–37·2) in the placebo group (HR 0·82, 95% CI 0·63–1·07; log-rank p=0·048). The p value for the interim analysis of overall survival did not cross the stopping boundary; therefore, the trial will continue until the required number of events are recorded. The most common grade 3–4 adverse events were neutropenia (97 [27%] of 356 patients in the atezolizumab group vs 51 [28%] of 185 in the placebo group) and anaemia (49 [14%] vs 24 [13%]). Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in 46 (13%) patients in the atezolizumab group and six (3%) patients in the placebo group. Treatment-related deaths occurred in two patients (pneumonia in one patient in each group). Atezolizumab plus chemotherapy increased progression-free survival in patients with advanced or recurrent endometrial carcinoma, particularly in those with dMMR carcinomas, suggesting the addition of atezolizumab to standard chemotherapy as first-line treatment in this specific subgroup. F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Uncertainty exists about the optimal schedule of adjuvant treatment of breast cancer with aromatase inhibitors and, to our knowledge, no trial has directly compared the three aromatase inhibitors anastrozole, exemestane, and letrozole. We investigated the schedule and type of aromatase inhibitors to be used as adjuvant treatment for hormone receptor-positive early breast cancer. FATA-GIM3 is a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial of six different treatments in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive early breast cancer. Eligible patients had histologically confirmed invasive hormone receptor-positive breast cancer that had been completely removed by surgery, any pathological tumour size, and axillary nodal status. Key exclusion criteria were hormone replacement therapy, recurrent or metastatic disease, previous treatment with tamoxifen, and another malignancy in the previous 10 years. Patients were randomly assigned in an equal ratio to one of six treatment groups: oral anastrozole (1 mg per day), exemestane (25 mg per day), or letrozole (2·5 mg per day) tablets upfront for 5 years (upfront strategy) or oral tamoxifen (20 mg per day) for 2 years followed by oral administration of one of the three aromatase inhibitors for 3 years (switch strategy). Randomisation was done by a computerised minimisation procedure stratified for oestrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and HER2 status; previous chemotherapy; and pathological nodal status. Neither the patients nor the physicians were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival. The minimum cutoff to declare superiority of the upfront strategy over the switch strategy was assumed to be a 2% difference in disease-free survival at 5 years. Primary efficacy analyses were done by intention to treat; safety analyses included all patients for whom at least one safety case report form had been completed. Follow-up is ongoing. This trial is registered with the European Clinical Trials Database, number 2006-004018-42, and ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00541086. Between March 9, 2007, and July 31, 2012, 3697 patients were enrolled into the study. After a median follow-up of 60 months (IQR 46–72), 401 disease-free survival events were reported, including 211 (11%) of 1850 patients allocated to the switch strategy and 190 (10%) of 1847 patients allocated to upfront treatment. 5-year disease-free survival was 88·5% (95% CI 86·7–90·0) with the switch strategy and 89·8% (88·2–91·2) with upfront treatment (hazard ratio 0·89, 95% CI 0·73–1·08; p=0·23). 5-year disease-free survival was 90·0% (95% CI 87·9–91·7) with anastrozole (124 events), 88·0% (85·8–89·9) with exemestane (148 events), and 89·4% (87·3 to 91·1) with letrozole (129 events; p=0·24). No unexpected serious adverse reactions or treatment-related deaths occurred. Musculoskeletal side-effects were the most frequent grade 3–4 events, reported in 130 (7%) of 1761 patients who received the switch strategy and 128 (7%) of 1766 patients who received upfront treatment. Grade 1 musculoskeletal events were more frequent with the upfront schedule than with the switch schedule (924 [52%] of 1766 patients vs 745 [42%] of 1761 patients). All other grade 3–4 adverse events occurred in less than 2% of patients in either group. 5 years of treatment with aromatase inhibitors was not superior to 2 years of tamoxifen followed by 3 years of aromatase inhibitors. None of the three aromatase inhibitors was superior to the others in terms of efficacy. Therefore, patient preference, tolerability, and financial constraints should be considered when deciding the optimal treatment approach in this setting. Italian Drug Agency.

BackgroundThis trial investigated the hypothesis that the treatment with trabectedin/PLD (TP) to extend the platinum-free interval (TFIp) can improve overall survival (OS) in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer (OC).MethodsPatients with OC (up to two previous platinum-based lines), with a TFIp of 6–12 months, were randomised to receive carboplatin/PLD (CP) or TP followed by platinum therapy at relapse. The primary endpoint was OS (HR: 0.75).ResultsThe study enrolled 617 patients. The median TFIp was 8.3 months and 30.3% of patients had received two previous platinum lines. 74% and 73.9% of patients, respectively, received a subsequent therapy (ST) in the CP and TP arm; in the latter TP arm 87.2% of ST was platinum-based, as per protocol. The median OS was 21.4 for CP and 21.9 months for TP (HR 1.13; 95% CI: 0.94–1.35; p = 0.197). Grade 3–5 adverse reactions occurred in 37.1% of patients in the CP arm and 69.7% of patients in the TP arm, and the most frequent were neutropenia (22.8% CP, 39.5% TP), gastrointestinal (7.1% CP, 17.4% TP), hepatic (0.7% CP, 19.1% TP).ConclusionsThis study did not meet the primary endpoint. CP combination remains the standard for patients with recurrent OC and a 6–12 months TFIp; TP is an effective treatment in patients suffering from persistent platinum toxicities.Clinical trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01379989.

Purpose A phase III trial assessed the efficacy of palonosetron plus dexamethasone given once in preventing acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) following a broad range of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) regimens. Methods This multicentre, randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial evaluated two different treatment groups. One group received palonosetron (0.25 mg intravenously) and dexamethasone (8 mg intravenously) before chemotherapy, while the other was administered the same regimen on day 1 followed by dexamethasone 8 mg orally on days 2 and 3. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR; defined as no emetic episodes and no rescue medication) during the overall phase (days 1–5 after chemotherapy initiation). The non-inferiority margin was predefined as a 15% difference between groups in the primary endpoint. Results Of 332 chemotherapy-naïve patients included in the intention-to-treat analysis, 65.1% were female, and 35.2% received anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide (AC)-based regimens. Overall CR rates were 67.5% for those administered dexamethasone only on day 1 ( n  = 166), and 71.1% for those also administered dexamethasone on days 2 and 3 ( n  = 166; difference −3.6% (95% confidence interval, −13.5 to 6.3)). CR rates were not significantly different between groups during the acute (0–24 h post-chemotherapy; 88.6% versus 84.3%; P  = 0.262) and delayed phases (days 2–5; 68.7% versus 77.7%; P  = 0.116). Conclusions Palonosetron plus single-dose dexamethasone administered before common MEC regimens provide protection against acute and delayed CINV which is non-inferior to that of palonosetron plus dexamethasone for 3 days. However, the major benefit of the single-day regimen occurs in patients receiving non-AC MEC regimens.