Explore the vast range of titles available.

Phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K) pathway activation is a hallmark of endocrine therapy-resistant, hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. This phase 3 study assessed the efficacy of the pan-PI3K inhibitor buparlisib plus fulvestrant in patients with advanced breast cancer, including an evaluation of the PI3K pathway activation status as a biomarker for clinical benefit. The BELLE-2 trial was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre study. Postmenopausal women aged 18 years or older with histologically confirmed, hormone receptor-positive and human epidermal growth factor (HER2)-negative inoperable locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer whose disease had progressed on or after aromatase inhibitor treatment and had received up to one previous line of chemotherapy for advanced disease were included. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using interactive voice response technology (block size of 6) on day 15 of cycle 1 to receive oral buparlisib (100 mg/day) or matching placebo, starting on day 15 of cycle 1, plus intramuscular fulvestrant (500 mg) on days 1 and 15 of cycle 1, and on day 1 of subsequent 28-day cycles. Patients were assigned randomisation numbers with a validated interactive response technology; these numbers were linked to different treatment groups which in turn were linked to treatment numbers. PI3K status in tumour tissue was determined via central laboratory during a 14-day run-in phase. Randomisation was stratified by PI3K pathway activation status (activated vs non-activated vs and unknown) and visceral disease status (present vs absent). Patients, investigators, local radiologists, study team, and anyone involved in the study were masked to the identity of the treatment until unblinding. The primary endpoints were progression-free survival by local investigator assessment per Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (version 1.1) in the total population, in patients with known (activated or non-activated) PI3K pathway status, and in PI3K pathway-activated patients. Efficacy analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug and had at least one post-baseline safety assessment according to the treatment they received. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01610284, and is currently ongoing but not recruiting participants. Between Sept 7, 2012, and Sept 10, 2014, 1147 patients from 267 centres in 29 countries were randomly assigned to receive buparlisib (n=576) or placebo plus fulvestrant (n=571). In the total patient population (n=1147), median progression-free survival was 6·9 months (95% CI 6·8–7·8) in the buparlisib group versus 5·0 months (4·0–5·2) in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·78 [95% CI 0·67–0·89]; one-sided p=0·00021). In patients with known PI3K status (n=851), median progression-free survival was 6·8 months (95% CI 5·0–7·0) in the buparlisib group vs 4·5 months (3·3–5·0) in the placebo group (HR 0·80 [95% CI 0·68–0·94]; one-sided p=0·0033). In PI3K pathway-activated patients (n=372), median progression-free survival was 6·8 months (95% CI 4·9–7·1) in the buparlisib group versus 4·0 months (3·1–5·2) in the placebo group (HR 0·76 [0·60–0·97], one-sided p=0·014). The most common grade 3–4 adverse events in the buparlisib group versus the placebo group were increased alanine aminotransferase (146 [25%] of 573 patients vs six [1%] of 570), increased aspartate aminotransferase (103 [18%] vs 16 [3%]), hyperglycaemia (88 [15%] vs one [<1%]), and rash (45 [8%] vs none). Serious adverse events were reported in 134 (23%) of 573 patients in the buparlisib group compared with 90 [16%] of 570 patients in the placebo group; the most common serious adverse events (affecting ≥2% of patients) were increased alanine aminotransferase (17 [3%] of 573 vs one [<1%] of 570) and increased aspartate aminotransferase (14 [2%] vs one [<1%]). No treatment-related deaths occurred. The results from this study show that PI3K inhibition combined with endocrine therapy is effective in postmenopausal women with endocrine-resistant, hormone receptor-positive and HER2-negative advanced breast cancer. Use of more selective PI3K inhibitors, such as α-specific PI3K inhibitor, is warranted to further improve safety and benefit in this setting. No further studies are being pursued because of the toxicity associated with this combination. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.

Background There has been increased interest in the role of cannabis for treating medical conditions. The availability of different cannabis-based products can make the side effects of exposure unpredictable. We sought to conduct a scoping review of systematic reviews assessing benefits and harms of cannabis-based medicines for any condition. Methods A protocol was followed throughout the conduct of this scoping review. A protocol-guided scoping review conduct. Searches of bibliographic databases (e.g., MEDLINE®, Embase, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Library) and gray literature were performed. Two people selected and charted data from systematic reviews. Categorizations emerged during data synthesis. The reporting of results from systematic reviews was performed at a high level appropriate for a scoping review. Results After screening 1975 citations, 72 systematic reviews were included. The reviews covered many conditions, the most common being pain management. Several reviews focused on management of pain as a symptom of conditions such as multiple sclerosis (MS), injury, and cancer. After pain, the most common symptoms treated were spasticity in MS, movement disturbances, nausea/vomiting, and mental health symptoms. An assessment of review findings lends to the understanding that, although in a small number of reviews results showed a benefit for reducing pain, the analysis approach and reporting in other reviews was sub-optimal, making it difficult to know how consistent findings are when considering pain in general. Adverse effects were reported in most reviews comparing cannabis with placebo (49/59, 83%) and in 20/24 (83%) of the reviews comparing cannabis to active drugs. Minor adverse effects (e.g., drowsiness, dizziness) were common and reported in over half of the reviews. Serious harms were not as common, but were reported in 21/59 (36%) reviews that reported on adverse effects. Overall, safety data was generally reported study-by-study, with few reviews synthesizing data. Only one review was rated as high quality, while the remaining were rated of moderate ( n = 36) or low/critically low ( n = 35) quality. Conclusions Results from the included reviews were mixed, with most reporting an inability to draw conclusions due to inconsistent findings and a lack of rigorous evidence. Mild harms were frequently reported, and it is possible the harms of cannabis-based medicines may outweigh benefits. Systematic review registration The protocol for this scoping review was posted in the Open Access ( https://ruor.uottawa.ca/handle/10393/37247 ).

PurposeBone-modifying agents (BMAs) for bone metastases are commonly prescribed for many years even though randomized clinical trials are only 1–2 years in duration. A systematic review on the risk-benefit of BMA use for > 2 years in breast cancer or castrate-resistant prostate cancer was conducted.MethodsMEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched (1970–February 2019) for randomized and observational studies, and case series reporting on BMA efficacy (skeletal-related events and quality of life) and toxicity (osteonecrosis of the jaw, renal impairment, hypocalcemia, and atypical femoral fractures) beyond 2 years.ResultsOf 2107 citations, 64 studies were identified. Three prospective and 9 retrospective studies were eligible. Data beyond 2 years was limited to subgroup analyses in all studies. Only one study (n = 181) reported skeletal-related event rates based on bisphosphonate exposure, with decreased rates from 27.6% (0–24 months) to 15.5% (> 24 months). None reported on quality of life. All 12 studies (denosumab (n = 948), zoledronate (n = 1036), pamidronate (n = 163), pamidronate-zoledronate (n = 522), ibandronate (n = 118)) reported ≥ 1 toxicity outcome. Seven bisphosphonate studies (n = 1077) and one denosumab study (n = 948) reported on osteonecrosis of the jaw. Across three studies (n = 1236), osteonecrosis of the jaw incidence ranged from 1 to 4% in the first 2 years to 3.8–18% after 2 years. Clinically significant hypocalcemia ranged from 1 to 2%. Severe renal function decline was ≤ 3%. Atypical femoral fractures were rare.ConclusionsEvidence informing the use of BMA beyond 2 years is heterogeneous and based on retrospective analysis. Prospective randomized studies with greater emphasis on quality of life are needed.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019126813

Olaparib (AZD2281) is a small-molecule, potent oral poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor. We aimed to assess the safety and tolerability of this drug in patients without BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations with advanced triple-negative breast cancer or high-grade serous and/or undifferentiated ovarian cancer. In this phase 2, multicentre, open-label, non-randomised study, women with advanced high-grade serous and/or undifferentiated ovarian carcinoma or triple-negative breast cancer were enrolled and received olaparib 400 mg twice a day. Patients were stratified according to whether they had a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation or not. The primary endpoint was objective response rate by Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST). All patients who received treatment were included in the analysis of toxic effects, and patients who had measurable lesions at baseline were included in the primary efficacy analysis. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00679783. 91 patients were enrolled (65 with ovarian cancer and 26 breast cancer) and 90 were treated between July 8, 2008, and Sept 24, 2009. In the ovarian cancer cohorts, 64 patients received treatment. 63 patients had target lesions and therefore were evaluable for objective response as per RECIST. In these patients, confirmed objective responses were seen in seven (41%; 95% CI 22–64) of 17 patients with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations and 11 (24%; 14–38) of 46 without mutations. No confirmed objective responses were reported in patients with breast cancer. The most common adverse events were fatigue (45 [70%] of patients with ovarian cancer, 13 [50%] of patients with breast cancer), nausea (42 [66%] and 16 [62%]), vomiting (25 [39%] and nine [35%]), and decreased appetite (23 [36%] and seven [27%]). Our study suggests that olaparib is a promising treatment for women with ovarian cancer and further assessment of the drug in clinical trials is needed. AstraZeneca.

Excess weight has been associated with increased morbidity and a worse prognosis in adult patients with early-stage cancer. The optimal lifestyle interventions to optimize anthropometric measures amongst cancer patients and survivors remain inconsistent. To conduct a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of exercise and dietary interventions alone or in combination on anthropometric measures of adult cancer patients and survivors. A systematic search of Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Trials Registry was performed. Outcomes of interest included changes in weight, body mass index (BMI), and waist circumference. Screening and data collection were performed by two reviewers. Bayesian NMAs were performed. Overall, 98 RCTs were included; 75 were incorporated in NMAs (n = 12,199). Groups of intervention strategies included: 3 exercise interventions, 8 dietary interventions, 7 combination interventions of diet and exercise and standard care. Median intervention duration was 26 weeks. NMA suggested that diet alone (mean difference [MD] -2.25kg, 95% CrI -3.43 to -0.91kg) and combination strategies (MD -2.52kg, 95% CrI -3.54 to -1.62kg) were associated with more weight loss compared to standard care. All dietary interventions achieved a similar magnitude of weight loss (MD range from -2.03kg to -2.52kg). Both diet alone and combination strategies demonstrated greater BMI reductions versus standard care, and each of diet alone, exercise alone and combination strategies demonstrated greater reductions in waist circumference than standard care. Diet and exercise alone or in combination are effective lifestyle interventions to improve anthropometric measures in cancer patients and survivors. All reputable diets appear to be similarly effective to achieve weight loss.

Insufficient patient accrual is a major challenge in clinical trials and can result in underpowered studies, as well as exposing study participants to toxicity and additional costs, with limited scientific benefit. Real-world data can provide external controls, but insufficient accrual affects all arms of a study, not just controls. Studies that used generative models to simulate more patients were limited in the accrual scenarios considered, replicability criteria, number of generative models, and number of clinical trials evaluated. This study aimed to perform a comprehensive evaluation on the extent generative models can be used to simulate additional patients to compensate for insufficient accrual in clinical trials. We performed a retrospective analysis using 10 datasets from 9 fully accrued, completed, and published cancer trials. For each trial, we removed the latest recruited patients (from 10% to 50%), trained a generative model on the remaining patients, and simulated additional patients to replace the removed ones using the generative model to augment the available data. We then replicated the published analysis on this augmented dataset to determine if the findings remained the same. Four different generative models were evaluated: sequential synthesis with decision trees, Bayesian network, generative adversarial network, and a variational autoencoder. These generative models were compared to sampling with replacement (ie, bootstrap) as a simple alternative. Replication of the published analyses used 4 metrics: decision agreement, estimate agreement, standardized difference, and CI overlap. Sequential synthesis performed well on the 4 replication metrics for the removal of up to 40% of the last recruited patients (decision agreement: 88% to 100% across datasets, estimate agreement: 100%, cannot reject standardized difference null hypothesis: 100%, and CI overlap: 0.8-0.92). Sampling with replacement was the next most effective approach, with decision agreement varying from 78% to 89% across all datasets. There was no evidence of a monotonic relationship in the estimated effect size with recruitment order across these studies. This suggests that patients recruited earlier in a trial were not systematically different than those recruited later, at least partially explaining why generative models trained on early data can effectively simulate patients recruited later in a trial. The fidelity of the generated data relative to the training data on the Hellinger distance was high in all cases. For an oncology study with insufficient accrual with as few as 60% of target recruitment, sequential synthesis can enable the simulation of the full dataset had the study continued accruing patients and can be an alternative to drawing conclusions from an underpowered study. These results provide evidence demonstrating the potential for generative models to rescue poorly accruing clinical trials, but additional studies are needed to confirm these findings and to generalize them for other diseases.

Background Small datasets are common in health research. However, the generalization performance of machine learning models is suboptimal when the training datasets are small. To address this, data augmentation is one solution and is often used for imaging and time series data, but there are no evaluations on its potential benefits for tabular health data. Augmentation increases sample size and is seen as a form of regularization that increases the diversity of small datasets, leading them to perform better on unseen data. Objectives Evaluate data augmentation using generative models on tabular health data and assess the impact of diversity versus increasing the sample size. Methods Using 13 large health datasets, we performed a simulation to evaluate the impact of data augmentation on the prediction performance (as measured by the ROC-AUC, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve) on binary classification gradient boosted decision tree models. Four different synthetic data generation models were evaluated. We also built a generalized linear mixed effect model to assess the variable importance for model performance improvements from augmentation. We illustrate the proposed method on seven small real datasets as an application. A comparison of augmentation with resampling (which is a proxy for a larger dataset with minimal impact on diversity) was performed. Results Augmentation improves prognostic performance for datasets that have higher cardinality categorical variables and lower baseline ROC-AUC. No specific generative model consistently outperformed the others. For the seven small application datasets, augmenting the existing data results in an increase in ROC-AUC between 4.31% (ROC-AUC from 0.71 to 0.75) and 43.23% (ROC-AUC from 0.51 to 0.73), with an average 15.55% relative improvement, demonstrating the nontrivial impact of augmentation on small datasets ( p  = 0.0078). Augmentation ROC-AUC was higher than resampling only ROC-AUC ( p  = 0.016). The diversity of augmented datasets was higher than the diversity of resampled datasets ( p  = 0.046). Conclusions This study demonstrates that data augmentation using generative models can have a marked benefit in terms of improved predictive performance for machine learning models on tabular health data, but only for datasets that meet baseline data complexity and predictive performance criteria. Our mixed effect model identified the most influential characteristics of the dataset and can help end-users have a more realistic expectation of the augmentation performance for a new dataset. Furthermore, augmentation performed better when having a smaller dataset, which is consistent with the argument that greater data diversity due to augmentation is beneficial. Clinical trial registration Not applicable.

Numerous groups have published guidelines for the prevention and management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). The current management of CINV, however, remains suboptimal, due in part to poor adherence to existing antiemetic guidelines. Challenges in clinical trial design have also slowed progress and complicated the selection of optimal antiemetic therapy. In addition, patient-specific characteristics and factors are not included in current CINV guidelines and are an important contributor to an individual’s risk for nausea and vomiting. CINV risk prediction algorithms have now emerged and provide the opportunity to individualize antiemetic prophylaxis. Further studies are underway to examine the precise role for risk model-guided antiemetic prophylaxis in patients with cancer.

Purpose A considerable challenge when comparing antiemetic trials for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is the large number of outcome measures for nausea and vomiting. The objective of this study is to determine the optimal definition of CINV control from the patients’ perspective. Methods Patients with early-stage breast cancer who had received anthracycline-cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapy were surveyed. They were asked about their experiences of CINV and perceptions of different CINV assessment tools. Results Of 201 patients approached, 168 (83 %) completed the survey. Patients consistently ranked nausea over vomiting as the “worst side effect from chemotherapy.” Despite the use of multi-agent antiemetic regimens, 71 % of patients experienced nausea and 26 % vomiting. Only 57 % of patients with any nausea or vomiting took rescue medications and only then when the symptom was severe. Most (76 %) patients believed that the primary end point of antiemetic trials should include the absence of both nausea and vomiting. Patients felt that CINV should be evaluated for the overall period post chemotherapy (i.e., days 1–5) and not simply the acute (the first 24 h) or delayed (days 2–5) periods. Conclusions Patients strongly favored a CINV end point that includes the absence of both nausea and vomiting. Patients’ experience with CINV is underestimated when nausea is not included in composite end points. “Use of rescue medication,” a commonly used surrogate for emesis control, is inappropriate as it underestimates nausea. A standardized primary end point that includes nausea is essential if CINV control is to be improved.

Consensus statements and clinical practice guidelines are widely available for enhancing the care of cancer patients. Despite subtle differences in their definition and purpose, these terms are often used interchangeably. We systematically assessed the methodological quality of consensus statements and clinical practice guidelines published in three commonly read, geographically diverse, cancer-specific journals. Methods Consensus statements and clinical practice guidelines published between January 2005 and September 2013 in Current Oncology, European Journal of Cancer and Journal of Clinical Oncology were evaluated. Each publication was assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) rigour of development and editorial independence domains. For assessment of transparency of document development, 7 additional items were taken from the Institute of Medicine's standards for practice guidelines and the Journal of Clinical Oncology guidelines for authors of guidance documents. Consensus statements and clinical practice guidelines published between January 2005 and September 2013 in Current Oncology, European Journal of Cancer and Journal of Clinical Oncology were evaluated. Each publication was assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) rigour of development and editorial independence domains. For assessment of transparency of document development, 7 additional items were taken from the Institute of Medicine's standards for practice guidelines and the Journal of Clinical Oncology guidelines for authors of guidance documents. Thirty-four consensus statements and 67 clinical practice guidelines were evaluated. The rigour of development score for consensus statements over the three journals was 32% lower than that of clinical practice guidelines. The editorial independence score was 15% lower for consensus statements than clinical practice guidelines. One journal scored consistently lower than the others over both domains. No journals adhered to all the items related to the transparency of document development. One journal's consensus statements endorsed a product made by the sponsoring pharmaceutical company in 64% of cases. Guidance documents are an essential part of oncology care and should be subjected to a rigorous and validated development process. Consensus statements had lower methodological quality than clinical practice guidelines using AGREE II. At a minimum, journals should ensure that that all consensus statements and clinical practice guidelines adhere to AGREE II criteria. Journals should consider explicitly requiring guidelines to declare pharmaceutical company sponsorship and to identify the sponsor's product to enhance transparency.