Explore the vast range of titles available.

Agents targeting signaling pathways in cancer cells are less specific than advertised. A number of these agents induce cardiovascular toxic effects ranging from decreased ejection fraction to atrial arrhythmias. The field of cardio-oncology represents the intersection of cancer and cardiovascular disease. This clinical specialty is focused on the cardiovascular care of patients with cancer and has expanded owing to the emergence of new targeted oncology therapies. Although these treatments have dramatically changed the natural course of many cancers, they may result in cardiovascular, thrombotic, or metabolic complications, which can be manifested either during the course of therapy or after completion of treatment. This article focuses on the cardiovascular toxic effects that may be associated with these new targeted cancer therapies and provides a broad overview of this emerging field. . . .

At the first interim analysis of the phase 3 ENGOT-cx11/GOG-3047/KEYNOTE-A18 study, the addition of pembrolizumab to chemoradiotherapy provided a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer. We report the overall survival results from the second interim analysis of this study. Eligible patients with newly diagnosed, high-risk (FIGO 2014 stage IB2–IIB with node-positive disease or stage III–IVA regardless of nodal status), locally advanced, histologically confirmed, squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, or adenosquamous cervical cancer were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive five cycles of pembrolizumab (200 mg) or placebo every 3 weeks with concurrent chemoradiotherapy, followed by 15 cycles of pembrolizumab (400 mg) or placebo every 6 weeks. Pembrolizumab or placebo and cisplatin were administered intravenously. Patients were stratified at randomisation by planned external beam radiotherapy type (intensity-modulated radiotherapy [IMRT] or volumetric-modulated arc therapy [VMAT] vs non-IMRT or non-VMAT), cervical cancer stage at screening (FIGO 2014 stage IB2–IIB node positive vs III–IVA), and planned total radiotherapy (external beam radiotherapy plus brachytherapy) dose (<70 Gy vs ≥70 Gy [equivalent dose of 2 Gy]). Primary endpoints were progression-free survival per RECIST 1.1 by investigator or by histopathological confirmation of suspected disease progression and overall survival defined as the time from randomisation to death due to any cause. Safety was a secondary endpoint. Between June 9, 2020, and Dec 15, 2022, 1060 patients at 176 sites in 30 countries across Asia, Australia, Europe, North America, and South America were randomly assigned to treatment, with 529 patients in the pembrolizumab–chemoradiotherapy group and 531 patients in the placebo–chemoradiotherapy group. At the protocol-specified second interim analysis (data cutoff Jan 8, 2024), median follow-up was 29·9 months (IQR 23·3–34·3). Median overall survival was not reached in either group; 36-month overall survival was 82·6% (95% CI 78·4–86·1) in the pembrolizumab–chemoradiotherapy group and 74·8% (70·1–78·8) in the placebo–chemoradiotherapy group. The hazard ratio for death was 0·67 (95% CI 0·50–0·90; p=0·0040), meeting the protocol-specified primary objective. 413 (78%) of 528 patients in the pembrolizumab–chemoradiotherapy group and 371 (70%) of 530 in the placebo–chemoradiotherapy group had a grade 3 or higher adverse event, with anaemia, white blood cell count decreased, and neutrophil count decreased being the most common adverse events. Potentially immune-mediated adverse events occurred in 206 (39%) of 528 patients in the pembrolizumab–chemoradiotherapy group and 90 (17%) of 530 patients in the placebo–chemoradiotherapy group. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04221945. Pembrolizumab plus chemoradiotherapy significantly improved overall survival in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer These data, together with results from the first interim analysis, support this immuno-chemoradiotherapy strategy as a new standard of care for this population. Merck Sharp & Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck & Co.

First-line chemotherapy for advanced or metastatic human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma has a median overall survival (OS) of less than 1 year. We aimed to evaluate first-line programmed cell death (PD)-1 inhibitor-based therapies in gastric, gastro-oesophageal junction, and oesophageal adenocarcinoma. We report the first results for nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone. In this multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial (CheckMate 649), we enrolled adults (≥18 years) with previously untreated, unresectable, non-HER2-positive gastric, gastro-oesophageal junction, or oesophageal adenocarcinoma, regardless of PD-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression from 175 hospitals and cancer centres in 29 countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1 while all three groups were open) via interactive web response technology (block sizes of six) to nivolumab (360 mg every 3 weeks or 240 mg every 2 weeks) plus chemotherapy (capecitabine and oxaliplatin every 3 weeks or leucovorin, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin every 2 weeks), nivolumab plus ipilimumab, or chemotherapy alone. Primary endpoints for nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone were OS or progression-free survival (PFS) by blinded independent central review, in patients whose tumours had a PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) of five or more. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of the assigned treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02872116. From March 27, 2017, to April 24, 2019, of 2687 patients assessed for eligibility, we concurrently randomly assigned 1581 patients to treatment (nivolumab plus chemotherapy [n=789, 50%] or chemotherapy alone [n=792, 50%]). The median follow-up for OS was 13·1 months (IQR 6·7–19·1) for nivolumab plus chemotherapy and 11·1 months (5·8–16·1) for chemotherapy alone. Nivolumab plus chemotherapy resulted in significant improvements in OS (hazard ratio [HR] 0·71 [98·4% CI 0·59–0·86]; p<0·0001) and PFS (HR 0·68 [98 % CI 0·56–0·81]; p<0·0001) versus chemotherapy alone in patients with a PD-L1 CPS of five or more (minimum follow-up 12·1 months). Additional results showed significant improvement in OS, along with PFS benefit, in patients with a PD-L1 CPS of one or more and all randomly assigned patients. Among all treated patients, 462 (59%) of 782 patients in the nivolumab plus chemotherapy group and 341 (44%) of 767 patients in the chemotherapy alone group had grade 3–4 treatment-related adverse events. The most common any-grade treatment-related adverse events (≥25%) were nausea, diarrhoea, and peripheral neuropathy across both groups. 16 (2%) deaths in the nivolumab plus chemotherapy group and four (1%) deaths in the chemotherapy alone group were considered to be treatment-related. No new safety signals were identified. Nivolumab is the first PD-1 inhibitor to show superior OS, along with PFS benefit and an acceptable safety profile, in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in previously untreated patients with advanced gastric, gastro-oesophageal junction, or oesophageal adenocarcinoma. Nivolumab plus chemotherapy represents a new standard first-line treatment for these patients. Bristol Myers Squibb, in collaboration with Ono Pharmaceutical.

Patients with human papillomavirus (HPV)-positive oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma have high survival when treated with radiotherapy plus cisplatin. Whether replacement of cisplatin with cetuximab—an antibody against the epidermal growth factor receptor—can preserve high survival and reduce treatment toxicity is unknown. We investigated whether cetuximab would maintain a high proportion of patient survival and reduce acute and late toxicity. RTOG 1016 was a randomised, multicentre, non-inferiority trial at 182 health-care centres in the USA and Canada. Eligibility criteria included histologically confirmed HPV-positive oropharyngeal carcinoma; American Joint Committee on Cancer 7th edition clinical categories T1–T2, N2a–N3 M0 or T3–T4, N0–N3 M0; Zubrod performance status 0 or 1; age at least 18 years; and adequate bone marrow, hepatic, and renal function. We randomly assigned patients (1:1) to receive either radiotherapy plus cetuximab or radiotherapy plus cisplatin. Randomisation was balanced by using randomly permuted blocks, and patients were stratified by T category (T1–T2 vs T3–T4), N category (N0–N2a vs N2b–N3), Zubrod performance status (0 vs 1), and tobacco smoking history (≤10 pack-years vs >10 pack-years). Patients were assigned to receive either intravenous cetuximab at a loading dose of 400 mg/m2 5–7 days before radiotherapy initiation, followed by cetuximab 250 mg/m2 weekly for seven doses (total 2150 mg/m2), or cisplatin 100 mg/m2 on days 1 and 22 of radiotherapy (total 200 mg/m2). All patients received accelerated intensity-modulated radiotherapy delivered at 70 Gy in 35 fractions over 6 weeks at six fractions per week (with two fractions given on one day, at least 6 h apart). The primary endpoint was overall survival, defined as time from randomisation to death from any cause, with non-inferiority margin 1·45. Primary analysis was based on the modified intention-to-treat approach, whereby all patients meeting eligibility criteria are included. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01302834. Between June 9, 2011, and July 31, 2014, 987 patients were enrolled, of whom 849 were randomly assigned to receive radiotherapy plus cetuximab (n=425) or radiotherapy plus cisplatin (n=424). 399 patients assigned to receive cetuximab and 406 patients assigned to receive cisplatin were subsequently eligible. After median follow-up duration of 4·5 years, radiotherapy plus cetuximab did not meet the non-inferiority criteria for overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] 1·45, one-sided 95% upper CI 1·94; p=0·5056 for non-inferiority; one-sided log-rank p=0·0163). Estimated 5-year overall survival was 77·9% (95% CI 73·4–82·5) in the cetuximab group versus 84·6% (80·6–88·6) in the cisplatin group. Progression-free survival was significantly lower in the cetuximab group compared with the cisplatin group (HR 1·72, 95% CI 1·29–2·29; p=0·0002; 5-year progression-free survival 67·3%, 95% CI 62·4–72·2 vs 78·4%, 73·8–83·0), and locoregional failure was significantly higher in the cetuximab group compared with the cisplatin group (HR 2·05, 95% CI 1·35–3·10; 5-year proportions 17·3%, 95% CI 13·7–21·4 vs 9·9%, 6·9–13·6). Proportions of acute moderate to severe toxicity (77·4%, 95% CI 73·0–81·5 vs 81·7%, 77·5–85·3; p=0·1586) and late moderate to severe toxicity (16·5%, 95% CI 12·9–20·7 vs 20·4%, 16·4–24·8; p=0·1904) were similar between the cetuximab and cisplatin groups. For patients with HPV-positive oropharyngeal carcinoma, radiotherapy plus cetuximab showed inferior overall survival and progression-free survival compared with radiotherapy plus cisplatin. Radiotherapy plus cisplatin is the standard of care for eligible patients with HPV-positive oropharyngeal carcinoma. National Cancer Institute USA, Eli Lilly, and The Oral Cancer Foundation.

Adjuvant chemotherapy has not improved disease-free survival among patients with resected esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer. In this trial, after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and resection, patients with residual disease were randomly assigned to receive nivolumab or placebo. Nivolumab doubled the median disease-free survival from 11.0 to 22.4 months.

In patients with locally advanced non–small-cell lung cancer who have undergone concurrent chemotherapy and radiation therapy, the use of durvalumab in the year after completing treatment significantly prolonged disease-free and overall survival as compared with placebo.

As far as health issues are concerned, cancer causes one out of every six deaths around the globe. As potent therapeutics are still awaited for the successful treatment of cancer, some unconventional treatments like radiotherapy, surgery, and chemotherapy and some advanced technologies like gene therapy, stem cell therapy, natural antioxidants, targeted therapy, photodynamic therapy, nanoparticles, and precision medicine are available to diagnose and treat cancer. In the present scenario, the prime focus is on developing efficient nanomedicines to treat cancer. Although stem cell therapy has the capability to target primary as well as metastatic cancer foci, it also has the ability to repair and regenerate injured tissues. However, nanoparticles are designed to have such novel therapeutic capabilities. Targeted therapy is also now available to arrest the growth and development of cancer cells without damaging healthy tissues. Another alternative approach in this direction is photodynamic therapy (PDT), which has more potential to treat cancer as it does minimal damage and does not limit other technologies, as in the case of chemotherapy and radiotherapy. The best possible way to treat cancer is by developing novel therapeutics through translational research. In the present scenario, an important event in modern oncology therapy is the shift from an organ-centric paradigm guiding therapy to complete molecular investigations. The lacunae in anticancer therapy may be addressed through the creation of contemporary and pertinent cancer therapeutic techniques. In the meantime, the growth of nanotechnology, material sciences, and biomedical sciences has revealed a wide range of contemporary therapies with intelligent features, adaptable functions, and modification potential. The development of numerous therapeutic techniques for the treatment of cancer is summarized in this article. Additionally, it can serve as a resource for oncology and immunology researchers. Highlights • Comprehensive knowledge of traditional and emerging cancer treatment approaches. • Recent advancement in cancer treatment therapies. • Nanoparticle, stem cell and exosome-based approaches for cancer treatment. • Integrative mechanism used for targeted therapy and immunotherapy.

Patients with resectable non–small-cell lung cancer had a greater response and longer event-free survival with preoperative durvalumab plus chemotherapy and adjuvant durvalumab than with chemotherapy alone.

In a previous phase 3 trial, treatment with trifluridine-tipiracil (FTD-TPI) prolonged overall survival among patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Preliminary data from single-group and randomized phase 2 trials suggest that treatment with FTD-TPI in addition to bevacizumab has the potential to extend survival. We randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, adult patients who had received no more than two previous chemotherapy regimens for the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer to receive FTD-TPI plus bevacizumab (combination group) or FTD-TPI alone (FTD-TPI group). The primary end point was overall survival. Secondary end points were progression-free survival and safety, including the time to worsening of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance-status score from 0 or 1 to 2 or more (on a scale from 0 to 5, with higher scores indicating greater disability). A total of 246 patients were assigned to each group. The median overall survival was 10.8 months in the combination group and 7.5 months in the FTD-TPI group (hazard ratio for death, 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.49 to 0.77; P<0.001). The median progression-free survival was 5.6 months in the combination group and 2.4 months in the FTD-TPI group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.54; P<0.001). The most common adverse events in both groups were neutropenia, nausea, and anemia. No treatment-related deaths were reported. The median time to worsening of the ECOG performance-status score from 0 or 1 to 2 or more was 9.3 months in the combination group and 6.3 months in the FTD-TPI group (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.67). Among patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer, treatment with FTD-TPI plus bevacizumab resulted in longer overall survival than FTD-TPI alone. (Funded by Servier and Taiho Oncology; SUNLIGHT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04737187; EudraCT number, 2020-001976-14.).

Approved systemic treatments for malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) have been limited to chemotherapy regimens that have moderate survival benefit with poor outcomes. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab has shown clinical benefit in other tumour types, including first-line non-small-cell lung cancer. We hypothesised that this regimen would improve overall survival in MPM. This open-label, randomised, phase 3 study (CheckMate 743) was run at 103 hospitals across 21 countries. Eligible individuals were aged 18 years and older, with previously untreated, histologically confirmed unresectable MPM, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Eligible participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to nivolumab (3 mg/kg intravenously once every 2 weeks) plus ipilimumab (1 mg/kg intravenously once every 6 weeks) for up to 2 years, or platinum plus pemetrexed chemotherapy (pemetrexed [500 mg/m2 intravenously] plus cisplatin [75 mg/m2 intravenously] or carboplatin [area under the concentration-time curve 5 mg/mL per min intravenously]) once every 3 weeks for up to six cycles. The primary endpoint was overall survival among all participants randomly assigned to treatment, and safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose of study treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02899299, and is closed to accrual. Between Nov 29, 2016, and April 28, 2018, 713 patients were enrolled, of whom 605 were randomly assigned to either nivolumab plus ipilimumab (n=303) or chemotherapy (n=302). 467 (77%) of 605 participants were male and median age was 69 years (IQR 64–75). At the prespecified interim analysis (database lock April 3, 2020; median follow-up of 29·7 months [IQR 26·7–32·9]), nivolumab plus ipilimumab significantly extended overall survival versus chemotherapy (median overall survival 18·1 months [95% CI 16·8–21·4] vs 14·1 months [12·4–16·2]; hazard ratio 0·74 [96·6% CI 0·60–0·91]; p=0·0020). 2-year overall survival rates were 41% (95% CI 35·1–46·5) in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group and 27% (21·9–32·4) in the chemotherapy group. Grade 3–4 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 91 (30%) of 300 patients treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 91 (32%) of 284 treated with chemotherapy. Three (1%) treatment-related deaths occurred in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group (pneumonitis, encephalitis, and heart failure) and one (<1%) in the chemotherapy group (myelosuppression). Nivolumab plus ipilimumab provided significant and clinically meaningful improvements in overall survival versus standard-of-care chemotherapy, supporting the use of this first-in-class regimen that has been approved in the USA as of October, 2020, for previously untreated unresectable MPM. Bristol Myers Squibb.