Mohamedtaki Abdulaziz Tejani

Extended Intervals after Neoadjuvant Therapy in Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: The Key to Improved Tumor Response and Potential Organ Preservation

BACKGROUND Many rectal cancer patients experience tumor downstaging and some are found to achieve a pathologic complete response (pCR) after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT). Previous data suggest that there is an association between the time interval from nCRT completion to surgery and tumor response rates, including pCR. However, these studies have been primarily from single institutions with small sample sizes. The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between a longer interval after nCRT and pCR in a nationally representative cohort of rectal cancer patients. STUDY DESIGN Clinical stage II to III rectal cancer patients undergoing nCRT with a documented surgical resection were selected from the 2006 to 2011 National Cancer Data Base. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to assess the association between the nCRT-surgery interval time (<6 weeks, 6 to 8 weeks, >8 weeks) and the odds of pCR. The relationship between nCRT-surgery interval, surgical morbidity, and tumor downstaging was also examined. RESULTS Overall, 17,255 patients met the inclusion criteria. An nCRT-surgery interval time >8 weeks was associated with higher odds of pCR (odds ratio [OR] 1.12, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.25) and tumor downstaging (OR 1.11, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.25). The longer time delay was also associated with lower odds of 30-day readmission (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.92). CONCLUSIONS An nCRT-surgery interval time >8 weeks results in increased odds of pCR, with no evidence of associated increased surgical complications compared with an interval of 6 to 8 weeks. These data support implementation of a lengthened interval after nCRT to optimize the chances of pCR and perhaps add to the possibility of ultimate organ preservation (nonoperative management).

Anticipatory nausea and vomiting due to chemotherapy

As a specific variation of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, anticipatory nausea and vomiting (ANV) appears particularly linked to psychological processes. The three predominant factors related to ANV are classical conditioning; demographic and treatment-related factors; and anxiety or negative expectancies. Laboratory models have provided some support for these underlying mechanisms for ANV. ANV may be treated with medical or pharmacological interventions, including benzodiazepines and other psychotropic medications. However, behavioral treatments, including systematic desensitization, remain first line options for addressing ANV. Some complementary treatment approaches have shown promise in reducing ANV symptoms. Additional research into these approaches is needed. This review will address the underlying models of ANV and provide a discussion of these various treatment options.

Current Pharmacotherapy for Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Cancer Patients

Introduction: Nausea and vomiting are two of the most frequent and troubling side effects patients experience during chemotherapy, interfering with compliance with cancer therapies and quality of life. While newly available treatments have improved our ability to manage nausea and vomiting, anticipatory and delayed nausea and vomiting are still major problems for patients receiving chemotherapy. Many cancer patients consider delaying future chemotherapy cycles and some contemplate stopping chemotherapy altogether because of their fear of experiencing further nausea and vomiting. Areas covered: The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of the pathopsychophysiology of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), the recommended guidelines for treatment, and current agents in late-stage clinical trials, and future research needs to address the continued challenges of treatment-related nausea and vomiting. Expert opinion: Despite advances in pharmaceutical and behavioral therapies, and the provision of standard clinical guidelines for effectively managing CINV, patients continue to experience it. Moreover, control of nausea, acute and delayed, and anticipatory nausea and vomiting remains an important, unmet need among cancer patients. It is critical to focus attention on better understanding the mechanisms underlying nausea, anticipatory symptoms and delayed symptoms.

The contribution of cetuximab in the treatment of recurrent and/or metastatic head and neck cancer

Recurrent and/or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (HNSCC) continues to be a source of significant morbidity and mortality worldwide. Agents that target the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) have demonstrated beneficial effects in this setting. Cetuximab, a monoclonal antibody against the EGFR, improves locoregional control and overall survival when used as a radiation sensitizer in patients with locoregionally advanced HNSCC undergoing definitive radiation therapy with curative intent. Cetuximab is also active as monotherapy in patients whose cancer has progressed on platinum-containing therapy. In the first-line setting for incurable HNSCC, cetuximab added to platinum-based chemotherapy significantly improves overall survival compared with standard chemotherapy alone. These positive results have had a significant impact on the standard of care for advanced HNSCC. In this review, we will discuss the mechanism of action, clinical data and common toxicities that pertain to the use of cetuximab in the treatment of advanced incurable HNSCC.

Rilotumumab plus epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine as first-line therapy in advanced MET-positive gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction cancer (RILOMET-1): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND Rilotumumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody that selectively targets the ligand of the MET receptor, hepatocyte growth factor (HGF). We aimed to assess the efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics of rilotumumab combined with epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine, and to assess potential biomarkers, in patients with advanced MET-positive gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma. METHODS This multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study was done at 152 centres in 27 countries. We recruited adults (aged ≥18 years) with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1, MET-positive tumours (≥25% of tumour cells with membrane staining of ≥1+ staining intensity), and evaluable disease, who had not received previous systemic therapy. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via a computerised voice response system to receive rilotumumab 15 mg/kg intravenously or placebo in combination with open-label chemotherapy (epirubicin 50 mg/m2 intravenously; cisplatin 60 mg/m2 intravenously; capecitabine 625 mg/m2 orally twice daily) in 21-day cycles for up to ten cycles. After completion of chemotherapy, patients continued to receive rilotumumab or placebo monotherapy until disease progression, intolerability, withdrawal of consent, or study termination. Randomisation was stratified by disease extent and ECOG performance status. Both patients and physicians were masked to study treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was overall survival, analysed by intention to treat. We report the final analysis. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01697072. FINDINGS Between Nov 7, 2012, and Nov 21, 2014, 609 patients were randomly assigned to rilotumumab plus epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine (rilotumumab group; n=304) or placebo plus epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine (placebo group; n=305). Study treatment was stopped early after an independent data monitoring committee found a higher number of deaths in the rilotumumab group than in the placebo group; all patients in the rilotumumab group subsequently discontinued all study treatment. Median follow-up was 7·7 months (IQR 3·6-12·0) for patients in the rilotumumab group and 9·4 months (5·3-13·1) for patients in the placebo group. Median overall survival was 8·8 months (95% CI 7·7-10·2) in the rilotumumab group compared with 10·7 months (9·6-12·4) in the placebo group (stratified hazard ratio 1·34, 95% CI 1·10-1·63; p=0·003). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events in the rilotumumab and placebo groups were neutropenia (86 [29%] of 298 patients vs 97 [32%] of 299 patients), anaemia (37 [12%] vs 43 [14%]), and fatigue (30 [10%] vs 35 [12%]). The frequency of serious adverse events was similar in the rilotumumab and placebo groups (142 [48%] vs 149 [50%]). More deaths due to adverse events occurred in the rilotumumab group than the placebo group (42 [14%] vs 31 [10%]). In the rilotumumab group, 33 (11%) of 298 patients had fatal adverse events due to disease progression, and nine (3%) had fatal events not due to disease progression. In the placebo group, 23 (8%) of 299 patients had fatal adverse events due to disease progression, and eight (3%) had fatal events not due to disease progression. INTERPRETATION Ligand-blocking inhibition of the MET pathway with rilotumumab is not effective in improving clinical outcomes in patients with MET-positive gastric or gastro-oesophageal adenocarcinoma. FUNDING Amgen.

The impact of age on complications, survival, and cause of death following colon cancer surgery

Background:Given scarce data regarding the relationship among age, complications, and survival beyond the 30-day postoperative period for oncology patients in the United States, this study identified age-related differences in complications and the rate and cause of 1-year mortality following colon cancer surgery.Methods:The NY State Cancer Registry and Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System identified stage I–III colon cancer resections (2004–2011). Multivariable logistic regression and survival analyses assessed the relationship among age (<65, 65–74, ⩾75), complications, 1-year survival, and cause of death.Results:Among 24 426 patients surviving >30 days, 1-year mortality was 8.5%. Older age groups had higher complication rates, and older age and complications were independently associated with 1-year mortality (P<0.0001). Increasing age was associated with a decrease in the proportion of deaths from colon cancer with a concomitant increase in the proportion of deaths from cardiovascular disease. Older age and sepsis were independently associated with higher risk of colon cancer-specific death (65–74: HR=1.59, 95% CI=1.26–2.00; ⩾75: HR=2.57, 95% CI=2.09–3.16; sepsis: HR=2.58, 95% CI=2.13–3.11) and cardiovascular disease-specific death (65–74: HR=3.72, 95% CI=2.29–6.05; ⩾75: HR=7.02, 95% CI=4.44–11.10; sepsis: HR=2.33, 95% CI=1.81–2.99).Conclusions:Older age and sepsis are associated with higher 1-year overall, cancer-specific, and cardiovascular-specific mortality, highlighting the importance of geriatric assessment, multidisciplinary care, and cardiovascular optimisation for older patients and those with infectious complications.

Comparison of outcomes between SBRT, yttrium-90 radioembolization, transarterial chemoembolization, and radiofrequency ablation as bridge to transplant for hepatocellular carcinoma

Purpose To evaluate and compare outcome of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), yttrium-90 radioembolization, radiofrequency ablation (RFA), or transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) as bridge to liver transplant (LT) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Methods and materials We retrospectively reviewed patients treated at our institution with SBRT, TACE, RFA, or yttrium-90 as bridge to LT between 2006 and 2013. We analyzed radiologic and pathologic response and rate of failure after bridge therapy. Toxicities were reported using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, 4.0. Kaplan-Meier method was used to calculate disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival after LT. Results Sixty patients with a median age 57.5 years (range, 44-70) met inclusion criteria. Thirty-one patients (50.7%) had hepatitis C cirrhosis, 14 (23%) alcoholic cirrhosis, and 8 (13%) nonalcoholic steatohepatitis cirrhosis. Patients received a total of 79 bridge therapies: SBRT (n = 24), TACE (n = 37), RFA (n = 9), and Y90 (n = 9). Complete response (CR) was 25% for TACE, 8.6% for SBRT, 22% for RFA, and 33% for Y90. Grade 3 or 4 acute toxicity occurred following TACE (n = 4) and RFA (n = 2). Transplant occurred at a median of 7.4 months after bridge therapy. Pathological response among 57 patients was 100% necrosis (n = 23, 40%), >50% necrosis (n = 20, 35%), <50% necrosis (n = 9, 16%), and no necrosis (n = 5, 9%). Pathologic complete response was as follows: SBRT (28.5%), TACE (41%), RFA (60%), Y90 (75%), and multiple modalities (33%). At a median follow-up of 35 months, 7 patients had recurrence after LT. DFS was 85.8% and overall survival was 79% at 5 years. Conclusion All bridge therapies demonstrated good pathological response and DFS after LT. SBRT and Y90 demonstrated significantly less grade ≥3 acute toxicity. Choice of optimal modality depends on tumor size, pretreatment bilirubin level, Child-Pugh status, and patient preference. Such a decision is best made at a multidisciplinary tumor board as is done at our institution.

Poor compliance with adjuvant chemotherapy use associated with poorer survival in patients with rectal cancer: An NCDB analysis

National Comprehensive Cancer Network treatment guidelines for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer include neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by total mesorectal excision and adjuvant chemotherapy. The objective of the current study was to examine the rate of adjuvant chemotherapy and associated survival in patients with stage II/III rectal cancer.

Symptom experiences in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer as reported during healthcare encounters

Symptom management is one of the primary goals of care for advanced pancreatic cancer (APC) patients. The purpose of this study was to examine recorded healthcare encounters to better understand the symptom experiences of APC patients as told to healthcare providers (HCP). In this qualitative descriptive study, content analysis was used to analyze 37 transcripts of audio-recorded, naturally occurring encounters among APC patients, caregivers, and HCP. Transcripts were drawn from a larger randomized controlled study, which recruited advanced cancer patients and caregivers across the United States. Findings revealed that APC patients and caregivers experienced multiple troubling symptoms. Thirty-seven APC patients and 34 caregivers discussed 10 types of symptoms: pain, fatigue, abnormal bowel movements, decreased appetite, nausea and vomiting, sleeping problems, neurological problems, skin problems, psychological distress, and taste changes. The patients and caregivers discussed various aspects of the symptoms, including the nature of the symptoms, how the symptoms affected their lives, and the way they managed symptoms. Some symptoms were described as severe, life-changing, and highly distressing. HCP should be attuned to the wide variety of ways in which APC patients experience, manage, and live with symptoms. A systematic approach to address symptoms during encounters may improve care and efficiency.

Patterns of interactions among patients with advanced pancreatic cancer, their caregivers, and healthcare providers during symptom discussions

PurposeEffective symptom discussion is an essential step to enhance symptom management in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer (APC). However, little is known about how these patients communicate their symptoms during health encounters. The purpose of this study was to develop a typology to describe patterns of interactions between patients with APC, their caregivers, and healthcare providers as regards to symptoms and symptom management.MethodsThematic analysis was used to analyze 37 transcripts of audio-recorded, naturally occurring encounters among APC patients, caregivers, and healthcare providers. Transcripts were drawn from the Values and Options in Cancer Care study, a larger randomized controlled communication and decision-making intervention trial, which recruited advanced cancer patients and caregivers across the USA. All transcripts from APC patients that were pre-intervention were analyzed.ResultsEight unique types of interaction patterns among patients, caregivers, and healthcare providers were identified as follows: collaborative interactions, explanatory interactions, agentic interactions, checklist interactions, cross-purpose interactions, empathic interactions, admonishing interactions, and diverging interactions.ConclusionsOur findings provide a systematic description of a variety of types of interaction patterns regarding symptom discussion among APC patients, caregivers, and healthcare providers. These typologies can be used to facilitate effective communication and symptom management.