scholarly journals Prospective practice survey of management of cetuximab-related skin reactions

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. T. Lugtenberg ◽  
C. B. Boers-Doets ◽  
P. O. Witteveen ◽  
C. M. L. van Herpen ◽  
A. N. M. Wymenga ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cell Cancer ◽  
Management Strategies ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Management Options ◽  
Skin Reactions ◽  
Cutaneous Reactions ◽  
Evidence Based Guidelines ◽  
Systemic Antibiotics ◽  
Hospital Protocols

Abstract Purpose Evidence-based guidelines on how to prevent or treat cetuximab-related skin reactions are lacking and multiple care and management strategies are used. The main purpose of the present study is to gain information about the different skincare products being used against skin reactions in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) and recurrent/metastatic (R/M) or locally advanced (LA) squamous cell cancer of the head and neck (SCCHN) patients treated with cetuximab. Methods An open-label, prospective observational study conducted in the Netherlands. The occurrence of skin reactions and the care and management options taken were documented for 16 weeks, starting from the first administration of cetuximab. Results A total of 103 patients were included in 7 hospitals. 38 patients (37%) developed a grade ≥ 2 skin reaction. Eighty-six patients could be analysed for the primary endpoint (73.3% males, mean age 62.4 years, n = 44 LA SCCHN, n = 16 R/M SCCHN, n = 26 mCRC). The most frequently used skin products at some point during the observation period were moisturizing products (70%), systemic antibiotics (64%), topical antibiotics (58%), lipid-regenerating (28%) and other topical products (28%). The overall use of products gradually increased from baseline to week 6–10, reducing by week 16. Hospital protocols were the primary reason (> 50%) for choice of the skincare products and medications. Conclusion A variety of skin care products and antibiotics were commonly used. Only few patients developed severe cutaneous reactions. For patients, the occurrence of skin reactions did not influence their willingness to continue cetuximab therapy.

Nimotuzumab with concurrent chemoradiotherapy in patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer (LASCCHN).

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6084-6084 ◽  
Author(s):  
Naresh Somani ◽  
Karandikar SM ◽  
Kamlesh Bokil ◽  
Kumar Tapash Bhowmik ◽  
Shyam Agarwal
Keyword(s):  
Monoclonal Antibody ◽  
Adverse Event ◽  
Head And Neck ◽  
Squamous Cell ◽  
Cell Cancer ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Neck Region ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Term Survival ◽  
Head And Neck Region

6084 Background: Nimotuzumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody targeting EGFR receptors. Unlike other anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies, it has demonstrated to be safe and effective when combined with chemotherapy or/and radiotherapy. We evaluated safety and efficacy of concurrently administrating nimotuzumab with chemo-radiotherapy in patients with locally advanced inoperable squamous cell carcinomas of head and neck region in a usual health care setting. Methods: Open-label single-arm study. Patients of age 18 years and above with histologically confirmed squamous cell cancer of head and neck region in an inoperable stage (stage III & IV) having an ECOG ≤ 2 were included in the study. Informed consent was obtained from all the patients. The patient were administered injection cisplatin (30 mg/m2 IV) and nimotuzumab (200 mg IV) weekly for six weeks along with radiotherapy of 6600cGy over 33 fractions. Patients were evaluated based on RECIST criteria 24 weeks after the last cycle of chemotherapy. Results: Fifty seven patients were enrolled in the study. Mean age of the patients was 51yr (29 yr-79 yr). Most common site of cancer was oral cavity 32 (56.14%). Fourty six (80.70%) patients completed 6 cycles of therapy. ORR was 80.7%, 34 with CR (59.6%), 12 with PR (21%), 8 with SD (14%), 3 with PD (5.2%). Most common adverse event seen was mucositis (33%) but there was no grade III or IV adverse event. Conclusions: Addition of anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody (nimotuzumab) is safe and efficacious based on the loco-regional response and confirms the available phase II data. The long-term survival benefits based on this encouraging response rate needs to be further evaluated especially in patients with inoperable LASCCN.

INMUNOSUN-SOGUG trial: A prospective phase II study to assess the efficacy and safety of sunitinib as second-line (2L) treatment in patients (pts) with metastatic renal cell cancer (RCC) who received immunotherapy-based combination upfront.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 5060-5060
Author(s):  
Enrique Grande ◽  
Teresa Alonso Gordoa ◽  
Oscar Reig Torras ◽  
Emilio Esteban ◽  
Daniel Castellano ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Phase Ii ◽  
Phase Ii Study ◽  
Cell Cancer ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Mucosal Inflammation ◽  
Onset Date ◽  
Duration Of Treatment ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Metastatic Rcc

5060 Background: Immunotherapy (IO)-based combinations have replaced tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) as standard upfront treatment of metastatic RCC pts. Selection of 2L treatment after progression to novel combinations in 1st-line (1L) is mostly based on retrospective series or subgroups analysis of randomized trials. We aim to evaluate the activity and safety of sunitinib in advanced RCC after progression on an IO-based 1L approach. Methods: This is a prospective, non-randomized, open-label and multicenter phase II study. Pts with ECOG 0-2 and locally advanced or metastatic RCC after treatment in 1L with a prior PD-1 and/or PD-L1 and/or CTLA-4 inhibitor were included. Sunitinib was administered at 50 mg/day on a 4/2 schedule until disease progression. Primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR) by RECIST v 1.1 criteria. Results: Twenty pts were enrolled in the study. Median age was 66 yo, 70% had intermediate prognosis by Heng's scale, and 88% ECOG 1. 45% of pts received atezolizumab, 30% pembrolizumab, 20% nivolumab and 15% ipilimumab-based regimens as 1L. ORR to 1L treatment was 45%. Median time from end of 1L to sunitinib onset date was 1.1 months (0.3-22.1). Two (10%) pts had partial response with sunitinib and 11 (55%) stable disease for a total disease control rate of 65%. With a median follow-up of 8.8 months, median PFS was 6.8 months (0.0-13.9) and median OS 13.6 months (10.5-16.6). Median duration of treatment was 4 months (0.9-16-2). Most common treatment-related adverse events, all grades, were asthenia (55%), dysgeusia (35%), diarrhea (30%), hypertension (30%), mucosal inflammation (25%), palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia (25%), anemia (20%), neutropenia (20%) and nausea (15%); grade 3 were asthenia (15%), hypertension (10%) and neutropenia (10%). Conclusions: To our knowledge, the INMUNOSUN trial is the first study to evaluate prospectively the activity of a single agent TKI in a pure 2L setting of metastatic RCC pts treated with an IO-based approach upfront. ORR and PFS with sunitinib seem lower than expected when used as a 1L. Consistency in toxicity profile was observed. Clinical trial information: NCT03066427 .

POWER: An open-label, randomized phase III trial of cisplatin and 5-FU with or without panitumumab (P) for patients (pts) with nonresectable, advanced, or metastatic esophageal squamous cell cancer (ESCC).

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. TPS4158-TPS4158 ◽  
Author(s):  
Markus Hermann Moehler ◽  
Ingo Ringshausen ◽  
Ralf Hofheinz ◽  
Salah-Eddin Al-Batran ◽  
Lothar Mueller ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Cell Cancer ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Safety Data ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Tumor Control ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
Metastatic Setting

TPS4158 Background: More than 50% of pts with esophageal cancer have locally advanced or metastatic disease at the time of initial diagnosis. For this group chemotherapy is increasingly used intending local and distant tumor control, improvement of quality of life (QoL) and longer survival. Previous data suggested that EGFR-targeting antibodies may be safely combined with cisplatin and 5-FU, and in addition may increase the efficacy of the standard cisplatin/5-FU regimen [Lorenzen et al, Ann Oncol2009; 20(10): 1667-1673]. Methods: In this open-label, randomized (1:1), multicenter, multinational phase III trial pts with nonresectable, advanced or metastatic ESCC, not eligible for definitive radiochemotherapy, are included. Pts have measurable or non-measurable disease according to RECIST 1.1 and an ECOG PS 0-1. Previous chemotherapy of ESCC in the metastatic setting, concurrent radiotherapy involving target lesions and previous exposure to EGFR-targeted therapy are excluded. Pts receive either CTX (cisplatin 100 mg/m² on day 1 and 5-FU 1000 mg/m²/d on day 1-4) or CTX + P (9 mg/kg on day 1). Cycles are repeated every 3 weeks until progression of disease. Tumor assessment is performed every 9 weeks. The primary objective is to demonstrate superiority of CTX + P over CTX alone in terms of overall survival. Secondary endpoints are progression-free survival, 1-year survival, response rate, safety and tolerability, and QoL. A translational analysis in tumor tissue and serum samples is included. 300 pts are planned to be enrolled for a power of 90% to reject the null hypothesis in which the median overall survival in the control and experimental groups are 6 and 9 months, respectively. 18 pts have been enrolled to date. A Data Monitoring Board will review safety data after 40, 100 and 200 pts. The clinical trial registry number is NCT1627379. Clinical trial information: NCT01627379.

Prognostic value of radiological extranodal extension detected by computed tomography for predicting outcomes in head and neck squamous cell cancer patients treated with radical chemoradiotherapy.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6560-6560
Author(s):  
Abhishek Mahajan ◽  
Ankur Chand ◽  
Vijay Maruti Patil ◽  
Vanita Noronha ◽  
Amit Joshi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Head And Neck ◽  
Cell Cancer ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Disease Free Survival ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Imaging Biomarker ◽  
P Value ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Equal Distribution ◽  
Pre Treatment

6560 Background: As per the AJCC 8th edition ENE/ECS is the most important predictor for N staging of HNSCC and is one of the key predictor of outcomes. Because ENE/ECS is based on pathological findings after surgery and it is difficult to predict outcomes for locally advanced squamous head and neck cancer (LASHNC) treated radically with CCRT. We hypothesized that ENE assessed by CT imaging (rENE) may directly correlate with outcomes in LASHNC treated radically with CCRT. Methods: This open-label, investigator-initiated, phase 3, randomized trial was conducted from 2012 to 2018. Adult patients with LASHNC who were fit for radical chemoradiation were randomized 1:1 to receive either radical radiotherapy (66-70 grays) with concurrent weekly cisplatin (30 mg/m2) (CRT) or the same schedule of CRT with weekly nimotuzumab (200 mg) (NCRT). 536 patients were accrued,182 were excluded due to non-availability DICOM CT scan, 354 patients were analysed for rENE (based on 6 criterion for metastasis and 3 for rENE). Near equal distribution of patients was achieved in CRT arm (170 patients) and NCRT arm (184 patients). There were 181 (51.1%) oropharynx and 173(48.9%) larynx and hypopharynx patients. We evaluated association of radiological ENE and clinical outcomes.The endpoints were disease-free survival (DFS), duration of locoregional control (LRC), and overall survival (OS). Results: There were 244(68.9%) patients with radiologically metastatic nodes, out of which 140(57.3%) had rENE. There was no significant association between rENE and CRT (p value 0.3) or NCRT (p value 0.412). The median follow-up was 33.0 months (95%CI 30.7-35.2 months). Complete response was achieved in 204 (57.6%) cases, PR/SD in 126(35.6%) cases and PD in 24(6.8%) cases. rENE positive patients had poor overall 3-year survival (46.7%), poor DFS (48.8%) and LRC (39.9%) than rENE negative cases (63.6%, 87%, 60.4%). rENE positive cases had 1.71 times increase chances of incomplete response than rENE negative cases. Overall stage, clinical positive node, response, rENE and site were the only significant factors for predicting OS, DFS and LRC. Conclusions: In conclusion, pre-treatment rENE can be regarded as an independent prognostic factor for survival (OS, DFS, LRC) in patients with LASHNC treated radically with CCRT. Pre-treatment rENE is not only associated with CCRT response but is also associated with poor prognosis and hence rENE, as an imaging biomarker, can stratify responder’s vs non-responders. Clinical trial information: CTRI/2014/09/004980 .

Management Options for Patients with Aspirin and Nonsteroidal Antiinflammatory Drug Sensitivity

2007 ◽  
Vol 41 (7-8) ◽  
pp. 1191-1200 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sandra R Knowles ◽  
Aaron M Drucker ◽  
Elizabeth A Weber ◽  
Neil H Shear
Keyword(s):  
Data Extraction ◽  
Management Strategies ◽  
Antiinflammatory Drug ◽  
Nonsteroidal Antiinflammatory Drug ◽  
Management Options ◽  
Thromboembolic Prophylaxis ◽  
Skin Reactions ◽  
Aspirin Sensitivity ◽  
Cox 2 ◽  
Cox 1

Objective: To evaluate and provide management strategies for patients with aspirin or nonselective nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug (NSAID) sensitivity. Data Sources: Literature retrieval was accessed through MEDLINE (1966–March 2007) using the terms acetaminophen, aspirin, antiinflammatory agents nonsteroidal, urticaria, angioedema, asthma, leukotriene antagonists, desensitization, and tacrolimus. Article references retrieved were hand-searched for other relevant articles. Study Selection and Data Extraction: All studies published in English were evaluated. Studies, review articles, and commentaries on aspirin-induced asthma and aspirin- or NSAID-induced urticaria/angioedema were included in the review. Data Synthesis: Aspirin sensitivity is most often manifested as respiratory reactions (eg, bronchospasm, profuse rhinorrhea, conjunctival injection) or urticaria/angioedema. The primary mechanism is believed to be inhibition of the cyclooxygenase 1 (COX-1) enzyme; as such, patients with aspirin sensitivity often display cross-reactions to nonselective NSAIDs that inhibit the COX-1 enzyme. Management strategies include avoidance of aspirin and cross-reacting nonselective NSAIDs. However, desensitization to aspirin is a viable option for patients with aspirin-induced respiratory reactions, especially for those who require aspirin for thromboembolic prophylaxis. Aspirin desensitization is maintained indefinitely with a daily aspirin dose. There is limited evidence of the use of leukotriene modifiers in preventing aspirin-induced asthma. COX-2 selective NSAIDs, especially in patients with aspirin-induced asthma, have not been found to cross-react. However, approximately 4% of patients with a history of aspirin-induced skin reactions may experience a cutaneous reaction following a challenge to a COX-2 selective NSAID. Since acetaminophen is a weak inhibitor of the COX-1 enzyme, patients with aspirin-induced asthma should not take more than 1000 mg of acetaminophen in a single dose. Conclusions: Management of patients with aspirin/NSAID sensitivity includes avoidance of aspirin/nonselective NSAIDs, use of COX-2 selective NSAIDs, acetaminophen in doses less than 1000 mg, and desensitization. The role of leukotriene modifiers requires further study before they can be recommended for patients.

Cisplatin/5-FU (CF) +/- panitumumab (P) for patients (pts) with non-resectable, advanced, or metastatic esophageal squamous cell cancer (ESCC): An open-label, randomized AIO/TTD/BDGO/EORTC phase III trial (POWER).

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4011-4011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Markus H. Moehler ◽  
Peter C. Thuss-Patience ◽  
Baruch Brenner ◽  
Federico Longo ◽  
Johannes Meiler ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cell Cancer ◽  
Kidney Injury ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Skin Reactions ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
Metastatic Setting ◽  
Hand Foot Syndrome

4011 Background: Most ESCC pts have advanced disease at time of diagnosis. Chemotherapy (CTX) is used to improve quality of life (QoL) and overall survival (OS), but still with limited impact. Prior studies suggested increased efficacy of EGFR antibodies (AB) combined with CF (Lorenzen, Ann Oncol 2009). Methods: This open-label, randomized (1:1), multicenter, multinational phase III included pts with non-resectable, advanced or metastatic ESCC (RECIST1.1), not radiochemotherapy (RCTX) eligible and ECOG 0-1. Previous CTX in metastatic setting, concurrent RCTX and exposure to EGFR-AB were excluded. Pts received CF (C 100 mg/m² d1 + F 1000 mg/m²/d, d1-4) or CFP (9 mg/kg d1) q3 weeks until disease progression. Due to more Gr3-4 SAEs in the first 60 Pts with CFP, C was reduced to 80mg/m²d1 Tumor assessment was performed q9 weeks. Primary objective was OS: superiority of CFP (9 months [mo]) over CF (6 mo) with 300 pts (90% power). Results: Between 6.2012-5.2015, 146/155 pts were randomized. After interim analysis for futility, the trial was stopped. 60(83%) of CFP and 55(79%) of CF pts had any AE, mostly diarrhea, hypokalemia, hypomagnesaemia, rash, and hand-foot syndrome. Main Gr≥3 AEs were low neutrophils 21/ 24% and anemia 13/16 % for CFP vs CF, respectively. Gr 3-4 skin reactions and rash were higher in CFP (10%) vs CF (0%). Overall, 51/72 (71%) of CFP and 36/70 (51%) of CF had SAE. Main SAE were dysphagia, acute kidney injury, diarrhea, fevers and febrile neutropenia in 6/6%, 7/4%, 7/3%, 3/6% and 6/1% for CFP vs CF, respectively. For all CFP vs CF pts, median OS was 9.4 vs. 10.2 mo (hazard ratio (HR) 1.17, 95%CI 0.79-1.75; P=0.43). For 56 pts treated with cisplatin 100mg/m²d1, OS was 9.4 vs. 12.9 mo (HR 1.83, 95 % CI 0.98-3.42; P=0.06). After C was reduced (80mg/m²), OS (85 pts) favored CFP vs CF, with 9.8 vs. 8.3 mo (HR 0.84, 95%CI 0.49-1.43; P=0.51). Median PFS for all CFP vs CF pts, was 5.3 vs. 5.8 mo. (HR 1.21, 95%CI 0.85-1.73; P=0.29) respectively. Conclusions: Addition of Panitumumab to CF provided no additional benefit to chemotherapy alone as first-line treatment of ESCC. Biomarker program is going on for further analyses. Clinical trial information: NCT1627379.

scholarly journals An Open‐Label Study of the Safety and Efficacy of Tag‐7 Gene‐Modified Tumor Cells‐Based Vaccine in Patients with Locally Advanced or Metastatic Malignant Melanoma or Renal Cell Cancer

2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (9) ◽  
Author(s):  
Aleksei Viktorovich Novik ◽  
Anna Borisovna Danilova ◽  
Maksim Ivanovich Sluzhev ◽  
Tatiana Leonidovna Nehaeva ◽  
Sergei Sergeevich Larin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Malignant Melanoma ◽  
Tumor Cells ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Cell Cancer ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Metastatic Malignant Melanoma ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Open Label Study ◽  
Label Study ◽  
Safety And Efficacy

Long- versus short-term androgen deprivation therapy with high-dose radiotherapy for biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy: a randomized controlled trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (27) ◽  
pp. 2035-2044
Author(s):  
Charlien Berghen ◽  
Steven Joniau ◽  
Annouschka Laenen ◽  
Gaetan Devos ◽  
Kato Rans ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Androgen Deprivation Therapy ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Lymph Node Involvement ◽  
Androgen Deprivation ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Clinical Trial Registration ◽  
Substantial Risk

Radical prostatectomy is a well-established treatment option in the management of localized and locally advanced prostate cancer. An extended lymphadenectomy is performed in case of substantial risk for lymph node involvement. When biochemical recurrence (BCR) occurs, salvage radiotherapy (SRT) is performed. The benefit in terms of BCR-free survival (FS) and metastasis-FS by adding 6 months of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) compared with SRT only has already been established. Retrospective evidence suggests that a longer schedule of ADT may be more beneficial compared with 6 months. This multicenter open-label randomized trial will include patients who need SRT after experiencing BCR post-radical prostatectomy with lymphadenectomy and pN0-status. Patients will be randomized for ADT duration (6 vs 24 months). Primary end point is distant metastasis-FS. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT04242017 ( ClinicalTrials.gov )

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document