scholarly journals Approaching First-Line Treatment in Patients With Advanced CMML: Hypomethylating Agents or Cytotoxic Treatment?

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Konstantinos Liapis ◽  
Ioannis Kotsianidis
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Current Knowledge ◽  
Myeloproliferative Neoplasms ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Patient Specific ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Hypomethylating Agents ◽  
First Line ◽  
Cytotoxic Treatment ◽  
First Line Treatment

Chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML) is a rare clonal haematological malignancy bearing characteristics of both myelodysplastic syndromes and myeloproliferative neoplasms. It primarily affects older people (median age at diagnosis ~72 years). There are many challenges encountered in its treatment. One striking issue is the lack of strong clinical evidence from large randomized clinical trials for treating this disease. Another issue is that patients with CMML have highly variable outcomes with current treatments. Additional challenges include a wider application of current knowledge, an improved understanding of pathogenesis, development of new therapies, and management of refractory cases/disease progression. It is clear that there is still progress to be made. Here, we review the available first-line treatment options for advanced CMML. Emphasis has been placed on choosing between hypomethylating agents and cytotoxic treatments, on the basis on disease-specific and patient-specific characteristics. A proper selection between these two treatments could lead to a better quality of care for patients with CMML.

scholarly journals Patient profiles as an aim to optimize selection in the second line setting: the role of aflibercept

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. González Astorga ◽  
F. Salvà Ballabrera ◽  
E. Aranda Aguilar ◽  
E. Élez Fernández ◽  
P. García-Alfonso ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Therapeutic Option ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Effective Therapeutic Option ◽  
Line Setting ◽  
First Line Treatment

AbstractColorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide. For metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients, it is recommended, as first-line treatment, chemotherapy (CT) based on doublet cytotoxic combinations of fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) and fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX). In addition to CT, biological (targeted agents) are indicated in the first-line treatment, unless contraindicated. In this context, most of mCRC patients are likely to progress and to change from first line to second line treatment when they develop resistance to first-line treatment options. It is in this second line setting where Aflibercept offers an alternative and effective therapeutic option, thought its specific mechanism of action for different patient’s profile: RAS mutant, RAS wild-type (wt), BRAF mutant, potentially resectable and elderly patients. In this paper, a panel of experienced oncologists specialized in the management of mCRC experts have reviewed and selected scientific evidence focused on Aflibercept as an alternative treatment.

scholarly journals First-Line Maintenance Treatment in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer (mCRC): Quality and Clinical Benefit Overview

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 470
Author(s):  
Marta Martín-Richard ◽  
Maria Tobeña
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Clinical Benefit ◽  
Maintenance Treatment ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
First Line ◽  
Design Quality ◽  
Primary Endpoints ◽  
First Line Treatment

Different strategies of maintenance therapy (sequential CT, intermittent CT, intermittent CT and MAbs, or de-escalation MAbs monotherapy) after first-line treatment are undertaken. Many randomized clinical trials (RCT), which evaluated these approaches, suffer from incorrect design, heterogenous primary endpoints, inadequate size, and other methodology flaws. Drawing any conclusions becomes challenging and recommendations are mainly vague. We evaluated those studies from another perspective, focusing on the design quality and the clinical benefit measure with a more objective and accurate methodology. These data allowed a clearer and more exact overview of the statement in maintenance treatment.

scholarly journals Should All Patients With HR-Positive HER2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer Receive CDK 4/6 Inhibitor As First-Line Based Therapy? A Network Meta-Analysis of Data from the PALOMA 2, MONALEESA 2, MONALEESA 7, MONARCH 3, FALCON, SWOG and FACT Trials

Cancers ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (11) ◽  
pp. 1661 ◽  
Author(s):  
Valentina Rossi ◽  
Paola Berchialla ◽  
Diana Giannarelli ◽  
Cecilia Nisticò ◽  
Gianluigi Ferretti ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Breast Cancer ◽  
Soft Tissues ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Indirect Comparison ◽  
Metastatic Breast ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
First Line ◽  
First Line Treatment

Background: We aim to understand whether all patients with hormonal receptor (HR)-positive (+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2)-negative (−) metastatic breast cancer (MBC) should receive cyclin D-dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitor-based therapy as a first-line approach. Methods: A network meta-analysis (NMA) using the Bayesian hierarchical arm-based model, which provides the estimates for various effect sizes, were computed. Results: First-line treatment options in HR+/HER2− MBC, including CDK 4/6 inhibitors combined with aromatase inhibitors (AIs) or fulvestrant (F), showed a significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS) in comparison with AI monotherapy, with a total of 26% progression risk reduction. In the indirect comparison across the three classes of CDK 4/6 inhibitors and F endocrine-based therapies, the first strategy resulted in longer PFS, regardless of specific CDK 4/6 inhibitor (HR: 0.68; 95% CrI: 0.53–0.87 for palbociclib + AI, HR: 0.65; 95% CrI: 0.53–0.79 for ribociclib + AI, HR: 0.63; 95% CrI: 0.47–0.86 for abemaciclib + AI) and patient’s characteristics. Longer PFS was also found in patients with bone-only and soft tissues limited disease treated with CDK 4/6 inhibitors. Conclusions: CDK 4/6 inhibitors have similar efficacy when associated with an AI in the first-line treatment of HR+ MBC, and are superior to either F or AI monotherapy, regardless of any other patients or tumor characteristics.

scholarly journals 679. In vitro Activity of Cefiderocol (CFDC), a Novel Siderophore Cephalosporin, Against Difficult-to-Treat-Resistant (DTR) Gram-Negative Bacterial Pathogens From the Multi-National Sentinel Surveillance Study, SIDERO-WT (2014–2017)

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (Supplement_2) ◽  
pp. S309-S310 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher Longshaw ◽  
Masakatsu Tsuji ◽  
Meredith M Hackel ◽  
Daniel F Sahm ◽  
Yoshinori Yamano
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Options ◽  
Vitro Activity ◽  
Surveillance Study ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
In Vitro Activity ◽  
First Line ◽  
Gram Negative ◽  
Acinetobacter Spp ◽  
First Line Treatment

Abstract Background DTR organisms are defined as nonsusceptible to all high-efficacy, low-toxicity antibiotics (penicillins, cephalosporins, carbapenems, and quinolones), leaving physicians with limited first-line treatment options. Analyses of electronic health records have shown that patients with DTR Gram-negative bacterial infections are more likely to receive inappropriate antibiotic therapy, have longer hospital stay and increased risk of mortality. CFDC is a novel parenteral siderophore cephalosporin with potent activity against aerobic Gram-negative pathogens, including carbapenem-resistant strains. We evaluated the in vitro activity of CFDC and comparators against DTR pathogens collected by the SIDERO-WT surveillance study. Methods A total of 30,459 clinical isolates of Gram-negative bacilli were systematically collected from United States, Canada, and 11 EU countries during 2014–2017. MICs were determined by broth microdilution for a panel of 7 antibiotics, including CFDC, ceftazidime–avibactam (CZA), ceftolozane–tazobactam (C/T), colistin (CST), cefepime (FEP), meropenem (MEM), and ciprofloxacin (CIP) according to CLSI guidelines. All antibiotics were tested in cation-adjusted Mueller–Hinton broth (CAMHB) except CFDC, for which iron-depleted CAMHB was used. Susceptibility was determined according to CLSI interpretive breakpoints except CST, where EUCAST breakpoints were used. DTR pathogens were defined as being nonsusceptible to FEP, MEM, and CIP according to CLSI breakpoints. Results Among 30,459 Gram-negative isolates collected between 2014 and 2017, 9.3% were nonsusceptible to FEP, MEM, and CIP and could be defined as DTR. DTR was most frequently observed in Acinetobacter spp. (55.5%), followed by Burkholderia spp. (19%), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (9.5%), and Enterobacterales (2.7%). Of the 1,173 Stenotrophomonas maltophilia tested, 97% had MEM MIC of ≥8 mg/L; however, only 2.9% could be defined as DTR. Cefiderocol was the most active antibiotic tested against DTR isolates with 94.5% DTR-Acinetobacter spp., 98.3% DTR-P. aeruginosa, and 99.8% DTR-Enterobacterales susceptible (Table 1). Conclusion CFDC demonstrated potent activity against DTR Gram-negative pathogens with limited first-line treatment options. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document