nccn guidelines
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

693
(FIVE YEARS 298)

H-INDEX

47
(FIVE YEARS 20)

BMC Cancer ◽  
2022 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
John Sharp ◽  
Vinay Prasad

Abstract Importance It is unknown whether and to what degree trials submitted to the US FDA to support drug approval adhere to NCCN guideline-recommended care in their baseline and surveillance CNS imaging protocols. Objective We sought to characterize the frequency with which the trials cited in US FDA drug approvals for first line advanced NSCLC between 2015 and 2020 deviated from NCCN guideline-recommended care for baseline and surveillance CNS imaging. Design, setting, and participants Retrospective observational analysis using publicly available data of (1) list of trials cited by the FDA in drug approvals for first line advanced NSCLC from 2015 to 2020 (2) individual trial protocols (3) published trial data and supplementary appendices (4) archived versions of the NCCN guidelines for NSCLC from 2009 to 2018 (the years during which the trials were enrolling). Main outcomes and measures Estimated percentage of trials for first line advanced NSCLC leading to FDA approval which deviated from NCCN guideline-recommended care with regards to CNS baseline and surveillance imaging. Results A total of 14 studies that had been cited in FDA drug approvals for first line advanced NSCLC met our inclusion criteria between January 1, 2015 and September 30, 2020. Of these trials, 8 (57.1%) deviated from NCCN guidelines in their baseline CNS imaging requirement. The frequency of re-assessment of CNS disease was variable amongst trials as well, with 9 (64.3%) deviating from NCCN recommendations. Conclusions and relevance The trials supporting US FDA drug approvals in first line advanced NSCLC often have CNS imaging requirements that do not adhere to NCCN guidelines. Many trials permit alternative, substandard methods and the proportion of patients undergoing each modality is uniformly not reported. Nonstandard CNS surveillance protocols are common. To best serve patients with advanced NSCLC in the US, drug approvals by the FDA must be based on trials that mirror clinical practice and have imaging requirements consistent with current US standard of care.


2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 183
Author(s):  
Alessandra Gallo ◽  
Ursula Catena ◽  
Gabriele Saccone ◽  
Attilio Di Spiezio Sardo

Endometrial cancer (EC) is the sixth most common female cancer worldwide. The median age of diagnosis is 65 years. However, 4% of women diagnosed with EC are younger than 40 years old, and 70% of these women are nulliparous. These data highlight the importance of preserving fertility in these patients, at a time when the average age of the first pregnancy is significantly delayed and is now firmly established at over 30 years of age. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN guidelines state that the primary treatment of endometrial endometrioid carcinoma, limited to the uterus, is a total hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy and surgical staging. Fertility-sparing treatment is not the standard of care, and patients eligible for this treatment always have to undergo strict counselling. Nowadays, a combined approach consisting of hysteroscopic resection, followed by oral or intrauterine-released progestins, has been reported to be an effective fertility-sparing option. Hysteroscopic resection followed by progestins achieved a complete response rate of 95.3% with a recurrence rate of 14.1%. The pregnancy rate in women undergoing fertility-sparing treatment is 47.8%, but rises to 93.3% when only considering women who tried to conceive during the study period. The aim of the present review is to provide a literature overview reflecting the current state of fertility-sparing options for the management of EC, specific criteria for considering such options, their limits, the implications for reproductive outcomes and the latest research trends in this direction.


Author(s):  
Mohammed W. Rahman ◽  
Niti U. Trivedi ◽  
Peter B. Bach ◽  
Aaron P. Mitchell

Background: Personal payments from the pharmaceutical industry to US physicians are common and are associated with changes in physicians’ clinical practice and interpretation of clinical trial results. We assessed temporal trends in industry payments to oncologists, with particular emphasis on payments to authors of oncology clinical practice guideline and on payments related to immunotherapy drugs. Methods: We included US physicians with active National Plan and Provider Enumeration System records and demographic data available in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Physician Compare system who had a specialty type of medical oncology or general internal medicine. Medical oncologists serving on NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) Panels were identified manually. Industry payments, and the subset associated with PD-1/PD-L1 drugs, were identified in Open Payments, the federal repository of all transactions of financial value from industry to physicians and teaching hospitals, from 2014 to 2017. Results: There were 13,087 medical oncologists and 85,640 internists who received payments. The mean, annual, per-physician value of payments to oncologists increased from $3,811 in 2014 to $5,854 in 2017, and from $444 to $450 for internists; the median payment increased from $152 to $199 for oncologists and remained at $0 for internists. Oncologists who served on NCCN Guidelines Panels received a greater value in payments and experienced a greater relative increase: mean payments increased from $10,820 in 2014 to $18,977 in 2017, and median payments increased from $500 to $1,366. Among companies marketing PD-1/PD-L1 drugs, mean annual per-oncologist payments associated with PD-1/PD-L1 drugs increased from $28 to $773. Total per-oncologist payments from companies marketing PD-1/PD-L1 drugs experienced a 165% increase from 2014 to 2017, compared with a 31% increase among similar companies not marketing PD-1/PD-L1 drugs. Conclusions: Pharmaceutical industry payments increased for US oncologists from 2014 to 2017 more than for general internists. The increase was greater among oncologists contributing to clinical practice guidelines and among pharmaceutical companies marketing PD-1/PD-L1 drugs. The increasing flow of money from industry to US oncologists supports ongoing concern regarding commercial interests in guideline development and clinical decision-making.


2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dechang Zhao ◽  
Rusi Zhang ◽  
Longjun Yang ◽  
Zirui Huang ◽  
Yongbin Lin ◽  
...  

Background: Currently, the extent of lymph node evaluation necessary for patients with early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) remains controversial according to the latest ESMO and NCCN guidelines. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the survival effect of different numbers of lymph nodes examined (LNE) and regions of lymph nodes removed (LNR) in patients with stage IA NSCLC.Method: All patients with stage IA NSCLC undergoing lobectomy or bilobectomy were selected from the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results (SEER) database. The number of LNE and LNR were stratified into 4 groups (0, 1–2, 3–8, and ≥9 lymph nodes) and 3 groups (0, 1–3, and ≥4 regions) respectively. Additionally, the survival curves of overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) were plotted and compared with the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test. Independent prognostic clinicopathological factors were evaluated via Cox proportional hazard regression and subgroup analysis.Results: Totally, 12,490 patients with stage IA NSCLC were enrolled in our study. Patients with ≥9 LNE and ≥4 LNR in both the T1b and T1c stages consistently demonstrated the significantly best OS and CSS outcomes. In the multivariate analysis, patients with ≥9 LNE consistently had a significantly better CSS [hazards ration (HR) (95% CI):0.539 (0.438–0.663)], and those with ≥4 LNR consistently had a significantly better OS [HR (95% CI):0.678 (0.476–0.966)]. Furthermore, ≥9 LNE and ≥4 LNR were associated with better survival in most subgroups.Conclusion: This study demonstrated that ≥9 LNE and ≥4 LNR are highly recommended for stage IA2 and stage IA3 patients but optional for stage IA1 patients.


2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (12) ◽  
pp. 1382-1394
Author(s):  
Chrysalyne D. Schmults ◽  
Rachel Blitzblau ◽  
Sumaira Z. Aasi ◽  
Murad Alam ◽  
James S. Andersen ◽  
...  

The NCCN Guidelines for Squamous Cell Skin Cancer provide recommendations for diagnostic workup, clinical stage, and treatment options for patients with cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma. The NCCN panel meets annually to discuss updates to the guidelines based on comments from panel members and the Institutional Review, as well as submissions from within NCCN and external organizations. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on the introduction of a new surgical recommendation terminology (peripheral and deep en face margin assessment), as well as recent updates on topical prophylaxis, immunotherapy for regional and metastatic disease, and radiation therapy.


Blood ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 4478-4478
Author(s):  
Juliana E. Hidalgo-Lopez ◽  
Gail J. Roboz ◽  
Brent Wood ◽  
Michael Borowitz ◽  
Elias J. Jabbour ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: MRD testing in BCP-ALL is critical for appropriate patient management, but little is known regarding sample acquisition and testing heterogeneity across clinical practice settings. These factors may impact the quality and reliability of MRD assessment. Methods: Thirty-minute online surveys were conducted in May 2021 with hematologists/oncologists (HEME/ONCs) in the United States in both academic (acad) and community (comm) settings. Respondents were licensed physicians board certified in oncology and/or hematology who treated ≥2 BCP-ALL patients/year or ≥10 patients in the past 5 years, with over 25% of time spent in the clinical setting; pediatric HEME/ONCs were excluded. Survey enrollment is ongoing, with interim results presented here; a related survey for pathologists (PATHs) is underway. Results: HEME/ONC respondents (acad n=40, comm n=57, from 29 states) had been practicing as specialists for a median of between 11-15 years (choices were ranges, eg 6-10, 11-15, min-max was 1-34 years), and typically spent over 75% of their time in the clinic; 94% of respondents had ≥5 BCP-ALL patients/year and 92% ordered MRD tests for ≥5 patients/year. Typical timepoints for MRD testing included the end of induction/suspected complete remission, the end of consolidation, and at suspected disease progression; testing after the end of consolidation was infrequent in both groups (Table). Testing for MRD at the end of consolidation was notably more frequent in the academic setting. In both settings, the HEME/ONC ordering the MRD test generally also performed the bone marrow collection procedure (acad: 78%, comm: 56%). Resources consulted on bone marrow collection best practices included UpToDate (21%), ASH and ASCO (13%), NCCN guidelines (13%), and hematology/oncology journals. About half of practices had defined institutional protocols for bone marrow collection (acad: 55%, comm: 47%), nearly all of which were developed internally. The amount of bone marrow sample collected showed high variability, ranging from 1-10 draws (median=3) and 1-30 mL sample per draw (median=5 mL). While 49% of HEME/ONCs performed <5 draws and extracted ≤6 mL per draw, 22% collected 10 mL/draw, and 10% collected 20 mL/draw; the remaining 18% reported >5 draws and/or >6 mL per draw. In both settings, the first pull was identified and labeled in 35% of procedures; in those cases, the first-pull samples were used primarily for MRD testing in 60% of cases as recommended by NCCN guidelines (vs for morphology assessment and cytogenetic studies). HEME/ONCs typically relied on the expertise of pathologists to choose MRD testing methodology.Survey results indicate that external labs (both national clinical reference labs and commercial labs) were most commonly used for MRD assessments (63%); comm HEME/ONCs were more likely to use external reference labs and acad HEME/ONCs were more likely to use in-house labs. When asked to estimate the frequency with which different MRD methods were used, mean responses were 54% flow cytometry and 40% next-generation sequencing. While all HEME/ONCs indicated that MRD results were presented clearly in lab reports, there was a desire to include more guideline information about MRD interpretation and BCP-ALL treatment. Conclusion: Interim results identified broad heterogeneity in clinical practices affecting sample collection for MRD assessment in Ph- BCP-ALL in the US, indicating several opportunities for harmonization of routine MRD assessment in BCP-ALL. These opportunities include optimization of bone marrow sample collection techniques (volume/draw and identification/use of first pull for MRD), timing/frequency of specimen collection, serial MRD surveillance after consolidation, MRD method chosen, and standardizing reports to include guideline information. There were gaps in awareness of FDA-approved methods of MRD testing for BCP-ALL. Initiatives supporting provider education and harmonization of best practices from professional guideline committees/organizations are needed to optimize outcomes of BCP-ALL patients. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Hidalgo-Lopez: Amgen Inc.: Current Employment, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Roboz: Janssen: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; MEI Pharma - IDMC Chair: Consultancy; Actinium: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Mesoblast: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Blueprint Medicines: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Astex: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; Jasper Therapeutics: Consultancy; Helsinn: Consultancy; Glaxo SmithKline: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Otsuka: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy. Wood: Pfizer, Amgen, Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Juno, Pfizer, Amgen, Seattle Genetics: Other: Laboratory Services Agreement. Borowitz: Amgen, Blueprint Medicines: Honoraria. Jabbour: Amgen, AbbVie, Spectrum, BMS, Takeda, Pfizer, Adaptive, Genentech: Research Funding. Velasco: Amgen Inc.: Current Employment, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Elkhouly: Amgen Inc.: Current Employment, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Adedokun: Amgen Inc.: Current Employment, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Zaman: Amgen Inc.: Current Employment, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Iskander: Amgen Inc.: Current Employment, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Logan: Amgen, Pfizer, AbbVie: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics, Astellas, Jazz, Kite, Kadmon, Autolus, Amphivena: Research Funding.


Blood ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 4089-4089
Author(s):  
Tammy T. Hshieh ◽  
Clark Dumontier ◽  
Tim Jaung ◽  
Nupur E. Bahl ◽  
Emily S. Magnavita ◽  
...  

Abstract Background. Polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) are common among older adults with blood cancer and can lead to adverse effects and poor outcomes. Polypharmacy is commonly defined as taking ≥5 or ≥8 medications, depending on the population. PIMs can cause adverse side effects for certain patients, e.g. diphenhydramine and benzodiazepines. We sought to define the prevalence of polypharmacy and PIMs in older adults with blood cancers, and to examine the association between both with cognitive impairment and frailty in this population. Methods. From February 2015 to November 2019, all transplant-ineligible patients ages 75 and older who presented for initial consultation for hematologic malignancy at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (Boston, MA) were approached by a research assistant (RA) for a 15-minute screening geriatric assessment. The RA assessed 42 aging-related health deficits using patient-reported and objective performance measures spanning the domains of function, cognition, comorbidity, and mobility. Patients were determined to be frail, pre-frail or robust via two approaches: deficit accumulation approach (Rockwood, JGMedSci 2007) and phenotypic approach (Fried, JGMedSci 2001). Cognition was measured using the delayed recall section of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA; Nasreddine, JAGS 2005) and Clock-In-Box test (CIB; Chester, Am J Med 2011). In addition, we collected data via electronic medical record review of all prescribed and over-the-counter medications patients were taking at the time of initial consultation. These data were reconciled and reviewed for quality by two board-certified geriatricians. The geriatricians identified 2 types of PIMs: anticholinergic PIMs per the Anticholinergic Risk Scale (Rudolph, Arch Intern Med 2008) and cancer-specific PIMs per the National Cancer Care Network Medications of Concern (NCCN Older Adult Oncology 2020). For patients recommended for active cancer treatment, the association between polypharmacy and PIMs with frailty was assessed using ordinal logistic regression. The association between polypharmacy and PIMs with cognitive impairment (by MoCA delayed recall and CIB) was assessed using logistic regression. All models controlled for age, gender, and comorbidity (via Charlson Comorbidity Index). Results. In this patient cohort (N=785), 286 (36%) were female with 240 (30%) in the leukemia disease group, 272 (35%) lymphoma and 273 (35%) multiple myeloma. 603 (77%) patients had polypharmacy (≥5 medications) and 421 (54%) were taking ≥8 medications. 201 (25%) patients were taking at least one PIM based on the Anticholinergic Risk Scale (Rudolph) and 343 (44%) based on the NCCN guidelines. Overall, 131 (17%) were frail, 457 (58%) pre-frail and 197 (25%) robust. 541 (69%) patients had Charlson Co-morbidity Index ≥3; 111 (14%) patients had "probable" cognitive impairment by MoCA Delayed Recall and 147 (19%) had "probable" cognitive impairment by CIB. In the 468 (60%) patients on active cancer treatment, there was an association of frailty with polypharmacy defined by a cutoff of ≥8 (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=2.82, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.92-4.17), but not ≥5 medications (aOR=1.42, 95% CI 0.91-2.22; Table 1). With each additional medication on a patient's medication list, their odds of being more frail increased by 8% (aOR=1.08, 95% CI 1.04-1.12). With each one-point increase on the Anticholinergic Risk Scale, odds of being more frail increased by 19% (aOR=1.19, 95% CI 1.03-1.39). With each additional PIM based on NCCN guidelines, odds of being more frail increased by 65% (aOR=1.65, 95% CI 1.34-2.04). Polypharmacy and PIMs were not associated with cognitive impairment by either MoCA Delayed Recall or CIB. Conclusion. Polypharmacy and PIMs are prevalent among older patients with blood cancers and are strongly associated with frailty but not cognitive impairment, independent of comorbidity. Increasing number of anticholinergic and especially cancer-specific PIMs have a stronger association with frailty compared to increasing number of medications in general. Our findings highlight that the types of medications contributing to polypharmacy may be more important than number of total medications. This suggests the need for streamlined ways of identifying specific PIMs in practice to deprescribe medications that may be associated with cumulative harm in older adults with cancer. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Stone: Aprea: Consultancy; Boston Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; BerGen Bio: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Arog: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; OncoNova: Consultancy; Syndax: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Syntrix/ACI: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz: Consultancy; Macrogenics: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Glaxo Smith Kline: Consultancy; Innate: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Elevate Bio: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Foghorn Therapeutics: Consultancy; Gemoab: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Consultancy, Research Funding; Actinium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Meyers Squibb: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Syros: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy. Soiffer: Rheos Therapeutics, USA: Consultancy; Kiadis, Netherlands: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Juno Therapeutics, USA: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board; Precision Biosciences, USA: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals, USA: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Jasper: Consultancy; Gilead, USA: Other: Career Development Award Committee; NMPD - Be the Match, USA: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.


Blood ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 1390-1390
Author(s):  
Susan K. Parsons ◽  
Kristina S. Yu ◽  
Nicholas Liu ◽  
Supriya Kumar ◽  
Michelle A. Fanale ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Current NCCN guidelines recommend 1 of 3 first-line (1L) regimens for stage III or IV classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL): ABVD (doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, dacarbazine), A+AVD (brentuximab vedotin, doxorubicin, vinblastine, dacarbazine), or escalated BEACOPP (bleomycin, etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, prednisone); preferred regimens vary by region (e.g., North America vs Europe). The NCCN recommends positron emission tomography/computerized tomography (PET/CT) imaging after cycle 2 (interim PET2) to guide ABVD escalation or de-escalation. We surveyed physicians on their cHL treatment decision-making process and how PET/CT scan access, reimbursement, and comprehension influence their choices as part of CONNECT, the first real-world survey of physicians, patients, and caregivers in cHL. Methods Medical oncologists, hematologist/oncologists, or hematologists who treat cHL were invited to participate in an Institutional Review Board-approved, 30-minute online anonymous survey. Eligible participants had ≥2 years of practice experience in the United States (US) and treated ≥1 adult (aged ≥18 years) with stage III or IV cHL and ≥1 adult with cHL in the 1L setting within the prior 12 months. Surveys were completed from October 19, 2020-November 16, 2020. Results Of 301 participating physicians, 80% were hematologist/oncologists with a median practice duration of 15 years; 62% practiced in community and 38% in academic settings. Participants were located in the US (South, 34%; Northeast, 26%; West, 21%; Midwest, 20%) and spent 90% of their professional time in direct patient care. In the preceding 12 months, participants treated a median (interquartile range) of 16 (7-40) patients with active cHL (stage III [median], 4; stage IV, 5) and 15 (8-40) cHL survivors. When treating cHL, 88% of participants reported giving NCCN guidelines somewhat/significant consideration. Overall, 94% of participants (n=284) reported using a PET/CT combined scan to diagnose/stage cHL, in line with current guideline recommendations. Of these participants, 97% reported typically getting an interim PET/CT scan for stage III or IV cHL with 65% typically getting the scan after cycle 2 (Figure A). Participants reported both escalating and de-escalating treatment based on interim PET/CT results (Figure B) with 61% making decisions after cycle 2. Of participants using a PET/CT scan, 42% reported receiving both a Deauville score and a standardized uptake value (SUV; Figure C) with 62% of participants noting that the Deauville score was the primary system used for reviewing PET/CT results (Figure D). However, 19% of participants reported challenges interpreting PET/CT results. Among participants using a Deauville score (n=209), consensus was limited on what defined a positive scan (≥3, 44%; ≥4, 37%). Challenges obtaining PET/CT scans were reported by 16% of participants using PET/CT scans. However, despite not reporting challenges 55% of participants on average were unable to obtain a PET/CT scan 20% of the time. Of participants using PET/CT scans, 86% reported typically receiving results within 2 business days and 14% within 3-5 business days. Twenty-one percent of participants reported that delays in PET/CT results affected their ability to use a PET-adaptive approach. Forty-nine percent of those using PET/CT scans reported increased difficulty in PET/CT access for stage III or IV cHL due to lack of insurance coverage. In absence of a PET/CT scan, 36% of participants reported using an interim biopsy and 63% an interim CT scan to inform treatment choices. Among all participants, 36% reported increased difficulty in getting patients with cHL access to PET/CT scans due to COVID-19. Conclusions Although participants consider NCCN guidelines when treating cHL, interim PET scans are not universally obtained after cycle 2 for stage III or IV cHL, with 65% of participants who use PET/CT scans obtaining an interim PET scan after cycle 2 for stage III or IV cHL. When PET/CT scans are obtained, Deauville scores are commonly provided; however, there is variability in what is termed a positive or negative Deauville score. Challenges in obtaining PET/CT scans, with increased difficulty during COVID-19, were reported. Also, there are other barriers, such as lack of insurance, that may prohibit the optimal adherence to guidelines on interim PET/CT utilization. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Parsons: SeaGen: Consultancy. Yu: Seagen, Inc: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Liu: Seagen, Inc: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Kumar: Seagen, Inc: Consultancy. Fanale: Seagen, Inc: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Flora: Seagen, Inc: Research Funding.


2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (Supplement_6) ◽  
pp. vi72-vi72
Author(s):  
Yang Wang ◽  
Jingsong Wu ◽  
Zhiyong Qin ◽  
Enmin Wang ◽  
Yu Yao ◽  
...  

Abstract OBJECTIVES Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields) has been shown to improve the overall survival of newly diagnosed GBM (ndGBM) when combined with Temozolomide (TMZ) in the EF-14 trial. Preclinical studies suggested synergistic effects between TTFields and radiotherapy. This study is aimed to examine the safety and efficacy of combination therapy (chemoradiation concurrent with TTFields treatment) for ndGBM patients in China. METHODS From July 2020 to May 2021, 33 ndGBM patients were treated with combination therapy (radiation target volume following NCCN guidelines). Eight patients had transducer array removed during radiotherapy, others retained transducer array on scalp. All patients had assessment every two months by MRI scan. The adverse reactions and monthly compliance data for TTFields treatment were recorded. RESULTS Twenty-five patients have completed the combination therapy. Three patients retained transducer array during radiotherapy but did not limit the scalp dose (mean: 21.7Gy). As a result, Grade 2 cutaneous adverse reactions developed, and TTFields treatment was suspended. Four patients suspended TTFields treatment due to other adverse reactions. The remaining patients who had limited scalp doses (mean < 20Gy) had no suspension or delay in combination therapy due to cutaneous adverse reactions. The median time of TTFields treatment during radiotherapy is 21.24 hours/day (IQR:19.26,22.08). Two patients had progressive disease, 1 died of pulmonary infection, and 30 had stable disease. The incidence of cutaneous AE was 48.5% (16/33), Grade1: 27.2% (9/33), Grade 2: 21.2% (7/33), and Grade 3: 3% (1/33). CONCLUSIONS The combination therapy was well tolerated in Chinese patients with ndGBM. Removing transducer array during radiotherapy may increase the frequency of array replacement while reducing the patient's daily treatment time. However, retaining transducer array will increase cutaneous adverse reactions. Scalp dose limitation is required yet it allows a maximum duration of TTFields. Further follow-ups are ongoing.


2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (Suppl 3) ◽  
pp. A384-A384
Author(s):  
Xiaoting Xu ◽  
Jian Huan ◽  
Hui Miao ◽  
Hao Wang ◽  
Yue Wang ◽  
...  

BackgroundRecurrent or metastatic cervical cancer patients who progressed after standard therapy have limited treatment options and poor prognosis with a 1-year survival rate ranging between 15% and 20%. This study evaluates the efficacy and safety of toripalimab plus chemoradiotherapy in patients with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer (Clinical trial ID: ChiCTR2000029068)MethodsIn this open-label, single-arm, phase 2 study conducted at four radiotherapy centers in East China, eligible patients were confirmed by pathology and/or imaging for recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer. According to the first-line therapies for cervical cancer recommended by NCCN guidelines, all patients were received paclitaxel plus cisplatin regimen, with or without bevacizumab, combined with radiotherapy. After seven fractions radiotherapy at the recurrent or metastatic regions, 240 mg toripalimab every three weeks for six cycles or more were given in combination.ResultsBetween Jan 14th, 2020, and May 1st, 2021, 24 patients were enrolled. All patients were staged at the first visit, as seven patients were with FIGO (2018) stage I, 10 with stage II, 2 with stage III, 1 with stage IV, and 2 with unclear stage. Of 24 included patients, 22 (91.67%) had squamous cervical cancer. The median age was 55 (range, 33–72) years. As of May 31, 2021, median follow-up time was 8.5 months [95% CI: 2.3–10.1]. 14 (58.3%) of 24 patients who achieved an objective response, including 10 (41.7%) complete response (CR) and 4 (16.7%) partial response (PR). The median duration of response was not reached and 7 (29.1%) patients continued toripalimab treatment after the previous 6-cycle immunotherapy. The disease control rate was 75% (18/24). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 8.61 months (95% CI: 4.14–not reached). For subgroup analysis, the median PFS was significantly prolonged in the CR/PR group compared with that in the SD/PD group [not reached (95% CI: 6.21–not reached) versus 5.5 months (95% CI: 2.69–6.870), P = 0.023]. There was no significant difference in the median PFS between patients who previously received radiotherapy (8.61 months) and those who didn’t (6.87 months) (P = 0.641). 8 (33.3%) patients had grade 3–4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs). The most common grade 3-4 TRAEs were myelosuppression (29.2%), hypertriglyceridemia (8.3%), hypoalbuminemia (4.2%), pneumonia (4.2%), and hypercholesterolemia (4.2%).ConclusionsToripalimab plus chemoradiotherapy showed promising antitumor activity and tolerable toxicities in patients with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document