|
|
“A real-world analysis on the efficacy and tolerability of liposomal irinotecan plus 5-fluorouracil and folinic acid in metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma in Belgium”. Verbruggen L, Verheggen L, Vanhoutte G, Loly C, Lybaert W, Borbath I, Vergauwe P, Hendrickx K, Debeuckelaere C, de Haar-Holleman A, Van Laethem J-L, Peeters M, Therapeutic advances in medical oncology 15, 1 (2023). http://doi.org/10.1177/17588359231181500
Abstract: Background: Currently, nanoliposomal irinotecan (nal-IRI) + 5-fluorouracil/folinic acid (5-FU/ LV) is the only approved second-line treatment for patients suffering from metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC). However, also other chemotherapeutic regimens are used in this setting and due to the lack of clear real-world data on the efficacy of the different regimens, there is no consensus on the optimal treatment sequence for mPDAC patients. Objectives: To provide information on the safe and efficacious use of nal-IRI + 5-FU/LV in clinical practice in Belgium, which is needed for healthcare professionals to estimate the risk-benefit ratio of the intervention. Methods: Medical data of adult patients with mPDAC who were treated with nal-IRI + 5-FU/ LV in one of the participating Belgian hospitals were retrospectively collected. Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed to obtain survival curves to estimate the median overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). All other results were presented descriptively. Results: A total of 56 patients [median age at diagnosis: 69 years (range 43 years), 57.1% male] were included. Patients received a median of 5 (range 49 cycles) nal-IRI + 5-FU/LV cycles, extended over 10 weeks (range 130.8 weeks). The median start dose for nal-IRI was 70 mg/ m(2) (range 49.24 mg/m(2)) and chemotherapy dose reduction and delay occurred in, respectively, 42.8% and 37.5% of the patients. The median OS was 6.8 months (95% CI: 5.6-8.4 months) with a 6-month survival rate of 57.4% and a 1-year survival rate of 27.8% in the overall study population. The median OS for patients treated with nal-IRI as second-line therapy or as laterline treatment was, respectively, 6.8 months (95% CI: 5.9-7.0 months) and 5.6 months (95% CI: 4.2-no upper limit). In the overall study population, a median PFS of 3.1 months (95% CI: 2.4-4.6 months) and a disease control rate of 48.3%, comprising 30.4% stable disease, 16.1% partial and 1.8% complete response, was observed. The median PFS for patients treated with nal-IRI as second-line therapy was 3.9 months (95% CI: 2.8-4.8 months) while this was 2.4 months (95% CI: 1.9-9.1 months) for those that received nal-IRI in a later-line treatment. In terms of safety, gastrointestinal problems occurred most (64.3% of the patients) and from all reported treatment emergent adverse events, 39.2% were grade 3 or 4. Conclusion: Nal-IRI + 5-FU/LV is a valuable, effective, and safe sequential treatment option following gemcitabine-based therapy in patients with mPDAC.
Keywords: A1 Journal article; Center for Oncological Research (CORE)
Impact Factor: 4.9
DOI: 10.1177/17588359231181500
|
|
|
|
Debie Y, van Audenaerde JRM, Vandamme T, Croes L, Teuwen L-A, Verbruggen L, Vanhoutte G, Marcq E, Verheggen L, Le Blon D, Peeters B, Goossens M, Pannus P, Arië,n KK, Anguille S, Janssens A, Prenen H, Smits ELJ, Vulsteke C, Lion E, Peeters M, Van Dam PA (2023) Humoral and cellular immune responses against SARS-CoV-2 after third dose BNT162b2 following double-dose vaccination with BNT162b2 versus ChAdOx1 in patients with cancer. 635–646
Abstract: Purpose: Patients with cancer display reduced humoral responses after double-dose COVID-19 vaccination, whereas their cellular response is more comparable with that in healthy individuals. Recent studies demonstrated that a third vaccination dose boosts these immune responses, both in healthy people and patients with cancer. Because of the availability of many different COVID-19 vaccines, many people have been boosted with a different vaccine fromthe one used for double-dose vaccination. Data on such alternative vaccination schedules are scarce. This prospective study compares a third dose of BNT162b2 after double-dose BNT162b2 (homologous) versus ChAdOx1 (heterologous) vaccination in patients with cancer. Experimental Design: A total of 442 subjects (315 patients and 127 healthy) received a third dose of BNT162b2 (230 homologous vs. 212 heterologous). Vaccine-induced adverse events (AE) were captured up to 7 days after vaccination. Humoral immunity was assessed by SARS-CoV-2 anti-S1 IgG antibody levels and SARSCoV- 2 50% neutralization titers (NT50) against Wuhan and BA.1 Omicron strains. Cellular immunity was examined by analyzing CD4þ and CD8þ T-cell responses against SARS-CoV-2–specific S1 and S2 peptides. Results: Local AEs were more common after heterologous boosting. SARS-CoV-2 anti-S1 IgG antibody levels did not differ significantly between homologous and heterologous boosted subjects [GMT 1,755.90 BAU/mL (95% CI, 1,276.95–2,414.48) vs. 1,495.82 BAU/mL (95% CI, 1,131.48–1,977.46)]. However, homologous- boosted subjects show significantly higher NT50 values against BA.1 Omicron. Subjects receiving heterologous boosting demonstrated increased spike-specific CD8þ T cells, including higher IFNg and TNFa levels. Conclusions: In patients with cancer who received double-dose ChAdOx1, a third heterologous dose of BNT162b2 was able to close the gap in antibody response.
Keywords: University Hospital Antwerp; A1 Journal article; Laboratory for Experimental Hematology (LEH); Center for Oncological Research (CORE)
Impact Factor: 11.5
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-22-2185
|
|
