To update the 2006 American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline on the use of hematopoietic colony-stimulating factors (CSFs).
The American Society of Clinical Oncology convened an Update ...Committee and conducted a systematic review of randomized clinical trials, meta-analyses, and systematic reviews from October 2005 through September 2014. Guideline recommendations were based on the review of the evidence by the Update Committee.
Changes to previous recommendations include the addition of tbo-filgrastim and filgrastim-sndz, moderation of the recommendation regarding routine use of CSFs in older patients with diffuse aggressive lymphoma, and addition of recommendations against routine dose-dense chemotherapy in lymphoma and in favor of high-dose-intensity chemotherapy in urothelial cancer. The Update Committee did not address recommendations regarding use of CSFs in acute myeloid leukemia or myelodysplastic syndromes in adults.
Prophylactic use of CSFs to reduce the risk of febrile neutropenia is warranted when the risk of febrile neutropenia is approximately 20% or higher and no other equally effective and safe regimen that does not require CSFs is available. Primary prophylaxis is recommended for the prevention of febrile neutropenia in patients who are at high risk on the basis of age, medical history, disease characteristics, and myelotoxicity of the chemotherapy regimen. Dose-dense regimens that require CSFs should only be used within an appropriately designed clinical trial or if supported by convincing efficacy data. Current recommendations for the management of patients exposed to lethal doses of total-body radiotherapy, but not doses high enough to lead to certain death as a result of injury to other organs, include the prompt administration of CSFs.
To develop recommendations about endocrine therapy for women with hormone receptor (HR) -positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC).
The American Society of Clinical Oncology convened an Expert Panel to ...conduct a systematic review of evidence from 2008 through 2015 to create recommendations informed by that evidence. Outcomes of interest included sequencing of hormonal agents, hormonal agents compared with chemotherapy, targeted biologic therapy, and treatment of premenopausal women. This guideline puts forth recommendations for endocrine therapy as treatment for women with HR-positive MBC.
Sequential hormone therapy is the preferential treatment for most women with HR-positive MBC. Except in cases of immediately life-threatening disease, hormone therapy, alone or in combination, should be used as initial treatment. Patients whose tumors express any level of hormone receptors should be offered hormone therapy. Treatment recommendations should be based on type of adjuvant treatment, disease-free interval, and organ function. Tumor markers should not be the sole criteria for determining tumor progression; use of additional biomarkers remains experimental. Assessment of menopausal status is critical; ovarian suppression or ablation should be included in premenopausal women. For postmenopausal women, aromatase inhibitors (AIs) are the preferred first-line endocrine therapy, with or without the cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor palbociclib. As second-line therapy, fulvestrant should be administered at 500 mg with a loading schedule and may be administered with palbociclib. The mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor everolimus may be administered with exemestane to postmenopausal women with MBC whose disease progresses while receiving nonsteroidal AIs. Among patients with HR-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive MBC, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-targeted therapy plus an AI can be effective for those who are not chemotherapy candidates.
To provide recommendations on the follow-up and management of patients with breast cancer who have completed primary therapy with curative intent.
To update the 2006 guideline of the American Society ...of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), a systematic review of the literature published from March 2006 through March 2012 was completed using MEDLINE and the Cochrane Collaboration Library. An Update Committee reviewed the evidence to determine whether the recommendations were in need of updating.
There were 14 new publications that met inclusion criteria: nine systematic reviews (three included meta-analyses) and five randomized controlled trials. After its review and analysis of the evidence, the Update Committee concluded that no revisions to the existing ASCO recommendations were warranted.
Regular history, physical examination, and mammography are recommended for breast cancer follow-up. Physical examinations should be performed every 3 to 6 months for the first 3 years, every 6 to 12 months for years 4 and 5, and annually thereafter. For women who have undergone breast-conserving surgery, a post-treatment mammogram should be obtained 1 year after the initial mammogram and at least 6 months after completion of radiation therapy. Thereafter, unless otherwise indicated, a yearly mammographic evaluation should be performed. The use of complete blood counts, chemistry panels, bone scans, chest radiographs, liver ultrasounds, pelvic ultrasounds, computed tomography scans, (18)Ffluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography scans, magnetic resonance imaging, and/or tumor markers (carcinoembryonic antigen, CA 15-3, and CA 27.29) is not recommended for routine follow-up in an otherwise asymptomatic patient with no specific findings on clinical examination.
To update the 2000 American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline on the use of hematopoietic colony-stimulating factors (CSF).
The Update Committee completed a review and analysis of pertinent data ...published from 1999 through September 2005. Guided by the 1996 ASCO clinical outcomes criteria, the Update Committee formulated recommendations based on improvements in survival, quality of life, toxicity reduction and cost-effectiveness.
The 2005 Update Committee agreed unanimously that reduction in febrile neutropenia (FN) is an important clinical outcome that justifies the use of CSFs, regardless of impact on other factors, when the risk of FN is approximately 20% and no other equally effective regimen that does not require CSFs is available. Primary prophylaxis is recommended for the prevention of FN in patients who are at high risk based on age, medical history, disease characteristics, and myelotoxicity of the chemotherapy regimen. CSF use allows a modest to moderate increase in dose-density and/or dose-intensity of chemotherapy regimens. Dose-dense regimens should only be used within an appropriately designed clinical trial or if supported by convincing efficacy data. Prophylactic CSF for patients with diffuse aggressive lymphoma aged 65 years and older treated with curative chemotherapy (CHOP or more aggressive regimens) should be given to reduce the incidence of FN and infections. Current recommendations for the management of patients exposed to lethal doses of total body radiotherapy, but not doses high enough to lead to certain death due to injury to other organs, includes the prompt administration of CSF or pegylated G-CSF.
Zoledronic acid, a third-generation aminobisphosphonate, reduces the incidence of skeletal-related events and pain in patients with bone metastases. The optimal dosing interval for zoledronic acid is ...uncertain.
To determine whether zoledronic acid administered every 12 weeks is noninferior to zoledronic acid administered every 4 weeks.
Randomized, open-label clinical trial conducted at 269 academic and community sites in the United States. Patients (n = 1822) with metastatic breast cancer, metastatic prostate cancer, or multiple myeloma who had at least 1 site of bone involvement were enrolled between May 2009 and April 2012; follow-up concluded in April 2014.
Patients were randomized to receive zoledronic acid administered intravenously every 4 weeks (n = 911) vs every 12 weeks (n = 911) for 2 years.
The primary end point was the proportion of patients having at least 1 skeletal-related event (defined as clinical fracture, spinal cord compression, radiation to bone, or surgery involving bone) within 2 years after randomization and a between-group absolute difference of 7% as the noninferiority margin. Secondary end points included the proportion of patients with at least 1 skeletal-related event by disease type, pain as assessed by the Brief Pain Inventory (range, 0-10; higher scores indicate worse pain), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (range, 0-4; higher scores indicate worse disability), incidence of osteonecrosis of the jaw, kidney dysfunction, skeletal morbidity rate (mean number of skeletal-related events per year), and, in a subset of 553 patients, suppression of bone turnover (assessed by C-terminal telopeptide levels).
Among 1822 patients who were randomized (median age, 65 years; 980 53.8% women; 855 with breast cancer, 689 with prostate cancer, and 278 with multiple myeloma), 795 completed the study at 2 years. A total of 260 patients (29.5%) in the zoledronic acid every 4-week dosing group and 253 patients (28.6%) in the every 12-week dosing group experienced at least 1 skeletal-related event within 2 years of randomization (risk difference of -0.3% 1-sided 95% CI, -4% to ∞; P < .001 for noninferiority). The proportions of skeletal-related events did not differ significantly between the every 4-week dosing group vs the every 12-week dosing group for patients with breast cancer, prostate cancer, or multiple myeloma. Pain scores, performance status scores, incidence of jaw osteonecrosis, and kidney dysfunction did not differ significantly between the treatment groups. Skeletal morbidity rates were numerically identical in both groups, but bone turnover was greater (C-terminal telopeptide levels were higher) among patients who received zoledronic acid every 12 weeks.
Among patients with bone metastases due to breast cancer, prostate cancer, or multiple myeloma, the use of zoledronic acid every 12 weeks compared with the standard dosing interval of every 4 weeks did not result in an increased risk of skeletal events over 2 years. This longer interval may be an acceptable treatment option.
clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00869206.
To update the 1999 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guideline on breast cancer follow-up and management in the adjuvant setting.
An ASCO Expert Panel reviewed pertinent information from ...the literature through March 2006. More weight was given to studies that tested a hypothesis directly relating testing to one of the primary outcomes in a randomized design.
The evidence supports regular history, physical examination, and mammography as the cornerstone of appropriate breast cancer follow-up. All patients should have a careful history and physical examination performed by a physician experienced in the surveillance of cancer patients and in breast examination. Examinations should be performed every 3 to 6 months for the first 3 years, every 6 to 12 months for years 4 and 5, and annually thereafter. For those who have undergone breast-conserving surgery, a post-treatment mammogram should be obtained 1 year after the initial mammogram and at least 6 months after completion of radiation therapy. Thereafter, unless otherwise indicated, a yearly mammographic evaluation should be performed. Patients at high risk for familial breast cancer syndromes should be referred for genetic counseling. The use of CBCs, chemistry panels, bone scans, chest radiographs, liver ultrasounds, computed tomography scans, 18Ffluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography scanning, magnetic resonance imaging, or tumor markers (carcinoembryonic antigen, CA 15-3, and CA 27.29) is not recommended for routine breast cancer follow-up in an otherwise asymptomatic patient with no specific findings on clinical examination.
Careful history taking, physical examination, and regular mammography are recommended for appropriate detection of breast cancer recurrence.
The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has policies and procedures for endorsing practice guidelines that have been developed by other professional organizations.
The Cancer Care Ontario ...(CCO) Guideline on Adjuvant Ovarian Ablation (OA) in the Treatment of Premenopausal Women With Early-Stage Invasive Breast Cancer was reviewed for developmental rigor by methodologists. An ad hoc review panel of experts reviewed the content.
The ASCO ad hoc OA guideline review panel concurred that the recommendations are clear, thorough, based on the most relevant scientific evidence in this content area, and present options that will be acceptable to patients. According to the CCO guideline: one, OA should not be routinely added to systemic therapy with chemotherapy, tamoxifen, or the combination of tamoxifen and chemotherapy; two, OA alone is not recommended as an alternative to any other form of systemic therapy, except in the specific case of patients who are candidates for other forms of systemic therapy but who, for some reason, will not receive any other systemic therapy (eg, patients who cannot tolerate other forms of systemic therapy or patients who choose no other form of systemic therapy); and three, when chemical suppression using luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonists is the chosen method of OA, in the opinion of the Breast Cancer Disease Site Group, monthly injection is the recommended mode of administration. The mode of administration in nearly all of the available trials has been monthly administration.
The ASCO review panel agrees with the recommendations as stated in the CCO guideline, with the qualification that ongoing research studies may alter the recommendations of the panel.
Background: Despite recent advances, follicular lymphoma (FL) remains incurable for most patients. Relapsed/refractory (r/r) FL is associated with decremental treatment responses, accumulating ...toxicity, and poor survival among early failures of 1st line chemoimmunotherapy. Underscored by the recent approvals of idelalisib, copanlisib, and duvelisib, targeting B-cell receptor (BCR) signaling produces ORR of ~50% in r/r patients; however, new agents with a better therapeutic index over long-term administration are needed.
SYK is a key regulator of BCR signaling (upstream of BTK and PI3K), and its inhibition results in clinical activity in FL. Compared with unaffected nodes, lymph nodes from FL patients have greater numbers of follicular helper T cells that express high levels of IL-4, which may support the tumor via the JAK1/3 pathway.
Cerdulatinib, an oral, reversible inhibitor of SYK and JAK kinases (JAK1, JAK3, TYK2), previously reported a ~45% overall response rate (ORR) in r/r FL as a single agent. Xenograft studies suggest cerdulatinib may combine with rituximab to enhance antitumor activity. We report updated results from a phase 2a study of single-agent cerdulatinib and initial results in combination with rituximab in r/r FL.
Methods: This phase 2a study confirmed the safety and efficacy of cerdulatinib 30 mg BID in r/r B- and T-cell lymphoma patients. Dose reductions were permitted to 15 mg BID. Response was assessed by Lugano criteria.
Results: A planned interim analysis was performed on July 18, 2019, in which enrollment was 40 patients in the single-agent cohort and 19 patients in the rituximab combination cohort. For the single-agent cohort, median age (range) was 64 (42-81) years and median prior therapies (range) was 3 (1-9). Ninety-five percent of patients had prior anti-CD20 therapy, and 25% had prior therapy with BCR pathway inhibitors. For the combination cohort, median age (range) was 67 (47-85) years and median prior therapies (range) was 3 (1-10). Eighty-eight percent of patients had prior anti-CD20 therapy, and 32% had prior therapy with BCR pathway inhibitors. The safety profile appeared similar in both cohorts. The most common treatment-emergent grade 3+ adverse events in ≥5% of patients for both cohorts were lipase increase (27%), neutropenia (18%), diarrhea (12%), amylase increase (10%), hypertension (8%), nausea (7%), and pneumonia (5%). Grade 3+ infections occurred in 17.5% of single-agent cohort patients and 15.8% of combination cohort patients. Amylase and lipase increases generally were not associated with abdominal pain or pancreatitis. In addition, to date there has been no evidence of cumulative toxicity.
The ORR was 45% as a single agent (12.5% complete response CR, 32.5% partial response PR, with 25% stable disease SD and 5% progressive disease PD in 40 evaluable patients) and 59% in the combination cohort (11.7% CR, 47% PR, with 27.8% SD and no PD in 17 evaluable patients). Responses typically occurred after 2 cycles, generally improved over time, and were durable in the single-agent cohort, with 10 patients on drug for >1 year. Enrollment in the combination cohort is ongoing. Updated safety and efficacy will be presented.
Conclusion: The recommended cerdulatinib phase 2 dose of 30 mg BID was tolerable and efficacious in heavily pretreated r/r FL. The cerdulatinib + rituximab combination appears to be well tolerated, with tumor reductions in all evaluable patients. The safety profile and unique mechanism of action of cerdulatinib support further combination studies in FL.
Smith:Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Denovo Biopharma: Research Funding; Portola Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Acerta Pharma BV: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb (spouse): Research Funding; Ignyta (spouse): Research Funding; Ayala (spouse): Research Funding; Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp: Consultancy, Research Funding. Munoz:AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics LLC an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Fosunkite: Speakers Bureau; Kyowa: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Portola: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding. Stevens:Astellas: Consultancy. Smith:Portola Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Feldman:Kite Pharma: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Viracta: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Cell Medica: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Corvus: Research Funding; Eisai: Research Funding; Kyowa Hakko Kirin: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Portola Pharma: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Ye:MingSight: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Onyx: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Portola Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. de Vos:Verastem: Consultancy; Portola Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Consultancy. Miller:Verastem: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Birrell:Portola Pharmaceuticals: Employment, Equity Ownership. Leeds:Portola Pharmaceuticals: Employment, Equity Ownership. Coffey:Portola Pharmaceuticals: Employment, Equity Ownership, Research Funding. Conley:Portola Pharmaceuticals: Employment, Equity Ownership. Michelson:Portola Pharmaceuticals: Employment, Equity Ownership. Curnutte:Portola Pharmaceuticals: Employment, Equity Ownership.
PDF
