Limited clinical activity of palbociclib and ribociclib monotherapy in advanced cancers with cyclin D-CDK4/6 pathway alterations in the Dutch DRUP and Australian MoST trials

The Dutch Drug Rediscovery Protocol (DRUP) and the Australian Cancer Molecular Screening and Therapeutic (MoST) Program are similar nonrandomized, multidrug, pan-cancer trial platforms that aim to identify signals of clinical activity of molecularly matched targeted therapies or immunotherapies outside their approved indications. Here, we report results for advanced or metastatic cancer patients with tumors harboring cyclin D-CDK4/6 pathway alterations treated with CDK4/6 inhibitors palbociclib or ribociclib. We included adult patients that had therapy-refractory solid malignancies with the following alterations: amplifications of CDK4, CDK6, CCND1, CCND2 or CCND3, or complete loss of CDKN2A or SMARCA4. Within MoST, all patients were treated with palbociclib, whereas in DRUP, palbociclib and ribociclib were assigned to different cohorts (defined by tumor type and alteration). The primary endpoint for this combined analysis was clinical benefit, defined as confirmed objective response or stable disease ≥16 weeks. We treated 139 patients with a broad variety of tumor types; 116 with palbociclib and 23 with ribociclib. In 112 evaluable patients, the objective response rate was 0% and clinical benefit rate at 16 weeks was 15%. Median progression-free survival was 4 months (95% CI: 3-5 months), and median overall survival 5 months (95% CI: 4-6 months). In conclusion, only limited clinical activity of palbociclib and ribociclib monotherapy in patients with pretreated cancers harboring cyclin D-CDK4/6 pathway alterations was observed. Our findings indicate that monotherapy use of palbociclib or ribociclib is not recommended and that merging data of two similar precision oncology trials is feasible.     

Biomechanical comparison of stemless humeral components in total shoulder arthroplasty

BackgroundThe purpose of this study was to compare initial fixation strength between various stemless and stemmed humeral components and to correlate implant fixation strength with bone mineral density (BMD).MethodsFive humeral stem designs were investigated: Stemless-A (four hollow fins), Stemless-B (central body, three solid fins), Stemless-C (central screw, peripheral rim-fit), Short stem (50 mm), and Standard stem (130 mm). Fifty cadaveric human humerii were obtained and divided into five groups. BMD within the humeral head was determined for all samples. The mean BMD was similar between groups. The 25 samples with the lowest and highest BMDs were categorized as “Low” and “High,” respectively, with a BMD threshold of 0.35 g/cm², creating BMD subgroups. After implantation, each sample underwent a standardized biomechanical testing protocol, with axial loading followed by torsional loading. Sensors attached to the specimen recorded micromotion throughout testing. Axial loading consisted of cyclic loading for 100 cycles at 3 peak forces (220, 520, and 820 N). Torsional loading consisted of 100 cycles of internal/external rotation at 0.1 Hz at 6 peak torques, or until failure (±2.5, 5, 7.5, 10, 12.5, and 15 Nm). Failure was defined as the torque at which any bone fracture, implant detachment from anchor/stem, or an excess of 50° internal/external rotation occurred. Groups and BMD subgroups were compared.ResultsAt maximal axial loading, Stemless-B demonstrated greater micromotion (540 μm) than Stemless-C (192 μm) (P = .003). Stemless-B and Stemless-A (387 μm) also had greater micromotion than Short stem (118 μm, P < .001, P = .03) and Standard stem (85 μm, P < .001, P = .01). When comparing low-BMD samples at maximal axial loading, these differences were accentuated, but comparison of high-BMD samples showed no significant differences between groups. Torsional testing demonstrated that Standard stem failed at greater torque (7.2 Nm) than Stemless-B (2.3 Nm, P < .001), Stemless-A (1.9 Nm, P < .001), and Stemless-C (3.9 Nm, P = .01). When comparing torsional testing results of low-BMD samples, both Standard stem and Short stem failed at greater torque than Stemless-B (P = .02, P = .003) and Stemless-A (P = .03, P = .004) but failed at a similar torque to Stemless-C. Torsional testing of high-BMD samples showed that Standard stem failed at a greater torque than all stemless designs.ConclusionStemless humeral implants should be used with caution in low-BMD settings (<0.35 g/cm²). A central screw and peripheral rim-fit stemless anchor design demonstrated greater fixation strength at low BMD when compared with other designs, while all stemless designs performed similarly at high BMD.Level of evidenceBasic Science Study; Cadaveric Study     

Comprehensively evaluating cancer survival in children with birth defects: a population-based assessment

Cancer Causes & Control - Congenital malformations are strong risk factors for childhood cancer. Our objective was to determine whether cancer survival differs by birth defect status among...