The clinical dilemma of JAK inhibitor failure in myelofibrosis: Predictive characteristics and outcomes

Two Janus-associated kinase inhibitors (JAKi) (initially ruxolitinib and, more recently, fedratinib) have been approved as treatment options for patients who have intermediate-risk and high-risk myelofibrosis (MF), with pivotal trials demonstrating improvements in spleen volume, disease symptoms, and quality of life. At the same time, however, clinical trial experiences with JAKi agents in MF have demonstrated a high frequency of discontinuations because of adverse events or progressive disease. In addition, overall survival benefits and clinical and molecular predictors of response have not been established in this population, for which the disease burden is high and treatment options are limited. Consistently poor outcomes have been documented after JAKi discontinuation, with survival durations after ruxolitinib ranging from 11 to 16 months across several studies. To address such a high unmet therapeutic need, various non-JAKi agents are being actively explored (in combination with ruxolitinib in first-line or salvage settings and/or as monotherapy in JAKi-pretreated patients) in phase 3 clinical trials, including pelabresib (a bromodomain and extraterminal domain inhibitor), navitoclax (a B-cell lymphoma 2/B-cell lymphoma 2-xL inhibitor), parsaclisib (a phosphoinositide 3-kinase inhibitor), navtemadlin (formerly KRT-232; a murine double-minute chromosome 2 inhibitor), and imetelstat (a telomerase inhibitor). The breadth of data expected from these trials will provide insight into the ability of non-JAKi treatments to modify the natural history of MF.     

Patient navigation across the cancer care continuum: An overview of systematic reviews and emerging literature

Patient navigation is a strategy for overcoming barriers to reduce disparities and to improve access and outcomes. The aim of this umbrella review was to identify, critically appraise, synthesize, and present the best available evidence to inform policy and planning regarding patient navigation across the cancer continuum. Systematic reviews examining navigation in cancer care were identified in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, Embase, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL), Epistemonikos, and Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) databases and in the gray literature from January 1, 2012, to April 19, 2022. Data were screened, extracted, and appraised independently by two authors. The JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Systematic Review and Research Syntheses was used for quality appraisal. Emerging literature up to May 25, 2022, was also explored to capture primary research published beyond the coverage of included systematic reviews. Of the 2062 unique records identified, 61 systematic reviews were included. Fifty-four reviews were quantitative or mixed-methods reviews, reporting on the effectiveness of cancer patient navigation, including 12 reviews reporting costs or cost-effectiveness outcomes. Seven qualitative reviews explored navigation needs, barriers, and experiences. In addition, 53 primary studies published since 2021 were included. Patient navigation is effective in improving participation in cancer screening and reducing the time from screening to diagnosis and from diagnosis to treatment initiation. Emerging evidence suggests that patient navigation improves quality of life and patient satisfaction with care in the survivorship phase and reduces hospital readmission in the active treatment and survivorship care phases. Palliative care data were extremely limited. Economic evaluations from the United States suggest the potential cost-effectiveness of navigation in screening programs.     

Introduction: Novel Frontiers in Cancer Metastasis

Clinical & Experimental Metastasis -     

Hypofractionated radiation therapy for invasive breast cancer: From moderate to extreme protocols

Adjuvant irradiation is the standard treatment after breast conservative surgery. Normofractionated regimen with an overall treatment time of 5 to 6 weeks is often considered as a limiting factor for irradiation compliance. In order to answer this issue, moderate and more recently extreme hypofractionated protocols appeared. We report here oncological outcomes and toxicity of hypofractionated breast irradiation. After defining the frame of moderate and extreme hypofractionated breast irradiations based on overall treatment time, patient selection criteria were listed. According to their levels of proof, the results of moderate and extreme hypofractionated breast irradiation were analysed. Overall treatment time for moderate hypofractionated breast irradiation ranged from 3 to 4 weeks, while for extreme hypofractionated breast irradiation, it was less than 1 week. For moderate hypofractionated breast irradiation, whole breast irradiation was currently performed with or without lymph node irradiation. Moderate hypofractionated breast irradiation has proven to be as safe and as efficient as normofractionated breast irradiation with level IA evidence. For extreme hypofractionated breast irradiation, phase III randomized trials confirmed that accelerated partial breast irradiation was non-inferior in terms of local control compared to normofractionated whole breast irradiation (with external beam radiation therapy and multicatheter brachytherapy), with similar acute and late toxicity. While the use of intraoperative breast irradiation remains under debate, new very accelerated partial breast irradiation (overall treatment time not exceeding 2 days) protocols emerged with encouraging results. Accelerated partial breast irradiation is warranted for extreme hypofractionated breast irradiation and is indicated for low-risk breast cancers. Moderate and extreme hypofractionated breast irradiation regimens are validated and can be routinely proposed according to patient selection criteria.