Brachytherapy: An emblematic example of extreme hypofractionated regimen

In order to provide more convenient irradiation regimens for patient comfort, radiation facility organization and health expenses, new hypofractionated protocols have been evaluated. Moderately (dose/fraction: 2.3 to 3 Gy), then ultra (dose/fraction: 5.2 to 6.1 Gy) hypofractionated irradiations were first validated. The current question is: is it possible to go forward using extreme hypofractionated regimens (EHR) based on 1 to 3 fractions. Different irradiation techniques are under investigation. However, brachytherapy remains the smartest way to deliver a high dose in a small volume. We report prospective and retrospective study results which evaluated EHR for breast and prostate brachytherapy. While oncological outcome and toxicity profile appear extremely encouraging for low-risk breast cancer after a 1 to 4 fractions (6.25 to 20 Gy/fraction), the use of a single fraction of 19 to 23 Gy appears debatable for prostate cancer. Brachytherapy represents an emblematic example of EHR but longer follow-up and more mature results are awaited in order to specify the right indications and refine the EQD2 calculation method including new biological and technical factors.     

A Phase I Dose Escalation Study of the Safety,Tolerability, and Pharmacokinetics of Ipilimumab in Chinese Patients with Select Advanced Solid Tumors

Lessons Learned

• The overall safety profiles of ipilimumab 3 mg/kg and 10 mg/kg administered every 3 weeks, were consistent between Chinese patients with solid tumors in the current study and patients from previous U.S. ipilimumab monotherapy studies. No new safety signals were identified.
• The mean systemic exposures to ipilimumab (assessed by first dose area under the curve during the dosing interval and maximum serum concentration) were numerically lower in the Chinese patient population than in U.S. patients for both 3 mg/kg and 10 mg/kg doses; however, the range of serum concentrations in the Chinese and U.S. populations overlapped (3 mg/kg and 10 mg/kg), suggesting that ipilimumab pharmacokinetics was ethnically insensitive in this study.

BackgroundThis phase I, open‐label study assessed ipilimumab safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), immunogenicity, and antitumor activity in Chinese patients with unresectable, metastatic, recurrent malignant melanoma (MM) or nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC).MethodsOf 39 patients enrolled, 25 received ipilimumab (11 patients received 3 mg/kg, and 14 patients received 10 mg/kg). Reasons for not receiving treatment were withdrawal of consent (3 patients), no longer meeting the criteria (10 patients), and one recorded as “other.” During the induction phase, patients received ipilimumab (3 mg/kg, i.v.), on day 1 of a 3‐week cycle, to a maximum of four doses or progressive disease (PD). During the maintenance phase at week 24, patients received ipilimumab (3 mg/kg, i.v.) on day 1 of a 12‐week cycle, to a maximum of 3 years or PD. Considering the co‐primary safety and PK endpoints, the successive dosing required nine patients with two or fewer dose‐limiting toxicities during the 42‐day observation period to proceed with a new cohort of nine patients at 10 mg/kg.ResultsIpilimumab safety and PK profiles were similar in Chinese and predominantly White populations. Ipilimumab was well tolerated. Most adverse events (AEs) were grades 1–2 and experienced by 11 patients treated with 3 mg/kg and 14 patients treated with 10 mg/kg. There were no new safety concerns. Incidence of anti‐ipilimumab antibodies was low (1 of 10 in the 3 mg/kg patients and 2 of 13 in the 10 mg/kg patients) and without safety implications. In the 3 mg/kg group, 8 of 11 patients had PD. In the 10 mg/kg group (all NPC, 0 MM patients), 11 of 14 patients had PD. Three patients had stable disease (one at 3 mg/kg and two at 10 mg/kg).ConclusionIpilimumab was well tolerated in Chinese patients, showing similar safety and PK to previous studies in predominantly White populations.     

SARS-CoV-2 and cancer: the intriguing and informative cross-talk

The COVID-19 pandemic caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus has significantly disrupted and burdened the diagnostic workup and delivery of care, including transfusion, to cancer patients across the globe. Furthermore, cancer patients suffering from solid tumors or hematologic malignancies were more prone to the infection and had higher morbidity and mortality than the rest of the population. Major signaling pathways have been identified at the intersection of SARS-CoV-2 and cancer cells, often leading to tumor progression or alteration of the tumor response to therapy. The reactivation of oncogenic viruses has also been alluded to in the context and following COVID-19. Paradoxically, certain tumors responded better following the profound infection-induced immune modulation. Unveiling the mechanisms of the virus-tumor cell interactions will lead to a better understanding of the pathophysiology of both cancer progression and virus propagation. It would be challenging to monitor, through the different cancer registries, retrospectively, the response of patients who have been previously exposed to the virus in contrast to those who have not contracted the infection.