No abstract

ObjectiveTo systematically review the literature to identify interventions that improve minority health related to colorectal cancer care.Data sourcesMEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Cochrane databases, from 1950 to 2010.Study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventionsInterventions in US populations eligible for colorectal cancer screening, and composed of ≥50 % racial/ethnic minorities (or that included a specific sub-analysis by race/ethnicity). All included studies were linked to an identifiable healthcare source. The three authors independently reviewed the abstracts of all the articles and a final list was determined by consensus. All papers were independently reviewed and quality scores were calculated and assigned using the Downs and Black checklist.ResultsThirty-three studies were included in our final analysis. Patient education involving phone or in-person contact combined with navigation can lead to modest improvements, on the order of 15 percentage points, in colorectal cancer screening rates in minority populations. Provider-directed multi-modal interventions composed of education sessions and reminders, as well as pure educational interventions were found to be effective in raising colorectal cancer screening rates, also on the order of 10 to 15 percentage points. No relevant interventions focusing on post-screening follow up, treatment adherence and survivorship were identified.LimitationsThis review excluded any intervention studies that were not tied to an identifiable healthcare source. The minority populations in most studies reviewed were predominantly Hispanic and African American, limiting generalizability to other ethnic and minority populations.Conclusions and implications of key findingsTailored patient education combined with patient navigation services, and physician training in communicating with patients of low health literacy, can modestly improve adherence to CRC screening. The onus is now on researchers to continue to evaluate and refine these interventions and begin to expand them to the entire colon cancer care continuum.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s11606-012-2044-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

Background: Venetoclax (Ven) is a highly selective, potent, oral BCL-2 inhibitor that induces apoptosis in multiple myeloma (MM) cells and has shown synergistic activity with the proteasome inhibitor (PI) bortezomib (B) and dexamethasone (d). Ven ± d had encouraging clinical efficacy in both t(11;14) MM and in pts irrespective of genetic background when administered with B, with a tolerable safety profile in Phase 1 studies. Here, we provide updated efficacy and safety of Ven vs placebo (Pbo) + Bd in pts with relapsed/refractory (RR) MM, including subgroup analyses, in the BELLINI study. Methods: BELLINI (NCT02755597) was a Phase 3, randomized, double-blind, multicenter study of Ven or Pbo + Bd in pts with RRMM who received 1 - 3 prior therapies and were either sensitive or naïve to PIs. Pts were randomized 2:1 to receive Ven 800 mg/day or Pbo + Bd. Cycles 1-8 were 21-day with B 1.3 mg/m2 on Days 1, 4, 8, 11 + d 20 mg on Days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12. Cycles 9+ were 35-day with B 1.3 mg/m2 on Days 1, 8, 15, 22 + d 20 mg Day 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16, 22, 23. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) by independent review committee (IRC). Results: A total of 291 pts were randomized, 194 to the Ven arm and 97 to the Pbo arm. Median age was 66 (range, 36 - 87); 53% had ISS II/III disease; 54% received 2 or 3 prior lines of therapy; 59% had prior stem cell transplant; 70% had prior PI, 68% had prior immunomodulatory drug, 41% had both. Among pts with evaluable results, 18% had high-risk cytogenetics, 13% had MM positive for t(11;14), and 79% had high levels of BCL-2 protein by immunohistochemistry (IHC). In the primary endpoint analysis per IRC, the median PFS was 22.4 months (m) in Ven vs 11.5 m in Pbo (HR=0.630, p=0.01), with a median follow-up of 18.7 m (as of 26 Nov 2018). As of updated analysis based on a data cut-off of 18 March 2019, the median PFS (per investigator [INV]) was 22.9 m in Ven vs 11.4 m in Pbo (HR=0.587, p=0.001; Table 1), with a median follow-up of 22.7 m. Per INV, higher overall response (ORR, 84% vs 70%, p=0.009) and very good partial or better response (≥VGPR, 61% vs 40%, p<0.001; Table 2) rates were observed in Ven vs Pbo. Minimal residual disease negativity rate (by next-generation sequencing) was also higher in the Ven arm vs Pbo (MRD- [10-5], 13% vs 1%). Median duration of response was 23.4 m for Ven and 12.8 m for Pbo. In the overall population, median overall survival (OS) was not reached in either arm but continued to favor Pbo (HR 1.474, 95% CI=0.870-2.498). A total of 70 deaths have been reported, 51 (26%) in the Ven arm and 19 (20%) in the Pbo arm. In the safety population (N=289), the most common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs; Ven/Pbo) were diarrhea (59%/48%), nausea (37%/22%), constipation (35%/31%), and fatigue (31%/32%). The most common Grade 3/4 TEAEs were neutropenia (18%/8%), pneumonia (17%/12%), anemia (16%/15%), thrombocytopenia (15%/30%), and diarrhea (15%/12%); 23%/12% discontinued Ven due to a TEAE. The rates of serious AEs (51%/51%) and serious infections (30%/28%) were comparable between arms. There were 69 deaths in the safety population: in the Ven arm, 14 were treatment-emergent (TE; treatment start to 30 days after discontinuation) and 36 were non-TE (>30 days after treatment discontinuation); in the Pbo arm, 1 was TE and 18 were non-TE. In the t(11;14) subgroup, median PFS has not been reached for pts receiving Ven, but was 9.3 m for Pbo (HR=0.095; per INV). In the t(11;14)-negative (neg) subgroup, median PFS was 22.4 m and 10.7 m for Ven and Pbo, respectively (HR=0.627; per INV). Median OS has not been reached in either arm for the t(11;14) and t(11;14)-neg subgroups, although the HR favored Ven in t(11;14) pts, and Pbo in t(11;14)-neg pts. Analyses indicate that low BCL-2 expression by IHC and high-risk cytogenetics (defined as t(4;14, t(14;16), or del(17p)) were associated with decreased PFS and OS in the Ven arm (Table 1). In the high-risk cytogenetics pts, median PFS was 11.4 m in both arms (HR=0.99), and median OS has not been reached in either arm but favors Pbo (HR=10.6). In the subgroup with low BCL-2 expression by IHC, median PFS was 11.7 m and 17.0 m for Ven and Pbo, respectively (HR=1.42), and median OS was 21.3 m in the Ven arm and not reached in Pbo (HR=4.58). Conclusions: Updated analysis of BELLINI continue to reflect a favorable benefit-risk profile in t(11;14) pts, with meaningful clinical responses and improvement in PFS, as well as a positive trend in OS in this subgroup when treated with Ven + Bd. Disclosures Moreau: Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria. Harrison:Janssen Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: investigator on studies, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Cavo:sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel accommodations, Speakers Bureau; celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel accommodations, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; bms: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; novartis: Honoraria. De La Rubia:Janssen: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; AMGEN: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy. Popat:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel, accommodations, expenses; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: travel support to meetings; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: travel, accommodations, expenses; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Gasparetto:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodations, or other expenses paid or reimbursed ; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodations, or other expenses paid or reimbursed ; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodations, or other expenses paid or reimbursed . Hungria:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Salwender:Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Travel or accommodations; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel or accommodations; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Other: Travel or accommodations; Sanofi: Honoraria, Other: Travel or accommodations; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Travel or accommodations; AbbVie: Honoraria; Janssen Cilag: Honoraria, Other: Travel or accommodations. Suzuki:Ono: Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Gay:Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mikala:Takeda: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding. Punnoose:Genentech, Inc.: Employment; Roche: Other: Stock/stock options. Hong:Genentech Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership; Roche: Equity Ownership. Sood:AbbVie: Employment, Other: Stock/stock options. Jalaluddin:AbbVie: Employment, Other: Stock/stock options. Ross:AbbVie: Employment, Other: Stock/stock options. Ward:AbbVie: Employment, Other: Stock/stock options. Maciag:AbbVie: Employment, Other: Stock/stock options. Kumar:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: Venetoclax is a BCL-2 inhibitor that is FDA-approved in some indications. This presentation will focus on venetoclax for treatment of multiple myeloma, which is not an approved indication.

Anti–Programed Death 1 (PD-1) is standard immunotherapy for multiple cancers and the expression of one of its ligands, PD-L1, has been described in germ cell tumors (GCTs). Neither the clinical activity of anti–PD-1 nor the incidence of an immunoresponsive tumor microenvironment has been described for GCTs. A patient initially diagnosed with melanoma via fine needle aspiration was treated with one dose of antibody to PD-1. A core needle biopsy was subsequently performed to acquire sufficient tissue for molecular analysis, which led to a change in diagnosis to metastatic embryonal carcinoma. The testicular GCT cohort of The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) was analyzed using a T-cell gene signature associated with benefit from immunotherapy. Primary tumors (N = 134) were categorized as high (T cell–inflamed), medium, or low (non-T cell–inflamed) by their T-cell signature derived from RNAseq data. Anti-PD-1 induced decreases in serum markers and a 33% reduction in tumor volume. Gene expression revealed a T cell–inflamed tumor microenvironment in 47% of testicular GCTs, including seminoma (83%) and non-seminoma (17%) tumor subtypes. Expression of alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) RNA correlated with lack of the T-cell signature, with increasing AFP RNA inversely correlating with the inflamed signature and expression of interferon-γ–associated genes. These data suggest that GCTs can respond to anti–PD-1 and that gene expression profiling supports investigation of immunotherapy for treatment of GCTs.

No abstract

The purpose of this study was to classify selective oestrogen receptor modulators based on gene expression profiles produced in breast cancer cells expressing either wtERa or mutant 351 ERa. In total, 54 microarray experiments were carried out by using a commercially available Atlas cDNA Expression Arrays (Clontech), containing 588 cancer-related genes. Nine sets of data were generated for each cell line following 24 h of treatment: expression data were obtained for cells treated with vehicle EtOH (Control); with 10 79 or 10 78 M oestradiol; with 10 76 M 4-hydroxytamoxifen; with 10 76 M raloxifene; with 10 76 M idoxifene, with 10 76 M EM 652, with 10 76 M GW 7604; with 5610 75 M resveratrol and with 10 76 M ICI 182,780. We developed a new algorithm 'Expression Signatures' to classify compounds on the basis of differential gene expression profiles. We created dendrograms for each cell line, in which branches represent relationships between compounds. Additionally, clustering analysis was performed using different subsets of genes to assess the robustness of the analysis. In general, only small differences between gene expression profiles treated with compounds were observed with correlation coefficients ranged from 0.83 to 0.98. This observation may be explained by the use of the same cell context for treatments with compounds that essentially belong to the same class of drugs with oestrogen receptors related mechanisms. The most surprising observation was that ICI 182,780 clustered together with oestrodiol and raloxifene for cells expressing wtERa and clustered together with EM 652 for cells expressing mutant 351 ERa. These data provide a rationale for a more precise and elaborate study in which custom made oligonucleotide arrays can be used with comprehensive sets of genes known to have consensus and putative oestrogen response elements in their promoter regions.

OVERVIEW Treating patients with cancer with infused or injected oncolytics is a core component of outpatient oncology practice. Currently, practices purchase drugs and then bill insurers, colloquially called “buy and bill.” Reimbursement for these drugs is the largest source of gross revenue for oncology practices, and as the prices of cancer drugs have grown over time, these purchases have had significant impact on the financial health of practices and pose a risk that jeopardizes the ability of many practices to operate and provide patient care. Medicare Part B spending on drugs is under political scrutiny because of federal spending pressures, and the margin between buy and bill, lowered to 6% by the Medicare Modernization Act and further decreased to 4.3% by sequestration, is a convenient and popular target of budgetary discussions and proposals, scored to save billions of dollars over 10-year budget windows for each percentage-point reduction. Alternatives to the buy-and-bill system have been proposed to include invoice pricing, least costly alternative reimbursement, bundling of drugs into episode-of-care payments, shifting Part B drugs to the Medicare Part D benefit, and revision of the failed Competitive Acquisition Program. This article brings the perspectives of policy makers, health care economists, and providers together to discuss this major challenge in oncology payment reform.