Biological oncology products are integral to cancer treatment, but their high costs pose challenges to patients, families, providers, and insurers. The introduction of biosimilar agents—molecules that are similar in structure, function, activity, immunogenicity, and safety to the original biological drugs—provide opportunities both to improve healthcare access and outcomes, and to reduce costs. Several international regulatory pathways have been developed to expedite entry of biosimilars into global marketplaces. The first wave of oncology biosimilar use was in Europe and India in 2007. Oncology biosimilars are now widely marketed in several countries in Europe, and in Australia, Japan, China, Russia, India, and South Korea. Their use is emerging worldwide, with the notable exception of the USA, where several regulatory and cost barriers to biosimilar approval exist. In this Review, we discuss oncology biosimilars and summarise their regulatory frameworks, clinical experiences, and safety concerns.

The treatment of metastatic breast cancer (mBC) has evolved significantly in the past several years with the approval of new targeted agents. Trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd), an antibody-drug conjugate with a topoisomerase I inhibitor payload, is a new addition to the class of therapies that target the human epidermal growth factor 2 (HER2) receptor. T-DXd was approved in the US in December 2019 for patients with HER2-positive metastatic or unresectable breast cancer who have received 2 or more prior anti-HER2–based regimens in the metastatic setting. In the DESTINY-Breast01 phase II trial (NCT03248492), T-DXd demonstrated high rates of durable responses in heavily pretreated patients with HER2-positive mBC, with a confirmed objective response rate of 62%, median duration of response of 18.2 months, and median progression-free survival of 19.4 months. In addition to efficacy, successful implementation of any new anticancer therapy includes learning how to prevent, monitor, and manage treatment-related adverse events. As T-DXd becomes more widely used, information can be gained from real-world clinical practices, institutional approaches, and the collaboration of multidisciplinary oncology teams who treat patients with T-DXd. This article reviews practical insights and management of nausea and vomiting, neutropenia, interstitial lung disease, risk of cardiotoxicity, and other adverse events associated with T-DXd administration from the perspective of health care providers who have experience utilizing T-DXd.

Purpose: Alpelisib is a first-in-class α-specific phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase inhibitor approved for the treatment of patients with estrogen receptor–positive metastatic breast cancer. High absolute risk (AR) of relevant toxicities has been observed with this treatment. This meta-analysis aimed to improve the precision of the estimated AR of selected adverse events (AEs) associated with this new agent. Materials and Methods: A literature search was conducted in August 2019 to identify trials analyzing the anti-tumor efficacy and toxicity profile of alpelisib. Heterogeneity was assessed by using I 2 statistics. Data were analyzed using random effect meta-analyses for AR. Eleven trials and 511 patients were included. Results: There was no evidence of heterogeneity between studies regarding the AR of most AEs except for all-grade weight loss and grade 3–4 stomatitis. The number of serious AEs was clearly reported in only one study, of which the most common was hyperglycemia; the most common all-grade AEs were hyperglycemia (59%), diarrhea (56%), nausea (44%), and rash (38%). Grade 3/4 hyperglycemia and rash occurred in 28% and 10% of patients, respectively. No treatment-associated deaths were observed, and 18% of patients had to stop treatment due to toxicities. Conclusions: Alpelisib is associated with clinically relevant AEs that can lead to treatment discontinuation. The most common AE was hyperglycemia. No treatment-related deaths were observed.

No abstract

No abstract

Insufficiency fractures are beginning to emerge in case reports of patients on long-term bisphosphonate therapy. The side effects associated with the long-term use of bisphosphonates were once thought to only involve renal and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity and osteonecrosis of the jaw, but it is becoming clear that the very condition bisphosphonates were meant to treat could be causing another, trading insufficiency fractures for another type of insufficiency fracture. We review the literature concerning this surprising trend in addition to providing 2 case reports and conclude that these fractures do occur, that they can heal uneventfully, and that further research is needed to determine optimum treatment algorithms concerning duration of treatment and to weigh the potential benefits and morbidity of bisphosphonate treatment.

No abstract

No abstract