In the last 30 years, marked advances in enteral feeding techniques, venous access, and enteral and parenteral nutrient formulations have made it possible to provide nutrition support to almost all patients. Despite the abundant medical literature and widespread use of nutritional therapy, many areas of nutrition support remain controversial. Therefore, the leadership at the National Institutes of Health, The American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, and The American Society for Clinical Nutrition convened an advisory committee to perform a critical review of the current medical literature evaluating the clinical use of nutrition support; the goal was to assess our current body of knowledge and to identify the issues that deserve further investigation. The panel was divided into five groups to evaluate the following areas: nutrition assessment, nutrition support in patients with gastrointestinal diseases, nutrition support in wasting diseases, nutrition support in critically ill patients, and perioperative nutrition support. The findings from each group are summarized in this report. This document is not meant to establish practice guidelines for nutrition support. The use of nutritional therapy requires a careful integration of data from pertinent clinical trials, clinical expertise in the illness or injury being treated, clinical expertise in nutritional therapy, and input from the patient and his/her family. (Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition 21:133-156, 1997).

No abstract

9503 Background: The immunomodulatory receptor TIGIT is a novel inhibitory immune checkpoint present on activated T cells and NK cells in multiple cancers, including NSCLC. In a phase I study (GO30103), co-inhibition of TIGIT and PD-L1 signaling with tira plus atezo in CIT-naïve PD-L1 positive NSCLC potentially improved overall response rates (ORR) compared to historical ORR with PD-L1/PD-1 inhibitors. We conducted this phase II trial to confirm the efficacy and safety of tira plus atezo (TA) compared to placebo plus atezo (PA) in 1L NSCLC (GO40290, NCT NCT03563716). Methods: This prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial enrolled patients (pts) with chemotherapy-naïve PD-L1+ (TPS ≥ 1% by 22C3 IHC pharmDx Dako assay) locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC with measurable disease, ECOG PS 0-1, and without EGFR or ALK alterations. Pts were randomized 1:1 to TA (tira 600 mg IV plus atezo 1200 mg IV) or PA (placebo plus atezo 1200 mg IV) on day 1 of every 3-week cycle. Stratification factors were PD-L1 status (TPS ≥ 50% vs TPS 1-49%), histology, and tobacco history. Co-primary endpoints were investigator assessed ORR and PFS, and additional endpoints were duration of response (DOR), OS, and safety. Exploratory endpoints were the effect of PD-L1 status on ORR and PFS. Results: 135 pts were randomized to PA (n = 68) or TA (n = 67). At primary analysis (30 Jun 2019), TA improved ORR and median PFS (mPFS) compared to PA, with median follow-up of 5.9 mo. In the safety population (68 in PA, 67 in TA), treatment-related AEs (TRAEs) occurred in 72% (PA) and 80.6% (TA); Grade ≥3 TRAEs occurred in 19.1% (PA) and 14.9% (TA). AEs leading to treatment withdrawal occurred in 10.3% (PA) and 7.5% (TA). Clinical trial information: NCT03563716 . With an additional six months of follow-up since the primary analysis (2 Dec 2019, median follow-up of 10.9 mo), improvement in ORR and mPFS was maintained in ITT for TA (37.3% [25.0, 49.6] and 5.6 mo [4.2, 10.4]) vs PA (20.6% [10.2, 30.9] and 3.9 mo [2.7, 4.5]). The safety profile remained tolerable. Conclusions: Treatment with TA compared to PA showed clinically meaningful improvement in ORR and PFS in ITT. The safety profile of TA was similar to PA. [Table: see text]

No abstract

No abstract