Background:The host inflammatory response has a vital role in carcinogenesis and tumour progression. We examined the prognostic value of inflammatory markers (albumin, white-cell count and its components, and platelets) in pre-treated patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC).Methods:Using data from a randomised trial, multivariable proportional hazards models were generated to examine the impact of inflammatory markers and established prognostic factors (performance status, calcium, and haemoglobin) on overall survival (OS). We evaluated a new prognostic classification incorporating additional information from inflammatory markers.Results:Of the 416 patients, 362 were included in the analysis. Elevated neutrophil counts, elevated platelet counts, and a high neutrophil–lymphocyte ratio were significant independent predictors for shorter OS in a model with established prognostic factors. The addition of inflammatory markers improves the discriminatory value of the prognostic classification as compared with established factors alone (C-statistic 0.673 vs 0.654, P=0.002 for the difference), with 25.8% (P=0.004) of patients more appropriately classified using the new classification.Conclusion:Markers of systemic inflammation contribute significantly to prognostic classification in addition to established factors for pre-treated patients with advanced RCC. Upon validation of these data in independent studies, stratification of patients using these markers in future clinical trials is recommended.

STUDY QUESTIONWould letrozole as a primary ovulation induction agent generate better pregnancy rates than clomiphene citrate (CC) in subfertile women with anovulatory polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS)?SUMMARY ANSWERParticipants receiving letrozole as a primary treatment achieved a significantly (P = 0.022) higher clinical pregnancy rate per patient (61.2%) compared to CC (43.0%).WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADYAccording to a recent Cochrane systematic review (2014), letrozole appears to improve live-birth (LB) and pregnancy rates in anovulatory women with PCOS, compared to CC. However, the review concluded that the quality of evidence was low due to poor reporting of study methods and possible publication bias.STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATIONThis double-blind randomized controlled trial (RCT) included 159 participants between April 2007 and June 2014. Subjects were randomly allocated to either CC (n = 79) or letrozole (n = 80) in a 1:1 ratio. Both drugs were encapsulated to look identical. Randomization was performed in mixed blocks and stratified by patients’ BMI (<30 and 30–35 kg/m2).PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODSThe trial included subfertile women diagnosed with PCOS. Treatment started with one tablet (CC 50 mg, letrozole 2.5 mg) increasing to two in non-responders and continuing until pregnancy or for up to six ovulatory cycles. Non-responders were crossed over to the other treatment after a 6-week break. Cycles were initially monitored with ultrasound follicle tracking then mid-luteal serum progesterone measurement in subsequent cycles.MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCEAmongst the 159 participants included in the intention-to-treat analysis, four women conceived before treatment and six were lost-to-follow-up. The remaining 149 participants (74 on CC and 75 on letrozole) completed at least the first treatment. Women receiving letrozole achieved a significantly (P = 0.022; absolute difference [95% confidence interval] 18% [3–33%]) higher pregnancy rate (61.%) than those on CC (43%). The median number of treatment cycles received until pregnancy was significantly (log rank P = 0.038) smaller with letrozole (4[3–5] cycles) compared to CC (6[4–7] cycles). LB rates were not statistically (P = 0.089) different between the two groups, although there was a trend towards higher rates on letrozole (48.8%) compared to CC (35.4%). After the crossover, pregnancy and LB rates on letrozole (n = 45; 28.9 and 24.4%, respectively) were not statistically (P = 0.539 and P = 0.601) different from CC (n = 31; 22.6 and 19.4%).LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTIONOne possible limitation of this trial may be the exclusion of PCOS women with BMI > 35 kg/m2, which would limit the applicability of the results in this subgroup of PCOS. However, this group of women are generally excluded from treatment in the majority of fertility centres, especially in Europe, due to the associated challenges and risks.WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGSThe results of this trial are consistent with the recent Cochrane systematic review. However, with its...

No abstract

Purpose: Endoxifen is the major mediator of tamoxifen effect and endoxifen levels <15 nmol/L may be associated with increased risk of breast cancer recurrence. We increased tamoxifen dose in breast cancer patients with low endoxifen levels and assessed the influence of various parameters on reaching 15 nmol/L and 30 nmol/L endoxifen levels.Experimental Design: Tamoxifen dose was increased in those with endoxifen levels below 30 nmol/L. Toxicity, including hot flash score, was measured. CYP2D6 metabolizer status was classified as ultra-rapid (UM), extensive (EM), intermediate (IM), or poor (PM) based genotype of somatic DNA.Results: Dosage was escalated in 68 of 122 participants. On 20 mg tamoxifen, 24% had endoxifen levels below 15 nmol/L and this reduced to 6% following dose escalation. In over 50% of cases, there was no identified cause for low endoxifen. Low baseline endoxifen level, and not CYP2D6 metabolizer status, independently predicted reaching threshold targets for both the 15 nmol/L and 30 nmol/L targets (P ¼ 0.04 and 0.003 respectively). The 15 nmol/L target was reached in all UM/EM and IM patients, 63% of PM patients, and 58% of those with baseline endoxifen of <10 nmol/L. There was no correlation between hot flash score and genotype or any tamoxifen metabolite level including endoxifen (R ¼ 0.07).Conclusions: Low endoxifen on standard dose tamoxifen was the only independent predictor of failure to achieve potentially therapeutic levels. Trials examining tamoxifen dose escalation and breast cancer outcome should be guided by endoxifen levels alone, without reference to CYP2D6 genotype or presence of hot flashes.

PURPOSE Palbociclib is a cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 inhibitor approved for advanced breast cancer. In the adjuvant setting, the potential value of adding palbociclib to endocrine therapy for hormone receptor–positive breast cancer has not been confirmed. PATIENTS AND METHODS In the prospective, randomized, phase III PALLAS trial, patients with hormone receptor–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative early breast cancer were randomly assigned to receive 2 years of palbociclib (125 mg orally once daily, days 1-21 of a 28-day cycle) with adjuvant endocrine therapy or adjuvant endocrine therapy alone (for at least 5 years). The primary end point of the study was invasive disease-free survival (iDFS); secondary end points were invasive breast cancer–free survival, distant recurrence-free survival, locoregional cancer-free survival, and overall survival. RESULTS Among 5,796 patients enrolled at 406 centers in 21 countries worldwide over 3 years, 5,761 were included in the intention-to-treat population. At the final protocol-defined analysis, at a median follow-up of 31 months, iDFS events occurred in 253 of 2,884 (8.8%) patients who received palbociclib plus endocrine therapy and in 263 of 2,877 (9.1%) patients who received endocrine therapy alone, with similar results between the two treatment groups (iDFS at 4 years: 84.2% v 84.5%; hazard ratio, 0.96; CI, 0.81 to 1.14; P = .65). No significant differences were observed for secondary time-to-event end points, and subgroup analyses did not show any differences by subgroup. There were no new safety signals for palbociclib in this trial. CONCLUSION At this final analysis of the PALLAS trial, the addition of adjuvant palbociclib to standard endocrine therapy did not improve outcomes over endocrine therapy alone in patients with early hormone receptor–positive breast cancer.

These consensus guidelines provide recommendations for the safe handling of monoclonal antibodies. Definitive recommendations are given for the minimum safe handling requirements to protect healthcare personnel. The seven recommendations cover: (i) appropriate determinants for evaluating occupational exposure risk; (ii) occupational risk level compared with other hazardous and non-hazardous drugs; (iii) stratification of risk based on healthcare personnel factors; (iv) waste products; (v) interventions and safeguards; (vi) operational and clinical factors and (vii) handling recommendations. The seventh recommendation includes a risk assessment model and flow chart for institutions to consider and evaluate clinical and operational factors unique to individual healthcare services. These guidelines specifically evaluated monoclonal antibodies used in the Australian cancer clinical practice setting; however, the principles may be applicable to monoclonal antibodies used in non-cancer settings. The guidelines are only applicable to parenterally administered agents.

No abstract

Sunitinib level has minimal variability in the majority of patients on stable dose. A subset of patients had a significant intrapatient variation, so we recommend two samples 4 to 6 months apart. TAD is feasible for dosing sunitinib and showed a favourable outcome.