Background:Hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation may occur with chemotherapy and has significant morbidity and mortality. The United States Centre for Disease Control and Prevention recommends pre-chemotherapy hepatitis B screening for all cancer patients, while the American Society of Clinical Oncology finds that there is insufficient evidence currently to support such a recommendation. Apart from anthracyclines, HBV reactivation rates from other commonly used chemotherapy regimens in solid tumours are not well described.Methods:We compared HBV reactivation risk in patients receiving several commonly used chemotherapy regimens for solid tumours associated with different immunosuppression risk at a tertiary cancer centre in an HBV endemic region.Results:A total of 1149 patients were identified, including 434, 196, 245 and 274, respectively, who received doxorubicin-based, oxaliplatin- or irinotecan-based, carboplatin/gemcitabine, and capecitabine chemotherapy. HBV screening rate was 39% overall. Thirty out of 448 (7%) screened patients were HBsAg positive and 28 out of 30 received prophylactic antiviral therapy with no reactivation. Three out of 1149 patients overall (0.3%) developed HBV reactivation, all from the unscreened doxorubicin group (3 out of 214, 1.4%). No unscreened patients (0 out of 487) in the other three treatment groups developed reactivation (P<0.001).Conclusion:Not all chemotherapy regimens result in HBV reactivation. Routine hepatitis B screening for low- or moderate-risk regimens may not be warranted.

Background We previously reported that low-dose, short-course sunitinib prior to neoadjuvant doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide (AC) normalised tumour vasculature and improved perfusion, but resulted in neutropenia and delayed subsequent cycles in breast cancer patients. This study combined sunitinib with docetaxel, which has an earlier neutrophil nadir than AC. Methods Patients with advanced solid cancers were randomized 1:1 to 3-weekly docetaxel 75 mg/m2, with or without sunitinib 12.5 mg daily for 7 days prior to docetaxel, stratified by primary tumour site. Primary endpoints were objective-response (ORR:CR + PR) and clinical-benefit rate (CBR:CR + PR + SD); secondary endpoints were toxicity and progression-free-survival (PFS). Results We enrolled 68 patients from 2 study sites; 33 received docetaxel-sunitinib and 35 docetaxel alone, with 33 breast, 25 lung and 10 patients with other cancers. There was no difference in ORR (30.3% vs 28.6%, p = 0.432, odds-ratio [OR] 1.10, 95% CI 0.38–3.18); CBR was lower in the docetaxel-sunitinib arm (48.5% vs 71.4%, p = 0.027 OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.14–1.01). Median PFS was shorter in the docetaxel-sunitinib arm (2.9 vs 4.9 months, hazard-ratio [HR] 2.00, 95% CI 1.15–3.48, p = 0.014) overall, as well as in breast (4.2 vs 5.6 months, p = 0.048) and other cancers (2.0 vs 5.3 months, p = 0.009), but not in lung cancers (2.9 vs 4.1 months, p = 0.597). Median OS was similar in both arms overall (9.9 vs 10.5 months, HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.51–1.67, p = 0.789), and in the breast (18.9 vs 25.8 months, p = 0.354), lung (7.0 vs 6.7 months, p = 0.970) and other cancers (4.5 vs 8.8 months, p = 0.449) subgroups. Grade 3/4 haematological toxicities were lower with docetaxel-sunitinib (18.2% vs 34.3%, p = 0.132), attributed to greater discretionary use of prophylactic G-CSF (90.9% vs 63.0%, p = 0.024). Grade 3/4 non-haematological toxicities were similar (12.1% vs 14.3%, p = 0.792). Conclusions The addition of sunitinib to docetaxel was well-tolerated but did not improve outcomes. The possible negative impact in metastatic breast cancer patients is contrary to results of adding sunitinib to neoadjuvant AC. These negative results suggest that the intermittent administration of sunitinib in the current dose and schedule with docetaxel in advanced solid tumours, particularly breast cancers, is not beneficial. Trial registration The study was registered (NCT01803503) prospectively on clinicaltrials.gov on 4th March 2013.

Purpose: This phase 1 study aims to evaluate the tolerability and the recommended phase 2 dose of selinexor in Asian patients with advanced or metastatic malignancies. Experimental Design: A total of 105 patients with advanced malignancies were enrolled from two sites in Singapore (National University Hospital and the National Cancer Centre, Singapore) from 24 February 2014 to 14 January 2019. We investigated four dosing schedules of selinexor in a 3 + 3 dose escalation design with an additional Phase 1b expansion cohort. Adverse events were graded with the NCI Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v 4.03. Pharmacodynamic assessments included nuclear cytoplasmic localization of p27, XPO1 cargo proteins pre and post selinexor dosing and pharmacokinetic assessments were conducted at doses between 40 and 60 mg/m2. Results: In our Asian patient cohort, dosing at 40 mg/m2 given 2 out of 3 weeks, was the most tolerable for our patients. At this dose level, grade 3 adverse events included fatigue (8%), hyponatremia (23%), vomiting (5%), thrombocytopenia (5%), and anaemia (2%). Selinexor had a rapid oral absorption with median Tmax of 2 h and no PK accumulation after multiple doses of tested regimens. Complete responses were seen in two lymphoma patients. Partial responses were noted in three diffuse large B cell lymphomas, one Hodgkin’s lymphoma and thymic carcinoma patient, respectively. Conclusion: Selinexor is tolerated by Asian patients at 40 mg/m2 twice a week given 2 out of 3 weeks. A 1-week drug holiday was needed as our patients could not tolerate the current approved continuous dosing regimens because of persistent grade 3 fatigue, anorexia and hyponatremia.