Because of the poor results in stage III B carcinoma of the cervix with standard treatment using radiotherapy alone, we designed a randomized trial to determine whether administration of chemotherapy before pelvic irradiation would improve survival. Between May 1984 and August 1986, 107 patients with previously untreated squamous cell carcinoma were randomly assigned, after stratification by age (less than 50 v greater than 50 years), extent of parametrial involvement (unilateral v bilateral), and lymphangiographic findings (negative v positive) to pelvic radiotherapy (RT; arm A) or three cycles of chemotherapy (CT; bleomycin, vincristine, mitomycin, and cisplatin [BOMP]), followed by the same radiotherapy regimen (CT + RT; arm B). The groups were balanced by age, performance status, extent of parametrial involvement, bulkiness of cervical disease, nodal involvement, and presence of hydronephrosis. Minimal follow-up is 34 months. A complete local response was observed in 32.5% of the patients in arm A and in 47% of the patients in arm B (P = .19). Overall 5-year survival rates were 39% for the RT arm and 23% for the CT + RT approach (P = .02). Toxicity was severe in arm B and included fatal pulmonary toxicity in four patients. Locoregional and distant failures were similar in both groups. We conclude that, despite a satisfactory response rate, neoadjuvant BOMP chemotherapy adversely affects survival in stage III B cervical cancer and is associated with unacceptable toxicity.

From September 1982 to December 1985, 59 previously untreated patients with Stage II squamous cell carcinoma of the thoracic esophagus were randomly assigned to receive radiation therapy (RT) alone versus the concomitant use of RT and chemotherapy (CT) with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), mitomycin C, and bleomycin (RT + CT). Thirty-one patients were randomized to the RT regimen and 28 to the RT + CT regimen. The complete local response rate was 58% for the RT group and 75% for the RT + CT group (P = 0.77). The median duration of response was 8 months for both groups. The overall 5-year survival rates were 6% and 16% (P = 0.16) for the RT and RT + CT groups, respectively. Acute toxicities were more pronounced in the RT + CT group. This clinical trial did not detect a difference in outcome with combined-technique therapy. This result must be interpreted with caution because of the small number of patients entered in this trial. Confirmation of the value or lack of value for combined therapy will require additional larger clinical trials.

A biosimilar is a biologic product that is similar to a reference biopharmaceutical product, the manufacturing process of which hinders the ability to identically replicate the structure of the original product, and therefore, it cannot be described as an absolute equivalent of the original medication. The currently available technology does not allow for an accurate copy of complex molecules, but it does allow the replication of similar molecules with the same activity. As biosimilars are about to be introduced in oncology practice, these must be evaluated through evidence-based medicine. This manuscript is a position paper, where the Brazilian Society of Clinical Oncology (SBOC) aims to describe pertinent issues regarding the approval and use of biosimilars in oncology. As a working group on behalf of SBOC, we discuss aspects related to definition, labeling/nomenclature, extrapolation, interchangeability, switching, automatic substitution, clinical standards on safety and efficacy, and the potential impact on financial burden in healthcare. We take a stand in favor of the introduction of biosimilars, as they offer a viable, safe, and cost-effective alternative to the biopharmaceutical products currently used in cancer. We hope this document can provide valuable information to support therapeutic decisions that maximize the clinical benefit for the thousands of cancer patients in Brazil and can contribute to expedite the introduction of this new drug class in clinical practice. We expect the conveyed information to serve as a basis for further discussion in Latin America, this being the first position paper issued by a Latin American Oncology Society.

Key Points Question What are the efficacy and safety associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) vs standard therapies in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)? Findings In a meta-analysis of 3 randomized clinical trials totaling 1657 patients, ICIs were associated with significantly improved overall survival, progression-free survival, and overall response rate compared with standard therapies. In addition, the rate of grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events was lower with ICIs than with sorafenib. Meaning These findings suggest that ICIs should be the new standard of care in systemic therapy of unresectable HCC.

No abstract