PURPOSE Multidisciplinary molecular tumor boards (MTBs) help in interpreting complex genomic data generated by molecular tumor profiling and improve patients' access to targeted therapies. The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of our institution's MTB on the clinical management of patients with cancer. METHODS This study was conducted at a tertiary cancer center in India. Cases to be discussed in the MTB were identified by molecular pathologists, scientists, or oncologists. On the basis of the clinical data and molecular test reports, a course of clinical management was recommended and made available to the treating oncologist. We determined the proportion of patients who were recommended a change in the clinical management. We also assessed compliance of the treating oncologists with MTB recommendations. RESULTS There were 339 discussions for 328 unique patients. The median age of the cohort was 54 years (range 17-87), and the majority of the patients were men (65.1%). Of 339 cases, 133 (39.2%) were recommended continuation of ongoing therapy while the remaining 206 (60.7%) were recommended a change in clinical management. Compliance with MTB recommendations for a change in clinical management was 58.5% (79 of 138 evaluable cases). Compliance and implementation for MTB's recommendation to start a new therapy in 104 evaluable cases were 60.5% and 44.2%, respectively. A total of 248 biopsies had at least one actionable mutation. A total of 646 mutations were identified in the cohort, with EGFR being the most frequently altered gene. CONCLUSION MTBs help in interpreting results of molecular tests, understanding the significance of molecular abnormalities, and assessing the benefits of available targeted therapies and clinical trials in the management of patients with targetable genetic alterations.
PURPOSE The prognosis of relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) that is refractory to bortezomib and lenalidomide is very poor wherein the median survival is between 3 and 9 months. We did this retrospective analysis to study the pattern of utilization, tolerance, and outcomes with pomalidomide in these patients having RRMM. MATERIALS AND METHODS Retrospective analysis of all the patients who were treated with generic pomalidomide at Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai, during the period of May 2017 to March 2019 was done. Patients with secretory disease and who had completed at least one cycle of pomalidomide were analyzed for response rates, toxicity, and survival outcomes. RESULTS A total of 81 patients received pomalidomide-based therapy during this study period, out of which 75 were included in the survival analysis. Forty-eight patients (59.3%) were refractory to both lenalidomide and bortezomib. Overall response rate was 58.7%. Five patients (6.7%) achieved complete response, very good partial response was seen in 13 patients (17.3%), and partial response was seen in 26 patients (34.7%). After a median follow-up of 11 months (range 2-27 months), median progression-free survival was 9.1 months (95% CI, 5.4 to 12.9 months). Median progression-free survival for patients who were refractory to both lenalidomide and bortezomib versus nonrefractory was 5.5 and 12.6 months, respectively, which was significant statistically ( P = .04, hazard ratio, 0.35, 95% CI, 0.28 to 0.97). The median overall survival was not reached. Important toxicities included anemia (28%), neutropenia (16%), pneumonia (16%), and venous thrombosis (5%). CONCLUSION Generic pomalidomide-based therapy is an effective option and is well tolerated in patients with RRMM. Higher response rates and longer survival seen in our study are possibly because of heterogeneity of the study population.
Background: Patients with cancer are at a higher risk of severe forms of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and mortality. Therefore, widespread COVID-19 vaccination is required to attain herd immunity. Objectives: We aimed to evaluate the uptake of the COVID-19 vaccine in Indian patients with cancer and to collect information regarding vaccine hesitancy and factors that contributed to vaccine hesitancy. Materials and Methods: This was a questionnaire-based survey conducted between May 7, 2021 and June 10, 2021 in patients aged 45 years and over, with solid tumors. The primary end points of the study were the proportion of Indian patients with cancer aged 45 years and older who had not received the COVID-19 vaccine, and the reasons why these patients had not received the COVID-19 vaccine. Our secondary end points were the proportion of patients with a history of COVID-19 infection, and the proportion of the patients who had vaccine hesitancy. Additionally, we attempted to assess the factors that could impact vaccine hesitancy. Results: A total of 435 patients were included in the study. Of these, 348 (80%) patients had not received even a single dose of the COVID-19 vaccine; 66 (15.2%) patients had received the first dose, and 21 (4.8%) had received both the doses. Approximately half (47.1%) of the patients reported that they took the COVID-19 vaccine based on the advice from a doctor. The reasons for not taking the COVID-19 vaccine could be considered as vaccine hesitancy in 259 (77%) patients. The two most common reasons were fear in 124 (38%) patients (fear of side-effects and of the impact of the vaccine on the cancer/therapy) and lack of information in 87 (26.7%) patients. On the multivariate analysis, the two factors found to be significantly associated with vaccine hesitancy were a lower educational level (OR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1–3.17; P = 0.048) and a lack of prior advice regarding the COVID-19 vaccine (OR, 2.80; 95% CI, 1.73–4.53; P < 0.001). Conclusion: Vaccine hesitancy is present in over half of our patients, and the most common reasons are a fear of the vaccine impacting the cancer therapy, fear of side-effects, and lack of information. Widespread vaccination can only be attained if systematic programs for education and dissemination of information regarding the safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine are given as much importance as fortification of the vaccination supply and distribution system.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.