OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of sorafenib in elderly patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). METHODS: We analyzed data from a cohort of patients with advanced HCC treated using systemic treatment according to the local institutional protocol. Patients were divided into two groups, Group A, individuals <70 years of age, and Group B, individuals 70 years of age or older at the time of treatment initiation. Efficacy, measured based on overall survival (OS) and time to treatment failure (TTF), and toxicity were compared between groups. RESULTS: A total of 238 patients with advanced HCC who received sorafenib between 2007 and 2018 were evaluated. The median age for Group A was 59.1 years and that for Group B 73.6 years. The major prognostic characteristics were balanced between the groups. There were no significant differences in OS between Group A (8.0 months, 95%CI 6.34-9.3) and Group B (9.0 months, 95%CI 5.38-12.62), p=0.433, or in TTF between Group A (3.0 months, 95%CI 2.39-3.60) and Group B (3.0 months, 95%CI 1.68-4.32), p=0.936. There were no significant differences between Groups A and B with respect to the incidence of adverse events or treatment discontinuation because of toxicity. CONCLUSION: Efficacy and safety of sorafenib did not differ significantly between younger and older patients with HCC. Our data suggest that age alone should not restrict clinical decision-making for patients with advanced HCC.

OBJECTIVES: The Lewis-Y antigen is expressed in 44%-90% of breast cancers (BCs). The expression of the antigen in carcinoma tissue differs from that in normal tissues. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical benefit of the humanized anti-Lewis Y monoclonal antibody, hu3S193, in advanced hormone receptor-positive and Lewis Y-positive BC after administration of endocrine therapy (ET). METHODS: A single-arm phase II study was conducted in seven centers. Patients with advanced hormone receptor-positive BC who failed first-line ET were included. The inclusion criterion was the observation of tumoral expression of the Lewis Y antigen during immunohistochemistry. The treatment comprised hu3S193 antibody administration at weekly intravenous doses of 20 mg/m2 for 8-week cycles. The primary endpoint was the clinical benefit rate. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01370239. RESULTS: The study stopped accrual following an unplanned interim analysis as the hu3S193 antibody lacked sufficient activity to justify continuation of the study. Twenty-two patients were enrolled, of whom 21 were included in the efficacy analysis. The clinical benefit rate was 19%, with four patients presenting with stable disease after 24 weeks. One patient with prolonged stable disease received medication for over 2 years. No partial or complete responses were observed. The median time to progression and overall survival was 5.4 and 37.5 months, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The humanized anti-Lewis Y monoclonal antibody, hu3S193, exhibited insufficient activity in this cohort. However, the possibility of activity in a more strictly selected subgroup of patients with higher levels of Lewis Y tumoral expression cannot be overlooked.

Resumo O desafio imposto ao sistema de saúde pela pandemia da COVID-19 faz com que haja uma necessidade de readequações de rotinas e serviços de saúde, com os objetivos de controlar a disseminação do vírus e preservar a saúde. Torna-se ainda mais importante o manejo seguro e correto dos pacientes dos grupos de risco, como os pacientes idosos, os portadores de doenças cardiovasculares e os pacientes com câncer. Dessa forma, a cardio-oncologia ganha novo dimensionamento, no intuito de se adequar às necessidades dos pacientes diante de uma pandemia, reestruturando o sistema de atendimento de forma a oferecer qualidade e segurança na assistência à saúde.

Abstract The challenges that the COVID-19 pandemic cretead to the healthcare system have made it necessary to adapt routines and services, with the objectives of controlling the spread of the virus and preserving health. Safe and correct management of patients in risks groups, such as elderly patients, patients with cardiovascular diseases, and patients with cancer, has become even more important. Thus, cardio-oncology has gained a new dimension, with the aim of adapting to patients’ needs during the pandemic by restructuring the system of care in a manner that offers quality and safety in healthcare.

OBJECTIVES: With the development of next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies, DNA sequencing has been increasingly utilized in clinical practice. Our goal was to investigate the impact of genomic evaluation on treatment decisions for heavily pretreated patients with metastatic cancer. METHODS: We analyzed metastatic cancer patients from a single institution whose cancers had progressed after all available standard-of-care therapies and whose tumors underwent next-generation sequencing analysis. We determined the percentage of patients who received any therapy directed by the test, and its efficacy. RESULTS: From July 2013 to December 2015, 185 consecutive patients were tested using a commercially available next-generation sequencing-based test, and 157 patients were eligible. Sixty-six patients (42.0%) were female, and 91 (58.0%) were male. The mean age at diagnosis was 52.2 years, and the mean number of pre-test lines of systemic treatment was 2.7. One hundred and seventy-seven patients (95.6%) had at least one identified gene alteration. Twenty-four patients (15.2%) underwent systemic treatment directed by the test result. Of these, one patient had a complete response, four (16.7%) had partial responses, two (8.3%) had stable disease, and 17 (70.8%) had disease progression as the best result. The median progression-free survival time with matched therapy was 1.6 months, and the median overall survival was 10 months. CONCLUSION: We identified a high prevalence of gene alterations using an next-generation sequencing test. Although some benefit was associated with the matched therapy, most of the patients had disease progression as the best response, indicating the limited biological potential and unclear clinical relevance of this practice.

OBJECTIVES:Colorectal cancer is the third leading cause of cancer death in the United States. The American College of Gastroenterology recommends screening for first-degree relatives of patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer before the age of 50. A colonoscopy is one of the most commonly recommended exams due to its specificity and the possibility to resect pre-malignant lesions. Nevertheless, the rate of physician adherence to this recommendation is unknown.METHODS:This transversal study was performed at a major cancer center in Brazil with 62 patients, aged 18 to 50, who completed a questionnaire on information received from their physicians regarding screening their first-degree relatives. We used the answers from patients who provided explicit consent.RESULTS:Two hundred and three patients were eligible to participate and 93 (45.8%) agreed to complete the questionnaire. Twenty-three questionnaires (24.73%) were returned and 39 were completed by telephone. Of the patients who answered the questionnaire, 39 (62.9%) had received a colonoscopy recommendation for their first-degree relatives and 23 (37.1%) were not informed of the recommendation. Among the patients who received the recommendations, 20.51% affirmed that all relatives completed the exam and 51.28% stated that no relatives completed the exam.DISCUSSION:The adherence rate of our physicians to the ACG guideline recommendations was 62.9%. Considering that our study was performed at a leading center for cancer treatment in Latin America, we had expected better adherence. The results show that adherence to the colorectal cancer screening recommendations for high-risk patients must be improved.