 V600E mutation–positive glioma experienced clinical activity following combination treatment with dabrafenib (Tafinlar) and trametinib (Mekinist), according to data from an interim analysis of the phase 2 ROAR trial (NCT02034110) published in 

In patients with high-grade glioma (n = 45), the ORR was 33% (95% CI, 20%-49%) by investigator assessment, including 3 complete responses (CRs) and 12 partial responses (PRs). The median follow-up was 12.7 months (interquartile range [IQR], 5.4-32.3). Independent radiology review found an ORR of 31% in this cohort, including 3 CRs and 11 PRs. The median duration of response (DOR) was 36.9 months (95% CI, 7.4-44.2) per investigator assessment and 13.6 months (95% CI, 4.6-43.4) per independent radiology review.

Furthermore, investigator assessment showed a median progression-free survival (PFS) of 3.8 months (95% CI, 1.8-9.2) and a median overall survival (OS) of 17.6 months (95% CI, 9.5-45.2). Independent radiology review reported a median PFS of 4.5 months (95% CI, 1.8-7.4).

In patients with low-grade disease (n = 13), ORR was 69% (95% CI, 39%-91%) per investigator assessment and independent radiology review. Investigators observed 1 CR, 6 PRs, and 2 minor responses at a median follow-up of 32.2 months (IQR, 25.1-47.8). The median DOR by independent radiology review was 27.5 months (95% CI, 3.8-39.5).

The median PFS (95% CI, 7.4-not reached) and median OS were not reached (95% CI, 11.6-not reached) by investigator assessment. However, the median PFS was 14.0 months (95% CI, 4.7-46.9) according to independent radiology review.

 V600 mutations in other tumor types, BRAF inhibitor development beyond melanoma has been challenging, but dabrafenib plus trametinib combination therapy has subsequently shown activity in non-small-cell lung cancer, anaplastic thyroid cancer, and biliary tract cancer,” lead study author Patrick Y. Wen, MD, and colleagues wrote. “In this context, the activity of dabrafenib plus trametinib, showing actionability of the 

 V600E mutation in high-grade glioma and low-grade glioma, is a notable finding.”

Dabrafenib, a BRAF inhibitor, has shown meaningful clinical activity in pediatric patients with 

 V600 mutation–positive low-grade and high-grade glioma.

 Trametinib, a MEK inhibitor, has shown activity in multiple tumor types and is the standard of care in 

 V600-mutant melanoma, non–small-cell lung cancer, and anaplastic thyroid cancer.

 Furthermore, the combination has shown superior outcomes in PFS and OS when compared with BRAF inhibitor monotherapy.

 V600 mutations have been identified in 5% to 15% of low-grade gliomas and approximately 3% of high-grade gliomas. No substantial treatment advances in the treatment of these tumors have been made in recent years, in part because of the rarity of gliomas, the difficulty of penetrating the blood-brain barrier, and molecular heterogeneity.

The ROAR trial examined 9 cohorts of patients with 

 V600E mutation-positive rare cancers, including patients with high-grade and low-grade glioma. Patients enrolled in the trial needed to be at least 18 years old with an ECOG performance status of 0 to 2, plus adequate organ function as assessed by routine chemistry, hematology, and echocardiogram.

Eligible patients had histologically confirmed recurrent or progressive high-grade (WHO grade 3 or 4) or low-grade (WHO grade 1 or 2) glioma. Those in the high-grade cohort needed to have measurable disease at baseline according to the Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) criteria, as well as prior treatment with radiotherapy and first-line chemotherapy or concurrent chemoradiotherapy.

In the low-grade glioma cohort, patients needed measurable non-enhancing disease, excluding pilocytic astrocytoma, using RANO criteria. Patients with grade 1 low-grade glioma were required to be symptomatic and were evaluated by a panel of neurooncologists prior to enrollment.

Patients received oral dabrafenib 150 mg twice daily and oral trametinib 2 mg once daily until unacceptable toxicity, disease progression, or death. Dose adjustments and interruptions were permitted to improve tolerability for patients unable to tolerate the protocol dose. Investigators made disease assessments via contrast MRI of the brain every 8 weeks for the first 48 weeks, then every 3 months, until disease progression.

Additionally, laboratory assessments were done during patient screening, including clinical chemistry and hematological assessments, measurement of glycated hemoglobin, evaluation of coagulation factors, and urinalysis. Those assessments were also conducted monthly during treatment. Glycated hemoglobin was measured every 3 months.

The primary end point of the study was investigator-assessed ORR using RANO, defined by CR plus PR for high-grade glioma, and CR plus PR and minor response for low-grade glioma. ORR was also assessed by independent radiology review. Secondary end points included PFS, DOR, OS, and safety.

Within the high-grade glioma cohort, patients had a median age of 42 years (range, 18-72) and 51% were male. Additionally, ECOG performance status of 0, 1, and 2 were seen in 29%, 58%, and 13% of patients, respectively. Sixty-nine percent of patients had a WHO grade of 4, 29% had a grade of 3, and 1 patient’s grade was missing.

Furthermore, 93% of patients had a confirmed central 

V600E mutation status. One patient had a negative 

 V600E mutation status, and the status of 2 patients was deemed insufficient or invalid. Notably, no patients were excluded from analysis due to protocol deviations.

In the low-grade glioma cohort, the median age was 33 years (range, 18-58), and 31% of patients were male. ECOG performance status of 0, 1, and 2 were measured in 38%, 54%, and 8% of patients, respectively. Additionally, 54% of patients had a WHO grade of 2 and 46% of patients had a WHO grade of 1. 

 V600E positive-mutation status was confirmed in 62% of patients, compared with 

 V600E negative-mutation status in 15% of patients. Twenty-three percent of patients had insufficient samples or invalid results.

Across both cohorts, 93% of patients experienced any-grade adverse events (AEs), including fatigue (50%), headache (43%), nausea (34%), and pyrexia (33%). Additionally, 53% of patients had grade 3/4 AEs, including fatigue (9%), headache (5%), and neutropenia (5%). AEs led to dose reductions in 38% of patients, treatment interruptions in 41%, and permanent discontinuation in 9%.

The authors acknowledged the lack of a comparator group as a limitation of this trial, and pointed out that randomized trials will be needed to better measure the efficacy of this line of treatment. However, they said glioblastoma has historically shown resistance to therapies, and this combination was the first targeted therapy to shown meaningful activity.

“Molecular screening strategies that include 

 V600E mutations will be crucial for identifying patients who might benefit from this treatment combination,” the authors wrote. “And we recommend that testing is adopted in clinical practice for patients with glioma.”

Wen PY, Stein A, van den Bent M, et al. Dabrafenib plus trametinib in patients with 

V600E-mutant low-grade and high-grade glioma (ROAR): a multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase 2, basket trial. 

. Published online November 24, 2021. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00578-7

Hargrave DR, Bouffet E, Tabori U, et al. Efficacy and safety of dabrafenib in pediatric patients with BRAFV600 mutation-positive relapsed or refractory low-grade glioma: results from a phase I/IIa study. 

. 2019;25:7303-7311. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-19-2177

Long GV, Stroyakovskiy D, Gogas H, et al. Combined BRAF and MEK inhibition versus BRAF inhibition alone in melanoma. 

. 2014;371:1877-1888. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1406037

This article was originally published on OncLive as “Dabrafenib/Trametinib Combo Produces Strong Response in BRAF V600E–Mutated Glioma”

Articles

Investigators reported that 33% of patients receiving dabrafenib plus trametinib for BRAF V600E–mutated glioma responded to treatment, including 3 complete responses and 12 partial responses.

Dabrafenib/Trametinib Elicits Viable Phase 2 Responses in BRAF V600E–Mutated Glioma

Lindsay Fischer is the Associate Editor at ONN. She joined MJH life sciences in 2021 after graduating from Rutgers University with majors in both English and Spanish and a minor in creative writing. When she is not writing, or researching the latest oncology nursing news, Lindsay is an amateur backpacker and rollerblader. Email Lindsay at lfischer@mjhlifesciences.com

Oncology nurses found the use of a medication extension set to be a feasible and comfortable method of administering subcutaneous hyaluronidase injections, according to a poster presented at the 47th Annual Oncology Nursing Society Congress.

Volunteer nurses across 6 pilot sites were asked to use the medication extension set for 6 injections and to answer a corresponding survey. Notably, 100% of nurses reported difficulties or complaints with traditional needle injections, while only 20% of nurses experienced problems with the novel method and 0% reported difficulty with dexterity using the extension set. Furthermore, 80% of respondents indicated a preference for the extension set over a traditional needle.

“The survey results were favorable for use of extension set over the use of the needle,” Sarah Digirolamo, RN, of Yale New Haven Health Smilow Greenwich, said in a presentation of the findings. “Eighty percent of our respondents reported that they would prefer to use the extension system.”

In 2017, Greenwich Hospital began administering subcutaneous injections which contained hyaluronidase. The hospital currently administers rituximab (Rituxan), daratumumab (Darzalex), and pertuzumab (Perjeta) with trastuzumab (Herceptin). The administration of these injections can take between 3 to 8 minutes to administer and can be uncomfortable for nurses because of the length of time they need to be in close proximity to the patient.

“It can be really hard to push some of those drugs (through a traditional needle),” Digirolamo explained. “It takes 3 to 8 minutes to push and not only are you hurting your hands, [but] you could be moving the needle into the patient. With the extension side, it is just easier to push it through.”

She added that once the COVID-19 pandemic hit the world, their health care system implemented social distancing guidelines, like many others.

“Nurses noted that social distancing always was a challenge when delivering patient care but was especially compromised while administering subcutaneous injections. It became apparent that there was a need for other administration options to address the concerns of improper body mechanics, increase the ease of device to administer these medications and promote social distancing during the administration of these medications, all while maintaining safety and comfort for their patients.”

To this end, they decided to consult with nursing professionals, development specialists, pharmacists, a patient education specialist, and frontline staff to explore possible alternatives. The selection criteria for their alternative included approval for subcutaneous use, availability, staff familiarity, and presence of safety features (a needle safety lock to protect both the nurse and the patient). Ultimately, the team chose to initiate use of a medication extension set.

Digirolamo noted that throughout the project, some nurses raised concerns about the residual medication that would be in the syringe extension, particularly because there is a small amount of tubing between the syringe and the patient to mitigate the dosing errors. The team therefore educated their nurses to conduct “air locking” or “air sandwich technique” before and after administering the drugs.

“With the extension set, we are teaching them to conduct a little ‘air sandwich,’” she advised. “[This entails pulling the needle, putting some air in, and then pushing it through so that we are priming it and [the] drug goes all the way through.”

Digirolamo S, Gineo E, Roselli E, Bocchetta N, Sumpio Catherine. Administering subcutaneous (SubQ) hyaluronidase injections with a medication extension set (ExSet). Presented at: 47th Annual Oncology Nursing Society Congress; April 27-May 1, 2022; Anaheim, CA. Abstract P30.

A medication extension set may be the preferred method for subcutaneous hyaluronidase injections compared with a traditional needle. 

Medication Extension Set Makes Subcutaneous Hyaluronidase Injections Easier, More Comfortable in Cancer Treatment

The preliminary efficacy data evaluating teclistamab (JNJ-64007957) in combination with daratumumab (Darzalex) in patients with heavily pretreated multiple myeloma has demonstrated promising results, according to Paula Rodriguez-Otero, MD, PhD.

“The combination of teclistamab and daratumumab with this preliminary efficacy suggests a promising ORR that could be even higher as compared [with] the efficacy of teclistamab as a single agent,” Rodriguez-Otero said.

®, Rodriguez-Otero, Department of Hematology, Clínica Universidad de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain, discussed the trial’s rationale, design, and findings assessing subcutaneous teclistamab in combination with daratumumab for the treatment of patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.

®: Could you discuss the rationale and the background information on this study?

: This is a phase 1b multicohort study from the TRIMM-2 trial. In this particular cohort, we evaluated teclistamab subcutaneously in combination with daratumumab. The preclinical data showed that daratumumab, an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody, may lead to synergistic clinical efficacy when combined to teclistamab, a bispecific antibody targeting BCMA.

[We have data] with daratumumab monotherapy leading to T-cell expansion and enhanced T-cell cytotoxic potential and preclinical studies showed that the addition of daratumumab may enhance the teclistamab mediated lysis of myeloma cells. This is the rationale behind the evaluation of this combination in this phase 1b clinical study.

Could you expand on the design of the study, including the methods and what patients were included?

Two different bispecific antibodies [were studied in this cohort]. In this case, we are speaking about teclistamab, which is a BCMA CD3 [T-cell redirecting bispecific antibody]. There is another cohort evaluating talquetamab, which is a GPRC5D-directed bispecific antibody. These 2 bispecific antibodies are evaluated in combination with daratumumab, and also in combination with daratumumab and pomalidomide.

In this particular abstract, we are seeing data of the combination of teclistamab and daratumumab. Patients were enrolled if they had received at least 3 prior lines of therapy or were double refractory to a proteasome inhibitor and an immunomodulatory drug. Treatment with [an] anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody was allowed, but there was a requirement for a 90-day washout period. Three different doses and schedules of teclistamab have been evaluated in combination with approved doses of subcutaneous [daratumumab].

Treatment was given until disease progression, and the key study objective for part 1 [was] to identify the recommended phase 2 dose for each treatment combination. For part 2, [the key objective] was to characterize the safety and overall antitumor activity of the different combinations.

A total of 37 patients have been included. Patients had heavily pretreated myeloma with a median of 5 prior lines of therapy. [Additionally], 76% of patients had been previously exposed to anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies, 60% of the patients were also refractory to anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies, and 54% of the patients were triple-class refractory.

The ORRs ranged from 70% to 100% on the different doses and schedules of teclistamab, with a high proportion of patients with deep responses, so very good partial responses, or better responses. Responses were quick in the first month and deepened over time, although the follow-up is still short for this study.

Regarding safety, teclistamab plus daratumumab was well-tolerated with no new adverse [effects] compared with the safety profile of the single drugs as previously reported.

Are there any next steps planned for this study? Do you see any future applications for this combination?

This study is aiming to evaluate the efficacy and the safety of the combination of the bispecific antibodies with other standards of care. [These preliminary data serve as] the basis of a phase 3 study [NCT05083169] that is a now ongoing that is called the MajesTEC-3 study. That is further evaluating the combination of teclistamab plus daratumumab in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.

Rodriguez-Otero P, Dholaria B, Askari E, et al. Subcutaneous teclistamab in combination with daratumumab for the treatment of patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: results from a phase 1b multicohort study. 

. 2021;138(suppl 1):1647. doi:10.1182/blood-2021-148723

This article was originally published on OncLive as “Teclistamab/Daratumumab Combo Delivers Promising ORR in Heavily Pretreated Relapsed/Refractory Myeloma"

An expert with the phase 1b TRIMM-2 trial underscores the significance and findings for patients with multiple myeloma. 

Heavily Pretreated Patients With Relapsed/Refractory Myeloma Achieve Encouraging Responses With Teclistamab Plus Daratumumab 

Oncology nurses can serve as the key to ensure that cancer survivors receive the follow-up care they need, according to Michelle Mollica, PhD, MPH, RN, OCN.

Mollica, who is a senior advisor in the NCI Office of Cancer Survivorship and is consequently responsible for developing, supporting, and promoting research efforts focused on cancer survivorship, presented on individualized survivorship care plans at the 47th Annual Oncology Nursing Society Congress. During the meeting, she sat down with Oncology Nursing News® to discuss what nurses should know about survivorship care plans.

“Something I cannot stress enough is the importance of the oncology nurse in assessing the specific needs of cancer survivors and that [this] needs to happen early,” Mollica said. “Listen and be aware of what patients and survivors need from the point of diagnosis all the way through because those needs might change.”

 Could you discuss the basic framework of an effective survivorship care plan?

: A survivorship care plan is a tool that is meant to guide patients and survivors, as well as health care providers, for the necessary survivorship care. Ideally, the plan should have a summary of cancer history, pertinent health history, as well as treatment summaries, and a follow-up plan for what should occur in the future for that survivor. It should be tailored to the needs of the survivor, and their cancer type and treatment history.

How might care for a childhood cancer survivor differ from that of an adult or even an elderly patient?

Individuals who are diagnosed with cancer as children are at high risk for late- and long-term effects—symptoms that occur well after their treatment has ended. There is a real need to monitor for those impacts, especially things like cardiotoxicity and other symptoms, well after their treatment has ended.

That is different from an older adult who often is dealing with lots of other comorbid conditions: they might have diabetes or have other health issues that are in essence competing with their follow-up care for cancer. It is up to the older adult to coordinate their care in a way with their providers that makes the most sense based on their needs.

What are the challenges in caring for different populations, specifically rural cancer survivors?

Rural cancer survivors often have issues engaging and accessing survivorship care; they are less likely to receive a survivorship care plan or have a survivorship care discussion with their oncologist. They often have challenges engaging back with their primary care provider after their treatment has ended or knowing what types of treatment follow-up care they need.

Oncology nurses play a key role in sort of bridging that gap. They can help survivors know what's ahead, know how to access those resources, and [guide them through] supported self-management—[teaching] when to call if they have symptoms or issues that they think they may need to get checked out. The oncology nurse is key to both assessing the needs of survivors and educating patients, particularly for vulnerable populations like rural cancer survivors.

Which factors do you consider when determining a patient's level of risk?

Many professional organizations have recommended risk-based survivorship care, which means that survivorship care is tailored based on the needs of the survivor. That can include an assessment of factors that include risk for recurrence risk for second cancers, their likelihood for late- and long-term effects, and how many other comorbid conditions they have. It can also be based on things like level of social support: do they have someone to take them to their follow-up care visits? It is important to [consider these risks] and tailor the care based on these factors.

What are some challenges that can be linked to primary care coordination? How might a nurse help overcome those barriers?

Primary care providers are dealing with so many things daily. Seeing cancer survivors is just a small part of their day, although we have a growing number of survivors that are being seen in primary care. When survivors are transitioned back to primary care, either during or after treatment, it is essential that primary care providers know what type of care is needed and how to deliver that care for the survivor. I would say there are lots of challenges to doing that.

Engaging with primary care and having access to a primary care provider is always a challenge. In addition, primary care providers often need to be educated on the impact of new therapies like biotherapies and targeted therapies—these may have another host of symptoms that survivors need to worry about, as well as staying up with guidelines for cancer survivors.

Oncology nurses can help survivors navigate those challenges. They can help educate patients and what they should bring to their primary care provider. They can also make contact with the primary care provider and in many cases, advanced practice oncology nurse practitioners are actually providing that survivorship care and bridging that gap.

How can patients be proactive in helping to manage their care plans or even coordinating with their care team to individualize it?

It is important for patients to know what questions need to be asked and to ask as many questions as early and often as possible. That includes: what type of care do I need to receive? What is this going to look like for me as I transition either off treatment, or in these periods where I might not be treated? Who should I see and when, and making sure that that's all included in their survivorship care plan and using that as a tool to navigate their care?

Patients also need to be empowered to reach out if they experience any symptom that they aren't familiar with or is new to them. This is because, often, symptoms emerge that we might not be aware of between visits, and they need to know to reach out to their provider and ask questions.

Michelle Mollica, PhD, MPH, RN, OCN, senior advisor in the NCI Office of Cancer Survivorship, discusses different long-term care considerations for nurses caring for patients with cancer. 

Oncology Nurses Play Pivotal Role in Survivor Follow-Up Care

Patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and homologous recombination repair (HRR) gene alterations who had progressed on prior treatment with androgen receptor (AR)–targeted therapy achieved promising responses with niraparib (Zejula) in combination with abiraterone acetate (Zytiga) and prednisone, according to findings from the phase 2 QUEST trial (NCT03431350).

In results presented in a poster at the 2022 American Urologic Association Annual Meeting, the triplet regimen resulted in a composite response in more than half of all patients (56.5%; 90% CI, 37.5%-74.2%).

The study authors, led by Kim N. Chi, MD, a senior research scientist at Vancouver Prostate Centre, a medical oncologist at BC Cancer in Vancouver, and a professor in the Department of Medicine at the University of British Columbia, explained in their paper that they expected that targeting both the PARP and AR oncogenic pathway may enhance efficacy in mCRPC, and the QUEST trial is part of a larger program to investigate the combination.

The QUEST trial began in March 2018 and enrolled adult patients with mCRPC and HRR gene alterations who received 1 line of therapy with a next-generation AR-targeted agent and an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1. Patients were divided between 3 cohorts based on their HRR gene alterations: biallelic 

alterations (n = 9), and other monoallelic alterations (n = 6). All participants received all-oral 200 mg niraparib plus 1000 mg abiraterone acetate and 10 mg prednisone daily.

Composite response rate (CRR) and the severity of adverse events (AEs) were the primary end points of the trial and secondary end points included objective response rate (ORR), circulating tumor cell (CTC) response rate, and radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS). CRR was defined as the quantity of patients with an objective response, overall CTC response, and/or prostate-specific antigen (PSA) decline of at least 50% (PSA50). CTC response was defined as CTC0 response at 8 weeks or CTC conversation.

A total of 24 patients were included in the safety population with a median age of 73 years (range, 58-88). Most patients were White (87.5%) and the remainder were Black or African American (12.5%). A large majority of patients (95.8%)were not Hispanic or Latino. Patients had an ECOG performance status of 0 (58.3%) or 1 (41.7%), and Gleason scores ranged from less than 7 (8.3%) to 8 or higher (62.5%), and scores were unknown in 8.3%. Disease was observed in the bone in 91.7% of patients or was bone only in 54.2%, visceral disease was reported in 4.2%, lymph node disease in 37.5%, or in other sites in 8.3%. Additionally, 42% had soft tissue or nodal metastases.

In terms of prior treatments, 7 patients (29.2%) had received prior taxanes, and all patients had received prior AR-targeted therapy, prostate cancer–related radiotherapy, and surgery.

At a median follow-up of 18 patients, 8 patients were still receiving treatment and the median duration of treatment with the triplet regimen was 10.3 months (range, 0.7-22.0).

The intention-to-treat (ITT) efficacy population included 23 patients since 1 patient was HRR negative. Among these patients, the ORR was 21.7% (90% CI, 12.0%-45.1%), the overall CTC response rate was 26.1% (90% CI, 12.0%-45.1%), and the PSA50 response rate was 30.4% (90% CI, 15.2%-49.6%).

The median duration of response was 4.7 months (range, 3.7-8.2). The median rPFS was 11.0 months (90% CI, 9.7-not estimable). At 3 months, the rPFS rate was 85.1% (95% CI, 70.8%-100.0%), 74.1% (95% CI, 56.8%-96.7%) at 6 months, 74.1% (95% CI, 56.8%-96.7%) at 9 months, and 46.7% (95% CI, 25.3%-86.1%) at 12 months.

Among 10 patients with measurable disease, 50% had a partial response as their best overall response, 20% had stable disease, and 30% had progressive disease. Six of 10 patients had a maximum reduction in target lesions of at least 30%.

At 8 weeks, CTC0 response was achieved in 17.4% (90% CI, 6.2%-35.5%) and the CTC conversion rate was 21.7% (90% CI, 9.0%-40.4%).

The most common treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) observed with the combination of niraparib, abiraterone acetate, and prednisone were anemia, fatigue, constipation, thrombocytopenia, nausea, vomiting, and decreased appetite. Frequent grade 3 or higher TEAEs included anemia (41.7%), thrombocytopenia (20.8%), fatigue (16.7%), and neutropenia (12.5%). Serious drug-related events were reported in 3 patients due to lower gastrointestinal hemorrhage, asthenia and noncardiac chest pain, and anemia in 1 patient each. No deaths were observed in the study due to AEs.

Dose interruption/reduction was required in 58.3% of patients, most commonly due to anemia, thrombocytopenia, and neutropenia. Treatment discontinuation due to TEAEs was reported in 8.3% of patients.

“These findings are consistent with those of the GALAHAD [NCT02854436] and BEDIVERE [NCT02924766] studies and the recently reported outcomes in the phase 3 MAGNITUDE study [NCT03748641], supporting the continued development of the combination of polyadenosine diphosphate–ribose polymerase (PARP) and AR inhibitors in patients with mCRPC and HRR gene alterations,” Chi et al wrote in their poster.

Chi K, Fleshner N, Chiuri VE, et al. Niraparib with abiraterone acetate and prednisone for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: results from the phase 2 QUEST study. Presented at: 2022 American Urological Association Annual Meeting; May 13-16, 2022; New Orleans, LA;. Abstract MP27-17.

The combination of PARP inhibition and androgen receptor targeted therapy was found to be tolerable in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer and homologous recombination repair gene alterations.

Niraparib, Abiraterone, and Prednisone Triplet Shows Efficacy, Safety in mCRPC With HRR Gene Alterations

Videos

Brianna Lutz, MSN, RN, OCN, discusses a red-and-green dot hourly column that shows which patients with cancer have been attended to in the past hour. 

Brianna Lutz on How to Improve Nurse Responsiveness on an Inpatient Oncology Unit

Liz Stokes, PhD, JD, RN, director of the Center for Ethics and Human Rights, discusses the nurse’s role in medical aid in dying and common misconceptions.

ANA Releases New Survey Findings on Nurse Positions on Medical Aid in Dying

Kristi Rosa joined MJH Life Sciences in 2016 and has since held several positions within the company. Prior to working at the company, she served as lead copywriter and marketing coordinator at The Strand Theater. Email: krosa@onclive.com

Relugolix, an oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone receptor antagonist, demonstrated a manageable toxicity profile for patients with advanced prostate cancer. 

Patients With Advanced Prostate Cancer on Relugolix Experience Manageable Toxicity Levels 

Patricia Jakel, RN, MN, AOCN, discusses burnout and compassion fatigue in acute oncology care.

Patricia Jakel Comments on Combating Burnout in the Acute Care Setting

In patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibition to treat their metastatic urothelial carcinoma, immune-related adverse effects may serve as a prognostic marker for progression-free and overall survival. 

Patients With Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma Achieve Superior Survival After Experiencing irAEs With Pembrolizumab

Gina Mauro currently serves as Vice President of Content at MJH Life Sciences, overseeing 

®. Gina joined the company in 2015 and has held various positions on 

Prior to joining MJH Life Sciences, she worked at Gannett as a full-time reporter with the Asbury Park Press. Email: gmauro@onclive.com

A post-hoc analysis of the phase 3 ARCHES found enzalutamide plus androgen deprivation therapy to be an effective treatment for patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, no matter their history of prior local therapy. 

Regardless of Prior Local Treatment, Patients With mHSPC Achieve Improved Long-Term Survival With Enzalutamide Plus ADT

Patients with locally advanced muscle invasive bladder cancer may experience superior benefit from gemcitabine and carboplatin if the chemotherapy is co-administered with vitamin c. 

Vitamin C Increases Chemotherapy Responses in Cisplatin-Ineligible Patients With Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer

Podcasts

Loyda E. Braithwaite, MSN, RN, AGPCNP-BC, AOCNP, highlights nursing considerations in prescribing and administering endocrine therapy to patients with HR+ breast cancer. 

Loyda Braithwaite Discusses Evolving Treatment Options in HR+ Breast Cancer 

Entrectinib elicited encouraging responses in patients with breast cancer that harbors NTRK fusions, according to updates from the phase 2 STARTRK-2 trial.

Entrectinib Generates Favorable Outcomes in NTRK Fusion+ Breast Cancer

Atezolizumab in conjunction with VB10.16, the first off-the-shelf therapeutic cancer vaccine, elicited encouraging responses in pretreated patients with HPV16-positive advanced cervical cancer.

Off-the-Shelf Cervical Cancer Vaccine Shows Promising Initial Results in HPV16+ Patients

Phase 2 trial findings indicate that cabozantinib plus nivolumab may be effective in treating patients with non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma with papillary histology.

Cabozantinib/Nivolumab Showcases Clinical Benefit in Papillary Non–Clear Cell RCC 

Patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma experienced reduced levels of hypoxia inducible factor-2 alpha expression following treatment with ARO-HIF2. 

Investigational RNA Interference Therapy, ARO-HIF2, Yields Encouraging Phase 1 Results in Clear Cell RCC

Conversations surrounding fertility preservation may differ between young men and women with cancer, according to Donna Herrera Bell, MSN, APRN, FNP-C.

How To Approach Fertility Conversations With AYA Patients as an Oncology Nurse

Kate Sandstrom, MSN, APRN-BC, AOCN, discusses the importance of including the radiation oncology team in a patient’s long-term care plan.

Kate Sandstrom on Ensuring Patient Follow-Up With Radiation Oncology Teams

Oncology nurses at the 2022 ASTCT Meeting shared how a peer-to-peer observation and validation tool helped decrease central line-associated bloodstream infections by 68%.



Top Medical News

Dabrafenib/Trametinib Elicits Viable Phase 2 Responses in BRAF V600E–Mutated Glioma

Medication Extension Set Makes Subcutaneous Hyaluronidase Injections Easier, More Comfortable in Cancer Treatment

Heavily Pretreated Patients With Relapsed/Refractory Myeloma Achieve Encouraging Responses With Teclistamab Plus Daratumumab

Oncology Nurses Play Pivotal Role in Survivor Follow-Up Care

Niraparib, Abiraterone, and Prednisone Triplet Shows Efficacy, Safety in mCRPC With HRR Gene Alterations

Most Recent