Immunotherapy represents a new therapeutic approach in non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) with the potential for prolonged benefits. Because of the systemic nature and heterogeneity of tumoral diseases, as well as the immune restoration process induced by immunotherapy, the assessment of therapeutic efficacy is challenging, and the role of FDG PET is not well established. We evaluated the potential of FDG PET to monitor NSCLC patients treated with a checkpoint inhibitor. This was a retrospective analysis of 28 NSCLC patients treated with nivolumab, a programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) blocker. All patients underwent a PET scan before treatment (SCAN-1) and another scan 2 months later (SCAN-2). Disease progression was assessed by immune PET Response Criteria in Solid Tumors (iPERCIST), which was adapted from PERCIST; and the immune Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (iRECIST). iPERCIST is a dual-time-point evaluation of “unconfirmed progressive metabolic disease” (UPMD) status at SCAN-2. UPMD at SCAN-2 was re-evaluated after 4 weeks with SCAN-3 to confirm PMD. Patients with complete/partial metabolic response (CMR or PMR) or stable metabolic disease (SMD) at SCAN-2 or -3 were considered responders. Patients with UPMD confirmed at SCAN-3 were considered non-responders. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival. At SCAN-2, we found 9/28 cases of PMR, 4/28 cases of SMD, 2/28 cases of CMR, and 13/28 cases of UPMD. Four of the 13 UPMD patients were classified as responders at SCAN-3 (PMR n = 1, SMD n = 3). The remaining nine UPMD patients were classified as non-responders due to clinical degradation, and treatment was stopped. The median follow-up was 16.7 months [3.6–32.2]. Responders continued treatment for a mean of 10.7 months [3.8–26.3]. Overall survival was longer for responders than that for non-responders (19.9 vs. 3.6 months, log rank p = 0.0003). The 1-year survival rates were 94% for responders and 11% for non-responders. A comparison with iRECIST showed reclassification in 39% (11/28) of patients with relevant additional prognostic information. iPERCIST dual-time-point evaluation might be a powerful tool for evaluating anti-PD-1-based immunotherapy, with the ability to identify patients who can benefit most from treatment. The prognostic value of iPERCIST criteria should be confirmed in large prospective multicentric studies.

Purpose: We set out to demonstrate the benefit of using dose-intense cisplatin-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy in terms of overall survival and progression-free survival. Methods: We searched through MEDLINE and Cochrane Library databases up to May 2021 to identify randomized clinical trials comparing the benefit of using cisplatin-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by local treatment with local treatment alone for the treatment of locally advanced cervical cancer. The PRISMA statement was applied. Results: Twenty-two randomized clinical trials were retrieved between 1991 and 2019, corresponding to 3632 women with FIGO stages IB2-IVA cervical cancer. More than 50% of the randomized clinical trials were assessed as having a low risk of bias. There was no benefit of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on overall survival, but there was significant heterogeneity across studies (I² = 45%, p = 0.01). In contrast, dose-intense cisplatin at over 72.5 mg/m²/3 weeks was significantly associated with increased overall survival (RR = 0.87, p < 0.05) with no heterogeneity across the pooled studies (I² = 36%, p = 0.11). The survival benefit was even greater when cisplatin was administered at a dose over 105 mg/m²/3 weeks (RR = 0.79, p < 0.05). Conclusion: Even though radiotherapy combined with weekly cisplatin-based chemotherapy remains standard of care for the treatment of locally advanced cervical cancer, our meta-analysis makes it possible to consider the use of dose-intense cisplatin-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy when local treatment is suboptimal and opens perspectives for designing new clinical trials in this setting. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy could be proposed when surgery is local treatment instead of standard chemoradiotherapy for the treatment of locally advanced cervical cancer.

Background: Neurokinin (NK) 1 receptor antagonists (RAs), administered in combination with a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT3) RA and dexamethasone (DEX), have demonstrated clear improvements in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prevention over a 5-HT3RA plus DEX. However, studies comparing the NK1RAs in the class are lacking. A fixed combination of a highly selective NK1RA, netupitant, and the 5-HT3RA, palonosetron (NEPA), simultaneously targets two critical antiemetic pathways, thereby offering a simple convenient antiemetic with long-lasting protection from CINV. This study is the first head-to-head NK1RA comparative study in patients receiving anthracycline cyclophosphamide (AC) and non-AC moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). Materials and Methods: This was a pragmatic, multicenter, randomized, single-cycle, open-label, prospective study designed to demonstrate noninferiority of single-dose NEPA to a 3-day aprepitant regimen in preventing CINV in chemotherapy-naive patients receiving AC/non-AC MEC in a real-life setting. The primary efficacy endpoint was complete response (no emesis/no rescue) during the overall (0–120 hour) phase. Noninferiority was achieved if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference between NEPA and the aprepitant group was greater than the noninferiority margin set at −10%. Results: Noninferiority of NEPA versus aprepitant was demonstrated (risk difference 9.2%; 95% CI, −2.3% to 20.7%); the overall complete response rate was numerically higher for NEPA (64.9%) than aprepitant (54.1%). Secondary endpoints also revealed numerically higher rates for NEPA than aprepitant. Conclusion: This pragmatic study in patients with cancer receiving AC and non-AC MEC revealed that a single dose of oral NEPA plus DEX was at least as effective as a 3-day aprepitant regimen, with indication of a potential efficacy benefit for NEPA. Implications for Practice: In the absence of comparative neurokinin 1 (NK1) receptor antagonist (RA) studies, guideline committees and clinicians consider NK1RA agents to be interchangeable and equivalent. This is the first head-to-head study comparing one NK1RA (oral netupitant/palonosetron [NEPA]) versus another (aprepitant) in patients receiving anthracycline cyclophosphamide (AC) and non-AC moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Noninferiority of NEPA versus the aprepitant regimen was demonstrated; the overall complete response (no emesis and no rescue use) rate was numerically higher for NEPA (65%) than aprepitant (54%). As a single-dose combination antiemetic, NEPA not only simplifies dosing but may offer a potential efficacy benefit over the current standard-of-care.

Evidence is accumulating that high dietary glycaemic index (GI) and glycaemic load (GL) are potential risk factors for several metabolic disorders (e.g. type-2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases), but remains limited concerning cancer risk. Although, mechanistic data suggest that consuming high-GI foods may contribute to carcinogenesis through elevated blood glucose levels, insulin resistance or obesity-related mechanisms. Our objective was to study the associations between dietary GI/GL and cancer. In total, 103 020 French adults (median age = 40.2 years) from the NutriNet-Santé cohort (2009–2020) with no cancer or diabetes at baseline were included (705 137 person-years, median follow-up time = 7.7 years). Repeated 24-h dietary records linked with a detailed food-composition table (>3500 food/beverage items). We computed the average dietary GI and GL at the individual level. Associations between GI, GL, contribution of low- and medium/high-GI foods to energy and carbohydrate intake and cancer risk (overall, breast, prostate and colorectal) were assessed using multivariable Cox proportional-hazard models. Higher dietary GL was associated with higher overall cancer risk [n = 3131 cases, hazard ratios (HRs) for sex-specific quintile 5 vs 1 = 1.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.03–1.52; P_trend = 0.008] and specifically postmenopausal breast cancer (n = 924, HR_Q5vs.Q1 = 1.64, 95% CI = 1.06–2.55; P_trend = 0.03). A higher contribution of low-GI food/beverages to energy intake was associated with lower cancer risk whereas a higher contribution of medium/high-GI items to energy intake was positively associated with higher risk of overall, breast and postmenopausal breast cancers (P_trend ≤ 0.02). These results support a possible impact of GI/GL on cancer risk. If confirmed in other populations and settings, dietary GI/GL could be considered as modifiable risk factors for primary cancer prevention. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03335644.

Introduction: Non‐inferiority of NEPA (fixed combination of NK₁ receptor antagonist (RA), netupitant, and 5‐HT₃RA, palonosetron) versus an aprepitant regimen was previously shown in a pragmatic study in patients receiving anthracycline cyclophosphamide (AC) and non‐AC moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). In the MEC group a numerically higher complete response (CR: no emesis, no rescue) rate was seen for NEPA during the overall 0–120 h phase (NEPA 76.1% vs. 63.1% aprepitant). As NEPA exhibits long‐lasting efficacy, this study evaluated a prolonged period up to 144 h, beyond the traditional 120 h post‐chemotherapy. In this post‐hoc analysis we explore the comparative efficacy of NEPA versus the aprepitant regimen in the MEC group up to 144 h, while also assessing the impact of risk factors on CINV prevention.Methods: This was a pragmatic, multicenter, randomized, prospective study. Oral NEPA was administered as a single dose on day 1, while aprepitant was given on days 1–3 + ondansetron on day 1; all patients were to receive dexamethasone on days 1–4. Patients were chemotherapy‐naïve and receiving MEC, with a subset evaluation of those with a risk factor for developing CINV (i.e., female, male <60 years, male ≥60 years who received carboplatin, or male ≥60 years with anxiety). CR rates were compared during the extended overall (0–144 h) phase.Results: The MEC group included 211 patients; of these 181 were in the risk factor subset. Significantly higher CR rates were seen for NEPA than aprepitant during the extended overall phase for the total MEC group (NEPA 77.1%, aprepitant 57.8%, p = 0.003) and also in the subset of patients with CINV risk factors (NEPA 73.9%, aprepitant 56.2%, p = 0.012).Conclusion: A single dose of NEPA, administered on day 1 only, was more effective than a 3‐day aprepitant regimen in preventing CINV for an extended duration in patients receiving MEC and in those with emetic risk factors.

In 2018, dosing regimens of the two most prescribed immune check point inhibitors (ICI), nivolumab (Opdivo^®) and pembrolizumab (Keytruda^®), in the treatment of lung cancer were changed from weight-based dosing to fixed dosing. The aim of this study was to compare the economic impact of this change in our university hospital group and then across Ile-de-France, the most inhabited French region. A budget impact analysis (BIA) has been performed on the French public health insurance data. The duration of treatment and the weight of the patients were calculated using data from the patients treated at our health facility and from clinical studies. The cost of treatment was calculated at the local level of our health facility and then for Ile-de-France. Our model demonstrates an additional cost of €550,115 in our hospital and €9,704,778 in Ile-de-France for a fixed dose prescription in 2018. In 2019, the BIA concluded an additional cost, according to the respective low and high assumptions, of €556,969 and €756,544 locally and € 10,201,027 to €14,486,141 for Ile-de-France for an equivalent efficacy between the two different drug dosing regimens of nivolumab and pembrolizumab. The adoption of the fixed dose regimen would lead, according to the least expensive hypothesis, to an additional cost of 26% for the ICI. These results encourage reflection on the strict adoption of this dosage modification. The option of maintaining the free choice between a prescription adapted to weight or in a fixed dose seems a relevant option and should be considered.