Purpose of review: Due to medical advances and an aging population, the number of cancer survivors continues to rise. Survivors often experience late and long-term sequelae of cancer and its treatment (e.g., fatigue, pain, fear of recurrence, and stress). As a result, some patients have utilized or expressed interest in integrative medicine (IM) modalities for prevention of recurrence, optimizing health, enhancing quality of life, and managing symptoms. The purpose of this review is to focus on research published during the past year that informs our understanding of the utility of IM for cancer survivors. Recent findings: Physical activity, diet, dietary supplements, mind–body modalities, acupuncture, and massage therapy all may play a role in the management of the physical (e.g., fatigue and pain) and emotional (e.g., anxiety and fear) issues faced by cancer survivors. Summary: IM therapies are appealing to and utilized by many cancer survivors and may reduce symptom burden. Clinicians who provide cancer survivorship care may improve patient care by understanding the evidence for and against their use.

Objectives: There is a lack of effective therapy for recurrent or metastatic salivary gland carcinoma. Androgen deprivation therapy has demonstrated efficacy in cases of salivary duct carcinoma (SDC) and high-grade adenocarcinoma not otherwise specified (NOS) that express androgen receptor. Materials and Methods: We conducted a single institution retrospective cohort study examining patients treated for recurrent/metastatic SDC or high-grade adenocarcinoma NOS of the salivary gland. Survival analyses were performed to assess for efficacy of first-line androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) vs. first-line conventional cytotoxic chemotherapy. Efficacy of salvage ADT was also assessed. Results: Fifty-eight patients were reviewed. Thirty-five patients had recurrent/metastatic disease of which 28 had SDC (80%) and 7 had high-grade adenocarcinoma NOS (20%). Median overall survival for first-line ADT was 25 months compared to 25 months for first-line chemotherapy [RR 0.54 (0.23–1.28, p = 0.16)]. Patients treated with first-line ADT had a response rate of 45% (9/20) and patients treated with first-line chemotherapy had a response rate of 14% (2/14). Six patients received salvage ADT with 1 patient demonstrating complete response and 3 with stable disease as best response (clinical benefit rate 67%). Conclusion: Overall survival for first line ADT and first line cytotoxic chemotherapy was comparable but response rates to first-line ADT were higher than those with first-line chemotherapy. Salvage ADT is active in recurrent/metastatic salivary gland carcinoma.

Purpose: To determine the efficacy and safety of risk-adapted combinations of androgen signaling inhibitors and inform disease classifiers for metastatic castration–resistant prostate cancers. Patients and Methods: In a modular, randomized phase II trial, 192 men were treated with 8 weeks of abiraterone acetate, prednisone, and apalutamide (AAPA; module 1) and then allocated to modules 2 or 3 based on satisfactory (≥50% PSA decline from baseline and <5 circulating tumor cell/7.5 mL) versus unsatisfactory status. Men in the former were randomly assigned to continue AAPA alone (module 2A) or with ipilimumab (module 2B). Men in the latter group had carboplatin + cabazitaxel added to AAPA (module 3). Optional baseline biopsies were subjected to correlative studies. Results: Median overall survival (from allocation) was 46.4 [95% confidence interval (CI), 39.2–68.2], 41.4 (95% CI, 33.3–49.9), and 18.7 (95% CI, 14.3–26.3) months in modules 2A (n = 64), 2B (n = 64), and 3 (n = 59), respectively. Toxicities were within expectations. Of 192 eligible patients, 154 (80.2%) underwent pretreatment metastatic biopsies. The aggressive-variant prostate cancer molecular profile (defects in ≥2 of p53, RB1, and PTEN) was associated with unsatisfactory status. Exploratory analyses suggested that secreted phosphoprotein 1–positive and insulin-like growth factor–binding protein 2–positive macrophages, druggable myeloid cell markers, and germline pathogenic mutations were enriched in the unsatisfactory group. Conclusions: Adding ipilimumab to AAPA did not improve outcomes in men with androgen-responsive metastatic castration–resistant prostate cancer. Despite the addition of carboplatin + cabazitaxel, men in the unsatisfactory group had shortened survivals. Adaptive designs can enrich for biologically and clinically relevant disease subgroups to contribute to the development of marker-informed, risk-adapted therapy strategies in men with prostate cancer.