Fatty acid oxidation is a metabolic gateway that regulates cellular plasticity and supports metastasis in breast cancer.

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a common gastrointestinal disorder. The prevalence of IBS in Asian countries varies from 2.9% to 15.6%. IBS does not result in increased mortality, but is associated with psychological distress and disruption of work and sleep. Consequently, the evaluation of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is an important outcome measure for patients with IBS since it provides a holistic assessment of the patient's emotional, social and physical function. However, some HRQoL tools can be time-consuming to apply. EQ-5D is a brief HRQoL tool which has been validated in the Western IBS population but has thus far not been used in Asia. This study was conducted to determine whether persons with self-reported symptoms that met the Rome III criteria for IBS had a poorer quality of life than those without these symptoms. We also aimed to determine which specific aspects of quality of life were most affected and whether any risk factors distinguished those with and without IBS.

Purpose: We explored the efficacy of PARP inhibition with or without programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) blockade as chemotherapy-free maintenance therapy for advanced triple-negative breast cancer (aTNBC) sensitive to platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients and Methods: In the phase II non-comparative DORA trial (NCT03167619), patients with ongoing stable disease (SD) or complete/partial response (CR/PR) to first- or second-line platinum-based chemotherapy for TNBC (≤10% estrogen/progesterone receptor expression) were randomized 1:1 to receive olaparib 300 mg twice daily with or without durvalumab 1,500 mg on day 1 every 4 weeks. The primary objective was to compare progression-free survival (PFS) versus a historical control of continued platinum-based therapy. Results: 45 patients were randomized (23 to olaparib alone, 22 to the combination; 3 with estrogen/progesterone receptor expression 1%–10%). At 9.8 months’ median follow-up, median PFS from randomization was 4.0 [95% confidence interval (CI), 2.6–6.1] months with olaparib and 6.1 (95% CI, 3.7–10.1) months with the combination, both significantly longer than the historical control (P = 0.0023 and P < 0.0001, respectively). Clinical benefit rates (SD ≥24 weeks or CR/PR) were 44% (95% CI, 23%–66%) and 36% (95% CI, 17%–59%) in the monotherapy and combination arms, respectively. Sustained clinical benefit was seen irrespective of germline BRCA mutation or PD-L1 status, but tended to be associated with CR/PR to prior platinum, particularly in the olaparib-alone arm. No new safety signals were reported. Conclusions: PFS was longer than expected with both regimens. A patient subset with wild-type BRCA platinum-sensitive aTNBC had durable disease control with chemotherapy-free maintenance.

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) diagnostics have shown clinical utility in predicting survival benefits in patients with certain cancer types who are undergoing targeted drug therapies. Currently, there are no guidelines or recommendations for the use of NGS in patients with metastatic cancer from an Asian perspective. In this article, we present the Asia-Pacific Oncology Drug Development Consortium (APODDC) recommendations for the clinical use of NGS in metastatic cancers. The APODDC set up a group of experts in the field of clinical cancer genomics to (i) understand the current NGS landscape for metastatic cancers in the Asia-Pacific (APAC) region; (ii) discuss key challenges in the adoption of NGS testing in clinical practice; and (iii) adapt/modify the European Society for Medical Oncology guidelines for local use. Nine cancer types [breast cancer (BC), gastric cancer (GC), nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC), ovarian cancer (OC), prostate cancer, lung cancer, and colorectal cancer (CRC) as well as cholangiocarcinoma and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)] were identified, and the applicability of NGS was evaluated in daily practice and/or clinical research. Asian ethnicity, accessibility of NGS testing, reimbursement, and socioeconomic and local practice characteristics were taken into consideration. The APODDC recommends NGS testing in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Routine NGS testing is not recommended in metastatic BC, GC, and NPC as well as cholangiocarcinoma and HCC. The group suggested that patients with epithelial OC may be offered germline and/or somatic genetic testing for BReast CAncer gene 1 (BRCA1), BRCA2, and other OC susceptibility genes. Access to poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors is required for NGS to be of clinical utility in prostate cancer. Allele-specific PCR or a small-panel multiplex-gene NGS was suggested to identify key alterations in CRC. This document offers practical guidance on the clinical utility of NGS in specific cancer indications from an Asian perspective.

PURPOSE: Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–targeted therapy is standard of care for HER2-positive (HER2+) breast cancer, but most patients develop progressive disease with persistent HER2 expression. No definitive treatment guidance currently exists beyond second line. Trastuzumab duocarmazine (T-Duo) is a third-generation, HER2-targeted antibody-drug conjugate that demonstrated efficacy and acceptable safety in phase I studies of heavily pretreated patients with HER2+/HER2-low breast cancer. METHODS: In this open-label, randomized, phase III trial, T-Duo was compared with physician's choice (PC) in patients with unresectable locally advanced/metastatic HER2+ breast cancer with progression during/after ≥2 HER2-targeted therapies or after trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) by blinded independent central review. RESULTS: In total, 437 patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to T-Duo (n = 291) or PC (n = 146). The median age was 56.0 years (range, 24-86); most patients (93.6%) had metastatic disease. The median time from diagnosis of metastatic disease to trial entry was 3.5 years; the median number of prior HER2-targeted therapies in metastatic setting was three. The median PFS was 7.0 months (95% CI, 5.4 to 7.2) with T-Duo versus 4.9 months (95% CI, 4.0 to 5.5; hazard ratio [HR], 0.64 [95% CI, 0.49 to 0.84]; P = .002) with PC. PFS benefit was maintained across most predefined subgroups. The median overall survival (first analysis) was 20.4 (T-Duo) versus 16.3 months (PC; HR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.62 to 1.09]; P = .153). Objective response rate was 27.8% (T-Duo) versus 29.5% (PC); other efficacy end points—clinical benefit rate, duration of response, and reduction in target lesion measurement—tended to favor T-Duo. Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 52.8% (T-Duo) versus 48.2% (PC). CONCLUSION: Treatment with T-Duo was manageable, but tolerability was affected by prevalent ocular toxicity, leading to a higher discontinuation rate in the T-Duo arm. T-Duo significantly reduced the risk of progression in patients with advanced HER2+ breast cancer who have progressed during/after ≥2 HER2-targeted therapies or after T-DM1.

Despite the acknowledged merits of precision oncology (PO) and its increasing global implementation, its full potential for advancing care and prevention remains unrealized. The benefits are currently accessible to only limited patient segments because of multifaceted barriers. Successful implementation hinges on various factors—scientific complexities not limited to technical, clinical, regulatory, economic, administrative, and health care policy–related challenges. From building infrastructure to the associated costs, including research and development, testing, processing, and trained personnel, a lack of alignment persists. Administrative alignment with regulatory and payor acceptance is crucial. Health care policy must adapt to the ongoing shift from a one-size-fits-all treatment to a personalized approach. Without official endorsement of long-term gains over short-term costs and the health establishment's readiness for innovation, PO prospects, even in prosperous economies, may stagnate. Lower-income countries face exacerbated challenges, intensifying barriers to adoption. Nevertheless, growing awareness and utilization, driven by recognized potential for patients and public health, along with successful examples and advocacy, are progressively influencing policy for a more inclusive and beneficial approach to PO adoption.