POPULARITY
2 episodes with ht3
In this episode, we explore serotonin synthesis within enterochromaffin (EC) cells in the gut, detailing how tryptophan is converted into serotonin through enzymatic processes. We examine the role of gut microbiota-derived metabolites, such as short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs), in modulating the synthesis of serotonin including impacting tryptophan hydroxylase activity. We explore serotonin's interactions with receptors on enteric neurons and vagal afferent fibers, analyzing how these signaling pathways influence gut motility. Finally, we uncover conditions and symptoms associated with low serotonin production and the importance of the intestinal microbiome. Topics: 1. Introduction to Gut-Produced Serotonin - Serotonin production within the gut. - Serotonin's role beyond mood. - Synthesis, causes of low serotonin, related GI symptoms. 2. Gut Lining Structure and Cell Types - Layers of the gut lining, focusing on the mucosa. - Description of epithelial cells, including enterocytes, goblet cells, Paneth cells, and enteroendocrine cells. - Role of enterochromaffin (EC) cells in serotonin production. 3. Serotonin Synthesis in EC Cells - Location and function of EC cells. - How EC cells synthesize serotonin from tryptophan. 4. Biochemical Pathway of Serotonin Production - Step-by-step process: conversion of tryptophan to serotonin. - Enzymes involved, including TPH1 and AADC. - Importance of tryptophan availability in serotonin synthesis. 5. Storage and Release of Serotonin in EC Cells - Role of VMAT1 in serotonin storage within vesicles. - Controlled release. 6. Triggers for Serotonin Release - Physical triggers: mechanical stretch, pressure from food intake. - Chemical triggers: microbial metabolites, bile acids. - Receptors involved (GPCRs, TGR5) and signaling pathways. 7. Release of Serotonin into Intestinal Lining Layers - Serotonin exocytosis and interaction with nearby cells. - Release of serotonin on both luminal and basolateral sides of EC cells. - How luminal and basolateral release affects gut motility and barrier function. 8. Serotonin's Role in Gut Motility - Interaction with 5-HT3 and 5-HT4 receptors on enterocytes and enteric neurons. - Activation of the enteric nervous system (ENS) in the submucosal and myenteric plexuses. - Coordination with pacemaker cells for peristaltic movement. 9. Immune Function and Serotonin in the Gut - Effect on immune cells. 10. Gut-Brain Communication via Serotonin and the Vagus Nerve - Activation of vagal afferent fibers by serotonin. 11. Contributing Factors to Low Serotonin Production - Impact of dysbiosis and reduced SCFA production. - SIBO specifically. - Intestinal inflammation in general. - Imbalanced microbiota and inflammation can disrupt EC cell function. 12. Manifestations of Low Serotonin in the Gut - Effects on motility: constipation, dysmotility... - Common GI symptoms, including bloating, discomfort, and fullness. - Association with conditions like IBS. 13. Supporting Serotonin Production in the Gut - Painting a full picture and identifying root causes. - Strategies to foster a healthy gut microbiome. - Role of sunlight and tryptophan-rich foods in serotonin production. - Stool testing for microbiome imbalances. Thanks for tuning in! "75 Gut-Healing Strategies & Biohacks" Follow Chloe on Instagram @synthesisofwellness Follow Chloe on TikTok @chloe_c_porter Visit synthesisofwellness.com --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/chloe-porter6/support
Download the cheat: https://bit.ly/50-meds View the lesson: Generic Name ondansetron Trade Name Zofran Indication nausea/vomiting Action blocks effects of serotonin on vagal nerve and CNS Therapeutic Class antiemetic Pharmacologic Class 5-HT3 antagonist Nursing Considerations • administer slowly over 2-5 minutes – fatal QT prolongation and VTach, respiratory arrest • may cause headache, constipation, diarrhea, dry mouth • asses nausea and vomiting • assess for extrapyramidal symptoms • monitor liver function tests
We have now covered the fundamentals of pharmacology. This week, we sit down with Renee McAlister, PharmD, BCOP to learn more about the nuances of pharmacology from an expert that does this day in and day out. *The products/resources we share are our OWN opinions. Naming of resources are not endorsements. We are not sponsored by any of these entities. Pharmacology Capstone: * Irritant vs. Vesicant:** For extravasation, what to do?*** Not a great general source; would recommend checking institutional guidelines. *** Different drugs may require a cold vs. warm compress.*** Some drugs have antidotes - it is best to just look this up when it happens* Why is there a “cut off time” to get in chemotherapy orders?** Many hospital pharmacies are not 24 hours, therefore need prep time. ** Many drugs take a long time to prepare!** A lot verification goes into ensuring that the drugs are correctly ordered, prepared, and handled. Therefore this requires adequate staff to do this safely. * What does "ideal body weight” mean?** Calculated by the patient's sex, height, and the calculated body weight based on this information ** Helps with drug-dosing to ensure that drugs are not over/under-dosed* What does “AUC” mean?** Incorporates renal function and the amount of exposure you want the patient to have to the drug. Based on the Calvert equation.** It is important to re-calculate each time with a new Cr to ensure that this is updated.** Example: https://reference.medscape.com/calculator/169/carboplatin-auc-dosing-calvert* What is the role of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (GCSF)?** Helps to prevent the risk of infection, especially from endogenous bacteria.** GCSF helps to minimize the window of neutropenia related to treatment with chemotherapy** NCCN guidelines (www.nccn.org) provides guidelines about febrile neutropenia risk. A risk >20% means that we build in GCSF administration into the treatments. *** If risk 10-20% with certain risk factors, we may consider adding GCSF*** Always look at the paper that was what the approval of the regimen was based off of - they will comment on if/how GCSF was used during the study. *** If patient develops neutropenic fever during a cycle, if even the drug is not traditionally one that we consider GCSF for, it would be appropriate to consider GCSF for future cycles to decrease the risk of febrile neutropenia. * What are the different “types” of GCSF?** Examples:*** Filgrastim (“Neupogen”) - daily dosing, short-acting GCSF*** Pegylated-filgrastim (“Neulasta”) - don't have to give daily dosing; one time shot because it lasts for longer*** On-body injector (OBI) - a device put on the arm that delivers pegylated- filgastrim at approximately 26 hours after chemotherapy ** Dosing: Very different dosing for all of these medications; pay attention to the dosing! * Supportive care: ** How do you decide what anti-emetics to include?*** NCCN supportive care guidelines is a great place to start*** Regimens with >90% emetic potential should get at least three agents (for example: ddACT, cisplatin based regimens)**** Example: 5-HT3 receptor antagonists, dexamethasone, olanzapine, and aprepetant*** Moderate emetic potential (30-90%), add at least 2 drugs**** Example: 5-HT3 receptor antagonists and dexamethasone*** Lower risk (30%): usually one one drug**** Example:5-HT3 receptor antagonists** If patients have refractory nausea in a cycle, add another agent. When adding drugs, always ensure you are incorporating the patient's other medical history AND drug-drug interactions* Pharmacists are an amazing source of information! Please reach out with questions!Please visit our website (TheFellowOnCall.com) for more information Twitter: @TheFellowOnCallInstagram: @TheFellowOnCallListen in on: Apple Podcast, Spotify, and Google Podcast
BetterLife Pharma CEO Ahmad Doroudian joined Steve Darling to share details the company has obtained the first set of neurological receptor binding data on its lead compound, 2-bromo- LSD which was generated by Eurofins Discovery. Doroudian saying the TD-0148A which is a second-generation Lysergic Acid Diethylamide or LSD derivative molecule, and the company feels will mimic the projected therapeutic potential of LSD without causing the undesirable psychoactive dissociative side effects, such as hallucinations. Doroudian sad this initial data shows significant TD-0148A binding to receptors while there is none to limited binding to receptors such as 5-HT3, GABA-A1, and NMDA receptors.
In this episode, we review the latest guidelines on antiemetics from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). Host David H. Henry, MD, is joined by ASCO guideline author Paul J. Hesketh, MD, of Lahey Hospital and Medical Center in Burlington, Mass. Dr. Hesketh explains the recommendations for antiemetic use in cancer patients receiving checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) or high-, moderate-, or low-emetic-risk antineoplastic agents. Checkpoint inhibitors The update to ASCO’s guidelines was primarily driven by questions about antiemetic use in patients receiving CPIs, according to Dr. Hesketh. After a literature review, Dr. Hesketh and coauthors concluded that: Patients receiving CPIs alone do not require an antiemetic regimen. When CPIs are given with chemotherapy, there is no need to modify the antiemetic regimen. Dexamethasone does not compromise the efficacy of CPIs. High-emetic-risk antineoplastic agents Adults treated with cisplatin and other high-emetic-risk single agents should be offered a four-drug combination: an NK1 receptor antagonist, a serotonin (5-HT3) receptor antagonist, dexamethasone, and olanzapine on day 1. Dexamethasone and olanzapine should be continued on days 2-4, as cisplatin can cause delayed emesis. Adults treated with an anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide should be offered a four-drug combination: an NK1 receptor antagonist, a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, dexamethasone, and olanzapine on day 1. Unlike with cisplatin, only olanzapine should be continued on days 2-4. Olanzapine is an effective antiemetic in a number of settings, Dr. Hesketh said. For example, olanzapine is useful in the setting of hematopoietic stem cell transplant. A 5-mg dose of olanzapine has proven effective and may be better tolerated than a 10-mg dose. Moderate-emetic-risk antineoplastic agents Adults treated with higher-dose carboplatin (area under the curve ≥4 mg/mL per min) should be offered a three-drug combination: an NK1 receptor antagonist, a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, and dexamethasone on day 1. Adults treated with moderate-emetic-risk antineoplastic agents (excluding higher-dose carboplatin) should be offered a two-drug combination: a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone on day 1. Adults treated with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, oxaliplatin, and other moderate-emetic-risk antineoplastic agents known to cause delayed nausea and vomiting may be offered dexamethasone on days 2-3. Low-emetic-risk antineoplastic agents Adults treated with low-emetic-risk antineoplastic agents (e.g., fluorouracil, gemcitabine) should be offered a single dose of a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist or a single 8-mg dose of dexamethasone before antineoplastic treatment. Cannabinoids There is no good data on the use of cannabinoids, apart from those cannabinoids approved by the Food and Drug Administration, according to Dr. Hesketh. The ASCO guidelines state: There is insufficient evidence to make a recommendation regarding medical marijuana to prevent nausea and vomiting in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy or radiation. Similarly, there is insufficient evidence to make a recommendation on the use of medical marijuana in place of the approved cannabinoids dronabinol and nabilone for the treatment of nausea and vomiting in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy or radiation. SOURCE: Hesketh PJ et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Aug 20;38(24):2782-97. https://bit.ly/3oxahUP Show notes written by Alesha Levenson, MD, a resident at Pennsylvania Hospital, Philadelphia. Disclosures: Dr. Hesketh disclosed institutional research funding from AstraZeneca and F. Hoffmann-La Roche. Dr. Henry has no relevant disclosures. * * * For information on the negative effects of marijuana, listen to our sister podcast, Psychcast, on MDedge (https://bit.ly/3mBM6TB), Spotify (https://spoti.fi/3mwVvvn), or wherever you get your podcasts. * * * For more MDedge Podcasts, go to mdedge.com/podcasts. Email the show: podcasts@mdedge.com. Interact with us on Twitter: @MDedgehemonc. David Henry on Twitter: @davidhenrymd.
An interview with Dr. Paul J. Hesketh from Lahey Hospital and Medical Center in Burlington, MA on “Antiemetics: ASCO Guideline Update.” This update addresses antiemetic prophylaxis in patients treated with checkpoint inhibitors and incorporates new data since the last guideline publication. Read the full guideline at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines TRANSCRIPT The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines Podcast Series brought to you by the ASCO Podcast Network, a collection of nine programs covering a range of educational and scientific content and offering enriching insight into the world of cancer care. You can find all the shows, including this one, at podcast.asco.org. My name is Brittany Harvey. And today, I'm interviewing Dr. Paul Hesketh from Lahey Hospital and Medical Center in Burlington, Massachusetts, co-chair of antiemetics, ASCO Guideline update. Thanks for joining me, Dr. Kesketh. Hello, Brittany. I'm very happy to have the opportunity to join in today's podcast. First, I'd like to note that ASCO takes great care in the development of its guidelines and ensuring that the ASCO conflict of interest policy is followed for each guideline. The full conflict of interest information for this guideline panel is available online with the publication of the guideline in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. Dr. Hesketh, do you have any relevant disclosures directly related to this guideline topic? No, I do not have any relevant disclosures. So, Dr. Hesketh, what prompted an update to this an antiemetics guideline, which was last published in 2017? Well, as you know, Brittany, each guideline panel is instructed by ASCO to regularly review the evolving literature and other information, looking for any significant developments that are relevant to that specific guideline. And since our last update in 2017, there has been a tremendous expansion in the use of checkpoint inhibitors for a variety of different neoplastic diseases. Although they're often used alone, increasingly, the checkpoint inhibitors were being added to a variety of chemotherapy regimens. And as this was occurring, concerns were being expressed by some oncologists that corticosteroids, a critical component of many antiemetic regimens, might be contraindicated when checkpoint inhibitors were being added to chemotherapy regimens given the potential immunosuppressive possibility for corticosteroids. So the panel felt that an update was indicated to try to address this issue as well as providing information on new antiemetics, antiemetic regimens, and to try to categorize the medic potential of the many new anticancer agents that have been approved since our last update. Great. So you touched on a couple things there. So first, how does the guideline address antiemetic prophylaxis in patients treated with checkpoint inhibitors? Well, the search that we conducted for this guideline found 10 relevant publication on checkpoint inhibitors. The search reaffirmed the panel's conclusion that all currently available checkpoint inhibitors really have minimal emetic potential when used as monotherapy. And really, no prophylactic antiemetics are required when an individual checkpoint inhibitor is used. When used in combination with chemotherapy, two phase III trials were particularly instructive in helping to formulate our guidelines. Both trials were conducted in adult patients with non-small cell lung cancers treated with a platinum based doublet with or without the Program Death 1, PD-1 inhibitor pembrolizumab. And they recommended in both those studies that all patients receive dexamethasone as a component of the prophylactic antiemetic regiment. And of note, in both studies, superior efficacy outcomes were noted in the PD-1 inhibitor containing harms. Therefore, the panel feels that there is really no clinical evidence at present to warrant emission of dexamethasone from guideline compliant prophylactic antiemetic regiments when checkpoint inhibitors are administered to adults in combination with chemotherapy. And then you touched on also antiemetic regimens that were updated. Given the new information about olanzapine, what recommendations were updated? Well, olanzapine is a very interesting drug. It's a second generation antipsychotic which, very interestingly, has significant antiemetic properties. And the updated guidelines reaffirms the role of olanzapine as part of antiemetic prophylaxis when one administers highly emetogenic chemotherapy regimens. And it also can be very useful as a rescue agent in patients developing emesis despite appropriate prophylaxis. So the new studies that were published since our last update have demonstrated the value of adding olanzapine to a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, dexamethasone, and an NK-1 receptor antagonist used in the setting of high dose chemotherapy when used with hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. In addition, the prior recommendations only specified a 10 milligram dose of olanzapine as the only option. We now have data from an updated study that a 5 milligram dose is an acceptable alternative to the 10 milligram dose when used in the setting of highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Great. Thanks for reviewing that information. So what in your view is the importance of this guideline for clinical practice? Well, we have made really enormous progress in developing effective means to prevent treatment induced nausea and vomiting in patients with cancer. Each update of the guidelines, the current version included, have provided additional valuable insight for clinicians to help further limit the frequency of this potential side effect of cancer treatment. The most important aspect of the current update will be providing reassurance to clinicians that effective antiemetic prophylactic regimens do not need to be compromised when the new checkpoint inhibitors are administered in combination with emetogenic chemotherapy regiments. In addition to the new information on olanzapine, the update also notes the addition of useful new IV formulations of aprepitant and the combination agent netupitant and palonosetron. In addition, we have information on the use of fosaprepitant and as an option when an NK-1 receptor antagonist is indicated in the pediatric setting. And then finally, how do you view that these recommendations will impact patients? Well, we know from many patient surveys that treatment induced nausea and vomiting are among the most dreaded potential side effects that patients worry about when they think about starting cancer treatment, especially if they're going to be receiving chemotherapy. So fortunately, we now have extremely effective and well tolerated antiemetic regiments for all treatment settings. However, patients will only benefit if these evidence-based regimens are utilized in a manner consistent with the ASCO guidelines. So we hope that this guideline update will provide useful information for ecology providers to really optimize the prevention of nausea and vomiting in patients receiving various emetogenic type of treatment regimens. Well, thank you so much for your work on this ASCO guideline update on antiemetics and for taking the time to speak with me today, Dr. Hesketh. Thanks very much, Brittany. Happy to do so. And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning into the ASCO Guidelines Podcast Series. To read the full guideline, go to www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines. You can also find many of our guidelines and interactive resources in the free ASCO guidelines app available in iTunes or the Google Play store. If you have enjoyed what you have heard today, please rate and review the podcast and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode.
Dr Hayes interviews Dr. Lawrence Einhorn and patient, John Cleland, on the cure for testicular cancer. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Welcome to JCO's "Cancer Stories, The Art of Oncology," brought to you by the ASCO Podcast Network, a collection of nine programs, covering a range of educational and scientific content and offering enriching insight into the role of cancer care. You can find all of the shows, including this one, at podcast.asco.org. Welcome to the "Cancer Stories." I'm Dr. Daniel Hayes. I'm a medical oncologist and a translational researcher at the University of Michigan Rogel Cancer Center. And I've also been privileged to be the past president of ASCO. I'll be your host for a series of podcast interviews with the founders of our field, have been, and will continue to be over the next several months. In this series of podcasts, I'm hoping to bring the appreciation of the courage and the vision and the really scientific background among the leaders who founded our field of clinical cancer care over the last 70 years. I hope that by understanding the background of how we got to what we now consider normal in oncology. We can all work together towards a better future for our patients and their families during and after cancer treatment. Today, my guests our Dr. Larry Einhorn, who first demonstrated the cure of testicular cancer with cisplatin. And we have a special guest, Mr. John Cleland, who as far as I know was the first man to be cured of this cancer with cisplatin in the world. Dr. Einhorn is currently the Distinguished Professor of Medicine on the faculty of the section of hematology oncology at Indiana University School of Medicine. Mr. Cleland is now retired after a distinguished career as a high school teacher in track and field coach in Indiana. This interview is really particularly poignant for me. I knew John Cleland socially before I had ever heard of Larry Einhorn because our respective wives worked together while I was in med school as I began my clinical training. I then had the enormous privilege of being assigned to the oncology ward at the University Hospital for one of my rotations in internal medicine during my third year of medical school in 1977. And Dr. Einhorn was the attending. And frankly, for me, the rest is history. I had no chance. I had to become an oncologist. Dr. Einhorn received his undergraduate degree at Indiana University, went to medical school at the University of Iowa. He then returned to Indiana for his residency and fellowship. But he spent an oncology fellowship year at MD Anderson, Houston. After that you then returned back to IU in 1973 and has remained there ever since. He has won nearly every award and honor available in clinical research. And I'm not going to try to name them all, but most importantly, like me, as many people in this podcast series, he has served as president of ASCO, in his case, in the year 2000 and 2001. Dr. Einhorn and John, welcome to our program. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Dr. Einhorn, I'll start with you. Obviously, your greatest contribution is the cure for testicular cancer, which is pretty good. Can you kind of walk us through the history? How did you get involved with cisplatin? How did you derive the three drug regimen? What were the early obstacles? Especially with your returning back to Indiana. Can you kind of just walk us through that history? Certainly. So as you mentioned, I did a one-year fellowship in oncology at M.D. Anderson before returning to the faculty in 1973 and Indiana University. And in that time period, which was 46 years ago, the thought was that you might be able to cure adult leukemia like was cured with childhood leukemia from the wonderful studies from St. Jude's and that the studies that were ongoing in lymphomas and other hematological malignancies were very promising. But it was felt that you really don't want to do too much toxicity in a solid tumor, where you're getting a one log kill before you get progressive disease. And there was a clear pervasive atmosphere of pessimism of what can be done with solid tumors in general. So when I joined the faculty in 1973, I was the only oncologist. We had two hematologists that were there in our small faculty, which went from 2 to 3. And I wanted to be involved with both liquid tumors as well as solid tumors. But I wanted to be involved with solid tumors that were chemo sensitive. And even back in the early 1970s, testicular cancer was responsive to older drugs like actin or myosin-D and later with a two-drug combination of vinblastine plus bleomycin. And there were a small number of not just remissions but cures, and that was one of the few solid tumors that actually had a modest cure rate back at that time. And then the platinum story came around. And this is a podcast of itself with the wonderful work of a biophysicist at Michigan State, Dr. Barnett Rosenberg, who first discovered that platinum could be the first heavy metal ever to be looked at as antineoplastic agent. And when platinum entered first in human clinical trials in 1972 and 1973, it was [? selfed ?] at an NCI-sponsored phase I working group that I attended that this drug was producing minimal benefit and tremendous toxicity, especially horrendous nausea and vomiting. And the drug was pretty close to being discarded as a interesting novel mechanism of action, but not a drug that really had much of a future. But what changed the history of platinum and changed the history of testis cancer was the fact that among the phase I patients were treated with platinum, which included melanoma, lung cancer, colon cancer, breast cancer, the usual type of patients that enter phase I studies back in those older days were 11 patients that had testicular cancer who had failed actin or myosin D, failed vinblastine, plus bleomycin, and so they received single agent platinum. And when we, even today-- Actually, where were those studies done? That was done at Roswell Park actually, phase I study. And Roswell Park-- and this was an era, by the way, that there were only four NCI cancer centers in the United States, Roswell Park, M.D. Anderson, Memorial Sloan Kettering, and, of course, the NCI. So Roswell Park did a broad-based phase I study. Jim Holland was there at that time. He has unfortunately subsequently passed away. He was one of the real pioneers and also a past ASCO president. So among the patients in that phase I study were 11 patients with testes cancer. And there were three complete remissions and two partial remissions. And even in 2019, if we saw that with the phase 1 novel agent, there would be a tremendous amount of enthusiasm generated. We also looked at some of the preclinical work with platinum. And it is a drug that can cause testicular atrophy. In my youthful ignorance, I didn't realize that there are many drugs that cause testicular atrophy. So with that as a background, in 1974-- and I was on the faculty for one year at that time-- we wrote a protocol to simply add platinum, a novel experimental drug, and added it to the established two-drug regimen that I learned about when I was at M.D. Anderson, namely vinblastine and bleomycin. And the principles of combination chemotherapy aren't complicated. We want each drug to have single agent activity, different mechanism of cytotoxicity, different toxicity, and platinum as a non-mild suppressive drug, which can be given in full dosage, with vinblastine as a mild suppressive drug, and evidence of synergy. And one of the unique characteristics of platinum is it is synergistic across a panoply of cytolytic agents. So we started to study in the late summer of 1974 as a phase II study. And so we treated 47 patients when we first presented this data at the American Urological Association, later at ASCO. And I would be the first to admit that I was as startled as anyone that we were able to literally have a one logarithmic increase in the cure rate, because most progress in oncology is going from a 5% to a 10% to a 15% long-term survival rate. But all of a sudden with this three-drug combination, 60% of these patients were not only complete remission, but durable complete remission and cures. There was a lot of toxicity with platinum. And over the years, we learned, as science tends to learn, when a drug is active to mitigate the side effects as far as nephrotoxicity and nausea and vomiting. And we made modifications to the treatment regimens as the years went by, as you know, with changing the dosages have vinblastine, lowering the duration of maintenance therapy, and eliminating maintenance therapy, reducing the number of courses of platinum, substituting etoposide for vinblastine to where it's now the standard, bleomycin, etoposide, platinum, or BET. And I will make a final comment, in my long career, that this was a very exciting time in 1974. There were several chemotherapy drugs that were experimental drugs, such as doxorubicin and even a nitrosourea the first drugs to have penetration into the blood brain barrier. But the era of chemotherapy is gone and appropriately so. And science and medicine has moved forward. And now, we look at molecular targeted agents and immune checkpoint inhibitors and immunooncology. And that's what is exciting, so much more exciting about the field in 2019 than it was in 1974. But nevertheless, platinum has had legs. In 2019, it is still first line therapy in 12 different types of malignancies. Of course, testis cancer being the poster child for curable cancer. And I often mention that just as platinum has cured thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of young men with cancer, testicular cancer saved platinum, because if it weren't for those early studies showing activity of platinum, I think I can say without fear of contradiction that the drug wouldn't be around right now because of this tremendous toxicity in the early phase I studies. Yeah, Larry, let me ask about that, because in the early 1970s when-- I wasn't around, but you didn't have antiemetics. You didn't have drug fractures. You didn't really understand the renal toxicity. Just briefly, how did you get around those? How do you get people-- I'm going to ask John the same question in a minute. What were you thinking, John? John is the recipient of our ignorance in that era. So taking it one item at a time. Platinum is a heavy metal. And we were somewhat slow in realizing that other heavy metals, like mercury, can cause acute tubular necrosis. And so when patients were getting platinum, as is true in those days, they would often just get IV pushed platinum. And so we learned that in order to prevent acute tubular necrosis, we needed to make sure that patients were well hydrated with IV saline solution before they start chemotherapy. We then give the intravenous platinum and then follow that with intravenous saline hydration, so that the drug doesn't accumulate in the proximal tubules, and we force a diuresis. And we never needed mannitol. And some people back then, in fact, perhaps even now, are doing the silly thing of mannitol diuresis, which is totally unnecessary. And so back in the early days before we had antiemetics, everyone had to be treated as an inpatient because we had to give 24-hour continuous hydration because of the [INAUDIBLE] from severe nausea, vomiting, and dehydration that would happen. Of course, today, it's all done as an outpatient with three or four hours of hydration. As far as nausea and vomiting is concerned, one of our first studies we published in The New Journal of Medicine was a cannabinoid derivative from Eli Lilly, called nabilone. And so nabilone, didn't produce a marijuana-type of high. It didn't cause euphoria. It caused some dysphoria and had a variety of side effects. But it lowered the incidence of nausea and vomiting. But what revolutionized chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting, and ASCO recognizes this as one of the five leading advances in the past 50 years, was the discovery of the first 5-HT3 receptor antagonists. And this was a rational, selective pharmaceutical development. And this truly changed the face of how we give chemotherapy with drugs like platinum. Instead of having an average of 10 to 12 emetic episodes on day 1 of platinum, today with appropriate anti-emetics, the median number of emetic episodes is zero. People still get nausea. People still get occasional vomiting. But everything is done as an outpatient now. And it's done as an outpatient because of the discovery by others of what is the mechanism with platinum, which is not a gastrointestinal mechanism, but affects the emetic center in the medulla oblongata and the chemo receptor trigger zone and finding that patients get drugs like platinum, they get high level of 5-HT3. And developing a selective 5-HT3 receptor antagonist change the field completely. And, of course, now we also [? weigh ?] a methasone and neurokinin-1 antagonist, aprepitant or fosaprepitant. And we also have olanzapine as far as the nausea issue. And olanzapine is probably the best drug for nausea. So patients today have no concept of what patients like John went through when we had no knowledge about any of this whatsoever. And we were looking at things kind of naively by 2019 standards. I don't think I'm making this up. I recall as a medical student walking down the inpatient at University Hospital and thinking this smells just like my fraternity house. Without the fun involved. Yeah. And I got a kick now out of the so-called medical marijuana. But didn't you talk the administration into looking the other way for a while so that these guys could do that? Sort of. What had happened with nabilone, it had to be under lock and key, as if it were gold at Fort Knox. When we had an audit by the FDA and we had-- I don't know how many, I think 60 or 70 patients on nabilone, you know, we had to make sure we had every consent form and every safety guarded and everything. You know, here, we're using these incredibly toxic chemotherapy drugs and there was no regulation at all. And here we're using a pill to lessen nausea and vomiting, and it was just the hoops you had jump through were tremendous. When did you start realizing you had something big. Was it, you know, after two, three patients, or later-- Well, again, when you're young and dumb, it's easy, because you treat someone like John and you get the first chest X-ray three weeks later and things are gone and with pulmonary metastases. And you naively think, not only this cool, but, gee, that's great, it's not going to come back again. But we know even 40 years later that most epithelial malignancies that we get nice remissions with, the disease does come back again. So we had initial enthusiasm that platinum vinblastine myosin was a very active, but very toxic regimen. And we had the hope that this might be durable remission. And, Dan, I actually first presented data with testes scores, not at ASCO, but with the Annual American Urological Association meeting, and that was 99% urologists there. And so we had 20 patients that we had treated. And then that following year, I submitted an abstract to ASCO. And back then, it wasn't done online. We would send a paper abstract with a self-addressed postcard that they would send back to us whether it was accepted or not. And so when I sent in the abstract, I get the postcard back saying it was accepted as a plenary session paper. And I had no idea what plenary session even meant. It's true. And we get this postcard back in January for this June meeting. And all of a sudden my naivete went away, and I thought what, if I make a fool of myself? And I had this initial abstract with these complete remissions, and by the time June rolls around every one of them would have relapsed, which I was starting to learn happens in other tumors like small cell lung cancer, that are chemo sensitive disease. But fortunately, the time of presentation everyone was still disease free. And, of course, everyone for the most part remain disease free. So we had the first glimpse of activity with the first few patients. But it really wasn't until patients were out at a year that we really had the realization that these were not temporary remissions, but these were durable. And as it turned out, permanent remissions and cures. I wasn't there, but I understand that after you recorded that it looked like you had change the ratio of [? puranoctur ?] from 10%, 90% to 90%, 10%, that people in the audience, you had a standing ovation at the end of your presentation. Yeah, it was very heartwarming. It's literally the walk on the moon type of things is the things that you do once in your career, you know, that you never forget about. I had the opportunity to do that and not one of those four NCI cancer centers, but little Indiana University with our faculty of three. And we had one oncology nurse at that time, Becky Furness. We had no data managers. We had no compliance office or anything else. And we were giving [INAUDIBLE] back in the 1970s. I'd like now to turn briefly to your relationship with John Cleland. John, can you give us a brief history of your cancer treatment before you and Dr. Einhorn decided to go with the cisplatin. I was a student Purdue University, the fall of 1973, when I discovered I had a lump on the my left testicle. And I went to a local urologist. And he examined me on a Tuesday afternoon, in the middle of November, and told me he wanted me at the hospital the following morning. And the following day after that, they performed surgery. And I was diagnosed with testicular cancer. That was November 15, 1973. On the 29th of November then, I had a retroperitoneal node dissection. That was at the UI Cancer Center by Dr. John Donohue. And then on December 3, 1973, on a Monday morning, Larry Einhorn walked into my hospital room. And that was my first introduction to Dr. Einhorn. He talked to me a little bit and said we were going to put me on a 5-day course of a drug called mithramycin. We took mithramycin for five days. And then a couple of days after that, I was released from the hospital. So that was in the 1st of December of 1973. The middle of February of '74, I returned to IU Med Center just for a routine checkup. And I was diagnosed there again with testicular cancer had returned. And Dr. Einhorn began putting me on a three-drug regimen-- adriamycin, bleomycin, and [INAUDIBLE]. And I was on that until about July of '74. Then I was on actin myosin-D for a couple of months. And then we ultimately started in on the cisplatin in early October of '74. You have to tell us the story that you actually had to tell Dr. Einhorn about cisplatin because of a radio show you listened to. Well, by the middle of the summer, I had been pretty beat up, after all the chemotherapy and the nausea and everything. And I didn't really have a job-- or I couldn't do a job or anything. So most of the time, I just lay on the couch in our apartment and listened to the radio or watch TV. And one day-- I really like Paul Harvey-- and he came on the radio every day at noon there in Lafayette, Indiana. And one day he begins talking about researchers at Michigan State University. have maybe come up with the cure for cancer. So I begin listening much closer. And they talked about this chemotherapy called cisplatin. So I just made a mental note to myself, well, the next time I go see Dr. Einhorn, I'm going to ask him about this. Well, a couple of weeks later, I'm down at IU. And he's palpating me and listening to my chest and all this type of thing, you know. And I began asking him about that. And he said, John, just don't get too excited about that. We've heard of these cancer cures before. Probably nothing important has happened here. Don't worry about it, you know. And then two or three months later, I'm taking it. So that was my introduction, Dan, to cisplatin. Well, I can't to you-- Some of those Purdue graduates are pretty smart every now and then. We get lucky, like a blind squirrel. I just say, I can't tell you how many-- probably 100, 200 patients will told me things like this. And I've said exactly what Dr. Einhorn said to them, yeah, yeah, yeah. I wonder how many cures I've missed. OK, and the second story I want you tell us, John, is about your readmission to the hospital after your first cycle of chemotherapy. Yeah, I started this platinum October 7, 1974. I had five doses in the hospital. And then I was released. That was on October 7. October 20 rolls around, which was a Sunday, and I was violently ill. I had a fever of over 104, almost 104 and 1/2. And I was just completely almost derelict. My wife and a couple of friends, we contact Becky first, us my oncology nurse. And I guess she called Dr. Einhorn. And he said, well, come on down and check in through the emergency room at IU. And so that's what we did. We got there late at night, 9:30, 10:00 at night, something like that. And they always-- if I went to the emergency room, they always took a chest X-ray, which they did. And then in the hospital overnight and middle of the next morning, I see Dr. Einhorn and Becky getting off the elevator. My room was kind of in a corner. I could see part of the lobby out there and the elevator and the nurses station. And I could see them kind of go past the nurses station. And I could just tell that something was up. Somebody had good, let's put it that way, just by their body language, and the way they looked at each other and talked and walked. And they kept coming closer and closer and closer to my room. And finally, they walked in. And Dr. Einhorn says, John, your chest X-rays are clear. That's really good news. And, you know, I kind of interpreted that as, hey, I'm cure, you know. And ultimately, I guess I was, because from that chest X-ray the night before, my chest film was-- the weak before, my chest film was just riddled like Swiss cheese. And then the film was totally clear. You probably don't know this, but I've seen your chest x-rays, which is probably illegal now. Probably did a lot of illegal things back then. And, you know, that's when the scales fell from my eyes and I said, I'm going to be an oncologist. This is unbelievable. But, you know, I think to emphasize, it wasn't clear you were going to survive that weekend. To survive, you would be cured. But that goes back to how toxic this drug was at the start. Right. Right. It was not a lot of fun. I know that. Yeah. Well, I want to get back, Larry, to you for a moment, because there were two people in your life who were really essential to this story. One, of course, was Dr. Donohue, with whom you have published the, I think, seminal and classic paper in the annals of internal medicine. You want to say a few words about John. And the other is I'd love you to talk a little bit about Steve Williams. Steve was a fellow when I was a med student that I used to tease-- I mean, he's the only guy I ever knew who went from being a fellow to cancer center director I think in one year. I'm making that but-- he kept saying, you know, I might as well put me on faculty because he doesn't have any other fellows. Sure. So when I joined the faculty in 1973, in July of 1973, as I mentioned, I was the first oncologists. There were two hematologists there. And John Donohue is a true gentleman, one of the world leaders in urological oncology and the urological transplant with kidney transplant and many other fields. His ability to surgically cure patients with extensive retroperitoneal disease was known worldwide. And because of who John was and the fact that there were very few oncologists in the state of Indiana treating solid tumors, when he would see patients who would relapse after a retroperitoneal lymph node dissection, he would give chemotherapy himself, usually with actin myosin-D, which, by the way, causes almost as much nausea and vomiting as platinum did. And when I first got there, I knew John by reputation, but not by his interpersonal relationships with others. And with some fear and trepidation, I walked into his office because I told him I wanted to start looking at clinical trials in testes cancer. And I thought we might have a turf battle because he was treating patients with chemotherapy himself. And he just welcomed me with open arms. And he was so enthusiastic about finally having a partner and someone to collaborate with. And we had a wonderful, 30-plus years of collaboration with many important discoveries that John made equally, as I did. And, unfortunately, after John retired, he subsequently died when he was in Florida. And it's a similar sad story with Steve Williams. So Steve Williams was in my third fellowship class, which means we had one fellow a year. He was great, very humble, from Bedford, Indiana. And father was a newspaper reporter from the small town newspaper. And Steve was the eternal optimist. And to show you what an eternal optimist he was, when the Indianapolis Colts would those 14 games in a row, he always knew they going to win the next game, you know. And that's Steve. And John Cleland talking about Paul Harvey, Steve would have believed that platinum was going to be the cure too, you know. He was just a very positive person. And Steve was very gifted. He has a great relationship with patients. And there's not a person, a doctor, nurse, or patient, who has ever said anything unkind about Steve. He's one of the kindest people that we ever had the privilege of knowing. And Steve was very much involved with our testicular cancer research studies and many other pivotal studies as well. We decided to be a NCI cancer center, which is an enormous amount of work. And by then, we had about 10 faculty members in hematology, oncology. And no one wanted to do it. And so we went up to poor Steve and said, boy, Steve, this would be a great career move for you-- without telling him how much work is involved. We are cancer center today because Steve Williams made us a cancer center and everything that goes along with that. And before leaving, and fortunately, we're talking about John being cured with fourth line therapy with platinum combination chemotherapy, whereas if John had had that disease diagnosed a year earlier, quite honestly, John, you wouldn't be alive right now. And it's sort of the opposite for Steve Williams. He eventually developed metastatic melanoma before any of the marvels with immunotherapy or even the BRAF inhibitors were around. And he eventually died from these diseases that he fought so hard to palliate and prolong survival and cure with metastatic melanoma. And now there's a 30% cure rate-- 30%, 5-year survival and continuous 5-year survival with single agent PD-L1 inhibitors. And I want to make a final comment about John. And if this were 2019, rather than 1974, and you're looking at a patient who has been through mitramycin, which is used by me as adjuvant therapy briefly for adenocarcinoma, which is what John had, and then going through actin myosin-D and all the toxicity with that drug and then gone through a adriamycin combination chemotherapy, and looking at fourth line therapy. So when we started platinum combination chemotherapy, and John his fourth line therapy, yes, his chest X-ray looked like Swiss cheese, as he mentioned, but he was pretty much asymptomatic. And the courage and fortitude that it takes to go through treatment like this, because we knew what the side effects were with platinum. It had been around for about eight months, and we knew about all the horrendous side effects of the drug. We had no idea whether this would produce as fourth line therapy any prolongation of survival or any meaningful quality of life. And to go through this therapy without any idea whether it's going to help you, but to do it with truly altruistic motives and knowing that maybe this will help other patients in the future is really noble and admirable. And this is why John over the decades has been such a role model for clinical trials and for the cancer patient population. And I want to follow up. John, briefly, tell us about your history since then-- your family, your athletics, your career. I think it's inspirational, frankly. Well, I worked for the animal science industry for five years following my cure. And I decided finally I needed to give something back a little more to society than what I was actually doing. So I knew I wasn't smart enough to be a medical doctor. Male nursing wasn't exactly in vogue at that time, which might have been honestly a pretty good job for me. So I thought, well, I could be a teacher. I can teach life sciences. So background is pretty much life sciences in agriculture. So I did. I turned to teaching and teaching biology for 31 years and did a lot of coaching of track and cross country. And my wife and I have three kids. I married my college sweetheart even before I had testicular cancer. And, you know, I owe her just about everything in life. She hung in there with me when times were really dark. And I say we got three kids. And I've had great job and great career and friends. I want to emphasize you've had three children since your treatment. I also want to emphasize I know you've run one or two marathons since your treatment. Actually, Dan, I ran four marathons. So you ran four marathons since your treatment. Four full marathons, yes, sir. And I believe that your baseline creatinine is something like twice normal. And, Larry, you probably know this better than I do. But, again you've been inspirational to all of us. Well, thank you. Thank you, Dan. I'll tell you this. Every day I live is a blessing. I should have probably died 44, 45 years ago. I could drop dead at the end of this telephone conversation and have no regrets in life whatsoever. Well, John, you keep thinking that maybe one day you'll live long enough to see Purdue win the NCAA, but I wouldn't count on it. I was going to make a point, it must pain him truly to thank two guys from Indiana and also be appreciative of Michigan State, you know, for a guy from Purdue that must really be painful. Well, yeah, you know, testicular cure is basically Big 10 centered with Michigan State coming up with this cisplatin and Dr. Einhorn being on the IU you faculty. But it took a Purdue Boilermaker to be tough enough to handle all that to begin with, you know. That's true. OK, we're running out of time. I need to bring this to an end. I want to thank both of you again, both of you're inspirational, John for all the things we've talked about and Dr. Einhorn for so many of us who've gone into the field that we've trained and even the ones we've never touched directly, you touched hundreds of thousands of oncologists around the world indirectly. So thanks for all your contributions and what you've done. And thank you both for being on this podcast. I hope it opens up more inspiration for other young investigators and other young oncologists who don't really realize how we got where we are. So with that, we'll end this. And thanks a lot. And hope you have a nice weekend. OK, thanks, everyone. Have a good rest of the week. Bye, bye. Until next time, thank you for listening to this JCO's "Cancer Stories, The Art of Oncology" podcast. If you enjoyed what you heard today, don't forget to give us a rating or review on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen. While you're there, be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode. JCO's "Cancer Stories, The Art of Oncology" podcast is just one of ASCO's many podcasts. You can find all the shows at podcast.asco.org
ASCO: You’re listening to a podcast from Cancer.Net. This cancer information website is produced by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, known as ASCO, the world’s leading professional organization for doctors who care for people with cancer. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Cancer research discussed in this podcast is ongoing, so the data described here may change as research progresses. The 2019 ASCO Annual Meeting, held May 31 to June 4, brought together physicians, researchers, patient advocates, and other health care professionals from around the world to present and discuss the latest research in cancer treatment and patient care. In the annual Research Round Up podcast series, Cancer.Net Associate Editors share their thoughts on the most exciting scientific research to come out of this year’s ASCO Annual Meeting and what it means for patients. First, Dr. Lynn Henry will discuss 3 studies that explored new treatment options for women with breast cancer, including a study on immunotherapy for triple-negative breast cancer and 2 studies on treatment for hormone receptor positive, HER2-negative breast cancer. She also discusses research on the effects of a low-fat diet in women diagnosed with breast cancer, and a study on whether pregnancy after breast cancer increased the risk of recurrence. Dr. Henry is an Associate Professor and Interim Division Chief of Oncology in the Department of Medicine at the University of Utah and Director of Breast Medical Oncology at the Huntsman Cancer Institute. She is also the Cancer.Net Associate Editor for Breast Cancer. Dr. Henry: Hi. My name is Dr. Lynn Henry. I'm a medical oncologist who specializes in treating breast cancer at the University of Utah. Today, I'm going to discuss research on breast cancer that was presented at the 2019 ASCO Annual Meeting in Chicago. In particular, I'm going to focus on the results of some clinical trials that directly impact how oncologists treat patients with breast cancer. First, I'm going to give just a very brief overview of the types of breast cancer and then talk about some research that was presented on triple-negative and hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer. Then I'm going to briefly review findings related to diet and breast cancer as well as pregnancy after breast cancer in women with BRCA mutations. As a quick reminder, there are multiple kinds of breast cancer. Some breast cancers are called hormone-receptor positive or estrogen-receptor positive, and those are stimulated to grow by estrogen. We treat those cancers with anti-estrogen treatments or anti-hormone treatments to block estrogen or lower the estrogen level in the body. Other breast cancers are called HER2-positive. These are often more aggressive cancers. But because they have extra copies of HER2, they often respond to treatments that block HER2. And finally, there are breast cancers that don't have hormone receptors or HER2, and these are called triple-negative breast cancer. So first, I'm going to focus on this type, triple-negative breast cancer. Until recently, most of the time, we treated triple-negative breast cancer with chemotherapy because we hadn't found other drugs that worked very well. There's a new type of drug, however, called immunotherapy that tries to use a patient's immune system to help fight the breast cancer. Early in 2019, the FDA approved a new treatment for triple-negative breast cancer that is a combination of a chemotherapy called Abraxane and a new immune drug called atezolizumab or Tecentriq. The combination increased the length of time until cancer progressed or grew. Overall, the treatment was fairly well tolerated. But we did learn that in order for the treatment to work, the cells surrounding the cancer have to have at least a small amount of a very specific protein called PD-L1. So at this recent ASCO meeting, we heard an update about this treatment. In the trial, the patients whose cancers had the PD-L1 protein and who got the combination treatment lived 7 months longer than those who got just the chemotherapy, which was an increase from 18 months to just over 2 years. This is an important first step towards finding a better treatment for this difficult type of triple-negative breast cancer. And this treatment is currently available to patients. Additional clinical trials are going on now to try to find even better combinations of chemotherapy and immune therapies to treat this type of cancer. So next, I'm going to talk about hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer. There were two trials of this type of cancer that had important results presented at the ASCO meeting. First, I'll focus on the treatment of early-stage node-negative breast cancer that is hormone-receptor positive and HER2 negative. The Oncotype DX test is a test we commonly run on tumors of this type to help determine whether treatment with chemotherapy is likely to be helpful. For this test, if your tumor has a score over 25, then chemotherapy is generally recommended in addition to anti-hormone therapy. If you have a score under 11, then chemotherapy is not recommended and a patient should receive only anti-hormone therapy. But for those with scores between 11 and 25, it was unclear how beneficial it was to receive chemotherapy. Last year, the results of the TAILORx trial were reported. And that showed that for women over the age of 50, if their tumor had a score between 11 and 25, they were not likely to get benefit from chemotherapy. However, it turned out it was a bit more complicated for women aged 50 and under. For those with scores between 11 and 15, chemotherapy was not likely to be beneficial. However, for those who score 16 to 25, chemotherapy might be beneficial. So we got some answers but not everything. At this recent ASCO meeting, additional information was reported to help guide treatment decision making for this middle group of women aged 50 and under. So for women whose scores were at the higher end, 21 to 25, chemotherapy was found to be likely to be beneficial. However, in that middle group, the 16 to 20 group, chemotherapy might be beneficial but generally only for women with higher risk cancers, meaning larger cancers or higher grade. This information is helpful because it provides more information for oncologists and for patients when they are discussing whether or not chemotherapy should be included as part of their treatment. So switching gears a little, still staying with premenopausal women and hormone-receptor-positive HER2-negative cancer, but now thinking about metastatic breast cancer, so cancer that has spread. We now have additional information about treatment with an anti-hormone therapy plus an additional drug called the CDK4/6 inhibitor. We've routinely been recommending this treatment combination because it leads to a longer time before the cancer progresses. But until now, we didn't know if it actually allows women with this type of cancer to live longer. The results of the MONALEESA-7 trial, which looked at the combination of an anti-hormone therapy plus the drug called ribociclib, showed that women who received the combination instead of anti-hormone therapy alone live almost 30% longer. So looking at women 3 and a half years after they started treatment, just over 70% of the women who were treated with ribociclib plus anti-hormone therapy were alive compared to just under half of women treated with anti-hormone therapy alone. So these results reinforce that this is an excellent first approach to treatment of premenopausal women who have newly diagnosed, hormone-receptor-positive HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer. So in addition to studies looking at these specific types of breast cancer, there were 2 other interesting studies that were applicable to breast cancer more generally. So there was a large study that was reported that looked at whether having a low-fat diet reduced the likelihood of developing triple-negative breast cancer. So in this study, postmenopausal without cancer were randomized to either a low-fat diet or their usual diet and followed for many, many years. Over time, some of these women developed breast cancer with no difference between those who followed the low-fat diet or the regular diet. However, in this new report, they looked specifically at the women who developed breast cancer who were enrolled in this trial. Fewer women died from their breast cancer if they ate the low-fat diet, especially if they had preexisting high cholesterol, diabetes, and obesity. These findings suggest that having a low-fat diet may actually reduce the risk of dying overall and also specifically from breast cancer. Now, these need to be validated, and we don't quite understand why this would be the case. But in general, it seems like having a low-fat diet, avoiding high cholesterol, diabetes, and obesity is a good thing. And then finally, 1 question that comes up often is whether it is safe to have a baby after the diagnosis of breast cancer. This is especially concerning for patients who have a mutation in genes called BRCA1 or BRCA2 since those mutations greatly increase their risk of developing both breast and ovarian cancer and also leads to the diagnosis of breast cancer at an early age. In addition, patients with these mutations are often recommended to have their ovaries removed at a young age. So in this study, patients who became pregnant did so about 4 and a half years after they were diagnosed with breast cancer. There was no apparent increase in miscarriage, preterm birth, or birth defects compared to what would be expected in women without cancer. And in the patients, there was no increase in the risk of breast cancer recurrence compared to those who did not become pregnant. And in fact, those who became pregnant were slightly less likely to have their cancer return, especially those who had mutations in BRCA1. So while there are some limitations to the study, the findings are reassuring that there does not appear to be an increase in risk of breast cancer returning in these patients with BRCA mutations who become pregnant after breast cancer diagnosis. So overall, as you can see, there's a lot of exciting research going on across all the different subsets of breast cancer. The results of many important clinical trials were reported at the recent ASCO meeting, and there are many more trials ongoing that will hopefully result in the approval of multiple new effective treatments for breast cancer. In addition, there's research going on examining the impact of treatment on patients with breast cancer and trying to improve the lives of those living with breast cancer. Clinical trials are critical for the development of these new treatments. Well, that's it for this quick summary of this important research from ASCO 2019. Overall, we continue on a fast track in breast cancer, with many new and exciting therapies being actively studied and research helping support our patients do better than ever before. Stay tuned to Cancer.Net for future updates from upcoming breast cancer conferences. Thank you very much. ASCO: Thank you, Dr. Henry. Next, Dr. Ezra Cohen will discuss several studies that looked at using immunotherapy and targeted therapy to treat different types of head and neck cancer. Dr. Cohen is Associate Director of Translational Science and leads the Solid Tumor Therapeutics research program at Moores Cancer Center at UC San Diego Health. He is the Cancer.Net Associate Editor for Head and Neck Cancer. Dr. Cohen: Hi. I'm Dr. Ezra Cohen from UC San Diego Moores Cancer Center. Today, I'm going to talk about research on head and neck cancer that was presented at the 2019 ASCO Annual Meeting. I think the most impactful presentation at the meeting was a follow-up on the KEYNOTE-048 study, which implemented the drug pembrolizumab, an anti-PD-1 antibody in first-line recurrent metastatic head and neck cancer. These were patients who were treated with curative intent or presented with metastatic disease, and either way, either had recurrence or eventually developed metastases. The first-line standard of care for these patients used to be the so-called extreme regimen, which involved platinum, 5-FU, and cetuximab. This was validated in an earlier phase III study that was conducted about 10 years ago and was the approved first-line regimen for these patients. In KEYNOTE-048, this extreme regimen was tested against either pembrolizumab alone or pembrolizumab, platinum, and 5-FU, in other words, substituting cetuximab for pembrolizumab in one of the experimental arms. We'd initially seen the interim analysis data at last year's ESMO meeting, but this year, we have the final analysis presented at ASCO. And what we saw was that both experimental arms actually achieved an improvement in overall survival compared to the extreme regimen. Interestingly, for pembrolizumab alone, this occurred in patients whose tumors expressed some level of PD-L1. That was evaluated by something called the composite score and takes into account both stromal and tumor cell staining of PD-L1. In fact, even at a very low level—that is CPS greater than or equal to 1—pembrolizumab monotherapy was superior to the extreme regimen with respect to overall survival. For all patients, the regimen of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy was superior to the extreme regimen irrespective of PD-L1 staining. What we saw at this year's ASCO meeting was that, in fact, first, the higher the expression of PD-L1, the greater the benefit one derived from pembrolizumab either as monotherapy or in combination with chemotherapy. And in patients who had higher levels of PD-L1 and received both pembrolizumab and chemotherapy, the overall survival was quite remarkable with a hazard ratio of just higher than 0.6. In fact, we now have FDA approval in the United States for pembrolizumab monotherapy with tumors that have some expression level of PD-L1—that is CPS greater than or equal to one—or for all comers in patients who either the CPS status is unknown or patients whose tumors don't express PD-L1. Beyond KEYNOTE-048, we saw interesting data in first-line recurrent metastatic using a regimen of taxane, platinum, and 5-FU compared to the same extreme regimen that we just mentioned. That regimen turned out to be much better tolerated with fewer adverse events but with no improvement in overall survival, giving us a regimen that we could substitute for the extreme regimen if one wanted to, realizing that it does not involve immunotherapy, and for some patients, this may still be an appropriate treatment. Beyond the first-line recurrent metastatic studies, we saw a few interesting trials looking at targeted therapy in head and neck cancer but specific subsets. The first was in patients whose tumors expressed HER2 at very high levels—that is HER2 amplified—and had salivary ductal carcinoma. We've known that a proportion of salivary ductal carcinoma patients' tumors amplify this gene, HER2, similar to breast cancer and some other malignancies and that trastuzumab may, in fact, be effective. Well, in this study conducted by the Memorial Sloan Kettering Group, an antibody-drug conjugate trastuzumab emtansine was employed as a single agent in these patients whose, again, tumors amplified HER2. And what they saw was a remarkable 90% response rate. Now, this was only in 10 patients, so the study is small, but I think it's safe to say that this drug appears to be quite effective in patients with HER2-amplified salivary ductal carcinoma. Along those lines, in the subset of thyroid cancer patients whose tumors either mutate or have a RET fusion, the gene RET, there appeared to be very high efficacy for a novel agent that targets the RET oncogene. This was in both patients with medullary thyroid cancers that often have a RET mutation or in papillary thyroid cancers whose tumors often have a fusion of the same RET gene. Again, underscoring the idea that if we can target a driver even in a relatively small subset of patients, the benefit may be quite large. Along those lines, we had seen prior data for track inhibitors in patients who have in track fusions. And again, this applies to subsets of head and neck cancer patients that have either salivary gland cancers or thyroid cancers. Lastly, we continue to see emerging promising data of combinations with immunotherapy, and 2 highlights from ASCO were pembrolizumab with cetuximab showing a response rate of over 40% in a small group of patients and pembrolizumab with a TLR9 agonist called SD-101 showing about a 30% response rate. Of course, these data are very early and uncontrolled, and so we have to follow these stories further along to see if, indeed, these early signs of efficacy turn out to validate. But the idea that further combinations of immunotherapies eventually making their way to larger studies and hopefully approval is now well enforced in head and neck cancer. Thank you very much for your attention and hope you enjoyed the ASCO 2019 Annual Meeting. ASCO: Thank you Dr. Cohen. Next, Dr. Charles Loprinzi will discuss new research on ways to prevent or treat nausea and vomiting caused by cancer treatment. Dr. Loprinzi is a medical oncologist and the Regis Professor of Breast Cancer Research at the Mayo Clinic. He is also the Cancer.Net Associate Editor for Psychosocial Oncology. Dr. Loprinzi: Hello, I'm Charles Loprinzi, Regis Professor of Breast Cancer Research at Mayo Clinic. I'm going to be talking today about chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Now, chemotherapy can cause a lot of nausea and vomiting. That's well known, for years and years, by many people. It's not all types of chemotherapy, but some chemotherapy drugs cause a lot of nausea and vomiting, and others cause little to none. It's not as big a problem now as it was decades ago when we didn't have good drugs to try to prevent nausea and vomiting. Many drugs over the time have been developed for trying to prevent this nausea and vomiting problem. Examples of the drugs that cause a lot of nausea and vomiting are Cisplatinum, and Adriamycin and cyclophosphamide is a combination that is oftentimes used for patients with breast cancer. So in the past, we have developed many, many drugs for this. Three of the drugs that have commonly been used for the last many, many years for treatment or prevention of nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy are corticosteroid medications like Dexamethasone. It's quite cheap. It's got some side effects, but relatively cheap. Then there's a group called 5-HT3 receptor antagonists. I didn't make up that name, but that's the long name for it. They're relatively expensive, some more expensive than other ones. And then there's another group called NK1 receptor antagonists, and they can be quite expensive, sometimes being hundreds of dollars for each dose that's given to try to prevent nausea and vomiting related to chemotherapy. So a couple years ago, 2016, there was a report in the New England Journal of Medicine, which is a prominent journal for us in the business, that looked at a drug called olanzapine. It's a relatively cheap drug. It's a drug that was developed for psychosis-type problems, given for long term in those patients. But it had been noted that if it's given for just a few days, it seems to markedly improve or decrease the instance of nausea and vomiting, or if people were having nausea and vomiting, it appears actually to help and reverse that particular problem. So this trial looked at 10 milligrams of this drug for 4 days, given before chemotherapy, and then for 3 more days after that. Patients who were on this study got the 3 drugs that I talked about before with the olanzapine or with the placebo. And it noted that it improved things by quite a bit. The patients who had what we call a complete response, which means no vomiting and no need to take extra medications because of nausea and vomiting, improved from 41% of the patients who were on the placebo, to 64% who were on the olanzapine, a 23% improvement. And if we looked at a different endpoint there, the number of patients who had no nausea during the five days after chemotherapy, it was 22% in the group that got the placebo and improved to 37% in the group that didn't. So it was a good result in that area. One of the problems with this drug is that it can cause some sedation, cause some drowsiness for some patients. Most patients, not much, but some patients, it's a problem. So most trials that have been done in the past use this 10-milligram dose. And what we learned at ASCO in 2019, our main meeting that we have once a year, was that people looked at a 5-milligram dose and had looked at 5 milligrams instead of the 10 milligrams. And what it showed is that the results seemed to be quite similar to what was seen with 10 milligrams. They did the study quite the same as what had been reported in the previous trial and the results looks similar. They didn't compare 5 milligrams versus 10 milligrams, which would've been nice because then we would have better information along that line. They did note that there was drowsiness that some patients had, and it looks similar to what was seen with the 10-milligram dose. But these data support, but don't prove, that giving 5 milligrams does look like it's good in this particular setting. So data from this year also supported that instead of giving the drug during the day when getting the chemotherapy, sometimes, people take it at bedtime, and there, the drowsiness is not as big a problem because you want to be drowsy at bedtime. So it's not proven that it works as well at bedtime, but it suggests that that actually is the case. Data from this year also supported that if you looked at those 3 drugs I mentioned before and just took out that 1 really, really expensive one, the NK1 receptor antagonist, and put the olanzapine in there instead, that very cheap medication, that that looked like that one with the olanzapine did better than the very expensive one. Not a whole lot better; they looked similar, but a little bit better in that setting, and it was a whole lot cheaper. This was also seen in a publication that came out a couple of years ago which showed the same sort of result. Again, not proof that it's beneficial, that it's okay to do that, but it looked better. So the next obvious question that comes up then is when you have these 4 drugs that you give, the 3 drugs I mentioned before and this fourth one, what about if you take away that more expensive one and see how they do there? So there was a trial at the ASCO meeting that suggested that the addition of that expensive medications didn't provide a whole lot more benefit. Right now, there is a trial going on across the United States, with about 800 patients who are scheduled to go on this trial, and it's approving about 30 patients a month, which is a pretty good accrual rate, which is looking at this particular question where people would get the 4-drug regimen versus 3 drugs where they take away the expensive intravenous medication. So, in summary, 35 to 40 years ago, when I started my cancer career, when I was about 10 years old, most patients had a lot a trouble with nausea and vomiting with drugs like Cisplatinum. Now, this a minority of patients who have a lot of problems, and we're continuing to find new things that will make things better along this line. Thank you for your attention. ASCO: Thank you Dr. Loprinzi. Learn more about these topics and other research presented at the 2019 ASCO Annual Meeting at www.cancer.net. If this podcast was useful, please take a minute to subscribe, rate, and review the show on Apple Podcasts or Google Play. And stay tuned for additional Research Round Up podcasts coming later this summer. Cancer.Net is supported by Conquer Cancer, the ASCO Foundation, which funds breakthrough research for every type of cancer, helping patients everywhere. To help fund Cancer.Net and programs like it, donate at conquer.org/support.
SEE 34B Overview Regina Y. Fragneto, M.D., SEE editor-in-chief, shares volume highlights, such as practical advice about perioperative management of pain in patients receiving chronic buprenorphine therapy, the effects of holding versus administering angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors preoperatively, and an innovative way to manage sepsis. Also, SEE editor Robert L. Hsiung, M.D., is joined by SEE question writer Claas Siegmueller, M.D., to discuss a meta-analysis examining the effects of 5-HT3 antagonists on spinal anesthesia–induced hypotension. Duration: 16:11 Transcript
Reboxetine is a selective noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor, whereas mirtazapine acts as an antagonist at noradrenergic alpha(2), serotonin (5-HT2), 5-HT3 and histamine H-1 receptors. In a former study we could demonstrate an inhibitory impact of mirtazapine on cortisol secretion. In the present investigation, the influence of combined administration of 15 mg mirtazapine and 4 mg reboxetine on the cortisol ( COR), adrenocorticotropin ( ACTH), growth hormone (GH), and prolactin (PRL) secretion was examined in 12 healthy male subjects, compared to reboxetine alone ( 4 mg). In a randomized order, the subjects received reboxetine ( 4 mg) alone or the combination of reboxetine ( 4 mg) and mirtazapine ( 15 mg) at 8: 00 a. m. on two different days. After insertion of an intravenous catheter, blood samples were drawn 1 h prior to the administration of single reboxetine or the combination ( reboxetine and mirtazapine), at time of administration, and during the time of 5 h thereafter in periods of 30 min. Serum concentrations of COR, GH, and PRL as well as plasma levels of ACTH were determined in each blood sample by means of double antibody RIA, fluoroimmunoassay and chemiluminescence immunometric assay methods. The area under the curve (AUC) was used as parameter for the COR, ACTH, GH, and PRL response. For statistical evaluation, the Wilcoxon signed-ranks test was performed. There was a pronounced stimulation of COR, ACTH, GH, and PRL concentrations after single administration of reboxetine. When reboxetine was given in combination with mirtazapine, a significant reduction of the COR, ACTH, and PRL stimulation was observed whereas GH secretion patterns remained unchanged, compared to single administration of reboxetine. Apparently, the stimulatory effects of reboxetine on pituitary hormone secretion via noradrenergic mechanisms are counteracted in part by the alpha(2)-blocking properties of mirtazapine and its inhibitory influence on cortisol secretion. Copyright (C) 2004 S. Karger AG, Basel.
Unlike other antidepressants, mirtazapine does not inhibit the reuptake of norepinephrine or serotonin but acts as an antagonist at presynaptic alpha(2)-receptors, at postsynaptic 5-HT2 and 5-HT3 receptors, and at histaminergic H1 receptors. Furthermore, mirtazapine has been shown to acutely inhibit cortisol secretion in healthy subjects. In the present study, the impact of mirtazapine treatment on salivary cortisol secretion was investigated in 12 patients (4 men, 8 women) suffering from major depression according to DSM-IV criteria. Patients were treated with mirtazapine for 3 weeks, receiving 15 mg mirtazapine on day 0, 30 mg on day 1 and 45 mg per day from day 2 up to the end of the study (day 21). Response to mirtazapine treatment was defined by a reduction of at least 50% in the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression after 3 weeks of therapy. Salivary cortisol concentrations were measured before treatment (day -1), at the beginning of treatment (day 0), after 1 week (day 7) and after 3 weeks (day 21) of treatment with mirtazapine. Saliva samples were collected hourly from 08.00 until 20.00 h. The area under the curve values served as parameter for the salivary cortisol secretion. Following analysis of variance with a repeated measures design, tests with contrasts revealed a significant reduction of cortisol concentrations already after 1 day of mirtazapine treatment that was comparable in responders and nonresponders. In addition to new pharmacological approaches such as CRH1 receptor antagonists, mirtazapine therefore appears to be an effective strategy to decrease hypercortisolism and restore HPA system dysregulation in depression. However, the importance of the acute inhibitory effects of mirtazapine on cortisol secretion for its antidepressant efficacy has to be further clarified. Copyright (C) 2003 S. Karger AG, Basel.
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
