Waldenström Macroglobulinemia

Blood Cancers

Brain Cancer

Metastatic Breast Cancer

Breast Cancer

Childhood Cancers

Anal Cancer

Colorectal Cancer

Esophageal Cancer

Gallbladder Cancer

Gastrointestinal stromal tumor

Liver Cancer

Pancreatic Cancer

Gastrointestinal Cancers

Bladder Cancer

Kidney Cancer

Prostate Cancer

Testicular Cancer

Genitourinary Cancers

Cervical Cancer

Ovarian Cancer

Uterine Cancer

Vulvar Cancer

Gynecologic Cancer

Head & Neck Cancer

Immunotherapy

Acute Myeloid Leukemia

Leukemia

Mesothelioma

Lung Cancer

Follicular Lymphoma

Mantle Cell Lymphoma

Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma

Small Lymphocytic Lymphoma (SLL)

Lymphoma

Myeloma

Cancer of Unknown Primary

Carcinoid Cancer

Neuroendocrine Cancer

Rare Cancers

Sarcoma

Melanoma

Skin Cancer

Thyroid Cancer

News

Cancer Horizons

All News

Blogs

Caregiving

Diet and Exercise

Financial

Psychosocial

Recipes

Sexual Health

Side Effect

Survivorship

Videos

All Videos

CURE Connections

CURE Expert Connections®

CURE Speaking Out

CURE TV

Educated Patient Sound Bites

On Demand: Webinars

Conferences

Conference Coverage 

Conference Listing 

Events

CURE Adventures

CURE Awards

Educated Patient In Person Education

Educated Patient Virtual Education

Resources

Advocacy Groups

Art Gallery

Clinical Trial Corner

Heal®

Partners

Podcasts

Publications

Share Your Story

Subscribe

CURE provides access to the cancer news, latest oncology research & expert insights that serve as a guide to every stage of the cancer experience.

About

Advertise / Support

Contact

CancerNetwork.com

TargetedOnc.com

OncLive.com

OncNursingNews.com

Terms & Conditions

Privacy

Do Not Sell My Information

CURE - Oncology & Cancer News for Patients & Caregivers

Facebook

Youtube

Instagram

Spotlight

Breast Cancer Webinar Series

Cancer Type

Bladder

Breast

Kidney

Lung

Ovarian

Prostate

Skin

About CURE

Press Releases

Write for CURE

1rem

Authors

Dr. Anna Arthur is the Director of the Medical Nutrition Science Program, as well as a tenure-track Assistant Professor in the Department of Dietetics and Nutrition at the University of Kansas Medical Center.

Dr. Anna Arthur discusses the NOURISH trial, which aims to address food insecurity and malnutrition in patients with blood cancers undergoing treatment.

A Cancer Institution is Seeking to Address Food Insecurity in Patients With Cancer 

Monitoring and Tracking Symptoms of Polycythemia Vera

Video content above is prompted by the following:

What should patients tell their physicians about their symptoms?

What questions do you ask patients when they report their symptoms to you?

How should patients document their symptoms? Is there a symptom tool you recommend?

When and why should patients notify their care team about symptom changes? What are some questions that patient should ask themselves about their change in symptoms?

How can patients recognize and track the early warning signs that their polycythemia vera might be progressing or becoming more active?

A panelist discusses how patients should communicate comprehensively with their care team about symptom patterns, documentation methods, and warning signs of polycythemia vera progression, including key questions to ask themselves about symptom changes and recommended tracking tools.

Video Series

Dr. David A Braun delved into detail on the molecular factors driving exceptional responses to immunotherapy in metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma.

An Expert Expands on What Drives ‘Exceptional’ Responses to RCC Treatment

In a clinical trial conducted by experts in the metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) — a type of kidney cancer — treatment space, investigators highlighted the importance of tailoring immunotherapy approaches based on molecular and immune features to optimize outcomes for patients with mccRCC.

Findings from the investigation showed that specific molecular factors, such as having a higher load of clonal neoantigens or robust B-cell receptor signaling, drove patients with this disease to have exceptional responses to their immunotherapy, according to Dr. David A. Braun, a co-author of the study.

In an interview with CURE®, Braun delved into detail on the molecular factors driving exceptional responses to immunotherapy in metastatic ccRCC, sharing how specific treatments may work better for certain patients. Braun currently serves as as an Assistant Professor of Medicine, Medical Oncology, and is a Louis Goodman and Alfred Gilman Yale Scholar, at the Yale School of Medicine, and a member of the Center of Molecular and Cellular Oncology at Yale Cancer Center, in New Haven Connecticut.

Read on to see what he had to say about the study!

We think very deeply about what is it that patients are sort of ultimately looking for, and to [get the] best answer, you have to go to the patients themselves. Dena Battle, who's a wonderful advocate in the kidney cancer community, runs a group called KCCure. She's done these surveys of what patients are looking for [in] the treatment of [their] metastatic cancer, and when you look at it, there's a lot of things that are important and that are meaningful. But the top things are trying to get to long term durable responses, and in an ideal world, cures. [We are] trying to get to a point where patients have long term disease control.

In the pure targeted therapy era, that wasn't an achievable thing, necessarily, for kidney cancer, at least for the far majority of patients. Even in the modern immune checkpoint era, the majority of patients aren't able to get that level of benefit, but some are. The key is, now that we're starting to understand the factors that might allow some patients to have those exceptional responses to this immune therapy, the hope is that we really can learn from that; however, we do have to push this forward.

How can we learn from [our study] to make it not so exceptional [and a more widely accepted standard], so that we understand the factors that can lead to these long term, durable responses, the ones that patients are really hoping for and asking for? How can we rationally design our next set of experiments and ultimately clinical trials to move towards those exceptional responses? I think that's the goal of this kind of research.

Transcript has been edited for clarity and conciseness.

For more news on cancer updates, research and education,

don’t forget to subscribe to CURE®’s newsletters here.

In a retrospective study of patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs), the utility of both laparoscopic wedge resection (LR) and endoscopic resection (ER) — two minimally invasive approaches to this disease — served as safe and feasible treatment approaches, despite there being disagreement as to which is the better choice among clinicians. However, according to a study published in 

The World Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery

, LR is specifically recommended for tumors larger than 4 centimeters (cm) compared with ER.

When conducting the retrospective study, the ER group (59 patients) was found to have had longer operative times than the LR group (59 patients) at 120 versus 70 minutes; however, the median postoperative time to liquid diet was significantly shorter in the ER group compared with the LR group (4 days versus 5 days), respectively. Furthermore, the ER group, compared with the LR group, had fewer postoperative symptoms, though there was no significant difference in the postoperative hospital stay (both at 7 days) or hospital costs between the groups.

“Both ER and LR are safe and effective treatments for gastric GISTs [gGISTs]. ER is associated with less postoperative pain and faster recovery and is particularly suitable for cases where cosmetic results or preservation of organ function are desired. In contrast, LR is strongly recommended for large tumors [more than 4 cm] due to its high rate of complete resection,” the study authors wrote in their research.

The Safety of Both Treatment Approaches and Long-Term Outcomes

Regarding safety, there were no significant difference in surgery-related complications between the two groups, though, in the ER group, bleeding occurred in three patients and was treated with conservative treatment or endoscopic hemostasis. In the LR group, postoperative anastomotic fistula occurred in one patient but improved after fasting, adequate drainage, and anti-infection. Five cases of postoperative infection were reported in the ER group versus 8 in the LR group; there was no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative infections between the LR and ER groups.

In all tumors in both groups en bloc resection was achieved, and, in the ER group, 43 tumors received en bloc removal from the stomach and complete resection after PS matching; the remaining 16 tumors were temporarily attached to the stomach using clips though they were then removed en bloc with an endoscopic lithotripter on the next day. Looking to the LR group, 1 tumor did not achieve complete resection because of fragmentation, making the rates of complete resection higher in the LR group versus the ER group. Regarding mitotic count or pathological report risk, there were no significant differences between the groups.

When referring to long-term outcomes, the median follow-up times in the LR and ER groups were 54 months and 51.1 months, respectively; the difference was not statistically significant. In the ER group, GIST recurrence occurred in three patients prior to last follow-up and this number of patients was two in the LR group; again, the difference was not statistically significant. However, following PS matching, no GIST recurrence occurred in the ER group versus two in the LR group, still with no significant difference between the two groups. During the follow-up period, no metastases were observed and no significant difference in mortality between the two patient groups before or after matching was noted. In total, nine patients died across both groups, one of which was due to GIST recurrence and the other eight from other GIST-resection-unrelated diseases.

“The matched ER group showed significantly better outcomes than the LR group in terms of the resumption of a liquid diet and postoperative symptoms. The LR group had an advantage over the ER group in terms of the complete resection rate,” the study authors concluded. “There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of either the incidence of complications or the long-term postoperative outcomes.”

Diving into the Importance of ER and LR Approaches

GISTs are the most common mesenchymal tumors of the gastrointestinal tract with an annual incidence of 10 to 20 cases per million and primarily occur in the stomach. Management strategies for patients with primary gGISTs depend on tumor size and risk factors; however, surgical excision is recommended for localized gGISTs 2 cm or larger, while active surveillance is advised for smaller, low-risk lesions. There have also been advancements made in minimally invasive approaches to this disease, with techniques such as LR and ER offering benefits like faster recovery and less blood loss.

Despite these advancements, the choice between ER and LR remains a debated topic for gGISTs between 2 to 5 cm in size due to inconsistent outcomes. Some studies suggest LR has lower complication rates and shorter hospital stays while others highlight the advantages of ER, including shorter operation times and reduced costs. Therefore, Taizhou Hospital in the Zhejiang Province has conducted research which aims to provide updated guidance on treatment standardization for gGISTs garnering data.

Investigators reviewed and compiled information on patients with gGISTs who underwent ER or LR at the Taizhou Hospital of Zhejiang Province, Wenzhou Medical University, for their retrospective study from Jan. 2014 to Aug. 2022. Patients were included in this review if they were 18 years of age or older; had a longest tumor diameter of 2 to 5 cm; a diagnosis of gGISTs confirmed by postoperative pathological evaluation and immunohistochemical findings; surgery; and a surgical method of ER or LR. Participants were excluded from the investigation if they did not complete surgery; had adjacent organ invasion; or duodenal and small intestinal stromal tumors.

Furthermore, all patients underwent regular postoperative follow-up by endoscopic examination and CT. Additional follow-up data were acquired via telephone interviews or outpatient follow-up after surgery. Notably, follow-up time was defined as the period from the date of surgery to the last follow-up (August 2023) or death.

Prior to PS matching, in the ER group, the tumor size was significantly smaller (3.5 cm) compared with the LR group (4.2 cm), and the distribution of tumor locations differed between the groups. Notably, 63.4% of patients had tumors located in the gastric body in the LR group, as well as 0% in the gastric cardia, 28.2% in the gastric body and 8.4% in the gastric antrum. In the ER group, 48.9%, 3.7%, 42.2% and 5.2% of the tumors were located in the gastric body, cardia, fundus and antrum, respectively.

However, the study authors wrote that, “We performed a PS-matched analysis to eliminate the impact of confounding factors and enhance the credibility of the findings. After PS matching, 59 patients from each group were selected and included in the subsequent analysis. Post-matching, there were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of these factors.”

“Comparison of endoscopic and laparoscopic resection of gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors: A propensity score-matched study.” Gu BB, et al. 

For more news on cancer updates, research and education, don’t forget to

subscribe to CURE®’s newsletters here.

Laparoscopic wedge resection (LR) and endoscopic resection (ER) are both viable minimally invasive treatments for gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs), with LR recommended for tumors larger than 4 cm. A retrospective study found ER associated with longer operative times but faster recovery and fewer postoperative symptoms compared to LR. Both methods showed similar safety profiles and long-term outcomes, with no significant differences in complications or recurrence rates. The study emphasizes the importance of tumor size and location in choosing between ER and LR for optimal treatment outcomes.

Both laparoscopic wedge and endoscopic resection are safe and feasible treatment approaches for patients with gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors.

Tumor

Laparoscopic Wedge and Endoscopic Resection Are Safe, Feasible in Gastric GISTs 

Interruption of treatment with Gleevec (imatinib) among some patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) has been found by researchers to be associated with a faster occurrence of resistance to Gleevec and an increased risk of disease progression or death.

In the phase 3 BFR14 study, findings of which were published in 

, patients with advanced GIST were divided into two groups: those with stable or responding disease whose treatment was discontinued then restarted at the time of progression in the interruption group or those who received continuation of treatment until progression in the continuation group. Interruption of treatment, researchers noted, was associated with rapid disease progression among patients in the interruption group after one year, three years and five years.

At a median follow-up of 235.2 months after the one-year randomization, 200.9 months after the three-year randomization and 164.5 months after the five-year randomization, the median progression-free survival (the time a patient lives without their disease spreading or worsening) in the interruption and continuation groups was 6.1 months versus 27.8 months after one year of Gleevec, seven months versus 67 months after three years of Gleevec and 12 months versus not reached (meaning fewer than half of the patients in that arm experienced disease progression or died) after five years of Gleevec.

Likewise, the median time until resistance to Gleevec was 28.7 months in the interruption group and 90.6 months in the continuation group after one year on Gleevec, 66.2 months versus 127.3 months after three years and 58.6 months versus not reached after five years, researchers reported.

Additionally, the median overall survival (the time a patient lives, regardless of disease status) was 56 months in the interruption group and 105 months in the continuation group after one year on Gleevec, 104 months versus 134 months after three years and not reached versus 110.4 months after five years, according to the study findings.

At 12 years, 9% of patients in the interruption group were still alive versus 50% of the continuation group after the three-year randomization, compared to 33% and 83% of patients, respectively, after the five-year randomization.

“[Gleevec] interruption in patients with GIST without progressive disease is not recommended,” researchers wrote in the introduction to their findings. “[Gleevec] interruption in non-progressing patients with GIST was associated with rapid progression, faster resistance to [Gleevec] and shorter overall survival in the long-term follow-up when compared with [Gleevec] continuation in patients after three years and five years of [Gleevec].”

These observa­tions have possible relevance for chronic myeloid leukemia and other cancers treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors, a class of drugs that includes Gleevec, researchers noted

GIST, according to the American Cancer Society, is a group of uncommon cancers that begin in the cells in the wall of the gastrointestinal, or digestive, tract. Approximately 60% of cases of GIST begin in the stomach, and about 35% of cases begin in the small intestine, with most of the rest found in the esophagus, colon and rectum, with a small amount developing in the abdomen, the American Cancer Society explained, noting that approximately 4,000 to 6,000 cases of GIST are diagnosed in the United States each year. GIST, the organization stated, is most commonly diagnosed among people older than 50, but can develop among people of any age.

For more news on cancer updates, research and education, don’t forget to 

Interruption of Gleevec (imatinib) treatment in patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) leads to faster resistance, increased disease progression, and reduced overall survival. The phase 3 BFR14 study demonstrated that continuous treatment significantly prolongs progression-free survival and delays resistance compared to treatment interruption. Median progression-free survival and overall survival were notably longer in the continuation group across one, three, and five-year intervals. These findings suggest that continuous Gleevec therapy is crucial for managing GIST and may have implications for other cancers treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors.

Researchers are advising against the interruption of treatment with Gleevec among patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumors.

Gleevec Interruption in GIST Associated with Resistance, Recurrence, Death

One of this year’s MPN Heroes® talked about the importance of a supportive care team, especially as every patient with MPN presents differently.

The Power of Voice in MPN Management

Patients with myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) should be actively involved in understanding their disease and communicating specific needs and concerns to healthcare providers, an expert said.

Kathryn Johnson, clinical program manager for the MPN and leukemia programs at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, was honored at the MPN Heroes® in-person ceremony in December 2024 for her work in clinical trials in the space.

Johnson’s nominator noted that throughout the last five years, she has witnessed her dedication to providing care for patients with MPNs, while connecting them to the resources they need and advocating for them with insurance companies.

“Kathryn works with patients undergoing experimental treatments, often a daunting time filled with uncertainty,” her nominator wrote. “Yet, her presence brings an immediate sense of calm and reassurance, helping patients feel that everything will be OK.”

CURE also spoke with Johnson to learn more about how patients can lean into their care teams and trust them so that conversations about symptoms and side effects can be held in an effective manner.

Speak up. Especially with MPNs, you know, they do all manifest differently. There are things that we know that people have in common, but they're going to present differently for every person. And I think that there's a lot that people learn to grow with that they don't always realize is impacting them. So taking a good look at who they are, what their goals are, is going to be helpful to managing their care and making sure that they're vocalizing things that aren't sitting right.

And then also [I] always encourage bring a buddy, bring a sister, bring a parent, bring a spouse, bring an adult child, the people who love you, love you and support you and want to help you manage this that you're going through.

One of this year’s MPN Heroes® talks about the importance of a supportive care team, especially since every patient with MPN presents differently.

Conference

Dr. Eric K. Singhi discusses the significance of the FDA approval of subcutaneous Opdivo for patients with solid tumors.

A Breakdown of Trial Data that Led to the Subcutaneous Opdivo FDA Approval 

Dr. Eric K. Singhi, an assistant professor in both the Department of General Oncology and the Department of Thoracic/Head and Neck Medical Oncology, Division of Cancer Medicine, at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, in Houston, Texas, recently sat down for an interview with CURE®.

In the interview, he discussed the Dec. 27, 2024, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 

approval of subcutaneous Opdivo and Qvantig

 (nivolumab and hyaluronidase-nvhy) for patients with solid tumors. He goes on to discuss the significance of the regulatory approval, as well as the trial data that led the approval.

As of Dec. 27, 2024, the FDA approved subcutaneous — or under the skin — Opdivo for patients with a wide range of solid tumors. This includes renal cell carcinoma [RCC], melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer and others. The new approval applies to almost all existing solid tumor indications for the IV [intravenous] formulation, except it is not allowed for use in combination with what we call dual immunotherapy or CTLA4 inhibition with Yervoy [ipilimumab].

This approval brings a subcutaneously administered PD1 inhibitor to the market, and it could be significant for patients because it provides a new, more convenient option for treatment. This allows patients to potentially receive treatment closer to home with less time spent at treatment facilities, and it can improve both convenience and accessibility.

, and that included 495 patients with advanced or metastatic clear cell RCC, which is a type of kidney cancer. Importantly, these patients had to have received no more than two prior lines of treatment against their cancer. The trial compared subcutaneous — under the skin — Opdivo with the IV formulation of Opdivo, which is that traditional form of immunotherapy. What they looked at was a primary focus on assessing drug pharmacokinetics. Specifically, they looked at exposure through the time average concentration and minimum concentration at steady state.

What they saw from the results perspective was that the subcutaneous, under-the-skin Opdivo was non-inferior to the IV version, so it indicated comparable levels of drug exposure. What they also saw was that the overall response rate, meaning the percentage of patients that respond to treatment, was actually higher for subcutaneous nivolumab, at 24% compared with 18% for the IV formulation. This really supports the efficacy of the subcutaneous version.

Safety profiles were also the same, or very similar between the two arms. In the subcutaneous, under-the-skin arm, the most common adverse effects were reported in at least 10% of patients, and they included fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, pruritus or intense itching, rash and cough.

Transcript was edited for clarity and conciseness.

The FDA approved subcutaneous Opdivo (nivolumab and hyaluronidase-nvhy) for solid tumors, excluding dual immunotherapy with Yervoy. This approval, based on the CHECKMATE-67T trial, offers a more convenient treatment option, potentially improving accessibility. The trial demonstrated non-inferiority in drug exposure compared to the IV formulation, with a higher overall response rate for the subcutaneous version (24% vs. 18%). Safety profiles were similar, with common adverse effects including fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, pruritus, rash, and cough, reported in at least 10% of patients.

Dr. Anna Arthur

Articles

Latest Updated Articles