Citations

Background: Although national organizations advocate that health-care providers ask patients about sexual health and sexual and gender minority status—to learn, for example, about side effects of treatment and to understand patients’ social support—these conversations often do not occur. This study explored health-care providers’ reasons for having/not having these conversations. Methods: This single-institution study recruited health-care providers from medical oncology, hematology, radiation oncology, and gynecology. Face-to-face interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed qualitatively. Results: Three main themes emerged: (1) patient-centric reasons for discussing/not discussing sexual health and sexual and gender minority status (“So I think just the holistic viewpoint is important”); (2) health-care provider–centric reasons for discussing/not discussing these issues (“That’s going to take more time to talk about and to deal with…” or “I was raised orthodox, so this is not something we talk about…”; and (3) reasons that appeared to straddle both of the above themes (eg, acknowledgment of the sometimes taboo nature of these topics). Conclusion: Although many health-care providers favor talking with patients with cancer about sexual health and sexual and gender minority status, limited time, personal reluctance, and the taboo nature of these topics appear at times to hamper the initiation of these conversations.

The NCCN Guidelines for Survivorship provide screening, evaluation, and treatment recommendations for consequences of cancer and cancer treatment to aid healthcare professionals who work with survivors of adult-onset cancer. Guidance is also provided to help promote physical activity, weight management, and proper immunizations in survivors and to facilitate care coordination to ensure that all needs are addressed. These NCCN Insights summarize some of the topics discussed by the NCCN Survivorship Panel during the 2019 update of the guidelines, including the survivorship population addressed, ways to improve care coordination, and pain management.

Background:Despite advances in the treatment of lymphoma in recent years, unmet medical needs remain, particularly for patients with R/R disease and rarer subtypes of non‐Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). The alkylating deacetylase inhibitor tinostamustine (EDO‐S101) is a novel multi‐action therapy that is designed to improve drug access to DNA strands, and at the same time induce DNA damage and counteract its repair in cancer cells.Aims:Here we report findings from the dose‐escalation stage of a Phase I first‐in‐human study to evaluate the safety and pharmacokinetics, and to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended Phase II dose (RP2D), of tinostamustine in patients with R/R lymphoid malignancies (NCT02576496).Methods:Patients were recruited using a standard 3+3 design, with the first cohort receiving 20 mg/m2 tinostamustine administered iv over 60 minutes, with six ascending cohorts, to a maximum dose of 120 mg/m2. Dose‐limiting toxicities (DLT) were defined as: any Grade (G) 3 or 4 non‐haematological toxicity (excluding alopecia and easily correctable electrolyte abnormalities); nausea, vomiting or diarrhoea ≥10 days despite aggressive symptomatic treatment; G4 neutropenia or thrombocytopenia for ≥7 days; any G2 or more toxicity for >3 weeks; any toxicity resulting in a delay of the next dose administration (Cycle 2 Day 1 ≥14).Results:A total of 27 patients with lymphoid malignancies were enrolled into the study, 10 of these patients were diagnosed with R/R Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) and 17 with NHL, including peripheral T‐cell lymphoma and diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma. The MTD of tinostamustine was determined to be 100 mg/m2; shorter infusion times were evaluated in three cohorts of patients, but the recommended infusion time was confirmed as 60 minutes. Safety findings for each dose cohort for HL and NHL patients were mainly haematological toxicities: G3/4 thrombocytopenia, neutropenia and leucopenia, with incidence increasing with increasing dose. One patient experienced a G3 allergic reaction. Signals of efficacy were observed among the 27 patients with lymphoma (overall response rate [ORR] 41% [11 patients]; clinical benefit rate [CBR] 67% [18 patients]). The best response, as determined by the Investigator, was complete response (CR; 3/27 patients [11%]), which was observed in one patient with HL and two with NHL; partial response (PR; 8/27 patients [30%]) and stable disease (SD; 7/27 patients [26%]) were also observed. Nine of the 27 patients (33%) had disease progression.Summary/Conclusion:Administration of tinostamustine on Day 1 of a 21‐day cycle was well tolerated with signals of efficacy in patients with both HL and NHL, including rare forms of NHL such as peripheral T‐cell lymphoma. The RP2D for tinostamustine in lymphoid malignancies, depending on patient platelet count at treatment initiation, was determined as 80 mg/m2 for those with >100 x 109/l platelets, and 100 mg/m2 for those with ≥200 x 109/l platelets. This will be applied in the second phase of this study, where patients will be recruited into one of five different cohorts.

Abstract The Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging convened a task group to examine the evidence for the risk of carcinogenesis from low-dose radiation exposure and to assess evidence in the scientific literature related to the overall validity of the linear no-threshold (LNT) hypothesis and its applicability for use in risk assessment and radiation protection. In the low-dose and dose-rate region, the group concluded that the LNT hypothesis is invalid as it is not supported by the available scientific evidence and, instead, is actually refuted by published epidemiology and radiation biology. The task group concluded that the evidence does not support the use of LNT either for risk assessment or radiation protection in the low-dose and dose-rate region.