• 2019-07
  • 2019-08
  • 2019-09
  • 2019-10
  • 2019-11
  • 2020-03
  • 2020-07
  • 2020-08
  • 2021-03
  • br When assessing the efficacy of this combination the


    When assessing the efficacy of this Dalbavancin combination, the lack of a control group limits definitive statements. However, if compared to the overall response rates seen among measureable patients who received doublet chemotherapy and bevacizumab on OCEANS (57%) and GOG 213 (56%) the 75.5% overall response rate demonstrated in this study compares
    Fig. 2. Waterfall plot of maximum change in the sum of target lesion diameters. CR = complete response; PR = partial response; SD = stable disease; PD = progressive disease.
    Fig. 3. Progression free survival.
    comparable to those seen with standard of care regimens, the occur-rence of fragility fractures at doses associated with efficacy are of con-cern and limit further development of this particular Wnt targeting combination therapy in ovarian cancer.
    Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
    Author disclosures
    KNM reports advisory board participation and reimbursement from Astra Zeneca, Immunogen, Clovis, Genentech/Roche, Tesaro, Janssen, Merck, Pfizer, Aravive, Onco-Med, VBL Therapeutics and Samumed. She also serves on steering committees for Tesaro, Astra Zeneca, VBL Therapeutics, Aravive and Genentech/Roche.
    RAB reports consulting fees from Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Tesaro, Clo-vis, Genentech-Roche Invitae, Merck and VBL Therapeutics.
    REO reports advisory board participation and reimbursement from Tesaro and Clovis.
    AK, RKB and RS were employees at OncoMed at the time that this study was conducted.
    GMS and MAM have no disclosures.
    Authors contributions
    Patient accrual, protocol oversight, safety monitoring and data integ-rity overseen by KNM, REO, DSM, GMS, CCG, PS, MAM and RB.
    Manuscript writing by KNM, manuscript editing and final approval:
    all authors.
    [9] C. Aghajanian, et al., OCEANS: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III trial of chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab in patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancer, J. Clin. Oncol. 30 (17) (2012) 2039–2045.
    Scientific Article
    A Phase 2 Randomized Pilot Study Comparing High-Dose-Rate Brachytherapy and Low-Dose-Rate Brachytherapy as Monotherapy in Localized Prostate Cancer
    Lara Hathout MD, FRCPC a,*, Omar Mahmoud MD, PhD a, Yaqun Wang PhD b, Irina Vergalasova PhD a,
    Maroie Barkati MD, FRCPC c, Philippe Després PhD d, André-Guy Martin MD, MSc, FRCPC d, William Foster MD, FRCPC d, Frédéric Lacroix PhD d, Guila Delouya MD, MSc, FRCPC c, Daniel Taussky MD, FRCPC c, Gerard Morton MD, FRCPC e, Eric Vigneault MD, MSc, FRCPC d
    aDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey; bDepartment of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey; cDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Centre hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada; dDepartment of Radiation Oncology and Research Centre CHU de Québec-Université Laval, Québec City, QC, Canada; eDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Center, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
    Purpose: To compare health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDRB) versus low dose-rate brachytherapy (LDRB) for localized prostate cancer in a vasectomy multi-institutional phase 2 randomized trial.
    Methods and Materials: Men with favorable-risk prostate cancer were randomized between monotherapy brachytherapy with either Iodine-125 LDRB to 144 Gy or single-fraction Iridium-192 HDRB to 19 Gy. HRQOL and urinary toxicity were recorded at baseline and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC)-26 scoring and the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS). Independent samples t test and mixed effects modeling were performed for continuous variables. Time to IPSS resolution, defined as return to its baseline score 5 points, was calculated using Kaplan-Meier estimator curves with the log-rank test. A multiple-comparison adjusted P value of .05 was considered significant.