Standard initial therapy for patients with pure and mixed anaplastic oligodendrogliomas (AO/MAO) includes chemotherapy and radiation therapy. Anaplastic oligodendrogliomas with 1p/19q co-deletion are more responsive to chemotherapy. There is concern for potential long-term CNS toxicity of radiation. Hence an approach using chemotherapy initially and reserving radiation for progressive disease is attractive. This multicenter phase II trial included patients with newly diagnosed AO/MAO with central pathology review and 1p/19q assay. Temozolomide was given 150 mg/m(2) days 1-7 and 15-21, every 28 days for 8 cycles. The primary endpoint was progression free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included response rate, overall survival (OS), treatment toxicity and health-related quality of life (HRQL). Data from 62 patients enrolled between December 2001 and April 2007 at seven centers were analyzed. Among patients with measurable disease, 8 % achieved complete remission, 56 % had stable disease and 36 % had progression. The median PFS and OS were 27.2 months (95 % CI 11.9-36.3) and 105.8 months (95 % CI 51.5-N/A), respectively. Both 1p loss and 1p/19q co-deletion were positive prognostic factors for PFS (p < 0.001) and OS (p < 0.001); and there was some suggestion that 1p/19q co-deletion also predicted better response to chemotherapy (p = 0.007). Grade 3/4 toxicities were mainly hematological. Significantly improved HRQL in the future uncertainty domain of the brain cancer module was seen after cycle 4 (p < 0.001). This trial achieved outcomes similar to those reported previously. Toxicities from dose-intense temozolomide were manageable. Improvement in at least one HRQL domain increased over time. This trial supports the further study of first-line temozolomide monotherapy as an alternative to radiation therapy for patients with newly diagnosed AO/MAO with 1p 19q co-deleted tumors.

Primary central nervous system lymphoma (PCNSL) accounts for only 3% of brain tumors. It can involve the brain parenchyma, leptomeninges, eyes and the spinal cord. Unlike systemic lymphoma, durable remissions remain uncommon. Although phase III trials in this rare disease are difficult to perform, many phase II trials have attempted to define standards of care. Treatment modalities for patients with newly diagnosed PCNSL include radiation and/or chemotherapy. While the role of radiation therapy for initial management of PCNSL is controversial, clinical trials will attempt to improve the therapeutic index of this modality. Routes of chemotherapy administration include intravenous, intraocular, intraventricular or intra-arterial. Multiple trials have outlined different methotrexate-based chemotherapy regimens and have used local techniques to improve drug delivery. A major challenge in the management of patients with PCNSL remains the delivery of aggressive treatment with preservation of neurocognitive function. Because PCNSL is rare, it is important to perform multicenter clinical trials and to incorporate detailed measurements of long-term toxicities. In this review we focus on different chemotherapeutic approaches for immunocompetent patients with newly diagnosed PCNSL and discuss the role of local drug delivery in addition to systemic therapy. We also address the neurocognitive toxicity of treatment.

Immune surveillance is well recognized as an important mechanism to prevent development or progression of head and neck cancers. Head and neck cancer cells can escape the immune system through multiple mechanisms including development of tolerance in T cells and inhibition of T-cell-related pathways, generally referred to as checkpoint inhibitors. This article highlights advances in immuno-oncology treatment approaches in recurrent and metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Clinical trials are discussed in detail, with an emphasis on response dynamics, oncologic efficacy, safety, and tolerability of checkpoint inhibitors. In addition, developing concepts and ongoing studies in this setting are also reviewed.

These results support assessments of precision medicine-guided targeting of autophagy in treatment of brain metastases in breast cancer patients.

The standard of care for the treatment of patients with advanced NSCLC includes 4-6 cycles of platinum-doublet chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab, with modest improvements in survival. To improve upon outcomes, recent studies have investigated the role of maintenance therapy after first-line chemotherapy. This concept can be divided into continuation and switch maintenance. The majority of studies have shown significant improvements in progression-free survival (PFS) with the addition of maintenance, but the improved PFS has not always resulted in an improvement of overall survival (OS). Two notable exceptions are erlotinib and, for non-squamous NSCLC, pemetrexed. For patients with non-squamous NSCLC who respond or remain stable after four cycles of platinum-doublet chemotherapy, either continuation of pemetrexed (if included in the induction regimen) or switch to pemetrexed as maintenance has been shown to improve OS compared with observation. Whether maintenance pemetrexed improves OS compared with treatment with pemetrexed at progression is unknown. Recent trials suggest that maintenance therapy benefits both patients with initial response and stable disease after chemotherapy. There is insufficient evidence to support recommending the combination of pemetrexed and bevacizumab over maintenance pemetrexed alone as a switch maintenance approach, although the combination seems to be more effective than bevacizumab alone. The ongoing ECOG 5508 trial is examining this question. For both squamous and non-squamous NSCLC, switch maintenance with erlotinib has been shown to improve both PFS and OS, although the improvement is modest. Switch maintenance with docetaxel or continuation maintenance with gemcitabine confers improvements in PFS regardless of histology but has failed to show improvements in OS. For this reason, switch maintenance with erlotinib can be considered in patients with squamous NSCLC. Overall, maintenance therapy may benefit patients with good performance status who complete four cycles of induction chemotherapy with manageable toxicity, but there is insufficient evidence to make this a blanket recommendation for everyone. Maintenance should remain an individual decision between patients and the treating oncologist.