SUMMARY: According to the American Cancer Society, tobacco use is responsible for nearly 1 in 5 deaths in the United States and accounts for at least 30% of all cancer deaths. Smokeless tobacco products are a major source of cancer causing nitrosamines and increase the risk of developing cancer of the oropharynx, esophagus, and pancreas. Cigarette smoke contains more than 7,000 chemicals, many of which are toxic and some linked to cancer. E-cigarettes were first developed in China and were introduced to the U.S. market in 2007.
When a smoker inhales through the mouth piece of an E-cigarette, the air flow triggers a sensor that switches on a small lithium battery powered heater, which in turn vaporizes liquid nicotine along with PolyEthylene Glycol (PEG) present in a small cartridge. The PEG vapor looks like smoke. The potent liquid form of nicotine extracted from tobacco is tinctured with fragrant flavors such as chocolate, cherry and bubble gum, coloring substances, as well other chemicals and these e-liquids are powerful neurotoxins. With the rapid growth of the E-cigarette industry and the evidence of potential dangers and risk to public health, particularly children, experts from the world's leading lung organizations were compelled to release a position statement on electronic cigarettes, specifically focusing on their potential adverse effects on human health and calling on government organizations to ban or restrict the use of E-cigarettes, until their impact on health is better understood. With epidemiological data demonstrating that nicotine use is a gateway to the use of cocaine and marijuana and subsequent lifelong addiction, the Forum of International Respiratory Societies (FIRS), an organization composed of the world's leading international respiratory societies including American Thoracic Society (ATS) and the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP), made the following recommendations. The position statement of the Forum of International Respiratory Societies (FIRS) on electronic nicotine delivery devices includes the following:
• The safety of electronic cigarettes has not been adequately demonstrated.
• The addictive power of nicotine and its untoward effects should not be underestimated.
• The potential benefits of electronic nicotine delivery devices, including harm reduction and as an aid to smoking cessation, have not been well studied.
• Potential benefits to an individual smoker should be weighed against harm to the population of increased social acceptability of smoking and use of nicotine.
• Health and safety claims regarding electronic nicotine delivery devices should be subject to evidentiary review.
• Adverse health effects for third parties exposed to the emissions of electronic cigarettes cannot be excluded.
• Electronic nicotine delivery devices should be restricted or banned, at least until more information about their safety is available.
• If electronic nicotine delivery devices are permitted, they should be regulated as medicines and subject to the same evidentiary review of other medicines.
• If electronic nicotine delivery devices are not regulated as medicines, they should be regulated as tobacco products.
• Research, supported by sources other than the tobacco or electronic cigarette industry, should be carried out to determine the impact of electronic nicotine delivery devices on health in a wide variety of settings.
• The use and population effects of electronic nicotine delivery devices should be monitored.
• All information derived from this research should be conveyed to the public in a clear manner.
Schraufnagel DE, Blasi F, Drummond MB, et al. on behalf of the Forum of International Respiratory Societies. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. First published online 09 Jul 2014 as DOI: 10.1164/rccm.201407-1198PP
The understanding of the biology of clear cell carcinoma of the kidney has led to the development of multitargeted Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors, which are small molecules that simultaneously target the tumor cell wall, vascular endothelial cell wall as well as the pericyte/fibroblast/vascular/ smooth vessel cell wall. The end result is decreased angiogenesis, cell proliferation and cell survival of both endothelial cells as well as tumor cells. There are four classes of agents presently available for the treatment of metastatic Renal Cell carcinoma. They include Immunotherapies, Anti-VEGF agents, Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors (TKI’s) and mTOR (Mammalian Target of Rapamycin) inhibitors. The choice of First Line therapies for metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma is based on MSKCC (Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center) risk classification and the agents include, Temsirolimus (TORISEL®) for poor risk patients and TKI’s as well as Immunotherapy with or without anti-VEGF agents for good and intermediate risk patients. 
The TKI’s of choice however for good to intermediate risk mRCC patients with clear cell histology are, either SUTENT® (Sunitinib) or VOTRIENT® (Pazopanib). Even though both agents have similar efficacy, it remained unclear if one agent was better tolerated than the other. To address this, the authors evaluated patient preference for VOTRIENT® or SUTENT® in a double blind, phase III cross over study. The primary end point of this study was patient preference for a specific treatment, as assessed by a questionnaire at the end of the two treatment periods. Other endpoints included reasons for preference, physician preference, safety, and HRQoL (Health Related Quality of Life). Randomly assigned patients with metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma (mRCC) with clear cell histology (N=168), received VOTRIENT® 800 mg per day for 10 weeks followed by a 2 week washout period and then SUTENT® 50 mg per day (4 weeks on, 2 weeks off, 4 weeks on) for 10 weeks (N=86), or the reverse sequence (N=82). One hundred and fourteen (N=114) patients met the prespecified modified intent-to-treat criteria for the primary analysis and the criteria included exposure to both of the treatments, no disease progression before cross over and completion of the preference questionnaire. When outcomes were evaluated, 70% of the patients preferred VOTRIENT®, 22% preferred SUTENT® and 8% had no preference (P<0.001). 
The main reasons for preferring VOTRIENT® were less fatigue and better overall quality of life whereas those who preferred SUTENT® cited less diarrhea as the main reason. Physician preference was also taken into consideration in this study, as physicians are able to better assess efficacy and asymptomatic toxicities that are clinically relevant. VOTRIENT® was preferred by 61% of the physicians, 22% preferred SUTENT® and 17% had no preference. VOTRIENT® was also superior to SUTENT® with regards to HRQoL measures that evaluated fatigue, hand/foot soreness and mouth/throat soreness. The authors concluded that this innovative cross-over trial demonstrated that significantly more patients preferred VOTRIENT® over SUTENT®, based on lower rates of adverse events and better Health-Related Quality of Life. Escudier B, Porta C, Bono P, et al. J Clin Oncol 2014;32:1412-1418
POEMS (Prevention of Early Menopause Study) is a randomized phase III trial designed to evaluate whether the addition of LHRH (Luteinizing Hormone-Releasing Hormone) analog Goserelin (ZOLADEX®), which suppresses the production of estrogens, to Cyclophosphamide based chemotherapy, would reduce POF in breast cancer patients, when compared to chemotherapy alone. Premenopausal patients less than 50 years of age, with hormone negative (ER/PR negative ), Stage I-IIIA breast cancer, scheduled to receive chemotherapy, were randomly assigned to receive standard Cyclophosphamide based chemotherapy with or without monthly ZOLADEX® . Patients in the ZOLADEX® group received 3.6 mg SQ starting 1 week prior to the first dose of chemotherapy. The primary endpoint was ovarian failure at two years (defined as amenorrhea for the prior 6 months AND post-menopausal FSH level). Other endpoints included pregnancy and survival rates. Of the 218 evaluable patients, 135 premenopausal women were evaluable for the primary end point. POF rates were 22% in the chemotherapy alone group and 8% in the ZOLADEX® group (P=0.03). When the definition of POF was more liberal to include EITHER amenorrhea or elevated FSH but not both, POF rates were 45% in the chemotherapy alone group and 20% in the ZOLADEX® group (P=0.006). Among the 218 evaluable patients, more women in the ZOLADEX® group achieved at least one pregnancy (21%) compared to 11% in the chemotherapy alone group (P=0.03). Secondary outcomes also favored the ZOLADEX® group with a Disease free Survival (DFS) rate of 78% in the chemotherapy alone group compared with 89% in the ZOLADEX® group (P=0.04) and Overall Survival (OS) rate of 82% in the chemotherapy alone group compared with 92% in the ZOLADEX® group (P=0.05). The authors concluded that the addition of ZOLADEX® to chemotherapy improved fertility prospects with a lower incidence of Premature Ovarian Failure and more pregnancies. Further, the improved Disease Free Survival and Overall Survival is an important additional perk and prevention of POF with ZOLADEX® may be a consideration not only in premenopausal patients with hormone receptor positive breast cancer but also in other malignancies such as lymphomas, when treated with similar chemotherapeutic agents. Moore HC, Unger JM, Phillips K, et al. J Clin Oncol 32:5s, 2014 (suppl; abstr LBA505)</s
PI3K delta is activated by BCR signaling resulting in the production of a second messenger, Phosphatidylinositol 3,4,5-triphosphate (PIP3) which in turn activates Bruton’s Tyrosine Kinase (BTK) and AKT, a prosurvival kinase. Idelalisib (ZYDELIG®) is a highly selective, small molecule, oral inhibitor of the enzyme Phosphoinositide 3-Kinase delta (PI3K delta) and blocks the delta isoform of PI3K enzyme and its signaling pathway, thus promoting apoptosis. The FDA granted ZYDELIG® accelerated approval in relapsed Follicular B-cell Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma and Small Lymphocytic Lymphoma based on the results of a single-arm, open-label, phase II trial. Patients with indolent Non-Hodgkin Lymphomas (N=125), who were refractory to Rituximab (RITUXAN®) and an alkylating agent or had relapsed within 6 months after receipt of these therapies, received ZYDELIG®, 150 mg PO BID. Treatment was continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicities developed. The median age was 64 years and enrolled patients had received a median of four prior therapies. The indolent Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma subtypes included Follicular lymphoma (N=72), Small Lymphocytic Lymphoma (N=28), Marginal Zone Lymphoma (N=15), and Lymphoplasmacytic Lymphoma with or without Waldenström's Macroglobulinemia (N=10). The primary end point of this study was Overall Response Rate and secondary end points included the Duration of Response, Progression Free Survival, and Safety. The median follow up was 9.7 months. The Overall Response Rate was 57% with 50% partial responses and 6% complete responses. There was no difference in the Reponse Rates across the various subtypes of Indolent Non-Hodgkin Lymphomas. The median time to response was 1.9 months and the median duration of response was 12.5 months. The median Progression Free Survival was 11 months and the Overall Survival at one year was estimated to be 80%. The most common grade 3 or higher adverse events were diarrhea (13%), neutropenia (27%) and elevations in SGOT and SGPT levels (13%). These toxicities were manageable with dose modifications and dose interruptions. The authors concluded that ZYDELIG® has significant single agent activity, with an acceptable safety profile, in heavily pretreated patients with indolent Non Hodgkin Lymphomas. Gopal AK, Kahl BS, de Vos S, et al. N Engl J Med 2014; 370:1008-1018
Over activation of the JAK-STAT signal transduction pathway caused by V617F mutation, has been implicated in majority of the patients with P. Vera. This pathway normally is responsible for passing information from outside the cell through the cell membrane to the DNA in the nucleus for gene transcription. Janus Kinase (JAK) family of tyrosine kinases are cytoplasmic proteins and include JAK1, JAK2, JAK3 and TYK2. JAK1 helps propagate the signaling of inflammatory cytokines whereas JAK2 is essential for growth and differentiation of hematopoietic stem cells. These tyrosine kinases mediate cell signaling by recruiting STAT’s (Signal Transducer and Activator of Transcription), with resulting modulation of gene expression. In patients with P. Vera, the aberrant myeloproliferation is the result of dysregulated JAK2-STAT signaling as well as excess production of inflammatory cytokines associated with this abnormal signaling. JAK2 mutations such as JAK2 V617F are seen in approximately 95% of patients with P. Vera. The goals of therapy in P. Vera are to maintain the hematocrit at less than 45% and decrease the risk of thrombosis and bleeding. P. Vera is presently managed with periodic phlebotomies, cytoreductive therapy with oral antimetabolite, Hydroxyurea and antiplatelet agents such as low dose aspirin. However, a significant number of patients on these therapies become intolerant or resistant to these treatments, leading to an increased risk of progression. JAKAFI® is a potent JAK1 and JAK2 inhibitor and exerts its mechanism of action by targeting and inhibiting the dysregulated JAK2-STAT signaling pathway. 
The RESPONSE trial is a phase III prospective randomized study in which patients with P. Vera, who were refractory or intolerant of Hydroxyurea were randomized to receive JAKAFI® 10 mg PO, bid (N=110) or Best Available Therapy (BAT), which consisted of investigator choice of monotherapy or observation only (N=112). Eligible patients were phlebotomy dependent patients with splenomegaly (> 450 cubic cm). Patients receiving BAT were allowed to cross over to JAKAFI® group from week 32 onwards. The primary endpoint of this study (composite primary endpoint) was the proportion of patients whose hematocrit was controlled without phlebotomy and whose spleen volume was reduced by 35% or more from baseline, as assessed by MRI imaging at 32 weeks. Secondary endpoints included durable response, Complete Hematological Remission and safety. The primary analysis was conducted when all patients reached week 48 or discontinued therapy. The proportion of patients in the JAKAFI® group who achieved the composite primary endpoint was 21% compared to 1% in the BAT group (P < 0.0001). Seventy seven percent (77%) of the patients in the JAKAFI® group achieved at least one of the two major components of the composite primary endpoint. Put another way, 60% of the patients in the JAKAFI® arm were able to achieve the target hematocrit level in the absence of phlebotomy, compared to 20% in the BAT group. Reduction in the spleen volume by 35% or more was noted in 38% of the patients in the JAKAFI® group compared to 1% in the BAT group. Complete Hematological Remission defined as continuous hematocrit below 45%, as well as normal white blood cells and platelets counts, was achieved in 24% and 9% of patients in JAKAFI® and BAT group respectively (P=0.003). More patients assigned to JAKAFI® group also demonstrated 50% or more improvement in the Myeloproliferative Neoplasm Symptom Assessment Form (MPN-SAF) 14-item total symptom score, at week 32 compared to BAT (49% vs 5%). Thromboembolic events occurred in one patient assigned to the JAKAFI® group as compared to six patients in the BAT group. The authors concluded that JAKAFI® may represent a new option for treating high risk patients with Polycythemia Vera, who are refractory or intolerant of Hydroxyurea. Jakafi® is superior to Best Available Therapy (BAT) in controlling hematocrit without phlebotomies as well as Splenic Volume. Further, JAKAFI® is also effective in improving P. Vera associated symptoms. Verstovsek S, Kiladjian J, Griesshammer M, et al. J Clin Oncol 32:5s, 2014 (suppl; abstr 7026)
The following chemotherapeutic agents are associated with varying degrees of peripheral neuropathy – Platinum compounds (Cisplatin, Carboplatin and Oxaliplatin), Taxanes (Paclitaxel, Docetaxel), Immunomodulatory agents (Thalidomide, Lenalidomide), Other Microtubule inhibitors (Vincristine, Ixabepilone) and Proteosome Inhibitors (Bortezomib). It may be necessary to screen and rescreen patients for neuropathic pain, as patients may not be forthcoming with this complaint. Management of Neuropathic pain may include systemic treatment with adjuvant analgesics, topical therapies and psychosocial support. The management of Chemotherapy Induced Peripheral Neuropathy has mostly been extrapolated from validated studies on diabetic neuropathy. The first line treatment for Chemotherapy Induced Neuropathic Pain includes antidepressants and anticonvulsants, which if not effective on their own, can be combined with opioids. TriCyclic Antidepressants (TCA’s) such as Amitriptyline and Nortriptyline (PAMELOR®) can be considered as first line choice for appropriate patients, although its mechanism of action is uncertain and 20% of the patients discontinue therapy because of adverse effects.
Patients may be able to better tolerate these agents if started at a lower dose and dose titrated slowly every three to five days. Peripheral neuropathic pain has been attributed to an unbalanced release of norepinephrine and serotonin from the neurons. Serotonin-Norepinephrine Reuptake Inhibitors (SNRI’s), including Venlafaxine (EFFEXOR®) and Duloxetine (CYMBALTA®), are better tolerated and have fewer drug interactions than TCA’s. EFFEXOR® in one study significantly relieved Oxaliplatin induced neuropathic pain in more than two thirds of the patients when compared to placebo and a third of the patients had complete pain relief. There is however limited evidence showing a beneficial role of Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRI’s) such as Citalopram (CELEXA®) and Paroxetine (PAXIL®) for neuropathic pain. As a note of caution, SNRI’s such as EFFEXOR® and CYMBALTA®, can interact with Tamoxifen, prescribed to patients with breast cancer, preventing Tamoxifen from converting to its active form. The dose of antidepressants needed to alleviate neuropathic pain is not dependent on antidepressant activity and may be lower than that recommended for treatment of depression. The newer anticonvulsants such as Gabapentin (NEURONTIN®), Pregabalin (LYRICA®) are preferable first line agents for the treatment of neuropathic pain rather than traditional, older agents such as Carbamazepine (TEGRETOL®), Phenytoin (DILANTIN®) and Valproate (DEPAKOTE®), as the newer agents are associated with fewer drug interactions. The newer agents bind to the alpha2-delta subunit of the calcium-sensitive channels, modulating neurotransmitter release. Of the newer agents, NEURONTIN® (Gabapentin) is not protein bound and is excreted unchanged in the urine and therefore has fewer drug interactions. If opioids are a consideration for neuropathic pain relief, the lowest dose is recommended. Topical therapies for neuropathic pain have the advantage of controlling pain without systemic side effects. It therefore can be combined with systemic treatment. Lidocaine 5% patches (LIDODERM®) block neuronal sodium channels whereas Capsaicin cream (ZOSTRIX®) stimulates the C fibers to release and subsequently deplete substance P, there by blocking pain signaling to the brain. Diclofenac gel 1% when applied once a day, concentrates in the dermis and has less gastrointestinal side effects and may be beneficial for neuropathic pain. A combination of Ketamine 1% and Amitriptyline 2% cream applied topically has also been promising in a small study. Patients experiencing refractory pain may benefit with the use of Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS), although referral to the pain clinic may be appropriate. Psychosocial support utilizing a team of specialists and social workers/counsellors, should be an integral part of pain management. Kvale E and Urba SG. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) 19th Annual Conference, March 13 – 15, 2014; Hollywood, Florida
To address this controversy, the authors conducted a pooled analysis of the outcomes of two randomized phase III trials, designed to compare Continuous Treatment to Fixed Duration Therapy. In trail RVMM209, patients were randomized to either induction with Lenolidomide (REVLIMID®), followed by consolidation and subsequent maintenance with REVLIMID® (Continuous Treatment) or Fixed Duration Therapy which entailed REVLIMID® based induction followed by consolidation but no maintenance therapy. In Trial GIMEMA0305, the randomization was between Bortezomib (VELCADE®) based induction followed by maintenance treatment (Continuous Treatment) and VELCADE® induction, with no maintenance treatment (Fixed Duration Therapy). The trial investigators assessed PFS1 as the time from diagnosis to the occurrence of 1st relapse, PFS2 as time from diagnosis to the occurrence of 2nd relapse and Overall Survival as time from diagnosis to death , incorporating the duration of both 1st and 2nd remission. They then evaluated, both PFS1, PFS2 and OS in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients who received Continuous Therapy or Fixed Duration Therapy. In this pooled analysis 452 patients received Continuous Treatment and 461 patients received Fixed Duration Therapy .The median follow up was 52 months. Patients receiving Continuous Treatment had significantly prolonged PFS1 (median 35 months vs 24 months, HR 0.58; P<0.0001), PFS2 (median 63 months vs 47 months, HR 0.69, P=0.0001) and OS (median not reached [NR] vs 70 months, HR 0.70, P=0.0019), when compared with Fixed Dose Therapy. The authors evaluated the PFS and OS from first relapse to second relapse and from first relapse to death respectively, and they noted that the outcomes were similar among patients who received Continuous Treatment or Fixed Dose Therapy following initial diagnosis. The authors concluded that Continuous Treatment significantly improved PFS1, PFS2, and OS and findings from this pooled analysis suggested that the clinical benefit observed during first remission was not negated by a shorter second remission and Continuous Treatment did not induce tumor resistance. Continuous Treatment may be essential, as patients with multiple myeloma will always have some residual disease. It should be noted that certain institutions including the Mayo Clinic cap Continuous/Maintenance treatment at approximately 2 years, due to the lack of randomized comparative data, on the value of prolonged maintenance beyond 2 years. Palumbo A, Gay F, Musto P, et al. J Clin Oncol 32:5s, 2014 (suppl; abstr 8515)