Sites géologiques touristiques en Abitibi-Témiscamigue

Les Cahiers présentent ici les résultats d'un projet de recherche conduit par un groupe d'étudiants du Collège de l'Abitibi-Témiscamingue au cours de l'été de 1983. Tout au long de ces quelque cent pages, les auteurs nous invitent à découvrir dix sites géologiques de la région, choisis pour leur beauté et l'intérêt qu'ils sauront susciter auprès des touristes. Des photos couleur, des cartes et des croquis viennent agrémenter un texte déjà très éclairant par lui-même, et le tout ainsi formé se présente comme une invitation à la découverte, un défi nouveau pour une nouvelle génération de touristes. «Sites géologiques touristiques en Abitibi-Témiscamingue» constitue donc une première pour le monde touristique régional et sans doute sera-t-il reçu comme une bouffée d'air frais dans les bureaux et kiosques des nombreuses associations vouées au développement du tourisme en Abitibi-Témiscamingue

Brain metastasis from urachal carcinoma: the importance of locally aggressive treatment

We present the case of a 52 years old woman who developed multiple brain metastasis after cystectomy with anterior exenteration and chemotherapy. She received whole-brain radiotherapy with 20 gray in 5 sessions. On magnetic resonance imaging 8 weeks after radiotherapy she showed a regression of some lesions while others responded only partially. This case-report and a review of the literature show the importance of aggressive local treatment in patients with brain metastasis from urachal carcinoma

Intracranial activity of sotorasib vs docetaxel in pretreated KRAS G12C-mutated advanced non-small cell lung cancer from a global, phase 3, randomized controlled trial

Objectives:To assess the efficacy and safety of sotorasib in patients with brain metastases using data from the phase 3 CodeBreaK 200 study, which evaluated sotorasib in adults with pretreated advanced or metastatic KRAS G12C-mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Materials and methods: Patients with KRAS G12C-mutated NSCLC who progressed after platinum-based chemotherapy and checkpoint inhibitor therapy were randomized 1:1 to sotorasib or docetaxel. An exploratory post-hoc analysis evaluated central nervous system (CNS) progression-free survival (PFS) and time to CNS progression in patients with treated and stable brain metastases at baseline. Measures were assessed by blinded independent central review per study-modified Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology Brain Metastases (RANO-BM) criteria. Results: Of the patients randomly assigned to receive sotorasib (n=171) or docetaxel (n=174), baseline CNS metastases were present in 40 (23%) and 29 (17%) patients, respectively. With a median follow-up of 20.0 months for this patient subgroup, median CNS PFS was longer with sotorasib compared with docetaxel (9.6 vs 4.5 months; hazard ratio, 0.43 [95% CI, 0.20–0.92]; P=0.02). Among patients with baseline treated CNS lesions of ≥10 mm, the percentage of patients who achieved CNS tumor shrinkage of ≥30% was two-fold higher with sotorasib than docetaxel (33.3% vs 15.4%). Treatment-related adverse events among patients with CNS lesions at baseline were consistent with those of the overall study population. Conclusions: These results suggest intracranial activity with sotorasib complements the overall PFS benefit observed with sotorasib vs docetaxel, with safety outcomes similar to those in the general CodeBreaK 200 population. Clinical trials registration number: NCT04303780.</p

Patient-reported outcomes in CodeBreaK 200:Sotorasib versus docetaxel for previously treated advanced NSCLC with KRAS G12C mutation

Background: In the CodeBreaK 200 phase III, open-label trial, sotorasib significantly improved efficacy versus docetaxel in previously treated KRAS G12C-mutated advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for global health status, physical functioning, dyspnea, and cough favored sotorasib over docetaxel. Here, we report sotorasib's additional impact on quality of life (QOL). Methods: In CodeBreaK 200, 345 patients who had progressed after prior therapy received sotorasib (960 mg orally daily) or docetaxel (75 mg/m2 intravenously every 3 weeks). Validated questionnaires captured patients’ perception of their QOL and symptom burden for key secondary and exploratory PRO endpoints, including the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) and Quality-of-life Questionnaire Lung Cancer 13 (EORTC QLQ-LC13), question GP5 from the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Tool General Form (FACT-G GP5), PRO-Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE), and 5-level EuroQOL-5 dimensions (EQ-5D-5L) including visual analog scale (EQ-5D VAS). Change from baseline to week 12 was assessed with generalized estimating equations for ordinal outcomes. Results: Patients receiving sotorasib were less bothered by treatment side effects than those receiving docetaxel (odds ratio [OR] 5.7) and experienced symptoms at lower severity (pain: OR 2.9; aching muscles: OR 4.4; aching joints: OR 4.2; mouth or throat sores: OR 4.3). Further, patients’ symptoms interfered less with usual/daily activities (pain: OR 3.2; aching muscles: OR 3.9; aching joints: OR 10.7). QOL remained stable with sotorasib but worsened with docetaxel (change from baseline in EQ-5D VAS score: 1.5 vs –8.4 at cycle 1 day 5 and 2.2 vs –5.8 at week 12). Conclusions: Patients receiving sotorasib reported less severe symptoms than those receiving docetaxel. In addition to improving clinical efficacy outcomes, sotorasib maintained QOL versus docetaxel, suggesting sotorasib may be a more tolerable treatment option for patients with pretreated, KRAS G12C-mutated advanced NSCLC.</p

Sunitinib combined with pemetrexed and carboplatin in patients with advanced solid malignancies—results of a phase I dose-escalation study

Objectives The maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and overall safety of sunitinib plus pemetrexed and carboplatin was determined in patients with advanced solid malignancies. Methods In this phase I dose-escalation study, patients received oral sunitinib on a continuous daily dosing (CDD) schedule (37.5 mg/day) or Schedule 2/1 (2 weeks on treatment, 1 week off treatment; 37.5 or 50 mg/day). Pemetrexed (400–500 mg/m(2) IV) and carboplatin (AUC = 5 mg·min/ml IV) were administered q3w. At the MTD for the chosen schedule, a cohort of patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) or mesothelioma was further evaluated. Results Twenty-one patients were enrolled on Schedule 2/1 (expansion cohort included) and 3 patients on the CDD schedule. The MTD on Schedule 2/1 was sunitinib 37.5 mg/day with pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) and carboplatin AUC = 5 mg·min/ml; MTD on the CDD schedule was not established. Dose-limiting toxicities included grade 3/4 neutropenia, grade 3 thrombocytopenia, and grade 3 hand–foot syndrome. The most common grade 3/4 drug-related non-hematologic adverse events at Schedule 2/1 MTD were fatigue/asthenia and diarrhea (both n = 4). Grade 3/4 hematologic abnormalities included neutropenia (83 %) and leukopenia (83 %). Pharmacokinetic data revealed no clinically significant drug–drug interactions. Best response at the Schedule 2/1 MTD was stable disease ≥8 weeks in 3/5 evaluable patients (60 %). Conclusions With this combination, in patients with advanced solid malignancies, sunitinib MTD on Schedule 2/1 was 37.5 mg/day. Sunitinib plus pemetrexed and carboplatin were tolerable at the MTD, although sunitinib dose delays and reductions were often required due to myelosuppression

Sotorasib versus docetaxel for previously treated KRAS G12C-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer:a plain language summary

Plain Language Summary: What is this summary about? The CodeBreaK 200 clinical study included patients with a type of lung cancer called non–small-cell lung cancer that has spread outside the lung (advanced) and had a particular change (mutation) in the KRAS gene. This mutation leads to the mutated protein called KRAS G12C and can lead to lung cancer. The CodeBreaK 200 clinical study looked at whether treatment with sotorasib works better and has fewer side effects than docetaxel. Sotorasib has accelerated approval or full approval for use in over 50 countries for patients with previouslytreated advanced KRAS G12C–mutated non–small-cell lung cancer. What did investigators find? There were 171 adults in the sotorasib group and 174 in the docetaxel group. The median time that patients in the sotorasib group whose disease was no worse or who did not die was 5.6 months. For patients in the docetaxel group, this was 4.5 months. After 1 year, 25% of patients in the sotorasib group had disease that was no worse or did not die. This happened in 100% of patients in the docetaxel group. In total, 48 out of 171 patients (28%) in the sotorasib group had a positive effect to treatment, and their tumors shrunk in size by at least 30% or disappeared. This happened in 23 out of 174 patients (13%) in the docetaxel group. Additionally, 141 out of 171 patients (82%) in the sotorasib group had tumors that either remained stable or shrunk in size. This happened in 105 out of 174 patients (60%) in the docetaxel group. Patients in both the sotorasib and docetaxel groups had a similar median survival (10.6 months in the sotorasib group compared with 11.3 months in the docetaxel group). Almost all patients treated with sotorasib or docetaxel had side effects. They were severe in 56 out of 169 patients (33%) receiving sotorasib and 61 out of 151 patients (40%) receiving docetaxel. What is the key takeaway? Sotorasib is an effective treatment for previously–treated patients with advanced KRAS G12C–mutated non–small-cell lung cancer. This is an abstract of the Plain Language Summary of Publication article. View the full Plain Language Summary PDF of this article to read the full-text.</p

Évaluation de l’utilité des technologies destinées à l’évaluation de la résistance physiologique aux antiplaquettaires en laboratoire

Introduction : L’effet biologique variable de l’aspirine a été attribué à un état de résistance pharmacologique. L’incidence de cette « résistance » varie selon la population ou la technologie étudiée. Méthodes : Nous avons déterminé la performance de 5 techniques évaluant l’effet de l’aspirine chez des sujets sains, non fumeurs et ne prenant aucune médication pouvant interférer avec la fonction plaquettaire. Des spécimens de sang et d’urine ont été obtenus avant et après 8-10 jours de prise de 80 mg d’aspirine. Résultats: Chez 45 sujets de 19-59 ans, la sensibilité (SE), la spécificité (SP), et la valeur optimale de coupure (CO) pour détecter l’effet de l’aspirine sont : agrégométrie par transmission optique induite avec 1,6 mM d’acide arachidonique (ATO-AA) - SE 100%, SP 95,9%, CO 20%; ATO-ADP 10 μM - SE 84,4%, SP 77,7%, CO 70%; VerifyNow® Aspirin - SE 100%, SP 95,6%, CO 550 ARU; agrégation en tube - SE 82,2%, SP 86,7%, CO 55%; TEG® - SE 82,9%, SP 75,8%, CO 90%; et le dosage de 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 urinaire - SE 62,2%, SP 82,2%, CO 60 pg/ml. Conclusions: La résistance à l’aspirine chez les sujets sains définie par ATO-AA et VerifyNow® Aspirin est rare. Puisque les autres techniques étudiées discriminent de façon sous optimale l’effet de l’aspirine, leur utilité dans la définition de la résistance pharmacologique à l’aspirine semble marginale. Ces résultats suggèrent qu’une proportion de la variabilité de l’incidence rapportée de “résistance à l’aspirine” est artefactuelle et reliée aux limitations technologiques de certaines analyses.Background: Variable biological effect of aspirin is suggested to be related to pharmacological resistance. The incidence of this so-called “resistant” state varies with the study population and the assay used. Methods: We determined performance features of five assays used to assess aspirin effects in non smoking healthy volunteers not taking any drug known to interfere with platelet function. Blood and urine samples were obtained immediately before and after 8-10 days of aspirin 80 mg intake. Results: Forty-five participants 19-59 years old were enrolled. The sensitivity (SE), specificity (SP), and optimal cut-off (CO) value to detect the effect of aspirin were: light transmission aggregometry (LTA) with 1.6 mM arachidonic acid - SE 100%, SP 95.9%, CO 20%; LTA with ADP 10 μM - SE 84.4%, SP 77.7%, CO 70%; VerifyNow® Aspirin - SE 100%, SP 95.6%, CO 550 ARU; platelet count drop - SE 82.2%, SP 86.7%, CO 55%; TEG® - SE 82.9%, SP 75.8%, CO 90%; and urinary 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 levels - SE 62.2%, SP 82.2%, CO 60 pg/ml. Conclusions: Aspirin resistance in normal individuals as defined by arachidonic acid-induced LTA and the VerifyNow® assay is rare. Because the other assays discriminate suboptimally aspirin effect, they should not be used to define pharmacological “aspirin resistance”. These results suggest that a proportion of the variability in the reported incidence of aspirin resistance is artefactual and related to technical limitations of some assays.Introduction : L’effet biologique variable de l’aspirine a été attribué à un état de résistance pharmacologique. L’incidence de cette « résistance » varie selon la population ou la technologie étudiée. Méthodes : Nous avons déterminé la performance de 5 techniques évaluant l’effet de l’aspirine chez des sujets sains, non fumeurs et ne prenant aucune médication pouvant interférer avec la fonction plaquettaire. Des spécimens de sang et d’urine ont été obtenus avant et après 8-10 jours de prise de 80 mg d’aspirine. Résultats: Chez 45 sujets de 19-59 ans, la sensibilité (SE), la spécificité (SP), et la valeur optimale de coupure (CO) pour détecter l’effet de l’aspirine sont : agrégométrie par transmission optique induite avec 1,6 mM d’acide arachidonique (ATO-AA) - SE 100%, SP 95,9%, CO 20%; ATO-ADP 10 μM - SE 84,4%, SP 77,7%, CO 70%; VerifyNow® Aspirin - SE 100%, SP 95,6%, CO 550 ARU; agrégation en tube - SE 82,2%, SP 86,7%, CO 55%; TEG® - SE 82,9%, SP 75,8%, CO 90%; et le dosage de 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 urinaire - SE 62,2%, SP 82,2%, CO 60 pg/ml. Conclusions: La résistance à l’aspirine chez les sujets sains définie par ATO-AA et VerifyNow® Aspirin est rare. Puisque les autres techniques étudiées discriminent de façon sous optimale l’effet de l’aspirine, leur utilité dans la définition de la résistance pharmacologique à l’aspirine semble marginale. Ces résultats suggèrent qu’une proportion de la variabilité de l’incidence rapportée de “résistance à l’aspirine” est artefactuelle et reliée aux limitations technologiques de certaines analyses.Background: Variable biological effect of aspirin is suggested to be related to pharmacological resistance. The incidence of this so-called “resistant” state varies with the study population and the assay used. Methods: We determined performance features of five assays used to assess aspirin effects in non smoking healthy volunteers not taking any drug known to interfere with platelet function. Blood and urine samples were obtained immediately before and after 8-10 days of aspirin 80 mg intake. Results: Forty-five participants 19-59 years old were enrolled. The sensitivity (SE), specificity (SP), and optimal cut-off (CO) value to detect the effect of aspirin were: light transmission aggregometry (LTA) with 1.6 mM arachidonic acid - SE 100%, SP 95.9%, CO 20%; LTA with ADP 10 μM - SE 84.4%, SP 77.7%, CO 70%; VerifyNow® Aspirin - SE 100%, SP 95.6%, CO 550 ARU; platelet count drop - SE 82.2%, SP 86.7%, CO 55%; TEG® - SE 82.9%, SP 75.8%, CO 90%; and urinary 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 levels - SE 62.2%, SP 82.2%, CO 60 pg/ml. Conclusions: Aspirin resistance in normal individuals as defined by arachidonic acid-induced LTA and the VerifyNow® assay is rare. Because the other assays discriminate suboptimally aspirin effect, they should not be used to define pharmacological “aspirin resistance”. These results suggest that a proportion of the variability in the reported incidence of aspirin resistance is artefactual and related to technical limitations of some assays