Andrew Ip

Digital health constitutes a merger of both software and hardware technology with health care delivery and management, and encompasses a number of domains, from wearable devices to artificial intelligence, each associated with widely disparate interaction and data collection models. In this review, we focus on the landscape of the current integration of digital health technology in cancer care by subdividing digital health technologies into the following sections: connected devices, digital patient information collection, telehealth, and digital assistants. In these sections, we give an overview of the potential clinical impact of such technologies as they pertain to key domains, including patient education, patient outcomes, quality of life, and health care value. We performed a search of PubMed ( www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed ) and www.ClinicalTrials.gov for numerous terms related to digital health technologies, including digital health, connected devices, smart devices, wearables, activity trackers, connected sensors, remote monitoring, electronic surveys, electronic patient-reported outcomes, telehealth, telemedicine, artificial intelligence, chatbot, and digital assistants. The terms health care and cancer were appended to the previously mentioned terms to filter results for cancer-specific applications. From these results, studies were included that exemplified use of the various domains of digital health technologies in oncologic care. Digital health encompasses the integration of a vast array of technologies with health care, each associated with varied methods of data collection and information flow. Integration of these technologies into clinical practice has seen applications throughout the spectrum of care, including cancer screening, on-treatment patient management, acute post-treatment follow-up, and survivorship. Implementation of these systems may serve to reduce costs and workflow inefficiencies, as well as to improve overall health care value, patient outcomes, and quality of life.

Hydroxychloroquine has been touted as a potential COVID-19 treatment. Tocilizumab, an inhibitor of IL-6, has also been proposed as a treatment of critically ill patients. In this retrospective observational cohort study drawn from electronic health records we sought to describe the association between mortality and hydroxychloroquine or tocilizumab therapy among hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Patients were hospitalized at a 13-hospital network spanning New Jersey USA between March 1, 2020 and April 22, 2020 with positive polymerase chain reaction results for SARS-CoV-2. Follow up was through May 5, 2020. Among 2512 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 there have been 547 deaths (22%), 1539 (61%) discharges and 426 (17%) remain hospitalized. 1914 (76%) received at least one dose of hydroxychloroquine and 1473 (59%) received hydroxychloroquine with azithromycin. After adjusting for imbalances via propensity modeling, compared to receiving neither drug, there were no significant differences in associated mortality for patients receiving any hydroxychloroquine during the hospitalization (HR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.80-1.22]), hydroxychloroquine alone (HR, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.83-1.27]), or hydroxychloroquine with azithromycin (HR, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.75-1.28]). The 30-day unadjusted mortality for patients receiving hydroxychloroquine alone, azithromycin alone, the combination or neither drug was 25%, 20%, 18%, and 20%, respectively. Among 547 evaluable ICU patients, including 134 receiving tocilizumab in the ICU, an exploratory analysis found a trend towards an improved survival association with tocilizumab treatment (adjusted HR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.57-1.00]), with 30 day unadjusted mortality with and without tocilizumab of 46% versus 56%. This observational cohort study suggests hydroxychloroquine, either alone or in combination with azithromycin, was not associated with a survival benefit among hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Tocilizumab demonstrated a trend association towards reduced mortality among ICU patients. Our findings are limited to hospitalized patients and must be interpreted with caution while awaiting results of randomized trials. Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT04347993.

The phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K) pathway has attracted immense interest as a therapeutic target for cancer treatment. Idelalisib was the first PI3K inhibitor approved by the US Food and Drug Administration and is utilized in the treatment of relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma and follicular lymphoma. Copanlisib has subsequently been approved for relapsed follicular lymphoma in patients who have received at least two prior systemic therapies. There are multiple other PI3K agents currently in development; these target various combinations of PI3K isoforms. Despite the therapeutic benefit, there have been concerns about the severe and sometimes fatal adverse effects of this class of drug. Several side effects are unusual and have poorly understood mechanisms; these include autoimmune dysfunction, opportunistic infections, skin toxicity, hypertension, and hyperglycemia. An understanding of these unusual toxicities, as well as a good grasp of management principles, will be important as more PI3K inhibitors are approved and become incorporated into routine practice.

Abstract Adenocarcinoma of the pancreas remains a highly lethal disease, with less than 5% survival at 5 years. Borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (BRPC) and locally advanced unresectable pancreatic cancer (LAPC) account for approximately 30% of newly diagnosed cases of PC. The objective of BRPC therapy is to downstage the tumor to allow resection; the objective of LAPC therapy is to control disease and improve survival. There is no consensus on the definitions of BRPC and LAPC, which leads to major limitations in designing clinical trials and evaluating their results. A multimodality approach is always needed to ensure proper utilization and timing of chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery in the management of this disease. Combination chemotherapy regimens (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, oxaliplatin, and gemcitabine [FOLFIRINOX] and gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel) have improved overall survival in metastatic disease. The role of combination chemotherapy regimens in BRPC and LAPC is an area of active investigation. There is no consensus on the dose, modality, and role of radiation therapy in the treatment of BRPC and LAPC. This article reviews the literature and highlights the areas of controversy regarding management of BRPC and LAPC.