Search

Background: Randomized trials have demonstrated that anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) can be safe and efficacious treatments for patients with ALK-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (aNSCLC). However, their safety, tolerability, effectiveness, and patterns of use in real-world patients remain understudied. Objective: We sought to assess the overall treatment pattern characteristics, safety, and effectiveness outcomes of real-world patients with ALK-positive aNSCLC receiving ALK TKIs. Patients and Methods: This retrospective cohort study using electronic health record data included adult patients with ALK-positive aNSCLC receiving ALK TKIs between January 2012 and November 2021 at a large tertiary medical center, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), with alectinib or crizotinib as the initial ALK TKI therapy. Our primary endpoints included the incidence of treatment changes (treatment dose adjustments, interruptions, and discontinuations) during the initial ALK TKI treatment, the count and type of subsequent treatments, rates of serious adverse events (sAEs), and major adverse events (mAEs) leading to any ALK TKI treatment changes. Secondary endpoints included the hazard ratios (HRs) for median mAE-free survival (mAEFS), real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS), and overall survival (OS) when comparing alectinib with crizotinib. Results: The cohort consisted of 117 adult patients (70 alectinib and 47 crizotinib) with ALK-positive aNSCLC, with 24.8%, 17.9%, and 6.0% experiencing treatment dose adjustments, interruptions, and discontinuation, respectively. Of the 73 patients whose ALK TKI treatments were discontinued, 68 received subsequent treatments including newer generations of ALK TKIs, immune checkpoint inhibitors, and chemotherapies. The most common mAEs were rash (9.9%) and bradycardia (7.0%) for alectinib and liver toxicity (19.1%) for crizotinib. The most common sAEs were pericardial effusion (5.6%) and pleural effusion (5.6%) for alectinib and pulmonary embolism (6.4%) for crizotinib. Patients receiving alectinib versus crizotinib as their first ALK TKI treatment experienced significantly prolonged median rwPFS (29.3 versus 10.4 months) with an HR of 0.38 (95% CI 0.21–0.67), while prolonged median mAEFS (not reached versus 91.3 months) and OS (54.1 versus 45.8 months) were observed in patients receiving alectinib versus crizotinib but did not reach statistical significance. Yet, it is worth noting that there was a high degree of cross-over post-progression, which could significantly confound the overall survival measures. Conclusions: We found that ALK TKIs were highly tolerable, and alectinib was associated with favorable survival outcomes with longer time to adverse events (AE) requiring medical interventions, disease progression, and death, in the context of real-world use. Proactive monitoring for adverse events such as rash, bradycardia, and hepatotoxicity may help further promote the safe and optimal use of ALK TKIs in the treatment of patients with aNSCLC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Bevacizumab is a standard first-line (L1) treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients regardless of RAS status. This retrospective study examined treatment patterns and outcomes in a community oncology sample of KRAS mutant mCRC patients treated with chemotherapy (C) or C plus bevacizumab (CB) in L1.Methods: This study used medical records from the Vector Oncology Data Warehouse. Eligible patients were confirmed KRAS mutant mCRC and received L1 C or CB. Kaplan-Meier analysis assessed L1 progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Cox regression models examined the interaction of tumor location (R/L) with treatment.Results: CB (n = 264) compared to C (n = 109) patients were younger, less likely performance status (PS) impaired, and more likely with liver metastases. Median unadjusted PFS was 10.41 months (95% CI 9.0-11.3) in CB and 7.66 months (95% CI 6.5-9.1) in C patients (p = 0.174). Median unadjusted OS was 26.91 months (95% CI 24.3-29.3) in CB and 23.33 months (95% CI 19.7-29.2) in C patients (p = 0.571). For patients with right- vs. left-sided tumors, C (but not CB)-treated patients had higher adjusted risk for progression (HR = 1.715, 95% CI 1.108, 2.653; p = 0.015).Conclusions: CB- vs. C-treated KRAS mutant mCRC patients may have a meaningful PFS benefit. Patients with right-sided tumors treated with C were at higher risk for disease progression than patients with left-sided tumors. Tumor location had no significant effect on outcomes in the CB cohort. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Patients with Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene wild-type (KRAS WT) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) treated in first line with bevacizumab (B) or cetuximab (C) plus standard chemo backbones had comparable outcomes in phase III Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB) 80405. We examined comparative effectiveness of B and C regimens in real-world community settings.Methods: This retrospective study examined progression-free survival (PFS) and OS in a US community sample of KRAS WT mCRC patients treated with first-line B (n = 254) or C (n = 146) regimens. Medical records from the Vector Oncology Data Warehouse were used. Disease progression was determined from patient charts. OS was measured from the start of first-line treatment until death.Results: There were no significant difference in either PFS or OS respectively between B-treated compared to C-treated patients (HR = 1.324, 95% CI 0.901, 1.947; HR = 1.080, 95% CI 0.721, 1.617). More B patients received oxaliplatin backbones (74.8 vs. 36.3%), and more C patients received irinotecan backbones (51.4 vs. 20.1%), ps < 0.001. Multivariate survival analyses showed a significant difference indicating a greater risk for death among C-treated patients with right-sided tumors vs. left-sided tumors (HR = 2.263, 95% CI 1.394, 3.673, p = 0.0009), but not for B-treated patients (HR = 1.209, 95% CI 0.825, 1.771, p = 0.3297).Conclusions: Consistent with CALGB 80405, median PFS and OS for these community oncology KRAS WT mCRC patients treated with first-line B or C regimens did not differ significantly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A letter to the editor is presented in response to the article by Christine M. Nguyen et al., which discusses the cost effective treatment of severe active rheumatoid arthritis (RA).