Search

Evidence from phase three clinical trials helps shape clinical practice. However, a very small minority of patients with cancer participate in clinical trials and many trials are not completed on time due to slow accrual. Issues with restrictive eligibility criteria can severely limit the patients who can access trials, without any convincing evidence that these restrictions impact patient safety. Similarly, regulatory, organizational, and institutional hurdles can delay trial activation, ultimately making some studies irrelevant. Additional issues during trial conduct (e.g., mandatory in-person visits, central confirmation of standard biomarkers, and inflexible drug dosage modification) contribute to making trials non-patient-centric. These real-life observations from experienced clinical trialists can seem nonsensical to investigators and patients alike, who are trying to bring effective drugs to patients with cancer. In this review, we delve into these issues in detail, and discuss potential solutions to make clinical trials more accessible to patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Countries face challenges in paying for new drugs. High prices are driven in part by exploding drug development costs, which, in turn, are driven by essential but excessive regulation. Burdensome regulation also delays drug development, and this can translate into thousands of life-years lost. We need system-wide reform that will enable less expensive, faster drug development. The speed with which COVID-19 vaccines and AIDS therapies were developed indicates this is possible if governments prioritize it. Countries also differ in how they value drugs, and generally, those willing to pay more have better, faster access. Canada is used as an example to illustrate how "incremental cost-effectiveness ratios" (ICERs) based on measures such as gains in "quality-adjusted life-years" (QALYs) may be used to determine a drug's value but are often problematic, imprecise assessments. Generally, ICER/QALY estimates inadequately consider the impact of patient crossover or long post-progression survival, therapy benefits in distinct subpopulations, positive impacts of the therapy on other healthcare or societal costs, how much governments willingly might pay for other things, etc. Furthermore, a QALY value should be higher for a lethal or uncommon disease than for a common, nonlethal disease. Compared to international comparators, Canada is particularly ineffective in initiating public funding for essential new medications. Addressing these disparities demands urgent reform. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article discusses targeted cancer therapies, which are oral medications that specifically target tumors with certain genetic mutations. These therapies have shown better symptom control, response rates, and overall survival compared to conventional chemotherapy for patients with advanced non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC). They are well-tolerated and do not have the same side effects as chemotherapy. Molecular testing is necessary to determine eligibility for targeted therapy, and different targeted therapies have been approved for specific genetic alterations. However, the cost and access to these drugs can vary between provinces in Canada. The article also explores the development of new agents that target resistant cancer cell clones in response to the growing understanding of mechanisms of resistance to targeted therapies. [Extracted from the article]

Malignant pleural mesothelioma is a rare, aggressive, and incurable cancer with a poor prognosis and high symptom burden. For these patients, little is known about the impact of palliative care consultation on outcomes such as mortality, hospital admissions, or emergency department visits. The aim of this study is to determine if referral to supportive and palliative care in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma is associated with survival and decreased hospital admissions and emergency department visits. This is a retrospective chart review. Study participants include all malignant pleural mesothelioma patients seen at The Ottawa Hospital—an acute care tertiary center—between January 2002 and March 2019. In total, 223 patients were included in the study. The mean age at diagnosis was 72.4 years and 82.5% were male. Of the patients diagnosed between 2002 and 2010, only 11 (9.6%) were referred to palliative care. By comparison, of those diagnosed between 2011 and 2019, 49 (45.4%) were referred to palliative care. Median time from diagnosis to referral was 4.1 months. There was no significant difference in the median survival of patients referred for palliative care compared to those who did not receive palliative care (p = 0.46). We found no association between receiving palliative care and the mean number of hospital admissions (1.04 vs. 0.91) from diagnosis to death, and an increase in mean number of emergency department visits in the palliative care group (2.30 vs. 1.18). Although there was increased utilization of palliative care services, more than half of the MPM patients did not receive palliative care despite their limited survival. There was an increase in emergency department visits in the palliative care group; this may represent an increase in the symptom burden (i.e., indication bias) in those referred to palliative care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Paclitaxel has a risk of infusion‐related reactions (IRRs) and despite no prospective evidence, is often given with premedication including a corticosteroid, H1 antagonist, and H2 antagonist (H2RA). Backorders impacted the supply of intravenous H2RAs at our center, and it was removed as routine premedication. The authors compared the incidence of IRR in patients treated without H2RA to patients receiving standard H2RA premedication. Methods: The authors reviewed outpatients starting paclitaxel at the Ottawa Hospital from December 2019 to October 2021. Two cohorts were created: patients treated without H2RA premedication (intervention), and those receiving standard H2RA (control). Demographics, treatment, and IRR information were collected retrospectively. Primary end point was rate of grade ≥2 IRRs during first two doses of paclitaxel. Results: A total of 182 patients were treated without H2RA premedication, compared to 184 control patients treated during non‐backorder periods. Baseline characteristics included: median age, 63 years; 86% female; and primary tumor 52% breast/24% gynecologic/10% gastric/esophageal/8% lung/6% other. There were no significant differences between cohorts in baseline characteristics. There was no difference in the rate of grade ≥2 IRR between cohorts; 12.1% (22 of 182; 95% confidence interval [CI], 7.7%–17.7%) for patients treated without H2RA, and 15.1% (28 of 185; 95% CI, 10.3%–21.1%) for control patients. The rate of grade ≥3 IRRs were also similar, 4.4% in intervention cohort versus 3.8% in control cohort. Conclusions: The removal of H2RAs from premedication for paclitaxel did not result in an increased incidence of IRRs. The use of H2RAs in preventing IRRs to paclitaxel should be re‐evaluated. Omitting H2 receptor antagonists in premedication protocols for intravenous paclitaxel administration did not lead to an increase incidence of infusion‐related reactions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE Medical assistance in dying (MAiD) was legalized in Canada in 2016. To date, patients with cancer account for 69% of MAiD deaths, yet little information is available about these patients. We reviewed disease and treatment characteristics of patients with cancer who underwent MAiD to better understand this population and identify gaps in our current system of care. MATERIALS AND METHODS Patients with cancerwho underwentMAiDthrough the ChamplainRegionalMAiD Network from June 2016 to November 2020 were reviewed. Baseline demographic, diagnostic, and treatment details were collected by retrospective review. RESULTS During the study period, 255 patients with cancer underwent MAiD. At the time of MAiD, 201 patients (79%) had metastatic disease. Most prevalent solid organ tumors were gastrointestinal (30%), lung (18%) and genitourinary (14%). MAiD was primarily provided in the home (48%) or an acute inpatient facility (40%). One hundred eighty-nine (74%) patients were evaluated by medical oncology, 23 by gynecology oncology (9%), 11 by hematology oncology (4%), and 177 (69%) by radiation oncology. One hundred fifty-eight (62%) patients were not seen by oncology specialists in the 30 days prior to MAiD. One hundred fiftynine patients (62%) had at least one line of systemic therapy, 138 patients (54%) received radiotherapy, and 61 patients (24%) did not receive cancer-directed treatment. Palliative care assessed at least 213 patients (84%). Common reasons for pursuing MaiD included disease-related symptoms (33%), fear of future suffering or disability (19%), and the ability to control the time and manner of death (17%). In 36% of cases, the reason was not documented. CONCLUSION Although formal oncology consultation is not required before MAiD, with an ever-increasing number of novel cancer therapies, oncologists, cancer centers, and MAiD providers should consider collaborating to ensure a streamlined assessment process for patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Limited research exists regarding how healthcare stakeholders prioritize the importance of differing physician attributes in oncologists. Identifying these priorities can help ensure that Canadian cancer care continues to meet the needs of its patients. In our previous research, compassion and empathy were identified as important physician attributes, with answers like knowledge, professionalism or communication less common. We hypothesized that respondents may have been assuming other, underlying qualities in their oncologists when they prioritized "compassion" and "empathy". To test this, the current study asks respondents to rank important physician attributes. Methods: With ethics approval, we asked healthcare stakeholders (physicians, nurses, patients, caregivers, medical students, and allied healthcare providers) to rank the eight most popular qualities or attributes. We identified differences between which characteristics each group valued most in physicians. Results: 375 respondents participated in the survey. "Knowledge" and "competence" were the most popular answers in the current study among all groups except medical students. Conclusion: Previously, we identified compassion as a highly valued attribute; however, this survey suggests that this may be with the assumption that a physician is knowledgeable and competent. Future research will use semi-structured interviews to investigate respondents' rationales for making their choices and help interpret our findings in this study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Lorlatinib is the only targeted therapy approved in Canada to treat patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) whose tumor has progressed despite treatment with second-generation ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), a patient population with high unmet need and lack of publicly reimbursed targeted treatments in Canada. We prospectively examined the real-world effectiveness and impact of lorlatinib on quality-of-life in 59 lorlatinib-treated patients, characterized as: median age of 62.0 years; 47.5% were female; 32.2% had central nervous system metastases; 50.8% had 2+ prior ALK TKI lines; and alectinib was the most common ALK TKI (72.9%) administered before lorlatinib, including 44.1% who received first-line alectinib. With a median follow-up of 15.3 months (IQR: 6.2–19.2), median time-to-treatment discontinuation of lorlatinib was 15.3 months (95% CI: 7.9–not reached), with 54.2% (95% CI: 40.8–65.9%) of patients without treatment discontinuation at 12 months. At baseline, the mean health utility score (HUS) was 0.744 (SD: 0.200). At 3 months, patients receiving lorlatinib demonstrated a 0.069 (95% CI: 0.020–0.118; p = 0.007) average HUS increase over baseline; HUS was maintained at 6 and 12 months. Thus, patients with ALK-positive NSCLC post second-generation ALK TKI remained on lorlatinib for a meaningful duration of time while their quality-of-life was preserved. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Activating mutations in Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homologue (KRAS), in particular, a point mutation leading to a glycine-to-cysteine substitution at codon 12 (G12C), are among the most frequent genomic alterations in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Several agents targeting KRAS G12C have recently entered clinical development. Sotorasib, a first-in-class specific small molecule that irreversibly inhibits KRAS G12C, has since obtained Health Canada approval. The emergence of novel KRAS-targeted therapies warrants the development of evidence-based consensus recommendations to help clinicians better understand and contextualize the available data. A Canadian expert panel was convened to define the key clinical questions, review recent evidence, and discuss and agree on recommendations for the treatment of advanced KRAS G12C-mutated NSCLC. The panel agreed that testing for KRAS G12C should be performed as part of a comprehensive panel that includes current standard-of-care biomarkers. Sotorasib, the only approved KRAS G12C inhibitor in Canada, is recommended for patients with advanced KRAS G12C-mutated NSCLC who progressed on guideline-recommended first-line standard of care for advanced NSCLC without driver alterations (immune-checkpoint inhibitor(s) [ICIs] +/− chemotherapy). Sotorasib could also be offered as second-line therapy to patients who progressed on ICI monotherapy that are not candidates for a platinum doublet and those that received first-line chemotherapy with a contraindication to ICIs. Preliminary data indicate the activity of KRAS G12C inhibitors in brain metastases; however, the evidence is insufficient to make specific recommendations. Regular liver function monitoring is recommended when patients are prescribed KRAS G12C inhibitors due to risk of hepatotoxicity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) is an aggressive, neuroendocrine tumour with high relapse rates, and significant morbidity and mortality. Apart from advances in radiation therapy, progress in the systemic treatment of SCLC had been stagnant for over three decades despite multiple attempts to develop alternative therapeutic options that could improve responses and survival. Recent promising developments in first-line and subsequent therapeutic approaches prompted a Canadian Expert Panel to convene to review evidence, discuss practice patterns, and reach a consensus on the treatment of extensive-stage SCLC (ES-SCLC). The literature search included guidelines, systematic reviews, and randomized controlled trials. Regular meetings were held from September 2022 to March 2023 to discuss the available evidence to propose and agree upon specific recommendations. The panel addressed biomarkers and histological features that distinguish SCLC from non-SCLC and other neuroendocrine tumours. Evidence for initial and subsequent systemic therapies was reviewed with consideration for patient performance status, comorbidities, and the involvement and function of other organs. The resulting consensus recommendations herein will help clarify evidence-based management of ES-SCLC in routine practice, help clinician decision-making, and facilitate the best patient outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CRT) is the standard of care for limited-stage small cell lung cancer (LS-SCLC). Local therapy—surgery or stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT)—with adjuvant chemotherapy may be appropriate for very early (T1-T2, N0) disease. There is variability in the management of these cases, which may lead to variability in patient outcomes. This study aimed to determine practice patterns for the management of very early LS-SCLC in Canada. A survey was developed and distributed to Canadian medical and radiation oncologists specialising in lung cancer. The survey consisted of three sections: (1) physician demographics, (2) general practice approach, and (3) preferred approach for three clinical scenarios (1: peripheral T1 lesion; 2: central T1 lesion; 3: peripheral T2 lesion). Responses were analysed to detect differences across cases and among physician groups. There were 77 respondents. In case 1, assuming medical operability, most respondents (73%) chose surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy, with 19% choosing CRT. CRT was selected by a higher proportion in case 2 (48%) and case 3 (61%) (p < 0.05). If medically inoperable, most chose CRT over local therapy in all cases, with more choosing CRT in case 2 (84%) and case 3 (86%) than in case 1 (55%) (p < 0.05). Subgroup analysis showed a predilection towards CRT in Western Canada and among more experienced physicians, and towards SBRT in Ontario. There is variability in the management of very early LS-SCLC in Canada. CRT remains the most popular strategy in most cases, with surgery preferred for small peripheral lesions. Larger and more central tumours are more likely to be managed with CRT. Variation in practice is correlated with region and physician experience. Our study illustrates the variability in the management of very early LS-SCLC in Canada and highlights the need for more robust investigations into the ideal approach for these patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The PACIFIC trial showed a survival benefit with durvalumab through five years in stage III unresectable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, optimal use of imaging to detect disease progression remains unclearly defined for this population. An expert working group convened to consider available evidence and clinical experience and develop recommendations for follow-up imaging after concurrent chemotherapy and radiation therapy (CRT). Voting on agreement was conducted anonymously via online survey. Follow-up imaging was recommended for all suitable patients after CRT completion regardless of whether durvalumab is received. Imaging should occur every 3 months in Year 1, at least every 6 months in Year 2, and at least every 12 months in Years 3–5. Contrast computed tomography was preferred; routine brain imaging was not recommended for asymptomatic patients. The medical oncologist should follow-up during Year 1 of durvalumab therapy, with radiation oncologist involvement if pneumonitis is suspected; medical and radiation oncologists can subsequently alternate follow-up. Some patients can transition to the family physician/community primary care team at the end of Year 2. In Years 1–5, patients should receive information regarding smoking cessation, comorbidity management, vaccinations, and general follow-up care. These recommendations provide guidance on follow-up imaging for patients with stage III unresectable NSCLC whether or not they receive durvalumab consolidation therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is an aggressive neuroendocrine tumour with metastatic propensity. Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is an emerging therapeutic option for SCLC, despite limited supporting evidence. By evaluating the use of SBRT in very limited stage (VLS) SCLC at our institution, we aimed to contribute to the existing knowledge in this area while establishing a basis for further research. We performed a retrospective review of all cases of VLS-SCLC treated with SBRT between 2013 and 2020. Baseline demographics, diagnostic, and treatment information were collected. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). We identified 46 patients with pathologically confirmed VLS-SCLC; 25 were treated with SBRT, and the remainder received either surgery, conventional radiation therapy, chemotherapy, or palliative-intent therapy. After a median follow-up of 23.7 months, 44% of the patients had died; the median OS was of 24.4 months for the SBRT cohort and 67.0 months for the curative intent non-SBRT cohort. The difference in disease recurrence and survival between cohorts was underpowered and not statistically significant. Higher baseline ECOG and comorbidity was noted in the SBRT cohort. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Liquid biopsy (LB) can detect actionable genomic alterations in plasma circulating tumor circulating tumor DNA beyond tissue testing (TT) alone in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. We estimated the cost-effectiveness of adding LB to TT in the Canadian healthcare system. Methods: A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using a decision analytic Markov model from the Canadian public payer (Ontario) perspective and a 2-year time horizon in patients with treatment-naïve stage IV non-squamous NSCLC and ⩽10 pack-year smoking history. LB was performed using the comprehensive genomic profiling Guardant360™ assay. Standard of care TT for each participating institution was performed. Costs and outcomes of molecular testing by LB + TT were compared to TT alone. Transition probabilities were calculated from the VALUE trial (NCT03576937). Sensitivity analyses were undertaken to assess uncertainty in the model. Results: Use of LB + TT identified actionable alterations in more patients, 68.5 versus 52.7% with TT alone. Use of the LB + TT strategy resulted in an incremental cost savings of $3065 CAD per patient (95% CI, 2195–3945) and a gain in quality-adjusted life-years of 0.02 (95% CI, 0.01–0.02) versus TT alone. More patients received chemo-immunotherapy based on TT with higher overall costs, whereas more patients received targeted therapy based on LB + TT with net cost savings. Major drivers of cost-effectiveness were drug acquisition costs and prevalence of actionable alterations. Conclusion: The addition of LB to TT as initial molecular testing of clinically selected patients with advanced NSCLC did not increase system costs and led to more patients receiving appropriate targeted therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Canada has a publicly funded healthcare system with a complex drug funding process. After Health Canada approval to market a drug, the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR) (now renamed the CADTH reimbursement review) makes a non-binding funding recommendation to the Canadian provinces (except Quebec), which each then decide whether the drug will be publicly funded. We identified the determinants of funding in this process. Methods: We analyzed drugs for advanced lung (n = 15), breast (n = 8), colorectal (CRC) (n = 7), melanoma (n = 10), and neuroendocrine (NET) (n = 3) cancers undergoing the funding decision process from 2011 to 2019. Determinants of funding assessed in the model included list price, cancer type, drug class, and pCODR recommendation. The primary outcome was the correlation between list price and time to funding (TTF: Health Canada approval to first provincial funding). Secondary outcomes included an exploratory analysis of predictors of drug funding. Results: We analyzed 43 drugs: targeted agents 72%, immunotherapy 20%, chemotherapy 7%. A total of 72% were funded in at least one province. Median TTF was 379 days (IQR 203–601). Median list price (28-day course) was CAD 8213 (IQR CAD 5391–9445). Higher list price was not correlated with TTF (correlation coefficient −0.20, p = 0.28). There was no association between list price and pCODR recommendation or the decision to fund in at least one province. A positive pCODR recommendation correlated with the provinces' funding decisions (p < 0.001), where 89% of drugs with a positive recommendation were funded and 100% of drugs with a negative recommendation were not funded. Tumor type was predictive of TTF (p < 0.001): CRC drugs were the slowest at a median of 2541 days (IQR 702–4379), and NETs were the quickest at a median of 0 days (IQR 0–502). Cancer type predicted decision to fund in at least one province (p = 0.005), with funding for 100% of NET drugs at the high end and 29% of CRC drugs at the low end. Drug class was predictive of TTF (p = 0.01): 465 days (IQR 245–702) for targeted agents, 443 days (IQR 298–587) for chemotherapy, and 339 days (IQR 164–446) for immunotherapy. Conclusions: Determinants of drug funding included cancer type, drug class, and pCODR recommendation but not list price. Factors other than cost were more heavily weighted in the funding decisions of cancer drugs in Canadian provinces. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The phase III MONALEESA-7 trial (NCT02278120) assessed ribociclib + endocrine therapy (ET) versus ET in premenopausal women with HR+/HER2− advanced breast cancer (ABC). The relationship between work productivity loss (WPL) and domains of European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life (EORTC QLQ-C30) and the breast cancer (BC)-specific module (QLQ-BR23) has not been explored in ABC. In this post hoc analysis (data cutoff, November 30, 2018), we assessed the correlation between the WPL component of the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment: General Health (WPAI:GH) questionnaire and EORTC QLQ-C30/BR23 domains. Methods: We analyzed EORTC and WPAI:GH data from 329 patients in both treatment arms of MONALEESA-7 who were employed during the trial. Separate univariable mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM) regression models were fitted for each domain, with WPL as dependent variable and each EORTC domain score as a single fixed-effect covariate. Linear and quadratic relationships were considered based on the Akaike information criterion. Next, two separate multivariable MMRM regression models were fitted with WPL a dependent variable and all QLQ-C30/BR23 domain scores as fixed-effect covariates. The strength of correlation between WPL and EORTC domains was assessed in terms of minimally important differences for the QLQ-C30/BR23 modules. Results: Our univariable analysis showed that greater WPL was statistically significantly associated with lower levels of overall quality of life (QoL) and other functional domains and with higher levels of all symptomatic domains of the QLQ-C30/BR23 modules. Our multivariable analysis determined that this correlation was primarily driven by changes in QoL; physical, role, social, and future perspective domains; and BC-specific symptomatic domains. Conclusion: This analysis determined the QoL domains that correlate with WPL in premenopausal patients with HR+/HER2− ABC. These results may inform prognostic tools to identify and characterize patients with greater risk for WPL and help design interventional strategies to minimize WPL. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Canadian system for approval of new cancer drugs is complex with multiple steps. Health Canada grants a license for a drug to be marketed and prescribed. The Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) and Institut national d'excellence en santé et services sociaux (INESSS) make recommendations by way of health technology assessments (HTA). If positive, the latter then lead to confidential price negotiations at the pan-Canadian pharmaceutical alliance (pCPA), after which individual provinces and territories make a listing decision. Delays can occur at each stage, but post-HTA delays can be lengthy and unpredictable, denying or impeding access to an effective drug with the potential for devastating clinical outcomes. Conditional funding models have been adopted in a number of European countries with the goal of providing timely access to new medications in areas of unmet need, in advance of further steps in the reimbursement process. This manuscript discusses different stakeholder perspectives on conditional funding agreements—including a recent successful example of such a process in the UK—based on a panel discussion at the 2021 Canadian Association of Population Therapeutics (CAPT) Conference. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cancer treatment has evolved significantly over the past decade with the emergence of a multitude of new treatments across cancer types. Alongside the pace of drug discovery, the cost of cancer drugs has also increased. In the face of this growth in development and spending, it is crucial to have an understanding of the processes and pressures new drugs navigate to get to the market in Canada. This paper is a review of the complex, multi-step regulatory and funding process undertaken by cancer drugs in Canada. It reviews the role of Health Canada, the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, the Health Technology Assessment, the pan-Canadian Pharmaceutical Alliance, and finally, the provincial, territorial, and federal payers. Recent developments are highlighted. Strategies to minimize duplication of effort, improve timeliness, and increase efficiency are explored. The cancer drug regulatory and funding process in Canada is complex, and an understanding of the current system and ongoing evolution is essential. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations are usually oncogenic drivers of lung tumor development and progression. While common sensitizing mutations respond well to targeted therapy, the relevance of germline EGFR mutations is less clear. We describe a 65-year-old, previously healthy, male diagnosed with non-small-cell lung cancer. Familial history for lung cancer is negative. Targeted next-generation sequencing on the tumor biopsy sample revealed an atypical EGFR K757N mutation at 50% allele frequency and genetic review of a previously acquired gastric sample confirms the mutation as a germline change. He received standard first-line chemoimmunotherapy with carboplatin, pemetrexed, and pembrolizumab, and after 8 months therapy continues, with stable disease, to receive maintenance pemetrexed and pembrolizumab. To our knowledge, this is the first report of an atypical, germline K757N EGFR mutation. While the clinical relevance of this mutation is unclear, standard reporting of the allelic frequency of novel, atypical mutations can detect potential germline changes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In Canada, the therapeutic management of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with rare actionable mutations differs between provinces, territories, and individual centres based on access to molecular testing and funded treatments. These variations, together with the emergence of several novel mesenchymal-epithelial transition (MET) factor-targeted therapies for the treatment of NSCLC, warrant the development of evidence-based consensus recommendations for the use of these agents. A Canadian expert panel was convened to define key clinical questions, review evidence, discuss practice recommendations and reach consensus on the treatment of advanced MET-altered NSCLC. Questions addressed by the panel include: 1. How should the patients most likely to benefit from MET-targeted therapies be identified? 2. What are the preferred first-line and subsequent therapies for patients with MET exon 14 skipping mutations? 3. What are the preferred first-line and subsequent therapies for advanced NSCLC patients with de novo MET amplification? 4. What is the preferred therapy for patients with advanced epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)- mutated NSCLC with acquired MET amplification progressing on EGFR inhibitors? 5. What are the potential strategies for overcoming resistance to MET inhibitors? Answers to these questions, along with the consensus recommendations herein, will help streamline the management of MET-altered NSCLC in routine practice, assist clinicians in therapeutic decision-making, and help ensure optimal outcomes for NSCLC patients with MET alterations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]