Search

Background: Osimertinib became the standard treatment for patients with untreated EGFR-mutant advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) following results reported in the phase III randomized FLAURA trial. Because of strict exclusion criteria, patient populations included in pivotal trials are only partially representative of real-world patients., Methods: We designed an observational, prospective, multicenter study enrolling patients with EGFR-mutant aNSCLC receiving first-line osimertinib to evaluate effectiveness, safety, and progression patterns in the real-world., Results: At data cutoff, 126 White patients from nine oncology centers were included. At diagnosis, 16 patients (12.7%) had a performance status (PS) ≥2 and 38 (30.2%) had brain metastases. Overall response rate (ORR) was 73%, disease control rate (DCR) 96.0%. After a median follow-up of 12.3 months, median time to treatment discontinuation (mTTD) was 25.3 months, median progression-free-survival (mPFS) was 18.9 months and median overall survival (mOS) was not reached (NR). One hundred and ten patients (87%) experienced adverse events (AEs), 42 (33%) of grade 3-4, with venous thromboembolism (VTE) as the most common (n = 10, 7.9%). No difference in rates of VTE was reported according to age, PS, comorbidity, and tumor load. We observed longer mTTD in patients without symptoms (NR vs. 18.8 months) and with fewer than three metastatic sites at diagnosis (NR vs. 21.4 months). Patients without brain metastases experienced longer mPFS (NR vs. 13.3 months). No difference in survival outcome was observed according to age, comorbidity, and type of EGFR mutation. Isolated progression and progression in fewer than three sites were associated with longer time to treatment discontinuation (TTD)., Conclusion: Osimertinib confirmed effectiveness and safety in the real world, although thromboembolism was more frequent than previously reported., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Purpose: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) still represents a common side-effect of chemotherapy, and often, its perception differs between patients and healthcare professionals. The aim of this study was to evaluate the agreement on the perception of CINV and other items among clinicians, patients, and nurses., Methods: This observational prospective study was part of an evaluation program promoted by the Women Against Lung Cancer in Europe (WALCE) Onlus. From August 2015 to February 2016, a survey was administered in 11 oncologic institutions to 188 stage IV lung cancer patients and to their oncologists and nurses during first-line chemotherapy. Our survey investigated 11 aspects: anxiety, mood, weakness, appetite, nausea, vomiting, pain, drowsiness, breath, general condition, and trust in treatments. These items were assessed through Numerical Rating Scale at four consecutive evaluations: at T0 (immediately prior to the first cycle), at T1 (immediately prior to the second cycle), at T2 (immediately prior to the third cycle), and at T3 (immediately prior to the fourth cycle). Clinician versus patient (CvP), nurse versus patient (NvP), and clinician versus nurse (CvN) agreements were estimated applying Weighted Cohen's kappa. A multivariate logistic model and generalized equation estimates were applied to evaluate factors possibly influencing CINV development., Results: The incidence of patients reporting CINV varied from 40% at T0 to 71% at T3. Both CvP and NvP agreement on the investigated items were mainly moderate, slightly increasing over time, and becoming substantial for some items, in particular for NvP. Pre-chemotherapy anxiety in its mild, moderate, and severe manifestations, as well as mild, moderate, and severe anxiety experienced after chemotherapy start, exposed patients to a higher risk of anticipatory and acute/delayed CINV, respectively., Conclusions: Despite clinical staff awareness of patients' status and perceptions, CINV still represents a clinical problem. This study confirms that particular attention should be paid to anxiety due to its key role in CINV development.

Lung cancer is a worldwide problem. At the time of diagnosis, 50% of patients have advanced incurable disease. Different chemotherapy combinations--with or without targeted therapies--yield similar results despite the continuous efforts of clinicians. However, molecular biological studies have already shed a great deal of light on the existence of multiple genetic aberrations that can be useful for customizing treatment. mRNA transcripts involved in DNA repair pathways, such as ERCC1 and BRCA1, confer selective resistance to cisplatin or taxanes, whereas thioredoxin confers a broad spectrum of chemoresistance. Polymorphisms in DNA repair genes and methylation of checkpoint genes in circulating serum DNA could become important predictive markers of survival in certain cisplatin-based regimens. Epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase mutations are the crux of targeted therapies, whereas epithelial-mesenchymal transitions and HER3 mRNA levels are promising ancillary markers for treatment with epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors.

Purpose of Review: This review highlights the numerous molecular biology findings in the field of lung cancer with potential therapeutic impact in both the near and distant future., Recent Findings: Abundant preclinical and clinical data indicate that BRCA1 mRNA expression is a differential modulator of chemotherapy sensitivity. Single nucleotide polymorphisms in the excision repair cross-complementing 1 gene (ERCC1) influence survival with cisplatin-based chemotherapy. For the first time, epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations have been shown to predict dramatic responses in metastatic lung adenocarcinomas. The crosstalk between estrogen and EGFR pathways have also been revealed. MicroRNAs control the expression of cognate target genes and predict relapse in surgically resected non-small-cell lung cancer patients. Overexpression of the Wingless-type (Wnt) genes and methylation of Wnt antagonists have been documented in non-small-cell lung cancer., Summary: Understanding the relevance of these findings can help to change the clinical practice in oncology towards customizing chemotherapy and targeted therapies, leading to improvement both in survival and in cost-effectiveness.

The purpose of this study was to estimate in all randomised trials the relative risk of overall response rate (ORR), clinical benefit (CB), time to progression (TTP), overall survival (OS), and toxicity of aromatase inhibitors (AI), compared with tamoxifen (Tam) as first-line endocrine therapy in postmenopausal metastatic breast cancer (PMBC) women. Prospective randomised studies were searched through computerised queries of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) abstract database. Relative risk, 95% confidence interval, and heterogeneity were derived according to the inverse variance and Mantel-Haenszel method and Q statistics. Six phase III prospective randomised trials including 2787 women were gathered. A significant advantage in ORR (P = 0.042), TTP (P = 0.007), and CB (P = 0.001) in favour of AI over Tam was detected at the fixed effects model. These results were not significant at the random effects model, owing to the significant heterogeneity. On the contrary, no difference was registered for OS (P = 0.743) with no significant heterogeneity. Regarding toxicity, Tam caused more frequently thromboembolic events (P = 0.005) and vaginal bleeding (P = 0.001) compared with AI. Aromatase inhibitors appear to be superior to Tam as first-line endocrine option in PMBC women. Owing to a component of variability between the six studies analysed, the random effects estimates differed from corresponding fixed ones. Investigators should assess heterogeneity of trial results before deriving summary estimates of treatment effect. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]