Search

Background There is no standard treatment recommended at category 1 level in international guidelines for subsequent therapy after cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor (CDK4/6) based therapy. We aimed to evaluate which subsequent treatment oncologists prefer in patients with disease progression under CDKi. In addition, we aimed to show the effectiveness of systemic treatments after CDKi and whether there is a survival difference between hormonal treatments (monotherapy vs. mTOR-based). Methods A total of 609 patients from 53 centers were included in the study. Progression-free-survivals (PFS) of subsequent treatments (chemotherapy (CT, n:434) or endocrine therapy (ET, n:175)) after CDKi were calculated. Patients were evaluated in three groups as those who received CDKi in first-line (group A, n:202), second-line (group B, n: 153) and ≥ 3rd-line (group C, n: 254). PFS was compared according to the use of ET and CT. In addition, ET was compared as monotherapy versus everolimus-based combination therapy. Results The median duration of CDKi in the ET arms of Group A, B, and C was 17.0, 11.0, and 8.5 months in respectively; it was 9.0, 7.0, and 5.0 months in the CT arm. Median PFS after CDKi was 9.5 (5.0–14.0) months in the ET arm of group A, and 5.3 (3.9–6.8) months in the CT arm (p = 0.073). It was 6.7 (5.8–7.7) months in the ET arm of group B, and 5.7 (4.6–6.7) months in the CT arm (p = 0.311). It was 5.3 (2.5–8.0) months in the ET arm of group C and 4.0 (3.5–4.6) months in the CT arm (p = 0.434). Patients who received ET after CDKi were compared as those who received everolimus-based combination therapy versus those who received monotherapy ET: the median PFS in group A, B, and C was 11.0 vs. 5.9 (p = 0.047), 6.7 vs. 5.0 (p = 0.164), 6.7 vs. 3.9 (p = 0.763) months. Conclusion Physicians preferred CT rather than ET in patients with early progression under CDKi. It has been shown that subsequent ET after CDKi can be as effective as CT. It was also observed that better PFS could be achieved with the subsequent everolimus-based treatments after first-line CDKi compared to monotherapy ET.

Background There is no standard treatment recommended at category 1 level in international guidelines for subsequent therapy after cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor (CDK4/6) based therapy. We aimed to evaluate which subsequent treatment oncologists prefer in patients with disease progression under CDKi. In addition, we aimed to show the effectiveness of systemic treatments after CDKi and whether there is a survival difference between hormonal treatments (monotherapy vs. mTOR-based). Methods A total of 609 patients from 53 centers were included in the study. Progression-free-survivals (PFS) of subsequent treatments (chemotherapy (CT, n:434) or endocrine therapy (ET, n:175)) after CDKi were calculated. Patients were evaluated in three groups as those who received CDKi in first-line (group A, n:202), second-line (group B, n: 153) and ≥ 3rd-line (group C, n: 254). PFS was compared according to the use of ET and CT. In addition, ET was compared as monotherapy versus everolimus-based combination therapy. Results The median duration of CDKi in the ET arms of Group A, B, and C was 17.0, 11.0, and 8.5 months in respectively; it was 9.0, 7.0, and 5.0 months in the CT arm. Median PFS after CDKi was 9.5 (5.0–14.0) months in the ET arm of group A, and 5.3 (3.9–6.8) months in the CT arm (p = 0.073). It was 6.7 (5.8–7.7) months in the ET arm of group B, and 5.7 (4.6–6.7) months in the CT arm (p = 0.311). It was 5.3 (2.5–8.0) months in the ET arm of group C and 4.0 (3.5–4.6) months in the CT arm (p = 0.434). Patients who received ET after CDKi were compared as those who received everolimus-based combination therapy versus those who received monotherapy ET: the median PFS in group A, B, and C was 11.0 vs. 5.9 (p = 0.047), 6.7 vs. 5.0 (p = 0.164), 6.7 vs. 3.9 (p = 0.763) months. Conclusion Physicians preferred CT rather than ET in patients with early progression under CDKi. It has been shown that subsequent ET after CDKi can be as effective as CT. It was also observed that better PFS could be achieved with the subsequent everolimus-based treatments after first-line CDKi compared to monotherapy ET.

Objective: To evaluate clinical and demographic characteristics and the results of cytotoxic treatments of KRASG12C, KRASother, and next-generation sequencing (NGS) panel negative patients. Methods: NGS data of 1264 patients with non-small cell lung cancer were retrospectively evaluated. Among these patients, the mutation distributions of 1081 patients with metastatic lung adenocarcinoma were analyzed. A total of 150 patients with negative NGS panel or mutant KRAS followed up in our clinic were included. Clinical features, overall survival, first-line chemotherapy responses, and progression-free survival of NGS panel negative, KRASG12C, and KRASother groups were compared. Results: In 1081 patients who underwent NGS from tumor tissue with the diagnosis of metastatic lung adenocarcinoma, 296 (27%) NGS panel negative and 276 (26%) KRAS mutant patients were detected. Among these patients, 150 patients whose data were available were 71 (47.3%) NGS panel negative, 54 (36%) KRASother, and 25 (16.7%) KRASG12C. Clinical features, brain metastasis, and first-line chemotherapy response were similar among groups. Bone metastases were detected more often in the NGS panel negative group ( p = 0.03). The median follow-up was 8.4 months. Overall, 107 deaths had occurred at the time of analysis. There was no difference in overall survival ( p = 0.56) or progression-free survival ( p = 0.71) among NGS panel negative, KRASother, and KRASG12C patients. Conclusion: There is no difference in overall survival, first-line chemotherapy response, or progression-free survival among patients with NGS panel negative, KRASG12C, or KRASother metastatic lung adenocarcinoma. Bone metastases were observed more frequently in the NGS panel negative group.

Introduction: Osimertinib, an irreversible third-generation EGFR-TKI, is the standard of care for second-line treatment of T790M-mutant advanced NSCLC patients whose progressed after first-line EGFR-TKI therapy. In this multicenter study, we aimed to determine the real-life efficacy and safety of Osimertinib in pretreated advanced NSCLC patients with T790M mutation.Materials and Methods: This retrospective trial included advanced T790M-mutant pretreated NSCLC patients who received Osimertinib from 24 different centers in Turkey. Primary endpoint was time-to-treatment discontinuation (TTD). Secondary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and safety.Results: Of 163 patients 68.7% had EGFR exon 19 deletion and 22.7% had exon 21 L858R mutation. Osimertinib was given as second-line treatment in 96 patients (58.9%) and third-line in 48 patients (29.4%). After median of 13 months disease follow-up, median TTD was 21.6 months with an 82.2% ORR. Estimated median OS was 32.1 months. Grade 3-4 adverse events were seen in 11.7% of the patients. Conclusion: Osimertinib is a highly effective option in second or third-line treatment of NSCLC patients with T790M mutation, with a favorable safety profile.