Search

Non-small-cell lung cancer harboring uncommon epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations (any mutation other than deletion 19 or substitution of leucine by arginine at codon 858) presents a variable sensitivity to EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors. With the final aim to enrich knowledge about uncommon EGFR mutations, we performed a post hoc analysis of the beyond progression after tyrosine kinase inhibitor in EGFR-positive non-small-cell lung cancer patients (BE-POSITIVE) trial. Thirty-five patients were included of the original 312 EGFR-mutated cases. The results of our analysis support the existence of a strong heterogeneity within patients harboring uncommon EGFR mutations, which implies the necessity to stratify the subgroups of rare mutations in individual entities with different clinical perspectives. Background: Beyond progression after tyrosine kinase inhibitor in EGFR-positive non-small-cell lung cancer patients (BE-POSITIVE) was the first Italian multicenter observational study that reported the outcomes of first-generation epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) in a “real-life” Caucasian EGFR-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) population. The sharing of multi-institutional experiences represents a crucial strategy to enrich knowledge about uncommon EGFR mutations. Therefore, we performed a post hoc analysis of the BE-POSITIVE study. Patients and Methods: Data of advanced NSCLC patients with uncommon EGFR mutations who received first-line first-generation EGFR-TKIs in 24 Italian Hospitals were collected. In this analysis we aimed to evaluate overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall response rate (ORR) of EGFR-TKIs in NSCLC patients harboring uncommon EGFR mutations. Results: Thirty-five patients harboring uncommon EGFR mutations (any mutation other than deletion 19 or substitution of leucine by arginine at codon 858) were included of the original 312 EGFR-mutated cases. Most of them

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 repres

Objectives Molecular profiling of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is recommended according to European and Italian guidelines. However, molecular routine assessment remains still heterogeneous. This observational study aimed to take a picture of the real clinical practice in molecular testing and therapeutic choices in advanced Italian NSCLCs. Materials and methods This study prospectively enrolled newly diagnosed advanced or recurrent NSCLCs referred to 38 Italian centres, from November 2014 to November 2015. Information regarding molecular profiling and treatment choices were collected. Description of patients’ outcome included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival in first (PFS1) and second-line (PFS2). Results and conclusion Among 1787 patients enrolled, 1388 (78%) performed at least one molecular analysis during the history of disease: 76% were tested for EGFR, 53% for ALK, 27% for KRAS, 16% for ROS1, 14% for BRAF, 5% for HER2, 4% for MET and 1% for FGFR. The remaining 399 patients (22.3%) did not receive any molecular test. Among patients receiving at least one molecular analysis, 583 (42%) presented a molecular alteration. Considering EGFR mutated and/or ALK rearranged patients (402), for which target agents were routinely reimbursed at time of study in Italy, the 86% received a personalized treatment as first and/or second line: the 90% (286) of EGFR mutants received an EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor, mostly gefitinib (41.1%) or afatinib (36.4%) while 74% (62) of ALK translocated patients received an ALK inhibitor, mostly crizotinib (64%). Median OS was 9.34 months (95% CI 8.62–10.0), median PFS1 was 4.61 months (95%CI 4.31–4.84) and median PFS2 was 2.76 months (95%CI 2.57–3.19). In the Italian clinical practice, routine molecular assessment was largely applied in NSCLC patients, according to national guidelines, but a low level of ALK test was reached. Most of EGFR mutants an ALK rearranged patients received a personalized treatment a

One question is how long patients with advanced non–small-cell lung cancer wish to receive therapy. The perceptions of > 100 patients and physicians were analyzed to compare different prognostic conditions. The patients' attitudes were generally positive and not directly linked to the expected benefits, suggesting that other factors in conjunction with the clinical assessment, such as the doctor–patient relationship, should be considered to understand patients' motivations. Introduction Pemetrexed maintenance therapy (MT) after induction with platinum-based chemotherapy has recently become a common treatment strategy for advanced nonsquamous non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, the benefits of MT should be weighed with consideration of the patients' perceptions and preferences. The aim of the present study was to evaluate patients' attitudes toward MT and to describe physicians' awareness of their patients' inclinations. Materials and Methods We administered a 12-question anonymous survey and the Distress Thermometer Questionnaire to patients with advanced or recurrent nonsquamous NSCLC. The survey was also distributed to the referring physicians. Results From December 2014 to July 2015, 92 patients and 37 physicians were enrolled. All 92 patients completed the questionnaire at T0 (before starting chemotherapy) and 56.5% also did so at T1 (after completion of induction). The physicians completed the survey only at T0. Most patients had a positive attitude toward MT at both T0 (78.9%) and T1 (86.5%), and 100% of the physicians thought their patients would be in favor of MT. The physicians believed that their patients' attitudes toward MT would decrease proportionally with the reduction in the magnitude of the overall survival increase and expected benefits. The decrease expected by the physicians was much greater than that reported by the patients. This was especially true for an overall survival increase as small as 1 month (51.9% of patients accepting MT

Purpose: Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is a condition with significant clinical burden for patients and relevant economic impact. Limited evidence exists on the management costs of NSCLC patients, especially in the late phases of the disease. The main objective of this analysis was to evaluate the economic impact of clinical management of NSCLC patients in the Italian population. Methods: This evaluation was an economic analysis of the observational and multicentre study LIFE, which described the therapeutic approach in routine clinical practice for NSCLC patients, progressing after first-line treatment. This study evaluated resource consumption in different Italian hospitals, including specialist visits, hospitalizations, accesses to first aid, pharmacological treatment, laboratory tests and palliative care. The National Healthcare Service perspective was adopted. Results: In this study, N = 191 patients enrolled in the LIFE study were included. Patients were aged 64.2 years and were predominantly males (66%). In the different line of treatments, monthly costs of patients ranged between €1471 (first line) and €1788 (third line). The overall healthcare cost over the average period of observation (16.4 months) was €25,859 per patient. Overall, oncology therapy was the cost driver, although the composition of medical costs changed across the different lines of treatment, with costs for concomitant medication and palliative care being predominant in late phase of the disease. Conclusions: The economic burden of NSCLC is extremely high during the overall period of treatment, and a significant level of care is required in each stage of the disease.

Objectives: Considering the frequent expression of somatostatine receptors, we designed the G04.2011 trial to investigate the efficacy of the somatostatine analogue lanreotide in maintenance for SCLC patients after response to standard treatment. Materials and Methods: A multicenter, randomized, phase 3 trial was conducted in SCLC expressing somatostatine receptors at baseline Octreoscan, responding after platinum-based chemotherapy with/without radiotherapy. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive maintenance lanreotide 120 mg subcutaneously every 28 days, up to 1 year or progression versus observation. Randomization was stratified according to stage (limited/extended, LD/ED). The primary end-point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and safety. Results: Seventy-one patients were randomly assigned (39 to lanreotide, 32 to observation) in 9 Italian institutions. Median PFS was 3.6 (95% CI 3.2–3.9) with lanreotide versus 2.3 months (95% CI 1.7–2.9) with observation (HR 1.51, 95% CI 0.90–2.50; P = 0.11). Stage was an independent predictor for PFS (HR 3.14, 95% CI 1.77–5.57; P < 0.0001). Median PFS was 7.0 (95% CI <1-13.5) with lanreotide versus 3.8 months (95% CI <1-8.6) with observation in LD (P = 0.21), and 3.0 (95% CI 2.2–3.8) versus 2.2 (95% 1.7–2.7) in ED (P = 0.19). Median OS was 9.5 (95% CI 4.8–14.3) with lanreotide versus 4.7 months (95% CI <1-16.6) with observation (P = 0.47). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 28% of patients with lanreotide (grade 3 in two patients). Conclusion: Although survival outcomes were not significantly prolonged with lanreotide as a maintenance in SCLC expressing somatostatin receptors after response to standard treatment, lanreotide showed a slight PFS benefit in LD SCLC deserving further investigations.

Objectives TAS-102 is an oral combination treatment comprised of an antimetabolite, trifluridine, a thymidine-based nucleoside analog, and tipiracil hydrochloride, at a molar ratio of 1:0.5. This antimetabolite has demonstrated efficacy in clinical trials, including a global phase 3 trial in metastatic colorectal cancer. As this agent has shown activity greater than cisplatin in small cell lung cancer xenograft mouse models, the objective of this study was to evaluate TAS-102 in the second-line treatment of small cell lung cancer. Methods This was a multicenter, open-label, two-arm, randomized phase 2 study designed to compare oral TAS-102 (35 mg/m2/dose twice daily) versus control (topotecan or amrubicin). Patients requiring second-line chemotherapy for treatment of small cell lung cancer, either refractory or sensitive to frontline platinum-based chemotherapy, were enrolled. Results Eighteen patients were enrolled. Eight of nine patients receiving TAS-102 discontinued treatment due to progressive disease and one patient died due to clinical progression during the safety follow-up. Unplanned interim futility considerations were made, and the study was terminated early because it was unlikely that superiority of TAS-102 versus comparator could be demonstrated. Six control patients discontinued therapy due to progressive disease and one due to an adverse event. Median progression-free survival was 1.4 months (range 0.9–1.8) versus 2.7 months (range 1.0–6.8) for TAS-102 and control, respectively, with a hazard ratio of 3.76 (80% CI, 1.68–8.40) favoring control. The most common adverse events with TAS-102 were neutropenia, diarrhea, anemia, anorexia, and fatigue, each in three patients. Conclusion TAS-102 showed no evidence of activity in second-line small cell lung cancer.

Objectives: Non-small-cell-lung-cancer (NSCLC) patients harbouring epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations develop drug resistance after 9-12 months of EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) therapy pointing out the issue of the second-line treatment choice. Materials and methods: From June 2009 until May 2013 patients affected by advanced NSCLC harbouring EGFR mutations receiving first-line TKI were collected mainly retrospectively in 24 Italian Centers. Primary objective was to describe the percentage of EGFR mutated patients receiving second-line therapy after progression to first-line EGFR-TKIs assessing the type, the activity in terms of objective response rate (ORR), efficacy in terms of progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), and safety of second-line treatment. Secondary objective was to describe the efficacy of first-line EGFR-TKIs. Results: 312 patients were included. Most of them were females (203, 65.1%), never smokers (200, 64.1%), with adenocarcinoma histology (290, 92.9%). The most common mutations were EGFR exon 19 deletion and L858R, detected in 186 and 97 cases (59.6% and 31.1%), respectively. At data cut-off, 274 patients (95.1%) received any second-line treatment (including best supportive care or local treatments only). A total of 163 patients received second-line systemic therapy with an ORR of 20.9% (95% CI:14.62-27.10), a median PFS and OS of 4.7 (95% CI:3.81-5.26) and 24.5 (95% CI:21.65-27.37) months, respectively. Grade 3-4 hematological and non-hematological toxicities were reported in 9% and 6.3% of 144 patients treated with chemotherapy while non-hematological toxicity was reported in 4 cases of the 17 patients receiving second-line target agents. Conclusions: BE-Positive is the first multicenter observational study reporting outcomes of therapies in a "real-life Caucasian EGFR-mutated population", highlighting the need of further researches about new treatment strategies in this setting.