Search

The clinical efficacy of chemotherapy, as a recognized therapeutic approach for malignant diseases, usually has certain limitations due to its cardiotoxicity (CT) and consequent cardiomyopathy, or even heart failure. CT is defined as any cardiac injury connected with oncology treatment, whether it is chemo-, radio-, targeted or immunotherapy, or cancer by itself, and it represents a great challenge for clinicians in everyday practice. A wide spectrum of factors related to chemotherapy (type of drug, dose during each cycle, cumulative dose, schedule, method of application, combination with other cardiotoxic drugs or association with radiotherapy) and patient characteristics (age, presence of cardiovascular risk factors, previous cardiovascular disease) are the determining factors that influence the frequency of CT. Imaging methods for morphological and functional monitoring of the heart muscle are used for monitoring CT. The quest for diagnostic tools for early CT detection is of great significance. In line with this, the measurement of some cardiac biomarkers has found its place in clinical settings as an early determinant of myocardial injury. Therefore, in this review article, special attention will be paid to certain well-established, as well as certain novel cardiac biomarkers, and their role in recognizing asymptomatic CT, in order to gain deeper insight into their diagnostic utility.

Background/Aim. Breast cancer comprises about 25% of all female cancers, and its incidence is increasing. New diagnostic procedures and therapeutic modalities have increased treatment success rates as well as patient survival. The goal of contemporary treatment is not only patient survival, but also a better quality of life (QoL). The objective of this study was to assess the effect of age at diagnosis on the QoL of patients with breast cancer before and after surgery. Methods. We analyzed QoL in 170 female patients (43 patients < 50 and 127 patients ≥ 50 years) diagnosed with breast cancer (I and II stage) a month before and after surgical treatment, using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC QLQ-C30) questionnaire and specific version for breast cancer patients (EORTC QLQ-BR23). Results. The QLQ-C30 questionnaire showed that surgical treatment significantly decreased all domains of the patients’ QoL in both age groups. Agerelated differences were present in sexual functioning and pleasure independently of surgical treatment, with higher scores in the group of younger women. The analysis of data obtained using the QLQ-BR23 questionnaire revealed a lower QoL after surgical treatment in almost all dimensions regardless of patients’ age. Conclusion. The results of our study pointed out statistically significant differences in the QoL domains of sexual functioning, and sexual enjoyment between women in both age groups independently of surgical treatment. The QoL was better in the younger age group. Surgical breast cancer treatment negatively affected patients QoL independently of age.

nema

Background: Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is a cardiometabolic disorder whose features include dyslipidemia, increased oxidative stress (OS, oxy) and chronic inflammation. The aim of this study was to investigate the ability of a summary score for dyslipidemia, OS and inflammation (the DOI score) to discriminate PCOS patients from healthy individuals and to evaluate the effect of obesity on individual scores and the DOI score in patients. Methods: Lipid status parameters, OS status parameters (advanced oxidation protein products; total oxidative status; prooxidant-antioxidant balance; malondialdehyde; total protein sulphydryl groups and paraoxonase 1 activity) and CRP were measured in 114 patients and 50 controls using standardised assays. The DOI score was calculated as the sum of dyslipidemia, oxy and inflammation scores, determined as Z-score values for every subject in relation to the controls. Results: PCOS patients had significantly higher oxy-score compared to controls (P0.9, P

Background: Systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) changes cortisol dynamics and indicates dissociation between the adrenal cortex and the hypothalamo-pituitary unit. The aim of this study was to assess the cortisol response after stimulation with ACTH1-24 in patients with SIRS at admission to the Respiratory Intensive Care Unit (RICU) and seven days later. Methods: Fifty-four subjects were included in the study, and SIRS was defined according to the Consensus Conference criteria from 1992. Severity of the disease was determined using the APACHE II score, and organ dysfunction using the SOFA score. Low-dose (1 mg) ACTH test (LDT) was performed in all patients, and cortisol was determined along with basal ACTH. Data were analyzed using parametric and nonparametric tests and regression analysis. The results are presented as mean ± standard deviation, and P< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: There were no differences in cortisol values between the two LDTs. Cortisol increment lower than 250 nmol/L during the LDT was found in 14/54 (25.9%) subjects at the onset of SIRS. Five out of 54 (9.6%) patients died within 7 days from the onset of SIRS. Female sex and maximal cortisol response (D max) on LDT predicted the duration of hospitalization in RICU, while APACHE II and SOFA scores best predicted the duration of hospitalization, mortality outcome as well as overall survival outcome. Conclusions: A difference was found in D max at the diagnosis of SIRS and seven days later. D max, and primarily the clinical scores APACHE II and SOFA predicted the outcomes of hospitalization and overall survival.

Introduction. Still there is no consensus on the choice of the most efficient and the least toxic chemotherapy regimen in the treatment of advanced gastric cancer. Nowadays few therapy protocols are available for treating this disease. Objective. Study was conducted to compare the efficacy and toxicity of FAM (flurouracil, doxorubicin, mitomycin C) with CDDP and FU/FA (cisplatin, 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin) protocols in patients with locally advanced and metastatic gastric cancer. Methods. This randomized study involved a group of 50 patients with locally advanced or metastatic gastric cancer, who had not previously undergone chemotherapy treatment. Progression free survival, overall survival and drug toxicity were evaluated. For statistical analysis chi-square test, Kaplan-Meier curve and the log rank test were used. Results. The overall response rate was 20% in the group treated with FAM and 24% in the group treated with CDDP, FU/FA (4% of patients from each group had complete response), but without significant statistical difference. Median survival was 10.9 months in the FAM group and 11.8 months in CDDP, FU/FA group, with no statistically significant difference. Non-haematological and haematological toxicities of CDDP, FU/FA were considerably less frequent than of FAM, and there was no treatment related deaths in any of the groups. Conclusion. Both investigated regimens demonstrated moderate efficacy. The study shows in favour of justified application of both protocols, while in regard to toxicity CDDP and FU/FA can be recommended as preferable treatment for locally advanced and metastatic gastric cancer. New strategies should be considered for better efficacy in the treatment of advanced gastric cancer. New strategies are necessary with the goal to achieve a better therapeutic effect.

Background: Bevacizumab is an anti-VEGF, humanized mAb that is the most advanced agent of its class in clinical development. Several studies have examined bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy in the first- and second-line settings in patients with metastatic CRC. Despite of that, there is lack of information concerning the extent to which bevacizumab can be used to treat metastatic CRC. We still need more evidence related to efficacy and safety of bevacizumab in different settings, or sequential treatments. The aim of this study was to investigate efficacy and safety of bevacizumab added to different chemotherapy in patients with metastatic CRC. Methods: This was a controlled, prospective, multicentre, cohort study. Thirty patients with advanced colorectal cancer were enrolled into this study. Bevacizumab was applied with oxaliplatin-, irinotecan-, 5FU- or capecitabine -based chemotherapy in the first-, second- or third-therapy lines. Totally 261 cycles were applied. The median number of applied cycles per patient was 8 (range 2-16). Results: Objective tumor response (RR) was seen in 11 patients 37% (95%CI 19-69%) calculated on an intention-to-treat basis. The median duration of response was 12 months. Three of 11 patients (27%) with PR had secondary surgery. RR was seen in 9 of 16 patients (56%) who received bevacizumab in the first-line treatment and in 2 of 14 patients (14%) who received therapy in the second+ lines (p=0.02). Clinical benefit (PR+SD) was seen in 22 (74%) patients. 75% of patients achieved clinical benefit in the first-line and 74% in the second+ chemotherapy lines. The median time to progression (TTP) of the patients is was 9 + months (95%CI 7 - + ∞) at the moment of this analysis. The median TTP of patients who received bevacizumab in the first line was 11 months (95%CI 8 - + ∞). The median TTP of patients who received bevacizumab in the second+ lines was 5.5 months (95%CI 4 - + ∞) (p=0.015). The median survival time (OS) for all patients was 9 + months (95%CI 7 - + ∞). The median OS at the moment of analysis was 11 months (95%CI 9 - + ∞) for patients receiving bevacizumab in the first line, and 7 months for patients receiving the drug in the second+ lines (95%CI 6 - + ∞) (p=0.024). The incidence of any toxicity grade 3-4 was less than 10%. Bevacizumab associated incidence of grade 3-4 side effects did not exceed 5%. Hypertension 5% and thromboembolism 5% were the most frequent events. Gastrointestinal perforation did not occur. There was one toxic death due to sepsis and not directly associated with bevacizumab toxicity. Conclusion: Bevacizumab can safely be added to different chemotherapeutic regimens in first- and second+ line. The conferred benefit in overall survival, TTP and response rate obviously requires randomized trials.

Eu-doped silica nanoparticles with different concentrations of europium (3% 6%and 15at.%) were prepared by a hydrothermal procedure. Light scattering measurements of the silica colloids as well as TEM microscopy, revealed a narrow size distribution of the particles, ranging from 5 to 10 nm. X-Ray diffraction showed that all the powders were amorphous. Magnetic susceptibility vs. temperature measurements showed a behavior typical for Eu3+ ions, with a plateau below 60K, and an increase of the mass susceptibility with Eu concentration. The splitting of zero-field cooled (ZFC) and field-coled (FC) susceptibility branches increased with the europium concentration, indicating the presence of interparticle interactions. At temperatures below 40K, a contribution of paramagnetic impurities obeying the Curie law was observed. Heat treatment of the powders at 823K and 1073K increased the magnetic susceptibility. The appearance of a small peak at 70K indicated the presence of small quantities of ferromagnetic EuO in the powders after heating.

BACKGROUND: Results of phase III clinical studies comparing efficacy of Xeloda vs. standard 5-FU/FA protocols as first line therapy of metastatic colorectal carcinoma (MCRC), have shown better efficacy of Xeloda, with less toxic adverse effects, apart from handfoot syndrome. METHODS: From January 2000 to May 2001 the study enrolled 54 patients with MCRC, 38 males and 16 females, aged 30-78 years. All patients had metastatic diseases. In 33 the primary tumor was in colon, in 21 in rectum. All patients received Xeloda 2500 mg/m2/day in two daily doses, during 14 days followed by 7 days of pause. Dose intensity was 88,79% +/- 9,2. For efficacy evaluation the WHO criteria and tumor markers CEA and CA 19-9 were used. RESULTS: Overall response rate was 47%, with 13% complete responses, 34% partial responses 38% stable disease and 15% disease progression. No significant difference was found between patients with regard to localization of primary tumor (colon or rectum). There was no significant difference in response rate when compared 27 patients with adverse events of capecitabine ('hand and foot' syndrome and diarrhea) and those without them. Response rate in a subgroup of 21 evaluable (out of 29) patients with initial signs of liver dysfunction was worse (p

Objectives: IMbrella A is a Phase III extension study that allowed rollover from Roche/Genentech-sponsored atezolizumab trials, including IMpower133, a Phase I/III trial of first-line atezolizumab or placebo plus carboplatin/etoposide in extensive-stage small cell lung cancer. We report outcomes from an exploratory analysis of IMpower133 with extended time-to-event data for patients who rolled over to IMbrella A., Materials and Methods: IMpower133 patients could roll over to IMbrella A to receive atezolizumab 1200 mg intravenously every three weeks if they continued to receive atezolizumab at IMpower133 closure or were in survival follow-up after atezolizumab discontinuation. Overall survival and safety were assessed; only serious adverse events and AEs of special interest were collected in IMbrella A., Results: Eighteen of 26 eligible patients rolled over to IMbrella A. At clinical cutoff (March 16, 2023), median follow-up in the atezolizumab plus carboplatin/etoposide arm (IMpower133 and IMbrella A) was 59.4 months. The three-, four-, and five-year overall survival (95 % CI) estimates were 16 % (11 %-21 %), 13 % (8 %-18 %), and 12 % (7 %-17 %), respectively. In IMbrella A, serious adverse events occurred in three patients (16.7 %), and one adverse event of special interest was reported (grade two hypothyroidism)., Conclusion: This long-term analysis of patients from IMbrella A previously enrolled in IMpower133 provides the first report of five-year overall survival outcomes in patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer treated with first-line cancer immunotherapy and chemotherapy. While limited by small patient numbers and lack of long-term data for the IMpower133 control arm, exploratory overall survival analyses in patients treated with atezolizumab plus carboplatin/etoposide compared favorably with historical data with chemotherapy alone. NCT03148418., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: All authors report editorial support funded by the Sponsor. Martin Reck reports receiving consulting fees, honoraria and travel support from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Beigene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, GSK, Mirati, Merck, MSD, Lily, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Roche, and Regeneron; and participation on a data safety monitoring or advisory board for Sanofi and Daiichi Sankyo. Rafal Dziadziuszko reports receiving honoraria from Roche, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Novartis, MSD, Bristol Myers Squibb, Takeda, and Pfizer; and materials from Novartis. Shunichi Sugawara reports receiving grants (to institution) from AstraZeneca, Chugai Pharma, MSD, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Ono Pharmaceutical; and honoraria from AstraZeneca, Chugai Pharma, MSD, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Ono Pharmaceutical. Steven Kao reports receiving grants (to institution) from AstraZeneca; honoraria from AstaZeneca, Pfizer, MSD, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, Amgen, Beigene, and Boehringer Ingelheim; and travel support from MSD. Maximilian Hochmair reports receiving honoraria from MSD, Roche, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Takeda, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Amgen. Florian Huemer declares no conflict of interest. Gilberto de Castro, Jr reports receiving consulting fees from Daiichi-Sankyo; honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Jannsen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Amgen, and Daiichi-Sankyo; travel support from Roche, Amgen, Daiichi-Sankyo, MSD, AstraZeneca, and Bristol Myers Squibb; and participation on a data safety monitoring or advisory board for GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, MSD, and Novartis. Libor Havel declares no conflict of interest. Reyes Bernabé Caro reports receiving an investigational grant from Roche; honoraria from Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, MSD, Amgen, Takeda, and AstraZeneca; and participation in a data safety monitoring or advisory board for Takeda, Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, and AstraZeneca. György Losonczy and Jong-Seok Lee declare no conflict of interest. Dariusz M. Kowalski reports participation on an advisory board and consultancy for Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Sanofi-Aventis, Takeda, Pfizer, and Johnson & Johnson. Zoran Andric declares no conflict of interest. Raffaele Califano reports receiving grants (to institution) from Roche and MSD; consulting fees from Roche, MSD, Bristol Myers Squibb, and AstraZeneca; and honoraria from Roche, MSD, and AstraZeneca; membership in the EORTC lung cancer group and ESMO educational publication working group; and stock or stock options in The Christie Private Care and Supportive Care UK. Andrea Veatch, Gregory Gerstner, and Marta Batus declare no conflicts of interest. Stefanie Morris reports employment with and stock or stock options in Roche. Monika Kaul, Vaikunth Cuchelkar, Huafei Li, Bradford J. Danner, and Barzin Y. Nabet report employment with Roche. Stephen V. Liu reports receiving grants from AbbVie, Alkermes, Elevation Oncology, Ellipses, Genentech, Gilead, Merck, Merus, Nuvalent, RAPT, and Turning Point Therapeutics; and consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Catalyst, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Elevation Oncology, Genentech/Roche, Gilead, Guardant Health, Janssen, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Merus, Mirati, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Takeda, and Turning Point Therapeutics; and participation on a data safety monitoring for Candel Therapeutics., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Introduction: We report the primary analysis from JAVELIN Lung 100, a phase 3 trial comparing avelumab (anti⁠-programmed death-ligand 1 [PD-L1]) versus platinum-based doublet chemotherapy as first-line treatment for PD-L1-positive (+) advanced NSCLC., Methods: Adults with PD-L1+ (≥1% of tumor cells; PD-L1 immunohistochemistry 73-10 pharmDx), EGFR and ALK wild-type, previously untreated, stage IV NSCLC were randomized to avelumab 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks (Q2W), avelumab 10 mg/kg once weekly (QW) for 12 weeks and Q2W thereafter, or platinum-based doublet chemotherapy every 3 weeks. Primary end points were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) per independent review committee. The primary analysis population was patients with high-expression PD-L1+ tumors (≥80% of tumor cells)., Results: A total of 1214 patients were randomized to avelumab Q2W (n = 366), avelumab QW (n = 322), or chemotherapy (n = 526). In the primary analysis population, hazard ratios (HRs) for OS and PFS with avelumab Q2W (n = 151) versus chemotherapy (n = 216) were 0.85 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.67-1.09; one-sided p = 0.1032; median OS, 20.1 versus 14.9 mo) and 0.71 (95% CI: 0.54-0.93; one-sided p = 0.0070; median PFS, 8.4 versus 5.6 mo), respectively. With avelumab QW (n = 130) versus chemotherapy (n = 129), HRs were 0.79 (95% CI: 0.59-1.07; one-sided p = 0.0630; median OS, 19.3 versus 15.3 mo) and 0.72 (95% CI: 0.52-0.98; one-sided p = 0.0196; median PFS, 7.5 versus 5.6 mo), respectively. No new safety signals were observed., Conclusions: Longer median OS and PFS were observed with avelumab versus platinum-based doublet chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC, but differences in OS and PFS were not statistically significant, and the trial did not meet its primary objective., Clinicaltrials: gov Identifier: NCT02576574., (Copyright © 2023 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields) are electric fields that disrupt processes critical for cancer cell survival, leading to immunogenic cell death and enhanced antitumour immune response. In preclinical models of non-small-cell lung cancer, TTFields amplified the effects of chemotherapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors. We report primary results from a pivotal study of TTFields therapy in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer., Methods: This randomised, open-label, pivotal phase 3 study recruited patients at 130 sites in 19 countries. Participants were aged 22 years or older with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer progressing on or after platinum-based therapy, with squamous or non-squamous histology and ECOG performance status of 2 or less. Previous platinum-based therapy was required, but no restriction was placed on the number or type of previous lines of systemic therapy. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to TTFields therapy and standard systemic therapy (investigator's choice of immune checkpoint inhibitor [nivolumab, pembrolizumab, or atezolizumab] or docetaxel) or standard therapy alone. Randomisation was performed centrally using variable blocked randomisation and an interactive voice-web response system, and was stratified by tumour histology, treatment, and region. Systemic therapies were dosed according to local practice guidelines. TTFields therapy (150 kHz) was delivered continuously to the thoracic region with the recommendation to achieve an average of at least 18 h/day device usage. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. The safety population included all patients who received any study therapy and were analysed according to the actual treatment received. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02973789., Findings: Between Feb 13, 2017, and Nov 19, 2021, 276 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive TTFields therapy with standard therapy (n=137) or standard therapy alone (n=139). The median age was 64 years (IQR 59-70), 178 (64%) were male and 98 (36%) were female, 156 (57%) had non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer, and 87 (32%) had received a previous immune checkpoint inhibitor. Median follow-up was 10·6 months (IQR 6·1-33·7) for patients receiving TTFields therapy with standard therapy, and 9·5 months (0·1-32·1) for patients receiving standard therapy. Overall survival was significantly longer with TTFields therapy and standard therapy than with standard therapy alone (median 13·2 months [95% CI 10·3-15·5] vs 9·9 months [8·1-11·5]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·74 [95% CI 0·56-0·98]; p=0·035). In the safety population (n=267), serious adverse events of any cause were reported in 70 (53%) of 133 patients receiving TTFields therapy plus standard therapy and 51 (38%) of 134 patients receiving standard therapy alone. The most frequent grade 3-4 adverse events were leukopenia (37 [14%] of 267), pneumonia (28 [10%]), and anaemia (21 [8%]). TTFields therapy-related adverse events were reported in 95 (71%) of 133 patients; these were mostly (81 [85%]) grade 1-2 skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders. There were three deaths related to standard therapy (two due to infections and one due to pulmonary haemorrhage) and no deaths related to TTFields therapy., Interpretation: TTFields therapy added to standard therapy significantly improved overall survival compared with standard therapy alone in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer after progression on platinum-based therapy without exacerbating systemic toxicities. These data suggest that TTFields therapy is efficacious in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer and should be considered as a treatment option to manage the disease in this setting., Funding: Novocure., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests TL reports support towards this manuscript from Novocure; institutional grants or contracts from Advaxis and Pfizer; consulting fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Blueprint, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Genentech, Janssen, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Mirati, Novocure, Regeneron, Roche, and Takeda; honoraria from Aptitude Health, ASTRO, Bioascend, Cardinal Health, Curio, GRACE, I3 Health, IDEO, Larvol, Medscape, Peerview Institute for Medical Education, OncLive, Opinions in Lung Cancer, Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer, Targeted Oncology, UpToDate, and Vindico; and board participation or a leadership position for the National Cancer Institute and Georgia Society of Clinical Oncology. RK reports institutional grants or contracts from AstraZeneca, Blue Earth Diagnostics, Brainlab, Cantex Pharmaceuticals, Exelixis, GT Medical Technologies, Medtronic, Novocure, and ViewRay; consulting fees from Castle Biosciences, Elekta, Kazia Therapeutics, and ViewRay; honoraria from Accuray, Brainlab, Elekta, Elsevier, Novocure, Peerview Institute for Medical Education, and ViewRay; support for travel or meeting attendance from Accuray, Elekta, Novocure, and the Peerview Institute for Medical Education; and participation on an advisory board for ViewRay. RR reports consulting fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Merck, MSD, Parexel, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda; advising or speaking fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Parexel, Pfizer, and Roche; support for meetings or travel from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Parexel, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda; and participation on an advisory board for Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Novartis, Parexel, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda. LZ reports participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for AstraZeneca and BeiGene. SK reports honoraria as a speaker for AstraZeneca, Bayer, G1 Therapeutics, Genentech, and Pfizer. JW reports institutional grants from the American Cancer Society, American Lung Association, AstraZeneca, Central Society for Clinical and Translational Research, Gateway for Cancer Research, National Institutes of Health, and Siteman Cancer Center; consulting fees from Novoure and Takeda; honoraria from Washington University Continuing Medical Education and OncLive; support for travel or meeting attendance from Neon Therapuetics; and participation on a data safety monitoring or advisory board for Washington University. TB reports consultancy fees from InhaTarget; participation on a safety monitoring board or advisory board for Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi-Sankyo, Janssen, Merck, and Roche; support for travel or meeting attendance from Takeda. DEG reports institutional grants from AstraZeneca, BerGenBio, Karyoparhm, and Novocure; consulting fees from Catalyst Pharmaceuticals; participation on a data safety monitoring or advisory board for BeiGene, Daiichi-Sankyo, Elevation Oncology, Janssen, Mirati, Regeneron, and Sanofi; stock or stock options with Gilead, Medtronic, and Walgreens; and a financial interest in OncoSeer Diagnostics. GK reports honoraria as a speaker or advisory board member from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Genentech, Merck, Novartis, and Regeneron; royalties from McGraw Hill; and consulting fees from Primum. RP reports institutional funding from the National Cancer Institute, and a leadership position and travel support from the National Community Oncology Dispensing Association. JA reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, and MSD; participation on a data safety monitoring or advisory board for Amphera, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, and Takeda; stock or stock options with Amphera; and a leadership role with The International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC). AD reports honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb; support for meeting attendance or travel from MSD and Roche; and participation on a data safety or advisory board for Novartis, Sanofi, and Takeda. MP reports consulting fees from Abbvie, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisei, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda; honoraria from Amgen, Bayer, Janssen, Nestle, and Sanofi; and support for meeting attendance or travel from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Takeda, and Vifor. RG reports consulting fees, honoraria, participation on a safety monitoring board or advisory board, or support for attending meetings or travel from Abbvie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Takeda, Sandoz, and Sanofi; and stock or stock options for Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk. CR reports institutional funding from Pfizer and U54; consulting fees from Archer, Bayer, Boston Pharm, CEA, Daiichi Sankyo, EMD Serono, Eisai, General Dynamics, Genzyme, Inivata, Janssen, Medstar, Mirati, Novartis, Regeneron, and Sanofi; honoraria from AstraZeneca, COR2ED, Intellisphere, MSD, Physicians’ Education Resource, and Roche; and leadership roles with the European Society for Medical Oncology, Elsevier, the European School of Oncology, the International Society of Liquid Biopsy, and the IASLC. WA reports institutional grants from AstraZeneca and Bristol-Myers Squibb. CL reports research funding from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Fujifilm, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inovio, Merck, Oncocyte, Takeda, and Trizell, consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer lngelheim, Genentech/Roche, Gilead, GSK, Merck, Mirati, Novocure, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi-Aventis, and Takeda; participation on a safety monitoring board or advisory board for Amgen, OncocyteDX, the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group Foundation, and the Veterans Administration; and received medical writing support from Novartis. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)