Search

Sai-Hong Ignatius Ou,1 Xiuning Le,2 Misako Nagasaka,1 Thanyanan Reungwetwattana,3 Myung-Ju Ahn,4 Darren WT Lim,5 Edgardo S Santos,6 Elaine Shum,7 Sally CM Lau,7 Jii Bum Lee,8 Antonio Calles,9 Fengying Wu,10 Gilberto Lopes,11 Virote Sriuranpong,12 Junko Tanizaki,13 Hidehito Horinouchi,14 Marina C Garassino,15 Sanjay Popat,16 Benjamin Besse,17 Rafael Rosell,18 Ross A Soo19 1University of California Irvine School of Medicine, Chao Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, Orange, CA, USA; 2University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA; 3Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand; 4Department of Hematology and Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea; 5Duke-NUS School of medicine, National Cancer Center Singapore, Republic of Singapore; 6Charles E. Schmidt College of Medicine, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL, 33431, USA; 7NYU Langone Perlmutter Cancer Center, NY, NY, USA; 8Yonsei Cancer Center Yonsei University, Seoul, Republic of Korea; 9Department of Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology, Early Drug Development and Phase I Unit, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, 28007, Spain; 10Shanghai Chest hospital, Tongji University School of Medicine, Shanghai, People’s Republic of China; 11Department of Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Miami and the Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL, 33136, USA; 12Chulalongkorn University, King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand; 13Department of Medicine, Kindai University School of Medicine, Osaka, Japan; 14Department of Thoracic Oncology, National Cancer Center Hospital Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan; 15Department of Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology-Hematology, University of Chicago Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA; 16Royal Marsden Hospital, London, Imperial College, London, UK; 17Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus, Villejuif, France; Paris-Saclay University, Orsay, France; 18Department of Hematology-Oncology, National University Cancer Institute, National University Hospital Singapore, Republic of Singapore; 19IOR, Quirón-Dexeus University Institute; ICO, Catalan Institute of Oncology; IGTP, Germans Trias i Pujol Research Institute, Barcelona, SpainCorrespondence: Sai-Hong Ignatius Ou, University of California School of Medicine, Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology-Oncology, Chao Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, 200 South Manchester Avenue, Suite 400, Orange, CA, 92868, USA, Tel +1 714-456-5153, Fax +1 714-456-2242, Email Siou@hs.uci.eduAbstract: The year 2024 is the 20th anniversary of the discovery of activating epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Since then, tremendous advances have been made in the treatment of NSCLC based on this discovery. Some of these studies have led to seismic changes in the concept of oncology research and spurred treatment advances beyond NSCLC, leading to a current true era of precision oncology for all solid tumors. We now routinely molecularly profile all tumor types and even plasma samples of patients with NSCLC for multiple actionable driver mutations, independent of patient clinical characteristics nor is profiling limited to the advanced incurable stage. We are increasingly monitoring treatment responses and detecting resistance to targeted therapy by using plasma genotyping. Furthermore, we are now profiling early-stage NSCLC for appropriate adjuvant targeted treatment leading to an eventual potential “cure” in early-stage EGFR+ NSCLC which have societal implication on implementing lung cancer screening in never-smokers as most EGFR+ NSCLC patients are never-smokers. All these advances were unfathomable in 2004 when the five papers that described “discoveries” of activating EGFR mutations (del19, L858R, exon 20 insertions, and “uncommon” mutations) were published. To commemorate this 20th anniversary, we assembled a global panel of thoracic medical oncology experts to select the top 20 papers (publications or congress presentation) from the 20 years since this seminal discovery with December 31, 2023 as the cutoff date for inclusion of papers to be voted on. Papers ranked 21 to 30 were considered “honorable mention” and also annotated. Our objective is that these 30 papers with their annotations about their impact and even all the ranked papers will serve as “syllabus” for the education of future thoracic oncology trainees. Finally, we mentioned potential practice-changing clinical trials to be reported. One of them, LAURA was published online on June 2, 2024 was not included in the list of papers to be voted on but will surely be highly ranked if this consensus survery is performed again on the 25th anniversay of the discovery EGFR mutations (i.e. top 25 papers on the 25 years since the discovery of activating EGFR mutations).Keywords: EGFR mutations, expert panel, top 20 papers, 20th anniversary, NSCLC

María Presa,1 David Vicente,2 Antonio Calles,3 Laura Salinas-Ortega,1 Jaesh Naik,4 Luis F García,5 Javier Soto6 1Health Economics, Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Iberia (PORIB), Madrid, Spain; 2Medical Oncology Department, Hospital Universitario Virgen de Macarena, Sevilla, Spain; 3Medical Oncology Department, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañon, Madrid, Spain; 4Health Economics, BresMed Health Solutions, Sheffield, UK; 5Oncology Medical, Pfizer, Madrid, Spain; 6Health Economics & Outcomes Research, Pfizer, Madrid, SpainCorrespondence: María Presa, Pº Joaquín Rodrigo 4- letra I, Pozuelo de Alarcón, Madrid, 28224, Spain, Tel +34 917 157 147, Email mpresa@porib.comPurpose: The objective of the present study was to evaluate the efficiency of lorlatinib compared to alectinib and brigatinib for the treatment of adult patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) previously not treated, in Spain.Methods: A partitioned survival model comprised progression free, non-intracranial progression, intracranial progression, and death health states was constructed to estimate the total costs, life-years gained (LYG) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) accumulated in a lifetime horizon. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) for lorlatinib were obtained from the CROWN study. For alectinib and brigatinib, a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was conducted to estimate OS and PFS hazard ratios versus crizotinib. Utilities were estimated based on EQ-5D-5L data derived from the CROWN (lorlatinib), ALEX (alectinib) and ALTA-1L (brigatinib) studies. According to the Spanish National Health Service perspective the total costs (expressed in euros using a 2021 cost year) included drug acquisition and the administration’s subsequent treatment, ALK+ advanced NSCLC management and adverse-event management, and palliative care. Unitary costs were obtained from local cost databases and literature. Costs, LYGs and QALYs were discounted at 3% annually. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to test the model’s robustness.Results: Lorlatinib provided higher health outcomes (+0.70 LYG/patient, +1.42 QALYs/patient) and lower costs (-€ 9239/patient) than alectinib. Lorlatinib yielded higher LYG (+1.74) and QALYs (+2.30) versus brigatinib but higher costs/patient (+€ 36,627), resulting in an incremental-cost-effectiveness-ratio of € 15,912/QALY gained.Conclusion: The results of this study suggest that lorlatinib may be a dominant treatment option versus alectinib. Considering a willingness-to-pay threshold of € 25,000/QALY, lorlatinib may be an efficient option compared to brigatinib.Keywords: advanced non-small cell lung cancer, lorlatinib, ALK+, cost-effectiveness analysis, cost-utility analysis

Monoclonal antibody therapeutics to treat coronavirus disease (COVID-19) have been authorized by the US Food and Drug Administration under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). Many barriers exist when deploying a novel therapeutic during an ongoing pandemic, and it is critical to assess the needs of incorporating monoclonal antibody infusions into pandemic response activities. We examined the monoclonal antibody infusion site process during the COVID-19 pandemic and conducted a descriptive analysis using data from 3 sites at medical centers in the United States supported by the National Disaster Medical System. Monoclonal antibody implementation success factors included engagement with local medical providers, therapy batch preparation, placing the infusion center in proximity to emergency services, and creating procedures resilient to EUA changes. Infusion process challenges included confirming patient severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) positivity, strained staff, scheduling, and pharmacy coordination. Infusion sites are effective when integrated into pre-existing pandemic response ecosystems and can be implemented with limited staff and physical resources.

Basic science courses, such as physics, are fundamental to precollege studies. For instance, in different engineering applications, electricity and magnetism require comprehending subjects such as electrical circuits and power electronics. However, abstract concepts such as electric or magnetic fields are often difficult to explain without visual tools. Computer programs designed for learning physics fundamentals are useful in this area because they allow the visualization, interaction and reinforcement of main concepts in a better way than using only blackboard. In this work, an interactive MATLAB based program to visualize a magnetic field in 3D was presented. The measurements were sampled by a computer-controlled Cartesian robot with a Hall effect sensor. The magnetic field was generated by an energized electromagnet to show the relationship between electricity and magnetism. The designed graphical user interface aims to stimulate interest in electromagnetism in precollege students.

Introduction: Safety concerns surrounding the coronavirus 2019 pandemic led to the prohibition of student rotations outside their home institutions. This resulted in emergency medicine (EM)- bound students having less specialty experience and exposure to outside programs and practice environments, and fewer opportunities to gain additional Standardized Letters of Evaluation, a cornerstone of the EM residency application. We filled this void by implementing a virtual clerkship.Methods: We created a two-week virtual, fourth-year visiting clerkship focused on advanced medical knowledge topics, social determinants of health, professional development, and professional identity formation. Students completed asynchronous assignments and participated in small group-facilitated didactic sessions. We evaluated the virtual clerkship with pre- and post-medical knowledge tests and evaluative surveys.Results: We hosted 26 senior medical students over two administrations of the same two-week virtual clerkship. Students had a statistically significant improvement on the medical knowledge post-tests compared to pre-tests (71.7% [21.5/30] to 76.3% [22.9/30]). Students reported being exposed to social determinants of health concepts they had not previously been exposed to. Students appreciated the interactive nature of the sessions; networking with other students, residents, and faculty; introduction to novel content regarding social determinants of health; and exposure to future career opportunities. Screen time, technological issues, and mismatch between volume of content and time allotted were identified as potential challenges and areas for improvement.Conclusion: We demonstrate that a virtual EM visiting clerkship is feasible to implement, supports knowledge acquisition, and is perceived as valuable by participants. The benefits seen and challenges faced in the development and implementation of our clerkship can serve to inform future virtual clerkships, which we feel is a complement to traditional visiting clerkships even though in-person clerkships have been re-established.

ObjectiveTo determine whether metformin or lifestyle modification can lower rates of all-cause and cause-specific mortality in the Diabetes Prevention Program and Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes Study.Research design and methodsFrom 1996 to 1999, 3,234 adults at high risk for type 2 diabetes were randomized to an intensive lifestyle intervention, masked metformin, or placebo. Placebo and lifestyle interventions stopped in 2001, and a modified lifestyle program was offered to everyone, but unmasked study metformin continued in those originally randomized. Causes of deaths through 31 December 2018 were adjudicated by blinded reviews. All-cause and cause-specific mortality hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated from Cox proportional hazards regression models and Fine-Gray models, respectively.ResultsOver a median of 21 years (interquartile range 20-21), 453 participants died. Cancer was the leading cause of death (n = 170), followed by cardiovascular disease (n = 131). Compared with placebo, metformin did not influence mortality from all causes (HR 0.99 [95% CI 0.79, 1.25]), cancer (HR 1.04 [95% CI 0.72, 1.52]), or cardiovascular disease (HR 1.08 [95% CI 0.70, 1.66]). Similarly, lifestyle modification did not impact all-cause (HR 1.02 [95% CI 0.81, 1.28]), cancer (HR 1.07 [95% CI 0.74, 1.55]), or cardiovascular disease (HR 1.18 [95% CI 0.77, 1.81]) mortality. Analyses adjusted for diabetes status and duration, BMI, cumulative glycemic exposure, and cardiovascular risks yielded results similar to those for all-cause mortality.ConclusionsCancer was the leading cause of mortality among adults at high risk for type 2 diabetes. Although metformin and lifestyle modification prevented diabetes, neither strategy reduced all-cause, cancer, or cardiovascular mortality rates.