Search

Background: Immune checkpoint-inhibitors (ICIs) are changing outcomes in different cancer settings, notably for patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). There are, however, still important gaps of evidence for clinical practice when using these novel treatments. In this study, we assessed physicians' opinion and experience on challenges for clinical practice with ICIs monotherapy in NSCLC. Methods: A survey was conducted on experienced physicians treating patients with NSCLC with ICIs. Two rounds of pilot tests were carried out for validation among a group of experts. Topics under analysis were in relation to treatment of elderly populations, performance status, brain metastases, use of steroids or antibiotics, the effects of gut microbiome, autoimmune diseases, human immunodeficiency virus infection, solid organ transplants, use of anti-programmed cell death protein 1 versus anti-programmed death-ligand 1 drugs, atypical tumour responses, predictors of response, duration of treatment and a final open question on additional relevant challenges. Results: Two hundred and twenty-one answers were collected, including 106 (48%) valid answers from experts for final analysis (physicians who have treated at least 20 patients with NSCLC with ICIs). The vast majority agreed that the selected topics in this study are important challenges ahead and more evidence is needed. Moreover, predictors of response, treating brain metastasis, shorter duration of treatment, the effects of gut microbiome and concomitant use of steroids were voted the most important topics to be further addressed in prospective clinical research. Conclusions: This survey contributed to understanding which are the main challenges for clinical practice with ICIs monotherapy in NSCLC. It can also contribute to guide further clinical research, considering the opinions and experience of those who regularly treat NSCLC patients with ICIs. info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion

Simple Summary Prostate cancer is one of the most frequent and impacting malignant neoplasms for men. In particular, localized prostate cancer has a notably high incidence and prevalence, despite which a solid consensus on treatment and procedure of care has not yet been reached. This article aims to shed light on this challenge by characterizing the economic burden and cost-effectiveness of different treatment strategies for localized prostate cancer after analyzing published comparable data from studies conducted in OECD countries. Prostate cancer has huge health and societal impacts, and there is no clear consensus on the most effective and efficient treatment strategy for this disease, particularly for localized prostate cancer. We have reviewed the scientific literature describing the economic burden and cost-effectiveness of different treatment strategies for localized prostate cancer in OECD countries. We initially identified 315 articles, studying 13 of them in depth (those that met the inclusion criteria), comparing the social perspectives of cost, time period, geographical area, and severity. The economic burden arising from prostate cancer due to losses in productivity and increased caregiver load is noticeable, but clinical decision-making is carried out with more subjective variability than would be advisable. The direct cost of the intervention was the main driver for the treatment of less severe cases of prostate cancer, whereas for more severe cases, the most important determinant was the loss in productivity. Newer, more affordable radiotherapy strategies may play a crucial role in the future treatment of early prostate cancer. The interpretation of our results depends on conducting thorough sensitivity analyses. This approach may help better understand parameter uncertainty and the methodological choices discussed in health economics studies. Future results of ongoing clinical trials that are considering genetic characteristics in assessing treatment response of patients with localized prostate cancer may shed new light on important clinical and pharmacoeconomic decisions.

BackgroundAs management and prevention strategies against COVID-19 evolve, it is still uncertain whether prior exposure to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) affects COVID-19 severity in patients with cancer.MethodsIn a joint analysis of ICI recipients from OnCovid (NCT04393974) and European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) CoCARE registries, we assessed severity and mortality from SARS-CoV-2 in vaccinated and unvaccinated patients with cancer and explored whether prior immune-related adverse events (irAEs) influenced outcome from COVID-19.FindingsThe study population consisted of 240 patients diagnosed with COVID-19 between January 2020 and February 2022 exposed to ICI within 3 months prior to COVID-19 diagnosis, with a 30-day case fatality rate (CFR30) of 23.6% (95% CI 17.8 to 30.7%). Overall, 42 (17.5%) were fully vaccinated prior to COVID-19 and experienced decreased CFR30(4.8% vs 28.1%, p=0.0009), hospitalization rate (27.5% vs 63.2%, pOverall, 38 patients (15.8%) experienced at least one irAE of any grade at any time prior to COVID-19, at a median time of 3.2 months (range 0.13–48.7) from COVID-19 diagnosis. IrAEs occurred independently of baseline characteristics except for primary tumor (p=0.0373) and were associated with a significantly decreased CFR30(10.8% vs 26.0%, p=0.0462) additionally confirmed by the IPTW-fitted multivariable analysis (aOR 0.47, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.67). Patients who experienced irAEs also presented a higher median absolute lymphocyte count at COVID-19 (1.4 vs 0.8 109 cells/L, p=0.0098).ConclusionAnti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination reduces morbidity and mortality from COVID-19 in ICI recipients. History of irAEs might identify patients with pre-existing protection from COVID-19, warranting further investigation of adaptive immune determinants of protection from SARS-CoV-2.

The COVID-19 pandemic affected millions of people globally with lasting effects on society, patients, investigators and health institutions. Clinical trials, our best tool to improve cancer treatment for patients through testing the clinical value of a new treatment, have been affected by the pandemic. The pandemic footprint represents both a risk of compromising development of new therapies and an opportunity to elicit discussion over a portfolio of broader reforms, applicable irrespective of pandemics, in order to improve the design and implementation of clinical trials in oncology. The administrative load should be reduced, without affecting the quality of research and principles of good clinical practice. Cancer centres are encouraged to adapt their research/operational structures to the requirements of molecular oncology and embrace novel trial designs. Technological and methodological leaps in telemedicine can convert physical to virtual visits while routine examinations may be performed in local institutions (co-research centres), maintaining adherence to good clinical and research practices. The adoption of broader inclusion criteria and clinically significant endpoints (survival, quality of life) should be promoted, co-existing with pathways for fast-track “conditional” drug approvals in areas of unmet need, based on surrogate endpoints that are linked to strict post-approval validation requirements. The utility of Real World Data as part of these validation requirements should be actively investigated. Lessons learnt from the SARS Cov2 pandemic can be developed in order to expand equitable access to clinical trials of a real world population, in a simplified and methodologically robust modus operandi, for the benefit of all our patients.