Search

Introduction: Anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) fusions identify a limited subset of non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients, whose therapeutic approach have been radically changed in recent years. However, diagnostic procedures and clinical-radiological responses to specific targeted therapies remain heterogeneous and intrinsically resistant or poor responder patients exist. Methods: A total of 290 patients with advanced NSCLC defined as ALK+ by immunohistochemistry (IHC) and/or fluorescent in situ hybridisation (FISH) test and treated with single or sequential multiple ALK inhibitors (ALKi) from 2011 to 2017 have been retrospectively retrieved from a multicentre Italian cancer network database. In 55 patients with enough leftover tumour tissue, specimens were analysed with both targeted and customised next generation sequencing panels. Identified fusion variants have been correlated with clinical outcomes. Results: Of the 55 patients, 24 received crizotinib as first-line therapy, 1 received ceritinib, while 30 received chemotherapy. Most of the patients (64%) received ALKi in sequence. An ALK fusion variant was identified in 73% of the cases, being V3 variant (E6A20) the most frequent, followed by V1 (E13A20) and more rare ones (e.g. E6A19). In three specimens, four new EML4-ALK fusion breakpoints have been reported. Neither fusion variants nor brain metastases were significantly associated with overall survival (OS), while it was predictably longer in patients receiving a sequence of ALKi. The presence of V1 variant was associated with progression-free survival (PFS) improvement when crizotinib was used (p = 0.0073), while it did not affect cumulative PFS to multiple ALKi. Conclusion: Outcomes to sequential ALKi administration were not influenced by fusion variants. Nevertheless, in V1+ patients a prolonged clinical benefit was observed. Fusion variant identification by NGS technology may add relevant information about rare chromosomal events that could be pot

Constitutional BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants (PVs) are associated with an increased risk for developing breast and ovarian cancers. Current evidence indicates that BRCA1/2 PVs are also associated with pancreatic cancer, and that BRCA2 PVs are associated with prostate cancer risk. The identification of carriers of constitutional PVs in the BRCA1/2 genes allows the implementation of individual and family prevention pathways, through validated screening programs and risk-reducing strategies. According to the relevant and increasing therapeutic predictive implications, the inclusion of BRCA testing in the routine management of patients with breast, ovarian, pancreatic and prostate cancers represent a key requirement to optimize medical or surgical therapeutic and prevention decision-making, and access to specific anticancer therapies. Therefore, accurate patient selection, the use of standardized and harmonized procedures, and adherence to homogeneous testing criteria, are essential elements to implement BRCA testing in clinical practice. This consensus position paper has been developed and approved by a multidisciplinary Expert Panel of 64 professionals on behalf of the AIOM–AIRO–AISP–ANISC–AURO–Fondazione AIOM–SIAPEC/IAP–SIBioC–SICO–SIF–SIGE–SIGU–SIU–SIURO–UROP Italian Scientific Societies, and a patient association (aBRCAdaBRA Onlus). The working group included medical, surgical and radiation oncologists, medical and molecular geneticists, clinical molecular biologists, surgical and molecular pathologists, organ specialists such as gynecologists, gastroenterologists and urologists, and pharmacologists. The manuscript is based on the expert consensus and reports the best available evidence, according to the current eligibility criteria for BRCA testing and counseling, it also harmonizes with current Italian National Guidelines and Clinical Recommendations.

IMPORTANCE: New dosing options for immune checkpoint inhibitors have recently been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), including fixed dosing with extended intervals. Although the dose intensity appears the same, there is expected to be some waste with extended-interval dosing, as some drug remains in the bloodstream once a decision to stop treatment is made. The economic impact of extended-interval fixed dosing is unknown compared with standard-interval fixed dosing. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the potential health care costs of using extended-interval fixed dosing instead of standard-interval fixed dosing. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This economic evaluation used a pharmacoeconomic model to simulate 2 cohorts of patients with platinum-resistant metastatic urothelial cancer receiving pembrolizumab as second-line therapy at different dosing intervals using 2020 pricing data. Data were analyzed from 2020 to 2022. EXPOSURES: The simulated patients received FDA-approved regimens of either 200 mg every 3 weeks or 400 mg every 6 weeks. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The progression-free survival curve from the KEYNOTE-045 trial was used to estimate treatment duration. Drug, imaging, and administration costs were included in analyses. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess how different imaging frequencies would affect the model results. The potential overall costs of using the 2 different dosing strategies were assessed. The base case was set in the US, while sensitivity analyses were set in several other countries. RESULTS: In the base case analysis, dosing every 6 weeks instead of every 3 weeks resulted in an estimated 8.9% increase in pembrolizumab costs for the health care payer. Accounting for a decrease in infusion costs would result in an estimated net additional cost of $7483 per patient in the US (7.9% cost increase). In the US, this would amount to an increase of approximately $28 million annually for health care payers. Similar percenta

Background: When treating potentially resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma, therapeutic decisions are left to the sensibility of treating clinicians who, faced with a decision that post hoc can be proven wrong, may feel a sense of regret that they want to avoid. A regret-based decision model was applied to evaluate attitudes to-ward neoadjuvant therapy versus upfront surgery for potentially resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma.Methods: Three clinical scenarios describing high-, intermediate-, and low-risk disease-specific mortality after upfront surgery were presented to 60 respondents (20 oncologists, 20 gastroenterologists, and 20 surgeons). Respondents were asked to report their regret of omission and commission regarding neo-adjuvant chemotherapy on a scale between 0 (no regret) and 100 (maximum regret). The threshold model and a multilevel mixed regression were applied to analyze respondents' attitudes toward neo-adjuvant therapy.Results: The lowest regret of omission was elicited in the low-risk scenario, and the highest regret in the high-risk scenario (P < .001). The regret of the commission was diametrically opposite to the regret of omission (P < .001). The disease-specific threshold mortality at which upfront surgery is favored over the neoadjuvant therapy progressively decreased from the low-risk to the high-risk scenarios (P <=.001). The nonsurgeons working in or with lower surgical volume centers (P = .010) and surgeons (P = .018) accepted higher disease-specific mortality after upfront surgery, which resulted in the lower likelihood of adopting neoadjuvant therapy.Conclusion: Regret drives decision making in the management of pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Being a surgeon or a specialist working in surgical centers with lower patient volumes reduces the likelihood of recommending neoadjuvant therapy.(c) 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Background: The open-label, single-arm, multicenter ORZORA trial (NCT02476968) evaluated the efficacy and safety of maintenance olaparib in patients with platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer (PSR OC) who had tumor BRCA mutations (BRCAm) of germline (g) or somatic (s) origin or non-BRCA homologous recombination repair mutations (HRRm) and were in response to their most recent platinum-based chemotherapy after ≥2 lines of treatment. Methods: Patients received maintenance olaparib capsules (400 mg twice daily) until disease progression. Prospective central testing at screening determined tumor BRCAm status and subsequent testing determined gBRCAm or sBRCAm status. Patients with predefined non-BRCA HRRm were assigned to an exploratory cohort. The co-primary endpoints were investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS; modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors v1.1) in BRCAm and sBRCAm cohorts. Secondary endpoints included health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and tolerability. Results: 177 patients received olaparib. At the primary data cut-off (17 April 2020), the median follow-up for PFS in the BRCAm cohort was 22.3 months. The median PFS (95% CI) in BRCAm, sBRCAm, gBRCAm and non-BRCA HRRm cohorts was 18.0 (14.3-22.1), 16.6 (12.4-22.2), 19.3 (14.3-27.6) and 16.4 (10.9-19.3) months, respectively. Most patients with BRCAm reported improvements (21.8%) or no change (68.7%) in HRQoL and the safety profile was as expected. Conclusions: Maintenance olaparib had similar clinical activity in PSR OC patients with sBRCAm and those with any BRCAm. Activity was also observed in patients with a non-BRCA HRRm. ORZORA further supports use of maintenance olaparib in all patients with BRCA-mutated, including sBRCA-mutated, PSR OC.

Background: Low grade serous carcinoma of the ovary and peritoneum (LGSC) is characterized by low response rates to chemotherapy and by MAPK pathway alterations. Phase II/III clinical trials tested different MEK inhibitors (MEKis) in this complex malignancy, with heterogenous results. Purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to define activity and efficacy of these agents and explore differences in clinical outcomes related to RAS/RAF mutational status. Methods: In March 2022, we searched Pubmed, Web of Science, Scopus, and the major conference proceedings (ASCO, ESMO) for randomized and non-randomized clinical trials evaluating MEKi as single agent in recurrent LGSC. The screening was performed independently by two reviewers. Objective response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS) data were extracted, and RevMan 5.3 software was used for statistical analysis. Results: A total of 4 clinical trials involving 648 patients were included. In the intention-to-treat population, use of a MEK inhibitor was not associated with a significant improvement in PFS, with a pooled Hazard Ratio equal to 0.75 (95 % CI: 0.30 – 1.86, P = 0.54). Heterogeneity was significant (I2 = 92 %; P = 0.0004). In the overall study population, the pooled odds ratio of ORR for MEKis compared to control treatment was 2.61 (95 % CI: 0.65 – 10.54, P = 0.18). Specifically, ORR was 20.12 % in patients treated with MEKis compared to 9.09 % in women receiving standard treatment. Heterogeneity was significant (I2 = 85 %; P = 0.009). Conclusions: Although no statistically significant improvement in PFS was demonstrated, the available data show clear signals of activity, at least for some MEKis.