Search

BACKGROUND: The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO)-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (MCBS) has been accepted as a robust tool to evaluate the magnitude of clinical benefit reported in trials for oncological therapies. However, the ESMO-MCBS hitherto has only been validated for solid tumours. With the rapid development of novel therapies for haematological malignancies, we aimed to develop an ESMO-MCBS version that is specifically designed and validated for haematological malignancies. METHODS: ESMO and the European Hematology Association (EHA) initiated a collaboration to develop a version for haematological malignancies (ESMO-MCBS:H). The process incorporated five landmarks: field testing of the ESMO-MCBS version 1.1 (v1.1) to identify shortcomings specific to haematological diseases, drafting of the ESMO-MCBS:H forms, peer review and revision of the draft based on re-scoring (resulting in a second draft), assessment of reasonableness of the scores generated, final review and approval by ESMO and EHA including executive boards. RESULTS: Based on the field testing results of 80 haematological trials and extensive review for feasibility and reasonableness, five amendments to ESMO-MCBS were incorporated in the ESMO-MCBS:H addressing the identified shortcomings. These concerned mainly clinical trial endpoints that differ in haematology versus solid oncology and the very indolent nature of nevertheless incurable diseases such as follicular lymphoma, which hampers presentation of mature data. In addition, general changes incorporated in the draft version of the ESMO-MCBS v2 were included, and specific forms for haematological malignancies generated. Here we present the final approved forms of the ESMO-MCBS:H, including instructions. CONCLUSION: The haematology-specific version ESMO-MCBS:H allows now full applicability of the scale for evaluating the magnitude of clinical benefit derived from clinical studies in haematological malignancies.

Introduction: Clinical and laboratory parameters associated with response for patients with advanced pre-treated malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) are lacking. We aimed to identify prognostic and predictive markers among patients with relapsed MPM who were randomised into the ETOP 9–15 PROMISE-meso phase III trial, evaluating pembrolizumab and chemotherapy. Methods: Baseline clinical and laboratory parameters were investigated for prognostic or predictive value on progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in a retrospective analysis, based on the full cohort of 144 MPM patients. These consisted of immune-inflammatory indexes (neutrophil–lymphocyte ratio [NLR], systemic immune-inflammatory index [SII], lactate dehydrogenase [LDH]) along with other already known prognostic baseline characteristics and laboratory values. Cut-offs were chosen independently of outcome. Based on Cox multivariable analysis for PFS in the whole cohort, a risk factor model was built to illustrate the prognostic stratification of patients by the combination of the derived independent prognostic factors, taking into account the EORTC score, a validated prognostic score in MPM. All models were stratified by histology and adjusted by treatment. Results: In the stratified multivariable analysis in the whole cohort, high SII (hazard ratio (HR) 2.06; 95%CI 1.39–3.05) and low haemoglobin (HR 1.62; 95%CI 1.06–2.50) were associated with worse PFS. Based on these two prognostic factors, a mesothelioma risk score (MRS) was constructed with three PFS risk prognosis categories: favourable, intermediate and poor with 0, 1 and 2 risk factors, respectively (corresponding percent of cohort: 24%, 34% and 42% and median PFS: 5.8, 4.2 and 2.1 months). The derived MRS stratified the prognosis for PFS and OS, overall and within each of the EORTC groups. No significant predictors of treatment benefit were identified. Conclusions: The proposed MRS is prognostic of patient outcome and it fine-tunes the prognosis of patients with pre-treated MPM alone or when used with the already established EORTC score. © 2022

Background: While osimertinib, a third-generation epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) is the standard treatment in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with sensitising EGFR and acquired T790M mutations, progression inevitably occurs. The angiogenic pathway is implicated in EGFR TKI resistance. Patients and methods: BOOSTER is an open-label randomised phase II trial investigating the efficacy and safety of combined osimertinib 80 mg daily and bevacizumab 15 mg/kg every 3 weeks, versus osimertinib alone, in patients with EGFR-mutant advanced NSCLC and acquired T790M mutations after failure on previous EGFR TKI therapy. Primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR) and adverse events (AEs). Results: Between May 2017 and February 2019, 155 patients were randomised (combination: 78; osimertinib: 77). At data cut-off of 22 February 2021, median follow-up was 33.8 months [interquartile range (IQR): 26.5-37.6 months] and 129 (83.2%) PFS events were reported in the intention-to-treat population. There was no difference in median PFS between the combination [15.4 months; 95% confidence interval (CI) 9.2-18.0 months] and osimertinib arm (12.3 months; 95% CI 6.2-17.2 months; stratified log-rank P = 0.83), [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.96; 95% CI 0.68-1.37]. Median OS was 24.0 months (95% CI 17.8- 32.1 months) in the combination arm and 24.3 months (95% CI 16.9-37.0 months) in the osimertinib arm (stratified log-rank P = 0.91), (HR = 1.03; 95% CI 0.67-1.56). Exploratory analysis revealed a significant interaction of smoking history with treatment for PFS (adjusted P = 0.0052) with a HR of 0.52 (95% CI 0.30-0.90) for smokers, and 1.47 (95% CI 0.92-2.33) for never smokers. ORR was 55% in both arms and the median time to treatment failure was significantly shorter in the combination than in the osimertinib arm, 8.2 months versus 10.8 months, respectively (P = 0.0074). Safety of osimertinib and bevacizumab was consistent with previous reports with grade >= 3 treatment-related AEs (TRAEs) reported in 47% and 18% of patients on combination and osimertinib alone, respectively. Conclusions: No difference in PFS was observed between osimertinib plus bevacizumab and osimertinib alone. Grade >= 3 TRAEs were more common in patients on combination.

BACKGROUND: Anti-PD-(L)1 therapy alone (cancer immunotherapy [CIT]-mono) or combined with platinum-based chemotherapy (CIT-chemo) is used as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Our study compared clinical outcomes with CIT-mono vs CIT-chemo in the specific clinical scenario of non-squamous (Nsq)-NSCLC with a high PD-L1 expression of ≥50\% (tumor proportion score (TPS) or tumor cells (TC)). METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study using a real-world de-identified database. Patients with metastatic Nsq-NSCLC with high PD-L1 expression initiating first-line CIT-mono or CIT-chemo between 24 October 2016 and 28 February 2019 were followed up to 28 February 2020. We compared overall survival (OS) and real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS) using Kaplan-Meier methodology. Hazard ratios (HR) were adjusted (aHR) for differences in baseline key prognostic characteristics using inverse probability of treatment weighting methodology. RESULTS: Patients with PD-L1-high Nsq-NSCLC treated with CIT-mono (n=351), were older and less often presented with de novo stage IV disease than patients treated with CIT-chemo (n=169). With a median follow-up of 19.9 months for CIT-chemo vs 23.5 months for CIT-mono, median OS and rwPFS did not differ between the two groups (median OS: CIT-chemo, 21.0 months vs CIT-mono, 22.1 months, aHR=1.03, 95\% CI 0.77-1.39, P=0.83; median rwPFS: CIT-chemo, 10.8 months vs CIT-mono, 11.5 months, aHR=1.04, 95\% CI 0.78-1.37, P=0.81). CIT-chemo showed significant and meaningful improvement in OS and rwPFS vs CIT-mono only in the never-smoker subgroup, albeit among a small sample of patients (n=50; OS HR=0.25, 95\% CI 0.07-0.83, interaction P=0.02; rwPFS HR=0.40, 95\% CI 0.17-0.95, interaction P=0.04). CONCLUSION: Except in the subgroup of never-smoker patients, sparing the chemotherapy in first-line CIT treatment does not appear to impact survival outcomes in Nsq-NSCLC patients with high PD-L1 expression.

With the advent of innovative therapeutics for and the rising costs of cancer management, low-income and middle-income countries face increasing challenges to deliver effective and sustainable health care. Understanding of how countries are selecting and prioritising essential cancer interventions is poor, including in the formulation of policies for essential medicines. We did an in-depth subanalysis from a global dataset of national cancer control plans (NCCPs), aiming to identify possible determinants of inclusion of policies related to essential medicines in the NCCP. The results showed poor global comprehensiveness of NCCPs, and substantial deficits in policies for financial hardships due to cancer care, specifically for access to cancer medicines. Specification of budget allocations, policy of protection from catastrophic health expenditure, and national treatment guidelines in the NCCPs contributed to more consistent policies on essential cancer medicines. The bedrock to deliver effective cancer programmes resides in the assurance of comprehensive, consistent, and coherent policy formulation, to orient resource selection and health investments, ultimately delivering equitable health for all. © 2022 World Health Organization

Background: ESMO COVID-19 and CAncer REgistry (ESMO-CoCARE) is an international collaborative registry-based, cohort study gathering real-world data from Europe, Asia/Oceania and Africa on the natural history, management and outcomes of patients with cancer infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). Patients and methods: ESMO-CoCARE captures information on patients with solid/haematological malignancies, diagnosed with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Data collected since June 2020 include demographics, comorbidities, laboratory measurements, cancer characteristics, COVID-19 clinical features, management and outcome. Parameters influencing COVID-19 severity/recovery were investigated as well as factors associated with overall survival (OS) upon SARS-CoV-2 infection. Results: This analysis includes 1626 patients from 20 countries (87% from 24 European, 7% from 5 North African, 6% from 8 Asian/Oceanian centres), with COVID-19 diagnosis from January 2020 to May 2021. Median age was 64 years, with 52% of female, 57% of cancer stage III/IV and 65% receiving active cancer treatment. Nearly 64% patients required hospitalization due to COVID-19 diagnosis, with 11% receiving intensive care. In multivariable analysis, male sex, older age, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status ≥2, body mass index (BMI)

Background: Concurrent chemotherapy and thoracic radiotherapy followed by prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) is the standard treatment in limited-disease small-cell lung cancer (ID-SCLC), with 5-year overall survival (OS) of only 25% to 33%. Patients and methods: STIMULI is a 1:1 randomised phase II trial aiming to demonstrate superiority of consolidation combination immunotherapy versus observation after chemo-radiotherapy plus PCI (protocol amendment-1). Consolidation immunotherapy consisted of four cycles of nivolumab [1 mg/kg, every three weeks (Q3W)] plus ipilimumab (3 mg/kg, Q3W), followed by nivolumab monotherapy (240 mg, Q2W) for up to 12 months. Patient recruitment dosed prematurely due to slow accrual and the statistical analyses plan was updated to address progression-free survival (PFS) as the only primary endpoint. Results: Of the 222 patients enrolled, 153 were randomised (78: experimental; 75: observation). Among the randomised patients, median age was 62 years, 60% males, 34%/65% current/former smokers, 31%/66% performance status (PS) 0/1. Up to 25 May 2020 (median follow-up 22.4 months), 40 PFS events were observed in the experimental arm, with median PFS 10.7 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 7.0-not estimable (NE)] versus 42 events and median 14.5 months (8.2-NE) in the observation, hazard ratio (HR) = 1.02 (0.66-1.58), two-sided P = 0.93. With updated follow-up (03 June 2021; median: 35 months), median OS was not reached in the experimental arm, while it was 32.1 months (26.1-NE) in observation, with HR = 0.95 (0.59-1.52), P = 0.82. In the experimental arm, median time-to-treatment-discontinuation was only 1.7 months. CTCAE v4 grade >= 3 adverse events were experienced by 62% of patients in the experimental and 25% in the observation arm, with 4 and 1 fatal, respectively. Conclusions: The STIMULI trial did not meet its primary endpoint of improving PFS with nivolumab-ipilimumab consolidation after chemo-radiotherapy in LD-SCLC. A short period on active treatment related to toxicity and treatment discontinuation likely affected the efficacy results.

OBJECTIVE: Value frameworks in oncology have not been validated for the assessment of treatments in haematological malignancies, but to avoid overlaps and duplications it appears reasonable to build up experience on existing value frameworks, such as the European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS).METHODS: Here we present the results of the first feasibility testing of the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 for haematological malignancies based on the grading of 80 contemporary studies for acute leukaemia, chronic leukaemia, lymphoma, myeloma and myelodysplastic syndromes. The aims were (1) to evaluate the scorability of data, (2) to evaluate the reasonableness of the generated grades for clinical benefit using the current version and (3) to identify shortcomings in the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 that require amendments to improve the efficacy and validity of the scale in grading new treatments in the management of haematological malignancies.RESULTS: In general, the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 was found to be widely applicable to studies in haematological malignancies, generating scores that were judged as reasonable by European Hematology Association (EHA) experts. A small number of studies could either not be graded or were not appropriately graded. The reasons, related to the differences between haematological and solid tumour malignancies, are identified and described.CONCLUSIONS: Based on the findings of this study, ESMO and EHA are committed to develop a version of the ESMO-MCBS that is validated for haematological malignancies. This development process will incorporate all of the usual stringencies for accountability of reasonableness that have characterised the development of the ESMO-MCBS including field testing, statistical modelling, evaluation for reasonableness and openness to appeal and revision. Applying such a scale will support future public policy decision-making regarding the value of new treatments for haematological malignancies and will provide insights that could be helpful in the design of future clinical trials.