Search

Understanding the diversity in cancer research priorities and the correlations among different treatment modalities is essential to address the evolving landscape of oncology. This study, conducted in collaboration with the European Cancer Patient Coalition (ECPC) and Childhood Cancer International-Europe (CCI-E) as part of the “UNCAN.eu” initiative, analyzed data from a comprehensive survey to explore the complex interplay of demographics, time since cancer diagnosis, and types of treatments received. Demographic analysis revealed intriguing trends, highlighting the importance of tailoring cancer research efforts to specific age groups and genders. Individuals aged 45–69 exhibited highly aligned research priorities, emphasizing the need to address the unique concerns of middle-aged and older populations. In contrast, patients over 70 years demonstrated a divergence in research priorities, underscoring the importance of recognising the distinct needs of older individuals in cancer research. The analysis of correlations among different types of cancer treatments underscored the multidisciplinary approach to cancer care, with surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, precision therapy, and biological therapies playing integral roles. These findings support the need for personalized and combined treatment strategies to achieve optimal outcomes. In conclusion, this study provides valuable insights into the complexity of cancer research priorities and treatment correlations in a European context. It emphasizes the importance of a multifaceted, patient-centred approach to cancer research and treatment, highlighting the need for ongoing support, adaptation, and collaboration to address the ever-changing landscape of oncology.

Abstract Introduction To date, lung cancer is one of the most lethal diagnoses worldwide. A variety of lung cancer treatments and modalities are available, which are generally presented during the patient and doctor consultation. The implementation of decision tools to facilitate patient's decision‐making and the management of their healthcare process during medical consultation is fundamental. Studies have demonstrated that decision tools are helpful to promote health management and decision‐making of lung cancer patients during consultations. The main aim of the present work within the I3LUNG project is to systematically review the implementation of decision tools to facilitate medical consultation about oncological treatments for lung cancer patients. Methods In the present study, we conducted a systematic review following the PRISMA guidelines. We used an electronic computer‐based search involving three databases, as follows: Embase, PubMed, and Scopus. 10 articles met the inclusion criteria and were included. They explicitly refer to decision tools in the oncological context, with lung cancer patients. Results The discussion highlights the most encouraging results about the positive role of decision aids during medical consultations about oncological treatments, especially regarding anxiety, decision‐making, and patient knowledge. However, no one main decision aid tool emerged as essential. Opting for a more recent timeframe to select eligible articles might shed light on the current array of decision aid tools available. Conclusion Future review efforts could utilize alternative search strategies to explore other lung cancer‐specific outcomes during medical consultations for treatment decisions and the implementation of decision aid tools. Engaging with experts in the fields of oncology, patient decision‐making, or health communication could provide valuable insights and recommendations for relevant literature or research directions that may not be readily accessible through traditional search methods. The development of guidelines for future research were provided with the aim to promote decision aids focused on patients' needs.

Effective cancer diagnosis, treatment and control depend on interactions among numerous distinct factors, from technology to data to skills to sociology. But a crucial influence is the extent to which the health system takes account of the distinct perspectives of the many different groups of interdependent stakeholders concerned with cancer, including patients, practitioners and planners. This paper provides some elucidation as to how far and how efficiently these interactions currently take place in Europe. It also makes some tentative suggestions as to how conscious systematic interventions could improve cancer outcomes. It is based on a series of expert panels and surveys conducted by the European Alliance for Personalised Medicine (EAPM) that provided information at the national level on three selected parameters: implementation of next-generation sequencing (NGS) and liquid biopsy (LB), attitudes of patients to prevention and practices of sharing genomic data among healthcare professionals (HCPs). The varying data infrastructure highlights the urgent need for substantial improvements to accommodate the increasing importance of genomics data in cancer diagnosis and care. Additionally, we identify disparities in age-specific approaches to cancer prevention, emphasising the necessity for tailored strategies to address unique age group perspectives. Moreover, distinct regional prioritizations in cancer treatment underscore the importance of considering regional variations when shaping future cancer care strategies. This study advocates for collaborative data sharing supported by technological innovation to overcome these challenges, ultimately fostering a holistic and equitable provision of cancer care in Europe.

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) and liquid biopsy (LB) showed positive results in the fight against different cancer types. This paper aims to assess the uptake of advanced molecular diagnostics/NGS for quick and efficient genetic profiles of tumour cells. For that purpose, the European Alliance for Personalised Medicine conducted a series of expert interviews to ascertain the current status across member states. One stakeholder meeting was additionally conducted to prioritize relevant factors by stakeholders. Seven common pillars were identified, and twenty-five measures were defined based on these pillars. Results showed that a multi-faceted approach is necessary for successful NGS implementation and that regional differences may be influenced by healthcare policies, resources, and infrastructure. It is important to consider different correlations when interpreting the results and to use them as a starting point for further discussion.

Improvements in cancer care require a new degree of collaboration beyond the purely medical sphere, extending deeply into the world of other stakeholders—preeminently patients but also the other stakeholders in the hardware and software of care. Cancer remains a global health challenge, necessitating collaborative efforts to understand, prevent, and treat this complex disease. To achieve this goal, a comprehensive analysis was conducted, aligning the prioritization of cancer research measures in 13 European countries with 13 key recommendations for conquering cancer in the region. The study utilized a survey involving both patients and citizens, alongside data from IQVIA, a global healthcare data provider, to assess the availability and access to single-biomarker tests in multiple European countries. The results revealed a focused approach toward understanding, preventing, and treating cancer, with each country emphasizing specific research measures tailored to its strengths and healthcare objectives. This analysis highlights the intricate relationship between research priorities, access to biomarker tests, and financial support. Timely access to tests and increased availability positively influence research areas such as cancer prevention, early detection, ageing, and data utilization. The alignment of these country-specific measures with 13 recommendations for conquering cancer in Europe underscores the importance of tailored strategies for understanding, preventing, and treating cancer.

Background Chemoimmunotherapy represents the standard of care for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)

Introduction: Real-world evidence regarding molecular epidemiology and management patterns of patients with EGFR exon-20 mutated, advanced NSCLC outside the context of clinical trials is lacking. Methods: We created a European registry for patients with advanced EGFR exon 20-mutant NSCLC diagnosed from January 2019 to December 2021. Patients enrolled in clinical trials were excluded. Clinicopathologic and molecular epidemiology data were collected, and treatment patterns were recorded. Clinical end points according to treatment assignment were assessed using Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression models. Results: Data on 175 patients from 33 centers across nine countries were included in the final analysis. Median age was 64.0 (range: 29.7–87.8) years. Main features included female sex (56.3%), never or past smokers (76.0%), adenocarcinoma (95.4%), and tropism for bone (47.4%) and brain (32.0%) metastases. Mean programmed death-ligand 1 tumor proportional score was 15.8% (range: 0%–95%) and mean tumor mutational burden was 7.06 (range: 0–18.8) mutations per megabase. Exon 20 was detected in the tissue (90.7%), plasma (8.7%), or both (0.6%), using mostly targeted next-generation sequencing (64.0%) or polymerase chain reaction (26.0%). Mutations were mainly insertions (59.3%), followed by duplications (28.1%), deletions-insertions (7.7%), and the T790M (4.5%). Insertions and duplications were located mainly in the near loop (codons 767–771, 83.1%) and the far loop (codons 771–775, 13%) and only in 3.9% within the C helix (codons 761–766). Main co-alterations included mutations in TP53 (61.8%) and MET amplifications (9.4%). Treatment on mutation identification included chemotherapy (CT) (33.8%), CT-immunotherapy (IO) (18.2%), osimertinib (22.1%), poziotinib (9.1%), mobocertinib (6.5%), mono-IO (3.9%), and amivantamab (1.3%). Disease control rates were 66.2% with CT plus or minus IO, 55.8% with osimertinib, 64.8% with poziotinib, and 76.9% with mobocertinib. Corresponding median overall survival was 19.7, 15.9, 9.2, and 22.4 months, respectively. In multivariate analysis, type of treatment (new targeted agents versus CT ± IO) affected progression-free survival (p = 0.051) and overall survival (p = 0.03). Conclusions: EXOTIC represents the largest academic real-world evidence data set on EGFR exon 20-mutant NSCLC in Europe. Indirectly compared, treatment with new exon 20-targeting agents is likely to confer survival benefit than CT plus or minus IO.

IntroductionArtificial Intelligence (AI) methods are being increasingly investigated as a means to generate predictive models applicable in the clinical practice. In this study, we developed a model to predict the efficacy of immunotherapy (IO) in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) using eXplainable AI (XAI) Machine Learning (ML) methods.MethodsWe prospectively collected real-world data from patients with an advanced NSCLC condition receiving immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) either as a single agent or in combination with chemotherapy. With regards to six different outcomes - Disease Control Rate (DCR), Objective Response Rate (ORR), 6 and 24-month Overall Survival (OS6 and OS24), 3-months Progression-Free Survival (PFS3) and Time to Treatment Failure (TTF3) - we evaluated five different classification ML models: CatBoost (CB), Logistic Regression (LR), Neural Network (NN), Random Forest (RF) and Support Vector Machine (SVM). We used the Shapley Additive Explanation (SHAP) values to explain model predictions.ResultsOf 480 patients included in the study 407 received immunotherapy and 73 chemo- and immunotherapy. From all the ML models, CB performed the best for OS6 and TTF3, (accuracy 0.83 and 0.81, respectively). CB and LR reached accuracy of 0.75 and 0.73 for the outcome DCR. SHAP for CB demonstrated that the feature that strongly influences models’ prediction for all three outcomes was Neutrophil to Lymphocyte Ratio (NLR). Performance Status (ECOG-PS) was an important feature for the outcomes OS6 and TTF3, while PD-L1, Line of IO and chemo-immunotherapy appeared to be more important in predicting DCR.ConclusionsIn this study we developed a ML algorithm based on real-world data, explained by SHAP techniques, and able to accurately predict the efficacy of immunotherapy in sets of NSCLC patients.

PD-L1 in tumor cells is the only used biomarker for anti PD1/PD-L1 immune-checkpoints inhibitors (ICI) in Non Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) patients. However, this parameter is inaccurate to predict response, especially in patients with low tumor PD-L1. Here, we evaluated circulating EVs as possible biomarkers for ICI in advanced NSCLC patients with low tumoral PD-L1. EVs were isolated from plasma of 64 PD-L1 low, ICI-treated NSCLC patients, classified either as responders (R; complete or partial response by RECIST 1.1) or non-responders (NR). EVs were characterized following MISEV guidelines and by flow cytometry. T cells from healthy donors were triggered in vitro using patients’ EVs. Unsupervised statistical approach was applied to correlate EVs’ and patients’ features to clinical response. R-EVs showed higher levels of tetraspanins (CD9, CD81, CD63) than NR-EVs, significantly associated to better overall response rate (ORR). In multivariable analysis CD81-EVs correlated with ORR. Unsupervised analysis revealed a cluster of variables on EVs, including tetraspanins, significantly associated with ORR and improved survival. R-EVs expressed more costimulatory molecules than NR-EVs although both increased T cell proliferation and partially, activation. Tetraspanins levels on EVs could represent promising biomarkers for ICI response in NSCLC.

Abstract Patients with non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and uncommon epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation are characterized by high heterogeneity, and globally considered to have a worse prognosis than patients with the two common mutations; exon 19 deletion, and exon 21 L858R. Nevertheless, some uncommon mutations do confer sensitivity to tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) which is comparable with common mutations. In particular, some compound EGFR mutations seem to be characterized by a favorable prognosis. Unfortunately, the rarity of complex EGFR mutations results in difficult clinical decision‐making. Herein, to the best of our knowledge, we report the first case of an NSCLC patient with an EGFR triple mutation containing T785A/L861Q/H297_E298 who was successfully treated with afatinib.

Among the several next-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) tested against uncommon EFGR alterations, poziotinib has been demonstrated to be a powerful agent for metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) with aberrations in HER2 exon 20, and FDA approval is being sought in the previously-treated population. Poziotinib has also shown activity in mNSCLC with aberrations in EGFR exon 20. Herein, we report the first published case of a patient affected by mNSCLC harbouring an EGFR exon 20 insertion (EGFRex20ins) mutation who achieved a complete response (CR) under treatment with poziotinib as part of the ZENITH20 trial. In January 2021, a former smoker 62-year-old female patient was diagnosed with relapse, after two surgeries and post-operative chemotherapy of mNSCLC, at liver and retroperitoneal nodes. Given the identification by Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) of EGFRex20ins mutation, she was enrolled in ZENITH20-cohort 5 trial, a phase 2 multicentre study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of poziotinib in patients with EGFR or HER2 exon 20 insertion mutations. Poziotinib as first-line systemic therapy for metastatic disease was initiated at the end of January 2021 and administrated at the initial dosage of 8 mg orally twice daily (BID). The most common side effects from the beginning of the treatment included alopecia, macular skin rash, diarrhoea, xerostomia, and conjunctivitis. Due to these adverse events, poziotinib was discontinued during the first 3 months and then reduced to 6 mg orally BID in April 2021. After the dose de-escalation, the adverse events ameliorated, and the patient better tolerated the treatment without further interruption. Since the first reevaluation (after 4 weeks of therapy), the treatment with poziotinib resulted to be remarkably effective, with a partial response (PR) subsequently confirmed in May and July 2021. Then, in October 2021, a CT scan confirmed a CR, maintained with good tolerance at the last reevaluation in February 2022. Treatment is still ongoing at the same dosage. In this case, poziotinib has represented a successful and well-tolerated first-line treatment alternative to chemotherapy in this patient with EGFR exon 20 insertion mutated mNSCLC.

Abstract Background Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a rare cancer with a poor prognosis. Centralization of rare cancer in dedicated centers is recommended to ensure expertise, multidisciplinarity and access to innovation. In Italy, expert centers for MPM have not been identified in all regions. We aimed to describe the treatment patterns among MPM patients across different Italian regions and to identify factors associated with the treatment patterns across the regions. Methods We performed an observational study on a random sample of 2026 MPM patients diagnosed in 2003–2008. We included 26 population‐based registries covering 70% of the Italian population. To identify factors associated with treatment patterns, across the different regions, we fitted a multinomial logistic regression model adjusted by age, sex, stage, histology and hospital with thoracic surgical department. Results MPM patients mostly received chemotherapy alone (41%) or no cancer‐directed therapy (36%) especially the older patients. The first course of treatment for MPM patients differed across regions. Patients from Piedmont, Liguria and Campania were more likely to receive no cancer‐directed therapy; those living in Tuscany and Sicily were more likely to get surgery; patients from Marche and Lazio were more likely to receive chemotherapy. These differences were not explained by age, sex, stage, histology and availability of a thoracic surgery department. Conclusions There is limited expertise available and lack of a network able to maximize the expertise available may contribute to explaining the results of our study. Our findings support the need to ensure the appropriate care of all MPM patients in reorganizing the health care services. Key points Significant findings of the study: MPM patients mostly received chemotherapy alone or no cancer‐directed therapy especially the older patients. The first course of treatment for MPM patients differed across Italian regions. What this study adds: Differences in MPM clinical management are not explained by the age, stage, histology nor by the availability of a thoracic surgery department. Limited expertise for MPM contribute to explaining the unequal access to appropriate care for MPM patients in Italy.