A comparison of the outcomes of pulmonary versus extrapulmonary extensive-stage small cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Extrapulmonary small cell carcinomas (EPSCCs) are rare cancers, comprising 0.1-0.4% of all cancers. The scarcity of EPSCC studies has led current treatment strategies to be extrapolated from small cell lung cancer (SCLC), justified by analogous histological and clinical features. AIMS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study comparing the outcomes of extensive-stage (ES) SCLC and EPSCC. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with ES SCLC or EPSCC between 2010 and 2020 from four hospitals in Sydney were identified. Patients who received active treatment and best supportive care were included. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), and secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall response rates (ORRs). RESULTS: Three hundred and eighty-four patients were included (43 EPSCC vs. 340 SCLC). EPSCC were of genitourinary (n = 15), unknown primary (n = 13) and gastrointestinal (n = 12) origin. Treatment modalities for EPSCC compared to SCLC included palliative chemotherapy (56% vs 73%), palliative radiotherapy (47% vs 59%) and consolidation chest radiotherapy (10% of SCLC). Overall, median OS was 6.4 versus 7 months for EPSCC versus SCLC respectively, but highest in prostate EPSCC (25.6 months). Of those who received chemotherapy (22 EPSCC vs 233 SCLC), median OS was 10.4 versus 8.4 months (HR OS 0.81, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.5-1.31, P = 0.38); PFS was 5.4 versus 5.5 months (HR PFS 0.93, 95% CI: 0.58-1.46, P = 0.74) and ORR were 73% versus 68%. CONCLUSIONS: EPSCC and SCLC appeared to have comparable OS and treatment outcomes. However, the wide range of OS in EPSCC highlights the need for an improved understanding of its genomics to explore alternative therapeutics.

Patients' perception of the benefits of palliative systemic therapy for advanced cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced cancer who misunderstand their prognosis and chance of cure tend to overestimate the likely benefits of palliative systemic therapy. AIM: To determine patient perceptions of palliative systemic therapy benefits in advanced cancer. METHODS: We surveyed 104 outpatients with advanced cancer receiving systemic anticancer therapy and their treating oncologists. Patients recorded their understanding of treatment impact on chance of cure and symptoms. Life expectancy was estimated by patients and oncologists. A visual analogue scale (0-10) was used to record how patients and oncologists valued quality of life (QOL) and length of life (LOL) (<4 QOL most important; 4-7 QOL and LOL equal; >7 LOL most important). Patient-oncologist discordance was defined as a ≥4-point difference. RESULTS: The main reasons patients selected for receiving treatment were to live longer (54%) and cure their cancer (36%). Most patients reported treatment was very/somewhat likely to prolong life (84%) and improve symptoms (76%), whereas 20% reported treatment was very/somewhat likely to cure their cancer. 42% of patients selected a timeframe for life expectancy (choice of four timeframes between <1 year and ≥5 years); of these, 62% selected a longer timeframe than their oncologist. When making treatment decisions, 71% of patients (52% of oncologists) valued QOL and LOL equally. Patient-oncologist discordance was 21%, mostly because of oncologists valuing QOL more than their patients (70%). CONCLUSION: At least 20% of patients receiving systemic therapy for advanced cancer reported an expectation of cure. Most patients and oncologists value QOL and LOL equally when making treatment decisions.

Utility of multigene panel next-generation sequencing in routine clinical practice for identifying genomic alterations in newly diagnosed metastatic nonsmall cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: The standard of care in newly diagnosed metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is to test for aberrations in three genes for driver mutations - ALK, ROS1 and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) - and also for immunohistochemistry to be performed for programmed death-ligand 1 expression level. Next-generation sequencing (NGS), with or without RNA fusion testing, is increasingly used in standard clinical practice to identify patients with potentially actionable mutations. Stratification of NGS mutation tiers is currently based on the European Society of Medical Oncology Scale for Clinical Actionability of Molecular Targets (ESCAT) Tiers I-V and X. AIM: Our aim was to analyse NSCLC tumour samples for the prevalence of Tiers I-V mutations to establish guidance for current and novel treatments in patients with metastatic disease. METHODS: NGS was performed employing the Oncomine Precision Assay (without RNA fusion testing) that interrogates DNA hotspot variants across 45 genes to screen 210 NSCLC tissue samples obtained across six Sydney hospitals between June 2021 and March 2022. RESULTS: In our cohort, 161 of 210 (77%) had at least one gene mutation identified, with 41 of 210 (20%) having two or more concurrent mutations. Tier I mutations included 42 of 210 (20%) EGFR mutations (EIA) and five of 210 (3%) MET exon 14 skipping mutations (EIB). Non-Tier I variants included 22 of 210 (11%) KRAS G12C hotspot mutations (EIIB), with a further 47 of 210 (22%) having non-G12C KRAS (EX) mutations. NGS testing revealed an additional 15% of cases with Tier II ESCAT mutations in NSCLC. Forty-six percent of patients also demonstrated potential Tier III and IV mutations that are currently under investigation in early-phase clinical trials. CONCLUSIONS: In addition to identifying patients with genomic alterations suitable for clinically proven standard-of-care therapeutic options, the 45-gene NGS panel has significant potential in identifying potentially actionable non-Tier 1 mutations that may become future standard clinical practice in NSCLC.

Screening for ROS1 gene rearrangements in non-small-cell lung cancers using immunohistochemistry with FISH confirmation is an effective method to identify this rare target.

AIMS: To assess the prevalence of ROS1 rearrangements in a retrospective and prospective diagnostic Australian cohort and evaluate the effectiveness of immunohistochemical screening. METHODS AND RESULTS: A retrospective cohort of 278 early stage lung adenocarcinomas and an additional 104 prospective non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) cases referred for routine molecular testing were evaluated. ROS1 immunohistochemistry (IHC) was performed (D4D6 clone, Cell Signaling Technology) on all cases as well as fluorescence in-situ hybridization (FISH) using the ZytoVision and Abbott Molecular ROS1 FISH probes, with ≥15% of cells with split signals considered positive for rearrangement. Eighty-eight cases (32%) from the retrospective cohort showed staining by ROS1 IHC, and one case (0.4%) showed ROS1 rearrangement by FISH. Nineteen of the prospective diagnostic cases showed ROS1 IHC staining, 12 (12%) cases of which were confirmed as ROS1 rearranged by FISH. There were no ROS1 rearranged cases that showed no expression of ROS1 with IHC. The ROS1 rearranged cases in the prospective cohort were all EGFR wild-type and anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) rearrangement-negative. The sensitivity of ROS1 IHC in the retrospective cohort was 100% and specificity was 76%. CONCLUSIONS: ROS1 rearrangements are rare events in lung adenocarcinomas. Selection of cases for ROS1 FISH testing, by excluding EGFR/ALK-positive cases and use of IHC to screen for potentially positive cases, can be used to enrich for the likelihood of identifying a ROS1 rearranged lung cancer and prevent the need to undertake expensive and time-consuming FISH testing in all cases.

Clinical outcomes in patients with advanced epidermal growth factor receptor-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer in South Western Sydney Local Health District.

BACKGROUND: Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is a subgroup of oncogene addicted lung cancer that predicts response to tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI). However, there is variability in response and survival outcomes in patients with EGFR mutation treated with TKI. AIM: To describe clinical characteristics, treatment patterns and factors influencing outcomes in patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC in South Western Sydney Local Health District. METHODS: Retrospective review of patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC diagnosed between January 2010 and June 2016. RESULTS: A total of 85 EGFR-mutated NSCLC patients was identified; 80 (94%) received first-line treatment with EGFR-TKI. The median follow-up was 10.7 months with a median duration of treatment of 9 months. On disease progression (n = 44), 37% had best supportive care only, 30% received chemotherapy, 23% participated in clinical trials, 7% continued on a first generation EGFR-TKI and 3% received afatinib. Overall response rate to first-line EGFR-TKI was 66%. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 10.7 months (range 2.7-55.9 months) and median overall survival (OS) was 23 months (range 0.4-35.8 months). Multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that patients with lower disease burden (<4 sites) had longer PFS (hazard ratio (HR) 0.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.18-0.72, P = 0.004) but not OS. Good performance status predicts longer OS (HR 0.33, CI 0.14-0.77, P = 0.01). Lower (<5) pre-treatment neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) was associated with better PFS (HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.18-0.87, P = 0.02) and OS (HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.19-0.94, P = 0.04). There were no survival differences when patients were stratified by age, baseline albumin level and types of EGFR mutation. CONCLUSION: Results from this community-based cohort confirm known prognostic factors in patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC receiving TKI and suggest the negative influence of a heightened host systemic inflammatory response on patient outcomes.