Mutations in Mismatch Repair Genes and Microsatellite Instability Status in Pancreatic Cancer.

Patients with pancreatic cancer (PC) showing mismatch repair (MMR) deficiency may benefit from immunotherapy. Microsatellite instability (MSI) is a hallmark of MMR deficiency (MMR-D). Here, we estimated the prevalence of MSI in PC, investigated germline and somatic mutations in the three MMR genes (MLH1, MSH2, and MSH6), and assessed the relationship between MMR genes mutations and MSI status in PC. Clinical specimens from PC patients were analyzed using targeted next-generation sequencing, including paired normal and tumor specimens from 155 patients, tumor-only specimens from 86 patients, and normal-only specimens from 379 patients. The MSI status of 235 PCs was assessed via PCR. Pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) germline variants in the MMR genes were identified in 1.1% of patients, while somatic variants were found in 2.6% of patients. No MSI-H tumors were detected. One patient carried two variants (P (VAF = 0.57) and LP (VAF = 0.25)) simultaneously; however, their germline/somatic status remains unknown due to the investigation focusing solely on the tumor and MSI analysis was not performed for this patient. MSI is rare in PC, even in tumors with MMR genes mutations. Our findings underscore the importance of assessing tumor MMR-D status in PC patients with confirmed Lynch syndrome when deciding whether to prescribe immunotherapy.

Prognostic and predictive role of immune microenvironment in colorectal cancer.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) represents a molecularly heterogeneous disease and one of the most frequent causes of cancer-related death worldwide. The traditional classification of CRC is based on pathomorphological and molecular characteristics of tumor cells (mucinous, ring-cell carcinomas, etc.), analysis of mechanisms of carcinogenesis involved (chromosomal instability, microsatellite instability, CpG island methylator phenotype) and mutational statuses of commonly altered genes (KRAS, NRAS, BRAF, APC, etc.), as well as expression signatures (CMS 1-4). It is also suggested that the tumor microenvironment is a key player in tumor progression and metastasis in CRC. According to the latest data, the immune microenvironment can also be predictive of the response to immune checkpoint inhibitors. In this review, we highlight how the immune environment influences CRC prognosis and sensitivity to systemic therapy.

Lenvatinib Plus Pembrolizumab Versus Sunitinib in First-Line Treatment of Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma: Final Prespecified Overall Survival Analysis of CLEAR, a Phase III Study.

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical trial updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported.We present the final prespecified overall survival (OS) analysis of the open-label, phase III CLEAR study in treatment-naïve patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). With an additional follow-up of 23 months from the primary analysis, we report results from the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus sunitinib comparison of CLEAR. Treatment-naïve patients with aRCC were randomly assigned to receive lenvatinib (20 mg orally once daily in 21-day cycles) plus pembrolizumab (200 mg intravenously once every 3 weeks) or sunitinib (50 mg orally once daily [4 weeks on/2 weeks off]). At this data cutoff date (July 31, 2022), the OS hazard ratio (HR) was 0.79 (95% CI, 0.63 to 0.99). The median OS (95% CI) was 53.7 months (95% CI, 48.7 to not estimable [NE]) with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus 54.3 months (95% CI, 40.9 to NE) with sunitinib; 36-month OS rates (95% CI) were 66.4% (95% CI, 61.1 to 71.2) and 60.2% (95% CI, 54.6 to 65.2), respectively. The median progression-free survival (95% CI) was 23.9 months (95% CI, 20.8 to 27.7) with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab and 9.2 months (95% CI, 6.0 to 11.0) with sunitinib (HR, 0.47 [95% CI, 0.38 to 0.57]). Objective response rate also favored the combination over sunitinib (71.3% v 36.7%; relative risk 1.94 [95% CI, 1.67 to 2.26]). Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in >90% of patients who received either treatment. In conclusion, lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab achieved consistent, durable benefit with a manageable safety profile in treatment-naïve patients with aRCC.

Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus sunitinib as first-line treatment of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (CLEAR): extended follow-up from the phase 3, randomised, open-label study.

BACKGROUND: In the primary analysis of the CLEAR study, lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab significantly improved progression-free survival and overall survival versus sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (data cutoff Aug 28, 2020). We aimed to assess overall survival based on 7 months of additional follow-up. METHODS: This is a protocol-prespecified updated overall survival analysis (data cutoff March 31, 2021) of the open-label, phase 3, randomised CLEAR trial. Patients with clear-cell advanced renal cell carcinoma who had not received any systemic anticancer therapy for renal cell carcinoma, including anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy, or any systemic investigational anticancer drug, were eligible for inclusion from 200 sites (hospitals and cancer centres) across 20 countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive lenvatinib (20 mg per day orally in 21-day cycles) plus pembrolizumab (200 mg intravenously every 21 days; lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group), lenvatinib (18 mg per day orally) plus everolimus (5 mg per day orally; lenvatinib plus everolimus group [not reported in this updated analysis]) in 21-day cycles, or sunitinib (50 mg per day orally, 4 weeks on and 2 weeks off; sunitinib group). Eligible patients were at least 18 years old with a Karnofsky performance status of 70 or higher. A computer-generated randomisation scheme was used, and stratification factors were geographical region and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center prognostic groups. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed by independent imaging review according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST v1.1). In this Article, extended follow-up analyses for progression-free survival and protocol-specified updated overall survival data are reported for the intention-to-treat population. No safety analyses were done at this follow-up. This study is closed to new participants and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02811861. FINDINGS: Between Oct 13, 2016, and July 24, 2019, 1417 patients were screened for inclusion in the CLEAR trial, of whom 1069 (75%; 273 [26%] female, 796 [74%] male; median age 62 years [IQR 55-69]) were randomly assigned: 355 (33%) patients (255 [72%] male and 100 [28%] female) to the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group, 357 (33%) patients (275 [77%] male and 82 [23%] female) to the sunitinib group, and 357 (33%) patients to the lenvatinib plus everolimus group (not reported in this updated analysis). Median follow-up for progression-free survival was 27·8 months (IQR 20·3-33·8) in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group and 19·4 months (5·5-32·5) in the sunitinib group. Median progression-free survival was 23·3 months (95% CI 20·8-27·7) in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group and 9·2 months (6·0-11·0) in the sunitinib group (stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0·42 [95% CI 0·34-0·52]). Median overall survival follow-up was 33·7 months (IQR 27·4-36·9) in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group and 33·4 months (26·7-36·8) in the sunitinib group. Overall survival was improved with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (median not reached [95% CI 41·5-not estimable]) versus sunitinib (median not reached [38·4-not estimable]; HR 0·72 [95% CI 0·55-0·93]). INTERPRETATION: Efficacy benefits of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab over sunitinib were durable and clinically meaningful with extended follow-up. These results support the use of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab as a first-line therapy for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. FUNDING: Eisai and Merck Sharp & Dohme.

A phase 1b study of the allosteric extracellular FGFR2 inhibitor alofanib in patients with pretreated advanced gastric cancer.

Alofanib is a small-molecule allosteric extracellular FGFR2 inhibitor. We report safety and preliminary efficacy from the first-in-human phase 1b study of alofanib in heavily pretreated patients with advanced gastric cancer. The standard dose-escalation design 3+3 aimed to establish the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) or recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D). Alofanib was administered daily intravenously 5 days on, 2 days off. There were five dose levels (50-350 mg/m2). All patients received alofanib until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. 21 patients were enrolled. Patients were predominantly male (71%), 67% had 2 and more metastatic sites, including liver metastases (43%), 19% had ECOG PS 2, and were heavily pretreated (86% had previous 2 and more treatment lines). During dose escalation, no dose-limiting toxicities were observed, and MTD was not defined. 15 (71.4%) patients had at least one adverse event associated with the treatment (TRAE). Grade 3 or higher TRAEs were observed in 6 patients (28.6%). The most common TRAEs included reactions immediately after administration, diarrhea, thrombocytopenia, arthralgia, and headache. The median progression-free survival and overall survival was 3.63 (95% CI 1.58-5.68) and 7.0 (95% CI 3.82-10.18) months, respectively. The 6- and 12-month overall survival rates were 57.1% and 33.3%. Disease control rate was 68% with one durable partial response. The MTD has not been reached and dose of 350 mg/m2, 5 days on, 2 days off has been declared as RP2D. Alofanib showed acceptable tolerability and preliminary signs of clinical activity in the late-line treatment of metastatic gastric cancer. (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04071184).

Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Phase III Study of Paclitaxel ± Napabucasin in Pretreated Advanced Gastric or Gastroesophageal Junction Adenocarcinoma.

PURPOSE: To compare napabucasin (generator of reactive oxygen species) plus paclitaxel with paclitaxel only in patients with second-line advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: In the double-blind, phase III BRIGHTER study (NCT02178956), patients were randomized (1:1) to napabucasin (480 mg orally twice daily) plus paclitaxel (80 mg/m2 i.v. weekly for 3 of 4 weeks) or placebo plus paclitaxel. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and safety. RESULTS: Overall, 714 patients were randomized (napabucasin plus paclitaxel, n = 357; placebo plus paclitaxel, n = 357). 72.1% were male, 74.6% had gastric adenocarcinoma, and 46.2% had peritoneal metastases. The study was unblinded following an interim analysis at 380 deaths. The final efficacy analysis was performed on 565 deaths (median follow-up, 6.8 months). No significant differences were observed between napabucasin plus paclitaxel and placebo plus paclitaxel for OS (6.93 vs. 7.36 months), PFS (3.55 vs. 3.68 months), ORR (16% vs. 18%), or DCR (55% vs. 58%). Grade ≥3 adverse events occurred in 69.5% and 59.7% of patients administered napabucasin plus paclitaxel and placebo plus paclitaxel, respectively, with grade ≥3 diarrhea reported in 16.2% and 1.4%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Adding napabucasin to paclitaxel did not improve survival in patients with pretreated advanced gastric or GEJ adenocarcinoma. Consistent with previous reports, the safety profile of napabucasin was driven by manageable gastrointestinal events; grade ≥3 diarrhea occurred at a higher frequency with napabucasin plus paclitaxel versus placebo plus paclitaxel.

Patterns of Care and Barriers to Utilization of Definitive Concurrent Chemoradiation Therapy for Stage III Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in Russia.

BACKGROUND: Definitive concurrent chemoradiation (cCRT) is offered to only 3% of Russian patients with stage III NSCLC. To determine the patterns of care and barriers to cCRT utilization in Russia, we conducted a survey of practicing radiation oncologists (ROs). METHODS: Electronic IRB-approved survey containing 15 questions was distributed to Russian ROs. Fisher's exact test or Cochran-Armitage test of trend was used to assess the associations between clinical experience, practice type, and patterns of care. RESULTS: We analyzed 58 questionnaires completed by ROs-16 respondents from tertiary referral hospitals, and 42 from community or private centers. A total of 88% of respondents formulate treatment recommendations in multi-disciplinary tumor boards. For unresectable stage III NSCLC, the most common recommendation is sequential CRT (50%), followed by concurrent CRT (40%), with an observed higher utilization of cCRT in tertiary centers (9/16, 56% vs 14/42, 33%). Of the respondents, 31% do not offer cCRT to their pts. Among reasons for avoiding cCRT are (1) poor performance of pts (76%); (2) high toxicity of therapy (55%); (3) lack of consensus among tumor board members (33%); and (4) preference for sequential CRT (31%). Only 3% do not irradiate elective LNs. Eighty-six percent of respondents counsel their NSCLC pts regarding smoking cessation. CONCLUSIONS: Despite level 1 evidence, cCRT is rarely used in Russia for pts with locally advanced NSCLC, and preference for sequential therapy and concerns over high toxicity are the most common barriers. Education of Russian ROs may increase cCRT utilization, leading to improved survival, notably in the era of maintenance immunotherapy.

Management of Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer with Bladder Preservation in Russia: a Survey-Based Analysis of Current Practice and the Impact of an Educational Workshop on Clinical Expertise.

Trimodality bladder preservation (BP) is an accepted alternative to radical cystectomy for patients with muscle invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). The global utilization of BP is variable, and practice patterns have not been previously studied in Russia. We sought to elucidate the contemporary BP practice patterns in Russia and determine the impact of the BP workshop on attitudes of Russian radiation oncologists (ROs) towards BP. The workshop was focused on patient workup, selection for BP, chemotherapy choices, radiation therapy (RT) contouring and planning, patient counseling. A total of 77 pre- and 32 matched post-workshop IRB-approved surveys, based on the workshop content, were analyzed using descriptive statistics to determine baseline clinical experience and patterns of care. The impact was judged by changes in participants' responses. A total of 56% of respondents had experience with delivering bladder-directed RT, and 60% of those treated both operable and inoperable MIBC patients. Only 10% felt uncomfortable offering an operable patient BP modality. Prior to the workshop, almost half of respondents estimated universal poor bladder (44%) and erectile functions (47%) after BP. The workshop resulted in dramatic change in participants' attitudes towards long-term urinary (Stuart-Maxwell test, p < 0.01) and sexual (exact McNemar test, p < 0.01) side effects. Prior to the workshop, only 47% of respondents routinely discussed smoking cessation (SC) with their patients, whereas after workshop, 88% agreed that SC discussion is mandatory (exact McNemar test, p = 0.04). BP for MIBC is commonly used in Russia. Our workshop resulted in dramatically improved understanding of long-term BP toxicities and inspired Russian ROs to incorporate SC counseling into routine clinical management.

Phase III, Randomized Study of Dual Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 (HER2) Blockade With Lapatinib Plus Trastuzumab in Combination With an Aromatase Inhibitor in Postmenopausal Women With HER2-Positive, Hormone Receptor-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer: Updated Results of ALTERNATIVE.

PURPOSE: Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) targeting plus endocrine therapy (ET) improved clinical benefit in HER2-positive, hormone receptor (HR)-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC) versus ET alone. Dual HER2 blockade enhances clinical benefit versus single HER2 blockade. The ALTERNATIVE study evaluated the efficacy and safety of dual HER2 blockade plus aromatase inhibitor (AI) in postmenopausal women with HER2-positive/HR-positive MBC who received prior ET and prior neo(adjuvant)/first-line trastuzumab (TRAS) plus chemotherapy. This updated article reflects minor numerical corrections in some secondary efficacy analyses that resulted from programming errors and that do not change the major conclusions of the study. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive lapatinib (LAP) plus TRAS plus AI, TRAS plus AI, or LAP plus AI. Patients for whom chemotherapy was intended were excluded. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS; investigator assessed) with LAP plus TRAS plus AI versus TRAS plus AI. Secondary end points were PFS (comparison of other arms), overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), clinical benefit rate (CBR), and safety. RESULTS: Three hundred fifty-five patients were included in this analysis: LAP plus TRAS plus AI (n = 120), TRAS plus AI (n = 117), and LAP plus AI (n = 118). Baseline characteristics were balanced. The study met its primary end point; superior PFS was observed with LAP plus TRAS plus AI versus TRAS plus AI (median PFS, 11 v 5.6 months; hazard ratio, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.45 to 0.88]; P = .0063). A consistent PFS benefit was observed in predefined subgroups. ORR, CBR, and OS also favored LAP plus TRAS plus AI. The median PFS with LAP plus AI versus TRAS plus AI was 8.3 versus 5.6 months (hazard ratio, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.62 to 1.17]; P = .3159). Common adverse events (AEs; ≥ 15%) with LAP plus TRAS plus AI, TRAS plus AI, and LAP plus AI were diarrhea (69%, 9%, and 51%, respectively), rash (36%, 2%, and 28%, respectively), nausea (22%, 9%, and 22%, respectively), and paronychia (30%, 0%, and 15%, respectively), mostly grade 1 or 2. Serious AEs were reported similarly across the 3 groups, and AEs leading to discontinuation were lower with LAP plus TRAS plus AI. CONCLUSION: Dual HER2 blockade with LAP plus TRAS plus AI showed superior PFS benefit versus TRAS plus AI in patients with HER2-positive/HR-positive MBC. This combination offers an effective and safe chemotherapy-sparing alternative treatment regimen for this patient population.

Frequency of S492R mutations in the epidermal growth factor receptor: analysis of plasma DNA from patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with panitumumab or cetuximab monotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Antibodies against epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), panitumumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody, and cetuximab, a human/mouse chimeric monoclonal antibody, have shown clinical efficacy in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). In the phase 3 noninferiority ASPECCT (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01001377) study, panitumumab was demonstrated to be noninferior to cetuximab and provided a similar overall survival benefit for patients with chemotherapy-refractory wild-type KRAS exon 2 mCRC. However, some patients eventually develop resistance to anti-EGFR therapy. EGFR p.S492R mutation was previously identified as conferring resistance to cetuximab, but not to panitumumab. METHODS: This biomarker study analyzed plasma samples from ASPECCT collected at both baseline and posttreatment. RESULTS: No EGFR p.S492R mutations were identified at baseline; however, after treatment the EGFR p.S492R mutation was detected in 1% of patients treated with panitumumab versus 16% of those treated with cetuximab, supporting that, in a large population, this mutation is more likely to be induced by cetuximab than by panitumumab. There were, however, no significant differences in progression-free survival or overall survival between patients who were wild-type compared with those with the S492R mutation within the cetuximab arm or the overall population. CONCLUSIONS: These results may support targeting treatment to small patient subgroups based on the presence of emerging EGFR mutations and provide a molecular rationale for rechallenging with a different anti-EGFR agent in patients who develop resistance. Prospective studies are needed to evaluate the efficacy of panitumumab in the EGFR p.S492R mutant population.

Agreement between PDL1 immunohistochemistry assays and polymerase chain reaction in non-small cell lung cancer: CLOVER comparison study.

The goal of the CLOVER study was to perform a pairwise comparison of four tests based on the same patient population with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): three validated PDL1 immunohistochemistry (IHC) assays (Ventana SP142, Ventana SP263, Dako 22C3) and one PCR test. Four hundred seventy-three NSCLC samples were obtained from a biobank and were stained using PDL1 IHC assays. Four trained pathologists independently evaluated the percentage of tumor cells (TC) and immune cells (IC) that stained positive at any intensity. PDL1 transcripts were quantified in 437 patients by a standard Taqman RT-PCR assay using SDHA as a reference gene. A concordance analysis was performed to assess (1) the correlation of TC and IC between different assays and (2) the predictive properties of one test for another. "High" RNA expression was detected in 187 of 437 (43%) patients. The percentage of PDL1-positive cells (≥1%) was higher among the IC than the TC in all IHC three assays. The Pearson correlation coefficients (PCC) for TC were 0.71, 0.87, and 0.75 between 22C3/SP142, 22C3/SP263, and SP263/SP142, respectively. The PCC for IC were 0.45, 0.61, and 0.68 for the same pairs. A low correlation was observed between the PCR test and each of the three IHC assays; however, if a patient tested low/negative by PCR, then they were likely to test negative by any single IHC test with a high probability (92-99%). Among patients who tested positive by PCR, only 9-45% tested positive by IHC assays. There was excellent positive and negative agreement (>91%) between 22C3 and SP263 staining using the recommended individual cutoffs for first-line treatment. PCR RNA expression analysis is not equivalent to IHC. However, this method may have some potential for the identification of PDL1-negative tumors. 22C3 could be considered as a substitute for SP263 in first-line treatment.

Efficacy of platinum-based chemotherapy and prognosis of patients with pancreatic cancer with homologous recombination deficiency: comparative analysis of published clinical studies.

The aim of our study was to determine the effect of homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) on prognosis and efficacy of platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with pancreatic cancer (PC). We performed PubMed and Embase database queries. We included 4 studies into the meta-analysis and 16 studies in the systematic review. Our systematic analysis showed that the average weighted median overall survival (OS) in patients with HRD with advanced PC was 19.8 and 15.6 months in patients without HRD. With platinum-based chemotherapy, the average weighted median OS in patients with HRD was 23.8 and 17.1 months in patients without HRD. Without platinum-based chemotherapy, the average weighted median OS in patients with HRD was 8.3 and 12.0 months in patients without HRD. For resected PC, our meta-analysis demonstrated that HRD status did not affect the prognosis (HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.46 to 2.33), but results were rather heterogeneous (I2=83%, p=0.003). Our systematic analysis showed that the average weighted median OS in patients with HRD was 34.6 and 27.0 months in patients without HRD. With platinum-based chemotherapy, the average weighted median OS in patients with HRD was 46.1 and 36.3 months in patients without HRD. Without platinum-based chemotherapy, the average weighted median OS in patients with HRD was 24.2 and 42.9 months in patients without HRD. Results of our meta-analysis and systematic review support the idea of platinum use in patients with HRD both in resected and metastatic PCs, although a randomised trial is warranted to make a more reliable conclusion. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019121914.

Radiotherapy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Russia: a Survey-Based Analysis of Current Practice and the Impact of an Educational Workshop on Clinical Expertise.

Radiation therapy (RT) is an effective treatment modality for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), but globally, it is underutilized. In Russia, practice patterns with regard to liver-directed radiation are unknown. Under the auspices of Russian Society of Clinical Oncology (RUSSCO), our team conducted an IRB-approved contouring workshop for Russian radiation oncologists. Pre- and post-workshop surveys were analyzed to determine baseline clinical experience and patterns of care for liver-directed RT among Russian providers. The effect of the contouring workshop on participants' knowledge was tested using mixed effects model. Forty pre-workshop and 24 post-workshop questionnaires were analyzable with a 100% response rate. Sixty percent of respondents had never evaluated a patient with HCC and only 8% (3 out of 40) reported treating an HCC patient with liver-directed RT. Nonetheless, 73% of respondents were comfortable offering liver-directed RT prior to the workshop. After the workshop, 85% of respondents felt comfortable treating a patient with HCC with liver-directed RT and 50% were comfortable recommending stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). Measures of knowledge pertaining to evaluation of HCC patients and selection for appropriate liver-directed therapies were dramatically improved after the workshop. Liver-directed RT is not commonly used in Russia in the management of patients with HCC, and few centers are equipped for motion management. Our contouring workshop resulted in dramatically improved understanding of the evaluation and management of HCC patients. We recommend starting with a more protracted fractionated RT and building experience through attendance of additional educational activities, participation in multidisciplinary liver tumor boards, and prospective analysis of treatment toxicity and outcomes.

Real-world treatment patterns among patients with advanced gastric cancer in Russia: a chart review study.

Objective: Little evidence is available on the management of patients with metastatic and/or unresectable gastric cancer (mGC) after the failure of first-line treatment. This study presents real-world data on characteristics and treatment patterns of patients with mGC in Russia. Methods: Eligible patients were ≥18 years old, diagnosed with mGC ≥ January 1, 2012, received first-line chemotherapy followed by second-line chemotherapy or best supportive care (BSC), had ≥3 months of follow-up after the start of second-line chemotherapy or BSC (except in cases of death), and had not participated in a clinical trial. Data were summarized using descriptive statistics. Results: A total of 88 physicians provided data from 202 charts. Mean age at mGC diagnosis was 53.7 (standard deviation: 11.2) years; 70.8% of patients were male. Reasons for first-line treatment discontinuation included disease progression (50.5%) and adverse events/toxicity (39.1%). There were 52 unique treatment regimens prescribed in second-line; capecitabine (14.5%), paclitaxel (9.3%), and capecitabine + oxaliplatin (8.7%) were the most frequent. Reasons for second-line treatment discontinuation included disease progression (39.8%) and patient refusal to continue (37.5%). During 2nd-line treatment, the most common treatment-related symptoms were nausea/vomiting (75.0%), while pain (73.8%) was the most common disease-related symptom. Antiemetics (63.4%), chemotherapy (61.6%), non-narcotic analgesics (48.3%), endoscopy (45.9%), and nutritional support (35.5%) were most frequently used as supportive care. Conclusions: Second-line treatment patterns for patients with mGC in Russia are heterogeneous. Results of this study indicate the need for more intensive implementation of the most active regimens in second-line treatment of mGC according to international and national guidelines.

Overall Survival of Patients With ALK-Positive Metastatic Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer in the Russian Federation: Nationwide Cohort Study.

PURPOSE: The overall survival (OS) results in patients with ALK-positive metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have rarely been reported. The aim of this prospective-retrospective cohort study was to obtain real-world data on the use of crizotinib or chemotherapy in patients with ALK-positive metastatic NSCLC in Russia. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with epidermal growth factor receptor-negative metastatic NSCLC were screened in 23 cancer centers. To be eligible, patients were required to have confirmation of ALK rearrangement. Patients were treated with crizotinib (250 mg twice daily; n = 96) or the investigator's choice of platinum-based chemotherapy (n = 53). The primary end point was OS. RESULTS: A total of 149 ALK-positive patients were included. Mean age was 53 years in both groups. Patients were predominately women (59%) and never-smokers (74%), and most patients had adenocarcinoma histology (95%). At a median follow-up time of 15 months, 79 of the 149 patients included in the analysis had died. Median OS from the start of treatment was 31 months (95% CI, 28.5 to 33.5 months) in the crizotinib group and 15.0 months (95% CI, 9.0 to 21.0 months) in the chemotherapy group (P < .001). The objective response rate was 34% in the crizotinib group. Among patients with brain metastasis, one complete response (6%) and five partial responses (31%) were achieved. Grade 3 adverse events were observed in three patients (3%) in the crizotinib group. CONCLUSION: The improved OS observed in crizotinib clinical trials in ALK-positive NSCLC was also observed in the less selective patient populations treated in daily practice in Russia. The use of standard chemotherapy in these patients remains common but seems inappropriate as a result of the effectiveness of newer treatments, such as crizotinib.

Efficacy and safety of RGB-02, a pegfilgrastim biosimilar to prevent chemotherapy-induced neutropenia: results of a randomized, double-blind phase III clinical study vs. reference pegfilgrastim in patients with breast cancer receiving chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Treatment with recombinant human granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) is accepted standard for prevention of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. RGB-02 (Gedeon Richter) is a proposed biosimilar to pegylated G-CSF (Neulasta®, Amgen) with sustained release properties. This is a randomized, comparative, double-blind, multicenter study to evaluate efficacy and safety of RGB-02 in breast cancer patients receiving cytotoxic regimen. METHODS: Two hundred thirty-nine women presenting with breast cancer were randomized to RGB-02 (n = 121) and the reference product (n = 118). All patients received up to 6 cycles of docetaxel/doxorubicin chemotherapy combination and a once-per-cycle injection of a fixed 6 mg dose of pegfilgrastim. Primary endpoint was the duration of severe neutropenia (ANC < 0.5 × 109/L) in Cycle 1 (2-sided CI 95%). Secondary endpoints included incidence and duration of severe neutropenia (in cycles 2-4), incidence of febrile neutropenia, time to ANC recovery, depth of ANC nadir, and safety outcomes. RESULTS: The mean duration of severe neutropenia in Cycle 1 was 1.7 (RGB-02) and 1.6 days (reference), with a difference (LS Mean) of 0.1 days (95% CI -0.2, 0.4). Equivalence could be established as the CI for the difference in LS Mean lay entirely within the pre-defined range of ±1 day. This positive result was supported by the analysis of secondary endpoints, which also revealed no clinical meaningful differences. Safety profiles were comparable between groups. No neutralizing antibodies against pegfilgrastim were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment equivalence in reducing the duration of chemotherapy induced neutropenia between RGB-02 and Neulasta® could be demonstrated. Similar efficacy and safety profiles of the once-per-cycle administration of RGB-02 and the pegfilgrastim reference were demonstrated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered prospectively, prior to study initiation. EudraCT number ( 2013-003166-14 ). The date of registration was 12 July, 2013.

Bridging the Gap in Global Advanced Radiation Oncology Training: Impact of a Web-Based Open-Access Interactive Three-Dimensional Contouring Atlas on Radiation Oncologist Practice in Russia.

Radiation oncologists in Russia face a number of unique professional difficulties including lack of standardized training and continuing medical education. To combat this, under the auspices of the Russian Society of Clinical Oncology (RUSSCO), our group has developed a series of ongoing in-person interactive contouring workshops that are held during the major Russian oncology conferences in Moscow, Russia. Since November 2016 during each workshop, we utilized a web-based open-access interactive three-dimensional contouring atlas as part of our didactics. We sought to determine the impact of this resource on radiation oncology practice in Russia. We distributed an IRB-approved web-based survey to 172 practicing radiation oncologists in Russia. We inquired about practice demographics, RUSSCO contouring workshop attendance, and the clinical use of open-access English language interactive contouring atlas (eContour). The survey remained open for 2 months until November 2017. Eighty radiation oncologists completed the survey with a 46.5% response rate. Mean number of years in practice was 13.7. Sixty respondents (75%) attended at least one RUSSCO contouring workshop. Of those who were aware of eContour, 76% were introduced during a RUSSCO contouring workshop, and 81% continue to use it in their daily practice. The greatest obstacles to using the program were language barrier (51%) and internet access (38%). Nearly 90% reported their contouring practices changed since they started using the program, particularly for delineation of clinical target volumes (57%) and/or organs at risk (46%). More than 97% found the clinical pearls/links to cooperative group protocols in the software helpful in their daily practice. The majority used the contouring program several times per month (43%) or several times per week (41%). Face-to-face contouring instruction in combination with open-access web-based interactive contouring resource had a meaningful impact on perceived quality of radiation oncology contours among Russian practitioners and has the potential to have applications worldwide.

RUSSCO-RSP comparative study of immunohistochemistry diagnostic assays for PD-L1 expression in urothelial bladder cancer.

In this collaborative study by the Russian Society of Clinical Oncology and the Russian Society of Pathology, we assessed the concordance among three validated, commercially available PD-L1 immunohistochemistry assays for patients with urothelial cancer. Tumors from 100 urothelial cancer patients were stained with the antibody clones 22C3 (Agilent), SP142 (Ventana Medical Systems), and SP263 (Ventana Medical Systems), which are used in clinical trials of second-line therapy with checkpoint inhibitors. Four trained pathologists independently evaluated the percentages of tumor cells (TC) and tumor-infiltrating immune cells (IC) that were stained at any intensity by each of the antibodies. The test-specific cutoffs for the proportions of stained cells in a positive sample were pre-specified as TC + IC ≥ 10% or TC ≥ 10% for 22C3, IC ≥ 5% for SP142, and TC ≥ 25% or IC ≥ 25% for SP263. Three hundred immunohistochemistry slides were scored. The percentages of PD-L1 staining in the three assays without using any cutoff were higher in the IC than in the TC (55% versus 24% for 22C3, 45% versus 8% for SP142, and 72% versus 27% for SP263, respectively). The Pearson correlation coefficients for anti-PD-L1 staining in the IC were 0.5, 0.69, and 0.85 with 22C3/SP142, 22C3/SP263, and SP142/SP263, respectively. The Pearson correlation coefficients for PD-L1 staining in the TC were 0.93, 0.99, and 0.91 for the same pairs. Among the patients who were negative for PD-L1 staining by one test, 91-100% were also negative by the other tests. Among the patients who were positive by one test, 43-100% were also positive by the other tests. Our data indicate that repeated testing can be avoided as a patient with urothelial cancer who is classified as negative for PD-L1 expression by one of the three single tests using the corresponding cutoff rule is highly likely (91-100%) to be classified as negative by either of the other tests.

Dose-reduced first cycle of chemotherapy for prevention of life-threatening acute complications in nonseminomatous germ cell tumor patients with ultra high tumor markers and/or poor performance status.

PURPOSE: Patients with metastatic nonseminomatous germ cell tumors (mNSGCT) and a high tumor burden or a poor performance status at initial diagnosis are at risk from potentially life-threatening early complications during or after the first chemotherapy cycle. The outcomes with dose-reduced first cycle of chemotherapy in this population of patients are not well established. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of patients with mNSGCT and International Germ Cell Cancer Collaborative Group (IGCCCG) poor risk features. All patients received cisplatin and etoposide-based combinations as first-line treatment. Ultra high tumor marker levels were defined as α-fetoprotein ≥ 100,000 ng/ml or human chorionic gonadotropin ≥ 200,000 mIU/ml. Before 2005, the first treatment cycle was administered at a full dose in our center. After 2005, we used an abbreviated course of cisplatin and etoposide (EP) for the first cycle, followed by subsequent full-dose administration. RESULTS: From 1987 to 2012, 265 patients with poor risk features according to IGCCCG received first-line chemotherapy. Among them, 63 out of 265 (24%) patients had ultra high tumor marker levels and/or ECOG performance status of 3-4. Dose reduction of the first chemotherapy cycle was associated with a significant decrease of life-threatening complications from 76 to 44% (p = 0.01), but not with the overall survival (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.44-2.26). CONCLUSIONS: Dose reduction of the first EP cycle by 40-60% in the subgroup of poor risk patients with ultra high tumor marker levels and/or ECOG performance status 3-4 is associated with significantly lowered acute complication rates but not with overall survival.