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.

Outcomes of extensive stage extrapulmonary small cell cancer.

BACKGROUND: Extrapulmonary small cell cancer (EPSCC) is a rare malignancy with an incidence of approximately 0.1%-0.4% of all cancers. Treatment of this disease is often based on small cell lung cancer. AIMS: We aimed to investigate real-world clinical outcomes of patients with extensive-stage (ES) ESPCC. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with ES EPSCC between 2010 and 2020 from multiple centres in New South Wales were identified. Patient, disease and treatment characteristics were collected and presented using descriptive statistics. Survival was analysed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression hazard models were used to identify potential prognostic factors. RESULTS: Sixty eligible ES EPSCC patients were identified, including 65% male and 35% female. The mean age was 69 years (range 37-88). Forty-five per cent were never smokers, 42% ex-smokers and 13% current smokers, and 17% of patients had limited-stage disease prior to development of ES disease. The most common primary sites were genitourinary (42%; mainly prostate (n = 14) and bladder (n = 10)), gastrointestinal (28%; mainly oesophagus (n = 5) and colon (n = 4)) and unknown primary (22%). Treatments received included palliative chemotherapy (67%), palliative radiotherapy (53%), palliative surgery (13%) and best supportive care alone (13%). The median overall survival (OS) was 8.0 months. The median progression-free survival was 5.4 months, and response rate to first-line chemotherapy was 65%. Platinum-based chemotherapy was prognostic of longer OS (HR 0.27, CI 0.12-0.60, P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with ES EPSCC had good response to palliative chemotherapy, but OS remained poor. Further research is required to improve the prognosis in this population.

Patterns of care and outcomes among triple-negative early breast cancer patients in South Western Sydney.

BACKGROUND: Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) represents 12-24% of all breast cancer and carries a poor prognosis upon recurrence. Little is known of the treatment, or timing and frequency of recurrences outside of a clinical trial. AIM: We describe the patterns of care and outcomes of women with TNBC treated at two cancer centres in Sydney, NSW, Australia, to help oncologists talk to women with this subtype of breast cancer about their likely prognosis. METHODS: We searched the electronic medical record for women with stages I-III TNBC diagnosed from 2006 to 2014. For each woman, we recorded demographics, tumour characteristics, treatment details, recurrences and survival using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: We identified 137 women with a median age of 55 years (interquartile range (IQR) 44-63). The median tumour size was 25 mm (IQR 16-35). Most women had grade 3 (92%) and ductal carcinomas (89%), and 35% were node positive; 113 (82%) patients received (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy. The most prescribed regimens for node-negative tumours were: fluorouracil, epirubicin and cyclophosphamide (FEC) × 6 (23pts, 35%), and for node-positive tumours, FEC-Docetaxel (18pts, 40%). Adjuvant radiotherapy was delivered to 114 (83%) patients. After a median follow up of 40 months, 17 patients (12%) had a recurrence. All but one recurrence (94%) occurred within 3 years of diagnosis. Twelve women received palliative chemotherapy, and 14 women have died. The median survival from the time of recurrence was 18 months (IQR 5-26). Seven women (5%) had a documented BRCA1 mutation, and four women (3%) had a documented BRCA2 mutation. CONCLUSIONS: TNBC affects women at a relatively young age and tends to recur early. Survival following metastatic disease is short, and more effective therapies are needed.

New frontiers in circulating tumor cell analysis: A reference guide for biomolecular profiling toward translational clinical use.

Circulating tumor cells (CTCs) are now routinely isolated from blood, and measurement of CTC concentrations appears to correlate well with survival in patients with cancer. Interrogation of the molecular profile of CTCs for expression of protein biomarkers, genetic variants and gene expression provides opportunities to use this information to guide personalized treatment, monitor therapy and detect emerging resistance. However, successful application of profiling techniques requires analyses that deliver a reliable and clinically relevant representation of a patient's cancer as it changes with time. Here, we comprehensively review the current knowledge of therapeutically relevant biomarkers in isolated CTCs obtained by fluorescence imaging and genomic profiling approaches. The reviewed data support the notion that molecular profiling of CTCs will provide a reliable representation or surrogate index of tumor burden. Large-scale translational trials, many currently in progress, will provide critical data to progress CTC analysis toward wider clinical use in personalized treatment.

Accuracy of oncologists' estimates of expected survival time in advanced cancer.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the claim that oncologists overestimate expected survival time (EST) in advanced cancer. METHODS: We pooled 7 prospective studies in which observed survival time (OST) was compared with EST (median survival in a group of similar patients estimated at baseline by the treating oncologist). We hypothesized that EST would be well calibrated (approximately 50% of EST longer than OST) and imprecise (<30% of EST within 0.67 to 1.33 of OST), and that multiples of EST would provide well-calibrated scenarios for survival time: worst-case (approximately 10% of OST <1/4 of EST), typical (approximately 50% of OST within half to double EST), and best-case (approximately 10% of OST >3 times EST). Associations between baseline characteristics and calibration of EST were assessed. RESULTS: Characteristics of 1,211 patients: median age 66 years, male 61%, primary site lung (40%) and upper gastrointestinal (16%). The median OST was 8 months, and EST was 9 months. Oncologists' estimates of EST were well calibrated (50% longer than OST) and imprecise (28% within 0.67 to 1.33 of OST). Scenarios for survival time based on simple multiples of EST were well calibrated: 8% of patients had an OST less than 1/4 their EST (worst-case), 56% had an OST within half to double their EST (typical), and 11% had an OST greater than 3 times their EST (best-case). Calibration was independent of age, sex, and cancer type. CONCLUSIONS: Oncologists were no more likely to overestimate survival time than to underestimate it. Simple multiples of EST provide well-calibrated estimates of worst-case, typical, and best-case scenarios for survival.

NUTMEG: A randomized phase II study of nivolumab and temozolomide versus temozolomide alone in newly diagnosed older patients with glioblastoma.

Background: There is an immunologic rationale to evaluate immunotherapy in the older glioblastoma population, who have been underrepresented in prior trials. The NUTMEG study evaluated the combination of nivolumab and temozolomide in patients with glioblastoma aged 65 years and older. Methods: NUTMEG was a multicenter 2:1 randomized phase II trial for patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma aged 65 years and older. The experimental arm consisted of hypofractionated chemoradiation with temozolomide, then adjuvant nivolumab and temozolomide. The standard arm consisted of hypofractionated chemoradiation with temozolomide, then adjuvant temozolomide. The primary objective was to improve overall survival (OS) in the experimental arm. Results: A total of 103 participants were randomized, with 69 in the experimental arm and 34 in the standard arm. The median (range) age was 73 (65-88) years. After 37 months of follow-up, the median OS was 11.6 months (95% CI, 9.7-13.4) in the experimental arm and 11.8 months (95% CI, 8.3-14.8) in the standard arm. For the experimental arm relative to the standard arm, the OS hazard ratio was 0.85 (95% CI, 0.54-1.33). In the experimental arm, there were three grade 3 immune-related adverse events which resolved, with no unexpected serious adverse events. Conclusions: Due to insufficient evidence of benefit with nivolumab, the decision was made not to transition to a phase III trial. No new safety signals were identified with nivolumab. This complements the existing series of immunotherapy trials. Research is needed to identify biomarkers and new strategies including combinations.

COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy in Australian Patients with Solid Organ Cancers.

BACKGROUND: Vaccination is the cornerstone of the global public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Excess morbidity and mortality of COVID-19 infection is seen in people with cancer. COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy has been observed in this medically vulnerable population, although associated attitudes and beliefs remain poorly understood. METHODS: An online cross-sectional survey of people with solid organ cancers was conducted through nine health services across Australia. Demographics, cancer-related characteristics and vaccine uptake were collected. Perceptions and beliefs regarding COVID-19 vaccination were assessed using the Oxford COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Scale, the Oxford COVID-19 Vaccine Confidence and Complacency Scale and the Disease Influenced Vaccine Acceptance Scale-6. RESULTS: Between June and October 2021, 2691 people with solid organ cancers completed the survey. The median age was 62.5 years (SD = 11.8; range 19-95), 40.9% were male, 71.3% lived in metropolitan areas and 90.3% spoke English as their first language. The commonest cancer diagnoses were breast (36.6%), genitourinary (18.6%) and gastrointestinal (18.3%); 59.2% had localized disease and 56.0% were receiving anti-cancer therapy. Most participants (79.7%) had at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose. Vaccine uptake was higher in people who were older, male, metropolitan, spoke English as a first language and had a cancer diagnosis for more than six months. Vaccine hesitancy was higher in people who were younger, female, spoke English as a non-dominant language and lived in a regional location, and lower in people with genitourinary cancer. Vaccinated respondents were more concerned about being infected with COVID-19 and less concerned about vaccine safety and efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: People with cancer have concerns about acquiring COVID-19, which they balance against vaccine-related concerns about the potential impact on their disease progress and/or treatment. Detailed exploration of concerns in cancer patients provides valuable insights, both for discussions with individual patients and public health messaging for this vulnerable population.

Serious Underlying Medical Conditions and COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy: A Large Cross-Sectional Analysis from Australia.

As COVID-19 vaccinations became available and were proven effective in preventing serious infection, uptake amongst individuals varied, including in medically vulnerable populations. This cross-sectional multi-site study examined vaccine uptake, hesitancy, and explanatory factors amongst people with serious and/or chronic health conditions, including the impact of underlying disease on attitudes to vaccination. A 42-item survey was distributed to people with cancer, diabetes, or multiple sclerosis across ten Australian health services from 30 June to 5 October 2021. The survey evaluated sociodemographic and disease-related characteristics and incorporated three validated scales measuring vaccine hesitancy and vaccine-related beliefs generally and specific to their disease: the Oxford COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Scale, the Oxford COVID-19 Vaccine Confidence and Complacency Scale and the Disease Influenced Vaccine Acceptance Scale-Six. Among 4683 participants (2548 [54.4%] female, 2108 [45.0%] male, 27 [0.6%] other; mean [SD] age, 60.6 [13.3] years; 3560 [76.0%] cancer, 842 [18.0%] diabetes, and 281 [6.0%] multiple sclerosis), 3813 (81.5%) self-reported having at least one COVID-19 vaccine. Unvaccinated status was associated with younger age, female sex, lower education and income, English as a second language, and residence in regional areas. Unvaccinated participants were more likely to report greater vaccine hesitancy and more negative perceptions toward vaccines. Disease-related vaccine concerns were associated with unvaccinated status and hesitancy, including greater complacency about COVID-19 infection, and concerns relating to vaccine efficacy and impact on their disease and/or treatment. This highlights the need to develop targeted strategies and education about COVID-19 vaccination to support medically vulnerable populations and health professionals.

Patient demographics and management landscape of metastatic colorectal cancer in the third-line setting: Real-world data in an australian population.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer and second leading cause of cancer mortality in Australia, thus carrying a significant disease burden. AIMS: This analysis aims to explore real-world treatment landscape of metastatic colorectal cancer in the third-line setting. METHODS: We retrospectively analysed treatment of recurrent and advanced colorectal cancer (TRACC) registry database from 2009 onwards. Patients treated with palliative intent who progressed after two lines of therapies were included. One treatment line was defined as any combination of systemic therapy given until progression. RESULTS: Out of 1820 patients treated palliatively, 32% (590 patients) met study criteria. Of these, 43% (254 patients) proceeded to third-line therapy, equating to 14% of all metastatic patients. In KRAS mutant or unknown tumours (97 patients), fluoropyrimidine (FP)-oxaliplatin combination was the most common choice (51%), followed by FP-irinotecan (15%), trifluridine/tipiracil (11%), mono-chemotherapy (10%), regorafenib (5%) and others (7%). Majority of FP-doublet (83%) was given as rechallenge. In 157 patients with KRAS wildtype disease, monotherapy with EGFR inhibitor was most commonly used (41%), followed by EGFR inhibitor with chemotherapy (20%), FP-doublet (18%), mono-chemotherapy (6%), trifluridine/tipiracil (6%), regorafenib (1%) and others (8%). Median overall survival was 7.1 months (range 0.4-41.2), and median time on third-line treatment was 3 months (range 0.1-40). CONCLUSIONS: In real-world Australian population, treatment choices differed based on KRAS status and will likely change with the availability of newer drugs on the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. Survival outcomes are comparable to newer agents in clinical trials for select patients.

Oral cannabinoid-rich THC/CBD cannabis extract for secondary prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a study protocol for a pilot and definitive randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial (CannabisCINV).

INTRODUCTION: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) remains an important issue for patients receiving chemotherapy despite guideline-consistent antiemetic therapy. Trials using delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol-rich (THC) products demonstrate limited antiemetic effect, significant adverse events and flawed study design. Trials using cannabidiol-rich (CBD) products demonstrate improved efficacy and psychological adverse event profile. No definitive trials have been conducted to support the use of cannabinoids for this indication, nor has the potential economic impact of incorporating such regimens into the Australian healthcare system been established. CannabisCINV aims to assess the efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of adding TN-TC11M, an oral THC/CBD extract to guideline-consistent antiemetics in the secondary prevention of CINV. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The current multicentre, 1:1 randomised cross-over, placebo-controlled pilot study will recruit 80 adult patients with any malignancy, experiencing CINV during moderate to highly emetogenic chemotherapy despite guideline-consistent antiemetics. Patients receive oral TN-TC11M (THC 2.5mg/CBD 2.5 mg) capsules or placebo capsules three times a day on day -1 to day 5 of cycle A of chemotherapy, followed by the alternative drug regimen during cycle B of chemotherapy and the preferred drug regimen during cycle C. The primary endpoint is the proportion of subjects attaining a complete response to CINV. Secondary and tertiary endpoints include regimen tolerability, impact on quality of life and health system resource use. The primary assessment tool is patient diaries, which are filled from day -1 to day 5. A subsequent randomised placebo-controlled parallel phase III trial will recruit a further 250 patients. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol was approved by ethics review committees for all participating sites. Results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and at scientific conferences. DRUG SUPPLY: Tilray. PROTOCOL VERSION: 2.0, 9 June 2017. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ANZCTR12616001036404; Pre-results.

Small HER2-Positive Breast Cancer: Should Size Affect Adjuvant Treatment?

INTRODUCTION: The adjuvant trastuzumab trials largely excluded women with small, node-negative, HER2-positive breast cancers. Accordingly, limited data exist regarding the effect of trastuzumab in the management of these patients. Our aim was to assess the outcomes of, and treatments administered to, women with small (≤ 2 cm), node-negative, HER2-positive breast cancer in 4 Australian cancer centers. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis of data on all women with node-negative, HER2-positive breast cancers ≤ 2 cm diagnosed between 1 January 2001 and 31 December 2011 and treated at 4 cancer centers in Sydney, Australia was undertaken. The primary outcomes were recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: In total, 128 patients with node-negative, HER2-positive breast cancers ≤ 2 cm were identified. Of these, 83 women (65%) received adjuvant trastuzumab which, in 96% of cases, was in addition to adjuvant chemotherapy. At 3-year follow-up, the RFS was 100% and 79.2% and the OS was 100% and 92.6% for women treated with, and without, trastuzumab, respectively. There were 14 recurrence events and 6 deaths in the study population. There were no significant differences in RFS and OS for the 46 women treated with, or without, trastuzumab for those with tumors ≤ 1 cm. CONCLUSION: There is a growing body of evidence to support the use of adjuvant trastuzumab therapy in the management of small, node-negative, HER2-positive breast cancers. However, future studies with longer follow-up and prospective biomarker analysis might assist in clinical decision-making for this patient group.

Predictive and prognostic value of circulating tumor cell detection in lung cancer: a clinician's perspective.

There is increasing evidence for the use of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) as a "liquid biopsy" for early detection of lung cancer recurrence, prognosticating disease and monitoring treatment response. Further, CTC molecular analysis and interrogation of single cells hold significant potential in providing insights into tumor biology and the metastatic process. Ongoing research will likely see the translation of CTCs as a prognostic and predictive biomarker in both small cell, and non-small cell, lung cancer to routine clinical practice.

Estimation of an optimal chemotherapy utilization rate for malignant pleural mesothelioma: an evidence-based benchmark for cancer care.

AIMS: Chemotherapy with cisplatin and pemetrexed has been shown to provide a survival benefit and improvement in quality of life in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). The reported chemotherapy utilization rates range from 18% to 61%. This study aimed to estimate the proportion of MPM patients that should receive chemotherapy based on best available evidence. METHODS: An optimal chemotherapy utilization model for MPM was constructed using indications for chemotherapy identified from evidence-based MPM treatment guidelines. Epidemiological data on the proportion of patients and their tumor-related attributes were combined with the chemotherapy indications to estimate the optimal chemotherapy utilization rate using decision analysis software (TreeAge Pro 2007). Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the impact of major variations in the epidemiological data on the optimal chemotherapy utilization rate. The optimal rate was compared with the actual rate reported in the literature. RESULTS: Chemotherapy is recommended at least once during the disease trajectory in 65% of MPM patients. Sensitivity analyses indicate an optimal utilization rate ranging from 50% to 65%. This optimal rate is relatively comparable to the rates mentioned in contemporary reports from Canada (61% between 2003 and 2005) and Australia (54% between 2007 and 2009) and high when compared with data from the Netherlands (36% during 2005-2006). CONCLUSION: An evidence-based model provided an optimal chemotherapy utilization rate of 65% for patients with MPM. Chemotherapy for MPM may be underutilized and barriers are likely multifactorial.