Overview of premedication prescription and intake in an oncology day hospital: What do we need to change to improve patient management?

BACKGROUND: Premedication of cancer therapy against nausea and vomiting (NV) and hypersensitivity reaction (HS) is essential for good patient management. However, this prescription is not always optimal. Today, as a large part of cancer therapies are administered in day hospitals (DH), premedication taken on the day of the cancer treatment is injected as a 30-min infusion. OBJECTIVE: To assess compliance with recommendations for premedication prescription and intake; to analyse patient attitude about switching to exclusively oral forms taken at home. METHOD: The study is conducted in the medical oncology DH of a French Hospital from 17 January to 25 February 2022. The data collection is carried out as an individual interview, associated with the distribution of two questionnaires. Data are coupled with the premedication set up on our software and the last medical report. Intakes are considered optimal when recommendations, tolerance, background, and adherence of the patient are taken into account. RESULTS: Seventy patients were included for interviews. Regarding software prescriptions, our configuration was consistent with recommendations in 100% of cases for HS and 37% for NV. Intakes were compliant in 51.4% of cases, non-compliant in 17.1% and debatable in 31.5%. Disparities between the practices of different physicians were identified. Regarding the feasibility of oral substitution, it could concern 63.5% of patients. CONCLUSION: This work makes it possible to improve the management of all patients and to make the operation of the care unit more fluid.

Response to first line platinum-based chemotherapy in mismatch repair deficient (MMRd)/ microsatellite instability high (MSI-high) endometrial carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Around 15% of metastatic endometrial carcinoma (EC) are MMRd/MSI-H improving response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). So far, few data existed considering the chemotherapy (CT) sensitivity in MMRd/MSI-H EC, especially response to first-line platinum-based treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a multicentric retrospective analysis reporting the response to first line platinum CT in MMRd/MSI-H EC patients. The primary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS) with first line platinum-based CT. RESULTS: A total of 112 patients MMRd/MSI-H EC from 8 centers were identified. Median overall survival was 58.0 months (95% CI: 45.3-95.1). Among them, 78 patients received first line platinum CT in recurrent/metastatic setting. With a median follow up of 32.6 months (min: 0.03; max: 135.0), ORR and DCR (disease control rate) were 50% (95% CI: 38.5-61.5) and 68% (95% CI: 56.4-78.1), respectively. Median PFS and OS from first line platinum-based CT was 7.8 months (95% CI: 6.0-9.0) and 51.9 months (95% CI: 28.0-NE), respectively. Median PFS with ICI in second line (n = 48) was 10.7 months (95% CI: 3.4-NE) from ICI initiation. CONCLUSION: ORR in first line metastatic MMRd/MSI-H EC is consistent with efficacy in an all comer metastatic EC population.

MiR-31-3p do not predict anti-EGFR efficacy in first-line therapy of RAS wild-type metastatic right-sided colon cancer.

BACKGROUND: Low miR-31-3p expression was identified as predictive of anti-EGFR efficacy in RAS-wt mCRC. Primary tumor side was also proposed as a predictive factor of anti-EGFR benefit. This retrospective multicentric study evaluated the predictive role of miR-31-3p in right-sided RAS-wt mCRC patients treated with first-line CT+anti-EGFR or CT+bevacizumab (Beva). METHODS: Seventy-two right-sided RAS-wt mCRC patients treated in first-line with CT+anti-EGFR (n = 43) or Beva (n = 29) were included. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and response rate (RR) were analyzed and stratified according to tumor miR-31-3p expression level and targeted therapy (TT). RESULTS: BRAF V600E mutation was more frequent in high vs low miR-31-3p expressers (60.6% vs 15.4%, P < 0.001). PFS was significantly longer with CT+Beva than with CT+anti-EGFR (13 vs 7 months; P = 0.024). Among low miR-31-3p expressers, PFS, OS and RR were not significantly different between the two groups, while in high miR-31-3p expressers, only PFS was longer in the CT+Beva group (11 vs 6 months; P = 0.03). In patients treated with CT+anti-EGFR, low miR-31-3p expressers had a significantly longer OS (20 vs 13 months; P = 0.02) than high miR-31-3p expressers. ORR was not significantly different between the two groups of treatment, in both low and high miR-31-3p expressers. MiR-31-3p expression status was statistically correlated between primary tumors and corresponding metastases. CONCLUSION: In this study, miR-31-3p couldn't identify a subgroup of patients with right-sided RAS-wt mCRC who might benefit from anti-EGFR and suggest that Beva is the TT of choice in first-line treatment of these patients.

KRAS mutations in metastatic colorectal cancer: from a de facto ban on anti-EGFR treatment in the past to a potential biomarker for precision medicine.

INTRODUCTION: The high frequency of RAS mutations, particularly KRAS mutations, in colorectal cancer (CRC) and the ineffectiveness of anti-EGFR antibodies in treating this disease has created a significant unmet medical need, especially for treating patients in the metastatic phase of this disease. There are many different types of RAS mutations, the most frequent being G12V (c.35 G > T (p.G12V)), G12D (c.35 G > A (p.G12D)), and G13D (c.38 G > A (p.G13D)). Here, we provide an overview of RAS mutations in CRC and their therapeutic implications. AREAS COVERED: The therapeutic strategies against metastatic CRC with RAS mutations are elaborated according to patient and disease characteristics and integrated into a multiline strategy. The complexity of the molecular structure of RAS and its relationship with the MAPK/ERK pathway partly explain the initial therapeutic failure with MEK or farnesyltransferase inhibitors. Conversely, the development of direct KRAS inhibitors or drugs targeting RAS regulators (e.g. SOS1 and SHP2) has opened new therapeutic fields, requiring the distinction of each KRAS mutation type. EXPERT OPINION: In the future, KRAS inhibitors, including SOS1 and SHP2 inhibitors, might be used in combination with other signal transduction inhibitors, such as MEK inhibitors or anti-EGFR antibodies, which block alternative pathways of activation.

EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC: factors to consider when deciding first-line therapy.

Introduction: Advanced non-small-cell lung cancers with EGFR mutation belong to the models of solid tumors which revealed the concept of oncogene addiction. For that reason, first, second and third generation EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) are the major anti-cancer drugs used in this indication. Translational research is currently focused on induced mechanisms of resistance and aims to define the best first therapeutic option and the best multiline strategy.Areas covered: EGFR TKIs, alone or in combination, i.e. anti-angiogenic drugs or chemotherapy, have demonstrated their ability to improve median PFS and OS in large randomized phase 3 trials. All these combinations, now available in first-line for EGFR mutated advanced NSLC, need to integrate multiple factors like patients characteristics (age, co-morbidities, eligibility to platinum-based chemotherapy), presence of brain metastasis at diagnosis, and type of EGFR mutation. This review has 2 aims: (1) to discuss the current knowledge of therapies available in non pre-treated EGFR-mutated NSCLC; (2) to propose the best therapeutic option according to multiple parameters, either clinical or biological.Expert commentary: In 2020, we can affirm that osimertinib the first choice for patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC. However, this has to be balanced with patient characteristics, type of EGFR mutation and new therapeutic options.

Pembrolizumab for the treatment of colorectal cancer.

Introduction: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most frequent and lethal cancers in the world, and therapies are still insufficient. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in metastatic CRC (mCRC) have not revolutionized treatment to the extent that they have in melanoma or renal carcinoma. Their use is limited to a molecular niche of mCRC with microsatellite instability (MSI). This review summarizes clinical data published with pembrolizumab in mCRC and also tries to identify potential new strategies.Areas covered: This paper focuses on pembrolizumab in mCRC. We screened all trials on PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov and describe the most significant ones in our opinion.Expert opinion: Pembrolizumab seems to be effective in tumors with MSI-high status. It defines a new horizon for therapeutic strategy called 'agnostic' medicine. For microsatellite stable (MSS) colorectal cancers, the future challenge will be to successfully redraw the immune microenvironment to make it immunogenic with new therapeutic combinations, including ICI.

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors Rechallenge Efficacy in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Patients.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICPi) rechallenge could represent an attractive option in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), yet no sufficient data supporting this strategy are available. This retrospective observational multicenter national study explored the efficacy of anti-programmed cell death 1 (PD-1)/programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) rechallenge in advanced NSCLC patients, looking for potential clinical features associated with greater outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively collected data from 144 advanced NSCLC patients whose disease was rechallenged with ICPis after ≥ 12 weeks of discontinuation. The progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated from first or second ICPi initiation to disease progression (PFS1 and PFSR, respectively), death, or last follow-up (OS1, OSR), respectively. RESULTS: The median (interquartile range) age was 63 (58-70) years. Most patients were male (67%) and smokers (87%). Most had adenocarcinomas (62%) and/or stage IV disease at diagnosis (66%). The best response at rechallenge was not associated with that under the first ICPi (P = 1.10-1). The median (95% confidence interval) PFS1 and PFSR were 13 (10-16.5) and 4.4 (3-6.5) months, respectively. The median (95% confidence interval) OS1 and OSR were 3.3 (2.9-3.9) and 1.5 (1.0-2.1) years, respectively. Longer PFSR and OSR were found in patients discontinuing first ICPi because of toxicity or clinical decision, those not receiving systemic treatment between the two ICPis, and those with good Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status at rechallenge. Only performance status proved to affect outcomes at multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION: Patients discontinuing first ICPi because of toxicity or clinical decision, those able to maintain a treatment-free period, and those with good performance status may be potential candidates for rechallenge.