PD-1 receptor outside the main paradigm: tumour-intrinsic role and clinical implications for checkpoint blockade.

Blocking the inhibitory receptor PD-1 on antitumour T lymphocytes is the main rationale underlying the clinical successes of cancer immunotherapies with checkpoint inhibitor (CI) antibodies (Abs). Besides this main paradigm, there is recent evidence of unconventional and "ectopic" signalling pathways of PD-1, found to be expressed not only by lymphocytes but also by peculiar subsets of cancer cells. Several groups reported on the tumour-intrinsic role of PD-1 in multiple settings, including melanoma, hepatocellular, thyroid, lung, pancreatic and colorectal cancer. Its functional activity appears intriguing but is not yet conclusively clarified. The initial studies are, in fact, supporting either a pro-tumourigenic role involved in chemoresistance and disease relapse or, oppositely, tumour-suppressive functions. The implications connected to the therapeutic administration of PD-1 blocking Abs are, of course, potentially relevant, respectively inferring an anti-tumour activity contrasting PD-1+ tumourigenic cells or a pro-tumoural effect by tackling PD-1 tumour suppressive signalling. The progressive exploration and consideration of this new paradigm of tumour-intrinsic PD-1 signalling may improve the interpretation of the observed clinical effects by anti-PD-1 Abs, likely resulting from multiple cumulative activities, and might provide important bases for dedicated clinical studies that take into account such composite roles of PD-1.

International Tailored Chemotherapy Adjuvant (ITACA) trial, a phase III multicenter randomized trial comparing adjuvant pharmacogenomic-driven chemotherapy versus standard adjuvant chemotherapy in completely resected stage II-IIIA non-small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Several strategies have been investigated to improve the 4% survival advantage of adjuvant chemotherapy in early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In this investigator-initiated study we aimed to evaluate the predictive utility of the messenger RNA (mRNA) expression levels of excision repair cross complementation group 1 (ERCC1) and thymidylate synthase (TS) as assessed in resected tumor. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Seven hundred and seventy-three completely resected stage II-III NSCLC patients were enrolled and randomly assigned in each of the four genomic subgroups to investigator's choice of platinum-based chemotherapy (C, n = 389) or tailored chemotherapy (T, n = 384). All anticancer drugs were administered according to standard doses and schedules. Stratification factors included stage and smoking status. The primary endpoint of the study was overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Six hundred and ninety patients were included in the primary analysis. At a median follow-up of 45.9 months, 85 (24.6%) and 70 (20.3%) patients died in arms C and T, respectively. Five-year survival for patients in arms C and T was of 65.4% (95% CI (confidence interval): 58.5% to 71.4%) and 72.9% (95% CI: 66.5% to 78.3%), respectively. The estimated hazard ratio (HR) was 0.77 (95% CI: 0.56-1.06, P value: 0.109) for arm T versus arm C. HR for recurrence-free survival was 0.89 (95% CI: 0.69-1.14, P value: 0.341) for arm T versus arm C. Grade 3-5 toxicities were more frequently reported in arm C than in arm T. CONCLUSION: In completely resected stage II-III NSCLC tailoring adjuvant chemotherapy conferred a non-statistically significant trend for OS favoring the T arm. In terms of safety, the T arm was associated with better efficacy/toxicity ratio related to the different therapeutic choices in the experimental arm.

ARCTIC: durvalumab with or without tremelimumab as third-line or later treatment of metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Many patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) experience disease progression after first- and second-line treatment; more treatment options are required for these patients. ARCTIC, a phase III, randomized, open-label study, assessed durvalumab ± tremelimumab versus standard of care (SoC) as ≥ third-line treatment of mNSCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: ARCTIC comprised two independent sub-studies. Study A: 126 patients with ≥25% of tumor cells (TCs) expressing programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1) were randomized (1 : 1) to durvalumab [up to 12 months 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks (q2w)] or SoC. Study B: 469 patients with PD-L1 TC <25% were randomized (3 : 2 : 2 : 1) to durvalumab + tremelimumab (12 weeks durvalumab 20 mg/kg + tremelimumab 1 mg/kg q4w then 34 weeks durvalumab 10 mg/kg q2w), SoC, durvalumab (up to 12 months 10 mg/kg q2w), or tremelimumab (24 weeks 10 mg/kg q4w then 24 weeks q12w). Primary end points: overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) for durvalumab versus SoC (study A; descriptive only) and durvalumab + tremelimumab versus SoC (study B). RESULTS: Study A: median OS 11.7 (durvalumab) versus 6.8 (SoC) months {hazard ratio (HR) 0.63 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.42-0.93]}; median PFS 3.8 (durvalumab) versus 2.2 (SoC) months [HR 0.71 (95% CI, 0.49-1.04)]. Study B: median OS 11.5 (durvalumab + tremelimumab) versus 8.7 (SoC) months [HR 0.80 (95% CI, 0.61-1.05); P = 0.109]. Median PFS of 3.5 months for both groups [HR 0.77 (95% CI, 0.59-1.01); P = 0.056]. Treatment-related grade 3/4 adverse events: 9.7% (durvalumab) and 44.4% (SoC; study A) and 22.0% (durvalumab + tremelimumab) and 36.4% (SoC; study B). CONCLUSIONS: In heavily pretreated patients with mNSCLC, durvalumab demonstrated clinically meaningful improvements in OS and PFS versus SoC (patients with PD-L1 TC ≥25%); numerical improvements in OS and PFS for durvalumab + tremelimumab versus SoC were observed (patients with PD-L1 TC <25%). Safety profiles were consistent with previous studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02352948.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors for patients with advanced lung cancer and oncogenic driver alterations: results from the IMMUNOTARGET registry.

BACKGROUND: Anti-PD1/PD-L1 directed immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are widely used to treat patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The activity of ICI across NSCLC harboring oncogenic alterations is poorly characterized. The aim of our study was to address the efficacy of ICI in the context of oncogenic addiction. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study for patients receiving ICI monotherapy for advanced NSCLC with at least one oncogenic driver alteration. Anonymized data were evaluated for clinicopathologic characteristics and outcomes for ICI therapy: best response (RECIST 1.1), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) from ICI initiation. The primary end point was PFS under ICI. Secondary end points were best response (RECIST 1.1) and OS from ICI initiation. RESULTS: We studied 551 patients treated in 24 centers from 10 countries. The molecular alterations involved KRAS (n = 271), EGFR (n = 125), BRAF (n = 43), MET (n = 36), HER2 (n = 29), ALK (n = 23), RET (n = 16), ROS1 (n = 7), and multiple drivers (n = 1). Median age was 60 years, gender ratio was 1 : 1, never/former/current smokers were 28%/51%/21%, respectively, and the majority of tumors were adenocarcinoma. The objective response rate by driver alteration was: KRAS = 26%, BRAF = 24%, ROS1 = 17%, MET = 16%, EGFR = 12%, HER2 = 7%, RET = 6%, and ALK = 0%. In the entire cohort, median PFS was 2.8 months, OS 13.3 months, and the best response rate 19%. In a subgroup analysis, median PFS (in months) was 2.1 for EGFR, 3.2 for KRAS, 2.5 for ALK, 3.1 for BRAF, 2.5 for HER2, 2.1 for RET, and 3.4 for MET. In certain subgroups, PFS was positively associated with PD-L1 expression (KRAS, EGFR) and with smoking status (BRAF, HER2). CONCLUSIONS: : ICI induced regression in some tumors with actionable driver alterations, but clinical activity was lower compared with the KRAS group and the lack of response in the ALK group was notable. Patients with actionable tumor alterations should receive targeted therapies and chemotherapy before considering immunotherapy as a single agent.

Alectinib versus crizotinib in treatment-naive anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive (ALK+) non-small-cell lung cancer: CNS efficacy results from the ALEX study.

Background: The phase III ALEX study in patients with treatment-naive advanced anaplastic lymphoma kinase mutation-positive (ALK+) non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) met its primary end point of improved progression-free survival (PFS) with alectinib versus crizotinib. Here, we present detailed central nervous system (CNS) efficacy data from ALEX. Patients and methods: Overall, 303 patients aged ≥18 years underwent 1:1 randomization to receive twice-daily doses of alectinib 600 mg or crizotinib 250 mg. Brain imaging was conducted in all patients at baseline and every subsequent 8 weeks. End points (analyzed by subgroup: patients with/without baseline CNS metastases; patients with/without prior radiotherapy) included PFS, CNS objective response rate (ORR), and time to CNS progression. Results: In total, 122 patients had Independent Review Committee-assessed baseline CNS metastases (alectinib, n = 64; crizotinib, n = 58), 43 had measurable lesions (alectinib, n = 21; crizotinib, n = 22), and 46 had received prior radiotherapy (alectinib, n = 25; crizotinib, n = 21). Investigator-assessed PFS with alectinib was consistent between patients with baseline CNS metastases [hazard ratio (HR) 0.40, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.25-0.64] and those without (HR 0.51, 95% CI: 0.33-0.80, P interaction = 0.36). Similar results were seen in patients regardless of prior radiotherapy. Time to CNS progression was significantly longer with alectinib versus crizotinib and comparable between patients with and without baseline CNS metastases (P < 0.0001). CNS ORR was 85.7% with alectinib versus 71.4% with crizotinib in patients who received prior radiotherapy and 78.6% versus 40.0%, respectively, in those who had not. Conclusion: Alectinib demonstrated superior CNS activity and significantly delayed CNS progression versus crizotinib in patients with previously untreated, advanced ALK+ NSCLC, irrespective of prior CNS disease or radiotherapy. Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02075840.

Alectinib versus chemotherapy in crizotinib-pretreated anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive non-small-cell lung cancer: results from the phase III ALUR study.

Background: This is the first trial to directly compare efficacy and safety of alectinib versus standard chemotherapy in advanced/metastatic anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients who have progressed on, or were intolerant to, crizotinib. Patients and methods: ALUR (MO29750; NCT02604342) was a randomized, multicenter, open-label, phase III trial of alectinib versus chemotherapy in advanced/metastatic ALK-positive NSCLC patients previously treated with platinum-based doublet chemotherapy and crizotinib. Patients were randomized 2 : 1 to receive alectinib 600 mg twice daily or chemotherapy (pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 or docetaxel 75 mg/m2, both every 3 weeks) until disease progression, death, or withdrawal. Primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS). Results: Altogether, 107 patients were randomized (alectinib, n = 72; chemotherapy, n = 35) in 13 countries across Europe and Asia. Median investigator-assessed PFS was 9.6 months [95% confidence interval (CI): 6.9-12.2] with alectinib and 1.4 months (95% CI: 1.3-1.6) with chemotherapy [hazard ratio (HR) 0.15 (95% CI: 0.08-0.29); P < 0.001]. Independent Review Committee-assessed PFS was also significantly longer with alectinib [HR 0.32 (95% CI: 0.17-0.59); median PFS was 7.1 months (95% CI: 6.3-10.8) with alectinib and 1.6 months (95% CI: 1.3-4.1) with chemotherapy]. In patients with measurable baseline central nervous system (CNS) disease (alectinib, n = 24; chemotherapy, n = 16), CNS objective response rate was significantly higher with alectinib (54.2%) versus chemotherapy (0%; P < 0.001). Grade ≥3 adverse events were more common with chemotherapy (41.2%) than alectinib (27.1%). Incidence of AEs leading to study-drug discontinuation was lower with alectinib (5.7%) than chemotherapy (8.8%), despite alectinib treatment duration being longer (20.1 weeks versus 6.0 weeks). Conclusion: Alectinib significantly improved systemic and CNS efficacy versus chemotherapy for crizotinib-pretreated ALK-positive NSCLC patients, with a favorable safety profile. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02604342; Roche study MO29750.

Deficiencies in health-related quality-of-life assessment and reporting: a systematic review of oncology randomized phase III trials published between 2012 and 2016.

Quality of life (QoL) is a relevant end point and a topic of growing interest by both scientific community and regulatory authorities. Our aim was to review QoL prevalence as an end point in cancer phase III trials published in major journals and to evaluate QoL reporting deficiencies in terms of under-reporting and delay of publication. All issues published between 2012 and 2016 by 11 major journals were hand-searched for primary publications of phase III trials in adult patients with solid tumors. Information about end points was derived from paper and study protocol, when available. Secondary QoL publications were searched in PubMed. In total, 446 publications were eligible. In 210 (47.1%), QoL was not included among end points. QoL was not an end point in 40.1% of trials in the advanced/metastatic setting, 39.7% of profit trials and 53.6% of non-profit trials. Out of 231 primary publications of trials with QoL as secondary or exploratory end point, QoL results were available in 143 (61.9%). QoL results were absent in 37.6% of publications in the advanced/metastatic setting, in 37.1% of profit trials and 39.3% of non-profit trials. Proportion of trials not including QoL as end point or with missing QoL results was relevant in all tumor types and for all treatment types. Overall, 70 secondary QoL publications were found: for trials without QoL results in the primary publication, probability of secondary publication was 12.5%, 30.9% and 40.3% at 1, 2 and 3 years, respectively. Proportion of trials not reporting QoL results was similar in trials with positive results (36.5%) and with negative results (39.4%), but the probability of secondary publication was higher in positive trials. QoL is not included among end points in a relevant proportion of recently published phase III trials in solid tumors. In addition, QoL results are subject to significant under-reporting and delay in publication.

Predictive biomarkers for response to EGFR-directed monoclonal antibodies for advanced squamous cell lung cancer.

Background: Upregulated expression and aberrant activation of the epidermal growth-factor receptor (EGFR) are found in lung cancer, making EGFR a relevant target for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Treatment with anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) is associated with modest improvement in overall survival in patients with squamous cell lung cancer (SqCLC) who have a significant unmet need for effective treatment options. While there is evidence that using EGFR gene copy number, EGFR mutation, and EGFR protein expression as biomarkers can help select patients who respond to treatment, it is important to consider biomarkers for response in patients treated with combination therapies that include EGFR mAbs. Design: Randomized trials of EGFR-directed mAbs cetuximab and necitumumab in combination with chemotherapy, immunotherapy, or antiangiogenic therapy in patients with advanced NSCLC, including SqCLC, were searched in the literature. Results of associations of potential biomarkers and outcomes were summarized. Results: Data from phase III clinical trials indicate that patients with NSCLC, including SqCLC, whose tumors express high levels of EGFR protein (H-score of ≥200) and/or gene copy numbers of EGFR (e.g. ≥40% cells with ≥4 EGFR copies as detected by fluorescence in situ hybridization; gene amplification in ≥10% of analyzed cells) derive greater therapeutic benefits from EGFR-directed mAbs. Biomarker data are limited for EGFR mAbs used in combination with immunotherapy and are absent when used in combination with antiangiogenic agents. Conclusions: Therapy with EGFR-directed mAbs in combination with chemotherapy is associated with greater clinical benefits in patients with NSCLC, including SqCLC, whose tumors express high levels of EGFR protein and/or have increased EGFR gene copy number. These data support validating the role of these as biomarkers to identify those patients who derive the greatest clinical benefit from EGFR mAb therapy. However, data on biomarkers for EGFR-directed mAbs combined with immunotherapy or antiangiogenic agents remain limited.

Safinamide Modulates Striatal Glutamatergic Signaling in a Rat Model of Levodopa-Induced Dyskinesia.

Safinamide (Xadago) is a novel dual-mechanism drug that has been approved in the European Union and United States as add-on treatment to levodopa in Parkinson's disease therapy. In addition to its selective and reversible monoamine oxidase B inhibition, safinamide through use-dependent sodium channel blockade reduces overactive glutamatergic transmission in basal ganglia, which is believed to contribute to motor symptoms and complications including levodopa-induced dyskinesia (LID). The present study investigated the effects of safinamide on the development of LID in 6-hydroxydopamine (6-OHDA)-lesioned rats, evaluating behavioral, molecular, and neurochemical parameters associated with LID appearance. 6-OHDA-lesioned rats were treated with saline, levodopa (6 mg/kg), or levodopa plus safinamide (15 mg/kg) for 21 days. Abnormal involuntary movements, motor performance, molecular composition of the striatal glutamatergic synapse, glutamate, and GABA release were analyzed. In the striatum, safinamide prevented the rearrangement of the subunit composition of N-methyl-d-aspartate receptors and the levodopa-induced increase of glutamate release associated with dyskinesia without affecting the levodopa-stimulated motor performance and dyskinesia. Overall, these findings suggest that the striatal glutamate-modulating component of safinamide's activity may contribute to its clinical effects, where its long-term use as levodopa add-on therapy significantly improves motor function and "on" time without troublesome dyskinesia.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients with advanced lung cancer during the first-line treatment: assessment by physicians, nurses, and patients from an Italian multicenter survey.

PURPOSE: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) still represents a common side-effect of chemotherapy, and often, its perception differs between patients and healthcare professionals. The aim of this study was to evaluate the agreement on the perception of CINV and other items among clinicians, patients, and nurses. METHODS: This observational prospective study was part of an evaluation program promoted by the Women Against Lung Cancer in Europe (WALCE) Onlus. From August 2015 to February 2016, a survey was administered in 11 oncologic institutions to 188 stage IV lung cancer patients and to their oncologists and nurses during first-line chemotherapy. Our survey investigated 11 aspects: anxiety, mood, weakness, appetite, nausea, vomiting, pain, drowsiness, breath, general condition, and trust in treatments. These items were assessed through Numerical Rating Scale at four consecutive evaluations: at T0 (immediately prior to the first cycle), at T1 (immediately prior to the second cycle), at T2 (immediately prior to the third cycle), and at T3 (immediately prior to the fourth cycle). Clinician versus patient (CvP), nurse versus patient (NvP), and clinician versus nurse (CvN) agreements were estimated applying Weighted Cohen's kappa. A multivariate logistic model and generalized equation estimates were applied to evaluate factors possibly influencing CINV development. RESULTS: The incidence of patients reporting CINV varied from 40% at T0 to 71% at T3. Both CvP and NvP agreement on the investigated items were mainly moderate, slightly increasing over time, and becoming substantial for some items, in particular for NvP. Pre-chemotherapy anxiety in its mild, moderate, and severe manifestations, as well as mild, moderate, and severe anxiety experienced after chemotherapy start, exposed patients to a higher risk of anticipatory and acute/delayed CINV, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Despite clinical staff awareness of patients' status and perceptions, CINV still represents a clinical problem. This study confirms that particular attention should be paid to anxiety due to its key role in CINV development.

Alleged malpractice in orthopaedics. Analysis of a series of medmal insurance claims.

BACKGROUND: Medical malpractice is an important topic worldwide, and orthopedics is a clinical branch that is considered to be at a high risk for claims. The analysis of a series of medmal insurance claims allows forensic pathologists, clinicians, and insurance companies to probe the risk of a specific clinical branch for medical malpractice claims and highlights areas where care may be improved. We investigated the main features of a major Italian insurance broker's archive in order to identify recurrent pitfalls in this field. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study was carried out on orthopedics claims. The archive covered claims from 2002 to 2013 that targeted 1980 orthopedists. RESULTS: 635 claims were found and analyzed with a focus on the clinical activity invocked in the claim, the presence of alleged team malpractice, the clinical outcome of the case, and the final forensic decision regarding the claim. 299 orthopedists had at least one malpractice claim made against them during the available period; 146 orthopedists were subject to more than one malpractice claim. Most of the claims regarded perioperative and operative cases, usually originating from civil litigation. The anatomical sites most commonly involved were the hip or knees, and sciatic nerve lesions were the main contributor. CONCLUSIONS: Orthopedics is a medical specialty with a high risk for malpractice claims. In our study, medical malpractice was observed in nearly 50% of the cases-typically in surgery-linked cases resulting in permanent impairment of the patient. Death from orthopedics malpractice seemed to be rare. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Randomized, phase III trial of figitumumab in combination with erlotinib versus erlotinib alone in patients with nonadenocarcinoma nonsmall-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Figitumumab (CP-751,871) is a fully human IgG2 monoclonal antibody that inhibits the insulin-like growth factor 1 receptor. This multicenter, randomized, phase III study investigated the efficacy of figitumumab plus erlotinib compared with erlotinib alone in patients with pretreated, nonsmall-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients (stage IIIB/IV or recurrent disease with nonadenocarcinoma histology) who had previously received at least one platinum-based regimen were randomized to receive open-label figitumumab (20 mg/kg) plus erlotinib 150 mg/day or erlotinib alone every 3 weeks. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Of 583 patients randomized, 579 received treatment. The study was closed early by an independent data safety monitoring committee due to results crossing the prespecified futility boundary. At the final analysis, median OS was 5.7 months for figitumumab plus erlotinib and 6.2 months for erlotinib alone [hazard ratio (HR) 1.09; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91-1.31; P = 0.35]. Median progression-free survival was 2.1 months for figitumumab plus erlotinib and 2.6 months for erlotinib alone (HR 1.08; 95% CI 0.90-1.29; P = 0.43). Treatment-related nonfatal serious adverse events occurred in 18% and 5% of patients in the figitumumab arm or erlotinib alone arm, respectively. There were nine treatment-related deaths (three related to both drugs, four related to erlotinib alone and two related to figitumumab). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of figitumumab to erlotinib did not improve OS in patients with advanced, pretreated, nonadenocarcinoma NSCLC. Clinical development of figitumumab has been discontinued. CLINICAL TRIAL ID: NCT00673049.

Second ESMO consensus conference on lung cancer: pathology and molecular biomarkers for non-small-cell lung cancer.

To complement the existing treatment guidelines for all tumour types, ESMO organises consensus conferences to focus on specific issues in each type of tumour. The Second ESMO Consensus Conference on Lung Cancer was held on 11-12 May 2013 in Lugano. A total of 35 experts met to address several questions on management of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in each of four areas: pathology and molecular biomarkers, early stage disease, locally advanced disease and advanced (metastatic) disease. For each question, recommendations were made including reference to the grade of recommendation and level of evidence. This consensus paper focuses on recommendations for pathology and molecular biomarkers in relation to the diagnosis of lung cancer, primarily non-small-cell carcinomas.

A phase II randomized study evaluating the addition of iniparib to gemcitabine plus cisplatin as first-line therapy for metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Iniparib is a novel anticancer agent initially considered a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, but subsequently shown to act via non-selective protein modification through cysteine adducts. This randomized phase II study investigated the addition of iniparib to gemcitabine-cisplatin in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with histologically confirmed stage IV NSCLC were randomized 2 : 1 to receive gemcitabine (1250 mg/m(2), days 1/8) and cisplatin (75 mg/m(2), day 1) with [gemcitabine/cisplatin/iniparib (GCI)] or without [gemcitabine/cisplatin (GC)] iniparib (5.6 mg/kg, days 1/4/8/11) every 3 weeks for six cycles. The primary end point was the overall response rate (ORR). Secondary objectives included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. The study was not designed for formal efficacy comparison, the control arm being to benchmark results against the literature. RESULTS: One hundred and nineteen patients were randomized (39 GC and 80 GCI). More GCI patients were male (80% GCI and 67% GC) and had PS 0 (61% GCI and 49% GC). The ORR was 25.6% [95% confidence interval (CI) 13.0%-42.1%] with GC versus 20.0% (95% CI 11.9%-30.4%) with GCI, which did not allow rejection of the null hypothesis (ORR with GCI ≤20%; P = 0.545). Median PFS was 4.3 (95% CI 2.8-5.6) months with GC and 5.7 (95% CI 4.6-6.6) months with GCI (hazard ratio 0.89, 95% CI 0.56-1.40). Median OS was 8.5 (95% CI 5.5 to not reached) months with GC, and 12.0 (95% CI 8.9-17.1) months with GCI (hazard ratio 0.78, 95% CI 0.48-1.27). More GCI patients received second-line treatment (51% GC and 68% GCI). Toxicity was similar in the two arms. Grade 3-4 toxicities included asthenia (28% GC and 8% GCI), nausea (3% GC and 14% GCI), and decreased appetite (10% in each). CONCLUSIONS: Addition of iniparib to GC did not improve ORR over GC alone. The GCI safety profile was comparable to GC alone. Imbalances in PS and gender distribution may have impacted study results regarding PFS and OS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrial.gov Identifier NCT01086254.

A cross-sectional study evaluating the exercise discussion with oncologist during cancer consultation: the CONNECT study.

BACKGROUND: Evidence demonstrates that physical exercise confers several psycho-physical benefits on patients with cancer. This study aims to investigate the role of oncologists in exercise promotion. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A multicenter, cross-sectional study was conducted by distributing an anonymous, self-administered questionnaire to patients with cancer. The questionnaire enclosed demographic, health, and exercise variables. The exercise-related questions included in the study used the Godin-Shephard Leisure-Time Physical Activity Questionnaire to measure the amount of physical exercise. In addition, the survey gathered information on whether exercise was discussed with patients, and whether oncologists followed the assess, advise, reinforce, and refer (AARR) process regarding exercise. The survey also asked if patients preferred that exercise be discussed during their consultations. Descriptive statistics and logistic regression were applied. RESULTS: With a response rate of 75%, a total of 549 patients completed the survey. Regarding the exercise discussion, 38% of patients stated that their oncologist initiated an exercise discussion, 14% started the discussion themselves, and 48% said that the issue was not considered. Overall, 35% of patients reported that the oncologist assessed their exercise level, 22% and 42% received advice or reinforcement to increase their exercise, respectively, and 10% were referred to a dedicated service. Regarding preferences, 72% of patients thought that the oncologists should initiate an exercise discussion, 2% that only patients should start the discussion, and 26% thought that the issue should not be discussed. Similarly, 74% of patients are willing to receive the exercise assessment, 59% and 75% the advice and reinforcement to increase their exercise, and 46% to be referred to an exercise service. CONCLUSIONS: Although exercise promotion rates are low, patients are willing to receive exercise information. Dedicated strategies should be developed to support oncologists in promoting exercise to their patients.

Pemetrexed-based chemotherapy in patients with advanced, ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is highly responsive to crizotinib. To determine whether ALK-positive NSCLC is also sensitive to pemetrexed, we retrospectively evaluated progression-free survival (PFS) of ALK-positive versus ALK-negative patients who had been treated with pemetrexed-based chemotherapy for advanced NSCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We identified 121 patients with advanced, ALK-positive NSCLC in the USA, Australia, and Italy. For comparison, we evaluated 266 patients with advanced, ALK-negative, epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-wild-type NSCLC, including 79 with KRAS mutations and 187 with wild-type KRAS (WT/WT/WT). We determined PFS on different pemetrexed regimens. RESULTS: Among 70 ALK-positive patients treated with a platinum/pemetrexed regimen, the median PFS (mPFS) was 7.3 months (95% confidence interval (CI) 5.5-9.5). The mPFS of 51 ALK-positive patients treated with single-agent pemetrexed or nonplatinum/pemetrexed combinations was 5.5 months (2.8-9.0). For ALK-negative patients, PFS on all pemetrexed-based regimens was similar to that of ALK-positive patients, except in the specific setting of first-line platinum/pemetrexed where the mPFS was only 4.2 and 5.4 months in KRAS and WT/WT/WT patients, respectively. However, among patients with a never/light-smoking history (0-10 pack-year smoking history) treated with first-line platinum/pemetrexed, there was no difference in PFS between ALK-positive and ALK-negative patients. CONCLUSIONS: PFS on pemetrexed or nonplatinum/pemetrexed combinations was similar in ALK-positive and ALK-negative patients. PFS on first-line platinum/pemetrexed may be prolonged in never/light-smoking patients regardless of ALK status.