"The challenge is the complexity" - A qualitative study about decision-making in advanced lung cancer treatment.

INTRODUCTION: The value of shared decision-making and decision aids (DA) has been well documented yet remain difficult to integrate into clinical practice. We wanted to investigate needs and challenges regarding decision-making about advanced lung cancer treatment after first-line therapy, focusing on DA applicability. METHODS: Qualitative data from separate, semi-structured focus groups with patients/relatives and healthcare professionals were analysed using systematic text condensation. 12 patients with incurable lung cancer, seven relatives, 12 nurses and 18 doctors were recruited from four different hospitals in Norway. RESULTS: The participants described the following needs and challenges affecting treatment decisions: 1) Continuity of clinician-patient-relationships as a basic framework for decision-making; 2) barriers to information exchange; 3) negotiation of autonomy; and 4) assessment of uncertainty and how to deal with it. Some clinicians feared DA would steal valuable time and disrupt consultations, arguing that such tools could not incorporate the complexity and uncertainty of decision-making. Patients and relatives reported a need for more information and the possibility both to decline or continue burdensome therapy. Participants welcomed interventions supporting information exchange, like communicative techniques and organizational changes ensuring continuity and more time for dialogue. Doctors called for tools decreasing uncertainty about treatment tolerance and futile therapy. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests it is difficult to develop an applicable DA for advanced lung cancer after first-line therapy that meets the composite requirements of stakeholders. Comprehensive decision support interventions are needed to address organizational structures, communication training including scientific and existential uncertainty, and assessment of frailty and treatment toxicity.

Improving public cancer care by implementing precision medicine in Norway: IMPRESS-Norway.

BACKGROUND: Matching treatment based on tumour molecular characteristics has revolutionized the treatment of some cancers and has given hope to many patients. Although personalized cancer care is an old concept, renewed attention has arisen due to recent advancements in cancer diagnostics including access to high-throughput sequencing of tumour tissue. Targeted therapies interfering with cancer specific pathways have been developed and approved for subgroups of patients. These drugs might just as well be efficient in other diagnostic subgroups, not investigated in pharma-led clinical studies, but their potential use on new indications is never explored due to limited number of patients. METHODS: In this national, investigator-initiated, prospective, open-label, non-randomized combined basket- and umbrella-trial, patients are enrolled in multiple parallel cohorts. Each cohort is defined by the patient's tumour type, molecular profile of the tumour, and study drug. Treatment outcome in each cohort is monitored by using a Simon two-stage-like 'admissible' monitoring plan to identify evidence of clinical activity. All drugs available in IMPRESS-Norway have regulatory approval and are funded by pharmaceutical companies. Molecular diagnostics are funded by the public health care system. DISCUSSION: Precision oncology means to stratify treatment based on specific patient characteristics and the molecular profile of the tumor. Use of targeted drugs is currently restricted to specific biomarker-defined subgroups of patients according to their market authorization. However, other cancer patients might also benefit of treatment with these drugs if the same biomarker is present. The emerging technologies in molecular diagnostics are now being implemented in Norway and it is publicly reimbursed, thus more cancer patients will have a more comprehensive genomic profiling of their tumour. Patients with actionable genomic alterations in their tumour may have the possibility to try precision cancer drugs through IMPRESS-Norway, if standard treatment is no longer an option, and the drugs are available in the study. This might benefit some patients. In addition, it is a good example of a public-private collaboration to establish a national infrastructure for precision oncology. Trial registrations EudraCT: 2020-004414-35, registered 02/19/2021; ClinicalTrial.gov: NCT04817956, registered 03/26/2021.

Randomized phase III trial comparing switch-maintenance pemetrexed with observation followed by pemetrexed at progression in advanced NSCLC.

Objectives: Two phase III trials show that maintenance pemetrexed therapy after platinum-doublet chemotherapy prolongs overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) in advanced non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, few patients in the control arms received pemetrexed at progression in these trials, performance status (PS) two patients were ineligible and few of the participants were elderly. Thus, we designed this study comparing immediate switch-maintenance pemetrexed therapy with pemetrexed at progression after platinum-doublet chemotherapy.Methods: Patients with stage IIIB/IV non-squamous NSCLC, ≥18 years, PS 0-2, and non-progression after four courses of carboplatin/vinorelbine were randomized to receive immediate maintenance pemetrexed therapy or observation followed by pemetrexed at progression. The primary endpoint was OS, secondary endpoints were PFS, toxicity and health related quality of life (HRQoL).Results: 105 patients were randomized between May 2014 and September 2017. Median age was 67 years, 36% were >70 years, 9% had PS 2, 91% stage IV and 47% were women. In the observation arm, 73% received pemetrexed at progression. Patients in the maintenance arm had a numerically longer OS (median 12.0 vs. 10.0 months; p = .10) and a statistically significant longer PFS (median 3.1 vs. 1.9 months; p < .01). In multivariable analyses adjusting for baseline characteristics, there was a trend toward improved OS (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.42-1.01); p = .05), and a significantly improved PFS (HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.35-0.80; p < .01). There were no significant differences in toxicity or HRQoL between the treatment arms.Conclusion: There was a trend toward prolonged OS and significantly longer PFS from switch- maintenance pemetrexed therapy when 73% of patients in the control arm received pemetrexed at progression. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02004184.

Irinotecan plus carboplatin versus oral etoposide plus carboplatin in extensive small-cell lung cancer: a randomized phase III trial.

PURPOSE: A Japanese randomized trial showed superior survival for patients with extensive-disease (ED) small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) receiving irinotecan plus cisplatin compared with etoposide plus cisplatin. The present trial evaluated the efficacy of irinotecan plus carboplatin (IC) compared with oral etoposide plus carboplatin (EC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with ED SCLC were randomly assigned to receive either IC, which consisted of carboplatin (area under the curve = 4; Chatelut formula) and irinotecan (175 mg/m2) intravenously both on day 1, or EC, which consisted of carboplatin as in IC and etoposide (120 mg/m(2)/d) orally on days 1 through 5. Courses were repeated every 3 weeks with four cycles planned. Doses were reduced by one third in patients with a WHO performance status (PS) of 3 to 4 and/or age older than 70 years. Primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points were quality of life (QOL) and complete response (CR) rate. RESULTS: Of 220 randomly assigned patients, 209 were eligible for analysis (IC, n = 105; EC, n = 104). Thirty-five percent were older than 70 years, and 47% had a PS of 2 to 4. The groups were well balanced with respect to prognostic factors. OS was inferior in the EC group (hazard ratio = 1.41; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.87; P = .02). Median survival time was 8.5 months for IC compared with 7.1 months for EC. One-year survival rate was 34% for IC and 24% for EC. CR was seen in 18 IC patients compared with seven EC patients (P = .02). There were no statistically significant differences in hematologic grade 3 or 4 toxicity. Grade 3 or 4 diarrhea was more common in the IC group. QOL differences were small, with a trend toward prolonged palliation with the IC regimen. CONCLUSION: IC prolongs survival in ED SCLC with slightly better scores for QOL.