Objective response rate and progression-free survival as surrogates for overall survival treatment effect: A meta-analysis across diverse tumour groups and contemporary therapies.

BACKGROUND: Overall survival (OS) results from randomized control trials (RCT) provide the strongest evidence for efficacy of anti-cancer treatments but can take a considerable amount of time to mature. Progression free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR) are used as an early surrogate of OS treatment effect however their validity remains unclear. Our study aims to comprehensively evaluate ORR and PFS as surrogates for OS treatment effect across tumor groups and treatment types. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Phase 3 RCTs in solid malignancies that reported OS/PFS and ORR published between 1st of January 2010 and 30th of June 2022 were evaluated. The relationship of surrogate endpoints and OS treatment effect was assessed via weighted linear regression. The coefficient of determination (R2) quantified the fit of the regression model. RESULTS: 675 phase 3 RCT comprising of 350 112 patients were analysed. ORR (R2 of 0.10) and PFS (R2 of 0.38) were poor surrogate markers of OS treatment effect. The strength of surrogacy differed within treatment and tumour groups. PFS had the highest R2 for chemotherapy (0.56) and lowest for targeted therapy (0.40). PFS had the highest level of surrogacy for melanoma (R2 = 0.72) and pancreatic cancer (R2 = 0.70) compared to other tumour groups. Importantly ORR and PFS were also poorly correlated to each other (R2 = 0.33). CONCLUSIONS: ORR and PFS were poor trial-level surrogate markers of OS. The surrogacy performance of ORR and PFS differed by treatment and malignancy sub-type.

Sporadic Metastatic Malignant Peripheral Nerve Sheath Tumour with an NF1 Mutation Responding to Trametinib: A Case Report.

Sporadically occurring malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumours (MPNSTs) can have a variety of genomic alterations including altered NF1, leading to activation of the RAS-RAF-MEK-ERK signalling pathway. Trametinib is an inhibitor of MEK1 and MEK2. Here we present a case of a patient diagnosed with sporadic MPNST with an identified NF1 gene treated successfully with trametinib.

Real-world outcomes of cisplatin, capecitabine, and gemcitabine with either epirubicin (PEXG) or docetaxel (PDXG) as first-line palliative treatment in metastatic or unresectable locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: First-line palliative chemotherapy regimens in advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma include triplet chemotherapy with 5-fluorouracil, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan, and the doublet of nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine. Use of triplet chemotherapy in real-world populations is limited by tolerability and nab-paclitaxel is not universally available. Regimens using the combination of cisplatin, capecitabine, gemcitabine, and either epirubicin or docetaxel may be better tolerated, more widely available, and similarly effective, but no published real-world data exist. METHODS: A retrospective cohort review of patients with metastatic or unresectable locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma treated with first-line palliative cisplatin, capecitabine, gemcitabine, and either epirubicin or docetaxel chemotherapy at Auckland City Hospital between July 1, 2013 and July 30, 2020. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes were rates of grade 3 or 4 hematological toxicity, rate of febrile neutropenia, number of cycles received, and reasons for discontinuation. RESULTS: Eighty-eight patients were included. Median age was 66 years (range 39-79), 28.4% had unresectable, locally advanced disease and 71.6% metastatic disease. Median OS was 8.5 months. Patients stopped treatment due to disease progression (53.4%), completing 12 cycles (19.3%), or toxicity (10.2%). Grade 4 neutropenia was experienced by 21.6%; 10.2% had febrile neutropenia. There were four treatment-related deaths. CONCLUSION: This retrospective study in a real-world population demonstrates that chemotherapy with cisplatin, capecitabine, and gemcitabine with epirubicin (PEXG) or docetaxel (PDXG) had similar effectiveness to more commonly used combination regimens. PDXG/PEXG are viable alternatives to nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine in countries that have restricted drug funding.

Targeted therapy for advanced anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-rearranged non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Targeted therapies directed at specific driver oncogenes have improved outcomes for individuals with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Approximately 5% of lung adenocarcinomas, the most common histologic subtype of NSCLC, harbour rearrangements in the anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) gene leading to constitutive activity of the ALK kinase. Crizotinib was the first tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) demonstrated to be effective in advanced NSCLC. Next-generation ALK TKIs have since been developed including ceritinib, alectinib, brigatinib, ensartinib, and lorlatinib, and have been compared with crizotinib or chemotherapy in randomised controlled trials (RCTs). These ALK-targeted therapies are currently used in clinical practice and are endorsed in multiple clinical oncology guidelines. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of ALK inhibitors given as monotherapy to treat advanced ALK-rearranged NSCLC. SEARCH METHODS: We conducted electronic searches in the Cochrane Lung Cancer Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and Embase. We also searched conference proceedings from the American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO), European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO), and International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC) World Conference on Lung Cancer, as well as the reference lists of retrieved articles. All searches were conducted from 2007 until 7 January 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs comparing ALK inhibitors with cytotoxic chemotherapy or another ALK inhibitor in individuals with incurable locally advanced or metastatic pathologically confirmed ALK-rearranged NSCLC. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility, extracted study characteristics and outcome data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for each included study. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. Primary outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS) and adverse events (AE); secondary outcomes were overall survival (OS), OS at one year, overall response rate (ORR) by RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours) criteria, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). We performed a meta-analysis for all outcomes, where appropriate, using the fixed-effect model. We reported hazard ratios (HR) for PFS, OS, and a composite HRQoL of life outcome (time to deterioration), and risk ratios (RR) for AE, ORR, and one-year OS. We presented 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) and used the I² statistic to investigate heterogeneity. We planned comparisons of 'ALK inhibitor versus chemotherapy' and 'next-generation ALK inhibitor versus crizotinib' with subgroup analysis by type of ALK inhibitor, line of treatment, and baseline central nervous system involvement. MAIN RESULTS: Eleven studies (2874 participants) met our inclusion criteria: six studies compared an ALK inhibitor (crizotinib, ceritinib, and alectinib) to chemotherapy, and five studies compared a next-generation ALK inhibitor (alectinib, brigatinib, and lorlatinib) to crizotinib. We assessed the evidence for most outcomes as of moderate to high certainty. Most studies were at low risk for selection, attrition, and reporting bias; however, no RCTs were blinded, resulting in a high risk of performance and detection bias for outcomes reliant on subjective measurement. ALK inhibitor versus chemotherapy Treatment with ALK inhibitors resulted in a large increase in PFS compared to chemotherapy (HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.52, 6 RCTs, 1611 participants, high-certainty evidence). This was found regardless of line of treatment. ALK inhibitors may result in no difference in overall AE rate when compared to chemotherapy (RR 1.01, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.03, 5 RCTs, 1404 participants, low-certainty evidence). ALK inhibitors slightly improved OS (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.97, 6 RCTs, 1611 participants, high-certainty evidence), despite most included studies having a significant number of participants crossing over from chemotherapy to receive an ALK inhibitor after the study period. ALK inhibitors likely increase ORR (RR 2.43, 95% CI 2.16 to 2.75, 6 RCTs, 1611 participants, moderate-certainty evidence) including in measurable baseline brain metastases (RR 4.88, 95% CI 2.18 to 10.95, 3 RCTs, 108 participants) when compared to chemotherapy. ALK inhibitors result in a large increase in the HRQoL measure, time to deterioration (HR 0.52, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.60, 5 RCTs, 1504 participants, high-certainty evidence) when compared to chemotherapy. Next-generation ALK inhibitor versus crizotinib Next-generation ALK inhibitors resulted in a large increase in PFS (HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.46, 5 RCTs, 1263 participants, high-certainty evidence), particularly in participants with baseline brain metastases. Next-generation ALK inhibitors likely result in no difference in overall AE (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.01, 5 RCTs, 1263 participants, moderate-certainty evidence) when compared to crizotinib. Next-generation ALK inhibitors likely increase OS (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.90, 5 RCTs, 1263 participants, moderate-certainty evidence) and slightly increase ORR (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.25, 5 RCTs, 1229 participants, moderate-certainty evidence) including a response in measurable brain metastases (RR 2.45, 95% CI 1.7 to 3.54, 4 RCTs, 138 participants) when compared to crizotinib. Studies comparing ALK inhibitors were conducted exclusively or partly in the first-line setting. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Next-generation ALK inhibitors including alectinib, brigatinib, and lorlatinib are the preferred first systemic treatment for individuals with advanced ALK-rearranged NSCLC. Further trials are ongoing including investigation of first-line ensartinib. Next-generation inhibitors have not been compared to each other, and it is unknown which should be used first and what subsequent treatment sequence is optimal.