Quality indicators for evaluating cancer care in low-income and middle-income country settings: a multinational modified Delphi study.

This Policy Review sourced opinions from experts in cancer care across low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) to build consensus around high-priority measures of care quality. A comprehensive list of quality indicators in medical, radiation, and surgical oncology was identified from systematic literature reviews. A modified Delphi study consisting of three 90-min workshops and two international electronic surveys integrating a global range of key clinical, policy, and research leaders was used to derive consensus on cancer quality indicators that would be both feasible to collect and were high priority for cancer care systems in LMICs. Workshop participants narrowed the list of 216 quality indicators from the literature review to 34 for inclusion in the subsequent surveys. Experts' responses to the surveys showed consensus around nine high-priority quality indicators for measuring the quality of hospital-based cancer care in LMICs. These quality indicators focus on important processes of care delivery from accurate diagnosis (eg, histologic diagnosis via biopsy and TNM staging) to adequate, timely, and appropriate treatment (eg, completion of radiotherapy and appropriate surgical intervention). The core indicators selected could be used to implement systems of feedback and quality improvement.

European Groundshot-addressing Europe's cancer research challenges: a Lancet Oncology Commission.

Cancer research is a crucial pillar for countries to deliver more affordable, higher quality, and more equitable cancer care. Patients treated in research-active hospitals have better outcomes than patients who are not treated in these settings. However, cancer in Europe is at a crossroads. Cancer was already a leading cause of premature death before the COVID-19 pandemic, and the disastrous effects of the pandemic on early diagnosis and treatment will probably set back cancer outcomes in Europe by almost a decade. Recognising the pivotal importance of research not just to mitigate the pandemic today, but to build better European cancer services and systems for patients tomorrow, the Lancet Oncology European Groundshot Commission on cancer research brings together a wide range of experts, together with detailed new data on cancer research activity across Europe during the past 12 years. We have deployed this knowledge to help inform Europe's Beating Cancer Plan and the EU Cancer Mission, and to set out an evidence-driven, patient-centred cancer research roadmap for Europe. The high-resolution cancer research data we have generated show current activities, captured through different metrics, including by region, disease burden, research domain, and effect on outcomes. We have also included granular data on research collaboration, gender of researchers, and research funding. The inclusion of granular data has facilitated the identification of areas that are perhaps overemphasised in current cancer research in Europe, while also highlighting domains that are underserved. Our detailed data emphasise the need for more information-driven and data-driven cancer research strategies and planning going forward. A particular focus must be on central and eastern Europe, because our findings emphasise the widening gap in cancer research activity, and capacity and outcomes, compared with the rest of Europe. Citizens and patients, no matter where they are, must benefit from advances in cancer research. This Commission also highlights that the narrow focus on discovery science and biopharmaceutical research in Europe needs to be widened to include such areas as prevention and early diagnosis; treatment modalities such as radiotherapy and surgery; and a larger concentration on developing a research and innovation strategy for the 20 million Europeans living beyond a cancer diagnosis. Our data highlight the important role of comprehensive cancer centres in driving the European cancer research agenda. Crucial to a functioning cancer research strategy and its translation into patient benefit is the need for a greater emphasis on health policy and systems research, including implementation science, so that the innovative technological outputs from cancer research have a clear pathway to delivery. This European cancer research Commission has identified 12 key recommendations within a call to action to reimagine cancer research and its implementation in Europe. We hope this call to action will help to achieve our ambitious 70:35 target: 70% average 10-year survival for all European cancer patients by 2035.

Atezolizumab for First-Line Treatment of PD-L1-Selected Patients with NSCLC.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of the anti-programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) monoclonal antibody atezolizumab, as compared with those of platinum-based chemotherapy, as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with PD-L1 expression are not known. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial involving patients with metastatic nonsquamous or squamous NSCLC who had not previously received chemotherapy and who had PD-L1 expression on at least 1% of tumor cells or at least 1% of tumor-infiltrating immune cells as assessed by the SP142 immunohistochemical assay. Patients were assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive atezolizumab or chemotherapy. Overall survival (primary end point) was tested hierarchically according to PD-L1 expression status among patients in the intention-to-treat population whose tumors were wild-type with respect to EGFR mutations or ALK translocations. Within the population with EGFR and ALK wild-type tumors, overall survival and progression-free survival were also prospectively assessed in subgroups defined according to findings on two PD-L1 assays as well as by blood-based tumor mutational burden. RESULTS: Overall, 572 patients were enrolled. In the subgroup of patients with EGFR and ALK wild-type tumors who had the highest expression of PD-L1 (205 patients), the median overall survival was longer by 7.1 months in the atezolizumab group than in the chemotherapy group (20.2 months vs. 13.1 months; hazard ratio for death, 0.59; P = 0.01). Among all the patients who could be evaluated for safety, adverse events occurred in 90.2% of the patients in the atezolizumab group and in 94.7% of those in the chemotherapy group; grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 30.1% and 52.5% of the patients in the respective groups. Overall and progression-free survival favored atezolizumab in the subgroups with a high blood-based tumor mutational burden. CONCLUSIONS: Atezolizumab treatment resulted in significantly longer overall survival than platinum-based chemotherapy among patients with NSCLC with high PD-L1 expression, regardless of histologic type. (Funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech; IMpower110 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02409342.).

Early biochemical and radiographic response after one cycle of [177Lu]Lu-PSMA I&T radioligand therapy in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to investigate very early radiographic PSMA PET response after one cycle of [177Lu]Lu-PSMA I&T radioligand therapy (RLT) of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and to assess its role in predicting overall response and survival. METHODS: This retrospective study enrolled 40 mCRPC patients who were treated with a median of 3 (2-9) [177Lu]Lu-PSMA I&T RLT cycles. Biochemical response was based on the relative change of serum PSA according to PCWG3 criteria, while radiographic response referred to the relative change of PSMA-derived total viable tumor volumes expressed as total lesion PSMA (TLP). RESULTS: After one cycle of RLT, biochemical partial response (PR) was seen in 8/40 (20.0%), stable disease (SD) in 22/40 (55.0%), and progressive disease (PD) in 10/40 (25%) patients. In PSMA PET, very early molecular PR was observed in 12 (30.0%), SD in 19 (47.5%), and PD in 9 (22.5%) subjects. The PSA and TLP nadir were achieved after a median of 1 (1-5) and 2 (1-6) cycles, respectively. Nineteen (47.5%) patients showed overall biochemical PR, 11 (27.5%) had SD, and 10 (25%) experienced PD. In PSMA-directed PET, 4 patients experienced molecular complete response (CR), 24 (60.0%) had PR, 4 (10.0%) SD, and 8 (20.0%) PD. Early biochemical or radiographic response was not associated with longer overall survival (OS). Overall biochemical responders had a nearly significantly longer median OS (22.7 months) than non-responders (14.4 months, p = 0.08). Early PSA progression was associated with shorter OS (12.2 months), compared to biochemical SD/PR (18.7 months, p = 0.09). CONCLUSION: In this retrospective cohort, there was no association between early PSMA PET radiographic response and overall survival; hence, treatment should not be prematurely discontinued. In contrast, early PSA progression after one cycle of [177Lu]Lu-PSMA I&T RLT was an indicator of overall progression and poor clinical outcome.

Plain language summary of the updated results from the CROWN study comparing lorlatinib with crizotinib in people with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This summary shows the updated results of an ongoing research study called CROWN that was published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine in December 2022. In the CROWN study, researchers looked at the effects of two study medicines called lorlatinib and crizotinib. The study included people with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) that had not been treated previously. All people in the study had cancer cells with changes (known as alterations) in a gene called anaplastic lymphoma kinase, or ALK. This ALK gene is involved in cancer growth. In this updated study, researchers looked at the continued benefit in people who took lorlatinib compared with people who took crizotinib after 3 years. WHAT DID THIS STUDY FIND?: After 3 years of being observed, people who took lorlatinib were more likely to be alive without their cancer getting worse than people who took crizotinib. At 3 years, 64% of people who took lorlatinib were alive without their cancer getting worse compared with 19% of people who took crizotinib. The cancer was less likely to have spread within or to the brain in people who took lorlatinib than in people who took crizotinib. After 3 years of being observed, 61% of people were still taking lorlatinib and 8% of people were still taking crizotinib. People who took lorlatinib had more severe side effects than people who took crizotinib. However, these side effects were manageable. The most common side effects with lorlatinib were high levels of cholesterol or high levels of triglycerides (a type of fat) in the blood. Life-threatening side effects were seen in 13% of people who took lorlatinib and 8% in crizotinib. Two people who took lorlatinib died because of side effects from lorlatinib. WHAT DO THE RESULTS OF THE STUDY MEAN?: The updated results from the CROWN study showed that a larger percentage of people who took lorlatinib continued to benefit from their treatment after being observed for 3 years compared with those who took crizotinib.

Patient-reported outcomes with olaparib plus abiraterone versus placebo plus abiraterone for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: a randomised, double-blind, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Results of this double-blind, phase 2 trial showed patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer given olaparib plus abiraterone versus placebo plus abiraterone had significantly improved progression-free survival. Here, we present an exploratory analysis of pain and health-related quality of life (HRQOL). METHODS: This double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial was conducted across 41 urological oncology sites in 11 countries in Europe and North America. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, and had previously received docetaxel and up to one additional line of previous chemotherapy. Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer was defined as increasing prostate-specific antigen (PSA) concentration or other signs of disease progression despite androgen-deprivation therapy and serum testosterone concentrations at castrate levels (≤50 ng/dL), and with at least one metastatic lesion on bone scan, CT, or MRI. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive oral olaparib (300 mg twice per day) plus oral abiraterone (1000 mg once a day) and oral prednisone or prednisolone (5 mg twice a day) or placebo plus abiraterone (1000 mg once a day) and prednisone or prednisolone (5 mg twice a day). Randomisation was done without stratification and by use of an interactive voice or web response system. A randomised treatment kit ID number was assigned sequentially to each patient as they became eligible. The primary endpoint (radiographic progression-free survival) has previously been reported. HRQOL was a prespecified exploratory patient-reported outcome. Patients were asked to complete the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form (BPI-SF), single-item worst bone pain, Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P) questionnaire, and EuroQol-5 five-dimension five level (EQ-5D-5L) assessment at baseline, at weeks 4, 8, and 12, then every 12 weeks until treatment discontinuation. Prespecified outcomes were change from baseline in BPI-SF worst pain, single-item worst bone pain and FACT-P Total Outcome Index (TOI) scale scores, time to deterioration in BPI-SF worst pain and worst bone pain, and assessment of the EQ-5D-5L pain and discomfort domain. All analyses were exploratory and done in the full analysis set (all randomly assigned patients, including patients who were randomly assigned but did not subsequently go on to receive study treatment), with the exception of mean baseline and total change from baseline analyses, for which we used the population who had a valid baseline and at least one post-baseline assessment. This trial is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01972217, and is no longer recruiting patients. FINDINGS: Between Nov 25, 2014, and July 14, 2015, 171 patients were assessed for eligibility. 29 patients were excluded, and 142 were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive olaparib and abiraterone (n=71) or placebo and abiraterone (n=71). Data cutoff was Sept 22, 2017. Median follow-up was 15·9 months (IQR 8·1-25·5) in the olaparib plus abiraterone group and 24·5 months (8·1-27·6) in the placebo plus abiraterone group. Questionnaire compliance was generally high (43-100%). Least-squares mean changes from baseline in BPI-SF worst pain, single-item worst bone pain, and FACT-P TOI remained stable across all visits for patients in both treatment groups. Adjusted mean change in FACT-P TOI from baseline across all visits was -0·10 (95% CI -2·50 to 2·71) in the olaparib plus abiraterone group and -1·20 (-4·15 to 1·74) in the placebo plus abiraterone group (difference 1·30, 95% CI -2·70 to 5·30; p=0·52). Time to deterioration in pain was similar in both groups (BPI-SF worst pain HR 0·90 [95% CI 0·62-1·32], p=0·30; worst bone pain HR 0·85 [0·59-1·22], p=0·18). Improvement rates in the pain and discomfort domain of the EQ-5D-5L were similar in both groups from baseline to week 48, beyond which a higher proportion of patients in the olaparib plus abiraterone arm reported an improvement compared to the placebo plus abiraterone group. INTERPRETATION: In these prespecified exploratory analyses, there was no significant difference in pain or HRQOL when olaparib was added to abiraterone. In this phase 2 trial, a statistically significant radiographic progression-free survival benefit was observed with the olaparib plus abiraterone combination. These results suggest that the improved survival benefits observed when combining olaparib with abiraterone does not result in different HRQOL compared with placebo plus abiraterone. Phase 3 studies are required to validate these results. FUNDING: AstraZeneca and Merck Sharp & Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Rahway, NJ, USA.

Contralateral esophageal sparing technique in definitive radiotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer: dosimetric parameters and normal tissue complication probability modeling.

Background: The purpose of this study was to assess the benefit of the contralateral esophageal sparing technique (CEST) in definitive radiotherapy of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Materials and methods: We retrospectively reviewed radiation plans for 13 patients who underwent definitive chemoradiation for locally advanced NSCLC. Alternative plans were prepared with the use of CEST, with an additional margin of 5 mm from planning treatment volume (PTV). Normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) analyses for the esophagus and tumor control probability (TCP) for the PTV were performed for original and CEST plans using the equivalent uniform dose (EUD)-based mathematical model. Results: In all cases, the CEST plan allowed for the reduction of esophageal dose, with a mean of 3.8 Gy (range, 0.7 to 8.7 Gy). The mean reductions of V40 and V60 to the esophagus were 6.4 Gy (range, 2.1 to 17.2 Gy) and 1.9 Gy (range, 3.4 to 10.0 Gy), respectively. There was no substantial decrease in the maximal dose to the esophagus. Reduction of NTCP was achieved for all patients (range, 5-73%), and TCP was not affected (-1.8 to +6.7%). Conclusions: The application of CEST in definitive radiotherapy of locally advanced NSCLC allows for reducing selected dosimetric parameters to the esophagus without compromising TCP.

Comparison of claudin-3 and claudin-4 expression in bilateral and unilateral breast cancer.

Claudins are essential components of tight junctions, which are frequently deregulated in breast cancer. The aim of the current study was to assess claudin-3 and -4 expression in bilateral breast cancer (BBC) and unilateral breast cancer (UBC). Immunohistochemical expression of claudin-3 and claudin-4 was evaluated in tissue microarrays containing 174 cases of BBCs paired with 174 cases of solitary tumors. Each case was classified as claudin-high or claudin-low depending on the H-score value. The results were correlated with histopathological features and the expression of basic breast cancer biomarkers. Median H-scores for claudin-3 were significantly higher in the synchronous BBC (sBBC) than in UBC. Claudin-4-high cases were more prevalent than within the whole BBC group, and sBBC and metachronous BBC (mBBC) alone. In the BBC group negative ER, high Ki-67 and high claudin-3 were independent factors correlated with high claudin-4. In the UBC group, Ki-67 >14% and high claudin-3 were associated with high claudin-4. Our study demonstrates that the expression of claudin-4 is significantly higher in UBC compared to BBC tumors. We also demonstrated that high claudin-4 expression in BBC is associated with a more aggressive phenotype (lack of steroid receptors, HER2 overexpression, and high Ki-67). It is possible that claudins down- and upregulation may depend on different triggers and lead to various consequences in UBC and BBC.

A View from the past into our collective future: the oncofertility consortium vision statement.

PURPOSE: Today, male and female adult and pediatric cancer patients, individuals transitioning between gender identities, and other individuals facing health extending but fertility limiting treatments can look forward to a fertile future. This is, in part, due to the work of members associated with the Oncofertility Consortium. METHODS: The Oncofertility Consortium is an international, interdisciplinary initiative originally designed to explore the urgent unmet need associated with the reproductive future of cancer survivors. As the strategies for fertility management were invented, developed or applied, the individuals for who the program offered hope, similarly expanded. As a community of practice, Consortium participants share information in an open and rapid manner to addresses the complex health care and quality-of-life issues of cancer, transgender and other patients. To ensure that the organization remains contemporary to the needs of the community, the field designed a fully inclusive mechanism for strategic planning and here present the findings of this process. RESULTS: This interprofessional network of medical specialists, scientists, and scholars in the law, medical ethics, religious studies and other disciplines associated with human interventions, explore the relationships between health, disease, survivorship, treatment, gender and reproductive longevity. CONCLUSION: The goals are to continually integrate the best science in the service of the needs of patients and build a community of care that is ready for the challenges of the field in the future.

Successful Treatment of Persistent SARS-CoV-2 Infection in a B-Cell Depleted Patient with Activated Cytotoxic T and NK Cells: A Case Report.

We report a lymphoma patient with profound B-cell deficiency after chemotherapy combined with anti-CD20 antibody successfully treated with remdesivir and convalescent plasma for prolonged SARS-CoV-2 infection. Viral clearance was likely attributed to the robust expansion and activation of TCR Vß2 CD8+ cytotoxic T cells and CD16 + CD56- NK cells. This is the first presentation of TCR-specific T cell oligoclonal response in COVID-19. Our study suggests that B-cell depleted patients may effectively respond to anti-SARS-CoV-2 treatment when NK and antigen-specific Tc cell response is induced.

Access to Novel Drugs for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in Central and Southeastern Europe: A Central European Cooperative Oncology Group Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) improved substantially in the last decades. Novel targeted and immune-oncologic drugs were introduced into routine treatment. Despite accelerated development and subsequent drug registrations by the European Medicinal Agency (EMA), novel drugs for NSCLC are poorly accessible in Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The Central European Cooperative Oncology Group conducted a survey among experts from 10 CEE countries to provide an overview on the availability of novel drugs for NSCLC and time from registration to reimbursement decision in their countries. RESULTS: Although first-generation epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors were reimbursed and available in all countries, for other registered therapies-even for ALK inhibitors and checkpoint inhibitors in first-line-there were apparent gaps in availability and/or reimbursement. There was a trend for better availability of drugs with longer time from EMA marketing authorization. Substantial differences in access to novel drugs among CEE countries were observed. In general, the availability of drugs is not in accordance with the Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (MCBS), as defined by the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO). Time spans between drug registrations and national decisions on reimbursement vary greatly, from less than 3 months in one country to more than 1 year in the majority of countries. CONCLUSION: The access to novel drugs for NSCLC in CEE countries is suboptimal. To enable access to the most effective compounds within the shortest possible time, reimbursement decisions should be faster and ESMO MCBS should be incorporated into decision making.

Lenvatinib versus sorafenib in first-line treatment of patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a randomised phase 3 non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: In a phase 2 trial, lenvatinib, an inhibitor of VEGF receptors 1-3, FGF receptors 1-4, PDGF receptor α, RET, and KIT, showed activity in hepatocellular carcinoma. We aimed to compare overall survival in patients treated with lenvatinib versus sorafenib as a first-line treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. METHODS: This was an open-label, phase 3, multicentre, non-inferiority trial that recruited patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma, who had not received treatment for advanced disease, at 154 sites in 20 countries throughout the Asia-Pacific, European, and North American regions. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via an interactive voice-web response system-with region; macroscopic portal vein invasion, extrahepatic spread, or both; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status; and bodyweight as stratification factors-to receive oral lenvatinib (12 mg/day for bodyweight ≥60 kg or 8 mg/day for bodyweight <60 kg) or sorafenib 400 mg twice-daily in 28-day cycles. The primary endpoint was overall survival, measured from the date of randomisation until the date of death from any cause. The efficacy analysis followed the intention-to-treat principle, and only patients who received treatment were included in the safety analysis. The non-inferiority margin was set at 1·08. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01761266. FINDINGS: Between March 1, 2013 and July 30, 2015, 1492 patients were recruited. 954 eligible patients were randomly assigned to lenvatinib (n=478) or sorafenib (n=476). Median survival time for lenvatinib of 13·6 months (95% CI 12·1-14·9) was non-inferior to sorafenib (12·3 months, 10·4-13·9; hazard ratio 0·92, 95% CI 0·79-1·06), meeting criteria for non-inferiority. The most common any-grade adverse events were hypertension (201 [42%]), diarrhoea (184 [39%]), decreased appetite (162 [34%]), and decreased weight (147 [31%]) for lenvatinib, and palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia (249 [52%]), diarrhoea (220 [46%]), hypertension (144 [30%]), and decreased appetite (127 [27%]) for sorafenib. INTERPRETATION: Lenvatinib was non-inferior to sorafenib in overall survival in untreated advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. The safety and tolerability profiles of lenvatinib were consistent with those previously observed. FUNDING: Eisai Inc.

Expenditures on Oncology Drugs and Cancer Mortality-to-Incidence Ratio in Central and Eastern Europe.

BACKGROUND: There is a steady decline in cancer mortality in Western Europe (WE), but this trend is not so obvious in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE). One of the largest discrepancies between WE and CEE is the level of investment in cancer care. The objective of our analysis was to examine the correlation between mortality-to-incidence (M/I) ratio and expenditures on oncology drugs in CEE and WE. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This cross-sectional analysis was done on publicly available data. Data on expenditures for oncology drugs were obtained from QuintilesIMS, and data on M/I ratio from Globocan. The main outcome was mortality-to-incidence ratio, and the primary analysis was performed by Spearman's rank correlation. RESULTS: There is a large discrepancy in expenditure on oncology drugs per cancer case between WE and CEE, and within CEE. Average expenditure on oncology drugs per capita as well as per new cancer case was 2.5 times higher in WE than in CEE. Availability of oncology drugs was highest in Germany (100%), relatively similar in WE (average of 91%), but in CEE it ranged from 37% to 86%, with an average of 70%. Annual expenditures on all oncology drugs per new cancer case was significantly negatively correlated with the M/I ratio (Spearman's ρ = -0.90, p < .001). CONCLUSION: There is a financial threshold for oncology drugs per cancer case needed to increase survival. Based on significantly lower expenditures for oncology drugs in CEE in comparison with WE, more investment for drugs as well as better, more organized, value- oriented consumption is needed. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Cancer is not treated equally successfully in Western Europe (WE) and in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE). This study showed that success in treatment of cancer is associated with the amount of money invested in oncology drugs. CEE countries spend on average 2.5 times less than WE countries for oncology drugs per new cancer case. These findings should be used by health care providers and oncologists struggling for more resources and better, more organized, evidence-based allocation of these resources as well as better oncology outcomes.

NGR-hTNF in combination with best investigator choice in previously treated malignant pleural mesothelioma (NGR015): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Malignant pleural mesothelioma is an aggressive cancer with highly vascularised tumours. It has poor prognosis and few treatment options after failure of first-line chemotherapy. NGR-hTNF is a vascular-targeting drug that increases penetration of intratumoral chemotherapy and T-cell infiltration by modifying the tumour microenvironment. In this trial, we aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of NGR-hTNF in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma who had progressed during or after a first-line treatment. METHODS: NGR015 was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial done in 41 centres in 12 countries. Eligible participants had malignant pleural mesothelioma of any histological subtype (epithelial, sarcomatoid, or mixed), were aged 18 years or older, and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2 and radiologically documented progressive disease after one pemetrexed-based chemotherapy regimen. Participants were randomly assigned to receive weekly NGR-hTNF 0·8 µg/m2 intravenously plus best investigator choice (n=200), or placebo plus best investigator choice (n=200). Best investigator choice was decided before random assignment and could be single-agent gemcitabine (1000-1250 mg/m2 intravenously), vinorelbine (25 mg/m2 intravenously or 60 mg/m2 orally), doxorubicin (60-75 mg/m2 intravenously), or best supportive care only. Patients were randomised (1:1) with a block size of four after stratification for performance status and best investigator choice. The primary study endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. The trial is closed to new participants and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01098266). FINDINGS: Between April 12, 2010 and Jan 21, 2013, we enrolled 400 eligible participants. 381 (95%) of 400 patients were selected to receive chemotherapy before all participants were randomly assigned to receive NGF-hTNF plus best investigator choice (n=200) or placebo plus best investigator choice (n=200). At the cutoff date (April 29, 2014), the median follow-up was 18·7 months (IQR 15·1-24·4), and overall survival did not differ between the two treatment groups (median 8·5 months [95% CI 7·2-9·9] in the NGR-hTNF group vs 8·0 months [6·6-8·9] in the placebo group; hazard ratio 0·94, 95% CI 0·75-1·18; p=0·58). Grade 3 or worse study-emergent adverse events occurred in 136 (70%) of patients receiving NGR-hTNF versus 118 (61%) of patients receiving placebo, with the most common being neutropenia (35 [18%] of 193 patients vs 36 [19%] of 193 patients), pain (11 [6%] vs 16 [8%]), dyspnoea (nine [5%] vs seven [4%]), and chills (nine [5%] vs none). 50 (26%) patients in the NGR-hTNF group had a serious adverse event, compared with 47 (24%) in the placebo group. Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in 17 (9%) patients in the NGR-hTNF group and 20 patients (10%) in the placebo group. There were 12 deaths in the NGR-hTNF group and 13 deaths in the placebo group, but none were treatment related. INTERPRETATION: The study did not meet its primary endpoint. The hypothesis-generating findings from the subgroup analyses deserve a confirmatory randomised trial because patients who rapidly progress after first-line treatment have a poor prognosis. FUNDING: MolMed.

Olaparib combined with abiraterone in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer and homologous recombination repair (HRR) mutations have a better response to treatment with the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor olaparib than patients without HRR mutations. Preclinical data suggest synergy between olaparib and androgen pathway inhibitors. We aimed to assess the efficacy of olaparib plus the androgen pathway inhibitor abiraterone in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer regardless of HRR mutation status. METHODS: We carried out this double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial at 41 urological oncology sites in 11 countries across Europe and North America. Eligible male patients were aged 18 years or older with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who had previously received docetaxel and were candidates for abiraterone treatment. Patients were excluded if they had received more than two previous lines of chemotherapy, or had previous exposure to second-generation antihormonal drugs. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using an interactive voice or web response system, without stratification, to receive oral olaparib 300 mg twice daily or placebo. All patients received oral abiraterone 1000 mg once daily and prednisone or prednisolone 5 mg twice daily. Patients and investigators were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS; based on Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 and Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group 2 criteria). Efficacy analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population, which included all randomly assigned patients, and safety analyses included all patients who received at least one dose of olaparib or placebo. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01972217, and is no longer recruiting patients. FINDINGS: Between Nov 25, 2014, and July 14, 2015, 171 patients were assessed for eligibility. Of those, 142 patients were randomly assigned to receive olaparib and abiraterone (n=71) or placebo and abiraterone (n=71). The clinical cutoff date for the final analysis was Sept 22, 2017. Median rPFS was 13·8 months (95% CI 10·8-20·4) with olaparib and abiraterone and 8·2 months (5·5-9·7) with placebo and abiraterone (hazard ratio [HR] 0·65, 95% CI 0·44-0·97, p=0·034). The most common grade 1-2 adverse events were nausea (26 [37%] patients in the olaparib group vs 13 [18%] patients in the placebo group), constipation (18 [25%] vs eight [11%]), and back pain (17 [24%] vs 13 [18%]). 38 (54%) of 71 patients in the olaparib and abiraterone group and 20 (28%) of 71 patients in the placebo and abiraterone group had grade 3 or worse adverse events, including anaemia (in 15 [21%] of 71 patients vs none of 71), pneumonia (four [6%] vs three [4%]), and myocardial infarction (four [6%] vs none). Serious adverse events were reported by 24 (34%) of 71 patients receiving olaparib and abiraterone (seven of which were related to treatment) and 13 (18%) of 71 patients receiving placebo and abiraterone (one of which was related to treatment). One treatment-related death (pneumonitis) occurred in the olaparib and abiraterone group. INTERPRETATION: Olaparib in combination with abiraterone provided clinical efficacy benefit for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer compared with abiraterone alone. More serious adverse events were observed in patients who received olaparib and abiraterone than abiraterone alone. Our data suggest that the combination of olaparib and abiraterone might provide an additional clinical benefit to a broad population of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

Comparison of central laboratory assessments of ER, PR, HER2, and Ki67 by IHC/FISH and the corresponding mRNAs (ESR1, PGR, ERBB2, and MKi67) by RT-qPCR on an automated, broadly deployed diagnostic platform.

PURPOSE: The methods (IHC/FISH) typically used to assess ER, PR, HER2, and Ki67 in FFPE specimens from breast cancer patients are difficult to set up, perform, and standardize for use in low and middle-income countries. Use of an automated diagnostic platform (GeneXpert®) and assay (Xpert® Breast Cancer STRAT4) that employs RT-qPCR to quantitate ESR1, PGR, ERBB2, and MKi67 mRNAs from formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissues facilitates analyses in less than 3 h. This study compares breast cancer biomarker analyses using an RT-qPCR-based platform with analyses using standard IHC and FISH for assessment of the same biomarkers. METHODS: FFPE tissue sections from 523 patients were sent to a College of American Pathologists-certified central reference laboratory to evaluate concordance between IHC/FISH and STRAT4 using the laboratory's standard of care methods. A subset of 155 FFPE specimens was tested for concordance with STRAT4 using different IHC antibodies and scoring methods. RESULTS: Concordance between STRAT4 and IHC was 97.8% for ESR1, 90.4% for PGR, 93.3% for ERBB2 (IHC/FISH for HER2), and 78.6% for MKi67. Receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) area under the curve (AUC) values of 0.99, 0.95, 0.99, and 0.85 were generated for ESR1, PGR, ERBB2, and MKi67, respectively. Minor variabilities were observed depending on the IHC antibody comparator used. CONCLUSION: Evaluation of breast cancer biomarker status by STRAT4 was highly concordant with central IHC/FISH in this blinded, retrospectively analyzed collection of samples. STRAT4 may provide a means to cost-effectively generate standardized diagnostic results for breast cancer patients in low- and middle-income countries.

Long-term trastuzumab (Herceptin®) treatment in a continuation study of patients with HER2-positive breast cancer or HER2-positive gastric cancer.

BACKGROUND: Trastuzumab (Herceptin® [H]) is the standard of care for HER2-positive locally advanced/metastatic breast cancer and gastric/gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancer. However, there is a paucity of data available on long-term H treatment of patients. The Rollover Protocol (ROP) Study was conducted to report safety data for patients with HER2-positive locally advanced/metastatic breast and gastric/GEJ cancer who have received long-term H therapy (≥ 5 years and ≥ 3 years for breast and gastric/GEJ cancer, respectively). METHODS: The ROP Study was a single-arm, multicenter, international continuation trial of H in patients who had previously completed a global Roche-sponsored trial with H therapy, had stable disease, and were receiving H at the end of the lead-in trial. Patients with chronic heart failure during the lead-in trial could be included following a risk-benefit analysis. The primary objectives were to provide H therapy to patients with HER2-overexpressing locally advanced/metastatic breast or gastric/GEJ cancer at the end of the lead-in study, and to follow the long-term outcomes and long-term overall safety in these patients. RESULTS: Twenty-five of 69 patients enrolled in the ROP Study received long-term H therapy (19 breast cancer and 6 gastric/GEJ cancer). The median duration of H treatment for patients with breast cancer was 8 years 7 months, and 5 years 2 months for patients with gastric/GEJ cancer. The cardiac status of the patients remained stable over time, with no serious cardiac adverse events or marked changes in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). The median overall worst LVEF measurement was 57.0%, and no patients experienced an LVEF of < 45% (range 47-63%). There were no serious adverse events related to study treatment. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that H has an acceptable safety profile and was well tolerated in patients who received long-term H therapy (≥ 5 years and ≥ 3 years for breast and gastric/GEJ cancer, respectively). Further investigation and reporting of long-term H therapy would be valuable. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was retrospectively registered on March 24, 2016 with Clinicaltrials.gov, number NCT02721641 .

Systemic therapy for cervical carcinoma - current status.

Two major treatment modalities in cervical cancer are radiation therapy (RT) and surgery. Chemotherapy continues to be the main form of systemic therapy adjunctive to definitive local therapies, and is used for palliation. Platinum-based regimens, administered concurrently with both definitive and postoperative RT, were demonstrated to provide significant survival benefits, whereas the beneficial effect of concurrent chemoradiotherapy in later-stage disease was smaller. The role of chemotherapy in addition to RT in IB1/IIA1 cervical cancer patients not undergoing surgery remains undefined. Likewise, the role of chemotherapy in combination with postoperative RT for patients with intermediate-risk factors for recurrence has not yet been verified. The recent standard for chemoradiotherapy is cisplatin alone administered weekly. Other cisplatin-based or non-cisplatin-based regimens have not been subjected to large clinical studies. The benefits of consolidation chemotherapy after chemoradiation for locally advanced cervical cancer are still undetermined. Neoadjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy followed by surgery has shown survival benefits, however its role in the era of chemoradiotherapy remains unclear. The combination of cisplatin and paclitaxel is considered a standard regimen in the palliative setting. There is no standard of care for second-line systemic therapy in advanced cervical cancer. Bevacizumab combined with palliative chemotherapy (cisplatin/paclitaxel or topotecan/paclitaxel) in the first-line treatment for recurrent/metastatic cervical cancer significantly improves overall survival when compared to chemotherapy alone. The role of immunotherapy in cervical cancer remains to be established. The optimal combined modality treatment including systemic therapy for cervical tumors of non-squamous histology remains a matter of debate. Ongoing accumulation of data on genomic and proteomic characteristics provides insight into the molecular heterogeneity of cervical cancer and paves the way for developing molecularly targeted therapies.

Randomized Phase II Trial of Parsatuzumab (Anti-EGFL7) or Placebo in Combination with FOLFOX and Bevacizumab for First-Line Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

LESSONS LEARNED: These negative phase II results for parsatuzumab highlight the challenges of developing an agent intended to enhance the efficacy of vascular endothelial growth factor inhibition without the benefit of validated pharmacodynamic biomarkers or strong predictive biomarker hypotheses.Any further clinical development of anti-EGFL7 is likely to require new mechanistic insights and biomarker development for antiangiogenic agents. BACKGROUND: EGFL7 (epidermal growth factor-like domain 7) is a tumor-enriched vascular extracellular matrix protein that supports endothelial cell survival. This phase II trial evaluated the efficacy of parsatuzumab (also known as MEGF0444A), a humanized anti-EGFL7 IgG1 monoclonal antibody, in combination with modified FOLFOX6 (mFOLFOX6) (folinic acid, 5-fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin) bevacizumab in patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). METHODS: One-hundred twenty-seven patients were randomly assigned to parsatuzumab, 400 mg, or placebo, in combination with mFOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab, 5 mg/kg. Treatment cycles were repeated every 2 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity for a maximum of 24 months, with the exception of oxaliplatin, which was administered for up to 8 cycles. RESULTS: The progression-free survival (PFS) hazard ratio was 1.17 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-1.93; p = .548). The median PFS was 12 months for the experimental arm versus 11.9 months for the control arm. The hazard ratio for overall survival was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.46-2.1; p = .943). The overall response rate was 59% in the parsatuzumab arm and 64% in the placebo arm. The adverse event profile was similar in both arms. CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence of efficacy for the addition of parsatuzumab to the combination of bevacizumab and chemotherapy for first-line mCRC. The Oncologist 2017;22:375-e30.

Afatinib plus vinorelbine versus trastuzumab plus vinorelbine in patients with HER2-overexpressing metastatic breast cancer who had progressed on one previous trastuzumab treatment (LUX-Breast 1): an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Trastuzumab resistance is a key therapeutic challenge in metastatic breast cancer. We postulated that broader inhibition of ErbB receptors with afatinib would improve clinical outcomes compared with HER2 inhibition alone in patients who had progressed on previous trastuzumab treatment. LUX-Breast 1 compared afatinib plus vinorelbine with trastuzumab plus vinorelbine for such patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer. METHODS: We did this open-label trial at 350 hospitals in 41 countries worldwide. We enrolled female patients with HER2-overexpressing metastatic breast cancer who had progressed on or following adjuvant trastuzumab or first-line treatment of metastatic disease with trastuzumab. Participants were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive oral afatinib (40 mg/day) plus intravenous vinorelbine (25 mg/m(2) per week) or intravenous trastuzumab (2 mg/kg per week after 4 mg/kg loading dose) plus vinorelbine. Randomisation was done centrally and stratified by previous trastuzumab treatment (adjuvant vs first-line treatment), hormone receptor status (oestrogen receptor and progesterone receptor positive vs others), and region. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is closed to enrolment and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01125566. FINDINGS: Between Aug 26, 2010, and April 26, 2013, we enrolled 508 patients: 339 assigned to the afatinib group and 169 assigned to the trastuzumab group. Recruitment was stopped on April 26, 2013, after a benefit-risk assessment by the independent data monitoring committee was unfavourable for the afatinib group. Patients on afatinib plus vinorelbine had to switch to trastuzumab plus vinorelbine, afatinib monotherapy, vinorelbine monotherapy, or receive treatment outside of the trial. Median follow-up was 9·3 months (IQR 3·7-16·0). Median progression-free survival was 5·5 months (95% CI 5·4-5·6) in the afatinib group and 5·6 months (5·3-7·3) in the trastuzumab group (hazard ratio 1·10 95% CI 0·86-1·41; p=0·43). The most common drug-related adverse events of grade 3 or higher were neutropenia (190 [56%] of 337 patients in the afatinib group vs 102 [60%] of 169 patients in the trastuzumab group), leucopenia (64 [19%] vs 34 [20%]), and diarrhoea (60 [18%] vs none). INTERPRETATION: Trastuzumab-based therapy remains the treatment of choice for patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer who had progressed on trastuzumab. FUNDING: Boehringer Ingelheim.