5-Year Real-World Outcomes With Frontline Pembrolizumab Monotherapy in PD-L1 Expression ≥ 50% Advanced NSCLC.

BACKGROUND: In clinical trials, frontline pembrolizumab for advanced NSCLC has demonstrated durable, clinically meaningful, long-term survival benefits over chemotherapy. Our objective was to evaluate 5-year survival rates outside the idealized setting of clinical trials for advanced/metastatic NSCLC treated with frontline pembrolizumab monotherapy. METHODS: Using a nationwide, electronic health record-derived, deidentified database in the United States, we studied adult patients with advanced/metastatic NSCLC (unresectable stage IIIB/IIIC, or stage IV), with PD-L1 expression ≥ 50%, no documented EGFR, ALK, or ROS1 genomic alteration, and ECOG performance status of 0-1 initiating frontline pembrolizumab monotherapy from November 1, 2016, through March 31, 2020, excluding those in clinical trials. Kaplan-Meier was used to determine overall survival (OS). Data cutoff was May 31, 2023. RESULTS: A total of 804 patients were eligible for the study, including 404 women (50%); median age was 72 years (range, 38-85 years), with 310 patients (39%) ≥ 75 years old. Median follow-up time from pembrolizumab initiation to data cutoff was 60.5 months (range, 38.0-78.7). At data cutoff, 549 patients (68%) had died. Median OS was 19.2 months (95% CI, 16.6-21.4), and survival rate at 5 years was 25.1% (95% CI, 21.7-28.7). Overall, 266 patients (33%) received 1 or more subsequent regimens, most commonly an anti-PD-(L)1 agent (as monotherapy or combination therapy) or platinum-based chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: With 5-year follow-up in a real-world population, frontline pembrolizumab monotherapy continues to demonstrate long-term effectiveness, with survival outcomes consistent with those of pivotal clinical trials, for treating patients with advanced NSCLC with PD-L1 expression of ≥ 50% and no EGFR, ALK, or ROS1 genomic alteration.

Proportions and incidence of locally advanced cervical cancer: a global systematic literature review.

BACKGROUND: Optimal treatment of cervical cancer is based on disease stage; therefore, an understanding of the global epidemiology of specific stages of locally advanced disease is needed. OBJECTIVE: This systematic literature review was conducted to understand the global and region-specific proportions of patients with cervical cancer with locally advanced disease and to determine the incidence of the locally advanced disease. METHODS: Systematic searches identified observational studies published in English between 2010 and June 10, 2020, reporting the proportion of patients with, and/or incidence of, locally advanced stages of cervical cancer (considered International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) IB2-IVA). Any staging criteria were considered as long as the proportion with locally advanced disease was distinguishable. For each study, the proportion of locally advanced disease among the cervical cancer population was estimated. RESULTS: The 40 included studies represented 28 countries in North or South America, Asia, Europe, and Africa. Thirty-eight studies reported the proportion of locally advanced disease among populations with cervical cancer. The estimated median proportion of locally advanced disease among all cervical cancer was 37.0% (range 5.6-97.5%; IQR 25.8-52.1%); estimates were generally lowest in North America and highest in Asia. Estimated proportions of ≥50% were reported in nine studies from Asia, Europe, Brazil, and Morocco; estimates ≤25% were reported in six studies from Asia, United States, Brazil, and South Africa. Locally advanced disease was reported for 44% and 49% of women aged >70 and ≥60 years, and 5-100% of younger women with cervical cancer. A greater proportion of locally advanced disease was reported for Asian American (19%) versus White women (8%) in one United States study. Two of five studies describing the incidence of locally advanced disease reported rates of 2-4/100 000 women among different time frames. CONCLUSION: This review highlights global differences in proportions of locally advanced cervical cancer, including regional variance and disparities according to patient race and age.

Comparison of global treatment guidelines for locally advanced cervical cancer to optimize best care practices: A systematic and scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Survival outcomes for cervical cancer differ between countries and world regions. Locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC) is associated with poorer outcomes than early-stage disease. Country-specific variations in diagnostic and treatment recommendations might contribute to differences in LACC outcomes among countries. OBJECTIVE: We compared international and country-specific guidelines for LACC diagnostic imaging and treatment recommendations. METHODS: A systematic literature review and targeted search were used to identify cervical cancer treatment guidelines published between January 1999-August 2021. Guidelines were identified via literature databases, health technology assessment databases, disease-specific websites, and health organization websites. The targeted search included guidelines from countries in regions known to have high cervical cancer prevalence or mortality. Non-English guidelines were translated by native speakers or online translation services. RESULTS: Forty-six guidelines from 31 countries, regions, and international organizations were compared (41/46 using staging criteria, 27 of which used 2009 FIGO). Most guidelines recommended imaging tests for diagnosis and staging. Chest X-ray, intravenous pyelogram, CT, and MRI were commonly recommended for diagnosis and staging while MRI and PET-CT were recommended for the assessment of lymph node status and distant metastases, with a preference for PET-CT over MRI. There was global consensus for cisplatin-based concurrent chemoradiation as primary treatment for stages IIB to IVA, with few exceptions. Treatment recommendations for stages IB2 to IIA2 varied. Most guidelines agreed on adjuvant concurrent chemoradiation after radical hysterectomy when there is a high recurrence risk, and adjuvant radiotherapy when there is an intermediate recurrence risk. Recommendations for other adjuvant and neoadjuvant therapies varied among the guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: Differences among treatment guidelines by LACC stage might be influenced by staging criteria used, resource availability, and prevention program effectiveness. Addressing these areas may unify guidelines and improve global outcomes. Review and update of guidelines will be important as novel LACC therapies become available.

Gene Expression Assays for Early-Stage Hormone Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer: Understanding the Differences.

Biomarkers are frequently used to guide decisions for treatment of early-stage estrogen (ER) and progesterone (PR) receptor-positive (ER/PR+) invasive breast cancers and have been incorporated into guidelines. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2016 guideline and a 2017 update were recently published to help clinicians use the tests available. ASCO currently recommends five tests that show evidence of clinical utility based on the parameters defined in the guideline. These include the 21-gene assay (Oncotype DX), Prediction of Analysis of Microarray-50 (PAM50), 12-gene risk score (Endopredict), Breast Cancer Index (BCI), and, most recently, the 70-gene assay (Mammaprint). However, discordance is often seen when the results of these gene assays are compared in a particular patient, for a number of reasons: the assays were initially developed to answer different questions, and the molecular makeup of each signature reflects this; the patient populations that were studied also differed and may not reflect the patient being tested; furthermore, the study design and statistical analysis varied between each test, leading to different scoring scales that may not be comparable. In this review, the background on the development and validation of these assays is discussed, and studies comparing them are reviewed. To provide guidance on which test to choose, the studies that support the level of evidence for clinical utility are presented. However, the choice of a particular test will also be influenced by socioeconomic factors, clinical factors, and patient preferences. We hope that a better understanding of the scientific and clinical rationale for each test will allow patients and providers to make optimal decisions for treatment of early-stage ER/PR+ breast cancer.