Evaluating the clinical benefit of pembrolizumab as a first-line agent in advanced solid tumors: A comprehensive review.

INTRODUCTION: The study evaluates the first-line application of pembrolizumab in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (mNSCLC), head and neck squamous cell cancer (HNSCC), gastric cancer, and renal cell carcinoma. Utilizing the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) and the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework (ASCO-VF), the analysis incorporates data from pivotal KEYNOTE trials. METHODS: The study systematically assessed the clinical benefit of pembrolizumab in advanced solid malignancies through nine randomized controlled trials, one of which comprised two experimental arms. Data extraction from primary sources was conducted from PubMed, ASCO, and ESMO publications. Utilizing ESMO-MCBS and ASCO-VF forms, the evaluation focused on clinical benefit, toxicity, and bonus points, with discrepancies resolved through consensus discussions. RESULTS: Nine first-line indications for pembrolizumab received Food and Drug Administration approval for metastatic solid tumors between 2018 and 2023. Notable distinctions in ESMO-MCBS grades revealed seven trials with substantial clinical benefit (grades 5 to 4) and three with moderate to negligible benefit (grades 3 to 1). Bonus points, primarily based on the tail of the curve, were allocated to three trials for overall survival, one for progression-free survival, and one for a significant improvement in quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: Our evaluation of pembrolizumab across diverse cancers, especially in mNSCLC and HNSCC, revealed varied outcomes and challenges in clinical benefit interpretation. The assessment of clinical benefit, incorporating quantitative and qualitative endpoints, underscores the need to consider survivorship outcomes and patient perspectives for a comprehensive understanding.

Methodological and reporting standards for quality-of-life data eligible for European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) credit.

BACKGROUND: The European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) has been developed to grade clinical benefit of cancer therapies. Improvement in quality of life (QoL) is considered relevant, especially in the non-curative setting. This is reflected by an upgrade of the preliminary ESMO-MCBS score if QoL is improved compared to the control arm or a downgrade if an improvement in progression-free survival is not paralleled by an improvement in QoL or overall survival. Given the importance of QoL for the final score, a need to ensure the robustness of QoL data was recognised. DESIGN: A checklist was created based on existing guidelines for QoL research. Field testing was carried out using clinical trials that either received an adjustment of the preliminary ESMO-MCBS score based on QoL or had QoL as the primary endpoint. Several rounds of revision and re-testing of the checklist were undertaken until a final consensus was reached. RESULTS: The final checklist consists of four items and can be applied if three prerequisites are met: (i) QoL is at least a secondary endpoint, (ii) evidence of reliability and validity of the instrument is provided, and (iii) a statistically and clinically significant improvement in QoL is observed. The four items on the checklist pertain to the (i) hypothesis, (ii) compliance and missing data, (iii) presentation of the results, and (iv) statistical and clinical relevance. Field testing revealed that a clear QoL hypothesis and correction for multiple testing were mostly lacking, while the main statistical method was always described. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of the ESMO-MCBS QoL checklist will facilitate objective and transparent decision making on QoL data within the ESMO-MCBS scoring process. Trials published until 1 January 2025 will have to meet the prerequisites and at least two items for crediting QoL benefit in the final ESMO-MCBS score. Trials published thereafter will have to meet all four items.

ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale for haematological malignancies (ESMO-MCBS:H) version 1.0.

BACKGROUND: The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO)-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (MCBS) has been accepted as a robust tool to evaluate the magnitude of clinical benefit reported in trials for oncological therapies. However, the ESMO-MCBS hitherto has only been validated for solid tumours. With the rapid development of novel therapies for haematological malignancies, we aimed to develop an ESMO-MCBS version that is specifically designed and validated for haematological malignancies. METHODS: ESMO and the European Hematology Association (EHA) initiated a collaboration to develop a version for haematological malignancies (ESMO-MCBS:H). The process incorporated five landmarks: field testing of the ESMO-MCBS version 1.1 (v1.1) to identify shortcomings specific to haematological diseases, drafting of the ESMO-MCBS:H forms, peer review and revision of the draft based on re-scoring (resulting in a second draft), assessment of reasonableness of the scores generated, final review and approval by ESMO and EHA including executive boards. RESULTS: Based on the field testing results of 80 haematological trials and extensive review for feasibility and reasonableness, five amendments to ESMO-MCBS were incorporated in the ESMO-MCBS:H addressing the identified shortcomings. These concerned mainly clinical trial endpoints that differ in haematology versus solid oncology and the very indolent nature of nevertheless incurable diseases such as follicular lymphoma, which hampers presentation of mature data. In addition, general changes incorporated in the draft version of the ESMO-MCBS v2 were included, and specific forms for haematological malignancies generated. Here we present the final approved forms of the ESMO-MCBS:H, including instructions. CONCLUSION: The haematology-specific version ESMO-MCBS:H allows now full applicability of the scale for evaluating the magnitude of clinical benefit derived from clinical studies in haematological malignancies.

Plain language summary and patient perspective of the European Society for Medical Oncology expert consensus statements on treating EGFR-positive non-small-cell lung cancer.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This article provides a plain language summary and patient perspective of a new set of recommendations made by the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO for short). These recommendations are also called expert consensus statements. They cover the management of people with a type of lung cancer called epidermal growth factor receptor-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (EGFR-positive NSCLC for short). WHY WERE THE RECOMMENDATIONS DEVELOPED?: The ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines are used by healthcare professionals when treating people with cancer, but they don't necessarily have all the information healthcare professionals need to make decisions for with people with EGFR-positive NSCLC. So, in 2021, 32 healthcare professionals who are experts in treating people with EGFR-positive NSCLC worked together to produce recommendations to fill these gaps about EGFR-positive NSCLC. This was called a consensus-building process and it also included patient advocates. WHAT RECOMMENDATIONS DID THEY MAKE?: The experts discussed four main topics including how people with different stages of EGFR-positive NSCLC are diagnosed and treated, and how clinical studies are done. They reviewed the scientific information that exists on these subjects. They reached an agreement and developed the recommendations that are summarized here.

The value measurement of emerging therapeutics in renal cell carcinoma: ASCO value framework and ESMO-MCBS.

PURPOSE: Rapid development of novel therapeutics in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has led to financial burden for patients and society. Value including clinical benefit, toxicity affecting quality of life and cost-effectiveness are a concern, prompting the need for tools to facilitate value assessment of therapeutics. This study reviews the value assessment tools, and evaluates the value of emerging therapeutics in RCC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two medical oncologists used American Society of Clinical Oncology value framework (ASCO VF) v2.0 and European Society for Medical Oncology-magnitude of clinical benefit scale (ESMO-MCBS) v1.1 to phase 3 trials evaluating first-line therapy in patients with metastatic RCC. Follow-up (FU) reports and extended survival data were included. Equivocal aspects and limitations of the tools were discussed. RESULTS: Six trials (COMPARZ, CheckMate 214, JAVELIN renal 101, Keynote 426, CLEAR, and CheckMate 9ER) were assessed. The control arm was standard-of-care sunitinib in all trials. ASCO VF's net health benefit, calculated as clinical benefit, toxicity and other bonus point was 11 in pazopanib, 41.9 in nivolumab plus ipilimumab, 22.4 in axitinib plus avelumab, 48.7 in axitinib plus pembrolizumab, 35.2 in lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab, and 50.8 in cabozantinib plus nivolumab. A higher score means a greater treatment benefit. ESMO-MCBS gave grade 5 to nivolumab plus ipilimumab, 4 to pazopanib, lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab and cabozantinib plus nivolumab, 3 to axitinib plus avelumab or pembrolizumab. Both tools had unclear aspects to be applied to clinical practice, and should be more clearly defined, such as endpoint for determining survival benefits or how to standardize quality of life and toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: ASCO VF and ESMO-MCBS were applied to evaluate the newly emerging drugs in RCC and assessed their value. In-depth discussion by experts in various fields is required for appropriate clinical application in a real-world setting.

[Special tumor entities in the head and neck region : Nasopharyngeal carcinoma, salivary gland, and thyroid cancer]. / Spezielle Tumorentitäten im Kopf-Hals-Bereich : Nasopharynxkarzinom, Speicheldrüsenkarzinom und Schilddrüsenkarzinom.

BACKGROUND: In recent years the number of studies on special tumor entities in the head and neck region has increased. During the 2021 meetings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASMO) and the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), several studies were presented which predict changes in clinical treatment algorithms for nasopharyngeal carcinoma, salivary gland, and thyroid cancer. OBJECTIVE: Future treatment alterations in specific head and neck tumor entities were evaluated after screening clinical studies presented at the 2021 ASCO and ESMO meetings. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic analysis of the phase II and III clinical trials for nasopharyngeal carcinoma, salivary gland, and thyroid cancer treatment presented at ASCO and ESMO 2021 was performed. Taking into account current treatment standards, the results are structured in terms of their potential clinical significance. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: In curative treatment of advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma, adjuvant therapy with capecitabine after primary chemoradiation should be discussed as a new standard. In the palliative treatment of nasopharyngeal carcinoma, an increasing role of immunotherapy can be predicted. Recurrent or metastatic salivary gland cancer can often be treated very effectively with targeted substances if molecular target lesions are present. Immunotherapies currently play a subordinate role; they only seem to be effective in a few patients with salivary gland cancer, who cannot currently be reliably identified using predictive markers. Patients with radioiodine-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer benefit from treatment with the multi-tyrosine kinase inhibitor cabozantinib after failure of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (VEGFR-TKI) therapy.

Pan-Asian adapted ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for the diagnosis treatment and follow-up of patients with localised colon cancer.

The most recent version of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Clinical Practice Guidelines for the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of localised colon cancer was published in 2020. It was decided by both the ESMO and the Japanese Society of Medical Oncology (JSMO) to convene a special virtual guidelines meeting in March 2021 to adapt the ESMO 2020 guidelines to take into account the ethnic differences associated with the treatment of localised colon cancer in Asian patients. These guidelines represent the consensus opinions reached by experts in the treatment of patients with localised colon cancer representing the oncological societies of Japan (JSMO), China (CSCO), India (ISMPO), Korea (KSMO), Malaysia (MOS), Singapore (SSO) and Taiwan (TOS). The voting was based on scientific evidence and was independent of the current treatment practices and drug availability and reimbursement situations in the different Asian countries.

Analyzing the clinical benefit of newer therapies for advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer: application of the ESMO-magnitude of clinical benefit scale v1.1.

BACKGROUND: Despite newer therapies, advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) continues to be the leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. Deficits in the design and methods of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) may contribute to reducing the clinical benefit of therapies in oncology. To prioritize treatments based on efficacy results and toxicity data, the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) has developed the Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (MCBS). The objective of this study was to apply the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 to a cohort of RCTs on therapies for advanced or metastatic NSCLC. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Phase III and pivotal phase II trials, published between 2013 and 2018, investigating drug therapies for advanced NSCLC were included. PubMed was specifically searched for efficacy/toxicity updates. Treatments were graded 5 to 1 on the ESMO-MCBS v1.1, using the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the hazard ratio (HR), where scores 5 and 4 represent a substantial clinical benefit. Additionally, scores using the point estimate HR were generated, for comparison. Discrepancies between our grade estimations and the ones published on the ESMO website, as scorecards, were identified. RESULTS: ESMO-MCBS scores were calculated for 42 positive clinical trials. 54.8% met the ESMO-MCBS thresholds for clinically meaningful benefit (final grade of 4 or 5). That percentage decreased to 40.5% when considering the point estimate of the HR. 50.0% of the trials had no published scorecard on the ESMO website and discrepancies affected 11 (26.2%) studies. CONCLUSION: Almost half of the RCTs showing a statistically significant result favoring the experimental arm, failed to demonstrate a substantial clinical benefit according to the ESMO framework.

ESO-ESMO Masterclass in Clinical Oncology: Analysis and Evaluation of the Learning Self-Assessment Test.

Masterclass in Clinical Oncology (MCO) represents the "key educational event" of European School of Oncology's (ESO) teaching program. MCO in collaboration with European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) is a multidisciplinary and clinical oriented educational event offered mainly to young oncologists worldwide. It provides full immersion in oncology with clinical case presentations and a Learning Self-Assessment Test (LSAT).LSAT is consisting of 45 multiple choice questions on an electronic platform referring to the material taught during the MCO. Three questions related to their topics are requested in advance from each faculty member. The major intentions of LSAT are the following: (a) the learning reflection of the massive information given during 4-5 days of intensive teaching and (b) to offer the opportunity to the participants to prepare themselves for their National Boards or for ESMO examination.In this article, we are analyzing and evaluating the results of LSAT from the ESO-ESMO Central European MCOs. We used the information of Central European MCOs for analysis due to the homogeneity of the available data. We assessed the level of participants' knowledge in relation to their oncology specialty or to their country of origin and the level of the quality of faculty teaching.

Clinical benefit and cost of breakthrough cancer drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration.

BACKGROUND: The clinical benefit and pricing of breakthrough-designated cancer drugs are uncertain. This study compares the magnitude of the clinical benefit and monthly price of new and supplemental breakthrough-designated and non-breakthrough-designated cancer drug approvals. METHODS: A cross-sectional cohort comprised approvals of cancer drugs for solid tumors from July 2012 to December 2017. For each indication, the clinical benefit from the pivotal trials was scored via validated frameworks: the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework (ASCO-VF), the American Society of Clinical Oncology Cancer Research Committee (ASCO-CRC), the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS), and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Evidence Blocks. A high clinical benefit was defined as scores ≥ 45 for the ASCO-VF, overall survival gains ≥ 2.5 months or progression-free survival gains ≥ 3 months for all cancer types for the ASCO-CRC criteria, a grade of A or B for trials of curative intent and a grade of 4 or 5 for trials of noncurative intent for the ESMO-MCBS, and scores of 4 and 5 and a combined score ≥ 16 for the NCCN Evidence Blocks. Monthly Medicare drug prices were calculated with Medicare prices and DrugAbacus. RESULTS: This study identified 106 trials supporting approval of 52 drugs for 96 indications. Forty percent of these indications received the breakthrough designation. Among the included trials, 33 (43%), 46 (73%), 35 (34%), and 67 (69%) met the thresholds established by the ASCO-VF, ASCO-CRC, ESMO-MCBS, and NCCN, respectively. In the metastatic setting, there were higher odds of clinically meaningful grades in trials supporting breakthrough drugs with the ASCO-VF (odds ratio [OR], 3.69; P = .022) and the NCCN Evidence Blocks (OR, 5.80; P = .003) but not with the ASCO-CRC (OR, 3.54; P = .11) or version 1.1 (v1.1) of the ESMO-MCBS (OR, 1.22; P = .70). The median costs of breakthrough therapy drugs were significantly higher than those of nonbreakthrough therapies (P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: In advanced solid cancers, drugs that received the breakthrough therapy designation were more likely than nonbreakthrough therapy drugs to be scored as providing a high clinical benefit with the ASCO-VF and the NCCN Evidence Blocks but not with the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 or the ASCO-CRC scale.

Recommendation for supportive care in patients receiving concurrent chemotherapy and radiotherapy for lung cancer.

Concurrent chemotherapy and radiotherapy (CCRT) followed by durvalumab immune therapy in appropriate patients is considered to be the standard of care in most fit stage III non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. However, CCRT is a toxic treatment that affects all organ systems and may cause acute and permanent side effects, some of which may be lethal. Supportive care is therefore of utmost importance in this clinical setting. A group of experts from the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (ESTRO) and the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) identified the following items of importance for further improvement of supportive care: smoking cessation; nutrition before and during CCRT (including treatment and prevention of anorexia); physical exercise before and during CCRT; prevention and treatment of acute esophagitis and dysphagia; treatment of cough and dyspnea; treatment of skin reactions; treatment of fatigue; prophylaxis of nausea and emesis; prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of cardiac disease and damage; and optimization of radiotherapy techniques and chemotherapy adjustments to reduce toxicity in the era of immune therapy. The resulting recommendations are summarized in this manuscript and knowledge gaps identified, in which future investments are needed to improve supportive care and hence quality of life and survival for our stage III NSCLC patients.

Pan-Asian adapted ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for the management of patients with early breast cancer: a KSMO-ESMO initiative endorsed by CSCO, ISMPO, JSMO, MOS, SSO and TOS.

In view of the planned new edition of the most recent version of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Clinical Practice Guidelines for the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of primary breast cancer published in 2015, it was decided at the ESMO Asia Meeting in November 2018, by both the ESMO and the Korean Society of Medical Oncology (KSMO), to convene a special face-to-face guidelines meeting in 2019 in Seoul. The aim was to adapt the latest ESMO 2019 guidelines to take into account the ethnic and geographical differences associated with the treatment of early breast cancer in Asian patients. These guidelines represent the consensus opinions reached by experts in the treatment of patients with early breast cancer representing the oncology societies of Korea (KSMO), China (CSCO), India (ISMPO) Japan (JSMO), Malaysia (MOS), Singapore (SSO) and Taiwan (TOS). The voting was based on scientific evidence, and was independent of both the current treatment practices, and the drug availability and reimbursement situations, in the individual participating Asian countries.

Pan-Asian adapted ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for the management of patients with intermediate and advanced/relapsed hepatocellular carcinoma: a TOS-ESMO initiative endorsed by CSCO, ISMPO, JSMO, KSMO, MOS and SSO.

The most recent version of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Clinical Practice Guidelines for the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) was published in 2018, and covered the diagnosis, management, treatment and follow-up of early, intermediate and advanced disease. At the ESMO Asia Meeting in November 2018 it was decided by both the ESMO and the Taiwan Oncology Society (TOS) to convene a special guidelines meeting immediately after the Taiwan Joint Cancer Conference (TJCC) in May 2019 in Taipei. The aim was to adapt the ESMO 2018 guidelines to take into account both the ethnic and the geographic differences in practice associated with the treatment of HCC in Asian patients. These guidelines represent the consensus opinions reached by experts in the treatment of patients with intermediate and advanced/relapsed HCC representing the oncology societies of Taiwan (TOS), China (CSCO), India (ISMPO) Japan (JSMO), Korea (KSMO), Malaysia (MOS) and Singapore (SSO). The voting was based on scientific evidence, and was independent of the current treatment practices, the drug availability and reimbursement situations in the individual participating Asian countries.

Pan-Asian adapted ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for the management of patients with locally-advanced unresectable non-small-cell lung cancer: a KSMO-ESMO initiative endorsed by CSCO, ISMPO, JSMO, MOS, SSO and TOS.

The most recent version of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Clinical Practice Guidelines for the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of early and locally-advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) was published in 2017, and covered the diagnosis, staging, management and treatment of both early stage I and II disease and locally-advanced stage III disease. At the ESMO Asia Meeting in November 2018, it was decided by both the ESMO and the Korean Society of Medical Oncology (KSMO) to convene a special face-to-face guidelines meeting in 2019 in Seoul. The aim was to adapt the ESMO 2017 guidelines to take into account potential differences related to ethnicity, cancer biology and standard practices associated with the treatment of locally-advanced, unresectable NSCLC in Asian patients. These guidelines represent the consensus opinions reached by those experts in the treatment of patients with lung cancer who represented the oncology societies of Korea (KSMO), China (CSCO), India (ISMPO), Japan (JSMO), Malaysia (MOS), Singapore (SSO) and Taiwan (TOS). The voting was based on scientific evidence, and it was independent of both local current treatment practices and the treatment availability and reimbursement situations in the individual participating Asian countries.

Antiemetic prophylaxis in patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: a multicenter survey of the Gruppo Italiano Trapianto Midollo Osseo (GITMO) transplant programs.

A survey within hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) centers of the Gruppo Italiano Trapianto Midollo Osseo (GITMO) was performed in order to describe current antiemetic prophylaxis in patients undergoing HSCT. The multicenter survey was performed by a questionnaire, covering the main areas on chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV): antiemetic prophylaxis guidelines used, antiemetic prophylaxis in different conditioning regimens, and methods of CINV evaluation. The survey was carried out in November 2016, and it was repeated 6 months after the publication of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC)/European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) specific guidelines on antiemetic prophylaxis in HSCT. The results show a remarkable heterogeneity of prophylaxis among the various centers and a significant difference between the guidelines and the clinical practice. In the main conditioning regimens, the combination of a serotonin3 receptor antagonist (5-HT3-RA) with dexamethasone and neurokin1 receptor antagonist (NK1-RA), as recommended by MASCC/ESMO guidelines, increased from 0 to 15% (before the publication of the guidelines) to 9-30% (after the publication of the guidelines). This study shows a lack of compliance with specific antiemetic guidelines, resulting mainly in under-prophylaxis. Concerted strategies are required to improve the current CINV prophylaxis, to draft shared common guidelines, and to increase the knowledge and the adherence to the current recommendations for CINV prophylaxis in the specific field of HSCT.

[Evaluation of the management and conformity to clinical practice guidelines of soft tissues lesions. Study performed at the competence center of Lorraine area]. / Évaluation et impact du respect du référentiel ESMO sur la prise en charge des lésions des tissus mous, étude menée au centre de référence de Lorraine.

INTRODUCTION: Despite regular recommendations issued by the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), patients faced still too often inadequate care with a direct influence on prognosis. METHODS: A retrospective study was carried out at the Competence center in Lorraine Area. Patients registered in the NetSarc database between 1st, 2010 and September 1st, 2016 were included. Compliance criteria were established using the latest ESMO 2014 referential. Two groups "conforming" and "non conforming" were analyzed. A first analyze about all of the soft tissue lesion and a second only about sarcomas. RESULTS: In total, 445 patients were eligible, 344 cases were treated according to the ESMO guidelines, giving a 77.3% conformity rate (95% CI: 73.4%, 81.2%). Compliance was better for the competence center than district hospitals (P<0.001), with compliance rates of 88.7%, and 51.6%, respectively. Among the 247 sarcomas, we found a R0 resection rate better according to the ESMO guideline, 55% against 18% (P<0.001). R1 rates were 34% vs. 56% and R2 11 vs. 26% disease free survival was not related significantly to the observance of recommendations in the univariate analysis. After adjustment on potential DFS prognostic factors, in the multivariate analysis, the results were similar. CONCLUSION: Compliance with the ESMO guidelines, through appropriate management, improves the quality of surgical excision for sarcomas and avoids non-corresponding surgical gestures.