Efficacy of TIL Therapy in Advanced Cutaneous Melanoma in the Current Immuno-oncology Era: Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Adoptive cell therapy with tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL-ACT) has consistently shown efficacy in advanced melanoma. New results in the field provide now the opportunity to assess overall survival (OS) after TIL-ACT and to examine the effect of prior anti-PD-(L)1 therapy on its efficacy. METHODS: A comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed up to 29 February 2024. Ιn this meta-analysis we focused on studies including high-dose interleukin-2 (HD IL-2), doubling the patient numbers from our previous meta-analysis conducted up to December 20181 and using OS as the primary endpoint. Objective response rate (ORR), complete response rate (CRR) and duration of response (DOR) were secondary endpoints. Findings are synthesized using tables, Kaplan-Meier plots and forest plots. Pooled estimates for ORR and CRR were derived from fixed or random effect models. RESULTS: A total of 13 HD IL-2 studies were included in this updated meta-analysis, with OS information available for 617 patients. No difference was found in median OS between studies with prior anti-PD-(L)1 treatment [n=238; 17.5 months (95% confidence interval (CI):13.8-20.5)] and without [n=379; 16.3 months (95%CI:14.2-20.6)] (log-rank p=0.53). ORR was estimated to be 34% (95%CI:16%-52%) and 44% (95%CI:37%-51%), for the studies with and without prior anti-PD-(L)1, respectively. The pooled estimate for CRR was 10% for both groups. No statistically significant difference was observed between the two groups, either for ORR (p=0.15) or CRR (p=0.45). CONCLUSIONS: Prior anti-PD-(L)1 treatment has no effect on the clinical response or survival benefit from TIL-ACT in advanced cutaneous melanoma. The benefit of TIL therapy in the second-line setting is also present post anti-PD-(L)1 treatment. Our data reinforce the evidence that TIL-ACT should be considered as a treatment of choice in second-line for metastatic melanoma patients failing anti-PD-(L)1 therapy.

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.

Effectiveness of PD-(L)1 inhibitors alone or in combination with platinum-doublet chemotherapy in first-line (1L) non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (Nsq-NSCLC) with PD-L1-high expression using real-world data.

BACKGROUND: Anti-programmed cell death protein (death-ligand) 1 [PD-(L)1] therapy alone [cancer immunotherapy (CIT)-mono] or combined with platinum-based chemotherapy (CIT-chemo) is used as the first-line treatment for patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Our study compared clinical outcomes with CIT-mono versus CIT-chemo in the specific clinical scenario of non-squamous (Nsq)-NSCLC with a high PD-L1 expression of ≥50% [tumor proportion score (TPS) or tumor cells (TC)]. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study using a real-world de-identified database. Patients with metastatic Nsq-NSCLC with high PD-L1 expression initiating first-line CIT-mono or CIT-chemo between 24 October 2016 and 28 February 2019 were followed up until 28 February 2020. We compared overall survival (OS) and real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS) using the Kaplan-Meier methodology. Hazard ratios (HRs) were adjusted (aHR) for differences in baseline key prognostic characteristics using the inverse probability of treatment weighting methodology. RESULTS: Patients with PD-L1-high Nsq-NSCLC treated with CIT-mono (n = 351) were older and less often presented with de novo stage IV disease than patients treated with CIT-chemo (n = 169). With a median follow-up of 19.9 months for CIT-chemo versus 23.5 months for CIT-mono, median OS and rwPFS did not differ between the two groups [median OS: CIT-chemo, 21.0 months versus CIT-mono, 22.1 months, aHR = 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77-1.39, P = 0.83; median rwPFS: CIT-chemo, 10.8 months versus CIT-mono, 11.5 months, aHR = 1.04, 95% CI 0.78-1.37, P = 0.81]. CIT-chemo showed significant and meaningful improvement in OS and rwPFS versus CIT-mono only in the never-smoker subgroup, albeit among a small sample of patients (n = 50; OS HR = 0.25, 95% CI 0.07-0.83, interaction P = 0.02; rwPFS HR = 0.40, 95% CI 0.17-0.95, interaction P = 0.04). CONCLUSION: Except in the subgroup of never-smoker patients, sparing the chemotherapy in first-line CIT treatment does not appear to impact survival outcomes in Nsq-NSCLC patients with high PD-L1 expression.

Consolidation nivolumab and ipilimumab versus observation in limited-disease small-cell lung cancer after chemo-radiotherapy - results from the randomised phase II ETOP/IFCT 4-12 STIMULI trial.

BACKGROUND: Concurrent chemotherapy and thoracic radiotherapy followed by prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) is the standard treatment in limited-disease small-cell lung cancer (LD-SCLC), with 5-year overall survival (OS) of only 25% to 33%. PATIENTS AND METHODS: STIMULI is a 1:1 randomised phase II trial aiming to demonstrate superiority of consolidation combination immunotherapy versus observation after chemo-radiotherapy plus PCI (protocol amendment-1). Consolidation immunotherapy consisted of four cycles of nivolumab [1 mg/kg, every three weeks (Q3W)] plus ipilimumab (3 mg/kg, Q3W), followed by nivolumab monotherapy (240 mg, Q2W) for up to 12 months. Patient recruitment closed prematurely due to slow accrual and the statistical analyses plan was updated to address progression-free survival (PFS) as the only primary endpoint. RESULTS: Of the 222 patients enrolled, 153 were randomised (78: experimental; 75: observation). Among the randomised patients, median age was 62 years, 60% males, 34%/65% current/former smokers, 31%/66% performance status (PS) 0/1. Up to 25 May 2020 (median follow-up 22.4 months), 40 PFS events were observed in the experimental arm, with median PFS 10.7 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 7.0-not estimable (NE)] versus 42 events and median 14.5 months (8.2-NE) in the observation, hazard ratio (HR) = 1.02 (0.66-1.58), two-sided P = 0.93. With updated follow-up (03 June 2021; median: 35 months), median OS was not reached in the experimental arm, while it was 32.1 months (26.1-NE) in observation, with HR = 0.95 (0.59-1.52), P = 0.82. In the experimental arm, median time-to-treatment-discontinuation was only 1.7 months. CTCAE v4 grade ≥3 adverse events were experienced by 62% of patients in the experimental and 25% in the observation arm, with 4 and 1 fatal, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The STIMULI trial did not meet its primary endpoint of improving PFS with nivolumab-ipilimumab consolidation after chemo-radiotherapy in LD-SCLC. A short period on active treatment related to toxicity and treatment discontinuation likely affected the efficacy results.

A randomised phase II study of osimertinib and bevacizumab versus osimertinib alone as second-line targeted treatment in advanced NSCLC with confirmed EGFR and acquired T790M mutations: the European Thoracic Oncology Platform (ETOP 10-16) BOOSTER trial.

BACKGROUND: While osimertinib, a third-generation epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) is the standard treatment in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with sensitising EGFR and acquired T790M mutations, progression inevitably occurs. The angiogenic pathway is implicated in EGFR TKI resistance. PATIENTS AND METHODS: BOOSTER is an open-label randomised phase II trial investigating the efficacy and safety of combined osimertinib 80 mg daily and bevacizumab 15 mg/kg every 3 weeks, versus osimertinib alone, in patients with EGFR-mutant advanced NSCLC and acquired T790M mutations after failure on previous EGFR TKI therapy. Primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR) and adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: Between May 2017 and February 2019, 155 patients were randomised (combination: 78; osimertinib: 77). At data cut-off of 22 February 2021, median follow-up was 33.8 months [interquartile range (IQR): 26.5-37.6 months] and 129 (83.2%) PFS events were reported in the intention-to-treat population. There was no difference in median PFS between the combination [15.4 months; 95% confidence interval (CI) 9.2-18.0 months] and osimertinib arm (12.3 months; 95% CI 6.2-17.2 months; stratified log-rank P = 0.83), [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.96; 95% CI 0.68-1.37]. Median OS was 24.0 months (95% CI 17.8-32.1 months) in the combination arm and 24.3 months (95% CI 16.9-37.0 months) in the osimertinib arm (stratified log-rank P = 0.91), (HR = 1.03; 95% CI 0.67-1.56). Exploratory analysis revealed a significant interaction of smoking history with treatment for PFS (adjusted P = 0.0052) with a HR of 0.52 (95% CI 0.30-0.90) for smokers, and 1.47 (95% CI 0.92-2.33) for never smokers. ORR was 55% in both arms and the median time to treatment failure was significantly shorter in the combination than in the osimertinib arm, 8.2 months versus 10.8 months, respectively (P = 0.0074). Safety of osimertinib and bevacizumab was consistent with previous reports with grade ≥3 treatment-related AEs (TRAEs) reported in 47% and 18% of patients on combination and osimertinib alone, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: No difference in PFS was observed between osimertinib plus bevacizumab and osimertinib alone. Grade ≥3 TRAEs were more common in patients on combination.

A multicentre randomised phase III trial comparing pembrolizumab versus single-agent chemotherapy for advanced pre-treated malignant pleural mesothelioma: the European Thoracic Oncology Platform (ETOP 9-15) PROMISE-meso trial.

BACKGROUND: Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is an aggressive malignancy characterised by limited treatment options and a poor prognosis. At relapse after platinum-based chemotherapy, single-agent chemotherapy is commonly used and single-arm trials of immune-checkpoint inhibitors have demonstrated encouraging activity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: PROMISE-meso is an open-label 1:1 randomised phase III trial investigating the efficacy of pembrolizumab (200 mg/Q3W) versus institutional choice single-agent chemotherapy (gemcitabine or vinorelbine) in relapsed MPM patients with progression after/on previous platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients were performance status 0-1 and unselected for programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) status. At progression, patients randomly assigned to receive chemotherapy were allowed to crossover to pembrolizumab. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS), assessed by blinded independent central review (BICR). Secondary end points were overall survival (OS), investigator-assessed PFS, objective response rate (ORR), and safety. Efficacy by PD-L1 status was investigated in exploratory analyses. RESULTS: Between September 2017 and August 2018, 144 patients were randomly allocated (pembrolizumab: 73; chemotherapy: 71). At data cut-off [20 February 2019, median follow-up of 11.8 months (interquartile range: 9.9-14.5)], 118 BICR-PFS events were observed. No difference in BICR-PFS was detected [hazard ratio = 1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.73-1.53; P = 0.76], and median BICR-PFS (95% CI) for pembrolizumab was 2.5 (2.1-4.2), compared with 3.4 (2.2-4.3) months for chemotherapy. A difference in ORR for pembrolizumab was identified (22%, 95% CI: 13% to 33%), over chemotherapy (6%, 95% CI: 2% to 14%; P = 0.004). Forty-five patients (63%) assigned to chemotherapy received pembrolizumab at progression. With follow-up to 21 August 2019 [17.5 months: (14.8-19.7)], no difference in OS was detected between groups (HR = 1.12, 95% CI: 0.74-1.69; P = 0.59), even after adjusting for crossover. Pembrolizumab safety was consistent with previous observations. Exploratory efficacy analyses by PD-L1 status demonstrated no improvements in ORR/PFS/OS. CONCLUSION: This is the first randomised trial evaluating the efficacy of pembrolizumab in MPM patients progressing after/on previous platinum-based chemotherapy. In biologically unselected patients, although associated with an improved ORR, pembrolizumab improves neither PFS nor OS over single-agent chemotherapy.

Gender medicine and oncology: report and consensus of an ESMO workshop.

BACKGROUND: The importance of sex and gender as modulators of disease biology and treatment outcomes is well known in other disciplines of medicine, such as cardiology, but remains an undervalued issue in oncology. Considering the increasing evidence for their relevance, European Society for Medical Oncology decided to address this topic and organized a multidisciplinary workshop in Lausanne, Switzerland, on 30 November and 1 December 2018. DESIGN: Twenty invited faculty members and 40 selected physicians/scientists participated. Relevant content was presented by faculty members on the basis of a literature review conducted by each speaker. Following a moderated consensus session, the final consensus statements are reported here. RESULTS: Clinically relevant sex differences include tumour biology, immune system activity, body composition and drug disposition and effects. The main differences between male and female cells are sex chromosomes and the level of sexual hormones they are exposed to. They influence both local and systemic determinants of carcinogenesis. Their effect on carcinogenesis in non-reproductive organs is largely unknown. Recent evidence also suggests differences in tumour biology and molecular markers. Regarding body composition, the difference in metabolically active, fat-free body mass is one of the most prominent: in a man and a woman of equal weight and height, it accounts for 80% of the man's and 65% of the woman's body mass, and is not taken into account in body-surface area based dosing of chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: Sex differences in cancer biology and treatment deserve more attention and systematic investigation. Interventional clinical trials evaluating sex-specific dosing regimens are necessary to improve the balance between efficacy and toxicity for drugs with significant pharmacokinetic differences. Especially in diseases or disease subgroups with significant differences in epidemiology or outcomes, men and women with non-sex-related cancers should be considered as biologically distinct groups of patients, for whom specific treatment approaches merit consideration.

Efficacy of adoptive therapy with tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and recombinant interleukin-2 in advanced cutaneous melanoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Adoptive cell therapy (ACT) using autologous tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL) has been tested in advanced melanoma patients at various centers. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess its efficacy on previously treated advanced metastatic cutaneous melanoma. The PubMed electronic database was searched from inception to 17 December 2018 to identify studies administering TIL-ACT and recombinant interleukin-2 (IL-2) following non-myeloablative chemotherapy in previously treated metastatic melanoma patients. Objective response rate (ORR) was the primary end point. Secondary end points were complete response rate (CRR), overall survival (OS), duration of response (DOR) and toxicity. Pooled estimates were derived from fixed or random effect models, depending on the amount of heterogeneity detected. Analysis was carried out separately for high dose (HD) and low dose (LD) IL-2. Sensitivity analyses were carried out. Among 1211 records screened, 13 studies (published 1988 - 2016) were eligible for meta-analysis. Among 410 heavily pretreated patients (some with brain metastasis), 332 received HD-IL-2 and 78 LD-IL-2. The pooled overall ORR estimate was 41% [95% confidence interval (CI) 35% to 48%], and the overall CRR was 12% (95% CI 7% to 16%). For the HD-IL-2 group, the ORR was 43% (95% CI 36% to 50%), while for the LD-IL-2 it was 35% (95% CI 25% to 45%). Corresponding pooled estimates for CRR were 14% (95% CI 7% to 20%) and 7% (95% CI 1% to 12%). The majority of HD-IL-2 complete responders (27/28) remained in remission during the extent of follow-up after CR (median 40 months). Sensitivity analyses yielded similar results. Higher number of infused cells was associated with a favorable response. The ORR for HD-IL-2 compared favorably with the nivolumab/ipilimumab combination following anti-PD-1 failure. TIL-ACT therapy, especially when combined with HD-IL-2, achieves durable clinical benefit and warrants further investigation. We discuss the current position of TIL-ACT in the therapy of advanced melanoma, particularly in the era of immune checkpoint blockade therapy, and review future opportunities for improvement of this approach.

Prevalence and clinical association of gene mutations through multiplex mutation testing in patients with NSCLC: results from the ETOP Lungscape Project.

Background: Reported prevalence of driver gene mutations in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is highly variable and clinical correlations are emerging. Using NSCLC biomaterial and clinical data from the European Thoracic Oncology Platform Lungscape iBiobank, we explore the epidemiology of mutations and association to clinicopathologic features and patient outcome (relapse-free survival, time-to-relapse, overall survival). Methods: Clinically annotated, resected stage I-III NSCLC FFPE tissue was assessed for gene mutation using a microfluidics-based multiplex PCR platform. Mutant-allele detection sensitivity is >1% for most of the ∼150 (13 genes) mutations covered in the multiplex test. Results: Multiplex testing has been carried out in 2063 (76.2%) of the 2709 Lungscape cases (median follow-up 4.8 years). FFPE samples mostly date from 2005 to 2008, yet recently extracted DNA quality and quantity was generally good. Average DNA yield/case was 2.63 µg; 38 cases (1.4%) failed QC and were excluded from study; 95.1% of included cases allowed the complete panel of mutations to be tested. Most common were KRAS, MET, EGFR and PIK3CA mutations with overall prevalence of 23.0%, 6.8%, 5.4% and 4.9%, respectively. KRAS and EGFR mutations were significantly more frequent in adenocarcinomas: PIK3CA in squamous cell carcinomas. MET mutation prevalence did not differ between histology groups. EGFR mutations were found predominantly in never smokers; KRAS in current/former smokers. For all the above mutations, there was no difference in outcome between mutated and non-mutated cases. Conclusion: Archival FFPE NSCLC material is adequate for multiplex mutation analysis. In this large, predominantly European, clinically annotated stage I-III NSCLC cohort, none of the mutations characterized showed prognostic significance.

ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale version 1.1.

BACKGROUND: The ESMO Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) version 1.0 (v1.0) was published in May 2015 and was the first version of a validated and reproducible tool to assess the magnitude of clinical benefit from new cancer therapies. The ESMO-MCBS was designed to be a dynamic tool with planned revisions and updates based upon recognition of expanding needs and shortcomings identified since the last review. METHODS: The revision process for the ESMO-MCBS incorporates a nine-step process: Careful review of critiques and suggestions, and identification of problems in the application of v1.0; Identification of shortcomings for revision in the upcoming version; Proposal and evaluation of solutions to address identified shortcomings; Field testing of solutions; Preparation of a near-final revised version for peer review for reasonableness by members of the ESMO Faculty and Guidelines Committee; Amendments based on peer review for reasonableness; Near-final review by members of the ESMO-MCBS Working Group and the ESMO Executive Board; Final amendments; Final review and approval by members of the ESMO-MCBS Working Group and the ESMO Executive Board. RESULTS: Twelve issues for revision or amendment were proposed for consideration; proposed amendments were formulated for eight identified shortcomings. The proposed amendments are classified as either structural, technical, immunotherapy triggered or nuanced. All amendments were field tested in a wide range of studies comparing scores generated with ESMO-MCBS v1.0 and version 1.1 (v1.1). CONCLUSIONS: ESMO-MCBS v1.1 incorporates 10 revisions and will allow for scoring of single-arm studies. Scoring remains very stable; revisions in v1.1 alter the scores of only 12 out of 118 comparative studies and facilitate scoring for single-arm studies.

A standardised, generic, validated approach to stratify the magnitude of clinical benefit that can be anticipated from anti-cancer therapies: the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS).

The value of any new therapeutic strategy or treatment is determined by the magnitude of its clinical benefit balanced against its cost. Evidence for clinical benefit from new treatment options is derived from clinical research, in particular phase III randomised trials, which generate unbiased data regarding the efficacy, benefit and safety of new therapeutic approaches. To date, there is no standard tool for grading the magnitude of clinical benefit of cancer therapies, which may range from trivial (median progression-free survival advantage of only a few weeks) to substantial (improved long-term survival). Indeed, in the absence of a standardised approach for grading the magnitude of clinical benefit, conclusions and recommendations derived from studies are often hotly disputed and very modest incremental advances have often been presented, discussed and promoted as major advances or 'breakthroughs'. Recognising the importance of presenting clear and unbiased statements regarding the magnitude of the clinical benefit from new therapeutic approaches derived from high-quality clinical trials, the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) has developed a validated and reproducible tool to assess the magnitude of clinical benefit for cancer medicines, the ESMO Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). This tool uses a rational, structured and consistent approach to derive a relative ranking of the magnitude of clinically meaningful benefit that can be expected from a new anti-cancer treatment. The ESMO-MCBS is an important first step to the critical public policy issue of value in cancer care, helping to frame the appropriate use of limited public and personal resources to deliver cost-effective and affordable cancer care. The ESMO-MCBS will be a dynamic tool and its criteria will be revised on a regular basis.

HER2 staining intensity in HER2-positive disease: relationship with FISH amplification and clinical outcome in the HERA trial of adjuvant trastuzumab.

BACKGROUND: Trastuzumab treatment improves survival of HER2-positive primary breast cancer. HER2 staining intensity varies widely in HER2-positive tumours. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We investigated whether differences in immunohistochemical (IHC) staining intensity for HER2 in HER2-positive tumors (IHC 3+ or FISH ratio ≥2.0) was associated with prognosis or benefit from trastuzumab treatment in patients randomized to 1 year or no trastuzumab in the HERceptin Adjuvant (HERA) trial. Median follow-up was 2 years. The nested case-control analysis, included 425 patients (cases) with a disease-free survival (DFS) event and two matched controls (no DFS event) per case. Tissue sections stained for HER2 were assessed for HER2 staining intensity by image analysis. RESULTS: HER2 staining intensity varied widely and correlated with HER2 gene copy number (Spearman, r = 0.498, P < 0.001) or less closely with HER2/CEP17 FISH ratio (r = 0.396, P < 0.001). We found no significant difference in DFS in the observation arm according to staining intensity (odds ratio [OR] change per 10 unit change in intensity: 1.015, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.930-1.108) and no impact of staining intensity on benefit derived from 1-year trastuzumab (OR: 1.017, 95% CI 0.925-1.120). CONCLUSIONS: Variability in HER2 staining in HER2-positive tumours has no role in clinical management with adjuvant trastuzumab. HERA TRIAL NO: NCT00045032.

Prospective, open-label, randomized, phase III study of two dose-dense regimens MVAC versus gemcitabine/cisplatin in patients with inoperable, metastatic or relapsed urothelial cancer: a Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group study (HE 16/03).

BACKGROUND: The combinations of methotrexate, vinblastine, Adriamycin, cisplatin (Pharmanell, Athens, Greece) (MVAC) or gemcitabine, cisplatin (GC) represent the standard treatment of advanced urothelial cancer (UC). Dose-dense (DD)-MVAC has achieved longer progression-free survival (PFS) than the conventional MVAC. However, the role of GC intensification has not been studied. We conducted a randomized, phase III study comparing a DD-GC regimen with DD-MVAC in advanced UC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred and thirty patients were randomly assigned between DD-MVAC: 66 (M 30 mg/m(2), V 3 mg/m(2), A 30 mg/m(2), C 70 mg/m(2) q 2 weeks) and DD-GC 64 (G 2500 mg/m(2), C 70 mg/m(2) q 2 weeks). The median follow-up was 52.1 months (89 events). RESULTS: The median overall survival (OS) and PFS were 19 and 8.5 months for DD-MVAC and 18 and 7.8 months for DD-GC (P = 0.98 and 0.36, respectively). Neutropenic infections were less frequent for DD-GC than for DD-MVAC (0% versus 8%). More patients on DD-GC received at least six cycles of treatment (85% versus 63%, P = 0.011) and the discontinuation rate was lower for DD-GC (3% versus 13%). CONCLUSIONS: Although DD-GC was not superior to DD-MVAC, it was better tolerated. DD-GC could be considered as a reasonable therapeutic option for further study in this patient population. Clinical Trial Number ACTRN12610000845033, www.anzctr.org.au.

Off-label despite high-level evidence: a clinical practice review of commonly used off-patent cancer medicines.

INTRODUCTION: Off-label use of medicines is generally discouraged. However, several off-patent, low-cost cancer medicines remain off-label for indications in which they are commonly used in daily practice, supported by high-level evidence based on results of phase III clinical trials. This discrepancy may generate prescription and reimbursement obstacles as well as impaired access to established therapies. METHODS: A list of cancer medicines that remain off-label in specific indications despite the presence of high-level evidence was generated and subjected to European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) expert peer review to assess for accountability of reasonableness. These medicines were then surveyed on approval procedures and workflow impact. The most illustrative examples of these medicines were reviewed by experts from the European Medicines Agency to ascertain the apparent robustness of the supporting phase III trial evidence from a regulatory perspective. RESULTS: A total of 47 ESMO experts reviewed 17 cancer medicines commonly used off-label in six disease groups. Overall, high levels of agreement were recorded on the off-label status and the high quality of data supporting the efficacy in the off-label indications, often achieving high ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) scores. When prescribing these medicines, 51% of the reviewers had to implement a time-consuming process associated with additional workload, in the presence of litigation risks and patient anxiety. Finally, the informal regulatory expert review identified only 2 out of 18 (11%) studies with significant limitations that would be difficult to overcome in the context of a potential marketing authorisation application without additional studies. CONCLUSIONS: We highlight the common use of off-patent essential cancer medicines in indications that remain off-label despite solid supporting data as well as generate evidence on the adverse impact on patient access and clinic workflows. In the current regulatory framework, incentives to promote the extension of indications of off-patent cancer medicines are needed for all stakeholders.

COVID-19 in cancer patients: update from the joint analysis of the ESMO-CoCARE, BSMO, and PSMO international databases.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has significantly affected patients with cancer and revealed unanticipated challenges in securing optimal cancer care across different disciplines. The European Society for Medical Oncology COVID-19 and CAncer REgistry (ESMO-CoCARE) is an international, real-world database, collecting data on the natural history, management, and outcomes of patients with cancer and SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: This is the 2nd CoCARE analysis, jointly with Belgian (Belgian Society of Medical Oncology, BSMO) and Portuguese (Portuguese Society of Medical Oncology, PSMO) registries, with data from January 2020 to December 2021. The aim is to identify significant prognostic factors for COVID-19 hospitalization and mortality (primary outcomes), as well as intensive care unit admission and overall survival (OS) (secondary outcomes). Subgroup analyses by pandemic phase and vaccination status were carried out. RESULTS: The cohort includes 3294 patients (CoCARE: 2049; BSMO: 928, all hospitalized by eligibility criteria; PSMO: 317), diagnosed in four distinct pandemic phases (January to May 2020: 36%; June to September 2020: 9%; October 2020 to February 2021: 41%; March to December 2021: 12%). COVID-19 hospitalization rate was 54% (CoCARE/PSMO), ICU admission 14%, and COVID-19 mortality 22% (all data). At a 6-month median follow-up, 1013 deaths were recorded with 73% 3-month OS rate. No significant change was observed in COVID-19 mortality among hospitalized patients across the four pandemic phases (30%-33%). Hospitalizations and ICU admission decreased significantly (from 78% to 34% and 16% to 10%, respectively). Among 1522 patients with known vaccination status at COVID-19 diagnosis, 70% were non-vaccinated, 24% had incomplete vaccination, and 7% complete vaccination. Complete vaccination had a protective effect on hospitalization (odds ratio = 0.24; 95% confidence interval [0.14-0.38]), ICU admission (odds ratio = 0.29 [0.09-0.94]), and OS (hazard ratio = 0.39 [0.20-0.76]). In multivariable analyses, COVID-19 hospitalization was associated with patient/cancer characteristics, the first pandemic phase, the presence of COVID-19-related symptoms or inflammatory biomarkers, whereas COVID-19 mortality was significantly higher in symptomatic patients, males, older age, ethnicity other than Asian/Caucasian, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≥2, body mass index <25, hematological malignancy, progressive disease versus no evident disease, and advanced cancer stage. CONCLUSIONS: The updated CoCARE analysis, jointly with BSMO and PSMO, highlights factors that significantly affect COVID-19 outcomes, providing actionable clues for further reducing mortality.