NSCLC as the Paradigm of Precision Medicine at Its Finest: The Rise of New Druggable Molecular Targets for Advanced Disease.

Standard treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) historically consisted of systemic cytotoxic chemotherapy until the early 2000s, when precision medicine led to a revolutionary change in the therapeutic scenario. The identification of oncogenic driver mutations in EGFR, ALK and ROS1 rearrangements identified a subset of patients who largely benefit from targeted agents. However, since the proportion of patients with druggable alterations represents a minority, the discovery of new potential driver mutations is still an urgent clinical need. We provide a comprehensive review of the emerging molecular targets in NSCLC and their applications in the advanced setting.

Sorafenib Versus Observation Following Radical Metastasectomy for Clear-cell Renal Cell Carcinoma: Results from the Phase 2 Randomized Open-label RESORT Study.

BACKGROUND: In selected metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients, radical metastasectomy followed by observation is a potential strategy. It is still to be defined whether systemic therapy should be administered following metastasectomy. OBJECTIVE: To assess the potential benefit of postoperative treatment with sorafenib compared with observation alone after radical metastasectomy in mRCC patients. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The RESORT trial was a multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase 2 study conducted between November 2012 and November 2017 in Italy. Patients with clear-cell mRCC pretreated with nephrectomy and undergoing radical metastasectomy (three or fewer lesions) were eligible for the study. Patients were randomized (1:1) within 12 wk from metastasectomy to sorafenib (standard dose 400 mg twice daily) or observation for a maximum of 52 wk. Stratification factors were interval from nephrectomy, site, and number of lesions. Overall, 76 patients were screened and 69 were randomized: 33 were assigned to sorafenib and 36 to observation. The primary endpoint was recurrence-free survival (RFS). Secondary endpoints were overall survival and the safety profile. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: RFS curves were estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method, and the log-rank test was used to statistically compare the curves. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: At a median follow-up of 38 mo, median RFS was 37 mo (95% confidence interval [CI] 20-not available [NA]) in the observation arm versus 21 mo (95% CI 11-NA) in the sorafenib arm (log-rank test p = 0.404), with 12-, 24-, and 36-mo RFS probability of 74% versus 63%, 59% versus 49%, and 50% versus 41%, respectively, in the observation versus the sorafenib arm. Any-grade adverse event (AE) rates were 84% in the sorafenib arm and 31% in the observation arm; grade ≥3 AE rates were 22% and 3% in the sorafenib and the observation arm, respectively, with a rate of treatment discontinuation for AEs of 19% in the sorafenib arm. CONCLUSIONS: This prospective study showed that systemic treatment with sorafenib did not increase RFS as compared with observation in mRCC patients following radical metastasectomy. PATIENT SUMMARY: This article reports the clinical outcome of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with sorafenib or managed with an observation-alone strategy after the radical surgery of metastases. We found that sorafenib did not improve the patient outcome in terms of relapse-free survival in this selected population.

Sorafenib dose escalation in treatment-naïve patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a non-randomised, open-label, Phase 2b study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of sorafenib dose escalation in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Intra-patient dose escalation may enhance the clinical benefit of targeted anticancer agents in metastatic disease. In this non-randomised, open-label, Phase 2b study, treatment-naïve patients with mRCC were initially treated with the standard oral sorafenib dose [400 mg twice daily (BID)]. Two dose escalations were planned, each 200 mg BID after 28 days at the prior level. Dose reductions, interruptions, or delayed escalations were used to manage adverse events (AEs). The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) in the modified intent-to-treat (mITT) population, which comprised patients with ≥6 months of treatment including ≥4 months of therapy at their highest tolerated dose. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) and safety. RESULTS: In all, 83 patients received sorafenib. The dose received for the longest duration was 400, 600, and 800 mg BID in 48.2%, 15.7%, and 24.1% of patients, respectively. The ORR was 44.4% [n = 8/18; 95% confidence interval (CI) 21.5-69.2] and 17.9% (n = 12/67; 95% CI 9.6-29.2) in the mITT and ITT populations, respectively. The median (95% CI) PFS was 7.4 (6.0-11.7) months (ITT). The most common AEs of any grade were hand-foot skin reaction (66.3%) and diarrhoea (63.9%). CONCLUSION: Sorafenib demonstrated clinical benefit in treatment-naïve patients with mRCC. However, relatively few patients could sustain doses of >400 mg BID. There was evidence that, where tolerated, escalation from the standard sorafenib dose may have enhanced clinical benefit. However, this study does not support dose escalation for most patients with treatment-naïve mRCC. Alternative protocols for sorafenib dose escalation could be explored.

Patient-Centered Cancer Care Programs in Italy: Benchmarking Global Patient Education Initiatives.

In Italy, educational programs for cancer patients are currently provided by the national government, scientific societies, and patient advocate organizations. Several gaps limit their effectiveness, including the lack of coordinated efforts, poor involvement of patient feedback in the planning of programs, as well as a lack of resources on innovative cancer-related topics. This process is parallel to a strong shift in the attitude of patients towards health in general and taking charge of their own health conditions in particular. The National Cancer Institute in the USA and the Organization of European Cancer Institutes encourage comprehensive cancer centers in providing educational programs conceived to overcome these gaps. The goal of this paper is to identify and describe the key elements necessary to develop a global patient education program and provide recommendations for strategies with practical examples for implementation in the daily activities of cancer institutes. A multidisciplinary committee was established for patient education, including patient representatives as equal partners, to define, implement, verify, and evaluate the fundamental steps for establishing a comprehensive education program. Six essential topics were identified for the program: appropriate communication of cancer epidemiology, clinical trial information, new therapeutic technologies, support in the use of medicines, psycho-oncological interventions, age-personalized approaches, and training programs for healthcare providers. Integration of these topics along with patient feedback is the key to a successful model for educational programs. An integrated educational program can transform a comprehensive cancer center to an institution that provides research and care for and with patients.

A retrospective analysis of two different sequences of therapy lines for advanced kidney cancer.

BACKGROUND/AIM: the ideal sequence of targeted agents for advanced kidney cancer is still unknown. In the present study we assessed the clinical benefit of two different sequential approaches, namely sorafenib, an inhibitor of mammalian target of rapamycin (mTORi) and sunitinib, or sunitinib (an mTORi) and sorafenib. PATIENTS AND METHODS: we retrospectively reviewed the outcome of 40 advanced kidney cancer patients treated with one of the two above sequences. RESULTS: a total of 26 patients were treated with the sequence sorafenib-mTORi-sunitinib and 14 with the sequence sunitinib-mTORi-sorafenib. The actuarial overall median progression-free survival (PFS) in the sorafenib-mTORi-sunitinib group and in the sunitinib-mTORi-sorafenib group were 21.9 and 22.8 months, respectively (log-rank test: p=0.928). In the sorafenib-mTORi-sunitinib group, patients in first-, second- and third-line therapy experienced PFS of 11.7, 5.1 and 9.1 months, respectively, while in the sunitinib-mTORi-sorafenib group PFS was 14.4, 4.3, and 3.9 months, respectively. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest there is no significant difference between the two sequence modalities.

Sorafenib for the treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma in HIV-positive patients.

Few data are available on the safety and efficacy of sorafenib in HIV-infected patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HIV-u-HCC) and concomitant highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART). Between July 2007 and October 2010, 27 consecutive HIV-u-HCC patients were treated with sorafenib and concomitant HAART within the Gruppo Italiano Cooperativo AIDS e Tumori (GICAT). Three patients achieved a partial response, 12 achieved a stable disease, and 12 showed progression. The median time to progression and overall survival was 5.1 (range 0.5-13.3) and 12.8 (range 1.1-23.5) months, respectively. Grades 3-4 toxicities included diarrhea (four patients, 14.8%), hypertension (three patients, 11%), and hand-and-foot skin reaction (four patients, 14.9%). Most drug-related side effects were low grade and manageable. This retrospective study shows favorable survival data among HIV-u-HCC patients treated with sorafenib together with a reasonable safety profile.

Phase II, double-blinded, randomized study of enzastaurin plus pemetrexed as second-line therapy in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: We examined the efficacy of enzastaurin plus pemetrexed as second-line therapy in patients with advanced (stage IIIA/B or IV) non-small cell lung cancer in a double-blinded, randomized, phase II study. METHODS: Patients received pemetrexed 500 mg/m intravenously on day 1 of 21-day cycles (day 8 in cycle 1) plus oral enzastaurin (250 mg two times per day; combination arm) or placebo (pemetrexed arm). Both arms received supplementation with vitamin B12, folic acid, and dexamethasone. An interim analysis was conducted to determine whether efficacy would warrant a phase III study. RESULTS: The interim analysis showed no evidence of improved progression-free survival with enzastaurin. At final analysis (N = 160, 80 in each arm), baseline characteristics were well balanced. There was no significant difference in progression-free survival (3.0 months, p = 0.544) or overall survival (9.6 months in combination arm and 7.4 months in pemetrexed arm, p = 0.171). Drug-related serious adverse events included cerebrovascular accident, palpitations, and renal failure (n = 1, each) in combination arm and neutropenic sepsis, thrombocytopenia, and panniculitis (n = 1, each) in pemetrexed arm. Nonhematologic drug-related grade 3/4 toxicities were similar in both arms. Grade 3/4 hematologic toxicities were higher with the combination, specifically leukopenia (6.3% versus 0%), neutropenia (15.2% versus 5.0%), and thrombocytopenia (8.9% versus 1.3%). Of the 26 deaths reported on-study or within 30 days of discontinuation (10 in combination arm and 16 in pemetrexed arm), none were drug related. CONCLUSION: The combination regimen of enzastaurin and pemetrexed is well tolerated but does not improve efficacy over pemetrexed and placebo as second-line treatment of unselected patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

Pemetrexed single agent chemotherapy in previously treated patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: The main objective of this study was to evaluate the safety of second-line pemetrexed in Stage IIIB or IV NSCLC. METHODS: Overall, 95 patients received pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 i.v. over Day 1 of a 21-day cycle. Patients also received oral dexamethasone, oral folic acid and i.m. vitamin B12 supplementation to reduce toxicity. NCI CTC 2.0 was used to rate toxicity. All the adverse events were graded in terms of severity and relation to study treatment. Dose was reduced in case of toxicity and treatment was delayed for up to 42 days from Day 1 of any cycle to allow recovering from study drug-related toxicities. Tumor response was measured using the RECIST criteria. RESULTS: Patients received a median number of 4 cycles and 97.8% of the planned dose. Overall, 75 patients (78.9% of treated) reported at least one adverse event: 34 (35.8%) had grade 3 as worst grade and only 5 (5.2%) had grade 4. Drug-related events occurred in 57.9% of patients. Neutropenia (8.4%) and leukopenia (6.3 %) were the most common grade 3/4 hematological toxicities. Grade 3 anemia and thrombocytopenia were reported in 3.2% and 2.1% of patients, respectively. Diarrhea (6.3%), fatigue (3.2%) and dyspnea (3.2%) were the most common grade 3/4 non-hematological toxicities. The most common drug-related toxicities (any grade) were pyrexia (11.6%), vomiting, nausea, diarrhea and asthenia (9.5%) and fatigue (8.4%). Tumor Response Rate (CR/PR) in treated patients was 9.2%. The survival at 4.5 months (median follow-up) was 79% and the median PFS was 3.1 months. Twenty patients (21.1%) died mainly because of disease progression. CONCLUSION: Patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC could benefit from second-line pemetrexed, with a low incidence of hematological and non-hematological toxicities.

Phase II study of pemetrexed plus carboplatin in malignant pleural mesothelioma.

PURPOSE: This multicenter, phase II clinical study was conducted to evaluate the activity of the combination of pemetrexed and carboplatin in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Chemotherapy-naive patients with measurable disease and adequate organ function, who were not eligible for curative surgery, received pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 and carboplatin area under the plasma concentration-time curve of 5 mg/mL/min, administered intravenously every 21 days. All patients received folic acid and vitamin B12 supplementation. Pemetrexed was provided within the Expanded Access Program. RESULTS: A total of 102 patients were enrolled. An objective response was achieved in 19 patients (two complete and 17 partial responses), for a response rate of 18.6% (95% CI, 11.6% to 27.5%). Forty-eight patients (47.0%; 95% CI, 37.1% to 57.2%) had stable disease after treatment. Overall, 67 patients (65.7%) achieved disease control (95% CI, 55.6% to 74.8%). Median time to progression was 6.5 months; median overall survival time was 12.7 months. Compliance to treatment was excellent, with a relative dose-intensity of 97% for pemetrexed and 98% for carboplatin. Toxicity was mild, with grade 3 or 4 neutropenia occurring in 9.7% of total cycles and grade 3 or 4 anemia occurring in 3.5% of total cycles. Nonhematologic toxicity was negligible. CONCLUSION: Treatment with pemetrexed and carboplatin was active and well tolerated in patients with MPM. Disease control rate, time to disease progression, and overall survival were similar to the results achieved with the standard regimen of pemetrexed and cisplatin, suggesting that the carboplatin combination could be an alternative option for these patients.