Clinical outcomes by infusion timing of immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to determine whether immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) time-of-day infusion might influence the survival of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: We retrospectively analysed patients who received single-agent anti-PD-(L)1 therapy in any line between 2016 and 2021. We calculated by Cox regression models the association between the proportion of ICI infusions received after 16:30h and overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: 180 patients were included, 77% received ICI as second- or further-line (median of 12 infusions/patient). The median age was 65 years (IQR 57-70), 112 patients (62%) were male, 165 (92%) were current or former tobacco smokers, 140 (78%) had performance status (PS) 0 or 1, 26 (14%) were on steroid therapy at ICI initiation. Histology was non-squamous for 139 (77%), the median number of metastatic sites was 3, and 33% had brain metastases. Patients who received at least 20% of ICI infusions after 16:30h (65 out of 180, 36%) had a statistically significant shorter median PFS as compared with patients receiving less than 20% of infusions in the evening (4.9 vs 9.4 months, log-rank p = 0.020), while numerical but not statistical shorter OS was observed (14.0 vs 26.2 months, log-rank p = 0.090). In the multivariate analysis, receiving at least 20% of evening infusions did not significantly increase the risk of death, while PS and line of treatment were significantly correlated with the OS. On the contrary, a proportion of ICI administration after 16:30h ≥20% conferred an HR for the PFS of 1.44 (95% CI: 1.01-2.05, p = 0.043), but this prognostic effect was not found when including in the model the total number of ICI infusions received (HR 1.20, 95% CI: 0.83-1.75, p = 0.329). CONCLUSION: Time-of-day infusion of ICI may impact the survival of patients with advanced NSCLC. Underlying prognostic characteristics and the number of infusions received could represent conceivable confounding factors, linked to increased variance related to ICI infusion timing. Nonetheless, further studies may unravel chronobiological mechanisms modulating ICI efficacy.

Palliation of dysphagia in metastatic oesogastric cancers: An international multidisciplinary position.

Malignant dysphagia is the most common symptom in advanced oesogastric cancers patients. Relief of dysphagia allows quality of life improvement, nutritional replenishment and potentially improves prognosis. Chemotherapy alone is effective and should be prioritised in patients with metastatic disease a good performance status, and its impact on dysphagia should be determined before further interventions are planned. Regarding local treatments, the insertion of a covered self-expandable metallic stent is the most commonly used alternative, as it allows for the rapid relief of severe dysphagia. Although several randomised trials have highlighted the role of oesophageal brachytherapy, this technique is often not easily accessible. Contemporary trials are ongoing to better define the role of external radiation therapy. While awaiting these results, external radiation therapy can be considered as a second-best option for patients with a life-expectancy > 3 months. It is important to offer nutritional support and to integrate quality of life measures in the palliative management of dysphagia. This multidisciplinary international position paper aims to propose a decision-making process and highlight randomised trials for the management of malignant dysphagia in metastatic oesogastric cancer patients.

Uterine and ovary carcinosarcomas: outcome, prognosis factors, and adjuvant therapy.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the outcome and the prognosis factors of uterine and ovarian carcinosarcomas. METHODS: From January 1993 to January 2010, data from 68 consecutively treated patients with uterine (n=59) and ovarian (n=9) carcinosarcomas were retrospectively analyzed in a single French comprehensive cancer center. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 24.2 months (interquartile range [IQR]: 13.5 to 54.6). The median age was 69 years (IQR: 63 to 77). Patients were classified as FIGO stage I (n=28; 41%) and FIGO stage II to IV (n=40; 59%), respectively. There were 33 (49%) and 29 (43%) homologous and heterologous type, respectively. The median disease-free survival and overall survival were 21.9 months (IQR: 7.9 to 22.3) and 27.1 months (IQR: 14.5 to 72), respectively. No statistical differences of survival were reported concerning the initial location of the carcinosarcoma (uterine vs. ovarian). Radiation therapy (hazards ratio [HR]=0.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.16-0.67) and FIGO stage I (HR=0.4; 95% CI, 0.17-0.9) were associated with an increased disease-free survival. Homologous type (HR=3; 95% CI, 1.4-6.3) and FIGO stage II to IV (HR=2.64; 95% CI, 1.3-5.4) were associated with a decreased overall survival. There was no survival improvement for the 12% of patients receiving a multimodal adjuvant therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Uterine and ovary carcinosarcomas present a worse prognosis. On the basis of the present study data, although it should be prospectively confirmed, a sequential or multimodal adjuvant therapy should be proposed to patients with early-stage uterine and ovary carcinosarcomas.

Angiogenesis inhibitor therapies for advanced renal cell carcinoma: toxicity and treatment patterns in clinical practice from a global medical chart review.

The aim of this study was to assess the treatment patterns and safety of sunitinib, sorafenib and bevacizumab in real-world clinical settings in US, Europe and Asia. Medical records were abstracted at 18 community oncology clinics in the US and at 21 tertiary oncology centers in US, Europe and Asia for 883 patients ≥ 18 years who had histologically/cytologically confirmed diagnosis of advanced RCC and received sunitinib (n=631), sorafenib (n=207) or bevacizumab (n=45) as first-line treatment. No prior treatment was permitted. Data were collected on all adverse events (AEs) and treatment modifications, including discontinuation, interruption and dose reduction. Treatment duration was estimated using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Demographics were similar across treatment groups and regions. Median treatment duration ranged from 6.1 to 10.7 months, 5.1 to 8.5 months and 7.5 to 9.8 months for sunitinib, sorafenib and bevacizumab patients, respectively. Grade 3/4 AEs were experienced by 26.0, 28.0 and 15.6% of sunitinib, sorafenib and bevacizumab patients, respectively. Treatment discontinuations occurred in 62.4 (Asia) to 63.1% (US) sunitinib, 68.8 (Asia) to 90.0% (Europe) sorafenib, and 66.7 (Asia) to 81.8% (US) bevacizumab patients. Globally, treatment modifications due to AEs occurred in 55.1, 54.2 and 50.0% sunitinib, sorafenib and bevacizumab patients, respectively. This study in a large, global cohort of advanced RCC patients found that angiogenesis inhibitors are associated with high rates of AEs and treatment modifications. Findings suggest an unmet need for more tolerable agents for RCC treatment.

Second line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma: The Institut Gustave Roussy experience with targeted therapies in 251 consecutive patients.

BACKGROUND: Sequential treatment is currently the standard of care in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). However, very little is known on how many patients (pts) can receive second line or further, and on how to predict those pts. The goal of this study was to evaluate these questions in a large series of pts treated in our institution. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data from all mRCC patients treated at the IGR from 2005 to 2009 with first line targeted therapy (sunitinib (SU), sorafenib (SO), bevacizumab (B), temsirolimus or everolimus (pooled together as mammalian target of rapamycin - mTOR)) were analysed. Only patients with subsequent follow-up have been included in this analysis. Patients were defined as 'non-eligible' for second treatment if: they were (i) still on first line treatment, (ii) not showing progressive (durable stable disease or partial response or complete response) or (iii) if they refused a second line treatment. RESULTS: 251 patients, median age 60 years, median follow-up 20.2 months were treated with targeted therapy with a median overall survival (OS) of 25.8 months. Median OS with SU (127), SO (60) or B (61) were 26.3, 16.4 and 32.5 months respectively. Only three patients received an mTOR inhibitor as first line. According to the eligibility criteria, the percentage of patients who received a second line was 59% (n=61/103), 52% (n=30/58) and 79% (n=38/48) for Su, So and B, respectively. Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Centre (MSKCC) classification (P=0.02) and first line agent (P=0.001) were significant predictive factor for receiving a second line of treatment. Overall, patients receiving B were in better general condition, with 77% of performance status score (PS)=0 compared to SO (53%) and SU (48%) (P=0.005). Among the 131 patients who received a second line, the median OS from the start of second line treatment was 20.8 months for a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) (n=98; 75%) and 16.6 months for an mTOR (n=32; 42%) (P=0.12). Furthermore, the percentage of patients who received a third line was 56% (27/48), 28% (7/25) and 65% (13/20) for SU, SO and B, respectively. CONCLUSION: The median OS in patients treated with targeted therapies for mRCC in The Institut Gustave Roussy exceeds 2 years. The use of second line varies from 52% to 79%. Further studies are needed to validate the MSKCC groups and first line therapy as predictive factor for second line treatment.