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.

Dabrafenib plus trametinib in patients with BRAF V600E-mutant anaplastic thyroid cancer: updated analysis from the phase II ROAR basket study.

BACKGROUND: Combined therapy with dabrafenib plus trametinib was approved in several countries for treatment of BRAF V600E-mutant anaplastic thyroid cancer (ATC) based on an earlier interim analysis of 23 response-assessable patients in the ATC cohort of the phase II Rare Oncology Agnostic Research (ROAR) basket study. We report an updated analysis describing the efficacy and safety of dabrafenib plus trametinib in the full ROAR ATC cohort of 36 patients with ∼4 years of additional study follow-up. PATIENTS AND METHODS: ROAR (NCT02034110) is an open-label, nonrandomized, phase II basket study evaluating dabrafenib plus trametinib in BRAF V600E-mutant rare cancers. The ATC cohort comprised 36 patients with unresectable or metastatic ATC who received dabrafenib 150 mg twice daily plus trametinib 2 mg once daily orally until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or death. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed overall response rate (ORR) per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. Secondary endpoints were duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS: At data cutoff (14 September 2020), median follow-up was 11.1 months (range, 0.9-76.6 months). The investigator-assessed ORR was 56% (95% confidence interval, 38.1% to 72.1%), including three complete responses; the 12-month DOR rate was 50%. Median PFS and OS were 6.7 and 14.5 months, respectively. The respective 12-month PFS and OS rates were 43.2% and 51.7%, and the 24-month OS rate was 31.5%. No new safety signals were identified with additional follow-up, and adverse events were consistent with the established tolerability of dabrafenib plus trametinib. CONCLUSIONS: These updated results confirm the substantial clinical benefit and manageable toxicity of dabrafenib plus trametinib in BRAF V600E-mutant ATC. Dabrafenib plus trametinib notably improved long-term survival and represents a meaningful treatment option for this rare, aggressive cancer.

Biases in study design, implementation, and data analysis that distort the appraisal of clinical benefit and ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) scoring.

BACKGROUND: The European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) is a validated, widely used tool developed to score the clinical benefit from cancer medicines reported in clinical trials. ESMO-MCBS scores assume valid research methodologies and quality trial implementation. Studies incorporating flawed design, implementation, or data analysis may generate outcomes that exaggerate true benefit and are not generalisable. Failure to either indicate or penalise studies with bias undermines the intention and diminishes the integrity of ESMO-MCBS scores. This review aimed to evaluate the adequacy of the ESMO-MCBS to address bias generated by flawed design, implementation, or data analysis and identify shortcomings in need of amendment. METHODS: As part of a refinement of the ESMO-MCBS, we reviewed trial design, implementation, and data analysis issues that could bias the results. For each issue of concern, we reviewed the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 approach against standards derived from Helsinki guidelines for ethical human research and guidelines from the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use, the Food and Drugs Administration, the European Medicines Agency, and European Network for Health Technology Assessment. RESULTS: Six design, two implementation, and two data analysis and interpretation issues were evaluated and in three, the ESMO-MCBS provided adequate protections. Seven shortcomings in the ability of the ESMO-MCBS to identify and address bias were identified. These related to (i) evaluation of the control arm, (ii) crossover issues, (iii) criteria for non-inferiority, (iv) substandard post-progression treatment, (v) post hoc subgroup findings based on biomarkers, (vi) informative censoring, and (vii) publication bias against quality-of-life data. CONCLUSION: Interpretation of the ESMO-MCBS scores requires critical appraisal of trials to understand caveats in trial design, implementation, and data analysis that may have biased results and conclusions. These will be addressed in future iterations of the ESMO-MCBS.

Palbociclib in combination with endocrine therapy versus capecitabine in hormonal receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor 2-negative, aromatase inhibitor-resistant metastatic breast cancer: a phase III randomised controlled trial-PEARL.

BACKGROUND: Palbociclib plus endocrine therapy (ET) is the standard treatment of hormone receptor-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, metastatic breast cancer (MBC). However, its efficacy has not been compared with that of chemotherapy in a phase III trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: PEARL is a multicentre, phase III randomised study in which patients with aromatase inhibitor (AI)-resistant MBC were included in two consecutive cohorts. In cohort 1, patients were randomised 1 : 1 to palbociclib plus exemestane or capecitabine. On discovering new evidence about estrogen receptor-1 (ESR1) mutations inducing resistance to AIs, the trial was amended to include cohort 2, in which patients were randomised 1 : 1 between palbociclib plus fulvestrant and capecitabine. The stratification criteria were disease site, prior sensitivity to ET, prior chemotherapy for MBC, and country of origin. Co-primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) in cohort 2 and in wild-type ESR1 patients (cohort 1 + cohort 2). ESR1 hotspot mutations were analysed in baseline circulating tumour DNA. RESULTS: From March 2014 to July 2018, 296 and 305 patients were included in cohort 1 and cohort 2, respectively. Palbociclib plus ET was not superior to capecitabine in both cohort 2 [median PFS: 7.5 versus 10.0 months; adjusted hazard ratio (aHR): 1.13; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.85-1.50] and wild-type ESR1 patients (median PFS: 8.0 versus 10.6 months; aHR: 1.11; 95% CI: 0.87-1.41). The most frequent grade 3-4 toxicities with palbociclib plus exemestane, palbociclib plus fulvestrant and capecitabine, respectively, were neutropenia (57.4%, 55.7% and 5.5%), hand/foot syndrome (0%, 0% and 23.5%), and diarrhoea (1.3%, 1.3% and 7.6%). Palbociclib plus ET offered better quality of life (aHR for time to deterioration of global health status: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.53-0.85). CONCLUSIONS: There was no statistical superiority of palbociclib plus ET over capecitabine with respect to PFS in MBC patients resistant to AIs. Palbociclib plus ET showed a better safety profile and improved quality of life.

Brain metastases as first manifestation of advanced cancer: exploratory analysis of 459 patients at a tertiary care center.

Symptomatic brain metastases (BM) are a frequent and late complication in cancer patients. However, a subgroup of cancer patients presents with BM as the first symptom of metastatic cancer. Here we aimed to analyze the clinical course and prognostic factors of this particular BM patient population. Patients presenting with newly diagnosed BM without a history of metastatic cancer were identified from the Vienna Brain Metastasis Registry. Clinical characteristics and overall survival were retrieved by chart review. 459/2419 (19.0%) BM patients presented with BM as first symptom of advanced cancer. In 374/459 (81.5%) patients, an extracranial primary tumor, most commonly lung cancer, could be identified within 3 months after BM diagnosis. In 85/459 (18.5%) patients no extracranial primary tumor could be identified despite comprehensive diagnostic workup within the first 3 months after diagnosis of BM. Survival of patients with identified extracranial tumor differed only numerically from patients with cancer of unknown primary (CUP), however patients receiving targeted therapy after molecular workup showed significantly enhanced survival (20 months vs. 7 months; p = 0.003; log rank test). The GPA score showed a statistically significant association with median overall survival times in the CUP BM patients (class I: 46 months; class II: 7 months; class III: 4 months; class IV: 2 months; p < 0.001; log rank test). The GPA score has a strong prognostic value in patients with CUP BM and may be useful for patient stratification in the clinical setting. Comprehensive diagnostic workup including advanced imaging techniques and molecular tissue analyses appears to benefit patients by directing specific molecular targeted therapies.

Regorafenib therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer patients: markers and outcome in an actual clinical setting.

The oral multikinase inhibitor regorafenib had beneficial effects in randomized clinical phase III trials compared to the placebo in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) who progressed on standard therapies. The factors which influence regorafenib response and therapy sequence during treatment history are still highly discussed, and herein we analyzed the therapy algorithm, outcome and clinical markers following regorafenib application in a single center register study. Clinical data for 48 metastatic colorectal cancer patients were collected from 01.01.2013 to 31.12.2016. Treatment effects according to various patient and tumor characteristics were evaluated using univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression models. The 48 patients comprised 14 (29%) females and 34 (71%) males, with mean age 64.2±9 and ECOG 0-1. Progression free survival under regorafenib therapy was 2.9 months (quartiles 2.2; 4.4) and the overall response rate was 2 (4%) and disease control rate was 19 (40%). Overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) were investigated under regorafenib in the chemotherapy regimen given immediately before and afterthis treatment. Variables including tumor localization, Ras status, CEA and CA 19-9 plasma levels were analyzed for their impact on PFS, and the regorafenib-related adverse events were also observed. Our study confirms the efficacy of regorafenib in a real-life setting. We established that response rate and PFS in regorafenib treatment are independent of tumor localization, Ras status or biomarkers such as CEA and CA 19-9. Trifluridin/tripacil application or re-induction of chemotherapy +/- target therapy was effective following regorafenib therapy.

Citrullinated histone H3, a biomarker of neutrophil extracellular trap formation, predicts the risk of venous thromboembolism in cancer patients.

Essentials Neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs) might play a role in cancer-related coagulopathy. We determined NET biomarkers and followed cancer patients for venous thromboembolism (VTE). We found a constant association with VTE for citrullinated histone H3. Biomarkers of NET formation could reflect a novel pathomechanism of cancer-related VTE. SUMMARY: Background Neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs) are decondensed chromatin fibers that might play a role in the prothrombotic state of cancer patients. Objectives To investigate whether the levels of citrullinated histone H3 (H3Cit), a biomarker for NET formation, cell-free DNA (cfDNA) and nucleosomes predict venous thromboembolism (VTE) in cancer patients. Patients/Methods Nine-hundred and forty-six patients with newly diagnosed cancer or progression after remission were enrolled in this prospective observational cohort study. H3Cit, cfDNA and nucleosome levels were determined at study inclusion, and patients were followed for 2 years. VTE occurred in 89 patients; the cumulative 3-month, 6-month, 12-month and 24-month incidence rates of VTE were 3.7%, 6.0%, 8.1%, and 10.0%, respectively. Results Patients with elevated H3Cit levels (> 75th percentile of its distribution, n = 236) experienced a higher cumulative incidence of VTE (2-year risk of 14.5%) than patients with levels below this cut-off (2-year risk of 8.5%, n = 710). In a competing-risk regression analysis, a 100 ng mL-1 increase in H3Cit level was associated with a 13% relative increase in VTE risk (subdistribution hazard ratio [SHR] 1.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04-1.22). This association remained after adjustment for high VTE risk and very high VTE risk tumor sites, D-dimer level, and soluble P-selectin level (SHR 1.13, 95% CI 1.04-1.22). The association of elevated nucleosome and cfDNA levels with VTE risk was time-dependent, with associations with a higher risk of VTE only during the first 3-6 months. Conclusion These data suggest that biomarkers of NET formation are associated with the occurrence of VTE in cancer patients, indicating a role of NETs in the pathogenesis of cancer-associated thrombosis.

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.

Decreased body mass index is associated with impaired survival in lung cancer patients with brain metastases: A retrospective analysis of 624 patients.

Body mass index (BMI) is a prognostic factor in several cancer types. We investigated the prognostic role of BMI in a large patient cohort with newly diagnosed lung cancer brain metastases (BM) between 1990 and 2013. BMI at diagnosis of BM and graded prognostic assessment (GPA) were calculated. Definitions were underweight (BMI <18.50), weight within normal range (BMI 18.50-24.99) and overweight (BMI ≥ 25.00). A total of 624 patients (men 401/624 [64.3%]; women 223/624 [35.7%]; median age of 61 [range 33-88]) were analysed. Histology was non-small cell lung cancer in 417/622 (66.8%), small cell lung cancer (SCLC) in 205/624 (32.9%) and not otherwise specified in 2/624 (0.3%) patients. About 313/624 (50.2%) had normal BMI, 272/624 (43.5%) were overweight and 39/624 (6.3%) were underweight. Underweight patients had shorter median overall survival (3 months) compared to patients with normal BMI (7 months) and overweight (8 months; p < .001; log rank test). At multivariate analysis, higher GPA class (HR 1.430; 95% cumulative incidence, CI 1.279-1.598; p < .001; Cox regression model), SCLC histology (HR 1.310; 95% CI 1.101-1.558) and presence of underweight (HR 1.845; 95% CI 1.317-2.585; p = .014; Cox regression model) were independent prognostic factors. Underweight at diagnosis of BM in lung cancer is associated with an unfavourable prognosis.