Assessing Oncologists' Attitudes Concerning Comprehensive Genomic Profiling in Stage IV Lung Adenocarcinoma in Brazil.

Introduction: Advances in comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) of lung adenocarcinomas (LUADs) led to personalized treatment for patients. This study evaluated medical oncologists' attitudes toward CGP in a scenario where sponsored funding for CGP was available. Methods: We designed an online survey assessing CGP use and treating physicians' confidence, composed of three self-confidence domains, which are as follows: confidence in interpreting CGP results, confidence in treating oncogenic-driven LUAD, and confidence in managing tyrosine kinase inhibitor adverse events. The survey was distributed to medical oncologists who treat lung cancer in Brazil. Comparisons between groups were performed using the chi-square or Fisher's exact test. Univariable and multivariable (adjusted OR) analyses were performed. Results: Among 104 respondents who treat patients with lung cancer, 55% were from the Southeast region, 28% had high lung cancer clinical load, and 33% had in-house molecular testing. More than half (51%) of the participants request CGP systematically to stage IV LUAD. As for provider confidence, 67% stated being confident in all three domains: 76% confident in interpreting CGP, 84% confident in treating oncogenic-driven LUAD, and 81% in managing tyrosine kinase inhibitor adverse events. Providers' confidence was associated with systematically requesting CGP to stage IV LUAD (p = 0.013). After controlling for the variables of interest, systematic requesting CGP for stage IV LUAD revealed a significant association with the provider's confidence (adjusted OR = 0.35, p = 0.028, 95% CI: 0.14-0.84). The major challenge for properly requesting CGP was the long turnaround time and the fear of treatment delays. Conclusions: Even though CGP for stage IV LUAD in Brazil is fully sponsored, only half of the oncologists in our survey systematically request it.. Requesting CGP was associated with providers' confidence. Improving access and promoting providers' awareness of CGP utility is necessary to increase CGP use and better inform treatment decisions.

When Less May Be Enough: Dose Selection Strategies for Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors Focusing on AntiPD-(L)1 Agents.

Early clinical trials investigating antiPD(L)-1 agents rarely reached a maximum tolerated dose (MTD), and efficacy signals were observed even at the lowest dose levels. Most extended treatment intervals investigated indicated that these drugs do not follow a direct dose-toxicity or dose-efficacy relationship. Within this context and considering the high cost of antiPD(L)-1 agents, there is a significant debate on whether lower doses or the administration of such agents at an extended interval should be prospectively evaluated in already-approved agents, or at least be considered in novel combination trials involving antiPD(L)-1 drugs. Herein, we review the dosing, overall response rates, and incidence of treatment-related adverse events of antiPD(L)-1 agents in early dose-escalation trials and discuss the appropriateness of recommended Phase 2 dose selection as well as the final regulatory approved doses of such agents. Efficacy and safety data from randomized dose-range Phase 2 trials and real-world data (RWD) on the usage of lower doses and/or non-standard extended treatment intervals are also examined. As the accumulating evidence suggests lower doses or extended dosing intervals of antiPD(L)-1 may achieve a similar clinical benefit in comparison to the currently approved doses, we address the clinical and financial toxicity implications of using potentially higher doses than necessary. Last, we discuss ways to resolve the current dosing conundrum of antiPD-(L)1 agents such as performing near-equivalence studies and propose a framework for future development of immunotherapeutics to find the lowest efficacious dose instead of MTD.

Contemporary dose-escalation methods for early phase studies in the immunotherapeutics era.

Phase 1 dose-escalation trials are crucial to drug development by providing a framework to assess the toxicity of novel agents in a stepwise and monitored fashion. Despite widely adopted, rule-based dose-escalation methods (such as 3 + 3) are limited in finding the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and tend to treat a significant number of patients at subtherapeutic doses. Newer methods of dose escalation, such as model-based and model-assisted designs, have emerged and are more accurate in finding MTD. However, these designs have not yet been broadly embraced by investigators. In this review, we summarise the advantages and disadvantages of contemporary dose-escalation methods, with emphasis on model-assisted designs, including time-to-event designs and hybrid methods involving optimal biological dose (OBD). The methods reviewed include mTPI, keyboard, BOIN, and their variations. In addition, the challenges of drug development (and dose-escalation) in the era of immunotherapeutics are discussed, where many of these agents typically have a wide therapeutic window. Fictional examples of how the dose-escalation method chosen can alter the outcomes of a phase 1 study are described, including the number of patients enrolled, the trial's timeframe, and the dose level chosen as MTD. Finally, the recent trends in dose-escalation methods applied in phase 1 trials in the immunotherapeutics era are reviewed. Among 856 phase I trials from 2014 to 2019, a trend towards the increased use of model-based and model-assisted designs over time (OR = 1.24) was detected. However, only 8% of the studies used non-rule-based dose-escalation methods. Increasing familiarity with such dose-escalation methods will likely facilitate their uptake in clinical trials.

Systematic SARS-CoV-2-testing for asymptomatic cancer patients treated at a public healthcare tertiary centre in Brazil.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has had enormous consequences in Brazil and worldwide. Patients with cancer affected by COVID-19 are at a higher risk of developing complications and worse outcomes compared to the non-cancer population, particularly the ones on active systemic treatment. Considering the COVID-19's high transmissibility in asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic patients, we sought to determine the prevalence of COVID-19 infection in patients with solid cancers receiving systemic therapy in a Brazilian public health hospital. Furthermore, we studied whether socio-economic status was associated with prevalence. METHODS: Consecutive asymptomatic patients undergoing treatment for solid tumours at the chemotherapy and infusion centre of Hospital de Base were enrolled. Patients were prospectively tested for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 RNA real-time polymerase chain reaction with nasal and oropharyngeal swabs immediately prior to treatment. A socio-economic survey was carried out prior to testing. Demographic and socio-economic characteristics were summarised in means, medians and proportions. RESULTS: From 6 to 13 October 2020, 148 asymptomatic patients were identified. Of those, 41 were excluded, leaving 107 eligible patients. The mean age of the population was 58 years (SD ± 12.6); 54% were female and 90% were self-identified as White. The most common cancer sites were gastrointestinal tract (36%) and breast (25%). Most patients had a metastatic disease (59%) and were on anticancer treatment involving chemotherapy (95%). Regarding socio-economic status, 46% of our population had either primary school or illiterate as their highest educational level. In terms of monthly income, 92% had a personal income inferior to U$380 and 88% a household income inferior to U$585. Of the 107 patients tested, only 1 (0.9%) was positive for COVID-19. This is a 48-year-old man living in an urban area, with primary school educational level and a monthly personal income inferior to U$390. CONCLUSION: Despite a high prevalence of COVID-19 in Brazil, our cohort demonstrated a low prevalence of COVID-19 (0.9%) amongst asymptomatic patients with cancer. We hypothesise that patients with cancer, independent of their socio-economic status, are aware of the increased risk of developing a severe disease and are adherent to physical distancing, masking and hygiene measures.

Complete metastasectomy in renal cell carcinoma: a propensity-score matched by the International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium prognostic model.

INTRODUCTION: We evaluated overall survival (OS) benefit of complete metastasectomy (CM) in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) using a propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis to balance groups by age, gender and by the International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium prognostic model (IMDC). METHODS: We included patients (pts) treated at the AC Camargo Cancer Center between 2007 and 2016. Pairs were matched by age, gender and IMDC. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates and Cox proportional hazard models were used to evaluate OS on CM and no-CM group. RESULTS: We found 116 pts with clear cell mRCC. After PSM, the number was reduced to 74 (37 CM, 37 no-CM). The median OS for CM and no-CM was 98.3 months and 40.5 months, respectively (hazard ratio 0.24 95%CI 0.11-0.53 p < 0.001). The OS benefit of CM was confirmed on favourable and intermediate IMDC but was absent on poor IMDC. The CM group received less systemic therapy than the no-CM group. Ten pts in the CM group still have no evidence of disease (NED). CONCLUSION: After matching for age, gender and IMDC, we found CM impacts on OS and also diminishes the need for systemic treatment. Survival benefit was confirmed for favourable/intermediate IMDC but not for the poor IMDC prognostic model. Further studies correlating IMDC and metastasectomy are needed to guide clinical decision-making.