Therapy for Stage IV Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer With Driver Alterations: ASCO Living Guideline, Version 2024.1.

Living guidelines are developed for selected topic areas with rapidly evolving evidence that drives frequent change in recommended clinical practice. Living guidelines are updated on a regular schedule by a standing expert panel that systematically reviews the health literature on a continuous basis, as described in the ASCO Guidelines Methodology Manual. ASCO Living Guidelines follow the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy Implementation for Clinical Practice Guidelines. Living Guidelines and updates are not intended to substitute for independent professional judgment of the treating provider and do not account for individual variation among patients. See appendix for disclaimers and other important information (Appendix 1 and Appendix 2). Updates are published regularly and can be found at https://ascopubs.org/nsclc-da-living-guideline.

Therapy for Stage IV Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer With Driver Alterations: ASCO Living Guideline, Version 2023.3.

PURPOSE: To provide evidence-based recommendations for patients with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer with driver alterations. METHODS: This ASCO living guideline offers continually updated recommendations based on an ongoing systematic review of randomized clinical trials (RCTs), with the latest time frame spanning February to October 2023. An Expert Panel of medical oncology, pulmonary, community oncology, research methodology, and advocacy experts were convened. The literature search included systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and randomized controlled trials. Outcomes of interest include efficacy and safety. Expert Panel members used available evidence and informal consensus to develop evidence-based guideline recommendations. RESULTS: This guideline consolidates all previous updates and reflects the body of evidence informing this guideline topic. Eight new RCTs were identified in the latest search of the literature to date. RECOMMENDATIONS: Evidence-based recommendations were updated to address first, second, and subsequent treatment options for patients based on targetable driver alterations.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/living-guidelines.

Therapy for Stage IV Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Without Driver Alterations: ASCO Living Guideline, Version 2023.3.

PURPOSE: To provide evidence-based recommendations for patients with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) without driver alterations. METHODS: This ASCO living guideline offers continually updated recommendations based on an ongoing systematic review of randomized clinical trials (RCTs), with the latest time frame spanning February to October 2023. An Expert Panel of medical oncology, pulmonary, community oncology, research methodology, and advocacy experts were convened. The literature search included systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and randomized controlled trials. Outcomes of interest include efficacy and safety. Expert Panel members used available evidence and informal consensus to develop evidence-based guideline recommendations. RESULTS: This guideline consolidates all previous updates and reflects the body of evidence informing this guideline topic. Ten new RCTs were identified in the latest search of the literature to date. RECOMMENDATIONS: Evidence-based recommendations were updated to address first, second, and subsequent treatment options for patients without driver alterations.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/living-guidelines.

The Rise of the Expert Patient in Cancer: From Backseat Passenger to Co-navigator.

PURPOSE: Patients who have cancer have leveraged the Internet to gain a better understanding of their disease and connect across geographic boundaries with others facing the same challenges. Online cancer communities have developed into resources that highlight new research and evolving care pathways. Combined with increasing health literacy and social media, they have enabled some patients to become experts in their cancer. This combination of empowerment and expertise describes the new "e-patients." METHODS: We reviewed the literature to identify key areas where expert e-patients have directly participated in advancing cancer medicine, as well as opportunities available to those who wish to become more involved in research advocacy. RESULTS: E-patients are widely acknowledged as key stakeholders in oncology by clinicians, researchers, cancer centers, government agencies, and nonprofits. Their input is vital for informing cancer care delivery, developing and launching research initiatives, creating care guidelines and pathways, and formulating policy. CONCLUSION: Expert e-patients play an expanded role in their own care and in larger conversations regarding practice, research, and policy. Clinicians can engage e-patients as partners in cancer care as we work together towards improving health care access and outcomes for people with cancer.

Defining comprehensive biomarker-related testing and treatment practices for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: Results of a survey of U.S. oncologists.

BACKGROUND: An ASCO taskforce comprised of representatives of oncology clinicians, the American Cancer Society National Lung Cancer Roundtable (NLCRT), LUNGevity, the GO2 Foundation for Lung Cancer, and the ROS1ders sought to: characterize U.S. oncologists' biomarker ordering and treatment practices for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC); ascertain barriers to biomarker testing; and understand the impact of delays on treatment decisions. METHODS: We deployed a survey to 2374 ASCO members, targeting U.S. thoracic and general oncologists. RESULTS: We analyzed 170 eligible responses. For non-squamous NSCLC, 97% of respondents reported ordering tests for EGFR, ALK, ROS1, and BRAF. Testing for MET, RET, and NTRK was reported to be higher among academic versus community providers and higher among thoracic oncologists than generalists. Most respondents considered 1 (46%) or 2 weeks (52%) an acceptable turnaround time, yet 37% usually waited three or more weeks to receive results. Respondents who waited ≥3 weeks were more likely to defer treatment until results were reviewed (63%). Community and generalist respondents who waited ≥3 weeks were more likely to initiate non-targeted treatment while awaiting results. Respondents <5 years out of training were more likely to cite their concerns about waiting for results as a reason for not ordering biomarker testing (42%, vs. 19% with ≥6 years of experience). CONCLUSIONS: Respondents reported high biomarker testing rates in patients with NSCLC. Treatment decisions were impacted by test turnaround time and associated with practice setting and physician specialization and experience.

Liquid Biopsy for Advanced NSCLC: A Consensus Statement From the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

Although precision medicine has had a mixed impact on the clinical management of patients with advanced-stage cancer overall, for NSCLC, and more specifically for lung adenocarcinoma, the advances have been dramatic, largely owing to the genomic complexity and growing number of druggable oncogene drivers. Furthermore, although tumor tissue is historically the "accepted standard" biospecimen for these molecular analyses, there are considerable innate limitations. Thus, liquid biopsy represents a practical alternative source for investigating tumor-derived somatic alterations. Although data are most robust in NSCLC, patients with other cancer types may also benefit from this minimally invasive approach to facilitate selection of targeted therapies. The liquid biopsy approach includes a variety of methodologies for circulating analytes. From a clinical point of view, plasma circulating tumor DNA is the most extensively studied and widely adopted alternative to tissue tumor genotyping in solid tumors, including NSCLC, first entering clinical practice for detection of EGFR mutations in NSCLC. Since the publication of the first International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC) liquid biopsy statement in 2018, several additional advances have been made in this field, leading to changes in the therapeutic decision-making algorithm for advanced NSCLC and prompting this 2021 update. In view of the novel and impressive technological advances made in the past few years, the growing clinical application of plasma-based, next-generation sequencing, and the recent Food and Drug and Administration approval in the United States of two different assays for circulating tumor DNA analysis, IASLC revisited the role of liquid biopsy in therapeutic decision-making in a recent workshop in October 2020 and the question of "plasma first" versus "tissue first" approach toward molecular testing for advanced NSCLC. Moreover, evidence-based recommendations from IASLC provide an international perspective on when to order which test and how to interpret the results. Here, we present updates and additional considerations to the previous statement article as a consensus from a multidisciplinary and international team of experts selected by IASLC.

Characteristics of Patients With ROS1+ Cancers: Results From the First Patient-Designed, Global, Pan-Cancer ROS1 Data Repository.

PURPOSE: The discovery of driver oncogenes, such as ROS1, has led to the development of targeted therapies. Despite clinical advancements, gaps remain in our understanding of characteristics of patients with ROS1-positive (ROS1+) cancers. The purpose of this study was to comprehensively assess demographic, clinical, and environmental characteristics associated with ROS1+ cancers worldwide. METHODS: In collaboration with a panel of patients with ROS1+ cancer, we designed and conducted a 204-question online assessment regarding the demographic, clinical, and environmental factors of patients with ROS1+ cancers. We invited patients with ROS1+ cancers to participate in the study from May 2016 to December 2018. RESULTS: A total of 277 patients from 18 countries worldwide responded and completed at least 90% of the survey. The majority of respondents were female (n = 191; 69%), non-Hispanic white (n = 202; 73%), never-smokers (n = 180/240; 75%). Most were diagnosed with lung cancer (n = 261/277; 94%) and stage IV disease (n = 201/277; 76%). The majority received chemotherapy in first (n = 137/199; 69%) and second (n = 103/199; 52%) lines of therapy. For patients diagnosed with lung cancer after the availability of crizotinib (n = 199), only a minority (n = 55/199; 28%) reported receiving crizotinib in the first line of therapy. CONCLUSION: This study is the first global, patient-designed approach, to our knowledge, to comprehensively assess demographic, clinical, and environmental characteristics associated with ROS1+ cancers. Future efforts include assessing these characteristics as well as patient-reported outcomes and treatment responses longitudinally.

Organizing Online Health Content: Developing Hashtag Collections for Healthier Internet-Based People and Communities.

Twitter use has increased among patients with cancer, advocates, and oncology professionals. Hashtags, a form of metadata, can be used to share content, organize health information, and create virtual communities of interest. Cancer-specific hashtags modeled on a breast cancer community, #bcsm, led to the development of a structured set of hashtags called the cancer tag ontology. In this article, we review how these hashtags have worked with the aim of describing our experience from 2011 to 2017. We discuss useful guidelines for the development and maintenance of health-oriented communities on Twitter, including possible challenges to community sustainability and opportunities for future improvement and research.

Clinical Pathways and the Patient Perspective in the Pursuit of Value-Based Oncology Care.

The art of practicing oncology has evolved substantially in the past 5 years. As more and more diagnostic tests, biomarker-directed therapies, and immunotherapies make their way to the oncology marketplace, oncologists will find it increasingly difficult to keep up with the many therapeutic options. Additionally, the cost of cancer care seems to be increasing. Clinical pathways are a systematic way to organize and display detailed, evidence-based treatment options and assist the practitioner with best practice. When selecting which treatment regimens to include on a clinical pathway, considerations must include the efficacy and safety, as well as costs, of the therapy. Pathway treatment regimens must be continually assessed and modified to ensure that the most up-to-date, high-quality options are incorporated. Value-based models, such as the ASCO Value Framework, can assist providers in presenting economic evaluations of clinical pathway treatment options to patients, thus allowing the patient to decide the overall value of each treatment regimen. Although oncologists and pathway developers can decide which treatment regimens to include on a clinical pathway based on the efficacy of the treatment, assessment of the value of that treatment regimen ultimately lies with the patient. Patient definitions of value will be an important component to enhancing current value-based oncology care models and incorporating new, high-quality, value-based therapeutics into oncology clinical pathways.