Clinical Value of Timely Targeted Therapy for Patients With Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer With Actionable Driver Oncogenes.

BACKGROUND: A recent real-world study observed that 24% of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) with actionable driver oncogenes (ADOs) initiated nontargeted therapies before biomarker test results became available. This study assessed the clinical impact of the timing of first-line (1L) targeted therapies (TTs) in aNSCLC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective analysis of a nationwide electronic health record-derived deidentified database included patients aged ≥18 years diagnosed with aNSCLC with ADOs (ALK, BRAF, EGFR, RET, MET, ROS-1, and NTRK) from January 1, 2015, to October 18, 2022, by biomarker testing within 90 days after advanced diagnosis and received 1L treatment. Cohorts were defined by treatment patterns ≤42 days after test results: "Upfront TT" received 1L TT ≤42 days; "Switchers" initiated 1L non-TT before or after testing but switched to TT ≤42 days; and "Non-switchers" initiated non-TT before or after testing and did not switch at any time. Adjusted multivariate Cox regression evaluated real-world progression-free survival, real-world time to next treatment or death, and real-world overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 3540 patients met the study criteria; 78% were treated in a community setting, and 50% underwent next-generation sequencing (NGS). There was no significant difference in outcomes between Switchers and Upfront TT; inferior outcomes were observed in Non-switchers versus Upfront TT. CONCLUSION: Our findings demonstrated improved outcomes with upfront 1L TT versus non-TT in patients with aNSCLC with ADOs and observed timely switching to TT after biomarker test result had similar outcomes to Upfront TT. Opportunities remain to improve the use of NGS for early ADO identification and determination of 1L TT.

Improving biomarker testing in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer and metastatic colorectal cancer: experience from a large community oncology network in the USA.

Aim: Biomarker testing detects actionable driver mutations to inform first-line treatment in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) and metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). This study evaluated biomarker testing in a nationwide database (NAT) versus the OneOncology (OneOnc) community network. Patients & methods: Patients with aNSCLC or mCRC with ≥1 biomarker test in a de-identified electronic health record-derived database were evaluated. OneOnc oncologists were surveyed. Results: Biomarker testing rates were high and comparable between OneOnc and NAT; next-generation sequencing (NGS) rates were higher at OneOnc. Patients with NGS versus other biomarker testing were more likely to receive targeted treatment. Operational challenges and insufficient tissue were barriers to NGS testing. Conclusion: Community cancer centers delivered personalized healthcare through biomarker testing.

What is this article about? Cancer therapies often work better in certain subgroups of patients. Tumors may have characteristics that can predict which therapies may be more likely to work. These cancer biomarkers may be identified by special testing, such as next-generation sequencing (NGS). If a biomarker is detected, the patient can potentially be treated with medicine that targets that biomarker. This study looked at biomarker testing of lung and colon cancers in two community cancer practices (OneOncology [OneOnc] and nationwide database [NAT]). What were the results? The biomarker testing rates were high (≥81%) and similar between OneOnc and NAT. NGS testing rates were higher at OneOnc than at NAT (58 vs 49% for non-small-cell lung cancer, 55 vs 42% for metastatic colorectal cancer [mCRC]), suggesting the success of OneOnc's networkwide educational, pathway and operational programs. NGS testing was lower in community practices due to operational challenges and insufficient tissue collection. Patients who had NGS versus other biomarker testing were more likely to receive treatment specifically for that biomarker. However, some patients started treatment before their biomarker results were reported, usually because of their disease and a long wait time for biomarker test results. What do the results of the study mean? Community cancer centers can treat patients with targeted medicine based on biomarker testing results. There are opportunities to increase the number of patients getting NGS testing, shorten turnaround times and reduce the number of patients who start treatment before getting their biomarker test results.

Randomized Phase 2 Studies of Checkpoint Inhibitors Alone or in Combination With Pegilodecakin in Patients With Metastatic NSCLC (CYPRESS 1 and CYPRESS 2).

INTRODUCTION: Checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) have been approved to treat metastatic NSCLC. Pegilodecakin + CPI suggested promising efficacy in phase 1 IVY, providing rationale for randomized phase 2 trials CYPRESS 1 and CYPRESS 2. METHODS: CYPRESS 1 (N = 101) and CYPRESS 2 (N = 52) included Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 1 and first-line/second-line metastatic NSCLC, respectively, without known EGFR/ALK mutations. Patients were randomized 1:1; control arms received pembrolizumab (CYPRESS 1) or nivolumab (CYPRESS 2); experimental arms received pegilodecakin + CPI. Patients had programmed death-ligand 1 tumor proportion score of greater than or equal to 50% (CYPRESS 1) or 0% to 49% (CYPRESS 2). Primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) per investigator. Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. Exploratory end points included immune activation biomarkers. RESULTS: Median follow-up for CYPRESS 1 and CYPRESS 2 was 10.0 and 11.6 months, respectively. Results for pegilodecakin + pembrolizumab versus pembrolizumab were as follows: ORR per investigator 47% versus 44% (OR = 1.1, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.5-2.5); median PFS 6.3 versus 6.1 months (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.937, 95% CI: 0.54-1.625); and median OS 16.3 months versus not reached (HR = 1.507, 95% CI: 0.708-3.209). Results per blinded independent central review were consistent. Treatment discontinuation rate owing to adverse events (AEs) doubled in the experimental arm (32% versus 15%). AEs with grade greater than or equal to 3 treatment-related AEs (62% versus 19%) included anemia (20% versus 0%) and thrombocytopenia (12% versus 2%). Results for pegilodecakin + nivolumab versus nivolumab were as follows: ORR per investigator 15% versus 12% (OR = 1.2, 95% CI: 0.3-5.9); median PFS 1.9 versus 1.9 months (HR = 1.006, 95% CI: 0.519-1.951); and median OS 6.7 versus 10.7 months (HR = 1.871, 95% CI: 0.772-4.532). AEs with grade greater than or equal to 3 treatment-related AEs (70.4% versus 16.7%) included anemia (40.7% versus 0%), fatigue (18% versus 0%), and thrombocytopenia (14.8% versus 0%). Biomarker data suggested activation of immunostimulatory signals of interleukin-10R pathway in pegilodecakin-containing arms. CONCLUSIONS: Despite evidence of biological effect in peripheral blood, adding pegilodecakin to CPI did not improve ORR, PFS, or OS, in first-line/second-line NSCLC. Pegilodecakin + CPI has been found to have overall higher toxicity compared with CPI alone, leading to doubling of treatment discontinuation rate owing to AEs.

An Expanded Treatment Protocol of Panobinostat Plus Bortezomib and Dexamethasone in Patients With Previously Treated Myeloma.

BACKGROUND: Panobinostat was recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration and European Commission in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone for patients with multiple myeloma who have received ≥ 2 regimens, including bortezomib and an immunomodulatory drug. The PANEX (panobinostat expansion) treatment protocol provided access to panobinostat and gathered additional safety data before commercial availability. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In treatment phase 1, patients received panobinostat 20 mg 3 times per week plus bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2 twice weekly with dexamethasone 20 mg on the days of and after bortezomib treatment. Patients with no change or better in treatment phase 1 proceeded to treatment phase 2, when bortezomib was reduced to once weekly. Unlike in the phase III trial, PANORAMA-1 (panobinostat or placebo with bortezomib and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma), bortezomib could be administered either subcutaneously or intravenously. RESULTS: Thirty-nine patients with a median number of previous treatments of 4 (range, 1-12) were enrolled; most received subcutaneous bortezomib (87%). The overall response rate (partial response or better) was 56%. Grade 3/4 adverse events included thrombocytopenia (47%), fatigue (31%), dehydration (26%), and diarrhea (18%). Among the patients who received subcutaneous bortezomib, relatively low rates of peripheral neuropathy (all grade, 15%) and notable grade 3/4 adverse events (thrombocytopenia, 47%; diarrhea, 12%) were observed. CONCLUSION: Overall, data from the PANEX trial support regulatory approval of panobinostat plus bortezomib and dexamethasone and suggest the potential tolerability benefits of subcutaneous bortezomib in this regimen.

Prevention of everolimus-related stomatitis in women with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer using dexamethasone mouthwash (SWISH): a single-arm, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Stomatitis is a class effect associated with the inhibition of mTOR and is associated with everolimus therapy for breast cancer. Topical steroids might reduce stomatitis incidence and severity, and the need for dose reductions and interruptions of everolimus. Anecdotal use of topical steroid oral prophylaxis has been reported in patients with breast cancer. We aimed to assess dexamethasone-based mouthwash for prevention of stomatitis in patients with breast cancer. METHODS: This US-based, multicentre, single-arm, phase 2 prevention study enrolled women aged 18 years and older with postmenopausal status who had histologically or cytologically confirmed metastatic hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer. Beginning on day 1 of cycle 1, patients received everolimus 10 mg plus exemestane 25 mg daily, with 10 mL of alcohol-free dexamethasone 0·5 mg per 5 mL oral solution (swish for 2 min and spit, four times daily for 8 weeks). After 8 weeks, dexamethasone mouthwash could be continued for up to eight additional weeks at the discretion of the clinician and patient. The primary endpoint was incidence of grade 2 or worse stomatitis by 8 weeks assessed in the full analysis set (patients who received at least one dose of everolimus and exemestane and at least one confirmed dose of dexamethasone mouthwash) versus historical controls from the BOLERO-2 trial (everolimus and exemestane treatment in patients with hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer who were not given dexamethasone mouthwash for prevention of stomatitis). This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02069093. FINDINGS: Between May 28, 2014, and Oct 8, 2015, we enrolled 92 women; 85 were evaluable for efficacy. By 8 weeks, the incidence of grade 2 or worse stomatitis was two (2%) of 85 patients (95% CI 0·29-8·24), versus 159 (33%) of 482 patients (95% CI 28·8-37·4) for the duration of the BOLERO-2 study. Overall, 83 (90%) of 92 patients had at least one adverse event. The most frequently reported grade 3 and 4 adverse events in the safety set were hyperglycaemia (seven [8%] of 92 patients), rash (four [4%]), and dyspnoea (three [3%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 20 (22%) patients; six (7%) were deemed treatment related, with dyspnoea (three [3%]) and pneumonia (two [2%]) reported most frequently. 12 (13%) of 92 patients had adverse events suspected to be related to treatment that led to discontinuation of everolimus and exemestane (the most common were rash, hyperglycaemia, and stomatitis, which each affected two [2%] patients). INTERPRETATION: Prophylactic use of dexamethasone oral solution substantially reduced the incidence and severity of stomatitis in patients receiving everolimus and exemestane and could be a new standard of oral care for patients receiving everolimus and exemestane therapy. FUNDING: Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.

T-cell lymphoma in HIV-infected patients.

Linkage of AIDS and cancer registries has indicated an increase in T-cell lymphomas among individuals infected with the HIV. The characteristics of T-cell versus B-cell lymphoma in HIV-infected patients are not well described. Retrospectively, 11 cases of T-cell lymphoma were identified from the AIDS-Lymphoma Registry at the University of Southern California. These patients were compared with 418 consecutive HIV-seropositive patients with B-cell lymphoma diagnosed and treated within the same time period. T-cell lymphomas comprised 3% of all AIDS lymphomas. Pathologic types included peripheral T-cell lymphoma in 5; anaplastic large cell lymphoma in 3; and angioimmunoblastic, enteropathy type, and human T-cell lymphotropic virus-I-related adult T-cell lymphoma/leukemia in 1 case each. No differences in demographic characteristics, history of prior opportunistic infection, or immunologic characteristics were observed between T-cell and B-cell cases. Extranodal involvement of the skin (36% vs. 2%, P < 0.001) and bone marrow (45% vs. 15%, P = 0.019) was significantly more common in T-cell lymphomas. The median survival of patients with T-cell lymphomas was not significantly different from that of B-cell lymphoma patients (10.6 vs. 6.6 months, P = 0.13). T-cell lymphomas in HIV-infected patients represent a spectrum of pathologic types. T-cell lymphomas differ from B-cell cases in terms of a higher propensity for skin and bone marrow involvement. The median survival of patients with T-cell lymphoma is comparable to that of patients with B-cell AIDS-related lymphoma.