Under-reporting of subjective symptoms and its prognostic value: a pooled analysis of 12 cancer clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Oncologists tend to under-report subjective symptoms during cancer treatment. This study describes the under-reporting rate of selected symptoms and explores its association with overall survival (OS). A secondary aim is to test the association of patient-reported symptoms with OS. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This is a post hoc analysis on data pooled from 12 randomized trials, promoted by the National Cancer Institute of Naples (Italy), enrolling patients between 2002 and 2019, with published primary analyses. Occurrence and grade of six side-effects (anorexia, nausea, vomiting, constipation, diarrhea and fatigue) reported by physicians were compared with corresponding symptoms reported by patients in quality-of-life (QoL) questionnaires. Under-reporting was defined as the rate of cases reported grade 0 by the physician while grade ≥1 by the patient. Prognostic value was tested in a multivariable model stratified by trial, including age, sex and performance status as confounders. A landmark threshold was defined for OS analyses. RESULTS: 3792 patients with advanced lung, ovarian, pancreatic, breast or colorectal cancer were pooled; 2603 (68.6%) were eligible having at least one toxicity assessment and one QoL questionnaire, before the first planned disease restaging. Concordance between physicians' and patients' reporting was low with Cohen's k coefficients ranging from 0.03 (fatigue) to 0.33 (vomiting). Under-reporting ranged from 52.7% (nausea) to 80.5% (anorexia), and was not associated with OS. Patient-reported anorexia, vomiting and fatigue ('a little' or more) were significantly associated with shorter OS. CONCLUSIONS: Under-reporting of treatment side-effects is frequent, but it does not affect OS. Patients' reported symptoms should be used for prognostic evaluation.

Immunotherapy in the first-line treatment of elderly patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: results of an International Experts Panel Meeting by the Italian Association of Thoracic Oncology (AIOT).

BACKGROUND: The use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in the front-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is currently the standard of care. However, as clinical trials include a very limited number of elderly patients, evidence on the safety and efficacy of using ICI-based regimens is still limited. METHODS: A virtual International Expert Panel took place in July 2022 to review the available evidence on the use of ICI-based regimens in the first-line setting in elderly patients with NSCLC and provide a position paper on the field both in clinical practice and in a research setting. RESULTS: All panelists agreed that age per se is not a limitation for ICI treatments, as the elderly should be considered only as a surrogate for other clinical factors of frailty. Overall, ICI efficacy in the elderly population is supported by reviewed data. In addition, the panelists were confident that available data support the safety of single-agent immunotherapy in elderly patients with NSCLC. Conversely, concerns were expressed on the safety of chemo + ICI-based combination, which were considered mainly related to the toxicities of chemotherapy components. Therefore, suggestions were proposed to tailor combined approaches in the elderly patients with NSCLC. The panelists defined high, medium, and low priorities in clinical research. High priority was attributed to implementing the real-world assessment of elderly patients treated with ICIs, who are mostly underrepresented in pivotal clinical trials. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the current evidence, the panelists outlined the significant limitations affecting the clinical practice in elderly patients affected by NSCLC, and reached common considerations on the feasibility, safety, and effectiveness of ICI monotherapy and ICI combinations in the first-line setting.

First-line immunotherapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients with ECOG performance status 2: results of an International Expert Panel Meeting by the Italian Association of Thoracic Oncology.

BACKGROUND: Immunotherapy represents the standard of care in the first-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), either as monotherapy in high programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive tumors (≥50%) or in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy regardless of PD-L1 status. However, most pivotal clinical trials of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) did not include patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) 2. Hence, a consensus is lacking on the safety and efficacy of ICIs in this specific subgroup of patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A virtual International Expert Panel took place in July 2021 with the aim of reviewing the available evidence on the use of ICIs in NSCLC patients with ECOG PS 2, both in clinical practice and in a research setting. RESULTS: All panelists expressed concern about the applicability of currently available PS scales to evaluate patients for ICI treatment. The panelists agreed that, though limited, the available data support the safety of single-agent immunotherapy in PS 2 NSCLC patients, whereas concern was raised on the safety of ICI combinations, mainly related to chemotherapy and/or anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 toxicity. On the basis of reviewed data, ICI efficacy may be speculated in PS 2 NSCLC patients; however, PS 2 remains a negative prognostic category as compared to PS 0-1 in patients treated with ICI, as it is for chemotherapy. The panelists defined high, medium and low priorities in clinical research. High priority was attributed to the inclusion of PS 2 patients in prospective clinical trials and the specific evaluation of combined ICI treatments with attenuated chemotherapy doses. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the current evidence, the panelists outlined the major limitations affecting PS 2 patients with NSCLC and reached common considerations on the feasibility, safety and effectiveness of ICI monotherapy and ICI combinations in the first-line setting.

Vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors for the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

Introduction: Angiogenesis is the process by which the tumor develops its potential for growth and distant metastasis. The main proangiogenic switch is vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), which, along with its receptor VEGFR, is a target for biological drugs such as multi-targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors used for many neoplasms, including non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).Areas covered: The fact that angiokinase inhibitors act on several signaling molecules simultaneously means that the use of alternative transmission pathways, which nullifies the effect of drugs directed against a single target, is avoided. Nevertheless, most of these drugs have failed to improve any outcome in NSCLC patients. The authors discuss these points and provide their expert perspectives.Expert opinion: Multikinase inhibitors are the fruit of research which regards cancer as a complex system of interacting processes. However, the lack of predictive biomarkers of response has limited the development of this class of drugs in NSCLC. Combination trials with chemotherapy, immunotherapy or other targeted drugs are ongoing, and while some have already confirmed the role of antiangiogenic small molecules in integrated regimes, others are still evaluating the efficacy of these drugs and raising questions about their cost and tolerability.

The association of financial difficulties with clinical outcomes in cancer patients: secondary analysis of 16 academic prospective clinical trials conducted in Italy.

BACKGROUND: Cancer may cause financial difficulties, but its impact in countries with public health systems is unknown. We evaluated the association of financial difficulties with clinical outcomes of cancer patients enrolled in academic clinical trials performed within the Italian public health system. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data were pooled from 16 prospective multicentre trials in lung, breast or ovarian cancer, using the EORTC quality of life (QOL) C30 questionnaire. Question 28 scores financial difficulties related to disease or treatment in four categories from 'not at all' to 'very much'. We defined financial burden (FB) as any financial difficulty reported at baseline questionnaire, and financial toxicity (FT) as score worsening in a subsequent questionnaire. We investigated (i) the association of FB with clinical outcomes (survival, global QOL response [questions 29/30] and severe toxicity), and (ii) the association of FT with survival. Multivariable analyses were performed using logistic regression models or the Cox model adjusting for trial, gender, age, region and period of enrolment, baseline global QOL and, where appropriate, FB and global QOL response. Results are reported as odds ratio (OR) or hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: At baseline 26% of the 3670 study patients reported FB, significantly correlated with worse baseline global QOL. FB was not associated with risks of death (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.85-1.04, P = 0.23) and severe toxicity (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.76-1.06, P = 0.19) but was predictive of a higher chance of worse global QOL response (OR 1.35, 95% CI 1.08-1.70, P = 0.009). During treatment, 2735 (74.5%) patients filled in subsequent questionnaires and 616 (22.5%) developed FT that was significantly associated with an increased risk of death (HR 1.20, 95% CI 1.05-1.37, P = 0.007). Several sensitivity analyses confirmed these findings. CONCLUSION: Even in a public health system, financial difficulties are associated with relevant cancer patients outcomes like QOL and survival. CLINICAL TRIALS NUMBER: Any registered clinical trial number should be indicated after the abstract.

Novel immunotherapy in the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Lung cancers remain the principal cause of death cancer-related worldwide with a poor survival rate at five years from diagnosis. In patients with NSCLC harboring specific genetic alterations the anti EGFR TKIs and the ALK TKIs have improved the response rate and the quality of life compared to standard platinum-based chemotherapy. New approaches possibly applicable at the major of patients are needed. Areas covered: The discovery that the immune system plays a fundamental role in the fight against cancer. The cancer cells use mechanisms able to avoid the immune control has led to the development of drugs able to overcome this escape route. The best known checkpoint pathways are the CTLA-4 and PD-1/PD-L1; they suppress T-cell activity in different ways: CTLA-4 regulates T-cell activity at an early stage whereas PD-1 regulates later effector T-cell activity within tissue and tumors. The best characterized checkpoint inhibitors in advanced NSCLC setting are ipilimumab and tremelimumab, (anti-CTLA-4 antibodies), nivolumab and pembrolizumab (anti-PD-1 antibodies), atezolizumab and durvalumab (anti-PD-L1 antibodies). Nivolumab and pembrolizumab have received the FDA and EMA approval for the treatment of NSCLC in second-line setting. Expert commentary: The role played by tumor microenvironment may be the next area of research to overcome the resistance at the checkpoint inhibitors as well as the identification of biomarkers to better select patients. In addition checkpoint inhibitors are investigate in combination with other agent involved in immune control with promising results in solid tumors.

Cilengitide combined with cetuximab and platinum-based chemotherapy as first-line treatment in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients: results of an open-label, randomized, controlled phase II study (CERTO).

BACKGROUND: This multicentre, open-label, randomized, controlled phase II study evaluated cilengitide in combination with cetuximab and platinum-based chemotherapy, compared with cetuximab and chemotherapy alone, as first-line treatment of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to receive cetuximab plus platinum-based chemotherapy alone (control), or combined with cilengitide 2000 mg 1×/week i.v. (CIL-once) or 2×/week i.v. (CIL-twice). A protocol amendment limited enrolment to patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) histoscore ≥200 and closed the CIL-twice arm for practical feasibility issues. Primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS; independent read); secondary end points included overall survival (OS), safety, and biomarker analyses. A comparison between the CIL-once and control arms is reported, both for the total cohorts, as well as for patients with EGFR histoscore ≥200. RESULTS: There were 85 patients in the CIL-once group and 84 in the control group. The PFS (independent read) was 6.2 versus 5.0 months for CIL-once versus control [hazard ratio (HR) 0.72; P = 0.085]; for patients with EGFR histoscore ≥200, PFS was 6.8 versus 5.6 months, respectively (HR 0.57; P = 0.0446). Median OS was 13.6 for CIL-once versus 9.7 months for control (HR 0.81; P = 0.265). In patients with EGFR ≥200, OS was 13.2 versus 11.8 months, respectively (HR 0.95; P = 0.855). No major differences in adverse events between CIL-once and control were reported; nausea (59% versus 56%, respectively) and neutropenia (54% versus 46%, respectively) were the most frequent. There was no increased incidence of thromboembolic events or haemorrhage in cilengitide-treated patients. αvß3 and αvß5 expression was neither a predictive nor a prognostic indicator. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of cilengitide to cetuximab/chemotherapy indicated potential clinical activity, with a trend for PFS difference in the independent-read analysis. However, the observed inconsistencies across end points suggest additional investigations are required to substantiate a potential role of other integrin inhibitors in NSCLC treatment. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION ID NUMBER: NCT00842712.

Efficacy and safety of maintenance pemetrexed in patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer following pemetrexed plus cisplatin induction treatment: A cross-trial comparison of two phase III trials.

OBJECTIVES: Two phase III trials of advanced NSCLC patients were compared to examine relative efficacy and safety of differing treatment regimens. The JMDB trial investigated first-line pemetrexed-cisplatin (pemetrexed 500mg/m(2) plus cisplatin 75mg/m(2) every 21 days; maximum: 6 cycles). The PARAMOUNT phase III trial compared maintenance pemetrexed versus placebo after patients with nonsquamous NSCLC completed 4 cycles of first-line pemetrexed-cisplatin without disease progression. METHODS: Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), analyzed by Kaplan-Meier and Cox methods, and toxicity rates were compared between the PARAMOUNT arms and a selected homogeneous population from JMDB: 346 patients with disease and prior treatment characteristics matching the PARAMOUNT population. RESULTS: Outcomes for the PARAMOUNT placebo arm were similar to the JMDB homogeneous group (median PFS: 5.6 versus 6.2 months, p=0.117, HR=1.16; median OS: 14.0 versus 14.2 months, p=0.979, HR=1.00). The PARAMOUNT maintenance pemetrexed group had statistically superior efficacy compared with the JMDB homogeneous group (median PFS: 7.5 versus 6.2 months, p<0.00001, HR=0.66; median OS: 16.9 versus 14.2 months, p=0.003, HR=0.75). Patients who received pemetrexed maintenance (median 4 cycles, range 1-44) following 4 cycles of pemetrexed-cisplatin exhibited a higher incidence of drug-related serious adverse events compared with JMDB patients (median 6 cycles of pemetrexed-cisplatin) (10.6% versus 2.9%); grade 3/4 fatigue and renal toxicity were also higher in the pemetrexed arm of PARAMOUNT. CONCLUSIONS: The across-trial comparison of a relevant JMDB study population with the two arms of the PARAMOUNT study supported the efficacy of the pemetrexed continuation maintenance strategy and suggested the results are not influenced by limiting the pemetrexed-cisplatin induction treatment to four cycles. Although longer exposure to pemetrexed-cisplatin or maintenance pemetrexed increased some toxicities, the overall incidence remained low, underscoring the relative safety of these treatment regimens.

Management of elderly patients with NSCLC; updated expert's opinion paper: EORTC Elderly Task Force, Lung Cancer Group and International Society for Geriatric Oncology.

Non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is a very common disease in the elderly population and its incidence in this particular population is expected to increase further, because of the ageing of the Western population. Despite this, limited data are available for the treatment of these patients and, therefore, the development of evidence-based treatment recommendations is challenging. In 2010, European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) took an initiative in collaboration with International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) and created an experts panel that provided an experts' opinion consensus paper for the management of elderly NSCLC patients. Since this publication, important new data are available and EORTC and SIOG recommended to update the 2010 recommendations. Besides recommendations for surgery, adjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy, treatment of locally advanced and metastatic disease, recommendations were expanded, to include data on patient preferences and geriatric assessment.

A randomized, double-blind, phase II study of erlotinib with or without sunitinib for the second-line treatment of metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

BACKGROUND: Combined inhibition of vascular, platelet-derived, and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) pathways may overcome refractoriness to single agents in platinum-pretreated non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This randomized, double-blind, multicenter, phase II trial evaluated sunitinib 37.5 mg/day plus erlotinib 150 mg/day versus placebo plus erlotinib continuously in 4-week cycles. Eligible patients had histologically confirmed stage IIIB or IV NSCLC previously treated with one or two chemotherapy regimens, including one platinum-based regimen. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) by an independent central review. RESULTS: One hundred and thirty-two patients were randomly assigned, and the median duration of follow-up was 17.7 months. The median PFS was 2.8 versus 2.0 months for the combination versus erlotinib alone (HR 0.898, P = 0.321). The median overall survival (OS) was 8.2 versus 7.6 months (HR 1.066, P = 0.617). Objective response rates (ORRs) were 4.6% and 3.0%, respectively. Sunitinib plus erlotinib was fairly well tolerated although most treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were more frequent than with erlotinib alone: diarrhea (55% versus 33%), rash (41% versus 30%), fatigue (31% versus 25%), decreased appetite (30% versus 13%), nausea (28% versus 14%), and thrombocytopenia (13% versus 0%). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of sunitinib to erlotinib did not significantly improve PFS in patients with advanced, platinum-pretreated NSCLC.

Bone metastases and non-small cell lung cancer: from bisphosphonates to targeted therapy.

About 30-40% of patients affected by non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) develop, during the course of their disease, bone metastases. The prognosis of these patients is poor with a median survival of less than 1 year. The therapeutic approach includes: palliative radiotherapy, and systemic therapy. In clinical practice, zoledronate is the most commonly used bisphosphonate to prevent, reduce the incidence and delay the onset of skeletal-related events in patients with metastatic NSCLC. However, an Italian Association of Thoracic Oncology (AIOT) survey, conducted to evaluate how bisphosphonates were used in clinical practice for the treatment of lung cancer bone metastases in Italy, showed that the bisphosphonates treatment is still not routine and varies in duration. Denosumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody directed against the receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa-B (RANK)-Ligand inhibiting the maturation of pre-osteoclasts into osteoclasts and is the first example of targeted therapy for bone metastases. An exploratory analysis showed that denosumab was associated with improved overall survival compared with zoledronate in patients with bone metastases from lung cancer. Biochemical markers of bone turnover to predict what patients are at greatest risk of developing skeletal-related events, and to direct treatment of bone metastases with either bisphosphonates or denosumab, are under investigation. This review is focused on the systemic management of bone metastases from NSCLC.

The role of EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors in the first-line treatment of advanced non small cell lung cancer patients harboring EGFR mutation.

Lung cancer continues to be the leading cause of cancer death worldwide. Among lung cancers, 80% are classified as nonsmall- cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and are mostly diagnosed at an advanced stage (either locally advanced or metastatic disease). In the last years, the discovery of the pivotal role in tumorigenesis of the Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) has provided a new class of targeted therapeutic agents: the EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs). Since the first reports of an association between somatic mutations in EGFR exons 19 and 21 and response to EGFR-TKIs, treatment of advanced NSCLC has changed dramatically. Histologic profile, clinical characteristics, and mutational profile of lung carcinoma have all been reported as predictive factors of response to EGFR-TKIs and other targeted therapies. In advanced NSCLC patients harboring EGFR mutations, the use of EGFR TKIs in first-line treatment has provided an unusually large progression-free survival (PFS) benefit with a negligible toxicity when compared with cytotoxic chemotherapy in phase III randomized trials. Considering the findings regarding the excellent benefit and better safety profile of EGFR TKIs in EGFR mutation positive patients, these targeted therapeutic agents can be now considered as first-line treatment in this setting of patients. This review will discuss the new evidences in the role of EGFR-TKIs in the first-line treatment of advanced NSCLC and their implication in the current clinical decision-making.

Targeting angiogenesis for treatment of NSCLC brain metastases.

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide, and non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) accounts for about 85% of all new lung cancer diagnosis. The majority of people with NSCLC are unsuitable for surgery since most patients have metastatic disease at diagnosis. About 60% of brain metastases arise from lung cancer. Therapeutic approaches to brain metastases include surgery, whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT), stereotactic radiosurgery, chemotherapy and new biologic agents. Angiogenesis is essential for the development and progression of cancer, and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) is a critical mediator of tumour angiogenesis. One of the targeted approaches most widely studied in the treatment of NSCLC is the inhibition of angiogenesis. Bevacizumab, an anti-VEGF recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody, is the first targeted agent which, when combined with chemotherapy, has shown superior efficacy versus chemotherapy alone as first-line treatment of advanced non-squamous NSCLC patients. Patients with central nervous system (CNS) metastases have initially been excluded from bevacizumab trials for the risk of cerebral haemorrhage as a result of the treatment. Nevertheless, the available data suggest an equal risk of intracranial bleeding in patients with CNS metastases treated with or without bevacizumab therapy. Several other anti-angiogenetic drugs are being investigated in the treatment of advanced NSCLC patients, but results of their activity specifically in CNS metastases are still lacking. This review will focus on the potential role of bevacizumab and other anti-angiogenetic agents in the treatment of brain metastases from NSCLC.

Third CECOG consensus on the systemic treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer.

The current third consensus on the systemic treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) builds upon and updates similar publications on the subject by the Central European Cooperative Oncology Group (CECOG), which has published such consensus statements in the years 2002 and 2005 (Zielinski CC, Beinert T, Crawford J et al. Consensus on medical treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer--update 2004. Lung Cancer 2005; 50: 129-137). The principle of all CECOG consensus is such that evidence-based recommendations for state-of-the-art treatment are given upon which all participants and authors of the manuscript have to agree (Beslija S, Bonneterre J, Burstein HJ et al. Third consensus on medical treatment of metastatic breast cancer. Ann Oncol 2009; 20 (11): 1771-1785). This is of particular importance in diseases in which treatment options depend on very particular clinical and biologic variables (Zielinski CC, Beinert T, Crawford J et al. Consensus on medical treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer--update 2004. Lung Cancer 2005; 50: 129-137; Beslija S, Bonneterre J, Burstein HJ et al. Third consensus on medical treatment of metastatic breast cancer. Ann Oncol 2009; 20 (11): 1771-1785). Since the publication of the last CECOG consensus on the medical treatment of NSCLC, a series of diagnostic tools for the characterization of biomarkers for personalized therapy for NSCLC as well as therapeutic options including adjuvant treatment, targeted therapy, and maintenance treatment have emerged and strongly influenced the field. Thus, the present third consensus was generated that not only readdresses previous disease-related issues but also expands toward recent developments in the management of NSCLC. It is the aim of the present consensus to summarize minimal quality-oriented requirements for individual patients with NSCLC in its various stages based upon levels of evidence in the light of a rapidly expanding array of individual therapeutic options.

The role of antiangiogenetic agents in the treatment of breast cancer.

Angiogenesis is known to be essential for the development and progression of cancer. Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) is a critical mediator in tumor angiogenesis for many solid malignancies, including breast cancer. Increased levels of VEGF have been associated with poor clinical outcomes, including reduced survival. VEGF has become an attractive target for cancer therapy in view of its pivotal role in angiogenesis. The primary approaches for inhibiting angiogenesis have focused on inhibiting the activity of VEGF, either by targeting the VEGF ligand itself with monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) or by interfering with the signaling events downstream of VEGF through the use of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). Bevacizumab is a recombinant, humanized monoclonal IgG1, anti-VEGF antibody that has demonstrated significant clinical benefit in several solid tumors. Bevacizumab has been approved for use in combination with paclitaxel for the first line treatment of patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) based on the results of the randomized phase III E2100 trial in which it improves response rate and time to progress when administered with weekly paclitaxel until disease progression. Several trials to define the role of bevacizumab in different setting of disease and in combination with different chemotherapy regimens and targeted therapy in breast cancer patients are ongoing. Other small molecule inhibitors of VEGF tyrosine kinase activity (TKIs) such as sunitinib, vandetanib and sorafenib are being tested in MBC. This review will focus on bevacizumab and on the developements of the main antiangiogenic agents in the treatment of breast cancer.

Metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer: consensus on pathology and molecular tests, first-line, second-line, and third-line therapy: 1st ESMO Consensus Conference in Lung Cancer; Lugano 2010.

The 1st ESMO Consensus Conference on lung cancer was held in Lugano, Switzerland on 21 and 22 May 2010 with the participation of a multidisciplinary panel of leading professionals in pathology and molecular diagnostics, medical oncology, surgical oncology and radiation oncology. Before the conference, the expert panel prepared clinically relevant questions concerning five areas: early and locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), first-line metastatic NSCLC, second-/third-line NSCLC, NSCLC pathology and molecular testing, and small-cell lung cancer to be addressed through discussion at the Consensus Conference. All relevant scientific literature for each question was reviewed in advance. During the Consensus Conference, the panel developed recommendations for each specific question. The consensus agreement on three of these areas: NSCLC pathology and molecular testing, the treatment of first-line, and second-line/third-line therapy in metastatic NSCLC are reported in this article. The recommendations detailed here are based on an expert consensus after careful review of published data. All participants have approved this final update.

Sorafenib in combination with erlotinib or with gemcitabine in elderly patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a randomized phase II study.

BACKGROUND: Sorafenib is a small-molecule multitargeted kinase inhibitor that blocks the activation of C-RAF, B-RAF, c-KIT, FLT-3, RET, vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 (VEGFR-2), VEGFR-3 and platelet-derived growth factor receptor ß. The aim of this multicenter, randomized phase II study was to evaluate clinical activity and safety of sorafenib in combination with erlotinib or gemcitabine in unselected untreated elderly patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: The trial was designed to select the most promising sorafenib-containing combination in previously untreated elderly (≥70 years) stage IIIB or IV NSCLC patients, with performance status of zero to two. Patients were randomly assigned to one of the following combinations: gemcitabine, 1200 mg/m(2) days 1 and 8, every 21 days, for a maximum of six cycles, plus sorafenib, 800 mg/day, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity (arm 1); or erlotinib, 150 mg/day, plus sorafenib, 800 mg/day, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity (arm 2). A selection design was applied with 1-year survival rate as the primary end point of the study, requiring 58 patients. RESULTS: Sixty patients were randomly allocated to the study (31 patients in arm 1 and 29 patients in arm 2). After a median follow-up of 15 months, 10 patients [32%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 16% to 49%] in arm 1 and 13 patients (45%, 95% CI 27% to 63%) in arm 2 were alive at 1 year. Median overall survival was 6.6 and 12.6 months in arm 1 and arm 2, respectively. Observed toxic effects were consistent with the expected drug profiles. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of erlotinib and sorafenib was feasible in elderly patients with advanced NSCLC and was associated with a higher 1-year survival rate than the other arm. According to the selection design, this combination warrants further investigation in phase III trials.

Gefitinib as first-line treatment for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with activating epidermal growth factor receptor mutation: Review of the evidence.

Gefitinib is a small molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). Since 2004, it was clear that a substantial proportion of non-small-cell lung cancers (NSCLC) obtaining objective response when treated with gefitinib harbour activating mutations in the EGFR gene. Consequently, EGFR mutation has been widely studied, together with other molecular characteristics, as a potential predictive factor for gefitinib efficacy. As of August 2010, four East Asian randomized phase III trials comparing gefitinib to platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) eligible for first-line treatment have been reported or published. Two of these trials were conducted without a molecular selection in patients with clinical characteristics (adenocarcinoma histology, never or light smoking) characterized by higher prevalence of EGFR mutation. In patients selected for the presence of tumor harbouring EGFR mutation, the administration of first-line gefitinib, as compared to standard chemotherapy, was associated with longer progression-free survival, higher objective response rate, a more favourable toxicity profile and better quality of life. The relevant improvement in progression-free survival with first-line administration of gefitinib has been confirmed in the other two randomized trials, dedicated to cases with EGFR mutation. In July 2009, European Medicines Agency granted marketing authorization for gefitinib for the treatment of locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC with sensitizing mutations of the EGFR gene, across all lines of therapy. Gefitinib currently represents the best first-line treatment option for this molecularly selected subgroup of patients.

Gefitinib as first-line treatment for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with activating Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor mutation: implications for clinical practice and open issues.

Randomized trials comparing gefitinib with chemotherapy as first-line treatment in patients with EGFR mutated advanced NSCLC support gefitinib as a new, highly effective treatment option in this setting. However, its use in clinical practice has several relevant implications and open issues. In order to choose the best treatment, a molecular characterization is now mandatory, as part of baseline diagnostic procedures. Every effort should be made in order to obtain sufficient tissue. If a clinical enrichment has to be performed for selecting patients to test for EGFR mutation, a reasonable proposal is to test all non-squamous tumors, and patients with squamous tumors only if never smokers. In patients with EGFR mutated tumor, one major issue is the decision about immediate use of gefitinib as first-line, or after failure of standard chemotherapy. First-line gefitinib, compared to chemotherapy, is associated with longer progression-free survival, higher response rate, better toxicity profile and quality of life, and its administration as first-line warrants that all patients have the chance of receiving an EGFR inhibitor. Evidence about the efficacy of erlotinib in the same setting will be soon available, however, at the moment, there are no direct comparisons between gefitinib and erlotinib in EGFR mutated patients. Treatment with gefitinib is usually well tolerated. Typical side effects in most cases are of mild to moderate intensity, and usually manageable with temporary interruption of treatment. When indicated gefitinib appears feasible also in special populations, like elderly or unfit patients, characterized by a significantly poorer risk/benefit ratio with standard chemotherapy. Personalized medicine for patients with lung cancer is now a reality, and patients with EGFR mutation should be treated with first-line EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor.