Describing differences among populations of thoracic tumors patients under and over 80 years: Data analysis from the SLCG thoracic tumor registry.

OBJECTIVES: Cancer is a disease of old age; however, most studies usually included minority of patients fit elderly. The purpose is to investigate the clinical characteristics and genetic information of patients with thoracic tumors who are 80 years old or older compared to those under 80 years old. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: The Thoracic Tumor Registry (TTR) is a Spanish observational, prospective cohort study that included patients diagnosed with thoracic tumors. Data were collected from medical records related to sociodemographic, epidemiological, clinical, molecular/genetic, and treatment outcome variables. RESULTS: The total number of patients, recruited from August 2016 to April 2023, was 26.193 (93,1 % were younger than 80 years and 6,9 % were 80 years or older). In the group of older patients: the male ratio increased (72,9 % vs. 80 %); the number of elderly people who had never smoked or were ex-smokers increased (9,9 % vs. 21,1 % and 44,8 % vs. 61,3 %, respectively) and the number of current smokers decreased (43,3 % vs. 17,5 %); had higher ECOG performance status at diagnosis (for ECOG ≥ 2, 15 % vs. 32,9 %), and there were more patients with previous cancer (17,3 % vs. 28 %). The proportion of men is higher than that of women (73 % vs. 27 % in <80 years and 80 % vs. 20 % in ≥80 years). For all biomarkers, the proportion of patients who had a molecular determination was lower in older patients. There were no differences in terms of alterations in the biomarkers tested; except for EGFR, for which the positivity rate was higher in patients aged 80 years and older (25 % vs. 15,3 %). CONCLUSION: The proportion of older patients with targeted mutations is higher. So, at least at diagnosis, it should be proceeded in a standard way. Then, when it comes to treatment, comorbidities and patient's baseline situation should be considered. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02941458.

Comparison of Clinical and Genetic Characteristics Between Younger and Older Lung Cancer Patients.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to analyze the clinical and genetic characteristics of young lung cancer cases, and to compare them with those of older cases. METHODS: We used the Thoracic Tumors Registry (TTR) as a data source representative of lung cancer cases diagnosed in Spain, and included all cases registered until 9/01/2023 which had information on age at diagnosis or the data needed to calculate it. We performed a descriptive statistical analysis and fitted logistic regressions to analyze how different characteristics influenced being a younger lung cancer patient. RESULTS: A total of 26,336 subjects were included. Lung cancer cases <50 years old had a higher probability of being women (OR: 1.38; 95% CI: 1.21-1.57), being in stage III or IV (OR: 1.32; 95% CI: 1.08-1.62), not having comorbidities (OR: 5.21; 95% CI: 4.59-5.91), presenting with symptoms at diagnosis (OR: 1.53; 95% CI: 1.29-1.81), and having ALK translocation (OR: 7.61; 95% CI: 1.25-46.32) and HER2 mutation (OR: 5.71; 95% CI: 1.34-24.33), compared with subjects ≥50 years. Among subjects <35 years old (n=61), our study observed a higher proportion of women (59.0% vs. 26.6%; p<0.001), never smokers (45.8% vs. 10.3%; p<0.001), no comorbidities (21.3% vs. 74.0%; p<0.001); ALK translocation (33.3% vs. 4.4%; p<0.001) and ROS1 mutation (14.3% vs. 2.3%; p=0.01), compared with subjects ≥35 years. CONCLUSIONS: Lung cancer displays differences by age at diagnosis which may have important implications for its clinical management.

Addressing lung cancer screening eligibility in Spain using 2013 and 2021 US Preventive Service Task Force criteria: cross-sectional study.

Objectives: The aim of the study was to ascertain the percentage of Spanish lung cancer cases that would fulfil the lung cancer screening inclusion criteria recommended by the United States Preventive Service Task Force (USPSTF) in 2013 and 2021. Methods: A cross-sectional study was carried out. All lung cancer cases registered in the Thoracic Tumor Registry with data on date of birth, date of diagnosis, smoking habit, number of pack-years and time elapsed since smoking cessation were included. Results: The study included 15 006 patients diagnosed with lung cancer in Spain between 2016 and 2022. Eligibility to participate in screening increased from 53.7% to 63.5% (an increase of 9.8%) according to the 2013 and 2021 recommendations, respectively. The percentage of eligible men rose by 9.2 percentage points with the 2021 versus 2013 recommendations, whereas this rise was 11.5 percentage points in women. Under the 2021 recommendations, 36.6% of women and 5.3% of men would not have fulfilled the screening inclusion criteria due to being never-smokers; 14.9% of women and 11.0% of men would not have fulfilled the age criterion; and 27.0% of ex-smokers among women compared to 35.6% among men would not have been eligible due to >15 years having elapsed since smoking cessation. Conclusions: In Spain, over one-third of lung cancer cases could not be detected through screening, by virtue of not meeting the most recent inclusion criteria stated by the USPSTF. The degree of fulfilment in a potential nationwide screening programme should be analysed, with the aim of establishing inclusion criteria in line with each country's context.

Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab as First-line Treatment for Patients With Metastatic Nonsquamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer With High Tumor Mutation Burden: A Nonrandomized Controlled Trial.

Importance: Antiangiogenic drug combinations with anti-programmed cell death 1 protein and anti-programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 (PD-L1) agents are a novel treatment option for lung cancer. However, survival remains limited, and the activity of these combinations for tumors with high tumor mutation burden (TMB) is unknown. Objective: To assess the clinical benefits and safety of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab for patients with high-TMB advanced nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter, single-arm, open-label, phase 2 nonrandomized controlled trial (Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab in First-Line NSCLC Patients [TELMA]) included treatment-naive patients aged 18 years or older with confirmed stage IIIB-IV nonsquamous NSCLC with TMB of 10 or more mutations/megabase and no EGFR, ALK, STK11, MDM2, or ROS1 alterations. From May 2019 through January 2021, patients were assessed at 13 sites in Spain, with follow-up until February 28, 2022. Interventions: Participants were given atezolizumab, 1200 mg, plus bevacizumab, 15 mg/kg, on day 1 of each 21-day cycle. Treatment was continued until documented disease progression, unacceptable toxic effects, patient withdrawal, investigator decision, or death. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was 12-month progression-free survival (PFS) rate (according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours, version 1.1 criteria); PFS was defined as the time from enrollment to disease progression or death. Adverse events were monitored according to the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0. Results: A total of 307 patients were assessed for trial eligibility, of whom 266 were ineligible for enrollment. Of the 41 patients enrolled, 3 did not fulfill all inclusion criteria and were excluded. The remaining 38 patients (28 [73.7%] male; mean [SD] age, 63.7 [8.3] years) constituted the per-protocol population. The 12-month PFS rate was 51.3% (95% CI, 34.2%-66.0%), which met the primary end point. The 12-month overall survival (OS) rate was 72.0% (95% CI, 54.1%-83.9%). The median PFS was 13.0 months (95% CI, 7.9-18.0 months), and the median OS was not reached. Of the 38 patients, 16 (42.1%) achieved an objective response and 30 (78.9%) achieved disease control. The median time to response was 2.8 months (IQR, 2.8-3.58 months), with a median duration of response of 11.7 months (range, 3.57-22.4 months; the response was ongoing at cutoff). Of 16 responses, 8 (50.0%) were ongoing. Most adverse events were grade 1 or 2. For atezolizumab, the most common adverse events were fatigue (6 [15.8%]) and pruritus (6 [15.8%]). For bevacizumab, they were hypertension (10 [26.3%]) and proteinuria (4 [10.5%]). Drug discontinuation occurred in 2 patients receiving atezolizumab (5.3%) and 3 patients receiving bevacizumab (7.9%). PD-L1 levels were not associated with response, PFS, or OS. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that atezolizumab with bevacizumab is a potential treatment for high-TMB nonsquamous NSCLC. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03836066.

Same-Day Desensitization in Patients Who Experience Their First Reaction to a Platin Agent at the Oncology Day Unit: A Pilot Study to Safely Include This Technique Within the Multidisciplinary Pathways for the Diagnosis & Management of Hypersensitivity to Platin Agents.

One of the main objectives when assessing patients who react to antineoplastics must be to ensure that they receive the required treatments without delay. From January to July 2021, at the Allergy Department at the Provincial University Consortium Hospital a pilot study was performed in which those patients suspected of having suffered a type I hypersensitivity reaction (grade 1 or 2) following Brown's anaphylaxis severity grading to a platin agent at the Provincial University Consortium oncology day unit, and once the reaction was properly treated and completely resolved, were subjected to a new procedure named as Same-Day Desensitization, which consists in the reintroduction and administration of full chemotherapy dose by allergists on the same day of the reaction by following the 1 bag/10 step protocol, looking forwards to systematize same-day reexposure using Same-Day Desensitization, doing it in the safest way possible. In total, 9 oncological patients suspected of having suffered a type I hypersensitivity reaction (grade 1 or 2) to a platin agent received total dose administration the same day of the initial reaction by following Same-Day Desensitization 1 bag/10 step protocol, without presenting further reactions. The manuscript describes a new approach in the use of Rapid Drug Desensitizations in reactive oncologic patients in treatment with platin agents, presenting the first 9 cases of oncologic patients who have been submitted to this procedure.

Molecular Divergence upon EGFR-TKI Resistance Could Be Dependent on the Exon Location of the Original EGFR-Sensitizing Mutation.

Tumor molecular profiling upon disease progression enables investigations of the tumor evolution. Next-generation sequencing (NGS) of liquid biopsies constitutes a noninvasive readily available source of tumor molecular information. In this study, 124 plasma samples from advanced EGFR-positive NSCLC patients, treated with a first-line EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EGFR-TKI) were collected upon disease progression. The circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA) was sequenced using the Oncomine Pan-Cancer Cell-Free Assay™. Excluding EGFR mutations, the most frequently mutated gene was TP53 (57.3%), followed by APC (11.3%), FGFR3 (7.3%), and KRAS (5.6%). Different molecular alterations were observed upon disease progression depending on the location of the original EGFR-sensitizing mutation. Specifically, the detection of the p.T790M mutation was significantly associated with the presence of exon 19 mutations in EGFR (Fisher p-value: 0.028). All KRAS activating mutations (n = 8) were detected in tumors with EGFR mutations in exons 18 and 21 (Fisher p-value < 0.001). Similarly, mutations in NRAS and HRAS were more frequently detected in samples from tumors harboring mutations in exons 18 or 21 (Fisher p-value: 0.050 and Fisher p-value: 0.099, respectively). In conclusion, our data suggest that the mechanisms underlying EGFR-TKI resistance could be dependent on the exon location of the original EGFR-sensitizing mutation.

A phase II randomised trial of abiraterone acetate plus prednisone in combination with docetaxel or docetaxel plus prednisone after disease progression to abiraterone acetate plus prednisone in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: The ABIDO-SOGUG trial.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of maintaining or withdrawing abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (AAP) in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who had experienced cancer progression to this treatment and were beginning a docetaxel-based therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Phase II, randomised, open-label study conducted in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who were asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic. After open-label treatment with AAP, patients who had experienced cancer progression to AAP were randomised to 75 mg/m2 of docetaxel plus AAP or to receive 75 mg/m2 of docetaxel plus 10 mg of prednisone orally daily. The primary outcome was the radiographic progression-free survival rate at 12 months as evaluated by the investigators in all randomised patients. RESULTS: A total of 148 patients were included in open-label treatment with AAP, and of them, 94 patients were randomised to receive either docetaxel plus AAP (intervention group; n = 47) or docetaxel plus prednisone (control group; n = 47). The 12-month radiographic progression-free survival rates did not differ between the intervention group (34.9%; 95% CI 20.7-49.2) and the control group (33.9%; 95% CI 19.5-48.3). There were no significant differences in the time to radiographic progression and the overall survival between the intervention and control groups. Grade 3-5 neutropenia with the combination of docetaxel plus prednisone and AA was more frequent than with docetaxel plus prednisone (59.6% versus 27.7%). CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that the therapeutic strategy of maintaining AAP added to docetaxel in chemotherapy-naïve patients who have experienced cancer progression to AAP treatment should not be further evaluated and should be avoided in clinical practice. CLINICAL TRIALS: NCT02036060 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02036060.

Clinical impact of delays in the management of lung cancer patients in the last decade: systematic review

IntroductionDue to the importance of lung cancer early treatment because of its severity and extent worldwide a systematic literature review was conducted about the impact of delays in waiting times on the disease prognosis.Materials and MethodsWe conducted a systematic search of observational studies (2010-2020) including adult patients diagnosed with lung cancer and reporting healthcare timelines and their clinical consequences.ResultsWe included 38 articles containing data on waiting times and prognosis; only 31 articles linked this forecast to a specific waiting time. We identified 41 healthcare time intervals and found medians of 6-121 days from diagnosis to treatment and 4-19.5 days from primary care to specialist visit: 37.5% of the intervals indicated better prognosis with longer waiting times.ConclusionsAll articles emphasized that waiting times must be reduced to achieve good management and prognosis of lung cancer. Further prospective studies are needed on the relationship between waiting times and prognosis of lung cancer. (AU)

Cutaneous reaction to ifosfamide plus mesna treated with desensitization challenge: a case report.

BACKGROUND: Ifosfamide is an alkylating agent used in the treatment of a wide range of tumours. Because of known side effects it is usually administered in combination with mesna, a thiol agent with uroprotective activity, to reduce them and increase the therapeutic dose. The most frequently administered regimens for ifosfamide are fractionated doses for 3 to 5 days, high-dose intravenous bolus, and continuous infusion over 24 to 72 h. Hypersensitivity reactions to ifosfamide plus mesna are not frequently described in the literature. Moreover, no reports exist concerning desensitization for this chemotherapy combination. CASE PRESENTATION: A 47-year-old man with stage IV renal sarcoma was treated with the combination of ifosfamide and mesna every 3 weeks in a 4-consecutive-day infusion protocol. During the second cycle of chemotherapy, he presented acute cutaneous symptoms. A 12-step desensitization protocol was proposed in view of the lack of knowledge of the possible hypersensitivity reactions to this combination of chemotherapy agents, and the multiple difficulties found during the study of the case. CONCLUSIONS: The 12-step desensitization protocol was well tolerated. Therefore, it is an appropriate and safe option in the case of suspected allergy to ifosfamide plus mesna.

COAST: An Open-Label, Phase II, Multidrug Platform Study of Durvalumab Alone or in Combination With Oleclumab or Monalizumab in Patients With Unresectable, Stage III Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: Durvalumab significantly improves overall survival for patients with unresectable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer and no progression after concurrent chemoradiotherapy (cCRT). Building upon that standard of care, COAST is a phase II study of durvalumab alone or combined with the anti-CD73 monoclonal antibody oleclumab or anti-NKG2A monoclonal antibody monalizumab as consolidation therapy in this setting. METHODS: Patients with unresectable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0/1, and no progression after cCRT were randomly assigned 1:1:1, ≤ 42 days post-cCRT, to durvalumab alone or combined with oleclumab or monalizumab for up to 12 months, stratified by histology. The primary end point was investigator-assessed confirmed objective response rate (ORR; RECIST v1.1). RESULTS: Between January 2019 and July 2020, 189 patients were randomly assigned. At this interim analysis (data cutoff, May 17, 2021), median follow-up was 11.5 months (range, 0.4-23.4 months; all patients). Confirmed ORR was numerically higher with durvalumab plus oleclumab (30.0%; 95% CI, 18.8 to 43.2) and durvalumab plus monalizumab (35.5%; 95% CI, 23.7 to 48.7) versus durvalumab (17.9%; 95% CI, 9.6 to 29.2). Progression-free survival (PFS) was prolonged with both combinations versus durvalumab (plus oleclumab: hazard ratio, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.26 to 0.75; and plus monalizumab: hazard ratio, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.24 to 0.72), with higher 12-month PFS rates (plus oleclumab: 62.6% [95% CI, 48.1 to 74.2] and plus monalizumab: 72.7% [95% CI, 58.8 to 82.6] v durvalumab alone: 33.9% [95% CI, 21.2 to 47.1]). All-cause grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 40.7%, 27.9%, and 39.4% with durvalumab plus oleclumab, durvalumab plus monalizumab, and durvalumab, respectively. CONCLUSION: Both combinations increased ORR and prolonged PFS versus durvalumab alone. Safety was similar across arms with no new or significant safety signals identified with either combination. These data support their further evaluation in a phase III trial.

Clinical impact of delays in the management of lung cancer patients in the last decade: systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Due to the importance of lung cancer early treatment because of its severity and extent worldwide a systematic literature review was conducted about the impact of delays in waiting times on the disease prognosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of observational studies (2010-2020) including adult patients diagnosed with lung cancer and reporting healthcare timelines and their clinical consequences. RESULTS: We included 38 articles containing data on waiting times and prognosis; only 31 articles linked this forecast to a specific waiting time. We identified 41 healthcare time intervals and found medians of 6-121 days from diagnosis to treatment and 4-19.5 days from primary care to specialist visit: 37.5% of the intervals indicated better prognosis with longer waiting times. CONCLUSIONS: All articles emphasized that waiting times must be reduced to achieve good management and prognosis of lung cancer. Further prospective studies are needed on the relationship between waiting times and prognosis of lung cancer.

Trilaciclib prior to chemotherapy reduces the usage of supportive care interventions for chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression in patients with small cell lung cancer: Pooled analysis of three randomized phase 2 trials.

BACKGROUND: Supportive care interventions used to manage chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression (CIM), including granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs), erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs), and red blood cell (RBC) transfusions, are burdensome to patients and associated with greater costs to health care systems. We evaluated the utilization of supportive care interventions and their relationship with the myeloprotective agent, trilaciclib. METHODS: Data were pooled from three independent randomized phase 2 clinical trials of trilaciclib or placebo administered prior to chemotherapy in patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). The impact of supportive care on the duration of severe neutropenia (DSN), occurrence of severe neutropenia (SN), and occurrence of RBC transfusions on/after week 5 was analyzed across cycles 1-4. Concordance and association between grade 3/4 anemia, RBC transfusions on/after week 5, and ESA administration was also evaluated. RESULTS: The use of G-CSFs, ESAs, or RBC transfusions on/after week 5 was significantly lower among patients receiving trilaciclib versus placebo (28.5% vs. 56.3%, p < 0.0001; 3.3% vs. 11.8%, p = 0.0254; and 14.6% vs. 26.1%, p = 0.0252, respectively). Compared with placebo, trilaciclib significantly reduced DSN and SN, irrespective of G-CSF administration. RBC transfusions and ESAs were most often administered in patients with grade 3/4 anemia; however, patients typically received RBC transfusions over ESA administration. CONCLUSIONS: By improving CIM and reducing the need for associated supportive care, trilaciclib has the potential to reduce the burden of myelosuppression on patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy for the treatment of ES-SCLC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02499770; NCT03041311; NCT02514447).

Prognostic Score and Benefit from Abiraterone in First-line Metastatic, Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Most available prognostic nomograms in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) are derived from datasets not representative of the current treatment landscape. A prognostic nomogram for first-line mCRPC treatment was developed from patients treated in the PREVAIL study. OBJECTIVE: To validate the Armstrong model in the COU-AA-302 trial. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A post hoc analysis of mCRPC patients treated in the COU-AA-302 trial was carried out (NCT00887198). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The Armstrong prognostic model was applied to patients treated in COU-AA-302. A continuous risk score was derived from coefficients from the original model. Time-dependent area under the curve (tAUC) was used to evaluate the overall predictive ability of the model. Patients were categorized according to the number of risk factors present into those at a low (three or fewer risk factors), intermediate (four to six risk factors), and high (seven to ten risk factors) risk. The association with survival was assessed with Cox regression models. Interaction tests were used to assess the impact of treatment arm in each of the prognostic groups. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 1088 patients were analyzed. The risk score was associated with overall survival (OS; tAUC 0.733). Most patients were at a low (49%) or intermediate (41%) risk. Risk category was significantly associated with OS (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.3; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.9-2.4; p < 0.001), radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS; HR: 1.7; 95% CI: 1.5-1.8; p < 0.001), and prostate-specific antigen progression-free survival (HR: 1.7; 95% CI: 1.5-1.9; p < 0.001). A significant interaction between risk group and OS (p = 0.007) and rPFS (p = 0.009) was observed. Survival was superior in low-risk patients (HR: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.59-0.89; p = 0.009), but similar in intermediate-risk (HR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.79-1.21; p = 0.9) and high-risk (HR: 1.35; 95% CI: 0.80-2.28; p = 0.5) patients. Two-year OS rates in abiraterone versus placebo were 82% versus 74% in low-risk, 55% versus 52% in intermediate-risk, and 28% versus 31% in high-risk patients. CONCLUSIONS: We validate the prognostic value of the Armstrong risk model in patients treated with first-line androgen receptor signaling inhibitors. Abiraterone provided a greater benefit in low-risk patients with less aggressive disease. Further research is needed to establish the role of Armstrong risk groups for treatment selection in mCRPC patients. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this report, we validated the Armstrong nomogram in the COU-AA-302 trial population. We found a similar prognostic performance to that of the original model. Good-risk patients received the greatest benefit from abiraterone.

Analysis of circulating tumour DNA to identify patients with epidermal growth factor receptor-positive non-small cell lung cancer who might benefit from sequential tyrosine kinase inhibitor treatment.

BACKGROUND: Survival data support the use of first-line osimertinib as the standard of care for epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, it remains unclear whether upfront osimertinib is superior to sequential first- or second-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) followed by osimertinib for all patients. It is impossible to predict which patients are at high risk of progression, and this constitutes a major limitation of the sequential TKI approach. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 830 plasma samples from 228 patients with stage IV, EGFR-positive NSCLC who were treated with first-line TKIs were analysed by digital polymerase chain reaction (dPCR). RESULTS: The circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) levels helped to identify patients with significantly improved survival rate, regardless of the treatment. Patients treated with first- or second-generation TKIs (N = 189) with EGFR mutations in plasma at a mutant allele frequency (MAF) <7% before treatment initiation (low-risk patients) or who were ctDNA negative after 3 or 6 months of treatment and with an MAF <7% at diagnosis (high responders) had two-thirds lower risk of death than patients in the opposite situation (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 0.38; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.23-0.64 and HR = 0.22; 95% CI: 0.12-0.42, respectively). The median overall survival (OS) for low-risk patients and high responders treated with first- or second-generation TKIs was 34.2 months and not reached, respectively, regardless of second-line treatment. There were no significant difference in OS between low-risk or high-responder patients treated upfront with osimertinib (N = 39) and those treated under a sequential approach with osimertinib (N = 60). Median OS was not reached in both cases. CONCLUSIONS: Pre-treatment ctDNA levels identify low-risk patients, who may benefit from sequential TKI treatment. Information regarding EGFR mutation clearance can help to improve patient selection.

Geriatric assessment in clinical practice for patients with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer: The Grup de Investigació I Divulgació Oncològica experience.

Therapeutic decision-making for older patients with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with no identifiable activating mutation is complex. In this prospective study, we evaluated the usefulness of geriatric assessment (GA) in identifying frail patients. Stage IV NSCLC patients ≥70 years of age were evaluated with GA and classified according to this evaluation into three different groups: fit, vulnerable and frail. Classifications based on GA, treatment decision, toxicity and overall survival were analysed. In total, 93 patients were included. Median age was 76 (70-92) years and 90% were men. Most patients had performance status (PS) 0 or 1 (82%), unrelated to their GA (p = 0.006). GA groups were associated with overall survival (p = 0.000), treatment decision (p = 0.0001), and toxicity (p = 0.0001). Chemotherapy was delivered to 100% of fit patients, to 48% of vulnerable patients, and to only 8% of frail patients (p = 0.000). Toxicity was higher in vulnerable patients than in fit individuals (p = 0.000). Multivariable analysis showed PS (p = 0.001), active treatment (p < 0.001) and GA group (p = 0.001) to be prognostic factors related to survival. Our results suggest that GA identified patients with poor natural prognosis.

Updated recommendations from the Spanish Oncology Genitourinary Group for the treatment of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

Prostate cancer is the most prevalent male urogenital malignancy. Approximately 30% of patients with prostate cancer will develop advanced disease. Androgen deprivation therapy achieves disease control in about 90% of these patients, but the majority of them will eventually develop progressive disease, a status called castration-resistant prostate carcinoma (CRPC). However, in recent years, several new therapy strategies, such as immunotherapy, hormonal manipulations, chemotherapy agents and some bone-targeted therapies, have demonstrated an improvement in terms of overall survival in controlled trials. In 2012, the Spanish Oncology Genitourinary Group (SOGUG) published its recommendations for the treatment of patients with CRPC. Due to the recent appearance of important new data and the complexity of decision-making in this field, SOGUG herein provides updated recommendations for the treatment of patients with metastatic prostate cancer.

Quantification of circulating endothelial cells as a predictor of response to chemotherapy with platinum and pemetrexed in patients with advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung carcinoma

Introduction: Circulating endothelial cells (CEC) play an important role in tumor neovascularization and may have prognostic value in cancer patients. This study was designed to investigate the role of CEC as a marker for predicting platinum plus pemetrexed first-line chemotherapy efficacy in advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods: A prospective study was performed whose main objective was to study whether the numbers of CEC at baseline and prior to the second and third cycle of chemotherapy were response predictors. Sixty-nine patients received cisplatin plus pemetrexed, and peripheral blood samples were performed at baseline and after second and third cycle. Separation and CEC count were performed using inmunomagnetic separation (CellSearch). Results: The CEC count in 4 mL of peripheral blood was obtained prior to the first, second, and third cycle of treatment. Baseline levels and evolution of CEC were correlated with response to treatment according to RECIST criteria after three cycles of treatment. Sixty-nine patients were included: 43 (64.2 %) received cisplatin/pemetrexed and 24 (35.8 %) carboplatin/pemetrexed. Range of baseline CEC: 8–965 (mean of 153 cel/4 mL). The results after 3 cycles were: 25 partial responses (36.2 %), 17 cases of stabilization of disease (24.6 %), 16 of progressive disease (23.2 %) and 11 non-evaluables (16 %). No significant relationship between the baseline CEC count and response was found (p value = 0.831). Increase >50 % between the first and second cycle was correlated significantly with progression disease (p = 0.008). Patients who had a baseline CEC count greater than the mean (>153 cells/4 mL) showed longer progression-free survival and global survival without statistical significance. Conclusions: In this homogeneous group of patients with NSCLC, there is no correlation between response to treatment and CEC baseline levels. The increase in CEC numbers after the first cycle could be a negative predictive factor (AU)

No disponible

Quantification of circulating endothelial cells as a predictor of response to chemotherapy with platinum and pemetrexed in patients with advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung carcinoma.

INTRODUCTION: Circulating endothelial cells (CEC) play an important role in tumor neovascularization and may have prognostic value in cancer patients. This study was designed to investigate the role of CEC as a marker for predicting platinum plus pemetrexed first-line chemotherapy efficacy in advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: A prospective study was performed whose main objective was to study whether the numbers of CEC at baseline and prior to the second and third cycle of chemotherapy were response predictors. Sixty-nine patients received cisplatin plus pemetrexed, and peripheral blood samples were performed at baseline and after second and third cycle. Separation and CEC count were performed using inmunomagnetic separation (CellSearch). RESULTS: The CEC count in 4 mL of peripheral blood was obtained prior to the first, second, and third cycle of treatment. Baseline levels and evolution of CEC were correlated with response to treatment according to RECIST criteria after three cycles of treatment. Sixty-nine patients were included: 43 (64.2 %) received cisplatin/pemetrexed and 24 (35.8 %) carboplatin/pemetrexed. Range of baseline CEC: 8-965 (mean of 153 cel/4 mL). The results after 3 cycles were: 25 partial responses (36.2 %), 17 cases of stabilization of disease (24.6 %), 16 of progressive disease (23.2 %) and 11 non-evaluables (16 %). No significant relationship between the baseline CEC count and response was found (p value = 0.831). Increase >50 % between the first and second cycle was correlated significantly with progression disease (p = 0.008). Patients who had a baseline CEC count greater than the mean (>153 cells/4 mL) showed longer progression-free survival and global survival without statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: In this homogeneous group of patients with NSCLC, there is no correlation between response to treatment and CEC baseline levels. The increase in CEC numbers after the first cycle could be a negative predictive factor.

Intercalated Dosing Schedule of Erlotinib and Docetaxel as a Therapeutic Strategy to Avoid Antagonism and Optimize Its Benefits in Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer. A Randomized Phase II Clinical Trial.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to assess whether an intercalated dosing schedule of erlotinib and docetaxel could avoid possible negative interactions and optimize the benefit obtained as second-line therapy in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A phase II randomized clinical trial was designed for advanced NSCLC patients in whom previous chemotherapy treatment had failed. The experimental arm with 33 patients consisted of erlotinib 150 mg/d orally, intermittent administration on days 2 to 16 every 21 days, combined with docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) every 21 days; the control arm with 35 patients consisted of erlotinib 150 mg/d orally, administered continuously. The study's primary end point was the proportion of patients who remained progression-free at 6 months in the 2 arms. RESULTS: The proportion of patients who remained progression-free at 6 months was of 5 patients (15%) in the intercalated arm and 3 patients (9%) in the erlotinib monotherapy arm respectively. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 3.0 versus 2.1 months (hazard ratio [HR], 0.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39-1.06; P = .086). Median overall survival (OS) was 7.5 and 5.2 months (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.41-1.19; P = .19). Disease control rates were 51.7% and 36.4%, respectively. No new safety signals were observed. CONCLUSION: Erlotinib and docetaxel with intermittent administration of erlotinib improved PFS, OS, and disease control rates compared with erlotinib alone. All of our results indicated that an intercalated dosing schedule of erlotinib and docetaxel could be more efficient than erlotinib treatment alone. Therefore, further studies should be developed in a larger number of patients. This study has shown the absence of antagonism between docetaxel and erlotinib when given in an intercalated fashion.

Cabazitaxel for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: safety data from the Spanish expanded access program.

BACKGROUND: Based on the TROPIC study results, cabazitaxel was approved for the management of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) progressing on or after docetaxel. METHODS: This multi-centre program provided early access to cabazitaxel to patients with mCRPC before its commercialization. Safety data from 153 Spanish patients receiving cabazitaxel 25 mg/m(2) i.v. Q3W, plus oral prednisone/prednisolone 10 mg daily, are reported. RESULTS: Median age of patients was 70 years (26.8% ≥ 75 years), 94.1 and 26.8% had bone and visceral metastasis, respectively. Most had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group ≤ 1 (88.9%) and had received a median of 8.0 cycles of last docetaxel treatment. The median of cabazitaxel cycles and cumulative dose were 6.0 (Interquartile range [IQR]: 4.0; 8.0) and 148.9 (IQR: 98.2; 201.4) mg/m(2), respectively. Adverse events (AEs) possibly related to cabazitaxel occurred in 143 (93.5%) patients. The most frequent grade ≥ 3 AEs were neutropenia (n = 25, 16.3%) and asthenia (n = 17, 11.1%). Febrile neutropenia and grade ≥ 3 diarrhea occurred in 5.2% of the patients each. There were five (3.3%) possibly treatment-related deaths, mainly infection-related. G-CSFs were used in 114 (74.5%) patients, generally as prophylaxis (n = 107; 69.9%). Grade ≥ 3 peripheral neuropathy and nail disorders were uncommon. CONCLUSIONS: Cabazitaxel administration, in a real-world setting, is tolerated by Spanish patients with mCRPC, and the AEs are manageable.