Advanced non-squamous NSCLC with no actionable oncogenic driver in Spain: a cross-sectional descriptive analysis of data from the Thoracic Tumor Registry.

BACKGROUND: Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) accounts for the vast majority of all diagnosed lung cancers. According to their histology, most NSCLCs are considered non-squamous cell carcinoma (NSCC), and up to 85% of the latter may lack either one of the two main actionable oncogenic drivers (i.e., EGFR mutations and ALK rearrangements). OBJECTIVE: Our analysis aimed to describe the clinical and epidemiological characteristics of Spanish patients suffering from NSCC with no actionable oncogenic driver in daily clinical practice. DESIGN: A retrospective, cross-sectional, descriptive analysis. METHODS: We analyzed the records of all Spanish patients with advanced NSCC diagnosed between January 2011 and January 2020 and included in the Spanish Thoracic Tumor Registry database. We evaluated the presence of metastasis and molecular profiling at the time of diagnosis and treatments received. We also assessed overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) according to first-line treatment. RESULTS: One thousand seven hundred ninety-seven Spanish patients with NSCC were included. They were mainly men (73.2%), smokers (current [44.4%] and former [44.4%]) and presented adenocarcinoma histology (97.6%). Most patients had at least one comorbidity (80.4%) and one metastatic site (96.8%), and a non-negligible number of those tested were PD-L1 positive (35.2%). Notably, the presence of liver metastasis indicated a shorter median OS and PFS than metastasis in other locations (p < 0.001). Chemotherapy was more often prescribed than immunotherapy as first-, second-, and third-line treatment in that period. In first-line, the OS rates were similar in patients receiving either regimen, but PFS rates significantly better in patients treated with immunotherapy (p = 0.026). Also, a high number of patients did not reach second- and third-line treatment, suggesting the failure of current early diagnostic measures and therapies. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis of the most lethal tumor in Spain could highlight the strengths and the weaknesses of its clinical management and set the ground for further advances and research.

SEOM-GEIS clinical guideline for gastrointestinal stromal tumors (2022).

Gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) is the most common malignant neoplasm of mesenchymal origin, and a paradigmatic model for a successful rational development of targeted therapies in cancer. The introduction of tyrosine kinase inhibitors with activity against KIT/PDGFRA in both localized and advanced stages has remarkably improved the survival in a disease formerly deemed resistant to all systemic therapies. These guidelines are elaborated by the conjoint effort of the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM) and the Spanish Sarcoma Research Group (GEIS) and provide a multidisciplinary and updated consensus for the diagnosis and treatment of GIST patients. We strongly encourage that the managing of these patients should be performed within multidisciplinary teams in reference centers.

Combination of gefitinib and olaparib versus gefitinib alone in EGFR mutant non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC): A multicenter, randomized phase II study (GOAL).

OBJECTIVES: Progression-free survival (PFS) and response rate to epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) varies in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) driven byEGFR mutations, suggesting that other genetic alterations may influence oncogene addiction. Low BRCA1 mRNA levels correlate with longer PFS in erlotinib-treated EGFR-mutant NSCLC patients. Since the poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, olaparib, may attenuate and/or prevent BRCA1 expression, the addition of olaparib to gefitinib could improve outcome in EGFR-mutant advanced NSCLC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: GOAL was a multicenter, randomized phase IB/II study performed in two countries, Spain and Mexico. Eligible patients were 18 years or older, treatment-naïve, pathologically confirmed stage IV NSCLC, with centrally confirmed EGFR mutations and measurable disease. Patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive gefitinib 250 mg daily or gefitinib 250 mg daily plus olaparib 200 mg three times daily in 28-day cycles. The primary endpoint was PFS. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), response rate, safety and tolerability. RESULTS: Between September 2013, and July 2016, 182 patients underwent randomization, 91 received gefitinib and 91 received gefitinib plus olaparib. There were no differences in gender, age, smoking status, performance status, presence of bone and brain metastases or type ofEGFR mutation. Median PFS was 10.9 months (95 % CI 9.3-13.3) in the gefitinib arm and 12.8 months (95 % CI 9.1-14.7) in the gefitinib plus olaparib arm (HR 1.38, 95 % CI 1.00-1.92; p = 0.124). The most common adverse events were anemia, 78 % in gefitinib plus olaparib group, 38 % in gefitinib arm, diarrhea, 65 % and 60 %, and fatigue, 40 % and 32 %, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The gefitinib plus olaparib combination did not provide significant benefit over gefitinib alone. The combination's safety profile showed an increase in hematological and gastrointestinal toxicity, compared to gefitinib alone, however, no relevant adverse events were noted.