Virtual Multidisciplinary Tumor Boards: A Narrative Review Focused on Lung Cancer.

To date, the virtual multidisciplinary tumor boards (vMTBs) are increasingly used to achieve high-quality treatment recommendations across health-care regions, which expands and develops the local MTB team to a regional or national expert network. This review describes the process of lung cancer-specific MTBs and the transition process from face-to-face tumor boards to virtual ones. The review also focuses on the project organization's description, advantages, and disadvantages. Semi-structured interviews identified five major themes for MTBs: current practice, attitudes, enablers, barriers, and benefits for the MTB. MTB teams exhibited positive responses to modeled data feedback. Virtualization reduces time spent for travel, allowing easier and timely patient discussions. This process requires a secure web platform to assure the respect of patients' privacy and presents the same unanswered problems. The implementation of vMTB also permits the implementation of networks especially in areas with geographical barriers facilitating interaction between large referral cancer centers and tertiary or community hospitals as well as easier access to clinical trial opportunities. Studies aimed to improve preparations, structure, and conduct of MTBs, research methods to monitor their performance, teamwork, and outcomes are also outlined in this article. Analysis of literature shows that MTB participants discuss 5-8 cases per meeting and that the use of a vMTB for lung cancer and in particular stage III NSCLC and complex stage IV cases is widely accepted by most health professionals. Despite still-existing gaps, overall vMTB represents a unique opportunity to optimize patient management in a patient-centered approach.

Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and treatment efficacy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a pooled analysis of 6 randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN) has been demonstrated to be a prognostic factor in several cancer conditions. We previously found a significant prognostic value of CIN on overall survival (OS), in a pooled dataset of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) receiving first line chemotherapy from 1996 to 2001. However, the prognostic role of CIN in NSCLC is still debated. METHODS: We performed a post hoc analysis pooling data prospectively collected in six randomized phase 3 trials in NSCLC conducted from 2002 to 2016. Patients who never started chemotherapy and those for whom toxicity data were missing were excluded. Neutropenia was categorized on the basis of worst grade during chemotherapy: absent (grade 0), mild (grade 1-2), or severe (grade 3-4). The primary endpoint was OS. Multivariable Cox model was applied for statistical analyses. In the primary analysis, a minimum time (landmark) at 180 days from randomization was applied in order to minimize the time-dependent bias. RESULTS: Overall, 1529 patients, who received chemotherapy, were eligible; 572 of them (who received 6 cycles of treatment) represented the landmark population. Severe CIN was reported in 143 (25.0%) patients and mild CIN in 135 (23.6%). At multivariable OS analysis, CIN was significantly predictive of prognosis although its prognostic value was entirely driven by severe CIN (hazard ratio [HR] of death 0.71; 95%CI: 0.53-0.95) while it was not evident with mild CIN (HR 1.21; 95%CI: 0.92-1.58). Consistent results were observed in the out-of-landmark group (including 957 patients), where both severe and mild CIN were significantly associated with a reduced risk of death. CONCLUSION: The pooled analysis of six large trials of NSCLC treatment shows that CIN occurrence is significantly associated with a longer overall survival, particularly in patients developing severe CIN, confirming our previous findings.

Metronomic oral vinorelbine in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer progressing after nivolumab immunotherapy: a retrospective analysis.

PURPOSE: The availability of immune checkpoint inhibitors has deeply changed the therapeutic scenario of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Up until now, chemotherapy still represents the first-line treatment for patients with advanced NSCLC not harbouring genetic mutations or lacking high expression of programmed death ligand even if the addition of immunotherapy to first-line chemotherapy has recently been shown to improve clinical outcome. We carried out a multi-institutional retrospective analysis on third-line chemotherapy with metronomic oral vinorelbine (VNR) in a series of patients with metastatic NSCLC pre-treated with first-line chemotherapy and second-line immunotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Thirty patients with metastatic NSCLC with progressive disease after first-line chemotherapy and subsequent immunotherapy were treated with metronomic oral VNR continuously at the fixed dose of 30 mg three times per week. RESULTS: A partial response was achieved in 4 patients (13.3%), while 10 patients (33.3%) displayed disease stabilisation for an overall disease control rate of 46.7%. Median progression-free survival was 3.9 months (range 1-13 months) and median OS reached 8.1 months (range 4.0-24.0+ months) with a 12-month survival rate of 22%. CONCLUSION: Oral metronomic VNR appears to be active and safe in patients with metastatic NSCLC in progression after first-line chemotherapy and second-line immunotherapy. The results reported, although from a limited sample, may suggest its use for long-term stabilisation of the disease with good patient compliance.

High-dose Radiotherapy for Oligo-progressive NSCLC Receiving EGFR Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors: Real World Data.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Local ablative treatments for oligo-progressive, EGFR mutated non-small cell lung cancer (mut-NCSLC) may improve long-term disease control and survival. We analyzed the efficacy of hypo-fractionated, high-dose radiation therapy (HDRT), in association with prolonged EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) in oligo-progressive, EGFR mutant-NSCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Progression-free survival-1 (PFS-1, date from initiation of TKI therapy until oligo-progression or death), and progression-free survival-2 (PFS-2, date of focal progression until further progression or death) were evaluated. RESULTS: Thirty-six patients were analyzed. The median PFS 1 was 12.5 months. HDHRT consisted of intensity-modulated RT and stereotactic RT in 23 (64%) and 13 (36%) patients respectively. The median PFS 2 was 6.3 months. Overall survival was 38.7 months. CONCLUSION: Hypo-fractionated HDRT plus TKI therapy, is associated with a significant prolongation of disease control (overall PFS: 18.8 months), with manageable side effects. These real-world data support the use of local ablative approaches in oligo-progressive EGFR mut-NSCLC.

Listening understanding and acting (lung): focus on communicational issue in thoracic oncology.

BACKGROUND: In the field of oncological assistance, nowadays we have to deal with a complex scenario where patients got used to obtain a huge amount of information through internet or social media and to apply them in performing their health-related decisions. This landscape requires that clinicians become able to handle therapeutical approaches and adequate skills in communication tools to satisfy the current needs. Our project aimed to build a communication model based on clinical oncologists' real experiences in order to find a simple way to share with patients all the innovative therapeutical opportunities today available in lung cancer. The final goal is to design a flexible and personalized model adaptable to clinician's personal characteristics and to the specific patient he is facing. We applied both traditional educational tools and innovative techniques in order to make the results effective and applicable to support peer learning. METHODS: The first step consisted in a Board synthesized the definition of the diagnostic process, the identification of treatment strategies and any potential communication barrier clinicians may face dealing with patients. The second step consisted in teamwork including a theoretical part and a training part. In the third step we produce five training videos and video interviews regarding communication praxis and a "Small communication manual". The last step consisted in the publication of the produced material on website and its diffusion through the social media. RESULTS: In medicine, the universal application of a single model of communication does not represent the optimal solution. By contrary, the availability of simple and practical suggestions to improve the communicative style could allow clinicians to abandon stereotyped formulas identically repurposed to all patients. The "from bottom to top" training, starting from real-life to take advantage of the clinician's experience, give the clinicians the possibility to meditate about their own communicative style and to train in the context of a protected environment. Applying these rules, we design an effective communication model, based on healthcare humanization, which could represent a fundamental support for the patient in order to be gently driven by the clinician to the most appropriate therapeutical choice, balancing efficacy and quality of life. The relational training may improve the quality of clinician-patient communication and could be widespread to other clinicians through the media. CONCLUSIONS: Considering the innovative therapeutical options available, particularly for lung cancer patients, and the increasing access of health-related information through internet or social media the clinician-patient communication has become crucial to support the achievement of the most appropriate therapeutical choice for the patient, facing the intricate illness experience. Building a shareable and easy-to-apply communication model represents a challenge aimed to help clinicians and including technology not as a threat, but as a positive tool.

Randomized phase III trial of gemcitabine and cisplatin vs. gemcitabine alone in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer and a performance status of 2: the CAPPA-2 study.

Platinum-based chemotherapy is the standard treatment for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but the evidence of its efficacy among ECOG performance status (PS)2 patients is weak because these patients are usually excluded from clinical trials; concern exists about tolerability and feasibility of standard chemotherapy in these patients. No prospective randomized trial has tested the addition of cisplatin to single-agent chemotherapy in patients with advanced NSCLC and PS2. CAPPA-2 was a multicenter, randomized phase 3 study for first-line treatment of PS2 patients with advanced NSCLC. Patients, aged 18-70, were eligible if they had stage IV or IIIB with malignant pleural effusion or metastatic supraclavicular nodes (TNM VI edition) and adequate organ function. Patients in standard arm received gemcitabine 1200 mg/m(2) days 1 and 8. Patients in experimental arm received cisplatin 60 mg/m(2) day 1 plus gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) days 1 and 8. All treatments were repeated every 3 weeks, up to 4 cycles, unless disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). To have 80% power of detecting hazard ratio (HR) 0.71, corresponding to an increase in median OS from 4.8 to 6.8 months, 285 deaths were required. The study was stopped in June 2012 after the enrolment of 57 patients, due to the slow accrual and the report of positive results from a similar study. Median OS was 3.0 months with single-agent gemcitabine and 5.9 months with cisplatin plus gemcitabine (HR 0.52, 95% CI 0.28-0.98, p = 0.039). Combination chemotherapy produced longer PFS (median 1.7 vs. 3.3 months, HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.27-0.89, p = 0.017) and higher response rate (4% vs. 18%, p = 0.19), without substantial increase in toxicity. The addition of cisplatin to single-agent gemcitabine improves survival as first-line treatment of PS2 patients with advanced NSCLC.

Quality of life analysis of TORCH, a randomized trial testing first-line erlotinib followed by second-line cisplatin/gemcitabine chemotherapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: The TORCH (Tarceva or Chemotherapy) trial randomized patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer to first-line erlotinib followed by second-line cisplatin/gemcitabine versus. standard inverse sequence. The trial, designed to test noninferiority in overall survival, was stopped at interim analysis because of inferior survival in the experimental arm. Quality of life (QoL), a secondary outcome, is reported here. METHODS: QoL was assessed at baseline and every 3 weeks during first-line, using European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire - Core 30 and QLQ-lung cancer specific module (LC13). Mean changes from baseline within arms were reported. QoL response and time-to-deterioration of QoL using a competing-risk approach were compared between treatment arms. RESULTS: Six hundred and thirty patients (83%) completed baseline questionnaires. Compliance was affected by differential treatment efficacy, but was similar between arms for patients without progression or death. Significant differences in QoL responses were observed favoring chemotherapy for pain, sleeping, dyspnea, diarrhea, and favoring erlotinib for vomiting, constipation, sore mouth, and alopecia. In the small subset of patients with EGFR-mutated tumors, all selected items (global QoL, physical functioning, cough, dyspnea and pain) improved, whereas worsening or no change was observed in wild-type patients. Improvement was particularly evident in the first-line erlotinib arm as for global QoL and physical functioning. CONCLUSIONS: QoL was impacted by differential toxicity and efficacy between arms. Functional domains and global QoL did not differ, although some symptoms were better controlled with chemotherapy in unselected non-small-cell lung cancer patients.

First-line erlotinib followed by second-line cisplatin-gemcitabine chemotherapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: the TORCH randomized trial.

PURPOSE: Erlotinib prolonged survival of unselected patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who were not eligible for further chemotherapy, and two phase II studies suggested it might be an alternative to first-line chemotherapy. A randomized phase III trial was designed to test whether first-line erlotinib followed at progression by cisplatin-gemcitabine was not inferior in terms of survival to the standard inverse sequence. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with stage IIIB (with pleural effusion or supraclavicular nodes) to IV NSCLC and performance status of 0 to 1 were eligible. With a 95% CI upper limit of 1.25 for the hazard ratio (HR) for death, 80% power, a one-sided α = .025, and two interim analyses, a sample size of 900 patients was planned. RESULTS: At the first planned interim analysis with half the events, the inferiority boundary was crossed, and the Independent Data Monitoring Committee recommended early termination of the study. Seven hundred sixty patients (median age, 62 years; range, 27 to 81 years) had been randomly assigned. Baseline characteristics were balanced between study arms. As of June 1, 2011, median follow-up was 24.3 months, and 536 deaths were recorded (263 in the standard treatment arm and 273 in the experimental arm). Median survival was 11.6 months (95% CI, 10.2 to 13.3 months) in the standard arm and 8.7 months (95% CI, 7.4 to 10.5 months) in the experimental arm. Adjusted HR of death in the experimental arm was 1.24 (95% CI, 1.04 to 1.47). There was no heterogeneity across sex, smoking habit, histotype, and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation. CONCLUSION: In unselected patients with advanced NSCLC, first-line erlotinib followed at progression by cisplatin-gemcitabine was significantly inferior in terms of overall survival compared with the standard sequence of first-line chemotherapy followed by erlotinib.

First-line cisplatin with docetaxel or vinorelbine in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a quality of life directed phase II randomized trial of Gruppo Oncologico Italia Meridionale.

BACKGROUND: Quality of life (QoL) has gained greater importance in the management of metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer due to the palliative nature of treatment. Docetaxel (DCT) and cisplatin (CDDP) doublet has been reported to be associated to a better QoL than the weekly vinorelbine (VNR) and CDDP regimen. Recently a newer more tolerated schedule of the VNR/CDDP regimen has been published and is widely employed in medical practice. The impact of these regimens on patients' QoL as well as symptoms control and type and grading chemo-related side-effects has been compared prospectically. METHODS: Patients received CDDP 75 mg/m(2) plus DCT 75 mg/m(2) on day 1 every weeks (arm A) or CDDP 80 mg/m(2) on day 1 plus VNR 30 mg/m(2) day 1 and 8 every 3 weeks (arm B). G-CSF and/or EPO were employed as needed. Health-related QoL was assessed at entry and after every cycle by the EORTC-QLQ-C30 and LC13 questionnaires, toxicity by the NCI-NCCN CTC vs 2, and intent-to-treat objective response by the Recist criteria. RESULTS: The QoL questionnaires were completed by 37 pts (88%) in the DCT/CDDP arm and 39 pts (87%) in the VNR/CDDP one. Baseline mean scores and rates at which pts failed to complete QoL assessment were similar in the two arms. Global health status of the EORTC QLQ-C30 scale and specific symptoms control (LC13 module) improved during treatment without any statistically significant difference between the two arms. Emotional functioning remained stable in both groups during treatment, whereas physical and role improved slightly. In the DCT/CDDP arm 14 pts (33%; 95%CL 24-40%) had PR, and 10 (24%) SD for a 57% TGCR. In the VNR/CDDP arm 12 pts (27%) achieved PR, 18 (41%) SD a 68% TGCR. Differences were not statistically significant. Median time-to-progression was 4.2 months in the DCT/CDDP arm and 4.5 months in the VNR/CDDP one, and median overall survival was 12.1 (range 1-26+ months) and 12.5 months (range 1-28+ months) for DCT/CDDP and VNR/CDDP arms, respectively. Febrile neutropenia rate was higher in the VNR/CDDP arm (p=0.02) as well as G3-4 anemia (p=0.005) and G-CSF/EPO use (p=0.019). CONCLUSIONS: Global and specific health-related QoL data similar in both treatment groups with no statistically significant difference. Efficacy measures, overall response rate, time-to-progression and overall survival were equivalent in both arms. However, severe anemia and febrile neutropenia are statistically more frequent in the VNR/CDDP arm than in the DCT/CDDP one. These data should be considered in treatment decision-making for pts with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer and for the design of future trials with chemotherapy plus biologics.

Weekly docetaxel vs. docetaxel-based combination chemotherapy as second-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients. The DISTAL-2 randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Doublet chemotherapy is more effective than single-agent as first line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). No reliable information instead is available on the effect of doublets in second line treatment. The aim of DISTAL-2 study was to compare two doublets containing docetaxel with single agent docetaxel as second line treatment of patients with NSCLC (ClinicalTrials.gov id.:.NCT00345059). METHODS: NSCLC patients, aged <75, PS 0-2, who had failed platinum-based chemotherapy, were randomly assigned with a 3:1:1 ratio to: arm A, weekly docetaxel (33.3mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, 15 q 4 weeks); arm B, weekly docetaxel (30 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, 15) plus gemcitabine (800 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8 q 4 weeks) or plus vinorelbine (20mg/m(2) on days 1, 8 q 4 weeks) depending on which of the two had been used in first line; arm C, weekly docetaxel (as in arm B) plus capecitabine (625 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 5-18 q 4 weeks). Primary end-point was overall survival (OS). Two comparisons were planned: arm B vs. A and arm C vs. A. Overall, 375 patients had to be randomized. Response was assessed by RECIST, quality of life (QoL) by EORTC questionnaires. RESULTS: 84 patients were randomized from May 2005 to December 2006, when the trial was prematurely stopped due to the slow accrual. After 62 deaths, median OS was 40.0 weeks in arm A, 32.6 weeks in arm B (p=0.18 vs. A) and 39.7 weeks in arm C (p=0.90 vs. A). Response rate was 6.4, 16.7 and 5.3%, and median progression-free survival was 12.4, 13.1 and 11.9 weeks, for arms A, B and C, respectively. Patients in arm B had significantly more grade 3-4 haematological and non-haematological toxicity compared to arm A, and patients in arm C had significantly more grade 3-4 non-haematological toxicity compared to arm A. No relevant differences were found in QoL analysis, with the exception of significant worsening in appetite, vomiting and hemoptysis for patients in arm B. CONCLUSION: Due to early termination, the trial does not have the planned statistical power. However, available data do not support the role of docetaxel-based combination chemotherapy as second line in advanced NSCLC.

Evolution of therapy decision-making process for advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

Advanced non-small cell lung cancer remains a lethal disease with poor prognosis. In the last decades results of systemic chemotherapy have reached a disappointing plateau without significant differences between the most widely employed third-generation regimens. Recent scientific evidence has shed new light on the management of advanced non-small cell lung cancer, especially for the important role of histological definition in therapy-planning process. The results of new biologic agents are also reported as are the promising data on pharmacogenomic-guided treatment.