Standardized and simplified reporting of next-generation sequencing results in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: Practical indications from an Italian multidisciplinary group.

Molecular biomarker testing is increasingly becoming standard of care for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Tissue and liquid biopsy-based next-generation sequencing (NGS) is now highly recommended and has become an integral part of the routine management of advanced NSCLC patients. This highly sensitive approach can simultaneously and efficiently detect multiple biomarkers even in scant samples. However full optimization of NGS in clinical practice requires accurate reporting and interpretation of NGS findings. Indeed, as the number of NSCLC biomarkers continues to grow, clinical reporting of NGS data is becoming increasingly complex. In this scenario, achieving standardization, simplification, and improved readability of NGS reports is key to ensuring timely and appropriate treatment decisions. In an effort to address the complexity and lengthy reporting of NGS mutation results, an Italian group of 14 healthcare professionals involved in NSCLC management convened in 2023 to address the content, structure, and ease-of-use of NGS reporting practices and proposed a standard report template for clinical use This article presents the key discussion points addressed by the Italian working group and describes the essential elements of the report template.

Delayed use of eribulin in a heavily pretreated liposarcoma patient, previously misdiagnosed as leiomyosarcoma.

Due to its low incidence, liposarcoma displays a limited number of therapeutic options. However, eribulin recently received approval for the treatment of advanced liposarcoma patients, progressing to at least two chemotherapy lines. We report herein the case of a man initially diagnosed with a leyomiosarcoma, subsequently reclassified as a dedifferentiated liposarcoma, who received eribulin after he failed several therapy lines. Eribulin provided our patient an 8-month disease control and a substantial clinical benefit with no relevant adverse effects, showing a good efficacy and safety profile despite its delayed employ. Additionally, this case strengthens the pivotal importance of molecular profiling in the management of soft tissue sarcomas.

Eribulin mesylate use as third-line therapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer (VESPRY): a prospective, multicentre, observational study.

BACKGROUND: In real-world practice, eribulin mesylate provides significant survival benefit, with a manageable safety profile in heavily pretreated patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). METHODS: In this prospective, open-label, multicentre, observational study we evaluated the effectiveness and tolerability of eribulin as third-line treatment in a homogeneous population. The primary endpoints were the safety profile and response in metastatic sites; secondary endpoints included the response in different subtypes, overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: From 2013 to 2016, 118 women were treated in 21 Sicilian institutions; the median age was 58 years (range 29-79), with 69% of patients under 65. The median cycles of eribulin were 5.5 (range 1-26). The most common adverse event was neutropenia (9.3%, 3 cases of grade 3, 4 of grade 4); only 1 case of QT prolongation was reported. Eribulin was effective in controlling metastatic disease in all sites, and it achieved the highest ORR in brain (16%) and liver (14.9%). Median OS was 31.8 months (95% CI 27.9-34.4) and median PFS 5.5 months (95% CI 4.2-6.6). PFS was 5.2 months (95% CI 2.8-8.4) in patients with triple-negative subtype. Median PFS was longer in patients over 65 years (6.1 months, 95% CI 4.4-8.3). In patients who had visceral metastases PFS was 5.5 months (95% CI 95% 3.5-6.6) and OS 33.9 months (95% CI 29.8-40.8). CONCLUSIONS: Eribulin as third-line treatment shows an acceptable safety profile and a substantial antitumour activity in the treatment of MBC, even in elderly patients and in those with visceral disease.

Clinical Features and Treatment Outcome of Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma.

BACKGROUND: Malignant pleural mesothelioma is a problematic condition due to poor prognosis and difficulties in management. We evaluated the treatment and outcome of 378 mesothelioma patients referred to 6 Italian Oncology Departments. METHODS: Demographic and clinical data were collected. Treatment was assessed in terms of chemotherapy (line of treatment, pemetrexed-based regimen, other therapies), surgery, and radiotherapy. Response to therapy, progression-free survival, and overall survival were evaluated. RESULTS: 36 and 342 patients received best supportive care and active treatment, respectively; 86 patients underwent surgery, and 26 received trimodal therapy. Disease control after first-line chemotherapy was achieved in 74.2% of patients (75.7% in patients treated with pemetrexed combined with other drugs and 69% with pemetrexed as monotherapy). The disease control rate was 82.6% in pemetrexed re-challenged individuals. Median survival time was 11.6 months with supportive care, 16.2 months with chemotherapy only, 32.4 months with surgery plus chemotherapy, and 47.2 months with trimodal therapy. A more favorable prognosis was observed in responders to first-line therapy who were then actively treated with second-line (24.8 vs. 11.8 months in non-responders, p < 0.001) and third-line chemotherapy (28.9 vs. 17.8 months in non-responders, p = 0.005). CONCLUSION: Mesothelioma patients benefited from chemotherapy alone only when retreated in the second line after response to first-line therapy.

Predictive and prognostic value of early response assessment using 18FDG-PET in advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients treated with erlotinib.

BACKGROUND: [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-PET is being evaluated as a tool for the early detection of response to various targeted agents in solid tumors. The aim of this study was to evaluate the predictive value of PET response after 2 days of erlotinib in unselected pretreated patients with stage IV NSCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: FDG-PET/CT scans were conducted at baseline and after 2 days of erlotinib, with a CT evaluation performed at baseline and after 45-60 days of therapy. PET responses were evaluated by quantitative changes on SUVmax tumor/non-tumor ratio and classified according to EORTC criteria. PET responses were compared with RECIST responses and related to progression-free (PFS) and overall (OS) survival. Erlotinib effects on glucose uptake were also studied in a panel of NSCLC cell lines. RESULTS: Fifty-three patients were enrolled. At 2 days of erlotinib, 20 (38 %) patients showed partial metabolic response (PMR), 25 (47 %) had stable metabolic disease (SMD) and 8 (15 %) had progressive metabolic disease (PMD). All patients with PMD had confirmed RECIST progression at 45-60 days. Patients with early PMR and SMD had significantly longer PFS (p < 0.001 and p = 0.001, respectively) and OS (p = 0.001 for both) than PMD patients. CONCLUSIONS: FDG-PET assessment after 2 days of erlotinib could be useful to identify early resistant patients and to predict survival in unselected NSCLC pretreated population.

Gemcitabine and vinorelbine in pemetrexed-pretreated patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma.

BACKGROUND: Pemetrexed-cisplatin chemotherapy is the standard of care in the first-line treatment of unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). Second-line cytotoxic therapy is considered for a growing group of patients, but the optimal treatment has not been defined to date. Gemcitabine and vinorelbine have shown activity in the first-line setting. The objective of this study was to evaluate the activity and toxicity of the gemcitabine-vinorelbine combination in pemetrexed-pretreated patients with MPM. METHODS: From January 2004 to September 2006, 30 consecutive patients who were pretreated with pemetrexed with or without a platinum-derivative were enrolled. Gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) and vinorelbine 25 mg/m(2) were administered intravenously on Days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks. Treatment was repeated for a maximum of 6 cycles or until progression or unacceptable toxicity. RESULTS: A partial response was observed in 3 patients (10%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.1-26.5%), and 10 patients (33.3%; 95% CI, 17.3-52.8%) had stable disease after treatment. Overall, 13 patients (43.3%; 95% CI, 25.5-62.6%) achieved disease control. The median time to progression was 2.8 months (range, 0.6-12.1 months), and the median survival was 10.9 months (range, 0.8-25.3 months). Hematologic toxicity was acceptable, with grade 3 or 4 neutropenia occurring in 11% of patients and thrombocytopenia occurring in 4% of patients; no case of febrile neutropenia was observed. Nonhematologic toxicity generally was mild. CONCLUSIONS: The gemcitabine and vinorelbine combination was moderately active and had an acceptable toxicity profile in pemetrexed-pretreated patients with MPM. The role of second-line treatment in MPM needs to be evaluated in prospective trials in large series of patients who are stratified according to previous treatment and prognostic factors.