Randomized open-label controlled study of cancer vaccine OSE2101 versus chemotherapy in HLA-A2-positive patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with resistance to immunotherapy: ATALANTE-1.

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with immune checkpoint blockers (ICBs) ultimately progress either rapidly (primary resistance) or after durable benefit (secondary resistance). The cancer vaccine OSE2101 may invigorate antitumor-specific immune responses after ICB failure. The objective of ATALANTE-1 was to evaluate its efficacy and safety in these patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: ATALANTE-1 was a two-step open-label study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of OSE2101 compared to standard-of-care (SoC) chemotherapy (CT). Patients with human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-A2-positive advanced NSCLC without actionable alterations, failing sequential or concurrent CT and ICB were randomized (2 : 1) to OSE2101 or SoC (docetaxel or pemetrexed). Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Interim OS futility analysis was planned as per Fleming design. In April 2020 at the time of interim analysis, a decision was taken to prematurely stop the accrual due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Final analysis was carried out in all patients and in the subgroup of patients with ICB secondary resistance defined as failure after ICB monotherapy second line ≥12 weeks. RESULTS: Two hundred and nineteen patients were randomized (139 OSE2101, 80 SoC); 118 had secondary resistance to sequential ICB. Overall, median OS non-significantly favored OSE2101 over SoC {hazard ratio (HR) [95% confidence interval (CI)] 0.86 [0.62-1.19], P = 0.36}. In the secondary resistance subgroup, OSE2101 significantly improved median OS versus SoC [11.1 versus 7.5 months; HR (95% CI) 0.59 (0.38-0.91), P = 0.017], and significantly improved post-progression survival (HR 0.46, P = 0.004), time to Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status deterioration (HR 0.43, P = 0.006) and Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30) global health status compared to SoC (P = 0.045). Six-month disease control rates and progression-free survival were similar between groups. Grade ≥3 adverse effects occurred in 11.4% of patients with OSE2101 and 35.1% in SoC (P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: In HLA-A2-positive patients with advanced NSCLC and secondary resistance to immunotherapy, OSE2101 increased survival with better safety compared to CT. Further evaluation in this population is warranted.

Osimertinib treatment based on plasma T790M monitoring in patients with EGFR-mutant non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC): EORTC Lung Cancer Group 1613 APPLE phase II randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The APPLE trial aimed to evaluate the feasibility of longitudinal plasma epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) T790M monitoring for the best sequencing strategy of gefitinib and osimertinib. METHODS: APPLE is a randomized, non-comparative, phase II study in patients with common EGFR-mutant, treatment-naive non-small-cell lung cancer including three arms: arm A (osimertinib upfront until RECIST progression, PD), arm B [gefitinib until emergence of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) EGFR T790M mutation by cobas EGFR test v2 or RECIST PD], and arm C (gefitinib until RECIST PD), and then switch to osimertinib in both arms. The primary endpoint is the progression-free survival (PFS) rate 'on osimertinib' at 18 months (PFSR-OSI-18) after randomization in arm B (H0: PFSR-OSI-18 of ≤40%). Secondary endpoints include response rate, overall survival (OS), and brain PFS. We report the results of arms B and C. RESULTS: From November 2017 to February 2020, 52 and 51 patients were randomized into arms B and C, respectively. Most patients were females (70%) and had EGFR Del19 (65%); one-third had baseline brain metastases. In arm B, 17% of patients (8/47) switched to osimertinib based on the emergence of ctDNA T790M mutation before RECIST PD, with a median time to molecular PD of 266 days. The study met its primary endpoint of PFSR-OSI-18 of 67.2% (84% confidence interval 56.4% to 75.9%) in arm B versus 53.5% (84% confidence interval 42.3% to 63.5%) in arm C, with a median PFS of 22.0 months versus 20.2 months, respectively. The median OS was not reached in arm B versus 42.8 months in arm C. Median brain PFS in arms B and C was 24.4 and 21.4 months, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The serial monitoring of ctDNA T790M status in advanced EGFR-mutant non-small-cell lung cancer during treatment with first-generation EGFR inhibitors was feasible, and a molecular progression before RECIST PD led to an earlier switch to osimertinib in 17% of patients with satisfactory PFS and OS outcomes.

The value of disease-free survival (DFS) and osimertinib in adjuvant non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC): an international Delphi consensus report.

BACKGROUND: Rates of disease recurrence and death following surgery remain high in early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), despite adjuvant treatment and curative intent. Recently, osimertinib showed overwhelming evidence for disease-free survival (DFS), as demonstrated by an overall reduction in the risk of disease recurrence or death in the adjuvant setting of 80% versus control in the ADAURA study (stage IB-IIIA; hazard ratio 0.20; 99.12% confidence interval 0.14-0.30; P < 0.001). However, due to the early unblinding of ADAURA and lack of mature overall survival data, there is a need to qualitatively confirm consensus on the clinical and patient relevance of DFS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a modified Delphi panel study consisting of two rounds of surveys, followed by a consensus meeting. An international panel of experts in the field of NSCLC and epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) (n = 13) was asked to rate agreement and comment on a list of pre-defined statements covering key consensus gaps. Statements were eliminated or updated between surveys, depending on the level of agreement. A final list of agreed-upon statements was drafted in the consensus meeting. RESULTS: Consensus was reached on 32 qualitative statements, with topics including unmet needs in early-stage NSCLC, the value of DFS, and the value of osimertinib. Crucially, DFS was agreed to be a clinically and patient-relevant endpoint in adjuvant NSCLC. The relevance of DFS was found to relate to the ability of an adjuvant therapy, such as osimertinib, to keep patients in the clinically valuable curative intent setting, while preventing the burden associated with distant and locoregional recurrence, and progressive disease. CONCLUSIONS: Addressing the need for measures that reflect clinical benefit is essential to continue improving outcomes for NSCLC patients. To that end, this work provides a qualitative framework for clinicians to consider the clinical and patient relevance of DFS in adjuvant NSCLC and the benefit demonstrated in ADAURA thus far.

A randomised phase II study of osimertinib and bevacizumab versus osimertinib alone as second-line targeted treatment in advanced NSCLC with confirmed EGFR and acquired T790M mutations: the European Thoracic Oncology Platform (ETOP 10-16) BOOSTER trial.

BACKGROUND: While osimertinib, a third-generation epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) is the standard treatment in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with sensitising EGFR and acquired T790M mutations, progression inevitably occurs. The angiogenic pathway is implicated in EGFR TKI resistance. PATIENTS AND METHODS: BOOSTER is an open-label randomised phase II trial investigating the efficacy and safety of combined osimertinib 80 mg daily and bevacizumab 15 mg/kg every 3 weeks, versus osimertinib alone, in patients with EGFR-mutant advanced NSCLC and acquired T790M mutations after failure on previous EGFR TKI therapy. Primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR) and adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: Between May 2017 and February 2019, 155 patients were randomised (combination: 78; osimertinib: 77). At data cut-off of 22 February 2021, median follow-up was 33.8 months [interquartile range (IQR): 26.5-37.6 months] and 129 (83.2%) PFS events were reported in the intention-to-treat population. There was no difference in median PFS between the combination [15.4 months; 95% confidence interval (CI) 9.2-18.0 months] and osimertinib arm (12.3 months; 95% CI 6.2-17.2 months; stratified log-rank P = 0.83), [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.96; 95% CI 0.68-1.37]. Median OS was 24.0 months (95% CI 17.8-32.1 months) in the combination arm and 24.3 months (95% CI 16.9-37.0 months) in the osimertinib arm (stratified log-rank P = 0.91), (HR = 1.03; 95% CI 0.67-1.56). Exploratory analysis revealed a significant interaction of smoking history with treatment for PFS (adjusted P = 0.0052) with a HR of 0.52 (95% CI 0.30-0.90) for smokers, and 1.47 (95% CI 0.92-2.33) for never smokers. ORR was 55% in both arms and the median time to treatment failure was significantly shorter in the combination than in the osimertinib arm, 8.2 months versus 10.8 months, respectively (P = 0.0074). Safety of osimertinib and bevacizumab was consistent with previous reports with grade ≥3 treatment-related AEs (TRAEs) reported in 47% and 18% of patients on combination and osimertinib alone, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: No difference in PFS was observed between osimertinib plus bevacizumab and osimertinib alone. Grade ≥3 TRAEs were more common in patients on combination.

Treatment strategy optimization for patients with non-small-cell lung cancer harboring EGFR mutation: a Delphi consensus

Aim To stablish a consensus on the treatment strategy for advanced non–small-cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) with epidermal growth factor receptor mutation (EGFRm) in Spain. Methods After a systematic literature review, the scientific committee developed 33 statements in 4 fields: molecular diagnosis (10 items); histologic profile and patient clinical characteristics (7 items); first-line (1L) treatment in EGFRm aNSCLC (8 items); and subsequent-line treatment (8 items). A panel of 31 experts completed 2 Delphi online questionnaires rating their degree of agreement/disagreement for each statement through a 1–9 range scale (1–3 = disagree, 7–9 = agree). Consensus was reached if 2/3 of the participants are in the median range. Results In the first Delphi round consensus was achieved for 24/33 of the statements. One of the assertions was deleted, proceeding to a second round with the eight remaining questions with no consensus or in the range of indeterminacy. Determination of the EGFR status from tissue and analysis of the different biomarkers are two important variables that influenced treatment decision in patients with aNSCLC. 1L treatment should be the best therapeutic option, independently of the subsequent lines of treatment. For patients with the most common activating mutations osimertinib was considered the most efficient and safe 1L option. In case of disease progression, a new biopsy was needed. Conclusions A consensus document is proposed to optimize the treatment strategy for untreated patients with a NSCLC with EGFR sensitizing mutations (AU)

SEOM clinical guidelines for the treatment of malignant pleural mesothelioma (2020)

Mesothelioma is a rare and aggressive tumour with dismal prognosis arising in the pleura and associated with asbestos exposure. Its incidence is on the rise worldwide. In selected patients with early-stage MPM, a maximal surgical cytoreduction in combination with additional antitumour treatment may be considered in selected patients assessed by a multidisciplinary tumor board. In patients with unresectable or advanced MPM, chemotherapy with platinum plus pemetrexed is the standard of care. Currently, no standard salvage therapy has been approved yet, but second-line chemotherapy with vinorelbine or gemcitabine is commonly used. Novel therapeutic approaches based on dual immunotherapy or chemotherapy plus immunotherapy demonstrated promising survival benefit and will probably be incorporated in the future (AU)

SEOM clinical guidelines for the treatment of malignant pleural mesothelioma (2020).

Mesothelioma is a rare and aggressive tumour with dismal prognosis arising in the pleura and associated with asbestos exposure. Its incidence is on the rise worldwide. In selected patients with early-stage MPM, a maximal surgical cytoreduction in combination with additional antitumour treatment may be considered in selected patients assessed by a multidisciplinary tumor board. In patients with unresectable or advanced MPM, chemotherapy with platinum plus pemetrexed is the standard of care. Currently, no standard salvage therapy has been approved yet, but second-line chemotherapy with vinorelbine or gemcitabine is commonly used. Novel therapeutic approaches based on dual immunotherapy or chemotherapy plus immunotherapy demonstrated promising survival benefit and will probably be incorporated in the future.

Gender influence on work satisfaction and leadership for medical oncologists: a survey of the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM).

BACKGROUND: Women represent an increasing proportion of the oncology workforce; however, globally this does not translate into leadership roles, reflecting disparities in career opportunities between men and women. The Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM) undertook a survey to investigate gender disparity in the Spanish oncology context. DESIGN: An online survey was made available to SEOM medical oncologists between February and May 2019. It included demographics, professional context and achievements, parenthood and family conciliation issues, workplace gender bias, and approaches to address disparities. RESULTS: Of the 316 eligible respondents, 71.5% were women, 59.5% were aged 45 or younger, and 66.1% had children. Among women, 12.4% were division or unit heads, compared with 45.5% of men, with most women (74.3%) being attending medical oncologists, compared with 45.5% of men. More males were professors (34.4% versus 14.2% of females), had a PhD (46.7% versus 28.8%), and/or had led clinical research groups (41.1% versus 9.7%). Spending time overseas after completing a residency was also more common for men than women (34.4% versus 20.4%). Professional satisfaction was similar between genders, driven primarily by patient care and intellectual stimulation. More women (40.7%) considered parenthood to have a strong negative impact on their career, compared with men (9.0%). Main perceived barriers to gender equality included a lack of work-life balance (72.6% women, 44.4% men), bias of peers and superiors (50.0% women, 18.9% men), and different career goals (41.2% women, 24.4% men). Preferred solutions included educational programs and scholarships (52.9%), communication and leadership training (35.8%), childcare at conferences (33.2%), and postmaternity return-to-work incentives (32.0%). CONCLUSION: There is a clear paucity of equal opportunities for female oncologists in Spain. This can be addressed by encouraging professional development and merit recognition particularly for younger female oncologists, and empowering women to be involved in management and leadership of institutions and professional societies.

Treatment strategy optimization for patients with non-small-cell lung cancer harboring EGFR mutation: a Delphi consensus.

AIM: To stablish a consensus on the treatment strategy for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) with epidermal growth factor receptor mutation (EGFRm) in Spain. METHODS: After a systematic literature review, the scientific committee developed 33 statements in 4 fields: molecular diagnosis (10 items); histologic profile and patient clinical characteristics (7 items); first-line (1L) treatment in EGFRm aNSCLC (8 items); and subsequent-line treatment (8 items). A panel of 31 experts completed 2 Delphi online questionnaires rating their degree of agreement/disagreement for each statement through a 1-9 range scale (1-3 = disagree, 7-9 = agree). Consensus was reached if 2/3 of the participants are in the median range. RESULTS: In the first Delphi round consensus was achieved for 24/33 of the statements. One of the assertions was deleted, proceeding to a second round with the eight remaining questions with no consensus or in the range of indeterminacy. Determination of the EGFR status from tissue and analysis of the different biomarkers are two important variables that influenced treatment decision in patients with aNSCLC. 1L treatment should be the best therapeutic option, independently of the subsequent lines of treatment. For patients with the most common activating mutations osimertinib was considered the most efficient and safe 1L option. In case of disease progression, a new biopsy was needed. CONCLUSIONS: A consensus document is proposed to optimize the treatment strategy for untreated patients with a NSCLC with EGFR sensitizing mutations.

A multicentre randomised phase III trial comparing pembrolizumab versus single-agent chemotherapy for advanced pre-treated malignant pleural mesothelioma: the European Thoracic Oncology Platform (ETOP 9-15) PROMISE-meso trial.

BACKGROUND: Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is an aggressive malignancy characterised by limited treatment options and a poor prognosis. At relapse after platinum-based chemotherapy, single-agent chemotherapy is commonly used and single-arm trials of immune-checkpoint inhibitors have demonstrated encouraging activity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: PROMISE-meso is an open-label 1:1 randomised phase III trial investigating the efficacy of pembrolizumab (200 mg/Q3W) versus institutional choice single-agent chemotherapy (gemcitabine or vinorelbine) in relapsed MPM patients with progression after/on previous platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients were performance status 0-1 and unselected for programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) status. At progression, patients randomly assigned to receive chemotherapy were allowed to crossover to pembrolizumab. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS), assessed by blinded independent central review (BICR). Secondary end points were overall survival (OS), investigator-assessed PFS, objective response rate (ORR), and safety. Efficacy by PD-L1 status was investigated in exploratory analyses. RESULTS: Between September 2017 and August 2018, 144 patients were randomly allocated (pembrolizumab: 73; chemotherapy: 71). At data cut-off [20 February 2019, median follow-up of 11.8 months (interquartile range: 9.9-14.5)], 118 BICR-PFS events were observed. No difference in BICR-PFS was detected [hazard ratio = 1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.73-1.53; P = 0.76], and median BICR-PFS (95% CI) for pembrolizumab was 2.5 (2.1-4.2), compared with 3.4 (2.2-4.3) months for chemotherapy. A difference in ORR for pembrolizumab was identified (22%, 95% CI: 13% to 33%), over chemotherapy (6%, 95% CI: 2% to 14%; P = 0.004). Forty-five patients (63%) assigned to chemotherapy received pembrolizumab at progression. With follow-up to 21 August 2019 [17.5 months: (14.8-19.7)], no difference in OS was detected between groups (HR = 1.12, 95% CI: 0.74-1.69; P = 0.59), even after adjusting for crossover. Pembrolizumab safety was consistent with previous observations. Exploratory efficacy analyses by PD-L1 status demonstrated no improvements in ORR/PFS/OS. CONCLUSION: This is the first randomised trial evaluating the efficacy of pembrolizumab in MPM patients progressing after/on previous platinum-based chemotherapy. In biologically unselected patients, although associated with an improved ORR, pembrolizumab improves neither PFS nor OS over single-agent chemotherapy.

Malignant pleural mesothelioma: Treatment patterns and outcomes from the Spanish Lung Cancer Group.

BACKGROUND: Malignant mesothelioma is a rare but aggressive tumor arising from the pleura, typically associated with exposure to asbestos. The purpose of this investigation was to describe mesothelioma patient characteristics, treatment patterns, and outcomes in Spain. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma of the pleura were recorded in an anonymous online database (BEMME, Epidemiologic Spanish Malignant Mesothelioma Database) from June 2008 through May 2013. Patient and tumor characteristics at time of diagnosis, as well as subsequent treatments (surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy), were collected. Among patients treated with chemotherapy, we explored type of chemotherapy regimen and outcomes by treatments. RESULTS: A total of 560 malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) patients were recorded. The median age at diagnosis was 68 years, mainly with epithelioid histology (62 %), and any asbestos exposure was noted in 45 % of patients. Nearly two-thirds of patients (71 %) received chemotherapy, mainly platinum-pemetrexed combination, as part of their treatment. Surgery and radiotherapy were given in 36 % and 17 % of patients, respectively. The median overall survival (OS) in the whole cohort was 13.0 months (95 % confidence interval (CI), 11.1-14.8 months) with 1-year OS of 53.2 % (95 % CI, 48.7-57.7 %). In patients receiving first-line chemotherapy (N = 315), the median OS was 13.4 months (95 % CI, 10.8-16.0 months), reaching 20.2 months (95 % CI, 17.2-23.2 months) for those 68 patients receiving maintenance chemotherapy. Results of multivariate analyses showed significant association of ECOG-performance status, histology and treatment response with improved OS in MPM patients treated with palliative chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Despite multimodal therapeutic intervention, survival of patients with mesothelioma in Spain remains poor. Although it did not reach significance in the multivariate analysis, a meaningful additional survival benefit was observed among those patients receiving maintenance chemotherapy.

Correction to: Liquid biopsy in oncology: a consensus statement of the Spanish Society of Pathology and the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology.

The article Liquid biopsy in oncology.

Treatment options beyond immunotherapy in patients with wild-type lung adenocarcinoma: a Delphi consensus.

PURPOSE: Immunotherapy-based approaches are standard first-line treatments for advanced/metastatic lung cancer or for chemoradiotherapy consolidation in locally advanced disease. Uncertainty on how to treat patients at disease progression prompted us to develop a consensus document on post-immunotherapy options in Spain for patients with advanced wild-type lung adenocarcinoma. METHODS: After extensive literature review, a 5-member scientific committee generated 33 statements in 4 domains: general aspects (n = 4); post-durvalumab in locally advanced disease (n = 6); post-first-line immunotherapy ± chemotherapy in advanced/metastatic disease (n = 11); and post-first-line platinum-based chemotherapy in advanced/metastatic disease (n = 12). A panel of 26 lung cancer experts completed 2 Delphi iterations through an online platform rating their degree of agreement/disagreement (first-round scale 1-5 and second-round scale 1-4, 1 = strongly disagree, 4/5 = strongly agree) for each statement. Second-round consensus: ≥ 70% of responses were in categories 1/2 (disagreement) or 3/4 (agreement). RESULTS: Consensus was reached for 2/33 statements in the first Delphi round and in 29/31 statements in the second round. Important variables informing treatment at disease progression with an immunotherapy-based treatment include: disease aggressiveness, previous treatment, accumulated toxicity, progression-free interval, PD-L1 expression, and tumour mutational burden. A platinum-based chemotherapy should follow a first-line immunotherapy treatment without chemotherapy. Treatment with docetaxel + nintedanib may be appropriate post-durvalumab in refractory patients or following progression to first-line chemotherapy + immunotherapy, or second-line chemotherapy after first-line immunotherapy, or first-line chemotherapy in some patients with low/negative PD-L1 expression, or second-line immunotherapy after first-line chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: To support decision making following progression to immunotherapy-based treatment in patients with advanced wild-type lung adenocarcinoma, a consensus document has been developed.

Liquid biopsy in oncology: a consensus statement of the Spanish Society of Pathology and the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology.

The proportion of cancer patients with tumours that harbour a potentially targetable genomic alteration is growing considerably. The diagnosis of these genomic alterations can lead to tailored treatment at the onset of disease or on progression and to obtaining additional predictive information on immunotherapy efficacy. However, in up to 25% of cases, the initial tissue biopsy is inadequate for precision oncology and, in many cases, tumour genomic profiling at progression is not possible due to technical limitations of obtaining new tumour tissue specimens. Efficient diagnostic alternatives are therefore required for molecular stratification, which includes liquid biopsy. This technique enables the evaluation of the tumour genomic profile dynamically and captures intra-patient genomic heterogeneity as well. To date, there are several diagnostic techniques available for use in liquid biopsy, each one of them with different precision and performance levels. The objective of this consensus statement of the Spanish Society of Pathology and the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology is to evaluate the viability and effectiveness of the different methodological approaches in liquid biopsy in cancer patients and the potential application of this method to current clinical practice. The experts contributing to this consensus statement agree that, according to current evidence, liquid biopsy is an acceptable alternative to tumour tissue biopsy for the study of biomarkers in various clinical settings. It is therefore important to standardise pre-analytical and analytical procedures, to ensure reproducibility and generate structured and accessible clinical reports. It is essential to appoint multidisciplinary tumour molecular boards to oversee these processes and to enable the most suitable therapeutic decisions for each patient according to the genomic profile.

SEOM clinical guidelines for the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (2018)

Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) accounts for up to 85% of all lung cancers. The last few years have seen the development of a new staging system, diagnostic procedures such as liquid biopsy, treatments like immunotherapy, as well as deeper molecular knowledge; so, more options can be offered to patients with driver mutations. Groups with specific treatments account for around 25% and demonstrate significant increases in overall survival, and in some subgroups, it is important to evaluate each treatment alternative in accordance with scientific evidence, and even more so with immunotherapy. New treatments similarly mean that we must reconsider what should be done in oligometastatic disease where local treatment attains greater value

No disponible

Clinical utility of plasma-based digital next-generation sequencing in patients with advance-stage lung adenocarcinomas with insufficient tumor samples for tissue genotyping.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 30% of tumor biopsies from patients with advanced-stage lung adenocarcinomas yield insufficient tissue for successful molecular subtyping. We have analyzed the clinical utility of next-generation sequencing (NGS) of cell-free circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in patients with inadequate tumor samples for tissue genotyping. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted the study in a multi-institutional prospective cohort of clinically unselected patients with advanced-stage lung adenocarcinomas with insufficient tissue for EGFR, ALK or ROS1 genotyping across 12 Spanish institutions (n = 93). ctDNA NGS was carried out by Guardant Health (Guardant360, Redwood City, CA), using a hybrid-capture-based 73-gene panel. Variants were deemed actionable if they were part of the OncoKB precision oncology knowledge database and classified in four levels of actionability based on their clinical or preclinical evidence for drug response. RESULTS: Eighty-three out of 93 patients (89%) had detectable levels of ctDNA. Potentially actionable level 1-4 genomic alterations were detected in 53 cases (57%), of which 13 (14%) had level 1-2A alterations (Food and Drug Administration-approved and standard-care biomarkers according to lung cancer guidelines). Frequencies of each genomic alteration in ctDNA were consistent with those observed in unselected pulmonary adenocarcinomas. The majority of the patients (62%), particularly those with actionable alterations (87%), had more than one pathogenic variant in ctDNA. The median turnaround time to genomic results was 13 days. Twelve patients (13%) received genotype-matched therapies based on ctDNA results, deriving the expected clinical benefit. Patients with co-occurring pathogenic alterations had a significantly shorter median overall survival as compared with patients without co-occurring pathogenic alteration (multivariate hazard ratio = 5.35, P = 0.01). CONCLUSION: Digital NGS of ctDNA in lung cancers with insufficient tumor samples for tissue sequencing detects actionable variants that frequently co-occur with other potentially clinically relevant genomic alterations, allowing timely initiation of genotype-matched therapies.

SEOM clinical guidelines for the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (2018).

Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) accounts for up to 85% of all lung cancers. The last few years have seen the development of a new staging system, diagnostic procedures such as liquid biopsy, treatments like immunotherapy, as well as deeper molecular knowledge; so, more options can be offered to patients with driver mutations. Groups with specific treatments account for around 25% and demonstrate significant increases in overall survival, and in some subgroups, it is important to evaluate each treatment alternative in accordance with scientific evidence, and even more so with immunotherapy. New treatments similarly mean that we must reconsider what should be done in oligometastatic disease where local treatment attains greater value.

ESCMID Study Group for Infections in Compromised Hosts (ESGICH) Consensus Document on the safety of targeted and biological therapies: an infectious diseases perspective (Cell surface receptors and associated signaling pathways).

BACKGROUND: The present review is part of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) Study Group for Infections in Compromised Hosts (ESGICH) consensus document on the safety of targeted and biologic therapies. AIMS: To review, from an infectious diseases perspective, the safety profile of therapies targeting cell surface receptors and associated signaling pathways among cancer patients and to suggest preventive recommendations. SOURCES: Computer-based Medline searches with MeSH terms pertaining to each agent or therapeutic family. CONTENT: Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-targeted agents (bevacizumab and aflibercept) are associated with a meaningful increase in the risk of infection, likely due to drug-induced neutropaenia, although no clear benefit is expected from the universal use of anti-infective prophylaxis. VEGF tyrosine kinase inhibitors (i.e. sorafenib or sunitinib) do not seem to significantly affect host's susceptibility to infection, and universal anti-infective prophylaxis is not recommended either. Anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) monoclonal antibodies (cetuximab or panitumumab) induce neutropaenia and secondary skin and soft tissue infection in cases of severe papulopustular rash. Systemic antibiotics (doxycycline or minocycline) should be administered to prevent the latter complication, whereas no recommendation can be established on the benefit from antiviral, antifungal or anti-Pneumocystis prophylaxis. A lower risk of infection is reported for anti-ErbB2/HER2 monoclonal antibodies (trastuzumab and pertuzumab) and ErbB receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (including dual-EGFR/ErbB2 inhibitors such as lapatinib or neratinib) compared to conventional chemotherapy, presumably as a result of the decreased occurrence of drug-induced neutropaenia. IMPLICATIONS: With the exception of VEGF-targeted agents, the overall risk of infection associated with the reviewed therapies seems to be low.

A consensus statement on the gender perspective in lung cancer

Lung cancer is the most common cancer globally and has the highest mortality. Although this disease is not associated with a particular gender, its incidence is rising among women, who are diagnosed at an increasingly younger age compared with men. One of the main reasons for this rise is women taking up smoking. However, many non-smoking women also develop this disease. Other risk factors implicated in the differential development of lung cancer in women are genetic predisposition, tumour histology and molecular profile. Proportionally more women than men with lung cancer have a mutation in the EGFR gene. This consensus statement reviews the available evidence about the epidemiological, biological, diagnostic, therapeutic, social and psychological aspects of lung cancer in women (AU)

No disponible

Medical oncology future plan of the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology: challenges and future needs of the Spanish oncologists

Purpose. The SEOM Future Plan is aimed at identifying the main challenges, trends and needs of the medical oncology speciality over the next years, including potential oncologist workforce shortages, and proposing recommendations to overcome them. Methods. The estimations of the required medical oncologists workforce are based on an updated Medical Oncologist Register in Spain, Medical Oncology Departments activity data, dedication times and projected cancer incidence. Challenges, needs and future recommendations were drawn from an opinion survey and an advisory board. Results. A shortage of 211 FTE medical oncologist specialists has been established. To maintain an optimal ratio of 158 new cases/FTE, medical oncology workforce should reach 1881 FTE by 2035. Conclusions. Main recommendations to face the growing demand and complexity of oncology services include a yearly growth of 2.5% of medical oncologist’s workforce until 2035, and development and application of more accurate quality indicators for cancer care and health outcomes measure (AU)

No disponible