Tumor Treating Fields therapy with standard systemic therapy versus standard systemic therapy alone in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer following progression on or after platinum-based therapy (LUNAR): a randomised, open-label, pivotal phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields) are electric fields that disrupt processes critical for cancer cell survival, leading to immunogenic cell death and enhanced antitumour immune response. In preclinical models of non-small-cell lung cancer, TTFields amplified the effects of chemotherapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors. We report primary results from a pivotal study of TTFields therapy in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. METHODS: This randomised, open-label, pivotal phase 3 study recruited patients at 130 sites in 19 countries. Participants were aged 22 years or older with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer progressing on or after platinum-based therapy, with squamous or non-squamous histology and ECOG performance status of 2 or less. Previous platinum-based therapy was required, but no restriction was placed on the number or type of previous lines of systemic therapy. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to TTFields therapy and standard systemic therapy (investigator's choice of immune checkpoint inhibitor [nivolumab, pembrolizumab, or atezolizumab] or docetaxel) or standard therapy alone. Randomisation was performed centrally using variable blocked randomisation and an interactive voice-web response system, and was stratified by tumour histology, treatment, and region. Systemic therapies were dosed according to local practice guidelines. TTFields therapy (150 kHz) was delivered continuously to the thoracic region with the recommendation to achieve an average of at least 18 h/day device usage. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. The safety population included all patients who received any study therapy and were analysed according to the actual treatment received. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02973789. FINDINGS: Between Feb 13, 2017, and Nov 19, 2021, 276 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive TTFields therapy with standard therapy (n=137) or standard therapy alone (n=139). The median age was 64 years (IQR 59-70), 178 (64%) were male and 98 (36%) were female, 156 (57%) had non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer, and 87 (32%) had received a previous immune checkpoint inhibitor. Median follow-up was 10·6 months (IQR 6·1-33·7) for patients receiving TTFields therapy with standard therapy, and 9·5 months (0·1-32·1) for patients receiving standard therapy. Overall survival was significantly longer with TTFields therapy and standard therapy than with standard therapy alone (median 13·2 months [95% CI 10·3-15·5] vs 9·9 months [8·1-11·5]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·74 [95% CI 0·56-0·98]; p=0·035). In the safety population (n=267), serious adverse events of any cause were reported in 70 (53%) of 133 patients receiving TTFields therapy plus standard therapy and 51 (38%) of 134 patients receiving standard therapy alone. The most frequent grade 3-4 adverse events were leukopenia (37 [14%] of 267), pneumonia (28 [10%]), and anaemia (21 [8%]). TTFields therapy-related adverse events were reported in 95 (71%) of 133 patients; these were mostly (81 [85%]) grade 1-2 skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders. There were three deaths related to standard therapy (two due to infections and one due to pulmonary haemorrhage) and no deaths related to TTFields therapy. INTERPRETATION: TTFields therapy added to standard therapy significantly improved overall survival compared with standard therapy alone in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer after progression on platinum-based therapy without exacerbating systemic toxicities. These data suggest that TTFields therapy is efficacious in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer and should be considered as a treatment option to manage the disease in this setting. FUNDING: Novocure.

Radiation Therapy in the Last Month of Life: Association With Aggressive Care at the End of Life.

CONTEXT: Half of the patients with cancer who undergo radiation therapy do so with palliative intent. OBJECTIVES: To determine the proportion of undergoing radiation in the last month of life, patient characteristics, cancer course, the type and duration of radiation, whether palliative care was involved, and the of radiation with aggressive cancer care metrics. METHODS: One thousand seven hundred twenty-seven patients who died of cancer between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2019, were included. Demographics, cancer stage, palliative care referral, advance directives, use of home health care, radiation timing, and survival were collected. Type of radiation, course, and intent were reviewed. Chi-square analysis was utilized for categorical variables, and Kruskal-Wallis tests for continuous variables. A stepwise selection was used to build a Cox proportional hazard model. RESULTS: Two hundred thirty-three patients underwent radiation in the last month of life. Younger patients underwent radiation 67.3 years (SD 11.52) versus 69.2 years (SD 11.96). 42.6% had radiation within two weeks of death. The average fraction number was 5.5. Individuals undergoing radiation were more likely to start chemotherapy within the last 30 days of life, continue chemotherapy within two weeks of death, be admitted to the ICU, and have two or more hospitalizations or emergency room visits. Survival measured from the date of diagnosis was shorter for those undergoing radiation, 122 days (IQR 58-462) versus 474 days (IQR 225-1150). Palliative care consultations occurred later in those undergoing radiation therapy. CONCLUSION: Radiation therapy in the last month of life occurs in younger patients with rapidly progressive cancer, who are subject to more aggressive cancer care, and have late palliative care consults.

Validation of the Surprise Question and the Development of a Multivariable Model.

CONTEXT: The Surprise Question (SQ) (would you be surprised if this patient died within a year?) is a prognostic variable explored in chronic illnesses. Validation is limited to sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values. OBJECTIVES: Our objective is to validate the SQ in cancer patients and develop a predictive model with additional variables. METHODS: A prospective cohort study of adult (age>18) cancer patients seen between October 1, 2019, through March 31, 2021, undergoing systemic therapies had the SQ completed by oncologists prior to each change in systemic therapy. The primary outcome was survival for one year. Secondary outcomes were predictions of survival at three, six, and nine months. Patients were grouped into negative SQ (not surprised) and positive SQ (surprised). Sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and likelihood ratios (LR) were calculated for the SQ. Additional prognostic variables were age, gender, cancer stage, line of therapy, Charleson Comorbid Index (CCI), palliative care consultation (prior to, after the SQ, or not at all), and healthcare utilization (outpatient, inpatient, and emergency department (ED). Logistic regression and receiver operating characteristics (ROC) were used for discrimination and modeling. Akaike information criterion (AIC) was used to compare the model fit as each predictor. RESULTS: 1366 patients had 1 SQ; 784 died within a year. The SQ predicted survival at one year (P = 0.008), with a positive LR of 1.459 (95%CI 1.316-1.602) and a c-statistic of 0.565 (95%CI 0.530-0.600). Additional variables increased the c-statistic to 0.648 (95% CI 0.608-0.686). The total model best predicted survival at three months, c-statistic of 0.663 (95% CI 0.616-0.706). However, the total model c-statistic remained <0.70. CONCLUSIONS: The SQ, as a single factor, poorly predicts survival and should not be used to alter therapies. Adding additional objective variables improved prognostication, but further refinement and external validation are needed.

The Financial Impact of Palliative Care and Aggressive Cancer Care on End-of-Life Health Care Costs.

BACKGROUND: Medicare cancer expenditures in the last month of life have increased. Aggressive cancer care at the end-of-life (ACEOL) is considered poor quality care. We used Geisinger Health Plan (GHP) last month's costs for cancer patients who died in 2018 and 2019 to determine the costs of and influence of Palliative Care (PC) on ACEOL. METHOD: Patients with GHP ages 18-99 who died in 2018 and 2019 were included. Demographic, clinical characteristics, and Charlson Comorbid Index were compared across care groups defined as no ACEOL indicator, 1 or more than 1 indicator. Differences between groups were compared with Kruskal-Wallis tests and one-way ANOVA for 3 groups. Median two-sample tests and independent t-tests compared groups of 2. A P-value 1. There were incremental cost increases with each additional ACEOL indicator (p = < .0001). Palliative Care <90 days before death was associated with increased costs while consultations >90 days before death lowered cost (P < .0001) due to reduced chemotherapy in the last month. Completed ADs reduced cost by $4000. DISCUSSION: ACEOL indicators multiply costs during the last month of life. Palliative care instituted >90 days before death reduces chemotherapy in the last month of life and AD reduces health care costs. CONCLUSION: Cancer health care costs increase with indicators of ACEOL. Palliative care consultations >90 days before death; ADs reduce cancer health care costs.

When does early palliative care influence aggressive care at the end of life?

BACKGROUND: Early palliative care improves patient quality of life and influences cancer care. The time frame of early has not been established. Eight quality measures reflect aggressive care at the end of life. We retrospectively reviewed patients who died with cancer between January 1, 2018, through December 31, 2019, and compared the timing of palliative care consultation, advance directives (AD), and home palliative care with aggressive care at the end of life (ACEOL). METHODS: Patients without ACEOL indicators were compared to patients with one or more than one indicator of ACEOL. The proportion of patients who received palliative care, completed AD, and the timing of palliative care and AD (less than 30 days, 30-90 days, and greater than 90 days prior to death) was compared for patients who had ACEOL versus those who did not. Chi-square analysis was used for categorical data, one-way ANOVA for continuous variables, and odds ratio (OR) with confidence intervals (CI) was reported as a measure of effect size. A p value ≤ 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: 1727 patients died, 46% were female, and the mean age was 69 (SD 11.91). Seventy-one percent had a palliative care consult, 26% completed AD, and 888 (51.4%) had at least one indicator of ACEOL. The most common indicator of ACEOL was new chemotherapy within 30 days of death, in 571 of 888 (64%) of patients experiencing ACEOL. ADs completed at any time reduced ACEOL (OR 0.80, 95%CI 0.64-0.99). Palliative care initiated at 30 days was associated with a greater risk of ACEOL (OR 5.32, 95% CI 3.94-7.18) and initiated between 30 and 90 days (OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.07-1.80) compared to no palliative care but was associated with reduced chemotherapy as an indicator of ACEOL when > 90 days (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.38-0.57) before death. DISCUSSION: Completed ADs were associated with reduced chemotherapy in the last 30 days of life and reduced ICU admissions. This may reflect goals of care and end-of-life discussions and transition of care to comfort measures. Palliative care paradoxically when initiated within 90 days before death was associated with greater ACEOL compared to no palliative care. This may be due to consultation late in the course of illness with a focus on crisis management in patients frequently utilizing the health care system. There is an associated reduction in the use of chemotherapy in the last 30 days of life if palliative care is consulted 90 days prior to death. CONCLUSIONS: An initial palliative care consult greater than 90 days before death and ADs completed at any time during the disease trajectory was associated only with reduced chemotherapy in the last 30 days of life compared with no palliative care among the 7 ACEOL indicators. ADs were associated with reduced ICU admissions. Most palliative care consults occurred within 90 days of death and a palliative care consult within 90 days of death is not an optimal utilization of services.

Case series review of neuroradiologic changes associated with immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy.

While immuno-oncotherapy (IO) has significantly improved outcomes in the treatment of systemic cancers, various neurological complications have accompanied these therapies. Treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) risks multi-organ autoimmune inflammatory responses with gastrointestinal, dermatologic, and endocrine complications being the most common types of complications. Despite some evidence that these therapies are effective to treat central nervous system (CNS) tumors, there are a significant range of related neurological side effects due to ICIs. Neuroradiologic changes associated with ICIs are commonly misdiagnosed as progression and might limit treatment or otherwise impact patient care. Here, we provide a radiologic case series review restricted to neurological complications attributed to ICIs, anti-CTLA-4, and PD-L-1/PD-1 inhibitors. We report the first case series dedicated to the review of CNS/PNS radiologic changes secondary to ICI therapy in cancer patients. We provide a brief case synopsis with neuroimaging followed by an annotated review of the literature relevant to each case. We present a series of neuroradiological findings including nonspecific parenchymal and encephalitic, hypophyseal, neural (cranial and peripheral), meningeal, cavity-associated, and cranial osseous changes seen in association with the use of ICIs. Misdiagnosis of radiologic abnormalities secondary to neurological immune-related adverse events can impact patient treatment regimens and clinical outcomes. Rapid recognition of various neuroradiologic changes associated with ICI therapy can improve patient tolerance and adherence to cancer therapies.

Patient-Centered Standards for Medically Integrated Dispensing: ASCO/NCODA Standards.

PURPOSE: To provide standards for medically integrated dispensing of oral anticancer drugs and supportive care medications. METHODS: An Expert Panel was formed, and a systematic review of the literature on patient-centered best practices for the delivery of oral anticancer and supportive care drugs was performed to April 2019 using PubMed and Google Scholar. Available patient-centered standards, including one previously developed by the National Community Oncology Dispensing Association (NCODA), were considered for endorsement. Public comments were solicited and considered in preparation of the final manuscript. RESULTS: A high-quality systematic review that was current to May 2016 was adopted into the evidence base. Five additional primary studies of multifaceted interventions met the inclusion criteria. These studies generally included a multicomponent intervention, often led by an oncology pharmacist, and also included patient education and regular follow-up and monitoring. These interventions resulted in significant improvements to patient quality and safety and demonstrated improvements in adherence and other patient outcomes. CONCLUSION: The findings of the systematic review were consistent with the NCODA patient-centered standards for patient relationships and education, adherence, safety, collection of data, documentation, and other areas. NCODA standards were adopted and used as basis for these American Society of Clinical Oncology/NCODA standards. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/mid-standards.

Sarcopenia associated with chemotherapy and targeted agents for cancer therapy.

Clinicians often believe that cachexia is caused by cancer and anorexia as a toxicity of chemotherapy or targeted anti-cancer agents. It is now recognized that chemotherapy and certain targeted agents cause sarcopenia which reduce physical function and quality of life. Pre-treatment sarcopenia predicts chemotherapy toxicity, reduced response, increased disability, poor anti-tumor response and survival. Though bioelectrical impedance and dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) scans have been used in the past for body composition measurements, CT scan cuts at the level of the 3rd lumbar vertebral body with measurement of skeletal muscle and visceral and subcutaneous fat areas has become standard. Nonpharmacological approaches to reducing sarcopenia during chemotherapy includes resistance training and dietary counselling. Pharmacologic therapies include vitamin D replacement if depleted, omega-3 fatty acids, testosterone and selective androgen receptor modulators (SARMS) and ghrelin. A comprehensive multimodal and multiple drug approach is likely to be better than single modalities. However, this is yet to be proven. Finally, it is not known if intervening to prevent or reverse sarcopenia will have a clinical benefit in terms of better tolerance to cancer therapy, physical function, well-being, tumor response and survival. Reversing sarcopenia and improving objective outcomes should be the goal of therapy.

Checkpoint Inhibitors, Palliative Care, or Hospice.

PURPOSE: Checkpoint (CTLA-4, PD-1, and PD-L1) inhibitors have changed the face of oncology. A subset of patients enjoys long, gratifying treatment responses. Unfortunately, most patients do not respond even when expressing favorably markers such as PD-L1. Checkpoint inhibitors are largely palliative (though a subset have long-term cancer responses) and as such patient-related outcome measures should be included when evaluating benefits. The purpose of this review is to place checkpoint inhibitor trials within a palliation context. Included is a discussion on potential adverse effects on end-of-life care. RECENT FINDINGS: Pivotal studies have presented efficacy and safety data but we have little published data on quality of life or symptom responses. Extension of life is approximately 2-3 months with some long-term responses in a minority of patients. The cost of checkpoint inhibitors is high for utility (as measured by quality-adjusted life-year saved) and ranges from 81,000 to over 200,000 USD for quality-adjusted life-year saved. Adverse effects were suboptimally reported in multiple studies. Meaningful responses in many trials as defined by the European Society of Medical Oncology are modest. Because at least for now, checkpoint inhibitors are used in advanced cancer and largely palliative patients should be seen by palliative specialists, symptoms related to cancer assessed, and advanced directives addressed. Treatment-related autoimmune diseases represent toxicities which oncologists and palliative specialists must understand. This means that palliative care specialists should know about the benefits and adverse effects of these agents. Whether checkpoint inhibitors increase or decrease aggressive care, hospice referrals, and costs at the end of life is yet to be determined.

The emerging role of cetuximab in head and neck cancer: a 2007 perspective.

The integration of targeted therapies into clinical practice constitutes the paradigm of oncology treatment in the current era. Cetuximab, a recombinant human/mouse chimeric epidermal growth factor (EGFR) monoclonal antibody is a targeted agent that has seen expanding indication in recent years. Originally approved for colorectal cancer, its role in the treatment of squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck has augmented treatment options for patients who are refractory to or cannot tolerate platinum. This article will review the science underlying cetuximab, data supporting its use in patients with locally advanced and recurrent/metastatic disease, common toxicities of therapy, and the integration of this treatment with radiation therapy.

Phase I/II randomized trial of intrahepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy with cisplatin and chemoembolization with cisplatin and polyvinyl sponge in patients with ocular melanoma metastatic to the liver.

Ocular melanoma has a unique metastatic predilection for the liver and is refractory to most forms of therapy. The dual blood supply of the liver with differential perfusion of metastatic lesions and normal hepatocytes by the hepatic artery and portal vein, respectively, has led to the evaluation of intrahepatic chemotherapy and chemoembolization in this disease. Despite suggestion of efficacy in phase II trials, this therapy has not been systematically evaluated. We conducted a randomized phase I/II trial evaluating escalating doses of intrahepatic chemotherapy with cisplatin with or without polyvinyl sponge (PVS) in 19 patients with ocular melanoma and liver metastases. The cisplatin dose was initiated at 100 mg/m and was increased in 25% increments. Patients were randomized to receive cisplatin alone or cisplatin plus PVS. Seven patients were treated with intrahepatic cisplatin at 100 mg/m: four with PVS, and three without. The dose was escalated to 125 mg/m with or without PVS in the remaining 12 patients. The maximum tolerated dose for intra-hepatic cisplatin was determined to be 125 mg/m with or without PVS. The overall response rate was 16%. Dose-limiting toxicities included renal, hepatic and haematological effects. This therapy produces a modest response rate in patients with ocular melanoma and liver metastases.