RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: On the basis of the findings of the phase 3 PACIFIC trial (NCT02125461), durvalumab is standard of care for patients with stage III, unresectable NSCLC and no disease progression after concurrent chemoradiotherapy (cCRT). Many patients are considered unsuitable for cCRT owing to concerns with tolerability. The phase 2 PACIFIC-6 trial (NCT03693300) evaluates the safety and tolerability of durvalumab after sequential CRT (sCRT). METHODS: Patients with stage III, unresectable NSCLC and no progression after platinum-based sCRT were enrolled to receive durvalumab (1500 mg intravenously) every 4 weeks for up to 24 months. The primary end point was the incidence of grade 3 or 4 adverse events possibly related to treatment occurring within 6 months. Secondary end points included investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS; Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1) and overall survival. RESULTS: Overall, 117 patients were enrolled (59.8% with performance status >0, 65.8% aged ≥65 y, and 37.6% with stage IIIA disease). Median treatment duration was 32.0 weeks; 37.6% of patients remained on treatment at data cutoff (July 15, 2021). Grade 3 or 4 AEs occurred in 18.8% of patients. Five patients had grade 3 or 4 possibly related adverse events within 6 months (incidence: 4.3%; 95% confidence interval: 1.4-9.7), including two pneumonitis cases. Two patients (1.7%) had grade 5 AEs of any cause. Survival data maturity was limited. Median PFS was 10.9 months (95% confidence interval: 7.3-15.6), and 12-month PFS and overall survival rates were 49.6% and 84.1%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Durvalumab after sCRT had a comparable safety profile with that observed with durvalumab after cCRT in PACIFIC and had encouraging preliminary efficacy in a frailer population.
Assuntos
Carcinoma Pulmonar de Células não Pequenas , Neoplasias Pulmonares , Humanos , Neoplasias Pulmonares/tratamento farmacológico , Estadiamento de Neoplasias , Carcinoma Pulmonar de Células não Pequenas/tratamento farmacológico , QuimiorradioterapiaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Studies of patients with cancer affected by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are needed to assess the impact of the disease in this sensitive population, and the influence of different cancer treatments on the COVID-19 infection and seroconversion. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of all patients hospitalized with RT-PCR positive for COVID-19 in our region to assess the prevalence of cancer patients and describe their characteristics and evolution (Cohort 1). Concurrently, a transversal study was carried out in patients on active systemic cancer treatment for symptomatology and seroprevalence (IgG/IgM by ELISA-method) against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (Cohort 2). RESULTS: A total of 215 patients (Cohort 1) were admitted to hospital with a confirmed COVID-19 infection between February 28 and April 30, 2020, and 17 died (7.9%). A medical record of cancer was noted in 43 cases (20%), 6 of them required Intensive care unit ICU attention (14%), and 7 died (16%). There were thirty-six patients (83%) who tested IgG/IgM positive for SARS-CoV-2. Patients on immunosuppressive therapies presented a lower ratio of seroconversion (40% vs. 8%; p = 0.02). In Cohort 2, 166 patients were included in a symptoms-survey and tested for SARS-CoV-2. Any type of potential COVID-19-related symptom was referred up to 67.4% of patients (85.9% vs. 48.2% vs. 73.9%, for patients on chemotherapy, immunotherapy and targeted therapies respectively, p < 0.05). The seroprevalence ratio was 1.8% for the whole cohort with no significant differences by patient or treatment characteristics. CONCLUSION: Patients with cancer present higher risks for hospital needs for COVID-19 infection. The lack of SARS-CoV-2 seroconversion may be a concern for patients on immunosuppressive therapies. Patients receiving systematic therapies relayed a high rate of potentially COVID-19-related symptoms, particularly those receiving chemotherapy. However, the seroconversion rate remains low and in the range of general population.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Receptor activator of NF-kB ligand stimulates NF-kB-dependent cell signaling and acts as the primary signal for bone resorption. Retrospective analysis of a large trial comparing denosumab versus zoledronic acid in bone metastatic solid tumors suggested significant overall survival (OS) advantage for patients with lung cancer with denosumab (p = 0.01). The randomized open-label phase III SPLENDOUR trial was designed to evaluate whether the addition of denosumab to standard first-line platinum-based doublet chemotherapy improved OS in advanced NSCLC. METHODS: Patients with stage IV NSCLC were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either chemotherapy with or without denosumab (120 mg every 3-4 wks), stratified by the presence of bone metastases (at diagnosis), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, histology, and region. To detect an OS increase from 9 to 11.25 months (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.80), 847 OS events were required. The trial closed prematurely owing to decreasing accrual rate. RESULTS: A total of 514 patients were randomized, with 509 receiving one or more doses of the assigned treatment (chemotherapy: 252, chemotherapy-denosumab: 257). The median age was 66.1 years, 71% were men, and 59% were former smokers. Bone metastases were identified in 275 patients (53%). Median OS (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 8.7 (7.6-11.0) months in the control arm versus 8.2 (7.5-10.4) months in the chemotherapy-denosumab arm (HR = 0.96; 95% CI: 0.78-1.19; one-sided p = 0.36). For patients with bone metastasis, HR was 1.02 (95% CI: 0.77-1.35), whereas for those without, HR was 0.90 (95% CI: 0.66-1.23). Adverse events grade 3 or greater were observed in 40.9%, 5.2%, 8.7% versus 45.5%, 10.9%, 10.5% of patients. Conditional power for OS benefit was less than or equal to 10%. CONCLUSIONS: Denosumab was well-tolerated without unexpected safety concerns. There was no OS improvement for denosumab when added to chemotherapy in the intention-to-treat population and the subgroups with and without bone metastases. Our data do not provide evidence of a clinical benefit for denosumab in patients with NSCLC without bone metastases.
