The effects of adding palbociclib to endocrine therapy to treat advanced breast cancer: a plain language summary of a study using the PALOMA-2 and PALOMA-3 trial results.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This is a summary of an article that reported results of a study using data from two phase 3 clinical trials called "PALOMA-2" and "PALOMA-3." Both PALOMA-2 and PALOMA-3 trials included women with HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer. HR+/HER2- breast cancer means the breast cancer cells of these women have receptors for female sex hormones and little or no HER2 receptors. Both PALOMA trials tested the effect of adding a medication called palbociclib (brand name, Ibrance®) to a hormone therapy. Hormone therapy, also known as endocrine therapy, is a treatment that blocks or removes hormones that cause cancer cells to grow and divide. In both trials, women took endocrine therapy with either palbociclib or a placebo. WHAT WAS THE AIM OF THIS STUDY?: The researchers aimed to see if the results from the PALOMA trials were similar for subgroups of women in the 2 trials. The subgroups in the study included women who shared certain features about their cancer or treatment history, for example, women whose cancer had spread to the liver. For each subgroup, the study compared the results from the 2 treatment groups: (1) women who took palbociclib plus endocrine therapy, and (2) women who took placebo plus endocrine therapy. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS & WHAT DO THEY MEAN?: The same effect was found in all subgroups. Compared with those who took placebo, women who took palbociclib lived longer without their cancer getting worse (growing or spreading). Also, among women who had chemotherapy after stopping the trial treatment, those who took palbociclib started chemotherapy later than those who took placebo. Because palbociclib slows cancer growth and leads to tumor shrinkage, this may have played a part in starting chemotherapy later. These results show that palbociclib plus endocrine therapy is better at slowing the progression of advanced HR+/HER2- breast cancer than endocrine therapy alone. This can be said for women with different advanced HR+/HER2- breast cancer features and treatment history. Overall, the results support women taking palbociclib with an endocrine therapy if they have advanced HR+/HER2- breast cancer.

A plain language summary exploring a new treatment combination for untreated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer: enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This summary provides the results of a study of two treatments for cancer, enfortumab vedotin and pembrolizumab, that were studied together against locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer (la/mUC), a cancer that occurs most commonly in the bladder. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS?: In the 45 patients studied, around 16% did have serious side effects, but most side effects were manageable. Twenty-four percent of patients, however, stopped the study treatment because of their side effects. Within about 2 months of starting treatment, most patients' (73%) tumors were smaller and stayed smaller, on average, for more than 2 years. WHAT DO THE RESULTS MEAN?: The combination of enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab is a new treatment option for patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer when they cannot receive the typical treatment, cisplatin. Advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer is a type of cancer where the cancer has already spread outside of the bladder or urinary tract.

Plain language summary of erdafitinib in locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma: a phase 2 study with long-term follow-up.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This is a plain language summary of two articles describing the results from a study called BLC2001. The study examined the effect of a medication called erdafitinib on participants with a type of cancer known as urothelial carcinoma that had either spread beyond the bladder or urinary tract into surrounding organs and/or nearby muscles (locally advanced) and was not removable by surgery (unresectable) or had spread to other parts of the body (metastatic). In this study, researchers wanted to learn if erdafitinib was safe and effective at stopping or reducing tumor growth in participants with locally advanced and unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma with certain genetic alterations (changes in DNA sequence) in two related genes called fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 (FGFR2) and 3 (FGFR3). Treatment options for people with this disease are very limited; some may not have responded to other therapies, or their tumors continued to grow after they received other treatments. 212 participants took part in the study. 111 participants were treated with oral (by mouth) erdafitinib at different doses to find a recommended dose regimen. 101 additional participants then received the recommended starting dose of erdafitinib at 8 mg daily with possible increase to 9 mg daily, these participants make up the 8 mg regimen group. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS OF THE BLC2001 STUDY IN THE 8 MG REGIMEN GROUP?: Researchers found that tumors decreased in size or completely disappeared in 40% of participants. With approximately 1 year of follow-up, an estimated 55% of participants were still alive, and after 2 years, an estimated 31% of participants were still alive. Common side effects of erdafitinib included high phosphate levels in the blood (hyperphosphatemia), an inflamed and sore mouth, diarrhea, and dry mouth. WHAT DO THE RESULTS MEAN?: Participants had locally advanced and unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma with certain FGFR gene alterations that had been treated with erdafitinib after previous chemotherapy and/or a type of medicine that uses the immune system to help the body fight cancer (immunotherapy). The BLC2001 study found that some participants treated with 8 mg erdafitinib had the benefit of a longer period without their cancer growing or spreading to other parts of the body. About 80% of participants achieved some level of disease control where their tumor shrank or remained stable.

Abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy for HR+, HER2-, node-positive, high-risk early breast cancer: a plain language summary of the monarchE study.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This article summarizes the most recent results of the monarchE study. This study was completed in participants with a type of breast cancer called HR+, HER2-, node-positive, high-risk early breast cancer. In this study, abemaciclib, a non-chemotherapy treatment, was administered with standard of care endocrine therapy after curative surgery. Most participants had received prior chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy. The study investigated if abemaciclib helped participants live longer without their cancer returning compared with participants who only received standard of care endocrine therapy. The study participants were assigned to 1 of 2 treatment groups. Participants in Group A were assigned to receive standard of care endocrine therapy with abemaciclib for 2 years, followed by endocrine therapy for a total of at least 5 years. Participants in Group B were assigned to receive standard of care endocrine therapy only for at least 5 years. The effect of treatment was compared between these 2 groups. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS?: Overall, the results showed that the cancer was 34% less likely to come back after surgery in the participants in Group A (abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy) compared with those in Group B (endocrine therapy only). At 4 years since the start of the study treatment, more participants who received the combination of abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy remained free of cancer compared with participants who received endocrine therapy alone (86% versus 79%). Participants who received abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy had more side effects than those who received endocrine therapy alone, but most of these effects were mild to moderate and reversible upon the end of therapy. The most common side effects in the abemaciclib group were diarrhea, infections, low number of white blood cells, and tiredness. WHAT DO THE RESULTS MEAN?: This study found that administering abemaciclib in combination with standard endocrine therapy after curative breast surgery helped lower the risk of cancer returning in people with HR+, HER2-, node-positive, high-risk early breast cancer. Abemaciclib is a new treatment option for people with this diagnosis. People with high-risk early breast cancer should always talk to their doctors and nurses before making any decisions about their treatment.Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03155997 (monarchE study).

Plain language summary of the CheckMate 76K study results: nivolumab given after stage 2B/2C melanoma is removed by surgery.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: In this article, we summarize results from the ongoing phase 3 CheckMate 76K clinical study published online in Nature Medicine in October 2023. The study goal was to learn whether nivolumab works as an adjuvant therapy (that is, helps to keep cancer from coming back when it is given after surgery) for stage 2 melanoma (skin cancer) that has not spread to other parts of the body. Nivolumab is an immunotherapy that activates a person's immune system so it can destroy cancer cells. In melanoma, staging describes the severity of the cancer. Melanoma staging ranges from 0 (very thin and confined to the upper layer of the skin) to 4 (spread to distant parts of the body), with earlier stages removed by surgery. The people in this study had stage 2 melanoma that had not spread to the lymph nodes or other organs in the body. HOW WAS THE STUDY DESIGNED?: People 12 years and older with stage 2 melanoma that had not spread and had been removed by surgery were included in CheckMate 76K. People were randomly assigned to receive either nivolumab (526 patients) or placebo (264 patients). A placebo resembles the test medicine but does not contain any active medicines. The researchers assessed whether people who received nivolumab lived longer without their cancer returning and/or spreading to other parts of their bodies (compared with placebo) and if nivolumab was well tolerated. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS?: Researchers found that people who received nivolumab were 58% less likely to have their cancer return and 53% less likely of having their cancer spread to distant parts of their body, compared with placebo. These reductions in risk with nivolumab were seen in different subgroups of people with a range of characteristics, and regardless of how deep the melanoma had gone into the skin. People taking nivolumab had more side effects than those taking placebo, but most were mild to moderate and manageable. WHAT DO THE RESULTS MEAN?: Results from CheckMate 76K support the benefit of using nivolumab as a treatment option for people with stage 2 melanoma post-surgery.

Zolbetuximab plus chemotherapy for locally advanced unresectable or metastatic stomach or gastroesophageal junction cancers: a plain language summary.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This is a summary of two articles. The first article is about a clinical trial called SPOTLIGHT and it was published in the medical journal The Lancet in in April of 2023. The second article is about a clinical trial called GLOW and it was published in the medical journal Nature Medicine in July of 2023. WHAT ARE THE KEY TAKEAWAYS?: Until recently, chemotherapy was the first treatment given to people with stomach cancer or gastroesophageal junction (or GEJ) cancer that is locally advanced unresectable or metastatic. When cancer cells have high amounts of the protein CLDN18.2 but do not have high amounts of the protein HER2, the cancer is known as CLDN18.2-positive (or CLDN18.2+) and HER2-negative (or HER2-). New medicines to treat cancer are being developed. These medicines attach to proteins on cancer cells to help the body recognize and kill cancer cells.The clinical trials SPOTLIGHT and GLOW included participants with CLDN18.2+ and HER2- stomach or GEJ cancer that was locally advanced unresectable or metastatic. These trials looked at whether adding a medicine called zolbetuximab to chemotherapy as the first treatment for cancer helped people live longer before their tumors grew bigger or new tumors grew, after starting the trial. These studies also looked at whether adding zolbetuximab to chemotherapy helped people live longer after starting the trial. WHAT WERE THE MAIN CONCLUSIONS REPORTED BY THE RESEARCHERS?: In SPOTLIGHT and GLOW, on average, participants assigned to zolbetuximab plus chemotherapy lived 1.4 to 1.9 months longer before their tumors grew bigger or new tumors grew, after starting the trial, than participants assigned to a placebo plus chemotherapy. On average, participants assigned to zolbetuximab plus chemotherapy also lived 2.2 to 2.7 months longer, after starting the trial, than participants assigned to a placebo plus chemotherapy. These results suggest that zolbetuximab plus chemotherapy could be a new first treatment for people with CLDN18.2+ and HER2- stomach or GEJ cancer that is locally advanced unresectable or metastatic.Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03504397 (SPOTLIGHT); NCT03653507 (GLOW).

The clinical trials SPOTLIGHT and GLOW showed that, on average, participants with stomach or GEJ cancer assigned to zolbetuximab plus chemotherapy lived 2.2 to 2.7 months longer than participants assigned to a placebo plus chemotherapy.

A plain language summary of the TROPiCS-02 study in patients with breast cancer (HR-positive/HER2-negative).

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: Sacituzumab govitecan (brand name: TRODELVY®) is a new treatment for certain types of advanced or metastatic breast cancer. One common type of breast cancer has at least 1 of 2 hormone receptors (HR positive) and does not have human epidermal growth factor 2 (HER2 negative). The HR and HER2 receptors are known to influence how severe a case of breast cancer is. Certain treatments will only work if a specific receptor is present on breast cancer cells. HR-positive/HER2-negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer can be treated with sacituzumab govitecan. This is a summary of the results of the TROPiCS-02 study. This study compared sacituzumab govitecan with standard chemotherapy in participants with HR-positive/HER2-negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS?: The study showed that participants treated with sacituzumab govitecan lived significantly longer without their cancer getting worse than participants treated with chemotherapy. Participants also survived significantly longer and their tumors became significantly smaller in more participants treated with sacituzumab govitecan than with chemotherapy. In general, participants treated with sacituzumab govitecan were more likely to have side effects and had more severe side effects. These side effects included low levels of a type of white blood cell known as neutrophils and diarrhea. Oncologists (doctors that treat cancer) know of these side effects as they are common among people being treated for cancer. Doctors can control these side effects by following standard treatment guidelines and the package insert for sacituzumab govitecan. Participants treated with sacituzumab govitecan maintained their sense of well-being and ability to do daily activities (quality of life) longer than participants treated with chemotherapy. It also took longer for fatigue and other symptoms of cancer to worsen in participants treated with sacituzumab govitecan compared with chemotherapy. WHAT DO THE RESULTS MEAN?: Sacituzumab govitecan is more effective than standard chemotherapies for people who have already received multiple treatments for HR-positive/ HER2-negative advanced breast cancer. The side effects from sacituzumab govitecan could generally be managed well by doctors. Although there were more side effects with sacituzumab govitecan than with chemotherapy, they were generally mild to moderate.

2022 cancer statistics: Focus on lung cancer.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This is a plain language summary of a medical journal article called 'Cancer statistics, 2022'. The data in this summary provides detailed information about lung cancer and less detailed information about other cancers. The researchers from the original study used data gathered from previous years to produce a cancer forecast, predicting the number of new cancer diagnoses and deaths in the United States in 2022. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS?: The review of the data up to 2019 found that compared to previous years: Advanced lung cancer diagnoses had decreased Local stage lung cancer diagnoses had increased Deaths had slowed for lung cancer Deaths continued to reduce for breast cancer, but the rate of this reduction had slowed down Female breast cancer diagnoses were slowly increasing each year Prostate cancer diagnoses stayed similar Local stage prostate cancer diagnoses stayed similar Advanced prostate cancer diagnoses had increased each year The researchers estimated that over 1.9 million new cancer cases would be diagnosed and over half a million cancer deaths would occur in the United States in 2022. This figure includes approximately 350 deaths per day from lung cancer, which was found to be the leading cause of cancer death in the United States. WHAT DO THE RESULTS OF THE STUDY MEAN?: The study found that progress in reducing the number of people being diagnosed with breast and prostate cancer has stalled. Although there were fewer lung cancers diagnosed, this reduction was likely caused by changes in screening and advancements in lung cancer treatments. The American Cancer Society recommended that investing more funds in detecting cancers early as well as developing targeted treatments would help to reduce cancer death rates. This would also help to address the differences in access to cancer care that exist based on racial, social and economic inequalities.

Plain language summary and patient perspective of the European Society for Medical Oncology expert consensus statements on treating EGFR-positive non-small-cell lung cancer.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This article provides a plain language summary and patient perspective of a new set of recommendations made by the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO for short). These recommendations are also called expert consensus statements. They cover the management of people with a type of lung cancer called epidermal growth factor receptor-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (EGFR-positive NSCLC for short). WHY WERE THE RECOMMENDATIONS DEVELOPED?: The ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines are used by healthcare professionals when treating people with cancer, but they don't necessarily have all the information healthcare professionals need to make decisions for with people with EGFR-positive NSCLC. So, in 2021, 32 healthcare professionals who are experts in treating people with EGFR-positive NSCLC worked together to produce recommendations to fill these gaps about EGFR-positive NSCLC. This was called a consensus-building process and it also included patient advocates. WHAT RECOMMENDATIONS DID THEY MAKE?: The experts discussed four main topics including how people with different stages of EGFR-positive NSCLC are diagnosed and treated, and how clinical studies are done. They reviewed the scientific information that exists on these subjects. They reached an agreement and developed the recommendations that are summarized here.

Plain language summary and patient perspective of the American Society for Clinical Oncology guideline: management of stage 3 non-small-cell lung cancer.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This is a plain language summary of a guideline on the management of stage 3 non-small-cell lung cancer, also known as NSCLC. This guideline was written by the American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO for short) and published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. WHY WERE THE GUIDELINES DEVELOPED?: The purpose of the ASCO guideline is to provide recommendations to healthcare professionals in the US including oncologists, surgeons, pathologists, radiologists, and nurses on how best to diagnose and treat people with stage 3 NSCLC. HOW WERE THE GUILDEINES DEVELOPED?: The ASCO guideline is based on the latest research and scientific evidence to make certain the recommendations are up to date and based on reliable data and best practice. In 2021, a group of experts were asked by ASCO to form an Expert Panel. The Expert Panel reviewed the results of 127 clinical research studies on NSCLC that were done between 1990 and 2021. They looked at how NSCLC had been diagnosed and treated in these studies, as well as at patients' survival and quality of life. The Expert Panel used these findings and their own expertise to form their recommendations and produce the 2021 ASCO Guideline called 'Management of Stage 3 Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: ASCO Guideline'. WHAT INFORMATION DOES THE GUIDELINE CONTAIN?: The guideline aims to answer the following questions: What are the most precise ways to confirm and stage NSCLC in people suspected of having a stage 3 disease? Which patients with stage 3 NSCLC can be treated most successfully with surgery? Which patients who can be treated with surgery could also have an additional therapy before their surgery? Which patients who can be treated with surgery could also have an additional treatment after their surgery? Which treatment and/or management is most suitable for patients who cannot have surgery?

Abemaciclib plus trastuzumab with or without fulvestrant versus trastuzumab plus standard-of-care chemotherapy in women with HR+, HER2+ advanced breast cancer: plain language summary of the monarcHER study.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This article summarizes the results of a study called monarcHER. The study included participants with a certain type of aggressive breast cancer called HR+, HER2+ advanced breast cancer (ABC) that had their disease worsen or return after multiple previous therapies. This summary intends to help you understand the impact of a non-chemotherapy treatment called abemaciclib in people with HR+, HER2+ ABC. When the study was planned, HER2-targeted therapy (ie trastuzumab) was standard treatment and was typically combined with chemotherapy and endocrine therapy (ie fulvestrant). However drug resistance can develop when HER2+ targeted therapy is used for a long time, making it less effective and allowing cancer to grow or spread to other parts of the body. When this happens, few chemotherapy-free options are available. Because of the chemotherapy side effects, this is not desirable. There is an urgent need to develop new, effective, safe, and tolerable treatment options for patients with HR+, HER2+ ABC. The monarcHER study compared the effects of abemaciclib plus trastuzumab with or without fulvestrant compared to the standard of care treatment. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS?: Participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups: Group A (abemaciclib, trastuzumab and fulvestrant), Group B (abemaciclib and trastuzumab), or Group C (trastuzumab and standard of care chemotherapy). The study compared the length of time patients took study treatments without worsening or dying from their breast cancer. This is called the progression free survival (PFS). Participants in Group A had a longer median PFS than those in groups B and C (8.3 months, 5.7 months and 5.7 months respectively). There was no notable difference in PFS between participants in Groups B and C. Additionally, the study looked at the side effects with each treatment group. The most common side effect which is considered severe or lifethreatening was neutropenia, defined as decreased white blood cell levels. Neutropenia may lead to an increased risk of getting infections. However, the percentage of patients experiencing neutropenia was similar in all groups A, B and C (27%, 22% and 26%, respectively). Patients in groups A (79%) and B (78%) who received abemaciclib experienced similar rates of diarrhea. WHAT DO THE RESULTS MEAN?: The data from the monarcHER study suggest that the combination of abemaciclib, trastuzumab, and fulvestrant may offer a chemotherapy-free option for patients with HR+, HER2+ ABC who have experienced worsening of disease despite multiple prior therapies.

Development and validation of risk calculators for people with "thin" melanomas on their skin to predict the likelihood that their cancer will return: a plain language summary of publication.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This is a summary of an article describing the development of risk calculators for use in people who develop a type of melanoma on their skin called "thin" melanoma to predict the likelihood that their cancer will return. The article was originally published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in 2021. HOW WERE THE CALCULATORS DEVELOPED?: Calculations were performed to predict the chance of people with thin melanomas surviving without their melanoma recurring. Three graphical prediction calculators (called nomograms) were developed, along with easy-to-use online calculators using the same underlying calculation methods. The model was developed using data for 25,930 Dutch people diagnosed with thin melanomas (called the "development set"). To test its ability to predict melanoma recurrence, it was then compared with data for 2,968 Australian people with melanoma (the "validation set"). The calculators developed in the Dutch patients were found to accurately predict the risk of melanoma recurring for people with melanoma in the Australian "validation" group. WHAT DO THE RESULTS MEAN?: The calculators provide estimates of the risk of the melanoma returning for people with thin melanomas. The easy-to-use online calculators are freely available on a smartphone, tablet or computer, and will assist in providing accurate estimates of recurrence risks for individuals with thin melanomas, allowing more intensive follow-up of those whose predicted risk of their melanoma returning is high.

Treatment of muscle-invasive urothelial cancer with nivolumab (CheckMate 274 study): a plain language summary.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This is a summary of a paper published in a medical journal that describes the results of a study called CheckMate 274. This study looked at a new treatment for muscle-invasive urothelial cancer, a type of cancer found in the urinary tract that has spread from the inner lining of the urinary tract or bladder and into the surrounding muscle wall where it can then spread to other parts of the body. The standard treatment for muscle-invasive urothelial cancer is surgery to remove affected parts of the urinary tract. However, cancer returns in more than half of people after this surgery. Adjuvant therapy is given to people after surgery with muscle-invasive urothelial cancer with a goal to reduce the risk of the cancer coming back; however, at the time this study started, there was no standard adjuvant treatment. WHAT HAPPENED IN THE STUDY?: In the CheckMate 274 study, researchers compared nivolumab with a placebo as an adjuvant treatment for people with muscle-invasive urothelial cancer. The aim of the study was to understand how well nivolumab worked to reduce the chance of the cancer returning after surgery. The study also looked at what side effects (unwanted or unexpected results or conditions that are possibly related to the use of a medication) people had with treatment. WHAT DO THE RESULTS MEAN?: The results showed that people who received nivolumab versus placebo: Survived longer before the cancer was detected again, including people who had programmed death ligand-1 (shortened to PD-L1) on their cancer cells. Survived longer before a secondary cancer outside of the urinary tract was detected. Experienced no differences in health-related quality of life (the impact of the treatment on a person's mental and physical health). Had similar side effects to the people who received nivolumab in other studies. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02632409 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Plain language summary and patient perspective of the revised STARS study: long-term results of a study that compared the effectiveness of radiotherapy to surgery in people with non-small-cell lung cancer.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This is a summary of a research study called revised STARS. The STARS study involved people with non-small-cell lung cancer, also known as NSCLC. The cancer was less than 5 cm in size and had not spread to other parts of the body (known as stage 1 cancer). The study compared the effectiveness of surgery versus a type of radiotherapy treatment, called stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (also known as SABR) as a treatment for people with NSCLC. Researchers wanted to find out how likely people were to be alive after treatment or if their cancer had grown or spread to other parts of their body (also known as progressed). WHAT WERE THE RESULTS?: The study found that the long term outcomes were similar between SABR and surgery. People with NSCLC were as likely to be alive 3 years after treatment with SABR compared to surgery. WHAT DO THE RESULTS OF THE STUDY MEAN?: SABR may be an alternative to surgery for people with stage 1 NSCLC which is less than 5 cm in size and has not spread to other parts of the body Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02357992 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Afatinib for the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer with unusual EGFR mutations: a plain language summary.

WHAT IS EGFR & WHAT IS AFATINIB?: EGFR is a protein on cells that helps control their growth and division. Mutations in the gene for EGFR can cause cancer, including some cases of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Afatinib is a medicine that blocks mutated EGFR and helps kill cancer cells. Many different types of EGFR mutation have been identified in people with NSCLC. Over three quarters of cases are caused by two types of EGFR mutation, known as common EGFR mutations, but some cases are caused by unusual/uncommon EGFR mutations. People with NSCLC who have these unusual/ uncommon EGFR mutations are often excluded from clinical trials. Consequently, researchers don't really know how well medicines like afatinib work in these people. WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This is a summary of a study reporting findings from a large database of people with non-small-cell lung cancer (also called NSCLC) who have unusual or uncommon changes in a gene called EGFR and who received afatinib. The researchers used the database to see how effective afatinib is in people who have different types of unusual EGFR mutation. Afatinib seems to work well in people with NSCLC who have not already been treated. Part of the study also looked at people who had received a similar treatment, called osimertinib, in the past compared to those who had not been treated with this medicine. WHAT DID THE RESEARCHERS FIND?: The researchers found that afatinib works well in most people with NSCLC who have unusual/uncommon EGFR mutations, although it seems to work better against certain types of these mutations than others. WHAT DO THE RESULTS OF THE STUDY MEAN?: The researchers concluded that afatinib is a treatment option for most people with NSCLC and unusual/uncommon EGFR mutations. It is important for doctors to identify the precise type of EGFR mutation in a tumor before starting treatment.

Plain language summary of the HIMALAYA study: tremelimumab and durvalumab for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (liver cancer).

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This is a summary of results from a phase 3 clinical study called HIMALAYA. HIMALAYA looked at treatment with one dose of a medication called tremelimumab combined with multiple doses of a medication called durvalumab (the STRIDE regimen) or multiple doses of durvalumab alone. These treatments were compared with a medication called sorafenib in participants with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). HCC is a type of liver cancer that is difficult to treat because it is often diagnosed when it is unresectable, meaning it can no longer be removed with surgery. Sorafenib has been the main treatment for unresectable HCC since 2007. However, people who take sorafenib may experience side effects that can reduce their quality of life, so alternative medicines are being trialed. Tremelimumab and durvalumab are types of drugs called immunotherapies, and they both work in different ways to help the body's immune system fight cancer. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS OF THE STUDY?: Participants who took STRIDE lived longer than participants who took sorafenib, whilst participants who took durvalumab alone lived a similar length of time as participants who took sorafenib. Participants who took STRIDE or durvalumab had a lower relative risk of experiencing worsening in their quality of life than participants who took sorafenib. The side effects that participants who received STRIDE or durvalumab experienced were expected for these types of treatments and could mostly be managed. WHAT DO THE RESULTS OF THE STUDY MEAN?: Overall, STRIDE is more effective than sorafenib for people with unresectable HCC.

Ripretinib versus sunitinib in patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor after treatment with imatinib: a plain language summary of the phase 3 INTRIGUE trial.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This document presents a patient-friendly summary of the phase 3 INTRIGUE clinical trial results, which were published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in August 2022. A phase 3 trial is a study that tests the safety of a proposed treatment and how well it works compared with a standard treatment or a treatment with no active ingredient (also called a placebo). The aim of the INTRIGUE trial was to understand whether treatment with a drug called ripretinib (brand nameQINLOCK®) was superior to treatment with sunitinib (brand name SUTENT®) in participants with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor (also known as GIST) who cannot tolerate or whose disease progressed beyond first-line treatment with imatinib (brand name GLEEVEC®). The INTRIGUE trial included 453 participants with advanced GIST who had previously been treated with a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (also known as a TKI) medicine called imatinib. For patients with advanced GIST who cannot tolerate or whose disease progresses while taking imatinib, the recommended second-line TKI medicine is sunitinib. The recommended third-line TKI medicine is called regorafenib (brand name STIVARGA®). Ripretinib is currently the only medication approved for adults with advanced GIST who have previously been treated with 3 or more TKIs (fourth-line). WHAT WERE THE RESULTS?: The trial showed that ripretinib did not significantly increase the time that participants survived without their cancer getting worse (progression-free survival or PFS) over sunitinib. However, participants treated with ripretinib had similar PFS to those treated with sunitinib. Importantly, treatment with ripretinib resulted in fewer severe adverse events, or side effects, compared with sunitinib, and participants reported better quality of life with ripretinib compared with sunitinib. WHAT DO THE RESULTS MEAN?: Treatment with ripretinib, after imatinib stops working or can no longer be tolerated, provided similar PFS for participants with advanced GIST and had fewer severe adverse events compared with sunitinib. Sunitinib is the only medication currently approved for use as a second-line treatment in patients with advanced GIST previously treated with imatinib. With more investigation, ripretinib could be a treatment option for these patients. Patients should always talk to their medical team before making any decisions about their treatment.

Plain language summary of the TOPAZ-1 study: durvalumab and chemotherapy for advanced biliary tract cancer.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This is a summary describing the results of a Phase III study called TOPAZ-1. The study looked at treatment with durvalumab (a type of immunotherapy) and chemotherapy to treat participants with advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC). Advanced BTC is usually diagnosed at late stages of disease, when it cannot be cured by surgery. This study included participants with advanced BTC who had not received previous treatment, or had their cancer come back at least 6 months after receiving treatment or surgery that aimed to cure their disease. Participants received treatment with durvalumab and chemotherapy or placebo and chemotherapy. The aim of this study was to find out if treatment with durvalumab and chemotherapy could increase the length of time that participants with advanced BTC lived, compared with placebo and chemotherapy. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS OF THE STUDY?: Participants who took durvalumab and chemotherapy had a 20% lower chance of experiencing death at any point in the study compared with participants who received placebo and chemotherapy. The side effects experienced by participants were similar across treatment groups, and less than 12% of participants in either treatment group had to stop treatment due to treatment-related side effects. WHAT DO THE RESULTS OF THE STUDY MEAN?: Overall, these results support durvalumab and chemotherapy as a new treatment option for people with advanced BTCs. Based on the results of this study, durvalumab is now approved for the treatment of adults with advanced BTCs in combination with chemotherapy by government organizations in Europe, the United States and several other countries.

Long-term results from a clinical study of xevinapant plus chemoradiotherapy in people with high-risk locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: a plain language summary.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: Squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) is the most common type of head and neck cancer. About half of the people with locally advanced (LA) SCCHN will have surgery to remove their cancer. For people who do not have surgery, chemoradiotherapy is the standard treatment, with the aim of fully removing the cancer. However, in many people, this treatment does not completely kill the cancer. This summary presents the main results of a phase 2 study of a medicine called xevinapant, which is under investigation as a potential future medicine for people with this type of cancer. WHAT DID THE RESEARCHERS WANT TO FIND OUT?: In this study, researchers wanted to find out whether xevinapant plus chemoradiotherapy could stop the cancer from growing back or getting worse in the years after treatment completion in people with LA SCCHN. They also looked at whether people with this type of cancer had side effects from taking this medicine. Short-term results were collected 18 months after treatment with chemoradiotherapy ended. These results showed that people who received xevinapant plus chemoradiotherapy were less likely to have their cancer grow back, or get worse in the part of the body where it was first found, than people who received liquid placebo-which looked and tasted the same as the active medicine (in this case, xevinapant), but did not contain any medicine-plus chemoradiotherapy. Researchers then continued to collect information for a longer amount of time (at least 3 years). They wanted to see if treatment with xevinapant plus chemoradiotherapy was stopping the cancer from growing back or getting worse and helping people live longer. After this, people were monitored for a further 2 years to see if they were alive 5 years after treatment. WHAT WERE THE MAIN FINDINGS OF THE STUDY?: The results showed that people with this type of cancer who were treated with xevinapant plus chemoradiotherapy were less likely to die, lived longer on average, and were less likely to have their cancer get worse. A phase 3 study, named TrilynX, in a larger group of people, is currently taking place to confirm the results of this study. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02022098 (Debio 1143-201 Dose-finding and Efficacy Phase I/II Trial) (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Plain language summary: Can declines in prostate-specific antigen level indicate how long patients with advanced prostate cancer will live when treated with enzalutamide?

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This is a summary of a research article originally published in the Journal of Urology. The PROSPER study involved men who had a type of advanced prostate cancer called non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC). In patients with nmCRPC, their prostate cancer keeps growing even after traditional hormone treatments. In these patients, rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels suggest that cancer is active but CT and bone scans show that it has not spread to other parts of the body. Everyone in this study received androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) either with the medicine enzalutamide or a placebo. Enzalutamide is a medicine that can slow or stop androgens, such as testosterone, from making prostate cancer grow. The main results of the PROSPER study showed that patients with nmCRPC treated with enzalutamide and ADT lived longer than patients treated with placebo and ADT. In this study, researchers wanted to know if the findings were different depending on how much patients' PSA level declined after enzalutamide treatment. Researchers also wanted to know if this made a difference in how long patients lived without the cancer spreading to other parts of their body. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS?: Researchers found that patients with a large decline in PSA level after treatment were more likely to live longer and without their cancer spreading. WHAT DO THE RESULTS MEAN?: This study shows a link between PSA level changes and how long patients with nmCRPC live when treated with enzalutamide and ADT. These results may help health professionals monitor patients with different PSA level changes after enzalutamide treatment. Patients with a large decline in PSA level may not need to be monitored as closely as patients with a small decline in PSA level.