Modern era systemic therapies: Expanding concepts of cure in early and locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

Cure of cancer is a sensitive and multidimensional concept that is challenging to define, difficult to assert at the individual patient level, and often surrounded by controversy. The notion of cure in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has changed and continues to evolve with improvements in diagnosis and treatment. Targeted and immune therapies have recently entered the treatment landscape of stage I-III NSCLC. While some initial pivotal trials of such agents failed to improve survival, recently approved epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors (in EGFR-mutated NSCLC) and immune checkpoint inhibitors have shown delays in disease recurrence or progression and unprecedented survival gains compared to previous standards of care. Additional data is now emerging supporting the benefit of treatment strategies based on alternation-matched targeting (anaplastic lymphoma kinase [ALK] inhibition in ALK-altered disease) and immune checkpoint inhibition in stage I-III NSCLC. Similar to previous developments in the treatment of early and locally advanced NSCLC, it is expected that statistically significant and clinically meaningful trial-level benefits will translate into real-world benefits, including improvements in cure measures. Parallel advances in molecular testing (e.g., circulating tumor DNA analyses) are also allowing for a deeper and more comprehensive characterization of disease status and treatment response. Given the impact that curative-intent treatments have on survival, it is critical that various stakeholders, including clinicians and patients, are aware of new opportunities to pursue cure in stage I-III NSCLC.

Evaluating the childcare needs of cancer patients undergoing radiation therapy.

PURPOSE: About one-fifth of newly diagnosed cancer patients are parents to young children. These patients are at higher risk of psychosocial stress and inability to attend treatment due to having to balance their own healthcare needs with childcare duties. This study aims to explore the impact of childcare on cancer parents and elicit their perspectives on potential supports. The results could help inform the implementation of suitable childcare programs to remove this barrier in accessing care. METHODS: Patients at a large Canadian cancer treatment center were screened by oncologists for having minor children at home. Secure electronic surveys were then distributed to consenting participants. Domains surveyed included patient demographics, childcare burden, impact on treatment, and preference for childcare supports. RESULTS: The mean age of correspondents was 43.9 (range 33-54), 46 patients (92%) were female, and breast cancer was the most common primary tumor. The median number of children per correspondent was two, and their mean age was 8.4. Balancing childcare with cancer treatment had a significant impact on self-reported stress levels for most correspondents. Twenty (40%) participants had to reschedule and 7 (14%) participants missed at least one appointment due to childcare conflicts. During the COVID-19 pandemic, access to childcare resources decreased while childcare responsibilities increased. Three-quarters of correspondents reported that a flexible childcare would make it easier for them to adhere to appointment schedules. CONCLUSION: Childcare is a significant psychosocial barrier for patients accessing cancer care. Our results indicate that most parents undergoing treatment may benefit from hospital-based childcare services.

Mapping childcare support for patients at a sample of North American hospitals and cancer centers: an environmental scan.

PURPOSE: Approximately a quarter of cancer patients are parents to young children. One unique challenge faced by this patient group is the difficulty of accessing childcare support during medical appointments. Hospital-based childcare options could represent a solution to this problem, but to this point, no comprehensive scans have described existing on-site childcare centers. The purpose of this study is to identify and characterize on-site childcare services available to patients at selected North American hospitals. This information could inform the development of similar programs for cancer patients. METHODS: Using publicly available information, an environmental scan of the grey literature was conducted to investigate Canadian and American hospitals for the presence of childcare services. A standardized data collection tool was used to extract center characteristics. RESULTS: Twenty-six childcare centers were identified across 161 hospitals in both Canada and the USA, with 8/55 Canadian hospitals and 18/106 American hospitals having patient-accessible on-site services. The majority of the centers were associated with pediatric hospitals (77%). Only a single childcare center was associated with a cancer hospital. All centers accommodated children between the ages of 3 and 8. Most centers were open for over 30 h per week (77%) and were free of charge to users (89%). Other characteristics, including capacity and staffing, varied widely. CONCLUSIONS: These results represent an inventory of patient-accessible, on-site childcare services currently available at selected North American hospitals. Cancer patients who are also parents may especially benefit from this kind of support.

EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors for EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer: outcomes in Asian populations.

Few data are available that have compared outcomes with different EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) specifically in Asian patients with EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer. In this narrative review, we have collated available data from prospective studies that have assessed first-, second- and third-generation EGFR TKIs in Asian populations, including subanalyses in individual countries (China and Japan). These data indicate that outcomes with first- and second-generation TKIs are broadly similar in Asian and non-Asian populations. However, while the third-generation EGFR TKI, osimertinib, confers significant overall survival benefit over erlotinib/gefitinib in non-Asians, this is not apparent in Asians, particularly in countries like Japan with well-resourced healthcare. Head-to-head comparisons of second- and third-generation EGFR TKIs, with OS as a primary end point, should be considered in Asia.

Amplifying Outcomes: Checkpoint Inhibitor Combinations in First-Line Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: Lung cancer is one of the most common types of cancer, resulting in approximately 1.8 million deaths worldwide. Immunotherapy using checkpoint inhibitors has become standard of care in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and there is increasing interest in further improving outcomes through combination with other therapeutics. This systematic review evaluates emerging phase III data on the efficacy and safety of checkpoint inhibitor combinations as first-line treatment for advanced NSCLC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Published and presented literature was searched using the key search terms "non-small cell lung cancer" AND "checkpoint-inhibitors" (OR respective aliases) AND phase III trials. Seven randomized phase III clinical trials reporting outcomes on checkpoint inhibitor combinations in first-line advanced NSCLC were identified. RESULTS: Four first-line trials reported outcomes for checkpoint inhibitor combinations in nonsquamous NSCLC. Pembrolizumab-chemotherapy, atezolizumab-chemotherapy, and atezolizumab-bevacizumab-chemotherapy showed significantly improved overall survival compared with controls in patients with advanced nonsquamous epidermal growth factor receptor-negative (EGFR-)/ anaplastic lymphoma kinase gene (ALK)- NSCLC. Two trials reported outcomes for squamous NSCLC, with pembrolizumab-chemotherapy reporting significantly improved overall survival (OS) compared with chemotherapy. The combination of nivolumab-ipilimumab in all-comer histology failed to improve OS compared with histology appropriate chemotherapy in patients regardless of their tumor mutational burden status. Based on improved survival and safety, either pembrolizumab monotherapy or pembrolizumab-chemotherapy administered based on PD-L1 status and histology is a preferred treatment option. Outcomes for atezolizumab-bevacizumab-chemotherapy in EGFR+/ALK+ patients are promising and require further exploration. CONCLUSION: First-line checkpoint inhibitors added to standard therapies improve overall survival for nonsquamous EGFR-/ALK- and squamous advanced NSCLC. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Single-agent immune checkpoint inhibitors are now standard of care for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and emerging data show that combining these agents with established chemotherapy further improves outcomes. The phase III KEYNOTE-189 and IMPower-130 trials showed significantly improved survival using this strategy for nonsquamous NSCLC, and the phase III KEYNOTE-407 trial showed similar results in squamous disease. Checkpoint inhibitor combinations are therefore an important new treatment option for first-line NSCLC. Programmed death ligand-1 expression may inform the use of checkpoint inhibitor combination therapy, and overall tumor mutation burden is also an emerging biomarker for this new treatment strategy.

Prolonging Survival: The Role of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in the Treatment of Extensive-Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) represents approximately 15% of lung cancers, and approximately 70% are diagnosed as extensive-stage SCLC (ES-SCLC). Although ES-SCLC is highly responsive to chemotherapy, patients typically progress rapidly, and there is an urgent need for new therapies. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have recently been investigated in SCLC, and this review provides guidance on the use of these agents in ES-SCLC based on phase III evidence. METHODS: Published and presented literature on phase III data addressing use of ICIs in ES-SCLC was identified using the key search terms "small cell lung cancer" AND "checkpoint inhibitors" (OR respective aliases). Directed searches of eligible studies were periodically performed to ensure capture of the most recent data. RESULTS: Six phase III trials were identified, with four assessing the benefits of ICIs plus chemotherapy first-line, one evaluating ICIs as first-line therapy maintenance, and one assessing ICI monotherapy after progression on platinum-based chemotherapy. The addition of ipilimumab or tremelimumab to first-line treatment or as first-line maintenance did not improve survival. Two out of three studies combining PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors with first-line platinum-based chemotherapy demonstrated significant long-lasting survival benefits and improved quality of life with no unexpected safety concerns. PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors as first-line maintenance or in later lines of therapy did not improve survival. Biomarker research is ongoing as well as research into the role of ICIs in combination with radiation therapy in limited-stage SCLC. CONCLUSION: The addition of atezolizumab or durvalumab to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy for ES-SCLC prolongs survival and improves quality of life. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Platinum-based chemotherapy has been standard of care for extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) for more than a decade. Six recent phase III trials investigating immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have clarified the role of these agents in this setting. Although ICIs were assessed first-line, as first-line maintenance, and in later lines of therapy, the additions of atezolizumab or durvalumab to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy were the only interventions that significantly improved overall survival and increased quality of life. These combinations should therefore be considered standard therapy for first-line ES-SCLC. Biomarker research and investigations into the role of ICIs for limited-stage disease are ongoing.

Reducing time from colon cancer surgery to initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy: pilot project.

Summary: Surgical resection followed by adjuvant chemotherapy is the standard of care for patients with stage III colon cancer. To shorten the time interval between surgery and chemotherapy in patients with colon cancer, we instituted a standardized referral pathway. Evaluation of the intervention demonstrated that referring our patients with colon cancer to a medical oncologist earlier in the treatment process increased the number of patients in whom chemotherapy was initiated within 8 weeks compared with historical controls. These results support early medical oncology referral at institutions where delays in adjuvant chemotherapy initiation exist.

Bevacizumab biosimilars: scientific justification for extrapolation of indications.

The first biosimilar of bevacizumab was approved by the US FDA; other potential biosimilars of bevacizumab are in late-stage clinical development. Their availability offers opportunity for increased patient access across a number of oncologic indications. The regulatory pathway for biosimilar approval relies on the totality of evidence that includes a comprehensive analytical assessment, and a clinical comparability study in a relevant disease patient population. Extrapolation of indications for a biosimilar to other eligible indications held by the originator, in the absence of direct clinical comparison, frequently forms part of the regulatory judgment. Herein, we consider the evidence required to demonstrate biosimilarity for bevacizumab biosimilars, with particular focus on the rationale for extrapolation across oncologic indications.

Outcomes of patients with advanced epithelial growth factor receptor mutant lung cancer treated with first-line osimertinib who would not have met the eligibility criteria for the FLAURA clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: Osimertinib is largely used as first-line therapy for metastatic epithelial growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutant lung cancers based on the FLAURA clinical trial. Real-world patient outcomes often differ from clinical trial outcomes. This study evaluated the efficacy of first-line osimertinib in patients treated in British Columbia (BC), Canada. Furthermore, we compared the outcomes of patients who would and would not have been eligible for the original FLAURA trial. METHODS: Consecutive patients receiving first-line osimertinib for metastatic EGFR exon19 or L858R lung cancer were identified using the BC Cancer Pharmacy Database. Patient eligibility for the FLAURA clinical trial were retrospectively reviewed based on the following criteria: ECOG ≥ 2, symptomatic brain metastases or on steroids, hemoglobin < 90 g/L, platelets < 100x109/L, or a creatinine clearance < 50 mL/min. mOS was assessed for the entire population and compared between patients who would have been eligible and ineligible for FLAURA. RESULTS: From January 2020 to October 2021, 311 patients received first-line osimertinib; 44 % (137/311) were deemed FLAURA ineligible, predominantly due to low ECOG (n = 120). After a median follow-up of 26.5 months, the mOS for the entire cohort was 27.4 months (95 %CI 23.8-30.1). The mOS for ineligible patients was 18 months shorter than eligible patients (15.8 vs 34.2, p < 0.001). Ineligible patients had higher rates of de novo stage IV disease, higher rates of stage IVB disease, and more sites of disease than eligible patients. CONCLUSION: In this real-world population, nearly half of patients would have been ineligible for FLAURA. The mOS was one year shorter than reported in FLAURA. However, patients who would have been eligible for the FLAURA clinical trial had similar OS to patients enrolled in FLAURA. Trial ineligible patients had a higher burden of disease at baseline which may have led to inferior outcomes. Further research is needed to improve outcomes in these patients.

Real-World Clinical Outcomes for Patients with EGFR and HER2 Exon 20 Insertion-Mutated Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

(1) Background: Exon 20 insertion mutations (ex20ins) in EGFR and HER2 are uncommon driver mutations in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), with a poor prognosis and few targeted therapy options, and there are limited real-world data. Here, we report the clinicopathologic features and outcomes for patients with ex20ins NSCLC across British Columbia, Canada. (2) Methods: NSCLC patients with ex20ins in EGFR or HER2 were identified via tumour testing between 1 January 2016 and 31 December 2021 (n = 7233). Data were collected by chart review. Survival analyses were performed using the Kaplan-Meier method using the log-rank test. (3) Results: A total of 131 patients were identified. The median age was 66. Thirty-three percent of patients had brain metastases. For the EGFR cohort, the median OS was 18.6 months for patients who received any systemic therapy (ST) vs. 2.6 months for patients who did not (p < 0.001). Median OS was similar for patients treated with ex20ins-specific tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) vs. other STs (18.6 vs. 15.9 months; p = 0.463). The median first-line PFS was 4.1 vs. 7.4 months for patients treated with a TKI vs. other ST (p = 0.744). For the HER2 cohort, the median OS was 9.0 months for patients who received any ST vs. 4.9 months for patients who did not (p = 0.015). The median OS was 23.0 months for patients treated with an ex20ins TKI vs. 5.6 months for patients who were not (p = 0.019). The median first-line PFS was 5.4 vs. 2.1 months for patients treated with a TKI vs. other ST (p = 0.343). (4) Conclusions: Overall survival was significantly longer among ex20ins patients who received any systemic therapy vs. those who did not. Overall survival was significantly better among HER2 ex20ins patients who received ex20ins-specific TKIs.

Follow-Up Imaging Guidelines for Patients with Stage III Unresectable NSCLC: Recommendations Based on the PACIFIC Trial.

The PACIFIC trial showed a survival benefit with durvalumab through five years in stage III unresectable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, optimal use of imaging to detect disease progression remains unclearly defined for this population. An expert working group convened to consider available evidence and clinical experience and develop recommendations for follow-up imaging after concurrent chemotherapy and radiation therapy (CRT). Voting on agreement was conducted anonymously via online survey. Follow-up imaging was recommended for all suitable patients after CRT completion regardless of whether durvalumab is received. Imaging should occur every 3 months in Year 1, at least every 6 months in Year 2, and at least every 12 months in Years 3-5. Contrast computed tomography was preferred; routine brain imaging was not recommended for asymptomatic patients. The medical oncologist should follow-up during Year 1 of durvalumab therapy, with radiation oncologist involvement if pneumonitis is suspected; medical and radiation oncologists can subsequently alternate follow-up. Some patients can transition to the family physician/community primary care team at the end of Year 2. In Years 1-5, patients should receive information regarding smoking cessation, comorbidity management, vaccinations, and general follow-up care. These recommendations provide guidance on follow-up imaging for patients with stage III unresectable NSCLC whether or not they receive durvalumab consolidation therapy.

Use of radiation therapy among patients with Extensive-stage Small-cell lung cancer receiving Immunotherapy: Canadian consensus recommendations.

OBJECTIVES: Thoracic radiation therapy (TRT) and prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) are commonly used in the management of extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC); however, Phase III trials of first-line immunotherapy often excluded these options. Guidance is needed regarding appropriate use of TRT, PCI, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) surveillance while new data are awaited. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In two web-based meetings, a pan-Canadian expert working group of five radiation oncologists and four medical oncologists addressed eight clinical questions regarding use of radiation therapy (RT) and MRI surveillance among patients with ES-SCLC receiving immunotherapy. A targeted literature review was conducted using PubMed and conference proceedings to identify recent (January 2019-April 2022) publications in this setting. Fifteen recommendations were developed; online voting was conducted to gauge agreement with each recommendation. RESULTS: After considering recently available evidence across lung cancer populations and clinical experience, the experts recommended that all patients with a response to chemo-immunotherapy, good performance status (PS), and limited metastases be considered for consolidation TRT (e.g., 30 Gy in 10 fractions). When considered appropriate after multidisciplinary team discussion, TRT can be initiated during maintenance immunotherapy. All patients who respond to concurrent chemo-immunotherapy should undergo restaging with brain MRI to guide decision-making regarding PCI versus MRI surveillance alone. MRI surveillance should be conducted for two years after response to initial therapy. PCI (e.g., 25 Gy in 10 fractions or 20 Gy in 5 fractions) can be considered for patients without central nervous system involvement who have a response to chemo-immunotherapy and good PS. Concurrent treatment with PCI and immunotherapy or with TRT, PCI, and immunotherapy is appropriate after completion of initial therapy. All recommendations were agreed upon unanimously. CONCLUSIONS: These consensus recommendations provide practical guidance regarding appropriate use of RT and immunotherapy in ES-SCLC while awaiting new clinical trial data.

Evaluation of Cost-Effectiveness of Adjuvant Osimertinib in Patients with Resected EGFR Mutation-Positive Non-small Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: For many patients with resected epidermal growth factor receptor mutation-positive (EGFRm) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), current standard of care (SoC) is adjuvant chemotherapy; however, disease recurrence remains high. Based on positive results from ADAURA (NCT02511106), adjuvant osimertinib was approved for treatment of resected stage IB‒IIIA EGFRm NSCLC. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to assess the cost-effectiveness of adjuvant osimertinib in patients with resected EGFRm NSCLC. METHODS: A five-health-state, state-transition model with time dependency was developed to estimate lifetime (38 years) costs and survival of resected EGFRm patients treated with adjuvant osimertinib or placebo (active surveillance), with/without prior adjuvant chemotherapy, using a Canadian Public Healthcare perspective. Transitions between health states were modeled using ADAURA and FLAURA (NCT02296125) data, Canadian life tables, and real-world data (CancerLinQ Discovery®). The model used a 'cure' assumption: patients remaining disease free for 5 years after treatment completion for resectable disease were deemed 'cured.' Health state utility values and healthcare resource usage estimates were derived from Canadian real-world evidence. RESULTS: In the reference case, adjuvant osimertinib treatment led to a mean 3.20 additional quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs; (11.77 vs 8.57) per patient, versus active surveillance. The modeled median percentage of patients alive at 10 years was 62.5% versus 39.3%, respectively. Osimertinib was associated with mean added costs of Canadian dollars (C$)114,513 per patient and a cost/QALY (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio) of C$35,811 versus active surveillance. Model robustness was demonstrated by scenario analyses. CONCLUSIONS: In this cost-effectiveness assessment, adjuvant osimertinib was cost-effective compared with active surveillance for patients with completely resected stage IB‒IIIA EGFRm NSCLC after SoC.

Beyond PACIFIC: Real-World Outcomes of Adjuvant Durvalumab According to Treatment Received and PD-L1 Expression.

Adjuvant durvalumab after chemoradiotherapy (CRT) is the standard of care for unresectable stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). A post hoc exploratory analysis of PACIFIC revealed no OS benefit in the PD-L1 < 1% subgroup. This retrospective analysis assesses the real-world impact of durvalumab on OS according to PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS). Patients with stage III, unresectable NSCLC treated by CRT, with available PD-L1 TPS, from 1 March 2018 to 31 December 2020, at BC Cancer, British Columbia, Canada were included. Patients were divided into two groups, CRT + durvalumab and CRT alone. OS and PFS were analyzed in the PD-L1 ≥ 1% and <1% subgroups. A total of 134 patients were included in the CRT + durvalumab group and 117, in the CRT alone group. Median OS was 35.9 months in the CRT + durvalumab group and 27.4 months in the CRT alone group [HR 0.59 (95% CI 0.42-0.83), p = 0.003]. Durvalumab improved OS in the PD-L1 ≥ 1% [HR 0.53 (95% CI 0.34-0.81), p = 0.003, n = 175], but not in the <1% subgroup [HR 0.79 (95% CI 0.44-1.42), p = 0.4, n = 76]. This retrospective study demonstrates a statistically significant improvement in OS associated with durvalumab after CRT in PD-L1 ≥ 1%, but not PD-L1 < 1% NSCLC. Variables not accounted for may have biased the survival analysis. A prospective study would bring more insight.

Canadian Consensus Recommendations on the Management of Extensive-Stage Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

Small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) is an aggressive, neuroendocrine tumour with high relapse rates, and significant morbidity and mortality. Apart from advances in radiation therapy, progress in the systemic treatment of SCLC had been stagnant for over three decades despite multiple attempts to develop alternative therapeutic options that could improve responses and survival. Recent promising developments in first-line and subsequent therapeutic approaches prompted a Canadian Expert Panel to convene to review evidence, discuss practice patterns, and reach a consensus on the treatment of extensive-stage SCLC (ES-SCLC). The literature search included guidelines, systematic reviews, and randomized controlled trials. Regular meetings were held from September 2022 to March 2023 to discuss the available evidence to propose and agree upon specific recommendations. The panel addressed biomarkers and histological features that distinguish SCLC from non-SCLC and other neuroendocrine tumours. Evidence for initial and subsequent systemic therapies was reviewed with consideration for patient performance status, comorbidities, and the involvement and function of other organs. The resulting consensus recommendations herein will help clarify evidence-based management of ES-SCLC in routine practice, help clinician decision-making, and facilitate the best patient outcomes.

Canadian Consensus Recommendations on the Management of KRAS G12C-Mutated NSCLC.

Activating mutations in Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homologue (KRAS), in particular, a point mutation leading to a glycine-to-cysteine substitution at codon 12 (G12C), are among the most frequent genomic alterations in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Several agents targeting KRAS G12C have recently entered clinical development. Sotorasib, a first-in-class specific small molecule that irreversibly inhibits KRAS G12C, has since obtained Health Canada approval. The emergence of novel KRAS-targeted therapies warrants the development of evidence-based consensus recommendations to help clinicians better understand and contextualize the available data. A Canadian expert panel was convened to define the key clinical questions, review recent evidence, and discuss and agree on recommendations for the treatment of advanced KRAS G12C-mutated NSCLC. The panel agreed that testing for KRAS G12C should be performed as part of a comprehensive panel that includes current standard-of-care biomarkers. Sotorasib, the only approved KRAS G12C inhibitor in Canada, is recommended for patients with advanced KRAS G12C-mutated NSCLC who progressed on guideline-recommended first-line standard of care for advanced NSCLC without driver alterations (immune-checkpoint inhibitor(s) [ICIs] +/- chemotherapy). Sotorasib could also be offered as second-line therapy to patients who progressed on ICI monotherapy that are not candidates for a platinum doublet and those that received first-line chemotherapy with a contraindication to ICIs. Preliminary data indicate the activity of KRAS G12C inhibitors in brain metastases; however, the evidence is insufficient to make specific recommendations. Regular liver function monitoring is recommended when patients are prescribed KRAS G12C inhibitors due to risk of hepatotoxicity.

Lorlatinib Effectiveness and Quality-of-Life in Patients with ALK-Positive NSCLC Who Had Failed Second-Generation ALK Inhibitors: Canadian Real-World Experience.

Lorlatinib is the only targeted therapy approved in Canada to treat patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) whose tumor has progressed despite treatment with second-generation ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), a patient population with high unmet need and lack of publicly reimbursed targeted treatments in Canada. We prospectively examined the real-world effectiveness and impact of lorlatinib on quality-of-life in 59 lorlatinib-treated patients, characterized as: median age of 62.0 years; 47.5% were female; 32.2% had central nervous system metastases; 50.8% had 2+ prior ALK TKI lines; and alectinib was the most common ALK TKI (72.9%) administered before lorlatinib, including 44.1% who received first-line alectinib. With a median follow-up of 15.3 months (IQR: 6.2-19.2), median time-to-treatment discontinuation of lorlatinib was 15.3 months (95% CI: 7.9-not reached), with 54.2% (95% CI: 40.8-65.9%) of patients without treatment discontinuation at 12 months. At baseline, the mean health utility score (HUS) was 0.744 (SD: 0.200). At 3 months, patients receiving lorlatinib demonstrated a 0.069 (95% CI: 0.020-0.118; p = 0.007) average HUS increase over baseline; HUS was maintained at 6 and 12 months. Thus, patients with ALK-positive NSCLC post second-generation ALK TKI remained on lorlatinib for a meaningful duration of time while their quality-of-life was preserved.

Prediction of Disease Progression to Upfront Pembrolizumab Monotherapy in Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer with High PD-L1 Expression Using Baseline CT Disease Quantification and Smoking Pack Years.

Health Canada approved pembrolizumab in the first-line setting for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with PD-L1 ≥ 50% and no EGFR/ALK aberration. The keynote 024 trial showed 55% of such patients progress with pembrolizumab monotherapy. We propose that the combination of baseline CT and clinical factors can help identify those patients who may progress. In 138 eligible patients from our institution, we retrospectively collected their baseline variables, including baseline CT findings (primary lung tumor size and metastatic site), smoking pack years, performance status, tumor pathology, and demographics. The treatment response was assessed via RECIST 1.1 using the baseline and first follow-up CT. Associations between the baseline variables and progressive disease (PD) were tested by logistic regression analyses. The results showed 46/138 patients had PD. The baseline CT "number of involved organs" by metastasis and smoking pack years were independently associated with PD (p < 0.05), and the ROC analysis showed a good performance of the model that integrated these variables in predicting PD (AUC: 0.79). This pilot study suggests that the combination of baseline CT disease and smoking PY can identify who may progress on pembrolizumab monotherapy and can potentially facilitate decision-making for the optimal first-line treatment in the high PD-L1 cohort.

Canadian Consensus Recommendations for the Management of Operable Stage II/III Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Results of a Modified Delphi Process.

The treatment paradigm for patients with stage II/III non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is rapidly evolving. We performed a modified Delphi process culminating at the Early-stage Lung cancer International eXpert Retreat (ELIXR23) meeting held in Montreal, Canada, in June 2023. Participants included medical and radiation oncologists, thoracic surgeons and pathologists from across Quebec. Statements relating to diagnosis and treatment paradigms in the preoperative, operative and postoperative time periods were generated and modified until all held a high level of consensus. These statements are aimed to help guide clinicians involved in the treatment of patients with stage II/III NSCLC.

Use of Systemic Therapies for Treatment of Psoriasis in Patients with a History of Treated Solid Tumours: Inference-Based Guidance from a Multidisciplinary Expert Panel.

BACKGROUND: Patients with treated solid tumours (TSTs) are a highly heterogeneous population at an increased risk for malignancy compared with the general population. When treating psoriasis in patients with a history of TSTs, clinicians are concerned about the immunosuppressive nature of psoriasis therapies, the possibility of augmenting cancer recurrence/progression, and infectious complications. No direct, high-level evidence exists to address these concerns. OBJECTIVES: We aim to provide a structured framework supporting healthcare professional and patient discussions on the risks and benefits of systemic psoriasis therapy in patients with previously TSTs. Our goal was to address the clinically important question, "In patients with TSTs, does therapy with systemic agents used for psoriasis increase the risk of malignancy or malignancy recurrence?" METHODS: We implemented an inference-based approach relying on indirect evidence when direct clinical trial and real-world data were absent. We reviewed indirect evidence supporting inferences on the status of immune function in patients with TSTs. Recommendations on systemic psoriasis therapies in patients with TSTs were derived using an inferential heuristic. RESULTS: We identified five indirect indicators of iatrogenic immunosuppression informed by largely independent bodies of evidence: (1) overall survival, (2) rate of malignancies with psoriasis and systemic psoriasis therapies, (3) rate of infections with psoriasis and systemic psoriasis therapies, (4) common disease biochemical pathways for solid tumours and systemic psoriasis therapies, and (5) solid organ transplant outcomes. On the basis of review of the totality of this data, we provided inference-based conclusions and ascribed level of support for each statement. CONCLUSIONS: Prior to considering new therapies for psoriasis, an understanding of cancer prognosis should be addressed. Patients with TSTs and a good cancer prognosis will have similar outcomes to non-TST patients when treated with systemic psoriasis therapies. For patients with TSTs and a poor cancer prognosis, the quality-of-life benefits of treating psoriasis may outweigh the theoretical risks.

Patients with previously treated cancer have a higher chance of cancer recurrence compared with the general population. With cancer incidence rising worldwide, doctors across medical specialities will need to treat other medical conditions, including inflammatory diseases such as psoriasis, in these patients. Effective systemic therapies for psoriasis reduce immune cell activity. Accordingly, there are concerns that treatments for psoriasis could worsen cancer recurrence/progression and infectious complications. There is not enough quality evidence to make broad recommendations for treating other inflammatory conditions in patients with a history of cancer. To guide patient and doctor discussions, we asked: what are effective and safe treatments when patients with treated solid tumours need systemic therapy (pills or injections) for their psoriasis? We focused on patients with solid tumours and excluded blood and skin cancers. Our panel of experts, including 12 dermatologists and 3 medical oncologists, reviewed direct and indirect evidence to answer this question. Considering the totality of evidence reviewed, the expert panel drafted and rated their level of support for opinion statements on important considerations in treating patients with psoriasis who have a history of solid tumours. By making inferences on systemic psoriasis therapies in this heterogeneous population, we take the onus off individual physicians to review the indirect data. This process may help answer questions in other disease populations where direct evidence is scarce or absent. To support treatment decisions, doctors should have a guided conversation with the patient and their family on a case-by-case basis about the risks and benefits of treatment.