Trends in primary care blood tests prior to lung and colorectal cancer diagnosis-A retrospective cohort study using linked Australian data.

INTRODUCTION: Abnormal results in common blood tests may occur several months before lung cancer (LC) and colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnosis. Identifying early blood markers of cancer and distinct blood test signatures could support earlier diagnosis in general practice. METHODS: Using linked Australian primary care and hospital cancer registry data, we conducted a cohort study of 855 LC and 399 CRC patients diagnosed between 2001 and 2021. Requests and results from general practice blood tests (six acute phase reactants [APR] and six red blood cell indices [RBCI]) were examined in the 2 years before cancer diagnosis. Poisson regression models were used to estimate monthly incidence rates and examine pre-diagnostic trends in blood test use and abnormal results prior to cancer diagnosis, comparing patterns in LC and CRC patients. RESULTS: General practice blood test requests increase from 7 months before CRC and 6 months before LC diagnosis. Abnormalities in many APR and RBCI tests increase several months before cancer diagnosis, often occur prior to or in the absence of anaemia (in 51% of CRC and 81% of LC patients with abnormalities), and are different in LC and CRC patients. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates an increase in diagnostic activity in Australian general practice several months before LC and CRC diagnosis, indicating potential opportunities for earlier diagnosis. It identifies blood test abnormalities and distinct signatures that are early markers of LC and CRC. If combined with other pre-diagnostic information, these blood tests have potential to support GPs in prioritising patients for cancer investigation of different sites to expedite diagnosis.

Safety and adherence to medications and self-care advice in oncology (SAMSON): pilot randomised controlled trial protocol.

INTRODUCTION: With the increasing use of oral anti-cancer medicines (OAMs), research demonstrating the magnitude of the medication non-adherence problem and its consequences on treatments' efficacy and toxicity is drawing more attention. Mobile phone interventions may be a practical solution to support patients taking OAMs at home, yet evidence to inform the efficacy of these interventions is lacking. The safety and adherence to medications and self-care advice in oncology (SAMSON) pilot randomised control trial (RCT) aims to evaluate the acceptability, feasibility and potential efficacy of a novel digital solution to improve medication adherence (MA) among people with cancer. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a two-arm, 12-week, pilot RCT aiming to enrol 50 adults with haematological, lung or melanoma cancers at an Australian metropolitan specialised oncology hospital, who are taking oral anti-cancer medicines. Participants will be randomised (1:1 allocation ratio) to either the intervention group (SAMSON solution) or the control group (usual care). The primary outcomes are the acceptability and feasibility of SAMSON. The secondary outcomes are MA, toxicity self-management, anxiety and depressive symptoms, health-related quality of life, and parameters relating to optimal intervention strategy. Quantitative data will be analysed on a modified intention-to-treat basis. SUMMARY: While multicomponent interventions are increasingly introduced, SAMSON incorporates novel approaches to the solution. SAMSON provides a comprehensive, patient-centred, digital MA intervention solution with seamless integration of a mobile platform with clinical consultations that are evidence-based, theory-based, co-designed and rigorously tested. The pilot trial will determine whether this type of intervention is feasible and acceptable in oncology and will provide a foundation for a future full-scale RCT. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Primary ethics approvals were received from Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre and Swinburne University of Technology Human Research Ethics Committees (HREC/95332/PMCC and 20237273-15836). Results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publications and presentations at international and national conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The protocol has been prospectively registered on the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry with trial registration number (ACTRN12623000472673).

Opioid initiation timing and palliative care referrals in advanced cancer: retrospective study.

OBJECTIVES: Early opioid initiation is recommended for advanced cancer pain, however the timing of opioid commencement in relation to diagnosis has not been described, and the role of palliative care prescribers is unclear. This study aims to determine the timing of opioid initiation by prescriber and cancer type in relation to key timepoints in the cancer illness course (diagnosis, palliative care referral and death). METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included patients at a quaternary cancer centre with incurable advanced cancer of five different subtype groups. Demographics, clinical characteristics, health service use and details of first slow and immediate release opioid prescription are reported. RESULTS: Among 200 patients, median time to first immediate release opioid prescription was 23 days (IQR 1-82) and to slow release opioid prescription was 47 days (IQR 14-155). Most patients (95%, (n=190) were referred to palliative care (median time to referral 54 days (IQR 18-190)). Non-palliative care prescribers initiated slow release opioids for half the cohort (49%, n=97) prior to referral. Patients with pancreatic cancer had the shortest time to slow/immediate release opioid prescription (median 10 days (IQR 0-39) and 26 days (IQR 1-43) respectively) and shortest survival (median 136 days (IQR 82-214)). CONCLUSIONS: Median time to opioid commencement was approximately 3 weeks after diagnosis. Despite early palliative care involvement, opioid initiation by non-palliative care clinicians was common and remains important. Timely palliative care referral for those with pancreatic cancer may include consideration of earlier complex pain presentations and shorter prognosis.

Completion of Pembrolizumab in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer-Real World Outcomes After Two Years of Therapy (COPILOT).

BACKGROUND: Seminal trials with first-line pembrolizumab for metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) mandated a maximum two-years treatment. We describe real-world outcomes of a multi-site Australian cohort of patients who completed two-years of pembrolizumab. METHODS: Retrospective data were collected from the national AUstralian Registry and biObank of thoRacic cAncers (AURORA). Primary endpoints were progression rate post pembrolizumab discontinuation; and progression free survival (PFS). Local treatment of oligoprogressive disease during pembrolizumab was allowed. RESULTS: A total of 71 patients from six centers, median age 66.0 years, 49% male and 90% ECOG ≤ 1 were identified. Patients were Caucasian (82%) or Asian (16%); past (66%) or current (24%) smokers with mean 37 pack-years. Histology comprised 73% adenocarcinoma and 16% squamous. 18 patients (25%) had brain metastases at diagnosis. Median PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) was 68%; 12 patients (17%) TPS < 1% and 43 (61%) TPS ≥ 50%. No patients had EGFR/ALK/ROS1 alterations; 29/49 tested (60%) had KRAS mutations. Median follow up was 38.7 months. Objective response rate 78.6%. Median PFS 46.1 months (95% CI 39.5-NR), not reached (46.1-NR) in PD-L1 TPS ≥ 1% versus 28.1 months (16.3-NR) in TPS < 1% (P = .013). 17 patients (24%) received additional local therapy for oligoprogression. Post pembrolizumab discontinuation, 20 patients (28%) had disease progression. Higher rates of progression occurred with TPS < 1% (OR 3.46, P = .06), without complete response (OR 5.06, P = .04), and with treated oligoprogression (OR 3.11, P = .05). 36-month landmark survival was 98.2%. CONCLUSION: Patients completing two-years of pembrolizumab for NSCLC in an Australian cohort had high rates of KRAS mutation and PD-L1 expression; a proportion had brain metastases and treated oligoprogression. Progression post pembrolizumab was higher in PD-L1 TPS < 1% and in those without complete response.

Utility of 30-Day Mortality Following Systemic Anti-Cancer Treatment as a Quality Indicator in Advanced Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: 30-day mortality after systemic anti-cancer therapy (SACT) has been suggested as a quality indicator primarily for measuring use of chemotherapy towards the end of life. Utility across different cancer types is unclear, especially when using immunotherapy and targeted therapies. METHODS: This retrospective study included patients with a diagnosis of lung cancer who received palliative-intent SACT at an Australian metropolitan cancer center between 2015 and 2022. Using a prospectively maintained lung cancer database, patient, disease, and treatment characteristics were evaluated against annual 30-day mortality rates following SACT. RESULTS: 1072 patients were identified. Annual 30-day mortality rate after palliative-intent SACT for lung cancer ranged between 9% and 15%, with significant variance between treatment types. Calculated rates of 30-day mortality are higher if longer reporting time periods are used. Patients who died within 30 days of SACT were more likely to have received targeted therapies or immunotherapy as their final line of treatment, have a poorer performance status at diagnosis, and have received multiple lines of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Our data support differential interpretation of 30-day mortality for quality assurance, especially with regard to lung cancer. Consistency in population and reporting time periods, and accounting for treatment type is crucial if 30-day mortality is to be utilized as cancer care performance quality indicator. Relevance to quality care is questionable in the lung cancer setting.

The impact of pre-treatment smoking status on survival after chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Smoking is a risk factor for the development of lung cancer and reduces life expectancy within the general population. Retrospective studies suggest that non-smokers have better outcomes after treatment for lung cancer. We used a prospective database to investigate relationships between pre-treatment smoking status and survival for a cohort of patients with stage III non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with curative-intent concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CRT). METHODS: All patients treated with CRT for stage III NSCLC at a major metropolitan cancer centre were prospectively registered to a database. A detailed smoking history was routinely obtained at baseline. Kaplan-Meier statistics were used to assess overall survival and progression-free survival in never versus former versus current smokers. RESULTS: Median overall survival for 265 eligible patients was 2.21 years (95 % Confidence Interval 1.78, 2.84). It was 5.5 years (95 % CI 2.1, not reached) for 25 never-smokers versus 1.9 years (95 % CI 1.5, 2.7) for 182 former smokers and 2.2 years (95 % CI 1.3, 2.7) for 58 current smokers. Hazard ratio for death was 2.43 (95 % CI 1.32-4.50) for former smokers and 2.75 (95 % CI 1.40, 5.40) for current smokers, p = 0.006. Actionable tumour mutations (EGFR, ALK, ROS1) were present in more never smokers (14/25) than former (9/182) or current (3/58) smokers. TKI use was also higher in never smokers but this was not significantly associated with superior survival (Hazard ratio 0.71, 95 % CI 0.41, 1.26). CONCLUSIONS: Never smokers have substantially better overall survival than former or current smokers after undergoing CRT for NSCLC.

Lurbinectedin in small cell lung cancer: real-world experience of a multicentre national early access programme.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Lurbinectedin is a novel oncogenic transcription inhibitor active in several cancers, including small cell lung cancer (SCLC). We aimed to describe the first Australian experience of the clinical efficacy and tolerability of lurbinectedin for the treatment of SCLC after progression on platinum-containing therapy. METHODS: Multicentre real-world study of individuals with SCLC initiating lurbinectedin monotherapy (3.2 mg/m2 three-weekly) on an early access programme between May 2020 and December 2021. Key outcomes were clinical utilisation, efficacy and tolerability. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Outcome data were collected within the AUstralian Registry and biObank of thoRacic cAncers (AURORA). RESULTS: Data were analysed for 46 individuals across seven sites. Lurbinectedin was given as second- (83%, 38/46) or subsequent- (17%, 8/46) line therapy, mostly with prior chemoimmunotherapy (87%, 40/46). We report dose modifications (17%, 8/46), interruptions/delays (24%, 11/46), high-grade toxicities (28%, 13/46) and hospitalisations (54%, 25/46) during active treatment. The overall response rate was 33% and the disease control rate was 50%. Six-month OS was 44% (95% confidence interval (CI): 29.0-57.1). Twelve-month OS was 15% (95% CI: 6.5-26.8). From lurbinectedin first dose, the median PFS was 2.5 months (95% CI: 1.8-2.9) and OS was 4.5 months (95% CI: 3.5-7.2). From SCLC diagnosis, the median OS was 12.9 months (95% CI: 11.0-17.2). Individuals with a longer chemotherapy-free interval prior to lurbinectedin had longer PFS and OS. CONCLUSION: This real-world national experience of lurbinectedin post-platinum chemotherapy and immunotherapy for individuals with SCLC was similar to that reported in clinical trials.

First-line chemoimmunotherapy and immunotherapy in patients with non-small cell lung cancer and brain metastases: a registry study.

Introduction: Brain metastases commonly occur in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Standard first-line treatment for NSCLC, without an EGFR, ALK or ROS1 mutation, is either chemoimmunotherapy or anti-PD-1 monotherapy. Traditionally, patients with symptomatic or untreated brain metastases were excluded from the pivotal clinical trials that established first-line treatment recommendations. The intracranial effectiveness of these treatment protocols has only recently been elucidated in small-scale prospective trials. Methods: Patients with NSCLC and brain metastases, treated with first-line chemoimmunotherapy or anti-PD-1 monotherapy were selected from the Australian Registry and biObank of thoracic cancers (AURORA) clinical database covering seven institutions. The primary outcome was a composite time-to-event (TTE) outcome, including extracranial and intracranial progression, death, or need for local intracranial therapy, which served as a surrogate for disease progression. The secondary outcome included overall survival (OS), intracranial objective response rate (iORR) and objective response rate (ORR). Results: 116 patients were included. 63% received combination chemoimmunotherapy and 37% received anti-PD-1 monotherapy. 69% of patients received upfront local therapy either with surgery, radiotherapy or both. The median TTE was 7.1 months (95% CI 5 - 9) with extracranial progression being the most common progression event. Neither type of systemic therapy or upfront local therapy were predictive of TTE in a multivariate analysis. The median OS was 17 months (95% CI 13-27). Treatment with chemoimmunotherapy was predictive of longer OS in multivariate analysis (HR 0.35; 95% CI 0.14 - 0.86; p=0.01). The iORR was 46.6%. The iORR was higher in patients treated with chemoimmunotherapy compared to immunotherapy (58% versus 31%, p=0.01). The use of chemoimmunotherapy being predictive of iORR in a multivariate analysis (OR 2.88; 95% CI 1.68 - 9.98; p=0.04). Conclusion: The results of this study of real-world data demonstrate the promising intracranial efficacy of chemoimmunotherapy in the first-line setting, potentially surpassing that of immunotherapy alone. No demonstrable difference in survival or TTE was seen between receipt of upfront local therapy. Prospective studies are required to assist clinical decision making regarding optimal sequencing of local and systemic therapies.

Pharmacogenetics testing (DPYD and UGT1A1) for fluoropyrimidine and irinotecan in routine clinical care: Perspectives of medical oncologists and oncology pharmacists.

BACKGROUND: Despite robust evidence and international guidelines, to support routine pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing, integration in practice has been limited. This study explored clinicians' views and experiences of pre-treatment DPYD and UGT1A1 gene testing and barriers to and enablers of routine clinical implementation. METHODS: A study-specific 17-question survey was emailed (01 February-12 April 2022) to clinicians from the Medical Oncology Group of Australia (MOGA), the Clinical Oncology Society of Australia (COSA) and International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practitioners (ISOPP). Data were analysed and reported using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Responses were collected from 156 clinicians (78% medical oncologists, 22% pharmacists). Median response rate of 8% (ranged from 6% to 24%) across all organisations. Only 21% routinely test for DPYD and 1% for UGT1A1. For patients undergoing curative/palliative intent treatments, clinicians reported intent to implement genotype-guided dosing by reducing FP dose for DPYD intermediate metabolisers (79%/94%), avoiding FP for DPYD poor metabolisers (68%/90%), and reducing irinotecan dose for UGT1A1 poor metabolisers (84%, palliative setting only). Barriers to implementation included: lack of financial reimbursements (82%) and perceived lengthy test turnaround time (76%). Most Clinicians identified a dedicated program coordinator, i.e., PGx pharmacist (74%) and availability of resources for education/training (74%) as enablers to implementation. CONCLUSION: PGx testing is not routinely practised despite robust evidence for its impact on clinical decision making in curative and palliative settings. Research data, education and implementation studies may overcome clinicians' hesitancy to follow guidelines, especially for curative intent treatments, and may overcome other identified barriers to routine clinical implementation.

Brief Report: Real-World Toxicity and Survival of Combination Immunotherapy in Pleural Mesothelioma-RIOMeso.

BACKGROUND: Australia has one of the highest rates of asbestos-associated diseases. Mesothelioma remains an area of unmet need with a 5-year overall survival of 10%. First-line immunotherapy with ipilimumab and nivolumab is now a standard of care for unresectable pleural mesothelioma following the CheckMate 743 trial, with supportive data from the later line single-arm MAPS2 trial. RIOMeso evaluates survival and toxicity of this regimen in real-world practice. METHODS: Demographic and clinicopathologic data of Australian patients treated with ipilimumab and nivolumab in first- and subsequent-line settings for pleural mesothelioma were collected retrospectively. Survival was reported using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared between subgroups with the log-rank test. Toxicity was investigator assessed using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0. RESULTS: A total of 119 patients were identified from 11 centers. The median age was 72 years, 83% were male, 92% had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group less than or equal to 1, 50% were past or current smokers, and 78% had known asbestos exposure. In addition, 50% were epithelioid, 19% sarcomatoid, 14% biphasic, and 17% unavailable. Ipilimumab and nivolumab were used first line in 75% of patients. Median overall survival (mOS) was 14.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 13.0-not reached [NR]) for the entire cohort. For patients treated first line, mOS was 14.5 months (95% CI: 12.5-NR) and in second- or later-line patients was 15.4 months (95% CI: 11.2-NR). There was no statistically significant difference in mOS for epithelioid patients compared with nonepithelioid (19.1 mo [95% CI: 15.4-NR] versus 13.0 mo [95% CI: 9.7-NR], respectively, p = 0.064). Furthermore, 24% of the patients had a Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grade greater than or equal to 3 adverse events, including three treatment-related deaths. Colitis was the most frequent adverse event. CONCLUSIONS: Combination immunotherapy in real-world practice has poorer survival outcomes and seems more toxic compared with clinical trial data. This is the first detailed report of real-world survival and toxicity outcomes using ipilimumab and nivolumab treatment of pleural mesothelioma.

Telehealth in oncology: a cost analysis to evaluate the financial impact of implementing regional trial hubs within a phase 3 cancer clinical trial.

This cost analysis, from a societal perspective, compared the cost difference of a networked teletrial model (NTTM) with four regional hubs versus conventional trial operation at a single metropolitan specialist centre. The Australian phase 3 cancer interventional randomised controlled trial included 152 of 328 regional participants (patient enrolment 2018-2021; 6-month primary end point). The NTTM significantly reduced (AU$2155 per patient) patient travel cost and time and lost productivity.

Healthcare professionals' and consumers' knowledge, attitudes, perspectives, and education needs in oncology pharmacogenomics: A systematic review.

Clinical implementation of pharmacogenomic (PGx)-guided prescribing in oncology lags behind research evidence generation. We aimed to identify healthcare professionals' (HCPs) and consumers' knowledge, attitudes, perspectives, and education needs to inform strategies for implementation of scalable and sustainable oncology PGx programs. Systematic review of original articles indexed in EMBASE, EMCARE, MEDLINE, and PsycInfo from January 2012 until June 2022, following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. PROSPERO registration number CRD42022352348. Of 1442 identified studies; 23 met inclusion criteria with 87% assessed high quality. Of these, 52% reported on HCPs, 35% on consumers, and 13% on both HCPs and consumers. Most were conducted in the United States (70%) and included multiple cancer types (74%). Across studies, HCPs and consumers mostly perceived value in PGx, however, both groups reported barriers to utilization, including cost, lack of consistent recommendations across guidelines, and limited knowledge among HCPs; test accuracy, clear testing benefits, and genomic information confidentiality among consumers. HCPs and consumers value and want to engage in PGx strategies in oncology care, however, are inhibited by unmet needs and practice and knowledge gaps. Implementation strategies aimed at addressing these issues may best support increased PGx uptake in oncology practice.

"Take the tablet or don't take the tablet?"-A qualitative study of patients' experiences of self-administering anti-cancer medications related to adherence and managing side effects.

PURPOSE: Medication non-adherence is a well-recognised problem in cancer care, negatively impacting health outcomes and healthcare resources. Patient-related factors influencing medication adherence (MA) are complicated and interrelated. There is a need for qualitative research to better understand their underlying interaction processes and patients' needs to facilitate the development of effective patient-tailored complex interventions. This study aimed to explore experiences, perceptions, and needs relating to MA and side effect management of patients who are self-administering anti-cancer treatment. METHODS: Semi-structured audio-recorded interviews with patients who have haematological cancer were conducted. A comparative, iterative, and predominantly inductive thematic analysis approach was employed. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients from a specialist cancer hospital were interviewed. While self-administering cancer medications at home, patients' motivation to adhere was affected by cancer-related physical reactions, fears, cancer literacy and beliefs, and healthcare professional (HCP) and informal support. Patients desired need for regular follow-ups from respectful, encouraging, informative, responsive, and consistent HCPs as part of routine care. Motivated patients can develop high adherence and side effect self-management over time, especially when being supported by HCPs and informal networks. CONCLUSION: Patients with cancer need varied support to medically adhere to and manage side effects at home. HCPs should adapt their practices to meet the patients' expectations to further support them during treatment. We propose a multi-dimensional and technology- and theory-based intervention, which incorporates regular HCP consultations providing tailored education and support to facilitate and maintain patient MA and side effect self-management.

A tailored approach to horizon scanning for cancer medicines.

BACKGROUND: Horizon scanning (HS) is the systematic identification of emerging therapies to inform policy and decision-makers. We developed an agile and tailored HS methodology that combined multi-criteria decision analysis weighting and Delphi rounds. As secondary objectives, we aimed to identify new medicines in melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer and colorectal cancer most likely to impact the Australian government's pharmaceutical budget by 2025 and to compare clinician and consumer priorities in cancer medicine reimbursement. METHOD: Three cancer-specific clinician panels (total n = 27) and a consumer panel (n = 7) were formed. Six prioritisation criteria were developed with consumer input. Criteria weightings were elicited using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Candidate medicines were identified and filtered from a primary database and validated against secondary and tertiary sources. Clinician panels participated in a three-round Delphi survey to identify and score the top five medicines in each cancer type. RESULTS: The AHP and Delphi process was completed in eight weeks. Prioritisation criteria focused on toxicity, quality of life (QoL), cost savings, strength of evidence, survival, and unmet need. In both curative and non-curative settings, consumers prioritised toxicity and QoL over survival gains, whereas clinicians prioritised survival. HS results project the ongoing prevalence of high-cost medicines. Since completion in October 2021, the HS has identified 70 % of relevant medicines submitted for Pharmaceutical Benefit Advisory Committee assessment and 60% of the medicines that received a positive recommendation. CONCLUSION: Tested in the Australian context, our method appears to be an efficient and flexible approach to HS that can be tailored to address specific disease types by using elicited weights to prioritise according to incremental value from both a consumer and clinical perspective. POLICY SUMMARY: Since HS is of global interest, our example provides a reproducible blueprint for adaptation to other healthcare settings that integrates consumer input and priorities.

A systematic review of knowledge, attitude and practice of pharmacogenomics in pediatric oncology patients.

Pharmacogenomics remains underutilized in clinical practice, despite the existence of internationally recognized, evidence-based guidelines. This systematic review aims to understand enablers and barriers to pharmacogenomics implementation in pediatric oncology by assessing the knowledge, attitudes, and practice of healthcare professionals and consumers. Medline, Embase, Emcare, and PsycINFO database searches identified 146 relevant studies of which only three met the inclusion criteria. These studies reveal that consumers were concerned with pharmacogenomic test costs, insurance discrimination, data sharing, and privacy. Healthcare professionals possessed mostly positive attitudes toward pharmacogenomic testing yet identified lack of experience and training as barriers to implementation. Education emerged as the key enabler, reported in all three studies and both healthcare professionals and consumer groups. However, despite the need for education, no studies utilizing a pediatric oncology consumer or healthcare professional group have reported on the implementation or analysis of a pharmacogenomic education program in pediatric oncology. Increased access to guidelines, expert collaborations and additional guidance interpreting results were further enablers established by healthcare professionals. The themes identified mirror those reported in broader pediatric genetic testing literature. As only a small number of studies met inclusion criteria for this review, further research is warranted to elicit implementation determinants and advance pediatric pharmacogenomics.

Patient and healthcare professional acceptability of pharmacogenetic screening for DPYD and UGT1A1: A cross sectional survey.

This study explored the acceptability of a novel pharmacist-led pharmacogenetics (PGx) screening program among patients with cancer and healthcare professionals (HCPs) taking part in a multicenter clinical trial of PGx testing (PACIFIC-PGx ANZCTR:12621000251820). Medical oncologists, oncology pharmacists, and patients with cancer from across four sites (metropolitan/regional), took part in an observational, cross-sectional survey. Participants were recruited from the multicenter trial. Two study-specific surveys were developed to inform implementation strategies for scaled and sustainable translation into routine clinical care: one consisting of 21 questions targeting HCPs and one consisting of 17 questions targeting patients. Responses were collected from 24 HCPs and 288 patients. The 5-to-7-day PGx results turnaround time was acceptable to HCP (100%) and patients (69%). Most HCPs (92%) indicated that it was appropriate for the PGx clinical pharmacist to provide results to patients. Patients reported equal preference for receiving PGx results from a doctor/pharmacist. Patients and HCPs highly rated the pharmacist-led PGx service. HCPs were overall accepting of the program, with the majority (96%) willing to offer PGx testing to their patients beyond the trial. HCPs identified that lack of financial reimbursements (62%) and lack of infrastructure (38%) were the main reasons likely to prevent/slow the implementation of PGx screening program into routine clinical care. Survey data have shown overall acceptability from patients and HCPs participating in the PGx Program. Barriers to implementation of PGx testing in routine care have been identified, providing opportunity to develop targeted implementation strategies for scaled translation into routine practice.

Risk-Directed Ambulatory Thromboprophylaxis in Lung and Gastrointestinal Cancers: The TARGET-TP Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Thromboprophylaxis for individuals receiving systemic anticancer therapies has proven to be effective. Potential to maximize benefits relies on improved risk-directed strategies, but existing risk models underperform in cohorts with lung and gastrointestinal cancers. Objective: To assess clinical benefits and safety of biomarker-driven thromboprophylaxis and to externally validate a biomarker thrombosis risk assessment model for individuals with lung and gastrointestinal cancers. Design, Setting, and Participants: This open-label, phase 3 randomized clinical trial (Targeted Thromboprophylaxis in Ambulatory Patients Receiving Anticancer Therapies [TARGET-TP]) conducted from June 2018 to July 2021 (with 6-month primary follow-up) included adults aged 18 years or older commencing systemic anticancer therapies for lung or gastrointestinal cancers at 1 metropolitan and 4 regional hospitals in Australia. Thromboembolism risk assessment based on fibrinogen and d-dimer levels stratified individuals into low-risk (observation) and high-risk (randomized) cohorts. Interventions: High-risk patients were randomized 1:1 to receive enoxaparin, 40 mg, subcutaneously daily for 90 days (extending up to 180 days according to ongoing risk) or no thromboprophylaxis (control). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was objectively confirmed thromboembolism at 180 days. Key secondary outcomes included bleeding, survival, and risk model validation. Results: Of 782 eligible adults, 328 (42%) were enrolled in the trial (median age, 65 years [range, 30-88 years]; 176 male [54%]). Of these participants, 201 (61%) had gastrointestinal cancer, 127 (39%) had lung cancer, and 132 (40%) had metastatic disease; 200 (61%) were high risk (100 in each group), and 128 (39%) were low risk. In the high-risk cohort, thromboembolism occurred in 8 individuals randomized to enoxaparin (8%) and 23 control individuals (23%) (hazard ratio [HR], 0.31; 95% CI, 0.15-0.70; P = .005; number needed to treat, 6.7). Thromboembolism occurred in 10 low-risk individuals (8%) (high-risk control vs low risk: HR, 3.33; 95% CI, 1.58-6.99; P = .002). Risk model sensitivity was 70%, and specificity was 61%. The rate of major bleeding was low, occurring in 1 participant randomized to enoxaparin (1%), 2 in the high-risk control group (2%), and 3 in the low-risk group (2%) (P = .88). Six-month mortality was 13% in the enoxaparin group vs 26% in the high-risk control group (HR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.24-0.93; P = .03) and 7% in the low-risk group (vs high-risk control: HR, 4.71; 95% CI, 2.13-10.42; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial of individuals with lung and gastrointestinal cancers who were stratified by risk score according to thrombosis risk, risk-directed thromboprophylaxis reduced thromboembolism with a desirable number needed to treat, without safety concerns, and with reduced mortality. Individuals at low risk avoided unnecessary intervention. The findings suggest that biomarker-driven, risk-directed primary thromboprophylaxis is an appropriate approach in this population. Trial Registration: ANZCTR Identifier: ACTRN12618000811202.

Immune-related acute kidney injury in Australian non-small cell lung cancer patients: Real-world results.

BACKGROUND: The use of immune checkpoint inhibitors has altered therapeutic paradigms in NSCLC. However, they may cause immune-related toxicities, including acute kidney injury (irAKI), especially when combined with nephrotoxic agents. We investigated the incidence, management and outcomes of AKI in Australian NSCLC patients. METHODS: Medical records from a cancer centre registry were reviewed. AKI was defined and graded on absolute creatinine rise, or rise above baseline. Fishers exact test compared proportions. The Kaplan-Meier method estimated survival, and multiple logistic regression tested for risk factors. RESULTS: Of 449 patients who underwent immunotherapy from 2013 to 2021, the median age was 65 years and 61% were male. Metastatic disease was present in 68% at diagnosis, the remainder had stage Ia-III disease; 70% had adenocarcinoma; and 17% had EGFR mutations. AKI was identified in 65 patients (14.5%) of which 19 were irAKI (4.2%). Within irAKI patients, eleven (58%) had other immune-related adverse events. Median time to irAKI onset was 4 months (IQR 4-6). Seventeen (89%) patients had AKI stage 1 or 2; two had stage 3. Eleven patients developed chronic kidney disease; none required renal replacement therapy. Kidney biopsies demonstrated acute interstitial nephritis (n = 3), acute tubular necrosis (n = 1) and anti-phospholipase A2 receptor negative membranous glomerulonephritis (n = 1). Five patients were rechallenged with immunotherapy; two had recurrent irAKI. The median overall survival for those with irAKI was not reached versus 12 months with no irAKI (HR 0.35, 95 %CI 0.20-0.60, p = 0.01). Risk factors for irAKI included having an additional, non-renal irAE (OR 6.21, 95 %CI 2.35-17.26, p ≤ 0.01); immunotherapy combined with other cancer therapies (OR 5.62, 95 %CI 2.08-16.20, p ≤ 0.01); and ECOG performance status > 1 (OR 4.39 (95 %CI 1.11-14.90, p = 0.02) CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of irAKI was similar to the published literature. Renal recovery was poor, however survival was not compromised. Improved diagnostic and therapeutic strategies for irAKI would benefit this population.

Infective complications in cancer patients treated with subcutaneous versus intravenous trastuzumab and rituximab: An individual patient data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Investigation of infection risk with subcutaneous versus intravenous trastuzumab and rituximab administration in an individual patient data (IPD) and published data meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: Databases were searched to September 2021. Primary outcomes were serious and high-grade infection. Relative-risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) were calculated using random-effects models. RESULTS: IPD meta-analysis (6 RCTs, 2971 participants, 2320 infections) demonstrated higher infection incidence with subcutaneous versus intravenous administration, without reaching statistical significance (serious: 12.2% versus 9.3%, RR 1.28, 95%CI 0.93to1.77, P = 0.13; high-grade: 12.2% versus 9.9%, RR 1.32, 95%CI 0.98to1.77, P = 0.07). With exclusion of an outlying study in post-hoc analysis, increased risks were statistically significant (serious: 13.1% versus 8.4%, RR 1.53, 95%CI 1.14to2.06, P = 0.01; high-grade: 13.2% versus 9.3%, RR 1.56, 95%CI 1.16to2.11, P < 0.01). Published data meta-analysis (8 RCTs, 3745 participants, 648 infections) demonstrated higher incidence of serious (HR 1.31, 95%CI 1.02to1.68, P = 0.04) and high-grade (HR 1.52, 95%CI 1.17to1.98, P < 0.01) infection with subcutaneous versus intravenous administration. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest increased infection risk with subcutaneous versus intravenous administration, although IPD findings are sensitive to exclusion of one trial with inconsistent results and identified risk-of-bias. Ongoing trials may confirm findings. Clinical surveillance should be considered when switching to subcutaneous administration. PROSPERO registration CRD42020221866/CRD42020125376.