ABSTRACT
Background: Afatinib is indicated for advanced-stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) and uncommon mutations. However, real-world studies on this topic are limited. This study aimed to evaluate afatinib as first-line therapy for locally advanced and metastatic NSCLC with uncommon EGFR mutations. Patients and methods: A retrospective study included 92 patients with advanced NSCLC with uncommon and compound EGFR mutations, treated with afatinib as first-line therapy. Patients were followed up and evaluated every 3 months or when symptoms of progressive disease arose. The endpoints were objective response rate (ORR), time-to-treatment failure (TTF), and adverse events. Results: The G719X EGFR mutation had the highest occurrence rate (53.3% for both monotherapy and the compound). By contrast, the compound mutation G719X-S768I was observed at a rate of 22.8%. The ORR was 75%, with 15.2% of patients achieving complete response. The overall median TTF was 13.8 months. Patients with the G719X EGFR mutation (single and compound) had a median TTF of 19.3 months, longer than that of patients with other mutations, who had a median TTF of 11.2 months. Patients with compound EGFR mutations (G719X and S768I) demonstrated a median TTF of 23.2 months compared to that of 12.3 months for other mutations. Tolerated doses of 20 or 30 mg achieved a longer median TTF of 17.1 months compared to 11.2 months with 40 mg. Median TTF differed between patients with and without brain metastasis, at 11.2 and 16.9 months, respectively. Rash (55.4%) and diarrhea (53.3%) were the most common adverse events, primarily grades 1 and 2. Other side effects occurred at a low rate. Conclusion: Afatinib is effective for locally advanced metastatic NSCLC with uncommon EGFR mutations. Patients with G719X, compound G719X-S768I mutations, and tolerated doses of 20 or 30 mg had a longer median TTF than those with other mutations.
ABSTRACT
AIMS: Clinical decision making is challenging in men with metastatic prostate cancer (mPC), as heterogeneity in treatment options and patient characteristics have resulted in multiple scenarios with little or no evidence. The South East Asia Expert Panel 2019 addressed some of these challenges. METHODS: Based on evidence in the literature and expert interviews, 19 statements were formulated for key challenges in the treatment of men with castration-sensitive and -resistant prostate cancer in clinical practice. A modified Delphi process was used to reach consensus among experts in the panel and develop clinical practice recommendations. RESULTS: The majority of the panel preferred a risk-based stratification and recommended abiraterone or enzalutamide as first-line therapy for symptomatic chemotherapy naïve patients. Abiraterone is preferred over enzalutamide as a first-line treatment in these patients. However, the panel did not support the use of abiraterone in high risk lymph-node positive only (N+M0) or in non-metastatic (N0M0) patients. In select patients, low dose abiraterone with food may be used to optimize clinical outcomes. Androgen receptor gene splice variant status may be a useful guide to therapy. In addition, generic versions of approved therapies may improve access to treatment to a broader patient population. The choice of treatment, as well as sequencing are guided by both patient and disease characteristics, preferences, drug access, cost, and compliance. CONCLUSION: Expert recommendations are key to guidance for the optimal management of mPC. Appropriate choice, timing, and sequence of treatment options can help to tailor therapy to maximize outcomes in men with mPC.
