Integrative oncology for patients with lung cancer: A prospective pragmatic controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Complementary medicine and integrative oncology modalities (IOM) have been included in the clinical practice guidelines of the American College of Chest Physicians in the treatments of patients with lung cancer. The present study examined the impact of a patient-tailored IOM treatment program on quality of life (QoL)-related concerns among patients with non-small and small lung cancer undergoing active oncology treatment. METHODS: This controlled study was pragmatic and prospective assessing the adherence among patients referred by their oncology healthcare provider to an integrative physician consultation, followed by 6 weekly IOM treatments addressing QoL-related concerns. High adherence to integrative care (high-AIC, vs. low-AIC) was defined as attending ≥4 IOM sessions. Symptoms were assessed using the ESAS (Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale), EORTC QLQ-C30 (European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire), and MYCAW (Measure Yourself Concerns and Wellbeing) tools, at baseline and 6 weeks. RESULTS: Of 153 patients, 74 (48 %) were high-AIC, with baseline demographic, cancer-and QoL-related characteristics similar to those of low-AIC patients. At 6 weeks, high-AIC patients reported greater improvement on MYCAW well-being (p = 0.036), with within-group improvement observed for EORTC pain (p = 0.021) and emotional functioning (p = 0.041); and for ESAS depression (p = 0.005), with borderline significance for EORTC sleep (p = 0.06). CONCLUSION: High adherence to a 6-week IOM program within supportive/palliative care for patients with lung cancer was found to alleviate pain and emotional concerns, improving overall QoL. Further research is needed to confirm the findings in real-life IOM practice for patients with lung cancer.

dNLR-Based Score Predicting Overall Survival Benefit for The Addition of Platinum-Based Chemotherapy to Pembrolizumab in Advanced NSCLC With PD-L1 Tumor Proportion Score ≥50.

INTRODUCTION: Both pembrolizumab (P) as a monotherapy or in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy (PCT) represent standard first-line treatment options for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) with PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS)≥50%. No predictive biomarkers exist to guide treatment decisions. METHODS: 423 consecutive patients with EGFR/ALK/ROS1-wild-type PD-L1 TPS≥50% aNSCLC receiving P (n = 302) or PCT (n = 121) as a first-line treatment were identified in the electronic databases of 5 Israeli cancer centers. Overall survival (OS, months [mo]) was assessed in correlation with blood biomarkers (BB: NLR, dNLR, PLR, SII, LIPI, ALI); a predictive score was developed. RESULTS: In the propensity score matching analysis (n = 236; 118 patients in each group matched for age, sex and ECOG PS), mOS was 17.2mo (95% CI, 13.2-36.5) and 21.3mo (95% CI, 14.8-NR) in groups P and PCT, respectively (P = .44). In group P, NLR, dNLR, PLR, LIPI, and ALI significantly correlated with OS in uni- and multivariate COX regression analyses (P < .05), whereas in group PCT, none of the BB demonstrated a significant correlation. A predictive score was developed (each parameter receiving one point): age≥65, female sex, never-smoking status, adenocarcinoma histology, dNLR≥3. In patients with predictive score 3-5, OS was significantly longer with PCT as compared to P: mOS NR (95% CI, 15.3-NR) and 8.7mo (95% CI, 5.8-13.7) (P = .0005), while OS didn't differ significantly in patients with predictive score 0-2 (P = .61). CONCLUSION: With the limitations of the retrospective analysis, the proposed dNLR-based score appears to predict OS with P and PCT.

Efficacy and Safety of BRAF Inhibitors With or Without MEK Inhibitors in BRAF-Mutant Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Findings From a Real-Life Cohort.

BACKGROUND: Real-life comparative data on BRAF inhibitors (BRAFi) and BRAFi + MEK inhibitors (MEKi) combination in BRAF-mutant (BRAFm) non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is lacking. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Consecutive BRAFm advanced NSCLC patients (n = 58) treated in 9 Israeli centers in 2009-2018 were identified. These were divided according to mutation subtype and treatment into groups A1 (V600E, BRAFi; n = 5), A2 (V600E, BRAFi + MEKi; n = 15), A3 (V600E, no BRAFi; n = 7), B1 (non-V600E, BRAFi ± MEKi; n = 7), and B2 (non-V600E, no BRAFi; n = 23); one patient received both BRAFi and BRAFi + MEKi. Safety, objective response rate, progression-free survival with BRAFi ± MEKi, and overall survival were assessed. RESULTS: Objective response rate was 40%, 67%, and 33% in groups A1, A2, and B1, respectively (P = .5 for comparison between groups A1 and A2). In group B1, G469A and L597R mutations were associated with response to BRAFi + MEKi. Median progression-free survival was 1.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.5-5.3), 5.5 months (95% CI, 0.7-9.3), and 3.6 months (95% CI, 1.5-6.7) for groups A1, A2, and B1, respectively (log-rank for comparison between groups A1 and A2, P = .04). Median overall survival with BRAFi ± MEKi was 1.7 months (95% CI, 0.5-NR), 9.5 months (95% CI, 0.2-14.9), and 7.1 months (95% CI, 1.8-NR) in groups A1, A2, and B1, respectively (log-rank for comparison between groups A1 and A2, P = .6). Safety profiles differed slightly, and similar treatment discontinuation rates were observed with BRAFi and BRAFi + MEKi. CONCLUSION: In the real-life setting, activity and safety of BRAFi + MEKi in V600E BRAFm NSCLC are comparable to those observed in prospective clinical trials; the combination of BRAFi + MEKi is superior to monotherapy with a BRAFi. Further research should be done to explore the impact of BRAFi + MEKi treatment on the natural history of BRAFm NSCLC.

BRAF Mutant Lung Cancer: Programmed Death Ligand 1 Expression, Tumor Mutational Burden, Microsatellite Instability Status, and Response to Immune Check-Point Inhibitors.

INTRODUCTION: The efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICPi) in BRAF mutant NSCLC is unknown. METHODS: Multi-institutional retrospective chart review identified 39 patients with BRAF mutant NSCLC. The patients were divided into two groups: V600E (group A, n = 21) and non-V600E (group B, n = 18). Programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression, tumor mutational burden (TMB) and microsatellite instability status were assessed in 29 (74%), 11 (28%), and 12 (31%) patients, respectively. Objective response rate, progression-free survival (PFS) with ICPi, and overall survival were analyzed. RESULTS: High (≥50%), intermediate (1-49%), and no (<1%) PD-L1 expression was observed in 8 of 19 (42%), 6 of 19 (32%), 5 of 19 (26%), and 5 of 10 (50%), 1 of 10 (10%), and 4 of 10 (40%) cases in groups A and B, respectively. Two tumors in group A showed high TMB (25%); none were microsatellite instability status-high. Twenty-two patients (group A, n = 12; group B, n = 10) received ICPi. Objective response rate with ICPi was 25% and 33% in groups A and B, respectively (p = 1.0). Median PFS with ICPi was 3.7 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.6-6.6), and 4.1 months (95% CI: 0.1-19.6) in groups A and B, respectively (log-rank test = 0.81, p = 0.37). Neither BRAF mutation type nor PD-L1 expression affected the response probability/PFS. Median overall survival was not reached (95% CI: 13-NR) and comprised 21.1 months (95% CI: 1.8-NR) for patients who were and were not exposed to ICPi, respectively (log-rank test = 5.58, p = 0.018). CONCLUSIONS: BRAF mutant NSCLC is associated with high level of PD-L1 expression, low/intermediate TMB and microsatellite-stable status. ICPi have favorable activity both in BRAF V600E and BRAF non-V600E mutant NSCLC.

Statins, aspirin and risk of venous thromboembolic events in breast cancer patients.

Venous thromboembolic events (VTE's) are associated with decreased survival in breast cancer patients. Studies suggested that statins reduce the risk of VTE's in the general population. Low dose Aspirin reduces risk of VTE's in high risk populations. The Breast Cancer in Northern Israel Study is a case-control study of consecutive breast cancer cases diagnosed in northern Israel and matched controls. The present analysis was limited to cases with breast cancer enrolled in the study. Data was extracted from Clalit Health Services (CHS) database and from computerized pharmacy records. Out of 3,585 patients enrolled, 261 (7.3%) had a VTE during median follow up of 4.2 years. The 1 and 2 year cumulative incidence was 2.64 and 3.65%. 55.7% of patients used statins, predominantly simvastatin (75.8%). 44.5% used aspirin. In multivariate analysis neither statins nor aspirin use was associated with a reduced risk for a VTE. Unadjusted HR for statin and aspirin was 1.461 (1.018-2.096) and 1.293 (0.846-1.976), respectively, and the adjusted HR were 0.86 (0.648-1.14) and 1.013 (0.737-1.392). Results were similar when only simvastatin use was assessed. Metastatic disease, chemotherapy, age, BMI and presence of comorbidities were significantly associated with risk of VTE's. Our study is the first to look at the effect of statins and aspirin on the incidence of VTE's in patients with breast cancer. In our cohort, statin and aspirin use did not decrease the risk for a VTE. Our results might be explained by use of low potency statins (simvastatin and pravastatin) and by alternate mechanisms for VTE formation in patients with cancer.