The Clinically Actionable Molecular Profile of Early versus Late-Stage Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer, an Individual Age and Sex Propensity-Matched Pair Analysis.

Background: Despite meticulous surgery for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), relapse is as high as 70% at 5 years. Many institutions do not conduct reflexive molecular testing on early stage specimens, although targeted gene therapy may extend life by years in the event of recurrence. This ultimately delays definitive treatment with additional biopsy risking suboptimal tissue acquisition and quality for molecular testing. Objective: To compare molecular profiles of genetic alterations in early and late NSCLC to provide evidence that reflexive molecular testing provides clinically valuable information. Methods: A single-center propensity matched retrospective analysis was conducted using prospectively collected data. Adults with early and late-stage NSCLC had tissue subject to targeted panel-based NGS. Frequencies of putative drivers were compared, with 1:3 matching on the propensity score; p < 0.05 deemed statistically significant. Results: In total, 635 NSCLC patients underwent NGS (59 early, 576 late); 276 (43.5%) females; age 70.9 (±10.2) years; never smokers 140 (22.0%); 527 (83.0%) adenocarcinomas. Unadjusted frequencies of EGFR mutations were higher in the early cohort (30% vs. 18%). Following adjustment for sex and smoking status, similar frequencies for both early and late NSCLC were observed for variants in EGFR, KRAS, ALK, MET, and ROS1. Conclusion: The frequency of clinically actionable variants in early and late-stage NSCLC was found to be similar, providing evidence that molecular profiling should be performed on surgical specimens. This pre-determined profile is essential to avoid treatment delay for patients who will derive clinical benefit from targeted systemic therapy, in the high likelihood of subsequent relapse.

Mapping the FACT-G cancer-specific quality of life instrument to the EQ-5D and SF-6D.

OBJECTIVE: To help facilitate economic evaluations of oncology treatments, we mapped responses on cancer-specific instrument to generic preference-based measures. METHODS: Cancer patients (n = 367) completed one cancer-specific instrument, the FACT-G, and two preference-based measures, the EQ-5D and SF-6D. Responses were randomly divided to form development (n = 184) and cross-validation (n = 183) samples. Relationships between the instruments were estimated using ordinary least squares (OLS), generalized linear models (GLM), and censored least absolute deviations (CLAD) regression approaches. The performance of each model was assessed in terms of how well the responses to the cancer-specific instrument predicted EQ-5D and SF-6D utilities using mean absolute error (MAE) and root mean squared error (RMSE). RESULTS: Physical, functional, and emotional well-being domain scores of the FACT-G best explained the EQ-5D and SF-6D. In terms of accuracy of prediction as measured in RMSE, the CLAD model performed best for the EQ-5D (RMSE = 0.095) whereas the GLM model performed best for the SF-6D (RMSE = 0.061). The GLM predicted SF-6D scores matched the observed values more closely than the CLAD and OLS. CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate that the estimation of both EQ-5D and SF-6D utility indices using the FACT-G responses can be achieved. The CLAD model for the EQ-5D and the GLM model for the SF-6D are recommended. Thus, it is possible to estimate quality-adjusted life years for economic evaluation from studies where only cancer-specific instrument have been administered.

Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs): do they still have a role in chemotherapy-induced anemia (CIA)?

PURPOSE: Anemia in cancer patients can be a result of the underlying cancer or related to treatment. Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) are an important option for many patients with chemotherapy-induced anemia, but are immersed in controversy. This article aims to reconcile conflicting opinions and provide expert guidance for appropriate ESA use. METHODS: Teleconference, email, and a face-to-face meeting were used to assess ESA therapy "interpretive" data, which included two current meta-analyses, expert guidelines, and regulatory approved indications from Canada, Europe, and the USA. RESULTS: Risks and benefits are associated with both red blood cell transfusions and ESA therapy, including improvements in hemoglobin levels and quality of life. ESAs have been associated with concerns regarding survival and progression of cancer, particularly when used in patients with cancer-related anemia. CONCLUSION: Although safety concerns do exist, ESA therapy can be considered for use in patients with chemotherapy-induced anemia in accordance with Health Canada labeling.

The ability of cancer-specific and generic preference-based instruments to discriminate across clinical and self-reported measures of cancer severities.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the validity of cancer-specific and generic preference-based instruments to discriminate across different measures of cancer severities. METHODS: Patients with breast (n = 66), colorectal (n = 57), and lung (n = 61) cancer completed the EORTC QLQ-C30 and the FACT-G, as well as three generic instruments: the EQ-5D, the SF-6D, and the HUI2/3. Disease severity was quantified using cancer stage, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG-PS) score, and self-reported health status. Comparative analyses confirmed the multi-dimensional conceptualization of the instruments in terms of construct and convergent validity. RESULTS: In general, the instruments were able to discriminate across severity measures. The instruments demonstrated moderate to strong correlation with each other (r = 0.37-0.73). Not all of the measures could discriminate between different groups of disease severity: the EQ-5D and SF-6D were less discriminative than the HUI2/3 and the cancer-specific instruments. CONCLUSION: The cancer-specific and generic preference-based instruments demonstrated to be valid in discriminating across levels of ECOG-PS scores and self-reported health states. However, the usefulness of the generic instruments may be limited if they are not able to detect small changes in health status within cancer patients. This raises concerns regarding the appropriateness of these instruments when comparing different cancer treatments within an economic evaluation framework.

A systematic review and Canadian consensus recommendations on the use of biomarkers in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Greater understanding of molecular pathways important in cell growth and proliferation of thoracic malignancies, particularly non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), has resulted in intense clinical and translational research. There is now considerable interest in personalizing treatment based on an understanding of tumor histology and molecular abnormalities. However, there is a multiplicity of data, often with discordant results resulting in confusion and uncertainty among clinicians. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and a consensus meeting of Canadian lung cancer oncologists and pathologists to make recommendations on the use of biomarkers in NSCLC. PubMed covering 2005 to March 2010 was searched using MESH terms for NSCLC and randomized trials, plus text words for the biomarkers of interest. Conference proceedings from 2005 to 2009 ASCO, ESMO, IASLC, and USCAP were also searched. The articles were reviewed by pairs of oncologists and pathologists to determine eligibility for inclusion. RESULTS: Ten oncologists and pathologists reviewed and summarized the literature at a meeting attended by 37 individuals. Draft recommendations were formulated and agreed upon by consensus process. There is some evidence that histology is prognostic for survival. There is evidence from multiple randomized clinical trials to recommend the following: histologic subtype is predictive of treatment efficacy and for some agents toxicity. Immunohistochemistry testing should be performed on NSCLC specimens that cannot be classified accurately with conventional H&E staining. As EGFR mutations are predictive of benefit from tyrosine kinase inhibitors, diagnostic NSCLC samples should be routinely tested for EGFR-activating mutations. Clinical data on K-RAS mutations are inconsistent, therefore testing is not recommended. There is insufficient evidence to recommend other biomarker testing. No biomarkers to date reliably predict improved efficacy for anti-VEGF therapy. Routine assessment for EML4/ALK mutations is not recommended at present, although emerging data suggest that it may become valuable in the near future. CONCLUSIONS: Assessment of NSCLC biomarkers is becoming increasingly important. Therefore, adequate diagnostic material must be obtained for accurate histologic subtyping and relevant molecular biology assays.