ABSTRACT
Introduction: Patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC have a high incidence of brain metastases. The EGFR-directed tyrosine kinase inhibitor osimertinib has intracranial activity, making the role of local central nervous system (CNS)-directed therapies, such as radiation and surgery, less clear. Methods: Patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC and brain metastases who received osimertinib as initial therapy after brain metastasis diagnosis were included. Individual lesion responses were assessed using adapted RANO-BM criteria. CNS progression and local progression of brain metastasis from osimertinib start were analyzed using cumulative incidence treating death as a competing risk. Overall survival was estimated using Kaplan-Meier methodology. Results: There were 36 patients who had a median interval from brain metastasis diagnosis to first-line osimertinib initiation of 25 days. In total, 136 previously untreated brain metastases were tracked from baseline. Overall, 105 lesions (77.2%) had complete response and 31 had partial response reflecting best objective response of 100%. Best response occurred at a median of 96 days (range: 28-1113 d) from baseline magnetic resonance imaging. This reflects a best objective response rate of 100%. Two-year overall survival was 80%. CNS progression rates at 1-, 2-, and 3-years post-osimertinib were 21%, 32%, and 41%, respectively. Lesion-level local failure was estimated to be 0.7% and 4.7% at 1- and 2-years post-osimertinib, respectively. No clinicodemographic factors including brain metastasis number were associated with post-osimertinib progression. Conclusions: Intracranial response to osimertinib is excellent for patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC with de novo, previously untreated brain metastases. Very low local failure rates support a strategy of upfront osimertinib alone in selected patients.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Several professional organizations recommend universal genetic assessment for people with ovarian cancer as identifying pathogenic variants can affect treatment, prognosis, and all-cause mortality for patients and relatives. We sought to evaluate the literature on genetic assessment for women with ovarian cancer and determine if any interventions or patient characteristics drive utilization of services. METHODS: We searched key electronic databases to identify trials that evaluated genetic assessment for people with ovarian cancer. Trials with the primary aim to evaluate utilization of genetic assessment with or without interventions were included. Eligible trials were subjected to meta-analysis and the moderating influence of health interventions on rates of genetic assessment were examined. RESULTS: A total of 35 studies were included (19 report on utilization of genetic services without an intervention, 7 with an intervention, and 9 with both scenarios). Without an intervention, pooled estimates for referral to genetic counseling and completion of genetic testing were 39% [CI 27-53%] and 30% [CI 19-44%]. Clinician-facilitated interventions included: mainstreaming of genetic services (99% [CI 86-100%]), telemedicine (75% [CI 43-93%]), clinic-embedded genetic counselor (76% [CI 32-95%]), reflex tumor somatic genetic assessment (64% [CI 17-94%]), universal testing (57% [28-82%]), and referral forms (26% [CI 10-53%]). Random-effects pooled proportions demonstrated that Black vs. White race was associated with a lower rate of genetic testing (26%[CI 17-38%] vs. 40% [CI 25-57%]) as was being un-insured vs. insured (23% [CI 18-28%] vs. 38% [CI 26-53%]). CONCLUSIONS: Reported rates of genetic testing for people with ovarian cancer remain well below the goal of universal testing. Interventions such as mainstreaming can improve testing uptake. Strategies aimed at improving utilization of genetic services should consider existing disparities in race and insurance status.
