[Systemic therapeutic strategies for hepatocellular carcinoma: current status and prospects].

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a common type of poorly prognosticated malignant tumor. Surgical resection is the preferred treatment method for early-stage HCC. However, at the time of the initial diagnosis, fewer than 30% of patients with liver cancer are suitable for radical therapy. Systemic therapy plays an important role in the treatment process of patients with intermediate- to advanced-stage HCC, as it can effectively extend patients' survival time. With an emphasis on the status and role of systemic therapy for comprehensive management of HCC, this article summarizes the latest progress at home and abroad in the past five years, including first-line combined immunotherapy for advanced-stage HCC, second-line therapy selection, perioperative systemic therapy application, and combined therapy of systemic and local. Currently, the treatment model combined with local therapy has already become a new research hotspot in the treatment of advanced-stage HCC. Nevertheless, in the future, individualized and precise systemic therapeutic strategies will need further exploration.

Efficacy of thrombopoietin receptor agonists versus rituximab in non-responsive immune thrombocytopenia-A single centre retrospective analysis.

Management of immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) beyond initial glucocorticoid therapy is challenging. In this retrospective single-centre cohort study, we compared all ITP patients relapsed or non-responsive to glucocorticoid therapy treated with either continuous TPO-RAs (n = 35) or rituximab induction (n = 20) between 2015 and 2022. While both groups showed high initial complete response rates (CR, 68.6 vs. 80.0%, ns), the overall rate of progression to the next therapy was higher after time-limited rituximab (75.0 vs. 42.9%), resulting in a lower relapse-free survival (median 16.6 vs. 25.8 months, log-rank; p < 0.05). We conclude that both treatments show similar initial efficacy and their ideal duration of therapy warrants further investigation.

Second-Line Treatment after Failure of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor, Retrial of Immunotherapy, or Locoregional Therapy?

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based therapy such as atezolizumab plus bevacizumab or durvalumab plus tremelimumab became mainstream first-line systemic treatment in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients since remarkably superior efficacy of ICI-based therapy compared to tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) was reported in two recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (IMbrave150, HIMALAYA). However, the optimal second-line therapy after treatment failure of first-line ICI-based therapy remains unknown as no RCT has examined this issue. Summary: Therefore, at present, most clinicians are empirically treating patients with TKIs or retrial of ICI or locoregional treatment (LRT) modality such as transarterial therapy, radiofrequency ablation, and radiation therapy in this clinical setting without solid evidence. In this review, we will discuss current optimal strategies for second-line treatment after the failure of first-line ICI-based therapy by reviewing published studies and ongoing prospective trials. Key Messages: Clinicians should consider carefully whether to treat the patients with TKI, other ICI-based therapy, or LRT in this situation by considering several factors including liver function reserve, performance status, adverse events of previous therapy, and presence of lesion that can consider LRT such as oligoprogression and vascular invasion. In the meantime, we await the results of ongoing prospective trials to elucidate the best management options.

Prospective, Observational Study of Aflibercept Use in Combination with FOLFIRI in Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Real-World Effectiveness Study.

BACKGROUND: This was an observational study prospectively evaluating the effectiveness and safety of aflibercept/FOLFIRI administered in second-line mCRC per the reimbursement criteria in Poland. METHODS: Consecutive mCRC patients who progressed with first-line oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy received aflibercept (4 mg/kg IV) followed by FOLFIRI every 2 weeks until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS); overall survival (OS) and safety were the secondary endpoints. RESULTS: A total of 93 patients were treated at 17 Polish sites. A median of 10 cycles was administered. Over a median treatment duration of 5.3 months, median PFS and median OS were 8.4 months [95% CI, 6.9-9.9] and 27.0 months [95% CI, 23.9-30.1], respectively. There was no significant impact of primary tumor location, metastatic site, or KRAS status on PFS and OS. Main grade ≥ 3 adverse events were neutropenia (16%), hypertension (8%), diarrhea (4%), and stomatitis (4%). CONCLUSIONS: The benefits/risks of Aflibercept plus FOLFIRI administered per the Polish reimbursement criteria in second-line treatment of mCRC after failure of a prior oxaliplatin-based regimen is confirmed.

A Single-Arm Multi-Center Phase II Clinical Trial of Cadonilimab (anti-PD-1/CTLA-4) in Combination with or without Conventional Second-Line Treatment for Patients with Extensive Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Cadonilimab (AK104) is a bispecific IgG-single-chain Fv fragment (ScFv) antibody that binds to PD-1 and CTLA-4. Cadonilimab has shown encouraging anti-tumour activity and a favourable safety profile in several tumour types. In second-line treatment, there is no defined standard of care for patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). Cadonilimab is expected to show substantial clinical efficacy. OBJECTIVE: To assess the antitumor activity and safety of cadonilimab monotherapy or combination with conventional therapy in ES-SCLC patients who failed first-line treatment. METHODS: In this multicenter, open-label, phase II study, ES-SCLC patients who had failed first-line treatment, also aged 18 years to 70 years with histologically or cytologically confirmed ES-SCLC, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG-PS) of 0-2 were eligible. Patients will receive cadonilimab 10 mg/kg every three weeks (Q3 W) among 24 months until progressive disease (PD) or adverse events (AE) discovery. The primary endpoint is progression-free survival (PFS). TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT05901584.

Real-World Effectiveness and Safety of Ramucirumab as a Second-Line Treatment for Patients with Unresectable Advanced or Metastatic Gastric/Gastroesophageal Junction Adenocarcinoma in Japan and South Korea: A Systematic Literature Review.

INTRODUCTION: Gastric cancer has the highest incidence and mortality in Eastern Asia. The efficacy and safety of ramucirumab (RAM) monotherapy or in combination with paclitaxel (PTX) for patients with unresectable advanced or metastatic gastric/gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (G/GEA) have been established in clinical trials. To assess the effectiveness and safety of RAM or RAM-based therapy as a second-line treatment in real-world clinical practice in Eastern Asia and to pave the way for future research, a systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted. METHODS: Studies published between January 2014 and December 2021 were identified in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wanfang, and CBM databases. RESULTS: This SLR included 23 studies from Japan and South Korea, of which 22 were retrospective and 11 were full-text articles. Most studies investigated RAM + PTX (range of median overall survival [mOS] 7.4-12.2 months; median progression-free survival [mPFS] 3.35-7.0 months). Data were limited for RAM, RAM + albumin-bound paclitaxel, and RAM + taxane. RAM + PTX was associated with longer survival (mOS 9.3-12.2 months vs. 5.2-9.7 months; mPFS 4.1-5.1 months vs. 3.0-4.1 months) than PTX. Patients with prior anti-programmed cell death 1 (anti-PD-1) exposure experienced longer mPFS (4.8 vs. 3.4 months) from RAM + taxane than those without prior anti-PD-1 exposure. Few patients (3.3-6.3%) discontinued RAM or RAM-based therapy because of adverse events (AEs). Hematological toxicities were most frequently occurring AEs and no new safety signals were identified compared to clinical trials. CONCLUSION: RAM + PTX as a second-line treatment is effective and associated with an acceptable toxicity profile in patients with advanced or metastatic G/GEA in real-world settings of Japan and South Korea. More studies are recommended to further evaluate effectiveness and safety of RAM or RAM-based therapy, especially after anti-PD-1 therapy, in a wider Eastern Asian population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: INPLASY registration number INPLASY2022120023.

Efficacy and safety analysis of immune checkpoint inhibitor rechallenge therapy in locally advanced and advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a retrospective study.

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have dramatically changed the first-line treatment pattern of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) without driver gene alterations. However, the optimal choice for second-line treatment after initial treatment with ICIs is unclear. This study aimed to clarify the efficacy and safety of ICI rechallenge therapy in locally advanced and advanced NSCLC. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the histories of 224 patients with locally advanced or advanced NSCLC treated with programmed death-1 (PD-1)/programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors alone or in combination with chemotherapy and/or antiangiogenic therapy in first-line treatment. Progression-free survival 2 (PFS2) was the time from the first defined progress disease (PD) to the second disease progression or death. Efficacy evaluation was performed directly in accordance with RECIST v1.1 criteria. Adverse events (AEs) were graded following the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v5.0. Survival data were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method or Cox survival regression model and compared using the log-rank test in overall cohort and other subgroups. Results: There were no significant differences in objective response rate (ORR) and median PFS2 (mPFS2) between the ICI rechallenge group and non-rechallenge group (ORR: 10.3% vs. 15.3%, P=0.308; mPFS2: 5.33 vs. 4.40 months, P=0.715). And the ICI rechallenge group showed no new safety signals compared with non-rechallenge group. In ICI rechallenge group, patients resistant to first-line immunotherapy had a lower ORR and shorter PFS2 compared with those who responded to initial ICIs treatment (ORR: 7.0% vs. 17.6%, P=0.038; mPFS2: 3.68 vs. 5.91 months, P=0.014). No significant difference in mPFS2 was observed among different second-line treatment groups (P=0.362). Radiotherapy in second-line treatment and ICI rechallenge therapy were not the main factors affecting PFS2. Conclusions: ICI rechallenge therapy beyond disease progression did not improve clinical outcomes in patients with NSCLC, but no new safety signals emerged. However, patients with favorable response to initial ICIs treatment still showed significant efficacy of subsequent ICI rechallenge therapy.

Efficacy and biomarker analysis of second-line nab-paclitaxel plus sintilimab in patients with advanced biliary tract cancer.

Biliary tract cancer (BTC) is a highly aggressive malignancy with limited second-line therapy. We conducted this phase 2 trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of second-line nab-paclitaxel plus sintilimab in advanced BTC. Histologically confirmed advanced BTC patients with documented disease progression after first-line chemotherapy were enrolled. Subjects received nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 plus sintilimab 200 mg on day 1, administered every 3 weeks. The primary end point was the objective response rate (ORR). The secondary end points were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and adverse reactions. Simultaneously, next-generation sequencing, programmed cell death ligand 1 immunohistochemistry and multiplex immunofluorescence of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes were applied to explore potential biomarkers. Twenty-six subjects were consecutively enrolled. The ORR was 26.9% (7/26), including two complete responses and five partial responses, which met the primary end point. The disease control rate was 61.5% (16/26). The median PFS was 169 days (about 5.6 months, 95% confidence interval [CI] 60-278 days). The median OS was 442 days (about 14.7 months, 95% CI 298-586 days). Grade 3 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were mainly anemia (27%), leukopenia (23%), neutropenia (19%), and peripheral sensory neuropathy (8%). No grade 4 or 5 TRAEs occurred. Biomarker analysis suggested that positive PD-L1 and high proportions of CD8+ T-cell infiltration were correlated with improved clinical outcome. Nab-paclitaxel plus sintilimab is a potentially effective and tolerable second-line regimen for advanced BTC that deserves to be studied in large-scale trials. PD-L1 status and CD8+ T cell infiltration might be promising biomarkers for efficacy prediction.

Locoregional treatment improves overall survival for liver cancer during second-line regorafenib or immune checkpoint inhibitor.

For advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), the best second-line treatment after first-line treatment with sorafenib is unclear. This study aimed to compared the efficacy of second-line regorafenib (a tyrosine kinase inhibitor) and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in patients with advanced HCC after sorafenib therapy. This retrospective study included 89 patients with HCC treated with sorafenib, and then regorafenib (n = 58) or an ICI (n = 31). Treatment response, overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) of the 2 groups were compared, and factors associated with post-treatment mortality or disease progression were evaluated. During follow-up period, compared to regorafenib, treatment with an ICI results in a slight increase in a 20% decrease of AFP (35.7% vs. 31.8%), complete response rate (6.5% vs. 0%), objective response rate (16.1% vs. 6.9%), median overall survival (13.3 vs. 5 months), and median PFS (3.0 vs. 2.6 months). Combined locoregional treatment (LRT) (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.40, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.15-0.99) during second-line treatment was associated with a decreased risk of post-treatment mortality. After propensity scoring matching, combined LRT during second-line treatment had longer post-treatment OS than patients without combined LRT. A 20% decrease of AFP (HR = 0.54, 95% CI: 0.31-0.94) was associated with a decreased risk of post-treatment disease progression. In conclusions, second-line treatment with regorafenib or ICI prolongs OS in patients with advanced HCC treated with sorafenib. Combined LRT during second-line treatment is associated with decreased post-treatment mortality. A 20% decrease of AFP level may be predictive of a lower rate of disease progression.

Non-inferiority analysis of subcutaneous versus intravenous 300 mg monthly natalizumab administration: A post hoc analysis of the REFINE study.

To quantify the probability that monthly intravenous (IV) and subcutaneous (SC) natalizumab (NTZ) had similar efficacy in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), non-inferiority of efficacy of NTZ-SC versus NTZ-IV on combined MRI unique active lesions number (CUAL) was explored re-analysing the REFINE data set. Non-inferiority margins were selected equal to 25%/33%/50% fractions of the effect size of NTZ-IV versus placebo observed in the AFFIRM study. Ninety-nine RRMS were included. NTZ-SC resulted not inferior to NTZ-IV on CUAL for all margins at 2.5% significance level, and, in worst-case scenario, its effect over NTZ-IV did not exceed 3.5% (or 2.8%) of the effect of NTZ-IV versus placebo.

Sintilimab combined with axitinib in the treatment of advanced chromophobe renal cell carcinoma: a case report.

Chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (ChRCC) is a rare pathological type of renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Related systematic studies involving large numbers of patients are lacking, and more importantly, there is currently no international consensus on post-line treatment guidelines for ChRCC. The rapid development of systemic treatment with molecular targeted therapies and immune checkpoint inhibitors has brought effective approaches for patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC), while progress in the treatment of ChRCC is still limited. In this case report, the patient was initially diagnosed at the early stage; 4 years post-surgery, she developed lung metastases and the disease progressed once again after being treated with sunitinib monotherapy for 3 years. However, after combining the immunotherapy sintilimab with the targeted therapy axitinib as second-line treatment, imageological examination showed lesions in the lungs that gradually decreased, and the bone metastases remained stable. To date, the patient has been continuously treated for over 2 years and is still undergoing regular treatment and follow-up. This case is the first to report the long-term survival of metastatic disease by using this treatment regimen and to propose a potential therapeutic option for patients with metastatic ChRCC. Since only one case was observed in this report, further study is needed.

Selection strategy of second-line biologic therapies in adult patients with ulcerative colitis following prior biologic treatment failure: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Optimizing second-line biologic therapies for adult ulcerative colitis (UC) post first-line failure is essential. OBJECTIVE: Compare second-line biologic therapy efficacy in adult UC patients with prior treatment failure. METHODS: A comprehensive search of electronic databases up to May 2023 was conducted to assess second-line biologic therapy efficacy using a random effects model. Parameters analyzed included clinical remission rate, clinical response rate, mucosal healing rate, annual discontinuation rate, and colectomy rates. RESULTS: Forty-three research papers were analyzed. Clinical remission rates for second-line biologics were ranked at 6-14 weeks: Infliximab (30%) was followed by Vedolizumab (29%), Ustekinumab (27%), and Adalimumab (19%). At 52-54 weeks, the order shifted, with Vedolizumab (35%) followed by Infliximab (32%), Ustekinumab (31%), and Adalimumab (26%). The mucosal healing rate was 21%, ranked as: Infliximab (31%), Vedolizumab (21%), Adalimumab (21%), and Ustekinumab (14%). The annual discontinuation rate stood at 20%, with Adalimumab (25%), Vedolizumab (18%), Infliximab (17%), and Ustekinumab (16%). Discontinuation rates due to primary failure (PF), secondary failure (SF), and adverse events (AE) were 6%, 12%, and 3%, respectively. The annual colectomy rate was 9%, with Adalimumab (15%) followed by Vedolizumab (10%), Ustekinumab (9%), and Infliximab (5%), and colectomy rates of 10% due to PF, 12% due to SF, and 4% due to AE. CONCLUSION: For UC patients with first-line treatment failure, it is recommended to prioritize infliximab or vedolizumab as second-line biologic therapies, while avoiding adalimumab as the primary choice. Further clinical trials are necessary to assess ustekinumab efficacy accurately.

Tacrolimus versus mycophenolate for AutoImmune hepatitis patients with incompLete response On first-line therapy (TAILOR study): a study protocol for a phase III, open-label, multicentre, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Autoimmune hepatitis (AIH) is a rare, chronic inflammatory disease of the liver. The treatment goal is reaching complete biochemical response (CR), defined as the normalisation of aspartate and alanine aminotransferases and immunoglobulin gamma. Ongoing AIH activity can lead to fibrosis and (decompensated) cirrhosis. Incomplete biochemical response is the most important risk factor for liver transplantation or liver-related mortality. First-line treatment consists of a combination of azathioprine and prednisolone. If CR is not reached, tacrolimus (TAC) or mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) can be used as second-line therapy. Both products are registered for the prevention of graft rejection in solid organ transplant recipients. The aim of this study is to compare the effectiveness and safety of TAC and MMF as second-line treatment for AIH. METHODS: The TAILOR study is a phase IIIB, multicentre, open-label, parallel-group, randomised (1:1) controlled trial performed in large teaching and university hospitals in the Netherlands. We will enrol 86 patients with AIH who have not reached CR after at least 6 months of treatment with first-line therapy. Patients are randomised to TAC (0.07 mg/kg/day initially and adjusted by trough levels) or MMF (max 2000 mg/day), stratified by the presence of cirrhosis at inclusion. The primary endpoint is the difference in the proportion of patients reaching CR after 12 months. Secondary endpoints include the difference in the proportion of patients reaching CR after 6 months, adverse effects, difference in fibrogenesis, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. DISCUSSION: This is the first randomised controlled trial comparing two second-line therapies for AIH. Currently, second-line treatment is based on retrospective cohort studies. The rarity of AIH is the main issue in clinical research for alternative treatment options. The results of this trial can be implemented in existing international clinical guidelines. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05221411 . Retrospectively registered on 3 February 2022; EudraCT number 2021-003420-33. Prospectively registered on 16 June 2021.

Comparison of Efficacy and Safety of Second-Line Treatment Options for Advanced Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Retrospective Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: As monotherapy such as topotecan has reached a plateau of effectiveness, new second-line treatments based on experience have been used in clinical application. This study compared the efficacy and safety of different second-line treatments for advanced small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). METHODS: A total of 380 patients with advanced SCLC were screened selectively in the retrospective study. Adverse events and patient responses were assessed using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v5.0 and Response Evaluation Criteria for Solid Tumors v1.1. The progression-free survival (PFS) was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method or Cox survival regression model and compared using the log-rank test. RESULTS: In the platinum-resistant group, disease control rate (DCR) and median PFS (mPFS) were prolonged in the combination group versus single-agent group (DCR: 49.24% vs 24.39%, P = .004; mPFS: 3.73 vs 1.90 months, P < .001). Grade 3/4 toxicity was similar between the 2 groups (P = .683). The mPFS did not differ among single-agent groups (P = .380). No significant difference was observed in mPFS of different combination therapy groups (P = .170). In terms of platinum-based chemotherapy, the DCR and mPFS were prolonged in irinotecan-platinum group versus taxol-platinum group (DCR: 56.14% vs 9.09%, P = .004; mPFS: 3.87 vs 1.93 months, P = .012). Grade 3/4 toxicity was similar between the 2 groups (P = .614). The mPFS was prolonged in the chemotherapy plus immunotherapy group versus single-agent chemotherapy group (P = .003). In the platinum-sensitive group, the mPFS did not differ between the combination group and single-agent group (P = .200). The mPFS did not differ among different single-agent groups (P = .260) or combination groups (P = .150). There was no difference in mPFS among different platinum-based chemotherapy groups (P = .830). CONCLUSIONS: For patients with platinum-resistant SCLC, combination therapy has shown better efficacy and acceptable toxicity profile than monotherapy. Among combination therapies, irinotecan-platinum has shown better efficacy than taxol-platinum. For patients with platinum-sensitive SCLC, the efficacy of different single-agent or combination therapies was similar.

Exploring Molecular Mechanisms in the Second-Line Treatment of Biliary Tract Malignant Tumors.

Biliary tract malignant tumors account for about 3% of gastrointestinal malignancies. Based on anatomical location, biliary tract malignant tumors can be divided into gallbladder carcinoma, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC), hilar cholangiocarcinoma, and distal cholangiocarcinoma. Surgical treatment is the main treatment for early-stage biliary malignant tumors, the insidious nature of the disease often leads to late diagnoses, causing many patients missing the window for surgical intervention. Gemcitabine combined with cisplatin serves as a first-line treatment for patients with advanced or unresectable lesions, however, a definitive standard for second-line treatment has not yet been established. In recent years, many advances have occurred in the study of the molecular mechanisms contributing to the occurrence and development of biliary malignancies, providing a foundation for targeted treatments of the disease. This review summarizes the existing literature and explores potential second-line treatment options for advanced biliary malignancies based on our understanding of the molecular pathogenesis and tumor pathology.

Infliximab is an effective option in patients with ulcerative colitis previously exposed to full subcutaneous anti-TNF agent: Results from a real-world multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Data on infliximab efficacy in bio-exposed patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) are limited. AIMS: To evaluate infliximab effectiveness and its predictors in UC patients with prior exposure to subcutaneous (SC) anti-TNF agent. METHODS: In this multicenter retrospective study (8 centers), we included all consecutive UC patients with prior exposure to subcutaneous anti-TNF, starting infliximab for symptomatic UC, excluding acute severe colitis. Corticosteroid-free clinical remission (CFREM) was assessed at week 14 (W14) and W52 while endoscopic improvement (CFREM + endoscopic Mayo score≤1) was evaluated at W14. RESULTS: Overall, 104 patients were included (pancolitis=54.8%, primary failure to subcutaneous anti-TNF=57.4%, concomitant immunosuppressant=53.8%, median partial Mayo score at baseline=7[5-8]). The rate of CFREM was 33.6% (35/104) at W14 and 40.4% (42/104) at W52. At W14, endoscopic improvement was achieved in 29.8%(31/104). In multivariable analysis, concomitant immunosuppressant was associated with higher rate of CFREM at W14(OR=2.83[1.06-7.54], p = 0.037) and W52(OR=2.68[1.16-6.22];p = 0.021), while primary failure to a previous subcutaneous anti-TNF agent led to lower rate of CFREM at W14 (OR=0.37[0.14-0.98], p = 0.046). After a median follow-up of 20.9 months[11.7-33.7]), 50.0%(52/104) patients had discontinued infliximab. CONCLUSION: Infliximab is an effective option in UC patients previously exposed to prior subcutaneous anti-TNF agent and should be used with concomitant immunosuppressant.

Successful application of lorlatinib in a 23-year-old patient with anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive lung cancer and multiple brain metastases.

BACKGROUND: Anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive lung cancer has a better long-term prognosis with ALK-inhibitor than other lung cancers. However, resistance to ALK-inhibitors and the control of metastases in the central nervous system (CNS) remain to be a challenge in the management of ALK-positive lung cancer. CASE: We present the case of a 23-year-old man who developed multiple brain metastases while receiving alectinib treatment for ALK-positive lung cancer. After 3 months of lorlatinib initiation, brain metastases disappeared, and complete response (CR) was maintained. CONCLUSION: While lorlatinib can be used as first line therapy, this drug may be considered as second line or later option for patients with multiple brain metastases if the patient has already been treated with other ALK-inhibitors since lorlatinib is thought to have good CNS penetration. This treatment option should be verified by further research.

Liposomal irinotecan plus fluorouracil/leucovorin in older patients with advanced pancreatic cancer: a single-center retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: The global phase 3 NAPOLI -1 trial of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) demonstrated an overall survival (OS) benefit from using liposomal irinotecan and 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (nal-IRI + 5-FU/LV) after treatment with gemcitabine (GEM) compared to 5-FU/LV alone. However, the efficacy and safety of this regimen in older patients are not well studied. METHODS: We conducted a single-center retrospective study to compare the therapeutic efficacy of nal-IRI + 5-FU/LV between older and younger patients with cutoff ages of 70 and 75 years, respectively. We included patients with a prior history of one or more GEM-based regimens for locally advanced or metastatic PDAC and were treated with nal-IRI + 5-FU/LV. RESULTS: Of the 115 patients, 54 (47.0%) and 24 (20.9%) were aged ≥ 70 and ≥ 75 years, respectively. The median OS and progression-free survival (PFS) of the entire cohort were 8.5 and 3.6 months, respectively. No significant differences were observed in OS and PFS hazard ratios using age cutoffs of 70 (P = 0.90 and 0.99, respectively) and 75 (P = 0.90 and 0.76, respectively) years. Additionally, no significant differences were found in the incidence of treatment-related adverse events (trAEs) between patients aged ≥ 70 and < 70 years or those aged ≥ 75 and < 75 years. Other than hematological toxicity, no trAEs higher than Grade 4 were observed in either age group. CONCLUSION: The efficacy and safety of nal-IRI + 5-FU/LV for patients with PDAC are not significantly different for those aged ≥ 70 years compared to younger patients.

Economic evaluation of sintilimab versus docetaxel as second-line treatment for patients with advanced or metastatic squamous non-small-cell lung cancer in China: a model-based cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The current study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of sintilimab versus docetaxel as second-line treatment for patients with advanced or metastatic squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in China. METHODS: A partitioned survival model was established to track 3-week patients' transition and project the health and economic outputs in 15-year horizon of the two competing options among sintilimab and docetaxel. Clinical data were obtained from the ORIENT-3 trial, and cost and utility values were gathered from the local charges and published studies. Total costs, life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were evaluated. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the model outcomes. RESULTS: Base-case results revealed that sintilimab yield marginal cost of $4,700.53 and additional 0.32 QALYs, resulting in an ICER of $14,615.31 per QALY gained, which is lower than the willingness-to-pay threshold of $38,224/QALY in China. One-way sensitivity analyses showed that the cost of best supportive care was the main driver of the ICER, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the model outputs were robust. CONCLUSIONS: Sintilimab could be considered the cost-effective second-line strategy for patients with advanced or metastatic squamous NSCLC compared with docetaxel in China.

Efficacy and safety of ripretinib vs. sunitinib in patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor previously treated with imatinib: A phase 2, multicenter, randomized, open-label study in China.

AIM: A bridging study of INTRIGUE study to assess the efficacy and safety of ripretinib versus sunitinib as second-line treatment in Chinese GIST patients. METHODS: This was a phase 2, multicenter, randomized, open-label study in China. GIST patients previously treated with imatinib were randomized (1:1) to receive ripretinib 150 mg once daily (QD) by continuous dosing in 42-day cycles or sunitinib 50 mg QD in 42-day cycles (four weeks on/two weeks off). Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) by independent radiological review (IRR). RESULTS: Between 6 December 2020 and 15 September 2021, 108 patients were randomized to receive ripretinib (n = 54) or sunitinib (n = 54) (all-patient [AP] intention-to-treat [ITT] population). Seventy patients had primary KIT exon 11 mutations (ripretinib, n = 35; sunitinib, n = 35; Ex11 ITT population). By data cut-off (20 July 2022), in AP ITT population, PFS by IRR was comparable between ripretinib and sunitinib arms (HR 0·99, 95 % CI 0·57, 1·69; nominal p = 0·92; median PFS [mPFS] 10·3 vs 8·3 months). In Ex11 ITT population, PFS by IRR was longer for ripretinib than sunitinib (HR 0·46, 95 % CI 0·23, 0·92; nominal p = 0·03; mPFS not reached in ripretinib arm and 4·9 months in sunitinib arm). Fewer patients experienced grade 3/4 treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse events with ripretinib (17%) versus sunitinib (56%). CONCLUSIONS: Ripretinib demonstrated similar efficacy and a favorable safety profile versus sunitinib as second-line treatment in Chinese GIST patients. Furthermore, ripretinib provided greater clinically meaningful benefit versus sunitinib in patients with KIT exon 11 mutation.