Sacituzumab Govitecan Versus Docetaxel for Previously Treated Advanced or Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: The Randomized, Open-Label Phase III EVOKE-01 Study.

PURPOSE: The open-label, phase III EVOKE-01 study evaluated sacituzumab govitecan (SG) versus standard-of-care docetaxel in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) with progression on/after platinum-based chemotherapy, anti-PD-(L)1, and targeted treatment for actionable genomic alterations (AGAs). Primary analysis is reported. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 (stratified by histology, best response to last anti-PD-(L)1-containing regimen, and AGA treatment received or not) to SG (one 10 mg/kg intravenous infusion on days 1 and 8) or docetaxel (one 75 mg/m2 intravenous infusion on day 1) in 21-day cycles. Primary end point was overall survival (OS). Key secondary end points were investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate, patient-reported symptom assessment, and safety. RESULTS: In the intention-to-treat population (SG, n = 299; docetaxel, n = 304), 55.4% had one previous line of therapy. Median follow-up was 12.7 months (range, 6.0-24.0). The primary end point was not met. There was a numerical OS improvement for SG versus docetaxel (median, 11.1 v 9.8 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.84 [95% CI, 0.68 to 1.04]; one-sided P = .0534), consistent across squamous and nonsquamous histologies. Median PFS was 4.1 versus 3.9 months (HR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.77 to 1.11]). An OS benefit was observed for SG (n = 192) versus docetaxel (n = 191) in mNSCLC nonresponsive to last anti-PD-(L)1-containing regimen (3.5-month median OS increase; HR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.58 to 0.97]); this was consistent across histologies. Among patients receiving SG and docetaxel, 6.8% and 14.2% discontinued because of treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), respectively; 1.4% and 1.0%, respectively, had TRAEs leading to death. CONCLUSION: Although statistical significance was not met, OS numerically improved with SG versus docetaxel, which was consistent across histologies. Clinically meaningful improvement in OS was noted in mNSCLC nonresponsive to last anti-PD-(L)1-containing regimen. SG was better tolerated than docetaxel and consistent with its known safety profile, with no new safety signals.

Considerations for selecting second-line treatment in patients with progressive small cell lung cancer and the use of Lurbinectedin in this setting.

Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is characterized by high initial responses to platinum-based chemotherapy plus immune checkpoint inhibitors; however, most patients quickly relapse and require subsequent treatment. Second-line treatment options in SCLC remain limited, and treatment algorithms are not completely consistent across the available guidelines in this setting. This review highlights key considerations regarding selection of second-line treatment for patients with relapsed SCLC. In particular, the role of lurbinectedin, which was first approved in 2020, representing the first significant addition to treatment algorithms in this setting for decades, is summarized. Future directions, including the identification of SCLC subtypes and the need for predictive biomarkers to guide patient selection and targeted therapy, are also discussed.

Breast cancer quality of care in Syria: screening, diagnosis, and staging.

BACKGROUND: The Syrian decade-long war has severely affected the healthcare system, including almost vanishing cancer screening practices, war-destroyed medical facilities, and lack of continuous medical education. This study aims to present data on the affected breast cancer screening practices, methods of diagnosis, and stages distribution in Syria. METHODS: Medical charts of breast cancer patients treated at Albairouni University Hospital between January 2019 and May 2022 were retrospectively reviewed. Eligible patients were women diagnosed with primary breast cancer. Exclusion criteria included females receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy and incomplete charts. Data regarding the patient's age, city of residence, marital status, number of children, smoking habits, method of diagnosis, tumor size (T), lymph nodes (N), and distal metastasis (M) were collected. We used Microsoft Excel and Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) to analyze data. Descriptive methodology (frequency [n], percentage) was used. RESULTS: The number of charts reviewed was 4,500. The number of remaining charts after applying the exclusion criteria was 2,367. The mean age was 51.8 (SD = 11.3). More than half of the patients (58.3%) came from outside Damascus -where the hospital is located- and its suburbs. Less than 5% of the population detected cancer by screening mammography. Only 32.4% of patients were diagnosed by a biopsy, while surgical procedures (lumpectomy and mastectomy) were used to diagnose 64.8% of the population. At the time of diagnosis, only 8% of patients presented with local-stage disease (stages 0 & I), 73% had a regional disease (stages II & III), and 19% had metastatic breast cancer (stage IV). CONCLUSION: Our retrospective chart review analysis is the first comprehensive review in Syria for female breast cancer patients. We found a significant low percentage of patients diagnosed based on a screening mammogram, much higher surgical biopsies rather than a simple imaging-guided biopsy, and much lower than the national average of early-stage disease. Our alarming findings can serve as the base for future strategies to raise the population's health awareness, create more serious national screening campaigns, and adopt a multidisciplinary approach to the disease in Syria.

Long-term comparative efficacy and safety of nivolumab plus ipilimumab relative to other first-line therapies for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: A systematic literature review and network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To quantify the long-term comparative efficacy and safety of nivolumab in combination with ipilimumab (NIVO + IPI) relative to other immunotherapy (IO)-based regimens and chemotherapy in patients with first-line advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC). METHODS: Phase 3 randomized controlled-trials (RCTs) with minimum 3-year follow-up evaluating IO-based regimens approved for first-line aNSCLC were identified via systematic literature review. Analytic populations were defined by levels of PD-L1 expression and histology. Due to presence of proportional hazards violations, time-varying hazard ratios (HRs) of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were estimated via Bayesian fractional polynomial network meta-analysis. For safety endpoints, odds ratios (ORs) were estimated using indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs). RESULTS: CheckMate 227, KEYNOTE-189, KEYNOTE-407, KEYNOTE-024, KEYNOTE-042, and IMpower150 were included in the base case analysis. For OS and PFS, HRs of NIVO + IPI relative to other IO-based regimens trended downward over time across analytic populations. The 36-month OS HRs of NIVO + IPI versus comparators were: 0.69 (95 % credible interval: 0.47, 1.00) versus pembrolizumab + chemotherapy and 0.65 (0.45, 0.93) versus atezolizumab + bevacizumab + chemotherapy in the non-squamous and PD-L1 all-comers population; 0.73 (0.53, 1.02) versus pembrolizumab + chemotherapy in the squamous and PD-L1 all-comers population; and 1.05 (0.83, 1.32) versus pembrolizumab in the mixed histology and PD-L1 ≥ 50 % population. For PFS, 36-month HR point estimates ranged from 0.46 to 0.85 (only statistically significant versus pembrolizumab + chemotherapy in the squamous population; 0.46 [0.31, 0.69]). Adverse events (AEs) leading to discontinuation were not statistically significantly different between NIVO + IPI and pembrolizumab + chemotherapy, nor between NIVO + IPI and pembrolizumab monotherapy, although treatment-related grade ≥ 3 AEs were higher with NIVO + IPI than pembrolizumab monotherapy (OR = 2.21 [1.30, 3.75]). CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates trends towards long-term benefit with NIVO + IPI compared with other IO-based combinations, with manageable toxicities.

Real-world survival analysis by tumor mutational burden in non-small cell lung cancer: a multisite U.S. study.

BACKGROUND: Tumor mutational burden (TMB) is a potential biomarker to predict tumor response to immuno-oncology agents in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A multi-site cohort study evaluated patients diagnosed with stage IV NSCLC between 2012 and 2019 who had received comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) and any NSCLC-related treatment at 9 U.S. cancer centers. Baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes were compared between patients with TMB <10 and TMB ≥10. RESULTS: Among the 667 patients with CGP results, most patients received CGP from Foundation Medicine (64%) or Caris (20%). Patients with TMB ≥10 (vs. TMB <10) were associated with a positive smoking history. TMB was associated with ALK (p = 0.01), EGFR (p < 0.01), and TP53 (p < 0.05) alterations. TMB >10 showed a significant association towards longer overall survival (OS) (HR: 0.43, 95% CI: 0.21-0.88, p = 0.02) and progression-free survival (PFS) (HR: 0.43, 95% CI: 0.21-0.85, p = 0.02) in patients treated with first-line immunotherapy and tested by Foundation Medicine or Caris at treatment initiation. CONCLUSIONS: TMB levels greater than or equal to 10 mut/Mb, when tested by Foundation Medicine or Caris at treatment initiation, were significantly associated with improved OS and PFS among patients treated with first-line immunotherapy-containing regimens. Additional prospective research is warranted to validate this biomarker along with PD-L1 expression.

Afatinib With Pembrolizumab for Treatment of Patients With Locally Advanced/Metastatic Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Lung: The LUX-Lung IO/KEYNOTE 497 Study Protocol.

BACKGROUND: Afatinib is a selective, irreversible ErbB family blocker that has shown survival benefit in lung squamous-cell carcinoma (SCC) patients. Pembrolizumab, a humanized immunoglobulin G4 monoclonal antibody to the programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) receptor, has also shown survival benefit in lung SCC. Concurrent inhibition of the PD-1 and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) pathways represents a rational approach to improve responses and delay the onset of treatment resistance in lung SCC. TRIAL DESIGN: This phase II, open-label, single-arm study (NCT03157089) is designed to assess the efficacy and safety of afatinib in combination with pembrolizumab in patients with stage IIIB/IV lung SCC that has progressed during/after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. Eligible patients must have ≥1 target lesion (as per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1) and must have not received previous immune checkpoint inhibitor/EGFR-targeted therapy. The recommended phase II dose (RP2D) and safety profile will be determined during a safety run-in with oral afatinib (starting dose, 40 mg/d) with intravenous pembrolizumab (200 mg every 3 weeks). In the main study, all patients will receive afatinib at the RP2D with pembrolizumab until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or for up to 35 cycles. The primary end point is objective response (complete + partial response). Other end points include disease control, duration of objective response, progression-free survival, overall survival, tumor shrinkage, RP2D, and pharmacokinetics. Exploratory biomarker analysis will be performed. This study is being conducted in the United States, Spain, France, South Korea, and Turkey. Enrollment commenced in September 2017, with a target of 50 to 62 patients.

First-Line Nivolumab in Stage IV or Recurrent Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab has been associated with longer overall survival than docetaxel among patients with previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In an open-label phase 3 trial, we compared first-line nivolumab with chemotherapy in patients with programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive NSCLC. METHODS: We randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, patients with untreated stage IV or recurrent NSCLC and a PD-L1 tumor-expression level of 1% or more to receive nivolumab (administered intravenously at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram of body weight once every 2 weeks) or platinum-based chemotherapy (administered once every 3 weeks for up to six cycles). Patients receiving chemotherapy could cross over to receive nivolumab at the time of disease progression. The primary end point was progression-free survival, as assessed by means of blinded independent central review, among patients with a PD-L1 expression level of 5% or more. RESULTS: Among the 423 patients with a PD-L1 expression level of 5% or more, the median progression-free survival was 4.2 months with nivolumab versus 5.9 months with chemotherapy (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 1.15; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91 to 1.45; P=0.25), and the median overall survival was 14.4 months versus 13.2 months (hazard ratio for death, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.30). A total of 128 of 212 patients (60%) in the chemotherapy group received nivolumab as subsequent therapy. Treatment-related adverse events of any grade occurred in 71% of the patients who received nivolumab and in 92% of those who received chemotherapy. Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or 4 occurred in 18% of the patients who received nivolumab and in 51% of those who received chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab was not associated with significantly longer progression-free survival than chemotherapy among patients with previously untreated stage IV or recurrent NSCLC with a PD-L1 expression level of 5% or more. Overall survival was similar between groups. Nivolumab had a favorable safety profile, as compared with chemotherapy, with no new or unexpected safety signals. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and others; CheckMate 026 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02041533 .).

Rituximab in the treatment of B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma, focus on outcomes and comparative effectiveness.

Rituximab is an important and well established component in the treatment of many patients with B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma. In this paper we review recent clinical trials investigating the addition of rituximab to standard chemotherapy regimens for treatment of patients with diffuse large B cell lymphoma and follicular lymphoma. This report focuses upon treatment efficacy, quality of life, and safety of rituximab or rituximab-containing regimens. More uniquely, we review economic aspects of lymphoma treatments, including the cost of standard chemotherapy regimens with or without rituximab, cost effectiveness of rituximab in both induction and maintenance treatment, and lymphoma's impacts on patient's productivity and their caregivers. We conclude that adding rituximab to standard chemotherapy treatment for patients with B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma is safe and cost-effective in numerous settings during both induction and maintenance therapies. Despite extensive review of the literature, many important questions have yet to be answered in the rituximab era and these represent important directions for future study.