Uncertainty and the unmet informational needs of patients with cancer of unknown primary (CUP): a cross-sectional multi-site study.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the healthcare experiences, quality of life, and psychosocial needs of patients with cancer of unknown primary (CUP) early after diagnosis; comparing their experiences to patients with advanced cancer of a known primary (non-CUP control patients) and published general population reference data where available. METHODS: This study was a cross-sectional, multi-site study comparing CUP patients (n = 139) compared to non-CUP controls (n = 45). Demographic, clinical information and patient-reported outcome questionnaire data were collected at baseline. RESULTS: Differences in healthcare experienced were found between CUP and non-CUP controls with CUP patients reporting higher scores for unmet medical communication/information needs compared with non-CUP control patients (p = 0.013) as well as greater uncertainty in illness (p = 0.042). Whilst no differences were found between CUP and non-CUP controls on the EORTC and PROMIS measures, of those that 'received written information about your cancer…' and asked '…how useful was it?' fewer CUP patients reported finding the information useful 40% vs 61%, and more were likely to not have received written information at all 59% vs 32%; (p = 0.002). Additionally, of those that found information about their cancer online, fewer patients with CUP reported finding it useful 32% vs 48% control patients (p = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: CUP patients have unmet medical communication/information needs and greater uncertainty in illness but do not differ in health-related quality of life domains compared to patients with advanced cancer of a known primary.

Early tumor shrinkage identifies long-term disease control and survival in patients with lung cancer treated with atezolizumab.

BACKGROUND: Preliminary evidence indicates that early tumor shrinkage (ETS) following immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) initiation may be associated with survival outcomes in patients with advanced melanoma. ETS has not been explored as a biomarker of survival outcomes or patient-reported outcomes in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with ICIs. METHODS: The study pooled data from patients with NSCLC in the randomized trials OAK and POPLAR (atezolizumab vs docetaxel; n=1464), and single-arm atezolizumab trials BIRCH and FIR (n=797). The association between ETS (≥10% decrease in pretreatment sum-of-longest diameters of target-lesions at 6 weeks) and overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), time to deterioration (TDD) in health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) and physical function (PF) was assessed using Cox proportional hazard analysis. RESULTS: ETS occurred in 20% of atezolizumab-treated patients with NSCLC within OAK and POPLAR and was associated with highly favorable OS (HR 0.33, p<0.001), PFS (HR 0.31, p<0.001), TDD in HRQoL (HR 0.73, p=0.01) and PF (HR 0.52, p<0.001). The results were replicated in the BIRCH and FIR data. Atezolizumab-treated patients achieving ETS had markedly improved OS compared with docetaxel-treated patients achieving ETS (24-month OS 55% vs 32%); PFS was also markedly improved (24-month PFS 31% vs 4%). In contrast, for patients not achieving ETS, atezolizumab-treatment was associated with more modest OS (24-month OS 23% vs 20%) and PFS (24-month PFS 3% vs 1%) improvement compared with docetaxel. Overall, the effect size for ETS within the atezolizumab-treated patients was significantly greater than that in the docetaxel-treated patients (P(interaction)=0.002 for OS and P(interaction)<0.001 for PFS). CONCLUSIONS: ETS is an easily measurable biomarker, predictive of highly favorable survival and patient-reported outcomes with atezolizumab treatment for advanced NSCLC. Further, ETS identifies patients with significantly greater treatment benefit for ICI therapy.

Prognostic model of survival outcomes in non-small cell lung cancer patients initiated on afatinib: pooled analysis of clinical trial data.

OBJECTIVE: Several predictors of survival have been identified in EGFR-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients treated with first generation EGFR inhibitors. Prognostic models of survival outcomes with afatinib have not been evaluated. METHODS: A prognostic tool for overall survival (OS)/ progression free survival (PFS) based on pre-treatment clinicopathological factors was developed for EGFR-positive advanced NSCLC patients treated with first-line afatinib using penalised regression of individual-participant data from LUX-Lung 3 and 6 (n = 468). Favourable, intermediate and poor risk groups were identified and externally validated using LUX-Lung 1 (n = 390) and LUX-Lung 2 (n = 129) trials that initiated afatinib following previous chemotherapy or EGFR inhibitor treatment. RESULTS: Discriminative performance was good in the development and validation cohorts. For patients treated with first-line afatinib, the median OS for the favourable, intermediate and poor risk groups were > 47.7, 29.3 and 16.4 months, respectively, and the median PFS were 17.3, 13.2 and 8.3 months, respectively. The improvement in median OS with afatinib use compared to chemotherapy was > 12.4 months for the favourable risk group, whereas no OS benefit was apparent for the poor risk group. The improvement in median PFS with afatinib use compared to chemotherapy was 10.2 months for the favourable risk group and 3.2 months for the poor risk group. CONCLUSIONS: A prognostic tool was developed and validated to identify favourable, intermediate and poor risk groups for OS/PFS in EGFR-positive advanced NSCLC patients treated with afatinib. The prognostic groups can inform the likely absolute OS/PFS benefit expected from afatinib compared to chemotherapy in first-line treatment.

Hepatitis B screening before rituximab therapy: a multicentre South Australian study of adherence.

BACKGROUND: International guidelines recommend screening for hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection prior to administration of rituximab, due to high risk of HBV reactivation in at-risk patients. AIMS: To determine: (i) adherence to the South Australian (SA) protocol for HBV screening; (ii) HBV prevalence in patients receiving rituximab; and (iii) outcomes of patients at risk of HBV reactivation. METHODS: All patients commenced on rituximab at the six major SA public hospitals during a 12-month period were included in the study. Adherence was assessed by documentation of both hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) and hepatitis B core antibody (HBcAb) prior to initiation of rituximab. Patients were observed for a minimum of 6 months following rituximab initiation. RESULTS: Four hundred and thirty eight patients were included in the study. The main indication for rituximab therapy was haematological malignancy (76.0%). Two hundred and nine (47.7%) failed to receive appropriate HBV screening, 86 (19.6%) had neither HBsAg nor HBcAb performed, and 119 (27.2%) had only HBsAg performed. The identified prevalence of at-risk cases (either HBsAg- or HBcAb-positive) within the study population was 4.6% (20/438 cases). One case of HBV reactivation was identified, but none led to acute liver failure, transplantation or death. CONCLUSIONS: Poor adherence to HBV screening protocols suggests the need for targeted clinician education and system redesign. While the rate of reactivation was low, the prevalence of at-risk patients in this population was high and justifies further initiatives to increase adherence rates to HBV screening pre-rituximab.

Predicting response and toxicity to immune checkpoint inhibitors using routinely available blood and clinical markers.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are an important development in the treatment of advanced cancer. A substantial proportion of patients treated with ICI do not respond, and additionally patients discontinue treatment due to adverse effects. While many novel biological markers related to the specific mechanisms of ICI actions have been investigated, there has also been considerable research to identify routinely available blood and clinical markers that may predict response to ICI therapy. If validated, these markers have the advantage of being easily integrated into clinical use for nominal expense. Several markers have shown promise, including baseline and post-treatment changes in leucocyte counts, lactate dehydrogenase and C-reactive protein. While promising, the results between studies have been inconsistent due to small sample sizes, follow-up time and variability in the assessed markers. To date, research on routinely available blood and clinical markers has focussed primarily on ICI use in melanoma, the use of ipilimumab and on univariate associations, but preliminary evidence is emerging for other cancer types, other ICIs and for combining markers in multivariable clinical prediction models.

Pemetrexed-Induced Interstitial Pneumonitis: A Case Study and Literature Review.

Pemetrexed is a new-generation antifolate drug, now widely used in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We report a case of pemetrexed-induced interstitial pneumonitis, and review the literature of eight previously reported cases. As pemetrexed is now a widely used chemotherapeutic agent, it is important to be aware of rare adverse events related to its administration.

Phase III randomized, placebo-controlled study of cetuximab plus brivanib alaninate versus cetuximab plus placebo in patients with metastatic, chemotherapy-refractory, wild-type K-RAS colorectal carcinoma: the NCIC Clinical Trials Group and AGITG CO.20 Trial.

PURPOSE: The antiepidermal growth factor receptor monoclonal antibody cetuximab has improved survival in patients with metastatic, chemotherapy-refractory, wild-type K-RAS colorectal cancer. The addition of brivanib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor targeting vascular endothelial growth factor receptor and fibroblast growth factor receptor, to cetuximab has shown encouraging early clinical activity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with metastatic colorectal cancer previously treated with combination chemotherapy were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive cetuximab 400 mg/m(2) intravenous loading dose followed by weekly maintenance of 250 mg/m(2) plus either brivanib 800 mg orally daily (arm A) or placebo (arm B). The primary end point was overall survival (OS). RESULTS: A total of 750 patients were randomly assigned (376 in arm A and 374 in arm B). Median OS in the intent-to-treat population was 8.8 months in arm A and 8.1 months in arm B (hazard ratio [HR], 0.88; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.03; P = .12). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 5.0 months in arm A and 3.4 months in arm B (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.62 to 0.84; P < .001). Partial responses observed (13.6% v 7.2%; P = .004) were higher in arm A. Incidence of any grade ≥ 3 adverse events was 78% in arm A and 53% in arm B. Fewer patients received ≥ 90% dose-intensity of both cetuximab (57% v 83%) and brivanib/placebo (48% v 87%) in arm A versus arm B, respectively. CONCLUSION: Despite positive effects on PFS and objective response, cetuximab plus brivanib increased toxicity and did not significantly improve OS in patients with metastatic, chemotherapy-refractory, wild-type K-RAS colorectal cancer.