RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Several anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have been developed for the treatment of echinoderm microtubule-associated protein-like 4 (EML4)-ALK-rearranged non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), with the newer generation agents brigatinib, alectinib and lorlatinib showing prolonged responses. With the increasing number of target therapies available, the optimal sequence is yet to be defined, as resistance profiles may evolve over time and in response to sequential ALK inhibitors. Therefore, ALK-targeted strategies may be personalized based upon the presence of specific ALK resistance mutations. METHODS: Here, we report on the case of a patient who has been treated with a sequence of three ALK TKIs after receiving diagnosis of ALK-rearranged metastatic NSCLC in 2015 and gained further benefit upon lorlatinib rechallenge after the acquisition of the G1202R resistance mutation to second generation TKIs. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: In this case, the first ALK resistance mutation detected after progression on first line TKI, the I1171N, is a common resistance mutation after alectinib and confers sensitivity to brigatinib, that the patient received afterwards with a long-term disease stability. The second ALK resistance mutation detected after a chemotherapy interval, the G1202R, is the most common resistance mutation after second generation ALK TKIs and has been associated with sensitivity to third generation TKIs, such as lorlatinib. This case of a patient with EML4-ALK-rearranged NSCLC shows that sequential treatment with next-generation ALK TKIs, including rechallenge, can induce profound remissions, even in heavily pretreated patients, and that ALK-targeted strategies may be personalized by considering the presence of distinct ALK resistance mutations.
RESUMO
Purpose: To study plasma levels, efficacy and tolerability of imatinib in a patient affected by metastatic GIST treated with oral Imatinib and undergoing hemodialysis. Patients and methods: The patient suffered from metastatic GIST to the liver having a mutation of exon 9 of KIT. He was on hemodialysis and received first-line treatment with imatinib 400 mg/day. Results: The overall mean plasma level of imatinib was 1875,4 ng/ml pre-dialysis, 1553,0 ng/ml post-dialysis and 1998,1 ng/ml post-24h. In red blood cells the overall mean level of imatinib was 619,5 ng/ml pre-dialysis, 484,9 ng/ml post-dialysis and 663,1 ng/ml post-24h. The plasma level of nor-imatinib/imatinib was 16,2% pre-dialysis, 15,6% post-dialysis and 16,4% post-24h. Comparing our findings regarding levels of imatinib in plasma and RBC, we found a statistically significant difference between pre-dialysis and post-dialysis (respectively p < 0,001 and p = 0,002), post-dialysis and post-24h (both p < 0,001), pre-dialysis and post-24h (respectively p = 0.035 and p = 0,042). Ultimately, regarding nor-imatinib/imatinib in plasma, we did not find any statistically significant difference between pre-dialysis and post-dialysis (p = 0,091), post-dialysis and post-24h (p = 0,091), pre-dialysis and post-24h (p = 0.903). Currently the patient is receiving oral imatinib 400 mg/day with radiological evidence of response. Conclusion: In this case, hemodialysis did not affect significantly imatinib plasma levels. The statistically significant difference between pre- and post-dialysis can be explained by the fact that dialysis may likely contribute to a small portion of the normal metabolism of imatinib. The evaluation of imatinib levels in RBC and of its main metabolite in plasma also suggests that hemodialysis did not affect other aspects of the elimination of the drug.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Thymic malignancies are rare tumors with few therapeutic options. The STYLE trial was aimed to evaluate activity and safety of sunitinib in advanced or recurrent type B3 thymoma (T) and thymic carcinoma (TC). METHODS: In this multicenter, Simon 2 stages, phase 2 trial, patients with pretreated T or TC were enrolled in two cohorts and assessed separately. Sunitinib was administered 50 mg daily for 4 weeks, followed by a 2-week rest period (schedule 4/2), until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR). Progression-free survival, overall survival, disease control rate and safety were secondary endpoints. RESULTS: From March 2017 to January 2022, 12 patients with T and 32 patients with TC were enrolled. At stage 1, ORR was 0% (90% confidence interval [CI]: 0.0-22.1) in T and 16.7% (90% CI: 3.1-43.8) in TC, so the T cohort was closed. At stage 2, the primary endpoint was met for TC with ORR of 21.7% (90% CI: 9.0%-40.4%). In the intention-to-treat analysis, disease control rate was 91.7% (95% CI: 61.5%-99.8%) in Ts and 89.3% (95% CI: 71.8%-97.7%) in TCs. Median progression-free survival was 7.7 months (95% CI: 2.4-45.5) in Ts and 8.8 months (95% CI: 5.3-11.1) in TCs; median overall survival was 47.9 months (95% CI: 4.5-not reached) in Ts and 27.8 months (95% CI: 13.2-53.2) in TCs. Adverse events occurred in 91.7% Ts and 93.5% TCs. Grade 3 or greater treatment-related adverse events were reported in 25.0% Ts and 51.6% TCs. CONCLUSIONS: This trial confirms the activity of sunitinib in patients with TC, supporting its use as a second-line treatment, albeit with potential toxicity that requires dose adjustment.
