Intracranial and extracranial efficacy of lorlatinib in patients with ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer previously treated with second-generation ALK TKIs

Lorlatinib; Càncer de pulmó de cèl·lules no petites; ALK TKI de segona generacióLorlatinib; Cáncer de pulmón de células no pequeñas; ALK TKI de segunda generaciónLorlatinib; Non-small-cell lung cancer; Second-generation ALK TKIsBackground Lorlatinib, a potent, brain-penetrant, third-generation anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), has substantial activity against ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This study assessed the overall, intracranial, and extracranial efficacy of lorlatinib in ALK-positive NSCLC that progressed on second-generation ALK TKIs. Patients and methods In the ongoing phase II study (NCT01970865), patients with ALK-positive advanced NSCLC treated with ≥1 prior second-generation ALK TKI ± chemotherapy were enrolled in expansion cohorts (EXP) based on treatment history. Overall, intracranial and extracranial antitumor activity were assessed independently per modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) v1.1. Results Of the 139 patients with ≥1 prior second-generation ALK TKI (EXP3B-5), 28 received one prior second-generation ALK TKI (EXP3B), 65 two prior ALK TKIs (EXP4), and 46 three prior ALK TKIs (EXP5). In EXP3B-5, the objective response rate (ORR) [95% confidence intervals] was 39.6% (31.4-48.2), intracranial ORR (IC-ORR) was 56.1% (42.4-69.3), extracranial ORR (EC-ORR) was 36.7% (28.7-45.3), median duration of response (DOR) was 9.6 months [5.6-16.7; IC-DOR, 12.4 (6.0-37.1); EC-DOR, 9.7 (6.1-33.3)], median progression-free survival was 6.6 (5.4-7.4) months, and median overall survival was 20.7 months (16.1-30.3). In EXP3B, the ORR was 42.9% (24.5-62.8), the IC-ORR was 66.7% (29.9-92.5), and the EC-ORR was 32.1% (15.9-52.4). In EXP4 and EXP5, the ORR was 38.7% (29.6-48.5), the IC-ORR was 54.2% (39.2-68.6), and the EC-ORR was 37.8% (28.8-47.5). Conclusions Lorlatinib had clinically meaningful intracranial and extracranial antitumor activity in the post-second-generation ALK TKI setting, with elevated intracranial versus extracranial ORR, particularly in patients with fewer lines of therapy.This work was supported by Pfizer Inc. (no grant number)

Hospital admissions and deaths relating to deliberate self-harm and accidents within 5 years of a cancer diagnosis: a national study in Scotland, UK

The risk of suicide in cancer patients has been reported as elevated in several countries. These patients are exposed to many medicines that may confuse or provide a means for harm, potentially also increasing their risk from accidents. Ratios of observed/expected numbers of hospital admission and death events relating to deliberate self-harm (DSH) and accidents were calculated in the 5 years from a cancer diagnosis in Scotland 1981–1995, compared to the matched general population. The relative risk (RR) of suicide was 1.51 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.29–1.76). The RR of hospital admissions for DSH was not significantly increased, suggesting a strong suicidal intent in DSH acts in cancer patients. Accidental poisonings and all other accidents were both increased (RR death=3.69, 95% CI: 2.10–6.00; and 1.58, 95% CI: 1.48–1.69, respectively) (RR hospital admissions=1.32, 95% CI: 1.19–1.47; and 1.55, 95% CI: 1.53–1.57, respectively). The association of only certain tumour types (e.g. respiratory) with suicide and accidental poisoning, and a broad range of tumour types with an elevated risk of all other accidents, suggests accidental poisoning categories may be a common destination for code shifting of some DSH events. A previous history of DSH or accidents, significantly increased the RR of suicide or fatal accidents, respectively (RR suicide=14.86 (95% CI: 4.69–34.97) vs 1.16 (95% CI: 0.84–1.55)) (RR accidental death=3.37 (95% CI: 2.53–4.41) vs 1.29 (95% CI: 1.12–1.49)). Within 5 years of a cancer diagnosis, Scottish patients are at increased RR of suicide and fatal accidents, and increased RR of hospital admissions for accidents. Some of these accidents, particularly accidental poisonings, may contain hidden deliberate acts. Previous DSH or accidents are potential markers for those most at risk, in whom to target interventional techniques

A Randomized Feasibility Trial of a New Lifestyle Referral Assessment Versus Usual Assessment in an Acute Cardiology Setting

Background: A healthy diet, taking exercise, and not smoking or consuming alcohol in excess are important to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease either alone or in combination with statin medication. Health education, including providing information to patients on healthy living and guidance on how to achieve it, is a key nursing function. Objectives: This study aims first to assess the feasibility of conducting a full-scale trial of lifestyle referral assessment as shown by recruitment rate, data collection, and follow-up and second to assess proof of concept and explore possible mechanisms of change. Methods: This was a single-center, randomized, 2-arm, parallel-group, unblinded feasibility trial conducted in an acute teaching hospital trust. Participants were followed up at 3 and 6 months after randomization. Results: Eight hundred eighty-seven patients were screened for eligibility, of whom 132 (15%) were randomized into the trial. Of the patients allocated to the individualized assessment, 27% accepted referral or self-referred by 3 months in comparison to 5% allocated to the usual assessment. Conclusions: We demonstrated that a full-scale trial is feasible and that an individualized approach increased the number of patients accepting referral to a formal program and initiating lifestyle change. However, we should consider the aim of the assessment and ways in which the process of change can be optimized in order to produce long-term benefit for patients

Plucked human hair as a tissue in which to assess pharmacodynamic end points during drug development studies

We have demonstrated the feasibility of detecting and quantifying six cell-cycle-related nuclear markers (Ki67, pRb, p27, phospho-p27 (phosphorylated p27), phospho-pRb (phosphorylated pRb), phospho-HH3 (phosphorylated histone H3)) in plucked human scalp and eyebrow hair. Estimates of the proportion of plucked hairs that are lost or damaged during processing plus the intra- and intersubject variability of each nuclear marker with these techniques are provided to inform sizing decisions for intervention studies with drugs potentially impacting on these markers in the future

Factors affecting the mesothelioma detection rate within national and international epidemiological studies: insights from Scottish linked cancer registry-mortality data

ICD-9 code 163 (malignant neoplasm of pleura) listed as underlying cause of death detected only 40% of Scottish mesothelioma cases (all body sites) from the cancer registry in 1981–1999. This is lower than both the previously published 55% figure, derived from UK mesothelioma register data 1986–1991, which is based on any mention of mesothelioma on death certificates, cross-referenced to cancer registry data, and the 44% figure derived from Scottish mortality data 1981–1999, which captured any mention of mesothelioma on the death certificate. Detection from cancer registry data increased to 75% under ICD-10 in Scotland, confirming earlier predictions of the benefit of ICD-10's more specific mesothelioma codes. Including the accidental poisoning codes E866.4 (ICD-9) and X49 (ICD-10), covering poisoning by ‘unspecified' and ‘other' causes, which appear to have been used as coding surrogates for mesothelioma when asbestos exposure was explicitly mentioned in deaths suggestive of a mesothelioma, and which are recorded as the underlying cause of death in 4–7% of mesotheliomas, may improve the mesothelioma detection rate in future epidemiological studies

Brigatinib Versus Crizotinib in ALK Inhibitor–Naive Advanced ALK-Positive NSCLC: Final Results of Phase 3 ALTA-1L Trial

Introduction: In the phase 3 study entitled ALK in Lung cancer Trial of brigAtinib in 1st Line (ALTA-1L), which is a study of brigatinib in ALK inhibitor–naive advanced ALK-positive NSCLC, brigatinib exhibited superior progression-free survival (PFS) versus crizotinib in the two planned interim analyses. Here, we report the final efficacy, safety, and exploratory results. Methods: Patients were randomized to brigatinib 180 mg once daily (7-d lead-in at 90 mg once daily) or crizotinib 250 mg twice daily. The primary end point was a blinded independent review committee–assessed PFS. Genetic alterations in plasma cell-free DNA were assessed in relation to clinical efficacy. Results: A total of 275 patients were enrolled (brigatinib, n = 137; crizotinib, n = 138). At study end, (brigatinib median follow-up = 40.4 mo), the 3-year PFS by blinded independent review committee was 43% (brigatinib) versus 19% (crizotinib; median = 24.0 versus 11.1 mo, hazard ratio [HR] = 0.48, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.35–0.66). The median overall survival was not reached in either group (HR = 0.81, 95% CI: 0.53–1.22). Posthoc analyses suggested an overall survival benefit for brigatinib in patients with baseline brain metastases (HR = 0.43, 95% CI: 0.21–0.89). Detectable baseline EML4-ALK fusion variant 3 and TP53 mutation in plasma were associated with poor PFS. Brigatinib exhibited superior efficacy compared with crizotinib regardless of EML4-ALK variant and TP53 mutation. Emerging secondary ALK mutations were rare in patients progressing on brigatinib. No new safety signals were observed. Conclusions: In the ALTA-1L final analysis, with longer follow-up, brigatinib continued to exhibit superior efficacy and tolerability versus crizotinib in patients with or without poor prognostic biomarkers. The suggested survival benefit with brigatinib in patients with brain metastases warrants future study

Cost-effectiveness analysis of cetuximab/irinotecan vs active/best supportive care for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer patients who have failed previous chemotherapy treatment

The treatment of colorectal cancer is rapidly becoming a significant financial burden to health-care systems within economically developed nations. A current challenge for oncologists and health-care payers is to integrate new, often high-cost, biologic therapies into clinical practice. Inherent to this process is the consideration of cost-effectiveness. The aim of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of cetuximab plus irinotecan with an appropriate comparator from a National Health Service (NHS) perspective. This economic evaluation is a trial-based study of cetuximab vs active/best supportive care. Effectiveness estimates for the treatment groups were modelled from key clinical trials. Cunningham et al (2004) compared cetuximab/irinotecan with cetuximab monotherapy; Cunningham et al (1998) compared irinotecan monotherapy in a second-line setting with supportive care. Modelling was necessary owing to an absence of head-to-head clinical trial data of cetuximab/irinotecan vs current standard care. Costs were calculated for the study drugs received, associated administration, palliative chemotherapy for patients in the standard care arm and other nonchemotherapy resources. The discounted life-expectancy of patients treated with cetuximab/irinotecan was 0.91 life-years, and 0.47 discounted life-years for patients receiving active/best supportive care. Patients treated with cetuximab/irinotecan accumulated mean additional costs of £18 901 per patient relative to the comparator arm, with £11 802 attributable to cetuximab. The incremental cost per life-year gained with cetuximab/irinotecan therapy compared with active/best supportive care was £42 975. The incremental cost per quality adjusted life-year gained was £57 608. The incremental cost per life-year gained for cetuximab/irinotecan is relatively high compared with other health-care interventions. However, this result should be considered in the context of a number of factors specific to the treated patient population

Nivolumab Monotherapy and Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab in Recurrent Small Cell Lung Cancer: Results From the CheckMate 032 Randomized Cohort

Abstract Introduction Nivolumab monotherapy is approved in the United States for third-line or later metastatic small cell lung cancer based on pooled data from nonrandomized and randomized cohorts of the multicenter, open-label, phase 1/2 trial of nivolumab ± ipilimumab (CheckMate 032; NCT01928394). We report updated results, including long-term overall survival (OS), from the randomized cohort. Methods Patients with small cell lung cancer and disease progression after one to two prior chemotherapy regimens were randomized 3:2 to nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks or nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four cycles followed by nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks. Patients were stratified by number of prior chemotherapy regimens and treated until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) by blinded independent central review. Results Overall, 147 patients received nivolumab and 96 nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Minimum follow-up for ORR/progression-free survival/safety was 11.9 months (nivolumab) and 11.2 months (nivolumab plus ipilimumab). ORR increased with nivolumab plus ipilimumab (21.9% versus 11.6% with nivolumab; odds ratio: 2.12; 95% confidence interval: 1.06–4.26; p = 0.03). For long-term OS, minimum follow-up was 29.0 months (nivolumab) versus 28.4 months (nivolumab plus ipilimumab); median (95% confidence interval) OS was 5.7 (3.8–7.6) versus 4.7 months (3.1–8.3). Twenty-four–month OS rates were 17.9% (nivolumab) and 16.9% (nivolumab plus ipilimumab). Grade 3 to 4 treatment-related adverse event rates were 12.9% (nivolumab) versus 37.5% (nivolumab plus ipilimumab), and treatment-related deaths were n =1 versus n = 3, respectively. Conclusions Whereas ORR (primary endpoint) was higher with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus nivolumab, OS was similar between groups. In each group, OS remained encouraging with long-term follow-up. Toxicities were more common with combination therapy versus nivolumab monotherapy