Dabrafenib plus trametinib is effective in the treatment of BRAF V600-mutated metastatic melanoma patients:analysis of patients from the dabrafenib plus trametinib Named Patient Program (DESCRIBE II)

In clinical trials, dabrafenib plus trametinib improved overall survival (OS) compared with single-agent BRAF inhibitors (BRAFi) in patients with BRAF V600-mutant unresectable or metastatic melanoma. We investigated dabrafenib plus trametinib therapy in a compassionate-use setting [Named Patient Program (NPP); DESCRIBE II]. A retrospective chart review of patients with BRAF V600-mutated unresectable stage III/IV melanoma receiving dabrafenib plus trametinib as compassionate use was conducted. Treatment patterns and duration, clinical outcomes, and tolerability were evaluated. Of 271 patients, 92.6% had stage IV melanoma, including 36.5% with brain metastases. Overall, 162 patients (59.8%) were BRAFi naive and 171 (63.1%) received first-line dabrafenib plus trametinib. Among BRAFi-naive patients, the overall response rate (ORR) was 67.3%, median OS (mOS) was 20.0 months, and median progression-free survival (mPFS) was 7.5 months. In BRAFi-naive patients with known brain metastases (n = 62), ORR was 61.3%, mOS was 15.5 months, and mPFS was 6.2 months. Eighty-four patients received BRAFi monotherapy for >30 days and switched to dabrafenib plus trametinib prior to progression. Of these 84 patients, 63 had known disease status at the time of switch, and 22 improved with the combination therapy. No new safety signals were identified, and dabrafenib plus trametinib was well tolerated. Dabrafenib plus trametinib showed substantial clinical activity in NPP patients with BRAF V600-mutated unresectable or metastatic melanoma. Analysis of treatment patterns demonstrated the effectiveness of the combination in patients with brain metastases and across lines of therapy with a well tolerated and manageable safety profile

European practice patterns and barriers to smoking cessation after a cancer diagnosis in the setting of curative versus palliative cancer treatment

Background: Smoking cessation after a cancer diagnosis is associated with improved overall survival. Few studies have reported oncologists' cessation practice patterns, but differences between the curative and palliative settings have not been described. We aimed to study the oncologist's perceptions on patients' tobacco use, current practices and barriers to providing smoking cessation support, while distinguishing between treatment with curative (C) and palliative (P) intent.Methods: In 2019, an online 34-item survey was sent to approximately 6235 oncologists from 16 European countries. Responses were descriptively reported and compared by treatment setting.Results: Responses from 544 oncologists were included. Oncologists appeared to favour addressing tobacco in the curative setting more than in the palliative setting. Oncologists believe that continued smoking impacts treatment outcomes (C: 94%, P: 74%) and that cessation support should be standard cancer care (C: 95%, P: 63%). Most routinely assess tobacco use (C: 93%, P: 78%) and advise patients to stop using tobacco (C: 88%, P: 54%), but only 24% (P) -39% (C) routinely discuss medication options, and only 18% (P)-31% (C) provide cessation support. Hesitation to remove a pleasurable habit (C: 13%, P: 43%) and disbelieve on smoking affecting outcomes (C: 3%, P: 14%) were disparate barriers between the curative and palliative settings (p Conclusion: Oncologists appear to favour addressing tobacco use more in the curative setting; however, they discuss medication options and/or provide cessation support in a minority of cases. All patients who report current smoking should have access to evidence-based smoking cessation support, also patients treated with palliative intent given their increasing survival. </div

European practice patterns and barriers to smoking cessation after a cancer diagnosis in the setting of curative versus palliative cancer treatment

Background: Smoking cessation after a cancer diagnosis is associated with improved overall survival. Few studies have reported oncologists' cessation practice patterns, but differences between the curative and palliative settings have not been described. We aimed to study the oncologist's perceptions on patients' tobacco use, current practices and barriers to providing smoking cessation support, while distinguishing between treatment with curative (C) and palliative (P) intent. Methods: In 2019, an online 34-item survey was sent to approximately 6235 oncologists from 16 European countries. Responses were descriptively reported and compared by treatment setting. Results: Responses from 544 oncologists were included. Oncologists appeared to favour addressing tobacco in the curative setting more than in the palliative setting. Oncologists believe that continued smoking impacts treatment outcomes (C: 94%, P: 74%) and that cessation support should be standard cancer care (C: 95%, P: 63%). Most routinely assess tobacco use (C: 93%, P: 78%) and advise patients to stop using tobacco (C: 88%, P: 54%), but only 24% (P)–39% (C) routinely discuss medication options, and only 18% (P)–31% (C) provide cessation support. Hesitation to remove a pleasurable habit (C: 13%, P: 43%) and disbelieve on smoking affecting outcomes (C: 3%, P: 14%) were disparate barriers between the curative and palliative settings (p &lt; 0.001), but dominant barriers of time, resources, education and patient resistance were similar between settings. Conclusion: Oncologists appear to favour addressing tobacco use more in the curative setting; however, they discuss medication options and/or provide cessation support in a minority of cases. All patients who report current smoking should have access to evidence-based smoking cessation support, also patients treated with palliative intent given their increasing survival

European practice patterns and barriers to smoking cessation after a cancer diagnosis in the setting of curative versus palliative cancer treatment.

BACKGROUND Smoking cessation after a cancer diagnosis is associated with improved overall survival. Few studies have reported oncologists' cessation practice patterns, but differences between the curative and palliative settings have not been described. We aimed to study the oncologist's perceptions on patients' tobacco use, current practices and barriers to providing smoking cessation support, while distinguishing between treatment with curative (C) and palliative (P) intent. METHODS In 2019, an online 34-item survey was sent to approximately 6235 oncologists from 16 European countries. Responses were descriptively reported and compared by treatment setting. RESULTS Responses from 544 oncologists were included. Oncologists appeared to favour addressing tobacco in the curative setting more than in the palliative setting. Oncologists believe that continued smoking impacts treatment outcomes (C: 94%, P: 74%) and that cessation support should be standard cancer care (C: 95%, P: 63%). Most routinely assess tobacco use (C: 93%, P: 78%) and advise patients to stop using tobacco (C: 88%, P: 54%), but only 24% (P)-39% (C) routinely discuss medication options, and only 18% (P)-31% (C) provide cessation support. Hesitation to remove a pleasurable habit (C: 13%, P: 43%) and disbelieve on smoking affecting outcomes (C: 3%, P: 14%) were disparate barriers between the curative and palliative settings (p < 0.001), but dominant barriers of time, resources, education and patient resistance were similar between settings. CONCLUSION Oncologists appear to favour addressing tobacco use more in the curative setting; however, they discuss medication options and/or provide cessation support in a minority of cases. All patients who report current smoking should have access to evidence-based smoking cessation support, also patients treated with palliative intent given their increasing survival