The comparison of outcomes from tyrosine kinase inhibitor monotherapy in second- or third-line for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients with wild-type or unknown EGFR status

Background: Second-line treatment for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients includes monotherapy with a third-generation cytotoxic drug (CT) or a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI). These options are the actual standard for EGFR wild-type (WT) status, as patients with EGFR mutations achieve greater benefit by the use of TKI in first-line treatment. Some clinical trials and meta-analyses investigated the comparison between CT and TKI in second-line, but data are conflicting. Methods: We designed a retrospective trial to gather information about TKI sensitivity in comparison with CT. We selected from clinical records patients treated with at least 1 line of CT and at least 1 line of TKI. We collected data about age, sex, performance status, comorbidity, smoking status, histotype, metastatic sites, EGFR status, treatment schedule, better response and time-to-progression (TTP) for each line of treatment and overall survival (OS). Results: 93 patients met selection criteria. Mean age 66,7 (range: 46-84). M/F ratio is 3:1. 39 EGFR-WT and 54 EGFR-UK. All patients received erlotinib or gefitinib as second-line treatment or erlotinib as third-line treatment. No TTP differences were observed for both second-line (HR:0,91; p = 0,6333) and third-line (HR:1.1; p = 0,6951) treatment (TKI vs CT). A trend of a benefit in OS in favor of 3rd-line TKI (HR:0,68; p = 0,11). Conclusions: This study explores the role of TKIs in EGFR non-mutated NSCLC patients. OS analysis highlights a trend to a benefit in patients who received TKI in third-line, even if this result is statistically non-significant. Further analysis are needed to find an explanation for this observation

Early Prediction of Response to Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors by Quantification of EGFR Mutations in Plasma of NSCLC Patients.

IntroductionThe potential to accurately quantify epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations in plasma from non–small-cell lung cancer patients would enable more rapid and more frequent analyses to assess disease status; however, the utility of such analyses for clinical purposes has only recently started to explore.MethodsPlasma samples were obtained from 69 patients with EGFR-mutated tumors and 21 negative control cases. EGFR mutations in plasma were analyzed by a standardized allele-specific polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test and ultra-deep next-generation sequencing (NGS). A semiquantitative index (SQI) was derived from dilutions of known EGFR mutation copy numbers. Clinical responses were evaluated by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1 criteria and expressed as percent tumor shrinkage.ResultsThe sensitivity and specificity of the PCR test and NGS assay in plasma versus tissue were 72% versus 100% and 74% versus 100%, respectively. Quantitative indices by the PCR test and NGS were significantly correlated (p < 0.001). EGFR testing at baseline and serially at 4 to 60 days during tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy revealed a progressive decrease in SQI, starting from day 4, in 95% of cases. The rate of SQI decrease correlated with percent tumor shrinkage at 2 months (p < 0.0001); at 14 days, it was more than 50% in 70% of patients (rapid responders). In two patients with slow response, an early increase in the circulating levels of the T790M mutation was observed. No early T790M mutations were seen in plasma samples of rapid responders.ConclusionsQuantification of EGFR mutations from plasma with a standardized PCR test is feasible. To our knowledge, this is the first study showing a strong correlation between the EGFR SQI in the first days of treatment and clinical response with relevant implications for patient management

Corrigendum to “Circulating Cancer Stem Cell-Derived Extracellular Vesicles as a Novel Biomarker for Clinical Outcome Evaluation”

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1155/2019/5879616.].Peer Reviewe

Circulating Cancer Stem Cell-Derived Extracellular Vesicles as a Novel Biomarker for Clinical Outcome Evaluation.

The recent introduction of the "precision medicine" concept in oncology pushed cancer research to focus on dynamic measurable biomarkers able to predict responses to novel anticancer therapies in order to improve clinical outcomes. Recently, the involvement of extracellular vesicles (EVs) in cancer pathophysiology has been described, and given their release from all cell types under specific stimuli, EVs have also been proposed as potential biomarkers in cancer. Among the techniques used to study EVs, flow cytometry has a high clinical potential. Here, we have applied a recently developed and simplified flow cytometry method for circulating EV enumeration, subtyping, and isolation from a large cohort of metastatic and locally advanced nonhaematological cancer patients (N = 106); samples from gender- and age-matched healthy volunteers were also analysed. A large spectrum of cancer-related markers was used to analyse differences in terms of peripheral blood circulating EV phenotypes between patients and healthy volunteers, as well as their correlation to clinical outcomes. Finally, EVs from patients and controls were isolated by fluorescence-activated cell sorting, and their protein cargoes were analysed by proteomics. Results demonstrated that EV counts were significantly higher in cancer patients than in healthy volunteers, as previously reported. More interestingly, results also demonstrated that cancer patients presented higher concentrations of circulating CD31+ endothelial-derived and tumour cancer stem cell-derived CD133 + CD326- EVs, when compared to healthy volunteers. Furthermore, higher levels of CD133 + CD326- EVs showed a significant correlation with a poor overall survival. Additionally, proteomics analysis of EV cargoes demonstrated disparities in terms of protein content and function between circulating EVs in cancer patients and healthy controls. Overall, our data strongly suggest that blood circulating cancer stem cell-derived EVs may have a role as a diagnostic and prognostic biomarker in cancer

Comparison of risk prediction scores for venous thromboembolism in cancer patients:A prospective cohort study

In ambulatory patients with solid cancer, routine thromboprophylaxis to prevent venous thromboembolism is not recommended. Several risk prediction scores to identify cancer patients at high risk of venous thromboembolism have been proposed, but their clinical usefulness remains a matter of debate. We evaluated and directly compared the performance of the Khorana, Vienna, PROTECHT, and CONKO scores in a multinational, prospective cohort study. Patients with advanced cancer were eligible if they were due to undergo chemotherapy or had started chemotherapy in the previous three months. The primary outcome was objectively confirmed symptomatic or incidental deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism during a 6-month followup period. A total of 876 patients were enrolled, of whom 260 (30%) had not yet received chemotherapy. Fifty-three patients (6.1%) developed venous thromboembolism. The c-statistics of the scores ranged from 0.50 to 0.57. At the conventional positivity threshold of 3 points, the scores classified 13-34% of patients as high-risk; the 6-month incidence of venous thromboembolism in these patients ranged from 6.5% (95% CI: 2.8-12) for the Khorana score to 9.6% (95% CI: 6.6-13) for the PROTECHT score. High-risk patients had a significantly increased risk of venous thromboembolism when using the Vienna (subhazard ratio 1.7; 95% CI: 1.0-3.1) or PROTECHT (subhazard ratio 2.1; 95% CI: 1.23.6) scores. In conclusion, the prediction scores performed poorly in predicting venous thromboembolism in cancer patients. The Vienna CATS and PROTECHT scores appear to discriminate better between low-and high-risk patients, but further improvements are needed before they can be considered for introduction into clinical practice

Axitinib after Sunitinib in Metastatic Renal Cancer: Preliminary Results from Italian "Real-World" SAX Study.

Axitinib is an oral angiogenesis inhibitor, currently approved for treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) after failure of prior treatment with Sunitinib or cytokine. The present study is an Italian Multi-Institutional Retrospective Analysis that evaluated the outcomes of Axitinib, in second-line treatment of mRCC. The medical records of 62 patients treated with Axitinib, were retrospectively reviewed. The Progression Free Survival (PFS), the Overall Survival (OS), the Objective Response Rate (ORR), the Disease Control Rate (DCR), and the safety profile of axitinib and sunitinib–axitinib sequence, were the primary endpoint. The mPFS was 5.83 months (95% CI 3.93–7.73 months). When patients was stratified by Heng score, mPFS was 5.73, 5.83, 10.03 months according to poor, intermediate, and favorable risk group, respectively. The mOS from the start of axitinib was 13.3 months (95% CI 8.6–17.9 months); the observed ORR and DCR were 25 and 71%, respectively. When stratified patients by subgroups defined by duration of prior therapy with Sunitinib (≤ vs. >median duration), there was a statistically significant difference in mPFS with 8.9 (95% CI 4.39–13.40 months) vs. 5.46 months (95% CI 4.04–6.88 months) for patients with a median duration of Sunitinib >13.2 months. DCR and ORR to previous Sunitinib treatment was associated with longer statistically mPFS, 7.23 (95% CI 3.95–10.51 months, p = 0.01) and 8.67 (95% CI 4.0–13.33 months, p = 0.008) vs. 2.97 (95% CI 0.65–5.27 months, p = 0.01) and 2.97 months (95% CI 0.66–5.28 months, p = 0.01), respectively. Overall Axitinib at standard schedule of 5 mg bid, was well-tolerated. The most common adverse events of all grades were fatig (25.6%), hypertension (22.6%), gastro-intestinal disorders (25.9%), and hypothyroidism (16.1%). The sequence Sunitinib–Axitinib was well-tolerated without worsening in side effects, with a median OS of 34.7 months (95% CI 18.4–51.0 months). Our results are consistent with the available literature; this retrospective analysis confirms that Axitinib is effective and safe in routine clinical practice