Comparison of efficacy in patients with metastatic melanoma treated with ipilimumab and nivolumab who did or did not discontinue treatment due to immune-related adverse events:A real-world data study

SIMPLE SUMMARY: This retrospective study of real-world patients with metastatic melanoma shows that discontinuing treatment with combination immunotherapy due to adverse events does not result in a poorer outcome compared to patients that did not discontinue due to toxicity. This is important knowledge for clinicians and patients, as discontinuing treatment may cause great anxiety for patients because they believe that it may limit the response. ABSTRACT: Immune-related adverse events (irAEs) are very prevalent when treating patients with ipilimumab and nivolumab in combination, and 30–40% of patients discontinue the treatment for this reason. It is of high clinical relevance to investigate the consequences of discontinuing the treatment early since combination therapy with ipilimumab and nivolumab is the first line of treatment for many patients with metastatic melanoma. In this follow-up study, with real-world data from the nationwide DAMMED database, we investigated whether there was a difference in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for patients who discontinued or did not discontinue treatment within the first four doses of treatment due to irAEs. In total, 448 patients were treated with ipilimumab and nivolumab. Of these, 133 patients discontinued due to irAEs in the induction phase. Using the Cox proportional hazards model, there was no significant difference in PFS when comparing the group that discontinued with the group that did not discontinue. The group that discontinued had a significantly longer OS than the group that received the full length of treatment. Therefore, we conclude that there is no significant negative impact on efficacy for patients who discontinue due to irAEs in the induction phase of combination immunotherapy for metastatic melanoma

Immediate chest X-ray for patients at risk of lung cancer presenting in primary care: randomised controlled feasibility trial

Background: Achieving earlier stage diagnosis is one option for improving lung cancer outcomes in the United Kingdom. Patients with lung cancer typically present with symptoms to general practitioners several times before referral or investigation. Methods: We undertook a mixed methods feasibility individually randomised controlled trial (the ELCID trial) to assess the feasibility and inform the design of a definitive, fully powered, UK-wide, Phase III trial of lowering the threshold for urgent investigation of suspected lung cancer. Patients over 60, with a smoking history, presenting with new chest symptoms to primary care, were eligible to be randomised to intervention (urgent chest X-ray) or usual care. Results: The trial design and materials were acceptable to GPs and patients. We randomised 255 patients from 22 practices, although the proportion of eligible patients who participated was lower than expected. Survey responses (89%), and the fidelity of the intervention (82% patients X-rayed within 3 weeks) were good. There was slightly higher anxiety and depression in the control arm in participants aged >75. Three patients (1.2%) were diagnosed with lung cancer. Conclusions: We have demonstrated the feasibility of individually randomising patients at higher risk of lung cancer, to a trial offering urgent investigation or usual care

Understanding missed opportunities for more timely diagnosis of cancer in symptomatic patients after presentation.

The diagnosis of cancer is a complex, multi-step process. In this paper, we highlight factors involved in missed opportunities to diagnose cancer more promptly in symptomatic patients and discuss responsible mechanisms and potential strategies to shorten intervals from presentation to diagnosis. Missed opportunities are instances in which post-hoc judgement indicates that alternative decisions or actions could have led to more timely diagnosis. They can occur in any of the three phases of the diagnostic process (initial diagnostic assessment; diagnostic test performance and interpretation; and diagnostic follow-up and coordination) and can involve patient, doctor/care team, and health-care system factors, often in combination. In this perspective article, we consider epidemiological 'signals' suggestive of missed opportunities and draw on evidence from retrospective case reviews of cancer patient cohorts to summarise factors that contribute to missed opportunities. Multi-disciplinary research targeting such factors is important to shorten diagnostic intervals post presentation. Insights from the fields of organisational and cognitive psychology, human factors science and informatics can be extremely valuable in this emerging research agenda. We provide a conceptual foundation for the development of future interventions to minimise the occurrence of missed opportunities in cancer diagnosis, enriching current approaches that chiefly focus on clinical decision support or on widening access to investigations.We acknowledge the helpful and incisive comments by Dr Rikke Sand Andersen (Aarhus University, Denmark) in conceptualising this piece and in drafts of the manuscript. The work is independent research supported by different funding schemes. GL was supported by a Post-Doctoral Fellowship by the National Institute for Health Research (PDF-2011-04-047) until the end of 2014 and by a Cancer Research UK Clinician Scientist Fellowship award (A18180) from 2015. HS is supported by the VA Health Services Research and Development Service (CRE 12-033; Presidential Early Career Award for Scientists and Engineers USA 14-274), the VA National Center for Patient Safety, the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality (R01HS022087) and in part by the Houston VA HSR&D Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety (CIN 13–413). PV was supported by CaP, funded by The Danish Cancer Society and the Novo Nordisk Foundation.This is the final version of the article. It first appeared at http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2015.4

General practice consultations, diagnostic investigations, and prescriptions in the year preceding a lung cancer diagnosis

Patterns of general practice utilization in the period before lung cancer (LC) diagnosis may provide new knowledge to ensure timelier and earlier diagnosis of LC. This study aimed to explore the prediagnostic activity in general practice in the year preceding LC diagnosis. The activity was compared to a matched comparison group. We compared LC patients with different stage, and patients with and without chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Using Danish registers, we performed a population‐based matched cohort study including lung cancer patients (n = 34,017) and matched comparison subjects (n = 340,170). During months 12 to 1 prior to diagnosis, 92.6% of LC patients and 88.4% of comparison subjects had one or more contacts with general practice. 13.0% of LC patients and 3.3% of comparison subjects had two or more X‐rays. 20.8% of LC patients and 8.5% of comparison subjects had two or more first‐time antibiotics prescriptions. The incidence rate ratio for having a contact to general practice was similar for LC patients with localized disease compared to LC patients with metastatic disease. LC patients with COPD had more frequent contacts, lung functions tests, X‐rays, and prescriptions than COPD patients without lung cancer, but not as pronounced as compared to patients without COPD. There was a significant increase in healthcare seeking and diagnostic activity in the year prior to a LC diagnosis, regardless of stage at diagnosis. COPD may mask the symptoms of LC. This indicates the presence of a “diagnostic time window” and a potential for more timely diagnosis of LC based on clinical signs and symptoms