A real-world retrospective, observational study of first-line pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy for metastatic non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer with PD-L1 tumor proportion score < 50% (PEMBROREAL)

IntroductionThe phase III Keynote-189 trial established a first-line treatment combining pembrolizumab with pemetrexed and platinum as a standard treatment for patients with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) without known EGFR and ALK driver mutations and independent of programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression. However, in Italy, eligibility for the National Health Service payment program is limited to patients with PD-L1 &lt;50%. The PEMBROREAL study assesses the real-world effectiveness and safety of pembrolizumab in patients eligible for the National Health Service payment program.MethodsPEMBROREAL is a retrospective, observational study on patients with NSCLC who started pembrolizumab combined with pemetrexed and platinum within the reimbursability time window, considered as December 2019 to December 2020. The primary endpoints were to assess progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS; using the Kaplan–Meier method), response to therapy, and tolerability.ResultsUntil February 2022, 279 patients (median follow-up: 19.7 months) have been observed. The median PFS was 8.0 months (95% confidence interval: 6.5–9.2). OS was not reached, but we can estimate a 12- to 24-month survival rate for the combined treatment: 66.1% and 52.5%, respectively. PD-L1 expression and Eastern Cooperative Group (ECOG) Performance Status were both associated with PFS and OS. Overall, only 44.4% of patients reported an adverse event, whereas toxicity led to a 5.4% discontinuation rate.ConclusionThe results of the PEMBROREAL study have shown that the combined treatment of pembrolizumab with pemetrexed and platinum is effective for metastatic non-squamous NSCLC, even for patients with PD-L1 levels below 50%, despite the differences in patient demographics and pathological features compared to the Keynote-189 study. The adverse events reported during the study were more typical of chemotherapy treatment rather than immunotherapy, and physicians were able to manage them easily

Insight from an Italian Delphi Consensus on EVAR feasibility outside the instruction for use: the SAFE EVAR Study

BACKGROUND: The SAfety and FEasibility of standard EVAR outside the instruction for use (SAFE-EVAR) Study was designed to define the attitude of Italian vascular surgeons towards the use of standard endovascular repair (EVAR) for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) outside the instruction for use (IFU) through a Delphi consensus endorsed by the Italian Society of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery (Societa Italiana di Chirurgia Vascolare ed Endovascolare - SICVE). METHODS: A questionnaire consisting of 26 statements was developed, validated by an 18 -member Advisory Board, and then sent to 600 Italian vascular surgeons. The Delphi process was structured in three subsequent rounds which took place between April and June 2023. In the first two rounds, respondents could indicate one of the following five degrees of agreement: 1) strongly agree; 2) partially agree; 3) neither agree nor disagree; 4) partially disagree; 5) strongly disagree; while in the third round only three different choices were proposed: 1) agree; 2) neither agree nor disagree; 3) disagree. We considered the consensus reached when &gt;70% of respondents agreed on one of the options. After the conclusion of each round, a report describing the percentage distribution of the answers was sent to all the participants. RESULTS: Two -hundred -forty-four (40.6%) Italian Vascular Surgeons agreed to participate the first round of the Delphi Consensus; the second and the third rounds of the Delphi collected 230 responders (94.3% of the first -round responders). Four statements (15.4%) reached a consensus in the first rounds. Among the 22 remaining statements, one more consensus (3.8%) was achieved in the second round. Finally, seven more statements (26.9%) reached a consensus in the simplified last round. Globally, a consensus was reached for almost half of the proposed statements (46.1%). CONCLUSIONS: The relatively low consensus rate obtained in this Delphi seems to confirm the discrepancy between Guideline recommendations and daily clinical practice. The data collected could represent the source for a possible guidelines' revision and the proposal of specific Good Practice Points in all those aspects with only little evidence available

Insight from an Italian Delphi Consensus on EVAR feasibility outside the instruction for use: the SAFE EVAR Study

Background: The SAfety and FEasibility of standard EVAR outside the instruction for use (SAFE-EVAR) Study was designed to define the attitude of Italian vascular surgeons towards the use of standard endovascular repair (EVAR) for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) outside the instruction for use (IFU) through a Delphi consensus endorsed by the Italian Society of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery (Società Italiana di Chirurgia Vascolare ed Endovascolare - SICVE). Methods: A questionnaire consisting of 26 statements was developed, validated by an 18-member Advisory Board, and then sent to 600 Italian vascular surgeons. The Delphi process was structured in three subsequent rounds which took place between April and June 2023. In the first two rounds, respondents could indicate one of the following five degrees of agreement: 1) strongly agree; 2) partially agree; 3) neither agree nor disagree; 4) partially disagree; 5) strongly disagree; while in the third round only three different choices were proposed: 1) agree; 2) neither agree nor disagree; 3) disagree. We considered the consensus reached when ≥70% of respondents agreed on one of the options. After the conclusion of each round, a report describing the percentage distribution of the answers was sent to all the participants. Results: Two-hundred-forty-four (40.6%) Italian Vascular Surgeons agreed to participate the first round of the Delphi Consensus; the second and the third rounds of the Delphi collected 230 responders (94.3% of the first-round responders). Four statements (15.4%) reached a consensus in the first rounds. Among the 22 remaining statements, one more consensus (3.8%) was achieved in the second round. Finally, seven more statements (26.9%) reached a consensus in the simplified last round. Globally, a consensus was reached for almost half of the proposed statements (46.1%). Conclusions: The relatively low consensus rate obtained in this Delphi seems to confirm the discrepancy between Guideline recommendations and daily clinical practice. The data collected could represent the source for a possible guidelines' revision and the proposal of specific Good Practice Points in all those aspects with only little evidence available

RIvaroxaban and VAscular Surgery (RIVAS): insights from a multicenter, worldwide web-based survey

no abstract availabl