Proceedings in oncology: Aren’t we back to the future?

Three weeks ago Pamir Atagunduz, the Chief Editor ofMarmara Medical Journal, talked to me about his plans forthe Journal in the upcoming years with great excitementand enthusiasm. I felt honored when he asked if I wouldbe interested in becoming the invited editor for the first ofthe “Special Issue” series of Marmara Medical Journal. Thesame day I started to plan how to accomplish an oncologyissue in a very short period of time. When I called EsraSaglam, asking for a review due in 3 weeks, not only shesaid yes, but also encouraged me with her great ideas. Here,I would especially thank to all of the authors in this issue forwriting these manuscripts despite their very busy schedule.Also, I owe special thanks to Bruce Minsky for his positiveapproach in contributing to our Journal.In addition to the current information regarding positiveinteraction between immunotherapy and radiotherapy youwill find the latest developments on treatment of variouscancers in this “Special Issue - Oncology “

A case of pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant triplet chemotherapy for locally advanced colon cancer with mismatch repair enzyme proficiency

Patients with potentially resectable colon cancer and expected to have negative margins should undergo resection rather than neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Recent studies have suggested that neoadjuvant immunotherapy may be an option for tumors with mismatch repair enzyme deficiency (dMMR), but standard treatment for locally advanced colon cancer with mismatch repair enzyme proficiency (pMMR) is still unclear. A 37-year-old male patient was diagnosed with clinical stage IIIC (T4b N1a M0) transverse colon cancer. Mismatch repair proteins were proficient. After 3 cycles of oxaliplatin (85 mg/m2, day 1), irinotecan (150 mg/m2, IV, day 1), leucovorin (200 mg/m2, IV, day 1), and 5-fluorouracil (3000 mg/m2, 46 hours of continuous infusion initiating from day 1), there was a remarkable reduction in the tumoral mass on the abdominal computed tomography. A right hemicolectomy was performed. A pathologic complete response was obtained. Although there is no consensus on which patients are suitable for neoadjuvant therapy in pMMR locally advanced colon cancer, triplet chemotherapy may be a reasonable option in selected patients

Prognostic Factors in Operated Early Stage Lung Cancer Patients- Retrospective Single Center Data

Aim: Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) accounts for 85% of all lung cancers. Although curative treatment is surgery in the early stages, disease relapse is common. In this study, we retrospectively evaluated the prognostic factors and outcomes of operated NSCLC cases.Materials and Methods: Retrospective analysis of data from 166 patients with early stage NSCLC who presented after surgery and treated and followed in our clinic between 2006-2018 was performed. Histopathologic features and clinical findings were investigated as prognostic factors.The findings were analyzed using SPSS.Results: At the time of diagnosis, median age was 61 (39-82) and 84% of the patients were male. Most common pathologic subtype was adenocarcinoma. Median disease free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were 76 months (%95CI:32.1-110.0) and 87 months (95%CI:59.8-114.1). ). In multivariate analysis, presence of vascular invasion was found to be independent prognostic factors for both DFS and OS (HR:2.5 and 2.3, respectively). Adenocarcinoma solid pattern was only associated with worse disease-free survival (HR: 1.7).Conclusion: In our study, we showed that the presence of vascular invasion and solid-type adenocarcinoma is associated with poor survival

Crizotinib efficacy and safety in patients with advanced NSCLC harboring MET alterations: A real-life data of Turkish Oncology Group

Crizotinib is a multikinase inhibitor, effective in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring mesenchymal-epidermal transition (MET) alterations. Although small prospective studies showed efficacy and safety of crizotinib in NSCLC with MET alterations, there is limited real-life data. Aim of this study is to investigate real-life efficacy and safety of crizotinib in patients with advanced NSCLC harboring MET alterations. This was a retrospective, multicenter (17 centers) study of Turkish Oncology Group. Patients' demographic, histological data, treatment, response rates, survival outcomes, and toxicity data were collected. Outcomes were presented for the study population and compared between MET alteration types. Total of 62 patients were included with a median age of 58.5 (range, 26-78). Major histological type was adenocarcinoma, and 3 patients (4.8%) had sarcomatoid component. The most common MET analyzing method was next generation sequencing (90.3%). MET amplification and mutation frequencies were 53.2% (n = 33) and 46.8% (n = 29), respectively. Overall response rate and disease control rate were 56.5% and 74.2% in whole study population, respectively. Median progression free survival (PFS) was 7.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.8-10.5), and median overall survival (OS) was 18.7 months (95% CI: 13.7-23.7), regardless of treatment line. Median PFS was 6.1 months (95% CI: 5.6-6.4) for patients with MET amplification, whereas 14.3 months (95% CI: 6.7-21.7) for patients with MET mutation (P = .217). Median PFS was significantly longer in patients who have never smoked (P = .040), have good performance score (P < .001), and responded to the treatment (P < .001). OS was significantly longer in patients with MET mutation (25.6 months, 95% CI: 15.9-35.3) compared to the patients with MET amplification (11.0 months; 95% CI: 5.2-16.8) (P = .049). In never-smokers, median OS was longer than smoker patients (25.6 months [95% CI: 11.8-39.3] vs 16.5 months [95% CI: 9.3-23.6]; P = .049). The most common adverse effects were fatigue (50%), peripheral edema (21%), nausea (29%) and diarrhea (19.4%). Grade 3 or 4 adverse effects were observed in 6.5% of the patients. This real-life data confirms efficacy and safety of crizotinib in the treatment of advanced NSCLC harboring MET alteration

Comparison of two different carboplatin and weekly paclitaxel schedule in elderly advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients

PurposeIn this study our aim was to compare efficacy and toxicity profiles of two different schedule of carboplatin-paclitaxel regimen in elderly advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients.MethodsData from the charts of 59 elderly patients with metastatic NSCLC, treated with weekly paclitaxel combined with two different schedule of carboplatinwere collected retrospectively from three medical oncology centers in Turkeybetween September 2002 to March 2018. No prior systemic therapy or radiotherapy was allowed. Brain metastases were not considered as exclusion criteria unless symptomatic. Patients were analyzed in two treatment groups; CP3 (who received 3 weekly carboplatin and weekly paclitaxel), and CP1 (weekly carboplatin and weekly paclitaxel). Overall survival (OS) was the primary endpoint of the study. Secondary end points were as follows: progression free survival (PFS), response rates (RR), grade 3-4 toxicities, skipped cycles, dose reductions, and treatment discontinuation rates.ResultsTwenty-four patients received 3 weekly carboplatin and weekly paclitaxel schedule (CP3) while weekly carboplatin and weekly paclitaxel schedule (CP1) was performed in 35 patients. CP3 had a median OSof 14months whereas CP1 had 9months of median OS (p=0.084). Both treatments (CP3 vs CP1) had similar median PFS (7months vs 4months, p=0.109) and objective RR (20.9% vs 29.4%, p=0.465). There was an increased incidence of grade 3-4 anemia and grade 3-4 neutropenia in CP3 compared to CP1 (p=0.003 in both), but no major differences in febrile neutropenia and infection toxicity profiles (p=0.289 and p=0.770, respectively). Weekly schedule (CP1) had a tendency of increased grade 3-4 neurotoxicity (33.3% vs 42.9%, p=0.461).ConclusionWeekly carboplatin and paclitaxel might be more tolerable and is as effective as 3 weekly carboplatin and weekly paclitaxel schedule in metastatic elderly NSCLC patients

How do lung cancer specialists follow their patients with stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after definitive treatment? - A short report

Although pretreatment evaluations are well defined for the diagnosis of radically treatable NSCLC, we have very little data about the follow-up of these patients after completion of therapy, especially for stage III patients. No documented standards for surveillance were set in the NCCN, ACCP or ESMO guidelines. In order to determine the standard practice patterns of lung specialists, a survey was done. Physicians were asked which tests they do for pretreatment evaluation and also on asymptomatic patients during their post-treatment follow-up. The survey was sent to 192 centres which were part of the EORTC Lung Cancer Group. Thirty-eight centres from 12 different countries replied. Results showed that almost all the centres are doing very similar pretreatment evaluation procedures in stage III NSCLC. In the post-treatment follow-up setting, results were more varied in terms of frequency and type of scans used. The most commonly used test was a computed tomography (CT) of the chest and abdomen at 3 months post-treatment. Positron emission tomography (PET)/CT and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the brain with contrast were done only in symptomatic patients. This audit suggests that one CT scan at 3 months after the end of radical treatment has become a standard with little evidence showing it is better than a chest radiography (CXR). These data should be used to encourage research into molecular parameters or new imaging techniques that could be tested as more sensitive methods of picking up relapse in radically treated stage IIIA patients who has a high relapse rate in the first 12 months. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

GLASS: Global Lorlatinib for ALK(+) and ROS1(+) retrospective Study: real world data of 123 NSCLC patients

Lorlatinib is a third-generation tyrosine-kinases inhibitor (TKI) targeting ALK/ROS1 fusions. The FDA has approved lorlatinib for TKI-pretreated ALK(+) NSCLC, while its approval for ROS1( + ) is still pending. Here we present the largest real-world data of NSCLC patients harboring ALK/ROS1 rearrangements treated with lorlatinib. Methods: 123 patients were enrolled retrospectively (data cut-off 1/1/2019). Lorlatinib was administered through an early access program for patients with no other available therapy. Outcome and response were defined by each investigator upon RECIST 1.1 criteria. Results: 106 ALK(+) and 17 ROS1(+) patients recruited from 8 different countries. The ALK( + ) cohort included 50 % males, 73 % never-smokers and 68 % with brain metastases. Extracranial (EC) and intracranial (IC) response rates (RR) were 60 % and 62 %, with disease control rates (DCR) of 91 % and 88 % respectively. Mean duration of therapy (DoT) was 23.9 +/- 1.6 months and median overall survival (mOS) was 89.1 +/- 19.6 months. ROS1 cohort enrolled 53 % males, 65 % never-smokers and 65 % had brain metastases. EC and IC RR were 62 % and 67 % with DCR of 92 % and 78 % respectively. Median DoT was 18.1 +/- 2.5 months and mOS of 90.3 +/- 24.4 months. OS and DoT in both cohorts were not significantly correlated with line of therapy nor other parameters. The most common adverse events of any grade were peripheral edema (48 %), hyperlipidemia (47 %), weight gain (25 %) and fatigue (30 %). CNS adverse events such as cognitive effect of grade 1-2 were reported in 18 % of patients. Conclusion: Lorlatinib shows outstanding EC/IC efficacy in ALK/ROS1(+) NSCLC. The observed mOS of 89 +/- 19 months in ALK(+) NSCLC supports previous reports, while mOS from of 90 +/- 24 months is unprecedented for ROS1( + ) NSCLC