Relevance and Effectiveness of Molecular Tumor Board Recommendations for Patients With Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer With Rare or Complex Mutational Profiles

PURPOSEMolecular tumor boards (MTBs) provide physicians with a treatment recommendation for complex tumor-specific genomic alterations. National and international consensus to reach a recommendation is lacking. In this article, we analyze the effectiveness of an MTB decision-making methodology for patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with rare or complex mutational profiles as implemented in the University Medical Center Groningen (UMCG).METHODSThe UMCG-MTB comprises (pulmonary) oncologists, pathologists, clinical scientists in molecular pathology, and structural biologists. Recommendations are based on reported actionability of variants and molecular interpretation of pathways affected by the variant and supported by molecular modeling. A retrospective analysis of 110 NSCLC cases (representing 106 patients) with suggested treatment of complex genomic alterations and corresponding treatment outcomes for targeted therapy was performed.RESULTSThe MTB recommended targeted therapy for 59 of 110 NSCLC cases with complex molecular profiles: 24 within a clinical trial, 15 in accordance with guidelines (on label) and 20 off label. All but 16 recommendations involved patients with an EGFR or ALK mutation. Treatment outcome was analyzed for patients with available follow-up (10 on label and 16 off label). Adherence to the MTB recommendation (21 of 26; 81%) resulted in an objective response rate of 67% (14 of 21), with a median progression-free survival of 6.3 months (interquartile range, 3.2-10.6 months) and an overall survival of 10.4 months (interquartile range, 6.3-14.6 months).CONCLUSIONTargeted therapy recommendations resulting from the UMCG-MTB workflow for complex molecular profiles were highly adhered to and resulted in a positive clinical response in the majority of patients with metastatic NSCLC

Health-related quality of life after prophylactic cranial irradiation for stage III non-small cell lung cancer patients:Results from the NVALT-11/DLCRG-02 phase III study

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The NVALT-11/DLCRG-02 phase III trial (clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01282437) showed that, after standard curative intent treatment, prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) decreased the incidence of symptomatic brain metastases (BM) in stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients compared to observation. In this study we assessed the impact of PCI on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). In addition, an exploratory analysis was performed to assess the impact of neurocognitive symptoms and symptomatic BM on HRQoL. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Stage III NSCLC patients were randomized between PCI and observation. HRQoL was measured using the EuroQol 5D (EQ-5D-3L), EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BN20 instruments at completion of standard curative intent treatment and 4 weeks, 3, 6, 12, 24 and 36 months thereafter. Generalized linear mixed effects (GLM) models were used to assess the impact of PCI compared to observation over time on three HRQoL metrics: the EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status and the EQ-5D-3L utility and visual analogue scale (EQ VAS) scores. RESULTS: In total, 86 and 88 patients were included in the PCI and observation arm, with a median follow-up of 48.5 months (95% CI 39-54 months). Baseline mean HRQoL scores were comparable between the PCI and observation arm for the three HRQoL metrics. In the GLM models, none of the HRQoL metrics were clinically relevant or statistically significantly different between the PCI and the observation arm (p-values ranged between 0.641 and 0.914). CONCLUSION: No statistically significant nor a clinically relevant impact of PCI on HRQoL was observed

Large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma with a solitary brain metastasis and low Ki-67:a unique subtype

INTRODUCTION: Stage IV large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (LCNEC) of the lung generally presents as disseminated and aggressive disease with a Ki-67 proliferation index (PI) 40-80%. LCNEC can be subdivided in two main subtypes: the first harboring TP53/RB1 mutations (small cell lung carcinoma (SCLC)-like), the second with mutations in TP53 and STK11/KEAP1 (non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC)-like). Here we evaluated 11 LCNEC patients with only a solitary brain metastasis and evaluate phenotype, genotype and follow-up. METHODS: Eleven LCNEC patients with solitary brain metastases were analyzed. Clinical characteristics and survival data were retrieved from medical records. Pathological analysis included histomorphological analysis, immunohistochemistry (pRB and Ki-67 PI) and next generation sequencing (TP53, RB1, STK11, KEAP1 and MEN1). RESULTS: All patients had N0 or N1 disease. Median overall survival (OS) was 12 months (95% confidence interval (CI) 5.5-18.5 months). Mean Ki-67 PI was 59% (range 15-100%). In 6/11 LCNEC Ki-67 PI was ≤40%. OS was longer for Ki-67 ≤40% compared to >40% (17 months (95% CI 11-23 months) vs. 5 months (95% CI 0.7-9 months), p=0.007). Two patients were still alive at follow-up after 86 and 103 months, both had Ki-67 ≤40%. 8/11 patients could be subclassified and both SCLC-like (n=6) and NSCLC-like (n=2) subtype were present. No MEN1 mutation was found. CONCLUSION: Stage IV LCNEC with a solitary brain metastasis and N0/N1 disease show in the majority of cases Ki-67 PI ≤40% and prolonged survival, distinguishing them from general LCNEC. This unique subgroup can be both of the SCLC-like and NSCLC-like subtype

Switch-maintenance gemcitabine after first-line chemotherapy in patients with malignant mesothelioma (NVALT19):an investigator-initiated, randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial

Background Almost all patients with malignant mesothelioma eventually have disease progression after first-line therapy. Previous studies have investigated maintenance therapy, but none has shown a great effect. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of switch-maintenance gemcitabine in patients with malignant mesothelioma without disease progression after first-line chemotherapy. Methods We did a randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial in 18 hospitals in the Netherlands (NVALT19). We recruited patients aged older than 18 years with unresectable malignant mesothelioma with no evidence of disease progression after at least four cycles of first-line chemotherapy (with platinum and pemetrexed), who had a WHO performance status of 0-2, adequate organ function, and measurable or evaluable disease. Exclusion criteria were active uncontrolled infection or severe cardiac dysfunction, serious disabling conditions, symptomatic CNS metastases, radiotherapy within 2 weeks before enrolment, and concomitant use of any other drugs under investigation. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1), using the minimisation method, to maintenance intravenous gemcitabine (1250 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8, in cycles of 21 days) plus supportive care, or to best supportive care alone, until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, serious intercurrent illness, patient request for discontinuation, or need for any other anticancer agent, except for palliative radiotherapy. A CT scan of the thorax or abdomen (or both) and pulmonary function tests were done at baseline and repeated every 6 weeks. The primary outcome was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was analysed in all participants who received one or more doses of the study drug or had at least one visit for supportive care. Recruitment is now closed; treatment and follow-up are ongoing. This study is registered with the Netherlands Trial Registry, NTR4132/NL3847. Findings Between March 20, 2014, and Feb 27, 2019, 130 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to gemcitabine plus supportive care (65 patients [50%]) or supportive care alone (65 patients [50%]). No patients were lost to follow-up; median follow-up was 36.5 months (95% CI 34.2 to not reached), and one patient in the supportive care group withdrew consent. Progression-free survival was significantly longer in the gemcitabine group (median 6.2 months [95% CI 4.6-8.7]) than in the supportive care group (3.2 months [2.8-4.1]; hazard ratio [HR] 0.48 [95% CI 0.33-0.71]; p=0.0002). The benefit was confirmed by masked independent central review (HR 0.49 [0.33-0.72]; p=0.0002). Grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in 33 ( 52%) of 64 patients in the gemcitabine group and in ten (16%) of 62 patients in the supportive care group. The most frequent adverse events were anaemia, neutropenia, fatigue or asthenia, pain, and infection in the gemcitabine group, and pain, infection, and cough or dyspnoea in the supportive care group. One patient (2%) in the gemcitabine group died, due to a treatment-related infection. Interpretation Switch-maintenance gemcitabine, after first-line chemotherapy, significantly prolonged progression-free survival compared with best supportive care alone, among patients with malignant mesothelioma. This study confirms the activity of gemcitabine in treating malignant mesothelioma

Quality of life after patient-initiated vs physician-initiated response to symptom monitoring:the SYMPRO-Lung trial

BackgroundPrevious studies using patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) to monitor symptoms during and after (lung) cancer treatment used alerts that were sent to the health-care provider, although an approach in which patients receive alerts could be more clinically feasible. The primary aim of this study was to compare the effect of weekly PROM symptom monitoring via a reactive approach (patient receives alert) or active approach (health-care provider receives alert) with care as usual on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) at 15 weeks after start of treatment in lung cancer patients.MethodsThe SYMPRO–Lung trial is a multicenter randomized controlled trial using a stepped wedge design. Stage I-IV lung cancer patients in the reactive and active groups reported PROM symptoms weekly, which were linked to a common alerting algorithm. HRQOL was measured by the EORTC QLQ-C30 at baseline and after 15 weeks. Linear regression analyses and effect size estimates were used to assess mean QOL–C30 change scores between groups, accounting for confounding.ResultsA total of 515 patients were included (160 active group, 89 reactive group, 266 control group). No differences in HRQOL were observed between the reactive and active group (summary score: unstandardized beta [B] = 0.51, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -3.22 to 4.24, Cohen d effect size [ES] = 0.06; physical functioning: B = 0.25, 95% CI = -5.15 to 4.64, ES = 0.02). The combined intervention groups had statistically and clinically significantly better mean change scores on the summary score (B = 4.85, 95% CI = 1.96 to 7.73, ES = 0.57) and physical functioning (B = 7.00, 95% CI = 2.90 to 11.09, ES = 0.71) compared with the control group.ConclusionsWeekly PRO symptom monitoring statistically and clinically significantly improves HRQOL in lung cancer patients. The logistically less intensive, reactive approach may be a better fit for implementation

A randomised phase II trial of docetaxel vs docetaxel and irinotecan in patients with stage IIIb–IV non-small-cell lung cancer who failed first-line treatment

Response rate and toxicity of second-line therapy with docetaxel (75 mg m−2) or docetaxel, irinotecan, and lenogastrim (60 mg m−2, 200 mg m−2, and 150 μg m−2 day−1, respectively) were compared in 108 patients with stage IIIb–IV non-small-cell lung cancer. Addition of irinotecan to docetaxel does not improve response rate, and increases gastrointestinal toxicity

Randomised controlled trial of first-line tyrosine-kinase inhibitor (TKI) versus intercalated TKI with chemotherapy for EGFR-mutated nonsmall cell lung cancer

Introduction Previous studies have shown interference between epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors and chemotherapy in the cell cycle, thus reducing efficacy. In this randomised controlled trial we investigated whether intercalated erlotinib with chemotherapy was superior compared to erlotinib alone in untreated advanced EGFR-mutated nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Materials and methods Treatment-naïve patients with an activating EGFR mutation, ECOG performance score of 0–3 and adequate organ function were randomly assigned 1:1 to either four cycles of cisplatin-pemetrexed with intercalated erlotinib (day 2–16 out of 21 days per cycle) followed by pemetrexed and erlotinib maintenance (CPE) or erlotinib monotherapy. The primary end-point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end-points were overall survival, objective response rate (ORR) and toxicity. Results Between April 2014 and September 2016, 22 patients were randomised equally into both arms; the study was stopped due to slow accrual. Median follow-up was 64 months. Median PFS was 13.7 months (95% CI 5.2–18.8) for CPE and 10.3 months (95% CI 7.1–15.5; hazard ratio (HR) 0.62, 95% CI 0.25–1.57) for erlotinib monotherapy; when compensating for number of days receiving erlotinib, PFS of the CPE arm was superior (HR 0.24, 95% CI 0.07–0.83; p=0.02). ORR was 64% for CPE versus 55% for erlotinib monotherapy. Median overall survival was 31.7 months (95% CI 21.8–61.9 months) for CPE compared to 17.2 months (95% CI 11.5–45.5 months) for erlotinib monotherapy (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.22–1.41 months). Patients treated with CPE had higher rates of treatment-related fatigue, anorexia, weight loss and renal toxicity. Conclusion Intercalating erlotinib with cisplatin-pemetrexed provides a longer PFS compared to erlotinib alone in EGFR-mutated NSCLC at the expense of more toxicity

Dutch Oncology COVID-19 consortium:Outcome of COVID-19 in patients with cancer in a nationwide cohort study

Aim of the study: Patients with cancer might have an increased risk for severe outcome of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). To identify risk factors associated with a worse outcome of COVID-19, a nationwide registry was developed for patients with cancer and COVID-19. Methods: This observational cohort study has been designed as a quality of care registry and is executed by the Dutch Oncology COVID-19 Consortium (DOCC), a nationwide collaboration of oncology physicians in the Netherlands. A questionnaire has been developed to collect pseudonymised patient data on patients' characteristics, cancer diagnosis and treatment. All patients with COVID-19 and a cancer diagnosis or treatment in the past 5 years are eligible. Results: Between March 27th and May 4th, 442 patients were registered. For this first analysis, 351 patients were included of whom 114 patients died. In multivariable analyses, age ≥65 years (p < 0.001), male gender (p = 0.035), prior or other malignancy (p = 0.045) and active diagnosis of haematological malignancy (p = 0.046) or lung cancer (p = 0.003) were independent risk factors for a fatal outcome of COVID-19. In a subgroup analysis of patients with active malignancy, the risk for a fatal outcome was mainly determined by tumour type (haematological malignancy or lung cancer) and age (≥65 years). Conclusion: The findings in this registry indicate that patients with a haematological malignancy or lung cancer have an increased risk of a worse outcome of COVID-19. During the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, these vulnerable patients should avoid exposure to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, whereas treatment adjustments and prioritising vaccination, when available, should also be considered