Be-TeaM: An Italian real-world observational study on second-line therapy for EGFR-mutated NSCLC patients

Lung Cancer ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 140 ◽  
pp. 71-79 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Lucia Reale ◽  
Rita Chiari ◽  
Marcello Tiseo ◽  
Fabiana Vitiello ◽  
Fausto Barbieri ◽  
...  
Cancers ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (11) ◽  
pp. 2773
Author(s):  
Marta Padovan ◽  
Marica Eoli ◽  
Alessia Pellerino ◽  
Simona Rizzato ◽  
Claudia Caserta ◽  
...  

Background: Depatuxizumab Mafodotin (Depatux-M; ABT-414) is an antibody-drug conjugate consisting of a specific antibody against activated EGFR and a cytotoxic agent with antimicrotubule activity. The INTELLANCE 2/EORTC 1410 phase 2 trial produced interesting results for the combination regimen of Depatux-M and temozolomide in EGFR-amplified glioblastoma patients at first recurrence. For the first time worldwide, our work investigated the clinical outcome and safety of this combination in a real-life population. Materials and Methods: Patients were enrolled from seven AINO (Italian Association of Neuro-Oncology) Institutions. The major inclusion criteria were: histologically confirmed diagnosis of glioblastoma, EGFR-amplified, one or more prior systemic therapies and ECOG PS ≤ 2. According to the original schedule, patients received Depatux-M 1.25 mg/kg every 2 weeks combined with temozolomide. The primary endpoints of the study were overall survival and safety. Results: A total of 36 patients were enrolled. The median age was 57 years, ECOG PS was 0–1 in 28 patients (88%), MGMT methylated status was found in 22 (64%), 15 patients (42%) received the combined treatment as second-line therapy. The median OS was 8.04 months (95% CI, 5.3–10.7), the 12 month-OS was 37%. On univariate and multivariate analyses, the MGMT methylation status was the only factor resulting significantly associated with survival. Grade 3 ocular toxicity occurred in 11% of patients; no grade 4 ocular toxicity was reported. No death was considered to be drug-related. Conclusions: The study reported the first “real world” experience of Depatux-M plus temozolomide in recurrent glioblastoma patients. Encouraging clinical benefits were demonstrated, even though most patients were treated beyond second-line therapy. Overall, the results are close to those reported in the previous phase 2 trial. Toxicity was moderate and manageable.


2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 8049-8049 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. K. Link ◽  
T. P. Miller ◽  
M. Byrtek ◽  
J. R. Cerhan ◽  
A. D. Zelenetz ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e20517-e20517
Author(s):  
Fan Zhang ◽  
Tao Li ◽  
Yuzi Zhang ◽  
Shangli Cai ◽  
Lei Zhao ◽  
...  

e20517 Background: Immunotherapy combined with platinum-based chemotherapy is now standard first line treatment for NSCLC patients. However, limited evidence exists to show the efficacy of immunotherapy plus taxanes for patients who have progressed after platinum-based chemotherapy. Therefore, a retrospective study was conducted to assess whether immunotherapy plus nab-paclitaxel with or without bevacizumb could improve efficacy compared with immune monotherapy as second line therapy or beyond for NSCLC patients. Methods: Patients with metastatic NSCLC receiving anti-PD-1/PD-L1 monotherapy or combination therapy from 2015 to 2018 were identified in Chinese People’s Liberation Army General Hospital. Patients who received PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors as first-line therapy or combined with therapies other than nab-paclitaxel and bevacizumab were excluded. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR) and safety. Results: Of 59 patients, 42 were treated with anti-PD-1/PD-L1 monotherapy and 17 were treated with anti-PD-1/PD-L1 plus nab-paclitaxel with or without bevacizumab. With a median follow-up of 8.2 months, combination therapy group showed significantly longer PFS compared with monotherapy group (8.4m vs. 3.7m, P = 0.047). When adjusted by covariates in COX proportional regression model, both treatment group (P = 0.007, Hazard ration [HR] 0.32; 95%CI 0.14-0.73) and performance status (P = 0.018, HR 0.44; 95%CI 0.22-0.87) demonstrated significant contribution to longer PFS. In addition, ORR was 23.5% (4/17) in the combination therapy group versus 12.8% (5/39) in the monotherapy group (P = 0.265) and the DCR was 88.2% (15/17) in the combination therapy group versus 61.5% (24/39) in the monotherapy group (P = 0.061). The incidence of grade 3/4 adverse events were 23.5% (4/17) in the combination therapy group and 4.8% (2/42) in monotherapy group (P = 0.052). Conclusions: PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor plus nab-paclitaxel with or without bevacizumab resulted in significantly longer PFS and higher DCR as second line therapy of beyond in metastatic NSCLC patients. These findings need to be further explored by randomized controlled studies.


2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e21600-e21600
Author(s):  
Xiaoyang Zhai ◽  
Yaru Tian ◽  
Weiwei Yan ◽  
Ning An ◽  
Hui Zhu

e21600 Background: PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor monotherapy has been approved as second line therapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The study aims to compare clinical outcome of PD-1 inhibitor plus chemotherapy with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor monotherapy as 2nd/subsequent line therapy in advanced NSCLC. Methods: The clinical data of NSCLC patients who received PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor as 2nd/subsequent line therapy were retrospectively collected in our study. According to the therapy modality, patients were assigned to PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor monotherapy group and PD-1 inhibitor plus chemotherapy group. Disease control rates (DCRs), progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were evaluated between the 2 groups. The prognostic role of derived neutrophils-to-lymphocyte ratio (dNLR) on the outcomes was also evaluated at the same time. Results: From April 2017 to October 2019, a total of 84 patients were enrolled in the current study. Twenty-six patients were allocated to the PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor monotherapy group and fifty-eight patients were allocated to PD-1 inhibitor plus chemotherapy group. Chemotherapy regimens were detailed as follow: liposome paclitaxel (n = 15), nab-paclitaxel(n = 12), docetaxel(n = 9), pemetrexed(n = 6), and others(n = 16). Disease control rates (DCRs) and overall survival (OS) were not significantly different between the two groups. Progression free survival (PFS) in the PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor monotherapy was longer(median PFS: NR vs 4.4 months, p = 0.02). Univariate and multivariate analyses suggested that derived neutrophils-to-lymphocyte ratio (dNLR) was independent prognostic factor of OS and gender was independent prognostic factor of PFS. In the second-line therapy subgroup of 38 patients, OS and PFS were not significantly different in the two groups. In the subgroup of 46 patients of over 2nd line, PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor monotherapy group had longer PFS (median PFS: NR vs 4.0 months, p = 0.01).The incidence of any grade adverse events (AEs) was no significant difference in the two groups. One patient in the PD-1 inhibitor plus chemotherapy group died of immune-related pneumonitis. Conclusions: The addition of chemotherapy to PD-1 inhibitor as 2nd/subsequent line therapy had similar clinical outcomes compared with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor monotherapy of advanced NSCLC patients.


Blood ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 2581-2581
Author(s):  
Roberto Latagliata ◽  
Daniela Bartoletti ◽  
Alessandro Andriani ◽  
Massimo Breccia ◽  
Elena Rossi ◽  
...  

Abstract Introduction: Ruxolitinib (Rux) has been recently approved as second-line therapy in patients (pts) with Polycythemia Vera (PV) resistant/intolerant to hydroxyurea (HU). Median age of PV pts enrolled in the pivotal Response trials was around 60 yrs; at present, no data is reported on the use of Rux in elderly pts. Aims: In a real-world cohort of PV pts treated with Rux, we investigated whether the efficacy and safety of Rux were comparable in pts who initiated therapy when aged ≥75 years compared with younger pts. Methods: After IRB approval, clinical/laboratory data of 934 WHO2016-defined PV pts followed in 29 Hematology Centers were retrospectively collected. Of them, 168 (17.9%) were considered resistant/intolerant to HU at any time during follow-up by responsible physician and shifted to Rux as second-line therapy. Results: Among the 168 pts treated with Rux, 42 (25%, median age 78.2 years) were aged ≥75 yrs at Rux start, 74 (44%, median age 67.7) were aged 60-74 and 52 (31%, median age 53) were <60 at Rux start. No significant differences were observed between the 3 groups, apart from a lower need for phlebotomies in pts aged ≥75 yrs and lower presence of palpable spleen in older pts (age ≥60), that more frequently switched to Rux due to HU intolerance (Table 1). Median duration of HU treatment was 41.0 months (IQR 14.6 - 85.8), with a trend for a longer median treatment duration in pts aged ≥75 [61.0 months (IQR 21.5 - 89.6) vs 35.9 months (IQR 13.4 - 79.6), p=0.04]. Rux starting dose was similar across age groups; however, more elderly pts underwent Rux dose reductions during follow-up (45.2% in pts aged ≥75 vs 28.6% in younger pts, p=0.04). Responses during Rux therapy are reported in Table 2, with no significant differences between the 3 groups at any time. In the overall cohort, response on PV-related symptoms at 6 and 12 months was significantly higher in pts who switched to Rux because of HU intolerance; however, this difference was not observed in pts aged ≥75 yrs. As to the most common hematologic Rux-related toxicities, grade 3-4 anemia and thrombocytopenia were observed in only 2 (1.2%) and 5 (3%) pts, with no difference across age groups (p=0.45 and p=0.18). However, any grade anemia and thrombocytopenia during Rux were more frequently observed in pts aged ≥75 (68.3% vs 51.7% of anemia, p=0.06 and 12.2% vs 3.5% of thrombocytopenia in younger pts, p=0.04). Nineteen and 4 pts experienced infectious and thrombotic complications during Rux with incidence rates of 0.59 and 0.12 per 100 patient-months, respectively, comparably in younger and older (≥75) pts (p=0.75 and p=0.29, respectively). Notably, 6 infections were herpes simplex/zoster virus, comparably distributed between the 3 groups (p=0.60). Permanent Rux discontinuation was needed in 14 pts (8.3%) after a median Rux exposure of 7.8 months (IQR 4.6 - 17.6) (incidence: 0.41 per 100 pts/months). Discontinuation was comparable between age groups, with Rux stop in 4 pts aged ≥75 yrs and 10 younger pts (2.4% vs 5.2% at 8 months, log-rank p=0.75). At last follow-up, 2 pts had died (1 from 2 nd neoplasia after 19.1 months from Rux start and 1 from acute leukemia after 3.3 years), both pts aged 60-74 yrs. Conclusions. In this real-world analysis, use of Rux in HU resistant/intolerant elderly PV pts was effective and safe despite the more frequent need for dose reductions. Older age should not discourage Rux therapy, but stricter hematological monitoring may be suggested. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Latagliata: BMS Cellgene: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Breccia: Pfizer: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Bonifacio: Amgen: Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria. Cavo: Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy, Honoraria; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel Accommodations, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squib: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Palandri: AOP: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sierra Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; CTI: Consultancy; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document