Patterns of Care in Maintenance Therapy in US Patients Undergoing Definitive Chemoradiation for Stage 3 Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC)

2022 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason Liu ◽  
Emily Bratton ◽  
Xinyan Yu ◽  
Colton Ladbury ◽  
Joseph Wagner ◽  
...  
2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 50-55
Author(s):  
Ahmed Nagy ◽  
Omar Abdel Rahman ◽  
Heba Abdullah ◽  
Ahmed Negida

Background: Although well established for the effective management of hematologic cancers, maintenance chemotherapy has only been recently incorportated as a treatment paradigm for advanced non–small-cell lung cancer. Maintenance chemotherapy aims to prolong a clinically favorable response state achieved after finishing induction therapy which is usually predefined in number before startng treatment. There are 2 modalities for maintenance therapy; continuation maintenance (involving a non-platinum component which was a part of the induction protocol or a targeted agent) and switch maintenance therapy (utilizing a new agent which was not a part of the induction regimen). Methods: The purpose of this article is to review the role of maintenance therapy in the treatment of advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) and provide a brief overview about induction chemotherapy in NSCLC to address the basis of maintenance therapy as a treatment option. We will also compare the impact of maintenance chemotherapy with the now evolving role of immunotherapy in NSCLC. Results: There have been 4 maintenance studies to date showing prolonged PFS and OS with statistical significance. However, Three out of the four studies (ECOG4599, JMEN, and PARAMOUNT) did not report tumor molecular analysis. As regard Immunotherapy, current data is in favour of strongly an increasing role for immunotherapy in NSCLC. Conclusion: Maintenance therapy in NSCLC continues to be an important therapeutic line to improve outcome in patients with metastatic and recurrent disease.


2011 ◽  
Vol 22 (10) ◽  
pp. 1010-1019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fausto Petrelli ◽  
Karen Borgonovo ◽  
Mary Cabiddu ◽  
Sandro Barni

2012 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 77-86
Author(s):  
Cesare Gridelli ◽  
Paolo Maione ◽  
Antonio Rossi ◽  
Clorinda Schettino ◽  
Maria Anna Bareschino ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (Suppl 3) ◽  
pp. A263-A263
Author(s):  
Matthew Guo ◽  
Joseph Murray ◽  
Paola Ghanem ◽  
Khinh Ranh Voong ◽  
Russell Hales ◽  
...  

BackgroundDurvalumab consolidation after chemoradiation for unresectable stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) improves overall survival. However, up to 25% of patients progress within 18 months following durvalumab consolidation. Little is known regarding the genomic determinants of response to therapy.1 2MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed medical records of 76 patients with stage III NSCLC who received definitive chemoradiation and durvalumab consolidation between 2015–2020 at a large tertiary academic center. Tumor characteristics, molecular profiling, and clinical outcomes including response, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were documented in an IRB-approved database. Outcomes were assessed by molecular alterations identified from diagnostic biopsy samples using Kaplan-Meier analysis.ResultsOf 76 patients with stage III NSCLC treated with definitive chemoradiation and durvalumab consolidation, 74 were evaluable for PFS and OS. Median age at diagnosis was 66.5 years and 43% were women (n=32). Histology included adenocarcinoma (55%, n=41) and squamous cell carcinoma (32%, n=24). Median follow-up time was 23.0 months from start of durvalumab. The cohort’s median PFS was 15.9 months with 36 patients having documented radiographic progression. Overall survival for the cohort was 32.0 months with 28 deaths. Molecular profiling was performed at time of diagnosis in 35 patients (47%), of which 30 had adenocarcinoma histology. 18 patients had KRAS mutations including KRAS p.G12C (n=8), which were mutually exclusive with 8 patients who had other clinically targetable alterations (EGFR mutations n=1, ALK fusion n=1, RET fusion n=1, MET exon 14 skipping mutation n=1, or ERBB2 mutation n=4). Three patients had non-targetable mutations (BRAF non-p.V600E, STK11, KEAP1) and the remaining six patients lacked an identifiable alteration. There was no significant difference in PFS (p=0.92 by log-rank) or OS (p=0.36 by log-rank) between patients with KRAS mutations, other targetable alterations, non-targetable mutations, or those without molecular profiling. Within patients with KRAS mutations, there was no significant difference in PFS (p=0.33 by log-rank) or OS (p=0.69 by log-rank) when comparing KRAS p.G12C to non-p.G12C mutations.ConclusionsOur study of real-world cohort of patients with stage III NSCLC examined genomic determinants of response to treatment with definitive chemoradiation and durvalumab. Results from this retrospective study suggest that patients with KRAS-mutated tumors derive similar benefit from therapy than patients with other targetable, non-targetable or no identifiable genomic alterations. Future directions for this cohort include analysis of post-progression therapy, subgroup analysis comparing genomic alterations to patterns of progression, and examination of molecular signatures of patients with progression.ReferencesAntonia SJ, Villegas A, Daniel D, et al. Durvalumab after chemoradiotherapy in stage III non–small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med 2017;377(20):1919–1929. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1709937Faivre-Finn C, Vicente D, Kurata T, et al. Four-year survival with durvalumab after chemoradiotherapy in stage III NSCLC—an update from the PACIFIC trial. Journal of Thoracic Oncology 2021;16(5):860–867. doi:10.1016/j.jtho.2020.12.015Ethics ApprovalThis retrospective chart review study has obtained ethics approval from the Institutional Review Board at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine (number: IRB00232313).


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document