scholarly journals Real-World Pattern of Treatment and Clinical Outcomes of EGFR-Mutant Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in a Single Academic Centre in Quebec

2021 ◽  
Vol 28 (6) ◽  
pp. 5179-5191
Author(s):  
Jason S. Agulnik ◽  
Goulnar Kasymjanova ◽  
Carmela Pepe ◽  
Manjusha Hurry ◽  
Ryan N. Walton ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Real World ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
T790m Mutation ◽  
Metastatic Nsclc ◽  
Egfr Mutant ◽  
Egfr Tkis ◽  
First Line Treatment

The discovery of EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) for the treatment of EGFR mutant (EGFRm) metastatic NSCLC is regarded as a landmark in lung cancer. EGFR-TKIs have now become a standard first-line treatment for EGFRm NSCLC. The aim of this retrospective cohort study is to describe real-world patterns of treatment and treatment outcomes in patients with EGFRm metastatic NSCLC who received EGFR-TKI therapy outside of clinical trials. One hundred and seventy EGFRm metastatic NSCLC patients were diagnosed and initiated on first-line TKI therapy between 2004 and 2018 at the Peter Brojde Lung Cancer Centre in Montreal. Following progression of the disease, 137 (80%) patients discontinued first-line treatment. Moreover, 80/137 (58%) patients received second-line treatment, which included: EGFR-TKIs, platinum-based, or single-agent chemotherapy. At the time of progression on first-line treatment, 73 patients were tested for the T790M mutation. Moreover, 30/73 (41%) patients were found to be positive for the T790M mutation; 62/80 patients progressed to second-line treatment and 20/62 were started on third-line treatment. The median duration of treatment was 11.5 (95% CI; 9.62–13.44) months for first-line treatment, and 4.4 (95% CI: 1.47–7.39) months for second-line treatment. Median OS from the time of diagnosis of metastatic disease was 23.5 months (95% CI: 16.9–30.1) and median OS from the initiation of EGFR-TKI was 20.6 months (95% CI: 13.5–27.6). We identified that ECOG PS ≤ 2, presence of exon 19 deletion mutation, and absence of brain metastases were associated with better OS. A significant OS benefit was observed in patients treated with osimertinib in second-line treatment compared to those who never received osimertinib. Overall, our retrospective observational study suggests that treatment outcomes in EGFRm NSCLC in real-world practice, such as OS and PFS, reflect the result of RCTs. However, given the few observational studies on real-world treatment patterns of EGFR-mutant NSCLC, this study is important for understanding the potential impact of EGFR-TKIs on survival outside of clinical trials. Further real-world studies are needed to characterize patient outcomes for emerging therapies, including first-line osimertinib use and combination of osimertinib with chemotherapy and potential future combination of osimertinib and novel anticancer drug, outside of a clinical trial setting.

scholarly journals Real-world Data Analysis of Immunotherapy in Advanced Lung Cancer

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Meiling Sun ◽  
Huaijun Ji ◽  
Ning Xu ◽  
Peng Jiang ◽  
Tao Qu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Real World ◽  
Treatment Cycle ◽  
Advanced Lung Cancer ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Short Term ◽  
First Line Treatment

Abstract BackgroundThis study was designed to investigate the clinical application, efficacy, and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in the treatment of lung cancer in the real world. MethodsA retrospective, observational analysis was conducted on patients treated with ICIs in four tertiary hospitals in the region from January 2015 to March 2021, to evaluate the clinical efficacy of ICI single-agent or combined chemotherapy and anti-vascular drugs in the first-line or second-line treatment of patients with advanced lung cancer. ResultsThree hundred and fifteen patients were enrolled in this study. The objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR) were 36.5% (115/315) and 94.0% (296/315), respectively, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 10.8 months, and the median overall survival (OS) was not reached. A total of 165 patients received ICI as the first-line treatment, the median treatment cycle was 8 cycles (2-20 cycles), the short-term efficacy ORR was 41.2%, DCR was 94.5%, and the median PFS was 12.0 months. 150 patients received ICI treatment as second-line treatment, the median treatment cycle was five cycles (2-10 cycles), the short-term efficacy ORR was 31.3%, DCR was 93.3%, and the median PFS was 10.0 months. There were no statistically significant differences in ORR, DCR, or median PFS with ICI as the first-line treatment compared with the second-line treatment(P>0.05). The results of subgroup analysis showed that Karnofsky performance status (KPS) score, EGFR mutation status, and number of treatment lines were not correlated with median PFS((P>0.05). However, there were statistically significant differences in programmed death-ligand 1(PD-L1) expression, pathological types, hormone interference, and antibiotic (Abx) treatment among all groups (P< 0.05). In terms of safety, the overall incidence of adverse reactions in 315 patients was 62.5%, and the incidence of immune-related adverse events(irAEs) was 13.7%. Grade 1-2 and 3-4 incidence of adverse events were 34.9% and 27.65%, respectively. There were four patients who experienced fatal irAEs, two cases were liver damage leading to liver failure, one case was immune related pneumonia, and one case was immune related myocarditis. ConclusionIn the real world, immunotherapy has a good effect on patients with advanced lung cancer and significantly improves ORR and PFS.

scholarly journals Treatment Patterns, Clinical Outcomes and Healthcare Costs of Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Real-World Evaluation in Italy

Cancers ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (15) ◽  
pp. 3809
Author(s):  
Matteo Franchi ◽  
Diego Cortinovis ◽  
Giovanni Corrao
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Small Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Real World ◽  
Healthcare Costs ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
First Line ◽  
First Line Treatment

We aimed at describing treatment pathways, clinical outcomes and healthcare costs of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients in Lombardy Region, Italy. Using healthcare administrative data, 37,562 patients with a new diagnosis of lung cancer between 2012 and 2019 were identified. Among these, patients who started a first-line treatment for advanced NSCLC with either pembrolizumab (n = 660) or tyrosine-kinase inhibitors (TKI) (n = 1245) before 30 June 2020 were included in the study cohort and followed-up until 31 December 2020. Among pembrolizumab users, median time-to-treatment failure (TTF) and median overall survival (OS) were 3.2 months and 13.6 months, respectively. About one third (34.1%) switched to second-line treatment (chemotherapy for all of them). Among TKI users, median TTF and median OS were 9.3 months and 18.4 months, respectively, and 37.1% of patients started second-line treatment (17.8% with TKI and 19.2% with chemotherapy). Average per-patient cumulative healthcare costs during the first year after first-line treatment start were 51,735 € and 30,708 €, respectively, in pembrolizumab and TKI first-line users. These results are coherent with those reported from other real--world studies and may help both clinicians and health decision makers.

Impact on second-line treatment after failure of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) combination chemotherapy in extensive-disease small cell lung cancer: Experience of the Okayama Lung Cancer Study Group.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e20590-e20590
Author(s):  
Yuka Kato ◽  
Taku Noumi ◽  
Kazuhiko Saeki ◽  
Kiichiro Ninomiya ◽  
Toshio Kubo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitor ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Extensive Disease ◽  
To Receive ◽  
First Line Treatment

e20590 Background: For patients with extensive-disease small cell lung cancer (ED-SCLC), amrubicin monotherapy is an important therapy in the treatment of recurrence, but there has been no adequate evaluation of how effective it actually is after failure of first-line chemotherapy including immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI). Therefore, the purposes of this study are to determine the proportion of patients who received amrubicin monotherapy in the treatment of relapse after first-line treatment with ICI (arm A) and to investigate the efficacy of amrubicin therapy after arm A compared with after chemotherapy without ICI (arm B). Methods: Consecutive 40 pts with ED-SCLC NSCLC were retrospectively assessed who underwent ICI-containing chemotherapy (n = 19) or standard cytotoxic chemotherapy (n = 21) in the 1st-line setting between 2017 and 2020. Results: In arm A, 3 of 19 patients (16%) were still on first-line ICI maintenance therapy, 2 (2/19; 11%) had ICI treatment adverse events (interstitial pneumonia, cardiopulmonary arrest), and 1 patient could not receive second-line therapy due to a decrease in performance status (PS) to 3. In arm B, 11 of 21 patients (52%) did not receive amrubicin as second-line therapy, including 1 patient with worsening PS, 1 patient with adverse events (hematologic toxicity), 1 patient refusal, and 6 patients with combination of ICI and chemotherapy. 23 patients (arm A; 13 (57%), arm B; 10 (43%)) were able to receive amrubicin monotherapy, including 7 patients (6 cases vs 1 case) were sensitive relapses, and 16 (7 vs 9 cases) were refractory relapses. There was no significant difference in either PFS or survival after first-line treatment in 16 patients with refractory relapse who received amrubicin as second-line treatment (PFS: 4.8 vs 5.2 months, p = 0.51), (median survival after first-line treatment: 9.6 vs 12.8, p = 0.75). Conclusions: Patients who received ICI in the first-line treatment were fully eligible to receive amrubicin in the second-line treatment. The recurrence pattern tended to be sensitive relapse and we found that the efficacy of amrubicin in refractory relapse was not affected by the administration of ICI in the first-line treatment.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document