To provide evidence-based recommendations updating the 2020 ASCO and Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario) guideline on systemic therapy for patients with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer without ...driver alterations.
ASCO updated recommendations on the basis of an ongoing systematic review of randomized clinical trials from 2018 to 2021.
This guideline update reflects changes in evidence since the previous update. Five randomized clinical trials provide the evidence base. Outcomes of interest include efficacy and safety.
In addition to 2020 options for patients with high programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression (tumor proportion score TPS ≥ 50%), nonsquamous cell carcinoma (non-SCC), and performance status (PS) 0-1, clinicians may offer single-agent atezolizumab. With high PD-L1 expression (TPS ≥ 50%), non-SCC, and PS 0-1, clinicians may offer nivolumab and ipilumumab alone or nivolumab and ipilimumab plus chemotherapy. With negative (0%) and low positive PD-L1 expression (TPS 1%-49%), non-SCC, and PS 0-1, clinicians may offer nivolumab and ipilimumab alone or nivolumab and ipilimumab plus chemotherapy. With high PD-L1 expression, SCC, and PS 0-1, clinicians may offer single-agent atezolizumab. With high PD-L1 expression, squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), and PS 0-1, clinicians may offer nivolumab and ipilimumab alone or in combination with two cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy. With negative and low positive PD-L1 expression, SCC, and PS 0-1, clinicians may offer nivolumab and ipilimumab alone or in combination with two cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy. With non-SCC who received an immune checkpoint inhibitor and chemotherapy as first-line therapy, clinicians may offer second-line paclitaxel plus bevacizumab. With non-SCC, who received chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab and immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy, clinicians should offer the options of third-line single-agent pemetrexed, docetaxel, or paclitaxel plus bevacizumab.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/thoracic-cancer-guidelines.
Uterine-serous-carcinoma (USC) is an aggressive variant of endometrial cancer. On the basis of preliminary results of a multicenter, randomized phase II trial, trastuzumab (T), a humanized-mAb ...targeting Her2/Neu, in combination with carboplatin/paclitaxel (C/P), is recognized as an alternative in treating advanced/recurrent HER2/Neu-positive USC. We report the updated survival analysis of NCT01367002.
Eligible patients had stage III to IV or recurrent disease. Participants were randomized 1:1 to receive C/P for six cycles ± T followed by maintenance T until progression or toxicity. Progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary endpoint; overall survival (OS) and toxicity were secondary endpoints.
Sixty-one patients were randomized. After a median-follow-up of 25.9 months, 43 progressions and 38 deaths occurred among 58 evaluable patients. Updated median-PFS continued to favor the T-arm, with medians of 8.0 months versus 12.9 months in the control and T-arms (HR = 0.46; 90% CI, 0.28-0.76;
= 0.005). Median-PFS was 9.3 months versus 17.7 months among 41 patients with stage III to IV disease undergoing primary treatment (HR = 0.44; 90% CI, 0.23-0.83;
= 0.015), and 7.0 months versus 9.2 months among 17 patients with recurrent disease (HR = 0.12; 90% CI, 0.03-0.48;
= 0.004). OS was higher in the T compared with the control arm, with medians of 29.6 months versus 24.4 months (HR = 0.58; 90% CI, 0.34-0.99;
= 0.046). The benefit was most notable in those with stage III to IV disease, with survival median not reached in the T-arm versus 24.4 months in the control arm (HR = 0.49; 90% CI, 0.25-0.97;
= 0.041). Toxicity was not different between arms.
Addition of T to C/P increased PFS and OS in women with advanced/recurrent HER2/Neu-positive USC, with the greatest benefit seen for the treatment of stage III to IV disease.
Olaparib, a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, has previously shown efficacy in a phase 2 study when given in capsule formulation to all-comer patients with platinum-sensitive, relapsed ...high-grade serous ovarian cancer. We aimed to confirm these findings in patients with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) mutation using a tablet formulation of olaparib.
This international, multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial evaluated olaparib tablet maintenance treatment in platinum-sensitive, relapsed ovarian cancer patients with a BRCA1/2 mutation who had received at least two lines of previous chemotherapy. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status at baseline of 0–1 and histologically confirmed, relapsed, high-grade serous ovarian cancer or high-grade endometrioid cancer, including primary peritoneal or fallopian tube cancer. Patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to olaparib (300 mg in two 150 mg tablets, twice daily) or matching placebo tablets using an interactive voice and web response system. Randomisation was stratified by response to previous platinum chemotherapy (complete vs partial) and length of platinum-free interval (6–12 months vs ≥12 months) and treatment assignment was masked for patients, those giving the interventions, data collectors, and data analysers. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival and we report the primary analysis from this ongoing study. The efficacy analyses were done on the intention-to-treat population; safety analyses included patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01874353, and is ongoing and no longer recruiting patients.
Between Sept 3, 2013, and Nov 21, 2014, we enrolled 295 eligible patients who were randomly assigned to receive olaparib (n=196) or placebo (n=99). One patient in the olaparib group was randomised in error and did not receive study treatment. Investigator-assessed median progression-free survival was significantly longer with olaparib (19·1 months 95% CI 16·3–25·7) than with placebo (5·5 months 5·2–5·8; hazard ratio HR 0·30 95% CI 0·22–0·41, p<0·0001). The most common adverse events of grade 3 or worse severity were anaemia (38 19% of 195 patients in the olaparib group vs two 2% of 99 patients in the placebo group), fatigue or asthenia (eight 4% vs two 2%), and neutropenia (ten 5% vs four 4%). Serious adverse events were experienced by 35 (18%) patients in the olaparib group and eight (8%) patients in the placebo group. The most common in the olaparib group were anaemia (seven 4% patients), abdominal pain (three 2% patients), and intestinal obstruction (three 2% patients). The most common in the placebo group were constipation (two 2% patients) and intestinal obstruction (two 2% patients). One (1%) patient in the olaparib group had a treatment-related adverse event (acute myeloid leukaemia) with an outcome of death.
Olaparib tablet maintenance treatment provided a significant progression-free survival improvement with no detrimental effect on quality of life in patients with platinum-sensitive, relapsed ovarian cancer and a BRCA1/2 mutation. Apart from anaemia, toxicities with olaparib were low grade and manageable.
AstraZeneca.
To provide evidence-based recommendations updating the 2021 ASCO and Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario) guideline on systemic therapy for patients with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) ...with driver alterations.
ASCO updated recommendations on the basis of an ongoing systematic review of randomized control trials from 2020 to 2021.
This guideline update reflects changes in evidence since the previous update. Two studies provide the evidence base. Outcomes of interest include efficacy and safety.
For patients with an anaplastic lymphoma kinase rearrangement, a performance status (PS) of 0-2, and previously untreated NSCLC, clinicians should offer alectinib or brigatinib or lorlatinib. For patients with an anaplastic lymphoma kinase rearrangement, a PS of 0-2, and previously untreated NSCLC, if alectinib, brigatinib, or lorlatinib are not available, clinicians should offer ceritinib or crizotinib. For patients with a
rearrangement, a PS of 0-2, and previously untreated NSCLC, clinicians may offer selpercatinib or pralsetinib. In second line, for patients with a
rearrangement who have not received RET-targeted therapy, clinicians may offer selpercatinib or pralsetinib.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/thoracic-cancer-guidelines.
Purpose This clinical practice guideline addresses abiraterone or docetaxel with androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) for metastatic prostate cancer that has not been treated (or has been minimally ...treated) with testosterone-lowering agents. Methods Standard therapy for newly diagnosed metastatic prostate cancer has been ADT alone. Three studies have compared ADT alone with ADT and docetaxel, and two studies have compared ADT alone with ADT and abiraterone. Results Three prospective randomized studies (GETUG-AFU 15, STAMPEDE, and CHAARTED) examined overall survival (OS) with adding docetaxel to ADT. STAMPEDE and CHAARTED favored docetaxel (hazard ratio HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.66 to 0.93; n = 2,962 and HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.89; n = 790, respectively). GETUG-AFU 15 was negative. LATITUDE and STAMPEDE examined the impact on OS of adding abiraterone (with prednisone or prednisolone) to ADT. LATITUDE and STAMPEDE favored abiraterone (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.76; n = 1,199 and HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.76; n = 1,917, respectively). Recommendations ADT plus docetaxel or abiraterone in newly diagnosed metastatic non-castrate prostate cancer offers a survival benefit as compared with ADT alone. The strongest evidence of benefit with docetaxel is in men with de novo high-volume (CHAARTED criteria) metastatic disease. Similar survival benefits are seen using abiraterone acetate in high-risk patients (LATITUDE criteria) and in the metastatic population in STAMPEDE. ADT plus abiraterone and ADT plus docetaxel have not been compared, and it is not known if some men benefit more from one regimen as opposed to the other. Fitness for chemotherapy, patient comorbidities, toxicity profiles, quality of life, drug availability, and cost should be considered in this decision. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/genitourinary-cancer-guidelines .
PDF
