Featured Updates to the NCCN Guidelines
David S. Ettinger, Douglas E. Wood, Charu Aggarwal, Dara L. Aisner, Wallace Akerley, Jessica R. Bauman, Ankit Bharat, Debora S. Bruno, Joe Y. Chang, Lucian R. Chirieac, Thomas A. D’Amico, Thomas J. Dilling, Michael Dobelbower, Scott Gettinger, Ramaswamy Govindan, Matthew A. Gubens, Mark Hennon, Leora Horn, Rudy P. Lackner, Michael Lanuti, Ticiana A. Leal, Jules Lin, Billy W. Loo Jr, Renato G. Martins, Gregory A. Otterson, Sandip P. Patel, Karen L. Reckamp, Gregory J. Riely, Steven E. Schild, Theresa A. Shapiro, James Stevenson, Scott J. Swanson, Kurt W. Tauer, Stephen C. Yang, Kristina Gregory, OCN and Miranda Hughes
The NCCN Guidelines for Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) address all aspects of management for NSCLC. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on recent updates in immunotherapy. For the 2020 update, all of the systemic therapy regimens have been categorized using a new preference stratification system; certain regimens are now recommended as “preferred interventions,” whereas others are categorized as either “other recommended interventions” or “useful under certain circumstances.”
Yong Li, Xian Chen, Yanchun Qu, Jia-Ming Fan, Yan Li, Hui Peng, Yaojie Zheng, Yihong Zhang and Hai-Bo Zhang
Inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor (IMT), a rare sarcoma, is primarily treated via resection of the mass. However, there is no standard treatment for recurrence or unresectable tumors. Almost 50% of IMTs carry ALK gene rearrangement that can be treated using ALK inhibitors, but therapeutic options for ALK-negative tumors are limited. This report describes a woman aged 22 years with unresectable ALK-negative IMT. Next-generation sequencing revealed a TFG-ROS1 fusion, and she had a partial response to the ROS1 inhibitor ceritinib. This report provides the first published demonstration of a patient with IMT with ROS1 fusion successfully treated using ceritinib. Our study suggests that targeting ROS1 fusions using the small molecule inhibitor shows promise as an effective therapy in patients with IMT carrying this genetic alteration, but this requires further investigation in large clinical trials.
Katherine E. Hersberger, Mishal Mendiratta-Lala, Rocky Fischer, Ravi K. Kaza, Isaac R. Francis, Mirabella S. Olszewski, John F. Harju, Wei Shi, Frank J. Manion, Mahmoud M. Al-Hawary and Vaibhav Sahai
Background: Objective radiographic assessment is crucial for accurately evaluating therapeutic efficacy and patient outcomes in oncology clinical trials. Imaging assessment workflow can be complex; can vary with institution; may burden medical oncologists, who are often inadequately trained in radiology and response criteria; and can lead to high interobserver variability and investigator bias. This article reviews the development of a tumor response assessment core (TRAC) at a comprehensive cancer center with the goal of providing standardized, objective, unbiased tumor imaging assessments, and highlights the web-based platform and overall workflow. In addition, quantitative response assessments by the medical oncologists, radiologist, and TRAC are compared in a retrospective cohort of patients to determine concordance. Patients and Methods: The TRAC workflow includes an image analyst who pre-reviews scans before review with a board-certified radiologist and then manually uploads annotated data on the proprietary TRAC web portal. Patients previously enrolled in 10 lung cancer clinical trials between January 2005 and December 2015 were identified, and the prospectively collected quantitative response assessments by the medical oncologists were compared with retrospective analysis of the same dataset by a radiologist and TRAC. Results: This study enlisted 49 consecutive patients (53% female) with a median age of 60 years (range, 29–78 years); 2 patients did not meet study criteria and were excluded. A linearly weighted kappa test for concordance for TRAC versus radiologist was substantial at 0.65 (95% CI, 0.46–0.85; standard error [SE], 0.10). The kappa value was moderate at 0.42 (95% CI, 0.20–0.64; SE, 0.11) for TRAC versus oncologists and only fair at 0.34 (95% CI, 0.12–0.55; SE, 0.11) for oncologists versus radiologist. Conclusions: Medical oncologists burdened with the task of tumor measurements in patients on clinical trials may introduce significant variability and investigator bias, with the potential to affect therapeutic response and clinical trial outcomes. Institutional imaging cores may help bridge the gap by providing unbiased and reproducible measurements and enable a leaner workflow.