Background: Bone metastases and skeletal-related events (SREs) are a frequent cause of morbidity in patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC). Data are limited on bone metastases and SREs in patients with mNSCLC treated using immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), and on the efficacy of bone-modifying agents (BMAs) in this setting. Here we report the incidence, impact on survival, risk factors for bone metastases and SREs, and impact of BMAs in patients with mNSCLC treated with ICIs in a multi-institutional cohort. Patients and Methods: We conducted a retrospective study of patients with mNSCLC treated with ICIs at 2 tertiary care centers from 2014 through 2017. Overall survival (OS) was compared between patients with and without baseline bone metastases using a log-rank test. A Cox regression model was used to evaluate the association between OS and the presence of bone metastases at ICI initiation, controlling for other confounding factors. Results: We identified a cohort of 330 patients who had received ICIs for metastatic disease. Median patient age was 63 years, most patients were treated in the second line or beyond (n=259; 78%), and nivolumab was the most common ICI (n=211; 64%). Median OS was 10 months (95% CI, 8.4–12.0). In our cohort, 124 patients (38%) had baseline bone metastases, and 43 (13%) developed SREs during or after ICI treatment. Patients with bone metastases had a higher hazard of death after controlling for performance status, histology, line of therapy, and disease burden (hazard ratio, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.19–2.08; P=.001). Use of BMAs was not associated with OS or a decreased risk of SREs. Conclusions: Presence of bone metastases at baseline was associated with a worse prognosis for patients with mNSCLC treated with ICI after controlling for multiple clinical characteristics. Use of BMAs was not associated with reduced SREs or a difference in survival.
You are looking at 1 - 10 of 3,330 items
Angel Qin, Songzhu Zhao, Abdul Miah, Lai Wei, Sandipkumar Patel, Andrew Johns, Madison Grogan, Erin M. Bertino, Kai He, Peter G. Shields, Gregory P. Kalemkerian, Shirish M. Gadgeel, Nithya Ramnath, Bryan J. Schneider, Khaled A. Hassan, Nicholas Szerlip, Zoey Chopra, Sara Journey, Jessica Waninger, Daniel Spakowicz, David P. Carbone, Carolyn J. Presley, Gregory A. Otterson, Michael D. Green and Dwight H. Owen
Matthew S. Ning, Prajnan Das, David I. Rosenthal, Bouthaina S. Dabaja, Zhongxing Liao, Joe Y. Chang, Daniel R. Gomez, Ann H. Klopp, G. Brandon Gunn, Pamela K. Allen, Paige L. Nitsch, Rachel B. Natter, Tina M. Briere, Joseph M. Herman, Rebecca Wells, Albert C. Koong and Mary Frances McAleer
Background: Palliative radiotherapy (RT) is effective, but some patients die during treatment or too soon afterward to experience benefit. This study investigates end-of-life RT patterns to inform shared decision-making and facilitate treatment consistent with palliative goals. Materials and Methods: All patients who died ≤6 months after initiating palliative RT at an academic cancer center between 2015 and 2018 were identified. Associations with time-to-death, early mortality (≤30 days), and midtreatment mortality were analyzed. Results: In total, 1,620 patients died ≤6 months from palliative RT initiation, including 574 (34%) deaths at ≤30 days and 222 (14%) midtreatment. Median survival was 43 days from RT start (95% CI, 41–45) and varied by site (P<.001), ranging from 36 (head and neck) to 53 days (dermal/soft tissue). On multivariable analysis, earlier time-to-death was associated with osseous (hazard ratio [HR], 1.33; P<.001) and head and neck (HR, 1.45; P<.001) sites, multiple RT courses ≤6 months (HR, 1.65; P<.001), and multisite treatments (HR, 1.40; P=.008), whereas stereotactic technique (HR, 0.77; P<.001) and more recent treatment year (HR, 0.82; P<.001) were associated with longer survival. No difference in time to death was noted among patients prescribed conventional RT in 1 to 10 versus >10 fractions (median, 40 vs 47 days; P=.272), although the latter entailed longer courses. The 30-day mortality group included 335 (58%) inpatients, who were 27% more likely to die midtreatment (P=.031). On multivariable analysis, midtreatment mortality among these inpatients was associated with thoracic (odds ratio [OR], 2.95; P=.002) and central nervous system (CNS; OR, 2.44; P=.002) indications, >5-fraction courses (OR, 3.27; P<.001), and performance status of 3 to 4 (OR, 1.63; P=.050). Conversely, palliative/supportive care consultation was associated with decreased midtreatment mortality (OR, 0.60; P=.045). Conclusions: Earlier referrals and hypofractionated courses (≤5–10 treatments) should be routinely considered for palliative RT indications, given the short life expectancies of patients at this stage in their disease course. Providers should exercise caution for emergent thoracic and CNS indications among inpatients with poor prognoses due to high midtreatment mortality.
Kah Poh Loh, Vivian Lam, Katey Webber, Simran Padam, Mina S. Sedrak, Vivek Musinipally, Madison Grogan, Carolyn J. Presley, Janice Grandi, Chandrika Sanapala, Daniel A. Castillo, Grace DiGiovanni, Supriya G. Mohile, Louise C. Walter and Melisa L. Wong
Background: Maintaining functional status is important to older adults with cancer, but data are limited on how systemic treatments affect functional status. We systematically reviewed changes in functional status during systemic cancer treatments and identified characteristics associated with functional decline and improvement. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials for articles examining characteristics associated with functional changes in older adults during systemic cancer treatment published in English between database inception and January 11, 2019 (PROSPERO CRD42019123125). Findings were summarized with descriptive statistics. Study characteristics between older adult–specific and non–older adult–specific studies were compared using the Fisher exact test. Results: We screened 15,244 titles/abstracts and 519 full texts. The final analysis included 44 studies, which enrolled >8,400 patients; 39% of studies focused on older adults (1 study enrolled adults aged ≥60 years, 10 enrolled adults aged ≥65 years, and 6 enrolled adults aged ≥70 years). Almost all studies (98%) used patient-reported outcomes to measure functional status; only 20% used physical performance tests. Reporting of functional change was heterogeneous, with 48% reporting change scores. Older adult–specific studies were more likely to analyze functional change dichotomously (29% vs 4%; P=.008). Functional decline ranged widely, from 6% to 90%. The most common patient characteristics associated with functional decline were older age (n=7 studies), worse performance status (n=4), progressive disease status (n=4), pain (n=4), anemia (n=4), and worse nutritional status (n=4). Twelve studies examined functional improvement and identified 11 unique associated characteristics. Conclusions: Functional decline is increasingly recognized as an important outcome in older adults with cancer, but definitions and analyses are heterogeneous, leading to a wide range of prevalence. To identify patients at highest risk of functional decline during systemic cancer treatments, trials need to routinely analyze functional outcomes and measure characteristics associated with decline (eg, nutrition).
Leigh Gallo, Ronald S. Walters, Jeff Allen, Jenny Ahlstrom, Clay Alspach, Yelak Biru, Alyssa Schatz, Kara Martin and Robert W. Carlson
The 21st Century Cures Act (Cures Act), signed into law in 2016, was designed to advance new therapies by modernizing clinical trials, funding research initiatives, and accelerating the development and use of health information technology. To analyze the current issues in cancer care related to the implementation and impact of the Cures Act, NCCN convened a multistakeholder working group. Participants discussed the legislation’s impact on the oncology community since enactment and identified the remaining gaps and challenges as experienced by stakeholders. In June 2020, the policy recommendations of the working group were presented at the virtual NCCN Policy Summit: Accelerating Advances in Cancer Care Research: A Lookback at the 21st Century Cures Act in 2020. The summit consisted of informative discussions and a multistakeholder panel to explore the recommendations and the future of the Cures Act. This article explores identified policy recommendations from the NCCN Working Group and the NCCN Policy Summit, and analyzes opportunities to advance innovative cancer care and patient access to data.
Talia Golan and Pascal Hammel
Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) has a dismal prognosis, with a 5-year survival rate of ≤7% across all stages. Most patients are diagnosed with advanced disease and median overall survival is limited. The limited success of conventional therapies for PDAC is at least partially attributable to its genetic heterogeneity. Extensive genomic efforts have been made to subtype PDAC. The DNA damage repair (DDR) deficiency subtype, also known as unstable genome/DSBR (DNA double-strand break repair) subtype, is one of the most clinically relevant biologic abnormalities in PDAC. Increased PDAC risk was found to be associated with inherited syndromes, which are present in approximately 10% of patients with PDAC. Recent updates to the ASCO and NCCN guidelines recommend risk assessment for all individuals with PDAC, irrespective of personal or family history or ethnicity. Germline BRCA mutations associated with DNA repair dysfunction is one of the best illustrations of actionable biologic subtypes in PDAC. This genetic alteration can indeed be targeted by PARP inhibitors (PARPi). Treatment implications for germline BRCA carriers with PDAC include the use of platinum-based therapy and the validation of PARPi administration as a maintenance strategy in platinum-sensitive patients. In the era of precision medicine, this is the first convincing example of targeting identified germline hereditary mutations in PDAC.
Featured Updates to the NCCN Guidelines
Susan M. Swetter, John A. Thompson, Mark R. Albertini, Christopher A. Barker, Joel Baumgartner, Genevieve Boland, Bartosz Chmielowski, Dominick DiMaio, Alison Durham, Ryan C. Fields, Martin D. Fleming, Anjela Galan, Brian Gastman, Kenneth Grossmann, Samantha Guild, Ashley Holder, Douglas Johnson, Richard W. Joseph, Giorgos Karakousis, Kari Kendra, Julie R. Lange, Ryan Lanning, Kim Margolin, Anthony J. Olszanski, Patrick A. Ott, Merrick I. Ross, April K. Salama, Rohit Sharma, Joseph Skitzki, Jeffrey Sosman, Evan Wuthrick, Nicole R. McMillian and Anita M. Engh
Over the past few years, the NCCN Guidelines for Melanoma: Cutaneous have been expanded to include pathways for treatment of microscopic satellitosis (added in v2.2020), and the following Principles sections: Molecular Testing (added in v2.2019), Systemic Therapy Considerations (added in v2.2020), and Brain Metastases Management (added in v3.2020). The v1.2021 update included additional modifications of these sections and notable revisions to Principles of: Pathology, Surgical Margins for Wide Excision of Primary Melanoma, Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy, Completion/Therapeutic Lymph Node Dissection, and Radiation Therapy. These NCCN Guidelines Insights discuss the important changes to pathology and surgery recommendations, as well as additions to systemic therapy options for patients with advanced disease.