Background: Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations are frequently found in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. Various EGFR mutations respond differently to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), and several TKIs have been approved for use on common mutations but none have been approved for EGFR exon 20 insertions, indicating a need for targeted therapy for this subpopulation. A systematic literature review (SLR) and meta-analysis were conducted to synthesize epidemiological and outcome data for the uncommon EGFR exon 20 insertion mutation. Methods: An SLR was performed on August 7, 2018 following the Preferred Reporting Item for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, using the Population, Intervention Comparators, Outcomes and Study Design (PICOS) criteria. Studies were identified based on a systematic search using key biomedical literature databases: EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Cochrane. Relevant congress abstracts published between 2015–2018 were also identified. Two independent reviewers screened all citations and full-text articles using PICOS-based criteria; any discrepancies were resolved by a third independent reviewer. Data were extracted into a predefined template for meta-analysis and summarized using the PRISMA flow diagram. Results: A total of 61 studies reporting the number of EGFR mutation−positive patients and/or NSCLC patients were identified. A meta-analysis found that 3.7% of EGFR mutation−positive patients and 0.8% of NSCLC patients harbored the EGFR exon 20 insertion, with geographic variations in epidemiology. There were 12, 10, and 12 studies, respectively, that reported overall survival, progression-free survival, and overall response rates in 2 cohorts, patients with EGFR exon 20 insertions and patients without EGFR exon 20 mutations. A Most patient populations in these studies included a mixture of treatment at various lines. A meta-analysis of outcomes across these studies showed that patients with EGFR exon 20 insertions experienced worse outcomes compared with those without the mutation (). Meta-analyses were weighted based on each study’s relevant population. No economic or quality of life studies were identified. Conclusions: Exon 20 insertion mutations represent an important subgroup of EGFR mutations in patients with NSCLC, and current therapies have limited efficacy. These relatively poor outcomes indicate a need for novel treatment strategies.
You are looking at 1 - 6 of 6 items for
- Author: Hui Huang x
- Refine by Access: All x
Victoria Crossland, Aaron Galaznik, Huamao M. Lin, Dimitrios Tomaras, Shan Ashton Garib, Shuanglian Li, Hui Huang, and Anna Forsythe
Eric D. Miller, Ansel P. Nalin, Dayssy A. Diaz Pardo, Andrea L. Arnett, Emily Huang, Alessandra C. Gasior, Pannaga Malalur, Hui-Zi Chen, Terence M. Williams, and Jose G. Bazan
Background: The incidence of squamous cell carcinoma of the anus (SCCA) is increasing, particularly among the elderly (age ≥65 years). We sought to compare patterns of care for the treatment of SCCA in elderly versus nonelderly patients. Methods: Data for patients with stages I–III SCCA diagnosed from 2004 through 2015 were obtained from the National Cancer Database. Patients were categorized as having received standard-of-care (SOC) chemoradiation (CRT) with multiagent chemotherapy, non-SOC therapy, palliative therapy, or no treatment. Differences in treatment groups were tested using the chi-square test. We used logistic regression to identify predictors of SOC CRT and multiagent versus single-agent chemotherapy in patients receiving CRT. Propensity score matching was used to compare overall survival (OS) in elderly patients receiving multiagent versus single-agent chemotherapy for those receiving CRT. Results: We identified 9,156 elderly and 17,640 nonelderly patients. A lower proportion of elderly versus nonelderly patients (54.5% vs 65.0%; P<.0001) received SOC CRT than other treatments or no treatment. In multivariate analysis, elderly patients were 38% less likely than nonelderly patients to receive SOC CRT (odds ratio, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.58–0.65; P<.0001). A higher proportion of the elderly were treated with single-agent versus multiagent chemotherapy (16.9% vs 11.8%; P<.0001), which resulted in a >1.5-fold increase in the likelihood of elderly patients receiving single-agent chemotherapy (odds ratio, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.39–1.66) in multivariate analysis. After propensity score matching, 3-year OS was higher in elderly patients who received CRT with multiagent versus single-agent chemotherapy (77.1% vs 67.5%; hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.68–0.89; P=.0002). Conclusions: In this comprehensive study of patients with stages I–III SCCA, elderly patients were less likely than nonelderly patients to receive SOC CRT. The low proportion of elderly patients receiving SOC CRT with multiagent chemotherapy for localized anal cancer suggests that the optimal treatment approach for this vulnerable population remains undefined.
Chao-Hui Sylvia Huang, Jennifer K. Anderson, Jasmine A. Boykin, Jasmine K. Vickers, Heather Forbes, Kellie L. Flood, Lisle M. Nabell, and Kelly N. Godby
Maral DerSarkissian, Shuanglian Li, Aaron Galaznik, Rachel Bhak, Iryna Bocharova, Thomas Kulalert, Huamao M. Lin, Hui Huang, and Mei Sheng Duh
Background: Mutations in the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) gene have been identified in 10%–50% of patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Exon 20 insertion mutations represent about 2%–10% of this group. Reports of real world experience of NSCLC patients with EGFR exon 20 insertion mutations are limited. This study describes patient characteristics, treatment patterns, and survival outcomes of NSCLC patients with EGFR exon 20 insertions based on real world data. Methods: Flatiron Health electronic health record data, largely from community oncology practices, from January 2011–April 2018 were used for this retrospective observational study. Treatment-naïve (TN) and relapsed/refractory (RR) second-line patients diagnosed with NSCLC with EGFR exon 20 insertion mutation aged ≥18 years at treatment initiation were included. Patient characteristics were described, and Kaplan-Meier analyses were used to assess real world overall survival (rwOS) separately for TN (starting at first-line therapy) and RR (starting at second-line therapy) patients. Results: There were 128 TN and 71 RR patients identified. Median age was 66.5 and 65.0 years for TN and RR patients, respectively, and over half were female (TN: 59.4%, RR: 53.5%). Among 83 TN and 47 RR patients with known ECOG score at advanced diagnosis, most had score 0–1 (TN: 56.3%; RR: 62.0%). Central nervous system metastases were observed in 35.2% of TN and 33.8% of RR patients. While 45.3% of TN patients received any chemotherapy, approximately 20% of both TN and RR patient groups had exposure to various EGFR TKIs. Overall, median rwOS was low at 14.6 months for TN patients, and 10.1 months for RR patients. Conclusion: Real world survival of patients with EGFR exon 20 NSCLC remains poor. Treatment with any chemotherapy regimen was most commonly used followed by EGFR TKIs in TN patients, while the proportion treated with chemotherapy and EGFR TKIs was similar in RR patients. Despite limited evidence in this population, over a fifth of TN and RR patients received EGFR TKI monotherapy. This study demonstrated unmet need for improved therapeutic options in TN and RR patients with NSCLC with EGFR exon 20 insertion mutation.
Rongbo Lin, Sunzhi Lin, Shuitu Feng, Qingyi Wu, Jianqian Fu, Fang Wang, Hui Li, Xiaofeng Li, Gaowang Zhang, Yongzhi Yao, Min Xin, Tianyang Lai, Xia Lv, Yigui Chen, Shangwang Yang, Yubiao Lin, Lixia Hong, Zhenyu Cai, Jianfeng Wang, Gen Lin, Shaowei Lin, Shen Zhao, Jinfeng Zhu, and Cheng Huang
Background: Opioid titration is necessary to achieve rapid, safe pain relief. Medication can be administered via patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) or by a healthcare provider (non-PCA). We evaluated the efficacy of intravenous PCA versus non-PCA hydromorphone titration for severe cancer pain (≥7 at rest on the 11-point numeric rating scale [NRS]). Patients and Methods: Patients with severe cancer pain were randomized 1:1 to PCA or non-PCA titration, stratified by opioid-tolerant or opioid-naïve status. The PCA pump was set to no continuous dose, with a hydromorphone bolus dose 10% to 20% of the total previous 24-hour equianalgesic (for opioid-tolerant patients) or 0.5 mg (for opioid-naïve patients). For the non-PCA group, the initial hydromorphone bolus dose was identical to that in the PCA group, with the subsequent dose increased by 50% to 100% (for NRS unchanged or increased) or repeated at the current dose (for NRS 4–6). Hydromorphone delivery was initiated every 15 minutes (for NRS ≥4) or as needed (for NRS ≤3). The primary endpoint was time to successful titration (TST; time from first hydromorphone dose to first occurrence of NRS ≤3 in 2 consecutive 15-minute intervals). Results: Among 214 patients (PCA, n=106; non-PCA, n=108), median TSTs (95% CI) were 0.50 hours (0.25–0.50) and 0.79 hours (0.50–1.42) for the PCA and non-PCA groups, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 1.64; 95% CI, 1.23–2.17; P=.001). TSTs in opioid-tolerant patients were 0.50 hours (0.25–0.75) and 1.00 hours (0.50–2.00) for the PCA and non-PCA groups, respectively (HR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.32–2.78; P=.003); in opioid-naive patients, TST was not significantly different for the PCA versus non-PCA groups (HR, 1.35; 95% CI, 0.88–2.04; P=.162). Pain score (median NRS; interquartile range) over 24 hours was significantly lower in the PCA group (2.80; 2.15–3.22) than in the non-PCA group (3.00; 2.47–3.53; P=.020). PCA administration produces significantly higher patient satisfaction with pain control than non-PCA administration (P<.001). Conclusions: Intravenous hydromorphone titration for severe cancer pain was achieved more effectively with PCA than with non-PCA administration.
Michelle B. Riba, Kristine A. Donovan, Barbara Andersen, IIana Braun, William S. Breitbart, Benjamin W. Brewer, Luke O. Buchmann, Matthew M. Clark, Molly Collins, Cheyenne Corbett, Stewart Fleishman, Sofia Garcia, Donna B. Greenberg, Rev. George F. Handzo, Laura Hoofring, Chao-Hui Huang, Robin Lally, Sara Martin, Lisa McGuffey, William Mitchell, Laura J. Morrison, Megan Pailler, Oxana Palesh, Francine Parnes, Janice P. Pazar, Laurel Ralston, Jaroslava Salman, Moreen M. Shannon-Dudley, Alan D. Valentine, Nicole R. McMillian, and Susan D. Darlow
Distress is defined in the NCCN Guidelines for Distress Management as a multifactorial, unpleasant experience of a psychologic (ie, cognitive, behavioral, emotional), social, spiritual, and/or physical nature that may interfere with the ability to cope effectively with cancer, its physical symptoms, and its treatment. Early evaluation and screening for distress leads to early and timely management of psychologic distress, which in turn improves medical management. The panel for the Distress Management Guidelines recently added a new principles section including guidance on implementation of standards of psychosocial care for patients with cancer.