More than 20 types of ALK fusion variant subtypes have been identified, including different fusion partner genes or EML4-ALK fusions with different breakpoints. However, different ALK fusions show different sensitivities to ALK-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (ALK-TKIs) and the emergence of rare fusions brings great challenges to the target therapy in clinic. We report a rare EML4-ALK (E6;A18) fusion in a patient with lung adenocarcinoma that responded well to alectinib. This is the second case of this rare variant reported but the first report of response to an ALK-TKI. This evidence is the first to show that alectinib may be effective for this rare fusion type of non–small cell lung cancer, and these findings have important implications for drug selection in patients with this subtype. Further studies are needed to understand the function of this variant.
Search Results
You are looking at 1 - 2 of 2 items for
- Author: Yufeng Li x
- Refine by Access: All x
Lirong Liu, Fangfang Hou, Yufeng Liu, Wenzhu Li, and Haibo Zhang
Gabrielle B. Rocque, Richard A. Taylor, Aras Acemgil, Xuelin Li, Maria Pisu, Kelly Kenzik, Bradford E. Jackson, Karina I. Halilova, Wendy Demark-Wahnefried, Karen Meneses, Yufeng Li, Michelle Y. Martin, Carol Chambless, Nedra Lisovicz, Mona Fouad, Edward E. Partridge, Elizabeth A. Kvale, and the Patient Care Connect Group
Background: There is growing interest in psychosocial care and evaluating distress in patients with cancer. As of 2015, the Commission on Cancer requires cancer centers to screen patients for distress, but the optimal approach to implementation remains unclear. Methods: We assessed the feasibility and impact of using distress assessments to frame lay navigator interactions with geriatric patients with cancer who were enrolled in navigation between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2014. Results: Of the 5,121 patients enrolled in our lay patient navigation program, 4,520 (88%) completed at least one assessment using a standardized distress tool (DT). Navigators used the tool to structure both formal and informal distress assessments. Of all patients, 24% reported distress scores of 4 or greater and 5.5% reported distress scores of 8 or greater. The most common sources of distress at initial assessment were pain, balance/mobility difficulties, and fatigue. Minority patients reported similar sources of distress as the overall program population, with increased relative distress related to logistical issues, such as transportation and financial/insurance questions. Patients were more likely to ask for help with questions about insurance/financial needs (79%), transportation (76%), and knowledge deficits about diet/nutrition (76%) and diagnosis (66%) when these items contributed to distress. Conclusions: Lay navigators were able to routinely screen for patient distress at a high degree of penetration using a structured distress assessment.
