Florez, Narjust

PURPOSE KRAS is the most commonly mutated driver oncogene in non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Sotorasib and adagrasib, KRAS G12C inhibitors, have been granted accelerated US approval; however, hepatotoxicity is a common side effect with higher rates in patients treated with sotorasib proximal to checkpoint inhibitor (CPI) therapy. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility and safety of adagrasib after discontinuation of sotorasib because of treatment-related grade 3 hepatotoxicity through real-world and clinical cases. METHODS Medical records from five patients treated in real-world settings were retrospectively reviewed. Patients had locally advanced or metastatic KRAS G12C -mutated NSCLC and received adagrasib after sotorasib in the absence of extracranial disease progression. Additional data were collected for 12 patients with KRAS G12C -mutated NSCLC enrolled in a phase Ib cohort of the KRYSTAL-1 study and previously treated with sotorasib. The end points associated with both drugs included timing and severity of hepatotoxicity, best overall response, and duration of therapy. RESULTS All patients were treated with CPIs followed by sotorasib (initiated 0-64 days after CPI). All five real-world patients experienced hepatotoxicity with sotorasib that led to treatment discontinuation, whereas none experienced treatment-related hepatotoxicity with subsequent adagrasib treatment. Three patients from KRYSTAL-1 transitioned from sotorasib to adagrasib because of hepatotoxicity; one experienced grade 3 ALT elevation on adagrasib that resolved with therapy interruption and dose reduction. CONCLUSION Adagrasib may have a distinct hepatotoxicity profile from sotorasib and is more easily combined with CPIs either sequentially or concurrently. These differences may be used to inform clinical decisions regarding an initial KRAS G12C inhibitor for patients who recently discontinued a CPI or experience hepatotoxicity on sotorasib.

Precision immuno-oncology involves the development of personalized cancer treatments that are influenced by the unique nature of an individual’s DNA, immune cells, and their tumor’s molecular characterization. Biological sex influences immunity; females typically mount stronger innate and adaptive immune responses than males. Though more research is warranted, we continue to observe an enhanced benefit for females with lung cancer when treated with combination chemoimmunotherapy in contrast to the preferred approach of utilizing immunotherapy alone in men. Despite the observed sex differences in response to treatments, women remain underrepresented in oncology clinical trials, largely as a result of gender-biased misconceptions. Such exclusion has resulted in the development of less efficacious treatment guidelines and clinical recommendations and has created a knowledge gap in regard to immunotherapy-related survivorship issues such as fertility. To develop a more precise approach to care and overcome the exclusion of women from clinical trials, flexible trial schedules, multilingual communication strategies, financial, and transportation assistance for participants should be adopted. The impact of intersectionality and other determinants of health that affect the diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes in women must also be considered in order to develop a comprehensive understanding of the unique impact of immunotherapy in all women with lung cancer.

Background Male breast cancer (MBC) is a rare disease for which there is limited understanding of treatment patterns and prognostic factors. Methods Men with TNM stage I to stage III breast cancer diagnosed between 2004 and 2014 in the National Cancer Data Base were included. Trends in treatment modalities were described using the average annual percentage change (AAPC) and estimated using Joinpoint software for the analysis of trends. Kaplan‐Meier curves and the multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression model were used to compare survival between subgroups and to identify prognostic factors. Results A total of 10,873 MBC cases were included, with a median age at diagnosis of 64 years. Breast‐conserving surgery was performed in 24% of patients, and 70% of patients undergoing breast conservation received radiotherapy. Approximately 44% of patients received chemotherapy, and 62% of patients with estrogen receptor–positive disease received endocrine therapy. Oncotype DX was ordered in 35% of patients with lymph node–negative, estrogen receptor–positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)‐negative tumors. During the study period, there was a significant increase in the rates of total mastectomy, contralateral prophylactic mastectomy, radiotherapy after breast conservation, ordering of Oncotype DX, and the use of endocrine therapy ( P < .05). On multivariate analysis, factors found to be associated with worse overall survival were older age, black race, higher Charlson Comorbidity Index, high tumor grade and stage of disease, and undergoing total mastectomy. Residing in a higher income area; having progesterone receptor–positive tumors; and receipt of chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and endocrine therapy were associated with better overall survival. Conclusions Despite the lack of prospective randomized trials in patients with MBC, the results of the current study demonstrated that the treatment of this disease has evolved over the years. These findings further the understanding of the modern treatment and prognosis of MBC, and identify several areas for further research.