Citations

Non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is a heterogeneous disease, and therapeutic management has advanced to identify various critical oncogenic mutations that promote lung cancer tumorigenesis. Subsequent studies have developed targeted therapies against these oncogenes in the hope of personalized treatment based on the tumor’s molecular genomics. This review presents a comprehensive review of the biology, new therapeutic interventions, and resistance patterns of two well-defined subgroups, tumors with KRAS and MET alterations. We also discuss the status of molecular testing practices for these two key oncogenic drivers, considering the progressive introduction of next-generation sequencing (NGS) and RNA sequencing in regular clinical practice.

Objective: The aim of this study was to determine overall trends and center-level variation in utilization of completion lymph node dissection (CLND) and adjuvant systemic therapy for sentinel lymph node (SLN)-positive melanoma. Summary Background Data: Based on recent clinical trials, management options for SLN-positive melanoma now include effective adjuvant systemic therapy and nodal observation instead of CLND. It is unknown how these findings have shaped practice or how these contemporaneous developments have influenced their respective utilization. Methods: We performed an international cohort study at 21 melanoma referral centers in Australia, Europe, and the United States that treated adults with SLN-positive melanoma and negative distant staging from July 2017 to June 2019. We used generalized linear and multinomial logistic regression models with random intercepts for each center to assess center-level variation in CLND and adjuvant systemic treatment, adjusting for patient and disease-specific characteristics. Results: Among 1109 patients, performance of CLND decreased from 28% to 8% and adjuvant systemic therapy use increased from 29 to 60%. For both CLND and adjuvant systemic treatment, the most influential factors were nodal tumor size, stage, and location of treating center. There was notable variation among treating centers in management of stage IIIA patients and use of CLND with adjuvant systemic therapy versus nodal observation alone for similar risk patients. Conclusions: There has been an overall decline in CLND and simultaneous adoption of adjuvant systemic therapy for patients with SLN-positive melanoma though wide variation in practice remains. Accounting for differences in patient mix, location of care contributed significantly to the observed variation.

Abstract Background Glycemic traits—such as hyperinsulinemia, hyperglycemia, and type 2 diabetes—have been associated with higher colorectal cancer risk in observational studies; however, causality of these associations is uncertain. We used Mendelian randomization (MR) to estimate the causal effects of fasting insulin, 2-hour glucose, fasting glucose, glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), and type 2 diabetes with colorectal cancer. Methods Genome-wide association study summary data were used to identify genetic variants associated with circulating levels of fasting insulin (n = 34), 2-hour glucose (n = 13), fasting glucose (n = 70), HbA1c (n = 221), and type 2 diabetes (n = 268). Using 2-sample MR, we examined these variants in relation to colorectal cancer risk (48 214 case patient and 64 159 control patients). Results In inverse-variance models, higher fasting insulin levels increased colorectal cancer risk (odds ratio [OR] per 1-SD = 1.65, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.15 to 2.36). We found no evidence of any effect of 2-hour glucose (OR per 1-SD = 1.02, 95% CI = 0.86 to 1.21) or fasting glucose (OR per 1-SD = 1.04, 95% CI = 0.88 to 1.23) concentrations on colorectal cancer risk. Genetic liability to type 2 diabetes (OR per 1-unit increase in log odds = 1.04, 95% CI = 1.01 to 1.07) and higher HbA1c levels (OR per 1-SD = 1.09, 95% CI = 1.00 to 1.19) increased colorectal cancer risk, although these findings may have been biased by pleiotropy. Higher HbA1c concentrations increased rectal cancer risk in men (OR per 1-SD = 1.21, 95% CI = 1.05 to 1.40), but not in women. Conclusions Our results support a causal effect of higher fasting insulin, but not glucose traits or type 2 diabetes, on increased colorectal cancer risk. This suggests that pharmacological or lifestyle interventions that lower circulating insulin levels may be beneficial in preventing colorectal tumorigenesis.

Abstract Background Anthracycline use in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) is hindered by cumulative exposure limits and risk of cardiotoxicity. Pixantrone, a novel aza-anthracenedione with structural similarities to mitoxantrone and anthracyclines, is theorized to exhibit less cardiotoxicity, mainly due to lack of iron binding. We conducted a randomized phase II study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of 2 dosing schedules of pixantrone in patients with refractory HER2-negative MBC. Methods Intravenous pixantrone was administered at 180 mg/m2 every 3 weeks (group A) versus 85 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle (group B). Primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) and secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), median 6-month PFS, overall survival (OS), safety, quality of life, and serial assessment of circulating tumor cells. A 20% ORR was targeted as sufficient for further testing of pixantrone in this patient population. Results Forty-five patients were evaluable, with 2 confirmed partial responses in group A and 1 in group B. The trial was terminated due to insufficient activity. Overall median PFS and OS were 2.8 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.0-4.1) and 16.8 (95% CI: 8.9-21.6) months, respectively. Notable overall grade 3-4 adverse events were the following: neutrophil count decrease (62%), fatigue (16%), and decrease in ejection fraction (EF) (4%). Conclusion Pixantrone has insufficient activity in the second- and third-line MBC setting. It appears, however, to have limited cardiotoxicity. (ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT01086605).

Abstract Background: Somatic EGFR mutations define a subset of non–small cell lung cancers (NSCLC) that have clinical impact on NSCLC risk and outcome. However, EGFR-mutation-status is often missing in epidemiologic datasets. We developed and tested pragmatic approaches to account for EGFR-mutation-status based on variables commonly included in epidemiologic datasets and evaluated the clinical utility of these approaches. Methods: Through analysis of the International Lung Cancer Consortium (ILCCO) epidemiologic datasets, we developed a regression model for EGFR-status; we then applied a clinical-restriction approach using the optimal cut-point, and a second epidemiologic, multiple imputation approach to ILCCO survival analyses that did and did not account for EGFR-status. Results: Of 35,356 ILCCO patients with NSCLC, EGFR-mutation-status was available in 4,231 patients. A model regressing known EGFR-mutation-status on clinical and demographic variables achieved a concordance index of 0.75 (95% CI, 0.74–0.77) in the training and 0.77 (95% CI, 0.74–0.79) in the testing dataset. At an optimal cut-point of probability-score = 0.335, sensitivity = 69% and specificity = 72.5% for determining EGFR-wildtype status. In both restriction-based and imputation-based regression analyses of the individual roles of BMI on overall survival of patients with NSCLC, similar results were observed between overall and EGFR-mutation-negative cohort analyses of patients of all ancestries. However, our approach identified some differences: EGFR-mutated Asian patients did not incur a survival benefit from being obese, as observed in EGFR-wildtype Asian patients. Conclusions: We introduce a pragmatic method to evaluate the potential impact of EGFR-status on epidemiological analyses of NSCLC. Impact: The proposed method is generalizable in the common occurrence in which EGFR-status data are missing.

Main Recommendations 1 ESGE recommends the use of endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) over percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) after failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in malignant distal biliary obstruction when local expertise is available. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 2 ESGE suggests EUS-BD with hepaticogastrostomy only for malignant inoperable hilar biliary obstruction with a dilated left hepatic duct when inadequately drained by ERCP and/or PTBD in high volume expert centers. Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 3 ESGE recommends that EUS-guided pancreatic duct (PD) drainage should only be considered in symptomatic patients with an obstructed PD when retrograde endoscopic intervention fails or is not possible. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 4 ESGE recommends rendezvous EUS techniques over transmural PD drainage in patients with favorable anatomy owing to its lower rate of adverse events. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 5 ESGE recommends that, in patients at high surgical risk, EUS-guided gallbladder drainage (GBD) should be favored over percutaneous gallbladder drainage where both techniques are available, owing to the lower rates of adverse events and need for re-interventions in EUS-GBD. Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 6 ESGE recommends EUS-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE), in an expert setting, for malignant gastric outlet obstruction, as an alternative to enteral stenting or surgery. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 7 ESGE recommends that EUS-GE may be considered in the management of afferent loop syndrome, especially in the setting of malignancy or in poor surgical candidates. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 8 ESGE suggests that endoscopic ultrasound-directed transgastric ERCP (EDGE) can be offered, in expert centers, to patients with a Roux-en-Y gastric bypass following multidisciplinary decision-making, with the aim of overcoming the invasiveness of laparoscopy-assisted ERCP and the limitations of enteroscopy-assisted ERCP. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.

OBJECTIVE Multiple meningiomas (MMs) occur in as many as 18% of patients with meningioma, and data on progression-free survival (PFS) are scarce. The objective of this study was to explore the influence of the number of lesions and clinical characteristics on PFS in patients with WHO grade I meningiomas. METHODS The authors retrospectively reviewed the records of all adults diagnosed with a meningioma at their three main sites from January 2009 to May 2020. Progression was considered the time from diagnosis until radiographic growth of the originally resected meningioma. A secondary analysis was performed to evaluate the time of diagnosis until the time to second intervention (TTSI). Univariable and multivariable analyses were conducted to assess whether the number of lesions or any associated variables (age, sex, race, radiation treatment, tumor location, and extent of resection) had a significant impact on PFS and TTSI. RESULTS Eight hundred thirty-eight patients were included. Use of a log-rank test to evaluate PFS and TTSI between a single and multiple lesions showed a significantly shorter progression for MM (p < 0.001 and p < 0.001, respectively). Multivariable Cox regression analysis showed significantly inferior PFS on MM compared to a single lesion (hazard ratio [HR] 2.262, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.392–3.677, p = 0.001) and a significantly inferior TTSI for patients with MM when compared to patients with a single meningioma (HR 2.377, 95% CI 1.617–3.494, p = 0.001). By testing the number of meningiomas as a continuous variable, PFS was significantly inferior for each additional meningioma (HR 1.350, 95% CI 1.074–1.698, p = 0.010) and TTSI was significantly inferior as well (HR 1.428, 95% CI 1.189–1.716, p < 0.001). African American patients had an inferior PFS when compared to non-Hispanic White patients (HR 3.472, 95% CI 1.083–11.129, p = 0.036). CONCLUSIONS The PFS of meningiomas appears to be influenced by the number of lesions present. Patients with MM also appear to be more prone to undergoing a second intervention for progressive disease. Hence, a closer follow-up may be warranted in patients who present with multiple lesions. These results show a decreased PFS for each additional lesion present, as well as a shorter PFS for MM compared to a single lesion. When assessing associated risk factors, African American patients showed an inferior PFS, whereas older age and adjuvant therapy with radiation showed an improved PFS.

Abstract Introduction Tafasitamab is a humanized, Fc-modified, anti-CD19 monoclonal antibody (mAb) shown to enhance antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity and phagocytosis. It is approved by the FDA under accelerated approval (July 2020) in combination with lenalidomide (LEN) for treatment of relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (R/R DLBCL) in adult patients ineligible for autologous stem cell transplantation. To evaluate if newly diagnosed DLBCL patients would also benefit from this regimen, this Phase Ib study (First-MIND; NCT04134936) was designed to first assess the safety and tolerability of tafasitamab ± LEN in addition to rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone (R-CHOP) in newly diagnosed DLBCL patients. Methods Eligible patients were ≥18 years old, with treatment-naïve DLBCL, international prognostic index (IPI) 2-5 and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) 0-2. Patients with known double- or triple-hit and transformed lymphoma were excluded. Patients were randomized 1:1 to either six 21-day [D] cycles of R-CHOP (R-CHO, D1; P, D1-5) + tafasitamab (12 mg/kg IV, D1, 8, 15) (Arm A) or R-CHOP + tafasitamab + LEN (25 mg orally, D1-10) (Arm B). Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor and venous thromboembolism prophylaxis was mandatory. The primary safety endpoint was incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs); secondary endpoints included overall response rate (ORR), positron emission tomography (PET)-complete response (CR) rate, and partial response (PR) rate at end of treatment (EOT). Tumor measurements by PET/CT or PET/MRI at EOT were performed according to Lugano 2014 criteria within 6±2 weeks after Day 21 of the last treatment cycle the patient started. Results From December 2019 to August 2020, 83 patients were screened in nine countries across 34 sites in Europe and the US; 66 were randomized (Arm A, n=33; Arm B, n=33). Data cut-off for this analysis: 13 March 2021. Median age was 64.5 years (range 20-86). Many patients had high-risk disease: IPI 2: 24/66 (36.4%), IPI 3: 29/66 (43.9%), IPI 4: 11/66 (16.7%), IPI 5: 2/66 (3.0%); ECOG PS ≥2: 6/66 (9.1%). Most patients had Stage III/IV disease 62/66 (93.9%); 29/66 (43.9%) had bulky disease. All patients experienced at least one TEAE. The most frequent Grade ≥3 TEAEs by system organ class were blood and lymphatic disorders (81.8% patients overall), experienced by 24 patients (72.7%) in Arm A and 30 patients (90.9%) in Arm B. Grade ≥3 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia occurred in 19/33 (57.6%) and 4/33 (12.1%) (Arm A), and 28/33 (84.8%) and 12/33 (36.4%) (Arm B) patients, respectively; Grade ≥3 febrile neutropenia was experienced by 6/33 (18.2%) patients in each arm. Grade ≥3 infusion-related reactions to both rituximab and tafasitamab occurred in no patients in Arm A and one patient (3.0%) in Arm B, and 7/33 (21.2%) (Arm A) and 9/33 (27.3%) (Arm B) patients had a Grade ≥3 infection and/or infestation (Figure 1). Serious TEAEs occurred in 14/33 (42.4%) patients in Arm A and 17/33 (51.5%) patients in Arm B. Two out of 33 (6.1%) and one out of 33 (3.0%) patients discontinued study treatment due to TEAEs in Arms A and B, respectively. There were four deaths unrelated to tafasitamab and/or LEN (COVID-19 pneumonia, sepsis, and urosepsis). The average relative dose intensity of R-CHOP in each cycle was maintained in both arms. ORR at EOT was observed in 25/33 patients (75.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 57.7-88.9) in Arm A and 27/33 patients (81.8%; 95% CI: 64.5-93.0) in Arm B. Conclusion These data suggest that both regimens are tolerable and do not impair dosing and scheduling of R-CHOP. Toxicities were similar to those expected with R-CHOP with or without LEN. With tumor follow-up still ongoing, the ORR at EOT suggests that patients with treatment-naïve DLBCL may achieve clinically meaningful efficacy tafasitamab and LEN in addition to standard treatment. A Phase III, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial will assess efficacy and safety of R-CHOP + tafasitamab + LEN vs R-CHOP in newly diagnosed patients with high intermediate and high risk DLBCL, and is currently recruiting (frontMIND study; NCT04824092). Funding: MorphoSys AG. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Belada: Roche: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; MorphoSys AG: Consultancy, Research Funding; Debiopharm Group: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Archigen Biotech: Research Funding; Reddys: Research Funding. André: Johnson & Johnson: Research Funding; Roche: Other: Travel/accomodation/expenses, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Other: Travel/Accommodations/Expenses; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers-Squibb: Consultancy, Other: Travel/Accommodations/Expenses; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Other: Travel/accomodation/expenses; AbbVie: Other: Travel/accomodation/expenses. Pérez Persona: Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Support for attending meetings and/or travel, Speakers Bureau; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Support for attending meetings and/or travel, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Other: Support for attending meetings and/or travel, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; GSK: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy. Staber: Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Trneny: AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Celgene: Consultancy; 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, General Hospital in Prague: Current Employment; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Portola: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Honoraria. Brackertz: MorphoSys AG: Current Employment. Shah: MorphoSys AG: Current Employment. Sporchia: MorphoSys AG: Current Employment. Burke: MorphoSys: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Kymera: Consultancy; X4 Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; SeaGen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Kura: Consultancy; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Nowakowski: Celgene, NanoString Technologies, MorphoSys: Research Funding; Celgene, MorphoSys, Genentech, Selvita, Debiopharm Group, Kite/Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. OffLabel Disclosure: Tafasitamab is a humanized Fc-modified cytolytic CD19 targeting monoclonal antibody. In combination with lenalidomide (LEN), it received accelerated approval in July 2020 for adult patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) not otherwise specified (NOS), including arising from lowâ€'grade lymphoma, who are ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). Following FDA approval, we are now evaluating the safety and efficacy of tafasitamab in combination with LEN as an add-on to first-line therapy with R-CHOP in newly diagnosed patients with DLBCL.