Journal of Clinical Oncology最新文献

Purpose: Establishing an accurate prognosis remains challenging in older patients with cancer because of the population's heterogeneity and the current predictive models' reduced ability to capture the complex interactions between oncologic and geriatric predictors. We aim to develop and externally validate a new predictive score (the Geriatric Cancer Scoring System [GCSS]) to refine individualized prognosis for older patients with cancer during the first year after a geriatric assessment (GA).

Materials and methods: Data were collected from two French prospective multicenter cohorts of patients with cancer 70 years and older, referred for GA: ELCAPA (training set January 2007-March 2016) and ONCODAGE (validation set August 2008-March 2010). Candidate predictors included baseline oncologic and geriatric factors and routine biomarkers. We built predictive models using Cox regression, single decision tree (DT), and random survival forest (RSF) methods, comparing their predictive performance for 3-, 6-, and 12-month mortalities by computing time-dependent area under the receiver operator curve (tAUC).

Results: A total of 2,012 and 1,397 patients were included in the training and validation set, respectively (mean age: 81 ± 6 years/78 ± 5 years; women: 47%/70%; metastatic cancer: 50%/34%; 12-month mortality: 43%/16%). Tumor site/metastatic status, cancer treatment, weight loss, ≥five prescription drugs, impaired functional status and mobility, abnormal G-8 score, low creatinine clearance, and elevated C-reactive protein (CRP)/albumin were identified as relevant predictors in the Cox model. DT and RSF identified more complex combinations of features, with G-8 score, tumor site/metastatic status, and CRP/albumin ratio contributing most to the predictions. The RSF approach gave the highest tAUC (12 months: 0.87 [RSF], 0.82 [Cox], 0.82 [DT]) and was retained as the final model.

Conclusion: The GCSS on the basis of a machine learning approach applied to two large French cohorts gave an accurate externally validated mortality prediction. The GCSS might improve decision making and counseling in older patients with cancer referred for pretherapeutic GA. GCSS's generalizability must now be confirmed in an international setting.

In the primary analysis of the open-label phase III PRECIOUS study, pertuzumab retreatment combined with trastuzumab plus chemotherapy of physician's choice (PTC) significantly improved investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) compared with trastuzumab plus physician's choice chemotherapy (TC) in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive locally advanced/metastatic breast cancer (LA/mBC). Here, we report final overall survival (OS) at the median follow-up of 25.8 months. Patients who have previously received pertuzumab-containing regimens as first-/second-line treatment for LA/mBC were randomly assigned 1:1 to two groups, PTC group (n = 110) and TC group (n = 109). Median OS was longer in the PTC group (median OS 36.2 v 26.5 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.73 [one side 95% CI upper limit, 0.97]). Updated median investigator-assessed PFS (5.5 v 4.2 months; HR, 0.81 [one side 95% CI upper limit, 1.02]) were also better in the PTC group. Median PFS by independent review did not show the difference between the two groups (4.4 v 4.4 months; HR, 1.03 [one side 95% CI upper limit, 1.36]). These findings suggest that dual HER2 blockade with pertuzumab plus trastuzumab could contribute to improving OS in patients who have previously been treated with pertuzumab-containing regimens for HER2-positive LA/mBC.

Purpose: To provide updated guidance regarding neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) and primary cytoreductive surgery (PCS) among patients with stage III-IV epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer (epithelial ovarian cancer [EOC]).

Methods: A multidisciplinary Expert Panel convened and updated the systematic review.

Results: Sixty-one studies form the evidence base.

Recommendations: Patients with suspected stage III-IV EOC should be evaluated by a gynecologic oncologist, with cancer antigen 125, computed tomography of the abdomen and pelvis, and chest imaging included. All patients with EOC should be offered germline genetic and somatic testing at diagnosis. For patients with newly diagnosed advanced EOC who are fit for surgery and have a high likelihood of achieving complete cytoreduction, PCS is recommended. For patients fit for PCS but deemed unlikely to have complete cytoreduction, NACT is recommended. Patients with newly diagnosed advanced EOC and a high perioperative risk profile should receive NACT. Before NACT, patients should have histologic confirmation of invasive ovarian cancer. For NACT, a platinum-taxane doublet is recommended. Interval cytoreductive surgery (ICS) should be performed after ≤four cycles of NACT for patients with a response to chemotherapy or stable disease. For patients with stage III disease, good performance status, and adequate renal function treated with NACT, hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy may be offered during ICS. After ICS, chemotherapy should continue to complete a six-cycle treatment plan with the optional addition of bevacizumab. Patients with EOC should be offered US Food and Drug Administration-approved maintenance treatments. Patients with progressive disease on NACT should have diagnosis reconfirmed via tissue biopsy. Patients without previous comprehensive genetic or molecular profiling should be offered testing. Treatment options include alternative chemotherapy regimens, clinical trials, and/or initiation of end-of-life care.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/gynecologic-cancer-guidelines.This guideline has been endorsed by the Society of Gynecologic Oncology.

Purpose: Radiotherapy (RT)/cetuximab (C) demonstrated superiority over RT alone for locally advanced squamous head and neck cancer. We tested this in completely resected, intermediate-risk cancer.

Methods: Patients had squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) of the oral cavity, oropharynx, or larynx, with one or more risk factors warranting postoperative RT. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to intensity-modulated RT (60-66 Gy) with once-per-week C or RT alone. The primary hypothesis was that RT + C would improve overall survival (OS) in randomly assigned/eligible patients, with a prespecified secondary plan to test this in the human papillomavirus (HPV)-negative subpopulation. Disease-free survival (DFS) and toxicity were secondary end points. OS and DFS were tested via stratified log-rank test; toxicity was compared via Fisher's exact test.

Results: We enrolled 702 patients from November 2009 to March 2018; 577 were randomly assigned/eligible. Most (63.6%) had oral cavity cancer and most (84.6%) had high epidermal growth factor receptor expression. There were fewer deaths (184) than expected. OS (median follow up, 7.2 years) was not significantly improved (hazard ratio [HR], 0.81; one-sided P = .0747; 5-year OS 76.5% v 68.7%), but DFS was (HR, 0.75; one-sided P = .0168; 5-year DFS 71.7% v 63.6%). Benefit of RT + C was only seen in the HPV-negative subpopulation (80.2% of patients in the trial). Grade 3-4 acute toxicity rates were 70.3% (RT + C) versus 39.7% (RT; two-sided P < .0001), mostly skin and/or mucosal effects. Late grade ≥3 toxicity rate was 33.2% (RT + C) versus 29.0% (RT; two-sided P = .3101). There were no grade 5 toxicities in either arm.

Conclusion: RT + C significantly improved DFS, but not OS, with no increase in long-term toxicity, compared with RT alone for resected, intermediate-risk SCCHN. RT + C is an appropriate option for carefully selected patients with HPV-negative disease.

Purpose: The cancer/testis antigen New York esophageal squamous cell carcinoma 1 (NY-ESO-1) is a promising target in myxoid/round cell liposarcoma (MRCLS).

Methods: In this pilot study, we assessed the adoptive T-cell therapy NY-ESO-1c²⁵⁹T letetresgene autoleucel (lete-cel) in patients with human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-A*02:01-, HLA-A*02:05-, and/or HLA-A*02:06-positive advanced/metastatic NY-ESO-1-expressing MRCLS. Patients underwent a reduced-dose (cohort 1) or standard-dose (cohort 2) lymphodepletion regimen (LDR). The primary end point was investigator-assessed overall response rate (ORR). Safety was assessed through adverse event (AE) reports. Correlative biomarker analyses were performed post hoc. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier: NCT02992743).

Results: Of 23 enrolled patients, 10 in cohort 1 and 10 in cohort 2 received lete-cel. Investigator-assessed ORR was 20% (95% CI, 2.5 to 55.6) and 40% (95% CI, 12.2 to 73.8), median duration of response was 5.3 months (95% CI, 1.9 to 8.7) and 7.5 months (95% CI, 6.0 to not estimable [NE]), and median progression-free survival was 5.4 months (95% CI, 2.0 to 11.5) and 8.7 months (95% CI, 0.9 to NE) in cohorts 1 and 2, respectively. AEs included cytokine release syndrome and cytopenias, consistent with T-cell therapy/LDR. Post hoc correlative biomarkers showed T-cell expansion and persistence in both cohorts.

Conclusion: To our knowledge, this study is the first demonstrating the clinical promise of lete-cel in HLA-/NY-ESO-1-positive patients with advanced MRCLS.

Immune checkpoint blockers (ICBs) have revolutionized the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Currently, one-dose-fits-all maximalist regimens have been considered the standard of care, with ICBs administered at flat doses regardless of patients' weight. Treatment duration with ICBs is often arbitrary across stages, ranging from a fixed time point to until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. However, the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of ICBs differ significantly from those of traditional cytotoxic drugs and the approved and selected doses on the basis of the maximum tolerated dose are often overestimated as there is limited evidence supporting a direct relationship between therapeutic intensity and outcomes. This can lead to overtreatment of patients, resulting in an increased risk of toxicity without enhanced efficacy. In addition, the use of these drugs is associated with significant costs that burden the global health care system and exacerbate disparities in access to care. De-escalating treatment by reducing the dose, duration, and frequency of administration of ICBs could optimize treatment efficacy, reduce toxicities, improve patients' quality of life, and even decrease costs. Ultimately, de-escalation strategies may help to reduce treatment inequalities and to improve drug access worldwide. The aim of this review is to summarize and discuss the main issues and challenges regarding the de-escalation of ICBs in patients with NSCLC, focusing on dose-intensity reduction and treatment duration selection. Moreover, we assess the economic impact of implementing de-escalation approaches.