Virtual Library
Start Your Search
T. Cufer
Moderator of
-
+
OA03 - Immunotherapy Checkpoint Inhibitors in Advanced NSCLC (ID 367)
- Event: WCLC 2016
- Type: Oral Session
- Track: Chemotherapy/Targeted Therapy/Immunotherapy
- Presentations: 8
-
+
OA03.01 - First-Line Nivolumab Monotherapy and Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab in Patients with Advanced NSCLC: Long-Term Outcomes from CheckMate 012 (Abstract under Embargo until December 5, 7:00 CET) (ID 5364)
11:00 - 12:30 | Author(s): S.N. Gettinger, N. Rizvi, L.Q. Chow, H. Borghaei, J. Brahmer, F. Shepherd, N.E. Ready, D.E. Gerber, S.J. Antonia, J.W. Goldman, R. Juergens, W.J. Geese, T.C. Young, X. Li, M.D. Hellmann
- Abstract
- Presentation
Background:
Nivolumab, a programmed death 1 (PD-1) immune checkpoint inhibitor antibody, has demonstrated improved efficacy and tolerability vs docetaxel in patients with advanced NSCLC that progressed on or after platinum-based chemotherapy and is approved in >50 countries in this patient population. We report efficacy and safety data from a phase 1 study (CheckMate 012; NCT01454102) evaluating first-line nivolumab in patients with advanced NSCLC.
Methods:
Patients (N=52) with advanced, chemotherapy-naive NSCLC (any histology) were treated with nivolumab monotherapy at 3 mg/kg IV Q2W until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Safety and tolerability was the primary study objective. Efficacy, as measured by objective response rate (ORR) and 24-week progression-free survival (PFS) rate per RECIST v1.1, was the secondary objective. Overall survival (OS) was an exploratory endpoint.
Results:
Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were reported in 71% (any grade) and 19% (grade 3‒4) of patients. The most frequent select TRAEs (those with potential immunologic causes) by category were skin, endocrine, and gastrointestinal (Table). With a median follow-up of 14.3 months (range, 0.2 to 30.1), the confirmed ORR was 23% (12/52) and 8% (4/52) of patients had complete responses. Of the 12 responses, 8 (67%) were ongoing at the time of database lock; median duration of response was not reached. Median OS was 19.4 months (range, 0.2‒35.8+). The 24-week PFS rate was 41% (95% CI: 27‒54); 18-month OS rate was 57% (95% CI: 42‒70). Updated long-term data will be presented, including 2-year OS and will represent the longest follow-up to date for a PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor for first-line advanced NSCLC. Updated data from patients treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab (N = 77) will also be presented.Nivolumab monotherapy (N=52) Safety Any grade / grade 3‒4 TRAEs,[a] n (%) 37 (71) / 10 (19) Any grade / grade 3‒4 select TRAEs,[a,b] by category (≥10% of patients), n (%) Skin 13 (25) / 2 (4) Endocrine 7 (14) / 0 (0) Gastrointestinal 6 (12) / 1 (2) Any grade / grade 3‒4 TRAEs leading to discontinuation, n (%) 6 (12) / 6 (12) Efficacy Confirmed ORR,[c] n (%) [95% CI] 12 (23) [13‒37] CR 4 (8) PR 8 (15) SD 14 (27) PD 20 (38) Unable to determine[d] 6 (12) Median DOR, mo (range) NR (4.2‒25.8+) Ongoing responders, n/N (%) 8/12 (67) Median PFS, mo (range) 3.6 (<0.1+‒28.0+) 24-week PFS, % (95% CI) 41 (27‒54) Median OS, mo (range) 19.4 (0.2‒35.8+) 1-year OS, % (95% CI) 73 (59‒83) 18-month OS, % (95% CI) 57 (42‒70) Efficacy and safety analyses, except for OS, were based on a March 2015 database lock; OS analyses were based on an August 2015 database lock.[a]No grade 5 events were reported.[b]AEs with a potential immunologic cause.[c]Includes patients with initial observations of CR and PR that were subsequently confirmed by repeat scans performed no earlier than 4 weeks after the original observation.[d]Includes patients who discontinued therapy because of disease progression before first assessment or patients only with assessments suggestive of, but that did not satisfy, the required minimum duration for SD. CR = complete response; PR = partial response; SD = stable disease; PD = progressive disease; DOR = duration of response; NR = not reached.
Conclusion:
First-line nivolumab monotherapy in patients with advanced NSCLC had a similar safety profile as previously reported in second-line NSCLC and other tumors, was well tolerated, and demonstrated durable efficacy.
Only Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login, select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout. If you would like to become a member of IASLC, please click here.
-
+
OA03.02 - Atezolizumab as 1L Therapy for Advanced NSCLC in PD-L1–Selected Patients: Updated ORR, PFS and OS Data from the BIRCH Study (ID 4799)
11:00 - 12:30 | Author(s): M.C. Garassino, N. Rizvi, B. Besse, P. Jänne, D. Christoph, S. Peters, C.K. Toh, T. Kurata, E. Carcereny Costa, M. Koczywas, E. Felip, J. Chaft, J. Qiu, M. Kowanetz, S. Coleman, S. Mocci, A. Sandler, S.N. Gettinger, M.L. Johnson
- Abstract
- Presentation
Background:
Atezolizumab, a humanized anti-PDL1 mAb, inhibits the PD-L1/PD-1 pathway to restore tumor-specific T-cell immunity, resulting in durable anti-tumor effects. BIRCH (NCT02031458) is a single-arm Phase II study of atezolizumab monotherapy in PD-L1–selected advanced NSCLC patients, across multiple therapy lines. Primary analyses (median follow-up, 8.5 months) demonstrated a meaningful ORR with durable response in chemotherapy-naive 1L and 2L+ PD-L1–selected patients. Here we report updated efficacy data in 1L patients.
Methods:
1L eligibility criteria included PD-L1–selected, advanced-stage NSCLC with no CNS metastases or prior chemotherapy. PD-L1 was centrally evaluated (VENTANA SP142 IHC assay). Patients expressing PD-L1 on ≥5% of tumor cells (TC) or tumor-infiltrating immune cells (IC), ie, TC2/3 or IC2/3, were enrolled. Patients with EGFR mutation or ALK rearrangement must have had prior TKI treatment. Atezolizumab 1200mg was administered IV q3w until radiographic disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was independent review facility(IRF)-assessed ORR. Secondary endpoints included investigator(INV)-assessed ORR, DOR, PFS (RECIST v1.1) and OS.
Results:
With a median follow-up of 14.6 months, median OS was not reached in TC3 or IC3 patients and was 20.1 months in TC2/3 or IC2/3 (ITT) patients; INV-assessed ORR was 32% and 24%, respectively (Table). Furthermore, ORR was 31% for mutant EGFR (n=13) vs 20% for wild-type EGFR patients (n=104), and 27% for mutant KRAS (n=33) vs 21% for wild-type KRAS patients (n=67). No new safety signals were observed. Updated efficacy (including IRF ORR), safety and exploratory biomarker analyses will be presented.
Conclusion:
With longer follow-up, atezolizumab continued to demonstrate promising efficacy in 1L NSCLC. These results indicate that atezolizumab has durable efficacy in the 1L setting, in EGFR and KRAS mutant and wild-type tumors, and support ongoing Phase III trials evaluating atezolizumab vs chemotherapy in 1L NSCLC.
NE, not estimable.[a ]TC ≥50% or IC ≥10% PD-L1–expressing cells.[b ]TC or IC ≥5% PD-L1–expressing cells.Endpoint(95% CI) TC3 or IC3[a](n=65) TC2/3 or IC2/3[b](n=139) INV ORR, % 32% (21.2–45.1) 24% (16.9–31.7) EGFR mutant/wild-type, % 25%/29% 31%/20% KRAS mutant/wild-type, % 38%/27% 27%/21% mDOR, mo 13.1 (8.5–NE) 13.1 (9.9–17.5) mOS, mo NE (12.0–NE) 20.1 (20.1–NE) 12-mo OS rate, % 61% (48.8–73.8) 66% (57.9–74.5) mPFS, mo 7.3 (4.9–12.0) 7.3 (5.6–9.1) 12-mo PFS rate, % 36% (23.8–48.8) 32% (24.0–40.7)
Only Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login, select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout. If you would like to become a member of IASLC, please click here.
-
+
OA03.03 - JAVELIN Solid Tumor: Safety and Clinical Activity of Avelumab (Anti-PD-L1) as First-Line Treatment in Patients with Advanced NSCLC (Abstract under Embargo until December 5, 7:00 CET) (ID 3717)
11:00 - 12:30 | Author(s): G. Jerusalem, F.L. Chen, D.R. Spigel, N. Iannotti, E.F. McClay, C.H. Redfern, J. Bennouna, M. Taylor, H. Kaufman, K. Kelly, V. Chand, A. Von Heydebreck, C. Verschraegen
- Abstract
- Presentation
Background:
Avelumab* (MSB0010718C) is a fully human anti-PD-L1 IgG1 antibody that has shown antitumour activity in various malignancies. We report safety and clinical activity of avelumab as first-line therapy in a cohort of patients with non-small–cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from a phase 1b trial (NCT01772004).
Methods:
Patients with advanced NSCLC not previously treated systemically for metastatic or recurrent disease, without an activating EGFR mutation or ALK rearrangement, and not preselected for PD-L1 expression, received avelumab 10 mg/kg IV over 1 hour Q2W until progression, unacceptable toxicity, or study withdrawal. Objective response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS) were evaluated by RECIST v1.1. Adverse events (AEs) were graded by NCI-CTCAE v4.0.
Results:
As of 23 Oct 2015, 145 patients had received avelumab (median 10 weeks of treatment; range 2-30) and were followed for a median of 13 weeks (range 0-31). Median age was 70 years (range 41-90), ECOG PS was 0 (31.0%) or 1 (69.0%), and tumour histology was adenocarcinoma (63.4%) or squamous (26.9%) in most patients. Eighty-two patients (56.6%) had a treatment-related (TR) AE; those occurring in ≥10% were infusion-related reaction (IRR; n=24, 16.6%) and fatigue (n=21, 14.5%). Thirteen patients (9.0%) had a grade ≥3 TRAE; only IRR and fatigue occurred in >1 patient (each n=3, 2.1%). Four patients (2.8%) had a potential immune-mediated TRAE, all grade 1-2 (pneumonitis n=3, 2.1%; hypothyroidism n=1, 0.7%). There were no treatment-related deaths. Among 75 patients with ≥3 months’ follow-up, unconfirmed ORR was 18.7% (95% CI: 10.6, 29.3) based on 1 complete response and 13 partial responses; 12 were ongoing. Thirty-four additional patients (45.3%) had stable disease as best response (disease control rate 64.0%). Updated analysis will be presented, including efficacy data with ≥3 months’ follow-up in all patients and PD-L1 analysis.
Conclusion:
First-line avelumab monotherapy showed clinical activity and was well-tolerated in patients with EGFR-wildtype/ALK-negative NSCLC unselected for PD-L1 expression. A phase 3 trial of avelumab vs platinum-doublet in first-line NSCLC is in progress. *Proposed nonproprietary name.
Only Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login, select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout. If you would like to become a member of IASLC, please click here.
-
+
OA03.04 - Discussant for OA03.01, OA03.02, OA03.03 (ID 6946)
11:00 - 12:30 | Author(s): E.B. Garon
- Abstract
- Presentation
Abstract not provided
Only Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login, select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout. If you would like to become a member of IASLC, please click here.
-
+
OA03.05 - Analysis of Early Survival in Patients with Advanced Non-Squamous NSCLC Treated with Nivolumab vs Docetaxel in CheckMate 057 (Abstract under Embargo until December 5, 7:00 CET) (ID 4392)
11:00 - 12:30 | Author(s): S. Peters, F. Cappuzzo, L. Horn, L. Paz-Arez, H. Borghaei, F. Barlesi, M. Steins, E. Felip, D.R. Spigel, C. Dorange, H. Lu, D. Healey, T. Kong Sanchez, P. Bhagavatheeswaran, J. Novotny Jr., B. Lestini, J. Brahmer
- Abstract
- Presentation
Background:
Nivolumab significantly improved OS versus docetaxel in patients with previously treated advanced non-squamous NSCLC (CheckMate 057; NCT01673867). Kaplan−Meier OS curves for nivolumab and docetaxel crossed at ~7 months, suggesting non-proportional hazards between arms.
Methods:
Post-hoc analyses were conducted to explore relationships between baseline patient/disease characteristics, including PD-L1 expression, and death within the first 3 months of treatment (3motx). Additionally, the association between PD-L1 expression level and magnitude of clinical benefit was explored.
Results:
During the first 3motx, risk of death (rDt) was numerically higher with nivolumab versus docetaxel (59 versus 44 deaths among 292 and 290 patients, respectively). Early deaths were most commonly attributed to disease progression (no treatment-related deaths occurred). At 3motx, 80% of nivolumab-treated patients (233/292) and 85% of docetaxel-treated patients (246/290) were alive. After 3motx, the rDt was consistently higher in the docetaxel arm. In univariate analyses, no single baseline factor, including PD-L1 expression, EGFR mutation, ECOG PS, or smoking status, reliably characterized the rDt within the first 3motx with nivolumab. Among patients alive >3 months, the OS HR (95% CI) favored nivolumab in the overall population (0.59 [0.47−0.74]) and PD-L1 non-expressors (PD-L1 expression <1%; 0.66 [0.45−0.97]). In a multivariate analysis, factors associated with higher rDt within the first 3motx on nivolumab versus docetaxel were ECOG PS=1, time since last treatment <3 months, and/or progressive disease as best response to prior treatment combined with lower or no PD-L1 expression. However, the majority of nivolumab-treated patients with these attributes (including PD-L1 non-expressors), did not die within the first 3motx and experienced subsequent benefit. PD-L1 expression was a continuum, ranging from 1 to 100%, with increasing expression associated with enhanced ORR/OS benefit from nivolumab.
Conclusion:
In CheckMate 057, the benefit−risk profile of nivolumab versus docetaxel was favorable across the overall patient population. During the first 3motx, a small difference in the number of deaths (n=15) was observed; thereafter the OS rate consistently favored nivolumab (2-year OS was >2-fold higher with nivolumab versus docetaxel). Patients with poorer prognostic factors and/or more aggressive disease combined with lower or no PD-L1 expression appeared to be at higher rDt within the first 3motx on nivolumab versus docetaxel. With the exception of PD-L1 status, these are recognized prognostic factors. While PD-L1 expression may help inform individual treatment decisions, PD-L1 status alone is not considered an appropriate biomarker for nivolumab treatment selection in pre-treated advanced NSCLC, but rather should be considered in the context of other patient/disease characteristics.
Only Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login, select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout. If you would like to become a member of IASLC, please click here.
-
+
OA03.06 - Evaluation of Toxicity Profile of PD-1 versus PD-L1 Inhibitors in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) (ID 6073)
11:00 - 12:30 | Author(s): R.N. Pillai, M. Behera, T.K. Owonikoko, A.O. Kamphorst, S. Pakkala, C.P. Belani, F.R. Khuri, R. Ahmed, S.S. Ramalingam
- Abstract
- Presentation
Background:
Monoclonal antibodies against Programmed Death 1 (PD-1) and Programmed Death Ligand 1 (PD-L1) have emerged as effective therapies in NSCLC. We updated our initial systematic review of trials investigating differences in the toxicities of PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors.
Methods:
An electronic literature search was performed of public databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE) and conference proceedings for trials utilizing PD-1 inhibitors (nivolumab, pembrolizumab) and PD-L1 inhibitors (atezolizumab, durvalumab, avelumab) in NSCLC patients. Studies that did not report toxicities were excluded. A formal meta-analysis was conducted with Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software (Version 2.2). Clinical and demographic characteristics, response, and toxicity data were compared between the two groups.
Results:
Twenty-two studies reported between 2013-2016 were eligible for this analysis. The total number of patients evaluated for toxicities were 2,863 patients in the PD-1 group and 2,006 patients in the PD-L1 group. Patient characteristics % (PD-1/PD-L1): median age 64/65, male 58/56, smokers 82/83, squamous histology 25/32, performance status 0-1 98/100. There was no difference in response rate between PD-1 (17%) and PD-L1 (18%) inhibitors, p=0.3. The incidence of overall adverse events (AEs), immune related AEs, and pneumonitis trended in favor of the PD-L1 group but did not reach statistical significance (see table). Figure 1
Conclusion:
In this updated systematic review involving 4,869 patients, the toxicity profiles of PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors in NSCLC patients are not significantly different.
Only Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login, select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout. If you would like to become a member of IASLC, please click here.
-
+
OA03.07 - KEYNOTE-010: Durable Clinical Benefit in Patients with Previously Treated, PD-L1-Expressing NSCLC Who Completed Pembrolizumab (ID 6769)
11:00 - 12:30 | Author(s): R. Herbst, E.B. Garon, D. Kim, B.C. Cho, S.M. Gadgeel, H. Léna, A. Gúrpide, J. Han, C. Dubos Arvis, M. Majem, M. Forster, I. Monnet, S. Novello, H. Saka, Z. Szalai, M.A. Gubens, W. Su, G.M. Lubiniecki, Y. Shentu, G.L. Ferraro, P. Baas
- Abstract
- Presentation
Background:
Checkpoint inhibitors such as the anti–PD-1 monoclonal antibody pembrolizumab have demonstrated antitumor activity and a manageable safety profile in several advanced malignancies. Although checkpoint inhibitors are rapidly becoming a standard-of-care therapy in multiple tumor types, the optimal treatment duration has not been established. We assessed outcomes in patients who completed the maximum 24 months of pembrolizumab in the phase 3 KEYNOTE-010 study (NCT01905657), in which pembrolizumab provided superior OS over docetaxel in patients with previously treated, PD-L1–expressing advanced NSCLC.
Methods:
1034 patients with advanced NSCLC that progressed after ≥2 cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy (and an appropriate therapy for targetable EGFR and ALK aberrations if present) and had a PD-L1 tumor proportion score ≥1% were randomized 1:1:1 to pembrolizumab 2 or 10 mg/kg Q3W or to docetaxel 75 mg/m[2] until disease progression, intolerable toxicity, or physician or patient decision; the maximum duration of pembrolizumab was 24 months of uninterrupted treatment or 35 cycles, whichever was later. Response was assessed per RECIST v1.1 by independent central review every 9 weeks. After completion of 24 months/35 cycles, patients continued to undergo imaging every 9 weeks; patients with subsequent disease progression were eligible for a second treatment course if they did not receive other anticancer therapy after stopping pembrolizumab.
Results:
In the overall population, median OS was longer (10.5 months for pembrolizumab Q2W, 13.4 months for pembrolizumab Q3W, and 8.6 months for docetaxel) and 24-month OS rates were higher (30.1%, 37.5%, and 14.5%, respectively) with pembrolizumab compared with docetaxel. Of the 691 patients allocated to pembrolizumab, 47 patients received 35 cycles of pembrolizumab and were included in this analysis. As of the September 30, 2016 data cutoff date, all patients had completed all 35 cycles of treatment, but one withdrew from the study treatment after completing 35 cycles. Best overall response (ORR) among these 47 patients was complete response (CR) in 3 (6%) patients and partial response (PR) in 39 (83%) patients, for an ORR of 89%; 5 (11%) patients experienced stable disease (SD). Two of these patients experienced disease progression since stopping pembrolizumab and two of these patients resumed pembrolizumab therapy. As of the cutoff date, none of the 47 patients had died.
Conclusion:
With long-term follow-up, the OS benefit has been maintained and pembrolizumab continues to demonstrate superiority over docetaxel. Pembrolizumab provides durable clinical benefit with few patients progressing after completing two years of therapy.
Only Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login, select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout. If you would like to become a member of IASLC, please click here.
-
+
OA03.08 - Discussant for OA03.05, OA03.06, OA03.07 (ID 7009)
11:00 - 12:30 | Author(s): P. Mitchell
- Abstract
- Presentation
Abstract not provided
Only Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login, select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout. If you would like to become a member of IASLC, please click here.
Author of
-
+
MA08 - Treatment Monitoring in Advanced NSCLC (ID 386)
- Event: WCLC 2016
- Type: Mini Oral Session
- Track: Advanced NSCLC
- Presentations: 1
- Moderators:R. Perez-Soler, T. Reungwetwattana
- Coordinates: 12/06/2016, 11:00 - 12:30, Lehar 3-4
-
+
MA08.09 - Monitoring Plasma EGFR Mutations during First Line Treatment with EGFR TKIs in NSCLC Patients (ID 4547)
11:00 - 12:30 | Author(s): T. Cufer
- Abstract
- Presentation
Background:
Genotyping cell free circulating DNA (cfDNA) is a non-invasive method of detecting EGFR mutations (EGFRmu) in plasma and may provide an option to identify patients who progress while treated with EGFR TKIs. The aim of our study was to monitor plasma EGFRmu and identify dynamic case specific changes in plasma EGFRmu during routine treatment of advanced EGFRmu NSCLC patients.
Methods:
Plasma was collected from patients with advanced EGFRmu NSCLC treated with first- or second-generation EGFR TKIs. Plasma EGFRmu were dynamically monitored consecutively at every scheduled visit. Cobas EGFR Mutation Test v1 and v2 (Roche, USA) was used to detect 42 mutations at EGFR gene in exons 18 to 21. Liquid biopsy progression (LBP) was determined as reappearance of EGFRmu in plasma after negativisation during treatment or increase of EGFRmu levels expressed by semi-quantitative index (SQI). Radiologic progression was determined in accordance with RECIST1.1 criteria.
Results:
From May 2014, 23 patients were treated with EGFR TKIs for advanced EGFRmu NSCLC; 20/23 had detectable activating mutations in plasma before any treatment and were therefore included in our analysis. Dynamic changes of plasma EGFRmu during 1[st] line EGFR TKI treatment are shown in Figure 1. Eight patients (40%) experienced RECIST 1.1 progression while on treatment, whereas one patient was inevaluable. In 4/8 patients (50%) LBP appeared at the same time as radiologic progression, in 3/8 patients (37%) LBP appeared before radiologic progression (8w, 14w, 20w before, respectively) and in 1 patient (12%) radiologic progression appeared 6w before LBP. Among patients who did not experience radiologic progression yet, some dynamic changes in cfDNA were also observed, but alterations in the SQI values were much smaller. Figure 1
Conclusion:
Monitoring EGFR mutations in plasma is a feasible and less invasive method in routine clinical practice and could be used as a predictive marker of progression on treatment with EGFR TKIs.
Only Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login, select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout. If you would like to become a member of IASLC, please click here.
-
+
NU03 - Supporting Patients Receiving Treatment (ID 275)
- Event: WCLC 2016
- Type: Nurses Session
- Track: Nurses
- Presentations: 1
- Moderators:V. Beattie, M. Duffy
- Coordinates: 12/06/2016, 11:00 - 12:30, Schubert 5
-
+
NU03.03 - Supportive Care in Patients Receiving Systemic Therapy (ID 6468)
11:00 - 12:30 | Author(s): T. Cufer
- Abstract
- Presentation
Abstract:
Introduction Systemic therapy (ST) with chemotherapy (Cht), targeted agents or immunotherapy (IT) represents the mainstay therapy for patients with advanced lung cancer; while adjuvant systemic therapy is recommended in a majority of patients with operable and locally advanced disease. The goal of ST is to prolong life without compromising quality of life (QoL). Despite the ability of ST to prolong life or even cure patients, QoL and life span might be compromised due treatment toxicity. In addition, uncontrolled adverse events (AEs) might lead to treatment interruption or discontinuation. Therefore, effective management of adverse events of anti-cancer drugs, the so-called “supportive care to systemic therapy” is extremely important for a true benefit, i.e. treatment effectiveness in a routine practice. During the last decade several improvements in prevention, treatment and amelioration of ST AEs been achieved. To implement them in everyday clinic practice a good understanding of adverse events, supportive care measures and professional skills of all team members are needed. Registered nurses, specialized in the oncology, the so called “oncology nurses” are key providers of supportive care in everyday clinical practice. Supportive care for prevention and treatment of adverse events Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) has been a priority in the supportive care of cancer patients ever since the first use of Cht (1). The introduction of 5-HT3 and NK1 antagonists into anti-emetic therapy resulted in much better control of CINV in lung cancer patients receiving highly emetogenic, platinum-based therapy. With proper use of available drugs complete control of vomiting could be achieved in up to 90% of these patients. However, despite the efficacy of new anti-emetic therapies a proper us of anti-emetics and other preventive measures are vital. Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia with febrile neutropenia (FN) as its ultimate and most serious complication are often observed in patients receiving Cht. The risk of FN can be predicted by assessing patient characteristics and mylotoxicity of the Cht regimen; and granulocyte-colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF) can be used to prevent it (2). Even thought, most of the regimens for lung cancer do not classify to high, i.e. more than 20% risk of febrile neutropenia, the primary prophylaxis with G-CSF is often necessary due to high comorbidity index, poor PS or extensive disease often present in lung cancer patients. In case of FN, a risk-base approach provided by MASCC helps us to decide which patients need hospitalization and which can be treated by antimicrobial therapy at home (3). Oral mucositis and diarrhea related to mucosal damage are frequent complications of Cht as well as targeted therapy with TKIs that can significantly affect patient’s QoL and the ability to deliver full doses and complete therapy. Oral care protocols are essential components in prevention and treatment of stomatitis, while intensive local therapy protocols with antibiotics, anesthetics and/or corticosteroids help to ameliorative symptoms (4). Diarrhea is quite common in lung cancer patients receiving Cht with an even higher occurrence in patients treated with TKIs (5). It could be life threatening in elderly, fragile patients and in patients with concurrent neutropenia, thus requiring a rapid and effective control. When dietary strategy does not work, or when patients present with severe grade 3/4 diarrhea pharmacologic intervention with loperamide or even somatostatin analogues should be initiated quickly. Skin changes (rash, dry skin, paronychia) are the most frequent AEs associated with targeted therapy for lung cancer next to diarrhea. Even though, they are usually mild or moderate they hava negative impact on patient’s QoL and might lead to dose modifications or even discontinuation. Prophylactic measures with regular use of moisturizing products, sunshine protection and careful skin hygiene are necessary. In case of severe but still localized changes topical corticosteroids/antibiotics are indicated while a severe and prolonged toxicity usually requires TKIs dose interruptions (6). Fatigue is a common symptom reported in up to 80% of LC patients. In most cases it is impossible to distinguish to what extend it is the adverse event of ST and to what of disease. It is increasingly reported in patients receiving targeted therapy or immunotherapy, and major improvements in recognition and treatment of fatigue have been achieved recently (7). Immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) represents a novel approach. By breaking of immune self-tolerance it might lead to autoimmune/inflammatory adverse events, designated as immune-related adverse events (irAEs), mainly including rash, diarrhea, hepatitis and endocrinopathies (8). Although most of irAEs are of low grade, some of them progress rapidly and prompt medical attention with treatment interruption and the administration of glucocorticoids is critical. Implications for nursing Oncology nurses should have in-depth knowledge on adverse events of systemic therapy and must be familiar with the supportive care protocols. Nursing interventions for prevention and treatment of particular adverse events are presented in Table 1. Oncology nurses play a key role in continuous education of patients, their families and caregivers on adverse events. They are valuable members of the multidisciplinary team performing ongoing assessment of AEs and monitoring of patients and actively discussing potential solutions and improvements with other team members, thus providing a high-quality patient-centered care. Figure 1
Only Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login, select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout. If you would like to become a member of IASLC, please click here.
-
+
P1.02 - Poster Session with Presenters Present (ID 454)
- Event: WCLC 2016
- Type: Poster Presenters Present
- Track: Biology/Pathology
- Presentations: 1
- Moderators:
- Coordinates: 12/05/2016, 14:30 - 15:45, Hall B (Poster Area)
-
+
P1.02-008 - 2-Year Single Institution Experience with EGFR Plasma Testing in Advanced NSCLC (ID 4281)
14:30 - 15:45 | Author(s): T. Cufer
- Abstract
Background:
Lung adenocarcinoma patients in advanced stage of disease that harbor EGFR sensitizing mutations are eligible for treatment with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) due to a high likelihood of response. Most patients will ultimately develop resistance at disease progression. The T790M mutation is a dominant resistance mechanism to TKI. EGFR plasma testing enables non-invasive monitoring and detection of T790M. We followed patients with EGFR sensitizing mutations by measuring EGFR mutations in plasma during TKI treatment.
Methods:
We analyzed patients who were diagnosed lung adenocarcinoma stage IV, detected EGFR sensitizing mutations in tumor tissue samples and treated with TKI at University Clinic Golnik. We collected baseline plasma samples prior to TKI treatment and consecutive plasma samples at different time intervals after initiation of therapy. At the beginning, two separate tests, cobas® EGFR Mutation Test for tissue (CE-IVD) and plasma (under development) were used, and since October 2015 one test for tissue and plasma, cobas® EGFR Mutation Test v2 (Roche, Pleasanton, CA, USA) is used. Detected EGFR mutations in plasma samples were expressed as semi-quantitative index (SQI) which reflects a proportion of mutated versus wild-type copies of the EGFR gene.
Results:
During 2-year period we collected 414 peripheral blood samples from 63 patients and performed 619 EGFR plasma tests. There are 25 patients with baseline and serial follow-up EGFR plasma tests, 16 patients with only serial follow-up EGFR tests since they started with TKI treatment before EGFR plasma testing was available, 5 patients are included in adjuvant setting, and 17 patients had no monitoring due to various reasons. Maximum number of EGFR plasma tests done per patient was 27 at 20 time-points. When introducing EGFR plasma testing, we prepared two aliquots of plasma out of 10 ml blood sample in EDTA-tubes and run test for both aliquots. Results of reproducibility study showed 95% concordance rate between both aliquots and thus we modified protocol to run the second aliquot only if the first one was negative. At disease progression, reappearance of EGFR sensitizing mutations with increasing SQI levels was detected. In 14 patients who progressed we detected T790M mutation, in 10 of them during monitoring TKI treatment. We also observed daily variation in EGFR mutation levels in the plasma.
Conclusion:
These data support the value of EGFR plasma testing to monitor the patient`s response to TKI and detect T790M resistance mutation prior to clinical progression in a routine clinical setting.
