METHODS: This retrospective study of patients with NSCLC from 18 major hospitals (public, private or university teaching hospitals) enrolled in Malaysia's National Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgical Database (NCTSD) assessed the efficacy of lower doses of afatinib on treatment outcomes in a real-world clinical practice. Data on clinical characteristics, afatinib dosing, and treatment outcomes for patients included in NCTSD from 1st January 2015 to 31st December 2020 were analyzed.
RESULTS: Of the 133 patients studied, 94.7% had adenocarcinoma. Majority of the patients (60.9%) had EGFR exon 19 deletion and 23.3% had EGFR exon 21 L858R point mutation. The mean age of patients was 64.1 years and majority (83.5%) had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2-4 at diagnosis. The most common afatinib starting doses were 40 mg (37.6%), 30 mg (29.3%), and 20 mg (26.3%) once daily (OD), respectively. A quarter of patients had dose reduction (23.3%) due to side effects or cost constraints. Majority of the patients had partial response to afatinib (63.2%) whilst 2.3% had complete response. Interestingly, the objective response rate was significantly higher (72.3%) with afatinib OD doses of less than 40 mg compared to 40 mg (54.0%) (P=0.032). Patients on lower doses of afatinib were two times more likely to achieve an objective response [odds ratio =2.64; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.20-5.83; P=0.016]. These patients had a numerically but not statistically longer median time to treatment failure (TTF). Median TTF (95% CI) for the overall cohort was 12.4 (10.02-14.78) months. Median overall survival (95% CI) was 21.30 (15.86-26.75) months.
CONCLUSIONS: Lower afatinib doses (<40 mg OD) could be equally effective as standard dose in patients with EGFR-mutant advanced NSCLC and may be more suited to Asian patients, minimizing side effects that may occur at higher dosages of afatinib leading to dose interruptions and affecting treatment outcomes.
METHODS: EMPOWER-Lung 1 was a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial. We enrolled patients (aged ≥18 years) with histologically confirmed squamous or non-squamous advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with PD-L1 tumour expression of 50% or more. We randomly assigned (1:1) patients to intravenous cemiplimab 350 mg every 3 weeks for up to 108 weeks, or until disease progression, or investigator's choice of chemotherapy. Central randomisation scheme generated by an interactive web response system governed the randomisation process that was stratified by histology and geographical region. Primary endpoints were overall survival and progression free survival, as assessed by a blinded independent central review (BICR) per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1. Patients with disease progression on cemiplimab could continue cemiplimab with the addition of up to four cycles of chemotherapy. We assessed response in these patients by BICR against a new baseline, defined as the last scan before chemotherapy initiation. The primary endpoints were assessed in all randomly assigned participants (ie, intention-to-treat population) and in those with a PD-L1 expression of at least 50%. We assessed adverse events in all patients who received at least one dose of their assigned treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03088540.
FINDINGS: Between May 29, 2017, and March 4, 2020, we recruited 712 patients (607 [85%] were male and 105 [15%] were female). We randomly assigned 357 (50%) to cemiplimab and 355 (50%) to chemotherapy. 284 (50%) patients assigned to cemiplimab and 281 (50%) assigned to chemotherapy had verified PD-L1 expression of at least 50%. At 35 months' follow-up, among those with a verified PD-L1 expression of at least 50% median overall survival in the cemiplimab group was 26·1 months (95% CI 22·1-31·8; 149 [52%] of 284 died) versus 13·3 months (10·5-16·2; 188 [67%] of 281 died) in the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·57, 95% CI 0·46-0·71; p<0·0001), median progression-free survival was 8·1 months (95% CI 6·2-8·8; 214 events occurred) in the cemiplimab group versus 5·3 months (4·3-6·1; 236 events occurred) in the chemotherapy group (HR 0·51, 95% CI 0·42-0·62; p<0·0001). Continued cemiplimab plus chemotherapy as second-line therapy (n=64) resulted in a median progression-free survival of 6·6 months (6·1-9·3) and overall survival of 15·1 months (11·3-18·7). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events were anaemia (15 [4%] of 356 patients in the cemiplimab group vs 60 [17%] of 343 in the control group), neutropenia (three [1%] vs 35 [10%]), and pneumonia (18 [5%] vs 13 [4%]). Treatment-related deaths occurred in ten (3%) of 356 patients treated with cemiplimab (due to autoimmune myocarditis, cardiac failure, cardio-respiratory arrest, cardiopulmonary failure, septic shock, tumour hyperprogression, nephritis, respiratory failure, [n=1 each] and general disorders or unknown [n=2]) and in seven (2%) of 343 patients treated with chemotherapy (due to pneumonia and pulmonary embolism [n=2 each], and cardiac arrest, lung abscess, and myocardial infarction [n=1 each]). The safety profile of cemiplimab at 35 months, and of continued cemiplimab plus chemotherapy, was generally consistent with that previously observed for these treatments, with no new safety signals INTERPRETATION: At 35 months' follow-up, the survival benefit of cemiplimab for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer was at least as pronounced as at 1 year, affirming its use as first-line monotherapy for this population. Adding chemotherapy to cemiplimab at progression might provide a new second-line treatment for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.
FUNDING: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Sanofi.
METHODS: The video was developed using the BC delay explanatory model. A self-administered pre- and post-survey on 241 newly diagnosed BC patients in University Malaya Medical Center was performed. The Wilcoxon matched paired signed rank test was used to evaluate patients' pre and post perceived knowledge using a Likert scale 0 to 4 (0 = "no knowledge," 4 = "a great degree of knowledge"). Treatment adherence among participants were measured after 1-year follow-up.
RESULTS: Eighty percent of the patients reported that the video met or exceeded their expectations. In total 80.5% reported that the video was very effective and effective in improving their perspective on BC treatments. There was improvement in perceived knowledge for treatment options (mean scores; M = 0.93 versus M = 2.97) (p < 0.001) and also for perceived knowledge on types of operation, information on chemotherapy, radiotherapy, hormone therapy, healthy diet, physical activity after treatments, and care of the arm after operation(p < 0.001). In total 89.4%, 79.3%, and 85.9% adhered to surgical, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy recommended treatment, respectively.
CONCLUSION: The video improved patients' perceived knowledge and satisfaction. The program improved access not only to new BC patients but also the public and found sustainable using the YouTube platform.
METHOD: Twenty focus group discussions were conducted with 102 cancer patients from diverse ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds. Thematic analyses were performed.
RESULTS: Patient narratives suggested that emotional distress arose from direct and indirect stressors. Direct stressors comprised physical and cognitive side effects of cancer surgery and therapies, and fear of recurrence. Indirect stressors included worry over dependent family members, financial distress following cancer, working with cancer and lack of practical support at home. Distress from altered physical appearances, fear of recurrence and lack of practical support were mainly raised by women, implying that men and women may have disproportionate emotional needs. Emotional support largely came from informal sources including self, family, friends and religion. While formal emotional support from professional counsellors and cancer support groups was acknowledged as important, it appeared to be largely lacking. Unmet needs in coping with fear of recurrence, financial distress, workplace discrimination and household chores were particularly highlighted.
CONCLUSION: The unmet needs revealed in this study provide insights to initiate actionable changes to improve the emotional wellbeing of people living with cancer in settings where cancer survivorship services are still in its infancy.
METHODS: The Mainstreaming Genetic Counselling for Ovarian Cancer Patients (MaGiC) study is a prospective, two-arm observational study comparing oncologist-led and genetics-led counselling. This study included 790 multiethnic patients with ovarian cancer from 23 sites in Malaysia. We compared the impact of different method of delivery of genetic counselling on the uptake of genetic testing and assessed the feasibility, knowledge and satisfaction of patients with ovarian cancer.
RESULTS: Oncologists were satisfied with the mainstreaming experience, with 95% indicating a desire to incorporate testing into their clinical practice. The uptake of genetic testing was similar in the mainstreaming and genetics arm (80% and 79%, respectively). Patient satisfaction was high, whereas decision conflict and psychological impact were low in both arms of the study. Notably, decisional conflict, although lower than threshold, was higher for the mainstreaming group compared with the genetics arm. Overall, 13.5% of patients had a pathogenic variant in BRCA1 or BRCA2, and there was no difference between psychosocial measures for carriers in both arms.
CONCLUSION: The MaGiC study demonstrates that mainstreaming cancer genetics is feasible in low-resource and middle-resource Asian setting and increased coverage for genetic testing.
METHODS: ASCO convened a multidisciplinary, multinational Expert Panel that reviewed existing guidelines and conducted a modified ADAPTE process and a formal consensus process with additional experts for one round of formal ratings.
RESULTS: Existing sets of guidelines from 12 guideline developers were identified and reviewed; adapted recommendations from six guidelines form the evidence base and provide evidence to inform the formal consensus process, which resulted in agreement of 75% or more on all recommendations.
RECOMMENDATIONS: For nonmaximal settings, the recommended treatments for colon cancer stages nonobstructing, I-IIA: in basic and limited, open resection; in enhanced, adequately trained surgeons and laparoscopic or minimally invasive surgery, unless contraindicated. Treatments for IIB-IIC: in basic and limited, open en bloc resection following standard oncologic principles, if not possible, transfer to higher-level facility; in emergency, limit to life-saving procedures; in enhanced, laparoscopic en bloc resection, if not possible, then open. Treatments for obstructing, IIB-IIC: in basic, resection and/or diversion; in limited or enhanced, emergency surgical resection. Treatment for IIB-IIC with left-sided: in enhanced, may place colonic stent. Treatment for T4N0/T3N0 high-risk features or stage II high-risk obstructing: in enhanced, may offer adjuvant chemotherapy. Treatment for rectal cancer cT1N0 and cT2n0: in basic, limited, or enhanced, total mesorectal excision principles. Treatment for cT3n0: in basic and limited, total mesorectal excision, if not, diversion. Treatment for high-risk patients who did not receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy: in basic, limited, or enhanced, may offer adjuvant therapy. Treatment for resectable cT3N0 rectal cancer: in enhanced, base neoadjuvant chemotherapy on preoperative factors. For post-treatment surveillance, a combination of medical history, physical examination, carcinoembryonic antigen testing, imaging, and endoscopy is performed. Frequency depends on setting. Maximal setting recommendations are in the guideline. Additional information can be found at www.asco.org/resource-stratified-guidelines .
NOTICE: It is the view of the American Society of Clinical Oncology that health care providers and health care system decision makers should be guided by the recommendations for the highest stratum of resources available. The guidelines are intended to complement but not replace local guidelines.
METHODS: American Society of Clinical Oncology convened a multidisciplinary, multinational panel of medical oncology, surgical oncology, surgery, gastroenterology, health technology assessment, cancer epidemiology, pathology, radiology, radiation oncology, and patient advocacy experts. The Expert Panel reviewed existing guidelines and conducted a modified ADAPTE process and a formal consensus-based process with additional experts (Consensus Ratings Group) for two round(s) of formal ratings.
RESULTS: Existing sets of guidelines from eight guideline developers were identified and reviewed; adapted recommendations form the evidence base. These guidelines, along with cost-effectiveness analyses, provided evidence to inform the formal consensus process, which resulted in agreement of 75% or more.
CONCLUSION: In nonmaximal settings, for people who are asymptomatic, are ages 50 to 75 years, have no family history of colorectal cancer, are at average risk, and are in settings with high incidences of colorectal cancer, the following screening options are recommended: guaiac fecal occult blood test and fecal immunochemical testing (basic), flexible sigmoidoscopy (add option in limited), and colonoscopy (add option in enhanced). Optimal reflex testing strategy for persons with positive screens is as follows: endoscopy; if not available, barium enema (basic or limited). Management of polyps in enhanced is as follows: colonoscopy, polypectomy; if not suitable, then surgical resection. For workup and diagnosis of people with symptoms, physical exam with digital rectal examination, double contrast barium enema (only in basic and limited); colonoscopy; flexible sigmoidoscopy with biopsy (if contraindication to latter) or computed tomography colonography if contraindications to two endoscopies (enhanced only).
METHODS: In a double-blind, phase III trial, 453 patients with advanced HCC and progression during or after treatment with or intolerance to sorafenib or oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive pembrolizumab (200 mg) or placebo once every 3 weeks for ≤ 35 cycles plus best supportive care. The primary end point was overall survival (one-sided significance threshold, P = .0193 [final analysis]). Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR; one-sided significance threshold, P = .0134 and .0091, respectively [second interim analysis]; RECIST version 1.1, by blinded independent central review).
RESULTS: Median overall survival was longer in the pembrolizumab group than in the placebo group (14.6 v 13.0 months; hazard ratio for death, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.63 to 0.99; P = .0180). Median PFS was also longer in the pembrolizumab group than in the placebo group (2.6 v 2.3 months; hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.92; P = .0032). ORR was greater in the pembrolizumab group (12.7% [95% CI, 9.1 to 17.0]) than in the placebo group (1.3% [95% CI, 0.2 to 4.6]; P < .0001). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 66.9% of patients (grade 3, 12.0%; grade 4, 1.3%; grade 5, 1.0%) in the pembrolizumab group and 49.7% of patients (grade 3, 5.9%; grade 4, 0%; grade 5, 0%) in the placebo group.
CONCLUSION: In patients from Asia with previously treated advanced HCC, pembrolizumab significantly prolonged overall survival and PFS, and ORR was greater versus placebo.
METHODS: Focus group discussions were conducted with cancer patients who were diagnosed at least 1 year prior to recruitment, and either had paid work, were self-employed, currently unemployed, or currently retired (N = 66).
RESULTS: Three main themes were identified: (1) loss of income: While some participants were entitled for a 1-year cancer-specific sick leave, many other participants recounted having insufficient paid sick leave, forcing them to take prolonged unpaid leave to complete treatment; (2) dealing with side effects of cancer and its treatment: The need for workplace accommodations was highlighted including flexible working hours, lighter workloads, and dedicated rest areas to enable patients to cope better; (3) Discrimination and stigma at workplace: Some participants mentioned being passed over on a promotion, getting demoted, or being forced to resign once their cancer diagnosis was disclosed, highlighting an urgent need to destigmatize cancer in the workplace.
CONCLUSION: In settings with limited employment protection policies, a cancer diagnosis severely impacts the working experiences of patients, leading to financial loss. Urgent interventions and legislative reforms are needed in these settings to address the unmet employment needs of cancer survivors.
IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: This study may facilitate planning of local solutions to fulfill the unmet employment needs following cancer, such as return-to-work navigation services.