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: Six key sections were chosen: (1) high-risk localized and locally advanced prostate cancer, (2) oligometastatic prostate cancer, (3) castration-naïve prostate cancer, (4) castrate resistant prostate cancer, (5) use of osteoclast-targeted therapy and (6) global access to prostate cancer drugs. There were 101 consensus questions, consisting of 91 questions from APCCC 2017 and 10 new questions from MyAPCCC 2018, selected and modified by the steering committee; of which, 23 questions were assessed in both ideal world and real-world settings. A panel of 22 experts, comprising of 11 urologists and 11 oncologists, voted on 101 predefined questions anonymously. Final voting results were compared with the APCCC 2017 outcomes.
RESULTS: Most voting results from the MyAPCCC 2018 were consistent with the APCCC 2017 outcomes. No consensus was achieved for controversial topics with little level I evidence, such as management of oligometastatic disease. No consensus was reached on using high-cost drugs in castration-naïve or castration-resistant metastatic prostate cancer in real-world settings. All panellists recommended using generic drugs when available.
CONCLUSIONS: The MyAPCCC 2018 voting results reflect the management of advanced prostate cancer in a middle-income country in a real-world setting. These results may serve as a guide for local clinical practices and highlight the financial challenges in modern healthcare.
METHODS: The phase 3 LASER301 study evaluated lazertinib efficacy and safety in treatment-naive patients with EGFR-mutated (exon 19 deletion or L858R) locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC. Patients were randomized one-to-one and received either lazertinib or gefitinib. The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. Secondary end points included overall survival, objective response rate, duration of response, and safety.
RESULTS: Between February 13, 2020, and July 29, 2022, among 258 patients of Asian descent, the median progression-free survival was significantly longer with lazertinib than gefitinib (20.6 versus 9.7 mo; hazard ratio: 0.46; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.34-0.63, p < 0.001), and the benefit was consistent across predefined subgroups (exon 19 deletion, L858R, baseline central nervous system metastases). Objective response rate and disease control rates were similar between treatment groups. The median duration of response was 19.4 months (95% CI: 16.6-24.9) versus 9.6 months (95% CI: 6.9-12.4) in the lazertinib versus gefitinib group. Adverse event rates in Asian patients were comparable with the overall LASER301 population. Adverse events leading to discontinuation in the lazertinib and gefitinib groups were 13% and 12%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: In LASER301, efficacy and safety results in Asian patients were consistent with the overall population. Lazertinib exhibited better efficacy than gefitinib in Asian patients with a tolerable safety profile.
METHODS: Treatment-naive patients with EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC were randomized one-to-one to lazertinib (240 mg/d) or gefitinib (250 mg/d). Patients with asymptomatic or stable CNS metastases were included if any planned radiation, surgery, or steroids were completed more than 2 weeks before randomization. For patients with CNS metastases confirmed at screening or subsequently suspected, CNS imaging was performed every 6 weeks for 18 months, then every 12 weeks. End points assessed by blinded independent central review and Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 included intracranial progression-free survival, intracranial objective response rate, and intracranial duration of response.
RESULTS: Of the 393 patients enrolled in LASER301, 86 (lazertinib, n = 45; gefitinib, n = 41) had measurable and or non-measurable baseline CNS metastases. The median intracranial progression-free survival in the lazertinib group was 28.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 14.8-28.2) versus 8.4 months (95% CI: 6.7-not reached [NR]) in the gefitinib group (hazard ratio = 0.42, 95% CI: 0.20-0.89, p = 0.02). Among patients with measurable CNS lesions, the intracranial objective response rate was numerically higher with lazertinib (94%; n = 17) versus gefitinib (73%; n = 11, p = 0.124). The median intracranial duration of response with lazertinib was NR (8.3-NR) versus 6.3 months (2.8-NR) with gefitinib. Tolerability was similar to the overall LASER301 population.
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with CNS metastases, lazertinib significantly improved intracranial progression-free survival compared with gefitinib, with more durable responses.
METHODS: PARACHUTE is a phase IV, prospective, non-interventional, observational study. Primary endpoint was the proportion of patients remaining progression free at 12 months. Secondary endpoints were ORR, PFS, safety and tolerability, and relative dose intensity (RDI).
RESULTS: Overall, 190 patients with a median age of 61 years (range: 22.0-96.0) were included. Most patients were Asian (70%), clear-cell type RCC was the most common (81%), with a favourable (9%), intermediate (47%), poor (10%), and unknown (34%) MSKCC risk score. At the end of the observational period, 78 patients completed the observational period and 112 discontinued the study; 60% of patients had the starting dose at 800 mg. Median RDI was 82%, with 52% of patients receiving 10%) TEAEs related to pazopanib included diarrhoea (30%), palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome (15%), and hypertension (14%).
CONCLUSIONS: Results of the PARACHUTE study support the use of pazopanib in patients with advanced or mRCC who are naive to VEGF-TKI therapy. The safety profile is consistent with that previously reported by pivotal and real-world evidence studies.
OBJECTIVE: To determine efficacy and safety of PDA10 in treating renal anaemia in haemodialysis patients, in comparison to the originator epoetin-α, Eprex®.
METHODS: A phase 3, multicentre, multi-national, double-blind, randomised, active-controlled and parallel group study conducted over 40 weeks in Malaysia and Korea. End stage kidney disease patients undergoing regular haemodialysis who were on erythropoietin treatment were recruited. The study has 3 phases, which included a 12-week titration phase, followed by 28-week double-blind treatment phase and 24-week open-label extension phase.
RESULTS: The PDA10 and Eprex® were shown to be therapeutically equivalent (p