METHODS: Patients aged ≥20 years received once-daily oral olmutinib 800 mg continuously in 21-day cycles. The primary endpoint was the objective response rate (patients who had a confirmed best overall response of a complete or partial response), assessed by central review. Secondary endpoints included the disease control rate, the duration of objective response, progression-free survival, and overall survival. Adverse events were graded according to the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 4.03).
RESULTS: Overall, 162 patients (median age, 63 years; women, >60%) were enrolled from 68 sites in 9 countries. At the time of database cutoff, 23.5% of enrolled patients remained on treatment. The median treatment duration was 6.5 months (range, 0.03-21.68 months). Overall, 46.3% of patients (95% CI, 38.4%-54.3%) had a confirmed objective response (all partial responses). The best overall response (the objective response rate regardless of confirmation) was 51.9% (84 patients; 95% CI, 43.9%-59.8%). The confirmed disease control rate for all patients was 86.4% (95% CI, 80.2%-91.3%). The median duration of objective response was 12.7 months (95% CI, 8.3-15.4 months). Estimated median progression-free survival was 9.4 months (95% CI, 6.9-12.3 months), and estimated median overall survival was 19.7 months (95% CI, 15.1 months to not reached). All patients experienced treatment-emergent adverse events, and 71.6% of patients had grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events.
CONCLUSIONS: Olmutinib has meaningful clinical activity and a manageable safety profile in patients with T790M-positive non-small cell lung cancer who received previous epidermal growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy.
METHODS: By using preoperative computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and 3-dimensional image reconstruction, 5 critical components were assessed: the ratio of the sinus area occupied by the tumor in relation to the whole sinus area (R), the compression of the renal segmental vessels or collection system by the tumor (O), the anteroposterior relation of the tumor relative to the segmental vessels or collection system (A), the tumor diameter (D), and whether the tumor affects a solitary kidney (S) ("ROADS"). The ROADS score, indicating low, moderate, or high surgical complexity, was then used to guide surgical strategy planning, including cooling techniques, surgical approaches, and parenchyma incision techniques. A cohort of 134 patients with renal sinus tumors was treated based on their ROADS score and was retrospectively analyzed.
RESULTS: The authors successfully performed 113 nephron-sparing surgeries and 21 radical nephrectomies with a complication rate of 7.9%. During follow-up, 3 cases were classified according to surgical margin status because they lacked an intact tumor capsule. There was only 1 case of local recurrence, and there were no cases of metastasis. A high ROADS score was correlated with greater operative complexity, such as longer operation and ischemia times and higher estimated blood loss and complication rates. However, renal function and short-term oncologic outcomes were not related to the score.
CONCLUSIONS: The ROADS scoring system provides a standardized, quantitative, 3-dimensional anatomic classification to guide surgical strategy in renal sinus tumors.
METHODS: The authors conducted a qualitative study using in-depth interviews and focus group discussions with 98 participants representing 23 LMICs in Eastern Europe, Central Asia, East and Southern Africa, and Latin America.
RESULTS: Despite geographic, cultural, and socioeconomic differences, the common themes that emerged from the data across the 3 regions are strikingly similar: trust, knowledge gaps, stigma, sharing experiences, and sustainability. The authors identified common facilitators (training/education, relationship building/networking, third-party facilitators, and communication) and barriers (mistrust, stigma, organizational fragility, difficulty translating HIC strategies) to establishing trust, collaboration, and advancing cancer advocacy efforts. To the authors' knowledge, the current study is the first to describe the role that coalitions and regional networks play in advancing breast cancer advocacy in LMICs across multiple regions.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings of the current study corroborate the importance of investing in 3-way partnerships between CSOs, political leaders, and health experts. When provided with information that is evidence-based and resource appropriate, as well as opportunities to network, advocates are better equipped to achieve their goals. The authors propose that support for CSOs focuses on building trust through increasing opportunities for engagement, disseminating best practices and evidence-based information, and fostering the creation of platforms for partnerships and networks.