Comparative effectiveness of larotrectinib versus entrectinib for the treatment of metastatic NTRK gene fusion cancers

Precision Medicine in High-Grade Serous Ovarian Cancer: Targeted Therapies and the Challenge of Chemoresistance

The poor prognosis for high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC), the dominant subtype of ovarian cancer, reflects its aggressive nature, late diagnosis, and the highest mortality rate among all gynaecologic cancers. Apart from late diagnosis, the main reason for the poor prognosis and its unsuccessful treatment is primarily the emergence of chemoresistance to carboplatin. Although there is a good response to primary treatment, the disease recurs in 80% of cases, at which point it is largely resistant to carboplatin. The introduction of novel targeted therapies in the second decade of the 21st century has begun to transform the treatment of HGSOC, although their impact on overall survival remains unsatisfactory. Targeting the specific pathways known to be abnormally activated in HGSOC is especially difficult due to the molecular diversity of its subtypes. Moreover, a range of molecular changes are associated with acquired chemoresistance, e.g., reversion of BRCA1 and BRCA2 germline alleles. In this review, we examine the advantages and disadvantages of approved targeted therapies, including bevacizumab, PARP inhibitors (PARPis), and treatments targeting cells with neurotrophic tyrosine receptor kinase (NTRK), B-rapidly accelerated fibrosarcoma (BRAF), and rearranged during transfection (RET) gene alterations, as well as antibody-drug conjugates. Additionally, we explore promising new targets under investigation in ongoing clinical trials, such as immune checkpoint inhibitors, anti-angiogenic agents, phosphatidylinositol-3-kinase (PI3K) inhibitors, Wee1 kinase inhibitors, and ataxia telangiectasia and Rad3-related protein (ATR) inhibitors for platinum-resistant disease. Despite the development of new targeted therapies, carboplatin remains the fundamental medicine in HGSOC therapy. The correct choice of treatment strategy for better survival of patients with advanced HGSOC should therefore include a prediction of patients' risks of developing chemoresistance to platinum-based chemotherapy. Moreover, effective targeted therapy requires the selection of patients who are likely to derive clinical benefit while minimizing potential adverse effects, underscoring the essence of precision medicine.

Pan-TRK positive uterine sarcoma in immunohistochemistry without neurotrophic tyrosine receptor kinase gene fusions: A case report

BACKGROUND

The classification of uterine sarcomas is based on distinctive morphological and immunophenotypic characteristics, increasingly supported by molecular genetic diagnostics. Data on neurotrophic tyrosine receptor kinase (NTRK) gene fusion-positive uterine sarcoma, potentially aggressive and morphologically similar to fibrosarcoma, are limited due to its recent recognition. Pan-TRK immunohistochemistry (IHC) analysis serves as an effective screening tool with high sensitivity and specificity for NTRK-fusion malignancies.

CASE SUMMARY

We report a case of a malignant mesenchymal tumor originating from the uterine cervix, which was pan-TRK IHC-positive but lacked NTRK gene fusions, accompanied by a brief literature review. A 55-year-old woman presented to the emergency department with abdominal pain and distension, exhibiting significant ascites and multiple solid pelvic masses. Pelvic examination revealed a tumor encompassing the uterine cervix, extending to the vagina and uterine corpus. A punch biopsy of the cervix indicated NTRK sarcoma with positive immunochemical pan-TRK stain. However, subsequent next generation sequencing revealed no NTRK gene fusion, leading to a diagnosis of poorly differentiated, advanced-stage sarcoma.

CONCLUSION

The clinical significance of NTRK gene fusion lies in potential treatment with TRK inhibitors for positive sarcomas. Identifying such rare tumors is crucial due to the potential applicability of tropomyosin receptor kinase inhibitor treatment.

Precision nanomedicine to treat non-small cell lung cancer

Lung cancer is a major cause of death worldwide, being often detected at a later stage due to the non-appearance of early symptoms. Therefore, specificity of the treatment is of utmost importance for its effective treatment. Precision medicine is a personalized therapy based on the genomics of the patient to design a suitable drug approach. Genetic mutations render the tumor resistant to specific mutations and the therapy is in vain even though correct medications are prescribed. Therefore, Precision medicine needs to be explored for the treatment of Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Nanoparticles are widely explored to give personalized interventions to treat lung cancer due to their various advantages like the ability to reach cancer cells, enhanced permeation through tissues, specificity, increased bioavailability, etc. Various nanoparticles (NPs) including gold nanoparticles, carbon nanotubes, aptamer-based NPs etc. were conjugated with biomarkers/diagnostic agents specific to cancer type and were delivered. Various biomarker genes have been identified through precision techniques for the diagnosis and treatment of NSCLC like EGFR, RET, KRAS, ALK, ROS-1, NTRK-1, etc. By incorporating of drug with the nanoparticle through bioconjugation, the specificity of the treatment can be enhanced with this revolutionary treatment. Additionally, integration of theranostic cargos in the nanoparticle would allow diagnosis as well as treatment by targeting the site of disease progression. Therefore, to target NSCLC effectively precision nanomedicine has been adopted in recent times. Here, we present different nanoparticles that are used as precision nanomedicine and their effectiveness against NSCLC disease.

Projecting long-term clinical outcomes with larotrectinib compared with immune checkpoint inhibitors in metastatic nonsmall cell lung cancer and differentiated thyroid cancer

BACKGROUND

Larotrectinib is approved for patients with advanced NTRK gene fusion-positive solid tumors. Prior studies demonstrated promising results with larotrectinib compared with other systemic therapy. However, comparisons to checkpoint inhibitors, such as nivolumab or pembrolizumab, have not been done.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate and compare expected life-years (LYs) and quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs) for patients with nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) eligible for larotrectinib vs patients with unknown NTRK gene fusion status on nivolumab or pembrolizumab. We also assessed patients with metastatic differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC), as pembrolizumab may be considered in certain circumstances.

METHODS

We developed partitioned survival models to project long-term comparative effectiveness of larotrectinib vs nivolumab or pembrolizumab. Larotrectinib survival data were derived from an updated July 2021 analysis of 21 adult patients (≥18 years of age) with metastatic NTRK gene fusion-positive NSCLC and 21 with DTC. Survival inputs for nivolumab and pembrolizumab were obtained from published articles. Progression-free and overall survival were estimated using survival distributions (Exponential, Weibull, Log-logistic, and Log-normal). Exponential fits were chosen based on goodness-of-fit and clinical plausibility.

RESULTS

In NSCLC, larotrectinib resulted in gains of 5.87 and 5.91 LYs compared to nivolumab and pembrolizumab, respectively, which translated to gains of 3.53 and 3.56 QALYs. In DTC, larotrectinib resulted in a gain of 5.23 LYs and 4.24 QALYs compared to pembrolizumab.

CONCLUSIONS

In metastatic NSCLC and DTC, larotrectinib may produce substantial life expectancy and QALY gains compared to immune checkpoint inhibitors. Additional data with longer follow-up will further inform this comparison.

Agnostic Administration of Targeted Anticancer Drugs: Looking for a Balance between Hype and Caution

Many tumors have well-defined vulnerabilities, thus potentially allowing highly specific and effective treatment. There is a spectrum of actionable genetic alterations which are shared across various tumor types and, therefore, can be targeted by a given drug irrespective of tumor histology. Several agnostic drug-target matches have already been approved for clinical use, e.g., immune therapy for tumors with microsatellite instability (MSI) and/or high tumor mutation burden (TMB), NTRK1-3 and RET inhibitors for cancers carrying rearrangements in these kinases, and dabrafenib plus trametinib for BRAF V600E mutated malignancies. Multiple lines of evidence suggest that this histology-independent approach is also reasonable for tumors carrying ALK and ROS1 translocations, biallelic BRCA1/2 inactivation and/or homologous recombination deficiency (HRD), strong HER2 amplification/overexpression coupled with the absence of other MAPK pathway-activating mutations, etc. On the other hand, some well-known targets are not agnostic: for example, PD-L1 expression is predictive for the efficacy of PD-L1/PD1 inhibitors only in some but not all cancer types. Unfortunately, the individual probability of finding a druggable target in a given tumor is relatively low, even with the use of comprehensive next-generation sequencing (NGS) assays. Nevertheless, the rapidly growing utilization of NGS will significantly increase the number of patients with highly unusual or exceptionally rare tumor-target combinations. Clinical trials may provide only a framework for treatment attitudes, while the decisions for individual patients usually require case-by-case consideration of the probability of deriving benefit from agnostic versus standard therapy, drug availability, associated costs, and other circumstances. The existing format of data dissemination may not be optimal for agnostic cancer medicine, as conventional scientific journals are understandably biased towards the publication of positive findings and usually discourage the submission of case reports. Despite all the limitations and concerns, histology-independent drug-target matching is certainly feasible and, therefore, will be increasingly utilized in the future.

Toward Best Practices for Economic Evaluations of Tumor-Agnostic Therapies: A Review of Current Barriers and Solutions

OBJECTIVES

Cancer therapies targeting tumor-agnostic biomarkers are challenging traditional health technology assessment (HTA) frameworks. The high prevalence of nonrandomized single-arm trials, heterogeneity, and small benefiting populations are driving outcomes uncertainty, challenging healthcare decision making. We conducted a structured literature review to identify barriers and prioritize solutions to generating economic evidence for tumor-agnostic therapies.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE and Embase for English-language studies conducting economic evaluations of tumor-agnostic treatments or exploring related challenges and solutions. We included studies published by December 2022 and supplemented our review with Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence technical reports for approved tumor-agnostic therapies. Three reviewers abstracted and summarized key methodological and empirical study characteristics. Challenges and solutions were identified through authors' statements and categorized using directed content analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty-six studies met our inclusion criteria. Studies spanned economic evaluations (n = 5), reimbursement reviews (n = 4), qualitative research (n = 1), methods validations (n = 3), and commentaries or literature reviews (n = 13). Challenges encountered related to (1) the treatment setting and clinical trial designs, (2) a lack of data or low-quality data on clinical and cost parameters, and (3) an inability to produce evidence that meets HTA guidelines. Although attempted solutions centered on analytic approaches for managing missing data, proposed solutions highlighted the need for real-world evidence combined with life-cycle HTA to reduce future evidentiary uncertainty.

CONCLUSIONS

Therapeutic innovation outpaces HTA evidence generation and the methods that support it. Existing HTA frameworks must be adapted for tumor-agnostic treatments to support future economic evaluations enabling timely patient access.