Treatment beyond progression and locoregional approaches in selected patients with BRAF-mutated metastatic melanoma

New Serious Safety Warnings for Targeted Anticancer Agents After Their Initial FDA Approval

Background: New safety concerns about targeted anticancer agents (TAAs) often emerge in the first few years after their initial regulatory approval. Our aim was to determine whether new serious and potentially fatal adverse drug reactions (ADRs) continue to emerge in the updated drug labels of TAAs several years after their initial regulatory approval and whether their emergence can be predicted. Methods: The updated drug labels of TAAs approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration before July 2013 were analyzed. Serious and potentially fatal ADRs were identified in the Warnings & Precautions (WPs) and Boxed Warnings (BWs) sections of the updated drug labels. Generalized linear mixed models were used to examine the associations between the number of adverse drug reactions and time, drug type (small molecules vs. monoclonal antibodies), and the availability of companion diagnostics for biomarkers. Results: Among 37 eligible TAAs, 25 (68%) were small molecules and 11 (30%) had available companion diagnostics for the biomarkers. Time was a significant predictor of new WPs (p ˂ 0.001) and BWs (p = 0.008). The updated drug labels of the small molecules received significantly more new WPs (p = 0.042) as compared to monoclonal antibodies. The availability of the companion diagnostics for the biomarkers did not have an impact on the emergence of new ADRs. Conclusions: New serious ADRs of TAAs continue to emerge in updated drug labels several years after their initial regulatory approval. Oncologists, regulators, and payers should be aware of the changing risk-benefit ratios of approved TAAs.

Hedgehog Inhibitors Beyond Clinical Complete Response in Basal Cell Carcinoma: Should I Stop or Should I Go?

INTRODUCTION

In advanced basal cell carcinoma (BCC), the issue of whether Hedgehog inhibitors (HHIs) should be stopped or not after clinical complete response (cCR) achievement remains an unmet clinical need.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective, multicenter study across 7 Italian dermato-oncology units including patients with BCC who continued vismodegib after cCR between 2012 and 2019. We assessed the relationship between the duration of vismodegib intake (days to cCR [DTCR], days to stop after cCR [DTS], total treatment days [TTD]), and disease-free survival (DFS). Reasons to stop vismodegib were (R1) toxicity and (R2) disease recurrence. The relationship between DTCR, DTS, TTD, and DFS in the whole population and in R1 subgroup was assessed by Pearson's correlation coefficient (P < .05) and Bayesian statistics (BF10).

RESULTS

Sixty-eight BCC patients with a median (m) age of 75.5 years (39-100) were included. Most patients were male (N = 43, 63%), without Gorlin syndrome (N = 56, 82%) and with head and neck area as primary site (N = 51, 75%). After cCR, out of 68 patients, 90% (N = 61/68) discontinued vismodegib: 82% (N = 50/61) due to toxicity (R1), and 18% (N = 11/61) due to recurrence (R2). Conversely, 10% (N = 7/68) continued vismodegib until last follow-up. In the whole population (N = 68), cCR was achieved with a mDTCR of 180.50 days. DFS showed a significant correlation with DTS (P < .01, BF10 = 39.2) and TTD (P < .01, BF10 = 35566), while it was not correlated to DTCR (BF10 < 0.1). The analysis of R1 subgroup (N = 50) confirmed these results. DFS correlated with DTS in all recurrent patients (N = 38, r = 0.44, P < .01) and in the recurrent patients who stopped vismodegib for toxicity (N = 26, r = 0.665, P < .01). DFS was longer when vismodegib was maintained for >2 months after cCR (mDFS > 2 months, N = 54 vs. ≤ 2 months, N = 14: 470 vs. 175 d, P < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

Our retrospective results suggest that HHIs should be continued after cCR to improve DFS in BCC.

Treatment beyond progression in non-small cell lung cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Treatment beyond progression (TBP) is defined as treatment continuing in spite of disease progression, according to the Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to provide evidence for the effects of TBP on lung cancer survival.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study has been conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. A systematic review of PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Collaboration Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials from the inception of each database to December 2021 was conducted. Two authors independently reviewed articles for inclusion and extract data from all the retrieved articles. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software, version 3 (Biostat, Englewood, NJ, USA). Hazard ratios (HRs) with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used for survival outcomes.

RESULTS

We identified five (15.6%) prospective randomized trials and twenty-seven (84.4%) retrospective observational studies of a total of 9,631 patients for the meta-analysis. 3,941 patients (40.9%) were in a TBP group and 5,690 patients (59.1%) were in a non-TBP group. There is a statistically significant advantage for patients who received TBP compared with those who did not in post progression progression-free survival (ppPFS), post progression overall survival (ppOS), and overall survival (OS) from initiation of drugs (ppPFS: HR, 0.746; 95% CI, 0.644-0.865; P<0.001; ppOS: HR, 0.689; 95% CI, 0.596-0.797; P<0.001; OS from initiation of drugs: HR, 0.515; 95% CI, 0.387-0.685; P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

This study provides further evidence in support of TBP for NSCLC, however, these results require cautious interpretation. Large, randomized, controlled trials investigating the efficacy of TBP in lung cancer treatment are warranted.

SYSTEMIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/ identifier CRD42021285147.