RET rearrangement as a mechanism of resistance to ALK-TKI in non-small cell lung cancer patient with EML4-ALK fusion: A case report

Patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) mutations have previously derived substantial benefits from ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitors (ALK-TKIs). However, resistance may develop in some patients. We present a case of co-mutation with anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) and rearranged during transfection (RET)-rearranged NSCLC, representing a novel resistance mechanism to ALK-TKIs, in which the patient exhibited a favorable response to combination therapy with ensartinib and pralsetinib. Notably, the patient survived 12 months without experiencing adverse events, a rare occurrence in ALK-rearranged lung adenocarcinoma cases. This case provides further evidence for the existence of RET rearrangements in ALK-positive lung cancer and their potential treatment response to a combination of ALK inhibitors and pralsetinib. This case underscores that a dual-target therapy involving ALK inhibitors, specifically ensartinib and pralsetinib, could be a viable approach in cases of RET-rearranged lung cancer with concurrent targetable ALK mutations. We propose the consideration of this dual-target approach, specifically employing ensartinib and pralsetinib, in managing RET-rearranged lung cancer coexisting with targetable ALK mutations. Given the potential efficacy of these treatments, it is imperative to proactively conduct molecular profiling tests in NSCLC patients upon the emergence of resistance.

Combination treatment of inflammatory bowel disease: Present status and future perspectives

The treatment of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), especially those with severe or refractory disease, represents an important challenge for the clinical gastroenterologist. It seems to be no exaggeration to say that in these patients, not only the scientific background of the gastroenterologist is tested, but also the abundance of "gifts" that he should possess (insight, intuition, determination, ability to take initiative, etc.) for the successful outcome of the treatment. In daily clinical practice, depending on the severity of the attack, IBD is treated with one or a combination of two or more pharmaceutical agents. These combinations include not only the first-line drugs (e.g., mesalazine, corticosteroids, antibiotics, etc) but also second- and third-line drugs (immunosuppressants and biologic agents). It is a fact that despite the significant therapeutic advances there is still a significant percentage of patients who do not satisfactorily respond to the treatment applied. Therefore, a part of these patients are going to surgery. In recent years, several small-size clinical studies, reviews, and case reports have been published combining not only biological agents with other drugs (e.g., immunosuppressants or corticosteroids) but also the combination of two biological agents simultaneously, especially in severe cases. In our opinion, it is at least a strange (and largely unexplained) fact that we often use combinations of drugs in a given patient although studies comparing the simultaneous administration of two or more drugs with monotherapy are very few. As mentioned above, there is a timid tendency in the literature to combine two biological agents in severe cases unresponsive to the applied treatment or patients with severe extraintestinal manifestations. The appropriate dosage, the duration of the administration, the suitable timing for checking the clinical and laboratory outcome, as well as the treatment side-effects, should be the subject of intense clinical research shortly. In this editorial, we attempt to summarize the existing data regarding the already applied combination therapies and to humbly formulate thoughts and suggestions for the future application of the combination treatment of biological agents in a well-defined category of patients. We suggest that the application of biomarkers and artificial intelligence could help in establishing new forms of treatment using the available modern drugs in patients with IBD resistant to treatment.

Evaluation of HER-2 positive breast cancer treated with dual-targeted treatment of trastuzumab plus pertuzumab

Objective: Clinical studies have shown that trastuzumab combined with pertuzumab (dual-targeted drug therapy) can significantly improve the treatment status and prognosis of HER-2 positive breast cancer patients through double targeting of HER-2. This study systematically evaluated the efficacy and safety of trastuzumab combined with pertuzumab in the treatment of HER-2 positive breast cancer.Method: We search relevant databases and collect RCTs on the treatment of HER-2 positive breast cancer with dual-targeted treatment. Meta-analysis was performed using Revman5.4 software.Results: A total of 10 studies for 8553 patients were included. Meta-analysis showed that, in terms of efficacy, overall survival (OS) (HR = 1.40, 95%CI = 1.29-1.53, p < 0.00001) and progression-free survival (PFS) (HR = 1.36, 95%CI = 1.28-1.46, p < 0.00001) in dual-targeted drug therapy were better than which in the single-targeted drug group. In terms of safety, the highest incidence (Relative risk, RR) of Adverse reactions was Infections and infestations (RR = 1.48, 95%CI = 1.24-1.77, p < 0.0001) follow by Nervous system disorders (RR = 1.29, 95%CI = 1.12-1.50, p = 0.0006), Gastrointestinal disorders (RR = 1.25, 95%CI = 1.18-1.32, p < 0.0001), Respiratory, thoracic, and mediastinal disorders (RR = 1.21, 95%CI = 1.01-1.46, p = 0.04), Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders (RR = 1.14, 95%CI = 1.06-1.22, p = 0.0002) and General disorders (RR = 1.14, 95%CI = 1.04-1.25, p = 0.004) in dual-targeted drug therapy group. The incidence of Blood system disorder (RR = 0.94, 95%CI = 0.84-1.06, p = 0.32) and Liver dysfunction (RR = 0.80, 95%CI = 0.66-0.98, p = 0.03) was lower than that of the single targeted drug group.Conclusion: Dual-targeted treatment for HER-2-positive breast cancer can prolong the OS, PFS and improve the quality of patients' life. Meanwhile, it also brings a higher medication risk, which requires a rational selection of drug symptomatic interventions.