Contemporary Surgical Management of Colorectal Liver Metastases

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer in the United States and the second most common cause of cancer-related death. Approximately 20-30% of patients will develop hepatic metastasis in the form of synchronous or metachronous disease. The treatment of colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM) has evolved into a multidisciplinary approach, with chemotherapy and a variety of locoregional treatments, such as ablation and portal vein embolization, playing a crucial role. However, resection remains a core tenet of management, serving as the gold standard for a curative-intent therapy. As such, the input of a dedicated hepatobiliary surgeon is paramount for appropriate patient selection and choice of surgical approach, as significant advances in the field have made management decisions extremely nuanced and complex. We herein aim to review the contemporary surgical management of colorectal liver metastasis with respect to both perioperative and operative considerations.

Treatment decision for recurrences in non-small cell lung cancer during or after adjuvant osimertinib: an international Delphi consensus report

Introduction

Osimertinib is recommended by major guidelines for use in the adjuvant setting in patients with EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC following the significant improvement in disease-free survival observed in the Phase III ADAURA trials. Due to limited real-world data in the adjuvant setting, little guidance exists on how to approach potential recurrences either during or after the completion of the treatment. This study aimed to reach a broad consensus on key treatment decision criteria in the events of recurrence.

Methods

To reach a broad consensus, a modified Delphi panel study was conducted consisting of two rounds of surveys, followed by two consensus meetings and a final offline review of key statements. An international panel of experts in the field of NSCLC (n=12) was used to provide clinical insights regarding patient management at various stages of NSCLC disease including patient monitoring, diagnostics, and treatment approach for specific recurrence scenarios. This study tested recurrences occurring 1) within or outside the central nervous system (CNS), 2) during or after the adjuvant-osimertinib regimen in NSCLC disease which is 3) amenable or not amenable to local consolidative therapy.

Results

Panellists agreed on various aspects of patient monitoring and diagnostics including the use of standard techniques (e.g., CT, MRI) and tumour biomarker assessment using tissue and liquid biopsies. Consensus was reached on 6 statements describing treatment considerations for the specific NSCLC recurrence scenarios. Panellists agreed on the value of osimertinib as a monotherapy or as part of the overall treatment strategy within the probed recurrence scenarios and acknowledged that more clinical evidence is required before precise recommendations for specific patient populations can be made.

Discussion

This study provides a qualitative expert opinion framework for clinicians to consider within their treatment decision-making when faced with recurrence during or after adjuvant-osimertinib treatment.

Update in Immunotherapy for Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Optimizing Treatment Sequencing and Identifying the Best Choices

The introduction of immunotherapy has brought about a paradigm shift in the management of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). It has not only significantly improved the prognosis of patients but has also become a cornerstone of treatment, particularly in those without oncogenic driver mutations. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) play a crucial role in the treatment of lung cancer and can be classified into two main groups: Anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen-4 (Anti-CTLA-4) and anti-T-cell receptor programmed cell death-1 or its ligand (Anti-PD-1 and Anti-PD-L1). Certainly, the landscape of approved first line immunotherapeutic approaches has expanded to encompass monotherapy, immunotherapy-exclusive protocols, and combinations with chemotherapy. The complexity of decision-making in this realm arises due to the absence of direct prospective comparisons. However, a thorough analysis of the long-term efficacy and safety data derived from pivotal clinical trials can offer valuable insights into optimizing treatment for different patient subsets. Moreover, ongoing research is investigating emerging biomarkers and innovative therapeutic strategies that could potentially refine the current treatment approach even further. In this comprehensive review, our aim is to highlight the latest advances in immunotherapy for advanced NSCLC, including the mechanisms of action, efficacy, safety profiles, and clinical significance of ICI.

Targeting HER2-low in metastatic breast cancer: an evolving treatment paradigm

The results of the Phase III DESTINY-Breast04 trial of trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) are leading to a shift in both the classification and treatment of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative metastatic breast cancer. In this trial, T-DXd was associated with a substantial survival benefit among patients with hormone receptor-positive and hormone receptor-negative disease and low expression of HER2, a biomarker previously considered unactionable in this treatment setting. Herein, we discuss the evolving therapeutic pathway for HER2-low disease, ongoing clinical trials, and the potential challenges and evidence gaps arising with treatment of this patient population.

A multicenter phase 2 single arm study of cabozantinib in patients with advanced or unresectable renal cell carcinoma pre-treated with one immune-checkpoint inhibitor: The BREAKPOINT trial (Meet-Uro trial 03)

BACKGROUND

First-line therapies based on immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) significantly improved survival of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients. Cabozantinib was shown to target kinases involved in immune-escape and to prolong survival in patients pre-treated with tyrosine-kinase-inhibitors (TKIs). The impact of ICIs combinations in first line on subsequent therapies is still unclear.

METHODS

This is an open label, multicenter, single arm, phase II study designed to assess activity, safety and efficacy of cabozantinib in mRCC patients progressed after an adjuvant or first line anti-Programmed Death (PD)-1/PD-Ligand (PD-L) 1-based therapy. Primary endpoint was progression free survival (PFS), secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR) and safety.

RESULTS

31 patients were included in the analysis. After a median (m) follow-up of 11.9 months, mPFS was 8.3 months (90%CI 3.9-17.4) and mOS was 13.8 months (95%CI 7.7-29.0). ORR was 37.9% with an additional 13 patients achieving disease stability. Grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in 47% of patients, including more frequently creatine phosphokinase (CPK) serum level elevation, neutropenia, hyponatremia, diarrhea, hand-food syndrome, oral mucositis and hypertension.

CONCLUSIONS

The BREAKPOINT trial met its primary endpoint showing that cabozantinib as second line therapy after ICIs was active in mRCC. Safety profile was manageable.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03463681 - A Study of CaBozantinib in Patients With Advanced or Unresectable Renal cEll cArcinoma (BREAKPOINT) - https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03463681.

Treatment Sequencing Strategies in Advanced Neuroendocrine Tumors: A Review

Neuroendocrine tumor (NET) incidence has grown. The treatment landscape for advanced NETs is rapidly evolving, but there are limited head-to-head data to guide treatment sequencing decisions. We assessed the available clinical data to aid practicing clinicians in their routine clinical decision-making. Clinical trials have demonstrated efficacy benefits for new therapies in advanced NETs. Emerging long-term data from these trials have enabled clinicians to make more accurate risk-benefit assessments, particularly for patients receiving multiple lines of therapy. However, clinical data specifically regarding treatment sequencing are limited. In lieu of definitive data, treatment sequencing should be based on disease-related factors (e.g., site of tumor origin, volume of disease) and patient-related characteristics (e.g., comorbidities, patient preferences). Clinical decision-making in advanced NETs remains highly individualized and complex; important evidence gaps regarding treatment sequencing remain. Given this, advanced NET management should be a joint effort of multidisciplinary teams at referring and high-volume centers. Additional clinical trial and real-world evidence are needed to meet the challenge of understanding how to sequence available NET therapies. Until these trials are conducted, the best practices provided in this review may serve as a guide for clinicians making treatment sequencing decisions based on the available data.

Advanced Breast Cancer: AGO Recommendations 2022 - Focus on ABC6 Consensus

Over the past few years, there have been many developments in the treatment of advanced breast cancer; these have been incorporated into national and international treatment guidelines, resulting in an improved prognosis for these patients. The 6th International Consensus Conference for Advanced Breast Cancer (ABC6) was held in November 2021. The aim is to standardize the treatment of advanced breast cancer based on a high level of evidence, and to make new treatment options accessible to all patients. In this article we discuss the ABC6 consensus in the context of German treatment guidelines, and compare it with clinical practice in Germany. The authors refer to the current recommendations of the Breast Cancer Working Group for Gynecological Oncology (AGO Mamma) published in March 2022. The AGO Breast Cancer Guidelines are updated annually. Since discrepancies between national and international guidelines can occur due to country-specific regulations, this is a useful comparison to make. The German authors refer to the voting results of the ABC6 panelists from 6 November 2021.

Veterans receiving a second course of cognitive processing therapy or prolonged exposure therapy: is it better to switch or stay the same?

Cognitive processing therapy (CPT) and prolonged exposure therapy (PE) are effective psychotherapies for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). However, these treatments also have high rates of dropout and non-response. Therefore, patients may need a second course of treatment. We compared outcomes for patients who switched between CPT/PE and those who repeated CPT/PE during a second course of treatment. We collected data from Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans (n = 2,958) who received a second course of CPT/PE in the Veterans Health Administration from 2001 to 2017 and had symptom outcomes (PTSD checklist; PCL). We measured the association between treatment sequence and change in PCL score over the second course of treatment using hierarchical Bayesian regression, adjusted for sociodemographic and clinical characteristics. All treatment sequences showed a significant reduction in PCL score over time (β = -4.80; HDI₉₅: -5.74, -3.86). Veterans who switched from CPT to PE had modestly greater PCL reductions during the second course than those who repeated CPT. However, no significant difference in PCL change during the second course was observed between veterans who repeated PE and those who switched from PE to CPT. Veterans participating in a second course of CPT/PE can benefit, and switching treatment may be slightly more beneficial following CPT.

How to Treat HR+/HER2- Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients after CDK4/6 Inhibitors: An Unfinished Story

CDK4/6 inhibitors in association with endocrine therapy represent the best therapeutic choice for either endocrine-sensitive or resistant hormone-receptor-positive advanced breast cancer patients. On the contrary, the optimal therapeutic strategy after the failure of CDK4/6 inhibitors-based treatment still remains an open question worldwide. In this review, we analyze the most studied mechanisms of resistance to CDK4/6 inhibitors treatment, as well as the most significant results of retrospective and prospective trials in the setting of progression after CDK4/6 inhibitors, to provide the reader a comprehensive overview from both a preclinical and especially a clinical perspective. In our opinion, an approach based on a deeper knowledge of resistance mechanisms to CDK4/6 inhibitors, but also on a careful analysis of what is done in clinical practice, can lead to a better definition of prospective randomized trials, to implement a personalized sequence approach, based on molecular analyses.

R WE ready for reimbursement? A round up of developments in real-world evidence relating to HTA: part 5

In the latest update we focus on recent publications which have provided insights into the importance of focusing on the development and consideration of a body of real-world evidence, and an approach to evaluating the complex area of treatment sequencing.

Upfront Brain Treatments Followed by Lung Surgery Improves Survival for Stage IV Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Patients With Brain Metastases: A Large Cohort Analysis

Background: Current treatment guidelines for stage IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with brain metastases recommend brain treatments, including surgical resection and radiotherapy (RT), in addition to resection of the primary lung tumor. Here, we investigate the less-studied impact of treatment sequence on the overall survival.

Methods: The National Cancer Database was queried for NSCLC patients with brain metastases who underwent surgical resection of the primary lung tumor (n = 776). Kaplan-Meier survival curves with log-rank test and propensity score stratified Cox regression with Wald test were used to evaluate the associations between various treatment plans and overall survival (OS).

Results: Compared to patients who did not receive any brain treatment (median OS = 6.05 months), significantly better survival was observed for those who received brain surgery plus RT (median OS = 26.25 months, p < 0.0001) and for those who received brain RT alone (median OS = 14.49 months, p < 0.001). Patients who received one upfront brain treatment (surgery or RT) before lung surgery were associated with better survival than those who received lung surgery first (p < 0.05). The best survival outcome (median OS 27.1 months) was associated with the sequence of brain surgery plus postoperative brain RT followed by lung surgery.

Conclusions: This study shows the value of performing upfront brain treatments followed by primary lung tumor resection for NSCLC patients with brain metastases, especially the procedure of brain surgery plus postoperative brain RT followed by lung surgery.

Medical Management of Aggressive Inflammatory Bowel Disease: When Is the Time to Cut Your (and the Patient's) Losses?

Despite a treatment armamentarium that continues to increase in terms of medical options for the therapy of Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC), a significant proportion of patients will require surgical intervention over their disease course. Surgery does not represent a failure of medical therapy in the treatment of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD); rather, surgery represents an integral feature of the multidisciplinary approach to an individual patient. The timing, factors, and potential outcomes of each therapeutic decision in the pre-, peri- and postoperative periods must be weighed by each member of a multidisciplinary team with the goal of improving the quality of life for patients with IBD. In this article, we review the current evidence underlying approaches to the medical and surgical management of complications of CD and UC. We also outline opportunities for tailored decision-making and potentially earlier surgical intervention with the aim of improving long-term outcomes among patients with IBD.

Optimal sequencing strategies in the treatment of EGFR mutation-positive non-small cell lung cancer: Clinical benefits and cost-effectiveness

Purpose

To summarize current understanding of the efficacy, role, and cost-effectiveness of the available epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), and to evaluate sequencing strategies based on the available evidence.

Summary. EGFR TKIs are the current standard of care for patients with EGFR mutation–positive non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Five EGFR TKIs are currently approved in the United States for use in a first-line setting; these TKIs differ in mechanism of action, efficacy, safety, and cost. Most patients develop resistance to first-line EGFR TKIs and require subsequent therapy with additional EGFR TKIs, chemotherapy, and/or other targeted agents. A major consideration when selecting EGFR TKIs, both as first-line or subsequent treatment options, is cost-effectiveness. Although clinical trials have shown that the second- and third-generation EGFR TKIs are superior in efficacy to the first-generation agents, pharmacoeconomic studies suggest that the first-generation agents are the most cost-effective, with the second-generation TKI afatinib also considered cost-effective in some studies. Despite its impressive efficacy, osimertinib appears to be less cost-effective due to substantially higher acquisition costs.

Conclusion

Preliminary data suggest that first-line afatinib followed by osimertinib may offer promising survival outcomes and, on the basis of efficacy alone, may represent an optimal sequencing strategy in the majority of patients with EGFR mutation–positive NSCLC, in particular Asian patients and those with Del19-positive tumors. However, considerably more research into outcomes and costs associated with consecutive sequencing of EGFR TKIs is needed before any conclusions can be reached.

Effect of Treatment Sequencing on the Tumor Response to Combined Treatment With Ultrasound-Stimulated Microbubbles and Radiotherapy

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether timing and sequencing of ultrasound-stimulated microbubbles (USMBs) and external beam radiotherapy (XRT) affect the treatment response in a preclinical prostate cancer model.

METHODS

Prostate cancer xenografts were treated with ultrasound-stimulated lipid microspheres before and after 8-Gy XRT. Treatments were separated by 0, 3, 6, 12, and 24 hours, with 5 tumors per group. Tumor effects were evaluated by microvessel density (measured by CD31 staining), cell death (terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase deoxyuridine triphosphate nick end-labeling and hematoxylin-eosin staining), and hypoxia (carbonic anhydrase 9 staining).

RESULTS

Administering USMBs 6 hours before XRT showed the maximum treatment effect using all 3 assays. At this time, the mean cell death index ± SD was 36% ± 10%, compared with 19% ± 4% for no separation between USMB treatment and XRT; the microvessel density was 9 ± 3 counts per field (19 ± 5 without separation); and the percentage of hypoxic cells was 10% ± 5% (21% ± 4%). The observed treatment effect was greater with USMBs before XRT than when administering XRT first, but these differences were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

The maximum tumor effect was observed with USMBs delivered 6 hours before XRT. The sequencing of treatment did not have a significant effect on the tumor response.

Treatment Sequencing Patterns in Patients with Metastatic Urothelial Cancer Treated in the Community Practice Setting in the United States: SPEAR-Bladder (Study informing treatment Pathway dEcision in bladder cAnceR)

Purpose

Clinical trial evidence has affirmed the role for immuno-oncology (IO) treatment for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (la/mUC). This Study informing treatment Pathway dEcision in bladder cAnceR (SPEAR-Bladder) aimed to provide insight into the optimal sequencing of IO treatments among la/mUC patients treated in the US Oncology Network.

Patients and Methods

This was a retrospective analysis of adult patients with la/mUC who initiated first-line chemotherapy followed by either IO therapy (C-IO subgroup) or chemotherapy (C-C subgroup) between 01/01/2015 and 04/30/2017 and included a potential follow-up period through 06/30/2017. Data were sourced from iKnowMed electronic health records. Patient and treatment characteristics were assessed descriptively, with Kaplan-Meier methods used to evaluate time-to-event outcomes, including overall survival (OS).

Results

A total of 117 patients were included in this analysis (median age 69 years, 74.4% male, 88.0% Caucasian): 79 and 38 patients were in the C-IO and C-C subgroups, respectively. The median OS was 19.2 months among patients who received the C-IO sequence and 11.9 months among those who received the C-C treatment sequence.

Conclusion

These results suggest that patients who received the C-IO treatment sequence had notable improvement in OS compared with those who received the C-C sequence. In light of the rapidly evolving therapeutic landscape, further investigation will be required to determine how best to select the optimal therapeutic regimen and sequencing for patients with la/mUC.

Management of hepatocellular carcinoma after progression on first-line systemic treatment: defining the optimal sequencing strategy in second line and beyond

Hepatocellular carcinoma (hcc) is one of the most common cancers in the world. It has a high mortality rate, especially when localized treatments fail. For about a decade, the only systemic treatment shown to improve survival was sorafenib. Recently, lenvatinib was found to be noninferior to sorafenib for overall survival, and combination atezolizumab-bevacizumab improved survival compared with sorafenib. Similarly, in the post-sorafenib setting, a number of recent positive clinical trials have been reported, and they indicate that regorafenib, cabozantinib, and ramucirumab are effective and safe in the second-line setting. With so many new options available, including immunotherapy, it is challenging to define the best sequence of systemic treatment for patients with hcc. In the present review, we introduce the current data for second-line systemic treatment and beyond in hcc. A treatment algorithm is also suggested, based on the best available evidence and expert opinion.

Randomised Phase II study comparing alternating cycles of sunitinib and everolimus vs standard sequential administration in first-line metastatic renal carcinoma (SUNRISES study)

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the efficacy of alternating cycles of sunitinib and everolimus vs standard sequential treatment of sunitinib followed by everolimus in first-line metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), as alternating blockade of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) and mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) pathways could potentially prevent the occurrence of resistance to anti-VEGFR therapy in mRCC.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

SUNRISES, a randomised open-label Phase II study, investigated the efficacy of alternating cycles of sunitinib and everolimus vs standard sequential treatment of sunitinib followed by everolimus upon progression. Treatment-naïve patients with clear-cell mRCC were included. Alternating treatment consisted on 12 weeks of sunitinib, followed by 12 weeks of everolimus. The primary endpoint was the progression-free survival (PFS) rate at 1 year. The secondary endpoints included the median PFS, overall survival (OS), response rate, and safety.

RESULTS

Accrual was low due to the advent of new-generation therapies, and the study was stopped prematurely. Only 41 patients out of the planned 102 patients were accrued, and randomised in a 2:1 ratio (15 patients to the control arm, 26 to the experimental arm). In all, 60.9% of patients had performance status (PS) 0 and 39% PS 1; 63% had a favourable prognostic risk profile, while 36% were intermediate risk. The primary endpoint was not met. The 1-year PFS rate was 49.7% (experimental arm) vs 84.62% (control arm; P = 0.11). There was a trend towards fewer Grade ≥3 adverse events with the alternating approach (50% vs 73.3%; P = 0.14). The median OS was similar in both treatment arms. The other secondary endpoints favoured the control arm.

CONCLUSIONS

The study failed to show any benefit of alternating cycles of sunitinib and everolimus in patients with mRCC. The alternating approach using an mTOR inhibitor does not seem to prevent the occurrence of resistance to VEGFR blockade.

Sequence of therapy and survival in patients with advanced pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours

Background

Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (pnets) often present as advanced disease. The optimal sequence of therapy is unknown.

Methods

Sequential patients with advanced pnets referred to BC Cancer between 2000 and 2013 who received 1 or more treatment modalities were reviewed, and treatment patterns, progression-free survival (pfs), and overall survival (os) were characterized. Systemic treatments included chemotherapy, small-molecule therapy, and peptide receptor radionuclide therapy.

Results

In 66 cases of advanced pnets, median patient age was 61.2 years (25%-75% interquartile range: 50.8-66.2 years), and men constituted 47% of the group. First-line therapies were surgery (36%), chemotherapy (33%), and somatostatin analogues (32%). Compared with first-line systemic therapy, surgery in the first line was associated with increased pfs and os (20.6 months vs. 6.3 months and 100.3 months vs. 30.5 months respectively, p < 0.05). In 42 patients (64%) who received more than 1 line of therapy, no difference in os or pfs between second-line therapies was observed.

Conclusions

Our results confirm the primary role of surgery for advanced pnets. New systemic treatments will further increase options.

Therapy options after CDK4/6 inhibitors for HR+, HER2- postmenopausal metastatic/recurrent breast cancer in Japan: a role for mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors?

Despite advances in the treatment of hormone receptor-positive, HER2- metastatic breast cancer, the disease is rarely curable. In this review, we focus on the use of CDK4/6 inhibitors, examining clinical experience and the mechanisms underlying the development of resistance, and evaluating treatment options after failure to respond to CDK4/6 inhibitors. Current basic research supports the use of mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors after CDK4/6 inhibitor failure; however, more data are needed, particularly regarding treatment sequencing. Real-world data studies may help to fill the current knowledge gap, particularly where large-scale randomized controlled studies are not feasible.

Optimizing outcomes and treatment sequences in EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer: recent updates

The availability of several EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) for the treatment of EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC poses important questions regarding the optimum sequence of therapy. A key consideration is how best to use the third-generation TKI, osimertinib. While osimertinib has demonstrated impressive efficacy and tolerability in a first-line setting, there are currently no standard targeted treatment options following progression. There is an argument, therefore, for reserving osimertinib for second-line use in patients who acquire the T790M resistance mutation after first- or second-generation TKIs. This article reviews recent clinical studies that have assessed the activity of sequential EGFR TKI regimens. These studies support the hypothesis that sequential use of EGFR TKIs represents a viable treatment option in 'real-world' clinical practice.

Management of metastatic cutaneous melanoma: updates in clinical practice

In recent years, several drugs have been approved for the treatment of patients with metastatic cutaneous melanoma, completely reshaping the landscape of this aggressive disease. Immune therapy with cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 and programmed cell death-1 inhibitors yielded significant and durable responses, achieving long-term disease control in up to 40% of the patients. BRAF inhibitors (BRAFi), in combination with MEK inhibitors, also resulted in improved overall survival compared with single-agent BRAFi in patients with BRAFV600-mutated metastatic melanoma. The optimized sequencing and duration of treatment, however, is yet to be found. In this article, we thoroughly review current data and discuss how to best sequence the various treatment modalities available at present, based on four distinct clinical presentations commonly seen in clinic. In addition, we review treatment options beyond checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapy, which may be required by patients failing such effective treatments.

Sequencing of disease-modifying therapies for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: a theoretical approach to optimizing treatment

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic disease which usually begins in young adulthood and is a lifelong condition. Individuals with MS experience physical and cognitive disability resulting from inflammation and demyelination in the central nervous system. Over the past decade, several disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) have been approved for the management of relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS), which is the most prevalent phenotype. The chronic nature of the disease and the multiple treatment options make benefit-risk-based sequencing of therapy essential to ensure optimal care. The efficacy and short- and long-term risks of treatment differ for each DMT due to their different mechanism of action on the immune system. While transitioning between DMTs, in addition to immune system effects, factors such as age, disease duration and severity, disability status, monitoring requirements, preference for the route of administration, and family planning play an important role. Determining a treatment strategy is therefore challenging as it requires careful consideration of the differences in efficacy, safety and tolerability, while at the same time minimizing risks of immune modulation. In this review, we discuss a sequencing approach for treating RRMS, with importance given to the long-term risks and individual preference when devising a treatment plan. Evidence-based strategies to counter breakthrough disease are also addressed.

Treatment Sequencing in Advanced BRAF-Mutant Melanoma Patients: Current Practice in the United States

Background: Treatment of advanced BRAF-mutant melanoma has changed dramatically in the past 3 years thanks to the approval of new immunotherapy and targeted therapy agents. Objectives: The goal of our survey was to investigate when immunotherapy and targeted therapy are used in the management of advanced melanoma patients and whether differences exist between the types of setting. Methods: Oncologists from academic centers, community-based centers, and private clinics were invited to participate in an online survey. Survey questions addressed the proportion of BRAF-mutant patients per treatment line, proportion of patients on targeted therapy and immunotherapy available in the United States, and reasons for prescribing each drug class. Results: A total of 101 physicians completed the survey, of which 47 worked in a private clinic, 33 in an academic center, and 21 in a community-based center. Academic center participants tended to see more severe patients (P < .001) and had more patients in second-line treatment than participants from other setting types. In addition, academic center physicians had more patients in clinical trials (P < .001), and they prescribed the ipilimumab and nivolumab combination more frequently. In terms of sequencing, all participants used targeted therapy for severe or rapidly progressing patients and immunotherapy for those who were less severe or slowly progressing. Conclusions: The findings illustrate the differences in treatment approach per type of setting, with patients in academic centers more likely to receive recently approved products or to be enrolled in clinical trials than those in community-based settings.

Optimizing outcomes in EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC: which tyrosine kinase inhibitor and when?

Despite the efficacy of standard-of-care EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), erlotinib, gefitinib and afatinib, in EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer, resistance develops, most commonly due to the T790M mutation. Osimertinib showed clinical activity in the treatment of T790M-positive disease following progression on a first-line TKI, and is approved in this setting. Recently, osimertinib improved efficacy versus first-generation TKIs (erlotinib and gefitinib) in the first-line setting. Multiple factors can influence first-line treatment decisions, including subsequent therapy options, presence of brain metastases and tolerability, all of which should be considered in the long-term treatment plan. Further research into treatment sequencing is also needed, to optimize outcomes in EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer.

Sequencing of high-efficacy disease-modifying therapies in multiple sclerosis: perspectives and approaches

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is characterized by chronic inflammation in conjunction with neurodegeneration within the central nervous system. Most individuals with MS begin with a relapsing remitting course that later transitions to secondary progressive MS. Currently available disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for relapsing MS have been demonstrated to reduce disease activity, however most patients require a change in therapy over the course of their disease. Treatment goals include the prevention of relapses and disability accumulation and to achieve this objective requires careful planning. Sequencing of DMTs for individual patients should be designed in such a way to maximize disease control and minimize risk based on the mechanism of action, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of each therapy. This includes the DMT patients are being switched from to those they are being switched to. The reversibility of immune system effects should be a key consideration for DMT sequence selection. This feature varies across DMTs and should factor more prominently in decision making as newer treatments become available for the prevention of disability accumulation in patients with progressive MS. In this short review, we discuss the landscape of existing therapies with an eye to the future when planning for optimal DMT sequencing. While no cure exists for MS, efforts are being directed toward research in neuroregeneration with the hope for positive outcomes.

Navigating Treatment of Metastatic Castration- Resistant Prostate Cancer: Nursing Perspectives

BACKGROUND

Treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) has evolved rapidly. In particular, five new treatments that extend survival in mCRPC have been approved since 2010, including the chemotherapy cabazitaxel (Jevtana®), hormonal agents abiraterone (Zytiga®) and enzalutamide (Xtandi®), vaccine sipuleucel-T (Provenge®), and radiopharmaceutical radium-223 (Xofigo®); all have different indications and toxicity profiles.

OBJECTIVES

This review discusses treatment advances in mCRPC, including considerations for side-effect management and treatment sequencing. Studies relating to quality of care in prostate cancer are also discussed.

METHODS

Nonsystematic searches were performed on published manuscripts and abstracts from major oncology or urology congresses, focusing on practical characteristics of the previously mentioned new treatments that extend survival in mCRPC, as well as studies relating to quality of care and the role of nurses in prostate cancer management.

FINDINGS

To ensure that patients derive optimal clinical benefit, assessing overall health and proactively managing expected side effects are essential. Treatment sequencing in mCRPC is an important consideration, but clinical data in this area are limited. Despite medical advances in mCRPC, studies have identified other aspects of care in which improvement is needed. Nurses can make major contributions to addressing supportive care needs, which has been shown to improve patient care and outcomes in prostate cancer. Although patient navigation programs have improved coordination of care, inconsistent implementation among centers has been identified for prostate cancer. Greater use of outcome measures can help to identify unmet patient needs.

Treatment Sequences and Pharmacy Costs of 2 New Therapies for Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND

The approval of new therapies for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), including the oral agents abiraterone acetate and enzalutamide, has altered the standard of care for patients with mCRPC. Little information exists regarding the sequences in which new therapies for mCRPC with evidence of survival benefits are used.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the sequence of medication use for patients with mCRPC as observed in 3 healthcare data sets.

METHODS

Three healthcare claims data sets were used to identify patients with mCRPC who had no previous use of and were newly initiating 1 of the 2 oral study drugs (ie, abiraterone acetate or enzalutamide). The index date was the first study drug claim after September 1, 2012. Patients were followed until the data cutoff or until being lost to follow-up. Descriptive statistics summarized the proportion of patients receiving 1 line of therapy versus ≥2 lines of therapy. The use of a corticosteroid and the mean monthly pharmacy costs of abiraterone acetate or enzalutamide during the follow-up period were compared between the cohorts.

RESULTS

A total of 3525 patients with mCRPC were identified from data set 1, 499 patients from data set 2, and 1949 patients from data set 3. The first-line use of abiraterone acetate was observed in 74%, 82%, and 80% of data sets 1, 2, and 3, respectively, and the first-line use of enzalutamide was seen in 26%, 18%, and 20%, respectively, of these same populations. The concomitant use of corticosteroids was observed in patients receiving first-line abiraterone acetate and in patients receiving first-line enzalutamide in all 3 data sets. After September 2012, abiraterone acetate was the most frequently administered therapy for mCRPC among the 2 oral agents, abiraterone acetate and enzalutamide. The monthly pharmacy costs associated with abiraterone acetate were significantly lower than those associated with enzalutamide in all 3 data sets.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the data used in this study, abiraterone acetate was more frequently administered for patients with mCRPC than enzalutamide. The concomitant use of corticosteroids was common in patients receiving first-line abiraterone acetate or first-line enzalutamide therapy. Patients receiving abiraterone acetate had significantly lower monthly pharmacy costs than patients receiving enzalutamide. These findings may facilitate the estimation of the budgetary impact of a treatment mix for population health and for managed care stakeholders.

Ipilimumab in the treatment of advanced melanoma - a clinical update

INTRODUCTION

Ipilimumab has become an important treatment option for patients with advanced melanoma; however, active research perseveres to resolve many clinical practice issues and to further improve the therapeutic index of this agent.

AREAS COVERED

This article aims to provide an update on long-term data, current challenge and recent progress relating to the clinical application of ipilimumab in the treatment of advanced melanoma. A literature search using PubMed database was conducted using search words ipilimumab, melanoma, treatment sequencing, adjuvant therapy, combination therapy, and biomarkers. Data were also obtained from meeting abstracts and clinical trial registries.

EXPERT OPINION

Signal of clinical activity as adjuvant therapy in patients with resected high-risk melanoma begins to emerge, but longer follow-up is required for confirmation. Many issues, such as optimal dosing schedules and therapeutic sequences, remain unraveled. At present, treatment should be individualized based on patient- and disease-specific factors. Immunotherapy like ipilimumab still represents the best treatment option for durable remission; however, targeted therapies are more appropriate for patients with BRAF V600-mutated tumor who are symptomatic or have rapidly growing disease. With novel therapeutic options in the pipeline, the role of ipilimumab continues to evolve in the rapidly changing treatment landscape of advanced melanoma. Most likely, this agent will be utilized in combinatorial or sequential approach.

Controversies in the management of advanced melanoma: "gray" areas amid the "black and blue"

OBJECTIVE

To examine the current controversies and discuss consensus recommendations regarding treatment sequencing and the role of BRAF inhibitor at disease progression.

DATA SOURCE

An English-language literature search of MEDLINE/PubMed (1966-May 2014), using the keywords advanced melanoma, ipilimumab, cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4, dabrafenib, vemurafenib, BRAF inhibitor, trametinib, MEK inhibitor, and treatment sequencing was conducted. Data were also obtained from package inserts, meeting abstracts, and clinical registries.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

All relevant published articles and abstracts on ipilimumab, vemurafenib, dabrafenib, and trametinib were reviewed. Clinical trial registries and meeting abstracts were used for ongoing studies.

DATA SYNTHESIS

The availability of new agents has made therapy selection more complex. Immunotherapy supporters reason that immunotherapy offers the best chance for long-term benefit and does not compromise the antitumor activity of subsequent BRAF inhibitors. Targeted therapy advocates rely on the high probability and rapid onset of response to BRAF inhibitors. Currently, there is insufficient evidence regarding the role of BRAF inhibitor at disease progression.

CONCLUSIONS

Therapy should be individualized based on patient- and disease-specific factors. Immunotherapy represents the best option for durable remission; however, targeted therapy is more appropriate for patients who are symptomatic or have rapidly growing tumors. The novel therapies have also demonstrated meaningful intracranial activity; thus, the presence of brain metastases should be taken into consideration in selecting therapy. Limited data exist about the continuation of BRAF inhibitors after therapeutic failure. Active research is ongoing to define the best option for patients with BRAF inhibitor refractory disease.

Antitumour activity of abiraterone and diethylstilboestrol when administered sequentially to men with castration-resistant prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Abiraterone is a standard treatment for men with castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). We evaluated the antitumour activity of abiraterone following the synthetic oestrogen diethylstilboestrol (DES).

METHODS

Castration-resistant prostate cancer patients treated with abiraterone were identified. Demographics, response variables and survival data were recorded.

RESULTS

Two-hundred and seventy-four patients received abiraterone, 114 (41.6%) after DES. Pre-chemotherapy abiraterone resulted in ≥50% PSA declines in 35/41 (85.4%) DES-naïve and 20/27 (74.1%) DES-treated patients. Post-docetaxel abiraterone resulted in ≥50% PSA declines in 40/113 (35.4%) DES-naïve and 23/81 (28.4%) DES-treated patients. Time to PSA progression was similar regardless of prior DES.

CONCLUSION

Abiraterone has important antitumour activity in men with CRPC even after DES exposure.

Sequencing of BRAF inhibitors and ipilimumab in patients with metastatic melanoma: a possible algorithm for clinical use

BACKGROUND

Ipilimumab and vemurafenib have both been shown to improve survival in phase III trials of patients with metastatic melanoma. Although vemurafenib is associated with a rapid onset of activity, responses are often of limited duration. Conversely, responses to ipilimumab take time to develop, but can be durable. Currently, limited data exist on the sequencing of these agents in patients with the BRAFV600 mutation. The aim of this analysis was to identify factors that could potentially be used to optimise the order in which ipilimumab and BRAF inhibitors are administered in this patient population.

METHODS

This was a retrospective, single-institution, analysis of patients treated with vemurafenib 960 mg or dabrafenib 150 mg twice-daily and ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks for 4 doses as part of a clinical trial or expanded access program. Eligible patients tested positive for the BRAFV600 mutation and had sequentially received treatment with vemurafenib or dabrafenib followed by ipilimumab, or vice versa.

RESULTS

In total, 34 BRAF-mutation positive patients were eligible, comprising six patients who received ipilimumab followed by a BRAF inhibitor, and 28 patients treated with a BRAF inhibitor who subsequently received ipilimumab. Of these 28 patients, 12 (43%) had rapid disease progression resulting in death and were unable to complete ipilimumab treatment as per protocol. These patients were classified as having rapid disease progression. Median overall survival for rapid progressors was 5.7 months (95% CI: 5.0-6.3), compared with 18.6 months (95% CI: 3.2-41.3; p < 0.0001) for those patients who were able to complete ipilimumab treatment. Baseline factors associated with rapid progression were elevated lactate dehydrogenase, a performance status of 1 and the presence of brain metastases. Patients were more likely to have rapid disease progression if they had at least two of these risk factors at baseline.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis suggests it may be possible to identify those patients at high risk of rapid disease progression upon relapse with a BRAF inhibitor who might not have time to subsequently complete ipilimumab treatment. We hypothesise that these BRAF-mutation positive patients may benefit from being treated with ipilimumab first.