Impact of Bevacizumab Versus Erlotinib on Tumor Metrics in Patients With Previously Untreated Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer: A Study by the Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group.
- 作者列表："Mountzios G","Mavropoulou X","Koliou GA","Linardou H","Samantas E","Kosmidis P","Fountzilas G","Charitandi A","Kalogera-Fountzila A
BACKGROUND:The mechanism of action of bevacizumab and erlotinib is quite different in the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This study sought to compare the two targeted therapies in terms of sequential tumor response metrics. PATIENTS AND METHODS:Parameters of radiological tumor response evaluation were assessed at baseline and periodically in 58 patients receiving either bevacizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy (N=25) or erlotinib (N=33). RESULTS:Bevacizumab-treated patients had lower longest diameter at best response compared to the erlotinib group (p=0.011). The longest diameter, tumor volume and density significantly decreased from baseline to best response for the entire cohort and bevacizumab-treated patients; no difference was found in the erlotinib group. CONCLUSION:Treatment with bevacizumab substantially improved tumor metrics between baseline and each cycle of treatment, as well as between baseline and best response, in patients with advanced NSCLC.
背景: 贝伐单抗与厄洛替尼治疗晚期非小细胞肺癌 (NSCLC) 的作用机制存在较大差异。本研究试图从序贯肿瘤反应指标的角度比较两种靶向治疗。 患者和方法: 在接受贝伐单抗联合铂类化疗 (N = 25) 或厄洛替尼 (N = 33) 的 58 例患者中，在基线和定期评估放射肿瘤反应评价的参数。 结果: 与厄洛替尼组相比，贝伐单抗治疗的患者在最佳反应时的最大直径较低 (p = 0.011)。对于整个队列和贝伐单抗治疗的患者，最长直径、肿瘤体积和密度从基线到最佳反应均显著下降; 厄洛替尼组未发现差异。 结论: 贝伐单抗治疗可显著改善晚期 NSCLC 患者基线和每个治疗周期之间的肿瘤指标，以及基线和最佳反应之间的肿瘤指标。
METHODS:BACKGROUND:The objectives of this study are to assess the chest drainage volumes of patients undergoing anatomic resection of non-small cell lung carcinoma and to determine the safety and effectiveness of administering enoxaparin for thromboprophylaxis. METHODS:A total of 77 patients were included in the study. A study was conducted on the first group of 42 patients in which enoxaparin prophylaxis (enoxaparin, 40 mg) was subcutaneously injected once a day for a period of three days after the patients underwent anatomic pulmonary resection between March 2016 and March 2018. An enoxaparin-free group was identified and included 35 patients who received no enoxaparin prophylaxis after undergoing anatomic pulmonary resection between February 2013 and February 2016. We compared the changes in hemoglobin (Hb) levels, postoperative 3-day drainage volume, transfusion volume, pulmonary complications and length of stay between the two groups. RESULTS:No differences in postoperative Hb levels, chest drainage volume, transfusion volume, postoperative complications, and length of stay were observed between the two groups. Deep-vein thrombosis was noted in a patient in the enoxaparin-free group. No major bleeding was noted in either group. CONCLUSION:We found that for patients undergoing anatomic resection of primary lung cancer, the blood transfusion and chest drainage volumes did not differ, regardless of whether the patients were given enoxaparin. To the best of our knowledge, the impact of low-molecular-weight heparin on chest tube drainage volume for patients undergoing anatomic resection of non-small cell lung carcinoma has not been investigated before.
METHODS::The aim of the present study was to compare the safety and efficacy of cryoablation (CA) and microwave ablation (MWA) as treatments for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC treated with CA (n=45) or MWA (n=56) were enrolled in the present study. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS); the secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS) time and adverse events (AEs). The median PFS times between the two groups were not significantly different (P=0.36): CA, 10 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 7.5-12.4] vs. MWA, 11 months (95% CI, 9.5-12.4). The OS times between the two groups were also not significantly different (P=0.07): CA, 27.5 months (95% CI, 22.8-31.2 months) vs. MWA, 18 months (95% CI, 12.5-23.5). For larger tumors (>3 cm), patients treated with MWA had significantly longer median PFS (P=0.04; MWA, 10.5 months vs. CA, 7.0 months) and OS times (P=0.04; MWA, 24.5 months vs. CA, 14.5 months) compared patients treated with CA. However, for smaller tumors (≤3 cm), median PFS (P=0.79; MWA, 11.0 months vs. CA, 13.0 months) and OS times (P=0.39; MWA, 30.0 months vs. CA, 26.5 months) between the two groups did not differ significantly. The incidence rates of AEs were similar in the two groups (P>0.05). The number of applicators, tumor size and length of the lung traversed by applicators were associated with a higher risk of pneumothorax and intra-pulmonary hemorrhage in the two groups. Treatment with CA resulted in significantly less intraprocedural pain compared with treatment with MWA (P=0.001). Overall, the present study demonstrated that CA and MWA were comparably safe and effective procedures for the treatment of small tumors. However, treatment with MWA was superior compared with CA for the treatment of large tumors.
METHODS:BACKGROUND:BRAF mutations occurring in 1%-5% of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are therapeutic targets for these cancers but the impact of the exact mutation on clinical activity is unclear. The French National Cancer Institute (INCA) launched the AcSé vemurafenib trial to assess the efficacy and safety of vemurafenib in cancers with various BRAF mutations. We herein report the results of the NSCLC cohort. PATIENTS AND METHODS:Tumour samples were screened for BRAF mutations in INCA-certified molecular genetic centres. Patients with BRAF-mutated tumours progressing after ≥1 line of treatment were proposed vemurafenib 960 mg twice daily. Between October 2014 and July 2018, 118 patients were enrolled in the NSCLC cohort. The primary outcome was the objective response rate (ORR) assessed every 8 weeks (RECIST v1.1). A sequential Bayesian approach was planned with an inefficacy bound of 10% for ORR. If no early stopping occurred, the treatment was of interest if the estimated ORR was ≥30% with a 90% probability. Secondary outcomes were tolerance, response duration, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS:Of the 118 patients enrolled, 101 presented with a BRAFV600 mutation and 17 with BRAFnonV600 mutations; the median follow-up was 23.9 months. In the BRAFnonV600 cohort, no objective response was observed and this cohort was stopped. In the BRAFV600 cohort, 43/96 patients had objective responses. The mean Bayesian estimated success rate was 44.9% [95% confidence intervals (CI) 35.2%-54.8%]. The ORR had a 99.9% probability of being ≥30%. Median response duration was 6.4 months, median PFS was 5.2 months (95% CI 3.8-6.8), and OS was 10 months (95% CI 6.8-15.7). The vemurafenib safety profile was consistent with previous publications. CONCLUSION:Routine biomarker screening of NSCLC should include BRAFV600 mutations. Vemurafenib monotherapy is effective for treating patients with BRAFV600-mutated NSCLC but not those with BRAFnonV600 mutations. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02304809.