Refine
Document Type
- Article (5)
Language
- English (5)
Has Fulltext
- yes (5)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (5)
Keywords
- Anticoagulation (1)
- Biomarkers (1)
- Cabozantinib (1)
- Cohort studies (1)
- ET (1)
- Immune checkpoint inhibitor (1)
- Immune refractory (1)
- JAK2V617F (1)
- MPN (1)
- MPN-U (1)
Institute
- Medizin (5)
Objectives: An increasing number of treatment-determining biomarkers has been identified in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and molecular testing is recommended to enable optimal individualized treatment. However, data on implementation of these recommendations in the “real-world” setting are scarce. This study presents comprehensive details on the frequency, methodology and results of biomarker testing of advanced NSCLC in Germany.
Patients and methods: This analysis included 3,717 patients with advanced NSCLC (2,921 non-squamous; 796 squamous), recruited into the CRISP registry at start of systemic therapy by 150 German sites between December 2015 and June 2019. Evaluated were the molecular biomarkers EGFR, ALK, ROS1, BRAF, KRAS, MET, TP53, RET, HER2, as well as expression of PD-L1.
Results: In total, 90.5 % of the patients were tested for biomarkers. Testing rates were 92.2 % (non-squamous), 70.7 % (squamous) and increased from 83.2 % in 2015/16 to 94.2% in 2019. Overall testing rates for EGFR, ALK, ROS1, and BRAF were 72.5 %, 74.5 %, 66.1 %, and 53.0 %, respectively (non-squamous). Testing rates for PD-L1 expression were 64.5 % (non-squamous), and 58.5 % (squamous). The most common testing methods were immunohistochemistry (68.5 % non-squamous, 58.3 % squamous), and next-generation sequencing (38.7 % non-squamous, 14.4 % squamous). Reasons for not testing were insufficient tumor material or lack of guideline recommendations (squamous). No alteration was found in 37.8 % (non-squamous), and 57.9 % (squamous), respectively. Most common alterations in non-squamous tumors (all patients/all patients tested for the respective biomarker): KRAS (17.3 %/39.2 %), TP53 (14.1 %/51.4 %), and EGFR (11.0 %/15.1 %); in squamous tumors: TP53 (7.0 %/69.1 %), MET (1.5 %/11.1 %), and EGFR (1.1 %/4.4 %). Median PFS (non-squamous) was 8.7 months (95 % CI 7.4–10.4) with druggable EGFR mutation, and 8.0 months (95 % CI 3.9–9.2) with druggable ALK alterations.
Conclusion: Testing rates in Germany are high nationwide and acceptable in international comparison, but still leave out a significant portion of patients, who could potentially benefit. Thus, specific measures are needed to increase implementation.
Background: Patients with Ph-negative myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN), such as polycythemia vera (PV), essential thrombocythemia (ET), and primary myelofibrosis (PMF), are at increased risk for thrombosis/thromboembolism and major bleeding. Due to the morbidity and mortality of these events, antiplatelet and/or anticoagulant agents are commonly employed as primary and/or secondary prophylaxis. On the other hand, disease-related bleeding complications (i.e., from esophageal varices) are common in patients with MPN. This analysis was performed to define the frequency of such events, identify risk factors, and assess antiplatelet/anticoagulant therapy in a cohort of patients with MPN.
Methods: The MPN registry of the Study Alliance Leukemia is a non-interventional prospective study including adult patients with an MPN according to WHO criteria (2008). For statistical analysis, descriptive methods and tests for significant differences as well as contingency tables were used to identify the odds of potential risk factors for vascular events.
Results: MPN subgroups significantly differed in sex distribution, age at diagnosis, blood counts, LDH levels, JAK2V617F positivity, and spleen size (length). While most thromboembolic events occurred around the time of MPN diagnosis, one third of these events occurred after that date. Splanchnic vein thrombosis was most frequent in post-PV-MF and MPN-U patients. The chance of developing a thromboembolic event was significantly elevated if patients suffered from post-PV-MF (OR 3.43; 95 % CI = 1.39–8.48) and splenomegaly (OR 1.76; 95 % CI = 1.15–2.71). Significant odds for major bleeding were previous thromboembolic events (OR = 2.71; 95 % CI = 1.36–5.40), splenomegaly (OR = 2.22; 95 % CI 1.01–4.89), and the administration of heparin (OR = 5.64; 95 % CI = 1.84–17.34). Major bleeding episodes were significantly less frequent in ET patients compared to other MPN subgroups.
Conclusions: Together, this report on an unselected "real-world" cohort of German MPN patients reveals important data on the prevalence, diagnosis, and treatment of thromboembolic and major bleeding complications of MPN.
Simple Summary: In patients with myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN) and in patients with kidney dysfunction, a higher rate of thrombosis has been reported compared with the general population. Furthermore, MPN patients are more prone to develop kidney dysfunction. In our study, we assessed the importance of specific risk factors for kidney dysfunction and thrombosis in MPN patients. We found that the rate of thrombosis is correlated with the degree of kidney dysfunction, especially in myelofibrosis. Significant associations for kidney dysfunction included arterial hypertension, MPN treatment, and increased inflammation, and those for thrombosis comprised arterial hypertension, non-excessive platelet counts, and antithrombotic therapy. The identified risk factor associations varied between MPN subtypes. Our data suggest that kidney dysfunction in MPN patients is associated with an increased risk of thrombosis, mandating closer monitoring, and, possibly, early thromboprophylaxis.
Abstract: Inflammation-induced thrombosis represents a severe complication in patients with myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN) and in those with kidney dysfunction. Overlapping disease-specific attributes suggest common mechanisms involved in MPN pathogenesis, kidney dysfunction, and thrombosis. Data from 1420 patients with essential thrombocythemia (ET, 33.7%), polycythemia vera (PV, 38.5%), and myelofibrosis (MF, 27.9%) were extracted from the bioregistry of the German Study Group for MPN. The total cohort was subdivided according to the calculated estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR, (mL/min/1.73 m2)) into eGFR1 (≥90, 21%), eGFR2 (60–89, 56%), and eGFR3 (<60, 22%). A total of 29% of the patients had a history of thrombosis. A higher rate of thrombosis and longer MPN duration was observed in eGFR3 than in eGFR2 and eGFR1. Kidney dysfunction occurred earlier in ET than in PV or MF. Multiple logistic regression analysis identified arterial hypertension, MPN treatment, increased uric acid, and lactate dehydrogenase levels as risk factors for kidney dysfunction in MPN patients. Risk factors for thrombosis included arterial hypertension, non-excessive platelet counts, and antithrombotic therapy. The risk factors for kidney dysfunction and thrombosis varied between MPN subtypes. Physicians should be aware of the increased risk for kidney disease in MPN patients, which warrants closer monitoring and, possibly, early thromboprophylaxis.
Background: Efficacy of treatment after failure of check point inhibitors (ICI) therapy remains ill-defined in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC).
Objective: To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of cabozantinib after failure of ICI-based therapies.
Design, setting and participants: Patients with mRCC who concluded cabozantinib treatment directly after an ICI-based therapy were eligible. Data was collected retrospectively from participating sites in Germany.
Interventions: Cabozantinib was administered as a standard of care.
Outcome measurements and statistical analysis
Adverse events (AE) were reported according to CTCAE v5.0. Objective response rate according to RECIST 1.1 and Progression Free Survival (PFS) were collected from medical records. Descriptive statistics and Kaplan-Meyer-plots were utilized.
Results and limitations: About 56 eligible patients (71.4% male) with median age of 66 years and clear cell histology in 66.1% (n = 37) were analyzed. 87.5% (n = 49) had ≥ 2 previous lines. IMDC risk was intermediate or poor in 17 patients (30.4%) and missing in 66.1%. 20 patients (35.7%) started with 60 mg. 55.4% (n = 31) required dose reductions, 26.8% (n = 15) treatment delays and 1.8% (n = 1) treatment discontinuation. Partial response was reported in 10.7% (n = 6), stable and progressive disease were reported in 19.6% (n = 11) and in 12.5% (n = 7). 32 patients were not evaluable (57.1%). Median treatment duration was 6.1 months. Treatment related AE were reported in 76.8% (n = 43) and 19.6% (n = 11) had grade 3-5. Fatigue (26.8%), diarrhea (26.8%) and hand-foot-syndrome (25.0%) were the 3 most frequent AEs of any grade and causality. SAE were reported in 21.4% (n = 12), 2 were fatal. Major limitation was the retrospective data capture in our study.
Conclusions: Cabozantinib followed directly after ICI-based therapy was safe and feasible. No new safety signals were reported. A lower starting dose was frequently utilized in this real-world cohort, which was associated with a favorable tolerability profile. Our data supports the use of cabozantinib after ICI treatment.