Refine
Document Type
- Article (2)
Language
- English (2)
Has Fulltext
- yes (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (2)
Keywords
- Chemotherapy (1)
- Lung Cancer (1)
- Non-small cell lung cancer (1)
- Prognosis (1)
- ROS1 (1)
- immunology and infectious diseases (1)
- transplantation (1)
Institute
- Medizin (2)
Background: While recent data show that crizotinib is highly effective in patients with ROS1 rearrangement, few data is available about the prognostic impact, the predictive value for different treatments, and the genetic heterogeneity of ROS1- positive patients.
Patients and methods: 1137 patients with adenocarcinoma of the lung were analyzed regarding their ROS1 status. In positive cases, next-generation sequencing (NGS) was performed. Clinical characteristics, treatments and outcome of these patients were assessed. Overall survival (OS) was compared with genetically defined subgroups of ROS1-negative patients.
Results: 19 patients of 1035 evaluable (1.8%) had ROS1-rearrangement. The median OS has not been reached. Stage IV patients with ROS1-rearrangement had the best OS of all subgroups (36.7 months, p < 0.001). 9 of 14 (64.2%) patients had at least one response to chemotherapy. Estimated mean OS for patients receiving chemotherapy and crizotinib was 5.3 years. Ten patients with ROS1-rearrangement (52.6%) harbored additional aberrations.
Conclusion: ROS1-rearangement is not only a predictive marker for response to crizotinib, but also seems to be the one of the best prognostic molecular markers in NSCLC reported so far. In stage IV patients, response to chemotherapy was remarkable high and overall survival was significantly better compared to other subgroups including EGFR-mutated and ALK-fusion-positive NSCLC.
Objective: Fluconazle or posaconazole is a standard of care in antifungal prophylaxis for patients undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). However, many patients need to interrupt standard prophylaxis due to intolerability, drug‐drug interactions, or toxicity. Micafungin has come to prominence for these patients. However, the optimal biological dose of micafungin stays unclear.
Methods: We retrospectively evaluated the efficacy of micafungin as antifungal prophylaxis in HSCT patients. Micafungin was applied as bridging in patients who were not eligible to receive oral posaconazole. Micafungin was either given at a dose of 100 mg or 50 mg SID.
Results: A total of 173 patients received micafungin prophylaxis, 62 in the 100 mg and 111 in the 50 mg dose group. The incidence of probable or proven breakthrough IFDs during the observation period was one in the 100 mg and one in the 50 mg group. Fungal‐free survival after 100 days was 98% and 99% (P = .842), and overall survival after 365 days was 60% and 63% (P = .8) respectively. In both groups, micafungin was well tolerated with no grade 3 or 4 toxicities.
Conclusion: In this retrospective analysis, which was not powered to detect non‐inferiority, micafungin is effective and complements posaconazole as fungal prophylaxis in HSCT.