BRAF Alterations as Therapeutic Targets in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Several subsets of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are defined by molecular alterations acting as tumor drivers, some of them being currently therapeutically actionable. The rat sarcoma (RAS)-rapidly accelerated fibrosarcoma (RAF)-mitogen-activated protein/extracellular signal-regulated kinase kinase (MEK)-extracellular signal-regulated kinase (ERK) pathway constitutes an attractive potential target, as v-Raf murine sarcoma viral oncogene homolog B (BRAF) mutations occur in 2-4% of NSCLC adenocarcinoma. METHODS: Here, we review the latest clinical data on BRAF serine/threonine kinase inhibitors in NSCLC. RESULTS: Treatment of V600E BRAF-mutated NSCLC with BRAF inhibitor monotherapy demonstrated encouraging antitumor activity. Combination of BRAF and MEK inhibitors using dabrafenib and trametinib is under evaluation. Preliminary data suggest superior efficacy compared with BRAF inhibitor monotherapy. CONCLUSION: Targeting BRAF alterations represents a promising new therapeutic approach for a restricted subset of oncogene-addicted NSCLC. Prospect ive trials refining this strategy are ongoing. A next step will probably aim at combining BRAF inhibitors and immunotherapy or alternatively improve a multilevel mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway blockade by combining with ERK inhibitors.

Tumour biology, metastatic sites and taxanes sensitivity as determinants of eribulin mesylate efficacy in breast cancer: results from the ERIBEX retrospective, international, multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Our retrospective, international study aimed at evaluating the activity and safety of eribulin mesylate (EM) in pretreated metastatic breast cancer (MBC) in a routine clinical setting. METHODS: Patients treated with EM for a locally advanced or MBC between March 2011 and January 2014 were included in the study. Clinical and biological assessment of toxicity was performed at each visit. Tumour response was assessed every 3 cycles of treatment. A database was created to collect clinical, pathological and treatment data. RESULTS: Two hundred and fifty-eight patients were included in the study. Median age was 59 years old. Tumours were Hormone Receptor (HR)-positive (73.3 %) HER2-positive (10.2 %), and triple negative (TN, 22.5 %). 86.4 % of the patients presented with visceral metastases, mainly in the liver (67.4 %). Median previous metastatic chemotherapies number was 4 [1-9]. Previous treatments included anthracyclines and/or taxanes (100 %) and capecitabine (90.7 %). Median number of EM cycles was 5 [1-19]. The relative dose intensity was 0.917. At the time of analysis (median follow-up of 13.9 months), 42.3 % of the patients were still alive. The objective response rate was 25.2 % (95 %CI: 20-31) with a 36.1 % clinical benefit rate (CBR). Median time to progression (TTP) and overall survival were 3.97 (95 %CI: 3.25-4.3) and 11.2 (95 %CI: 9.3-12.1) months, respectively. One- and 2-year survival rates were 45.5 and 8.5 %, respectively. In multivariate analysis, HER2 positivity (HR = 0.29), the presence of lung metastases (HR = 2.49) and primary taxanes resistance (HR = 2.36) were the only three independent CBR predictive factors, while HR positivity (HR = 0.67), the presence of lung metastases (HR = 1.52) and primary taxanes resistance (HR = 1.50) were the only three TTP independent prognostic factors. Treatment was globally well tolerated. Most common grade 3-4 toxicities were neutropenia (20.9 %), peripheral neuropathy (3.9 %), anaemia (1.6 %), liver dysfunction (0.8 %) and thrombocytopenia (0.4 %). Thirteen patients (5 %) developed febrile neutropenia. CONCLUSION: EM is an effective new option in heavily pretreated MBC, with a favourable efficacy/safety ratio in a clinical practice setting. Our results comfort the use of this new molecule and pledge for the evaluation of EM-trastuzumab combination in this setting. Tumour biology, primary taxanes sensitivity and metastatic sites could represent useful predictive and prognostic factors.

Use of the nutritional risk score by surgeons and nutritionists.

BACKGROUND: The Nutritional Risk Score (NRS) is a validated tool to identify patients who should benefit of nutritional interventions. Nutritional screening however has not yet been widely adopted by surgeons. Furthermore, the question about reliability of nutritional assessment performed by surgeons is still unanswered. METHODS: Data was obtained from a recent randomised trial including 146 patients with an NRS ≥3 as assessed by the surgeons. Additional detailed nutritional assessment was performed for all patients by nutritional specialists and entered prospectively in a dedicated database. In this retrospective, surgeons' scoring of NRS and its components was compared to the assessment by nutritionists (considered as gold standard). RESULTS: Prospective NRS scores by surgeons and nutritionists were available for 141 patients (97%). Surgeons calculated a NRS of 7, 6, 5, 4 and 3 in 2, 8, 38, 21 and 72 patients respectively. Nutritionists calculated a NRS of 6, 5, 4, 3 and 2 in 8, 26, 47, 57, 3 patients, respectively. Surgeons' assessment was entirely correct in 56 patients (40%), while at least the final score was consistent in 63 patients (45%). Surgeons overrated the NRS in 21% of patients and underestimated the score in 29%. Evaluation of the nutritional status showed most of the discrepancies (54%). CONCLUSION: Surgeon's assessment of nutritional status is modest at best. Close collaboration with nutritional specialists should be recommended in order to avoid misdiagnosis and under-treatment of patients at nutritional risk.

International comparison of the German evidence-based S3-guidelines on the diagnosis and multimodal treatment of early and locally advanced gastric cancer, including adenocarcinoma of the lower esophagus.

BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines are essential in implementing and maintaining nationwide stage-specific diagnostic and therapeutic standards. In 2011, the first German expert consensus guideline defined the evidence for diagnosis and treatment of early and locally advanced esophagogastric cancers. Here, we compare this guideline with other national guidelines as well as current literature. METHODS: The German S3-guideline used an approved development process with de novo literature research, international guideline adaptation, or good clinical practice. Other recent evidence-based national guidelines and current references were compared with German recommendations. RESULTS: In the German S3 and other Western guidelines, adenocarcinomas of the esophagogastric junction (AEG) are classified according to formerly defined AEG I-III subgroups due to the high surgical impact. To stage local disease, computed tomography of the chest and abdomen and endosonography are reinforced. In contrast, laparoscopy is optional for staging. Mucosal cancers (T1a) should be endoscopically resected "en-bloc" to allow complete histological evaluation of lateral and basal margins. For locally advanced cancers of the stomach or esophagogastric junction (≥T3N+), preferred treatment is preoperative and postoperative chemotherapy. Preoperative radiochemotherapy is an evidence-based alternative for large AEG type I-II tumors (≥T3N+). Additionally, some experts recommend treating T2 tumors with a similar approach, mainly because pretherapeutic staging is often considered to be unreliable. CONCLUSIONS: The German S3 guideline represents an up-to-date European position with regard to diagnosis, staging, and treatment recommendations for patients with locally advanced esophagogastric cancer. Effects of perioperative chemotherapy versus chemoradiotherapy are still to be investigated for adenocarcinoma of the cardia and the lower esophagus.

Prognostic factors for progression-free and overall survival in advanced biliary tract cancer.

BACKGROUND: Biliary tract cancer is an uncommon cancer with a poor outcome. We assembled data from the National Cancer Research Institute (UK) ABC-02 study and 10 international studies to determine prognostic outcome characteristics for patients with advanced disease. METHODS: Multivariable analyses of the final dataset from the ABC-02 study were carried out. All variables were simultaneously included in a Cox proportional hazards model, and backward elimination was used to produce the final model (using a significance level of 10%), in which the selected variables were associated independently with outcome. This score was validated externally by receiver operating curve (ROC) analysis using the independent international dataset. RESULTS: A total of 410 patients were included from the ABC-02 study and 753 from the international dataset. An overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) Cox model was derived from the ABC-02 study. White blood cells, haemoglobin, disease status, bilirubin, neutrophils, gender, and performance status were considered prognostic for survival (all with P < 0.10). Patients with metastatic disease {hazard ratio (HR) 1.56 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.20-2.02]} and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) 2 had worse survival [HR 2.24 (95% CI 1.53-3.28)]. In a dataset restricted to patients who received cisplatin and gemcitabine with ECOG PS 0 and 1, only haemoglobin, disease status, bilirubin, and neutrophils were associated with PFS and OS. ROC analysis suggested the models generated from the ABC-02 study had a limited prognostic value [6-month PFS: area under the curve (AUC) 62% (95% CI 57-68); 1-year OS: AUC 64% (95% CI 58-69)]. CONCLUSION: These data propose a set of prognostic criteria for outcome in advanced biliary tract cancer derived from the ABC-02 study that are validated in an international dataset. Although these findings establish the benchmark for the prognostic evaluation of patients with ABC and confirm the value of longheld clinical observations, the ability of the model to correctly predict prognosis is limited and needs to be improved through identification of additional clinical and molecular markers.

The forced adoption of a fast-track appraisal process for a breast cancer treatment in UK

Trastuzumab (Herceptin ®, Roche) is approved in UK for the treatment of the metastatic breast cancer since 2001. As of 2005, concomitantly with the publication of 3 studies that showed it produces a 50% reduction of the recurrence rates of breast cancer, trastuzumab started to be prescribed in the earlt adjuvant treatrnent of this disease. Und June 2006, trastuzumab did not have both: 1) regulatory approval and 2) NICE [National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence] recommendation for the use in early stages of breast cancer. During the period until June 2006, the trastuzumab use in those patients was not reimbursed and because the cost of trastuzumab is equal with the yearly UK average income, most of patients could not self fund their treatrnent. Before the publication of the final NICE guidance, the new data of trastuzumab in early breast cancer raised enormous patient and professional interest and expectations. A great volume of public and professional pressure was generated to transcend a system by which Primary Care Trusts can reimburse a treatment only after a formal guidance was issued. This paper draw on a case study depicting and analyzing the process by which regulatory approval and NICE recommendations were achieved in a record time and how trastuzumab became a standard treatment on early adjuvant breast cancer. According to the data we gathered in this work we were witnessing one of the fastest processes of adoption of a health care technology since the creation of NICE, in 1999. This study addresses the following research question: How and why does the adoption pattern of trastuzumab differ from the rational decision-making model of the reimbursement process in UK? [Author, p. 4]

Medical nutrition in oncology : potential solution for managing malnutrition in cancer patients in Switzerland

The objective of this study is to: - Describe the cancer related complications, prevalence and economic burden of cancer; - Provide the review of the studies that have been done until now proving that specialized nutrition; can improve quality of life (QoL), shorten the length of hospital stay and reduce overall cost of patients care; - Describe different types of specialized nutritional support and tools/ guidelines used for nutritional screening; - Justify the use of specialized nutrition as an integral part of cancer treatment [Author, p. 6] [Contents] 3. General overview of cancer. 4. Specialized nutritional support and nutritional screening. 4.4 European guidelines for nutritional screening [Screening tools: Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST); Nutritional Risk Screening (NRS-2002); Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA)]. 5. Implementation of nutritional support in Swiss hospitals as an integral part of oncology treatment. 5.1 Nutritional guidelines used in Switzerland. 5.2 Status of prevention of malnutrition in cancer patients in Swiss hospitals. 5.3 Malnutrition in Swiss hospitals: medical costs and potential economies. 5.4 Recommendations for implementation of nutritional guidelines and nutritional support in Swiss hospitals.

The role of advanced nursing in lung cancer: A framework based development.

PURPOSE: Advanced Practice Lung Cancer Nurses (APLCN) are well-established in several countries but their role has yet to be established in Switzerland. Developing an innovative nursing role requires a structured approach to guide successful implementation and to meet the overarching goal of improved nursing sensitive patient outcomes. The "Participatory, Evidence-based, Patient-focused process, for guiding the development, implementation, and evaluation of advanced practice nursing" (PEPPA framework) is one approach that was developed in the context of the Canadian health system. The purpose of this article is to describe the development of an APLCN model at a Swiss Academic Medical Center as part of a specialized Thoracic Cancer Center and to evaluate the applicability of PEPPA framework in this process. METHOD: In order to develop and implement the APLCN role, we applied the first seven phases of the PEPPA framework. RESULTS: This article spreads the applicability of the PEPPA framework for an APLCN development. This framework allowed us to i) identify key components of an APLCN model responsive to lung cancer patients' health needs, ii) identify role facilitators and barriers, iii) implement the APLCN role and iv) design a feasibility study of this new role. CONCLUSIONS: The PEPPA framework provides a structured process for implementing novel Advanced Practice Nursing roles in a local context, particularly where such roles are in their infancy. Two key points in the process include assessing patients' health needs and involving key stakeholders.