Adjuvant chemotherapy following combined induction chemotherapy and concurrent chemoradiotherapy improves survival in N2-3-positive nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients

Efficacy of adjuvant chemotherapy/maintenance chemotherapy after induction chemotherapy and concurrent chemoradiotherapy in patients with locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: Experiences of two centers

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

In general, there are not many studies exploring the clinical value of adjuvant chemotherapy or maintenance chemotherapy (AC/MC) after induction chemotherapy and concurrent chemoradiotherapy (IC+CCRT+AC/MC). The purpose of this study was to establish a clinical nomogram for the use of AC/MC in patients with locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma (LA-NPC).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Two centers (Guangzhou Medical University Cancer Center [N = 1226] and Zhongshan People's Hospital [N = 150]) recruited 1376 patients with LA-NPC. All the patients underwent IC+CCRT; 560 patients received AC with cisplatin/nedaplatin plus docetaxel/paclitaxel (TP) or cisplatin/nedaplatin plus fluorouracil (PF), and 81 patients received MC with S-1. Multivariate Cox regression was used to confirm optimal predictors of progression-free survival (PFS), and a nomogram was established to identify patients into low-risk and high-risk cohorts. Additionally, bootstrap internal validation was performed to further verify our nomogram.

RESULTS

After propensity score matching (PSM), the survival curves were not statistically different between IC+CCRT+AC/MC and IC+CCRT (all p > 0.05). Then, a nomogram was developed based on variables that were screened by univariate and multivariate Cox regression, including N stage, cumulative platinum dose during CCRT, body mass index (BMI), IC cycles, IC regimen and cervical lymph node (CLN) necrosis and infiltration of adjacent tissues. The results of the nomogram showed that the high-risk cohort had greatly worse 5-year DMFS, LRFS, PFS and OS compared to low-risk cohort (all p < 0.05), and subgroup analysis found that the 5-year DMFS, PFS and OS of patients treated with IC+CCRT+AC/MC were better than those treated with IC+CCRT in high-risk cohort (all p < 0.05). Notably, the incidence of adverse effects for IC+CCRT+AC cohort was higher than that for IC+CCRT+MC cohort, especially leukocytopenia and neutropenia. IC+CCRT and IC+CCRT+MC were associated with similar incidences of adverse effects.

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of AC or MC to IC+CCRT could improve the DMFS of patients with high-risk NPC and prolong their survival. Additionally, our findings suggest a potential role of AC/MC following IC plus CCRT in the treatment of high-risk LA-NPC.

Real-World Patient Characteristics, Treatment Patterns, and Mutation Testing Patterns Among US Patients with Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Harboring EGFR Mutations

INTRODUCTION

Approximately 15% of patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harbor an epidermal growth factor receptor mutation (EGFRm). Mutation testing (including EGFRm) is recommended for patients with advanced NSCLC (aNSCLC) prior to initiating first-line therapy (L1) or after progression on targeted therapy. To elucidate current and future unmet needs, the present study characterized real-world EGFR testing patterns and treatment patterns in patients with aNSCLC.

METHODS

This retrospective observational cohort study evaluated newly diagnosed adult patients with aNSCLC (stage IIIB or higher) from the Flatiron Health database. Eligible patients received at least L1 during 2015-2020 (testing cohorts) or 2011-2020 (treatment cohorts). Eligible patients for the treatment cohorts had an EGFR mutation.

RESULTS

The testing cohort included 22,726 patients, 75.5% had at least one EGFR test and 15.2% of those tested were positive for EGFR mutation. From 2015 to 2020, the median time from sample collection to test results decreased substantially while the proportion of NGS EGFR tests and use of plasma samples increased. The treatment cohort included 3701 patients (95% common mutations [cEGFR], 5.0% exon 20 insertions [ex20ins]). Three or more lines of therapy (LOTs) were observed in approximately 30% of patients. For L1, most cEGFR patients received EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKI, 68.1%) or platinum-based chemotherapy (PBC, 24.8%); most ex20ins patients received PBC (66.1%) or EGFR-TKI (17.5%). The most common L2 was EGFR-TKI (54.1%) or PBC (22.8%) for cEGFR and immunotherapy (25.9%) or PBC (25.9%) for ex20ins. No predominant L3 was evident in either group.

CONCLUSION

This real-world study, among the largest analyses of testing patterns for patients with aNSCLC, demonstrates a comprehensive view of treatment patterns for patients with EGFR mutations, including ex20ins. Despite recent improvement, increased use of EGFR testing, including advanced methods, is needed to optimize treatment pathways and outcomes. Additionally, the lack of a predominant therapy in later lines indicates a need for new therapies.