The European Society for Medical Oncology 'Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale' field-tested in infrequent tumour entities: an extended analysis of its feasibility at the Medical University of Vienna

Narrative review of value frameworks in urothelial carcinoma and positioning of enfortumab vedotin

AIMS

Evaluate existing oncology value frameworks in terms of their methodology, structure, characteristics, and functionality using the example of enfortumab vedotin, an approved therapy for urothelial carcinoma.

METHODS

A search of PubMed, grey literature, and official websites of relevant international organizations was performed from January 2022 to March 2023.

RESULTS

Six frameworks were identified and analyzed, including the American Society of Clinical Oncology's assessment framework, European Society for Medical Oncology's Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network's Evidence Blocks, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center's DrugAbacus, Institute for Clinical and Economic Review's assessment framework, and the Drug Assessment Framework. Comparisons across frameworks were challenging, owing to differing approaches, objectives, perspectives, methodology, and criteria. Based on the results of the EV-301 study (NCT03474107), the European Society for Medical Oncology's Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale assigned a score of 4 out of 5 to enfortumab vedotin administered after chemotherapy and immunotherapy. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network's Evidence Blocks enabled assessment of enfortumab vedotin compared with other treatments for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, resulting in the positioning of enfortumab vedotin as a preferred regimen after chemotherapy and immunotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Application of value frameworks in oncology can contribute to informed value-based decision-making. However, comparisons across frameworks should be made with caution and limited to the same lines of treatment. Enfortumab vedotin may contribute to optimizing outcomes in patients previously treated with chemotherapy and immunotherapy for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma.

Applicability of ESMO-MCBS and ESCAT for molecular tumor boards

Scoring systems for classifying genomic alterations (GAs) with respect to their potential targeted anticancer therapies (TTs) may be useful for rational and evidence-based decision-making, for example in molecular tumor boards. Therefore, a working group of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) has developed a comprehensive and reproducible classification score that allows the ranking of GAs and TTs according to their level of evidence and clinical relevance. This score is called the ESMO Scale for Clinical Actionability of Molecular Targets (ESCAT). Another score not explicitly developed for TTs but helpful in grading novel TTs is the ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). This tool was designed to objectively quantify the clinical benefit of novel approved therapies. The current review summarizes the status quo of these scores and their applicability for molecular tumor boards.

Treatment patterns and oncological outcome of patients with advanced small intestinal neuroendocrine tumors: real-world data from the Medical University of Vienna

Background:

Different oncological therapies have been approved for small intestinal neuroendocrine tumors (SI-NETs), but relatively little is known about efficacy and long-term outcome outside of phase III trials.

Methods:

This retrospective analysis assessed patients with well-differentiated, metastatic SI-NETs treated at the Medical University of Vienna, an approved European Neuroendocrine Tumor Society (ENETS) Center of Excellence for neuroendocrine tumors. The primary objective was to assess progression-free survival (PFS) following approved therapies, that is, octreotide, lanreotide, peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT), and everolimus, in a representative real-world collective.

Results:

A total of 77 patients receiving systemic treatment for advanced SI-NETs between 2010 and 2021 were included, with a median follow-up time of 82.3 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 57.8–106.8 months]. In the entire collective, the estimated median PFS following first-line therapy was 32.0 months (95% CI, 23.5–40.5 months). Peritoneal carcinomatosis was significantly associated with worse PFS ( p = 0.016). Regarding therapeutic strategies and outcome, 59 patients received somatostatin analogs first line and no significant difference in PFS was observed between lanreotide and octreotide (29.3 versus 35.5 months, p = 0.768). Across all treatment lines, 42 patients underwent PRRT (estimated median PFS: 32.0 months; 95% CI, 25.6–38.3 months) and a small subgroup of 7 patients received everolimus (estimated median PFS: 9.2 months; 95% CI, 1.6–17.0 months). For the total cohort, the estimated median OS following first-line therapy was 100.6 months (95% CI, 82.3–118.8 months), but the high proportion of deaths attributed to NET (77.8%) underlines the lethal nature of the disease. No unexpected toxicities were observed.

Conclusions:

While peritoneal carcinomatosis emerged as an adverse prognostic factor for PFS in this collective, the long-term outcome of patients treated at a specialized NET center using approved therapies appeared comparable to pivotal studies in SI-NET.

Review of cancer treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors : Current concepts, expectations, limitations and pitfalls

Immunotherapy by checkpoint inhibition is about to profoundly change cancer therapy. The number of indications are growing at an unprecedented speed. Clinical studies have demonstrated efficacy in a variety of solid tumors and in hematologic malignancies, although some clinical trials have produced negative results. Thus, it is fair to assume that there are obvious limitations and pitfalls in immunotherapy. Future concepts for combination treatment of immune checkpoint inhibitors have to be developed, but there is also urgent need for better and standardized biomarkers to identify those cancer patients who will benefit from treatment by checkpoint inhibition. The current overview summarizes current knowledge on immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment in malignancies, its outlook and limitations, diagnostic means and, finally, side effect management.