Barriers to Access: Global Variability in Implementing Treatment Advances in Lung Cancer

Young Onset Lung Cancer in India: Insights Into Clinical, Demographic, and Genomic Profiles

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer (LC) is traditionally perceived as a disease primarily affecting the elderly. However, individuals under the age of 40 represent a rare subset, accounting for up to 6% of all LC cases. There is limited information about demographic, clinical, pathological, and molecular features and treatment outcomes of young-onset LC.

METHODS

In this study, we have analyzed the clinical, pathological, molecular, treatment, and survival outcome data of non-small-cell lung cancer patients δ 40 years of age treated at a tertiary care center in India. Additionally, we compared the in-house genomic data of young-onset LC and late-onset LC tested on a common targeted next-generation sequencing (NGS) panel.

RESULTS

A total of 133 patients were included, with a median age of 36 years (21-40 years). Females constituted 40.6% of total, and 79% were never smokers. Adenocarcinoma was the most common histology (85.7%), and oncogene fusions were common (ALK fusion in 34% and ROS1 in 7%). After a median follow-up of 39.2 months (95% CI 20.3-49.86), median overall survival was 26 months (95% CI 15.56-32.43) and median progression-free survival (of patients with stage 4 disease) was 6.53 months (95% CI 5.03-8.4). In-house NGS data reveals a striking enrichment of fusions (ALK and RET) in young-onset LC.

CONCLUSION

Young-onset LC is a unique entity with a higher prevalence of targetable genomic alterations, especially oncogene fusions. All efforts should be made to identify the targetable alterations in this enriched population and implement targeted therapy.

A Comparative Study Evaluating the Quality of Life and Survival Outcomes in Patients Receiving Chemotherapy Versus Oral Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor in the Third Line and Beyond Setting for Advanced NSCLC

Introduction

The outcomes in advanced NSCLC have improved owing to the availability of more effective systemic and improved supportive care. This has increased the number of patients who seek treatment in the third line and beyond setting. We conducted this study to compare the quality of life (QoL), toxicity, and outcomes in patients receiving chemotherapy and EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) in this setting.

Methods

In this phase 3, randomized, open-label study, patients with stage III or IV NSCLC with disease progression on at least two prior lines of chemotherapy, with a life expectancy of at least 3 months, without prior EGFR TKI exposure, and stable brain metastases (if any) were included. Patients were randomized to receive chemotherapy (gemcitabine or docetaxel or paclitaxel or vinorelbine) or an EGFR TKI (erlotinib or gefitinib). The primary end point was the change in QoL at 8 to 10 weeks; the secondary outcomes were safety and overall survival (OS). Patients underwent clinical evaluation at every visit, and toxicity was assessed as per Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.03. A radiological tumor response assessment was done every 8 to 12 weeks from the start of therapy. The QoL was assessed using the EORTC QLQ C30 and LC13 questionnaires. The change in QoL scores was calculated as the difference between scores at baseline and scores at 8 to 10 weeks (Δ) for each QoL domain. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare the mean difference (Δ) for each domain. OS and progression-free survival (PFS) were determined using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional regression analysis.

Results

A total of 246 patients were enrolled in the study, with 123 in each arm. There was a male predominance with 69.1% male patients in the chemotherapy arm and 70.7% in the EGFR TKI arm. The median age of patients in the chemotherapy arm was 54 years and 55 years in the chemotherapy and EGFR TKI arms, respectively. There was no significant difference in the change in QoL at baseline and the second visit (Δ) in both arms in all domains of EORTC QLQ C30 except cognitive function (p = 0.0045) and LC13 except alopecia (0.01249). The mean Δ Global Health Status was -28 in the chemotherapy arm and -26.8 in the EGFR TKI arm; this was not statistically significant (p = 0.973). The median follow-up was 88.1 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 39.04-137.15). On the intention-to-treat analysis, the median PFS was 3.13 months (95% CI: 2.15-4.11) in the chemotherapy arm and 2.26 months (95% CI: 2.1-2.43) in the EGFR TKI arm, with hazard ratio at 1.074 (95% CI: 0.83-1.38) (p = 0.58). There were 120 deaths in each arm. The median OS was 7.63 months (95% CI: 5.96-9.30) in the chemotherapy arm and 7.5 months in the EGFR TKI arm (95% CI: 5.85-9.14); hazard ratio at 1.033 (95% CI: 0.80-1.33) (p = 0.805). The toxicity profile was similar in both arms except for a significantly higher incidence of fatigue (p = 0.043), peripheral neuropathy (0.000), alopecia, hypokalemia (0.037), and pedal edema (0.007) in the chemotherapy arm and dry skin (p = 0.000) and skin rash (p = 0.019) in the EGFR TKI arm.

Conclusions

There was no significant difference in most QoL scales (except cognitive function and alopecia), OS, and PFS of patients with advanced NSCLC receiving an EGFR TKI as compared with chemotherapy TKI in the third-line setting. The toxicity profile is consistent with the known toxicities of the agents.