Chemotherapy re-use versus anti-angiogenic monotherapy as the third-line treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a real-world cohort study

BACKGROUND

There are various recommendations for third-line treatment in mCRC, however, there is no consensus on who is more suitable for particular strategy. Chemotherapy re-use in third-line setting is a common option in clinical practice. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy of third-line chemotherapy re-use by the comparison with that of anti-angiogenic monotherapy, and further find the population more suitable for third-line chemotherapy.

METHODS

Using electronic medical records of patients with mCRC, a retrospective cohort study was conducted. A total of 143 patients receiving chemotherapy and 40 patients receiving anti-angiogenic monotherapy in third-line setting as control group were retrospectively collected. Baseline characteristics were analyzed using the χ² test or the Fisher's exact test. ROC curve and surv_cutpoint function of 'survminer' package in R software were used to calculate the cut-off value. Survival curves were plotted with the Kaplan-Meier method and were compared using the log-rank test. The Cox proportional hazard regression model was used to analyze the potential risk factors.

RESULTS

A total of 143 patients receiving chemotherapy and 40 patients receiving anti-angiogenic monotherapy in third-line setting were retrospectively collected. Chemotherapy rechallenge was recorded in 93 patients (93/143, 65.0%), and the remaining patients chose new chemotherapeutic drugs that had not been previously used, including irinotecan-based (22/50), oxaliplatin-based (9/50), raltitrexed (9/50), gemcitabine (5/50) and other agents (5/50). The ORR and DCR of third-line chemotherapy reached 8.8%, 61.3%, respectively (anti-angiogenic monotherapy group: ORR 2.6%, DCR 47.4%). The mPFS and mOS of patients receiving chemotherapy were 4.9 and 12.0 m, respectively (anti-angiogenic monotherapy group: mPFS 2.7 m, mOS 5.2 m). Subgroup analyses found that patients with RAS/RAF mutation, longer PFS (greater than 10.6 m) in front-line treatment or larger tumor burden had better prognosis with third-line chemotherapy rather than anti-angiogenic monotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Third-line chemotherapy re-use was effective in mCRC. Those with more aggressive characteristics (RAS/RAF mutant, larger tumor burden) or better efficacy of previous chemotherapy (longer PFS) were more appropriate for third-line chemotherapy, rather than anti-angiogenic monotherapy.

Multiple Real-World Data Sources in a Bayesian Framework to Inform Long-Term Survival Estimates of Mosunetuzumab in Patients with Follicular Lymphoma

INTRODUCTION

Patients with follicular lymphoma (FL) receiving third-line or later (3L +) therapy have long survival, which can make estimating long-term overall survival (OS) from trial data challenging. The objective of this study was to estimate long-term OS for mosunetuzumab from the GO29781 trial (NCT02500407) using multiple real-world databases (RWDs) in a Bayesian framework.

METHODS

Seven RWD sources for patients with FL receiving 3L + therapy and the expansion cohort in the GO29781 trial for mosunetuzumab were used. Hazard trends from the RWD sources were analyzed, and disease-wide pointwise OS and its corresponding uncertainty were estimated using Bayesian random-effects meta-analysis from the RWD sources. Pointwise OS obtained was used as an informative prior in Bayesian survival extrapolations to data from patients receiving mosunetuzumab. Results after adjusting for background mortality were compared to equivalent frequentist extrapolations using trial data only.

RESULTS

Hazard patterns from RWD sources supported a constant or linearly decreasing hazard. Mean pointwise OS for patients with FL receiving 3L + therapy was estimated at 0.52 (95% credible interval, 0.29-0.85) at 8 years. Bayesian extrapolations for mosunetuzumab produced median survival estimates of 11.6 (6.7-20.7) years to 17.0 (6.4-22.7) years depending on the distribution used, reducing uncertainty by 20% to 46% relative to the frequentist estimation.

CONCLUSION

Multiple RWD sources can be synthesized to augment the credibility of data with short follow-up, long patient survival, and few events to effectively estimate long-term survival and reduce estimated uncertainty. This method can be applied to other indications with similar characteristics.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER AND DATE OF REGISTRATION

NCT02500407, July 16, 2015.

Third-line and rescue therapy for refractory Helicobacter pylori infection: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Due to increasing resistance rates of Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) to different antibiotics, failures in eradication therapies are becoming more frequent. Even though eradication criteria and treatment algorithms for first-line and second-line therapy against H. pylori infection are well-established, there is no clear recommendation for third-line and rescue therapy in refractory H. pylori infection.

AIM

To perform a systematic review evaluating the efficacy and safety of rescue therapies against refractory H. pylori infection.

METHODS

A systematic search of available rescue treatments for refractory H. pylori infection was conducted on the National Library of Medicine’s PubMed search platform based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Randomized or non-randomized clinical trials and observational studies evaluating the effectiveness of H. pylori infection rescue therapies were included.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight studies were included in the analysis of mean eradication rates as rescue therapy, and 21 of these were selected for analysis of mean eradication rate as third-line treatment. For rifabutin-, sitafloxacin-, levofloxacin-, or metronidazole-based triple-therapy as third-line treatment, mean eradication rates of 81.6% and 84.4%, 79.4% and 81.5%, 55.7% and 60.6%, and 62.0% and 63.0% were found in intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analysis, respectively. For third-line quadruple therapy, mean eradication rates of 69.2% and 72.1% were found for bismuth quadruple therapy (BQT), 88.9% and 90.9% for bismuth quadruple therapy, three-in-one, Pylera^® (BQT-Pylera), and 61.3% and 64.2% for non-BQT) in ITT and PP analysis, respectively. For rifabutin-, sitafloxacin-, levofloxacin-, or metronidazole-based triple therapy as rescue therapy, mean eradication rates of 75.4% and 78.8%, 79.4 and 81.5%, 55.7% and 60.6%, and 62.0% and 63.0% were found in ITT and PP analysis, respectively. For quadruple therapy as rescue treatment, mean eradication rates of 76.7% and 79.2% for BQT, 84.9% and 87.8% for BQT-Pylera, and 61.3% and 64.2% for non-BQT were found in ITT and PP analysis, respectively. For susceptibility-guided therapy, mean eradication rates as third-line and rescue treatment were 75.0% in ITT and 79.2% in PP analysis.

CONCLUSION

We recommend sitafloxacin-based triple therapy containing vonoprazan in regions with low macrolide resistance profile. In regions with known resistance to macrolides or unavailability of bismuth, rifabutin-based triple therapy is recommended.

A systematic review and meta-analysis assessing antiretroviral therapy for treatment-experienced HIV adult patients using an optimized background therapy approach: is there evidence enough for a standardized third-line strategy?

BACKGROUND

The World Health Organization (WHO) has identified the need for evidence on third-line antiretroviral therapy (ART) for adults living with HIV/AIDS, given that some controversy remains as to the best combinations of ART for experienced HIV-1-infected patients. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to (i) assess the efficacy of third-line therapy for adults with HIV/AIDS based on randomized controlled trials (RCT) that adopted the "new antiretroviral (ARV) + optimized background therapy (OBT)" approach and (ii) address the key issues identified in WHO's guidelines on the use of third-line therapy.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, ISI Web of Science, SCOPUS, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for RCTs assessing third-line ARV therapy that used an OBT approach between 1966 and 2015. Data was extracted using an Excel-structured datasheet based on the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) recommendations. The primary outcome of this meta-analysis was the proportion of patients reaching undetectable HIV RNA levels (< 50 copies/mL) at 48 weeks of follow-up. Included studies were evaluated using the Cochrane's Risk of Bias assessment tool. Summarized evidence was rated according to the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

Eighteen trials assessing 9 new ARV + OBT combinations defined as third-line HIV therapy provided the efficacy data: 7 phase IIb trials and 11 phase III trials. Four of the 18 trials provided extension data, thus resulting in 14 trials providing 48-week efficacy data. In the meta-analysis, considering the outcome regarding the proportion of patients with a viral load below 50 copies/ml at 48 weeks, 9 out of 14 trials demonstrated the superiority of the new combination being studied (risk difference = 0.18, 95% CI 0.13-0.23). The same analysis stratified by the number of fully active ARVs demonstrated a risk difference of 0.29 (95% CI 0.12-0.46), 0.28 (95% CI 0.17-0.38) and 0.17 (95% CI 0.10-0.24) respectively from zero, one, and two or more active drugs strata. Nine of the 18 trials were considered to have a high risk of bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Efficacy results demonstrated that the groups of HIV-experienced patients receiving the new ARV + OBT were more likely to achieve viral suppression when compared to the control groups. However, most of these trials may be at a high risk of bias. Thus, there is still not enough evidence to stipulate which combinations are the most effective for therapeutic regimens that are to be used sequentially due to documented multi-resistance.

[Current status and research progress of third-line treatment for patients with gastric cancer in China]

Gastric cancer (GC) is one of the most common malignant tumors in the world. The prognosis of advanced GC is extremely poor, characterized by the high recurrence or disease progression rate after the first-line chemotherapy, and the extremely low long-term survival rate. Meanwhile, the options for subsequent treatment are limited. Studies have shown that the third-line therapy can provide significant survival benefits for selected patients with advanced GC. Currently, a series of randomized controlled trials and real-world studies related to chemotherapy, targeted therapy, and immunotherapy are conducted. In addition, the explorations of combination therapy, and screening the optimal clinical features or predictive biomarkers for the suitable population who might benefit from the third-line regimens are the hot spots for researchers. This article will provide a detailed overview of the current status and progress of the third-line treatment for advanced GC, and to illustrate the characteristics of Chinese GC treatment.

Real-life multidisciplinary treatment for unresectable colorectal cancer liver metastases including hepatic artery infusion with chemo-filtration and liquid biopsy precision oncotherapy: observational cohort study

BACKGROUND

Hepatic artery infusion (HAI) and drug selection by liquid biopsy precision oncotherapy are under investigation for the multidisciplinary treatment of unresectable colorectal liver metastases (CRCLM) in progression after systemic therapy. Here, we compare the safety and efficacy of third-line HAI followed by target therapy with drug regimes selected by liquid biopsy precision oncotherapy to third-line systemic therapy with drug regimes selected partly by tissue biopsy precision oncotherapy, in a retrospective real-life study of 106 unresectable CRCLM patients.

METHODS

Drug regimens for HAI/target therapy were selected by assessing the sensitivity of purified circulating tumor cell (CTCs) to 5-fluorouracil, carboplatin, cisplatin, oxaliplatin, irinotecan, doxorubicin, mitomycin, raltitrexed, and melphalan in-vitro and by real-time qRT-PCR gene expression assays, and for the Systemic therapy cohort were selected by age, comorbidity, performance status, and absence of RAS mutations. Therapeutic responses, adverse events, and quality of life were evaluated by RECIST 1.1, CTCAE 4.03, and ECOG criteria, respectively, and chemo-filtration performed following HAI to reduce systemic toxic effects.

RESULTS

HAI/target therapy with drugs selected by liquid biopsy precision oncotherapy (44 patients), resulted in 2.27% CRs, 38.63% PRs, 56.81% SD,s and 2.27% PDs; ECOG 2 to 1 improvement, but no infusion-related technical or vascular complications, or deaths. Systemic therapy (62 patients) resulted in 1.6% CRs, 17.74% PRs, 37.09% SDs, and 45.16% PDs; more grade 1-2 adverse events and 4.84% ECOG 1 to 2 worsening. The median 5 month PFS in the HAI/target therapy cohort was significantly longer than 3 months in the systemic cohort (P < 0.007) and the median 14 month survival in the HAI/target therapy cohort was longer than 8.5 months in the systemic therapy cohort but not statistically significant. Multivariate analysis identified ECOG grade 2 as the most unfavourable survival prognostic factor in both cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

HAI plus chemo-filtration followed by target therapy, with drug regimens selected by liquid biopsy precision oncotherapy, is a safe and efficacious alternative therapeutic strategy for unresectable CRCLM in progression after two lines of systemic therapy and should be considered for a multicentre prospective phase III study, to fully confirm this potential.

Is There an Optimal Choice in Refractory Colorectal Cancer? A Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

In the absence of head-to-head comparison studies, the present network meta-analysis evaluated and compared the efficacy of 4 therapeutic alternatives for refractory colorectal cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The search focused on results from phase III randomized controlled trials. Separate (subgroup) network meta-analyses were conducted to obtain drug comparisons stratified by various patient characteristics. The principal outcome of interest was overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

No difference in OS was found between regorafenib and TAS-102. For a rectal primary location, TAS-102 conferred benefit versus placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.671), but regorafenib did not (HR, 0.950). For patients aged > 65 years, TAS-102 showed benefit versus placebo (HR, 0.579) but regorafenib did not (HR, 0.816). For patients with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) of 0 in the indirect comparison, regorafenib showed benefit versus placebo (HR, 0.687), as did TAS-102 (HR, 0.756) but with a lower advantage. For patients with RAS wild type not previously treated with anti-EGFR antibodies, panitumumab was the optimal choice for OS.

CONCLUSIONS

No differences in OS were found between regorafenib and TAS-102. Possible greater efficacy was found for TAS-102 compared with regorafenib for patients with a rectal primary location, ECOG PS > 0, and age > 65 years. In contrast, regorafenib showed possible greater effectiveness for patients with ECOG PS 0 and age < 65 years. In the RAS WT population, the anti-EGFR drug showed superiority with respect to TAS-102 and regorafenib. These results should be viewed as only exploratory, and further prospective studies are warranted to validate these data.

Pembrolizumab After Two or More Lines of Previous Therapy in Patients With Recurrent or Metastatic SCLC: Results From the KEYNOTE-028 and KEYNOTE-158 Studies

INTRODUCTION

Pembrolizumab has shown clinical benefit in patients with previously treated recurrent or metastatic SCLC in the phase 1b multicohort study KEYNOTE-028 (NCT02054806) and the phase 2 multicohort study KEYNOTE-158 (NCT02628067). We present a pooled analysis of patients from KEYNOTE-028 and KEYNOTE-158 who had received two or more lines of previous therapy for SCLC.

METHODS

Eligible patients were aged 18 years and above, had histologically or cytologically confirmed incurable recurrent or metastatic SCLC, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 1 and below, and had received two or more lines of previous therapy. Patients in KEYNOTE-028 were required to have a programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive tumor. Patients received pembrolizumab (10 mg/kg every 2 weeks in KEYNOTE-028 or 200 mg every 3 weeks in KEYNOTE-158) for up to 2 years. The primary end point was objective response rate per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1, which is presented here per independent review.

RESULTS

Eighty-three patients who had received two or more lines of previous therapy (KEYNOTE-028, n = 19; KEYNOTE-158, n = 64) were included. Median follow-up duration was 7.7 (range, 0.5-48.7) months. Objective response rate was 19.3% (95% confidence interval: 11.4-29.4); two patients had complete response (one with a PD-L1-positive tumor), and 14 patients had partial response (13 with PD-L1-positive tumors). The median duration of response was not reached (range, 4.1‒35.8+ mo; plus sign indicates ongoing response); 61% of responders had responses lasting 18 months or longer. Fifty-one patients (61.4%) experienced any-grade treatment-related adverse events; eight patients (9.6%) had grade 3 or higher events.

CONCLUSIONS

Pembrolizumab exhibited durable antitumor activity in a subset of patients with recurrent or metastatic SCLC who had undergone two or more previous lines of therapy, regardless of PD-L1 expression. Pembrolizumab was well tolerated.

Regorafenib Is Associated With Increased Skeletal Muscle Loss Compared to TAS-102 in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and the European Society of Medical Oncology recommend regorafenib or trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS-102) for third-line therapy of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We evaluated the impact of regorafenib and TAS-102 treatment on skeletal muscle dynamics and sarcopenia.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This retrospective analysis was based on unselected, consecutive mCRC patients treated with regorafenib and/or TAS-102 during third or later line of therapy at our tertiary-care cancer center in Salzburg, Austria. The skeletal muscle index (SMI, cm²/m²) and sarcopenia were evaluated from cross-sectional computed tomographic images at the level of the third lumbar vertebra.

RESULTS

Between January 2013 and April 2018, a total of 45 patients had received regorafenib and/or TAS-102. At initial mCRC diagnosis and at initiation of third-line therapy, 24% and 54% of patients presented with sarcopenia. A statistically significant skeletal muscle loss was observed during regorafenib treatment (median SMI change: -2.75 cm²/m² [-6.3%]; P < .0001), which was not the case during TAS-102 therapy (-1.5 cm²/m² [-3.5%]; P = .575). Furthermore, subclassification of patients into 3 groups-normal muscle mass, stable sarcopenia, and new-onset sarcopenia-at initiation of third-line therapy permitted discrimination of overall survival, with 1-year overall survival rates of 61%, 29%, and 16%, respectively (P = .04).

CONCLUSION

The frequency of sarcopenia increases during the course of mCRC and negatively affects survival. In contrast to TAS-102, regorafenib is associated with increased skeletal muscle loss during mCRC treatment and should therefore be used with caution in mCRC patients with preexisting sarcopenia or a history of recent weight loss.

Efficacy and safety of third-line molecular-targeted therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma resistant to first-line vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor and second-line therapy

BACKGROUND

The number of studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of third-line molecular-targeted therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) is limited.

METHODS

The data for 48 patients with disease progression after first-line vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) and second-line targeted therapy were evaluated. Patients with prior cytokine therapy were excluded. Overall survival (OS) after first- and second-line therapy initiation was compared between patients with and without third-line therapy. In addition, dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were evaluated.

RESULTS

Twenty-two of 48 patients (45.8%) received third-line therapy, and TKI and mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor were each administered in 11 patients (50%). Patients with third-line therapy had significantly longer median OS after first-line therapy (26.6 vs. 14.6 months, p = 0.0010) and second-line therapy (18.2 vs. 7.4 months, p < 0.0001) compared to those without third-line therapy. Multivariate analysis showed that the use of third-line therapy following second-line therapy was an independent prognosticator for longer OS (hazard ratio 0.29, 95% confidence interval 0.14-0.58, p = 0.0005). The median progression-free survival and OS after third-line therapy was 2.76 and 8.71 months, respectively. Although a high frequency of DLTs was observed (n = 10, 45.5%), the frequencies were similar among the sequential therapies.

CONCLUSIONS

Third-line therapy has a beneficial therapeutic effect in patients with mRCC that is resistant to previous therapies. However, there is a need to evaluate in detail the high frequency of adverse events, including DLTs.

Etirinotecan Pegol (NKTR-102) in Third-line Treatment of Patients With Metastatic or Recurrent Non-Small-cell Lung Cancer: Results of a Phase II Study

BACKGROUND

Third-line treatment options are limited for patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Etirinotecan pegol (NKTR-102) is a long-acting topoisomerase-I inhibitor. We conducted a single-arm phase II trial to evaluate its efficacy in third-line treatment.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients aged ≥ 18 years with histologically proven NSCLC who had received 2 previous systemic therapy regimens, measurable disease, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status ≤ 1, and adequate end-organ function were eligible. Etirinotecan pegol was administered at a dose of 145 mg/m² intravenously once every 3 weeks until progression. The response was assessed every 6 weeks using Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors, version 1.1. The primary endpoint was the overall objective response rate. The secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and safety. A Simon 2-stage design was implemented for futility.

RESULTS

From January 2013 to January 2015, 40 patients were enrolled. Their median age was 66 years (range, 19-85 years), 45% were female, 30% had an ECOG performance status of 0, 96% were current and former smokers, and 31 had adenocarcinoma. Patients received a median of 3 cycles (range, 2-15) of protocol therapy. The best response was a partial response in 2 patients. The treatment was well tolerated; 3 patients had grade 3 gastrointestinal toxicity attributable to therapy. The median PFS was 2.3 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3-4.4 months), and the median OS was 7.1 months (95% CI 4.2-11.4 months).

CONCLUSIONS

Etirinotecan pegol was well tolerated and led to 2 partial responses and disease stabilization with this third-line treatment of metastatic NSCLC. However, the study failed to meet its prespecified response rate endpoint.

A randomized phase II trial of erlotinib vs. S-1 as a third- or fourth-line therapy for patients with wild-type EGFR non-small cell lung cancer (HOT1002)

PURPOSE

A high proportion of patients with wild-type EGFR non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) receive third-line therapy and beyond, with no prospective randomized trials addressing the issue. This study aimed to select the most suitable regimen as a third- or fourth-line therapy for wild-type EGFR NSCLC.

METHODS

This multicenter, randomized phase II study in Japan included patients with recurrent or advanced NSCLC with wild-type or unknown EGFR, who progressed after two or three previous chemotherapies. The patients were randomly assigned to erlotinib (150 mg/day, days 1-21) or S-1 (80-120 mg/day, days 1-14) every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was disease control rate (DCR). The secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), toxicity, and quality of life (QOL).

RESULTS

From 2011 to 2016, 37 patients were randomly assigned to receive erlotinib (E arm, n = 19) and S-1 (S arm, n = 18). This study was terminated prematurely because of poor patient accrual. DCR/ORR were 42.1%/15.8% in the E arm and 66.7%/16.7% in the S arm. Median PFS/OS were 1.6 months/8.0 months in the E arm and 3.3 months/12.2 months in the S arm. In both groups, the most commonly reported grade 3-4 toxicities were fatigue, anorexia, and nausea. One grade 5 pneumonitis occurred in the S arm. No significant difference was seen in QOL.

CONCLUSIONS

S-1 as a third- or fourth-line therapy for wild-type EGFR NSCLC showed numerically better clinical outcomes than erlotinib.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NO

UMIN000005308.

Treatment of Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer in a Real-World Scenario: Probability of Receiving Second and Further Lines of Therapy and Description of Clinical Benefit

BACKGROUND

The optimal therapeutic strategy for metastatic colorectal cancer patients is still a matter of debate. There are no prognostic variables indicating how many lines individual patients ought to receive, and whether later lines could be effective even when earlier ones were not.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively collected data from 420 consecutive patients with metastatic colorectal cancer at our institution, describing the proportion of patients who received second or later lines of therapy and the chance of a line of treatment being active when the previous line was not. For each line of treatment, we defined clinical benefit as the probability of not having had evidence of disease progression 6 months after the start of chemotherapy.

RESULTS

Of the 373 patients with disease progression after first-line chemotherapy (1L), 277 received a second line (2L) (probability of being submitted to a 2L (P(2L)) = 74.3%): 143 (63.3%) of 226 received a 3L (P(3L)), and 56 (45.9%) of 122 were submitted to a 4L (P(4L)). Joint probabilities were: 2L 74.3%, 3L 47.0%, and 4L 21.6%. A total of 298 (71.5%) of 417 patients had a clinical benefit with 1L; 134 (48.6%) of 276 with 2L; 50 (35.2%) of 142 with 3L; and 12 (25.0%) of 48 with 4L. Taking all these data together, 31% of the patients who experienced early progression at 1L had the chance to have a clinical benefit with any further lines.

CONCLUSION

Our study demonstrated that of 4 patients submitted to a 1L, about 3 will receive a 2L, about 2 a 3L, and nearly 1 a 4L. Later lines could be beneficial even though earlier ones were not.