Virtual Library
Start Your Search
T. Franchina
Author of
-
+
P1.06 - Poster Session with Presenters Present (ID 458)
- Event: WCLC 2016
- Type: Poster Presenters Present
- Track: Advanced NSCLC
- Presentations: 1
- Moderators:
- Coordinates: 12/05/2016, 14:30 - 15:45, Hall B (Poster Area)
-
+
P1.06-046 - Can We Better Manage Advanced NSCLC in the Elderly with the New Therapeutic Agents? Preliminary Analysis of a Real-Life Multicenter Study (ID 5814)
14:30 - 14:30 | Author(s): T. Franchina
- Abstract
Background:
Systemic treatment of NSCLC has profoundly changed over the past years with novel therapeutic strategies recently implemented in clinical practice. Benefit of these novel agents in elderly patients (pts) is uncertain, given the paucity of prospective data in this population. Moreover, elderly pts are often undertreated, due to comorbidities and toxicity concerns. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the access, safety and outcome with novel therapeutic agents in pts ≥ 70 years (yrs).
Methods:
We planned an observational study to retrospectively evaluate consecutive elderly patients (≥ 70 yrs) with metastatic NSCLC treated at 9 Italian Centers between January 2014 and December 2015. Data collected include clinical and pathological characteristics, treatment types, safety and outcome report.
Results:
220 patients with stage IV NSCLC were included in this preliminary analysis (53% IVa, 47% IVb). Median age was 74,5 (range 70-85) and 69% were male. 15% of pts aged 80 years or older. ECOG PS was 0, 1, 2 in 37%, 51% and 12% of pts, respectively. According to comprehensive geriatric assessment, 59% of pts were fit, 28% vulnerable and 13% frail. Histology was 23% squamous cell carcinoma, 72% non-squamous cell carcinoma and 5% NOS. EGFR mutation was diagnosed in 24% of cases; 1,4% and 1% of pts had ALK and ROS-1 translocations, respectively. 90% of pts received a systemic therapy: 48% a platinum doublet chemotherapy (CHT), 27% a mono-CHT, 25% an EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI). Only 1% of pts were treated with antiangiogenic drugs. Immunotherapy (IT) was administered in 16% of all treated pts. 7% of pts received only BSC. Second- and third-line treatment were given to 44% and 8% of pts, respectively. 51% of pts who received second line treatment and 60% of pts treated with a third line therapy had a novel therapeutic agent (II line TKI 20%, IT 31%; III line TKI 33%, IT 27%). 31% of pts were included in clinical trials. A dose reduction was reported in 41% of therapies and the discontinuation rate was 9%. Survival data are not mature at this time.
Conclusion:
Our data, albeit preliminary, suggest an evolution in the management of NSCLC in the elderly. The interesting activity and the good safety profile encourage the use of novel agents also in this setting of NSCLC. Adequate selection of elderly pts and personalized approach are still matters of debate. Use of adapted schedule and dose reduction could warrant a good compromise between safety and efficacy.
-
+
P2.03b - Poster Session with Presenters Present (ID 465)
- Event: WCLC 2016
- Type: Poster Presenters Present
- Track: Advanced NSCLC
- Presentations: 1
- Moderators:
- Coordinates: 12/06/2016, 14:30 - 15:45, Hall B (Poster Area)
-
+
P2.03b-063 - Molecular Profiling in Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Preliminary Data of an Italian Observational Prospective Study (ID 4529)
14:30 - 14:30 | Author(s): T. Franchina
- Abstract
Background:
Molecular profiling of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is recommended according to patients’ histological and clinical features. Despite the existence of national guidelines, routine care is still heterogeneous. Aim of this observational study was to obtain prospectively a clinical practice picture of molecular testing and therapeutic choices in advanced NSCLC patients.
Methods:
Newly diagnosed metastatic or recurrent NSCLC patients enrolled in 38 Italian centres, from November 2014 to November 2015, have been included in the study. Baseline information were collected about molecular profiling performed and therapies.
Results:
A total of 1787 patients were enrolled (64% males, 36% females; median age 67 years-old; 22% never smokers, 31% current smokers, 47% former smokers; 75% adenocarcinoma, and 73% with PS ECOG 0 or 1). The 73.9% of diagnosis was histological, while 26.1% was cytological. 1382 (77%) patients were tested for one or more molecular analysis during the history of disease, for a total of 3532 molecular tests. Only 405 patients did not receive any molecular test. 32.3% of patients presented a genetic alteration: EGFR mutation was reported in 17.8% of cases (319/1787), ALK translocation in 8.8% (82/926), KRAS mutation in 31.9% (154/482), MET amplifications in 15.8% (10/63), BRAF mutations in 3.7% (9/241), ROS1 translocation in 4% (11/269), HER2 mutation in 3.3% (3/89) of cases and FGFR alteration was found in 3 cases (only 15 tested). Considering patients younger than 45 years, never smokers and females, an EGFR mutation was detected in 25.4%, 43.5% and 30.6%, respectively. While 15.6%, 9.5% and 6.3% were ALK rearranged, respectively. For patients receiving an EGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitor as first-line treatment, among those whose data are evaluable (79.2%), the median interval from diagnosis to first-line was 35 days. EGFR mutated patients received first-line erlotinib, gefitinib and afatinib in 9.4%, 39.1% and 33.8% of cases, respectively. At time of analysis, ALK-rearranged patients received an ALK inhibitor (crizotinib, alectinib or ceritinib) as first and/or second-line in 71.9% of cases. 29.3% of all patients received a maintenance therapy, mainly with pemetrexed (91.2% of cases).
Conclusion:
Routine molecular assessing is properly performed according to the national guidelines. A selection bias in including only those patients performing molecular tests, may explain the high proportion of patients with a molecular alteration. The low number of patients tested for ALK could be partially related to the impossibility to prescribe Crizotinib in first- line. In more than 70% of cases EGFR mutated patients received gefitinib or afatinib as first-line treatment.
