Virtual Library
Start Your Search
A. Rossi
Author of
-
+
P2.03a - Poster Session with Presenters Present (ID 464)
- 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)
-
+
P2.03a-017 - Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting (CINV) in Italian Lung Cancer Patients: Assessment by Physician, Nurse and Patient (ID 4903)
14:30 - 14:30 | Author(s): A. Rossi
- Abstract
Background:
Despite therapeutic advances, CINV still represents a common side-effect of chemotherapy and often its perception is not equal between patients and healthcare professionals. Aims of this study were to evaluate the agreement degree among clinicians, patients and nurses about CINV and other relevant items, and to understand whether anxiety, as well as other demographical and treatment-related factors, could play a role in CINV development.
Methods:
A dedicated survey was designed in agreement with a psychologist: 11 aspects (anxiety, mood, weakness, appetite, nausea, vomiting, pain, somnolence, breath, general status, and trust in treatments) were investigated through Numerical Rating Scale in four consecutive evaluations (T0, T1, T2 and T3) during first-line chemotherapy. From August 2015 to February 2016, the survey was administered in 11 Oncologic Institutions to 188 stage III/IV lung cancer patients and to their oncologists and nurses. Clinician versus patient (CvP), nurse versus patient (NvP) and clinician versus nurse (CvN) agreements were estimated in relation with the investigated items, applying Weighted Cohen's kappa and the grid of Landis and Koch. A multivariate logistic model was applied to evaluate factors possibly influencing anticipatory CINV development as perceived by patients before initiating chemotherapy (T0). Generalized Equation Estimates (GEE) for repeated measures were used to evaluate factors possibly influencing CINV development overall at T1, T2 and T3.
Results:
The incidence of CINV as reported by patients varied from 40.3% at T0 to 71.3% at T3. Both CvP and NvP concordances on the investigated items were mainly moderate, slightly increasing over time and becoming substantial for some items, in particular when evaluating NvP concordances. Pre-chemotherapy anxiety in all its mild (Odds Ratio [OR]: 4.99; 95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 1.26 – 19.81), moderate (OR: 4.89; 95% CI: 1.29; 18.50) and severe (OR: 4.70; 95% CI: 1.10; 19.98) manifestations, as well as mild (OR: 10.02; 95% CI: 3.27; 30.64), moderate (OR: 11.23; 95% CI: 3.54; 35.67) and severe (OR: 12.86; 95% CI: 2.83; 58.48) anxiety experienced after chemotherapy start, exposed patients to a higher risk of anticipatory CINV and of acute/delayed CINV respectively, as confirmed by the multivariate logistic model at T0 and by GEE overtime.
Conclusion:
Even if clinical staff revealed to be aware and sensitive about patients status and perceptions, CINV still represents a problem among patients undergoing chemotherapy, with this study further confirming that particular attention should be given to anxiety due to its key role in CINV development.
-
+
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): A. Rossi
- 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.
