BackgroundLung cancer is the second most diagnosed cancer in the UK. Over 70% of lung cancers are non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLCs). Patients with stage III or IV NSCLC may be offered treatment to improve survival, disease control and quality of life. One-third of these patients receive further treatment following disease progression; these treatments are the focus of this systematic review.ObjectivesTo appraise the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of erlotinib [Tarceva®, Roche (UK) Ltd] and gefitinib (IRESSA®, AstraZeneca) compared with each other, docetaxel or best supportive care (BSC) for the treatment of NSCLC after disease progression following prior chemotherapy. The effectiveness of treatment with gefitinib was considered only for patients with epidermal growth factor mutation-positive (EGFR M+) disease.Data sourcesFour electronic databases (EMBASE, MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library, PubMed) were searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and economic evaluations. Manufacturers’ evidence submissions to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence were also considered.Review methodsOutcomes for three distinct patient groups based on EGFR mutation status [EGFR M+, epidermal growth factor mutation negative (EGFR M–) and epidermal growth factor mutation status unknown (EGFR unknown)] were considered. Heterogeneity of the data precluded statistical analysis. A de novo economic model was developed to compare treatments (incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained).ResultsTwelve trials were included in the review. The use of gefitinib was compared with chemotherapy (n = 6) or BSC (n = 1), and the use of erlotinib was compared with chemotherapy (n = 3) or BSC (n = 1). One trial compared the use of gefitinib with the use of erlotinib. No trials included solely EGFR M+ patients; all data were derived from retrospective subgroup analyses from six RCTs [Kim ST, Uhm JE, Lee J, Sun JM, Sohn I, Kim SW,et al.Randomized phase II study of gefitinib versus erlotinib in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer who failed previous chemotherapy.Lung Cancer2012;75:82–8, V-15-32, Tarceva In Treatment of Advanced NSCLC (TITAN), BR.21, IRESSA Survival Evaluation in Lung cancer (ISEL) and IRESSA NSCLC Trial Evaluating REsponse and Survival versus Taxotere (INTEREST)]. These limited data precluded conclusions regarding the clinical effectiveness of any treatment for EGFR M+ patients. For EGFR M– patients, data were derived from the TArceva Italian Lung Optimization tRial (TAILOR) trial and Docetaxel and Erlotinib Lung Cancer Trial (DELTA). Retrospective data were also derived from subgroup analyses of BR.21, Kimet al., TITAN, INTEREST and ISEL. The only statistically significant reported results were for progression-free survival (PFS) for TAILOR and DELTA, and favoured docetaxel over erlotinib [TAILOR hazard ratio (HR) 1.39, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.06 to 1.82; DELTA HR 1.44, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.92]. In EGFR unknown patients, nine trials (INTEREST, IRESSA as Second-line Therapy in Advanced NSCLC – KoreA, Li, Second-line Indication of Gefitinib in NSCLC, V-15-32, ISEL, DELTA, TITAN and BR.21) reported overall survival data and only one (BR.21) reported a statistically significant result favouring the use of erlotinib over BSC (HR 0.7, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.85). For PFS, BR.21 favoured the use of erlotinib when compared with BSC (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.74) and the use of gefitinib was favoured when compared with BSC (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.92) in ISEL. Limitations in the clinical data precluded assessment of cost-effectiveness of treatments for an EGFR M+ population by the Assessment Group (AG). The AG’s economic model suggested that for the EGFR M– population, the use of erlotinib was not cost-effective compared with the use of docetaxel and compared with BSC. For EGFR unknown patients, the use of erlotinib was not cost-effective when compared with BSC.Conclusions/future workThe lack of clinical data available for distinct patient populations limited the conclusions of the assessment. Future trials should distinguish between patients with EGFR M+ and EGFR M– disease.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

No abstract

Objective To determine the frequency of germline and somatic pathogenic BRCA1 and BRCA2 variants in patients with highgrade serous ovarian cancer tested by next-generation sequencing (NGS), with the aim of defining the best strategy to be implemented in future routine testing.Design National retrospective audit.

Improved prognostication tools to elucidate which patients will benefit from SACT.

Here, we describe a case of malignant ascites managed by insertion of a Tenckhoff Catheter (TC), which resulted in successful symptomatic control and improvement in quality of life.

Background Advances in cancer management have been associated with an increased incidence of emergency presentations with disease- or treatment-related complications. Objective This study aimed to measure the ability of patients and members of their social network to complete checklists for complications of systemic treatment for cancer and examine the impact on patient-centered and health-economic outcomes. Methods A prospective interventional cohort study was performed to assess the impact of a smartphone app used by patients undergoing systemic cancer therapy and members of their network to monitor for common complications. The app was used by patients, a nominated “safety buddy,” and acute oncology services. The control group was made up of patients from the same institution. Measures were based on process (completion of checklists over 60 days), patient experience outcomes (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and the General version of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy at baseline, 1 month, and 2 months) and health-economic outcomes (usage of appointments in primary care and elective and unscheduled hospital admissions). Results At the conclusion of the study, 50 patients had completed 2882 checklists, and their 50 “safety buddies” had completed 318 checklists. Near daily usage was maintained over the 60-day study period. When compared to a cohort of 50 patients with matching disease profiles from the same institution, patients in the intervention group had comparable changes in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and General version of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy. Patients in the Intervention Group required a third (32 vs 97 nights) of the hospital days with overnight stay compared to patients in the Control Group, though the difference was not significant. The question, “I feel safer with the checklist,” received a mean score of 4.27 (SD 0.87) on a Likert scale (1-5) for patients and 4.55 (SD 0.65) for family and friends. Conclusions Patients undergoing treatment for cancer and their close contacts can complete checklists for common complications of systemic treatments and take an active role in systems supporting their own safety. A larger sample size will be needed to assess the impact on clinical outcomes and health economics.

No abstract

AimsSomatic genetic testing in non-squamous, non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) patients is required to highlight subgroups eligible for a number of novel oncological therapies. This study aims to determine whether turnaround times for reporting epidermal growth factor receptors (EGFR) by next-generation sequencing (NGS) alone is sufficient to meet the needs of lung cancer patients.MethodsWe performed a retrospective case series with follow-up. Outcomes of EGFR testing (102 tests) in 96 patients by NGS were compared with a rapid, fully automated PCR-based platform (Idylla) in local histopathology laboratories.ResultsTurnaround time for reporting NGS was 17 calendar days. Reporting using the Idylla EGFR Mutation Test, by contrast, gave a potential turnaround time of 3.8 days from request to authorisation. Three-quarters of patients presenting with stage IV disease had a performance status of 0, 1, or 2 but 18% experienced rapid clinical deterioration (p<0.05). A third of these patients were deceased by the time NGS reports were available.ConclusionsWe discuss issues around integrating rapid PCR testing alongside NGS in multidisciplinary care pathways and strategies for mitigating against foreseeable difficulties. Dual testing for stage IV non-squamous, NSCLC patients has the potential to improve care and survival outcomes by providing access to the right test at the right time.