Farmer's lung disease (FLD) is common in the east of France. In the absence of the primary recognized FLD agent, Saccharopolyspora rectivirgula, its etiology remains unknown. A prospective case-control study was performed to find the etiology of FLD in this area. Eleven patients were matched with 11 healthy control farmers. Twenty-two urban subjects constituted the nonexposed control group. Microorganisms from cowshed air and fodder were identified and counted. The antigens of the microorganisms most frequently isolated at the 22 farms were used for serological tests. Farms of patients with FLD contained more Absidia corymbifera than those of healthy farmers (p < 0.05 in air, p < 0.01 in fodder). Electrosyneresis, performed with A. corymbifera somatic antigen, differentiated 9 of 11 patients with FLD from control subjects (p < 0.01). Other significant results were obtained with Eurotium amstelodami (p < 0.01) and Wallemia sebi (p < 0.05). In contrast, no significant results were obtained with the other seven antigens tested, including S. rectivirgula. Absidia corymbifera and, to a lesser degree, W. sebi or E. amstelodami are likely to be the main causes of FLD in this area. Modifications in working conditions over time could explain the emergence of these new contributing etiologies.
Several clinical and biological parameters are known to influence the efficacy of second-line erlotinib therapy for nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but their medico-economic impact has not been evaluated. The objective of this study was to compare the incremental costeffectiveness ratios of strategies for second-line erlotinib initiation in NSCLC: clinically guided initiation (nonsmoking females with adenocarcinoma received erlotinib; all other patients received docetaxel) and biologically guided selection (patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation received erlotinib; patients with wild-type EGFR or unknown status received docetaxel), compared with initiation with no patient selection (strategy reference).A Markov model was constructed. Outcomes (overall and progression-free survival), transition probabilities and direct medical costs (from the French third-party payer's perspective) were prospectively collected for individual patients treated with either erlotinib or docetaxel, from treatment initiation to disease progression. Published data were used to estimate utilities and post-progression costs. Sensitivity analyses were performed.The biologically and clinically guided strategies were both more efficient (incremental qualityadjusted life-yrs equal to 0.080 and 0.081, respectively) and less expensive (cost decrease equal to J5,020 and J5,815, respectively) than the no-selection strategy, and the biologically guided strategy was slightly less expensive than the clinically guided strategy. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the results.The cost-effectiveness of second-line NSCLC treatment is improved when patients are selected on either clinical or biological grounds.
Background
The benefit of precision medicine based on relatively limited gene sets and often-archived samples remains unproven. PERMED-01 (NCT02342158) was a prospective monocentric clinical trial assessing, in adults with advanced solid cancer, the feasibility and impact of extensive molecular profiling applied to newly biopsied tumor sample and based on targeted NGS (t-NGS) of the largest gene panel to date and whole-genome array-comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) with assessment of single-gene alterations and clinically relevant genomic scores.
Methods
Eligible patients with refractory cancer had one tumor lesion accessible to biopsy. Extracted tumor DNA was profiled by t-NGS and aCGH. We assessed alterations of 802 “candidate cancer” genes and global genomic scores, such as homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) score and tumor mutational burden. The primary endpoint was the number of patients with actionable genetic alterations (AGAs). Secondary endpoints herein reported included a description of patients with AGA who received a “matched therapy” and their clinical outcome, and a comparison of AGA identification with t-NGS and aCGH versus whole-exome sequencing (WES).
Results
Between November 2014 and September 2019, we enrolled 550 patients heavily pretreated. An exploitable complete molecular profile was obtained in 441/550 patients (80%). At least one AGA, defined in real time by our molecular tumor board, was found in 393/550 patients (71%, two-sided 90%CI 68–75%). Only 94/550 patients (17%, 95%CI 14–21) received an “AGA-matched therapy” on progression. The most frequent AGAs leading to “matched therapy” included PIK3CA mutations, KRAS mutations/amplifications, PTEN deletions/mutations, ERBB2 amplifications/mutations, and BRCA1/2 mutations. Such “matched therapy” improved by at least 1.3-fold the progression-free survival on matched therapy (PFS2) compared to PFS on prior therapy (PFS1) in 36% of cases, representing 6% of the enrolled patients. Within patients with AGA treated on progression, the use of “matched therapy” was the sole variable associated with an improved PFS2/PFS1 ratio. Objective responses were observed in 19% of patients treated with “matched therapy,” and 6-month overall survival (OS) was 62% (95%CI 52–73). In a subset of 112 metastatic breast cancers, WES did not provide benefit in term of AGA identification when compared with t-NGS/aCGH.
Conclusions
Extensive molecular profiling of a newly biopsied tumor sample identified AGA in most of cases, leading to delivery of a “matched therapy” in 17% of screened patients, of which 36% derived clinical benefit. WES did not seem to improve these results.
Trial registration
ID-RCB identifier: 2014-A00966-41; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02342158.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.