Most patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have a poor prognosis and receive limited benefit from conventional treatments, especially in later lines of therapy. In recent years, several novel therapies have been approved for second- and third-line treatment of advanced NSCLC. In light of these approvals, it is valuable to understand the uptake of these new treatments in routine clinical practice and their impact on patient care. A systematic literature search was conducted in multiple scientific databases to identify observational cohort studies published between January 2010 and March 2017 that described second- or third-line treatment patterns and clinical outcomes in patients with advanced NSCLC. A qualitative data synthesis was performed because a meta-analysis was not possible due to the heterogeneity of the study populations. A total of 12 different study cohorts in 15 articles were identified. In these cohorts, single-agent chemotherapy was the most commonly administered treatment in both the second- and third-line settings. In the 5 studies that described survival from the time of second-line treatment initiation, median overall survival ranged from 4.6 months (95% CI, 3.8–5.7) to 12.8 months (95% CI, 10.7–14.5). There was limited information on the use of biomarker-directed therapy in these patient populations. This systematic literature review offers insights into the adoption of novel therapies into routine clinical practice for second- and third-line treatment of patients with advanced NSCLC. This information provides a valuable real-world context for the impact of recently approved treatments for advanced NSCLC.

Alectinib was associated with prolonged overall survival versus ceritinib, which is consistent with efficacy evidence from clinical trials.

POMRs varied by age group and type of major procedure performed. Collecting surgical data is achievable and can inform future planning and support for national surgical programs. More information is needed on operative outcomes in adults and children in low-resource settings to improve quality and access to care.

The clinical profiles and outcomes of patients with neurotrophic tropomyosin receptor kinase fusion-positive (NTRK+) solid tumors receiving standard of care other than tropomyosin receptor kinase inhibitor (TRKi) targeted therapy have not been well documented. Here, we describe the clinical characteristics of patients with NTRK+ tumors treated in clinical practice using information from a United States electronic health record-derived clinicogenomic database. We also compared survival outcomes in NTRK+ patients and matched NTRK fusion-negative (NTRK–) patients and investigated the clinical prognostic value of NTRK fusions. NTRK positivity was defined by the presence of a fusion or rearrangement involving NTRK1/2/3, determined using NGS (Foundation Medicine, Inc.). NTRK+ patients (n = 28) were diagnosed with locally advanced/metastatic solid tumors between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2019 and had received no TRKis (e.g., entrectinib or larotrectinib) during their patient journey. The unselected NTRK−population comprised 24,903 patients, and the matched NTRK−cohort included 280 patients. NTRK+ patients tended to be younger, were more commonly not smokers, and had a shorter time from advanced diagnosis to first NGS report, compared with unselected NTRK−patients; however, these differences were not significant. Median overall survival (OS) from advanced/metastatic diagnosis was 10.2 months (95% CI, 7.2–14.1) for the NTRK+ cohort versus 10.4 months (95% CI, 6.7–14.3) for the matched NTRK−cohort; hazard ratio for death in NTRK+ versus matched NTRK−patients was 1.6 (95% CI, 1.0–2.5; P = 0.05). Genomic co-alterations were rare in the NTRK+ cohort (only two of 28 patients had a co-alteration). Overall, while hazard ratios suggest NTRK fusions may be a negative prognostic factor of survival, there are no significant indications of any favorable impact of NTRK fusions on patient outcomes. TRKis, with their high response rate and good tolerability, are likely to improve outcomes for patients compared with existing standard-of-care treatments.

Background The efficacy of bevacizumab (BEV) in elderly patients with glioblastoma remains unclear. We evaluated the effect of BEV on survival in this patient population using the Survival, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database. Methods This retrospective, cohort study analyzed SEER-Medicare data for patients (aged ≥66 years) diagnosed with glioblastoma from 2006 to 2011. Two cohorts were constructed: one comprised patients who had received BEV (BEV cohort); the other comprised patients who had received any anticancer treatment other than BEV (NBEV cohort). The primary analysis used a multivariate Cox proportional hazards model to compare overall survival in the BEV and NBEV cohorts with initiation of BEV as a time-dependent variable, adjusting for potential confounders (age, gender, Charlson comorbidity index, region, race, radiotherapy after initial surgery, and diagnosis of coronary artery disease). Sensitivity analyses were conducted using landmark survival, propensity score modeling, and the impact of poor Karnofsky Performance Status. Results We identified 2603 patients (BEV, n = 597; NBEV, n = 2006). In the BEV cohort, most patients were Caucasian males and were younger with fewer comorbidities and more initial resections. In the primary analysis, the BEV cohort showed a lower risk of death compared with the NBEV cohort (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% confidence interval, 0.72–0.89; P < .01). The survival benefit of BEV appeared independent of the number of temozolomide cycles or frontline treatment with radiotherapy and temozolomide. Conclusion BEV exposure was associated with a lower risk of death, providing evidence that there might be a potential benefit of BEV in elderly patients with glioblastoma.