Inhibition of angiogenesis has been demonstrated to be an efficacious strategy in treating several tumors. Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) is the most important protein with proangiogenic functions and it is overexpressed in small cell lung cancer (SCLC). Bevacizumab, a monoclonal antibody directed against VEGF, showed a promising activity in combination with etoposide and cisplatin as first-line treatment of patients with extended stage (ES)-SCLC and two randomized studies confirmed that bevacizumab improved PFS, but failed to prolong OS. Instead, disappointing results have been observed with endostar, sunitinib, sorafenib, vandetanib, and thalidomide in combination with chemotherapy in the first-line setting, with sunitinib in the maintenance setting, with sunitinib, cediranib and nintedanib as single agents or ziv-aflibercept in combination with topotecan in second-line setting. Only anlotinib improved OS and PFS as third-line therapy in Chinese patients with SCLC, and it was approved with this indication in China. Future challenges are the evaluation of the role of angiogenesis inhibitors in combination with immune- checkpoint inhibitors and chemotherapy in SCLC patients and the identification of predictive biomarkers of response to both agents.

A risk assessment matrix is a widely used tool for analyzing, assessing and setting priorities in risk management in many fields. This paper overviews critical variables, advantages, disadvantages, strengths and weaknesses of this tool, according to the ISO 31000 risk management framework. Results: Risk assessment is one of the key stages in the Risk Management Process and involves specific steps: identifying hazards, analyzing and evaluating all possible risks. Several methods are developed to assess risks in the literature. A risk matrix method, also called "decision matrix risk assessment (DMRA) technique", is a systematic approach used to determine the risk level and to compare different risks and define which threats need to be controlled first. The actors involved in risk assessment are called on to manage different issues related to the choice of the most appropriate methodological approach, the assessment of the adequacy of the existing control measures, the articulation of risk consequence domains, the definition of the impact-consequences, the explanation of risk likelihood scales and the development of a risk matrix. Conclusion:We highlighted a number of recommendations in order to address these issues, especially useful when healthcare organizations provide insufficient guidance on how to use risk matrices as well as what to do in response to the existing criticisms on their use.

RAF family proteins are serine–threonine kinases that play a central role in the MAPK pathway which is involved in embryogenesis, cell differentiation, cell proliferation and death. Deregulation of this pathway is found in up to 30% of all human cancers and BRAF mutations can be identified in 1.5–3.5% of NSCLC patients. Following the positive results obtained through the combination of BRAF and MEK inhibitors in BRAF-mutant melanoma, the same combination was prospectively assessed in BRAF-mutant NSCLC. In cohort B of the BRF113928 trial, 57 pretreated NSCLC patients were treated with dabrafenib plus trametinib: an ORR of 68.4%, a disease control rate of 80.7%, a median PFS of 10.2 months and a median OS of 18.2 months were observed. Similar results were reported in the first-line setting (cohort C), with an ORR of 63.9%, a DCR of 75% and a median PFS and OS of 10.2 and 17.3 months, respectively. The combination was well tolerated: the main adverse events were pyrexia (64%), nausea (56%), diarrhoea (56%), fatigue (36%), oedema (36%) and vomiting (33%). These positive results led to the approval of the combination of dabrafenib and trametinib for the treatment of BRAF V600E metastatic NSCLC patients regardless of previous therapy. Ongoing research should better define the role of new generation RAF inhibitors for patients with acquired resistance, the activity of chemo-immunotherapy or the combination of TKIs with chemotherapy or with immunotherapy in patients with BRAF-mutated cancers.

Background The cost of anticancer drugs is constantly growing. The aim of this study was determine the impact in terms of cost reduction for anticancer drug in the Italian Health Service due to patient participation in clinical trials. Methods We evaluated the cost of drugs administered to patients treated in clinical trials at the National Cancer Institute of Naples in a four-week time period. Patients with a diagnosis of different cancers were considered, including adjuvant therapy and treatment for advanced disease, pharma sponsored and investigator initiated phase I, II and III clinical studies. We defined the expected standard treatment for each patient and we calculated the cost of the standard antineoplastic drugs that should be administered in clinical practice outside clinical trials. We used the market price of drugs to determine the cost savings value. Costs other than drugs were not included in the cost saving calculation. Results From 23.10.2017 to 17.11.2017, 126 patients were treated in 34 pharma sponsored and investigator initiated clinical trials, using experimental drugs provided free of charge by the sponsors, for an overall number of 152 cycles of therapy. If these patients were treated with conventional therapies in clinical practice the cost of antineoplastic drugs would account for 517,658 Euros, with an average of 5487 Euros saved per patients for a period of 4 weeks. Conclusions Clinical trials with investigational antineoplastic drugs provided free of charge by Sponsors render considerable cost savings, with a tangible benefit in clinical and administrative strategies to reduce drug expenditures.

Few treatment options are available for patients with small cell lung cancer (SCLC) in progression after a first-line therapy. A novel therapeutic approach is represented by lurbinectedin, a synthetic derivative of trabectedin that works by inhibiting oncogenic transcription and promoting apoptosis in tumor cells. A phase II basket trial demonstrated the activity of lurbinectedin at the dose of 3.2 mg/m2 in patients with SCLC who had failed a previous chemotherapy, with a response rate of 35.2%, a median progression-free survival (mPFS) of 3.5 months, and a median overall survival (mOS) of 9.3 months. Common severe adverse events (grades 3–4) were hematological disorders, including anemia (9%), leukopenia (29%), neutropenia (46%), and thrombocytopenia (7%). On the basis of the positive results of this phase II study, on June 2020, lurbinectedin was approved by the Food and Drug Administration as second line for SCLC patients in progression on or after platinum-based therapy. The subsequent phase III trial comparing the combination of lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin vs. CAV (cyclophosphamide, Adriamycin, and vincristine) or topotecan did not demonstrate an improvement in overall survival, although the experimental arm showed a superior safety profile. Combinations of lurbinectedin with other drugs, cytotoxic agents and immune checkpoint inhibitors, are currently under investigation. The results of these studies should better define the optimal clinical application of lurbinectedin.