First-line gefitinib for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer who were selected on the basis of EGFR mutations improved progression-free survival, with acceptable toxicity, as compared with standard chemotherapy. (UMIN-CTR number, C000000376.)
No significant difference in OS was observed between gefitinib and CBDCA/PTX in the NEJ002 study, probably due to a high crossover use of gefitinib in the CBDCA/PTX group. Considering the many benefits and the risk of missing an opportunity to use the most effective agent for EGFR-mutated NSCLC, the first-line gefitinib is strongly recommended.
BackgroundBronchoscopy using endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS) can help to diagnose small peripheral pulmonary lesions. However, although biopsy sites can be confirmed, a bronchoscope cannot be guided in EBUS. Virtual bronchoscopic navigation (VBN) can guide a bronchoscope with virtual images, but its value has not been confirmed.MethodsThis prospective multicentre study examines the value of VBN-assisted EBUS for diagnosing small peripheral pulmonary lesions. 199 patients with small peripheral pulmonary lesions (diameter ≤30 mm) were randomly assigned to VBN-assisted (VBNA) or non-VBN-assisted (NVBNA) groups. A bronchoscope was introduced into the target bronchus of the VBNA group using the VBN system. Sites of specimen sampling were verified using EBUS with a guide sheath under fluoroscopy.ResultsThe diagnostic yield was higher for the VBNA than for the NVBNA group (80.4% vs 67.0%; p=0.032). The duration of the examination and time elapsed until the start of sample collection were reduced in the VBNA compared with the NVBNA group (median (range), 24.0 (8.7–47.0) vs 26.2 (11.6–58.6) min, p=0.016) and 8.1 (2.8–39.2) vs 9.8 (2.3–42.3) min, p=0.045, respectively). The only adverse event was mild pneumothorax in a patient from the NVBNA group.ConclusionsThe diagnostic yield for small peripheral pulmonary lesions is increased when VBN is combined with EBUS.Clinical trial numberUMIN000000569.
Purpose: Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a rare and aggressive malignancy with poor prognosis. Patients with MPM who do not respond to standard firstline chemotherapy have limited treatment options. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of nivolumab, an immune checkpoint inhibitor, for the treatment of advanced or metastatic MPM. Patients and Methods: Japanese patients with unresectable, advanced, or metastatic MPM resistant or intolerant to 2 regimens of chemotherapy and 1 measurable lesion (s) were enrolled. Patients received nivolumab 240 mg intravenously every 2 weeks until progressive disease or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was objective response rate by central assessment according to the Modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors. Adverse events (AEs) and treatment-related AEs (TRAEs) were evaluated. Results: Thirty-four patients were enrolled between July 2016 and October 2016. Median follow-up was 16.8 (range: 1.8-20.2) months. Ten (29%, 95% confidence interval, 16.8-46.2) patients showed a centrally assessed objective response. The objective response rates were 26% (7/27), 67% (2/3), and 25% (1/4) patients for epithelioid, sarcomatoid, and biphasic histologic subtypes, respectively. Median duration of response was 11.1 months with a 68% disease control rate. Median overall survival and progression-free survival were 17.3 and 6.1 months, respectively. The objective response rate was 40% with programmed death-ligand 1 expression 1% and 8% with <1%. Thirty-two patients (94%) experienced AEs and 26 (76%) experienced TRAEs. Conclusions: Nivolumab met the primary endpoint as second-or third-line treatment for patients with MPM and showed promising efficacy with manageable toxicity. See related commentary by Mansfield and Zauderer, p. 5438
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.