RESUMO
The introduction of immunotherapy has brought about a paradigm shift in the management of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). It has not only significantly improved the prognosis of patients but has also become a cornerstone of treatment, particularly in those without oncogenic driver mutations. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) play a crucial role in the treatment of lung cancer and can be classified into two main groups: Anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen-4 (Anti-CTLA-4) and anti-T-cell receptor programmed cell death-1 or its ligand (Anti-PD-1 and Anti-PD-L1). Certainly, the landscape of approved first line immunotherapeutic approaches has expanded to encompass monotherapy, immunotherapy-exclusive protocols, and combinations with chemotherapy. The complexity of decision-making in this realm arises due to the absence of direct prospective comparisons. However, a thorough analysis of the long-term efficacy and safety data derived from pivotal clinical trials can offer valuable insights into optimizing treatment for different patient subsets. Moreover, ongoing research is investigating emerging biomarkers and innovative therapeutic strategies that could potentially refine the current treatment approach even further. In this comprehensive review, our aim is to highlight the latest advances in immunotherapy for advanced NSCLC, including the mechanisms of action, efficacy, safety profiles, and clinical significance of ICI.
RESUMO
In recent years, several drugs have been approved for the treatment of patients with metastatic cutaneous melanoma, completely reshaping the landscape of this aggressive disease. Immune therapy with cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 and programmed cell death-1 inhibitors yielded significant and durable responses, achieving long-term disease control in up to 40% of the patients. BRAF inhibitors (BRAFi), in combination with MEK inhibitors, also resulted in improved overall survival compared with single-agent BRAFi in patients with BRAFV600-mutated metastatic melanoma. The optimized sequencing and duration of treatment, however, is yet to be found. In this article, we thoroughly review current data and discuss how to best sequence the various treatment modalities available at present, based on four distinct clinical presentations commonly seen in clinic. In addition, we review treatment options beyond checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapy, which may be required by patients failing such effective treatments.
RESUMO
The treatment of choice of metastatic PADC is systemic chemotherapy. In the last decade, there have been significant advances in this area. New combination poli-chemotherapy schemes have shown a significant increase in overall survival and progression-free survival without impairing quality of life. In addition, the value of second-line chemotherapy treatment has consolidated and a new concept called "therapeutic sequencing" has also emerged. The aim of this article is to review the different therapeutic options in metastatic PDAC based on patient's characteristics.
Assuntos
Adenocarcinoma/tratamento farmacológico , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/uso terapêutico , Carcinoma Ductal Pancreático/tratamento farmacológico , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/tratamento farmacológico , Qualidade de Vida , Adenocarcinoma/secundário , Carcinoma Ductal Pancreático/secundário , Humanos , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/patologia , Prognóstico , Neoplasias PancreáticasRESUMO
BACKGROUND: The approval of new therapies for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), including the oral agents abiraterone acetate and enzalutamide, has altered the standard of care for patients with mCRPC. Little information exists regarding the sequences in which new therapies for mCRPC with evidence of survival benefits are used. OBJECTIVE: To describe the sequence of medication use for patients with mCRPC as observed in 3 healthcare data sets. METHODS: Three healthcare claims data sets were used to identify patients with mCRPC who had no previous use of and were newly initiating 1 of the 2 oral study drugs (ie, abiraterone acetate or enzalutamide). The index date was the first study drug claim after September 1, 2012. Patients were followed until the data cutoff or until being lost to follow-up. Descriptive statistics summarized the proportion of patients receiving 1 line of therapy versus ≥2 lines of therapy. The use of a corticosteroid and the mean monthly pharmacy costs of abiraterone acetate or enzalutamide during the follow-up period were compared between the cohorts. RESULTS: A total of 3525 patients with mCRPC were identified from data set 1, 499 patients from data set 2, and 1949 patients from data set 3. The first-line use of abiraterone acetate was observed in 74%, 82%, and 80% of data sets 1, 2, and 3, respectively, and the first-line use of enzalutamide was seen in 26%, 18%, and 20%, respectively, of these same populations. The concomitant use of corticosteroids was observed in patients receiving first-line abiraterone acetate and in patients receiving first-line enzalutamide in all 3 data sets. After September 2012, abiraterone acetate was the most frequently administered therapy for mCRPC among the 2 oral agents, abiraterone acetate and enzalutamide. The monthly pharmacy costs associated with abiraterone acetate were significantly lower than those associated with enzalutamide in all 3 data sets. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the data used in this study, abiraterone acetate was more frequently administered for patients with mCRPC than enzalutamide. The concomitant use of corticosteroids was common in patients receiving first-line abiraterone acetate or first-line enzalutamide therapy. Patients receiving abiraterone acetate had significantly lower monthly pharmacy costs than patients receiving enzalutamide. These findings may facilitate the estimation of the budgetary impact of a treatment mix for population health and for managed care stakeholders.