Advertisement


Minesh P. Mehta, MD, on NSCLC: Tumor Treating Fields for Brain Metastases

2024 ASCO Annual Meeting

Advertisement

Minesh P. Mehta, MD, of Miami Cancer Institute, part of Baptist Health South Florida, discusses results from the METIS (EF-25) trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of tumor treating fields therapy following stereotactic radiosurgery in patients with mutation-negative non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and brain metastases. Tumor treating fields therapy prolongs time to intracranial disease progression and may postpone whole-brain radiation therapy without declines in quality of life and cognition (Abstract 2008).



Transcript

Disclaimer: This video transcript has not been proofread or edited and may contain errors.
It's a pleasure to be here today to talk about the EF-25 METIS trial. This was a clinical trial evaluating the use of tumor treating fields therapy in patients with non-small cell lung cancer with brain metastasis that are mutation negative. Just under 300 patients, 298 to be precise, were randomized to receiving stereotactic radiosurgery, which is the standard of care for these patients, but is characterized with high rate of intracranial relapse. Following stereotactic radiosurgery, patients received best supportive care in the control arm or best supportive care plus tumor treating fields therapy. The primary endpoint of the trial was to determine if the rate of intracranial progression and the time to intracranial progression could be altered with the use of tumor treating fields therapy. And in fact, the key top line result of the trial was indeed precisely that. The time to intracranial progression was significantly lengthened in favor of tumor treating fields by 10.6 months, and therefore the median time to progression was 10.3 months in the control arm and 21.9 months in the experimental or tumor treating fields arm. This was a significant prolongation. In association with this prolongation of tying to intracranial progression, quality of life metrics also favored tumor treating fields therapy. There was a greater sustenance of quality of life and a greater durability of quality of life in patients receiving tumor treating fields therapy. Overall, the safety was exceptionally well tolerated. Only 2.3% of patients experienced grade three or higher toxicities that were device related. This is a very well tolerated therapy and prolongs time to intracranial progression, which is the top line result. Other secondary endpoints are currently being evaluated and we look forward to reporting those out shortly.

Related Videos

Issues in Oncology

Andrew Srisuwananukorn, MD, and Alexander T. Pearson, MD, PhD, on Artificial Intelligence in the Clinic: Understanding How to Use This 21st Century Tool

Andrew Srisuwananukorn, MD, of The Ohio State University, and Alexander T. Pearson, MD, PhD, of the University of Chicago, discuss the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the clinic, its potential benefits in diagnosis and treatment, resources available to help physicians learn more about AI, and what’s coming for the next generation of medical school students.

Kidney Cancer

Laurence Albiges, MD, PhD, on Renal Cell Carcinoma: Biomarker Analysis of the IMmotion010 Study

Laurence Albiges, MD, PhD, of Gustave Roussy, Université Paris-Saclay, discusses phase III findings showing that high baseline serum KIM-1 levels were associated with poorer prognosis but improved clinical outcomes with atezolizumab vs placebo in patients with renal cell carcinoma at increased risk of recurrence after resection. Increased post-treatment KIM-1 levels were found to be associated with worse disease-free survival (Abstract 4506).

Bladder Cancer

Jonathan E. Rosenberg, MD, and Thomas Powles, MD, PhD, on Urothelial Carcinoma: Expert Commentary on Two Key Abstracts

Jonathan E. Rosenberg, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, and Thomas Powles, MD, PhD, of Barts Cancer Institute and the University of London, discuss phase III findings from two studies: the first, investigating enfortumab vedotin-ejfv and pembrolizumab vs platinum-based chemotherapy in previously untreated patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer; and the second, looking at nivolumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin vs gemcitabine and cisplatin alone in patients with lymph node–only metastatic disease enrolled in the CheckMate 901 trial (Abstracts 4581 and 4565).

Lymphoma

Peter Riedell, MD, on DLBCL: Expert Commentary on Data From the ECHELON-3 Study

Peter Riedell, MD, of The University of Chicago, discusses phase III findings on the regimen of brentuximab vedotin in combination with lenalidomide and rituximab for patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). This therapy demonstrated a survival advantage in the third-line setting, but as this is an interim analysis, questions remain regarding long-term safety and duration of response, according to Dr. Riedell (Abstract LBA7005).

Breast Cancer

Pierfranco Conte, MD, on Early-Stage Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: Trial Update on Avelumab as Adjuvant Treatment

Pierfranco Conte, MD, of the University of Padua, discusses phase III findings from the A-BRAVE trial, which was designed to evaluate the efficacy of avelumab, an anti–PD-L1 antibody, as adjuvant treatment for patients with early-stage triple-negative breast cancer who are at high risk (LBA500).

Advertisement

Advertisement




Advertisement