Shanghai Chest Hospital

About: Shanghai Chest Hospital is a healthcare organization based out in Shanghai, China. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Lung cancer & Cancer. The organization has 549 authors who have published 480 publications receiving 10868 citations. The organization is also known as: Shanghai Red Cross Chest Hospital.

Afatinib versus gefitinib as first-line treatment of patients with EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (LUX-Lung 7): a phase 2B, open-label, randomised controlled trial

Abstract: Summary Background The irreversible ErbB family blocker afatinib and the reversible EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor gefitinib are approved for first-line treatment of EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of afatinib and gefitinib in this setting. Methods This multicentre, international, open-label, exploratory, randomised controlled phase 2B trial (LUX-Lung 7) was done at 64 centres in 13 countries. Treatment-naive patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC and a common EGFR mutation (exon 19 deletion or Leu858Arg) were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive afatinib (40 mg per day) or gefitinib (250 mg per day) until disease progression, or beyond if deemed beneficial by the investigator. Randomisation, stratified by EGFR mutation type and status of brain metastases, was done centrally using a validated number generating system implemented via an interactive voice or web-based response system with a block size of four. Clinicians and patients were not masked to treatment allocation; independent review of tumour response was done in a blinded manner. Coprimary endpoints were progression-free survival by independent central review, time-to-treatment failure, and overall survival. Efficacy analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population and safety analyses were done in patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This ongoing study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01466660. Findings Between Dec 13, 2011, and Aug 8, 2013, 319 patients were randomly assigned (160 to afatinib and 159 to gefitinib). Median follow-up was 27·3 months (IQR 15·3–33·9). Progression-free survival (median 11·0 months [95% CI 10·6–12·9] with afatinib vs 10·9 months [9·1–11·5] with gefitinib; hazard ratio [HR] 0·73 [95% CI 0·57–0·95], p=0·017) and time-to-treatment failure (median 13·7 months [95% CI 11·9–15·0] with afatinib vs 11·5 months [10·1–13·1] with gefitinib; HR 0·73 [95% CI 0·58–0·92], p=0·0073) were significantly longer with afatinib than with gefitinib. Overall survival data are not mature. The most common treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events were diarrhoea (20 [13%] of 160 patients given afatinib vs two [1%] of 159 given gefitinib) and rash or acne (15 [9%] patients given afatinib vs five [3%] of those given gefitinib) and liver enzyme elevations (no patients given afatinib vs 14 [9%] of those given gefitinib). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 17 (11%) patients in the afatinib group and seven (4%) in the gefitinib group. Ten (6%) patients in each group discontinued treatment due to drug-related adverse events. 15 (9%) fatal adverse events occurred in the afatinib group and ten (6%) in the gefitinib group. All but one of these deaths were considered unrelated to treatment; one patient in the gefitinib group died from drug-related hepatic and renal failure. Interpretation Afatinib significantly improved outcomes in treatment-naive patients with EGFR -mutated NSCLC compared with gefitinib, with a manageable tolerability profile. These data are potentially important for clinical decision making in this patient population. Funding Boehringer Ingelheim.

COVID-19 with Different Severities: A Multicenter Study of Clinical Features.

Abstract: Rationale: The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic is now a global health concern.Objectives: We compared the clinical characteristics, laboratory examinations, computed tomography images, and treatments of patients with COVID-19 from three different cities in China.Methods: A total of 476 patients were recruited from January 1, 2020, to February 15, 2020, at three hospitals in Wuhan, Shanghai, and Anhui. The patients were divided into four groups according to age and into three groups (moderate, severe, and critical) according to the fifth edition of the Guidelines on the Diagnosis and Treatment of COVID-19 issued by the National Health Commission of China.Measurements and Main Results: The incidence of comorbidities was higher in the severe (46.3%) and critical (67.1%) groups than in the moderate group (37.8%). More patients were taking angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor blockers in the moderate group than in the severe and critical groups. More patients had multiple lung lobe involvement and pleural effusion in the critical group than in the moderate group. More patients received antiviral agents within the first 4 days in the moderate group than in the severe group, and more patients received antibiotics and corticosteroids in the critical and severe groups. Patients >75 years old had a significantly lower survival rate than younger patients.Conclusions: Multiple organ dysfunction and impaired immune function were the typical characteristics of patients with severe or critical illness. There was a significant difference in the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor blockers among patients with different severities of disease. Involvement of multiple lung lobes and pleural effusion were associated with the severity of COVID-19. Advanced age (≥75 yr) was a risk factor for mortality.

Detection and Dynamic Changes of EGFR Mutations from Circulating Tumor DNA as a Predictor of Survival Outcomes in NSCLC Patients Treated with First-line Intercalated Erlotinib and Chemotherapy

Abstract: Purpose: Blood-based circulating-free (cf) tumor DNA may be an alternative to tissue-based EGFR mutation testing in NSCLC. This exploratory analysis compares matched tumor and blood samples from the FASTACT-2 study. Experimental Design: Patients were randomized to receive six cycles of gemcitabine/platinum plus sequential erlotinib or placebo. EGFR mutation testing was performed using the cobas tissue test and the cobas blood test (in development). Blood samples at baseline, cycle 3, and progression were assessed for blood test detection rate, sensitivity, and specificity; concordance with matched tumor analysis ( n = 238), and correlation with progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Results: Concordance between tissue and blood tests was 88%, with blood test sensitivity of 75% and a specificity of 96%. Median PFS was 13.1 versus 6.0 months for erlotinib and placebo, respectively, for those with baseline EGFR mut + cfDNA [HR, 0.22; 95% confidence intervals (CI), 0.14–0.33, P EGFR mut − cfDNA subgroup (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.65–1.04, P = 0.1076). For patients with EGFR mut + cfDNA at baseline, median PFS was 7.2 versus 12.0 months for cycle 3 EGFR mut + cfDNA versus cycle 3 EGFR mut − patients, respectively (HR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.21–0.48, P P = 0.0066). Conclusions: Blood-based EGFR mutation analysis is relatively sensitive and highly specific. Dynamic changes in cfDNA EGFR mutation status relative to baseline may predict clinical outcomes. Clin Cancer Res; 21(14); 3196–203. ©2015 AACR .