METHOD: A retrospective data collection was conducted using the clinical records of patients who were histopathologically diagnosed with NPC at the Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Clinic and the Radiotherapy & Oncology Clinic at Sarawak General Hospital.

RESULT: The study comprised a total of 892 patients from 2010 to 2020. Males outnumbered females 3-to-1, with a mean age of 51 years (standard deviation: 13.9). The largest groups of patients were the Iban (34%) and the Bidayuh (21%), followed by the Chinese (19%) and the Malay (15%). The Bidayuh had the highest incidence rate with 81 cases per 100,000. Only 10% of the study population had a family history of NPC. The most common presentation was a neck lump (64.5%). Distant metastasis was discovered in 20% of patients. 82% of the cases were stage 3 or 4 at the time of presentation. The histological types of the 892 cases were mainly undifferentiated carcinoma (73%). Eighty-six patients developed recurrence, with 83% experiencing local recurrence, 10% developing distant metastasis, and 7% developing regional recurrence. Treatment for recurrence included nasopharyngectomy, neck dissection, and chemotherapy.

DESIGN: This multicenter, parallel group, randomized controlled trial involved 363 prevalent CAPD patients from 8 centers. The primary endpoint was peritonitis rate; secondary endpoints were technique failure and technical problems encountered. The duration of the evaluation was 1 year.

RESULTS: The risk of peritonitis on Carex varied between the centers. We found a significant treatment-center interaction effect (likelihood ratio test: p = 0.03). The incidence rate ratio (IRR) of peritonitis on Carex as compared with Ultra ranged from 0.4 to 7.2. In two centers, Carex was inferior to Ultra with regard to peritonitis; but, in five centers, the results were inconclusive. Equivalence was not demonstrated in any center. The overall rate of peritonitis in the Carex group was twice that in the Ultra group [IRR: 2.18; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.51 to 3.14]. Technique failure and technical problems were more common with the Carex system. Technique failure rate at 1 year was 44% in the Carex group and 22% in the Ultra group.

METHODS: The phase 3 LASER301 study evaluated lazertinib efficacy and safety in treatment-naive patients with EGFR-mutated (exon 19 deletion or L858R) locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC. Patients were randomized one-to-one and received either lazertinib or gefitinib. The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. Secondary end points included overall survival, objective response rate, duration of response, and safety.

RESULTS: Between February 13, 2020, and July 29, 2022, among 258 patients of Asian descent, the median progression-free survival was significantly longer with lazertinib than gefitinib (20.6 versus 9.7 mo; hazard ratio: 0.46; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.34-0.63, p < 0.001), and the benefit was consistent across predefined subgroups (exon 19 deletion, L858R, baseline central nervous system metastases). Objective response rate and disease control rates were similar between treatment groups. The median duration of response was 19.4 months (95% CI: 16.6-24.9) versus 9.6 months (95% CI: 6.9-12.4) in the lazertinib versus gefitinib group. Adverse event rates in Asian patients were comparable with the overall LASER301 population. Adverse events leading to discontinuation in the lazertinib and gefitinib groups were 13% and 12%, respectively.

METHODS: Treatment-naive patients with EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC were randomized one-to-one to lazertinib (240 mg/d) or gefitinib (250 mg/d). Patients with asymptomatic or stable CNS metastases were included if any planned radiation, surgery, or steroids were completed more than 2 weeks before randomization. For patients with CNS metastases confirmed at screening or subsequently suspected, CNS imaging was performed every 6 weeks for 18 months, then every 12 weeks. End points assessed by blinded independent central review and Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 included intracranial progression-free survival, intracranial objective response rate, and intracranial duration of response.

RESULTS: Of the 393 patients enrolled in LASER301, 86 (lazertinib, n = 45; gefitinib, n = 41) had measurable and or non-measurable baseline CNS metastases. The median intracranial progression-free survival in the lazertinib group was 28.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 14.8-28.2) versus 8.4 months (95% CI: 6.7-not reached [NR]) in the gefitinib group (hazard ratio = 0.42, 95% CI: 0.20-0.89, p = 0.02). Among patients with measurable CNS lesions, the intracranial objective response rate was numerically higher with lazertinib (94%; n = 17) versus gefitinib (73%; n = 11, p = 0.124). The median intracranial duration of response with lazertinib was NR (8.3-NR) versus 6.3 months (2.8-NR) with gefitinib. Tolerability was similar to the overall LASER301 population.

METHODS: In this open-label, multicenter, randomized phase II trial, pre/perimenopausal women with clinically aggressive HR+/HER2- ABC were randomly assigned 1:1 to first-line ribociclib (600 mg once daily; 3 weeks on, 1 week off) plus letrozole/anastrozole and goserelin or investigator's choice of combination CT (docetaxel plus capecitabine, paclitaxel plus gemcitabine, or capecitabine plus vinorelbine). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS).

RESULTS: Among 222 patients randomly assigned to ribociclib plus ET (n = 112) or combination CT (n = 110), 150 (67.6%) had symptomatic visceral metastases, 41 (18.5%) had rapid disease progression per investigator's judgment, and 31 (14.0%) had symptomatic nonvisceral disease. Overall, 106 (47.7%) patients had investigator-assessed visceral crisis. The median follow-up time was 37.0 months. At data cutoff, 31.3% (ribociclib arm) and 15.5% (CT arm) of patients had completed study treatment and transitioned to post-trial access. The median PFS was 21.8 months (ribociclib plus ET; [95% CI, 17.4 to 26.7]) and 12.8 months (combination CT; [95% CI, 10.1 to 18.4); hazard ratio, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.43 to 0.87]; P = .003. The overall response rates and the median time to response in the ribociclib versus CT arms, respectively, were 66.1% and 61.8% and 4.9 months and 3.2 months (hazard ratio, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.55 to 1.06]). Lower rates of symptomatic adverse events were observed in the ribociclib versus CT arm.