Introduction: Lung cancer is most common in older patients; despite this, older patients are historically under-represented in clinical studies. Here we present data from GIDEON, a study undertaken in Germany in patients with epidermal growth factor receptor mutation-positive (EGFRm+) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) receiving first-line afatinib. GIDEON enrolled a high proportion of patients aged >= 70 years, providing an opportunity to study afatinib use in older patients.Materials and Methods: In GIDEON (NCT02047903), a prospective non-interventional study, patients with EGFRm+ NSCLC received first-line afatinib in routine clinical practice until disease progression, death or intolerable adverse events. Key objectives were twelve-month progression-free survival (PFS) rate and objective response rate (ORR). Overall survival (OS) and safety were also assessed. This post hoc analysis explores out-comes of patients grouped by age (>= 70 and = 70 years. In the >= 70 years age group and the = 70 years age group and the = 3 adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were observed in 34.8% and 40.7% of patients, respectively; the most common were diarrhea (13.6% and 14.0%), acneiform dermatitis (7.6% and 7.0%), stomatitis (1.5% and 4.7%) and maculopapular rash (1.5% and 4.7%).Discussion: Patients with EGFRm+ NSCLC aged >= 70 years showed clinical benefit from first-line afatinib with no unexpected safety signals, supporting the use of afatinib in this setting.

Based on the lack of differences in progression-free and overall survival after a median follow-up of 93 months in our HOVON-65/GMMG-HD4 trial (German part; n = 395) randomizing VAD induction (vincristin/adriamycin/dexamthasone)/tandem-transplantation/thalidomide-maintenance vs. PAD induction (bortezomib/adriamycin/dexamethasone)/tandem transplantation/bortezomib maintenance, we discern how chromosomal aberrations determine long-term prognosis by different patterns of association with proliferation and treatment-dependent response, whether responses achieved by different regimens are equal regarding prognosis, and whether subpopulations of patients could be defined as treatable without upfront “novel agents” in cases of limited resources, e.g., in low- or middle-income countries. Serum parameters and risk factors were assessed in 395 patients. CD138-purified plasma cells were subjected to fluorescence in situ hybridization (n = 354) and gene expression profiling (n = 204). We found chromosomal aberrations to be associated in four patterns with survival, proliferation, and response: deletion (del) del17p13, del8p21, del13q14, (gain) 1q21+, and translocation t(4;14) (all adverse) associate with higher proliferation. Of these, del17p is associated with an adverse response (pattern 1), and 1q21+, t(4;14), and del13q14 with a treatment-dependent better response (pattern 2). Hyperdiploidy associates with lower proliferation without impacting response or survival (pattern 3). Translocation t(11;14) has no association with survival but a treatment-dependent adverse response (pattern 4). Significantly fewer patients reach a near-complete response or better with “conventional” (VAD) vs. bortezomib-based treatment after induction or high-dose melphalan. These patients, however, show significantly better median progression-free and overall survival. Molecularly, patients responding to the two regimens differ in gene expression, indicating distinct biological properties of the responding myeloma cells. Patients with normal renal function (89.4%), low cytogenetic risk (72.5%), or low proliferation rate (37.9%) neither benefit in progression-free nor overall survival from bortezomib-based upfront treatment. We conclude that response level, the treatment by which it is achieved, and molecular background determine long-term prognosis. Chromosomal aberrations are associated in four patterns with proliferation and treatment-dependent responses. Associations with faster and deeper responses can be deceptive in the case of prognostically adverse aberrations 1q21+ and t(4;14). Far from advocating a return to “outdated” treatments, if resources do not permit state-of-the-art-treatment, normal renal function and/or molecular profiling identifies patient subpopulations doing well without upfront “novel agents”.