Background Accumulated evidence indicates that patients with lung cancer are a vulnerable population throughout the pandemic. Limited information is available in Latin America regarding the impact of the pandemic on medical care. The goal of this study was to describe the clinical and social effect of COVID-19 on patients with thoracic cancer and to ascertain outcomes in those with a confirmed diagnosis. Materials and Methods This cohort study included patients with thoracic neoplasms within a single institution between March 1, 2020, and February 28, 2021. All variables of interest were extracted from electronic medical records. During this period, the Depression Anxiety and Stress Scale 21 (DASS-2) was applied to evaluate and identify more common psychological disorders. Results The mean age for the total cohort (n = 548) was 61.5 ± 12.9 years; non-small cell lung cancer was the most frequent neoplasm (86.9%), advanced stages predominated (80%), and most patients were under active therapy (82.8%). Any change in treatment was reported in 23.9% of patients, of which 78.6% were due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Treatment delays (≥7 days) were the most frequent modifications in 41.9% of cases, followed by treatment suspension at 37.4%. Patients without treatment changes had a more prolonged progression-free survival and overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0.21, p < .001 and HR 0.28, p < .001, respectively). The mean DASS-21 score was 10.45 in 144 evaluated patients, with women being more affected than men (11.41 vs. 9.08, p < .001). Anxiety was reported in 30.5% of cases, followed by depression and distress in equal proportions (18%). Depressed and stressed patients had higher odds of experiencing delays in treatment than patients without depression (odds ratio [OR] 4.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.53–13.23, p = .006 and OR 3.18, 95% CI 1.2–10.06, p = .006, respectively). Conclusion Treatment adjustments in patients with thoracic malignancies often occurred to avoid COVID-19 contagion with detrimental effects on survival. Psychological disorders could have a role in adherence to the original treatment regimen. Implications for Practice The pandemic has placed an enormous strain on health care systems globally. Patients with thoracic cancers represent a vulnerable population, with increased morbidity and mortality rates. In Mexico, treatment modifications were common during the pandemic, and those who experienced delays had worse survival outcomes. Most treatment modifications were related to a patient decision rather than a lockdown of health care facilities in which mental health impairment plays an essential role. Moreover, the high case fatality rate highlights the importance of improving medical care access. Likewise, to develop strategies facing future threats that may compromise health care systems in non-developed countries.

Background: Tyrosine-kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have become the cornerstone treatment of patients with non-small cell lung cancer that harbor oncogenic EGFR mutations. The counterpart of these drugs is the financial burden that they impose, which often creates a barrier for accessing treatment in developing countries. The aim if the present study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of three different first and second generation TKIs. Methods: We designed a retrospective cost-effectiveness analysis of three different TKIs (afatinib, erlotinib, and gefitinib) administered as first-line therapy for patients with NSCLC that harbor EGFR mutations. Results: We included 99 patients with the following TKI treatment; 40 treated with afatinib, 33 with gefitinib, and 26 with erlotinib. Median PFS was not significantly different between treatment groups; 15.4 months (95% CI 9.3–19.5) for afatinib; 9.0 months (95% CI 6.3- NA) for erlotinib; and 10.0 months (95% CI 7.46–14.6) for gefitinib. Overall survival was also similar between groups: 29.1 months (95% CI 25.4-NA) for afatinib; 27.1 months (95% CI 17.1- NA) for erlotinib; and 23.7 months (95% CI 18.6-NA) for gefitinib. There was a statistically significant difference between the mean TKIs costs; being afatinib the most expensive treatment. This difference was observed in the daily cost of treatment (p < 0.01), as well as the total cost of treatment (p = 0.00095). Cost-effectiveness analysis determined that afatinib was a better cost-effective option when compared with first-generation TKIs (erlotinib and gefitinib). Conclusion: In our population, erlotinib, afatinib, and gefitinib were statistically equally effective in terms of OS and PFS for the treatment of patients with advanced EGFR-mutated NSCLC population. Owing to its marginally increased PFS and OS, the cost-effectiveness analysis determined that afatinib was a slightly better cost-effective option when compared with first-generation TKIs (erlotinib and gefitinib).

Background: Brigatinib has demonstrated its efficacy as first-line therapy and in further lines for ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients; however, real-world data in Latin America are scarce. Methods: From January 2018 to March 2020, 46 patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC received brigatinib as second or further line of therapy in Mexico and Colombia. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary end point was time to treatment discontinuation (TTD). Results: At a median follow-up of 9.3 months, the median PFS was 15.2 months (95% CI: 11.6-18.8), and TTD was 18.46 months (95% CI: 9.54-27.38). The estimated overall survival at 12 months was 80%. Safety profile was consistent with previously published data. Conclusion: Brigatinib is an effective treatment for previously treated ALK-positive NSCLC patients in a real-world setting.