Lung cancer is one of the deadliest cancers globally and accounts for most of the cancer-related deaths in India. Comprehensive data on lung cancer in India are lacking. This review aimed to discuss the epidemiological trends of lung cancers and driver mutations as well as the recent advancements in molecular diagnostics and therapeutic options primarily in non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in India. Electronic databases, such as PubMed and Google Scholar, were searched to retrieve the relevant literature published in the past 5 years. As per the GLOBOCAN 2018 report, lung cancer was ranked the fourth leading cause of cancer (5.9% cases) in India, in all ages and sexes. Furthermore, 63,475 of all cancer-related deaths (8.1%) were attributed to lung cancer (cumulative risk 0.60), making it the third leading cause of cancer-related mortality. The common targets for treatment in lung cancer patients mainly include EGFR mutation, ALK and ROS1 rearrangements and PDL1 expression. In India, EGFR and ALK re-arrangement are commonly reported, but there is limited data of PD-L1 expression. Molecular testing has gained importance as several biomarkers are being targeted to treat lung cancer patients. Surgery, radiotherapy, systemic chemotherapy, and personalized molecular-targeted therapy prolong the overall survival (OS) in patients with NSCLC. Although chemotherapy and molecular-targeted therapies have greatly improved the clinical outcomes, prolonged disease control could not be attained in most NSCLC patients. In this situation, immunotherapy seems to be potentially beneficial to obtain long-lasting disease control with minimal adverse events.

Background: Peritoneal metastasis (PM) is a common occurrence in gynaecological and gastrointestinal cancers and is associated with poor survival. Patients typically present with ascites, abdominal pain, malnutrition, nausea, emesis, and bowel obstruction which significantly compromise the quality of life (QoL). The treatment remains a particular challenge, with palliative systemic chemotherapy being the standard of care. However, the efficacy of systemic chemotherapy is poor but with high potential for side effects and complications. QoL plays an important role in patients with PM and is deteriorating continuously until death. Thus, there is an obvious medical need for better therapeutic options in PM for prolonging survival and preserving QoL by reducing both disease-related symptoms and therapy side effects. Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a novel technique for delivering pressurized normothermic chemotherapy into the abdominal cavity as an aerosol. This concept seems to enhance the effectiveness of intraperitoneal chemotherapy by taking advantage of the physical properties of gas and pressure by generating an artificial pressure gradient and enhancing tissue uptake and distributing drugs homogeneously within the closed and expanded peritoneal cavity. Methods: The primary objective of this study is to assess QoL and symptoms in a consecutive cohort of patients with PM treated with PIPAC procedure in comparison with conventional systemic intravenous chemotherapy. QoL is assessed prospectively using European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30(Version 3.0) questionnaire. QLQ-C30 is a 30-question self-administered questionnaire inquiring about global health status, 9 individual symptoms, and 5 functional scales. Baseline QoL is measured using the global physical health functional score, and symptom scores derived from EORTC QLQ30 questionnaire before starting therapy, followed by at 60, 120, and 180 days after the first intervention. Calculated sample size is 119 and rounded to 120. For each treatment group, sample size of 60 will be enrolled; Intervention model: IV chemotherapy group (control group) and PIPAC group (experimental group); Study type: prospective randomized control intervention trial Discussion: All consecutive patients diagnosed with advanced end-stage PM are randomized to be treated with PIPAC or IV chemotherapy. The primary objective of this study is to determine the QoL after three cycles of PIPAC in comparison with six cycles of systemic chemotherapy. The secondary outcome measures include morbidity and mortality. Analysis is by intention to treat. Results: The effect of systemic chemotherapy remains limited on the peritoneum due to poor vascularization and low penetration. Side effects after systemic chemotherapy for PM are relatively frequent. QoL plays an important role in these patients and is deteriorating continuously due to the disease or therapy related. Thus, there is need for better therapeutic options for prolonging survival and preserving QoL by reducing both disease-related symptoms and therapy side effects. PIPAC is a novel minimally invasive repeatable treatment modality which demonstrated potentially encouraging tumour response and only minimal toxicity in patients with PM of various origins. It can optimize local drug delivery and improve clinical outcome due to superior pharmacological properties as compared to systemic chemotherapy. Trial registration: REF/2018/08/021225 Registered on Clinical Trials Registry-India (CTRI); www.ctri.nic.in

PURPOSE: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) is the initial line of management in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), but survivals in the real world are not known. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study of patients with advanced HCC receiving ICIs (as first-line therapy or as later lines of therapy) across 11 Indian institutions was conducted. Patients were divided into either cohort 1 (trial-like receiving ICI as first-line therapy), with a Child Pugh score (CTP) of ≤6, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) of 0/1, and no VP4 (main portal vein thrombosis [MPVT]) or cohort 2 (trial unlike) who did not satisfy at least one of the above criteria. The primary end point was 12-month overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Between January 2017 and January 2022, 133 patient data were analyzed. The presence of MPVT was seen in 33 patients (25%). The ICIs used were atezolizumab-bevacizumab, nivolumab, and pembrolizumab in 89 (66%), 44 (33%), and one (1%) patients, respectively. With a median follow-up of 13.8 months, the 12-month OS for the entire cohort was 33.4% (95% CI, 23.6 to 43.2). Patients in cohort 1 (n = 31) had a significantly improved OS compared with patients in cohort 2 (n = 102; 12-month OS, 57.9% [95% CI, 38.5 to 77.3] v 24% [95% CI, 13.4 to 34.6]; P = .005). Patients with CTP A as compared with CTP B (9.7 v 4.3 months; P < .001) and an ECOG PS of 0/1 as compared with a PS of ≥2 (8.7 v 7.2 months; P = .04) and without MPVT (9.4 v 4.0; P < .001) had superior survivals. CONCLUSION: Patients with advanced HCC in the real world, trial-like have survivals in consonance with trial data, whereas patients with features excluding them from trials, such as main portal vein thrombosis, poor ECOG PS, and child Pugh B status, have markedly inferior survivals, despite good tolerance to immunotherapy.

Introduction Nivolumab monotherapy is approved for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients who have progressed on prior therapies based on the pivotal Checkmate-025 trial. There is limited literature on the efficacy and safety profile of usage of nivolumab in the treatment of mRCC in India in a real-world setting. Methods A retrospective analysis was performed of patients who received nivolumab monotherapy for mRCC after having progressed on prior therapies. Tumor response was graded according to RECIST v1.1 and Kaplan–Meier survival analysis was used to estimate progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Immune-related adverse events (irAEs) were documented and graded according to CTCAE v5.0. Results Between 2016 and 2019, 35 patients received nivolumab for mRCC at our center after progression on prior therapies. A majority of the patients (n = 30, 85.7%) received it in a second-line setting, and the remaining in the third line and beyond setting. Clear cell was the most common histology (n = 26, 74.3%). There were 18 patients (51.42%) who belonged to IMDC intermediate risk, while 17 (48.58%) patients were at poor risk. The overall response rate was 60%, with complete response (CR) in 11.4%. Median duration of response was not reached among responders. Median PFS was 5 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.06–6.93) and median OS was 26 months (95% CI: 1.90–50.09). Ongoing survival of 47, 42, 34, and 22 months was noted in four patients with CR, respectively. In our study, 23 patients (65.71%) experienced any grade of irAE. Grade 3 irAEs was seen in four patients (11.42%). Most common irAE was thyroid dysfunction seen in 12 patients (34.2%). Treatment discontinuation due to irAEs occurred in three patients (8.57%). Conclusion Nivolumab showed good efficacy with high response rates and an OS comparable to the pivotal Checkmate-025 trial. It was well tolerated with safety profile in terms of irAE consistent with those reported in literature.