Purpose: To investigate the outcomes of brolucizumab reinjection after intraocular inflammation (IOI) development. Methods: This retrospective study analyzed patients with brolucizumab injections from April 2021 to January 2024. Patients who developed IOI after brolucizumab were included and categorized into subgroups depending on reinjection, discontinuation, and further IOI development. Results: A total of 472 eyes of 432 patients received brolucizumab injections. Thirty-eight cases developed IOI at least once, and 25 continued brolucizumab. Sixteen cases had no more IOI events, and nine experienced a second or more IOI events. Among the nine cases, three maintained brolucizumab injections despite IOI recurrence. The incidence of IOI was 8.1% based on the number of eyes (38 of 472 eyes) and 2.0% based on the number of brolucizumab injections (50 of 2,468 injections). The incidence of occlusive retinal vasculitis was 0.2% (1 of 472 eyes). The recurrence rate was 23.7% (9 of 38 eyes). The average number of injections between the first brolucizumab injection and the injection date on which IOI first developed was 2.15 times in the no-reinjection group, 3.44 times in the no-IOI-recurrence group, and 2.0 times in the second-IOI-episode group. Time to IOI occurrence in cases with first IOI episode was 18.60 ± 16.73 days, with 15 cases developing IOI within 1 week. Conclusions This study elucidates the real-world incidence of brolucizumab associated IOIs, with a description of information related to reinjections after the IOI episodes. A comprehensive understanding of brolucizumab reinjection is essential for its optimal utilization.

Purpose: To investigate the outcomes of brolucizumab reinjection after intraocular inflammation (IOI) development. Methods: This retrospective study analyzed patients with brolucizumab injections from April 2021 to January 2024. Patients who developed IOI after brolucizumab were included and categorized into subgroups depending on reinjection, discontinuation, and further IOI development. Results: A total of 472 eyes of 432 patients received brolucizumab injections. Thirty-eight cases developed IOI at least once, and 25 continued brolucizumab. Sixteen cases had no more IOI events, and nine experienced a second or more IOI events. Among the nine cases, three maintained brolucizumab injections despite IOI recurrence. The incidence of IOI was 8.1% based on the number of eyes (38 of 472 eyes) and 2.0% based on the number of brolucizumab injections (50 of 2,468 injections). The incidence of occlusive retinal vasculitis was 0.2% (1 of 472 eyes). The recurrence rate was 23.7% (9 of 38 eyes). The average number of injections between the first brolucizumab injection and the injection date on which IOI first developed was 2.15 times in the no-reinjection group, 3.44 times in the no-IOI-recurrence group, and 2.0 times in the second-IOI-episode group. Time to IOI occurrence in cases with first IOI episode was 18.60 ± 16.73 days, with 15 cases developing IOI within 1 week. Conclusions This study elucidates the real-world incidence of brolucizumab associated IOIs, with a description of information related to reinjections after the IOI episodes. A comprehensive understanding of brolucizumab reinjection is essential for its optimal utilization.

Purpose: To investigate the outcomes of brolucizumab reinjection after intraocular inflammation (IOI) development. Methods: This retrospective study analyzed patients with brolucizumab injections from April 2021 to January 2024. Patients who developed IOI after brolucizumab were included and categorized into subgroups depending on reinjection, discontinuation, and further IOI development. Results: A total of 472 eyes of 432 patients received brolucizumab injections. Thirty-eight cases developed IOI at least once, and 25 continued brolucizumab. Sixteen cases had no more IOI events, and nine experienced a second or more IOI events. Among the nine cases, three maintained brolucizumab injections despite IOI recurrence. The incidence of IOI was 8.1% based on the number of eyes (38 of 472 eyes) and 2.0% based on the number of brolucizumab injections (50 of 2,468 injections). The incidence of occlusive retinal vasculitis was 0.2% (1 of 472 eyes). The recurrence rate was 23.7% (9 of 38 eyes). The average number of injections between the first brolucizumab injection and the injection date on which IOI first developed was 2.15 times in the no-reinjection group, 3.44 times in the no-IOI-recurrence group, and 2.0 times in the second-IOI-episode group. Time to IOI occurrence in cases with first IOI episode was 18.60 ± 16.73 days, with 15 cases developing IOI within 1 week. Conclusions This study elucidates the real-world incidence of brolucizumab associated IOIs, with a description of information related to reinjections after the IOI episodes. A comprehensive understanding of brolucizumab reinjection is essential for its optimal utilization.

Purpose: To investigate the outcomes of brolucizumab reinjection after intraocular inflammation (IOI) development. Methods: This retrospective study analyzed patients with brolucizumab injections from April 2021 to January 2024. Patients who developed IOI after brolucizumab were included and categorized into subgroups depending on reinjection, discontinuation, and further IOI development. Results: A total of 472 eyes of 432 patients received brolucizumab injections. Thirty-eight cases developed IOI at least once, and 25 continued brolucizumab. Sixteen cases had no more IOI events, and nine experienced a second or more IOI events. Among the nine cases, three maintained brolucizumab injections despite IOI recurrence. The incidence of IOI was 8.1% based on the number of eyes (38 of 472 eyes) and 2.0% based on the number of brolucizumab injections (50 of 2,468 injections). The incidence of occlusive retinal vasculitis was 0.2% (1 of 472 eyes). The recurrence rate was 23.7% (9 of 38 eyes). The average number of injections between the first brolucizumab injection and the injection date on which IOI first developed was 2.15 times in the no-reinjection group, 3.44 times in the no-IOI-recurrence group, and 2.0 times in the second-IOI-episode group. Time to IOI occurrence in cases with first IOI episode was 18.60 ± 16.73 days, with 15 cases developing IOI within 1 week. Conclusions This study elucidates the real-world incidence of brolucizumab associated IOIs, with a description of information related to reinjections after the IOI episodes. A comprehensive understanding of brolucizumab reinjection is essential for its optimal utilization.

Purpose: To investigate the outcomes of brolucizumab reinjection after intraocular inflammation (IOI) development. Methods: This retrospective study analyzed patients with brolucizumab injections from April 2021 to January 2024. Patients who developed IOI after brolucizumab were included and categorized into subgroups depending on reinjection, discontinuation, and further IOI development. Results: A total of 472 eyes of 432 patients received brolucizumab injections. Thirty-eight cases developed IOI at least once, and 25 continued brolucizumab. Sixteen cases had no more IOI events, and nine experienced a second or more IOI events. Among the nine cases, three maintained brolucizumab injections despite IOI recurrence. The incidence of IOI was 8.1% based on the number of eyes (38 of 472 eyes) and 2.0% based on the number of brolucizumab injections (50 of 2,468 injections). The incidence of occlusive retinal vasculitis was 0.2% (1 of 472 eyes). The recurrence rate was 23.7% (9 of 38 eyes). The average number of injections between the first brolucizumab injection and the injection date on which IOI first developed was 2.15 times in the no-reinjection group, 3.44 times in the no-IOI-recurrence group, and 2.0 times in the second-IOI-episode group. Time to IOI occurrence in cases with first IOI episode was 18.60 ± 16.73 days, with 15 cases developing IOI within 1 week. Conclusions This study elucidates the real-world incidence of brolucizumab associated IOIs, with a description of information related to reinjections after the IOI episodes. A comprehensive understanding of brolucizumab reinjection is essential for its optimal utilization.

Purpose: Alectinib and brigatinib are second-generation anaplastic lymphoma receptor tyrosine kinases (ALKs) that are widely used as first-line therapy for treating ALK-positive advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Given the lack of a head-to-head comparison of these drugs as first-line therapies, this retrospective observational study aimed to compare the real-world efficacy and safety of alectinib and brigatinib. Materials and Methods: Patients who received alectinib or brigatinib as the first-line treatment for ALK-positive advanced NSCLC were evaluated for clinical outcomes of objective response rate (ORR), intracranial ORR, time to next treatment (TTNT), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety profiles. Results: Of 208 patients who received either alectinib or brigatinib as a first-line treatment, 176 received alectinib and 32 received brigatinib. At the data cutoff point, the median follow-up duration was 16.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 14.7 to 18.3) in the brigatinib group and 27.5 months (95% CI, 24.6 to 30.4) in the alectinib group. The ORR was 92.5% with alectinib and 93.8% for brigatinib. The intracranial ORR rates were 92.7% (38/41) and 100% (10/10), respectively. The rate of PFS at 12 months was comparable between the alectinib group and the brigatinib groups (84.4% vs. 84.1%, p=0.64), and the median TTNT, PFS, and OS were not reached in either group. Treatment-related adverse events were usually mild, and treatment discontinuation due to adverse events was rare (alectinib 4.5% vs. brigatinib 6.25%). Conclusion Alectinib and brigatinib had similar clinical benefits when used as the first-line treatment of NSCLC patients with ALK rearrangement in the real world.

Purpose: BRAF mutations are detected in 30%-80% of papillary thyroid cancer (PTC) cases. DaBRAFenib and trametinib showed promising antitumor activity in patients with BRAFV600E-mutated metastatic melanoma and non–small cell lung cancer. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of daBRAFenib and trametinib in patients with metastatic BRAFV600E-mutated thyroid cancer. Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective study to evaluate the efficacy of daBRAFenib and trametinib in patients with metastatic BRAFV600E-mutated PTC. The patients received daBRAFenib 150 mg twice daily and trametinib 2 mg once daily at the Samsung Medical Center. This study evaluated the progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR) overall survival (OS), and safety of daBRAFenib and trametinib. Results: Between December 2019 and January 2022, 27 PTC patients including eight patients with poorly differentiated or anaplastic transformation, received daBRAFenib and trametinib. The median age was 73.0 years, and the median follow-up period was 19.8 months. The majority (81.5%) had undergone thyroidectomy, while 8 patients had received prior systemic treatments. ORR was 73.1%, with 19 partial responses, and DCR was 92.3%. Median PFS was 21.7 months, and median OS was 21.7 months. Treatment-related adverse events included generalized weakness (29.6%), fever (25.9%), and gastrointestinal problems (22.2%). Dose reduction due to adverse events was required in 81.5% of the patients. Conclusion DaBRAFenib and trametinib demonstrated a high ORR with promising PFS; however, most patients with BRAFV600E-mutated metastatic PTC required a dose reduction.

Purpose: Optimal treatment for stage IIIA/N2 non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is controversial. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of adjuvant pembrolizumab for stage IIIA/N2 NSCLC completely resected after neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiation therapy (CCRT). Materials and Methods: In this open-label, single-center, single-arm phase 2 trial, patients with stage IIIA/N2 NSCLC received adjuvant pembrolizumab for up to 2 years after complete resection following neoadjuvant CCRT. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival (DFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS) and safety. As an exploratory biomarker analysis, we evaluated the proliferative response of blood CD39+PD-1+CD8+ T cells using fold changes in the percentage of proliferating Ki-67+ cells from days 1 to 7 of cycle 1 (Ki-67D7/D1). Results: Between October 2017 and October 2018, 37 patients were enrolled. Twelve (32%) and three (8%) patients harbored EGFR and ALK alterations, respectively. Of 34 patients with programmed cell death ligand 1 assessment, 21 (62%), nine (26%), and four (12%) had a tumor proportion score of < 1%, 1%-50%, and ≥ 50%, respectively. The median follow-up was 71 months. The median DFS was 22.4 months in the overall population, with a 5-year DFS rate of 29%. The OS rate was 86% at 2 years and 76% at 5 years. Patients with tumor recurrence within 6 months had a significantly lower Ki-67D7/D1 among CD39+PD-1+CD8+ T cells than those without (p=0.036). No new safety signals were identified. Conclusion Adjuvant pembrolizumab may offer durable disease control in a subset of stage IIIA/N2 NSCLC patients after neoadjuvant CCRT and surgery.

Background: The cutaneous adverse effects (AEs) of amivantamab, a novel monoclonal bispecific antibody against the epidermal growth factor receptor and mesenchymal-epithelial transcription factor, have not been investigated. Objective: To analyze the type and prevalence of cutaneous AEs in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with amivantamab. Methods: A single-institution retrospective medical record review was conducted on patients with NSCLC who were treated with amivantamab between January 1, 2021, and June 30, 2023. A total of 37 patients receiving amivantamab monotherapy for NSCLC were included in this study. Demographic data (age, sex, body mass index, age at cancer diagnosis, age at amivantamab therapy initiation, and duration of amivantamab use) and the types and severity of cutaneous AEs were evaluated. Results: Cutaneous AEs occurred in 59.5% of the patients. The most common AEs were maculopapular eruptions (37.8%), paronychia (24.3%), pruritus/xerosis (16.2%), acneiform eruptions (13.5%), pustulosis (5.4%), and scalp rashes (5.4%). No Grade 3 cutaneous AE, which led to the discontinuation of amivantamab therapy, was observed. Conclusion Our data describes an extensive review of cutaneous AEs caused by amivantamab. Further research with a larger patient population is necessary to reliably predict and manage cutaneous AEs associated with amivantamab.

Purpose: Brain metastasis is common in patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)–mutant non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) at initial presentation. A previous study showed that brain radiotherapy (RT) before first-generation (first-G) EGFR–tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy is associated with longer overall survival than TKI therapy alone. However, there is no data regarding the role of additional brain RT before afatinib therapy. Materials and Methods: Between October 2014 and June 2019, EGFR-mutant NSCLC patients with brain metastases who started first-G EGFR-TKIs (gefitinib or erlotinib) or afatinib as first-line therapy were retrospectively analyzed. This study compared overall survival and intracranial progression-free survival (PFS) between patients who received EGFR-TKIs alone and EGFR-TKIs with brain RT and either a first-G EGFR-TKI or afatinib, respectively. Results: The median follow-up duration was 29.6 months (range, 1.5 to 116.9 months). In the first-G EGFR-TKI group (n=155), 94 patients (60.6%) received the first-G EGFR-TKI alone and 61 patients (39.4%) received brain RT prior to their first-G EGFR-TKI. In the afatinib group (n=204), 126 patients (61.8%) received afatinib alone and 78 patients (38.2%) received brain RT prior to afatinib. There was no difference in overall survival rates between the groups with RT (35.6 months: 95% confidence interval [CI], 27.9 to 43.3) and without RT (31.4 months: 95% CI, 23.9 to 38.9) in the afatinib group (p=0.58), but there was a significant difference in overall survival in the first-G EGFR-TKI group in a manner favoring additional brain RT (41.1 months: 95% CI, 30.5 to 51.7 vs. 25.8 months: 95% CI, 20.1 to 31.5; p=0.02). Meanwhile, median intracranial PFS was not different between patients who received EGFR-TKI therapy alone vs. EGFR-TKI therapy with brain RT in both the first-G EGFR-TKI (p=0.39) and afatinib (p=0.24) groups. Conclusion Afatinib therapy alone showed comparable survival outcomes to those of afatinib with brain RT. The current study suggests that brain RT could be an optional, not mandatory, treatment modality when afatinib therapy is considered in patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC.