Examining crossover and postprotocol therapies in first-line immunotherapy trials in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy has led to significant improvement in outcomes for patients with nononcogene-driven advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The rate of crossover and receipt of postprotocol ICI in frontline trials for advanced NSCLC has not been systematically evaluated. METHODS: ClinicalTrials.gov was used to identify phase 3 studies evaluating the use of immunotherapy or combination chemoimmunotherapy against chemotherapy alone in the frontline management of advanced NSCLC. Data on outcomes, rate of crossover and/or subsequent post-protocol receipt of immunotherapy, and the start dates of these clinical trials were then extracted. RESULTS: Twenty-three frontline trials in nononcogene-driven advanced NSCLC were identified. Six trials with ICI monotherapy/dual ICI therapy and 17 trials evaluating chemotherapy/ICI in first-line advanced NSCLC were included in the analysis. The crossover rate ranged 0% to 54% in ICI monotherapy/dual ICI trials and 0% to 52% in chemotherapy/ICI trials. Nineteen of 23 trials provided information on subsequent postprotocol therapies. Among the trials not allowing crossover, postprotocol ICI was administered to 17% to 45.8% of patients. Information regarding the eventual receipt of ICI therapy was available for 22 of 23 trials. Of 6631 patients, 2507 (37.8%) randomized to the control arm eventually received ICI therapy. CONCLUSION: The rate of crossover and postprotocol ICI use was low in frontline trials for first-line NSCLC incorporating ICI. Given the proven survival overall survival of ICI in a broad population, there is a need to ensure availability of this life-prolonging therapy in future trials, either by crossover treatment or postprotocol administration.

ChatGPT-A promising generative AI tool and its implications for cancer care.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Since its launch, ChatGPT has taken the internet by storm and has the potential to be used broadly in the health care system, particularly in a setting such as medical oncology. ChatGPT is well suited to review and extract key content from records of patients with cancer, interpret next-generation sequencing reports, and offer a list of potential clinical trial options.

Clinical and economic impact of recurrence in early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer following complete resection.

Aim: Real-world data on outcomes for early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are needed to better understand the benefits of new therapies. Methods: In this retrospective study using the ConcertAI Patient360™ database, overall survival and healthcare resource utilization were compared among patients with recurrent and non-recurrent completely resected stage IB-IIIA NSCLC. Results: Recurrence was associated with a shorter median overall survival compared with non-recurrence (31.5 months vs 75.6 months, respectively), lower survival probability 5-years post-resection, and higher healthcare resource utilization. Patients with late recurrence had a longer restricted mean survival time versus patients with early recurrence. Conclusion: Results from this real-world study highlight the potential value of preventing or delaying recurrence in patients with early-stage NSCLC.

This study looked at how people with early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer did after surgery to completely remove the disease. It compared two groups of patients: those whose disease came back after surgery and those whose disease did not come back after surgery. The group of people whose disease came back after surgery did not live as long as those whose disease did not come back after surgery (31.5 months vs 75.6 months). Patients whose disease came back had a lower chance of living at least 5 years after surgery and they had more hospital visits and doctor's office visits. In addition, those whose disease came back within 1 year did not live as long as those whose disease came back between 1 and 5 years after surgery. Preventing or delaying the return of disease after surgery is important for improving the lives of patients with early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer.

Telemedicine in Cancer Care Beyond the COVID-19 Pandemic: Oncology 2.0?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This paper summarizes early experiences of telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic, the patient and physician experience, limitations in accessibility introduced by telemedicine, and the opportunities and anticipated sustained role of telemedicine for cancer care. RECENT FINDINGS: Research from a wide range of oncology facilities consistently demonstrates the feasibility of delivering telemedicine services over audio (telephone) and/or video platforms. Emerging work highlights that telemedicine is well suited for a subset of patients and clinical settings and that there are methods by which current disparities could potentially be ameliorated. Several current uncertainties limit the broad applicability of telemedicine longitudinally. Early responses to the pandemic that included rapid introduction of telemedicine demonstrated the feasibility of audio- and video-based platforms that achieved promising utility, while simultaneously demonstrating disparities based on patient characteristics and infrastructural support. Its long-term role will likely depend greatly on reimbursement and regulatory reform.

Nab-paclitaxel in older patients with non-small cell lung cancer who have developed disease progression after platinum-based doublet chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: The selection of later-line treatment for older patients with AJCC (version 7) stage IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) remains controversial. Nanoparticle albumin-bound (nab)-paclitaxel is approved with carboplatin for the first-line treatment of patients with NSCLC and subgroup analysis of phase 3 data has suggested superior survival in older patients. METHODS: The authors conducted a phase 2 study of nab-paclitaxel in 42 patients aged ≥70 years who had been treated previously with a platinum doublet regimen; patients also could have received a PD-1 inhibitor. The primary endpoint of the current study was grade 3 to 5 toxicity (according to the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [version 4.0]). In addition to response rate, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS), geriatric assessments also were performed before and during treatment, associations between baseline sarcopenia and outcomes were explored, and changes in T lymphocyte p16 before and during treatment were measured. The authors also performed a retrospective subgroup analysis of 19 older patients who were treated with nab-paclitaxel as part of a larger, randomized, phase 2 study; data were not combined. RESULTS: The rate of grade 3 to 5 toxicities was 33.7%. The most common grade 3 to 5 toxicities were decreased white blood cell count (11.9%), neutropenia (9.5%), and fatigue (11.9%). The response rate was 34.2% (2.6% complete response rate and 31.6% partial response rate). The median PFS was 5.2 months and the median OS was 9.3 months. Adverse prognostic factors were common: 42% of patients were frail and 39% of patients were prefrail, whereas 21% had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 and 27% were sarcopenic. Only frailty was found to be predictive of inferior survival. A subgroup analysis of 19 older patients treated with nab-paclitaxel alone in a prior trial demonstrated a response rate of 15.8%, a PFS of 4.2 months, and an OS of 13.6 months. CONCLUSIONS: Fit and prefrail older patients with stage IV NSCLC should be considered for treatment with nab-paclitaxel after disease progression with doublet chemotherapy.

Atezolizumab in combination with carboplatin plus nab-paclitaxel chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone as first-line treatment for metastatic non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (IMpower130): a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Atezolizumab (a monoclonal antibody against PD-L1), which restores anticancer immunity, improved overall survival in patients with previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer and also showed clinical benefit when combined with chemotherapy as first-line treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer. IMpower130 aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone as first-line therapy for non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer. METHODS: IMpower130 was a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 study done in 131 centres across eight countries (the USA, Canada, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and Israel). Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, and had histologically or cytologically confirmed stage IV non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and received no previous chemotherapy for stage IV disease. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1; permuted block [block size of six] with an interactive voice or web response system) to receive atezolizumab (1200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks) plus chemotherapy (carboplatin [area under the curve 6 mg/mL per min every 3 weeks] plus nab-paclitaxel [100 mg/m2 intravenously every week]) or chemotherapy alone for four or six 21-day cycles followed by maintenance therapy. Stratification factors were sex, baseline liver metastases, and PD-L1 tumour expression. Co-primary endpoints were investigator-assessed progression-free survival and overall survival in the intention-to-treat wild-type (ie, EGFRwt and ALKwt) population. The safety population included patients who received at least one dose of the study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02367781. FINDINGS: Between April 16, 2015, and Feb 13, 2017, 724 patients were randomly assigned and 723 were included in the intention-to-treat population (one patient died before randomisation, but was assigned to a treatment group; this patient was excluded from the intention-to-treat population) of the atezolizumab plus chemotherapy group (483 patients in the intention-to-treat population and 451 patients in the intention-to-treat wild-type population) or the chemotherapy group (240 patients in the intention-to-treat population and 228 patients in the intention-to-treat wild-type population). Median follow-up in the intention-to-treat wild-type population was similar between groups (18·5 months [IQR 15·2-23·6] in the atezolizumab plus chemotherapy group and 19·2 months [15·4-23·0] in the chemotherapy group). In the intention-to-treat wild-type population, there were significant improvements in median overall survival (18·6 months [95% CI 16·0-21·2] in the atezolizumab plus chemotherapy group and 13·9 months [12·0-18·7] in the chemotherapy group; stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0·79 [95% CI 0·64-0·98]; p=0·033) and median progression-free survival (7·0 months [95% CI 6·2-7·3] in the atezolizumab plus chemotherapy group and 5·5 months [4·4-5·9] in the chemotherapy group; stratified HR 0·64 [95% CI 0·54-0·77]; p<0·0001]). The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events were neutropenia (152 [32%] of 473 in the atezolizumab plus chemotherapy group vs 65 [28%] of 232 in the chemotherapy group), anaemia (138 [29%] vs 47 [20%]), and decreased neutrophil count (57 [12%] vs 19 [8%]). Treatment-related serious adverse events were reported in 112 (24%) of 473 patients in the atezolizumab plus chemotherapy group and 30 (13%) of 232 patients in the chemotherapy group. Treatment-related (any treatment) deaths occurred in eight (2%) of 473 patients in the atezolizumab plus chemotherapy group and one (<1%) of 232 patients in the chemotherapy group. INTERPRETATION: IMpower130 showed a significant and clinically meaningful improvement in overall survival and a significant improvement in progression-free survival with atezolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy as first-line treatment of patients with stage IV non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer and no ALK or EGFR mutations. No new safety signals were identified. This study supports the benefit of atezolizumab, in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy, as first-line treatment of metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. FUNDING: F. Hoffmann-La Roche.

Maintenance of Certification (MOC)-Benefit vs Burden.

This Viewpoint examines the demands of maintenance of certification (MOC) requirements from the ABIM on balance with the projected benefits to quality of patient care.

Alectinib in ALK-positive, crizotinib-resistant, non-small-cell lung cancer: a single-group, multicentre, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Alectinib--a highly selective, CNS-active, ALK inhibitor-showed promising clinical activity in crizotinib-naive and crizotinib-resistant patients with ALK-rearranged (ALK-positive) non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of alectinib in patients with ALK-positive NSCLC who progressed on previous crizotinib. METHODS: We did a phase 2 study at 27 centres in the USA and Canada. We enrolled patients aged 18 years or older with stage IIIB-IV, ALK-positive NSCLC who had progressed after crizotinib. Patients were treated with oral alectinib 600 mg twice daily until progression, death, or withdrawal. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving an objective response by an independent review committee using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1. Response endpoints were assessed in the response-evaluable population (ie, patients with measurable disease at baseline who received at least one dose of study drug), and efficacy and safety analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population (all enrolled patients). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01871805. The study is ongoing and patients are still receiving treatment. FINDINGS: Between Sept 4, 2013, and Aug 4, 2014, 87 patients were enrolled into the study (intention-to-treat population). At the time of the primary analysis (median follow-up 4·8 months [IQR 3·3-7·1]), 33 of 69 patients with measurable disease at baseline had a confirmed partial response; thus, the proportion of patients achieving an objective response by the independent review committee was 48% (95% CI 36-60). Adverse events were predominantly grade 1 or 2, most commonly constipation (31 [36%]), fatigue (29 [33%]), myalgia 21 [24%]), and peripheral oedema 20 [23%]). The most common grade 3 and 4 adverse events were changes in laboratory values, including increased blood creatine phosphokinase (seven [8%]), increased alanine aminotransferase (five [6%]), and increased aspartate aminotransferase (four [5%]). Two patients died: one had a haemorrhage (judged related to study treatment), and one had disease progression and a history of stroke (judged unrelated to treatment). INTERPRETATION: Alectinib showed clinical activity and was well tolerated in patients with ALK-positive NSCLC who had progressed on crizotinib. Therefore, alectinib could be a suitable treatment for patients with ALK-positive disease who have progressed on crizotinib. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Safety and activity of alectinib against systemic disease and brain metastases in patients with crizotinib-resistant ALK-rearranged non-small-cell lung cancer (AF-002JG): results from the dose-finding portion of a phase 1/2 study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and ALK rearrangements generally have a progression-free survival of 8-11 months while on treatment with the ALK inhibitor crizotinib. However, resistance inevitably develops, with the brain a common site of progression. More potent ALK inhibitors with consistently demonstrable CNS activity and good tolerability are needed urgently. Alectinib is a novel, highly selective, and potent ALK inhibitor that has shown clinical activity in patients with crizotinib-naive ALK-rearranged NSCLC. We did a phase 1/2 study of alectinib to establish the recommended phase 2 dose of the drug and examine its activity in patients resistant or intolerant to crizotinib. METHODS: We enrolled patients with ALK-rearranged NSCLC who progressed on or were intolerant to crizotinib. We administered various oral doses of alectinib (300-900 mg twice a day) during the dose-escalation portion of the study (phase 1), to ascertain the recommended dose for phase 2. We used Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors criteria (version 1.1) to investigate the activity of alectinib in all patients with a baseline scan and at least one post-treatment scan (CT or MRI), with central radiological review of individuals with brain metastases. We assessed safety in all patients who received at least one dose of alectinib. Here, we present data for the phase 1 portion of the study, the primary objective of which was to establish the recommended phase 2 dose; phase 2 is ongoing. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01588028. FINDINGS: 47 patients were enrolled. Alectinib was well tolerated, with the most common adverse events being fatigue (14 [30%]; all grade 1-2), myalgia (eight [17%]; all grade 1-2), and peripheral oedema (seven [15%] grade 1-2, one [2%] grade 3). Dose-limiting toxic effects were recorded in two patients in the cohort receiving alectinib 900 mg twice a day; one individual had grade 3 headache and the other had grade 3 neutropenia. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were increased levels of γ-glutamyl transpeptidase (two [4%]), a reduction in the number of neutrophils (two [4%]), and hypophosphataemia (two [4%]). Three patients reported four grade 4 serious adverse events that were deemed unrelated to alectinib: acute renal failure; pleural effusion and pericardial effusion; and brain metastasis. At data cut-off (median follow-up 126 days [IQR 84-217]), 44 patients could be assessed for activity. Investigator-assessed objective responses were noted in 24 (55%) patients, with a confirmed complete response in one (2%), a confirmed partial response in 14 (32%), and an unconfirmed partial response in nine (20%). 16 (36%) patients had stable disease; the remaining four (9%) had progressive disease. Of 21 patients with CNS metastases at baseline, 11 (52%) had an objective response; six (29%) had a complete response (three unconfirmed) and five (24%) had a partial response (one unconfirmed); eight (38%) patients had stable disease and the remaining two (10%) had progressive disease. Pharmacokinetic data indicated that mean exposure (AUC0-10) after multiple doses of alectinib (300-600 mg twice a day) was dose-dependent. INTERPRETATION: Alectinib was well tolerated, with promising antitumour activity in patients with ALK-rearranged NSCLC resistant to crizotinib, including those with CNS metastases. On the basis of activity, tolerability, and pharmacokinetic data, we chose alectinib 600 mg twice a day as the recommended dose for phase 2. FUNDING: Chugai Pharmaceuticals, F Hoffmann La-Roche.

Managing multifocal bronchioloalveolar carcinoma/lepidic predominant adenocarcinoma: changing rules for an evolving clinical entity.

Although the clinical entity of bronchioloalveolar carcinoma (BAC) has been reclassified into adenocarcinoma in situ, lepidic predominant adenocarcinoma, and mucinous adenocarcinoma, it continues to merit special consideration based on its distinct natural history and response to therapy. The clinical behavior of multifocal BAC is highly variable, as is its response to various treatments. This characteristic should encourage latitude for individualized judgment rather than reliance on dogma about how advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) should be managed. Specifically, it is worth first questioning whether any of the visible disease is progressing at a clinically significant pace. If clear progression is unlikely to occur over several months or longer, an appropriate option is attentive clinical and radiographic follow-up with no intervention. If significant progression is demonstrated in an isolated area, it is very reasonable to consider local therapy-whether surgery or radiation-in this area alone. If progression is clearly apparent, then optimal systemic therapy should be used based on molecular findings. This is the same approach that is generally recommended for other forms of advanced NSCLC, with the presence or absence of a driver mutation used to guide the selection of an epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor, an anaplastic lymphoma kinase inhibitor, or conventional platinum-based chemotherapy (with the potential addition of bevacizumab).

Rapid Advances in Resectable Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Narrative Review.

Importance: A series of high-profile clinical trials for patients with resectable early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have recently changed the standard of care in this setting. Specifically, studies have demonstrated statistically and clinically significant improvements in efficacy with the targeted therapy for adjuvant osimertinib in patients with resected NSCLC harboring an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) genomic abnormality (GA), whereas trials with chemotherapy combined with nivolumab in the neoadjuvant setting and others testing atezolizumab or pembrolizumab as adjuvant therapy have all demonstrated improvements in event-free survival (EFS) (for neoadjuvant therapy) or disease-free survival (DFS) (for adjuvant therapy). These trials introduce many open questions about how to apply these findings in clinical practice. Observations: Treatment with adjuvant osimertinib for 3 years was associated with significant improvement in both DFS and overall survival (OS), but the erosion of the DFS benefit after the duration of treatment ends suggests a potential value for more longitudinal treatment. The potential value of highly effective targeted therapies as adjuvant therapy for other GAs has a compelling rationale but no data at this time. Adjuvant atezolizumab or pembrolizumab, generally administered for 1 year after postoperative chemotherapy, are appropriate considerations, but only atezolizumab for patients with tumor programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) levels of 50% has demonstrated a benefit in OS. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with nivolumab offers a strong EFS benefit, a shorter interval of treatment, and radiographic and pathologic feedback for patients with resectable stage IB to IIIA NSCLC, although very recent randomized clinical trials of perioperative immunotherapy both combined with chemotherapy preoperatively and administered postoperatively highlight the debatable value of adjuvant immunotherapy after prior chemoimmunotherapy. Improved tumor shrinkage rates with neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy suggest the possibility that criteria for resectability may potentially be redefined in anticipation of a good response to neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy. Conclusions and Relevance: Developments in resectable NSCLC have arrived so rapidly that they have also created practical challenges of identifying optimal patients and prioritizing options among these new competing standards. In some cases, practical management requires clinical judgment and discussion with the patient to cover the gaps in prospective data. Caution should be exerted when extrapolating beyond the available data.

Brief Report on Global Clinician Practices in the First-Line Management of Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: In the dynamic landscape of metastatic NSCLC (mNSCLC) management, marked by several frontline options and the integration of next generation sequencing (NGS) for informed decision-making, barriers persist despite advancements. This includes challenges in clinical trial recruitment. To gain global insights into clinicians' practices, we conducted a survey on their testing and management approaches for patients with mNSCLC. METHODS: The survey, conducted from July 12 to August 20, 2023, utilized multiple-choice questions and qualitative research questions, employing the Likert Scale for comprehensive insights. RESULTS: A total of 127 individuals responded, with 72% affiliated with academic health systems, and 55% practicing in the USA. Regarding testing practices, 93% consistently ordered NGS for non-squamous histology, while 54% did so for squamous cell histology. Concurrent tissue and liquid biopsies were routinely ordered by 28%, while 39% reported ordering both testing platforms concurrently for select cases only. Respondents cited logistical barriers, such as insufficient tissue and lack of infrastructure, as the most common hindrance to molecular testing (76%), followed by reimbursement challenges (56%) and concerns about delayed turnaround time (50%). While most respondents were confident in interpreting NGS results, 22% lacked confidence. Concerning treatment decisions, 72% preferred awaiting molecular testing results before initiating systemic therapy. Less than 50% routinely referred patients for clinical trials in the frontline setting for mNSCLC. For patients with disease expressing high PD-L1 levels, most oncologists preferred pembrolizumab monotherapy. For disease with low PD-L1 expression, a platinum doublet chemotherapy regimen combined with pembrolizumab was favored. In disease cases with negative PD-L1 expression, a platinum doublet chemotherapy regimen with pembrolizumab was preferred. Key factors influencing oncologists' preferred immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) included experience with one ICI over another, preferred status per national guidelines, availability of trial data with a significant follow-up period, and consideration of drug cost. CONCLUSION: Although this study demonstrates an improved awareness and adoption of ordering NGS for the management of mNSCLC, it underscores the persistence of various barriers that must be addressed to improve upon the quality of care for patients diagnosed with mNSCLC.

Frontline pembrolizumab monotherapy for metastatic non-small cell lung cancer with PD-L1 expression ≥50%: real-world outcomes in a US community oncology setting.

Background: This study investigated real-world time on treatment (rwToT) and overall survival (OS) for patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) who initiated first-line (1L) pembrolizumab monotherapy. We also explored discontinuation reasons and subsequent treatments, stratified by number of cycles among those who completed ≥17 cycles of 1L pembrolizumab. Methods: Patients with mNSCLC without actionable genetic aberrations, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) 0-2 and unknown, and PD-L1 TPS ≥ 50% starting 1L pembrolizumab monotherapy between 24-Oct-2016 and 31-Dec-2018 within The US Oncology Network were identified retrospectively and evaluated using structured data, with a data cutoff of 30-Sep-2021. Patient characteristics and disposition were summarized using descriptive statistics. OS and rwToT were evaluated using Kaplan-Meier method for all ECOG PS and PS 0-1. A subgroup of patients who completed ≥17 cycles were evaluated using supplemental chart review data to discern reasons for discontinuation. Results: Of the 505 patients with mNSCLC with PD-L1 TPS ≥50%, 61% had ECOG PS 0-1, 23% had ECOG PS 2, and 65% had nonsquamous histology. Median rwToT and OS of pembrolizumab were 7.0 (95% CI, 6.0-8.4) months and 24.5 (95% CI, 20.1-29.3) months, respectively. In the subgroup with ECOG PS 0-1, they were 7.6 months (95% CI, 6.2-9.2) and 28.8 months (95% CI, 22.4-37.5), respectively. Of the 103 patients who completed ≥17 cycles, 57 (55.3%) patients received 17 - 34 cycles and 46 (44.7%) patients received ≥35 cycles. Approximately 7.7% of the study population received pembrolizumab beyond 35 cycles. Most common reasons for discontinuation were disease progression (38.6%) and toxicity (19.3%) among patients who received 17-34 cycles of pembrolizumab, and disease progression (13.0%) and completion of therapy (10.9%) among patients who received ≥35 cycles. Conclusion: Consistent with findings from KEYNOTE-024 and other real-world studies, this study demonstrates the long-term effectiveness of pembrolizumab monotherapy as 1L treatment for mNSCLC with PD-L1 TPS ≥50%. Among patients who completed ≥17 cycles, nearly half completed ≥35 cycles. Disease progression and toxicity were the most common reasons for discontinuation among patients who received 17-34 cycles of pembrolizumab. Reasons for discontinuation beyond 35 cycles need further exploration.

Perioperative Therapy for Resectable Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Weighing Options for the Present and Future.

Anatomic surgical resection followed by cisplatin-based platinum-doublet adjuvant chemotherapy has been a long-standing standard of care for patients with early-stage, resectable non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). More recently, incorporating of immunotherapy and targeted therapy in the perioperative setting has demonstrated improved disease-free or event-free survival in biomarker-defined subsets of patients. This article summarizes the results of major trials that led to approvals beyond chemotherapy in the perioperative setting. Alongside adjuvant osimertinib as a favored strategy for patients with EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC, there are competing potential standards of care for integrating immunotherapy in the neoadjuvant versus adjuvant setting, with advantages and disadvantages for each strategy. Emerging data in the coming years will provide further insight that may potentially lead to a combination of neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment for many patients. Future trials should focus on clarifying the benefit of each component of treatment, defining an optimal treatment duration, and incorporating minimal residual disease to optimize treatment decisions.

Perioperative Immune Checkpoint Inhibition in Early-Stage Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Review.

Importance: Although cancer-related mortality continues to decline, lung cancer remains the No. 1 cause of cancer deaths in the US. Almost half of the patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are diagnosed with early-stage, local or regional disease and are at high risk of recurrence within 5 years of diagnosis. Observations: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have improved outcomes for patients with metastatic NSCLC and have recently been tested in multiple clinical trials to determine their efficacy in the neoadjuvant or adjuvant setting for patients with local or regional disease. The landscape for perioperative ICIs in lung cancer is evolving rapidly, with recently reported and soon to mature clinical trials; however, the recent data highlight the potential of ICIs to increase response rates and decrease rates of relapse in early stages of lung cancer. Concurrently, novel applications of cell-free DNA may guide perioperative management strategies. Conclusions and Relevance: This article reviews the various approaches of incorporating perioperative use of immunotherapeutic agents for the treatment of early stages of NSCLC.

The Emerging Role of Radiotherapy in Oligoprogressive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

Oligoprogressive disease (OPD) is an emerging concept that describes patients who have progression of disease in a limited number of metastatic sites while on systemic therapy. Growing evidence has suggested the integration of local ablative therapy with systemic agents in patients with OPD further improves survival. In oligoprogressive non-small cell lung cancer, stereotactic body radiotherapy may have an important role in the effective local control of selective progressing metastases, which may translate to better patient outcomes. This review explores the treatment paradigm of this subset of patients and provides an update on the current existing literature on this topic.

Challenges in synergizing radiotherapy with immunotherapy to unlock the abscopal effect in metastatic NSCLC: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: With the recent success of immunotherapy, there is a growing interest in combining radiation with immunotherapy to boost abscopal response rates. Several challenges exist in determining how to synergize these two modalities in the treatment of metastatic NSCLC. METHODS: References for this review were identified through searches of MEDLINE/PubMed and Clinicaltrials.gov databases with the search terms "abscopal", "radiation OR radiotherapy," "NSCLC", and "lung" on the index date of July 2022 from 2000-2022. This systematic review focuses primarily on clinical papers. DISCUSSION: Early work combining radiotherapy with immunotherapy show promise in unlocking the abscopal effect. Preliminary evidence suggests that radiotherapy regimens with <5 fractions and smaller fields may be superior to regimens with 15 fractions and larger fields. There does not appear to be enough evidence to draw conclusions about the optimal timing of radiotherapy in relation to immunotherapy or the optimal anatomical location of radiation to induce the abscopal effect. Several studies suggest selecting patients with a higher absolute lymphocyte count (ALC) and lower neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) may help to further boost abscopal response rates. Furthermore, selecting tumors with programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression, mismatch repair deficiency, and higher tumor mutational burden may similarly achieve this goal. Lastly, additional work is needed to minimize and predict for severe toxicity associated with combination therapy.