Neoadjuvant Chemo-Immunotherapy for Early-Stage Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Importance: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with neoadjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) plus chemotherapy (ICI-chemotherapy) for patients with early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have reported consistent associations with event-free survival (EFS) and pathologic complete response (pCR) pending longer follow-up for overall survival data. Objective: To assess the pooled benefit of ICI-chemotherapy in 2-year EFS and pCR among patients with NSCLC and examine the impact of clinical, pathologic, and treatment-related factors. Data Sources: Full-text articles and abstracts in English were searched in EMBASE, PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews through November 1, 2023, and in oncology conference proceedings from January 1, 2008, to November 1, 2023. Study Selection: Phase 2 or 3 RCTs with neoadjuvant ICI-chemotherapy with or without adjuvant ICIs vs neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone with or without placebo or observation in patients with previously untreated NSCLC staged IB to IIIB were included. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Data extraction of prespecified data elements was performed by 2 reviewers using a structured data abstraction electronic form. A random-effects model was used for meta-analysis. The meta-analysis followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guideline. Main Outcomes and Measures: Two-year EFS and pCR were the outcomes of interest in patients who received neoadjuvant ICI-chemotherapy (experimental arm) or neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone (control arm). Aggregated pooled hazard ratios (HRs) for time-to-event outcomes (2-year EFS) and risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes (pCR) with their respective 95% CIs were calculated. Results: Eight trials with 3387 patients were included, with some concerns of risk of bias as assessed by the Cochrane Collaboration method, mainly related to outcomes measurements. Neoadjuvant ICI-chemotherapy was associated with improved 2-year EFS (HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.50-0.66; P < .001) and increased pCR rate (RR, 5.58; 95% CI, 4.27-7.29; P < .001) in the experimental vs control treatment arms. This association was not significantly modified by the main patient characteristics; tumor- or treatment-related factors, including tumor programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) status; type of platinum-compound chemotherapy; number of cycles of neoadjuvant ICI-chemotherapy; or addition of adjuvant ICIs. Patients whose tumor cells were negative for PD-L1 were at higher risk of relapse (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.62-0.91) than were those with low (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.37-0.71) or high PD-L1 (HR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.27-0.58) (P = .005). Conclusions and Relevance: In this systematic review and meta-analysis of neoadjuvant ICI-chemotherapy RCTs in patients with early-stage NSCLC, 3 cycles of neoadjuvant platinum-based ICI-chemotherapy were associated with a meaningful improvement in 2-year EFS and pCR.

Home-deliverable antitumoral treatments in the age of COVID-19: the Portsmouth experience and a narrative review.

Background and Objective: During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, risks and priorities of oncologic care have required a thorough reassessment. The chance that fragile patients have exposure to infection during frequent hospital visits is an additional consideration for all therapeutic decisions. Patients with cancer, particularly those with lung cancer, have a greater chance of developing a severe form of COVID-19. Their increased risk is due to the immunosuppression associated with the chemotherapy itself, the underlying pulmonary compromise, which often accompanies lung malignancy or their general poor health. Oncology societies have given precise recommendations on the treatment modalities to be favoured, such as giving up specific palliative or adjuvant treatments, preferring shorter and less cytopenic therapies. In this review, we discussed how some of these curative treatments could be given by administering them at home. In this narrative review, we aim to see if it is safe and feasible to deliver home-administered oncologic intravenous treatments. Methods: By narrative review, we looked for all the articles written in English describing home delivery chemotherapy or immunotherapy programs since 2019 that emerged or evolved during the COVID-19 pandemic. We added real-life data regarding the initiation of home immunotherapy in Portsmouth. Key Content and Findings: There is a growing body of evidence supporting the safety and feasibility of home-administered chemotherapy and immunotherapy treatments. Conclusions: Home-administered chemotherapy and immunotherapy treatments are safe and feasible despite financial challenges, particularly about reimbursement by insurance companies and the loss of earnings for hospitals. Home treatments also require the careful selection of eligible patients and the training and organisation of specialised teams capable of managing the expected complications. It would be interesting to assess the risk-reduction in terms of infections and potential survival gains obtained by these programmes during the COVID pandemic.

Risk of SARS-CoV2-Related Mortality in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients Treated with First-Line Immunotherapy Alone or in Combination with Chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: The impact of systemic anticancer treatments on SARS-CoV-2-related mortality is still debatable. METHODS: By a retrospective analysis of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with first-line Pembrolizumab or in combination with chemotherapy (ChT) during the first surge of the pandemic. RESULTS: The adjusted risk of death was higher in patients treated with ChT + Pembrolizumab (HR 4.6, 1.2-17.4, p = 0.02). The SARS-CoV-2-related mortality rate was higher in patients treated with ChT + Pembrolizumab (p = 0.03), ≥70 years (p = 0.03) and current smokers (p = 0.17). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of ChT to immunotherapy could be associated with increased risk of mortality and higher SARS-CoV-2-related mortality rate.

Tumour Versus Germline BRCA Testing in Ovarian Cancer: A Single-Site Institution Experience in the United Kingdom.

The aim of this audit was to evaluate the usefulness and serviceability of testing for pathogenic mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) genes in ovarian cancer (OC) patients. One hundred and thirty-five patients with more common histological sub-types of OC were retrospectively identified between 2011 and 2019. The fail rate of the molecular analysis was 7.4% (10/135). One hundred and twenty-five records were evaluated: 99 (79.2%) patients had wild-type BRCA (both somatic and germline); tumour BRCA1/2 (tBRCA1/2) pathogenic mutations were found in 20 (16%) patients with distribution between BRCA1 and BRCA2 being 40% and 60%, respectively; 13 (10.4%) patients with pathogenic variants had germline mutations; and tBRCA1/2 with variant of unknown significance (VUS), in the absence of pathogenic BRCA1 or BRCA2 variants, was detected in 6 (4.8%) patients. Our data show that expanding the molecular service to the routine first-tumour testing for patients with OC will potentially increase the detection rate of BRCA mutations, thereby providing early benefits of PARP inhibitors therapy. The tumour testing service should continue to be offered to newly diagnosed patients with high-grade epithelial cancers, including high-grade serous carcinoma, but also with carcinosarcomas and poorly-differentiated metastatic adenocarcinomas of unknown origin.