BRAF mutational status is associated with survival outcomes in locally advanced resectable and metastatic NSCLC.

BACKGROUND: Immunotherapy-based treatments have demonstrated high efficacy in patients with advanced and locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). BRAF mutations affect a small but significant fraction of NSCLC. The efficacy of these therapies in this subgroup of patients is unknown. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Plasma and tissue samples from 116 resectable stage IIIA/B NSCLC patients, included in NADIM and NADIM II clinical trials (NADIM cohort), and from a prospective academic cohort with 84 stage IV NSCLC patients (BLI-O cohort), were analyzed by next-generation sequencing. RESULTS: The p.G464E, p.G466R, p.G466V, p.G469V, p.L597Q, p.T599I, p.V600E (n = 2) BRAF mutations, were identified in four (3.45 %) samples from the NADIM cohort, all of which were cases treated with neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy (CH-IO), and four (4.76 %) samples from the BLI-O cohort, corresponding to cases treated with first-line immunotherapy (n = 2) or CH-IO (n = 2). All these patients were alive and had no evidence of disease at data cut-off. Conversely, patients with BRAF wild-type (wt) tumors in the BLI-O cohort had a median progression-free survival (PFS) of 5.49 months and a median overall survival (OS) of 12.00 months (P-LogRank = 0.013 and 0.046, respectively). Likewise, PFS and OS probabilities at 36 months were 60.5 % and 76.1 % for patients with BRAF-wt tumors in the NADIM cohort. The pathological complete response (pCR) rate after neoadjuvant CH-IO in patients with BRAF-positive tumors (n = 4) was 100 %, whereas the pCR rate in the BRAF-wt population was 44.3 % (RR: 2.26; 95 % CI: 1.78-2.85; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: BRAF mutations may be a good prognostic factor for advanced and locally advanced NSCLC patients undergoing immunotherapy-based treatments.

A new updated prognostic index for patients with brain metastases (BMs) treated with palliative whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) in the era of precision oncology. METASNCore project.

INTRODUCTION: Palliative WBRT is the main treatment for multiple BMs. Recent studies report no benefit in survival after WBRT compared to palliative supportive care in patients (pts) with poor prognosis. A new era of systemic treatment strategies based on targeted therapies are improving the prognosis of patients with BMs. The purpose of this study is to develop a prognostic score in palliative pts with BMs who undergo WBRT in this new setting. METHODS: 239 pts with BMs who received palliative WBRT between 2013-2022 in our center were analyzed retrospectively. The score was designed according to the value of the ß coefficient of each variable with statistical significance in the multivariate model using Cox regression. Once the score was established, a comparison was performed according to Kaplan-Meier and was analyzed by log-rank test. RESULTS: 149 pts (62.3%) were male and median (m) age was 60 years. 139 (58,2%) were lung cancer and 35 (14,6%) breast cancer. All patients received 30Gys in 10 sessions. m overall survival (OS) was 3,74 months (ms). 37 pts (15,5%) had a specific target mutation. We found that 62 pts were in group < 4 points with mOS 6,89 ms (CI 95% 3,18-10,62), 84 in group 4-7 points with mOS 4,01 ms (CI 95% 3,40-4,62) and 92 pts in group > 7 points with mOS 2,72 ms (CI 95% 1,93-3,52) (p < 0,001). CONCLUSIONS: METASNCore items are associated with OS and they could be useful to select palliative pts to receive WBRT. More studies are necessary to corroborate our findings.

Perioperative Nivolumab and Chemotherapy in Stage III Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 20% of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) receive a diagnosis of stage III disease. There is no current consensus regarding the most appropriate treatment for these patients. METHODS: In this open-label, phase 2 trial, we randomly assigned patients with resectable stage IIIA or IIIB NSCLC to receive neoadjuvant nivolumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy (experimental group) or chemotherapy alone (control group), followed by surgery. Patients in the experimental group who had R0 resections received adjuvant treatment with nivolumab for 6 months. The primary end point was a pathological complete response (0% viable tumor in resected lung and lymph nodes). Secondary end points included progression-free survival and overall survival at 24 months and safety. RESULTS: A total of 86 patients underwent randomization; 57 were assigned to the experimental group and 29 were assigned to the control group. A pathological complete response occurred in 37% of the patients in the experimental group and in 7% in the control group (relative risk, 5.34; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.34 to 21.23; P = 0.02). Surgery was performed in 93% of the patients in the experimental group and in 69% in the control group (relative risk, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.74). Kaplan-Meier estimates of progression-free survival at 24 months were 67.2% in the experimental group and 40.9% in the control group (hazard ratio for disease progression, disease recurrence, or death, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.25 to 0.88). Kaplan-Meier estimates of overall survival at 24 months were 85.0% in the experimental group and 63.6% in the control group (hazard ratio for death, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.19 to 0.98). Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 11 patients in the experimental group (19%; some patients had events of both grades) and 3 patients in the control group (10%). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with resectable stage IIIA or IIIB NSCLC, perioperative treatment with nivolumab plus chemotherapy resulted in a higher percentage of patients with a pathological complete response and longer survival than chemotherapy alone. (Funded by Bristol Myers Squibb and others; NADIM II ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03838159; EudraCT number, 2018-004515-45.).

Combination lurbinectedin and doxorubicin versus physician's choice of chemotherapy in patients with relapsed small-cell lung cancer (ATLANTIS): a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Lurbinectedin is a synthetic marine-derived anticancer agent that acts as a selective inhibitor of oncogenic transcription. Lurbinectedin monotherapy (3·2 mg/m2 every 3 weeks) received accelerated approval from the US Food and Drug Administration on the basis of efficacy in patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) who relapsed after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. The ATLANTIS trial assessed the efficacy and safety of combination lurbinectedin and the anthracycline doxorubicin as second-line treatment for SCLC. METHODS: In this phase 3, open-label, randomised study, adult patients aged 18 years or older with SCLC who relapsed after platinum-based chemotherapy were recruited from 135 hospitals across North America, South America, Europe, and the Middle East. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) centrally by dynamic allocation to intravenous lurbinectedin 2·0 mg/m2 plus doxorubicin 40·0 mg/m2 administered on day 1 of 21-day cycles or physician's choice of control therapy (intravenous topotecan 1·5 mg/m2 on days 1-5 of 21-day cycles; or intravenous cyclophosphamide 1000 mg/m2, doxorubicin 45·0 mg/m2, and vincristine 2·0 mg on day 1 of 21-day cycles [CAV]) administered until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Primary granulocyte-colony stimulating factor prophylaxis was mandatory in both treatment groups. Neither patients nor clinicians were masked to treatment allocation, but the independent review committee, which assessed outcomes, was masked to patients' treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02566993, and with EudraCT, 2015-001641-89, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between Aug 30, 2016, and Aug 20, 2018, 613 patients were randomly assigned to lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin (n=307) or control (topotecan, n=127; CAV, n=179) and comprised the intention-to-treat population; safety endpoints were assessed in patients who had received any partial or complete study treatment infusions (lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin, n=303; control, n=289). After a median follow-up of 24·1 months (95% CI 21·7-26·3), 303 patients in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group and 289 patients in the control group had discontinued study treatment; progressive disease was the most common reason for discontinuation (213 [70%] patients in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group vs 152 [53%] in the control group). Median overall survival was 8·6 months (95% CI 7·1-9·4) in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group versus 7·6 months (6·6-8·2) in the control group (stratified log-rank p=0·90; hazard ratio 0·97 [95% CI 0·82-1·15], p=0·70). 12 patients died because of treatment-related adverse events: two (<1%) of 303 in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group and ten (3%) of 289 in the control group. 296 (98%) of 303 patients in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group had treatment-emergent adverse events compared with 284 (98%) of 289 patients in the control group; treatment-related adverse events occurred in 268 (88%) patients in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group and 266 (92%) patients in the control group. Grade 3 or worse haematological adverse events were less frequent in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group than the control group (anaemia, 57 [19%] of 302 patients in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group vs 110 [38%] of 288 in the control group; neutropenia, 112 [37%] vs 200 [69%]; thrombocytopenia, 42 [14%] vs 90 [31%]). The frequency of treatment-related adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation was lower in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group than in the control group (26 [9%] of 303 patients in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group vs 47 [16%] of 289 in the control group). INTERPRETATION: Combination therapy with lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin did not improve overall survival versus control in patients with relapsed SCLC. However, lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin showed a favourable haematological safety profile compared with control. FUNDING: PharmaMar.

Patient preference for oral chemotherapy in the treatment of metastatic breast and lung cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Although new therapies against metastatic cancer have been developed in recent decades, chemotherapy is still an important treatment option. Prolonged treatment and side-effects are often discouraging for patients, and in many cases, therapy is only palliative, not curative. This study explores patient preference for oral or intravenous (IV) chemotherapy in the treatment of metastatic breast or lung cancer. METHODS: It is a descriptive, open label, multicentre, nation-wide study, in which a 16-item questionnaire consisting of single-choice questions scored on a 5-point Likert scale was administered to patients in a single visit, and another 11-item questionnaire was self-administered by the patient's oncologist. RESULTS: A total of 131 breast and lung cancer specialists at 64 hospitals enrolled 412 patients (lung cancer = 161; breast cancer = 251). To be eligible, patients must have already received IV therapy and at least 2 cycles of oral chemotherapy. Most (77%) patients expressed preference for oral therapy. Most considered their daily life was less disrupted with tablets (70.4%), had no trouble swallowing them (86.9%), and were not concerned about forgetting to take them (56.8%). Half (56.3%) were worried about problems related to drug infusion with IV therapy, 61.7% were concerned about nurses failing to find a suitable vein, and 63.1% were dissatisfied with hospital waiting times. A uniform response was obtained from both samples of patients. CONCLUSION: Convenience, ease of administration, fewer side effects and better quality of life tilt the balance towards oral drug administration.

Clinical management and outcome of patients with advanced NSCLC carrying EGFR mutations in Spain.

BACKGROUND: Although the benefit of first-line epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine-kinase inhibitors (TKIs) over chemotherapy has been demonstrated in several clinical trials, data from clinical practice is lacking and the optimal EGFR TKI to be used remains unclear. This study aims to assess the real-life diagnostic and clinical management and outcome of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) carrying EGFR mutations in Spain. METHODS: All consecutive patients recently diagnosed with advanced or metastatic NSCLC from April 2010 to December 2011 in 18 Spanish hospitals and carrying EGFR mutations were retrospectively evaluated. RESULTS: Between March and November 2013, a total of 187 patients were enrolled (98.3% Caucasian, 61.9% female, 54.9% never-smokers, 89.0% adenocarcinoma). Mutation testing was mainly performed on biopsy tumour tissue specimens (69.0%) using a qPCR-based test (90%) (47.0% Therascreen EGFR PCR Kit). Common sensitising mutations were detected in 79.8% of patients: 57.1% had exon 19 deletions and 22.6% exon 21 L858R point mutations. The vast majority of patients received first-line therapy (n = 168; 92.8%). EGFR TKIs were the most commonly used first-line treatment (81.5%), while chemotherapy was more frequently administered as a second- and third-line option (51.9% and 56.0%, respectively). Of 141 patients who experienced disease progression, 79 (56.0%) received second-line treatment. After disease progression on first-line TKIs (n = 112), 33.9% received chemotherapy, 8.9% chemotherapy and a TKI, and 9.8% continued TKI therapy. Most patients received first-line gefitinib (83.0%), while erlotinib was more frequently used in the second-line setting (83.0%). Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients harbouring common mutations were 11.1 months and 20.1 months respectively (exon 19 deletions: 12.4 and 21.4 months; L858R: 8.3 and 14.5 months), and 3.9 months and 11.1 months respectively for those with rare mutations. CONCLUSION: EGFR TKIs (gefitinib and erlotinib) are used as the preferred first-line treatment while chemotherapy is more frequently administered as a second- and third-line option in routine clinical practice in Spain. In addition, efficacy data obtained in the real-life setting seem to concur with data from EGFR TKI phase III pivotal studies in NSCLC.

Chemotherapy-associated anemia in patients with lung cancer: an epidemiological, retrospective and multicenter study.

AIM: Providing epidemiological data and treatment of anemia in lung cancer patients undergoing first-line chemotherapy. METHODS: Epidemiological, observational, retrospective and multicenter study carried out at 30 sites throughout Spain. RESULTS: The prevalence of anemia (hemoglobin [Hb] level <12 g/dl) was 18.3% and the incidence 80.7%. Mean Hb levels were 13.4 g/dl (95% Cl: 13.2-13.6) and 11.5 g/dl (95% Cl: 11.3-11.7) at starting and at the end of chemotherapy, respectively. Of the 294 patients with anemia, 174 (59.2%) were treated. Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents were given to 90.2% patients, alone in 31.6% and combined iron in 39.7%, transfusion in 9.2% and iron and transfusion in 9.8%. CONCLUSION: These results suggest an appropriate and rational use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in the treatment of chemotherapy-associated anemia in lung cancer patients. [corrected].

Customized treatment in non-small-cell lung cancer based on EGFR mutations and BRCA1 mRNA expression.

BACKGROUND: Median survival is 10 months and 2-year survival is 20% in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with platinum-based chemotherapy. A small fraction of non-squamous cell lung cancers harbor EGFR mutations, with improved outcome to gefitinib and erlotinib. Experimental evidence suggests that BRCA1 overexpression enhances sensitivity to docetaxel and resistance to cisplatin. RAP80 and Abraxas are interacting proteins that form complexes with BRCA1 and could modulate the effect of BRCA1. In order to further examine the effect of EGFR mutations and BRCA1 mRNA levels on outcome in advanced NSCLC, we performed a prospective non-randomized phase II clinical trial, testing the hypothesis that customized therapy would confer improved outcome over non-customized therapy. In an exploratory analysis, we also examined the effect of RAP80 and Abraxas mRNA levels. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We treated 123 metastatic non-squamous cell lung carcinoma patients using a customized approach. RNA and DNA were isolated from microdissected specimens from paraffin-embedded tumor tissue. Patients with EGFR mutations received erlotinib, and those without EGFR mutations received chemotherapy with or without cisplatin based on their BRCA1 mRNA levels: low, cisplatin plus gemcitabine; intermediate, cisplatin plus docetaxel; high, docetaxel alone. An exploratory analysis examined RAP80 and Abraxas expression. Median survival exceeded 28 months for 12 patients with EGFR mutations, and was 11 months for 38 patients with low BRCA1, 9 months for 40 patients with intermediate BRCA1, and 11 months for 33 patients with high BRCA1. Two-year survival was 73.3%, 41.2%, 15.6% and 0%, respectively. Median survival was influenced by RAP80 expression in the three BRCA1 groups. For example, for patients with both low BRCA1 and low RAP80, median survival exceeded 26 months. RAP80 was a significant factor for survival in patients treated according to BRCA1 levels (hazard ratio, 1.3 [95% CI, 1-1.7]; P = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Chemotherapy customized according to BRCA1 expression levels is associated with excellent median and 2-year survival for some subsets of NSCLC patients , and RAP80 could play a crucial modulating effect on this model of customized chemotherapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: (ClinicalTrials.gov) NCT00883480.

Retrospective study of efficacy and toxicity on patients older than 70 years within a randomized clinical trial of two cisplatin-based combinations in patients with small-cell lung cancer.

A retrospective analysis based on the Spanish Lung Cancer Group (SLCG) clinical trial of high-dose epirubicin/cisplatin in patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) was performed. Patients younger than 70 years vs. older than 70 years old were analyzed to evaluate the influence of age on response to treatment, toxicity, time to progression (TTP) and overall survival (OS) of the chemotherapy schedule. Three hundred and thirty eight patients <70 years and sixty-four >70 years, were analyzed. Objective responses were similar in both groups. In patients less than 70 years higher TTP (36 weeks vs. 32 weeks) and OS (47 weeks vs. 42 weeks) were seen, attributable to the improved results observed in the subgroup of patients with limited disease (LD). No significant differences were observed when toxicity profile of both groups was compared, except for a higher rate of febrile neutropenia observed in the elderly group with extensive disease (4.6% vs. 8.8%, p=0.01). In the subgroup of patients with LD, elderly patients received less total cisplatin dose (401 vs. 508 mg/m(2), p=0.01) although less treatment delays were reported (10 days vs. 15 days, p=0.05). Age was likely to be a negative prognostic factor for OS of elderly patients with LD. It also seemed to be related to a greater dose reduction, which may explain that toxic episodes and delays occurred more frequently in the younger patients receiving the full scheduled dose. However, the definitive reason to explain this could not be established due to the characteristics of our analysis.

Prospective randomized phase III trial of etoposide/cisplatin versus high-dose epirubicin/cisplatin in small-cell lung cancer.

High-dose epirubicin plus cisplatin was compared with the reference regimen of etoposide/cisplatin in small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). Four hundred two previously untreated patients with SCLC were randomized to receive etoposide 100 mg/m(2) on days 1-3 and cisplatin 100 mg/m(2) on day 1 or epirubicin 100 mg/m(2) and cisplatin 100 mg/m(2) on day 1 every 21 days for a total of 6 cycles. Patients were stratified according to treatment center and extent of disease (limited disease, n = 207; extensive disease, n = 195). Patients with limited disease were treated with thoracic radiation therapy after completion of chemotherapy, and those who exhibited a complete response were advised to receive prophylactic cranial irradiation. The primary endpoint was survival, and secondary endpoints were time to progression (TTP), response, toxicity, and costs. Patient characteristics were generally well balanced in the 2 arms, even though more patients in the epirubicin/cisplatin arm had > 5% weight loss and poor Karnofsky performance index compared with the etoposide/cisplatin arm. One hundred thirty-four patients (66.3%) in the etoposide/cisplatin arm and 126 (63.0%) in the epirubicin/cisplatin arm received all 6 planned cycles of chemotherapy. Response rate, TTP, and survival did not differ significantly between the 2 arms. Grade 3/4 neutropenia and toxic deaths occurred more frequently in the etoposide/cisplatin arm. Epirubicin/cisplatin showed a similar activity with a slightly lower toxicity profile than the reference regimen of etoposide/cisplatin. The epirubicin/cisplatin regimen may be recommended in the treatment of SCLC.