Systematic review and meta-analysis of immune checkpoint inhibitors as single agent or in combination with chemotherapy in early-stage non-small cell lung cancer: Impact of clinicopathological factors and indirect comparison between treatment strategies.

BACKGROUND: In non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) revolution is rapidly moving from metastatic to early-stage, however, the impact of clinicopathological variables and optimal treatment sequencing remain unclear. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in patients with early-stage NSCLC treated with ICI as single agent or in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy (PCT) were included. Primary outcomes were pathological complete response (pCR), event free survival (EFS) (neoadjuvant/perioperative), and disease-free survival (DFS) (adjuvant). Secondary outcomes were major pathological response (MPR), overall survival (OS), toxicity, surgical outcomes (neoadjuvant/perioperative); OS and toxicity (adjuvant). An additional secondary endpoint was to compare EFS and OS between neoadjuvant and perioperative strategies. RESULTS: 8 RCTs (2 neoadjuvant, 4 perioperative, 2 adjuvant) (4661 participants) were included. Neoadjuvant/perioperative ICI+PCT significantly improved pCR, EFS, OS, MPR and R0 resection compared to PCT. Adjuvant ICI significantly improved DFS compared to placebo. There was a significant subgroup interaction by PD-L1 status (χ2 = 10.72, P = 0.005), pCR (χ2 = 17.80, P < 0.0001), and stage (χ2 = 4.46, P = 0.003) for EFS. No difference according to PD-L1 status was found for pCR, with 14% of patients having PD-L1 negative tumors still experiencing a pCR. No interaction by PD-L1 status was found for DFS upon adjuvant ICI. Indirect comparison showed no difference in EFS and OS between neoadjuvant and perioperative ICI+PCT. CONCLUSIONS: PD-L1 status, pCR and stage impact on survival upon neoadjuvant/perioperative ICI. The restriction of neoadjuvant/perioperative ICI to PD-L1 + patients could preclude pCR and long-term benefit in the PD-L1- subgroup. Neoadjuvant and perioperative could be equivalent strategies.

Integrating supportive care into the multidisciplinary management of lung cancer: we can't wait any longer.

INTRODUCTION: Due to important achievements in terms of diagnostic and therapeutic tools and the complexity of the disease itself, lung cancer management needs a multidisciplinary approach. To date, the classical multidisciplinary team involves different healthcare providers mainly dedicated to lung cancer diagnosis and treatments. Nevertheless, the underlying disease and related treatments significantly impact on patient function and psychological well-being. In this sense, supportive care may offer the best approach to relieve and manage patient symptoms and treatment-related adverse events. AREAS COVERED: Evidence reports that exercise, nutrition, smoking cessation, and psychological well-being bring many benefits in patients with lung cancer, from both a physical and socio-psychological points of view, and potentially improving their survival. Nevertheless, supportive care is rarely offered to patients, and even less frequently these needs are discussed within the multidisciplinary meeting. EXPERT OPINION: Integrating supportive care as part of the standard multidisciplinary approach for lung cancer involves a series of challenges, the first one represented by the daily necessity of specialists, such as kinesiologists, dietitians, psycho-oncologists, able to deliver a personalized approach. In the era of precision medicine, this is an essential step forward to guarantee comprehensive and patient-centered care for all patients with lung cancer.

Study Design and Rationale for Espera Trial: A Multicentre, Randomized, Phase II Clinical Trial Evaluating the Potential Efficacy of Adding SBRT to Pembrolizumab-Pemetrexed Maintenance in Responsive or Stable Advanced Non-Squamous NSCLC After Chemo-Immunotherapy Induction.

BACKGROUND: Improvement in radiotherapy techniques and expected outcomes, as well as in understanding the underlying biological mechanisms contributing to its action (immunomodulation in primis), led to the integration of this therapeutical approach in the current management of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), not only in oncogene-driven tumors, but also in non-oncogene addicted NSCLC where the combination of platinum-based chemotherapy plus pembrolizumab represents nowadays the pivotal strategy. In this light, we have designed a randomized phase II (ESPERa) trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of adding Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (SBRT) to pembrolizumab-pemetrexed maintenance in advanced NSCLC patients experiencing disease response or stability after chemo-immunotherapy induction. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Advanced non-oncogene addicted NSCLC patients with ECOG performance status of 0 or 1, who obtained disease response or stability after 4 cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy plus pembrolizumab will be randomized 2:1 to receive pembrolizumab-pemetrexed maintenance plus SBRT vs pembrolizumab-pemetrexed alone. The primary endpoint is progression-free survival (PFS). Concomitant translational researches will be performed to identify potential prognostic and/or predictive biomarkers, as well as to analyze and monitor tumour microenvironment and tumor-host interactions. CONCLUSIONS: Although available data suggest the safety and efficacy of combining immunotherapy and radiotherapy, their systematic integration in the current first-line landscape still remains to be explored. If the pre-planned endpoints of the ESPERa trial will be achieved, the addition of SBRT to pembrolizumab-pemetrexed maintenance as a strategy to consolidate and ideally improve the awaited benefit could be considered as a promising strategy in NSCLC undergoing first-line therapy, as well as an interesting approach to be evaluated in other disease setting, as well as in other oncological malignancies where immunotherapy represents nowadays the standard-of-care.

Anticipating EGFR Targeting in Early Stages of Lung Cancer: Leave No Stone Unturned.

Background: The current treatment landscape of early stage lung cancer is rapidly evolving, particularly in EGFR mutant non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), where target therapy is moving to early stages. In the current review, we collected the available data exploring the impact of EGFR targeting in both neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings, underlying lights and shadows and discussing the existing open issues. Methods: We performed a comprehensive search using PubMed and the proceedings of major international meetings to identify neoadjuvant/adjuvant trials with EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) in NSCLC. Results: Limited data are available so far about the activity/efficacy of neoadjuvant TKIs in EGFR mutant NSCLC, with only modest downstaging and pathological complete response rates reported. Differently, the ADAURA trial already proposed osimertinib as a potential new standard of care in resected NSCLC harboring an activating EGFR mutation. Conclusion: Anticipating targeted therapy to early stage EGFR mutant NSCLC presents great opportunities but also meaningful challenges in the current therapeutic/diagnostic pathway of lung cancer care. Appropriate endpoint(s) selection for clinical trials, disease progression management, patients' and treatment selection, as well as need to address the feasibility of molecular profiling anticipation, represent crucial issues to face before innovation can move to early stages.

Infections and Immunotherapy in Lung Cancer: A Bad Relationship?

Infectious diseases represent a relevant issue in lung cancer patients. Bacterial and viral infections might influence the patients' prognosis, both directly affecting the immune system and indirectly impairing the outcome of anticancer treatments, mainly immunotherapy. In this analysis, we aimed to review the current evidence in order to clarify the complex correlation between infections and lung cancer. In detail, we mainly explored the potential impact on immunotherapy outcome/safety of (1) bacterial infections, with a detailed focus on antibiotics; and (2) viral infections, discriminating among (a) human immune-deficiency virus (HIV), (b) hepatitis B/C virus (HBV-HCV), and (c) Sars-Cov-2. A series of studies suggested the prognostic impact of antibiotic therapy administration, timing, and exposure ratio in patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors, probably through an antibiotic-related microbiota dysbiosis. Although cancer patients with HIV, HBV, and HCV were usually excluded from clinical trials evaluating immunotherapy, some retrospective and prospective trials performed in these patient subgroups reported similar results compared to those described in not-infected patients, with a favorable safety profile. Moreover, patients with thoracic cancers are particularly at risk of COVID-19 severe outcomes and mortality. Few reports speculated about the prognostic implications of anticancer therapy, including immunotherapy, in lung cancer patients with concomitant Sars-Cov-2 infection, showing, to date, inconsistent results. The correlation between infectious diseases and immunotherapy remains to be further explored and clarified in the context of dedicated trials. In clinical practice, the accurate and prompt multidisciplinary management of lung cancer patients with infections should be encouraged in order to select the best treatment options for these patients, avoiding unexpected toxicities, while maintaining the anticancer effect.

Organisational challenges, volumes of oncological activity and patients' perception during the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 epidemic.

BACKGROUND: On February 23rd, the 1st case of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection was diagnosed at the University Hospital Trust of Verona, Italy. On March 13th, the Oncology Section was converted into a 22-inpatient bed coronavirus disease (COVID) Unit, and we reshaped our organisation to face the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic, while maintaining oncological activities. METHODS: We tracked down (i) volumes of oncological activities (January 1st - March 31st, 2020 versus the same period of 2019), (ii) patients' and caregivers' perception and (iii) SARS-CoV-2 infection rate in oncology health professionals and SARS-CoV-2 infection-related hospital admissions of "active"' oncological patients. RESULTS: As compared with the same trimester in 2019, the overall reduction in total numbers of inpatient admissions, chemotherapy administrations and specialist visits in January-March 2020 was 8%, 6% and 3%, respectively; based on the weekly average of daily accesses, reduction in some of the oncological activities became statistically significant from week 11. The overall acceptance of adopted measures, as measured by targeted questionnaires administered to a sample of 241 outpatients, was high (>70%). Overall, 8 of 85 oncology health professionals tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection (all but one employed in the COVID Unit, no hospital admissions and no treatment required); among 471 patients admitted for SARS-CoV-2 infection, 7 had an "active"' oncological disease (2 died of infection-related complications). CONCLUSIONS: A slight, but statistically significant reduction in oncology activity was registered during the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic peak in Verona, Italy. Organisational and protective measures adopted appear to have contributed to keep infections in both oncological patients and health professionals to a minimum.