The changing landscape of small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) is characterized by rapid proliferation and early dissemination. The objective of this study was to examine the demographic trends and outcomes in SCLC. METHODS: The authors queried the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database to assess the trends in incidence, demographics, staging, and survival for SCLC from 1975 to 2019. Trends were determined using joinpoint analysis according to the year of diagnosis. RESULTS: Among the 530,198 patients with lung cancer, there were 73,362 (13.8%) with SCLC. The incidence per 100,000 population peaked at 15.3 in 1986 followed by a decline to 6.5 in 2019. The percentage of SCLC among all lung tumors increased from 13.3% in 1975 to a peak of 17.5% in 1986, declining to 11.1% by 2019. There was an increased median age at diagnosis from 63 to 69 years and an increased percentage of women from 31.4% to 51.2%. The percentage of stage IV increased from 58.6% in 1988 to 70.8% in 2010, without further increase. The most common sites of metastasis at diagnosis were mediastinal lymph nodes (75.3%) liver (31.6%), bone (23.7%), and brain (16.4%). The 1-year and 5-year overall survival rate increased from 23% and 3.6%, respectively, in 1975-1979 to 30.8% and 6.8%, respectively, in 2010-2019. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of SCLC peaked in 1988 followed by a gradual decline. Other notable changes include increased median age at diagnosis, the percentage of women, and the percentage of stage IV at diagnosis. The improvement in 5-year overall survival has been statistically significant but clinically modest.

The Emerging Role of Immunotherapy in Resectable Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Despite surgical resection, long-term survival of patients with resectable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) remains poor. Adjuvant chemotherapy, the standard of care for locally advanced NSCLC, provides a marginal 5.4% benefit in survival. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have shown a significant survival benefit in some patients with advanced NSCLC and are being evaluated for perioperative use in resectable NSCLC. METHODS: We conducted a literature search using the PubMed online database to identify clinical trials of immunotherapy in resectable NSCLC and studies analyzing biomarkers and immune priming strategies. RESULTS: Building on previous phase I and II trials, randomized phase III trials have shown efficacy of neoadjuvant nivolumab, perioperative pembrolizumab, adjuvant atezolizumab, and adjuvant pembrolizumab in the treatment of NSCLC with improvement of event-free/disease-free survival of 24% to 42%, leading to United States Food and Drug Administration approval of these drugs in the treatment of resectable NSCLC. Three additional phase III trials have also recently reported the use of immunotherapy both before and after surgery, with pathologic complete response rates of 17% to 25%, significantly better than chemotherapy alone. Perioperative ICI therapy has comparable perioperative morbidity to chemotherapy alone and does not impair surgical outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Perioperative immunotherapy, in combination with chemotherapy, is safe and improves outcomes in patients with resectable NSCLC. Questions regarding patient selection, the need for adjuvant ICI therapy after neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy, and the duration of perioperative immunotherapy remain to be answered by future trials.

Secondary Analysis of the Rate of Second Primary Lung Cancer From Cancer and Leukemia Group B 140503 (Alliance) Trial of Lobar Versus Sublobar Resection for T1aN0 Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical trial updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported.Patients with early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who undergo curative surgical resection are at risk for developing second primary lung cancer (SPLC). Cancer and Leukemia Group B 140503 (Alliance) was a multicenter, international, randomized, phase III trial in patients with stage T1aN0 NSCLC (using the TNM staging system seventh edition) and demonstrated the noninferiority for disease-free survival between sublobar resection (SLR) and lobar resection (LR). After surgery, patients underwent computed tomography surveillance as defined by the protocol. The determination of a SPLC was done by the treating physician and recorded in the study database. We performed an analysis of the rate of SPLC (per patient per year) and the 5-year cumulative incidence in the study population and within the SLR and LR arms. Median follow-up was 7 years. The rate per patient per year in the study population, in the SLR arm, and in the LR arm was 3.4% (95% CI, 2.9 to 4.1), 3.8% (95% CI, 2.9 to 4.9), and 3.1% (95% CI, 2.4 to 4.1), respectively. The estimated 5-year cumulative incidence of SPLC in the study population, SLR arm, and LR arm was 15.9% (95% CI, 12.9 to 18.9), 17.2% (95% CI, 12.7 to 21.5), and 14.7% (95% CI, 10.6 to 18.7), respectively.

Lobectomy, segmentectomy, or wedge resection for peripheral clinical T1aN0 non-small cell lung cancer: A post hoc analysis of CALGB 140503 (Alliance).

BACKGROUND: We have recently reported the primary results of CALGB 140503 (Alliance), a randomized trial in patients with peripheral cT1aN0 non-small cell lung cancer (American Joint Committee on Cancer seventh) treated with either lobar resection (LR) or sublobar resection (SLR). Here we report differences in disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS) and lung cancer-specific survival (LCSS) between LR, segmental resection (SR), and wedge resection (WR). We also report differences between WR and SR in terms of surgical margins, rate of locoregional recurrence (LRR), and expiratory flow rate at 6 months postoperatively. METHODS: Between June 2007 and March 2017, a total of 697 patients were randomized to LR (n = 357) or SLR (n = 340) stratified by clinical tumor size, histology, and smoking history. Ten patients were converted from SLR to LR, and 5 patients were converted from LR to SLR. Survival endpoints were estimated using the Kaplan-Maier estimator and tested by the stratified log-rank test. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare margins and changes in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) between groups, and the χ2 test was used to test the associations between recurrence and groups. RESULTS: A total of 362 patients had LR, 131 had SR, and 204 had WR. Basic demographic and clinical and pathologic characteristics were similar in the 3 groups. Five-year DFS was 64.7% after LR (95% confidence interval [CI], 59.6%-70.1%), 63.8% after SR (95% CI, 55.6%-73.2%), and 62.5% after WR (95% CI, 55.8%-69.9%) (P = .888, log-rank test). Five-year OS was 78.7% after LR, 81.9% after SR, and 79.7% after WR (P = .873, log-rank test). Five-year LCSS was 86.8% after LR, 89.2% after SR, and 89.7% after WR (P = .903, log-rank test). LRR occurred in 12% after SR and in 14% after WR (P = .295). At 6 months postoperatively, the median reduction in % FEV1 was 5% after WR and 3% after SR (P = .930). CONCLUSIONS: In this large randomized trial, LR, SR, and WR were associated with similar survival outcomes. Although LRR was numerically higher after WR compared to SR, the difference was not statistically significant. There was no significant difference in the reduction of FEV1 between the SR and WR groups.

Convolutional Neural Networks for Segmentation of Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma: Analysis of Probability Map Thresholds (CALGB 30901, Alliance).

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is the most common form of malignant mesothelioma, with exposure to asbestos being the primary cause of the disease. To assess response to treatment, tumor measurements are acquired and evaluated based on a patient's longitudinal computed tomography (CT) scans. Tumor volume, however, is the more accurate metric for assessing tumor burden and response. Automated segmentation methods using deep learning can be employed to acquire volume, which otherwise is a tedious task performed manually. The deep learning-based tumor volume and contours can then be compared with a standard reference to assess the robustness of the automated segmentations. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of probability map threshold on MPM tumor delineations generated using a convolutional neural network (CNN). Eighty-eight CT scans from 21 MPM patients were segmented by a VGG16/U-Net CNN. A radiologist modified the contours generated at a 0.5 probability threshold. Percent difference of tumor volume and overlap using the Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC) were compared between the standard reference provided by the radiologist and CNN outputs for thresholds ranging from 0.001 to 0.9. CNN annotations consistently yielded smaller tumor volumes than radiologist contours. Reducing the probability threshold from 0.5 to 0.1 decreased the absolute percent volume difference, on average, from 43.96% to 24.18%. Median and mean DSC ranged from 0.58 to 0.60, with a peak at a threshold of 0.5; no distinct threshold was found for percent volume difference. The CNN exhibited deficiencies with specific disease presentations, such as severe pleural effusion or disease in the pleural fissure. No single output threshold in the CNN probability maps was optimal for both tumor volume and DSC. This study emphasized the importance of considering both figures of merit when evaluating deep learning-based tumor segmentations across probability thresholds. This work underscores the need to simultaneously assess tumor volume and spatial overlap when evaluating CNN performance. While automated segmentations may yield comparable tumor volumes to that of the reference standard, the spatial region delineated by the CNN at a specific threshold is equally important.

Enrollment Success, Factors, and Prediction Models in Cancer Trials (2008-2019).

PURPOSE: To investigate the enrollment success rate of cancer clinical trials conducted in 2008-2019 and various factors lowering the enrollment success rate. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study with clinical trial information from the largest registration database ClinicalTrials.gov. Enrollment success rate was defined as actual enrollment greater or equal to 85% of the estimated enrollment goal. The association between trial characteristics and enrollment success was evaluated using the multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 4,004 trials in breast, lung, and colorectal cancers were included. The overall enrollment success rate was 49.1%. Compared with 2008-2010 (51.5%) and 2011-2013 (52.1%), the enrollment success rate is lower in 2014-2016 (46.5%) and 2017-2019 (36.4%). Regression analyses found trial activation year, phase I, phase I/phase II, and phase II (v phase III), sponsor agency of government (v industry), not requiring healthy volunteers, and estimated enrollment of 50-100, 100-200, 200, and >500 (v 0-50) were associated with a lower enrollment success rate (P < .05). However, trials with placebo comparator, ≥5 locations (v 1 location), and a higher number of secondary end points (eg, ≥5 v 0) were associated with a higher enrollment success rate (P < .05). The AUC for prediction of the final logistic regression models for all trials and specific trial groups ranged from 0.69 to 0.76. CONCLUSION: This large-scale study supports a lower enrollment success rate over years in cancer clinical trials. Identified factors for enrollment success can be used to develop and improve recruitment strategies for future cancer trials.

Tucatinib and Trastuzumab for Previously Treated Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Positive Metastatic Biliary Tract Cancer (SGNTUC-019): A Phase II Basket Study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of tucatinib and trastuzumab in patients with previously treated human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+) metastatic biliary tract cancer (mBTC). METHODS: SGNTUC-019 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04579380) is an open-label phase II basket study evaluating the efficacy and safety of tucatinib and trastuzumab in patients with HER2-altered solid tumors. In the biliary tract cancer cohort, patients had previously treated HER2 overexpressing or amplified (HER2+) tumors (identified with local testing) with no prior HER2-directed therapy. The primary end point was confirmed objective response rate (cORR) per investigator assessment. Patients were treated on a 21-day cycle with tucatinib (300 mg orally twice daily) and trastuzumab (8 mg/kg intravenously followed by 6 mg/kg every 3 weeks). RESULTS: Thirty patients were enrolled. As of data cutoff (January 30, 2023), the median duration of follow-up was 10.8 months. The cORR was 46.7% (90% CI, 30.8 to 63.0), with a disease control rate of 76.7% (90% CI, 60.6 to 88.5). The median duration of response and progression-free survival were 6.0 months (90% CI, 5.5 to 6.9) and 5.5 months (90% CI, 3.9 to 8.1), respectively. At data cutoff, 15 patients (50.0%) had died, and the estimated 12-month overall survival rate was 53.6% (90% CI, 36.8 to 67.8). The two most common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were pyrexia (43.3%) and diarrhea (40.0%). Grade ≥3 TEAEs were reported in 18 patients (60.0%), with the most common being cholangitis, decreased appetite, and nausea (all 10.0%), which were generally not treatment related. TEAEs led to treatment regimen discontinuation in one patient, and there were no deaths due to TEAEs. CONCLUSION: Tucatinib combined with trastuzumab had clinically significant antitumor activity and was well tolerated in patients with previously treated HER2+ mBTC.

Using a Clinically Interpretable End Point Composed of Multiple Outcomes to Evaluate Totality of Treatment Effect in Comparative Oncology Studies.

This cohort study demonstrates how to use cumulative event count curves to create a clinically meaningful end point by simultaneously considering recurrence, progression, and survival times from the individual patient.

Lobar or Sublobar Resection for Peripheral Stage IA Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The increased detection of small-sized peripheral non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has renewed interest in sublobar resection in lieu of lobectomy. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, noninferiority, phase 3 trial in which patients with NSCLC clinically staged as T1aN0 (tumor size, ≤2 cm) were randomly assigned to undergo sublobar resection or lobar resection after intraoperative confirmation of node-negative disease. The primary end point was disease-free survival, defined as the time between randomization and disease recurrence or death from any cause. Secondary end points were overall survival, locoregional and systemic recurrence, and pulmonary functions. RESULTS: From June 2007 through March 2017, a total of 697 patients were assigned to undergo sublobar resection (340 patients) or lobar resection (357 patients). After a median follow-up of 7 years, sublobar resection was noninferior to lobar resection for disease-free survival (hazard ratio for disease recurrence or death, 1.01; 90% confidence interval [CI], 0.83 to 1.24). In addition, overall survival after sublobar resection was similar to that after lobar resection (hazard ratio for death, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.26). The 5-year disease-free survival was 63.6% (95% CI, 57.9 to 68.8) after sublobar resection and 64.1% (95% CI, 58.5 to 69.0) after lobar resection. The 5-year overall survival was 80.3% (95% CI, 75.5 to 84.3) after sublobar resection and 78.9% (95% CI, 74.1 to 82.9) after lobar resection. No substantial difference was seen between the two groups in the incidence of locoregional or distant recurrence. At 6 months postoperatively, a between-group difference of 2 percentage points was measured in the median percentage of predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second, favoring the sublobar-resection group. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with peripheral NSCLC with a tumor size of 2 cm or less and pathologically confirmed node-negative disease in the hilar and mediastinal lymph nodes, sublobar resection was not inferior to lobectomy with respect to disease-free survival. Overall survival was similar with the two procedures. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and others; CALGB 140503 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00499330.).

Narrative review: blood and tumor biomarker testing in non-small cell lung cancer without an oncogenic driver.

Background and Objective: For patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) without an oncogenic driver, systemic therapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) alone or in combination with chemotherapy have significantly improved the outcomes. However, the majority of patients do not have a durable response, and there is a need for additional predictive biomarkers. The objective of this narrative review is to describe potential biomarkers for immunotherapy. Methods: Narrative overview of the literature synthesizing the findings of literature reporting retrospective, prospective, and subset analyses of studies investigating potential predictive biomarkers for ICI. Key Content and Findings: Tumor expression of programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) is the only clinically available biomarker for patients receiving ICI-based therapy. However, PD-L1 has significant limitations and studies have investigated the predictive value of higher PD-L1 expression levels. There has been interest in tumor mutation burden (TMB) based on the premise that a higher TMB would be associated with a more neoantigens, which would increase the likelihood of an immune response. The studies to date have not revealed a consistent association with TMB level and survival benefit. Kelch-like ECH Associated Protein 1 (KEAP1) and serine/threonine kinase 11 (STK11) mutations have been associated with worse outcomes with ICI but these mutations appear to be associated with a worse prognosis, and not predictive for ICI. Tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL's) are the mechanism of immune response, and there is interest in further investigating the presence, type and distribution of TIL's to predict immune benefit. Circulating tumor deoxyribonucleic acid (ctDNA) levels, at baseline and on treatment samples, are being investigated to assess response to therapy and long-term benefit of ICI. Conclusions: None of the current biomarkers in development are validated for use in routine clinical care. Given the complexity of NSCLC biology and immune response to ICI most likely a composite biomarker using multiple biomarkers will need to be develop.

High-Dose Once-Daily Thoracic Radiotherapy in Limited-Stage Small-Cell Lung Cancer: CALGB 30610 (Alliance)/RTOG 0538.

PURPOSE: Although level 1 evidence supports 45-Gy twice-daily radiotherapy as standard for limited-stage small-cell lung cancer, most patients receive higher-dose once-daily regimens in clinical practice. Whether increasing radiotherapy dose improves outcomes remains to be prospectively demonstrated. METHODS: This phase III trial, CALGB 30610/RTOG 0538 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00632853), was conducted in two stages. In the first stage, patients with limited-stage disease were randomly assigned to receive 45-Gy twice-daily, 70-Gy once-daily, or 61.2-Gy concomitant-boost radiotherapy, starting with either the first or second (of four total) chemotherapy cycles. In the second stage, allocation to the 61.2-Gy arm was discontinued following planned interim toxicity analysis, and the study continued with two remaining arms. The primary end point was overall survival (OS) in the intention-to-treat population. RESULTS: Trial accrual opened on March 15, 2008, and closed on December 1, 2019. All patients randomly assigned to 45-Gy twice-daily (n = 313) or 70-Gy once-daily radiotherapy (n = 325) are included in this analysis. After a median follow-up of 4.7 years, OS was not improved on the once-daily arm (hazard ratio for death, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.17; P = .594). Median survival is 28.5 months for twice-daily treatment, and 30.1 months for once-daily treatment, with 5-year OS of 29% and 32%, respectively. Treatment was tolerable, and the frequency of severe adverse events, including esophageal and pulmonary toxicity, was similar on both arms. CONCLUSION: Although 45-Gy twice-daily radiotherapy remains the standard of care, this study provides the most robust information available to help guide the choice of thoracic radiotherapy regimen for patients with limited-stage small-cell lung cancer.