Targeted Toxicities: Protocols for Monitoring the Adverse Events of Targeted Therapies Used in the Treatment of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

Targeted therapies have revolutionized the treatment for many patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Multiple new oral targeted therapies have been approved in the last decade; however, their overall efficacy may be reduced by poor adherence, treatment interruptions, or dose reductions due to adverse events. Most institutions lack standard monitoring protocols for toxicities from these targeted agents. This review describes important adverse events observed in clinical trials and reported by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for both currently approved and upcoming promising therapies in the treatment of NSCLC. These agents cause a range of toxicities, including dermatologic, gastroenteric, pulmonary, and cardiac toxicities. This review proposes protocols for routine monitoring of these adverse events, both prior to initiation of therapy and while on treatment.

Chemotherapy for Endometrial Cancer in Adjuvant and Advanced Disease Settings.

: Level I evidence exists for use of adjuvant chemotherapy in stage IIIC endometrial cancer (positive lymph nodes), although results of randomized trials have varied. Chemotherapy is also often recommended for high-risk subsets of stage I disease, such as serous carcinomas, although prospective trial data to validate this practice are lacking. Carboplatin plus paclitaxel is the current standard regimen, based on extrapolation of data from the metastatic setting. Several clinical trials have compared adjuvant pelvic radiotherapy alone to a combination of radiotherapy and chemotherapy with mixed results. One of the largest of these trials, Postoperative Radiation Therapy in Endometrial Carcinoma 3 (PORTEC-3), has completed accrual and is awaiting data maturation. Metastatic disease is not curable. For tumors of low-grade endometrioid histology with a prolonged time to recurrence, endocrine therapy with a progestin-based regimen is appropriate. Chemotherapy will be used in most other cases, and the standard first-line regimen is carboplatin and paclitaxel. Few chemotherapy agents have been shown to produce meaningful response rates in the second-line setting. Molecularly targeted therapies such as mTOR inhibitors and antiangiogenic agents including bevacizumab have been studied but their role in the armamentarium remains uncertain. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Following surgical resection and staging for endometrial cancer, adjuvant chemotherapy with carboplatin and paclitaxel can be administered to patients with a high risk for recurrence. This includes patients with stage IIIC disease with positive lymph nodes, and high-risk subsets of stage I disease such as serous carcinomas. In the metastatic setting, endocrine therapy can be considered, particularly for patients with lower-grade disease and a prolonged time to recurrence. Combined therapy with carboplatin and paclitaxel is the standard of care used for front-line chemotherapy. Antiangiogenic agents are clearly active, but how they should be integrated into treatment is not yet determined. Immunotherapy is a promising direction for patients with mismatch repair-deficient or polymerase ε-mutated tumors.

The implications of out-of-pocket cost of cancer treatment in the USA: a critical appraisal of the literature.

Advances in cancer diagnosis and treatment have led to increased societal costs and out-of-pocket patient cost. We reviewed the literature on the impact of out-of-pocket cancer care costs on the patient experience, and described efforts made to address these costs. A critical appraisal of articles published in the USA from 2004 to 2014 was performed. The literature revealed that even insured patients receiving anticancer therapy are vulnerable to financial distress, which can impel patients to borrow money, deplete their savings, or engage in cost-coping strategies including nonadherence to prescribed treatment. Additional research is required to define financial distress risk factors, patient-physician communication of the costs of cancer care, and supportive care models for patients and survivors with substantial financial burdens.

Safety of combined ablative radiotherapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors in three phase I trials.

BACKGROUND: Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is safe and effective for treatment of extracranial metastatic disease, but its safety when combined with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) has not yet been comprehensively reported. Here we report adverse events (AEs) associated with combined SBRT and ICI using prospectively-collected data on patients in three trials investigating multi-site SBRT combined with ICI. METHODS: Patients were included from three prospective trials of ICI (pembrolizumab; nivolumab/urelumab or nivolumab/cabiralizumab; nivolumab/ipilimumab) with SBRT to 1-4 sites. AEs were recorded prospectively using the CTCAE v4.0. Survival was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier method with a 90-day landmark. Association of patient characteristics with cumulative incidence of AEs was assessed using Fine-Gray regression. RESULTS: 213 patients were included, with a median follow-up of 10 months. Over the follow-up period, 50 % and 27 % of patients experienced at least one grade ≥ 2 or grade ≥ 3 AE, respectively. Cumulative incidences of grade ≥ 2 and grade ≥ 3 AEs at 6 months were 47 % and 23 %, respectively. Three grade 5 AEs rated "possibly" related to treatment occurred outside the 90-day dose-limiting toxicity window. Landmarked survival analysis of patients with or without grade ≥ 3 AEs showed no significant difference in progression-free or overall survival. Dual-agent ICI was significantly associated with grade ≥ 3 AE. CONCLUSION: This analysis features the largest prospectively evaluated cohort of patients treated with combination ablative SBRT and ICI to date and provides context for future trial design. We conclude that multi-site SBRT and ICI can be safely co-administered when SBRT is delivered with prioritization of normal tissue constraints.

Impact of next-generation sequencing vs polymerase chain reaction testing on payer costs and clinical outcomes throughout the treatment journeys of patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: For patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC), next-generation sequencing (NGS) biomarker testing has been associated with a faster time to appropriate targeted therapy and more comprehensive testing relative to polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing. However, the impact on payer costs and clinical outcomes during patients' treatment journeys has not been fully characterized. OBJECTIVE: To assess the costs and clinical outcomes of NGS vs PCR biomarker testing among patients with newly diagnosed de novo mNSCLC from a US payers' perspective. METHODS: A Markov model assessed costs and clinical outcomes of NGS vs PCR testing from the start of testing up to 3 years after. Patients entered the model after receiving biomarker test results and then initiated first-line (1L) targeted or nontargeted therapy (immunotherapy and/or chemotherapy) depending on actionable mutation detection. A few patients with an actionable mutation were not detected by PCR and inappropriately initiated 1L nontargeted therapy. At each 1-month cycle, patients could remain on treatment with 1L, progress to second line or later (2L+), or die. Literature-based inputs included the rates of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), targeted and nontargeted therapy costs, total costs of testing, and medical costs of 1L, 2L+, and death. Per patient average PFS and OS as well as cumulative costs were reported for NGS and PCR testing. RESULTS: In a modeled population of 100 patients (75% commercial and 25% Medicare), 45.9% of NGS and 40.0% of PCR patients tested positive for an actionable mutation. Relative to PCR, NGS was associated with $7,386 in savings per patient (NGS = $326,154; PCR = $333,540) at 1 year, driven by lower costs of testing, including estimated costs of delayed care and nontargeted therapy initiation before receiving test results (NGS = $8,866; PCR = $16,373). Treatment costs were similar (NGS = $305,644; PCR = $305,283). In the PCR cohort, the per patient costs of inappropriate 1L nontargeted therapy owing to undetected mutations were $6,455, $6,566, and $6,569 over the first 1, 2, and 3 years, respectively. Relative to PCR testing, NGS was associated with $4,060 in savings at 2 years and $1,092 at 3 years. Patients who initiated 1L targeted therapy had an additional 5.4, 8.8, and 10.4 months of PFS and an additional 1.4, 3.6, and 5.3 months of OS over the first 1, 2, and 3 years, respectively, relative to those who inappropriately initiated 1L nontargeted therapy. CONCLUSIONS: In this Markov model, as early as year 1, and over 3 years following biomarker testing, patients with newly diagnosed de novo mNSCLC undergoing NGS testing are projected to have cost savings and longer PFS and OS relative to those tested with PCR.

Combined Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy and Immune Checkpoint Inhibition for Liver Metastases: Safety and Outcomes in a Pooled Analysis of 3 Phase 1 Trials.

PURPOSE: Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) safely and effectively controls liver metastases (LMs), but its safety and efficacy when combined with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are not well characterized. This analysis of 3 phase 1 trials of combination SBRT and ICI evaluates whether LM-SBRT increases the risk for hepatotoxicity when combined with ICI and explores efficacy endpoints. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Data were analyzed from 3 phase 1 trials of combination SBRT and ICI for patients with metastatic solid tumors conducted between 2016 and 2020. ICI was administered per trial protocol with LM-SBRT delivered to 45 Gy in 3 fractions with mean liver dose <16 Gy and ≥700 cc of normal liver spared 17.1 Gy. Hepatic adverse events (HAEs) were defined as hepatic failure, autoimmune hepatitis, or elevation of aspartate transaminase, alanine transaminase, bilirubin, or alkaline phosphatase using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0. Cumulative incidence of HAEs and local failure were modeled with death as a competing risk. Competing risk regression was performed using Fine-Gray modeling. Survival was estimated via the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Two hundred patients were analyzed, including 81 patients with LM, 57 of whom received LM-SBRT. The 12-month rate of any grade ≥2 HAE was 11% and 10% in LM-SBRT and non-LM-SBRT patients, respectively non-significant (NS). Radiographic evidence for liver disease and dual-agent ICI was significantly associated with HAEs on univariable and multivariable analysis, but liver dose metrics were not. Patients with LM had significantly worse progression-free and overall survival compared with those without, and local failure of treated LM was significantly higher than for treated extrahepatic metastases (28% vs 4% at 12 months, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Combination LM-SBRT and ICI did not significantly increase the risk for HAEs compared with ICI without LM-SBRT, suggesting hepatotoxicity is largely driven by factors other than liver radiation therapy, such as choice of ICI. LM is associated with worse overall survival and local control outcomes.

Cost of genetic testing, delayed care, and suboptimal treatment associated with polymerase chain reaction versus next-generation sequencing biomarker testing for genomic alterations in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer.

AIMS: To assess US payers' per-patient cost of testing associated with next-generation sequencing (NGS) versus polymerase chain reaction (PCR) biomarker testing strategies among patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC), including costs of testing, delayed care, and suboptimal treatment initiation. METHODS: A decision tree model considered biomarker testing for genomic alterations using either NGS, sequential PCR testing, or hotspot panel PCR testing. Literature-based model inputs included time-to-test results, costs for testing/medical care, costs of delaying care, costs of immunotherapy [IO]/chemotherapy [CTX] initiation prior to receiving test results, and costs of suboptimal treatment initiation after test results (i.e. costs of first-line IO/CTX in patients with actionable mutations that were undetected by PCR that would have been identified with NGS). The proportion of patients testing positive for a targetable alteration, time to appropriate therapy initiation, and per-patient costs were estimated for NGS and PCR strategies combined. RESULTS: In a modeled cohort of 1,000,000 members (25% Medicare, 75% commercial), an estimated 1,119 had mNSCLC and received testing. The proportion of patients testing positive for a targetable alteration was 45.9% for NGS and 40.0% for PCR testing. Mean per-patient costs were lowest for NGS ($8,866) compared to PCR ($18,246), with lower delayed care costs of $1,301 for NGS compared to $3,228 for PCR, and lower costs of IO/CTX initiation prior to receiving test results (NGS: $2,298; PCR:$5,991). Cost savings, reaching $10,496,220 at the 1,000,000-member plan level, were driven by more rapid treatment with appropriate therapy for patients tested with NGS (2.1 weeks) compared to PCR strategies (5.2 weeks). LIMITATIONS: Model inputs/assumptions were based on published literature or expert opinion. CONCLUSIONS: NGS testing was associated with greater cost savings versus PCR, driven by more rapid results, shorter time to appropriate therapy initiation, and minimized use of inappropriate therapies while awaiting and after test results.

A Phase 1/2 Study to Evaluate the Safety and Activity of Nivolumab in Combination With Vorolanib, a Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor, in Patients With Refractory Thoracic Tumors.

Introduction: Targeting the tumor microenvironment may enhance response to immunotherapy (immune checkpoint inhibitors) and improve outcomes for patients. This study tested the safety and efficacy of vorolanib, a novel tyrosine kinase inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor, platelet-derived growth factor, and c-KIT, in combination with programmed cell death protein 1 blockade using nivolumab for refractory thoracic malignancies. Methods: This single-arm multicenter study enrolled patients with extensive-stage SCLC, thymic carcinoma, and NSCLC, either naive or had progressed on previous chemotherapy or immune checkpoint inhibitors (either primary or acquired resistance). The primary objective of phase 1 was to determine the maximum tolerated dose, and the primary end point for each dose-expansion cohort was the objective response rate. Results: A total of 88 patients were enrolled in phase 1 (n = 11) and dose expansion (n = 77) cohorts. Transaminitis was dose-limiting and expansion proceeded with oral vorolanib 200 mg daily combined with intravenous nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks. The objective response rate per cohort were as follows: NSCLC naive 33% (five of 15, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 13%-60%), NSCLC primary refractory 5.9% (one of 17, 95% CI: 0%-17.6%), NSCLC acquired resistance 11.1% (two of 18, 95% CI: 0%-27.8%); SCLC 0% (zero of 18), and thymic carcinoma 11% (one of nine, 95% CI: 0%-33%). Disease control rate ranged from 11.1% in SCLC (two of 18, 0%-27.8%) to 66.7 % in thymic carcinoma (six of nine, 95% CI: 33.3%-100%). The most common adverse events were fatigue (32%), aspartate transaminase (27%) and alanine transaminase elevation (25%), and diarrhea (19%). Transaminitis was more common in patients with thymic carcinoma than other tumors. Conclusions: Vorolanib plus nivolumab had a manageable safety profile and may have clinical benefits in various thoracic malignancies. The disease control rate in thymic malignancies warrants further assessment.

DARES: A Phase II Trial of Durvalumab and Ablative Radiation in Extensive-Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Immunotherapy in combination with chemotherapy is first-line treatment for patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). Growing evidence suggests that radiation, specifically stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), may enhance the immunogenic response as well as cytoreduce tumor burden. The primary objective of the study is to determine the progression free survival for patients with newly diagnosed ES-SCLC treated with combination multisite SBRT and chemo-immunotherapy (carboplatin, etoposide, and durvalumab). METHODS: This is a multicenter, single arm, phase 2 study. Patients with treatment-naïve, ES-SCLC will be eligible for this study. Patients will receive durvalumab 1500mg IV q3w, carboplatin AUC 5 to 6 mg/mL q3w, and etoposide 80 to 100 mg/m2 on days 1 to 3 q3w for four cycles, followed by durvalumab 1500mg IV q4w until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Ablative radiation will be delivered 1 to 4 extracranial sites in 3 or 5 fractions, determined by location, during cycle 2. The primary endpoint is progression-free survival, measured from day 1 of chemoimmunotherapy. Secondary endpoints include grade ≥3 toxicity by CTCAE v5.0 within three months of RT, overall survival, response rate, time to second line systemic therapy, and time to new distant progression. CONCLUSIONS: Now that immunotherapy is an established part of ES-SCLC management, it is important to further optimize its use and effect. This study will investigate the progression-free survival of combined SBRT and chemo-immunotherapy in patients with ES-SCLC. In addition, the data from this study may further inform the immunogenic role of SBRT with chemo-immunotherapy, as well as identify clinical, biological, or radiomic prognostic features.

Evaluation of Major Pathologic Response and Pathologic Complete Response as Surrogate End Points for Survival in Randomized Controlled Trials of Neoadjuvant Immune Checkpoint Blockade in Resectable in NSCLC.

INTRODUCTION: Controversy remains as to whether pathologic complete response (pCR) and major pathologic response (MPR) represent surrogate end points for event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) in neoadjuvant trials for resectable NSCLC. METHODS: A search of PubMed and archives of international conference abstracts was performed from June 2017 through October 31, 2023. Studies incorporating a neoadjuvant arm with immune checkpoint blockade alone or in combination with chemotherapy were included. Those not providing information regarding pCR, MPR, EFS, or OS were excluded. For trial-level surrogacy, log ORs for pCR and MPR and log hazard ratios for EFS and OS were analyzed using a linear regression model weighted by sample size. The regression coefficient and R2 with 95% confidence interval were calculated by the bootstrapping approach. RESULTS: Seven randomized clinical trials were identified for a total of 2385 patients. At the patient level, the R2 of pCR and MPR with 2-year EFS were 0.82 (0.66-0.94) and 0.81 (0.63-0.93), respectively. The OR of 2-year EFS rates by response status was 0.12 (0.07-0.19) and 0.11 (0.05-0.22), respectively. For the 2-year OS, the R2 of pCR and MPR were 0.55 (0.09-0.98) and 0.52 (0.10-0.96), respectively. At the trial level, the R2 for the association of OR for response and HR for EFS was 0.58 (0.00-0.97) and 0.61 (0.00-0.97), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our analyses reveal a robust correlation between pCR and MPR with 2-year EFS but not OS. Trial-level surrogacy was moderate but imprecise. More mature follow-up and data to assess the impact of study crossover are needed.

Sotorasib with panitumumab in chemotherapy-refractory KRASG12C-mutated colorectal cancer: a phase 1b trial.

The current third-line (and beyond) treatment options for RAS-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer have yielded limited efficacy. At the time of study start, the combination of sotorasib, a KRAS (Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homolog)-G12C inhibitor, and panitumumab, an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitor, was hypothesized to overcome treatment-induced resistance. This phase 1b substudy of the CodeBreaK 101 master protocol evaluated sotorasib plus panitumumab in patients with chemotherapy-refractory KRASG12C-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer. Here, we report the results in a dose-exploration cohort and a dose-expansion cohort. Patients received sotorasib (960 mg, once daily) plus panitumumab (6 mg kg-1, once every 2 weeks). The primary endpoints were safety and tolerability. Secondary endpoints included efficacy and pharmacokinetics. Exploratory biomarkers at baseline were assessed. Forty-eight patients (dose-exploration cohort, n = 8; dose-expansion cohort, n = 40) were treated. Treatment-related adverse events of any grade and grade ≥3 occurred in 45 (94%) and 13 (27%) patients, respectively. In the dose-expansion cohort, the confirmed objective response rate was 30.0% (95% confidence interval (CI) 16.6%, 46.5%). Median progression-free survival was 5.7 months (95% CI 4.2, 7.7 months). Median overall survival was 15.2 months (95% CI 12.5 months, not estimable). Prevalent genomic coalterations included APC (84%), TP53 (74%), SMAD4 (33%), PIK3CA (28%) and EGFR (26%). Sotorasib-panitumumab demonstrated acceptable safety with promising efficacy in chemotherapy-refractory KRASG12C-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04185883 .

The impact of decision tools during oncological consultation with lung cancer patients: A systematic review within the I3LUNG project.

INTRODUCTION: To date, lung cancer is one of the most lethal diagnoses worldwide. A variety of lung cancer treatments and modalities are available, which are generally presented during the patient and doctor consultation. The implementation of decision tools to facilitate patient's decision-making and the management of their healthcare process during medical consultation is fundamental. Studies have demonstrated that decision tools are helpful to promote health management and decision-making of lung cancer patients during consultations. The main aim of the present work within the I3LUNG project is to systematically review the implementation of decision tools to facilitate medical consultation about oncological treatments for lung cancer patients. METHODS: In the present study, we conducted a systematic review following the PRISMA guidelines. We used an electronic computer-based search involving three databases, as follows: Embase, PubMed, and Scopus. 10 articles met the inclusion criteria and were included. They explicitly refer to decision tools in the oncological context, with lung cancer patients. RESULTS: The discussion highlights the most encouraging results about the positive role of decision aids during medical consultations about oncological treatments, especially regarding anxiety, decision-making, and patient knowledge. However, no one main decision aid tool emerged as essential. Opting for a more recent timeframe to select eligible articles might shed light on the current array of decision aid tools available. CONCLUSION: Future review efforts could utilize alternative search strategies to explore other lung cancer-specific outcomes during medical consultations for treatment decisions and the implementation of decision aid tools. Engaging with experts in the fields of oncology, patient decision-making, or health communication could provide valuable insights and recommendations for relevant literature or research directions that may not be readily accessible through traditional search methods. The development of guidelines for future research were provided with the aim to promote decision aids focused on patients' needs.

The Role of MET in Resistance to EGFR Inhibition in NSCLC: A Review of Mechanisms and Treatment Implications.

Utilizing targeted therapy against activating mutations has opened a new era of treatment paradigms for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). For patients with epidermal growth factor (EGFR)-mutated cancers, EGFR inhibitors, including the third-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) osimertinib, significantly prolong progression-free survival and overall survival, and are the current standard of care. However, progression after EGFR inhibition invariably occurs, and further study has helped elucidate mechanisms of resistance. Abnormalities in the mesenchymal-epithelial transition (MET) oncogenic pathway have been implicated as common alterations after progression, with MET amplification as one of the most frequent mechanisms. Multiple drugs with inhibitory activity against MET, including TKIs, antibodies, and antibody-drug conjugates, have been developed and studied in advanced NSCLC. Combining MET and EGFR is a promising treatment strategy for patients found to have a MET-driven resistance mechanism. Combination TKI therapy and EGFR-MET bispecific antibodies have shown promising anti-tumor activity in early clinical trials. Future study including ongoing large-scale trials of combination EGFR-MET inhibition will help clarify if targeting this mechanism behind EGFR resistance will have meaningful clinical benefit for patients with advanced EGFR-mutated NSCLC.

Abnormalities on baseline chest imaging are risk factors for immune checkpoint inhibitor associated pneumonitis.

BACKGROUND: Chronic lung disease is a proposed risk factor for immune checkpoint inhibitor pneumonitis (ICI-pneumonitis); however, data is sparse regarding the impact of pre-existing lung disease and baseline chest imaging abnormalities on the risk of developing ICI-pneumonitis. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients with ICI treatment for cancer from 2015 to 2019. ICI-pneumonitis was determined by the treating physician with corroboration via an independent physician review and exclusion of alternative etiologies. Controls were patients treated with ICI without a diagnosis of ICI-pneumonitis. Fisher's exact tests, Student's t-tests, and logistic regression were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: We analyzed 45 cases of ICI-pneumonitis and 135 controls. Patients with abnormal baseline chest CT imaging (emphysema; bronchiectasis; reticular, ground glass and/or consolidative opacities) had increased risk for ICI-pneumonitis (OR 3.41, 95%CI: 1.68-6.87, p = 0.001). Patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) (OR 3.83, 95%CI: 1.90-7.70, p = < 0.0001) also had increased risk for ICI-pneumonitis. On multivariable logistic regression, patients with abnormal baseline chest imaging and/or GERD remained at increased risk for ICI-pneumonitis. Eighteen percent of all patients (32/180) had abnormal baseline chest CT consistent with chronic lung disease without a documented diagnosis. CONCLUSION: Patients with baseline chest CT abnormalities and GERD were at increased risk for developing ICI-pneumonitis. The large proportion of patients with baseline radiographic abnormalities without a clinical diagnosis of chronic lung disease highlights the importance of multidisciplinary evaluation prior to ICI initiation.

What is the ideal endpoint in early-stage immunotherapy neoadjuvant trials in lung cancer?

Numerous clinical trials investigating neoadjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have been performed over the last 5 years. As the number of neoadjuvant trials increases, attention must be paid to identifying informative trial endpoints. Complete pathologic response has been shown to be an appropriate surrogate endpoint for clinical outcomes, such as event-free survival or overall survival, in breast cancer and bladder cancer, but it is less established for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The simultaneous advances reported with adjuvant ICI make the optimal strategy for early-stage disease debatable. Considering the long time required to conduct trials, it is important to identify optimal endpoints and discover surrogate endpoints for survival that can help guide ongoing clinical research. Endpoints can be grouped into two categories: medical and surgical. Medical endpoints are measures of survival and drug activity; surgical endpoints describe the feasibility of neoadjuvant approaches at a surgical level as well as perioperative attrition and complications. There are also several exploratory endpoints, including circulating tumor DNA clearance and radiomics. In this review, we outline the advantages and disadvantages of commonly reported endpoints for clinical trials of neoadjuvant regimens in NSCLC.

Phase I study of anti-epidermal growth factor receptor antibody-drug conjugate serclutamab talirine: Safety, pharmacokinetics, and antitumor activity in advanced glioblastoma.

Background: Serclutamab talirine (Ser-T, formerly ABBV-321) is an antibody-drug conjugate consisting of an antibody (AM-1-ABT-806) directed against activated epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and a pyrrolobenzodiazepine dimer. We investigated Ser-T monotherapy in a phase I, first-in-human, dose-escalation, and dose-expansion study in patients with advanced solid tumors associated with EGFR overexpression. Methods: Eligible patients (≥18 years) had advanced, histologically confirmed solid tumors associated with EGFR overexpression (centralized testing). Patients received Ser-T intravenously once every 4 weeks (Q4W; 5-50 µg/kg) in the dose-escalation phase. Herein, preliminary antitumor activity at the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) is reported only for patients with glioblastoma (n = 24); additional assessments included all treated patients. Results: Sixty-two patients (median age: 58 years) were enrolled within the dose-escalation (n = 43) and dose-expansion (n = 19) phases. One dose-limiting toxicity, grade 3 aspartate aminotransferase and alanine aminotransferase elevation, occurred at 20 µg/kg during dose escalation. The Ser-T RP2D regimen of 50 µg/kg × 1 (loading dose) followed by 25 µg/kg Q4W (maintenance dose) was administered during dose expansion. Fatigue (37%) was the only treatment-emergent adverse event (AE) occurring in >25% of patients. Two patients (3%) reported mild treatment-related ocular AEs (eye pruritus). Responses in patients with glioblastoma included 1 partial response (~33 months), 6 stable disease, and 14 progressive disease (not evaluable: n = 3). Conclusions: Ser-T monotherapy at doses up to 50 µg/kg initial dose, followed by 25 µg/kg Q4W demonstrated a tolerable safety profile with minimal antitumor activity observed in patients with glioblastoma. The glioblastoma dose-expansion cohort was closed due to a lack of efficacy (NCT03234712).

STK11 Inactivation Predicts Rapid Recurrence in Inoperable Early-Stage Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: Molecular factors predicting relapse in early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer (ES-NSCLC) are poorly understood, especially in inoperable patients receiving radiotherapy (RT). In this study, we compared the genomic profiles of inoperable and operable ES-NSCLC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included 53 patients with nonsquamous ES-NSCLC (stage I-II) treated at a single institution (University of Chicago) with surgery (ie, operable; n = 30) or RT (ie, inoperable; n = 23) who underwent tumor genomic profiling. A second cohort of ES-NSCLC treated with RT (Stanford, n = 39) was included to power clinical analyses. Prognostic gene alterations were identified and correlated with clinical variables. The primary clinical end point was the correlation of prognostic genes with the cumulative incidence of relapse, disease-free survival, and overall survival (OS) in a pooled RT cohort from the two institutions (N = 62). RESULTS: Although the surgery cohort exhibited lower rates of relapse, the RT cohort was highly enriched for somatic STK11 mutations (43% v 6.7%). Receiving supplemental oxygen (odds ratio [OR] = 5.5), 20+ pack-years of tobacco smoking (OR = 6.1), and Black race (OR = 4.3) were associated with increased frequency of STK11 mutations. In the pooled RT cohort (N = 62), STK11 mutation was strongly associated with inferior oncologic outcomes: 2-year incidence of relapse was 62% versus 20% and 2-year OS was 52% versus 85%, remaining independently prognostic on multivariable analyses (relapse: subdistribution hazard ratio = 4.0, P = .0041; disease-free survival: hazard ratio, 6.8, P = .0002; OS: hazard ratio, 6.0, P = .022). STK11 mutations were predominantly associated with distant failure, rather than local. CONCLUSION: In this cohort of ES-NSCLC, STK11 inactivation was associated with poor oncologic outcomes after RT and demonstrated a novel association with clinical hypoxia, which may underlie its correlation with medical inoperability. Further validation in larger cohorts and investigation of effective adjuvant systemic therapies may be warranted.

Disparities in outcomes between Black and White patients in North America with thoracic malignancies and COVID-19 infection (TERAVOLT).

BACKGROUND: Patients with thoracic malignancies who develop COVID-19 infection have a higher hospitalization rate compared to the general population and to those with other cancer types, but how this outcome differs by race and ethnicity is relatively understudied. METHODS: The TERAVOLT database is an international, multi-center repository of cross-sectional and longitudinal data studying the impact of COVID-19 on individuals with thoracic malignancies. Patients from North America with thoracic malignancies and confirmed COVID-19 infection were included for this analysis of racial and ethnic disparities. Patients with missing race data or races and ethnicities with fewer than 50 patients were excluded from analysis. Multivariable analyses for endpoints of hospitalization and death were performed on these 471 patients. RESULTS: Of the 471 patients, 73% were White and 27% were Black. The majority (90%) were non-Hispanic ethnicity, 5% were Hispanic, and 4% were missing ethnicity data. Black patients were more likely to have an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status ≥ 2 (p-value = 0.04). On multivariable analysis, Black patients were more likely than White patients to require hospitalization (Odds Ratio (OR): 1.69, 95% CI: 1.01-2.83, p-value = 0.044). These differences remained across different waves of the pandemic. However, no statistically significant difference in mortality was found between Black and White patients (OR 1.29, 95% CI: 0.69-2.40, p-value = 0.408). CONCLUSIONS: Black patients with thoracic malignancies who acquire COVID-19 infection are at a significantly higher risk of hospitalization compared to White patients, but there is no significant difference in mortality. The underlying drivers of racial disparity among patients with thoracic malignancies and COVID-19 infection require ongoing investigation.