Clinical Value of Timely Targeted Therapy for Patients With Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer With Actionable Driver Oncogenes.

BACKGROUND: A recent real-world study observed that 24% of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) with actionable driver oncogenes (ADOs) initiated nontargeted therapies before biomarker test results became available. This study assessed the clinical impact of the timing of first-line (1L) targeted therapies (TTs) in aNSCLC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective analysis of a nationwide electronic health record-derived deidentified database included patients aged ≥18 years diagnosed with aNSCLC with ADOs (ALK, BRAF, EGFR, RET, MET, ROS-1, and NTRK) from January 1, 2015, to October 18, 2022, by biomarker testing within 90 days after advanced diagnosis and received 1L treatment. Cohorts were defined by treatment patterns ≤42 days after test results: "Upfront TT" received 1L TT ≤42 days; "Switchers" initiated 1L non-TT before or after testing but switched to TT ≤42 days; and "Non-switchers" initiated non-TT before or after testing and did not switch at any time. Adjusted multivariate Cox regression evaluated real-world progression-free survival, real-world time to next treatment or death, and real-world overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 3540 patients met the study criteria; 78% were treated in a community setting, and 50% underwent next-generation sequencing (NGS). There was no significant difference in outcomes between Switchers and Upfront TT; inferior outcomes were observed in Non-switchers versus Upfront TT. CONCLUSION: Our findings demonstrated improved outcomes with upfront 1L TT versus non-TT in patients with aNSCLC with ADOs and observed timely switching to TT after biomarker test result had similar outcomes to Upfront TT. Opportunities remain to improve the use of NGS for early ADO identification and determination of 1L TT.

Improving biomarker testing in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer and metastatic colorectal cancer: experience from a large community oncology network in the USA.

Aim: Biomarker testing detects actionable driver mutations to inform first-line treatment in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) and metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). This study evaluated biomarker testing in a nationwide database (NAT) versus the OneOncology (OneOnc) community network. Patients & methods: Patients with aNSCLC or mCRC with ≥1 biomarker test in a de-identified electronic health record-derived database were evaluated. OneOnc oncologists were surveyed. Results: Biomarker testing rates were high and comparable between OneOnc and NAT; next-generation sequencing (NGS) rates were higher at OneOnc. Patients with NGS versus other biomarker testing were more likely to receive targeted treatment. Operational challenges and insufficient tissue were barriers to NGS testing. Conclusion: Community cancer centers delivered personalized healthcare through biomarker testing.

What is this article about? Cancer therapies often work better in certain subgroups of patients. Tumors may have characteristics that can predict which therapies may be more likely to work. These cancer biomarkers may be identified by special testing, such as next-generation sequencing (NGS). If a biomarker is detected, the patient can potentially be treated with medicine that targets that biomarker. This study looked at biomarker testing of lung and colon cancers in two community cancer practices (OneOncology [OneOnc] and nationwide database [NAT]). What were the results? The biomarker testing rates were high (≥81%) and similar between OneOnc and NAT. NGS testing rates were higher at OneOnc than at NAT (58 vs 49% for non-small-cell lung cancer, 55 vs 42% for metastatic colorectal cancer [mCRC]), suggesting the success of OneOnc's networkwide educational, pathway and operational programs. NGS testing was lower in community practices due to operational challenges and insufficient tissue collection. Patients who had NGS versus other biomarker testing were more likely to receive treatment specifically for that biomarker. However, some patients started treatment before their biomarker results were reported, usually because of their disease and a long wait time for biomarker test results. What do the results of the study mean? Community cancer centers can treat patients with targeted medicine based on biomarker testing results. There are opportunities to increase the number of patients getting NGS testing, shorten turnaround times and reduce the number of patients who start treatment before getting their biomarker test results.

Trilaciclib prior to chemotherapy and atezolizumab in patients with newly diagnosed extensive-stage small cell lung cancer: A multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase II trial.

Trilaciclib is an intravenous CDK4/6 inhibitor administered prior to chemotherapy to preserve haematopoietic stem and progenitor cells and immune system function from chemotherapy-induced damage (myelopreservation). The effects of administering trilaciclib prior to carboplatin, etoposide and atezolizumab (E/P/A) were evaluated in a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase II study in patients with newly diagnosed extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) (NCT03041311). The primary endpoints were duration of severe neutropenia (SN; defined as absolute neutrophil count <0.5 × 109 cells per L) in Cycle 1 and occurrence of SN during the treatment period. Other endpoints were prespecified to assess the effects of trilaciclib on additional measures of myelopreservation, patient-reported outcomes, antitumour efficacy and safety. Fifty-two patients received trilaciclib prior to E/P/A and 53 patients received placebo. Compared to placebo, administration of trilaciclib resulted in statistically significant decreases in the mean duration of SN in Cycle 1 (0 vs 4 days; P < .0001) and occurrence of SN (1.9% vs 49.1%; P < .0001), with additional improvements in red blood cell and platelet measures and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Trilaciclib was well tolerated, with fewer grade ≥3 adverse events compared with placebo, primarily due to less high-grade haematological toxicity. Antitumour efficacy outcomes were comparable. Administration of trilaciclib vs placebo generated more newly expanded peripheral T-cell clones (P = .019), with significantly greater expansion among patients with an antitumour response to E/P/A (P = .002). Compared with placebo, trilaciclib administered prior to E/P/A improved patients' experience of receiving treatment for ES-SCLC, as shown by reduced myelosuppression, and improved HRQoL and safety profiles.

Overall Survival with Durvalumab after Chemoradiotherapy in Stage III NSCLC.

BACKGROUND: An earlier analysis in this phase 3 trial showed that durvalumab significantly prolonged progression-free survival, as compared with placebo, among patients with stage III, unresectable non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who did not have disease progression after concurrent chemoradiotherapy. Here we report the results for the second primary end point of overall survival. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients, in a 2:1 ratio, to receive durvalumab intravenously, at a dose of 10 mg per kilogram of body weight, or matching placebo every 2 weeks for up to 12 months. Randomization occurred 1 to 42 days after the patients had received chemoradiotherapy and was stratified according to age, sex, and smoking history. The primary end points were progression-free survival (as assessed by blinded independent central review) and overall survival. Secondary end points included the time to death or distant metastasis, the time to second progression, and safety. RESULTS: Of the 713 patients who underwent randomization, 709 received the assigned intervention (473 patients received durvalumab and 236 received placebo). As of March 22, 2018, the median follow-up was 25.2 months. The 24-month overall survival rate was 66.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 61.7 to 70.4) in the durvalumab group, as compared with 55.6% (95% CI, 48.9 to 61.8) in the placebo group (two-sided P=0.005). Durvalumab significantly prolonged overall survival, as compared with placebo (stratified hazard ratio for death, 0.68; 99.73% CI, 0.47 to 0.997; P=0.0025). Updated analyses regarding progression-free survival were similar to those previously reported, with a median duration of 17.2 months in the durvalumab group and 5.6 months in the placebo group (stratified hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.63). The median time to death or distant metastasis was 28.3 months in the durvalumab group and 16.2 months in the placebo group (stratified hazard ratio, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.68). A total of 30.5% of the patients in the durvalumab group and 26.1% of those in the placebo group had grade 3 or 4 adverse events of any cause; 15.4% and 9.8% of the patients, respectively, discontinued the trial regimen because of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Durvalumab therapy resulted in significantly longer overall survival than placebo. No new safety signals were identified. (Funded by AstraZeneca; PACIFIC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02125461 .).

Patient-reported outcomes with durvalumab by PD-L1 expression and prior chemoradiotherapy-related variables in unresectable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer.

Aim: We retrospectively investigated the impact of tumor PD-L1 expression and prior chemoradiotherapy (CRT)-related variables on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from PACIFIC. Patients & methods: PACIFIC was a Phase III study of durvalumab versus placebo after CRT in patients with unresectable, stage III non-small-cell lung cancer. If available, pre-CRT tumor tissue was tested for PD-L1 tumor-cell expression, scored at prespecified (25%) and post-hoc (1%) cut-offs. PROs were assessed using EORTC QLQ C30/-LC13. Results: Similar to the intent-to-treat (ITT) population, most PROs remained stable over time across PD-L1 and CRT subgroups, with few clinically relevant differences between treatment arms. Time to deterioration was generally similar to the ITT population. Conclusion: Neither PD-L1 expression nor prior CRT-related variables influenced PROs with durvalumab therapy. Clinical trial registration: NCT02125461 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Durvalumab after Chemoradiotherapy in Stage III Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Most patients with locally advanced, unresectable, non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have disease progression despite definitive chemoradiotherapy (chemotherapy plus concurrent radiation therapy). This phase 3 study compared the anti-programmed death ligand 1 antibody durvalumab as consolidation therapy with placebo in patients with stage III NSCLC who did not have disease progression after two or more cycles of platinum-based chemoradiotherapy. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients, in a 2:1 ratio, to receive durvalumab (at a dose of 10 mg per kilogram of body weight intravenously) or placebo every 2 weeks for up to 12 months. The study drug was administered 1 to 42 days after the patients had received chemoradiotherapy. The coprimary end points were progression-free survival (as assessed by means of blinded independent central review) and overall survival (unplanned for the interim analysis). Secondary end points included 12-month and 18-month progression-free survival rates, the objective response rate, the duration of response, the time to death or distant metastasis, and safety. RESULTS: Of 713 patients who underwent randomization, 709 received consolidation therapy (473 received durvalumab and 236 received placebo). The median progression-free survival from randomization was 16.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 13.0 to 18.1) with durvalumab versus 5.6 months (95% CI, 4.6 to 7.8) with placebo (stratified hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.65; P<0.001); the 12-month progression-free survival rate was 55.9% versus 35.3%, and the 18-month progression-free survival rate was 44.2% versus 27.0%. The response rate was higher with durvalumab than with placebo (28.4% vs. 16.0%; P<0.001), and the median duration of response was longer (72.8% vs. 46.8% of the patients had an ongoing response at 18 months). The median time to death or distant metastasis was longer with durvalumab than with placebo (23.2 months vs. 14.6 months; P<0.001). Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 29.9% of the patients who received durvalumab and 26.1% of those who received placebo; the most common adverse event of grade 3 or 4 was pneumonia (4.4% and 3.8%, respectively). A total of 15.4% of patients in the durvalumab group and 9.8% of those in the placebo group discontinued the study drug because of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Progression-free survival was significantly longer with durvalumab than with placebo. The secondary end points also favored durvalumab, and safety was similar between the groups. (Funded by AstraZeneca; PACIFIC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02125461 .).

Patient-reported outcomes with durvalumab after chemoradiotherapy in stage III, unresectable non-small-cell lung cancer (PACIFIC): a randomised, controlled, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: In the ongoing, phase 3 PACIFIC trial, durvalumab improved the primary endpoints of progression-free survival and overall survival compared with that for placebo, with similar safety, in patients with unresectable, stage III non-small-cell lung cancer. In this analysis, we aimed to evaluate one of the secondary endpoints, patient-reported outcomes (PROs). METHODS: PACIFIC is an ongoing, international, multicentre, double-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial. Eligible patients were aged at least 18 years, had a WHO performance status of 0 or 1, with histologically or cytologically documented stage III, unresectable non-small-cell lung cancer, for which they had received at least two cycles of platinum-based chemoradiotherapy, with no disease progression after this treatment. We randomly assigned patients (2:1) using an interactive voice response system and a blocked design (block size=3) stratified by age, sex, and smoking history to receive 10 mg/kg intravenous durvalumab or matching placebo 1-42 days after concurrent chemoradiotherapy, then every 2 weeks up to 12 months. The primary endpoints of progression-free survival and overall survival have been reported previously. PROs were a prespecified secondary outcome. We assessed PRO symptoms, functioning, and global health status or quality of life in the intention-to-treat population with the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (QLQ-C30) version 3 and its lung cancer module, the Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lung Cancer 13 (QLQ-LC13) at the time of random allocation to groups, at weeks 4 and 8, every 8 weeks until week 48, and then every 12 weeks until progression. Changes from baseline to 12 month in key symptoms were analysed with mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) and time-to-event analyses. A 10-point or greater change from baseline (deterioration or improvement) was deemed clinically relevant. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02125461, and EudraCT, 2014-000336-42. FINDINGS: Between May 9, 2014, and April 22, 2016, 476 patients were assigned to receive durvalumab, and 237 patients were assigned to receive placebo. As of March 22, 2018, the median follow-up was 25·2 months (IQR 14·1-29·5). More than 79% of patients given durvalumab and more than 82% of patients given placebo completed questionnaires up to week 48. Between baseline and 12 months, the prespecified longitudinal PROs of interest, cough (MMRM-adjusted mean change 1·8 [95% CI 0·06 to 3·54] in the durvalumab group vs 0·7 [-1·91 to 3·30] in the placebo group), dyspnoea (3·1 [1·75 to 4·36] vs 1·4 [-0·51 to 3·34]), chest pain (-3·1 [-4·57 to -1·60] vs -3·5 [-5·68 to -1·29]), fatigue (-3·0 [-4·53 to -1·50] vs -5·2 [-7·45 to -2·98]), appetite loss (-5·8 [-7·28 to -4·36] vs -7·0 [-9·17 to -4·87]), physical functioning (0·1 [-1·10 to 1·28] vs 2·0 [0·22 to 3·73]), and global health status or quality of life (2·6 [1·21 to 3·94] vs 1·8 [-0·25 to 3·81]) remained stable with both treatments, with no clinically relevant changes from baseline. The between-group differences in changes from baseline to 12 months in cough (difference in adjusted mean changes 1·1, 95% CI -1·89 to 4·11), dyspnoea (1·6, -0·58 to 3·87), chest pain (0·4, -2·13 to 2·93), fatigue (2·2, -0·38 to 4·78), appetite loss (1·2, -1·27 to 3·67), physical functioning (-1·9, -3·91 to 0·15), or global health status or quality of life (0·8, -1·55 to 3·14) were not clinically relevant. Generally, there were no clinically important between-group differences in time to deterioration of prespecified key PRO endpoints. INTERPRETATION: Our findings suggest that a clinical benefit with durvalumab can be attained without compromising PROs. This result is of note because the previous standard of care was observation alone, with no presumed detriment to PROs. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

Atezolizumab in combination with carboplatin plus nab-paclitaxel chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone as first-line treatment for metastatic non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (IMpower130): a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Atezolizumab (a monoclonal antibody against PD-L1), which restores anticancer immunity, improved overall survival in patients with previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer and also showed clinical benefit when combined with chemotherapy as first-line treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer. IMpower130 aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone as first-line therapy for non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer. METHODS: IMpower130 was a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 study done in 131 centres across eight countries (the USA, Canada, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and Israel). Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, and had histologically or cytologically confirmed stage IV non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and received no previous chemotherapy for stage IV disease. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1; permuted block [block size of six] with an interactive voice or web response system) to receive atezolizumab (1200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks) plus chemotherapy (carboplatin [area under the curve 6 mg/mL per min every 3 weeks] plus nab-paclitaxel [100 mg/m2 intravenously every week]) or chemotherapy alone for four or six 21-day cycles followed by maintenance therapy. Stratification factors were sex, baseline liver metastases, and PD-L1 tumour expression. Co-primary endpoints were investigator-assessed progression-free survival and overall survival in the intention-to-treat wild-type (ie, EGFRwt and ALKwt) population. The safety population included patients who received at least one dose of the study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02367781. FINDINGS: Between April 16, 2015, and Feb 13, 2017, 724 patients were randomly assigned and 723 were included in the intention-to-treat population (one patient died before randomisation, but was assigned to a treatment group; this patient was excluded from the intention-to-treat population) of the atezolizumab plus chemotherapy group (483 patients in the intention-to-treat population and 451 patients in the intention-to-treat wild-type population) or the chemotherapy group (240 patients in the intention-to-treat population and 228 patients in the intention-to-treat wild-type population). Median follow-up in the intention-to-treat wild-type population was similar between groups (18·5 months [IQR 15·2-23·6] in the atezolizumab plus chemotherapy group and 19·2 months [15·4-23·0] in the chemotherapy group). In the intention-to-treat wild-type population, there were significant improvements in median overall survival (18·6 months [95% CI 16·0-21·2] in the atezolizumab plus chemotherapy group and 13·9 months [12·0-18·7] in the chemotherapy group; stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0·79 [95% CI 0·64-0·98]; p=0·033) and median progression-free survival (7·0 months [95% CI 6·2-7·3] in the atezolizumab plus chemotherapy group and 5·5 months [4·4-5·9] in the chemotherapy group; stratified HR 0·64 [95% CI 0·54-0·77]; p<0·0001]). The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events were neutropenia (152 [32%] of 473 in the atezolizumab plus chemotherapy group vs 65 [28%] of 232 in the chemotherapy group), anaemia (138 [29%] vs 47 [20%]), and decreased neutrophil count (57 [12%] vs 19 [8%]). Treatment-related serious adverse events were reported in 112 (24%) of 473 patients in the atezolizumab plus chemotherapy group and 30 (13%) of 232 patients in the chemotherapy group. Treatment-related (any treatment) deaths occurred in eight (2%) of 473 patients in the atezolizumab plus chemotherapy group and one (<1%) of 232 patients in the chemotherapy group. INTERPRETATION: IMpower130 showed a significant and clinically meaningful improvement in overall survival and a significant improvement in progression-free survival with atezolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy as first-line treatment of patients with stage IV non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer and no ALK or EGFR mutations. No new safety signals were identified. This study supports the benefit of atezolizumab, in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy, as first-line treatment of metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. FUNDING: F. Hoffmann-La Roche.

Phase II Study of Bendamustine and Ofatumumab in Elderly Patients with Newly Diagnosed Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma Who Are Poor Candidates for R-CHOP Chemotherapy.

LESSONS LEARNED: The combination of ofatumumab and bendamustine in elderly patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma demonstrated modest efficacy compared with standard of care.The poor response may have been due to patient age and the high rate of treatment discontinuation. BACKGROUND: This phase II trial evaluated the efficacy of bendamustine and ofatumumab in elderly patients with newly diagnosed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) who were not candidates for rituximab cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP). METHODS: Patients received IV 90 mg/m2 bendamustine on days 1 and 2 of cycles 1 through 6 and IV 1,000 mg ofatumumab on days 1 and 8 of cycle 1 and on day 1 of cycles 2 through 6. Both drugs were administered at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved dose for combination therapy. All patients received premedications before each infusion of ofatumumab and hematopoietic growth factors. Treatment was administered in 21-day cycles, with restaging after cycle 3 and cycle 6. The primary endpoint was complete response rate (CRR). RESULTS: Twelve of 21 enrolled patients completed treatment; median age was 83 years. The most common reasons for treatment discontinuation were disease progression (three patients), intercurrent illness (two patients), and death (one patient due to drug-related sepsis and bowel necrosis and one patient due to unknown cause). Thrombocytopenia (14%), neutropenia (10%), diarrhea (10%), vomiting (10%), and dehydration (10%) were the most common grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events. The overall response rate was 90.5% and the CRR was 33.3%. Median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 8.6 and 12.0 months, respectively. CONCLUSION: The combination of ofatumumab and bendamustine is feasible in elderly patients with DLBCL.

Erlotinib plus either pazopanib or placebo in patients with previously treated advanced non-small cell lung cancer: A randomized, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial with correlated serum proteomic signatures.

BACKGROUND: This study compared the efficacy and safety of treatment with erlotinib plus pazopanib versus erlotinib plus placebo in patients with previously treated advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: Patients with progressive-stage IV NSCLC after either 1 or 2 previous chemotherapy regimens were randomized to receive erlotinib (150 mg by mouth daily) with either pazopanib (600 mg by mouth daily) or placebo. During treatment, patients were evaluated every 8 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. After a study amendment, pretreatment serum specimens for the VeriStrat assay were collected. The predictive value of the VeriStrat score (good vs poor) for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) was assessed in the overall population and in each treatment group. RESULTS: One hundred ninety-two eligible patients were randomized between February 2010 and February 2011. PFS was prolonged with erlotinib plus pazopanib versus erlotinib plus placebo (median, 2.6 vs 1.8 months; hazard ratio, 0.58; P = .001). There was no difference in the OS of the 2 groups. A good VeriStrat score predicted longer PFS and OS in the entire group and predicted longer PFS in the subgroup receiving erlotinib plus pazopanib. The addition of pazopanib increased toxicity, and this was consistent with the known toxicity profile. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of pazopanib to erlotinib in an unselected group of patients with previously treated NSCLC improved PFS and increased treatment-related toxicity, but it had no influence on OS. The efficacy of both regimens was modest. Patients receiving erlotinib plus pazopanib had longer PFS if they had a good VeriStrat score versus a poor one. Cancer 2018;124:2355-64. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

Symptomatic Pneumonitis With Durvalumab After Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy in Unresectable Stage III NSCLC.

Introduction: In the placebo-controlled, phase 3 PACIFIC trial, durvalumab significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) (p < 0.0001) and overall survival (OS) (p = 0.00251) in patients with unresectable stage III NSCLC and no progression after platinum-based concurrent chemoradiotherapy (cCRT). Pneumonitis or radiation pneumonitis (PRP) was common in both arms. We report exploratory analyses evaluating the association of symptomatic (grade ≥2) PRP (G2+PRP) with baseline factors and clinical outcomes. Methods: Patients with WHO performance status of 0 or 1 were randomized (2:1) to 12 months of durvalumab or placebo, 1 to 42 days after cCRT. Associations between baseline factors and on-study G2+PRP in durvalumab-treated patients were investigated using univariate and multivariate logistic regression. PFS and OS were analyzed using Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for time-dependent G2+PRP plus covariates for randomization stratification factors without and with additional baseline factors. Results: On-study G2+PRP occurred in 94 of 475 (19.8%) and 33 of 234 patients (14.1%) on durvalumab and placebo, respectively (median follow-up, 25.2 mo); grade greater than or equal to 3 PRP was uncommon (4.6% and 4.7%, respectively). Time to onset and resolution of G2+PRP was similar with durvalumab and placebo. Univariate and multivariate analyses identified patients treated in Asia, those with stage IIIA disease, those with performance status of 1, and those who had not received induction chemotherapy as having a higher risk of G2+PRP. PFS and OS benefit favoring durvalumab versus placebo was maintained regardless of time-dependent G2+PRP. Conclusions: Factors associated with higher risk of G2+PRP with durvalumab after cCRT were identified. Clinical benefit was maintained regardless of on-study G2+PRP, suggesting the risk of this event should not deter the use of durvalumab in eligible patients with unresectable stage III NSCLC.

Racial and Ethnic Inequities at the Practice and Physician Levels in Timely Next-Generation Sequencing for Patients With Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Treated in the US Community Setting.

PURPOSE: Racial/ethnic inequities in next-generation sequencing (NGS) were examined for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) at the practice and physician levels to inform policies to improve equitable quality of care. METHODS: This retrospective study used a nationwide electronic health record-derived deidentified database for patients with aNSCLC diagnosed between April 2018 and March 2022 in the community setting. Timely NGS was an NGS result between initial diagnosis and ≤60 days after advanced diagnosis. We studied how inequities were driven by (1) non-Latinx Black (Black) and Latinx patient under-representation at high testing practices versus (2) Black and Latinx patients being tested at lower rates than non-Latinx White (White) patients, even at the same practice. We defined these two concepts as across inequity and within inequity, respectively, with total inequity as their summation. Mean percentage point inequities were estimated using a Bayesian approach. RESULTS: A total of 12,045 patients (9,981 White; 1,528 Black; 536 Latinx) met study criteria. At the practice level, versus White patients, the mean percentage point difference in NGS testing total inequity was 7.49 for Black and 8.26 for Latinx. Within- and across-practice inequities contributed to total inequity in NGS testing for Black (48% v 52%) and Latinx patients (60% v 40%). At the physician level, versus White patients, the mean percentage point difference in total inequity was 7.73 for Black and 8.81 for Latinx patients. Within- versus across-physician inequities contributed to total inequity for Black and Latinx patients (77% v 23% and 67% v 33%). CONCLUSION: Within-practice, across-practice, and across-physician inequities were main contributors to total inequity in NGS testing, requiring a suite of interventions to effectively address inequities.

Neoadjuvant Durvalumab Alone or Combined with Novel Immuno-Oncology Agents in Resectable Lung Cancer: The Phase II NeoCOAST Platform Trial.

Neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy improves pathologic complete response rate and event-free survival in patients with resectable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) versus chemotherapy alone. NeoCOAST was the first randomized, multidrug platform trial to examine novel neoadjuvant immuno-oncology combinations for patients with resectable NSCLC, using major pathologic response (MPR) rate as the primary endpoint. Eighty-three patients received a single cycle of treatment: 26 received durvalumab (anti-PD-L1) monotherapy, 21 received durvalumab plus oleclumab (anti-CD73), 20 received durvalumab plus monalizumab (anti-NKG2A), and 16 received durvalumab plus danvatirsen (anti-STAT3 antisense oligonucleotide). MPR rates were higher for patients in the combination arms versus durvalumab alone. Safety profiles for the combinations were similar to those of durvalumab alone. Multiplatform immune profiling suggested that improved MPR rates in the durvalumab plus oleclumab and durvalumab plus monalizumab arms were associated with enhanced effector immune infiltration of tumors, interferon responses and markers of tertiary lymphoid structure formation, and systemic functional immune cell activation. SIGNIFICANCE: A neoadjuvant platform trial can rapidly generate clinical and translational data using candidate surrogate endpoints like MPR. In NeoCOAST, patients with resectable NSCLC had improved MPR rates after durvalumab plus oleclumab or monalizumab versus durvalumab alone and tumoral transcriptomic signatures indicative of augmented immune cell activation and function. See related commentary by Cooper and Yu, p. 2306. This article is featured in Selected Articles from This Issue, p. 2293.

A Phase II Study Evaluating Orteronel, an Inhibitor of Androgen Biosynthesis, in Patients With Androgen Receptor (AR)-Expressing Metastatic Breast Cancer (MBC).

BACKGROUND: AR is a targetable pathway with AR modulation inhibiting estrogen- and androgen-mediated cell proliferation. Orteronel is an oral, selective, nonsteroidal inhibitor of 17, 20-lyase, a key enzyme in androgen biosynthesis. This study evaluated single-agent orteronel in AR+ metastatic breast cancer (MBC). METHODS: Male/female patients with AR+ MBC were grouped in Cohort 1: AR+ TNBC with l-3 prior chemotherapy regimens or Cohort 2: AR+ HR+ (estrogen [ER+]/ progesterone receptor [PR+] positive) HER2+/- with 1 to 3 prior hormonal and at least 1 prior chemotherapy regimen. Patients with HER2+ MBC must have received at least 2 lines of HER2-targeted therapy. Orteronel was administered at 300 mg BID; response rate was the primary endpoint. RESULTS: Seventy patients were enrolled (Cohort 1, n = 26 and Cohort 2, n = 44). Median treatment duration was 7.1 weeks. Seven patients were on treatment for ≥6 months. One of the 21 evaluated patients in Cohort 1 (4.8%) had an objective response. In Cohort 2, none of the first 23 patients to be evaluated had a response and accrual was stopped. Median progression-free and overall survival were 1.8 and 8.3 months, respectively. Toxicities were predominantly Grade 1 or 2 nausea/vomiting (36%) and fatigue (31%). Grade 3 or 4 events in ≥5% of patients included increased amylase/lipase (10%) and hypertension (6%). CONCLUSIONS: Orteronel demonstrated limited clinical activity in heavily pre-treated AR+ MBC. Further development of orteronel in MBC is not recommended. Further efforts to validate the AR as a therapeutic target should focus on identifying new markers predictive of sensitivity to AR-targeted agents.

Complementary Roles for Tissue- and Blood-Based Comprehensive Genomic Profiling for Detection of Actionable Driver Alterations in Advanced NSCLC.

Introduction: Whereas tumor biopsy is the reference standard for genomic profiling of advanced NSCLC, there are now multiple assays approved by the Food and Drug Administration for liquid biopsy testing of circulating tumor DNA. Here, we study the incremental value that liquid biopsy comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) adds to tissue molecular testing. Methods: Patients with metastatic NSCLC were enrolled in a prospective diagnostic study to receive circulating tumor DNA CGP; tissue CGP was optional in addition to their standard tissue testing. Focusing on nine genes listed per the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines, liquid CGP was compared with available tissue testing results across three subcohorts: tissue CGP, standard-of-care testing of up to five biomarkers, or no tissue testing. Results: A total of 515 patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC received liquid CGP. Among 131 with tissue CGP results, NCCN biomarkers were detected in 86 (66%) with tissue CGP and 56 (43%) with liquid CGP (p < 0.001). Adding liquid CGP to tissue CGP detected no additional patients with NCCN biomarkers, whereas tissue CGP detected NCCN biomarkers in 30 patients (23%) missed by liquid CGP. Studying 264 patients receiving tissue testing of up to five genes, 102 (39%) had NCCN biomarkers detected in tissue, with an additional 48 (18%) detected using liquid CGP, including 18 with RET, MET, or ERBB2 drivers not studied in tissue. Conclusions: For the detection of patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC harboring 9 NCCN biomarkers, liquid CGP increases detection in patients with limited tissue results, but does not increase detection in patients with tissue CGP results available. In contrast, tissue CGP can add meaningfully to liquid CGP for detection of NCCN biomarkers and should be considered as a follow-up when an oncogenic driver is not identified by liquid biopsy.

Clinical Outcomes for Plasma-Based Comprehensive Genomic Profiling Versus Standard-of-Care Tissue Testing in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Somatic genomic testing is recommended by numerous expert guidelines to inform targeted therapy treatment for patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC). The NILE study was a prospective observational study that demonstrated noninferiority of cell-free circulating tumor DNA (cfDNA)-based tumor genotyping compared to tissue-based genotyping to find targetable genomic alterations in patients with newly diagnosed nonsquamous aNSCLC. As the cohort has matured, clinical outcomes data can now be analyzed. METHODS: This prospective, multicenter North American study enrolled patients with previously untreated nonsquamous aNSCLC who had standard of care (SOC) tissue genotyping performed and concurrent comprehensive cfDNA analysis (Guardant360). Patients with targetable genomic alterations, as defined by NCCN guidelines, who were treated with physician's choice of therapy had objective response rates, disease control rate, and time to treatment collected and compared to published outcomes. RESULTS: Among 282 patients, 89 (31.6%) had an actionable biomarker, as defined by NCCN, detected by tissue (21.3%) and/or cfDNA (27.3%) analysis. Sixty-one (68.5%) of these were treated with an FDA-approved targeted therapy guided by somatic genotyping results (EGFR, ALK, ROS1). Thirty-three patients were eligible for clinical response evaluation and demonstrated an objective response rate of 58% and disease control rate of 94%. Twenty-five (76%) and 17 (52%) achieved a durable response > 6 months and 12 months, respectively. The time to treatment (TtT) was significantly faster for cfDNA-informed biomarker detection as compared to tissue genotyping (18 vs. 31 days, respectively; P = .0008). CONCLUSIONS: cfDNA detects guideline-recommended biomarkers at a rate similar to tissue genotyping, and therapeutic outcomes based on plasma-based comprehensive genomic profiling are comparable to published targeted therapy outcomes with tissue profiling, even in community-based centers.

Durvalumab After Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy in Elderly Patients With Unresectable Stage III Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer (PACIFIC).

BACKGROUND: The PACIFIC trial demonstrated that consolidation durvalumab significantly improved PFS and OS (the primary endpoints) vs. placebo in patients with unresectable, stage III NSCLC whose disease had not progressed after platinum-based, concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CRT). We report exploratory analyses of outcomes from PACIFIC by age. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized 2:1 (1-42 days post-CRT) to receive 12-months' durvalumab (10 mg/kg intravenously every-2-weeks) or placebo. We analyzed PFS and OS (unstratified Cox-proportional-hazards models), safety and patient-reported outcomes (PROs: symptoms, functioning, and global-health-status/quality-of-life) in subgroups defined by a post-hoc 70-year age threshold. Data cut-off for PFS was February 13, 2017 and for OS, safety and PROs was March 22, 2018. RESULTS: Overall, 158 of 713 (22.2%) and 555 of 713 (77.8%) randomized patients were aged ≥70 and <70 years, respectively. Durvalumab improved PFS and OS among patients aged ≥70 (PFS: hazard ratio [HR], 0.62 [95% CI, 0.41-0.95]; OS: HR, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.50-1.22]) and <70 (PFS: HR, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.42-0.67]; OS: HR, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.51-0.87]), although the estimated HR-95% CI for OS crossed one among patients aged ≥70. Durvalumab exhibited a manageable safety profile and did not detrimentally affect PROs vs. placebo, regardless of age; grade 3/4 (41.6% vs. 25.5%) and serious adverse events (42.6% vs. 25.5%) were more common with durvalumab vs. placebo among patients aged ≥70. CONCLUSION: Durvalumab was associated with treatment benefit, manageable safety, and no detrimental impact on PROs, irrespective of age, suggesting that elderly patients with unresectable, stage III NSCLC benefit from treatment with consolidation durvalumab after CRT. However, small subgroup sizes and imbalances in baseline factors prevent robust conclusions.

Effects of Trilaciclib on Chemotherapy-Induced Myelosuppression and Patient-Reported Outcomes in Patients with Extensive-Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer: Pooled Results from Three Phase II Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Studies.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression (CIM) and its sequalae cause significant side effects and harm to quality of life. Trilaciclib is an intravenous CDK4/6 inhibitor that is administered prior to chemotherapy to protect hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells from chemotherapy-induced damage (myeloprotection). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data from three randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies (NCT02499770, NCT03041311, and NCT02514447) were pooled to evaluate the effects of trilaciclib administered prior to standard-of-care chemotherapy (first-line etoposide plus carboplatin [E/P], first-line E/P plus atezolizumab, and second-/third-line topotecan) in patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). The primary endpoints were duration of severe neutropenia (absolute neutrophil count < 0.5 × 109 cells/L) in cycle 1 and occurrence of severe neutropenia. Additional prespecified endpoints further assessed the effect of trilaciclib on myeloprotection, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), antitumor efficacy, and safety. RESULTS: Of 242 randomized patients, 123 received trilaciclib and 119 received placebo. Compared with placebo, administration of trilaciclib prior to chemotherapy resulted in significant decreases in most measures of multilineage CIM. The reduction in hematologic toxicity translated into the reduced need for supportive care interventions and hospitalizations due to CIM or sepsis and improvements in HRQoL domains related to the protected cell lineages, including fatigue, physical wellbeing, and functional wellbeing. Antitumor efficacy was similar for patients receiving trilaciclib or placebo. CONCLUSION: Administering trilaciclib prior to chemotherapy resulted in clinically meaningful reductions in CIM and its consequences and improved patient HRQoL, with no impact on the antitumor efficacy of three individual chemotherapy regimens used in the first- or second-/third-line treatment of ES-SCLC.

Impact of prior chemoradiotherapy-related variables on outcomes with durvalumab in unresectable Stage III NSCLC (PACIFIC).

INTRODUCTION: The PACIFIC trial demonstrated that durvalumab significantly improved progression-free and overall survival (PFS/OS), versus placebo, in patients with Stage III NSCLC and stable or responding disease following concurrent, platinum-based chemoradiotherapy (CRT). A range of CT and RT regimens were permitted, and used, in the trial. We report post-hoc, exploratory analyses of clinical outcomes from PACIFIC according to CRT-related variables. METHODS: Patients were randomized 2:1 (1-42 days post-CRT) to up to 12 months durvalumab (10 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks) or placebo. Efficacy and safety were analyzed in patient subgroups defined by the following baseline variables: platinum-based CT (cisplatin/carboplatin); vinorelbine, etoposide, or taxane-based CT (all yes/no); total RT dose (<60 Gy/60-66 Gy/>66 Gy); time from last RT dose to randomization (<14 days/≥14 days); and use of pre-CRT induction CT (yes/no). Treatment effects for time-to-event endpoints were estimated by hazard ratios (HRs) from unstratified Cox-proportional-hazards models. RESULTS: Overall, 713 patients were randomized, of whom 709 received treatment in either the durvalumab (n/N = 473/476) or placebo arms (n/N = 236/237). Durvalumab improved PFS, versus placebo, across all subgroups (median follow up, 14.5 months; HR range, 0.34-0.63). Durvalumab improved OS across most subgroups (median follow up, 25.2 months; HR range, 0.35-0.86); however, the 95 % confidence interval (CI) of the estimated treatment effect crossed one for the subgroups of patients who received induction CT (HR, 0.78 [95 % CI, 0.51-1.20]); carboplatin (0.86 [0.60-1.23]); vinorelbine (0.79 [0.49-1.27]); and taxane-based CT (0.73 [0.51-1.04]); and patients who were randomized ≥14 days post-RT (0.81 [0.62-1.06]). Safety was broadly similar across the CRT subgroups. CONCLUSION: Durvalumab prolonged PFS and OS irrespective of treatment variables related to prior CRT to which patients with Stage III NSCLC had previously stabilized or responded. Limited patient numbers and imbalances in baseline factors in each subgroup preclude robust conclusions.

Nanoparticle Albumin-bound Paclitaxel Plus Carboplatin Induction Followed by Nanoparticle Albumin-bound Paclitaxel Maintenance in Squamous Non-Small-cell Lung Cancer (ABOUND.sqm): A Phase III Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated maintenance nanoparticle albumin-bound (nab) paclitaxel in the treatment of advanced squamous non-small-cell lung cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with treatment-naive squamous non-small-cell lung cancer received four 21-day cycles of nab-paclitaxel 100 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, 15 plus carboplatin area under the curve 6 on day 1 as induction therapy. Patients without disease progression after induction were randomized 2:1 to maintenance nab-paclitaxel 100 mg/m2 (days 1 and 8 every 21 days) plus best supportive care (BSC) or BSC alone. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included safety and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Overall, 420 patients had received induction therapy; 202 (nab-paclitaxel plus BSC, 136; BSC, 66) had received maintenance therapy. Enrollment was discontinued after a preplanned interim futility analysis (patients could remain in the study at the investigator's discretion). The median PFS was 3.12 months for nab-paclitaxel plus BSC and 2.60 months for BSC; the difference was not statistically significant (hazard ratio [HR], 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61-1.19; P = .36). The median OS (median follow-up, 24.2 months) was 17.18 months for nab-paclitaxel plus BSC and 12.16 months for BSC (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.48-1.02; nominal P = .07). An updated analysis (median follow-up, 28.4 months) revealed a median OS of 17.61 months for nab-paclitaxel plus BSC and 12.16 months for BSC (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.47-0.98; nominal P = .037). The most frequent grade 3 and 4 treatment-emergent adverse events for the entire study were neutropenia (53.1% [nab-paclitaxel plus BSC] vs. 50.0% [BSC]) and anemia (33.1% [nab-paclitaxel plus BSC] vs. 32.3% [BSC]). Only peripheral neuropathy had occurred in ≥ 5% of patients during maintenance therapy (13.1%; nab-paclitaxel plus BSC). CONCLUSIONS: The results of the ABOUND.sqm did not meet the primary endpoint of PFS. An updated OS analysis revealed a trend favoring nab-paclitaxel plus BSC.