Challenges associated with the integration of immuno-oncology agents in clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: The availability of new immuno-oncology therapeutics markedly impacts oncology clinicians' treatment decision-making. To effectively support healthcare professionals (HCPs) in their practice, it is important to better understand the challenges and barriers that can accompany the introduction of these agents. This study aimed to establish the types and causes of clinical challenges posed by the introduction of new immuno-oncology agents. METHODS: The mixed-methods design included qualitative in-depth interviews and group discussions with HCPs, in which participants discussed clinical challenges and potential underlying reasons for these challenges. Qualitative findings informed a quantitative survey. This survey investigated the extent and distribution of challenges using HCPs' self-rating of knowledge, skill, confidence, and exposure to system-level effects. These two phases were conducted sequentially with distinctly stratified samples of oncologists, nurse practitioners (NPs), physician assistants (PAs), pathologists, clinical pharmacists, interventional radiologists, rheumatologists, pulmonologists, and emergency department physicians. Participants were from the United States and had various levels of clinical experience and represented both academic and community-based settings. RESULTS: The final sample included 107 HCPs in the qualitative phase and 554 in the quantitative phase. Analyses revealed clinical challenges related to the use of pharmacodiagnostics. For example, 47% of pathologists and 42% of oncologists reported skill gaps in identifying the appropriate marker and 46% of oncologists, 61% of PAs, 66% of NPs, 74% of pulmonologists and 81% of clinical pharmacists reported skill gaps in selecting treatment based on test results. Challenges also emerged regarding the integration of immuno-oncology agents, as oncologists, rheumatologists, pulmonologists, clinical pharmacists, PAs, and NPs reported knowledge gaps (74-81%) of the safety profiles of recently approved agents. In addition, 90% of clinical pharmacists reported skill gaps weighing the risks and benefits of treating patients with immuno-oncology agents while affected by lupus. Finally, patient communication challenges were identified: HCPs reported difficulties discussing essential aspects of immunotherapy to patients as well as how they might compare to other types of therapies. CONCLUSION: The challenges highlighted in this study reveal substantial educational gaps related to the integration of immuno-oncology agents into practice for various groups of HCPs. These findings provide a strong base of evidence for future educational initiatives.

Nivolumab versus Docetaxel in Advanced Nonsquamous Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab, a fully human IgG4 programmed death 1 (PD-1) immune-checkpoint-inhibitor antibody, disrupts PD-1-mediated signaling and may restore antitumor immunity. METHODS: In this randomized, open-label, international phase 3 study, we assigned patients with nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) that had progressed during or after platinum-based doublet chemotherapy to receive nivolumab at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram of body weight every 2 weeks or docetaxel at a dose of 75 mg per square meter of body-surface area every 3 weeks. The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS: Overall survival was longer with nivolumab than with docetaxel. The median overall survival was 12.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 9.7 to 15.0) among 292 patients in the nivolumab group and 9.4 months (95% CI, 8.1 to 10.7) among 290 patients in the docetaxel group (hazard ratio for death, 0.73; 96% CI, 0.59 to 0.89; P=0.002). At 1 year, the overall survival rate was 51% (95% CI, 45 to 56) with nivolumab versus 39% (95% CI, 33 to 45) with docetaxel. With additional follow-up, the overall survival rate at 18 months was 39% (95% CI, 34 to 45) with nivolumab versus 23% (95% CI, 19 to 28) with docetaxel. The response rate was 19% with nivolumab versus 12% with docetaxel (P=0.02). Although progression-free survival did not favor nivolumab over docetaxel (median, 2.3 months and 4.2 months, respectively), the rate of progression-free survival at 1 year was higher with nivolumab than with docetaxel (19% and 8%, respectively). Nivolumab was associated with even greater efficacy than docetaxel across all end points in subgroups defined according to prespecified levels of tumor-membrane expression (≥1%, ≥5%, and ≥10%) of the PD-1 ligand. Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or 4 were reported in 10% of the patients in the nivolumab group, as compared with 54% of those in the docetaxel group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC that had progressed during or after platinum-based chemotherapy, overall survival was longer with nivolumab than with docetaxel. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb; CheckMate 057 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01673867.).

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab as first-line treatment for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (CheckMate 012): results of an open-label, phase 1, multicohort study.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab has shown improved survival in the treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) previously treated with chemotherapy. We assessed the safety and activity of combination nivolumab plus ipilimumab as first-line therapy for NSCLC. METHODS: The open-label, phase 1, multicohort study (CheckMate 012) cohorts reported here were enrolled at eight US academic centres. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with histologically or cytologically confirmed recurrent stage IIIb or stage IV, chemotherapy-naive NSCLC. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) by an interactive voice response system to receive nivolumab 1 mg/kg every 2 weeks plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 6 weeks, nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 12 weeks, or nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 6 weeks until disease progression, unacceptable toxicities, or withdrawal of consent. Data from the latter two cohorts, which were considered potentially suitable for further clinical development, are presented in this report; data from the other cohort (as well as several earlier cohorts) are described in the appendix. The primary outcome was safety and tolerability, assessed in all treated patients. This ongoing study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01454102. FINDINGS: Between May 15, 2014, and March 25, 2015, 78 patients were randomly assigned to receive nivolumab every 2 weeks plus ipilimumab every 12 weeks (n=38) or nivolumab every 2 weeks plus ipilimumab every 6 weeks (n=40). One patient in the ipilimumab every-6-weeks cohort was excluded before treatment; therefore 77 patients actually received treatment (38 in the ipilimumab every-12-weeks cohort; 39 in the ipilimumab every-6-weeks cohort). At data cut-off on Jan 7, 2016, 29 (76%) patients in the ipilimumab every-12-weeks cohort and 32 (82%) in the ipilimumab every-6-weeks cohort had discontinued treatment. Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 14 (37%) patients in the ipilimumab every-12-weeks cohort and 13 (33%) patients in the every-6-weeks cohort; the most commonly reported grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events were increased lipase (three [8%] and no patients), pneumonitis (two [5%] and one [3%] patients), adrenal insufficiency (one [3%] and two [5%] patients), and colitis (one [3%] and two [5%] patients). Treatment-related serious adverse events were reported in 12 (32%) patients in the ipilimumab every-12-weeks cohort and 11 (28%) patients in the every-6-weeks cohort. Treatment-related adverse events (any grade) prompted treatment discontinuation in four (11%) patients in the every-12-weeks cohort and five (13%) patients in the every-6-weeks cohort. No treatment-related deaths occurred. Confirmed objective responses were achieved in 18 (47% [95% CI 31-64]) patients in the ipilimumab every-12-weeks cohort and 15 (38% [95% CI 23-55]) patients in the ipilimumab every-6-weeks cohort; median duration of response was not reached in either cohort, with median follow-up times of 12·8 months (IQR 9·3-15·5) in the ipilimumab every-12-weeks cohort and 11·8 months (6·7-15·9) in the ipilimumab every-6-weeks cohort. In patients with PD-L1 of 1% or greater, confirmed objective responses were achieved in 12 (57%) of 21 patients in the ipilimumab every-12-weeks cohort and 13 (57%) of 23 patients in the ipilimumab every-6-weeks cohort. INTERPRETATION: In NSCLC, first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab had a tolerable safety profile and showed encouraging clinical activity characterised by a high response rate and durable response. To our knowledge, the results of this study are the first suggestion of improved benefit compared with anti-PD-1 monotherapy in patients with NSCLC, supporting further assessment of this combination in a phase 3 study. FUNDING: Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Ascertainment, classification, and impact of neoplasm detection during prolonged treatment with dual antiplatelet therapy with prasugrel vs. clopidogrel following acute coronary syndrome.

AIMS: Studies have suggested increased cancer incidence associated with long-term dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) for acute coronary syndrome (ACS). We evaluated cancer incidence and treatment-related differences in an analysis of DAPT for ACS. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Targeted Platelet Inhibition to Clarify the Optimal Strategy to Medically Manage Acute Coronary Syndromes trial enrolled 9326 participants with ACS, who received aspirin plus clopidogrel or prasugrel. Median treatment exposure was 15 months. Cancer history and screening procedures were collected. Suspected non-benign neoplasm events were reported and adjudicated. The primary outcome was detection of new, non-benign neoplasm. Factors associated with neoplasm events, the relationship of these events to cardiovascular and bleeding endpoints, and treatment-related differences in neoplasm detection were studied. Among 9240 participants who received ≥1 dose of study drug, 1.8% had a confirmed neoplasm event. The efficacy composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke occurred more frequently among those with a neoplasm event vs. those without (18.2 vs. 13.5%) as did Global Use of Strategies to Open Occluded Coronary Arteries severe/moderate bleeding (11.2 vs. 1.5%). Screening rates were substantially higher in North America and Western Europe/Scandinavia vs. other regions. Factors most strongly associated with detection of neoplasm events were older age, region, male sex, and current/recent smoking. Among the pre-specified population without a history of neoplasm or previous curative treatment for neoplasm (n = 9105), the incidence of neoplasm events was similar with prasugrel vs. clopidogrel (1.8 vs. 1.7%; HR = 1.04; 95% CI 0.77-1.42; P = 0.79). CONCLUSIONS: Neoplasm events were infrequent during long-term DAPT after ACS, were associated with differential cancer-screening practices across regions, and the frequency of neoplasm detection was similar with prasugrel vs. clopidogrel. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00699998.

Genetic variants in ABCG1 are associated with survival of nonsmall-cell lung cancer patients.

Cell membrane transporters and metabolic enzymes play a crucial role in the transportation of a wide variety of substrates that maintain homeostasis in biological processes. We explored associations between genetic variants in these genes and survival of nonsmall-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients by reanalyzing two datasets from published genome-wide association studies (GWASs). In the discovery by using the GWAS dataset of the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial, we evaluated associations of 1,245 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in genes of four transporter families and two metabolic enzyme families with survival of 1,185 NSCLC patients. We then performed a replication analysis in the Harvard University Lung Cancer study (LCS) with 984 NSCLC patients. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression and false discovery rate (FDR) corrections were performed to evaluate the associations. We identified that 21 genotyped SNPs in eight gene regions were significantly associated with survival with FDR ≤ 0.1 in the discovery dataset. Subsequently, we confirmed six SNPs, which were putative functional, in ABCG1 of the ATP-binding cassette transporter family in the replication dataset. In the pooled analysis, two tagging (at r(2) > 0.8 for linkage disequilibrium with other replicated SNPs)/functional SNPs were independently associated with survival: rs225388 G > A [adjusted hazards ratio (HR) = 1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.03-1.20, Ptrend = 4.6 × 10(-3)] and rs225390 A > G (adjusted HR = 1.16, 95% CI = 1.07-1.25, Ptrend = 3.8 × 10(-4) ). Our results indicated that genetic variants of ABCG1 may be predictors of survival of NSCLC patients.

Smoking history predicts for increased risk of second primary lung cancer: a comprehensive analysis.

BACKGROUND: Tobacco use is the most important risk factor for the development of lung cancer. The objective of the current study was to determine the effect of smoking on the development of second primary lung cancers (SPLCs) and other clinical outcomes after surgery for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: All patients who underwent surgery for NSCLC at the study institution from 1995 through 2008 were identified. Rates of SPLC were analyzed based on smoking status and pack-year exposure. Multivariate analysis was performed to determine risk factors for SPLC. Overall survival, local control, distant metastases, and postoperative mortality were also examined. RESULTS: A total of 1484 patients were identified, including 98 never-smokers. The incidence of SPLC at 3 years, 5 years, and 8 years was 5%, 8%, and 16%, respectively. Only 1 never-smoker developed an SPLC. On multivariate analysis, which was restricted to ever-smokers with pack-years as a continuous variable, smoking history was found to be the only independent risk factor for SPLC (hazard ratio, 1.08; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.16 [P = .031]), corresponding to an 8% increased risk per 10 pack-year exposure. There were no differences in rates of local control or distant metastases based on smoking status. There was a trend toward lower postoperative mortality in never-smokers compared with ever-smokers (0% vs 3.3%; P = .069). Overall survival was found to be significantly worse for current smokers compared with former and never-smokers. CONCLUSIONS: SPLCs are rare in never-smokers. Increasing tobacco exposure is associated with a higher risk of SPLC in patients with a history of smoking. Current smokers have an increased risk of mortality whereas former and never-smokers have comparable survival.

Patient-Reported Distress and Clinical Outcomes with Immuno-Oncology Agents in Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (mNSCLC): A Real-World Retrospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVES: There are limited real-world data about patient-reported outcomes with immunotherapies (IO) in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC). We describe patient-reported distress and clinical outcomes with IO-based treatments or cytotoxic chemotherapies (Chemo). METHODS: We conducted a single-institution retrospective chart review of adults with mNSCLC treated at Duke from 03/2015 to 06/2020. At each visit, patients self-reported their distress level and sources of distress using the NCCN Distress Thermometer (DT) and its 39-item Problem List. We abstracted demographic, clinical, distress, and investigator assessed-clinical response data, then analyzed these using descriptive statistics and generalized estimating equations. RESULTS: Data from 152 patients were analyzed in four groups: Chemo alone, IO + Chemo, single agent IO, dual agent IO. Distress was worse before treatment start in all groups, and the odds of actionable distress (DT score > 4) decreased by 10 % per month. The most frequent sources of distress were physical symptoms (e.g., fatigue, pain), which remained high longitudinally. Patients receiving IO had higher clinical response rates and a lower rate of unplanned healthcare encounters compared to patients treated with Chemo alone. Only one-third of all patients were seen by palliative care. CONCLUSIONS: This single-center, real-world evidence study demonstrates that patients with mNSCLC experience significant distress prior to starting first-line treatment. IO treatment was associated with higher clinical benefit rates and lower healthcare utilization compared to chemotherapy. Symptom distress persists over time, highlighting potential unmet palliative and supportive care needs in mNSCLC care in the IO treatment era.

First-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab for metastatic non-small cell lung cancer, including patients with ECOG performance status 2 and other special populations: CheckMate 817.

BACKGROUND: CheckMate 817, a phase 3B study, evaluated flat-dose nivolumab plus weight-based ipilimumab in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Here, in this research, we report on first-line treatment in patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) 0-1 (cohort A) and special populations (cohort A1: ECOG PS 2; or ECOG PS 0-1 with untreated brain metastases, renal impairment, hepatic impairment, or controlled HIV infection). METHODS: Cohorts A and A1 received nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 6 weeks. The primary endpoint was the incidence of grade 3-4 and grade 5 immune-mediated adverse events (IMAEs; adverse events (AEs) deemed potentially immune-related, occurring <100 days of last dose, and treated with immune-modulating medication (except endocrine events)) and treatment-related select AEs (treatment-related AEs with potential immunological etiology requiring frequent monitoring/intervention, reported between first dose and 30 days after the last dose) in cohort A; efficacy endpoints were secondary/exploratory. In cohort A1, safety/efficacy assessment was exploratory. RESULTS: The most common grade 3-4 IMAEs were pneumonitis (5.1%), diarrhea/colitis (4.9%), and hepatitis (4.6%) in cohort A (N=391) and diarrhea/colitis (3.5%), hepatitis (3.5%), and rash (3.0%) in cohort A1 (N=198). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related select AEs were hepatic (5.9%), gastrointestinal (4.9%), and pulmonary (4.6%) events in cohort A and gastrointestinal (4.0%), skin (3.5%), and endocrine (3.0%) events in cohort A1. No grade 5 IMAEs or treatment-related select AEs occurred. Treatment-related deaths occurred in 4 (1.0%) and 3 (1.5%) patients in cohorts A and A1, respectively. Three-year overall survival (OS) rates were 33.7% and 20.5%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Flat-dose nivolumab plus weight-based ipilimumab was associated with manageable safety and durable efficacy in cohort A, consistent with data from phase 3 metastatic NSCLC studies. Special populations of cohort A1 including patients with ECOG PS 2 or ECOG PS 0-1 with untreated brain metastases had manageable treatment-related toxicity and clinically meaningful 3-year OS rate. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02869789.

A Phase 2 Clinical Trial of Combination Nivolumab, Ipilimumab, and Paclitaxel in Patients With Untreated Metastatic NSCLC: The OPTIMAL Trial.

Introduction: Most patients with advanced NSCLC will experience disease progression and death within 2 years. Novel approaches are needed to improve outcomes. Methods: We conducted an open-label, nonrandomized, phase 2 trial in patients with treatment-naive, advanced NSCLC to assess the safety and efficacy of nivolumab 360 mg every 3 weeks, ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 6 weeks, and four to six cycles of paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 of every 21-day treatment. The primary end point of the study was median progression-free survival (PFS), with secondary end points of safety, objective response rate, and median overall survival (OS). Results: A total of 46 patients underwent consent and received treatment. The median age was 66 (range: 48-82) years, most had adenocarcinoma (63%), and 50% (23) had programmed death-ligand 1 greater than or equal to 1%. The median follow-up on the study as of October 2021 was 19 months. The primary end point of median PFS was 9.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 5.9-16.6) in all patients regardless of programmed death-ligand 1 expression. The objective response rate for patients in the study was 47.8% (95% CI: 33.4-62.3). The 12-month OS rate was 69.5% (95% CI: 53%-81%), and median OS was not yet reached. Treatment-related grade greater than or equal to 3 adverse events was found in 54.3% of the patients. Conclusions: The toxicity observed was consistent with other reported chemo-immunotherapeutic combinations and was manageable. The primary end point of exceeding median PFS of 9 months was achieved with nivolumab, ipilimumab, and weekly paclitaxel and should be evaluated further in a randomized trial.

Perioperative outcomes of pulmonary resection after neoadjuvant pembrolizumab in patients with non-small cell lung cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Pembrolizumab is a programmed death receptor-1 masking antibody approved for metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. This Phase 2 study (NCT02818920) of neoadjuvant pembrolizumab in non-small cell lung cancer had a primary end point of safety and secondary end points of efficacy and correlative science. METHODS: Patients with untreated clinical stage IB to IIIA non-small cell lung cancer were enrolled. Two cycles of pembrolizumab (200 mg) were administered before surgery. Standard adjuvant chemotherapy and radiation were encouraged but not required. Four cycles of adjuvant pembrolizumab were provided. RESULTS: Of 35 patients enrolled, 30 received neoadjuvant pembrolizumab and 25 underwent lung resection. Only 1 patient had a delay before surgery attributed to pembrolizumab; this was due to thyroiditis. All patients underwent anatomic resection and mediastinal lymph node dissection; the majority (18/25%, 72%) of patients underwent lobectomy. Of the 25 patients, 23 had an initial minimally invasive approach (92%); 5 of these were converted to thoracotomy (21.7%). R0 resection was achieved in 22 patients (88%), and major pathologic response was observed in 7 of 25 patients (28%). The most common postoperative adverse event was atrial fibrillation, affecting 6 of 25 patients (24%). Median chest tube duration and length of stay were 3 and 4 days, respectively. One patient required readmission to the hospital within 30 days. There was no mortality within 90 days of surgery. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, pembrolizumab was safe and well tolerated in the neoadjuvant setting, and its use was not associated with excess surgical morbidity or mortality. Minimally invasive approaches are feasible in this patient population, but may be more challenging than in cases without neoadjuvant immunotherapy. Pathologic response was higher than typically observed with standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Predictive Value of Combining Biomarkers for Clinical Outcomes in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients Receiving Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors.

INTRODUCTION: A high tumor mutational burden (TMB) (≥10 mut/Mb) has been associated with improved clinical benefit in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) and is a tumor agnostic indication for pembrolizumab across tumor types. We explored whether combining TMB with programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) and pretreatment neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) was associated with improved outcomes in ICI-treated NSCLC. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed patients treated with ICI with Foundation One genomic testing, including TMB. Optimal cutoff for prediction of response by TMB was determined by receiver operating characteristic analysis, and area under the curve (AUC) was calculated for all 3 biomarkers and combinations. Cox model was used to assess prognostic factors of overall survival (OS) and time to progression (TTP). Survival cutoffs calculated with Kaplan-Meier survival curves were TMB ≥10 mut/Mb, PD-L1 ≥50%, NLR <5, and combined biomarkers. RESULTS: Data from 88 patients treated were analyzed. The optimal TMB cutoff was 9.24 mut/Mb (AUC, 0.62), improving to 0.74 combining all 3 biomarkers. Adjusted Cox model showed that TMB ≥10 mut/Mb was an independent factor of OS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.31; 95% confidence interval; 0.14-0.69; P = .004) and TTP (HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.27-0.77; P = .003). The combination of high TMB with positive PD-L1 and low NLR was significantly associated with OS (P = .038) but not TTP. CONCLUSIONS: TMB has modest predictive and prognostic power for clinical outcomes after ICI treatment. The combination of TMB, PD-L1, and NLR status improves this power.

Synergy between early-incorporation immunotherapy and extracranial radiotherapy in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Combining radiotherapy (RT) and immunotherapy (IT) may enhance outcomes for metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC). However, data on the immunomodulatory effects of extracranial RT remains limited. This retrospective database analysis examined real-world practice patterns, predictors of survival, and comparative effectiveness of extracranial radioimmunotherapy (RT + IT) versus early-incorporation immunotherapy (eIT) in patients with mNSCLC. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with mNSCLC between 2004-2016 treated with eIT or RT + IT were identified in the National Cancer Database. Practice patterns were assessed using Cochrane-Armitrage trend test. Cox proportional hazards and Kaplan-Meier method were used to analyze overall survival (OS). Propensity score matching was performed to account for baseline imbalances. Biologically effective doses (BED) were stratified based on the median (39 Gy10). Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) was defined as above median BED in ≤5 fractions. RESULTS: eIT utilization increased from 0.3% in 2010 to 13.2% in 2016 (P<0.0001). Rates of RT + eIT increased from 38.8% in 2010 to 49.1% in 2016 among those who received eIT (P<0.0001). Compared to eIT alone, RT + eIT demonstrated worse median OS (11.2 vs. 13.2 months) while SBRT + eIT demonstrated improved median OS (25 vs. 13.2 months) (P<0.0001). There were no significant differences in OS based on sequencing of eIT relative to RT (log-rank P=0.4415) or irradiated site (log-rank P=0.1606). On multivariate analysis, factors associated with improved OS included chemotherapy (HR 0.86, P=0.0058), treatment at academic facilities (HR 0.83, P<0.0001), and SBRT (HR 0.60, P=0.0009); after propensity-score multivariate analysis, SBRT alone showed improved OS (HR 0.28, P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Utilization of RT + eIT in mNSCLC is increasing. SBRT + eIT was associated with improved OS on propensity-score matched analysis. There were no significant differences in OS based on RT + eIT sequencing or site irradiated. Whether these observations reflect patient selection or possible immunomodulatory benefits of RT is unclear and warrants further study.

The immunotherapeutic landscape in non-small cell lung cancer and its surgical horizons.

Lung cancer continues to be a leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide. Despite tremendous advances in surgical technique, chemotherapy regimens, radiation, and targeted therapies, survival is <50% at 5 years. Immunotherapy, specifically immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), demonstrates promise as a solution to this clinical problem. Several agents have been Food and Drug Administration-approved for locally advanced and metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Further studies are now exploring the use of these agents in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings. Although ICIs have demonstrated meaningful efficacy in NSCLC and other advanced malignancies, they are not without adverse toxicities. Furthermore, there are minimal data on their use in the perioperative period. Here we discuss the current domain of ICIs and their surgical implications in NSCLC.

Definitive Radiotherapy for Inoperable Stage IIB Non-small-cell Lung Cancer: Patterns of Care and Comparative Effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to analyze practice patterns and perform comparative effectiveness of definitive radiotherapy techniques for inoperable stage IIB (American Joint Committee on Cancer eighth edition) non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adults in the National Cancer Database diagnosed with T3N0M0 or T1-2N1M0 NCSLC between 2004 and 2015 who received definitive radiotherapy were identified. Cases were divided as stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), hypofractionated radiotherapy (HFRT), or conventionally fractionated radiotherapy (CFRT) and stratified by systemic therapy (ST). Cox proportional hazards models evaluated the effect of covariates on overall survival (OS). Subgroup analysis by tumor size, chest wall invasion, multifocality, and ST use was performed with Kaplan-Meier estimates of OS. RESULTS: A total of 10,081 subjects met inclusion criteria: 4401 T3N0M0 (66.5% CFRT, 11.0% HFRT, and 22.5% SBRT) and 5680 T1-2N1M0 (92.5% CFRT and 7.5% HFRT). For T3N0M0 NSCLC, SBRT utilization increased from 3.7% in 2006% to 35.4% in 2015. Subjects treated with SBRT were more likely to have smaller tumors, multifocal tumors, or adenocarcinoma histology. SBRT resulted in similar or superior OS compared with CFRT for tumors > 5 cm, tumors invading the chest wall, or multifocal tumors. SBRT was significantly associated with improved OS on multivariate analysis (hazard ratio, 0.715; P < .001). For T1-2N1M0 NSCLC, patients treated with HFRT were significantly older and less likely to receive ST; nevertheless, there was no difference in OS between HFRT and CFRT on multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION: CFRT + ST is utilized most frequently to treat stage IIB NSCLC in the United States when surgery is not performed, though it is decreasing. SBRT utilization for T3N0M0 NSCLC is increasing and was associated with improved OS.

Nivolumab Monotherapy and Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab in Recurrent Small Cell Lung Cancer: Results From the CheckMate 032 Randomized Cohort.

INTRODUCTION: Nivolumab monotherapy is approved in the United States for third-line or later metastatic small cell lung cancer based on pooled data from nonrandomized and randomized cohorts of the multicenter, open-label, phase 1/2 trial of nivolumab ± ipilimumab (CheckMate 032; NCT01928394). We report updated results, including long-term overall survival (OS), from the randomized cohort. METHODS: Patients with small cell lung cancer and disease progression after one to two prior chemotherapy regimens were randomized 3:2 to nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks or nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four cycles followed by nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks. Patients were stratified by number of prior chemotherapy regimens and treated until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) by blinded independent central review. RESULTS: Overall, 147 patients received nivolumab and 96 nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Minimum follow-up for ORR/progression-free survival/safety was 11.9 months (nivolumab) and 11.2 months (nivolumab plus ipilimumab). ORR increased with nivolumab plus ipilimumab (21.9% versus 11.6% with nivolumab; odds ratio: 2.12; 95% confidence interval: 1.06-4.26; p = 0.03). For long-term OS, minimum follow-up was 29.0 months (nivolumab) versus 28.4 months (nivolumab plus ipilimumab); median (95% confidence interval) OS was 5.7 (3.8-7.6) versus 4.7 months (3.1-8.3). Twenty-four-month OS rates were 17.9% (nivolumab) and 16.9% (nivolumab plus ipilimumab). Grade 3 to 4 treatment-related adverse event rates were 12.9% (nivolumab) versus 37.5% (nivolumab plus ipilimumab), and treatment-related deaths were n =1 versus n = 3, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Whereas ORR (primary endpoint) was higher with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus nivolumab, OS was similar between groups. In each group, OS remained encouraging with long-term follow-up. Toxicities were more common with combination therapy versus nivolumab monotherapy.

Therapeutic outcomes in non-small cell lung cancer with BRAF mutations: a single institution, retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Data describing therapeutic outcomes in patients with non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLC) with BRAF mutations remains limited. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 31 patients with metastatic NSCLC treated at Duke University Hospital who had been identified by next-generation sequencing methods to bear a BRAF mutation in their tumor in order to evaluate clinical response to immunotherapy and chemotherapy. RESULTS: Sixty-five percent of patients identified in this cohort were current or former smokers. Fourteen (45.2%) of patients had a BRAF V600E mutation and 17 (54.8%) had a non-V600E mutation. Median progression-free survival (PFS) in the 23 patients who received first-line chemotherapy was 6.4 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 2.3 to 13.0]. Overall survival (OS) in patients who received first-line chemotherapy showed a median survival of 18 months (95% CI, 7.4 to 28.6). OS comparing patients who had never received immunotherapy at any point was 18.4 months (95% CI, 4.1 to NE) compared to 19.0 months (95% CI, 9.9 to 28.6) in those who had received immunotherapy. We did not find a statistically significant difference in OS in patients with BRAF V600E, BRAF amplification, or non-V600E mutations. There was also no difference in OS in patients treated with targeted BRAF inhibitors compared to those who were not treated with targeted BRAF inhibitors. CONCLUSIONS: We describe therapeutic outcomes for patients with metastatic NSCLC with BRAF mutations treated with either cytotoxic chemotherapy or immunotherapy. Although the sample size is small, the survival curves do not suggest improved clinical activity in this population when treated with immunotherapy.

Safety and Efficacy of Durvalumab With or Without Tremelimumab in Patients With PD-L1-Low/Negative Recurrent or Metastatic HNSCC: The Phase 2 CONDOR Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Dual blockade of programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) and cytotoxic T-lymphocyte associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) may overcome immune checkpoint inhibition. It is unknown whether dual blockade can potentiate antitumor activity without compromising safety in patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (R/M HNSCC) and low or no PD-L1 tumor cell expression. Objective: To assess safety and objective response rate of durvalumab combined with tremelimumab. Design, Setting, and Participants: The CONDOR study was a phase 2, randomized, open-label study of Durvalumab, Tremelimumab, and Durvalumab in Combination With Tremelimumab in Patients With R/M HNSCC. Eligibility criteria included PD-L1-low/negative disease that had progressed after 1 platinum-containing regimen in the R/M setting. Patients were randomized (N = 267) from April 15, 2015, to March 16, 2016, at 127 sites in North America, Europe, and Asia Pacific. Interventions: Durvalumab (20 mg/kg every 4 weeks) + tremelimumab (1 mg/kg every 4 weeks) for 4 cycles, followed by durvalumab (10 mg/kg every 2 weeks), or durvalumab (10 mg/kg every 2 weeks) monotherapy, or tremelimumab (10 mg/kg every 4 weeks for 7 doses then every 12 weeks for 2 doses) monotherapy. Main Outcomes and Measures: Safety and tolerability and efficacy measured by objective response rate. Results: Among the 267 patients (220 men [82.4%]), median age (range) of patients was 61.0 (23-82) years. Grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 21 patients (15.8%) treated with durvalumab + tremelimumab, 8 (12.3%) treated with durvalumab, and 11 (16.9%) treated with tremelimumab. Grade 3/4 immune-mediated adverse events occurred in 8 patients (6.0%) in the combination arm only. Objective response rate (95% CI) was 7.8% (3.78%-13.79%) in the combination arm (n = 129), 9.2% (3.46%-19.02%) for durvalumab monotherapy (n = 65), and 1.6% (0.04%-8.53%) for tremelimumab monotherapy (n = 63); median overall survival (95% CI) for all patients treated was 7.6 (4.9-10.6), 6.0 (4.0-11.3), and 5.5 (3.9-7.0) months, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: In patients with R/M HNSCC and low or no PD-L1 tumor cell expression, all 3 regimens exhibited a manageable toxicity profile. Durvalumab and durvalumab + tremelimumab resulted in clinical benefit, with minimal observed difference between the two. A phase 3 study is under way. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02319044.

Durvalumab for recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: Results from a single-arm, phase II study in patients with ≥25% tumour cell PD-L1 expression who have progressed on platinum-based chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Patients with recurrent/metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (R/M HNSCC) progressing on platinum-based chemotherapy have poor prognoses and limited therapeutic options. Programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) and its ligand 1 (PD-L1) are frequently upregulated in HNSCC. The international, multi-institutional, single-arm, phase II HAWK study (NCT02207530) evaluated durvalumab monotherapy, an anti-PD-L1 monoclonal antibody, in PD-L1-high patients with platinum-refractory R/M HNSCC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Immunotherapy-naïve patients with confirmed PD-L1-high tumour cell expression (defined as patients with ≥25% of tumour cells expressing PD-L1 [TC ≥ 25%] using the VENTANA PD-L1 [SP263] Assay) received durvalumab 10 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks for up to 12 months. The primary end-point was objective response rate; secondary end-points included progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Among evaluable patients (n = 111), objective response rate was 16.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 9.9-24.4); 29.4% (95% CI, 15.1-47.5) for human papillomavirus (HPV)-positive patients and 10.9% (95% CI, 4.5-21.3) for HPV-negative patients. Median PFS and OS for treated patients (n = 112) was 2.1 months (95% CI, 1.9-3.7) and 7.1 months (95% CI, 4.9-9.9); PFS and OS at 12 months were 14.6% (95% CI, 8.5-22.1) and 33.6% (95% CI, 24.8-42.7). Treatment-related adverse events were 57.1% (any grade) and 8.0% (grade ≥3); none led to death. At data cut-off, 24.1% of patients remained on treatment or in follow-up. CONCLUSION: Durvalumab demonstrated antitumour activity with acceptable safety in PD-L1-high patients with R/M HNSCC, supporting its ongoing evaluation in phase III trials in first- and second-line settings. In an ad hoc analysis, HPV-positive patients had a numerically higher response rate and survival than HPV-negative patients.

Phase I study of the farnesyltransferase inhibitor lonafarnib with weekly paclitaxel in patients with solid tumors.

PURPOSE: To establish the maximum tolerated dose of the farnesyltransferase inhibitor lonafarnib (Sarasar, Schering-Plough Corp., Kenilworth, NJ) in combination with weekly paclitaxel in patients with solid tumors. Tolerability, pharmacokinetics, safety, and dose-limiting toxicity were characterized. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients were enrolled from January 2000 to May 2001. Lonafarnib was administered continuously orally twice daily at doses of 100, 125, and 150 mg in combination with paclitaxel at doses of 40, 60, or 80 mg/m(2) i.v. over 1 h weekly in 28-day cycles in a phase I design. Plasma samples for determinations of lonafarnib and paclitaxel concentrations were collected at selected time points. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients were enrolled. The maximum tolerated dose (the dose level below where dose-limiting toxicity occurred and the recommended phase II dose) was lonafarnib 125 mg/m(2) twice daily and paclitaxel 80 mg/m(2) weekly. Dose-limiting toxicity was neutropenia with or without fever, which occurred in two of three patients treated at the lonafarnib 150 mg twice daily dose level. Diarrhea was a common side effect of lonafarnib but usually was mild to moderate in severity and could be controlled with standard medication without lonafarnib dose adjustment. Other reported adverse events included nausea, vomiting, fatigue, and taste changes. These adverse events were neither more frequent nor more severe than would be expected with paclitaxel alone. There were no apparent pharmacokinetic interactions between weekly paclitaxel and continuous twice-daily lonafarnib. CONCLUSIONS: The recommended dose of lonafarnib for phase II trials is 125 mg orally twice daily when combined with weekly paclitaxel 80 mg/m(2). The dose-limiting toxicity was neutropenia.

Long-term survival follow-up of atezolizumab in combination with platinum-based doublet chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Before the availability of immunotherapy, chemotherapy was standard first-line therapy for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) lacking actionable gene alterations. Preclinical evidence suggests chemotherapy is immunomodulatory, supporting chemotherapy/immunotherapy combinations. Atezolizumab, anti-programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) antibody, blocks programmed cell death protein-1 and B7.1 interaction with PD-L1. GP28328 (NCT01633970) assessed atezolizumab with chemotherapy in multiple tumours; we report results for advanced, treatment-naïve NSCLC. METHODS: Patients received atezolizumab plus carboplatin with paclitaxel (Arm C: atezo/cb/pac), pemetrexed (Arm D: atezo/cb/pem, maintenance pemetrexed permitted), or nab-paclitaxel (Arm E: atezo/cb/nab-pac), four-six cycles, then atezolizumab maintenance. Primary end-point was safety; secondary end-points were objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Seventy-six NSCLC patients were enrolled (n = 25, 25 and 26 for Arms C, D and E, respectively). Common treatment-related grade III/IV adverse events were neutropenia (36% atezo/cb/pac, 36% atezo/cb/pem, 42% atezo/cb/nab-pac) and anaemia (16% atezo/cb/pac, 16% atezo/cb/pem, 31% atezo/cb/nab-pac). Confirmed ORRs were 36% atezo/cb/pac, 68% atezo/cb/pem (one complete response [CR]) and 46% atezo/cb/nab-pac (four CRs). Median PFS was 7.1 months, (95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.2-8.3), 8.4 months (95% CI: 4.7-11) and 5.7 months (95% CI: 4.4-14.8), respectively. Median OS was 12.9 months (95% CI: 8.8-21.3), 18.9 months (95% CI: 9.9-27.4) and 17.0 months (95% CI: 12.7-not evaluable), respectively. CONCLUSION: Atezolizumab with chemotherapy was well tolerated with encouraging efficacy, though the analysis was limited by small numbers. NSCLC chemotherapy combination studies are ongoing. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT01633970.