Antibodies against endogenous retroviruses promote lung cancer immunotherapy.

B cells are frequently found in the margins of solid tumours as organized follicles in ectopic lymphoid organs called tertiary lymphoid structures (TLS)1,2. Although TLS have been found to correlate with improved patient survival and response to immune checkpoint blockade (ICB), the underlying mechanisms of this association remain elusive1,2. Here we investigate lung-resident B cell responses in patients from the TRACERx 421 (Tracking Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Evolution Through Therapy) and other lung cancer cohorts, and in a recently established immunogenic mouse model for lung adenocarcinoma3. We find that both human and mouse lung adenocarcinomas elicit local germinal centre responses and tumour-binding antibodies, and further identify endogenous retrovirus (ERV) envelope glycoproteins as a dominant anti-tumour antibody target. ERV-targeting B cell responses are amplified by ICB in both humans and mice, and by targeted inhibition of KRAS(G12C) in the mouse model. ERV-reactive antibodies exert anti-tumour activity that extends survival in the mouse model, and ERV expression predicts the outcome of ICB in human lung adenocarcinoma. Finally, we find that effective immunotherapy in the mouse model requires CXCL13-dependent TLS formation. Conversely, therapeutic CXCL13 treatment potentiates anti-tumour immunity and synergizes with ICB. Our findings provide a possible mechanistic basis for the association of TLS with immunotherapy response.

Repotrectinib in ROS1 Fusion-Positive Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The early-generation ROS1 tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) that are approved for the treatment of ROS1 fusion-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have antitumor activity, but resistance develops in tumors, and intracranial activity is suboptimal. Repotrectinib is a next-generation ROS1 TKI with preclinical activity against ROS1 fusion-positive cancers, including those with resistance mutations such as ROS1 G2032R. METHODS: In this registrational phase 1-2 trial, we assessed the efficacy and safety of repotrectinib in patients with advanced solid tumors, including ROS1 fusion-positive NSCLC. The primary efficacy end point in the phase 2 trial was confirmed objective response; efficacy analyses included patients from phase 1 and phase 2. Duration of response, progression-free survival, and safety were secondary end points in phase 2. RESULTS: On the basis of results from the phase 1 trial, the recommended phase 2 dose of repotrectinib was 160 mg daily for 14 days, followed by 160 mg twice daily. Response occurred in 56 of the 71 patients (79%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 68 to 88) with ROS1 fusion-positive NSCLC who had not previously received a ROS1 TKI; the median duration of response was 34.1 months (95% CI, 25.6 to could not be estimated), and median progression-free survival was 35.7 months (95% CI, 27.4 to could not be estimated). Response occurred in 21 of the 56 patients (38%; 95% CI, 25 to 52) with ROS1 fusion-positive NSCLC who had previously received one ROS1 TKI and had never received chemotherapy; the median duration of response was 14.8 months (95% CI, 7.6 to could not be estimated), and median progression-free survival was 9.0 months (95% CI, 6.8 to 19.6). Ten of the 17 patients (59%; 95% CI, 33 to 82) with the ROS1 G2032R mutation had a response. A total of 426 patients received the phase 2 dose; the most common treatment-related adverse events were dizziness (in 58% of the patients), dysgeusia (in 50%), and paresthesia (in 30%), and 3% discontinued repotrectinib owing to treatment-related adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Repotrectinib had durable clinical activity in patients with ROS1 fusion-positive NSCLC, regardless of whether they had previously received a ROS1 TKI. Adverse events were mainly of low grade and compatible with long-term administration. (Funded by Turning Point Therapeutics, a wholly owned subsidiary of Bristol Myers Squibb; TRIDENT-1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03093116.).

Amivantamab plus Chemotherapy in NSCLC with EGFR Exon 20 Insertions.

BACKGROUND: Amivantamab has been approved for the treatment of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) exon 20 insertions who have had disease progression during or after platinum-based chemotherapy. Phase 1 data showed the safety and antitumor activity of amivantamab plus carboplatin-pemetrexed (chemotherapy). Additional data on this combination therapy are needed. METHODS: In this phase 3, international, randomized trial, we assigned in a 1:1 ratio patients with advanced NSCLC with EGFR exon 20 insertions who had not received previous systemic therapy to receive intravenous amivantamab plus chemotherapy (amivantamab-chemotherapy) or chemotherapy alone. The primary outcome was progression-free survival according to blinded independent central review. Patients in the chemotherapy group who had disease progression were allowed to cross over to receive amivantamab monotherapy. RESULTS: A total of 308 patients underwent randomization (153 to receive amivantamab-chemotherapy and 155 to receive chemotherapy alone). Progression-free survival was significantly longer in the amivantamab-chemotherapy group than in the chemotherapy group (median, 11.4 months and 6.7 months, respectively; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.40; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.30 to 0.53; P<0.001). At 18 months, progression-free survival was reported in 31% of the patients in the amivantamab-chemotherapy group and in 3% in the chemotherapy group; a complete or partial response at data cutoff was reported in 73% and 47%, respectively (rate ratio, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.32 to 1.68; P<0.001). In the interim overall survival analysis (33% maturity), the hazard ratio for death for amivantamab-chemotherapy as compared with chemotherapy was 0.67 (95% CI, 0.42 to 1.09; P = 0.11). The predominant adverse events associated with amivantamab-chemotherapy were reversible hematologic and EGFR-related toxic effects; 7% of patients discontinued amivantamab owing to adverse reactions. CONCLUSIONS: The use of amivantamab-chemotherapy resulted in superior efficacy as compared with chemotherapy alone as first-line treatment of patients with advanced NSCLC with EGFR exon 20 insertions. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development; PAPILLON ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04538664.).

Publisher Correction: The National Lung Matrix Trial of personalized therapy in lung cancer.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper.

The National Lung Matrix Trial of personalized therapy in lung cancer.

The majority of targeted therapies for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are directed against oncogenic drivers that are more prevalent in patients with light exposure to tobacco smoke1-3. As this group represents around 20% of all patients with lung cancer, the discovery of stratified medicine options for tobacco-associated NSCLC is a high priority. Umbrella trials seek to streamline the investigation of genotype-based treatments by screening tumours for multiple genomic alterations and triaging patients to one of several genotype-matched therapeutic agents. Here we report the current outcomes of 19 drug-biomarker cohorts from the ongoing National Lung Matrix Trial, the largest umbrella trial in NSCLC. We use next-generation sequencing to match patients to appropriate targeted therapies on the basis of their tumour genotype. The Bayesian trial design enables outcome data from open cohorts that are still recruiting to be reported alongside data from closed cohorts. Of the 5,467 patients that were screened, 2,007 were molecularly eligible for entry into the trial, and 302 entered the trial to receive genotype-matched therapy-including 14 that re-registered to the trial for a sequential trial drug. Despite pre-clinical data supporting the drug-biomarker combinations, current evidence shows that a limited number of combinations demonstrate clinically relevant benefits, which remain concentrated in patients with lung cancers that are associated with minimal exposure to tobacco smoke.

Genomic analysis defines distinct pancreatic and neuronal subtypes of lung carcinoid.

Lung carcinoids (L-CDs) are rare, poorly characterised neuroendocrine tumours (NETs). L-CDs are more common in women and are not the consequence of cigarette smoking. They are classified histologically as typical carcinoids (TCs) or atypical carcinoids (ACs). ACs confer a worse survival. Histological classification is imperfect, and there is increasing interest in molecular markers. We therefore investigated global transcriptomic and epigenomic profiles of 15 L-CDs resected with curative intent at Royal Brompton Hospital. We identified underlying mutations and structural abnormalities through whole-exome sequencing (WES) and single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) genotyping. Transcriptomic clustering algorithms identified two distinct L-CD subtypes. These showed similarities either to pancreatic or neuroendocrine tumours at other sites and so were named respectively L-CD-PanC and L-CD-NeU. L-CD-PanC tumours featured upregulation of pancreatic and metabolic pathway genes matched by promoter hypomethylation of genes for beta cells and insulin secretion (p < 1 × 10-6). These tumours were centrally located and showed mutational signatures of activation-induced deaminase/apolipoprotein B editing complex  activity, together with genome-wide DNA methylation loss enriched in repetitive elements (p = 2.2 × 10-16). By contrast, the L-CD-NeU group exhibited upregulation of neuronal markers (adjusted p < 0.01) and was characterised by focal spindle cell morphology (p = 0.04), peripheral location (p = 0.01), high mutational load (p = 2.17 × 10-4), recurrent copy number alterations, and enrichment for ACs. Mutations affected chromatin remodelling and SWI/SNF complex pathways. L-CD-NeU tumours carried a mutational signature attributable to aflatoxin and aristolochic acid (p = 0.05), suggesting a possible environmental exposure in their pathogenesis. Immunologically, myeloid and T-cell markers were enriched in L-CD-PanC and B-cell markers in L-CD-NeU tumours. The substantial epigenetic and non-coding differences between L-CD-PanC and L-CD-NeU open new possibilities for biomarker selection and targeted treatment of L-CD. © 2024 The Author(s). The Journal of Pathology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of The Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland.

Data set for the reporting of lung cancer: recommendations from the International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting (ICCR).

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer related deaths worldwide, although some patients with early-stage disease can be cured with surgical resection. Standardised reporting of all clinically relevant pathological parameters is essential for best patient care and is also important for ongoing data collection and refinement of important pathological features that impact patient prognosis, staging and clinical care. Using the established International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting (ICCR) procedure, a representative international expert panel of nine lung pathologists as well as an oncologist was convened. Essential core elements and suggested non-core elements were identified for inclusion in the resected lung cancer pathology data set based on predetermined levels of evidence as well as consensus expert opinion. A lung cancer histopathology reporting guide was developed that includes relevant clinical, macroscopic, microscopic and ancillary testing. Critical review and discussion of current evidence was incorporated into the new data set including changes from the 2021 World Health Organisation (WHO) Classification of Thoracic Tumours, fifth edition, new requirements for grading invasive non-mucinous adenocarcinomas, assessment of response to neoadjuvant therapy and requirements for molecular testing in early-stage resected lung carcinomas. This ICCR data set represents incorporation of all relevant parameters for histology reporting of lung cancer resection specimens. Routine use of this data set is recommended for all pathology reporting of resected lung cancer and it is freely available worldwide on the ICCR website (https://www.iccr-cancer.org/datasets/published-datasets/). Widespread implementation will help to ensure consistent and comprehensive pathology reporting and data collection essential for lung cancer patient care, clinical trials and other research.

Assessing the sensitivity and acceptability of the Royal Marsden Palliative Care Referral "Triggers" Tool for outpatients with cancer.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the use, acceptability, and experience of a seven-item palliative care referral screening tool in an outpatient oncology setting. METHODS: A two-phase convergent parallel mixed-methods study. Patient participants who met any of the "Royal Marsden Triggers Tool" criteria were compared with those who did not in terms of demographic data, palliative care needs (Integrated Palliative Outcome Scale, IPOS) and quality of life indicators (EORTC-QLQ-C30). In-depth interviews were carried out with patients and oncology staff about their views and experience of the "Royal Marsden Triggers Tool". Qualitative and quantitative data were triangulated at data interpretation. RESULTS: Three hundred forty-eight patients were recruited to the quantitative phase of the study of whom 53% met at least one of the Triggers tool palliative care referral criteria. When compared with patients who were negative using the Triggers tool, "Royal Marsden Triggers Tool" positive patients had a lower quality of life (EORTC QLQ-C30 Global Health Status scale (p < 0.01)) and a higher proportion had severe or overwhelming physical needs on IPOS (38% versus 20%, p < 0.001). Median survival of "Royal Marsden Triggers Tool" positive patients was 11.7 months. Sixteen staff and 19 patients participated in qualitative interviews. The use of the tool normalised palliative care involvement, supporting individualised care and access to appropriate expertise. CONCLUSION: The use of a palliative care referral tool streamlines palliative care within oncology outpatient services and supports teams working together to provide an early holistic patient-centred service. Further research is needed to evaluate the effectiveness and feasibility of this approach.

Metastases-directed stereotactic body radiotherapy in combination with targeted therapy or immunotherapy: systematic review and consensus recommendations by the EORTC-ESTRO OligoCare consortium.

Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for patients with metastatic cancer, especially when characterised by a low tumour burden (ie, oligometastatic disease), receiving targeted therapy or immunotherapy has become a frequently practised and guideline-supported treatment strategy. Despite the increasing use in routine clinical practice, there is little information on the safety of combining SBRT with modern targeted therapy or immunotherapy and a paucity of high-level evidence to guide clinical management. A systematic literature review was performed to identify the toxicity profiles of combined metastases-directed SBRT and targeted therapy or immunotherapy. These results served as the basis for an international Delphi consensus process among 28 interdisciplinary experts who are members of the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) OligoCare consortium. Consensus was sought about risk mitigation strategies of metastases-directed SBRT combined with targeted therapy or immunotherapy; a potential need for and length of interruption to targeted therapy or immunotherapy around SBRT delivery; and potential adaptations of radiation dose and fractionation. Results of this systematic review and consensus process compile the best available evidence for safe combination of metastases-directed SBRT and targeted therapy or immunotherapy for patients with metastatic or oligometastatic cancer and aim to guide today's clinical practice and the design of future clinical trials.

The Cancer Research UK Stratified Medicine Programme as a model for delivering personalised cancer care.

Genomic screening is routinely used to guide the treatment of cancer patients in many countries. However, several multi-layered factors make this effort difficult to deliver within a clinically relevant timeframe. Here we share the learnings from the CRUK-funded Stratified Medicine Programme for advanced NSCLC patients, which could be useful to better plan future studies.

Hyperglycaemia following immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy-Incidence, aetiology and assessment.

AIMS: We systematically studied the presence of hyperglycaemia during treatment with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors (ICPI) for cancer, in those with and without diabetes at baseline, and determined the cause of new-onset hyperglycaemia, METHODS: Retrospective review of electronic records of those receiving an ICPI for melanoma, lung or renal cancer. RESULTS: Overall, 959 participants were included. In this study, 103 had diabetes at baseline (10.7%). Those with lung cancer had the highest frequency of diabetes; 131 people had hyperglycaemia (defined as at least one glucose ≥11.1 mmol/L) in the year after starting an ICPI. The incidence was 55% in those with diabetes at baseline, and 8.6% in those without baseline diabetes. Among 74 with new-onset hyperglycaemia (without pre-existing diabetes) 76% was attributable to steroid induced diabetes, with 9.5% due to ICPI Induced diabetes resembling type 1 diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: Hyperglycaemia is common in persons receiving an ICPI for cancer, including 8.6% of those without known diabetes. While much of this is due to glucocorticoid use, care is needed to avoid missing those with ICPI-induced diabetes who are at risk of diabetic ketoacidosis, which is a medical emergency.

Health Utility Analysis of Tepotinib in Patients With Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Harboring MET Exon 14 Skipping.

OBJECTIVES: The VISION trial showed durable activity of tepotinib in MET exon 14 (METex14) skipping non-small cell lung cancer. We analyzed health state utilities using patient-reported outcomes from VISION. METHODS: 5-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L) and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 responses were collected at baseline, every 6 to 12 weeks during treatment, and at the end of treatment and safety follow-up. EQ-5D-5L and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Utility Measure-Core 10 Dimensions (QLU-C10D) utilities were derived using United States, Canada, United Kingdom, and Taiwan value sets, where available. Utilities were analyzed with linear mixed models including covariates for progression or time-to-death (TTD). RESULTS: Utilities were derived for 273/291 patients (EQ-5D-5L, 1545 observations; QLU-C10D, 1546 observations). Mean (± SD) US EQ-5D-5L utilities increased after tepotinib initiation, from 0.687 ± 0.287 at baseline to 0.754 ± 0.250 before independently assessed progression, and decreased post progression (0.704 ± 0.288). US QLU-C10D utilities showed similar trends (0.705 ± 0.215, 0.753 ± 0.195, and 0.708 ± 0.209, respectively). Progression-based models demonstrated a statistically significant impact of progression on utilities and predicted higher utilities pre versus post progression. TTD-based models showed statistically significant associations of TTD with utilities and predicted declining utilities as TTD decreased. Prior treatment (yes/no) did not significantly predict utilities in progression- or TTD-based models. Utilities for Canada, United Kingdom, and Taiwan showed comparable trends. CONCLUSIONS: In this first analysis of health state utilities in patients with METex14 skipping non-small cell lung cancer, who received tepotinib, utilities were significantly associated with progression and TTD, but not prior treatment.

Updates in Management of Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma.

OPINION STATEMENT: Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is an aggressive asbestos-associated thoracic malignancy that is usually incurable. As demonstrated in the landmark MARS2 trial, surgical resection does not improve survival outcomes and its role in managing MPM is limited. Whilst platinum-pemetrexed chemotherapy in combination with bevacizumab was the standard first-line approach for unresectable disease, landmark phase 3 trials have now established the role of immune checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) in the upfront management of unresectable disease: either nivolumab-ipilimumab or carboplatin-pemetrexed-pembrolizumab. Patient selection for optimal strategy remains an ongoing question. For relapsed disease novel genomic-based therapies targeting a range of aberrations including losses of the tumour suppressor genes BAP1, CDKN2A and NF2, are being evaluated. Nonetheless, the future of MPM therapeutics holds promise. Here we overview current treatment strategies in the management of MPM.

EZH2 inhibitor tazemetostat in patients with relapsed or refractory, BAP1-inactivated malignant pleural mesothelioma: a multicentre, open-label, phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: Treatment options for malignant pleural mesothelioma are scarce. Tazemetostat, a selective oral enhancer of zeste homolog 2 (EZH2) inhibitor, has shown antitumour activity in several haematological cancers and solid tumours. We aimed to evaluate the anti-tumour activity and safety of tazemetostat in patients with measurable relapsed or refractory malignant pleural mesothelioma. METHODS: We conducted an open-label, single-arm phase 2 study at 16 hospitals in France, the UK, and the USA. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with malignant pleural mesothelioma of any histology that was relapsed or refractory after treatment with at least one pemetrexed-containing regimen, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and a life expectancy of greater than 3 months. In part 1 of the study, participants received oral tazemetostat 800 mg once on day 1 and then twice daily from day 2 onwards. In part 2, participants received oral tazemetostat 800 mg twice daily starting on day 1 of cycle 1, using a two-stage Green-Dahlberg design. Tazemetostat was administered in 21-day cycles for approximately 17 cycles. The primary endpoint of part 1 was the pharmacokinetics of tazemetostat and its metabolite at day 15 after administration of 800 mg tazemetostat, as measured by maximum serum concentration (Cmax), time to Cmax (Tmax), area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) to day 15 (AUC0-t), area under the curve from time 0 extrapolated to infinity (AUC0-∞), and the half-life (t1/2) of tazemetostat, assessed in all patients enrolled in part 1. The primary endpoint of part 2 was the disease control rate (the proportion of patients with a complete response, partial response, or stable disease) at week 12 in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma per protocol with BAP1 inactivation determined by immunohistochemistry. The safety population included all the patients who had at least one post-dose safety assessment. This trial is now complete and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02860286. FINDINGS: Between July 29, 2016, and June 2, 2017, 74 patients were enrolled (13 in part 1 and 61 in part 2) and received tazemetostat, 73 (99%) of whom had BAP1-inactivated tumours. In part 1, following repeat dosing of tazemetostat at steady state, on day 15 of cycle 1, the mean Cmax was 829 ng/mL (coefficient of variation 56·3%), median Tmax was 2 h (range 1-4), mean AUC0-twas 3310 h·ng/mL (coefficient of variation 50·4%), mean AUC0-∞ was 3180 h·ng/mL (46·6%), and the geometric mean t1/2 was 3·1 h (13·9%). After a median follow-up of 35·9 weeks (IQR 20·6-85·9), the disease control rate in part 2 in patients with BAP1-inactivated malignant pleural mesothelioma was 54% (95% CI 42-67; 33 of 61 patients) at week 12. No patients had a confirmed complete response. Two patients had a confirmed partial response: one had an ongoing partial response with a duration of 18 weeks and the other had a duration of 42 weeks. The most common grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events were hyperglycaemia (five [7%] patients), hyponatraemia (five [7%]), and anaemia (four [5%]); serious adverse events were reported in 25 (34%) of 74 patients. Five (7%) of 74 patients died while on study; no treatment-related deaths occurred. INTERPRETATION: Further refinement of biomarkers for tazemetostat activity in malignant pleural mesothelioma beyond BAP1 inactivation could help identify a subset of tumours that are most likely to derive prolonged benefit or shrinkage from this therapy. FUNDING: Epizyme.

First-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab in unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma (CheckMate 743): a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Approved systemic treatments for malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) have been limited to chemotherapy regimens that have moderate survival benefit with poor outcomes. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab has shown clinical benefit in other tumour types, including first-line non-small-cell lung cancer. We hypothesised that this regimen would improve overall survival in MPM. METHODS: This open-label, randomised, phase 3 study (CheckMate 743) was run at 103 hospitals across 21 countries. Eligible individuals were aged 18 years and older, with previously untreated, histologically confirmed unresectable MPM, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Eligible participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to nivolumab (3 mg/kg intravenously once every 2 weeks) plus ipilimumab (1 mg/kg intravenously once every 6 weeks) for up to 2 years, or platinum plus pemetrexed chemotherapy (pemetrexed [500 mg/m2 intravenously] plus cisplatin [75 mg/m2 intravenously] or carboplatin [area under the concentration-time curve 5 mg/mL per min intravenously]) once every 3 weeks for up to six cycles. The primary endpoint was overall survival among all participants randomly assigned to treatment, and safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose of study treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02899299, and is closed to accrual. FINDINGS: Between Nov 29, 2016, and April 28, 2018, 713 patients were enrolled, of whom 605 were randomly assigned to either nivolumab plus ipilimumab (n=303) or chemotherapy (n=302). 467 (77%) of 605 participants were male and median age was 69 years (IQR 64-75). At the prespecified interim analysis (database lock April 3, 2020; median follow-up of 29·7 months [IQR 26·7-32·9]), nivolumab plus ipilimumab significantly extended overall survival versus chemotherapy (median overall survival 18·1 months [95% CI 16·8-21·4] vs 14·1 months [12·4-16·2]; hazard ratio 0·74 [96·6% CI 0·60-0·91]; p=0·0020). 2-year overall survival rates were 41% (95% CI 35·1-46·5) in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group and 27% (21·9-32·4) in the chemotherapy group. Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 91 (30%) of 300 patients treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 91 (32%) of 284 treated with chemotherapy. Three (1%) treatment-related deaths occurred in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group (pneumonitis, encephalitis, and heart failure) and one (<1%) in the chemotherapy group (myelosuppression). INTERPRETATION: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab provided significant and clinically meaningful improvements in overall survival versus standard-of-care chemotherapy, supporting the use of this first-in-class regimen that has been approved in the USA as of October, 2020, for previously untreated unresectable MPM. FUNDING: Bristol Myers Squibb.

Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor Activity in Patients with NSCLC Harboring Uncommon EGFR Mutations: A Retrospective International Cohort Study (UpSwinG).

BACKGROUND: Epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR TKIs) are standard of care for patients with EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with common mutations (Del19 or L858R); however, 7%-23% of NSCLC tumors harbor uncommon EGFR mutations. These mutations are highly heterogeneous, and developments in detection techniques are helping to identify mutations with little or no clinical data. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this retrospective, global, multi-center study (NCT04179890), existing health records were identified for consecutive EGFR TKI-naïve patients with uncommon EGFR mutations (T790M, ex20ins, major uncommon [G719X, L861Q, or S768I], or "other" mutations; compound mutations) treated with erlotinib, gefitinib, afatinib, or osimertinib in first or second line. Endpoints included time-to-treatment failure (TTF), objective response rate (ORR), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Overall, 246 patients (median age: 69.5 years; Asian: 84%) were included from 9 countries. Most patients (92%) received an EGFR TKI as first-line therapy; 54%, 43% and 3% received afatinib, first-generation TKIs, and osimertinib, respectively. Median TTF and OS with EGFR TKIs were 9.9 and 24.4 months; ORR was 43%. In patients treated with first-line chemotherapy (n = 20), median TTF and ORR were 6.6 months and 41%. Outcomes were most favorable in patients with major uncommon or compound mutations. Overall, TTF was 11.3 months with afatinib and 8.8 months with first-generation EGFR TKIs across mutation categories. In most mutation categories, median OS was >2 years. CONCLUSION: In a real-world setting, EGFR TKIs were the preferred treatment option in patients with uncommon EGFR mutations; strongest outcomes were seen in patients with major uncommon and compound mutations.

Indirect comparisons of brigatinib and alectinib for front-line ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer.

Aim: To conduct an indirect treatment comparison (ITC) of the relative efficacy of brigatinib and alectinib for progression-free survival in people with tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI)-naive ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods: Final aggregate and patient-level data from the ALTA-1L trial comparing brigatinib to crizotinib and published aggregate data from ALEX (comparing alectinib to crizotinib) were contrasted using Bucher ITC and matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs). Results: No statistically significant differences were identified between brigatinib and alectinib in reducing the risk of disease progression overall and in patients with baseline central nervous system metastases. Conclusion: Brigatinib appeared similar to alectinib in reducing risk of disease progression for people with TKI-naive ALK-positive NSCLC.

Patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who have a genetic marker called rearrangement in the anaplastic lymphoma kinase, or ALK-positive disease, are treated with targeted medications taken by mouth. Two medications, alectinib and brigatinib, are both considered first-line treatment for these patients but have not been compared head-to-head. Recently, updated clinical trial results were published for these medications. The present study utilized these updated results and advanced statistical tests to indirectly compare the effectiveness of the two treatments to help guide clinical treatment choices. Results showed brigatinib and alectinib have a similar magnitude of effect in decreasing the risk of a patient with ALK-positive NSCLC developing worsening disease.

Large cell neuroendocrine lung carcinoma: consensus statement from The British Thoracic Oncology Group and the Association of Pulmonary Pathologists.

Over the past 10 years, lung cancer clinical and translational research has been characterised by exponential progress, exemplified by the introduction of molecularly targeted therapies, immunotherapy and chemo-immunotherapy combinations to stage III and IV non-small cell lung cancer. Along with squamous and small cell lung cancers, large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (LCNEC) now represents an area of unmet need, particularly hampered by the lack of an encompassing pathological definition that can facilitate real-world and clinical trial progress. The steps we have proposed in this article represent an iterative and rational path forward towards clinical breakthroughs that can be modelled on success in other lung cancer pathologies.

Navigating Diagnostic and Treatment Decisions in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Expert Commentary on the Multidisciplinary Team Approach.

Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) accounts for approximately one in five cancer-related deaths, and management requires increasingly complex decision making by health care professionals. Many centers have therefore adopted a multidisciplinary approach to patient care, using the expertise of various specialists to provide the best evidence-based, personalized treatment. However, increasingly complex disease staging, as well as expanded biomarker testing and multimodality management algorithms with novel therapeutics, have driven the need for multifaceted, collaborative decision making to optimally guide the overall treatment process. To keep up with the rapidly evolving treatment landscape, national-level guidelines have been introduced to standardize patient pathways and ensure prompt diagnosis and treatment. Such strategies depend on efficient and effective communication between relevant multidisciplinary team members and have both improved adherence to treatment guidelines and extended patient survival. This article highlights the value of a multidisciplinary approach to diagnosis and staging, treatment decision making, and adverse event management in NSCLC. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This review highlights the value of a multidisciplinary approach to the diagnosis and staging of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and makes practical suggestions as to how multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) can be best deployed at individual stages of the disease to improve patient outcomes and effectively manage common adverse events. The authors discuss how a collaborative approach, appropriately leveraging the diverse expertise of NSCLC MDT members (including specialist radiation and medical oncologists, chest physicians, pathologists, pulmonologists, surgeons, and nursing staff) can continue to ensure optimal per-patient decision making as treatment options become ever more specialized in the era of biomarker-driven therapeutic strategies.

Brigatinib versus Crizotinib in ALK-Positive Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Brigatinib, a next-generation anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitor, has robust efficacy in patients with ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) that is refractory to crizotinib. The efficacy of brigatinib, as compared with crizotinib, in patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC who have not previously received an ALK inhibitor is unclear. METHODS: In an open-label, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC who had not previously received ALK inhibitors to receive brigatinib at a dose of 180 mg once daily (with a 7-day lead-in period at 90 mg) or crizotinib at a dose of 250 mg twice daily. The primary end point was progression-free survival as assessed by blinded independent central review. Secondary end points included the objective response rate and intracranial response. The first interim analysis was planned when approximately 50% of 198 expected events of disease progression or death had occurred. RESULTS: A total of 275 patients underwent randomization; 137 were assigned to brigatinib and 138 to crizotinib. At the first interim analysis (99 events), the median follow-up was 11.0 months in the brigatinib group and 9.3 months in the crizotinib group. The rate of progression-free survival was higher with brigatinib than with crizotinib (estimated 12-month progression-free survival, 67% [95% confidence interval {CI}, 56 to 75] vs. 43% [95% CI, 32 to 53]; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.49 [95% CI, 0.33 to 0.74]; P<0.001 by the log-rank test). The confirmed objective response rate was 71% (95% CI, 62 to 78) with brigatinib and 60% (95% CI, 51 to 68) with crizotinib; the confirmed rate of intracranial response among patients with measurable lesions was 78% (95% CI, 52 to 94) and 29% (95% CI, 11 to 52), respectively. No new safety concerns were noted. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with ALK-positive NSCLC who had not previously received an ALK inhibitor, progression-free survival was significantly longer among patients who received brigatinib than among those who received crizotinib. (Funded by Ariad Pharmaceuticals; ALTA-1L ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02737501 .).