Cancer biomarkers: Emerging trends and clinical implications for personalized treatment.

The integration of cancer biomarkers into oncology has revolutionized cancer treatment, yielding remarkable advancements in cancer therapeutics and the prognosis of cancer patients. The development of personalized medicine represents a turning point and a new paradigm in cancer management, as biomarkers enable oncologists to tailor treatments based on the unique molecular profile of each patient's tumor. In this review, we discuss the scientific milestones of cancer biomarkers and explore future possibilities to improve the management of patients with solid tumors. This progress is primarily attributed to the biological characterization of cancers, advancements in testing methodologies, elucidation of the immune microenvironment, and the ability to profile circulating tumor fractions. Integrating these insights promises to continually advance the precision oncology field, fostering better patient outcomes.

A neutrophil response linked to tumor control in immunotherapy.

Neutrophils accumulate in solid tumors, and their abundance correlates with poor prognosis. Neutrophils are not homogeneous, however, and could play different roles in cancer therapy. Here, we investigate the role of neutrophils in immunotherapy, leading to tumor control. We show that successful therapies acutely expanded tumor neutrophil numbers. This expansion could be attributed to a Sellhi state rather than to other neutrophils that accelerate tumor progression. Therapy-elicited neutrophils acquired an interferon gene signature, also seen in human patients, and appeared essential for successful therapy, as loss of the interferon-responsive transcription factor IRF1 in neutrophils led to failure of immunotherapy. The neutrophil response depended on key components of anti-tumor immunity, including BATF3-dependent DCs, IL-12, and IFNγ. In addition, we found that a therapy-elicited systemic neutrophil response positively correlated with disease outcome in lung cancer patients. Thus, we establish a crucial role of a neutrophil state in mediating effective cancer therapy.

Strength in numbers: predicting response to checkpoint inhibitors from large clinical datasets.

The advent of immune checkpoint blockers for cancer therapy has spawned great interest in identifying molecular features reflecting the complexity of tumor immunity, which can subsequently be leveraged as predictive biomarkers. In a thorough big-data approach analyzing the largest series of homogenized molecular and clinical datasets, Litchfield et al. identified a set of genomic biomarkers that identifies immunotherapy responders across cancer types.

KRAS and TP53 co-mutation predicts benefit of immune checkpoint blockade in lung adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Predictive biomarkers in use for immunotherapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer are of limited sensitivity and specificity. We analysed the potential of activating KRAS and pathogenic TP53 mutations to provide additional predictive information. METHODS: The study cohort included 713 consecutive immunotherapy patients with advanced lung adenocarcinomas, negative for actionable genetic alterations. Additionally, two previously published immunotherapy and two surgical patient cohorts were analyzed. Therapy benefit was stratified by KRAS and TP53 mutations. Molecular characteristics underlying KRASmut/TP53mut tumours were revealed by the analysis of TCGA data. RESULTS: An interaction between KRAS and TP53 mutations was observed in univariate and multivariate analyses of overall survival (Hazard ratio [HR] = 0.56, p = 0.0044 and HR = 0.53, p = 0.0021) resulting in a stronger benefit for KRASmut/TP53mut tumours (HR = 0.71, CI 0.55-0.92). This observation was confirmed in immunotherapy cohorts but not observed in surgical cohorts. Tumour mutational burden, proliferation, and PD-L1 mRNA were significantly higher in TP53-mutated tumours, regardless of KRAS status. Genome-wide expression analysis revealed 64 genes, including CX3CL1 (fractalkine), as specific transcriptomic characteristic of KRASmut/TP53mut tumours. CONCLUSIONS: KRAS/TP53 co-mutation predicts ICI benefit in univariate and multivariate survival analyses and is associated with unique molecular tumour features. Mutation testing of the two genes can be easily implemented using small NGS panels.

First-line atezolizumab monotherapy versus single-agent chemotherapy in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer ineligible for treatment with a platinum-containing regimen (IPSOS): a phase 3, global, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Despite immunotherapy advancements for patients with advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), pivotal first-line trials were limited to patients with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) 0-1 and a median age of 65 years or younger. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of first-line atezolizumab monotherapy with single-agent chemotherapy in patients ineligible for platinum-based chemotherapy. METHODS: This trial was a phase 3, open-label, randomised controlled study conducted at 91 sites in 23 countries across Asia, Europe, North America, and South America. Eligible patients had stage IIIB or IV NSCLC in whom platinum-doublet chemotherapy was deemed unsuitable by the investigator due to an ECOG PS 2 or 3, or alternatively, being 70 years or older with an ECOG PS 0-1 with substantial comorbidities or contraindications for platinum-doublet chemotherapy. Patients were randomised 2:1 by permuted-block randomisation (block size of six) to receive 1200 mg of atezolizumab given intravenously every 3 weeks or single-agent chemotherapy (vinorelbine [oral or intravenous] or gemcitabine [intravenous]; dosing per local label) at 3-weekly or 4-weekly cycles. The primary endpoint was overall survival assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses were conducted in the safety-evaluable population, which included all randomised patients who received any amount of atezolizumab or chemotherapy. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03191786. FINDINGS: Between Sept 11, 2017, and Sept 23, 2019, 453 patients were enrolled and randomised to receive atezolizumab (n=302) or chemotherapy (n=151). Atezolizumab improved overall survival compared with chemotherapy (median overall survival 10·3 months [95% CI 9·4-11·9] vs 9·2 months [5·9-11·2]; stratified hazard ratio 0·78 [0·63-0·97], p=0·028), with a 2-year survival rate of 24% (95% CI 19·3-29·4) with atezolizumab compared with 12% (6·7-18·0) with chemotherapy. Compared with chemotherapy, atezolizumab was associated with stabilisation or improvement of patient-reported health-related quality-of-life functioning scales and symptoms and fewer grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events (49 [16%] of 300 vs 49 [33%] of 147) and treatment-related deaths (three [1%] vs four [3%]). INTERPRETATION: First-line treatment with atezolizumab monotherapy was associated with improved overall survival, a doubling of the 2-year survival rate, maintenance of quality of life, and a favourable safety profile compared with single-agent chemotherapy. These data support atezolizumab monotherapy as a potential first-line treatment option for patients with advanced NSCLC who are ineligible for platinum-based chemotherapy. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech Inc, a member of the Roche group.

Sotorasib versus docetaxel for previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer with KRASG12C mutation: a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Sotorasib is a specific, irreversible inhibitor of the GTPase protein, KRASG12C. We compared the efficacy and safety of sotorasib with a standard-of-care treatment in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with the KRASG12C mutation who had been previously treated with other anticancer drugs. METHODS: We conducted a randomised, open-label phase 3 trial at 148 centres in 22 countries. We recruited patients aged at least 18 years with KRASG12C-mutated advanced NSCLC, who progressed after previous platinum-based chemotherapy and a PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitor. Key exclusion criteria included new or progressing untreated brain lesions or symptomatic brain lesions, previously identified oncogenic driver mutation other than KRASG12C for which an approved therapy is available (eg EGFR or ALK), previous treatment with docetaxel (neoadjuvant or adjuvant docetaxel was allowed if the tumour did not progress within 6 months after the therapy was terminated), previous treatment with a direct KRASG12C inhibitor, systemic anticancer therapy within 28 days of study day 1, and therapeutic or palliative radiation therapy within 2 weeks of treatment initiation. We randomly assigned (1:1) patients to oral sotorasib (960 mg once daily) or intravenous docetaxel (75 mg/m2 once every 3 weeks) in an open-label manner using interactive response technology. Randomisation was stratified by number of previous lines of therapy in advanced disease (1 vs 2 vs >2), ethnicity (Asian vs non-Asian), and history of CNS metastases (present or absent). Treatment continued until an independent central confirmation of disease progression, intolerance, initiation of another anticancer therapy, withdrawal of consent, or death, whichever occurred first. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, which was assessed by a blinded, independent central review in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all treated patients. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04303780, and is active but no longer recruiting. FINDINGS: Between June 4, 2020, and April 26, 2021, 345 patients were randomly assigned to receive sotorasib (n=171 [50%]) or docetaxel (n=174 [50%]). 169 (99%) patients in the sotorasib group and 151 (87%) in the docetaxel group received at least one dose. After a median follow-up of 17·7 months (IQR 16·4-20·1), the study met its primary endpoint of a statistically significant increase in the progression-free survival for sotorasib, compared with docetaxel (median progression-free survival 5·6 months [95% CI 4·3-7·8] vs 4·5 months [3·0-5·7]; hazard ratio 0·66 [0·51-0·86]; p=0·0017). Sotorasib was well tolerated, with fewer grade 3 or worse (n=56 [33%] vs n=61 [40%]) and serious treatment-related adverse events compared with docetaxel (n=18 [11%] vs n=34 [23%]). For sotorasib, the most common treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or worse were diarrhoea (n= 20 [12%]), alanine aminotransferase increase (n=13 [8%]), and aspartate aminotransferase increase (n=9 [5%]). For docetaxel, the most common treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or worse were neutropenia (n=13 [9%]), fatigue (n=9 [6%]), and febrile neutropenia (n=8 [5%]). INTERPRETATION: Sotorasib significantly increased progression-free survival and had a more favourable safety profile, compared with docetaxel, in patients with advanced NSCLC with the KRASG12C mutation and who had been previously treated with other anticancer drugs. FUNDING: Amgen.

[Oncology: what's new in 2023]. / Oncologie: ce qui a changé en 2023.

The oncology field continues its remarkable evolution over the years, with promising advances leading to innovative and individualized treatments. The development of new molecules, the identification of new therapeutic targets and the search for new sequences or combinations promise to revolutionize cancer treatments and contribute to improving survival rates, patients' quality of life and to open new perspective in oncology research. In this article, the newest data released in 2023 are reviewed.

Le domaine de l'oncologie poursuit son évolution remarquable au fil des années, avec des avancées prometteuses ouvrant la voie à des traitements novateurs et individualisés. L'élaboration de nouvelles molécules, l'identification de nouvelles cibles thérapeutiques et la recherche de nouvelles séquences ou combinaisons de traitements promettent de révolutionner la prise en charge du cancer et de contribuer à améliorer les taux de survie, la qualité de vie des patients et à ouvrir de nouvelles perspectives dans la recherche en oncologie. Dans cet article, les nouveautés parues en 2023 sont passées en revue.

The Utility of ctDNA in Lung Cancer Clinical Research and Practice: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Studies.

This systematic review with embedded meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the clinical utility of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in lung cancer. After screening and review of the Embase database search, 111 studies from 2015 to 2020 demonstrated ctDNA's value in prognostication/monitoring disease progression, mainly in patients with advanced/metastatic disease and non-small cell lung cancer. ctDNA positivity/detection at any time point was associated with shorter progression-free survival and overall survival, whereas ctDNA clearance/decrease during treatment was associated with a lower risk of progression and death. Validating these findings and addressing challenges regarding ctDNA testing integration into clinical practice will require further research.

Population pharmacokinetic modelling of tremelimumab in patients with advanced solid tumours and the impact of disease status on time-varying clearance.

AIMS: Tremelimumab, a cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 human monoclonal antibody of the immunoglobulin G2 κ isotype, has been studied in oncology clinical trials as both monotherapy and in combination with durvalumab. This study characterized the pharmacokinetics of tremelimumab as monotherapy and in combination with durvalumab and evaluated the impact of patient covariates on pharmacokinetics. METHODS: A pooled-analysis population pharmacokinetics model was built using NONMEM methodology. Pharmacokinetic data from 5 studies spanning different tumour types and therapy regimens were pooled for model development (956 patients). A dataset pooled from 4 additional studies was used for external validation (554 patients). Demographic and relevant clinical covariates were explored during model development. RESULTS: Tremelimumab exhibited linear pharmacokinetics, well described by a 2-compartment model, with time-varying clearance (0.276 L/day at baseline) associated primarily with therapy regimen and linked with changes in disease status. As monotherapy and combination therapy, tremelimumab clearance over 1 year increased by ~16% and decreased by ~17%, respectively. Pharmacokinetic behaviour was consistent across patient demographics and cancer subtypes. Patients with higher bodyweight and lower albumin levels at baseline had significantly higher clearance; however, no dosage adjustments are warranted. A flat dose (75 mg) was projected to provide comparable exposure to weight-based dosing (1 mg/kg) in adults. CONCLUSION: Tremelimumab exhibited linear pharmacokinetics but consistently opposite trends of time-varying clearance as monotherapy and in combination with durvalumab. Baseline bodyweight and albumin were significant covariates, but conversion from weight-based dosing at 1 mg/kg to flat dosing at 75 mg had no clinically relevant impact.

[Lung cancer screening : towards the implementation of a pilot project in Switzerland]. / Dépistage du cancer pulmonaire : vers l'implémentation d'un projet pilote en Suisse.

Lung cancer is responsible for one in five cancer-related deaths. Screening for lung cancer using low-dose chest CT (LDCT) is supported by several international studies targeting the at-risk population as part of an organised programme. Given the organisational challenges for the healthcare systems of the countries concerned, this involves setting up pilot screening projects. This requires close collaboration between the players involved, with a multidisciplinary approach structured around the participant, aiming to offer the expertise of the pulmonologist and the radiologist on the LDCT performed, interpreted with the help of artificial intelligence. Here we set out the elements needed to develop a screening programme, starting with the implementation of a pilot project.

Le cancer pulmonaire est responsable d'un décès lié au cancer sur cinq. Le dépistage du cancer pulmonaire par le scanner thoracique à faible dose (LDCT) est soutenu par plusieurs études internationales ciblant la population à risque dans le cadre d'un programme organisé. Vu les enjeux organisationnels pour le système de santé des pays concernés, cela passe par la mise en place de projets pilotes de dépistage. Cela requiert une collaboration étroite entre les différents acteurs, avec une approche multidisciplinaire structurée autour du participant visant à offrir l'expertise du pneumologue et du radiologue sur le LDCT effectué, interprété avec l'aide de l'intelligence artificielle. Nous exposons ici les éléments nécessaires à l'élaboration d'un programme de dépistage, en passant d'abord par la mise en place d'un projet pilote.

[Oncology: what's new in 2022]. / Oncologie : ce qui a changé en 2022.

The past year has brought several innovations in medical oncology, opening up promising new options for many solid tumors, both localized and metastatic. Immunotherapy, a real spearhead of emerging therapies in metastatic diseases, is seeing its use extend to adjuvant and neoadjuvant modalities, particularly in colon and lung cancers. 2022 also sees a great deal of focus on targeted therapies, as well as on antibody-drug conjugates, which creates new standards in both breast and lung cancers. Here we present the major advances in solid tumors.

L'année écoulée a apporté son lot d'innovations en oncologie médicale, ouvrant de nouvelles options prometteuses pour bon nombre de tumeurs solides, qu'elles soient localisées ou métastatiques. L'immunothérapie, véritable fer de lance des thérapies émergentes dans les maladies métastatiques, voit son usage s'étendre à des modalités adjuvantes et néoadjuvantes, notamment dans les cancers du côlon et du poumon. 2022 donne également la part belle aux thérapies ciblées mais aussi aux conjuguées anticorps-médicaments qui apportent de nouveaux standards tant pour les cancers du sein que du poumon. Nous vous présentons ici les avancées majeures concernant les tumeurs solides.

High-dose alectinib for RET fusion-positive non-small cell lung cancer in the Blood First Assay Screening Trial.

Introduction: This paper presents results from Cohort B (rearranged during transfection [RET], fusion-positive) of the Blood First Assay Screening Trial in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) screened for genetic alterations using blood-based next-generation sequencing. Material and methods: Adults with advanced RET fusion-positive NSCLC received alectinib 900 mg twice daily (BID) in Phase I. Enrolment closed prematurely with Phase II uninitiated. Results: Among eight treated patients, confirmed best overall responses in evaluable patients were stable disease (4/5) and progressive disease (1/5). One dose-limiting toxicity (death, unknown cause) was considered by the investigator to be related to treatment and underlying disease. Serious adverse events (SAEs) occurred in five patients, and SAEs that may be related to treatment occurred in two patients. Conclusions: Alectinib showed limited activity in advanced RET fusion-positive NSCLC, and further investigation was not conducted due to the development of selective RET inhibitors pralsetinib and selpercatinib. No new safety signals were observed, and the safety profile of alectinib was in line with previous reports at the 600 mg BID dose.

Pembrolizumab versus placebo as adjuvant therapy for completely resected stage IB-IIIA non-small-cell lung cancer (PEARLS/KEYNOTE-091): an interim analysis of a randomised, triple-blind, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Pembrolizumab is a standard-of-care for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We assessed pembrolizumab as adjuvant therapy for completely resected stage IB-IIIA NSCLC. METHODS: In this randomised, triple-blind, phase 3 trial (PEARLS/KEYNOTE-091), patients were recruited from 196 medical centres in 29 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, with completely resected, pathologically confirmed stage IB (tumours of ≥4 cm in diameter), II, or IIIA NSCLC per the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system (7th edition) of any histology or PD-L1 expression level, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1; adjuvant chemotherapy was to be considered for stage IB disease and was strongly recommended for stage II and IIIA disease, according to national and local guidelines. Using a central interactive voice-response system, eligible participants were randomly assigned (1:1), using a minimisation technique and stratified by disease stage, previous adjuvant chemotherapy, PD-L1 expression, and geographical region, to pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo, both administered intravenously every 3 weeks for up to 18 cycles. Participants, investigators, and analysts were masked to treatment assignment. Dual primary endpoints were disease-free survival in the overall population and in the population with PD-L1 tumour proportion score (TPS) of 50% or greater. Efficacy was assessed in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population (ie, all participants randomly assigned to a treatment group). Safety was assessed in all participants randomly assigned to treatment who received at least one dose of study treatment. Here we report results of the second interim analysis, prespecified to occur when approximately 118 disease-free survival events had occurred in the PD-L1 TPS of 50% or greater population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02504372, and is active but not recruiting. FINDINGS: Between Jan 20, 2016, and May 6, 2020, 1177 (60%) of 1955 screened participants were randomly assigned to pembrolizumab (n=590, including n=168 with PD-L1 TPS of ≥50%) or placebo (n=587; including n=165 with PD-L1 TPS of ≥50%) and included in the ITT population. Median follow-up as of data cutoff (Sept 20, 2021) for this interim analysis was 35·6 months (IQR 27·1-45·5). In the overall population, median disease-free survival was 53·6 months (95% CI 39·2 to not reached) in the pembrolizumab group versus 42·0 months (31·3 to not reached) in the placebo group (HR 0·76 [95% CI 0·63-0·91], p=0·0014). In the PD-L1 TPS of 50% or greater population, median disease-free survival was not reached in either the pembrolizumab group (95% CI 44·3 to not reached) or the placebo group (95% CI 35·8 to not reached; HR 0·82 [95% CI 0·57-1·18]; p=0·14). Grade 3 or worse adverse events occurred in 198 (34%) of 580 participants who received pembrolizumab and 150 (26%) of 581 participants who received placebo. Grade 3 or worse events that occurred in at least ten participants in either treatment group were hypertension (35 [6%]) and pneumonia (12 [2%]) with pembrolizumab and hypertension (32 [6%]) with placebo. Serious adverse events occurred in 142 (24%) participants in the pembrolizumab group and 90 (15%) in the placebo group; serious adverse events that occurred in more than 1% of participants were pneumonia (13 [2%]), pneumonitis (12 [2%]), and diarrhoea (seven [1%]) with pembrolizumab and pneumonia (nine [2%]) with placebo. Treatment-related adverse events led to death in four (1%) participants treated with pembrolizumab (one due to both cardiogenic shock and myocarditis, one due to both septic shock and myocarditis, one due to pneumonia, and one due to sudden death) and in no participants treated with placebo. INTERPRETATION: Pembrolizumab significantly improved disease-free survival compared with placebo and was not associated with new safety signals in completely resected, PD-L1-unselected, stage IB-IIIA NSCLC. Pembrolizumab is potentially a new treatment option for stage IB-IIIA NSCLC after complete resection and, when recommended, adjuvant chemotherapy, regardless of PD-L1 expression. FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck & Co.

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.

Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab in Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: In an early-phase study involving patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the response rate was better with nivolumab plus ipilimumab than with nivolumab monotherapy, particularly among patients with tumors that expressed programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1). Data are needed to assess the long-term benefit of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with NSCLC. METHODS: In this open-label, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients with stage IV or recurrent NSCLC and a PD-L1 expression level of 1% or more in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive nivolumab plus ipilimumab, nivolumab alone, or chemotherapy. The patients who had a PD-L1 expression level of less than 1% were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive nivolumab plus ipilimumab, nivolumab plus chemotherapy, or chemotherapy alone. All the patients had received no previous chemotherapy. The primary end point reported here was overall survival with nivolumab plus ipilimumab as compared with chemotherapy in patients with a PD-L1 expression level of 1% or more. RESULTS: Among the patients with a PD-L1 expression level of 1% or more, the median duration of overall survival was 17.1 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 15.0 to 20.1) with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 14.9 months (95% CI, 12.7 to 16.7) with chemotherapy (P = 0.007), with 2-year overall survival rates of 40.0% and 32.8%, respectively. The median duration of response was 23.2 months with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 6.2 months with chemotherapy. The overall survival benefit was also observed in patients with a PD-L1 expression level of less than 1%, with a median duration of 17.2 months (95% CI, 12.8 to 22.0) with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 12.2 months (95% CI, 9.2 to 14.3) with chemotherapy. Among all the patients in the trial, the median duration of overall survival was 17.1 months (95% CI, 15.2 to 19.9) with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 13.9 months (95% CI, 12.2 to 15.1) with chemotherapy. The percentage of patients with grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events in the overall population was 32.8% with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 36.0% with chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: First-line treatment with nivolumab plus ipilimumab resulted in a longer duration of overall survival than did chemotherapy in patients with NSCLC, independent of the PD-L1 expression level. No new safety concerns emerged with longer follow-up. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical; CheckMate 227 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02477826.).

Deciphering the immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment in ALK- and EGFR-positive lung adenocarcinoma.

INTRODUCTION: The advent of immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) has led to significantly improved disease outcome in lung adenocarcinoma (ADC), but response of ALK/EGFR-positive tumors to immune therapy is limited. The underlying immune biology is incompletely understood. METHODS: We performed comparative mRNA expression profiling of 31 ALK-positive, 40 EGFR-positive and 43 ALK/EGFR-negative lung ADC focused on immune gene expression. The presence and levels of tumor infiltration lymphocytes (TILs) as well as fourteen specific immune cell populations were estimated from the gene expression profiles. RESULTS: While total TILs were not lower in ALK-positive and EGFR-positive tumors compared to ALK/EGFR-negative tumors, specific immunosuppressive characteristics were detected in both subgroups: In ALK-positive tumors, regulatory T cells were significantly higher compared to EGFR-positive (fold change: FC = 1.9, p = 0.0013) and ALK/EGFR-negative tumors (FC = 2.1, p = 0.00047). In EGFR-positive tumors, cytotoxic cells were significantly lower compared to ALK-positive (FC = - 1.7, p = 0.016) and to ALK/EGFR-negative tumors (FC = - 2.1, p = 2.0E-05). A total number of 289 genes, 40 part of cytokine-cytokine receptor signaling, were differentially expressed between the three subgroups. Among the latter, five genes were differently expressed in both ALK-positive and EGFR-positive tumors, while twelve genes showed differential expression solely in ALK-positive tumors and eleven genes solely in EGFR-positive tumors. CONCLUSION: Targeted gene expression profiling is a promising tool to read out tumor microenvironment characteristics from routine diagnostic lung cancer biopsies. Significant immune reactivity including specific immunosuppressive characteristics in ALK- and EGFR-positive lung ADC, but not a total absence of immune infiltration supports further clinical evaluation of immune-modulators as partners of ICB in such tumors.

Expression of phosphorylated ribosomal protein S6 in mesothelioma patients - correlation with clinico-pathological characteristics and outcome: results from the European Thoracic Oncology Platform (ETOP) Mesoscape project.

Pleural mesothelioma (PM) is an aggressive malignancy with poor prognosis. Although histology and pathologic stage are important prognostic factors, better prognostic biomarkers are needed. The ribosomal protein S6 is a downstream target of the phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K) pathway involved in protein synthesis and cell proliferation. In previous studies, low phosphorylated S6 (pS6) immunoreactivity was significantly correlated with longer progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in PM patients. We aimed to correlate pS6 expression to clinical data in a large multi-centre PM cohort as part of the European Thoracic Oncology Platform (ETOP) Mesoscape project. Tissue Micro Arrays (TMAs) of PM were constructed and expression of pS6 was evaluated by a semi-quantitatively aggregate H-score. Expression results were correlated to patient characteristics as well as OS/PFS. pS6 IHC results of 364 patients from 9 centres, diagnosed between 1999 and 2017 were available. The primary histology of included tumours was epithelioid (70.3%), followed by biphasic (24.2%) and sarcomatoid (5.5%). TMAs included both treatment-naïve and tumour tissue taken after induction chemotherapy. High pS6 expression (181 patients with H-score>1.41) was significantly associated with less complete resection. In the overall cohort, OS/PFS were not significantly different between pS6-low and pS6-high patients. In a subgroup analysis non-epithelioid (biphasic and sarcomatoid) patients with high pS6 expression showed a significantly shorter OS (p < 0.001, 10.7 versus 16.9 months) and PFS (p < 0.001, 6.2 versus 10.8 months). In subgroup analysis, in non-epithelioid PM patients high pS6 expression was associated with significantly shorter OS and PFS. These exploratory findings suggest a clinically relevant PI3K pathway activation in non-epithelioid PM which might lay the foundation for future targeted treatment strategies.

Perspectives in Melanoma: meeting report from the Melanoma Bridge (December 2nd - 4th, 2021, Italy).

Advances in immune checkpoint and combination therapy have led to improvement in overall survival for patients with advanced melanoma. Improved understanding of the tumor, tumor microenvironment and tumor immune-evasion mechanisms has resulted in new approaches to targeting and harnessing the host immune response. Combination modalities with other immunotherapy agents, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, electrochemotherapy are also being explored to overcome resistance and to potentiate the immune response. In addition, novel approaches such as adoptive cell therapy, oncogenic viruses, vaccines and different strategies of drug administration including sequential, or combination treatment are being tested. Despite the progress in diagnosis of melanocytic lesions, correct classification of patients, selection of appropriate adjuvant and systemic theràapies, and prediction of response to therapy remain real challenges in melanoma. Improved understanding of the tumor microenvironment, tumor immunity and response to therapy has prompted extensive translational and clinical research in melanoma. There is a growing evidence that genomic and immune features of pre-treatment tumor biopsies may correlate with response in patients with melanoma and other cancers, but they have yet to be fully characterized and implemented clinically. Development of novel biomarker platforms may help to improve diagnostics and predictive accuracy for selection of patients for specific treatment. Overall, the future research efforts in melanoma therapeutics and translational research should focus on several aspects including: (a) developing robust biomarkers to predict efficacy of therapeutic modalities to guide clinical decision-making and optimize treatment regimens, (b) identifying mechanisms of therapeutic resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitors that are potentially actionable, (c) identifying biomarkers to predict therapy-induced adverse events, and (d) studying mechanism of actions of therapeutic agents and developing algorithms to optimize combination treatments. During the Melanoma Bridge meeting (December 2nd-4th, 2021, Naples, Italy) discussions focused on the currently approved systemic and local therapies for advanced melanoma and discussed novel biomarker strategies and advances in precision medicine as well as the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on management of melanoma patients.

Patients' experiences with cancer care in Switzerland: Results of a multicentre cross-sectional survey.

OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to describe patients' experiences of cancer care in Switzerland and explore the variation of these experiences by type of cancer. METHODS: The Swiss Cancer Patient Experiences (SCAPE) study was a cross-sectional, multicentre survey conducted in 2018. Adult patients (n = 7145) with breast, prostate, lung, colorectal, skin or haematological cancer from four large hospitals in French-speaking Switzerland were invited to complete a survey. Logistic regressions were used to assess whether experiences varied according to cancer type, adjusting for confounders. RESULTS: Of the 3121 persons who returned the survey (44% response rate), 2755 reporting an eligible cancer were included in the analyses. Participants' average score for overall care was 8.5 out of a maximum score of 10. Higher rates of positive experiences were found for nurse consultations (94%), diagnostic tests (85%) and inpatient care (82%). Lower positive responses were reported for support for people with cancer (70%), treatment decisions (66%), diagnosis (65%) and home care (55%). We observed non-systematic differences in experiences of care by cancer type. CONCLUSIONS: This large study identified that cancer patient experiences can be improved in relation to communication, information and supportive care aspects. Improvement efforts should target these areas of care to enhance responsiveness of cancer care.