Treatment outcomes of patients with primary tracheal tumors - analysis of a large retrospective series.

OBJECTIVE: Primary tracheal tumors are very rare and their management is not definitely established. Due to its rarity, providing patient care in terms of optimal management poses a considerable challenge. The purpose of this study was to investigate treatment outcomes in patients with these rare tumors. METHODS: We carried out a retrospective analysis of 89 patients with primary tracheal tumors treated at the Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology in Warsaw, Poland, over sixteen years. The study assessed patient demographics, tumor characteristics and treatment. Different treatment options were compared in terms of overall survival, disease-free survival, and progression-free survival. RESULTS: A total of 89 patients were included in the study. In the group presented, 45 patients underwent primary radical treatment and 44 were qualified for palliative treatment. Surgical resection was performed in 13 patients out of radically treated patients. The 5 year OS rates in the group of patients who underwent radical treatment and in the group of patients who underwent palliative treatment were 45.9% and 2.3%, respectively. In the group of patients who underwent radical surgical treatment, the 5 year OS was 76.9% compared to 35.8% in the group of patients who underwent nonsurgical treatment. CONCLUSION: A multidisciplinary team should decide treatment options, including in-depth consideration of surgical treatment options.

Efficacy in patients with EGFR-positive non-small-cell lung cancer treated with dacomitinib who had skin adverse events: post hoc analyses from ARCHER 1050.

Aim: We investigated association between skin adverse events (AEs) and efficacy with dacomitinib in patients with EGFR-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).Methods: Post hoc analyses from ARCHER 1050 evaluated efficacy in patients who did and did not experience grade ≥2 skin AEs with dacomitinib. Landmark analyses were performed at 3 and 6 months.Results: In patients who had skin AEs (72.2%) vs. those who did not (27.7%), median progression-free survival was 16.0 vs. 9.2 months, median overall survival (OS) was 37.7 vs. 21.6 months, and objective response rate was 80.2 vs. 61.5%; OS was improved at 3 and 6 months landmark analyses.Conclusion: Presence of grade ≥2 skin AEs was associated with numerically improved efficacy and represents a valuable biomarker of treatment outcome with dacomitinib in patients with advanced NSCLC.Clinical Trial Registration: NCT01774721 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

The ARCHER 1050 study assessed how the drugs called dacomitinib and gefitinib affected people with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who had mutations in the EGFR gene. In this study, people who were treated with dacomitinib lived longer without their cancer getting worse than people who were treated with gefitinib. Skin adverse reactions were higher in people who were treated with dacomitinib than gefitinib. In this follow-up analysis, researchers wanted to see if the treatment effect of dacomitinib was different between people who had skin adverse reactions and people who did not have skin adverse reactions after treatment with dacomitinib. The results from this analysis showed that after treatment with dacomitinib, half of the people who had skin adverse reactions lived for 16.0 months, and half of the people who did not have skin adverse reactions lived for 9.2 months without their cancer getting worse. This study also showed that half of the people who had skin adverse reactions lived for 37.7 months, and half of the people who did not have skin adverse reactions lived for 21.6 months. In summary, the results from this study showed that the treatment effect of dacomitinib was better in people who had skin adverse reactions after treatment with dacomitinib. Therefore, skin adverse reactions can be a marker of better treatment effect in people with NSCLC who had mutations in the EGFR gene when treated with dacomitinib.

Real-World Experience in Treatment of Patients with Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer with BRAF or cMET Exon 14 Skipping Mutations.

BRAF and cMET exon 14 skipping are rare mutations of NSCLC. The treatment sequence in these cases for the first and second line is not clear. An international registry was created for patients with advanced NSCLC harboring BRAF or cMET exon 14 skipping mutations, diagnosed from January 2017 to June 2022. Clinicopathological and molecular data and treatment patterns were recorded. Data on 58 patients, from eight centers across five countries, were included in the final analysis. We found that 40 patients had the cMET exon 14 skipping mutation and 18 had the BRAF V600E mutation. In total, 53 and 28 patients received first- and second-line treatments, respectively, among which 52.8% received targeted therapy (TT) in the first line and 53.5% in the second line. The overall response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR) for first-line treatment with TT vs. other treatment such as immune checkpoint inhibitors ± chemotherapy (IO ± CT) were 55.6% vs. 21.7% (p = 0.0084) and 66.7% vs. 39.1% (p = 0.04), respectively. The type of treatment in first-line TT vs. other affected time to treatment discontinuation (TTD) was 11.6 m vs. 4.6 m (p= 0.006). The overall survival for the whole group was 15.4 m and was not statistically affected by the type of treatment (19.2 m vs. 13.5 m; p = 0.83).

Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab in Lung Cancer with a High Tumor Mutational Burden.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab showed promising efficacy for the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in a phase 1 trial, and tumor mutational burden has emerged as a potential biomarker of benefit. In this part of an open-label, multipart, phase 3 trial, we examined progression-free survival with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy among patients with a high tumor mutational burden (≥10 mutations per megabase). METHODS: We enrolled patients with stage IV or recurrent NSCLC that was not previously treated with chemotherapy. Those with a level of tumor programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression of at least 1% were randomly assigned, in a 1:1:1 ratio, to receive nivolumab plus ipilimumab, nivolumab monotherapy, or chemotherapy; those with a tumor 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. Tumor mutational burden was determined by the FoundationOne CDx assay. RESULTS: Progression-free survival among patients with a high tumor mutational burden was significantly longer with nivolumab plus ipilimumab than with chemotherapy. The 1-year progression-free survival rate was 42.6% with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus 13.2% with chemotherapy, and the median progression-free survival was 7.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.5 to 13.2) versus 5.5 months (95% CI, 4.4 to 5.8) (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.58; 97.5% CI, 0.41 to 0.81; P<0.001). The objective response rate was 45.3% with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 26.9% with chemotherapy. The benefit of nivolumab plus ipilimumab over chemotherapy was broadly consistent within subgroups, including patients with a PD-L1 expression level of at least 1% and those with a level of less than 1%. The rate of grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events was 31.2% with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 36.1% with chemotherapy. ical; CheckMate 227 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02477826 .). CONCLUSIONS: Progression-free survival was significantly longer with first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab than with chemotherapy among patients with NSCLC and a high tumor mutational burden, irrespective of PD-L1 expression level. The results validate the benefit of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in NSCLC and the role of tumor mutational burden as a biomarker for patient selection. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceut

The patient's perspective on treatment with dacomitinib: patient-reported outcomes from the Phase III trial ARCHER 1050.

Aim: Patient-reported symptoms, functioning and overall quality of life (QoL) were compared between dacomitinib and gefitinib in ARCHER 1050. Patients & methods: Patients (n = 448) with advanced EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer completed the EORTC-QLQ-C30 questionnaire and its lung-specific module, LC-13. Mean scores over time were analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures. Results: Both treatments showed early improvement in disease-related symptoms that was maintained during treatment. Treatment-related diarrhea and sore mouth decreased following dose reduction with dacomitinib. There were no clinically meaningful changes in functioning and overall QoL in either treatment group. Conclusion: Longer treatment duration, enabled by dose reduction, allowed patients on dacomitinib to improve treatment-related symptoms and maintain functioning and overall QoL for longer than gefitinib.

Four-year survival with nivolumab in patients with previously treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a pooled analysis.

BACKGROUND: Phase 3 clinical data has shown higher proportions of patients with objective response, longer response duration, and longer overall survival with nivolumab versus docetaxel in patients with previously treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We aimed to evaluate the long-term benefit of nivolumab and the effect of response and disease control on subsequent survival. METHODS: We pooled data from four clinical studies of nivolumab in patients with previously treated NSCLC (CheckMate 017, 057, 063, and 003) to evaluate survival outcomes. Trials of nivolumab in the second-line or later setting with at least 4 years follow-up were included. Comparisons of nivolumab versus docetaxel included all randomised patients from the phase 3 CheckMate 017 and 057 studies. We did landmark analyses by response status at 6 months to determine post-landmark survival outcomes. We excluded patients who did not have a radiographic tumour assessment at 6 months. Safety analyses included all patients who received at least one dose of nivolumab. FINDINGS: Across all four studies, 4-year overall survival with nivolumab was 14% (95% CI 11-17) for all patients (n=664), 19% (15-24) for those with at least 1% PD-L1 expression, and 11% (7-16) for those with less than 1% PD-L1 expression. In CheckMate 017 and 057, 4-year overall survival was 14% (95% CI 11-18) in patients treated with nivolumab, compared with 5% (3-7) in patients treated with docetaxel. Survival subsequent to response at 6 months on nivolumab or docetaxel was longer than after progressive disease at 6 months, with hazard ratios for overall survival of 0·18 (95% 0·12-0·27) for nivolumab and 0·43 (0·29-0·65) for docetaxel; for stable disease versus progressive disease, hazard ratios were 0·52 (0·37-0·71) for nivolumab and 0·80 (0·61-1·04) for docetaxel. Long-term data did not show any new safety signals. INTERPRETATION: Patients with advanced NSCLC treated with nivolumab achieved a greater duration of response compared with patients treated with docetaxel, which was associated with a long-term survival advantage. FUNDING: Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Effects of dose modifications on the safety and efficacy of dacomitinib for EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer.

Aim: We evaluated reasons for dacomitinib dose reduction (DR) and examined adverse event (AE) incidence, key efficacy end points (progression-free survival [PFS]/overall survival [OS]), and pharmacokinetics in dose-reducing patients in the ARCHER 1050 trial. Patients & methods: Newly diagnosed patients with EGFR mutation-positive, advanced non-small-cell lung cancer received oral dacomitinib (45 mg once-daily [QD]), with stepwise toxicity-managing DR (30 and 15 mg QD) permitted. Results: Skin toxicities (62.7%) were the most common DR-leading AEs. The AE incidence and severity decreased following DRs. Initial plasma dacomitinib exposure (45 mg QD) was generally lower in patients remaining at 45 mg QD compared with dose-reducing patients. Median PFS and OS were similar in all dacomitinib-treated patients and dose-reducing patients. Conclusion: Tolerability-guided dose modifications enabled patients to continue with dacomitinib and benefit from PFS/OS improvement. Trial registration number: NCT01774721.

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

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced squamous-cell non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who have disease progression during or after first-line chemotherapy have limited treatment options. This randomized, open-label, international, phase 3 study evaluated the efficacy and safety of nivolumab, a fully human IgG4 programmed death 1 (PD-1) immune-checkpoint-inhibitor antibody, as compared with docetaxel in this patient population. METHODS: We randomly assigned 272 patients 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: The median overall survival was 9.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 7.3 to 13.3) with nivolumab versus 6.0 months (95% CI, 5.1 to 7.3) with docetaxel. The risk of death was 41% lower with nivolumab than with docetaxel (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.79; P<0.001). At 1 year, the overall survival rate was 42% (95% CI, 34 to 50) with nivolumab versus 24% (95% CI, 17 to 31) with docetaxel. The response rate was 20% with nivolumab versus 9% with docetaxel (P=0.008). The median progression-free survival was 3.5 months with nivolumab versus 2.8 months with docetaxel (hazard ratio for death or disease progression, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.81; P<0.001). The expression of the PD-1 ligand (PD-L1) was neither prognostic nor predictive of benefit. Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or 4 were reported in 7% of the patients in the nivolumab group as compared with 55% of those in the docetaxel group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with advanced, previously treated squamous-cell NSCLC, overall survival, response rate, and progression-free survival were significantly better with nivolumab than with docetaxel, regardless of PD-L1 expression level. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb; CheckMate 017 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01642004.).

Dacomitinib versus gefitinib as first-line treatment for patients with EGFR-mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (ARCHER 1050): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Dacomitinib is a second-generation, irreversible EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor. We compared its efficacy and safety with that of the reversible EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor gefitinib in the first-line treatment of patients with advanced EGFR-mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: In this international, multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 study (ARCHER 1050), we enrolled adults (aged ≥18 years or ≥20 years in Japan and South Korea) with newly diagnosed advanced NSCLC and one EGFR mutation (exon 19 deletion or Leu858Arg) at 71 academic medical centres and university hospitals in seven countries or special administrative regions. We randomly assigned participants (1:1) to receive oral dacomitinib 45 mg/day (in 28-day cycles) or oral gefitinib 250 mg/day (in 28-day cycles) until disease progression or another discontinuation criterion was met. Randomisation, stratified by race and EGFR mutation type, was done with a computer-generated random code assigned by a central interactive web response system. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed by masked independent review in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01774721, and is ongoing but no longer recruiting patients. FINDINGS: Between May 9, 2013, and March 20, 2015, 452 eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive dacomitinib (n=227) or gefitinib (n=225). Median duration of follow-up for progression-free survival was 22·1 months (95% CI 20·3-23·9). Median progression-free survival according to masked independent review was 14·7 months (95% CI 11·1-16·6) in the dacomitinib group and 9·2 months (9·1-11·0) in the gefitinib group (hazard ratio 0·59, 95% CI 0·47-0·74; p<0·0001). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were dermatitis acneiform (31 [14%] of 227 patients given dacomitinib vs none of 224 patients given gefitinib), diarrhoea (19 [8%] vs two [1%]), and raised alanine aminotransferase levels (two [1%] vs 19 [8%]). Treatment-related serious adverse events were reported in 21 (9%) patients given dacomitinib and in ten (4%) patients given gefitinib. Two treatment-related deaths occurred in the dacomitinib group (one related to untreated diarrhoea and one to untreated cholelithases/liver disease) and one in the gefitinib group (related to sigmoid colon diverticulitis/rupture complicated by pneumonia). INTERPRETATION: Dacomitinib significantly improved progression-free survival over gefitinib in first-line treatment of patients with EGFR-mutation-positive NSCLC and should be considered as a new treatment option for this population. FUNDING: SFJ Pharmaceuticals Group and Pfizer.

Dacomitinib versus erlotinib in patients with advanced-stage, previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer (ARCHER 1009): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Dacomitinib is an irreversible pan-EGFR family tyrosine kinase inhibitor. Findings from a phase 2 study in non-small cell lung cancer showed favourable efficacy for dacomitinib compared with erlotinib. We aimed to compare dacomitinib with erlotinib in a phase 3 study. METHODS: In a randomised, multicentre, double-blind phase 3 trial in 134 centres in 23 countries, we enrolled patients who had locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer, progression after one or two previous regimens of chemotherapy, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-2, and presence of measurable disease. We randomly assigned patients in a 1:1 ratio to dacomitinib (45 mg/day) or erlotinib (150 mg/day) with matching placebo. Treatment allocation was masked to the investigator, patient, and study funder. Randomisation was stratified by histology (adenocarcinoma vs non-adenocarcinoma), ethnic origin (Asian vs non-Asian and Indian sub-continent), performance status (0-1 vs 2), and smoking status (never-smoker vs ever-smoker). The coprimary endpoints were progression-free survival per independent review for all randomly assigned patients, and for all randomly assigned patients with KRAS wild-type tumours. The study has completed accrual and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01360554. FINDINGS: Between June 22, 2011, and March 12, 2013, we enrolled 878 patients and randomly assigned 439 to dacomitinib (256 KRAS wild type) and 439 (263 KRAS wild type) to erlotinib. Median progression-free survival was 2·6 months (95% CI 1·9-2·8) in both the dacomitinib group and the erlotinib group (stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0·941, 95% CI 0·802-1·104, one-sided log-rank p=0·229). For patients with wild-type KRAS, median progression-free survival was 2·6 months for dacomitinib (95% CI 1·9-2·9) and erlotinib (95% CI 1·9-3·0; stratified HR 1·022, 95% CI 0·834-1·253, one-sided p=0·587). In patients who received at least one dose of study drug, the most frequent grade 3-4 adverse events were diarrhoea (47 [11%] patients in the dacomitinib group vs ten [2%] patients in the erlotinib group), rash (29 [7%] vs 12 [3%]), and stomatitis (15 [3%] vs two [<1%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 52 (12%) patients receiving dacomitinib and 40 (9%) patients receiving erlotinib. INTERPRETATION: Irreversible EGFR inhibition with dacomitinib was not superior to erlotinib in an unselected patient population with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer or in patients with KRAS wild-type tumours. Further study of irreversible EGFR inhibitors should be restricted to patients with activating EGFR mutations. FUNDING: Pfizer.

Tracheal Tumors: Clinical Practice Guidelines for Palliative Treatment and Follow-Up.

A substantial portion of patients with advanced cancer cannot be cured, regardless of the therapeutic methods employed. Hence, rational palliative causal treatment becomes crucial. Representative studies specifically addressing the exclusive palliative treatment of patients diagnosed with tracheal cancers have not been identified. In most studies, patients treated palliatively constituted a subset of the overall evaluated group. A thorough literature review was conducted, focusing on three types of palliative treatment: palliative radiotherapy, palliative surgical procedures, and systemic treatment for advanced disease. This review uniquely fills a significant gap in the existing literature by providing the first comprehensive and updated clinical practice guidelines specifically focused on the palliative treatment of tracheal tumors. The proposed guidelines emphasize the unique clinical challenges and treatment strategies pertinent to palliative care in tracheal tumors, which are not adequately covered in existing guidelines for other thoracic malignancies.

Clinicopathological characteristics of patients with primary tracheal tumors: Analysis of eighty-nine cases.

BACKGROUND: Primary tracheal tumors are very rare and the literature on this subject is limited. The most common histological type of primary tracheal tumors is squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), followed by adenoid cystic carcinoma (ACC). Limited knowledge exists regarding the behavior and outcomes of different histological types of tracheal cancers. The present study aimed to address this gap by assessing the significance of the histological type of primary tracheal tumors based on our own data and to review the literature. METHODS: We carried out a retrospective analysis of 89 patients with primary tracheal tumors treated at the Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology in Warsaw, Poland, between 2000 and 2016. The study assessed patient demographics, tumor characteristics and treatment, with a focus on SCC, ACC, and other histological types. Different histological types were compared in terms of overall survival, disease-free survival, and progression-free survival. RESULTS: SCC was the most frequently diagnosed histological type (56.2%), followed by ACC (21.3%). Patients with SCC were typically older (78% over 60 years), predominantly male (66%), and associated with smoking. In contrast, the ACC had a more balanced gender distribution and did not correlate with smoking. ACC displayed a significantly better prognosis, with a median overall survival of 129.4 months, compared with 9.0 months for SCC. CONCLUSION: Histological type plays a crucial role in the prognosis of primary tracheal tumors. ACC demonstrated a more favorable outcome compared with SCC.

Pulmonary Benign Metastasizing Leiomyoma in a Postmenopausal Woman: A Case Report and Review of the Literature.

Pulmonary benign metastasizing leiomyoma (PBML) is a rare condition characterized by the spread of uterine leiomyomas to the lungs, typically observed in premenopausal women with a history of hysterectomy or myomectomy. This report presents a unique case of a postmenopausal woman, aged 65, that emphasizes the clinical, radiological, histologic, and immunohistochemical aspects of the disease. On presentation, the patient suffered from severe pain. On imaging, a sizable lung tumor was found. Histopathological examination and immunoprofiling confirmed PBML. The patient underwent various treatments, including surgery, radiation therapy, and hormonal therapy, illustrating the challenges in managing PBML. A literature review underscores the rarity of PBML and its diverse clinical manifestations. This study provides valuable insights into the complexities of PBML.

Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Patients Harboring ROS1 Rearrangement: Real World Testing Practices, Characteristics and Treatment Patterns (ROS1REAL Study).

ROS1 rearrangements are considered rare in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This retrospective real-world study aimed to evaluate first-line treatment with crizotinib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) standard of care vs. new generation ROS1 anti-cancer agents. Forty-nine ROS1-expressing NSCLC patients, diagnosed with advanced metastatic disease, were included. Molecular profiling using either FISH/CISH or NGS was performed on tissue samples. Twenty-eight patients were treated with crizotinib, while fourteen patients were administered newer drugs (entrectinib, repotrectinib) and seven patients received platinum-doublet chemotherapy in a first-line setting. Overall response rate and disease control rate for the crizotinib and entrectinb/repotrectinib cohort were 68% and 82% vs. 86% and 93%, respectively. Median progression free survival was 1.6 years (95% CI 1.15-2.215) for the crizotinib treatment vs. 2.35 years for the entrectinib/repotrectinib cohort (95% CI 1.19-3.52). Central nervous system progression was noted in 20% and 25% of the crizotinib and entrectinib/repotrectinib cohorts, respectively. This multi-center study presents real-world treatment patterns of ROS1 NSCLC population, indicating that crizotinib exhibited comparable results to entrectinib/repotrectinib in a first-line setting, although both response rate and survival was numerically longer with treatment with newer agents.

Long-Term Survival Outcomes With First-Line Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab-Based Treatment in Patients With Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer and Tumor PD-L1 <1%: a Pooled Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab-based treatment regimens have shown long-term, durable efficacy benefit in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Here we report clinical outcomes from a pooled analysis of patients with metastatic NSCLC and tumor programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) <1% treated with first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab with or without two cycles of chemotherapy versus up to four cycles of chemotherapy in the randomized phase 3 CheckMate 227 and CheckMate 9LA studies. METHODS: Patients were aged ≥18 years and had stage IV/recurrent NSCLC with no sensitizing EGFR/ALK alterations. Assessments included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), duration of response (DOR), and safety. RESULTS: In patients with tumor PD-L1 <1% in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab with or without chemotherapy (n = 322) versus chemotherapy (n = 315) arms, median OS was 17.4 versus 11.3 months, respectively, (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.54-0.76; 5-year OS rate, 20% versus 7%) at a median follow-up of 73.7 months. OS benefit was observed across key subgroups, including difficult-to-treat populations such as those with baseline brain metastases (HR = 0.44; 95% CI: 0.26-0.75) or squamous NSCLC (HR = 0.51; 95% CI: 0.36-0.72). In the overall pooled population, median PFS was 5.4 versus 4.9 months (HR = 0.72; 95% CI: 0.60-0.87; 5-year PFS rate, 9% versus 2%), ORR was 29% versus 22%, and median DOR was 18.0 versus 4.6 months. No new safety signals were observed. CONCLUSION: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab with or without chemotherapy provides a long-term, durable clinical benefit in patients with metastatic NSCLC and tumor PD-L1 <1%, supporting the use of this strategy as a first-line treatment option in this population with high unmet need.

Nivolumab or Atezolizumab in the Second-Line Treatment of Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer? A Prognostic Index Based on Data from Daily Practice.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of nivolumab and atezolizumab in advanced pre-treated NSCLC was documented in prospective trials. We aim to confirm the benefits and indicate predictive factors for immunotherapy in daily practice. METHODS: This study was a retrospective analysis. The median PFS and OS were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The log-rank test was used for comparisons. Multivariate analyses were performed using the Cox regression method. RESULTS: A total of 260 patients (ECOG 0-1) with advanced NSCLC (CS III-IV) were eligible to receive nivolumab or atezolizumab as second-line treatment. Median PFS and OS were three months (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.57-3.42) and 10 months (95% CI 8.03-11.96), respectively, for the overall population. The median OS for the atezolizumab arm was eight months (95% CI 5.89-10.1), while for the nivolumab group, it was 14 months (95% CI 10.02-17.97) (p = 0.018). The sum of all measurable changes >100.5 mm (p = 0.007; HR = 1.003, 95% CI 1.001-1.005), PLT > 281.5 G/l (p < 0.001; HR = 1.003, 95% CI 1.001-1.003) and bone metastases (p < 0.004; HR = 1.58, 95% CI 1.04-2.38) were independent negative prognostic factors for OS in multivariate analysis. Based on preliminary analyses, a prognostic index was constructed to obtain three prognostic groups. Median OS in the subgroups was 16 months (95% CI 13.3-18.7), seven months (95% CI 4.83-9.17) and four months (95% CI 2.88-5.13), respectively (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab and atezolizumab provided clinical benefit in real life. Clinical and laboratory factors may help to identify subgroups likely to benefit. The use of prognostic indices may be valuable in clinical practice.

Treatment Patterns, Testing Practices, and Outcomes in Patients with EGFR Mutation-Positive Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer in Poland: A Descriptive Analysis of National, Multicenter, Real-World Data from the REFLECT Study.

Non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) represents 85% of new cases of lung cancer. Over the past two decades, treatment of patients with NSCLC has evolved from the empiric use of chemotherapy to more advanced targeted therapy dedicated to patients with an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation. The multinational REFLECT study analyzed treatment patterns, outcomes, and testing practices among patients with EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC receiving first-line EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy across Europe and Israel. The aim of this study is to describe the Polish population of patients from the REFLECT study, focusing on treatment patterns and T790M mutation testing practice. A descriptive, retrospective, non-interventional, medical record-based analysis was performed on the Polish population of patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC with EGFR mutations from the REFLECT study (NCT04031898). A medical chart review with data collection was conducted from May to December 2019.The study involved 110 patients. Afatinib was used as the first-line EGFR-TKI therapy in 45 (40.9%) patients, erlotinib in 41 (37.3%), and gefitinib in 24 (21.8%) patients. The first-line EGFR-TKI therapy was discontinued in 90 (81.8%) patients. The median progression-free survival (PFS) on first-line EGFR-TKI therapy was 12.9 months (95% CI 10.3-15.4). A total of 54 patients started second-line therapy, of whom osimertinib was administered to 31 (57.4%). Among 85 patients progressing on first-line EGFR-TKI therapy, 58 (68.2%) were tested for the T790M mutation. Positive results for the T790M mutation were obtained from 31 (53.4%) tested patients, all of whom received osimertinib in the next lines of therapy. The median overall survival (OS) from the start of first-line EGFR-TKI therapy was 26.2 months (95% CI 18.0-29.7). Among patients with brain metastases, the median OS from the first diagnosis of brain metastases was 15.5 months (95% CI 9.9-18.0). The results of the Polish population from the REFLECT study highlight the need for effective treatment of patients with advanced EGFR-mutated NSCLC. Nearly one-third of patients with disease progression after first-line EGFR-TKI therapy were not tested for the T790M mutation and did not have the opportunity to receive effective treatment. The presence of brain metastases was a negative prognostic factor.

Beta Blockers with Statins May Decrease All-Cause Mortality in Patients with Cardiovascular Diseases and Locally Advanced Unresectable Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer after Chemoradiotherapy.

The study was conducted in the era when maintenance immunotherapy with durvalumab was not available in clinical practice after chemoradiotherapy (CRT) in unresectable non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The main aim of the study was to check whether the presence of cardiovascular diseases (CVD) and their pharmacotherapy affects the overall survival (OS) in such NSCLC patients undergoing sequential CRT. The group of 196 patients were analyzed: 101 patients with CVD (51.53%) and 95 patients with other reasons of qualification for sequential CRT (decreased performance status, older age, and other non-cardiovascular co-morbidities). Although patients with CVD were more often in older age, and they more often experienced cardiac and nephrological complications (p < 0.05 for all), there was a statistically nonsignificant trend for lower all-cause mortality in patients with CVD. The lowest all-cause mortality was observed in patients treated with beta-blockers and statins after two (HR = 0.31; 95%CI: 0.1-0.98; p = 0.047), three (HR = 0.33; 95%CI: 0.13-0.81; p = 0.015) and even four (HR = 0.45; 95%CI: 0.22-0.97; p = 0.027) years of follow-up. The benefit in OS remained significant in 101 patients with CVD treated with beta-blockers (HR = 0.65; 95%CI: 0.43-0.99; p = 0.045), and eventually statin, throughout the whole follow-up (log-rank p < 0.05). Further prospective studies are necessary to confirm the role of beta-blockers and statins in reduction of mortality in NSCLC patients undergoing radical CRT.

Five-Year Survival Outcomes With Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab Versus Chemotherapy as First-Line Treatment for Metastatic Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer in CheckMate 227.

PURPOSE: We present 5-year results from CheckMate 227 Part 1, in which nivolumab plus ipilimumab improved overall survival (OS) versus chemotherapy in patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer, regardless of tumor programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) status. METHODS: Adults with stage IV/recurrent non-small-cell lung cancer without EGFR mutations or ALK alterations and with tumor PD-L1 ≥ 1% or < 1% (n = 1739) were randomly assigned. Patients with tumor PD-L1 ≥ 1% were randomly assigned to first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab, nivolumab alone, or chemotherapy. Patients with tumor PD-L1 < 1% were randomly assigned to nivolumab plus ipilimumab, nivolumab plus chemotherapy, or chemotherapy. End points included exploratory 5-year results for efficacy, safety, and quality of life. RESULTS: At a minimum follow-up of 61.3 months, 5-year OS rates were 24% versus 14% for nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy (PD-L1 ≥ 1%) and 19% versus 7% (PD-L1 < 1%). The median duration of response was 24.5 versus 6.7 months (PD-L1 ≥ 1%) and 19.4 versus 4.8 months (PD-L1 < 1%). Among patients surviving 5 years, 66% (PD-L1 ≥ 1%) and 64% (PD-L1 < 1%) were off nivolumab plus ipilimumab without initiating subsequent systemic anticancer treatment by the 5-year time point. Survival benefit continued after nivolumab plus ipilimumab discontinuation because of treatment-related adverse events, with a 5-year OS rate of 39% (combined PD-L1 ≥ 1% and < 1% populations). Quality of life in 5-year survivors treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab was similar to that in the general US population through the 5-year follow-up. No new safety signals were observed. CONCLUSION: With all patients off immunotherapy treatment for ≥ 3 years, nivolumab plus ipilimumab increased 5-year survivorship versus chemotherapy, including long-term, durable clinical benefit regardless of tumor PD-L1 expression. These data support nivolumab plus ipilimumab as an effective first-line treatment for patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer.

Systemic and Intracranial Outcomes With First-Line Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab in Patients With Metastatic NSCLC and Baseline Brain Metastases From CheckMate 227 Part 1.

INTRODUCTION: In CheckMate 227 Part 1, nivolumab plus ipilimumab prolonged overall survival (OS) versus chemotherapy in patients with metastatic NSCLC, regardless of tumor programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression. Here, we report post hoc exploratory systemic and intracranial efficacy outcomes and safety by baseline brain metastasis status at 5 years' minimum follow-up. METHODS: Treatment-naive adults with stage IV or recurrent NSCLC without EGFR or ALK alterations, including asymptomatic patients with treated brain metastases, were enrolled. Patients with tumor PD-L1 greater than or equal to 1% were randomized to nivolumab plus ipilimumab, nivolumab, or chemotherapy; patients with tumor PD-L1 less than 1% were randomized to nivolumab plus ipilimumab, nivolumab plus chemotherapy, or chemotherapy groups. Assessments included OS, systemic and intracranial progression-free survival per blinded independent central review, new brain lesion development, and safety. Brain imaging was performed at baseline (all randomized patients) and approximately every 12 weeks thereafter (patients with baseline brain metastases only). RESULTS: Overall, 202 of 1739 randomized patients had baseline brain metastases (nivolumab plus ipilimumab: 68; chemotherapy: 66). At 61.3 months' minimum follow-up, nivolumab plus ipilimumab prolonged OS versus chemotherapy in patients with baseline brain metastases (hazard ratio = 0.63; 95% confidence interval: 0.43-0.92) and in those without (hazard ratio = 0.76; 95% confidence interval: 0.66-0.87). In patients with baseline brain metastases, 5-year systemic and intracranial progression-free survival rates were higher with nivolumab plus ipilimumab (12% and 16%, respectively) than chemotherapy (0% and 6%). Fewer patients with baseline brain metastases developed new brain lesions with nivolumab plus ipilimumab (4%) versus chemotherapy (20%). No new safety signals were observed. CONCLUSIONS: With all patients off immunotherapy for more than or equal to 3 years, nivolumab plus ipilimumab continued to provide a long-term, durable survival benefit in patients with or without brain metastases. Intracranial efficacy outcomes favored nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy. These results further support nivolumab plus ipilimumab as an efficacious first-line treatment for patients with metastatic NSCLC, regardless of baseline brain metastasis status.