Adoptive cellular therapy with T cells expressing the dendritic cell growth factor Flt3L drives epitope spreading and antitumor immunity.

Adoptive cell therapies using genetically engineered T cell receptor or chimeric antigen receptor T cells are emerging forms of immunotherapy that redirect T cells to specifically target cancer. However, tumor antigen heterogeneity remains a key challenge limiting their efficacy against solid cancers. Here, we engineered T cells to secrete the dendritic cell (DC) growth factor Fms-like tyrosine kinase 3 ligand (Flt3L). Flt3L-secreting T cells expanded intratumoral conventional type 1 DCs and substantially increased host DC and T cell activation when combined with immune agonists poly (I:C) and anti-4-1BB. Importantly, combination therapy led to enhanced inhibition of tumor growth and the induction of epitope spreading towards antigens beyond those recognized by adoptively transferred T cells in solid tumor models of T cell receptor and chimeric antigen receptor T cell therapy. Our data suggest that augmenting endogenous DCs is a promising strategy to overcome the clinical problem of antigen-negative tumor escape following adoptive cell therapy.

FOXO1 enhances CAR T cell stemness, metabolic fitness and efficacy.

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy has transformed the treatment of haematological malignancies such as acute lymphoblastic leukaemia, B cell lymphoma and multiple myeloma1-4, but the efficacy of CAR T cell therapy in solid tumours has been limited5. This is owing to a number of factors, including the immunosuppressive tumour microenvironment that gives rise to poorly persisting and metabolically dysfunctional T cells. Analysis of anti-CD19 CAR T cells used clinically has shown that positive treatment outcomes are associated with a more 'stem-like' phenotype and increased mitochondrial mass6-8. We therefore sought to identify transcription factors that could enhance CAR T cell fitness and efficacy against solid tumours. Here we show that overexpression of FOXO1 promotes a stem-like phenotype in CAR T cells derived from either healthy human donors or patients, which correlates with improved mitochondrial fitness, persistence and therapeutic efficacy in vivo. This work thus reveals an engineering approach to genetically enforce a favourable metabolic phenotype that has high translational potential to improve the efficacy of CAR T cells against solid tumours.

Alectinib in Resected ALK-Positive Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Platinum-based chemotherapy is the recommended adjuvant treatment for patients with resectable, ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Data on the efficacy and safety of adjuvant alectinib as compared with chemotherapy in patients with resected ALK-positive NSCLC are lacking. METHODS: We conducted a global, phase 3, open-label, randomized trial in which patients with completely resected, ALK-positive NSCLC of stage IB (tumors ≥4 cm), II, or IIIA (as classified according to the seventh edition of the Cancer Staging Manual of the American Joint Committee on Cancer and Union for International Cancer Control) were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive oral alectinib (600 mg twice daily) for 24 months or intravenous platinum-based chemotherapy in four 21-day cycles. The primary end point was disease-free survival, tested hierarchically among patients with stage II or IIIA disease and then in the intention-to-treat population. Other end points included central nervous system (CNS) disease-free survival, overall survival, and safety. RESULTS: In total, 257 patients were randomly assigned to receive alectinib (130 patients) or chemotherapy (127 patients). The percentage of patients alive and disease-free at 2 years was 93.8% in the alectinib group and 63.0% in the chemotherapy group among patients with stage II or IIIA disease (hazard ratio for disease recurrence or death, 0.24; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.13 to 0.45; P<0.001) and 93.6% and 63.7%, respectively, in the intention-to-treat population (hazard ratio, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.13 to 0.43; P<0.001). Alectinib was associated with a clinically meaningful benefit with respect to CNS disease-free survival as compared with chemotherapy (hazard ratio for CNS disease recurrence or death, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.08 to 0.58). Data for overall survival were immature. No unexpected safety findings were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with resected ALK-positive NSCLC of stage IB, II, or IIIA, adjuvant alectinib significantly improved disease-free survival as compared with platinum-based chemotherapy. (Funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche; ALINA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03456076.).

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.).

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.

CXCR2 antagonist navarixin in combination with pembrolizumab in select advanced solid tumors: a phase 2 randomized trial.

C-X-C motif chemokine receptor 2 (CXCR2) has a role in tumor progression, lineage plasticity, and reduction of immune checkpoint inhibitor efficacy. Preclinical evidence suggests potential benefit of CXCR2 inhibition in multiple solid tumors. In this phase 2 study (NCT03473925), adults with previously treated advanced or metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), microsatellite-stable colorectal cancer (MSS CRC), or non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) were randomized 1:1 to the CXCR2 antagonist navarixin 30 or 100 mg orally once daily plus pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks up to 35 cycles. Primary endpoints were investigator-assessed objective response rate (RECIST v1.1) and safety. Of 105 patients (CRPC, n=40; MSS CRC, n=40; NSCLC, n=25), 3 had a partial response (2 CRPC, 1 MSS CRC) for ORRs of 5%, 2.5%, and 0%, respectively. Median progression-free survival was 1.8-2.4 months without evidence of a dose-response relationship, and the study was closed at a prespecified interim analysis for lack of efficacy. Dose-limiting toxicities occurred in 2/48 patients (4%) receiving navarixin 30 mg and 3/48 (6%) receiving navarixin 100 mg; events included grade 4 neutropenia and grade 3 transaminase elevation, hepatitis, and pneumonitis. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 70/105 patients (67%) and led to treatment discontinuation in 7/105 (7%). Maximal reductions from baseline in absolute neutrophil count were 44.5%-48.2% (cycle 1) and 37.5%-44.2% (cycle 2) and occurred within 6-12 hours postdose in both groups. Navarixin plus pembrolizumab did not demonstrate sufficient efficacy in this study. Safety and tolerability of the combination were manageable. (Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT03473925).

A comparison of DNA sequencing and gene expression profiling to assist tissue of origin diagnosis in cancer of unknown primary.

Cancer of unknown primary (CUP) is a syndrome defined by clinical absence of a primary cancer after standardised investigations. Gene expression profiling (GEP) and DNA sequencing have been used to predict primary tissue of origin (TOO) in CUP and find molecularly guided treatments; however, a detailed comparison of the diagnostic yield from these two tests has not been described. Here, we compared the diagnostic utility of RNA and DNA tests in 215 CUP patients (82% received both tests) in a prospective Australian study. Based on retrospective assessment of clinicopathological data, 77% (166/215) of CUPs had insufficient evidence to support TOO diagnosis (clinicopathology unresolved). The remainder had either a latent primary diagnosis (10%) or clinicopathological evidence to support a likely TOO diagnosis (13%) (clinicopathology resolved). We applied a microarray (CUPGuide) or custom NanoString 18-class GEP test to 191 CUPs with an accuracy of 91.5% in known metastatic cancers for high-medium confidence predictions. Classification performance was similar in clinicopathology-resolved CUPs - 80% had high-medium predictions and 94% were concordant with pathology. Notably, only 56% of the clinicopathology-unresolved CUPs had high-medium confidence GEP predictions. Diagnostic DNA features were interrogated in 201 CUP tumours guided by the cancer type specificity of mutations observed across 22 cancer types from the AACR Project GENIE database (77,058 tumours) as well as mutational signatures (e.g. smoking). Among the clinicopathology-unresolved CUPs, mutations and mutational signatures provided additional diagnostic evidence in 31% of cases. GEP classification was useful in only 13% of cases and oncoviral detection in 4%. Among CUPs where genomics informed TOO, lung and biliary cancers were the most frequently identified types, while kidney tumours were another identifiable subset. In conclusion, DNA and RNA profiling supported an unconfirmed TOO diagnosis in one-third of CUPs otherwise unresolved by clinicopathology assessment alone. DNA mutation profiling was the more diagnostically informative assay. © 2022 The Authors. The Journal of Pathology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of The Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland.

ASPiRATION: Australian observational cohort study of comprehensive genomic profiling in metastatic lung cancer tissue.

ASPiRATION is a national prospective observational cohort study assessing the feasibility, clinical and economic value of up-front tissue-based comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) to identify actionable genomic alterations in participants with newly diagnosed metastatic non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer in Australia. This study will enrol 1000 participants with tumor available for CGP and standard of care molecular testing (EGFR/ALK/ROS1). Participants with actionable variants may receive novel targeted treatments through ASPiRATION-specific substudies, other trials/programs. Clinical outcome data will be collected for a minimum of 2 years. Study outcomes are descriptive, including the ability of CGP to identify additional actionable variants, leading to personalized treatment recommendations, and will describe the feasibility, efficiency, cost and utility of implementation of CGP nationally.

Lung cancer is the most common cause of cancer death in Australia and worldwide. This disease often happens due to alterations in specific genes that allow cancer cells to develop and spread. Scientists have designed targeted drugs that are better at attacking cancer cells that have specific 'actionable' gene alterations and have less effect on other cells in the body. The result is often more benefit from treatment and fewer side effects than other standard treatments (chemotherapy or immunotherapy). The targeted drugs are well established as the best initial treatments for some gene alterations, but more research is needed to know if this is true for some of the less common or recently identified gene alterations, and where the targeted drugs are very new. Comprehensive genomic profiling is a new way of testing lung cancer cells for all the gene alterations (the well-known ones as well as the rare ones) in a single test. It is expected that this test will find many more of these gene alterations, which will allow more people to have safer and more effective targeted treatments leading to potentially better outcomes, and will allow some people to join clinical trials testing newer targeted treatments. The ASPiRATION study will help work out whether comprehensive genomic profiling is better than the current way of testing for gene alterations in Australia, and if it is feasible to use in all people diagnosed with advanced lung cancer in Australia. Clinical Trial Registration: ACTRN12621000221853 (ANZCTR).

Plain language summary: 5-year results from the CROWN study of lorlatinib vs crizotinib in non-small-cell lung cancer.

WHAT IS THIS STUDY ABOUT?: This is a summary of the results of an ongoing study called CROWN. In the CROWN study, researchers looked at the effects of two medicines called lorlatinib (Lorbrena) and crizotinib (Xalkori) for people with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who had not been treated yet. Everyone in the study had changes in a gene called anaplastic lymphoma kinase, or ALK, in their cancer cells. The changes in the ALK gene can make cancer grow. This analysis looked at how well lorlatinib and crizotinib worked and their side effects in people with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC after 5 years. WHAT DID THIS STUDY FIND?: After observing people for an average of 5 years, researchers found that more people who took lorlatinib were still alive without their cancer getting worse than the people who took crizotinib. At 5 years, the probability of being alive without their cancer getting worse was 60% in people who took lorlatinib compared with 8% in people who took crizotinib. Fewer people who took lorlatinib had their cancer spread within or to the brain than the people who took crizotinib. In more than half of the people who took lorlatinib, tumors that had spread to the brain did not get worse, and no new tumors spread to the brain after 5 years. In contrast, in about half of the people who took crizotinib, tumors that had spread to the brain got worse or new tumors spread to the brain after 16.4 months. More people who took lorlatinib (115 out of 149, or 77%) had severe or life-threatening side effects than people who took crizotinib (81 out of 142, or 57%). These side effects were like the ones reported in the earlier 3-year analysis. WHAT DO THE FINDINGS OF THE STUDY MEAN?: The 5-year results from the CROWN study showed that more people who took lorlatinib continued to benefit from their treatment than those who took crizotinib. The 5-year benefit of lorlatinib in people with ALK-positive NSCLC has never been seen before.Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03052608 (Phase 3 CROWN study) (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Lurbinectedin in small cell lung cancer: real-world experience of a multicentre national early access programme.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Lurbinectedin is a novel oncogenic transcription inhibitor active in several cancers, including small cell lung cancer (SCLC). We aimed to describe the first Australian experience of the clinical efficacy and tolerability of lurbinectedin for the treatment of SCLC after progression on platinum-containing therapy. METHODS: Multicentre real-world study of individuals with SCLC initiating lurbinectedin monotherapy (3.2 mg/m2 three-weekly) on an early access programme between May 2020 and December 2021. Key outcomes were clinical utilisation, efficacy and tolerability. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Outcome data were collected within the AUstralian Registry and biObank of thoRacic cAncers (AURORA). RESULTS: Data were analysed for 46 individuals across seven sites. Lurbinectedin was given as second- (83%, 38/46) or subsequent- (17%, 8/46) line therapy, mostly with prior chemoimmunotherapy (87%, 40/46). We report dose modifications (17%, 8/46), interruptions/delays (24%, 11/46), high-grade toxicities (28%, 13/46) and hospitalisations (54%, 25/46) during active treatment. The overall response rate was 33% and the disease control rate was 50%. Six-month OS was 44% (95% confidence interval (CI): 29.0-57.1). Twelve-month OS was 15% (95% CI: 6.5-26.8). From lurbinectedin first dose, the median PFS was 2.5 months (95% CI: 1.8-2.9) and OS was 4.5 months (95% CI: 3.5-7.2). From SCLC diagnosis, the median OS was 12.9 months (95% CI: 11.0-17.2). Individuals with a longer chemotherapy-free interval prior to lurbinectedin had longer PFS and OS. CONCLUSION: This real-world national experience of lurbinectedin post-platinum chemotherapy and immunotherapy for individuals with SCLC was similar to that reported in clinical trials.

First-Line Lorlatinib or Crizotinib in Advanced ALK-Positive Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Lorlatinib, a third-generation inhibitor of anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK), has antitumor activity in previously treated patients with ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The efficacy of lorlatinib, as compared with that of crizotinib, as first-line treatment for advanced ALK-positive NSCLC is unclear. METHODS: We conducted a global, randomized, phase 3 trial comparing lorlatinib with crizotinib in 296 patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC who had received no previous systemic treatment for metastatic disease. The primary end point was progression-free survival as assessed by blinded independent central review. Secondary end points included independently assessed objective response and intracranial response. An interim analysis of efficacy was planned after approximately 133 of 177 (75%) expected events of disease progression or death had occurred. RESULTS: The percentage of patients who were alive without disease progression at 12 months was 78% (95% confidence interval [CI], 70 to 84) in the lorlatinib group and 39% (95% CI, 30 to 48) in the crizotinib group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.19 to 0.41; P<0.001). An objective response occurred in 76% (95% CI, 68 to 83) of the patients in the lorlatinib group and 58% (95% CI, 49 to 66) of those in the crizotinib group; among those with measurable brain metastases, 82% (95% CI, 57 to 96) and 23% (95% CI, 5 to 54), respectively, had an intracranial response, and 71% of the patients who received lorlatinib had an intracranial complete response. The most common adverse events with lorlatinib were hyperlipidemia, edema, increased weight, peripheral neuropathy, and cognitive effects. Lorlatinib was associated with more grade 3 or 4 adverse events (mainly altered lipid levels) than crizotinib (in 72% vs. 56%). Discontinuation of treatment because of adverse events occurred in 7% and 9% of the patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In an interim analysis of results among patients with previously untreated advanced ALK-positive NSCLC, those who received lorlatinib had significantly longer progression-free survival and a higher frequency of intracranial response than those who received crizotinib. The incidence of grade 3 or 4 adverse events was higher with lorlatinib than with crizotinib because of the frequent occurrence of altered lipid levels. (Funded by Pfizer; CROWN ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03052608.).

Comprehensive profiling identifies tumour and immune microenvironmental differences in clinical subsets of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas (cSCCs) are the second most diagnosed skin cancer worldwide; however, little is known about the pathobiological factors that contribute to the diverse clinical outcomes seen. OBJECTIVES: To profile cSCCs comprehensively and identify the pathological processes that contribute to the disparities seen in their clinical behaviour. METHODS: We characterized the genomic, transcriptomic and immunohistochemical profiles of 211 cSCC tumours, including 37 cSCCs from immunocompromised patients. RESULTS: cSCCs from immunocompromised patients were characterized by a lack of B cells in the peritumoral stroma compared with immunocompetent patients. Further, an abundance of a memory B-cell-like population in the peritumoral stroma was associated with a better prognosis in all patients (immunocompetent and immunocompromised), as well as only immunocompetent patients. No differences in genetic -variants, tumour mutational burden or mutational signatures were observed between cSCCs from immunocompetent and immunocompromised patients. Thus, differences in survival between cSCCs from immunocompromised patients and immunocompetent patients are not likely to be driven by tumour genomic factors, but may be associated with differential host immune response. cSCC not from a primary head and neck site had lower tumour mutational burden and exhibited upregulation of the epithelial-mesenchymal transition programme compared with head and neck cSCC. Both factors were implicated with poorer responses to immune checkpoint inhibition, and the latter with poorer survival. CONCLUSIONS: We identified tumour and host immune factors that contribute to the disparate clinical behaviour of cSCC, with broad translational application, including prognostication, treatment prediction to current therapies and the identification of novel anticancer therapy approaches in cSCC.

Plain language summary of the updated results from the CROWN study comparing lorlatinib with crizotinib in people with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This summary shows the updated results of an ongoing research study called CROWN that was published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine in December 2022. In the CROWN study, researchers looked at the effects of two study medicines called lorlatinib and crizotinib. The study included people with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) that had not been treated previously. All people in the study had cancer cells with changes (known as alterations) in a gene called anaplastic lymphoma kinase, or ALK. This ALK gene is involved in cancer growth. In this updated study, researchers looked at the continued benefit in people who took lorlatinib compared with people who took crizotinib after 3 years. WHAT DID THIS STUDY FIND?: After 3 years of being observed, people who took lorlatinib were more likely to be alive without their cancer getting worse than people who took crizotinib. At 3 years, 64% of people who took lorlatinib were alive without their cancer getting worse compared with 19% of people who took crizotinib. The cancer was less likely to have spread within or to the brain in people who took lorlatinib than in people who took crizotinib. After 3 years of being observed, 61% of people were still taking lorlatinib and 8% of people were still taking crizotinib. People who took lorlatinib had more severe side effects than people who took crizotinib. However, these side effects were manageable. The most common side effects with lorlatinib were high levels of cholesterol or high levels of triglycerides (a type of fat) in the blood. Life-threatening side effects were seen in 13% of people who took lorlatinib and 8% in crizotinib. Two people who took lorlatinib died because of side effects from lorlatinib. WHAT DO THE RESULTS OF THE STUDY MEAN?: The updated results from the CROWN study showed that a larger percentage of people who took lorlatinib continued to benefit from their treatment after being observed for 3 years compared with those who took crizotinib.

Lung cancer.

Lung cancer is one of the most frequently diagnosed cancers and the leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide with an estimated 2 million new cases and 1·76 million deaths per year. Substantial improvements in our understanding of disease biology, application of predictive biomarkers, and refinements in treatment have led to remarkable progress in the past two decades and transformed outcomes for many patients. This seminar provides an overview of advances in the screening, diagnosis, and treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer and small-cell lung cancer, with a particular focus on targeted therapies and immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Targeted therapy for advanced anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-rearranged non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Targeted therapies directed at specific driver oncogenes have improved outcomes for individuals with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Approximately 5% of lung adenocarcinomas, the most common histologic subtype of NSCLC, harbour rearrangements in the anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) gene leading to constitutive activity of the ALK kinase. Crizotinib was the first tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) demonstrated to be effective in advanced NSCLC. Next-generation ALK TKIs have since been developed including ceritinib, alectinib, brigatinib, ensartinib, and lorlatinib, and have been compared with crizotinib or chemotherapy in randomised controlled trials (RCTs). These ALK-targeted therapies are currently used in clinical practice and are endorsed in multiple clinical oncology guidelines. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of ALK inhibitors given as monotherapy to treat advanced ALK-rearranged NSCLC. SEARCH METHODS: We conducted electronic searches in the Cochrane Lung Cancer Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and Embase. We also searched conference proceedings from the American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO), European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO), and International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC) World Conference on Lung Cancer, as well as the reference lists of retrieved articles. All searches were conducted from 2007 until 7 January 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs comparing ALK inhibitors with cytotoxic chemotherapy or another ALK inhibitor in individuals with incurable locally advanced or metastatic pathologically confirmed ALK-rearranged NSCLC. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility, extracted study characteristics and outcome data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for each included study. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. Primary outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS) and adverse events (AE); secondary outcomes were overall survival (OS), OS at one year, overall response rate (ORR) by RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours) criteria, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). We performed a meta-analysis for all outcomes, where appropriate, using the fixed-effect model. We reported hazard ratios (HR) for PFS, OS, and a composite HRQoL of life outcome (time to deterioration), and risk ratios (RR) for AE, ORR, and one-year OS. We presented 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) and used the I² statistic to investigate heterogeneity. We planned comparisons of 'ALK inhibitor versus chemotherapy' and 'next-generation ALK inhibitor versus crizotinib' with subgroup analysis by type of ALK inhibitor, line of treatment, and baseline central nervous system involvement. MAIN RESULTS: Eleven studies (2874 participants) met our inclusion criteria: six studies compared an ALK inhibitor (crizotinib, ceritinib, and alectinib) to chemotherapy, and five studies compared a next-generation ALK inhibitor (alectinib, brigatinib, and lorlatinib) to crizotinib. We assessed the evidence for most outcomes as of moderate to high certainty. Most studies were at low risk for selection, attrition, and reporting bias; however, no RCTs were blinded, resulting in a high risk of performance and detection bias for outcomes reliant on subjective measurement. ALK inhibitor versus chemotherapy Treatment with ALK inhibitors resulted in a large increase in PFS compared to chemotherapy (HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.52, 6 RCTs, 1611 participants, high-certainty evidence). This was found regardless of line of treatment. ALK inhibitors may result in no difference in overall AE rate when compared to chemotherapy (RR 1.01, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.03, 5 RCTs, 1404 participants, low-certainty evidence). ALK inhibitors slightly improved OS (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.97, 6 RCTs, 1611 participants, high-certainty evidence), despite most included studies having a significant number of participants crossing over from chemotherapy to receive an ALK inhibitor after the study period. ALK inhibitors likely increase ORR (RR 2.43, 95% CI 2.16 to 2.75, 6 RCTs, 1611 participants, moderate-certainty evidence) including in measurable baseline brain metastases (RR 4.88, 95% CI 2.18 to 10.95, 3 RCTs, 108 participants) when compared to chemotherapy. ALK inhibitors result in a large increase in the HRQoL measure, time to deterioration (HR 0.52, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.60, 5 RCTs, 1504 participants, high-certainty evidence) when compared to chemotherapy. Next-generation ALK inhibitor versus crizotinib Next-generation ALK inhibitors resulted in a large increase in PFS (HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.46, 5 RCTs, 1263 participants, high-certainty evidence), particularly in participants with baseline brain metastases. Next-generation ALK inhibitors likely result in no difference in overall AE (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.01, 5 RCTs, 1263 participants, moderate-certainty evidence) when compared to crizotinib. Next-generation ALK inhibitors likely increase OS (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.90, 5 RCTs, 1263 participants, moderate-certainty evidence) and slightly increase ORR (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.25, 5 RCTs, 1229 participants, moderate-certainty evidence) including a response in measurable brain metastases (RR 2.45, 95% CI 1.7 to 3.54, 4 RCTs, 138 participants) when compared to crizotinib. Studies comparing ALK inhibitors were conducted exclusively or partly in the first-line setting. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Next-generation ALK inhibitors including alectinib, brigatinib, and lorlatinib are the preferred first systemic treatment for individuals with advanced ALK-rearranged NSCLC. Further trials are ongoing including investigation of first-line ensartinib. Next-generation inhibitors have not been compared to each other, and it is unknown which should be used first and what subsequent treatment sequence is optimal.

Plain language summary of the CROWN study comparing lorlatinib with crizotinib for people with untreated non-small cell lung cancer.

This is a summary of a research study (known as a clinical trial) called CROWN. The study tested two medicines called lorlatinib and crizotinib in participants with untreated non-small cell lung cancer that had spread to other parts of their body. All those who took part had changes in a gene called ALK, which is involved in cell growth. In total, 296 participants from 23 countries took part. Half the participants took lorlatinib and half took crizotinib. After participants started taking lorlatinib or crizotinib, they were checked regularly to see if their tumors had grown or spread to other parts of their body (known as tumor progression) and to monitor any side effects. After 1 year of treatment, the participants who took lorlatinib were twice as likely to be alive with no tumor growth as the participants who took crizotinib. More participants who took lorlatinib had cancer that shrank (76%) compared with the participants who took crizotinib (58%). This was also true of the participants whose cancer had spread to their brain. The most common side effects in participants who took lorlatinib were increases in the amount of cholesterol and triglycerides (a type of fat) in their blood, swelling, weight gain, nerve damage, unclear thoughts, and diarrhea. Among the participants who took crizotinib, the most common side effects were diarrhea, feeling like you want to throw up, sight problems, swelling, vomiting, changes in liver function, and feeling tired. Overall, the CROWN study showed that fewer participants with advanced ALK+ non-small cell lung cancer died or had tumor growth with lorlatinib compared with crizotinib treatment. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT number: NCT03052608.

Phase III study of selpercatinib versus chemotherapy ± pembrolizumab in untreated RET positive non-small-cell lung cancer.

Selpercatinib, a novel, highly selective and potent, inhibitor of RET, demonstrated clinically meaningful antitumor activity with manageable toxicity in heavily pretreated and treatment-naive RET fusion-positive non-small-cell lung cancer patients in a Phase I/II clinical trial. LIBRETTO-431 (NCT04194944) is a randomized, global, multicenter, open-label, Phase III trial, evaluating selpercatinib versus carboplatin or cisplatin and pemetrexed chemotherapy with or without pembrolizumab in treatment-naive patients with locally advanced/metastatic RET fusion-positive nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer. The primary end point is progression-free survival by independent review. Key secondary end points include overall survival, response rate, duration of response and progression-free survival. Clinical trial registration: NCT04194944 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

IL-15 Preconditioning Augments CAR T Cell Responses to Checkpoint Blockade for Improved Treatment of Solid Tumors.

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy has been highly successful in hematological malignancies leading to their US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval. However, the efficacy of CAR T cells in solid tumors is limited by tumor-induced immunosuppression, leading to the development of combination approaches, such as adjuvant programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) blockade. Current FDA-approved methods for generating CAR T cells utilize either anti-CD3 and interleukin (IL)-2 or anti-CD3/CD28 beads, which can generate a T cell product with an effector/exhausted phenotype. Whereas different cytokine preconditioning milieu, such as IL-7/IL-15, have been shown to promote T cell engraftment, the impact of this approach on CAR T cell responses to adjuvant immune-checkpoint blockade has not been assessed. In the current study, we reveal that the preconditioning of CAR T cells with IL-7/IL-15 increased CAR T cell responses to anti-PD-1 adjuvant therapy. This was associated with the emergence of an intratumoral CD8+CD62L+TCF7+IRF4- population that was highly responsive to anti-PD-1 therapy and mediated the vast majority of transcriptional and epigenetic changes in vivo following PD-1 blockade. Our data indicate that preservation of CAR T cells in a TCF7+ phenotype is crucial for their responsiveness to adjuvant immunotherapy approaches and should be a key consideration when designing clinical protocols.

Lorlatinib in advanced ROS1-positive non-small-cell lung cancer: a multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase 1-2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Lorlatinib is a potent, brain-penetrant, third-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) that targets ALK and ROS1 with preclinical activity against most known resistance mutations in ALK and ROS1. We investigated the antitumour activity and safety of lorlatinib in advanced, ROS1-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: In this open-label, single-arm, phase 1-2 trial, we enrolled patients (aged ≥18 years) with histologically or cytologically confirmed advanced ROS1-positive NSCLC, with or without CNS metastases, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or less (≤1 for phase 1 only) from 28 hospitals in 12 countries worldwide. Lorlatinib 100 mg once daily (escalating doses of 10 mg once daily to 100 mg twice daily in phase 1 only) was given orally in continuous 21-day cycles until investigator-determined disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, withdrawal of consent, or death. The primary endpoint was overall and intracranial tumour response, assessed by independent central review. Activity endpoints were assessed in patients who received at least one dose of lorlatinib. This study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01970865. FINDINGS: Between Jan 22, 2014, and Oct 2, 2016, we assessed 364 patients, of whom 69 with ROS1-positive NSCLC were enrolled. 21 (30%) of 69 patients were TKI-naive, 40 (58%) had previously received crizotinib as their only TKI, and eight (12%) had previously received one non-crizotinib ROS1 TKI or two or more ROS1 TKIs. The estimated median duration of follow-up for response was 21·1 months (IQR 15·2-30·3). 13 (62%; 95% CI 38-82) of 21 TKI-naive patients and 14 (35%; 21-52) of 40 patients previously treated with crizotinib as their only TKI had an objective response. Intracranial responses were achieved in seven (64%; 95% CI 31-89) of 11 TKI-naive patients and 12 (50%; 29-71) of 24 previous crizotinib-only patients. The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were hypertriglyceridaemia (13 [19%] of 69 patients) and hypercholesterolaemia (ten [14%]). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in five (7%) of 69 patients. No treatment-related deaths were reported. INTERPRETATION: Lorlatinib showed clinical activity in patients with advanced ROS1-positive NSCLC, including those with CNS metastases and those previously treated with crizotinib. Because crizotinib-refractory patients have few treatment options, lorlatinib could represent an important next-line targeted agent. FUNDING: Pfizer.

Clinical Management of Adverse Events Associated with Lorlatinib.

Lorlatinib is a novel, highly potent, brain-penetrant, third-generation ALK/ROS1 tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), which has broad-spectrum potency against most known resistance mutations that can develop during treatment with crizotinib and second-generation ALK TKIs. The safety profile of lorlatinib was established based on 295 patients who had received the recommended dose of lorlatinib 100 mg once daily. Adverse events associated with lorlatinib are primarily mild to moderate in severity, with hypercholesterolemia (82.4%), hypertriglyceridemia (60.7%), edema (51.2%), peripheral neuropathy (43.7%), and central nervous system effects (39.7%) among the most frequently reported. These can be effectively managed with dose modification and/or standard supportive medical therapy, as indicated by a low incidence of permanent discontinuations due to adverse reactions. Most patients (81.0%) received at least one lipid-lowering agent. Prescription of supportive therapy should also consider the potential for drug-drug interactions with lorlatinib via engagement of specific CYP450 enzymes. This article summarizes the clinical experience from lorlatinib phase I investigators and was generated from discussion and review of the clinical study protocol and database to provide an expert consensus opinion on the management of the key adverse reactions reported with lorlatinib, including hyperlipidemia, central nervous system effects, weight increase, edema, peripheral neuropathy, and gastrointestinal effects. Overall, lorlatinib 100 mg once daily has a unique safety profile to be considered when prescribed, based on the recent U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval, for the treatment of patients with ALK-positive metastatic non-small cell lung cancer previously treated with a second-generation ALK TKI. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Despite the advancement of second-generation anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), the emergence of resistance and progression of central nervous system metastases remain clinically significant problems in ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer. Lorlatinib is a potent, brain-penetrant, third-generation, macrocyclic ALK/ROS1 TKI, with broad-spectrum potency against most known resistance mutations that can develop during treatment with existing first- and second-generation ALK TKIs. This article provides recommendations for the clinical management of key adverse reactions reported with lorlatinib.