Top advances of the year: Perioperative therapy for lung cancer.

Emerging data supporting the rise of perioperative immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) as a standard of care in the treatment of early stage, surgically resectable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) dominated the NSCLC news in 2023. Adjuvant pembrolizumab became the second adjuvant ICI to receive US Food and Drug Administration approval in early 2023 after the 2021 approval of adjuvant atezolizumab and the 2022 approval of neoadjuvant nivolumab with chemotherapy. Subsequently in 2023, multiple phase 3 trials examining perioperative ICIs were positive and demonstrated clinically meaningful outcomes by prolonging event-free survival, improving pathologic complete response rates, and trending toward improved overall survival in most. Perioperative pembrolizumab became the first ICI to attain US Food and Drug Administration approval in this setting through the KEYNOTE-671 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03425643), which also demonstrated a definitive overall survival benefit in the entire study population. However, questions remain regarding patient selection for either approach and how we can optimize biomarkers to determine who needs adjuvant therapy after surgery.

Consolidation Osimertinib Versus Durvalumab Versus Observation After Concurrent Chemoradiation in Unresectable EGFR-Mutant NSCLC: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study.

INTRODUCTION: Durvalumab improves survival when used as consolidation therapy after chemoradiation (CRT) in patients with stage III NSCLC. The optimal consolidation therapy for patients with EGFR-mutant (EGFRmut) stage III NSCLC remains unknown. METHODS: In this multi-institutional, international retrospective analysis across 24 institutions, we evaluated outcomes in patients with stage III EGFRmut NSCLC treated with concurrent CRT followed by consolidation therapy with osimertinib, durvalumab, or observation between 2015 and 2022. Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS, primary end point) and overall survival (secondary end point). Treatment-related adverse events (trAEs) during consolidation treatment were defined using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0. Multivariable Cox regression analysis was used. RESULTS: Of 136 patients with stage III EGFRmut NSCLC treated with definitive concurrent CRT, 56 received consolidation durvalumab, 33 received consolidation osimertinib, and 47 was on observation alone. Baseline characteristics were similar across the three cohorts. With a median follow-up of 46 months for the entire cohort, the median duration of treatment was not reached (NR) for osimertinib (interquartile range: NR-NR) and was 5.5 (interquartile range: 2.4-10.8) months with durvalumab. After adjusting for nodal status, stage III A/B/C, and age, patients treated with consolidation osimertinib had significantly longer 24-month rwPFS compared to those treated with durvalumab or in the observation cohorts (osimertinib: 86%, durvalumab: 30%, observation: 27%, p < 0.001 for both comparisons). There was no difference in rwPFS between the durvalumab and the observation cohorts. No significant difference in overall survival across the three cohorts was detected, likely due to the limited follow-up. Any-grade trAE occurred in 52% (2 [6.1%] grade ≥3) and 48% (10 [18%] grade ≥3) of patients treated with osimertinib and durvalumab, respectively. Of 45 patients who progressed on consolidation durvalumab, 37 (82%) subsequently received EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Of these, 14 (38%) patients developed trAEs including five patients with pneumonitis (14%; 2 [5.4%] grade ≥3) and five patients with diarrhea (14%; 1 [2.7%] grade ≥3). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that among patients with stage III unresectable NSCLC with a sensitizing EGFR mutation, consolidation osimertinib was associated with a significantly longer rwPFS compared to durvalumab or observation. No unanticipated safety signals were observed with consolidation osimertinib.

Risk model-based management for second primary lung cancer among lung cancer survivors through a validated risk prediction model.

BACKGROUND: Recent therapeutic advances and screening technologies have improved survival among patients with lung cancer, who are now at high risk of developing second primary lung cancer (SPLC). Recently, an SPLC risk-prediction model (called SPLC-RAT) was developed and validated using data from population-based epidemiological cohorts and clinical trials, but real-world validation has been lacking. The predictive performance of SPLC-RAT was evaluated in a hospital-based cohort of lung cancer survivors. METHODS: The authors analyzed data from 8448 ever-smoking patients diagnosed with initial primary lung cancer (IPLC) in 1997-2006 at Mayo Clinic, with each patient followed for SPLC through 2018. The predictive performance of SPLC-RAT and further explored the potential of improving SPLC detection through risk model-based surveillance using SPLC-RAT versus existing clinical surveillance guidelines. RESULTS: Of 8448 IPLC patients, 483 (5.7%) developed SPLC over 26,470 person-years. The application of SPLC-RAT showed high discrimination area under the receiver operating characteristics curve: 0.81). When the cohort was stratified by a 10-year risk threshold of ≥5.6% (i.e., 80th percentile from the SPLC-RAT development cohort), the observed SPLC incidence was significantly elevated in the high-risk versus low-risk subgroup (13.1% vs. 1.1%, p < 1 × 10-6 ). The risk-based surveillance through SPLC-RAT (≥5.6% threshold) outperformed the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines with higher sensitivity (86.4% vs. 79.4%) and specificity (38.9% vs. 30.4%) and required 20% fewer computed tomography follow-ups needed to detect one SPLC (162 vs. 202). CONCLUSION: In a large, hospital-based cohort, the authors validated the predictive performance of SPLC-RAT in identifying high-risk survivors of SPLC and showed its potential to improve SPLC detection through risk-based surveillance. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Lung cancer survivors have a high risk of developing second primary lung cancer (SPLC). However, no evidence-based guidelines for SPLC surveillance are available for lung cancer survivors. Recently, an SPLC risk-prediction model was developed and validated using data from population-based epidemiological cohorts and clinical trials, but real-world validation has been lacking. Using a large, real-world cohort of lung cancer survivors, we showed the high predictive accuracy and risk-stratification ability of the SPLC risk-prediction model. Furthermore, we demonstrated the potential to enhance efficiency in detecting SPLC using risk model-based surveillance strategies compared to the existing consensus-based clinical guidelines, including the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

Second Primary Lung Cancer Among Lung Cancer Survivors Who Never Smoked.

Importance: Lung cancer among never-smokers accounts for 25% of all lung cancers in the US; recent therapeutic advances have improved survival among patients with initial primary lung cancer (IPLC), who are now at high risk of developing second primary lung cancer (SPLC). As smoking rates continue to decline in the US, it is critical to examine more closely the epidemiology of lung cancer among patients who never smoked, including their risk for SPLC. Objective: To estimate and compare the cumulative SPLC incidence among lung cancer survivors who have never smoked vs those who have ever smoked. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based prospective cohort study used data from the Multiethnic Cohort Study (MEC), which enrolled participants between April 18, 1993, and December 31, 1996, with follow-up through July 1, 2017. Eligible individuals for this study were aged 45 to 75 years and had complete smoking data at baseline. These participants were followed up for IPLC and further SPLC development through the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registry. The data were analyzed from July 1, 2022, to January 31, 2023. Exposures: Never-smoking vs ever-smoking exposure at MEC enrollment. Main Outcomes and Measures: The study had 2 primary outcomes: (1) 10-year cumulative incidence of IPLC in the entire study cohort and 10-year cumulative incidence of SPLC among patients with IPLC and (2) standardized incidence ratio (SIR) (calculated as the SPLC incidence divided by the IPLC incidence) by smoking history. Results: Among 211 414 MEC participants, 7161 (3.96%) developed IPLC over 4 038 007 person-years, and 163 (2.28%) developed SPLC over 16 470 person-years. Of the participants with IPLC, the mean (SD) age at cohort enrollment was 63.6 (7.7) years, 4031 (56.3%) were male, and 3131 (43.7%) were female. The 10-year cumulative IPLC incidence was 2.40% (95% CI, 2.31%-2.49%) among ever-smokers, which was 7 times higher than never-smokers (0.34%; 95% CI, 0.30%-0.37%). However, the 10-year cumulative SPLC incidence following IPLC was as high among never-smokers (2.84%; 95% CI, 1.50%-4.18%) as ever-smokers (2.72%; 95% CI, 2.24%-3.20%), which led to a substantially higher SIR for never-smokers (14.50; 95% CI, 8.73-22.65) vs ever-smokers (3.50; 95% CI, 2.95-4.12). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings indicate that SPLC risk among lung cancer survivors who never smoked is as high as among those with IPLC who ever-smoked, highlighting the need to identify risk factors for SPLC among patients who never smoked and to develop a targeted surveillance strategy.

Risk Model-Based Lung Cancer Screening and Racial and Ethnic Disparities in the US.

Importance: The revised 2021 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines for lung cancer screening have been shown to reduce disparities in screening eligibility and performance between African American and White individuals vs the 2013 guidelines. However, potential disparities across other racial and ethnic groups in the US remain unknown. Risk model-based screening may reduce racial and ethnic disparities and improve screening performance, but neither validation of key risk prediction models nor their screening performance has been examined by race and ethnicity. Objective: To validate and recalibrate the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial 2012 (PLCOm2012) model-a well-established risk prediction model based on a predominantly White population-across races and ethnicities in the US and evaluate racial and ethnic disparities and screening performance through risk-based screening using PLCOm2012 vs the USPSTF 2021 criteria. Design, Setting, and Participants: In a population-based cohort design, the Multiethnic Cohort Study enrolled participants in 1993-1996, followed up through December 31, 2018. Data analysis was conducted from April 1, 2022, to May 19. 2023. A total of 105 261 adults with a smoking history were included. Exposures: The 6-year lung cancer risk was calculated through recalibrated PLCOm2012 (ie, PLCOm2012-Update) and screening eligibility based on a 6-year risk threshold greater than or equal to 1.3%, yielding similar eligibility as the USPSTF 2021 guidelines. Outcomes: Predictive accuracy, screening eligibility-incidence (E-I) ratio (ie, ratio of the number of eligible to incident cases), and screening performance (sensitivity, specificity, and number needed to screen to detect 1 lung cancer). Results: Of 105 261 participants (60 011 [57.0%] men; mean [SD] age, 59.8 [8.7] years), consisting of 19 258 (18.3%) African American, 27 227 (25.9%) Japanese American, 21 383 (20.3%) Latino, 8368 (7.9%) Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander, and 29 025 (27.6%) White individuals, 1464 (1.4%) developed lung cancer within 6 years from enrollment. The PLCOm2012-Update showed good predictive accuracy across races and ethnicities (area under the curve, 0.72-0.82). The USPSTF 2021 criteria yielded a large disparity among African American individuals, whose E-I ratio was 53% lower vs White individuals (E-I ratio: 9.5 vs 20.3; P < .001). Under the risk-based screening (PLCOm2012-Update 6-year risk ≥1.3%), the disparity between African American and White individuals was substantially reduced (E-I ratio: 15.9 vs 18.4; P < .001), with minimal disparities observed in persons of other minoritized groups, including Japanese American, Latino, and Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander. Risk-based screening yielded superior overall and race and ethnicity-specific performance to the USPSTF 2021 criteria, with higher overall sensitivity (67.2% vs 57.7%) and lower number needed to screen (26 vs 30) at similar specificity (76.6%). Conclusions: The findings of this cohort study suggest that risk-based lung cancer screening can reduce racial and ethnic disparities and improve screening performance across races and ethnicities vs the USPSTF 2021 criteria.

Comutations and KRASG12C Inhibitor Efficacy in Advanced NSCLC.

Molecular modifiers of KRASG12C inhibitor (KRASG12Ci) efficacy in advanced KRASG12C-mutant NSCLC are poorly defined. In a large unbiased clinicogenomic analysis of 424 patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), we identified and validated coalterations in KEAP1, SMARCA4, and CDKN2A as major independent determinants of inferior clinical outcomes with KRASG12Ci monotherapy. Collectively, comutations in these three tumor suppressor genes segregated patients into distinct prognostic subgroups and captured ∼50% of those with early disease progression (progression-free survival ≤3 months) with KRASG12Ci. Pathway-level integration of less prevalent coalterations in functionally related genes nominated PI3K/AKT/MTOR pathway and additional baseline RAS gene alterations, including amplifications, as candidate drivers of inferior outcomes with KRASG12Ci, and revealed a possible association between defective DNA damage response/repair and improved KRASG12Ci efficacy. Our findings propose a framework for patient stratification and clinical outcome prediction in KRASG12C-mutant NSCLC that can inform rational selection and appropriate tailoring of emerging combination therapies. SIGNIFICANCE: In this work, we identify co-occurring genomic alterations in KEAP1, SMARCA4, and CDKN2A as independent determinants of poor clinical outcomes with KRASG12Ci monotherapy in advanced NSCLC, and we propose a framework for patient stratification and treatment personalization based on the comutational status of individual tumors. See related commentary by Heng et al., p. 1513. This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 1501.

Osimertinib in NSCLC With Atypical EGFR-Activating Mutations: A Retrospective Multicenter Study.

Introduction: EGFR mutations drive a subset of NSCLC. Patients harboring the common EGFR mutations, deletion of exon 19 and L858R, respond well to osimertinib, a third-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitor. Nevertheless, the effect of osimertinib on NSCLC with atypical EGFR mutations is not well described. This multicenter retrospective study evaluates the efficacy of osimertinib among patients with NSCLC harboring atypical EGFR mutations. Methods: Patients with metastatic NSCLC treated with osimertinib, harboring at least one atypical EGFR mutation, excluding concurrent deletion of exon 19, L858R, or T790M mutations, from six U.S. academic cancer centers were included. Baseline clinical characteristics were collected. The primary end point was the time to treatment discontinuation (TTD) of osimertinib. Objective response rate by the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 was also assessed. Results: A total of 50 patients with NSCLC with uncommon EGFR mutations were identified. The most frequent EGFR mutations were L861Q (40%, n = 18), G719X (28%, n = 14), and exon 20 insertion (14%, n = 7). The median TTD of osimertinib was 9.7 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 6.5-12.9 mo) overall and 10.7 months (95% CI: 3.2-18.1 mo) in the first-line setting (n = 20). The objective response rate was 31.7% (95% CI: 18.1%-48.1%) overall and 41.2% (95% CI: 18.4%-67.1%) in the first-line setting. The median TTD varied among patients with L861Q (17.2 mo), G719X (7.8 mo), and exon 20 insertion (1.5 mo) mutations. Conclusions: Osimertinib has activity in patients with NSCLC harboring atypical EGFR mutations. Osimertinib activity differs by the type of atypical EGFR-activating mutation.

Efficacy of Osimertinib in Patients with Lung Cancer Positive for Uncommon EGFR Exon 19 Deletion Mutations.

PURPOSE: The uncommon EGFR exon 19 deletion (ex19del), L747_A750>P, demonstrates reduced sensitivity to osimertinib compared with the common ex19del, E746_A750del in preclinical models. The clinical efficacy of osimertinib in patients with non-small cell lung cancer harboring L747_A750>P and other uncommon ex19dels is not known. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: The AACR GENIE database was interrogated to characterize the frequency of individual ex19dels relative to other variants, and a multicenter retrospective cohort was used to compare clinical outcomes for patients with tumors harboring E746_A750del, L747_A750>P, and other uncommon ex19dels who received osimertinib in the first line (1L) or in second or later lines of therapy and were T790M+ (≥2L). RESULTS: ex19dels comprised 45% of EGFR mutations, with 72 distinct variants ranging in frequency from 28.1% (E746_A750del) to 0.03%, with L747_A750>P representing 1.8% of the EGFR mutant cohort. In our multi-institutional cohort (N = 200), E746_A750del was associated with significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) with 1L osimertinib versus L747_A750>P [median 21.3 months (95% confidence interval, 17.0-31.7) vs. 11.7 months (10.8-29.4); adjusted HR 0.52 (0.28-0.98); P = 0.043]. Osimertinib efficacy in patients with other uncommon ex19dels varied on the basis of the specific mutation present. CONCLUSIONS: The ex19del L747_A750>P is associated with inferior PFS compared with the common E746_A750del mutation in patients treated with 1L osimertinib. Understanding differences in osimertinib efficacy among EGFR ex19del subtypes could alter management of these patients in the future.

Implementation and evaluation of an elective quality improvement curriculum for preclinical students: a prospective controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Quality improvement (QI) is a systematic approach to improving healthcare delivery with applications across all fields of medicine. However, exposure to QI is minimal in early medical education. We evaluated the effectiveness of an elective QI curriculum in teaching preclinical health professional students foundational QI concepts. METHODS: This prospective controlled cohort study was conducted at a single academic institution. The elective QI curriculum consisted of web-based video didactics and exercises, supplemented with in-person classroom discussions. An optional hospital-based QI project was offered. Assessments included pre- and post-intervention surveys evaluating QI skills and beliefs and attitudes, quizzes, and Quality Improvement Knowledge Application Tool-Revised (QIKAT-R) cases. Within-group pre-post and between-group comparisons were performed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Overall, 57 preclinical medical or physician assistant students participated under the QI curriculum group (N = 27) or control group (N = 30). Twenty-three (85%) curriculum students completed a QI project. Mean quiz scores were significantly improved in the curriculum group from pre- to post-assessment (Quiz 1: 2.0, P < 0.001; Quiz 2: 1.7, P = 0.002), and the mean differences significantly differed from those in the control group (Quiz 1: P < 0.001; Quiz 2: P = 0.010). QIKAT-R scores also significantly differed among the curriculum group versus controls (P = 0.012). In the curriculum group, students had improvements in their confidence with all 10 QI skills assessed, including 8 that were significantly improved from pre- to post-assessment, and 4 with significant between-group differences compared with controls. Students in both groups agreed that their medical education would be incomplete without a QI component and that they are likely to be involved in QI projects throughout their medical training and practice. CONCLUSIONS: The elective QI curriculum was effective in guiding preclinical students to develop their QI knowledge base and skillset. Preclinical students value QI as an integral component of their medical training. Future directions involve evaluating the impact of this curriculum on clinical clerkship performance and across other academic institutions.

Induction EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors prior to definitive chemoradiotherapy in unresectable stage III EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Increasing evidence suggests that consolidation durvalumab confers limited benefits for patients with stage III EGFR-mutated NSCLC. Induction or maintenance EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) added to concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CRT) may optimize definitive treatment, but there are limited data supporting an induction TKI strategy. METHODS: We evaluated the efficacy and safety of induction EGFR TKIs administered before concurrent CRT in a retrospective series of patients with unresectable locally advanced EGFR-mutated NSCLC. Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis was performed on a patient subset using CAPP-seq and correlated with outcomes. RESULTS: Of six patients, three received erlotinib and three osimertinib as induction therapy before CRT. Induction TKIs were administered for a median of 2.5 months. The objective response rate after induction TKI was 83%. One patient had a complete response to induction erlotinib and continued erlotinib for 4 years until local progression, which was treated with CRT. Two patients completed maintenance erlotinib after CRT, and another received consolidation durvalumab. After a median follow-up of 20.5 months, only one patient developed disease recurrence, with rising ctDNA coinciding with recurrence. ctDNA remained undetectable in patients without recurrence, or low-level in a patient receiving maintenance erlotinib. Adverse events were mild and expected, and none developed pneumonitis. CONCLUSION: Induction EGFR TKI before CRT may achieve high disease control rates with promising signs of durability in patients with locally advanced EGFR-mutated NSCLC. ctDNA analysis after CRT can correlate well with clinical outcomes. Prospective studies are needed to define the role of induction EGFR TKIs in this setting.

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Lung Cancer Screening by the 2021 USPSTF Guidelines Versus Risk-Based Criteria: The Multiethnic Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: In 2021, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) revised its lung cancer screening guidelines to expand screening eligibility. We evaluated screening sensitivities and racial and ethnic disparities under the 2021 USPSTF criteria vs alternative risk-based criteria in a racially and ethnically diverse population. METHODS: In the Multiethnic Cohort, we evaluated the proportion of ever-smoking lung cancer cases eligible for screening (ie, screening sensitivity) under the 2021 USPSTF criteria and under risk-based criteria through the PLCOm2012 model (6-year risk ≥1.51%). We also calculated the screening disparity (ie, absolute sensitivity difference) for each of 4 racial or ethnic groups (African American, Japanese American, Latino, Native Hawaiian) vs White cases. RESULTS: Among 5900 lung cancer cases, 43.3% were screen eligible under the 2021 USPSTF criteria. Screening sensitivities varied by race and ethnicity, with Native Hawaiian (56.7%) and White (49.6%) cases attaining the highest sensitivities and Latino (37.3%), African American (38.4%), and Japanese American (40.0%) cases attaining the lowest. Latino cases had the greatest screening disparity vs White cases at 12.4%, followed by African American (11.2%) and Japanese American (9.6%) cases. Under risk-based screening, the overall screening sensitivity increased to 75.7%, and all racial and ethnic groups had increased sensitivities (54.5%-91.9%). Whereas the screening disparity decreased to 5.1% for African American cases, it increased to 28.6% for Latino cases and 12.8% for Japanese American cases. CONCLUSIONS: In the Multiethnic Cohort, racial and ethnic disparities decreased but persisted under the 2021 USPSTF lung cancer screening guidelines. Risk-based screening through PLCOm2012 may increase screening sensitivities and help to reduce disparities in some, but not all, racial and ethnic groups. Further optimization of risk-based screening strategies across diverse populations is needed.

High-Dose Osimertinib for CNS Progression in EGFR+ NSCLC: A Multi-Institutional Experience.

Introduction: This multicenter review evaluated the efficacy and safety of osimertinib dose escalation for central nervous system (CNS) progression developing on osimertinib 80 mg in EGFR-mutant NSCLC. Methods: Retrospective review identified 105 patients from eight institutions with advanced EGFR-mutant NSCLC treated with osimertinib 160 mg daily between October 2013 and January 2020. Radiographic responses were clinically assessed, and Kaplan-Meier analyses were used. We defined CNS disease control as the interval from osimertinib 160 mg initiation to CNS progression or discontinuation of osimertinib 160 mg. Results: Among 105 patients treated with osimertinib 160 mg, 69 were escalated for CNS progression, including 24 treated with dose escalation alone (cohort A), 34 who received dose-escalated osimertinib plus concurrent chemotherapy and/or radiation (cohort B), and 11 who received osimertinib 160 mg without any prior 80 mg exposure. The median duration of CNS control was 3.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.7-5.8) in cohort A, 5.1 months (95% CI, 3.1-6.5) in cohort B, and 4.2 months (95% CI 1.6-not reached) in cohort C. Across all cohorts, the median duration of CNS control was 6.0 months (95% CI, 5.1-9.0) in isolated leptomeningeal progression (n = 27) and 3.3 months (95% CI, 1.0-3.1) among those with parenchymal-only metastases (n = 23). Patients on osimertinib 160 mg experienced no severe or unexpected side effects. Conclusion: Among patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC experiencing CNS progression on osimertinib 80 mg daily, dose escalation to 160 mg provided modest benefit with CNS control lasting approximately 3 to 6 months and seemed more effective in patients with isolated leptomeningeal CNS progression.

EGFR exon 20 Insertion NSCLC and Response to Platinum-Based Chemotherapy.

INTRODUCTION: In classical EGFR mutant non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy yields better outcomes than platinum-based chemotherapy. However, EGFR exon 20 insertion (ex20ins) NSCLC is relatively resistant to currently available EGFR TKIs. Though platinum-based chemotherapy is the frontline standard of care for EGFR ex20ins NSCLC, its efficacy is not fully described. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective, single-center, case series METHODS: Patients were identified through an electronic research database at a single institution and included if they had advanced EGFR ex20ins NSCLC, received platinum-based chemotherapy for metastatic disease, and had scans evaluable for response. Each patient's demographics, tumor characteristics, and clinical course were recorded. Treatment response was evaluated using RECIST v1.1 criteria, and the PFS was calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Among 27 patients identified with EGFR ex20ins NSCLC at our institution, 18 (67%) received platinum-based chemotherapy for metastatic disease and had scans evaluable for response. These patients received platinum-based chemotherapy in the first-line (N = 17, 94%) and second-line settings (N = 1, 6%). The objective response rate (ORR) to platinum-based chemotherapy was 39% (7 of 18 patients; 95% confidence interval [CI] 16-61). The median PFS with platinum-based chemotherapy was 7.1 months (95% CI, 6.3 -13.7), and the median overall survival was 3.2 years (95% CI, 1.92 - NR). CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy of platinum-based chemotherapy in EGFR ex20ins NSCLC is similar to that expected for TKI sensitive EGFR mutant NSCLC. Novel agents designed to specifically target ex20ins mutant EGFR should additionally improve outcomes.

Development and Validation of a Risk Prediction Model for Second Primary Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: With advancing therapeutics, lung cancer (LC) survivors are rapidly increasing in number. Although mounting evidence suggests LC survivors have high risk of second primary lung cancer (SPLC), there is no validated prediction model available for clinical use to identify high-risk LC survivors for SPLC. METHODS: Using data from 6325 ever-smokers in the Multiethnic Cohort (MEC) study diagnosed with initial primary lung cancer (IPLC) in 1993-2017, we developed a prediction model for 10-year SPLC risk after IPLC diagnosis using cause-specific Cox regression. We evaluated the model's clinical utility using decision curve analysis and externally validated it using 2 population-based data-Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial (PLCO) and National Lung Screening Trial (NLST)-that included 2963 and 2844 IPLC (101 and 93 SPLC cases), respectively. RESULTS: Over 14 063 person-years, 145 (2.3%) ever-smoking IPLC patients developed SPLC in MEC. Our prediction model demonstrated a high predictive accuracy (Brier score = 2.9, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.4 to 3.3) and discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristics [AUC] = 81.9%, 95% CI = 78.2% to 85.5%) based on bootstrap validation in MEC. Stratification by the estimated risk quartiles showed that the observed SPLC incidence was statistically significantly higher in the 4th vs 1st quartile (9.5% vs 0.2%; P < .001). Decision curve analysis indicated that in a wide range of 10-year risk thresholds from 1% to 20%, the model yielded a larger net-benefit vs hypothetical all-screening or no-screening scenarios. External validation using PLCO and NLST showed an AUC of 78.8% (95% CI = 74.6% to 82.9%) and 72.7% (95% CI = 67.7% to 77.7%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We developed and validated a SPLC prediction model based on large population-based cohorts. The proposed prediction model can help identify high-risk LC patients for SPLC and can be incorporated into clinical decision making for SPLC surveillance and screening.

Afatinib After Progression on Osimertinib in EGFR-Mutated Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: After the development of acquired resistance to osimertinib, the standard-of-care treatment for advanced EGFR-mutated NSCLC is chemotherapy. Whether afatinib, a pan-ErbB family tyrosine kinase inhibitor, is active after progression on osimertinib is unknown. METHODS: We conducted a single-institution retrospective analysis of patients with advanced EGFR-mutated NSCLC who received afatinib-containing therapy after progression on osimertinib. Kaplan-Meier analyses evaluated progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) from initiation of afatinib. RESULTS: After progression on first (N=3) or second-line plus (N=12) osimertinib, 15 patients received afatinib monotherapy (N=3), afatinib and cetuximab (N=10), or afatinib and bevacizumab (N=2). The objective response rate was 6.7% and disease control rate was 53.3%. Median PFS was 2.5 months and median OS was 7.7 months. Median PFS of ≥ 6 months versus < 6 months on osimertinib was associated with a significantly greater median PFS on afatinib (4.0 versus 1.4 months; P=0.003), although there was no significant difference in median OS (9.3 versus 6.6 months; P=0.123). Best response of stable disease/partial response versus progressive disease on osimertinib was associated with a significantly greater median PFS on afatinib (3.4 versus 1.6 months; P=0.036) and a significantly greater median OS (8.7 versus 4.6 months; P=0.017). CONCLUSION: Afatinib-containing therapy had limited activity in patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC after progression on osimertinib in this cohort of mostly second-line plus osimertinib. Response and longer PFS to prior osimertinib may be predictive of response to afatinib. Strategies based on osimertinib resistance mechanisms may further define the role of subsequent afatinib.

The Survival Impact of Second Primary Lung Cancer in Patients With Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer survivors have a high risk of developing second primary lung cancer (SPLC), but little is known about the survival impact of SPLC diagnosis. METHODS: We analyzed data from 138 969 patients in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER), who were surgically treated for initial primary lung cancer (IPLC) in 1988-2013. Each patient was followed from the date of IPLC diagnosis to SPLC diagnosis (for those with SPLC) and last vital status through 2016. We performed multivariable Cox regression to evaluate the association between overall survival and SPLC diagnosis as a time-varying predictor. To investigate potential effect modification, we tested interaction between SPLC and IPLC stage. Using data from the Multiethnic Cohort Study (MEC) (n = 1540 IPLC patients with surgery), we evaluated the survival impact of SPLC by smoking status. All statistical tests were 2-sided. RESULTS: A total of 12 115 (8.7%) patients developed SPLC in SEER over 700 421 person-years of follow-up. Compared with patients with single primary lung cancer, those with SPLC had statistically significantly reduced overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.12, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.06 to 2.17; P < .001). The effect of SPLC on reduced survival was more pronounced among patients with early stage IPLC vs advanced-stage IPLC (HR = 2.14, 95% CI = 2.08 to 2.20, vs HR = 1.43, 95% CI = 1.21 to 1.70, respectively; Pinteraction < .001). Analysis using MEC data showed that the effect of SPLC on reduced survival was statistically significantly larger among persons who actively smoked at initial diagnosis vs those who formerly or never smoked (HR = 2.31, 95% CI = 1.48 to 3.61, vs HR = 1.41, 95% CI = 0.98 to 2.03, respectively; Pinteraction = .04). CONCLUSIONS: SPLC diagnosis is statistically significantly associated with decreased survival in SEER and MEC. Intensive surveillance targeting patients with early stage IPLC and active smoking at IPLC diagnosis may lead to a larger survival benefit.

Smoking Cessation After Lung Cancer Diagnosis and the Risk of Second Primary Lung Cancer: The Multiethnic Cohort Study.

Background: Smoking cessation reduces lung cancer mortality. However, little is known about whether diagnosis of lung cancer impacts changes in smoking behaviors. Furthermore, the effects of smoking cessation on the risk of second primary lung cancer (SPLC) have not been established yet. This study aims to examine smoking behavior changes after initial primary lung cancer (IPLC) diagnosis and estimate the effect of smoking cessation on SPLC risk following IPLC diagnosis. Methods: The study cohort consisted of 986 participants in the Multiethnic Cohort Study who were free of lung cancer and active smokers at baseline (1993-1996), provided 10-year follow-up smoking data (2003-2008), and were diagnosed with IPLC in 1993-2017. The primary outcome was a change in smoking status from "current" at baseline to "former" at 10-year follow-up (ie, smoking cessation), analyzed using logistic regression. The second outcome was SPLC incidence after smoking cessation, estimated using cause-specific Cox regression. All statistical tests were 2-sided. Results: Among 986 current smokers at baseline, 51.1% reported smoking cessation at 10-year follow-up. The smoking cessation rate was statistically significantly higher (80.6%) for those diagnosed with IPLC between baseline and 10-year follow-up vs those without IPLC diagnosis (45.4%) during the 10-year period (adjusted odds ratio = 5.12, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.38 to 7.98; P < .001). Incidence of SPLC was statistically significantly lower among the 504 participants who reported smoking cessation at follow-up compared with those without smoking cessation (adjusted hazard ratio = 0.31, 95% CI = 0.14 to 0.67; P = .003). Conclusion: Lung cancer diagnosis has a statistically significant impact on smoking cessation. Quitting smoking after IPLC diagnosis may reduce the risk of developing a subsequent malignancy in the lungs.

Metabolomic profiling for second primary lung cancer: A pilot case-control study.

OBJECTIVES: Lung cancer survivors have a high risk of developing a second primary lung cancer (SPLC). While national screening guidelines have been established for initial primary lung cancer (IPLC), no consensus guidelines exist for SPLC. Furthermore, the factors that contribute to SPLC risk have not been established. This study examines the potential for using serum metabolomics to identify metabolite biomarkers that differ between SPLC cases and IPLC controls. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this pilot case-control study, we applied an untargeted metabolomics approach based on ultrahigh performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectroscopy (UPLC-MS/MS) to serum samples of 82 SPLC cases and 82 frequency matched IPLC controls enrolled in the Boston Lung Cancer Study. Random forest and unconditional logistic regression models identified metabolites associated with SPLC. Candidate metabolites were integrated into a SPLC risk prediction model and the model performance was evaluated through a risk stratification approach. RESULTS: The untargeted analysis detected 1008 named and 316 unnamed metabolites among all study participants. Metabolites that were significantly associated with SPLC (False Discovery Rate q-value < 0.2) included 5-methylthioadenosine (odds ratio [OR] = 2.04, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.39-3.01; P = 2.8 × 10-4) and phenylacetylglutamine (OR = 2.65, 95 % CI 1.56-4.51; P = 3.2 × 10-4), each exhibiting approximately 1.5-fold increased levels among SPLC cases versus IPLC controls. In stratifying the study participants across quartiles of estimated SPLC risk, the risk prediction model identified a significantly higher proportion of SPLC cases in the fourth compared to the first quartile (68.3 % versus 39.0 %; P = 0.044). CONCLUSION: SPLC cases may have distinct metabolomic profiles compared to those in IPLC patients without SPLC. A risk stratification approach integrating metabolomics may be useful for distinguishing patients based on SPLC risk. Prospective validation studies are needed to further evaluate the potential for leveraging metabolomics in SPLC surveillance and screening.