Novel Therapeutic Options for Small Cell Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The aim of this review is to focus on the recent advances in the molecular knowledge of small cell lung cancer (SCLC) and potential promising new treatment strategies, like targeting the DNA damage pathway, epigenetics, angiogenesis, and oncogenic drivers. RECENT FINDINGS: In the last few years, the addition of immunotherapy to chemotherapy has led to significant improvements in clinical outcomes in this complex neoplasia. Nevertheless, the prognosis remains dismal. Recently, numerous genomic alterations have been identified, and they may be useful to classify SCLC into different molecular subtypes (SCLC-A, SCLC-I, SCLC-Y, SCLC-P). SCLC accounts for 10-20% of all lung cancers, most patients have an extensive disease at the diagnosis, and it is characterized by poor prognosis. Despite the progresses in the knowledge of the disease, efficacious targeted treatments are still lacking. In the near future, the molecular characterisation of SCLC will be fundamental to find more effective treatment strategies.

Immune-Checkpoint Inhibitors in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer With Uncommon Histology.

BACKGROUND: Immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have significantly improved outcome of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) patients. However, their efficacy remains uncertain in uncommon histologies (UH). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from ICI treated aNSCLC patients (April,2013-January,2021) in one Institution were retrospectively collected. Univariate and multivariate survival analyses were estimated by Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards regression model, respectively. Objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR) were assessed. RESULTS: Of 375 patients, 79 (21.1%) had UH: 19 (24.1%) sarcomatoid carcinoma, 15 (19.0%) mucinous adenocarcinoma, 10 (12.6%) enteric adenocarcinoma, 8 (10.1%) adenocarcinoma not otherwise specified, 7 (8.9%) large-cell neuroendocrine carcinoma, 6 (7.6%) mixed histology non-adenosquamous, 5 (6.3%) adenosquamous carcinoma, 9 (11.4%) other UH. In UH group, programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) <1%, 1-49%, ≥50% and unknown expression were reported in 27.8%, 22.8%, 31.7% and 17.7% patients respectively and ICI was the second/further-line in the majority of patients. After a median follow-up of 35.64 months (m), median progression-free survival (mPFS) was 2.5 m in UH [95% CI 2.2-2.9 m] versus (vs.) 2.7 m in CH [95% CI 2.3-3.2 m, P-value = .584]; median overall survival (mOS) was 8.8 m [95% CI 4.9-12.6 m] vs. 9.7 m [95% CI 8.0-11.3 m, P-value = .653]. At multivariate analyses only ECOG PS was a confirmed prognostic factor in UH. ORR and DCR were 25.3% and 40.5% in UH vs. 21.6% and 49.5% in CH [P-value = .493 and .155 respectively]. CONCLUSIONS: No significant differences were detected between UH and CH groups. Prospective trials are needed to understand ICIs role in UH population.

Immunotherapy in advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer patients with poor performance status: The role of clinical-pathological variables and inflammatory biomarkers.

BACKGROUND: The introduction of immunotherapy has improved the prognosis of patients with Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC). However, data in poor ECOG Performance Status (PS) patients remain scant due to their exclusion from randomized trials. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We analyzed data of patients with advanced NSCLC treated with immunotherapy in two Italian Centers, to evaluate the impact of PS (0-1 vs 2) on disease control rate (DCR), progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Chi-square test was used to compare clinical-pathological variables, their impact on survival was evaluated through Cox proportional hazard models. RESULTS: Among 404 patients included, PS was 0 in 137 (33.9 %), 1 in 208 (51.5 %) and 2 in 59 (14.6 %) patients; 143 were female and 90 had squamous NSCLC. Clinical-pathological variables were uniformly distributed except for higher prevalence of liver metastases in patients with poor PS. We found that PS2 patients showed worse outcomes in terms of DCR (21.8 % vs 50.3 %, p = 0.001), PFS [2.0 (95 % CI 1.6-3.0) vs 3.0 (95 % CI 2.7-4.0) months, p < 0.0001] and OS [4.0 (95 % CI 2.8-5.7) vs 13.2 (95 % CI 11.0-15.8) months, p < 0.0001]. PS2 status, negative PDL1 expression and early corticosteroids exposure as well as higher Neutrophil to Lymphocyte Ratio and LDH at baseline were associated with worse outcomes at univariate and multivariable analysis. Subgroup analysis confirmed poor outcomes in PS2 patients with high LDH and concomitant corticosteroid therapies. The incidence of Grade 3/4 adverse events was 11.3 % in PS 0-1 and 10.2 % in PS 2 patients (p = 0.81). CONCLUSION: Our data confirm reduced efficacy of immunotherapy in patients with poor PS even though a good safety. Despite PS remains the most powerful independent prognostic factor for NSCLC, LDH levels and steroids exposure could support the decision making in PS2 patients.

Integrating clinical and biological prognostic biomarkers in patients with advanced NSCLC treated with immunotherapy: the DEMo score system.

BACKGROUND: Several biomarkers have been separately described to select patients for immunotherapy (IO), but few studies integrate these markers. Di Maio, EPSILoN and the plasma microRNA signature classifier (MSC), are three different clinico, biochemical and molecular markers able to independently predict prognosis in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: Complete data such as sex, histology, ECOG-PS, stage, smoking status, presence of liver metastasis, LDH and neutrophils-to-lymphocyte ratio were collected to generate Di Maio and EPSILoN. The MSC risk level was prospectively assessed in plasma samples collected at baseline IO. The 3 markers were integrated into the DEMo score system prospectively tested in a cohort of 200 advanced NSCLC patients treated with IO. Endpoints were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall response rate (ORR). RESULTS: DEMo separated patients in 7-risk groups whose median OS had a trend ranging from 29.7 to 1.5 months (P<0.0001). When comparing patients with the lowest (n=29) and the highest (n=35) DEMo scores ORR was 45% and 3%, respectively (P<0.0001). Considering the 53 PD-L1 ≥50% patients, DEMo identified a group of 13 (25%) patients who benefit less from IO in terms of both OS (HR: 8.81; 95% CI: 2.87-20.01) and PFS (HR: 6.82; 95% CI: 2.57-18.10). Twelve out of 111 (11%) patients who most benefit from IO according to OS (HR: 0.21; 95% CI: 0.07-0.62) and PFS (HR: 0.28; 95% CI: 0.12-0.65) were identified by DEMo in the PD-L1 <50% group. CONCLUSIONS: The DEMo prognostic score system stratified NSCLC patients treated with IO better than each single marker. The proper use of DEMo according to PD-L1 could improve selection in IO regimens.

DiM: Prognostic Score for Second- or Further-line Immunotherapy in Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: An External Validation.

BACKGROUND: Other than the programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) value, oncologists have only the clinical characteristics of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) to determine candidates for immunotherapy. A clinical prognostic score composed of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, sex, histologic type, stage, platinum-based first-line therapy, and response to first-line therapy has categorized 3 prognostic groups for patients undergoing second-line chemotherapy. We sought to validate the same score for patients with aNSCLC treated with second- or further-line immunotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We collected data from 2 Italian centers. A score was generated to divide patients into 3 prognostic groups: best, score < 5; intermediate, score 5 to 9; and worst, score > 9. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were the endpoints. RESULTS: A total of 347 patients were included for analysis. Their median age was 66 years (range, 30-88 years), most were aged < 70 years (67.5%), 70.7% were men, 79.5% were smokers, and 74.6% had had adenocarcinoma. The Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status was 0 for 23%, 1 for 54.5%, and 2 for 22.5%. Of the 347 patients, 28% were in the best prognosis, 51% in the intermediate, and 21% in the worst prognosis group, respectively. The median OS was 18.0 months for the best, 8.5 months for the intermediate (hazard ratio [HR] vs. best, 1.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.35-2.47; P < .001) and 2.6 months for worst (HR vs. best, 5.77; 95% CI, 3.99-8.33; P < .001) group. The median PFS was 3.4 months for the best, 3.7 months for the intermediate (HR vs. best, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.03-1.77; P = .032), and 1.9 months for the worst (HR vs. best, 2.51; 95% CI, 1.80-3.50; P < .001) group. CONCLUSIONS: The prognostic score was able to predict the outcomes of patients with aNSCLC who had received immunotherapy. The worst category showed a dismal life expectancy and probably would not benefit from active systemic therapy. Thus, for these patients, best supportive care could be the best choice.

EPSILoN: A Prognostic Score for Immunotherapy in Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Validation Cohort.

BACKGROUND: Beyond programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1), no other biomarkers for immunotherapy are used in daily practice. We previously created EPSILoN (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS), smoking, liver metastases, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR)) score, a clinical/biochemical prognostic score, in 154 patients treated with second/further-line immunotherapy. This study's aim was to validate EPSILoN score in a different population group. METHODS: 193 patients were included at National Cancer Institute of Milan (second-line immunotherapy, 61%; further-line immunotherapy, 39%). Clinical/laboratory parameters such as neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio and lactate dehydrogenase levels were collected. Kaplan-Meier and Cox hazard methods were used for survival analysis. RESULTS: Overall median progression-free survival and median overall survival were 2.3 and 7.6 months, respectively. Multivariate analyses for Progression-Free Survival (PFS) identified heavy smokers (hazard ratio (HR) 0.71, p = 0.036) and baseline LDH < 400 mg/dL (HR 0.66, p = 0.026) as independent positive factors and liver metastases (HR 1.48, p = 0.04) and NLR ≥ 4 (HR 1.49, p = 0.029) as negative prognostic factors. These five factors were included in the EPSILoN score which was able to stratify patients in three different prognostic groups, high, intermediate and low, with PFS of 6.0, 3.8 and 1.9 months, respectively (HR 1.94, p < 0.001); high, intermediate and low prognostic groups had overall survival (OS) of 24.5, 8.9 and 3.4 months, respectively (HR 2.40, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: EPSILoN, combining five baseline clinical/blood parameters (ECOG PS, smoking, liver metastases, LDH, NLR), may help to identify advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) patients who most likely benefit from immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs).

Efficacy and safety of immunotherapy in elderly patients with non-small cell lung cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Most trials with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors (ICIs) for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) included only small subgroups of patients aged ≥65. As NSCLC is often diagnosed in patients aged ≥70, real-world data about efficacy and safety of immunotherapy (IO) in elderly patients are essential. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively collected data about all patients with advanced NSCLC treated with IO at our Institution between April 2013 and March 2019. The patients were stratified for age as follows: <70 year-old, 70-79 year-old, ≥80 year-old. Chi-square test was used to compare qualitative variables. Survival was estimated with Kaplan-Meier method. Log-rank test was used to compare curves. Multivariate analyses were performed with Cox model. RESULTS: We reviewed 290 cases, with a median age of 67 (range: 29-89). Patients aged<70, 70-79 and ≥80 year-old were 180, 94 and 16, respectively. Clinical/pathological variables were uniformly distributed across age classes, except for a higher rate of males (p 0.0228) and squamous histology (p 0.0071) in the intermediate class. Response Rate (RR) was similar across age groups (p 0.9470). Median Progression Free Survival (PFS) and Overall Survival (OS) did not differ according to age (p 0.2020 and 0.9144, respectively). Toxicity was comparable across subgroups (p 0.6493). The only variables influencing outcome were performance status (PS) (p < 0.0001 for PFS, p 0.0192 for OS), number of metastatic sites (p 0.0842 for PFS, p 0.0235 for OS) and IO line (p < 0.0001 for both PFS and OS). CONCLUSION: Advanced age was not associated to a reduced efficacy of IO in our case series. Furthermore, no toxicity concern emerged even among the eldest pts. To our opinion, ICIs should be considered irrespective of age, provided an optimal PS at baseline. Of note, IO is often the only therapeutic option applicable to these cases considering the toxicity of chemotherapy.