Enhancing NSCLC recurrence prediction with PET/CT habitat imaging, ctDNA, and integrative radiogenomics-blood insights.

While we recognize the prognostic importance of clinicopathological measures and circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), the independent contribution of quantitative image markers to prognosis in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) remains underexplored. In our multi-institutional study of 394 NSCLC patients, we utilize pre-treatment computed tomography (CT) and 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) to establish a habitat imaging framework for assessing regional heterogeneity within individual tumors. This framework identifies three PET/CT subtypes, which maintain prognostic value after adjusting for clinicopathologic risk factors including tumor volume. Additionally, these subtypes complement ctDNA in predicting disease recurrence. Radiogenomics analysis unveil the molecular underpinnings of these imaging subtypes, highlighting downregulation in interferon alpha and gamma pathways in the high-risk subtype. In summary, our study demonstrates that these habitat imaging subtypes effectively stratify NSCLC patients based on their risk levels for disease recurrence after initial curative surgery or radiotherapy, providing valuable insights for personalized treatment approaches.

Neoadjuvant Chemoimmunotherapy for NSCLC: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Importance: To date, no meta-analyses have comprehensively assessed the association of neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy with clinical outcomes in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in randomized and nonrandomized settings. In addition, there exists controversy concerning the efficacy of neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy for patients with NSCLC with programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 (PD-L1) levels less than 1%. Objective: To compare neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy with chemotherapy by adverse events and surgical, pathological, and efficacy outcomes using recently published randomized clinical trials and nonrandomized trials. Data Sources: MEDLINE and Embase were systematically searched from January 1, 2013, to October 25, 2023, for all clinical trials of neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy and chemotherapy that included at least 10 patients. Study Selection: Observational studies and trials reporting the use of neoadjuvant radiotherapy, including chemoradiotherapy, molecular targeted therapy, or immunotherapy monotherapy, were excluded. Main Outcomes and Measures: Surgical, pathological, and efficacy end points and adverse events were pooled using a random-effects meta-analysis. Results: Among 43 eligible trials comprising 5431 patients (4020 males [74.0%]; median age range, 55-70 years), there were 8 randomized clinical trials with 3387 patients. For randomized clinical trials, pooled overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.54-0.79; I2 = 0%), event-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.52-0.67; I2 = 14.9%), major pathological response (risk ratio, 3.42; 95% CI, 2.83-4.15; I2 = 31.2%), and complete pathological response (risk ratio, 5.52; 95% CI, 4.25-7.15; I2 = 27.4%) favored neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy over neoadjuvant chemotherapy. For patients with baseline tumor PD-L1 levels less than 1%, there was a significant benefit in event-free survival for neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy compared with chemotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.62-0.89; I2 = 0%). Conclusion and Relevance: This study found that neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy was superior to neoadjuvant chemotherapy across surgical, pathological, and efficacy outcomes. These findings suggest that patients with resectable NSCLC with tumor PD-L1 levels less than 1% may have an event-free survival benefit with neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy.

Evaluation of Major Pathologic Response and Pathologic Complete Response as Surrogate End Points for Survival in Randomized Controlled Trials of Neoadjuvant Immune Checkpoint Blockade in Resectable in NSCLC.

INTRODUCTION: Controversy remains as to whether pathologic complete response (pCR) and major pathologic response (MPR) represent surrogate end points for event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) in neoadjuvant trials for resectable NSCLC. METHODS: A search of PubMed and archives of international conference abstracts was performed from June 2017 through October 31, 2023. Studies incorporating a neoadjuvant arm with immune checkpoint blockade alone or in combination with chemotherapy were included. Those not providing information regarding pCR, MPR, EFS, or OS were excluded. For trial-level surrogacy, log ORs for pCR and MPR and log hazard ratios for EFS and OS were analyzed using a linear regression model weighted by sample size. The regression coefficient and R2 with 95% confidence interval were calculated by the bootstrapping approach. RESULTS: Seven randomized clinical trials were identified for a total of 2385 patients. At the patient level, the R2 of pCR and MPR with 2-year EFS were 0.82 (0.66-0.94) and 0.81 (0.63-0.93), respectively. The OR of 2-year EFS rates by response status was 0.12 (0.07-0.19) and 0.11 (0.05-0.22), respectively. For the 2-year OS, the R2 of pCR and MPR were 0.55 (0.09-0.98) and 0.52 (0.10-0.96), respectively. At the trial level, the R2 for the association of OR for response and HR for EFS was 0.58 (0.00-0.97) and 0.61 (0.00-0.97), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our analyses reveal a robust correlation between pCR and MPR with 2-year EFS but not OS. Trial-level surrogacy was moderate but imprecise. More mature follow-up and data to assess the impact of study crossover are needed.

Synthetic PET from CT improves diagnosis and prognosis for lung cancer: Proof of concept.

[18F]Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) and computed tomography (CT) are indispensable components in modern medicine. Although PET can provide additional diagnostic value, it is costly and not universally accessible, particularly in low-income countries. To bridge this gap, we have developed a conditional generative adversarial network pipeline that can produce FDG-PET from diagnostic CT scans based on multi-center multi-modal lung cancer datasets (n = 1,478). Synthetic PET images are validated across imaging, biological, and clinical aspects. Radiologists confirm comparable imaging quality and tumor contrast between synthetic and actual PET scans. Radiogenomics analysis further proves that the dysregulated cancer hallmark pathways of synthetic PET are consistent with actual PET. We also demonstrate the clinical values of synthetic PET in improving lung cancer diagnosis, staging, risk prediction, and prognosis. Taken together, this proof-of-concept study testifies to the feasibility of applying deep learning to obtain high-fidelity PET translated from CT.

Final results of urelumab, an anti-CD137 agonist monoclonal antibody, in combination with cetuximab or nivolumab in patients with advanced solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: Resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted treatments for cancer is common; thus, novel immunotherapy agents are needed. Urelumab is a monoclonal antibody agonist that binds to CD137 receptors expressed on T cells. Here, we report two studies that evaluated urelumab in combination with cetuximab or nivolumab in patients with select, advanced solid tumors. METHODS: CA186-018: Patients with metastatic colorectal cancer or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) were treated in a dose-evaluation phase with urelumab 0.1 mg/kg (urelumab-0.1) every 3 weeks (Q3W)+cetuximab 250 mg/m2 (cetuximab-250) weekly; and in a dose-expansion phase with urelumab 8 mg flat dose (urelumab-8) Q3W+cetuximab-250 weekly. CA186-107: The dose-escalation phase included patients with previously treated advanced solid tumors (or treated or treatment-naive melanoma); patients received urelumab 3 mg flat dose (urelumab-3) or urelumab-8 every 4 weeks+nivolumab 3 mg/kg (nivolumab-3) or 240 mg (nivolumab-240) every 2 weeks. In the expansion phase, patients with melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer, or SCCHN were treated with urelumab-8+nivolumab-240. Primary endpoints were safety and tolerability, and the secondary endpoint included efficacy assessments. RESULTS: CA186-018: 66 patients received study treatment. The most frequent treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were fatigue (75%; n=3) with urelumab-0.1+cetuximab-250 and dermatitis (45%; n=28) with urelumab-8+cetuximab-250. Three patients (5%) discontinued due to TRAE(s) (with urelumab-8+cetuximab-250). One patient with SCCHN had a partial response (objective response rate (ORR) 5%, with urelumab-8+cetuximab-250).CA186-107: 134 patients received study treatment. Fatigue was the most common TRAE (32%; n=2 with urelumab-3+nivolumab-3; n=1 with urelumab-8+nivolumab-3; n=40 with urelumab-8+nivolumab-240). Nine patients (7%) discontinued due to TRAE(s) (n=1 with urelumab-3+nivolumab-3; n=8 with urelumab-8+nivolumab-240). Patients with melanoma naive to anti-PD-1 therapy exhibited the highest ORR (49%; n=21 with urelumab-8+nivolumab-240). Intratumoral gene expression in immune-related pathways (CD3, CD8, CXCL9, GZMB) increased on treatment with urelumab+nivolumab. CONCLUSIONS: Although the addition of urelumab at these doses was tolerable, preliminary response rates did not indicate an evident additive benefit. Nevertheless, the positive pharmacodynamics effects observed with urelumab and the high response rate in treatment-naive patients with melanoma warrant further investigation of other anti-CD137 agonist agents for treatment of cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT02110082; NCT02253992.

Survival outcomes and toxicity of adjuvant immunotherapy after definitive concurrent chemotherapy with proton beam radiation therapy for patients with inoperable locally advanced non-small cell lung carcinoma.

INTRODUCTION: Adjuvant immunotherapy (IO) following concurrent chemotherapy and photon radiation therapy confers an overall survival (OS) benefit for patients with inoperable locally advanced non-small cell lung carcinoma (LA-NSCLC); however, outcomes of adjuvant IO after concurrent chemotherapy with proton beam therapy (CPBT) are unknown. We investigated OS and toxicity after CPBT with adjuvant IO versus CPBT alone for inoperable LA-NSCLC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed 354 patients with LA-NSCLC who were prospectively treated with CPBT with or without adjuvant IO from 2009 to 2021. Optimal variable ratio propensity score matching (PSM) matched CPBT with CPBT + IO patients. Survival was estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method and compared with log-rank tests. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression evaluated the effect of IO on disease outcomes. RESULTS: Median age was 70 years; 71 (20%) received CPBT + IO and 283 (80%) received CPBT only. After PSM, 71 CPBT patients were matched with 71 CPBT + IO patients. Three-year survival rates for CPBT + IO vs CPBT were: OS 67% vs 30% (P < 0.001) and PFS 59% vs 35% (P = 0.017). Three-year LRFS (P = 0.137) and DMFS (P = 0.086) did not differ. Receipt of adjuvant IO was a strong predictor of OS (HR 0.40, P = 0.001) and PFS (HR 0.56, P = 0.030), but not LRFS (HR 0.61, P = 0.121) or DMFS (HR 0.61, P = 0.136). There was an increased incidence of grade ≥3 esophagitis in the CPBT-only group (6% CPBT + IO vs 17% CPBT, P = 0.037). CONCLUSION: This study, one of the first to investigate CPBT followed by IO for inoperable LA-NSCLC, showed that IO conferred survival benefits with no increased rates of toxicity.

An atlas of epithelial cell states and plasticity in lung adenocarcinoma.

Understanding the cellular processes that underlie early lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD) development is needed to devise intervention strategies1. Here we studied 246,102 single epithelial cells from 16 early-stage LUADs and 47 matched normal lung samples. Epithelial cells comprised diverse normal and cancer cell states, and diversity among cancer cells was strongly linked to LUAD-specific oncogenic drivers. KRAS mutant cancer cells showed distinct transcriptional features, reduced differentiation and low levels of aneuploidy. Non-malignant areas surrounding human LUAD samples were enriched with alveolar intermediate cells that displayed elevated KRT8 expression (termed KRT8+ alveolar intermediate cells (KACs) here), reduced differentiation, increased plasticity and driver KRAS mutations. Expression profiles of KACs were enriched in lung precancer cells and in LUAD cells and signified poor survival. In mice exposed to tobacco carcinogen, KACs emerged before lung tumours and persisted for months after cessation of carcinogen exposure. Moreover, they acquired Kras mutations and conveyed sensitivity to targeted KRAS inhibition in KAC-enriched organoids derived from alveolar type 2 (AT2) cells. Last, lineage-labelling of AT2 cells or KRT8+ cells following carcinogen exposure showed that KACs are possible intermediates in AT2-to-tumour cell transformation. This study provides new insights into epithelial cell states at the root of LUAD development, and such states could harbour potential targets for prevention or intervention.

Surgical outcomes after chemotherapy plus nivolumab and chemotherapy plus nivolumab and ipilimumab in patients with non-small cell lung cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Chemotherapy plus nivolumab is the standard of care neoadjuvant treatment for patients with resectable stage IB to IIIA non-small cell lung cancer. The influence of dual checkpoint blockade with chemotherapy on surgical outcomes remains unknown. We aimed to determine operative complexity and perioperative outcomes associated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and nivolumab with or without ipilimumab. METHODS: A total of 44 patients with stage IB (≥4 cm) to IIIA non-small cell lung cancer were treated on sequential platform arms of the NEOSTAR trial. A total of 22 patients were treated with nivolumab + chemotherapy, and 22 patients were treated with ipilimumab + nivolumab + chemotherapy. The safety of surgical resection after neoadjuvant therapy was estimated using 30-day complication rates. Operative reports and surgeons' narratives were evaluated to determine procedural complexity and operative conduct. RESULTS: All 22 of 22 patients (100%) treated with nivolumab + chemotherapy underwent surgical resection: 20 R0 (90.9%), 17 (77.3%) lobectomies, 1 wedge resection, 2 segmentectomies, and 2 pneumonectomies. The majority, 21 of 22 (95%), were performed by thoracotomy. A total of 13 of 22 (59.1%) were rated as challenging resections. A total of 4 of 22 patients (18.2%) experienced grade 3 or greater Clavien-Dindo complication. A total of 20 of 22 patients (90.9%) treated with ipilimumab + nivolumab + chemotherapy underwent surgical resection: 19 R0 (95%), 18 (90%) lobectomies, 1 pneumonectomy, and 1 segmentectomy. A total of 16 of 20 (80%) resections were performed via thoracotomy, 3 of 20 (15%) via robotics, and 1 of 20 (5%) via thoracoscopy. A total of 9 of 20 (45%) resections were considered challenging. A total of 4 of 20 patients (20%) experienced grade 3 or greater Clavien-Dindo complication. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical resections are feasible and safe, with high rates of R0 after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and nivolumab with or without ipilimumab. Overall, approximately half of cases (22/42, 52.3%) were considered to be more challenging than a standard lobectomy.

Pathologic Processing of Lung Cancer Resection Specimens After Neoadjuvant Therapy.

Neoadjuvant treatment of non-small cell lung cancer challenges the traditional processing of pathology specimens. Induction therapy before resection allows evaluation of the efficacy of neoadjuvant agents at the time of surgery. Many clinical trials use pathologic tumor response, measured as major pathologic response (MPR, ≤10% residual viable tumor [RVT]) or complete pathologic response (CPR, 0% RVT) as a surrogate of clinical efficacy. Consequently, accurate pathologic evaluation of RVT is crucial. However, pathologic assessment has not been uniform, which is particularly true for sampling of the primary tumor, which instead of the traditional processing, requires different tissue submission because the focus has shifted from tumor typing alone to RVT scoring. Using a simulation study, we analyzed the accuracy rates of %RVT, MPR, and CPR of 31 pretreated primary lung tumors using traditional grossing compared with the gold standard of submitting the entire residual primary tumor and identified the minimum number of tumor sections to be submitted to ensure the most accurate scoring of %RVT, MPR, and CPR. Accurate %RVT, MPR, and CPR calls were achieved in 52%, 87%, and 81% of cases, respectively, using the traditional grossing method. Accuracy rates of at least 90% for these parameters require either submission of all residual primary tumor or at least 20 tumor sections. Accurate %RVT, MPR, and CPR scores cannot be achieved with traditional tumor grossing. Submission of the entire primary tumor, up to a maximum of 20 sections, is required for the most accurate reads.

Real-World Efficacy and Safety of Amivantamab for EGFR-Mutant NSCLC.

INTRODUCTION: Amivantamab-vmjw (amivantamab) is a bispecific EGFR/MET antibody approved for patients with advanced NSCLC with EGFR exon 20 insertion mutations, after prior therapy. Nevertheless, the benefits and safety of amivantamab in other EGFR-mutant lung cancer, with or without osimertinib, and with concurrent radiation therapy, are less known. METHODS: We queried the MD Anderson Lung Cancer GEMINI, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, University of California Davis Comprehensive Cancer Center, and Stanford Cancer Center's database for patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC treated with amivantamab, not on a clinical trial. The data analyzed included initial response, duration of treatment, and concomitant radiation safety in overall population and prespecified subgroups. RESULTS: A total of 61 patients received amivantamab. Median age was 65 (31-81) years old; 72.1% were female; and 77% were patients with never smoking history. Median number of prior lines of therapies was four. On the basis of tumor's EGFR mutation, 39 patients were in the classical mutation cohort, 15 patients in the exon 20 cohort, and seven patients in the atypical cohort. There were 37 patients (58.7%) who received amivantamab concomitantly with osimertinib and 25 patients (39.1%) who received concomitant radiation. Furthermore, 54 patients were assessable for response in the overall population; 19 patients (45.2%) had clinical response and disease control rate (DCR) was 64.3%. In the classical mutation cohort of the 33 assessable patients, 12 (36.4%) had clinical response and DCR was 48.5%. In the atypical mutation cohort, six of the seven patients (85.7%) had clinical response and DCR was 100%. Of the 13 assessable patients in the exon 20 cohort, five patients (35.7%) had clinical response and DCR was 64.3%. Adverse events reported with amivantamab use were similar as previously described in product labeling. No additional toxicities were noted when amivantamab was given with radiation with or without osimertinib. CONCLUSIONS: Our real-world multicenter analysis revealed that amivantamab is a potentially effective treatment option for patients with EGFR mutations outside of exon 20 insertion mutations. The combination of osimertinib with amivantamab is safe and feasible. Radiation therapy also seems safe when administered sequentially or concurrently with amivantamab.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of immune checkpoint inhibitors as single agent or in combination with chemotherapy in early-stage non-small cell lung cancer: Impact of clinicopathological factors and indirect comparison between treatment strategies.

BACKGROUND: In non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) revolution is rapidly moving from metastatic to early-stage, however, the impact of clinicopathological variables and optimal treatment sequencing remain unclear. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in patients with early-stage NSCLC treated with ICI as single agent or in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy (PCT) were included. Primary outcomes were pathological complete response (pCR), event free survival (EFS) (neoadjuvant/perioperative), and disease-free survival (DFS) (adjuvant). Secondary outcomes were major pathological response (MPR), overall survival (OS), toxicity, surgical outcomes (neoadjuvant/perioperative); OS and toxicity (adjuvant). An additional secondary endpoint was to compare EFS and OS between neoadjuvant and perioperative strategies. RESULTS: 8 RCTs (2 neoadjuvant, 4 perioperative, 2 adjuvant) (4661 participants) were included. Neoadjuvant/perioperative ICI+PCT significantly improved pCR, EFS, OS, MPR and R0 resection compared to PCT. Adjuvant ICI significantly improved DFS compared to placebo. There was a significant subgroup interaction by PD-L1 status (χ2 = 10.72, P = 0.005), pCR (χ2 = 17.80, P < 0.0001), and stage (χ2 = 4.46, P = 0.003) for EFS. No difference according to PD-L1 status was found for pCR, with 14% of patients having PD-L1 negative tumors still experiencing a pCR. No interaction by PD-L1 status was found for DFS upon adjuvant ICI. Indirect comparison showed no difference in EFS and OS between neoadjuvant and perioperative ICI+PCT. CONCLUSIONS: PD-L1 status, pCR and stage impact on survival upon neoadjuvant/perioperative ICI. The restriction of neoadjuvant/perioperative ICI to PD-L1 + patients could preclude pCR and long-term benefit in the PD-L1- subgroup. Neoadjuvant and perioperative could be equivalent strategies.

International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer Study of Reproducibility in Assessment of Pathologic Response in Resected Lung Cancers After Neoadjuvant Therapy.

INTRODUCTION: Pathologic response has been proposed as an early clinical trial end point of survival after neoadjuvant treatment in clinical trials of NSCLC. The International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC) published recommendations for pathologic evaluation of resected lung cancers after neoadjuvant therapy. The aim of this study was to assess pathologic response interobserver reproducibility using IASLC criteria. METHODS: An international panel of 11 pulmonary pathologists reviewed hematoxylin and eosin-stained slides from the lung tumors of resected NSCLC from 84 patients who received neoadjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitors in six clinical trials. Pathologic response was assessed for percent viable tumor, necrosis, and stroma. For each slide, tumor bed area was measured microscopically, and pre-embedded formulas calculated unweighted and weighted major pathologic response (MPR) averages to reflect variable tumor bed proportion. RESULTS: Unanimous agreement among pathologists for MPR was observed in 68 patients (81%), and inter-rater agreement (IRA) was 0.84 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.76-0.92) and 0.86 (95% CI: 0.79-0.93) for unweighted and weighted averages, respectively. Overall, unweighted and weighted methods did not reveal significant differences in the classification of MPR. The highest concordance by both methods was observed for cases with more than 95% viable tumor (IRA = 0.98, 95% CI: 0.96-1) and 0% viable tumor (IRA = 0.94, 95% CI: 0.89-0.98). The most common reasons for discrepancies included interpretations of tumor bed, presence of prominent stromal inflammation, distinction between reactive and neoplastic pneumocytes, and assessment of invasive mucinous adenocarcinoma. CONCLUSIONS: Our study revealed excellent reliability in cases with no residual viable tumor and good reliability for MPR with the IASLC recommended less than or equal to 10% cutoff for viable tumor after neoadjuvant therapy.

Neoadjuvant Durvalumab Alone or Combined with Novel Immuno-Oncology Agents in Resectable Lung Cancer: The Phase II NeoCOAST Platform Trial.

Neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy improves pathologic complete response rate and event-free survival in patients with resectable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) versus chemotherapy alone. NeoCOAST was the first randomized, multidrug platform trial to examine novel neoadjuvant immuno-oncology combinations for patients with resectable NSCLC, using major pathologic response (MPR) rate as the primary endpoint. Eighty-three patients received a single cycle of treatment: 26 received durvalumab (anti-PD-L1) monotherapy, 21 received durvalumab plus oleclumab (anti-CD73), 20 received durvalumab plus monalizumab (anti-NKG2A), and 16 received durvalumab plus danvatirsen (anti-STAT3 antisense oligonucleotide). MPR rates were higher for patients in the combination arms versus durvalumab alone. Safety profiles for the combinations were similar to those of durvalumab alone. Multiplatform immune profiling suggested that improved MPR rates in the durvalumab plus oleclumab and durvalumab plus monalizumab arms were associated with enhanced effector immune infiltration of tumors, interferon responses and markers of tertiary lymphoid structure formation, and systemic functional immune cell activation. SIGNIFICANCE: A neoadjuvant platform trial can rapidly generate clinical and translational data using candidate surrogate endpoints like MPR. In NeoCOAST, patients with resectable NSCLC had improved MPR rates after durvalumab plus oleclumab or monalizumab versus durvalumab alone and tumoral transcriptomic signatures indicative of augmented immune cell activation and function. See related commentary by Cooper and Yu, p. 2306. This article is featured in Selected Articles from This Issue, p. 2293.

Nivolumab and ipilimumab with concurrent stereotactic radiosurgery for intracranial metastases from non-small cell lung cancer: analysis of the safety cohort for non-randomized, open-label, phase I/II trial.

BACKGROUND: Up to 20% of patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) develop brain metastasis (BM), for which the current standard of care is radiation therapy with or without surgery. There are no prospective data on the safety of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) concurrent with immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy for BM. This is the safety cohort of the phase I/II investigator-initiated trial of SRS with nivolumab and ipilimumab for patients with BM from NSCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This single-institution study included patients with NSCLC with active BM amenable to SRS. Brain SRS and systemic therapy with nivolumab and ipilimumab were delivered concurrently (within 7 days). The endpoints were safety and 4-month intracranial progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: Thirteen patients were enrolled in the safety cohort, 10 of whom were evaluable for dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs). Median follow-up was 23 months (range 9.7-24.3 months). The median interval between systemic therapy and radiation therapy was 3 days. Only one patient had a DLT; hence, predefined stopping criteria were not met. In addition to the patient with DLT, three patients had treatment-related grade ≥3 adverse events, including elevated liver function tests, fatigue, nausea, adrenal insufficiency, and myocarditis. One patient had a confirmed influenza infection 7 months after initiation of protocol treatment (outside the DLT assessment window), leading to pneumonia and subsequent death from hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis. The estimated 4-month intracranial PFS rate was 70.7%. CONCLUSION: Concurrent brain SRS with nivolumab/ipilimumab was safe for patients with active NSCLC BM. Preliminary analyses of treatment efficacy were encouraging for intracranial treatment response.

Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy with or without immunotherapy for early-stage or isolated lung parenchymal recurrent node-negative non-small-cell lung cancer: an open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) is the standard treatment for medically inoperable early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but regional or distant relapses, or both, are common. Immunotherapy reduces recurrence and improves survival in people with stage III NSCLC after chemoradiotherapy, but its utility in stage I and II cases is unclear. We therefore conducted a randomised phase 2 trial of SABR alone compared with SABR with immunotherapy (I-SABR) for people with early-stage NSCLC. METHODS: We did an open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial comparing SABR to I-SABR, conducted at three different hospitals in TX, USA. People aged 18 years or older with histologically proven treatment-naive stage IA-IB (tumour size ≤4 cm, N0M0), stage IIA (tumour size ≤5 cm, N0M0), or stage IIB (tumour size >5 cm and ≤7 cm, N0M0) as per the American Joint Committee on Cancer version 8 staging system or isolated parenchymal recurrences (tumour size ≤7 cm) NSCLC (TanyNanyM0 before definitive surgery or chemoradiotherapy) were included in this trial. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1; using the Pocock & Simon method) to receive SABR with or without four cycles of nivolumab (480 mg, once every 4 weeks, with the first dose on the same day as, or within 36 h after, the first SABR fraction). This trial was unmasked. The primary endpoint was 4-year event-free survival (local, regional, or distant recurrence; second primary lung cancer; or death). Analyses were both intention to treat (ITT) and per protocol. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03110978) and is closed to enrolment. FINDINGS: From June 30, 2017, to March 22, 2022, 156 participants were randomly assigned, and 141 participants received assigned therapy. At a median 33 months' follow-up, I-SABR significantly improved 4-year event-free survival from 53% (95% CI 42-67%) with SABR to 77% (66-91%; per-protocol population, hazard ratio [HR] 0·38; 95% CI 0·19-0·75; p=0·0056; ITT population, HR 0·42; 95% CI 0·22-0·80; p=0·0080). There were no grade 3 or higher adverse events associated with SABR. In the I-SABR group, ten participants (15%) had grade 3 immunologial adverse events related to nivolumab; none had grade 3 pneumonitis or grade 4 or higher toxicity. INTERPRETATION: Compared with SABR alone, I-SABR significantly improved event-free survival at 4 years in people with early-stage treatment-naive or lung parenchymal recurrent node-negative NSCLC, with tolerable toxicity. I-SABR could be a treatment option in these participants, but further confirmation from a number of currently accruing phase 3 trials is required. FUNDING: Bristol-Myers Squibb and MD Anderson Cancer Center Alliance, National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health through Cancer Center Core Support Grant and Clinical and Translational Science Award to The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center.

Predicting benefit from immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer by CT-based ensemble deep learning: a retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Only around 20-30% of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NCSLC) have durable benefit from immune-checkpoint inhibitors. Although tissue-based biomarkers (eg, PD-L1) are limited by suboptimal performance, tissue availability, and tumour heterogeneity, radiographic images might holistically capture the underlying cancer biology. We aimed to investigate the application of deep learning on chest CT scans to derive an imaging signature of response to immune checkpoint inhibitors and evaluate its added value in the clinical context. METHODS: In this retrospective modelling study, 976 patients with metastatic, EGFR/ALK negative NSCLC treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors at MD Anderson and Stanford were enrolled from Jan 1, 2014, to Feb 29, 2020. We built and tested an ensemble deep learning model on pretreatment CTs (Deep-CT) to predict overall survival and progression-free survival after treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors. We also evaluated the added predictive value of the Deep-CT model in the context of existing clinicopathological and radiological metrics. FINDINGS: Our Deep-CT model demonstrated robust stratification of patient survival of the MD Anderson testing set, which was validated in the external Stanford set. The performance of the Deep-CT model remained significant on subgroup analyses stratified by PD-L1, histology, age, sex, and race. In univariate analysis, Deep-CT outperformed the conventional risk factors, including histology, smoking status, and PD-L1 expression, and remained an independent predictor after multivariate adjustment. Integrating the Deep-CT model with conventional risk factors demonstrated significantly improved prediction performance, with overall survival C-index increases from 0·70 (clinical model) to 0·75 (composite model) during testing. On the other hand, the deep learning risk scores correlated with some radiomics features, but radiomics alone could not reach the performance level of deep learning, indicating that the deep learning model effectively captured additional imaging patterns beyond known radiomics features. INTERPRETATION: This proof-of-concept study shows that automated profiling of radiographic scans through deep learning can provide orthogonal information independent of existing clinicopathological biomarkers, bringing the goal of precision immunotherapy for patients with NSCLC closer. FUNDING: National Institutes of Health, Mark Foundation Damon Runyon Foundation Physician Scientist Award, MD Anderson Strategic Initiative Development Program, MD Anderson Lung Moon Shot Program, Andrea Mugnaini, and Edward L C Smith.

Brief Report: Safety and Antitumor Activity of Durvalumab Plus Tremelimumab in Programmed Cell Death-(Ligand)1-Monotherapy Pretreated, Advanced NSCLC: Results From a Phase 1b Clinical Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Although first-line immunotherapy approaches are standard, in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) previously treated with programmed cell death protein-1 or programmed death-(ligand)1 (PD-[L]1) inhibitors, the activity of combined CTLA-4 plus PD-(L)1 inhibition is unknown. This phase 1b study evaluated the safety and efficacy of durvalumab plus tremelimumab in adults with advanced NSCLC who received anti-PD-(L)1 monotherapy as their most recent line of therapy. METHODS: Patients with PD-(L)1-relapsed or refractory NSCLC were enrolled between October 25, 2013, and September 17, 2019. Durvalumab 20 mg/kg plus tremelimumab 1 mg/kg was administered intravenously every 4 weeks for four doses, followed by up to nine doses of durvalumab monotherapy every 4 weeks for up to 12 months of treatment or disease progression. Primary end points included safety and objective response rate (ORR) on the basis of Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST v1.1) per blinded independent central review; secondary end points were ORR on the basis of RECIST v1.1 per investigator; duration of response, disease control, and progression-free survival on the basis of RECIST v1.1 per blinded independent central review and investigator; and overall survival. CLINICALTRIALS: gov identifier: NCT02000947. RESULTS: PD-(L)1-refractory (n = 38) and PD-(L)1-relapsed (n = 40) patients were treated. The most common treatment-related adverse events were fatigue (26.3%, PD-(L)1-refractory patients) and diarrhea (27.5%, PD-(L)1-relapsed patients). Grade 3 to 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 22 patients. Median follow-up duration was 43.6 months for PD-(L)1-refractory patients and 41.2 months for PD-(L)1-relapsed patients. The ORR was 5.3% for PD-(L)1-refractory patients (one complete response, one partial response) and 0% for PD-(L)1-relapsed patients. CONCLUSIONS: Durvalumab plus tremelimumab had a manageable safety profile, but the combination did not have efficacy after PD-(L)1 treatment failure.