Amivantamab plus Lazertinib in Previously Untreated EGFR-Mutated Advanced NSCLC.

BACKGROUND: Amivantamab plus lazertinib (amivantamab-lazertinib) has shown clinically meaningful and durable antitumor activity in patients with previously untreated or osimertinib-pretreated EGFR (epidermal growth factor receptor)-mutated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: In a phase 3, international, randomized trial, we assigned, in a 2:2:1 ratio, patients with previously untreated EGFR-mutated (exon 19 deletion or L858R), locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC to receive amivantamab-lazertinib (in an open-label fashion), osimertinib (in a blinded fashion), or lazertinib (in a blinded fashion, to assess the contribution of treatment components). The primary end point was progression-free survival in the amivantamab-lazertinib group as compared with the osimertinib group, as assessed by blinded independent central review. RESULTS: Overall, 1074 patients underwent randomization (429 to amivantamab-lazertinib, 429 to osimertinib, and 216 to lazertinib). The median progression-free survival was significantly longer in the amivantamab-lazertinib group than in the osimertinib group (23.7 vs. 16.6 months; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.58 to 0.85; P<0.001). An objective response was observed in 86% of the patients (95% CI, 83 to 89) in the amivantamab-lazertinib group and in 85% of those (95% CI, 81 to 88) in the osimertinib group; among patients with a confirmed response (336 in the amivantamab-lazertinib group and 314 in the osimertinib group), the median response duration was 25.8 months (95% CI, 20.1 to could not be estimated) and 16.8 months (95% CI, 14.8 to 18.5), respectively. In a planned interim overall survival analysis of amivantamab-lazertinib as compared with osimertinib, the hazard ratio for death was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.61 to 1.05). Predominant adverse events were EGFR-related toxic effects. The incidence of discontinuation of all agents due to treatment-related adverse events was 10% with amivantamab-lazertinib and 3% with osimertinib. CONCLUSIONS: Amivantamab-lazertinib showed superior efficacy to osimertinib as first-line treatment in EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development; MARIPOSA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04487080.).

High-dose alectinib for RET fusion-positive non-small cell lung cancer in the Blood First Assay Screening Trial.

Introduction: This paper presents results from Cohort B (rearranged during transfection [RET], fusion-positive) of the Blood First Assay Screening Trial in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) screened for genetic alterations using blood-based next-generation sequencing. Material and methods: Adults with advanced RET fusion-positive NSCLC received alectinib 900 mg twice daily (BID) in Phase I. Enrolment closed prematurely with Phase II uninitiated. Results: Among eight treated patients, confirmed best overall responses in evaluable patients were stable disease (4/5) and progressive disease (1/5). One dose-limiting toxicity (death, unknown cause) was considered by the investigator to be related to treatment and underlying disease. Serious adverse events (SAEs) occurred in five patients, and SAEs that may be related to treatment occurred in two patients. Conclusions: Alectinib showed limited activity in advanced RET fusion-positive NSCLC, and further investigation was not conducted due to the development of selective RET inhibitors pralsetinib and selpercatinib. No new safety signals were observed, and the safety profile of alectinib was in line with previous reports at the 600 mg BID dose.

National Clinical Practice Guidelines for the management of non-small cell lung cancer in early, locally advanced and metastatic stages. Extended version. / Guía de Práctica Clínica Nacional para el manejo del cáncer de pulmón de células no pequeñas en estadios tempranos, localmente avanzados y metastásicos.

OBJECTIVE: Lung cancer is one the leading causes of mortality worldwide. Symptomatic manifestations of the disease generally occur in the advanced-stage setting, and therefore an important number of patients have advanced or metastatic disease by the time they are diagnosed. This situation contributes to a poor prognosis in the treatment of lung cancer. Evidencebased clinical recommendations are of great value to support decision-making for daily practice, and thus improving health care quality and patient outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This document was an initiative of the Mexican Society of Oncology (SMEO) in collaboration with Mexican Center of Clinical Excellence (Cenetec) according to Interna- tional Standards. Such standards included those described by the IOM, NICE, SIGN and GI-N. An interdisciplinary Guideline Development Group (GDG) was put together which included medical oncologists, surgical oncologistsc, radiation therapists, and methodologists with expertise in critical appraisal, sys- tematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines development. RESULTS: 62 clinical questions were agreed among members of the GDG. With the evidence identified from systematic reviews, the GDG developed clinical recommendations using a Modified Delphi Panel technique. Patients' representatives validated them. CONCLUSIONS: These Clinical Practice Guideline aims to support the shared decision-making process for patients with different stages of non-small cell lung cancer. Our goal is to improve health-care quality on these patients.

OBJETIVO: El cáncer de pulmón es una de las principales causas de mortalidad alrededor del mundo. Su historia natural, con la manifestación de síntomas en etapas avanzadas y el retraso en su diagnóstico hacen que una gran proporción de pacientes se diagnostiquen en estadios tardíos de la enfermedad, lo que hace muy complicado el tratamiento exitoso de la misma. De esto deriva la importancia de dar origen a recomendaciones basadas en evidencia para soportar la toma de decisiones clínicas por parte de los grupos interdisicplinarios que se encargan del manejo de este padecimiento. MATERIAL Y MÉTODOS: Este documento se desarrolló por parte de la Sociedad Mexicana de Oncología en colaboración con el Centro Nacional de Excelencia Tec- nológica de México (Cenetec) a través de la dirección de integración de Guías de Práctica Clínica en cumplimiento a estándares internacionales como los descritos por el Ins- tituto de Medicina de EUA (IOM, por sus siglas en inglés), el Instituto de Excelencia Clínica de Gran Bretaña (NICE, por sus siglas en inglés), la Red Colegiada para el Desarrollo de Guías de Escocia (SIGN, por sus siglas en inglés), la Red Internacional de Guías (G-I-N, por sus siglas en inglés); entre otros. Se integró en representación de la Sociedad Mexicana de Oncología un Grupo de Desarrollo de la Guía (GDG) de manera interdisciplinaria, considerando oncólogos médicos, cirujanos oncólogos, cirujanos de tórax, radio-oncólogos, y metodólogos con experiencia en revisiones sistemáticas de la literatura y guías de práctica clínica. RESULTADOS: Se consensuaron 62 preguntas cllínicas que abarcaron lo establecido previamente por el GDG en el documento de alcances de la Guía. Se identificó la evidencia científica que responde a cada una de estas preguntas clínicas y se evaluó críticamente la misma, antes de ser incorporada en el cuerpo de evidencia de la Guía. El GDG acordó mediante la técnica de consenso formal de expertos Panel Delphi la redacción final de las recomendaciones clínicas. C. CONCLUSIONES: Esta Guía de Práctica Clínica pretende proveer recomendaciones clínicas para el manejo de los distintos estadios de la enfermedad y que asistan en el proceso de toma de decisiones compartida. El GDG espera que esta guía contribuya a mejorar la calidad de la atención clínica en las pacientes con cáncer de pulmón de células no pequeñas.

Mutation profile in liquid biopsy tested by next generation sequencing in Mexican patients with non-small cell lung carcinoma and its impact on survival.

Background: Lung cancer represents a significant global health concern, often diagnosed in its advanced stages. The advent of massive DNA sequencing has revolutionized the landscape of cancer treatment by enabling the identification of target mutations and the development of tailored therapeutic approaches. Unfortunately, access to DNA sequencing technology remains limited in many developing countries. In this context, we emphasize the critical importance of integrating this advanced technology into healthcare systems in developing nations to improve treatment outcomes. Methods: We conducted an analysis of electronic clinical records of patients with confirmed advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and a verified negative status for the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation. These patients underwent next-generation sequencing (NGS) for molecular analysis. We performed descriptive statistical analyses for each variable and conducted both univariate and multivariate statistical analyses to assess their impact on progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Additionally, we classified genetic mutations as actionable or non-actionable based on the European Society for Medical Oncology Scale of Clinical Actionability of Molecular Targets (ESCAT) guidelines. Results: Our study included a total of 127 patients, revealing the presence of twenty-one distinct mutations. The most prevalent mutations were EGFR (18.9%) and Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homolog (KRAS) (15.7%). Notably, anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) [hazard ratio (HR): 0.258, P<0.001], tumor mutation burden (TMB) (HR: 2.073, P=0.042) and brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (HR: 0.470, P=0.032) demonstrated statistical significance in both the univariate and multivariate analyses with respect to PFS. In terms of OS, ALK (HR: 0.285, P<0.001) and EGFR (HR: 0.482, P=0.024) exhibited statistical significance in both analyses. Applying the ESCAT classification system, we identified actionable genomic variations (ESCAT level-1), including EGFR, ALK, breast cancer (BRAF) gene, c-ros oncogene 1 (ROS1), and rearranged during transfection (RET) gene, in 32.3% of the patients. Conclusions: Our findings from massive DNA sequencing underscore that 32.3% of patients who test negative for the EGFR mutation possess other targetable mutations, enabling them to receive personalized, targeted therapies at an earlier stage of their disease. Implementing massive DNA sequencing in developing countries is crucial to enhance survival rates among NSCLC patients and guide more effective treatment strategies.

Usefulness of serum carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) in evaluating response to chemotherapy in patients with advanced non small-cell lung cancer: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: High serum carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) levels are an independent prognostic factor for recurrence and survival in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Its role as a predictive marker of treatment response has not been widely characterized. METHODS: 180 patients with advanced NSCLC (stage IIIB or Stage IV), who had an elevated CEA serum level (>10 ng/ml) at baseline and who had no more than one previous chemotherapy regimen, were included. CEA levels were measured after two treatment cycles of platinum based chemotherapy (93%) or a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (7%). We evaluate the change in serum CEA levels and the association with response measured by RECIST criteria. RESULTS: After two chemotherapy cycles, the patients who achieved an objective response (OR, 28.3%) had a reduction of CEA levels of 55.6% (95%CI [box drawings light horizontal]64.3 to [box drawings light horizontal]46.8) compared to its basal level, with an area under the ROC curve (AURC) of 0.945 (95%CI 0.91-0.99), and a sensitivity and specificity of 90.2 and 89.9%, respectively, for a CEA reduction of ≥14%. Patients that achieved a decrease in CEA levels ≥14% presented an overall response in 78% of cases, stable disease in 20.3% and progression in 1.7%, while patients that did not attain a reduction ≥14% had an overall response of 4.1%, stable disease of 63.6% and progression of 32.2% (p < 0.001). Patients with stable (49.4%) and progressive disease (22.2%) had an increase of CEA levels of 9.4% (95%CI 1.5-17.3) and 87.5% (95%CI 60.9-114) from baseline, respectively (p < 0.001). The AURC for progressive disease was 0.911 (95%CI 0.86-0.961), with sensitivity and specificity of 85 and 15%, respectively, for a CEA increase of ≥18%. PFS was longer in patients with a ≥14% reduction in CEA (8.7 vs. 5.1 months, p < 0.001). Neither reduction of CEA nor OR were predictive of OS. CONCLUSIONS: A CEA level reduction is a sensitive and specific marker of OR, as well as a sensitive indicator for progression to chemotherapy in patients with advanced NSCLC who had an elevated CEA at baseline and had received no more than one chemotherapy regimen. A 14% decrease in CEA levels is associated with a better PFS.

[National consensus of diagnosis and treatment of non-small cell lung cancer]. / Consenso nacional de diagnóstico y tratamiento del cáncer de pulmón de células no pequeñas.

Mexican specialists in oncology, oncologic surgery, thoracic surgery, pneumology, pathology, molecular biology, anesthesiology, algology, psychology, nutrition, and rehabilitation (all of them experts in lung cancer treatment) in order to develop the National Consensus on Lung Cancer. The consensus has been developed as an answer to the need of updated Mexican guidelines for the optimal treatment of the disease, as well as to the requirements that such guidelines be established by multidisciplinary panel, depicting the current attention given to cancer lung cases in Mexico. Thus, this paper analyses the epidemiological review, screening, diagnosis, staging, pathology, translational medicine, and the suitable therapies for early, locally advanced, and metastatic disease in the first, second, and third lines of management, as well as rehabilitation and palliative measures.

Durvalumab With or Without Tremelimumab in Combination With Chemotherapy as First-Line Therapy for Metastatic Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: The Phase III POSEIDON Study.

PURPOSE: The open-label, phase III POSEIDON study evaluated tremelimumab plus durvalumab and chemotherapy (T + D + CT) and durvalumab plus chemotherapy (D + CT) versus chemotherapy alone (CT) in first-line metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (mNSCLC). METHODS: Patients (n = 1,013) with EGFR/ALK wild-type mNSCLC were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to tremelimumab 75 mg plus durvalumab 1,500 mg and platinum-based chemotherapy for up to four 21-day cycles, followed by durvalumab once every 4 weeks until progression and one additional tremelimumab dose; durvalumab plus chemotherapy for up to four 21-day cycles, followed by durvalumab once every 4 weeks until progression; or chemotherapy for up to six 21-day cycles (with or without maintenance pemetrexed; all arms). Primary end points were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for D + CT versus CT. Key alpha-controlled secondary end points were PFS and OS for T + D + CT versus CT. RESULTS: PFS was significantly improved with D + CT versus CT (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74; 95% CI, 0.62 to 0.89; P = .0009; median, 5.5 v 4.8 months); a trend for improved OS did not reach statistical significance (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.02; P = .0758; median, 13.3 v 11.7 months; 24-month OS, 29.6% v 22.1%). PFS (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.86; P = .0003; median, 6.2 v 4.8 months) and OS (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.92; P = .0030; median, 14.0 v 11.7 months; 24-month OS, 32.9% v 22.1%) were significantly improved with T + D + CT versus CT. Treatment-related adverse events were maximum grade 3/4 in 51.8%, 44.6%, and 44.4% of patients receiving T + D + CT, D + CT, and CT, respectively; 15.5%, 14.1%, and 9.9%, respectively, discontinued treatment because of treatment-related adverse events. CONCLUSION: D + CT significantly improved PFS versus CT. A limited course of tremelimumab added to durvalumab and chemotherapy significantly improved OS and PFS versus CT, without meaningful additional tolerability burden, representing a potential new option in first-line mNSCLC.

Patient-reported outcomes with durvalumab, with or without tremelimumab, plus chemotherapy as first-line treatment for metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (POSEIDON).

OBJECTIVES: In the phase 3 POSEIDON study, first-line tremelimumab plus durvalumab and chemotherapy significantly improved overall survival and progression-free survival versus chemotherapy in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We present patient-reported outcomes (PROs). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Treatment-naïve patients were randomized 1:1:1 to tremelimumab plus durvalumab and chemotherapy, durvalumab plus chemotherapy, or chemotherapy. PROs (prespecified secondary endpoints) were assessed using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer 30-item core quality of life questionnaire version 3 (QLQ-C30) and its 13-item lung cancer module (QLQ-LC13). We analyzed time to deterioration (TTD) of symptoms, functioning, and global health status/quality of life (QoL) from randomization by log-rank test and improvement rates by logistic regression. RESULTS: 972/1013 (96 %) patients randomized completed baseline QLQ-C30 and QLQ-LC13 questionnaires, with scores comparable between treatment arms. Patients receiving tremelimumab plus durvalumab and chemotherapy versus chemotherapy had longer median TTD for all PRO items. Hazard ratios for TTD favored tremelimumab plus durvalumab and chemotherapy for all items except diarrhea; 95 % confidence intervals did not cross 1.0 for global health status/QoL, physical functioning, cognitive functioning, pain, nausea/vomiting, insomnia, constipation, hemoptysis, dyspnea, and pain in other parts. For durvalumab plus chemotherapy, median TTD was longer versus chemotherapy for all items except nausea/vomiting and diarrhea. Hazard ratios favored durvalumab plus chemotherapy for all items except appetite loss; 95 % confidence intervals did not cross 1.0 for global health status/QoL, physical functioning, role functioning, dyspnea, and pain in other parts. For both immunotherapy plus chemotherapy arms, improvement rates in all PRO items were numerically higher versus chemotherapy, with odds ratios > 1. CONCLUSIONS: Tremelimumab plus durvalumab and chemotherapy delayed deterioration in symptoms, functioning, and global health status/QoL compared with chemotherapy. Together with significant improvements in survival, these results support tremelimumab plus durvalumab and chemotherapy as a first-line treatment option in metastatic NSCLC.

Epirubicin, cisplatin plus ifosfamide versus standard chemotherapeutic regimens for advanced/unresectable primary thoracic sarcomas.

PURPOSE: Thoracic sarcomas are rare malignancies, with limited data for unresectable/advanced scenarios. Our goal is to provide insights of a three-drug chemotherapy regimen improving patient survival compared to standard regimens. METHODS: Retrospective cohort analysis of patients diagnosed with unresectable/advanced primary thoracic sarcoma divided between primary pulmonary sarcomas (PPS) and chest wall sarcomas (CWS) comparing chemotherapeutical regimens efficacy. Not true soft tissue sarcomas (STS) for PPS were excluded from the analysis. Univariate and multivariate analysis performed via Cox-regression model. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) analysis via Kaplan-Meier with hazard ratio (HR) obtained via Mantel-Haenszel or log rank. RESULTS: 157 total cases were included, from which 50 cases were PPS and 107 cases CWS. For PPS, 4 cases were excluded from the analysis as they were not true STS. The most common histology was undifferentiated sarcomas, 63% of cases were treated with E/C/I and 37% with another regimen. The E/C/I regimen demonstrated a benefit for both OS (p = 0.020) and PFS (p = 0.010) when compared to any other regimen as well as when compared to non-platinum regimens (p = 0.016 and p = 0.001). Regarding CWS, the most common histology was synovial and undifferentiated sarcomas, 55.1% were treated with E/C/I and 44.9% treated with another regimen. The E/C/I regimen did not demonstrate a benefit for OS or PFS compared to any other regimen, neither when compared to other non-platinum regimens. However, a benefit was observed in favor of E/C/I when compared to other platinum regimens in both OS (p = 0.049) and PFS (0.015). Both analyses for PPS and CWS demonstrated a benefit in favor of cisplatin therapies compared to carboplatin in both OS and PFS. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that platinum therapy alone does not work, and that cisplatin must be the agent of choice and it's used in combination could increase treatment response. The E/C/I regimen demonstrated a in PPS but not for CWS, this is due do their rarity of PPS and that no standard treatment is established yet. The regimen proposed here could represent a possible new standard of treatment for PPS as long as it is validated in a prospective study.

Final results from TAIL: updated long-term efficacy of atezolizumab in a diverse population of patients with previously treated advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

In patients with previously treated advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), atezolizumab therapy improves survival with manageable safety. The open-label, single-arm phase III/IV TAIL study (NCT03285763) evaluated atezolizumab monotherapy in patients with previously treated NSCLC, including those with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2, severe renal impairment, prior anti-programmed death 1 therapy, autoimmune disease, and age ≥75 years. Patients received atezolizumab intravenously (1200 mg) every 3 weeks. At data cut-off for final analysis, the median follow-up was 36.1 (range 0.0-42.3) months. Treatment-related (TR) serious adverse events (SAEs) and TR immune-related adverse events (irAEs) were the coprimary endpoints. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate, and duration of response. Safety and efficacy in key patient subgroups were also assessed. TR SAEs and TR irAEs occurred in 8.0% and 9.4% of patients, respectively. No new safety signals were documented. In the overall population, median OS and PFS (95% CI) were 11.2 months (8.9 to 12.7) and 2.7 months (2.3 to 2.8), respectively. TAIL showed that atezolizumab has a similar risk-benefit profile in clinically diverse patients with previously treated NSCLC, which may guide treatment decisions for patients generally excluded from pivotal clinical trials.

Survival prognostic factors in unresectable/advanced primary thoracic sarcomas.

Background: Primary thoracic sarcomas (PTS) including primary pulmonary and chest wall sarcomas (CWS), are aggressive lung malignancies with limited information specially in an advanced/unresectable setting. Unfortunately, prognostic factors for these malignancies are not well identified. Methods: Retrospective cohort analysis of patients diagnosed with unresectable/advanced soft tissue PTS from a third level reference institute. Univariate and multivariate analysis performed via Cox-regression model. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) analysis via Kaplan-Meier method. Results: A total of 157 patients were identified, 55.4% female, mean age 51.8 years (range, 18-90 years), 19.1% tobacco exposure and 10.8% asbestos exposure. The most common performance status was Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) 1 (38.9%), most common clinical presentation cough (58.4%) and thoracic pain (55.4%). Undifferentiated sarcoma (37.6%) followed by synovial sarcoma (34.4%) were the most common histologies. Most patients received five chemotherapeutic cycles (37.6%), 57.3% of patients obtained a partial response and 61.1% an overall response rate (ORR). Median PFS was 9 months [95% confidence interval (CI): 8.717-9.283 months]. The multivariable analysis identified ECOG ≥2, a poorer response to chemotherapy (less number of chemotherapy cycles) and an increase Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) to be associated with a shorter progression-free period. Median OS was 11 months (95% CI: 10.402-11.958 months) with an ECOG ≥2 and a poorer response to chemotherapy (less number of chemotherapy cycles) associated with a shorter survival. Conclusions: Age, gender, comorbidities, tobacco and asbestos exposure, clinical presentation and histopathological diagnosis are not useful prognostic factors in unresectable/advanced PTS, however, an adequate initial ECOG, RECIST and a better response to chemotherapy should be used as prognostic factors in the management of these tumors.

Prognostic factors for progression-free and overall survival in malignant pleural mesothelioma.

BACKGROUND: Malignant pleural mesothelioma is an infrequent neoplasia with a poor prognosis and the majority of patients already have advanced disease at the time of presentation. Exposure to asbestos is the most important risk factor for malignant pleural mesothelioma. Mesothelioma is a neoplasia with a long preclinical stage that can span from 15 to 40 years. METHODS: This was a descriptive, observational, retrospective study of 136 patients with a confirmed diagnosis of mesothelioma, which compared histological subtypes, immunohistochemical biomarkers, concomitant chronic degenerative diseases, tobacco use, age at the time of diagnosis, clinical stage and chemotherapy agents used or other treatments such as radiotherapy and surgery to identify all the factors that impact in the prognosis of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: A total of 136 patients were included in the study. In the total study population, 84 patients were male (61.8%) and 52 were female (38.2%). Median PFS was nine months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 8.4-9.5 months) and median OS was 12 months (95% CI: 11.3-12.6). The results indicated that the most determining prognostic factors for OS and PFS were cell differentiation measured by immunohistochemical biomarkers, the treatment chosen, and that RECIST was the most significant in the evaluation of patient response to treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Malignant pleural mesothelioma is a cancer with a poor prognosis usually diagnosed at an advanced stage of disease. Our study revealed that the prognostic factors for OS and PS were cell differentiation, the treatment chosen and RECIST.

Primary results from TAIL: a global single-arm safety study of atezolizumab monotherapy in a diverse population of patients with previously treated advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Atezolizumab treatment improves survival, with manageable safety, in patients with previously treated advanced/metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. The global phase III/IV study TAIL (NCT03285763) was conducted to evaluate the safety and efficacy of atezolizumab monotherapy in a clinically diverse population of patients with previously treated non-small cell lung cancer, including those not eligible for pivotal trials. METHODS: Patients with stage IIIB/IV non-small cell lung cancer whose disease progressed after 1-2 lines of chemotherapy were eligible for this open-label, single-arm, multicenter study, including those with severe renal impairment, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2, prior anti-programmed death 1 (PD-1) therapy, and autoimmune disease. Atezolizumab was administered intravenously (1200 mg every 3 weeks). Coprimary endpoints were treatment-related serious adverse events and immune-related adverse events. RESULTS: 619 patients enrolled and 615 received atezolizumab. At data cutoff, the median follow-up was 12.6 months (95% CI 11.9 to 13.1). Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in 7.8% and immune-related adverse events in 8.3% of all patients and as follows, respectively, in these subgroups: renal impairment (n=78), 11.5% and 12.8%; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 (n=61), 14.8% and 8.2%; prior anti-PD-1 therapy (n=39), 5.1% and 7.7%; and autoimmune disease (n=30), 6.7% and 10.0%. No new safety signals were reported. In the overall population, the median overall survival was 11.1 months (95% CI 8.9 to 12.9), the median progression-free survival was 2.7 months (95% CI 2.1 to 2.8) and the objective response rate was 11%. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirmed the benefit-risk profile of atezolizumab monotherapy in a clinically diverse population of patients with previously treated non-small cell lung cancer. These safety and efficacy outcomes may inform treatment decisions for patients generally excluded from checkpoint inhibitor trials.

Updated Overall Survival and PD-L1 Subgroup Analysis of Patients With Extensive-Stage Small-Cell Lung Cancer Treated With Atezolizumab, Carboplatin, and Etoposide (IMpower133).

PURPOSE: IMpower133 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02763579), a randomized, double-blind, phase I/III study, demonstrated that adding atezolizumab (anti-programmed death-ligand 1 [PD-L1]) to carboplatin plus etoposide (CP/ET) for first-line (1L) treatment of extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) resulted in significant improvement in overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) versus placebo plus CP/ET. Updated OS, disease progression patterns, safety, and exploratory biomarkers (PD-L1, blood-based tumor mutational burden [bTMB]) are reported. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with untreated ES-SCLC were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive four 21-day cycles of CP (area under the curve 5 mg per mL/min intravenously [IV], day 1) plus ET (100 mg/m2 IV, days 1-3) with atezolizumab (1,200 mg IV, day 1) or placebo, and then maintenance atezolizumab or placebo until unacceptable toxicity, disease progression, or loss of clinical benefit. Tumor specimens were collected; PD-L1 testing was not required for enrollment. The two primary end points, investigator-assessed PFS and OS, were statistically significant at the interim analysis. Updated OS and PFS and exploratory biomarker analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Patients received atezolizumab plus CP/ET (n = 201) or placebo plus CP/ET (n = 202). At the updated analysis, median follow-up for OS was 22.9 months; 302 deaths had occurred. Median OS was 12.3 and 10.3 months with atezolizumab plus CP/ET and placebo plus CP/ET, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.95; descriptive P = .0154). At 18 months, 34.0% and 21.0% of patients were alive in atezolizumab plus CP/ET and placebo plus CP/ET arms, respectively. Patients derived benefit from the addition of atezolizumab, regardless of PD-L1 immunohistochemistry or bTMB status. CONCLUSION: Adding atezolizumab to CP/ET as 1L treatment for ES-SCLC continued to demonstrate improved OS and a tolerable safety profile at the updated analysis, confirming the regimen as a new standard of care. Exploratory analyses demonstrated treatment benefit independent of biomarker status.

A comparative study of immunotherapy as second-line treatment and beyond in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Immunotherapy has demonstrated an improved overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) as second-line treatment and subsequent lines compared with chemotherapy. MATERIALS & METHODS: This was a retrospective review among eight medical centers comprising 100 patients with a confirmed diagnosis of non-small-cell lung carcinoma, in their second-line treatment or beyond with immune checkpoints inhibitors treatment. The current study aimed to analyze effectiveness of immunotherapy in second-line treatment or further in the Mexican population, using PFS rate, OS rate and the best objective response to treatment by RECIST 1.1 as a surrogate of effectiveness. RESULTS: In total, 100 patients met the criteria for enrollment in the current study. From the total study population, 49 patients (49.0%) were male and 51 (51.0%) were female, with an average age of 60 years and stage IV as the most prevalent clinical stage at the beginning of the study. A total of 61 patients (61.0%) had partial response; 11 (11.0%) stable disease; 2 (2.0%), complete response, 4 (4.0%), progression; and 22 (22.0%) were nonevaluable. We found a median PFS of 4 months (95% CI: 3.2-4.7 months) and an OS of 9 months (95% CI: 7.2-10.7 months). CONCLUSION: The response to immunotherapy is similar, with an improvement in OS and PFS, independent of which drug is used. Patients using nivolumab had a better survival, although that was not statistically significant.

Efficacy and safety of baricitinib for the treatment of hospitalised adults with COVID-19 (COV-BARRIER): a randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Baricitinib is an oral selective Janus kinase 1/2 inhibitor with known anti-inflammatory properties. This study evaluates the efficacy and safety of baricitinib in combination with standard of care for the treatment of hospitalised adults with COVID-19. METHODS: In this phase 3, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial, participants were enrolled from 101 centres across 12 countries in Asia, Europe, North America, and South America. Hospitalised adults with COVID-19 receiving standard of care were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive once-daily baricitinib (4 mg) or matched placebo for up to 14 days. Standard of care included systemic corticosteroids, such as dexamethasone, and antivirals, including remdesivir. The composite primary endpoint was the proportion who progressed to high-flow oxygen, non-invasive ventilation, invasive mechanical ventilation, or death by day 28, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. All-cause mortality by day 28 was a key secondary endpoint, and all-cause mortality by day 60 was an exploratory endpoint; both were assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses were done in the safety population defined as all randomly allocated participants who received at least one dose of study drug and who were not lost to follow-up before the first post-baseline visit. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04421027. FINDINGS: Between June 11, 2020, and Jan 15, 2021, 1525 participants were randomly assigned to the baricitinib group (n=764) or the placebo group (n=761). 1204 (79·3%) of 1518 participants with available data were receiving systemic corticosteroids at baseline, of whom 1099 (91·3%) were on dexamethasone; 287 (18·9%) participants were receiving remdesivir. Overall, 27·8% of participants receiving baricitinib and 30·5% receiving placebo progressed to meet the primary endpoint (odds ratio 0·85 [95% CI 0·67 to 1·08], p=0·18), with an absolute risk difference of -2·7 percentage points (95% CI -7·3 to 1·9). The 28-day all-cause mortality was 8% (n=62) for baricitinib and 13% (n=100) for placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0·57 [95% CI 0·41-0·78]; nominal p=0·0018), a 38·2% relative reduction in mortality; one additional death was prevented per 20 baricitinib-treated participants. The 60-day all-cause mortality was 10% (n=79) for baricitinib and 15% (n=116) for placebo (HR 0·62 [95% CI 0·47-0·83]; p=0·0050). The frequencies of serious adverse events (110 [15%] of 750 in the baricitinib group vs 135 [18%] of 752 in the placebo group), serious infections (64 [9%] vs 74 [10%]), and venous thromboembolic events (20 [3%] vs 19 [3%]) were similar between the two groups. INTERPRETATION: Although there was no significant reduction in the frequency of disease progression overall, treatment with baricitinib in addition to standard of care (including dexamethasone) had a similar safety profile to that of standard of care alone, and was associated with reduced mortality in hospitalised adults with COVID-19. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company. TRANSLATIONS: For the French, Japanese, Portuguese, Russian and Spanish translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Blood First Assay Screening Trial (BFAST) in Treatment-Naive Advanced or Metastatic NSCLC: Initial Results of the Phase 2 ALK-Positive Cohort.

INTRODUCTION: The Blood First Assay Screening Trial is an ongoing open-label, multicohort study, prospectively evaluating the relationship between blood-based next-generation sequencing (NGS) detection of actionable genetic alterations and activity of targeted therapies or immunotherapy in treatment-naive advanced or metastatic NSCLC. We present data from the ALK-positive cohort. METHODS: Patients aged more than or equal to 18 years with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC and ALK rearrangements detected by blood-based NGS using hybrid capture technology (FoundationACT) received alectinib 600 mg twice daily. Asymptomatic or treated central nervous system (CNS) metastases were permitted. Primary end point was investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR; Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1). Secondary end points were independent review facility-assessed ORR, duration of response, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival, and safety. Exploratory end points were investigator-assessed ORR in patients with baseline CNS metastases and relationship between circulating biomarkers and response. RESULTS: In total, 2219 patients were screened and blood-based NGS yielded results in 98.6% of the cases. Of these, 119 patients (5.4%) had ALK-positive disease; 87 were enrolled and received alectinib. Median follow-up was 12.6 months (range: 2.6-18.7). Confirmed ORR was 87.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 78.5-93.5) by investigator and 92.0% (95% CI: 84.1-96.7) by independent review facility. Investigator-confirmed 12-month duration of response was 75.9% (95% CI: 63.6-88.2). In 35 patients (40%) with baseline CNS disease, investigator-assessed ORR was 91.4% (95% CI: 76.9-98.2). Median PFS was not reached; 12-month investigator-assessed PFS was 78.4% (95% CI: 69.1-87.7). Safety data were consistent with the known tolerability profile of alectinib. CONCLUSIONS: These results reveal the clinical application of blood-based NGS as a method to inform clinical decision-making in ALK-positive NSCLC.

Phimosis: A rare complication of immunotherapy with durvalumab.

We present a case of a 69 year old man with phimosis associated with immunotherapy with durvalumab for metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. The patient developed vitiligo like dermatosis after the induction dose of durvalumab, subsequent administration of the immunotherapy the patient developed a fibrous ring of the foreskin. Immune-mediated adverse reactions have been described after the use of durvalumab, but, to our knowledge, there are no reports of phimosis and vitiligo like reactions.

Human skin biomarkers relationship to response to treatment with tyrosine kinase inhibitors in advanced EGFR-mutated lung adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: A relationship between the EGFR signaling pathway expression in skin and the use of targeted cancer therapies has been previously demonstrated. Consistent evidence to support the use of skin biopsies as a surrogate for therapeutic evaluation is needed. The purpose of this study was to establish the relationship between the expression of EGFR signaling pathway markers in skin samples from EGFR-mutated metastatic lung adenocarcinoma patients and their response to tyrosine kinase inhibitors. METHODS: This was a prospective single blind analysis of 35 skin biopsies from 31 patients with confirmed advanced EGFR-mutated lung adenocarcinoma. Immunohistochemistry was performed: EGFR, p27, Ki67, STAT3 and MAPK, as well as H&E histopathological analysis, in order to determine their treatment response to tyrosine kinase inhibitors. RESULTS: EGFR, Ki67, STAT3, stratum corneum thickness (number of layers and millimeters) from skin samples had a statistical correlation with an adequate treatment response (P = 0.025, 0.015, 0.017, 0.041, 0.039 respectively). EGFR, p27 and number of layers of the stratum corneum were related to a better median progression-free survival (P = 0.025 and P = 0.030). CONCLUSIONS: The relationship between EGFR pathway inhibition in the skin and oncological outcomes obtained explains the parallel biological effects of tyrosine kinase inhibitors. We hope that our work incites future research to help validate and assess the use of these markers as potential prognostic and predictive factors.

Real-World Evidence: Multicenter Efficacy and Toxicity Analysis of Nintedanib With Docetaxel as Second-Line Treatment in Mexican Patients With Advanced Lung Adenocarcinoma.

PURPOSE: The LUME-Lung 1 study has brought consistent evidence of the effective use of nintedanib in lung adenocarcinoma as a second line of treatment; however, differences among ethnicities have been found in some studies. METHODS: This was a retrospective review among 21 medical centers of 150 patients with a confirmed diagnosis of lung adenocarcinoma, included in a compassionate use program of nintedanib from March 2014 to September 2015. The current study aimed to analyze the effectiveness of nintedanib in combination with docetaxel in the Mexican population, using progression-free survival rate and the best objective response to treatment by RECIST 1.1 as a surrogate of effectiveness. In addition, we examined the toxicity profile of our study population as a secondary end point. RESULTS: After exclusion criteria, only 99 patients met the criteria for enrollment in the current study. From the total study population, 53 patients (53.5%) were male and 46 (46.5%) were female, with an average age of 60 years and stage IV as the most prevalent clinical stage at the beginning of the compassionate use program. A total of 48 patients (48.5%) had partial response; 26 (26.3%), stable disease; 4 (4%), complete response; and 16 (16.2%), progression; and 5 (5%) were nonevaluable. We found a median progression-free survival of 5 months (95% CI, 4.3 to 5.7 months). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse reactions were fatigue (14%) and diarrhea (13%). CONCLUSION: Nintedanib, as part of a chemotherapy regimen, is an effective option with an acceptable toxicity profile for advanced lung adenocarcinoma after first-line treatment progression.