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.).

First-line atezolizumab monotherapy versus single-agent chemotherapy in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer ineligible for treatment with a platinum-containing regimen (IPSOS): a phase 3, global, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Despite immunotherapy advancements for patients with advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), pivotal first-line trials were limited to patients with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) 0-1 and a median age of 65 years or younger. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of first-line atezolizumab monotherapy with single-agent chemotherapy in patients ineligible for platinum-based chemotherapy. METHODS: This trial was a phase 3, open-label, randomised controlled study conducted at 91 sites in 23 countries across Asia, Europe, North America, and South America. Eligible patients had stage IIIB or IV NSCLC in whom platinum-doublet chemotherapy was deemed unsuitable by the investigator due to an ECOG PS 2 or 3, or alternatively, being 70 years or older with an ECOG PS 0-1 with substantial comorbidities or contraindications for platinum-doublet chemotherapy. Patients were randomised 2:1 by permuted-block randomisation (block size of six) to receive 1200 mg of atezolizumab given intravenously every 3 weeks or single-agent chemotherapy (vinorelbine [oral or intravenous] or gemcitabine [intravenous]; dosing per local label) at 3-weekly or 4-weekly cycles. The primary endpoint was overall survival assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses were conducted in the safety-evaluable population, which included all randomised patients who received any amount of atezolizumab or chemotherapy. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03191786. FINDINGS: Between Sept 11, 2017, and Sept 23, 2019, 453 patients were enrolled and randomised to receive atezolizumab (n=302) or chemotherapy (n=151). Atezolizumab improved overall survival compared with chemotherapy (median overall survival 10·3 months [95% CI 9·4-11·9] vs 9·2 months [5·9-11·2]; stratified hazard ratio 0·78 [0·63-0·97], p=0·028), with a 2-year survival rate of 24% (95% CI 19·3-29·4) with atezolizumab compared with 12% (6·7-18·0) with chemotherapy. Compared with chemotherapy, atezolizumab was associated with stabilisation or improvement of patient-reported health-related quality-of-life functioning scales and symptoms and fewer grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events (49 [16%] of 300 vs 49 [33%] of 147) and treatment-related deaths (three [1%] vs four [3%]). INTERPRETATION: First-line treatment with atezolizumab monotherapy was associated with improved overall survival, a doubling of the 2-year survival rate, maintenance of quality of life, and a favourable safety profile compared with single-agent chemotherapy. These data support atezolizumab monotherapy as a potential first-line treatment option for patients with advanced NSCLC who are ineligible for platinum-based chemotherapy. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech Inc, a member of the Roche group.

Safety and efficacy of immune checkpoint blockade in patients with advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer and brain metastasis.

The presence of brain metastases (BM) is a negative prognostic factor for patients with advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Their incidence seems to be higher in patients with oncogene-driven tumours, especially those with EGFR-mutated or ALK-rearranged tumours. Although targeted treatments demonstrate significant efficacy regarding BM, they only apply to a minority of NSCLC patients. On the other hand, systemic therapies for nononcogenic-driven NSCLC with BM have shown limited clinical benefit. In recent years, immunotherapy alone or combined with chemotherapy has been adopted as a new standard of care in first-line therapy. This approach seems to be beneficial to patients with BM in terms of efficacy and toxicity. Combined immune checkpoint inhibition as well as the combination of immunotherapy and radiation therapy show promising results with significant, but overall acceptable toxicity. A pragmatic approach of allowing enrolment of patients with untreated or symptomatic BM in randomised trials evaluating immune checkpoint inhibitors strategies, possibly coupled with central nervous system-related endpoints may be needed to generate data to refine treatment for this patient population.

RET Fusion-Positive Non-small Cell Lung Cancer: The Evolving Treatment Landscape.

The objective of this narrative review is to summarize the efficacy and safety of available therapies for rearranged during transfection (RET) fusion-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), including in patients with central nervous system (CNS) metastases. Background information is provided on RET rearrangements in NSCLC and the molecular testing options available as well as an overview of clinical guidelines for molecular testing, which recommend broad molecular testing, including for RET rearrangements. The efficacy and safety of potential treatments for RET fusion-positive NSCLC, including multikinase inhibitors, RET-selective inhibitors, pemetrexed-based therapy, and immunotherapies are reviewed from Phase I/II and `real-world' studies, alongside an overview of primary and secondary resistance mechanisms. The RET-selective inhibitors, selpercatinib and pralsetinib, are preferred first-line therapy options for patients with RET fusion-positive metastatic NSCLC and are recommended as subsequent therapy if RET inhibitors have not been used in the first-line setting.

Nivolumab versus placebo in patients with relapsed malignant mesothelioma (CONFIRM): a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: No phase 3 trial has yet shown improved survival for patients with pleural or peritoneal malignant mesothelioma who have progressed following platinum-based chemotherapy. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of nivolumab, an anti-PD-1 antibody, in these patients. METHODS: This was a multicentre, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel group, randomised, phase 3 trial done in 24 hospitals in the UK. Adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, with histologically confirmed pleural or peritoneal mesothelioma, who had received previous first-line platinum-based chemotherapy and had radiological evidence of disease progression, were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive nivolumab at a flat dose of 240 mg every 2 weeks over 30 min intravenously or placebo until disease progression or a maximum of 12 months. The randomisation sequence was generated within an interactive web response system (Alea); patients were stratified according to epithelioid versus non-epithelioid histology and were assigned in random block sizes of 3 and 6. Participants and treating clinicians were masked to group allocation. The co-primary endpoints were investigator-assessed progression-free survival and overall survival, analysed according to the treatment policy estimand (an equivalent of the intention-to-treat principle). All patients who were randomly assigned were included in the safety population, reported according to group allocation. This trial is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03063450. FINDINGS: Between May 10, 2017, and March 30, 2020, 332 patients were recruited, of whom 221 (67%) were randomly assigned to the nivolumab group and 111 (33%) were assigned to the placebo group). Median follow-up was 11·6 months (IQR 7·2-16·8). Median progression-free survival was 3·0 months (95% CI 2·8-4·1) in the nivolumab group versus 1·8 months (1·4-2·6) in the placebo group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·67 [95% CI 0·53-0·85; p=0·0012). Median overall survival was 10·2 months (95% CI 8·5-12·1) in the nivolumab group versus 6·9 months (5·0-8·0) in the placebo group (adjusted HR 0·69 [95% CI 0·52-0·91]; p=0·0090). The most frequently reported grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events were diarrhoea (six [3%] of 221 in the nivolumab group vs two [2%] of 111 in the placebo group) and infusion-related reaction (six [3%] vs none). Serious adverse events occurred in 90 (41%) patients in the nivolumab group and 49 (44%) patients in the placebo group. There were no treatment-related deaths in either group. INTERPRETATION: Nivolumab represents a treatment that might be beneficial to patients with malignant mesothelioma who have progressed on first-line therapy. FUNDING: Stand up to Cancer-Cancer Research UK and Bristol Myers Squibb.

Brigatinib versus Crizotinib in ALK-Positive Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Brigatinib, a next-generation anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitor, has robust efficacy in patients with ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) that is refractory to crizotinib. The efficacy of brigatinib, as compared with crizotinib, in patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC who have not previously received an ALK inhibitor is unclear. METHODS: In an open-label, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC who had not previously received ALK inhibitors to receive brigatinib at a dose of 180 mg once daily (with a 7-day lead-in period at 90 mg) or crizotinib at a dose of 250 mg twice daily. The primary end point was progression-free survival as assessed by blinded independent central review. Secondary end points included the objective response rate and intracranial response. The first interim analysis was planned when approximately 50% of 198 expected events of disease progression or death had occurred. RESULTS: A total of 275 patients underwent randomization; 137 were assigned to brigatinib and 138 to crizotinib. At the first interim analysis (99 events), the median follow-up was 11.0 months in the brigatinib group and 9.3 months in the crizotinib group. The rate of progression-free survival was higher with brigatinib than with crizotinib (estimated 12-month progression-free survival, 67% [95% confidence interval {CI}, 56 to 75] vs. 43% [95% CI, 32 to 53]; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.49 [95% CI, 0.33 to 0.74]; P<0.001 by the log-rank test). The confirmed objective response rate was 71% (95% CI, 62 to 78) with brigatinib and 60% (95% CI, 51 to 68) with crizotinib; the confirmed rate of intracranial response among patients with measurable lesions was 78% (95% CI, 52 to 94) and 29% (95% CI, 11 to 52), respectively. No new safety concerns were noted. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with ALK-positive NSCLC who had not previously received an ALK inhibitor, progression-free survival was significantly longer among patients who received brigatinib than among those who received crizotinib. (Funded by Ariad Pharmaceuticals; ALTA-1L ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02737501 .).

Patient selection for anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: implications for clinical practice.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors targeting PD-1 or PD-L1 represent a standard treatment option for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. However, a substantial proportion of patients will not benefit from these treatments, and robust biomarkers are required to help clinicians select patients who are most likely to benefit. Here, we discuss the available evidence on the utility of clinical characteristics in the selection of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer as potential candidates for single-agent anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy, and provide practical guidance to clinicians on identifying those patients who are most likely to benefit. Recommendations on the use of immune checkpoint inhibitor in clinically challenging populations are also provided.

SELECT-3: a phase I study of selumetinib in combination with platinum-doublet chemotherapy for advanced NSCLC in the first-line setting.

BACKGROUND: We investigated selumetinib (AZD6244, ARRY-142886), an oral, potent, and highly selective, allosteric MEK1/2 inhibitor, plus platinum-doublet chemotherapy for patients with advanced/metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. METHODS: In this Phase I, open-label study (NCT01809210), treatment-naïve patients received selumetinib (50, 75, 100 mg BID PO) plus standard doses of gemcitabine or pemetrexed plus cisplatin or carboplatin. Primary objectives were safety, tolerability, and determination of recommended Phase II doses. RESULTS: Fifty-five patients received treatment: selumetinib 50 or 75 mg plus gemcitabine/cisplatin (n=10); selumetinib 50 mg plus gemcitabine/carboplatin (n=9); selumetinib 50, 75 or 100 mg plus pemetrexed/carboplatin (n=21); selumetinib 75 mg plus pemetrexed/cisplatin (n=15). Most frequent adverse events (AEs) were fatigue, nausea, diarrhoea and vomiting. Grade ⩾3 selumetinib-related AEs were reported in 30 (55%) patients. Dose-limiting toxicities (all n=1) were Grade 4 anaemia (selumetinib 75 mg plus gemcitabine/cisplatin), Grade 4 thrombocytopenia/epistaxis and Grade 4 thrombocytopenia (selumetinib 50 mg plus gemcitabine/carboplatin), Grade 4 febrile neutropenia (selumetinib 100 mg plus pemetrexed/carboplatin), and Grade 3 lethargy (selumetinib 75 mg plus pemetrexed/cisplatin). Partial responses were confirmed in 11 (20%) and unconfirmed in 9 (16%) patients. CONCLUSIONS: Standard doses of pemetrexed/carboplatin or pemetrexed/cisplatin were tolerated with selumetinib 75 mg BID. The selumetinib plus gemcitabine-containing regimens were not tolerated.

Therapies in the pipeline for small-cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION OR BACKGROUND: Small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) represents ~15% of all cases of lung cancer and is characterized by a rapid tumour doubling time, early onset disease dissemination and high sensitivity to chemotherapy. SOURCES OF DATA: We searched MEDLINE and OVID databases for articles in English published from January 1980 to February 2015. AREAS OF AGREEMENT: Platinum-based chemotherapy, thoracic radiotherapy and prophylactic cranial irradiation are standard of care. Benefit from second-line chemotherapy is limited. AREAS OF CONTROVERSY: The role of platinum/irinotecan chemotherapy in the Western population and the role of maintenance therapies remain to be established. GROWING POINTS: Knowledge of the biology of SCLC has expanded exponentially and many potential therapeutic targets have been identified. AREAS TIMELY FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH: The use of circulating tumour cells can help investigating molecular alterations occurring within tumour cells, understanding drug resistance mechanisms and evaluating new treatments.

Immune Checkpoint Blockade: A New Era for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

Despite better understanding of it's molecular biology, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) remains a challenging disease to treat. Unfortunately, treatment options are still very limited and prognosis for advanced disease is poor. Immune surveillance plays a crucial role in a host's defence against tumour cells, and this is particular relevant for lung cancer due to it's high somatic mutational load, which increases the chances for the immune system to recognize cancer cells as 'non-self'. Novel immunotherapies are emerging as an effective treatment for this disease. In this review, we present the data on immune checkpoint inhibitors for NSCLC, describing their mechanism of action, data efficacy from recent clinical trials, and strategies to select patients more likely to benefit from these agents.

Immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors for lung cancer: novel agents, biomarkers and paradigms.

Despite recent advances, prognosis of patients with advanced lung cancer remains dismal. Owing to a better understanding of the interactions between immune system and tumor cells, immunotherapy has emerged as a promising therapeutic strategy. After the recent approval of nivolumab and the promising results with other immune checkpoint inhibitors, combination strategies are now subject of intensive research. Notwithstanding these successes, immunotherapy still holds significant drawbacks. As the target shifts from tumor cells to the tumor microenvironment, treatment paradigms are changing and several improvements are needed for optimal use in clinical practice. Robust biomarkers for patient selection and a reliable way of evaluating treatment response are high priorities. Herein we review current data on immune checkpoint inhibitors for lung cancer treatment.

Recent advances and future strategies in first-line treatment of ES-SCLC.

Recent advancements in treating extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) have been significantly marked by incorporating immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) into platinum-based chemotherapy, leading to modest yet notable improvements in patient outcomes, which become more evident with longer follow-up. However, critical challenges persist, such as identifying effective biomarkers for accurate patient selection or finding more effective drugs. This review delves into the current and evolving treatment landscape for ES-SCLC, focusing on the most promising therapeutic strategies under investigation. We discuss the latest developments in the use of newer ICIs, antiangiogenic agents, PARP inhibitors (PARPi), lurbinectedin, and anti-DLL3 agents, offering insights into potential future directions in the management of this aggressive cancer.

A study demonstrating users' preference for the adapted-REQUITE patient-reported outcome questionnaire over PRO-CTCAE® in patients with lung cancer.

Introduction: The use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) has been shown to enhance the accuracy of symptom collection and improve overall survival and quality of life. This is the first study comparing concordance and patient preference for two PRO tools: Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE®) and the adapted-REQUITE Lung Questionnaire. Materials and Methods: Patients with lung cancer were recruited to the study while attending outpatient clinics at a tertiary cancer centre. Clinician-reported outcomes were generated through initial patient assessment with CTCAE v4.03. Participants then completed the PRO-CTCAE® and adapted-REQUITE questionnaires. Concordance between the 2 questionnaires was assessed by calculating Pearson correlation coefficient. PRO-CTCAE® and CTCAE concordance was demonstrated by calculating Pearson correlation coefficient from the linear predictors of an ordinal logistic regression. P-values were also calculated. Results: Out of 74 patients approached, 65 provided written informed consent to participate in the study. 63 (96.9%) patients completed both PRO-CTCAE® and adapted-REQUITE questionnaires. Pearson correlation coefficient between PRO tools was 0.8-0.83 (p <.001). Correlation between CTCAE and PRO-CTCAE® ranged between 0.66-0.82 (p <.001). Adapted-REQUITE and CTCAE correlation was higher for all symptoms ranging between 0.79-0.91 (p <.001). Acceptable discrepancies within one grade were present in 96.8%-100% of symptom domains for REQUITE and in 92.1%-96.8% for all domains in the PRO-CTCAE®. 54% of the total participant cohort favored the adapted-REQUITE questionnaire due to reduced subjectivity in the questions and ease of use. Conclusion: The adapted-REQUITE questionnaire has shown a superior correlation to clinician-reported outcomes and higher patient preference than the PRO-CTCAE®. The results of this study suggest the use of the REQUITE questionnaire for patients with lung cancer in routine clinical practice.

Service Evaluation of MyChristie-MyHealth, an Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measure Integrated Into Clinical Cancer Care.

PURPOSE: Electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) are digitalized health questionnaires used to gauge patients' subjective experience of health and disease. They are becoming prevalent in cancer care and have been linked to a host of benefits including improved survival. MyChristie-MyHealth is the ePROM established at the Christie NHS Foundation Trust in 2019. We conducted an evaluation of this service to understand user experiences, as well as strategies to improve its functioning. METHODS: Data collection: Patients who had opted never to complete MyChristie-MyHealth (n = 87), and those who had completed at least one (n = 87) were identified. Demographic data included age, sex, ethnicity, postcode, diagnosis, treatment intent, and trial status. Semistructured interviews were held with noncompleters (n = 30) and completers (n = 31) of MyChristie-MyHealth, as well as clinician users (n = 6), covering themes such as accessibility, acceptability and usefulness, and open discourse on ways in which the service could be improved. RESULTS: Noncompleters of MyChristie-MyHealth were older (median age 72 v 66 years, P = .005), receiving treatment with curative rather than palliative intent (odds ratio [OR], 1.45; P = .045), and less likely to be enrolled on a clinical trial (OR, 0.531; P = .011). They were less likely to own a smartphone (33% v 97%) or have reliable Internet access (45% v 100%). Satisfaction with MyChristie-MyHealth was high in both groups: 93% (n = 29) of completers and 87% (n = 26) noncompleters felt generally happy to complete. Completers of MyChristie-MyHealth wanted their results to be acknowledged by their clinicians. Clinicians wanted results to be displayed in a more user-friendly way. CONCLUSION: We have broadly characterized noncompleters of the Christie ePROM to identify those in need of extra support or encouragement in the clinic. An action plan resulting from this review has been compiled and will inform the future development of MyChristie-MyHealth.

Extended pleurectomy decortication and chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for pleural mesothelioma (MARS 2): a phase 3 randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Extended pleurectomy decortication for complete macroscopic resection for pleural mesothelioma has never been evaluated in a randomised trial. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes after extended pleurectomy decortication plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone. METHODS: MARS 2 was a phase 3, national, multicentre, open-label, parallel two-group, pragmatic, superiority randomised controlled trial conducted in the UK. The trial took place across 26 hospitals (21 recruiting only, one surgical only, and four recruiting and surgical). Following two cycles of chemotherapy, eligible participants with pleural mesothelioma were randomly assigned (1:1) to surgery and chemotherapy or chemotherapy alone using a secure web-based system. Individuals aged 16 years or older with resectable pleural mesothelioma and adequate organ and lung function were eligible for inclusion. Participants in the chemotherapy only group received two to four further cycles of chemotherapy, and participants in the surgery and chemotherapy group received pleurectomy decortication or extended pleurectomy decortication, followed by two to four further cycles of chemotherapy. It was not possible to mask allocation because the intervention was a major surgical procedure. The primary outcome was overall survival, defined as time from randomisation to death from any cause. Analyses were done on the intention-to-treat population for all outcomes, unless specified. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02040272, and is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: Between June 19, 2015, and Jan 21, 2021, of 1030 assessed for eligibility, 335 participants were randomly assigned (169 to surgery and chemotherapy, and 166 to chemotherapy alone). 291 (87%) participants were men and 44 (13%) women, and 288 (86%) were diagnosed with epithelioid mesothelioma. At a median follow-up of 22·4 months (IQR 11·3-30·8), median survival was shorter in the surgery and chemotherapy group (19·3 months [IQR 10·0-33·7]) than in the chemotherapy alone group (24·8 months [IQR 12·6-37·4]), and the difference in restricted mean survival time at 2 years was -1·9 months (95% CI -3·4 to -0·3, p=0·019). There were 318 serious adverse events (grade ≥3) in the surgery group and 169 in the chemotherapy group (incidence rate ratio 3·6 [95% CI 2·3 to 5·5], p<0·0001), with increased incidence of cardiac (30 vs 12; 3·01 [1·13 to 8·02]) and respiratory (84 vs 34; 2·62 [1·58 to 4·33]) disorders, infection (124 vs 53; 2·13 [1·36 to 3·33]), and additional surgical or medical procedures (15 vs eight; 2·41 [1·04 to 5·57]) in the surgery group. INTERPRETATION: Extended pleurectomy decortication was associated with worse survival to 2 years, and more serious adverse events for individuals with resectable pleural mesothelioma, compared with chemotherapy alone. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (15/188/31), Cancer Research UK Feasibility Studies Project Grant (A15895).

The role of molecular analyses in the diagnosis and treatment of non-small-cell lung carcinomas.

Non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) subtyping has recently been a key factor in determining patient management with novel drugs. In addition, the identification of distinct oncogenic driver mutations frequently associated with NSCLC histotype and coupled to the clinical responses to targeted therapies have revolutionized the impact of histologic type and molecular biomarkers in lung cancer. Several molecular alterations involving different genes (EGFR, KRAS, ALK, BRAF, and HER2) seem to have a remarkable predilection for adenocarcinoma and specific inhibitors of EGFR and ALK are now available for patients with adenocarcinoma harboring the relevant gene alterations. The efficacy of histology-based and molecular-targeted therapies had a deep impact in (1) re-defining classification of lung cancer (particularly adenocarcinomas) and (2) routine clinical practice of pathologists involved in optimization of handling of tissue samples in order to guarantee NSCLC subtyping with the help of immunohistochemistry and adequately preserve tumor cells for molecular analysis. In agreement with the modern multidisciplinary approach to lung cancer, we reviewed here the diagnostic and predictive value of molecular biomarkers according to the clinical, pathologic, and molecular biologist viewpoints.

Novel therapeutic strategies for recurrent SCLC.

Therapeutic options for patients with relapsed SCLC are limited, and the prognosis in this setting remains poor. While clinical outcomes for frontline treatment have modestly improved with the introduction of immunotherapy, treatment in the second-line setting persists almost unchanged. In this review, current treatment options and recent advances in molecular biology are described. Emerging therapeutic options in this setting, and potential strategies to improve clinical outcomes of these patients are also addressed.

Experience With the Routine Use of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Patients With Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: The Christie NHS Foundation Trust launched their electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) service in January 2019 in the routine clinical setting. The lung cancer questionnaires consist of 14 symptom items, adapted from the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 5.0) and the EuroQol EQ-5D-5L quality-of-life (QoL) tool. Patients with lung cancer are invited to complete questionnaires assessing their symptoms and QoL using an online platform. METHODS: The ePROM responses and clinical, pathologic, and treatment data for patients who completed the questionnaires between January 2019 and December 2020 were extracted from electronic medical records. The symptom and QoL scores of patients who completed baseline pretreatment ePROMs and also those who completed ePROMs pre- and postpalliative lung systemic anticancer therapy (SACT) or radical thoracic radiotherapy were evaluated. Pretreatment questionnaires were analyzed according to age, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS), and Adult Comorbidity Evaluation-27 (ACE-27) comorbidity score. RESULTS: One thousand four hundred eighty patients with lung cancer were included. There were no statistically significant differences in symptoms and QoL scores between age groups. Cough (P = .006) and EQ-5D-5L mobility scores (P = .006) were significantly worse for patients with an ECOG PS of 0-1. Dyspnea (P = .035), hemoptysis (P = .023), nausea (P = .041), mobility (P = .004), and self-care (P = .0420) were significantly worse for those with higher ACE-27 scores (2-3 v 0-1). Palliative SACT was associated with a significant improvement in cough (P < .001) and hemoptysis (P = .025), but significantly negatively affected mobility (P = .013). Patients receiving radical thoracic radiotherapy reported a significant improvement in hemoptysis (P = .042) but worse pain (P = .002) and fatigue (P = .01). Other changes in symptom and QoL scores were not significant. CONCLUSION: The symptoms and QoL reported at baseline and before and after both palliative SACT and radical thoracic radiotherapy are clinically relevant and meaningful. We have demonstrated that routine implementation of ePROMs into clinical practice is feasible and can inform clinical practice and future research.

Rationale and Design of the Phase 3 KEYLYNK-013 Study of Pembrolizumab With Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy Followed by Pembrolizumab With or Without Olaparib for Limited-Stage Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The current standard of care for patients with newly diagnosed limited-stage small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) is concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT). The prognosis remains poor due to the aggressiveness and high risk of progression or relapse of SCLC even if an initial response is achieved. Therefore, there is an urgent unmet clinical need in this population. The multicenter, phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind KEYLYNK-013 study evaluates the addition of pembrolizumab to CCRT followed by pembrolizumab with or without olaparib in participants with previously untreated limited-stage SCLC. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04624204). METHODS: Eligible participants aged ≥18 years with newly diagnosed, pathologically confirmed, limited-stage (ie, stage I-III) SCLC will be randomized 1:1:1 to CCRT (ie, etoposide plus carboplatin or cisplatin for 4 cycles and standard thoracic radiotherapy) plus pembrolizumab (Groups A and B) or CCRT plus placebo (Group C). In the absence of disease progression, participants will receive pembrolizumab plus placebo (Group A), pembrolizumab plus olaparib (Group B), or placebo (Group C). Dual primary endpoints are progression-free survival per RECIST version 1.1 by blinded independent central review and overall survival. RESULTS: Enrollment began in December 2020 and is ongoing at approximately 150 sites. CONCLUSIONS: KEYLYNK-013 will provide valuable information on the efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab plus CCRT and pembrolizumab with or without olaparib post CCRT in participants with limited-stage SCLC.

Real-World Data on Pembrolizumab for Pretreated Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Clinical Outcome and Relevance of the Lung Immune Prognostic Index.

BACKGROUND: Pembrolizumab is licensed for the treatment of pre-treated and PD-L1 positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but response is heterogeneous. In this context, the Lung Immune Prognostic Index (LIPI) has been proposed as tool to prognosticate outcome. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the real-world efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab in pre-treated NSCLC patients and the clinical utility of LIPI for patients' selection. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with pre-treated NSCLC and PD-L1 ≥ 1% treated with pembrolizumab were included in this retrospective series. The LIPI was used to classify patients in 3 prognostics subgroups according to the pre-treatment dNLR (derived neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio) and LDH in blood. The prognostic impact of the LIPI on progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) was evaluated with Cox regression. The combined effect of LIPI and other relevant prognostic factors was explored with multivariate regression. RESULTS: In total, 113 consecutive patients were included. Median (mPFS) and mOS was 4.3 (2.6-6.7) and 13.5 (10.3-17.7) months, respectively. Good-, intermediate-, and poor-LIPI was found in 54 (47.8%), 45 (39.8%), and 8 (7.1%) patients, respectively. Median PFS was 5.1 (2.8-9.1), 3.0 (2.5-6.8), and 1.4 (0.5-18.7) months, and mOS was 17.2 (12.0-26.4), 11.8 (8.4-17.1), and 3.7 (0.5-not calculable) months for good-, intermediate-, and poor-LIPI group, respectively. Patients with intermediate-LIPI and poor-LIPI had worse PFS versus good-LIPI, and statistically significant worse OS (p = 0.030 and p = 0.013, respectively). In the multivariate analysis, intermediate- versus good-LIPI (p = 0.190) was not independently associated to PFS or OS. Patients with both good-LIPI and high (≥ 50%) PD-L1 had better OS than all other subgroups defined by LIPI and PD-L1. Immune-related adverse events (irAEs) occurred in 47 (41.6%) patients (12.4% grade ≥ 3). In a time-varying analysis, irAEs were statistically associated with longer OS (HR 0.51, 0.31-0.84; p = 0.008). CONCLUSION: In our series, the outcome of pembrolizumab in pre-treated NSCLC is consistent with the registration trial. Lung Immune Prognostic Index is a readily available tool able to prognosticate outcome, also in PD-L1-high patients. The positive association between irAEs and OS might aid decision making.