Osimertinib after Chemoradiotherapy in Stage III EGFR-Mutated NSCLC.

BACKGROUND: Osimertinib is a recommended treatment for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation and as adjuvant treatment for resected EGFR-mutated NSCLC. EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors have shown preliminary efficacy in unresectable stage III EGFR-mutated NSCLC. METHODS: In this phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we randomly assigned patients with unresectable EGFR-mutated stage III NSCLC without progression during or after chemoradiotherapy to receive osimertinib or placebo until disease progression occurred (as assessed by blinded independent central review) or the regimen was discontinued. The primary end point was progression-free survival as assessed by blinded independent central review. RESULTS: A total of 216 patients who had undergone chemoradiotherapy were randomly assigned to receive osimertinib (143 patients) or placebo (73 patients). Osimertinib resulted in a significant progression-free survival benefit as compared with placebo: the median progression-free survival was 39.1 months with osimertinib versus 5.6 months with placebo, with a hazard ratio for disease progression or death of 0.16 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.10 to 0.24; P<0.001). The percentage of patients who were alive and progression free at 12 months was 74% (95% CI, 65 to 80) with osimertinib and 22% (95% CI, 13 to 32) with placebo. Interim overall survival data (maturity, 20%) showed 36-month overall survival among 84% of patients with osimertinib (95% CI, 75 to 89) and 74% with placebo (95% CI, 57 to 85), with a hazard ratio for death of 0.81 (95% CI, 0.42 to 1.56; P = 0.53). The incidence of adverse events of grade 3 or higher was 35% in the osimertinib group and 12% in the placebo group; radiation pneumonitis (majority grade, 1 to 2) was reported in 48% and 38%, respectively. No new safety concerns emerged. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with osimertinib resulted in significantly longer progression-free survival than placebo in patients with unresectable stage III EGFR-mutated NSCLC. (Funded by AstraZeneca; LAURA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03521154.).

KEYNOTE-033: Randomized phase 3 study of pembrolizumab vs docetaxel in previously treated, PD-L1-positive, advanced NSCLC.

KEYNOTE-033 (NCT02864394) was a multicountry, open-label, phase 3 study that compared pembrolizumab vs docetaxel in previously treated, programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive, advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), with most patients enrolled in mainland China. Eligible patients were randomized (1:1) to pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg or docetaxel 75 mg/m2 every 3 weeks. Primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival and were evaluated sequentially using stratified log-rank tests, first in patients with PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) ≥50% and then in patients with PD-L1 TPS ≥1% (significance threshold: P < .025, one-sided). A total of 425 patients were randomized to pembrolizumab (N = 213) or docetaxel (N = 212) between 8 September 2016 and 17 October 2018. In patients with a PD-L1 TPS ≥50% (n = 227), median OS was 12.3 months with pembrolizumab and 10.9 months with docetaxel; the hazard ratio (HR) was 0.83 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.61-1.14; P = .1276). Because the significance threshold was not met, sequential testing of OS and PFS was ceased. In patients with a PD-L1 TPS ≥1%, the HR for OS for pembrolizumab vs docetaxel was 0.75 (95% CI: 0.60-0.95). In patients from mainland China (n = 311) with a PD-L1 TPS ≥1%, HR for OS was 0.68 (95% CI: 0.51-0.89). Incidence of grade 3 to 5 treatment-related AEs was 11.3% with pembrolizumab vs 47.5% with docetaxel. In summary, pembrolizumab improved OS vs docetaxel in previously treated, PD-L1-positive NSCLC without unexpected safety signals; although the statistical significance threshold was not reached, the numerical improvement is consistent with that previously observed for pembrolizumab in previously treated, advanced NSCLC.

A new era of the Asian clinical research network: a report from the ATLAS international symposium.

This report summarizes the presentations and discussions in the first Asian Clinical Trials Network for Cancers (ATLAS) international symposium that was held on 24 April 2022, in Bangkok, Thailand, and hosted by the National Cancer Center Hospital (NCCH), co-hosted by the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA), Clinical Research Malaysia (CRM) and the Thai Society of Clinical Oncology (TSCO), and supported by Embassy of Japan in Thailand. Since 2020, the NCCH has conducted the ATLAS project to enhance research environments and infrastructures to facilitate international clinical research and cancer genomic medicine in the Asian region. The purpose of the symposium was to discuss what we can achieve under the ATLAS project, to share the latest topics and common issues in cancer research and to facilitate mutual understanding. Invitees included stakeholders from academic institutions, mainly at ATLAS collaborative sites, as well as Asian regulatory authorities. The invited speakers discussed ongoing collaborative research, regulatory perspectives to improve new drug access in Asia, the status of phase I trials in Asia, the introduction of research activities at the National Cancer Center (NCC) and the implementation of genomic medicine. As the next steps after this symposium, the ATLAS project will foster increased cooperation between investigators, regulatory authorities and other stakeholders relevant to cancer research, and establish a sustainable pan-Asian cancer research group to increase the number of clinical trials and deliver novel drugs to patients with cancer in Asia.

Cemiplimab monotherapy for first-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with PD-L1 of at least 50%: a multicentre, open-label, global, phase 3, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to examine cemiplimab, a programmed cell death 1 inhibitor, in the first-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) of at least 50%. METHODS: In EMPOWER-Lung 1, a multicentre, open-label, global, phase 3 study, eligible patients recruited in 138 clinics from 24 countries (aged ≥18 years with histologically or cytologically confirmed advanced non-small-cell lung cancer, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1; never-smokers were ineligible) were randomly assigned (1:1) to cemiplimab 350 mg every 3 weeks or platinum-doublet chemotherapy. Crossover from chemotherapy to cemiplimab was allowed following disease progression. Primary endpoints were overall survival and progression-free survival per masked independent review committee. Primary endpoints were assessed in the intention-to-treat population and in a prespecified PD-L1 of at least 50% population (per US Food and Drug Administration request to the sponsor), which consisted of patients with PD-L1 of at least 50% per 22C3 assay done according to instructions for use. Adverse events were assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of the assigned treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03088540 and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between June 27, 2017 and Feb 27, 2020, 710 patients were randomly assigned (intention-to-treat population). In the PD-L1 of at least 50% population, which consisted of 563 patients, median overall survival was not reached (95% CI 17·9-not evaluable) with cemiplimab (n=283) versus 14·2 months (11·2-17·5) with chemotherapy (n=280; hazard ratio [HR] 0·57 [0·42-0·77]; p=0·0002). Median progression-free survival was 8·2 months (6·1-8·8) with cemiplimab versus 5·7 months (4·5-6·2) with chemotherapy (HR 0·54 [0·43-0·68]; p<0·0001). Significant improvements in overall survival and progression-free survival were also observed with cemiplimab in the intention-to-treat population despite a high crossover rate (74%). Grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 98 (28%) of 355 patients treated with cemiplimab and 135 (39%) of 342 patients treated with chemotherapy. INTERPRETATION: Cemiplimab monotherapy significantly improved overall survival and progression-free survival compared with chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with PD-L1 of at least 50%, providing a potential new treatment option for this patient population. FUNDING: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Sanofi.

The treatment landscape of advanced angiosarcoma in Asia-A multi-national collaboration from the Asian Sarcoma Consortium.

Angiosarcoma (AS) is a rare disease with a dismal prognosis. The treatment landscape and prognostic factors for advanced AS, including locally advanced, unresectable, and metastatic disease remain elusive. The Asian Sarcoma Consortium is an international collaborative effort to understand the sarcoma treatment landscape in Asia. We undertook a retrospective chart review of AS patients seen in 8 sarcoma academic centers across Asia. Patients with complete clinical, treatment, and follow-up data were enrolled. Overall, 276 advanced AS patients were included into this study; 84 (30%) of the patients had metachronous metastatic AS. The median age was 67 y; primary sites of AS was cutaneous in 55% and visceral in 45% of patients. In total, 143 (52%) patients received at least 1 line of systemic chemotherapy. The most common first-line chemotherapy regimen used was paclitaxel (47.6%) followed by liposomal doxorubicin (19.6%). The median overall survival (OS) was 7.8 mo. Significant prognostic factors for OS included age > 65 (hazard ratio (HR) 1.54, P = .006), male gender (HR 1.39, P = .02), and a cutaneous primary AS site (HR 0.63, P = .004). The median progression-free survival (PFS) for first-line chemotherapy was 3.4 mo. PFS for single vs combination or paclitaxel vs liposomal doxorubicin chemotherapy regimens were comparable. This study provides an insight into the treatment patterns and prognostic factors of advanced AS patients in Asia. Prognosis of advanced AS remains poor. Data from this study serve as a benchmark for future clinical study design.

Final overall survival analysis of the phase 3 HERITAGE study demonstrates equivalence of trastuzumab-dkst to trastuzumab in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer.

PURPOSE: The phase 3 HERITAGE trial demonstrated that the biosimilar trastuzumab-dkst is well tolerated with similar efficacy (measured by overall response rate [ORR] and progression-free survival [PFS]) compared with originator trastuzumab combined with taxane followed by monotherapy in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Herein, we present final overall survival (OS) from HERITAGE. METHODS: HERITAGE is a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive trastuzumab-dkst or trastuzumab plus taxane followed by continued monotherapy until disease progression. Overall survival was to be assessed at 36 months or after 240 deaths, whichever occurred first, as observed from time of randomization of last patient. RESULTS: At the final analysis (36 months), 242 patients in the intention-to-treat population had died during the study: 116 and 124 in the trastuzumab-dkst and trastuzumab groups, respectively, and 1 untreated patient from each treatment group. Median OS by Kaplan-Meier analysis was 35.0 months with trastuzumab-dkst and 30.2 months with trastuzumab. Evaluation of PFS showed a median of 11.1 months in both treatment groups. No new safety concerns were reported from week 48 until the end of the survival follow-up. CONCLUSION: This is the first phase 3 trial of a trastuzumab biosimilar to report long-term survival data similar to originator trastuzumab in patients with MBC. The comparable long-term OS between the trastuzumab-dkst and originator trastuzumab groups further supports the similarity of trastuzumab-dkst with originator trastuzumab and establishes trastuzumab-dkst as a safe and effective treatment option for patients with HER2-positive MBC. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02472964; 6/16/2015.

Patterns and outcomes of immune-related adverse events in solid tumor patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors in Thailand: a multicenter analysis.

BACKGROUND: Most immune-related adverse event (irAE) patterns and treatment guidelines are based on western clinical data. We evaluated the incidence and patterns of irAEs in patients treated with immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in Thailand. METHODS: All solid tumor patients treated with ICIs were retrospectively reviewed in a multicenter analysis. The study aims to evaluate the incidence of irAEs and their characteristics, treatments, outcomes, and impact on survival. All irAEs were graded using the CTCAE version 4.0. Characteristics of irAEs including time to onset, duration of irAEs, specific treatments, and outcomes of irAEs were reviewed. The Chi-square or Fisher's exact test was used to compare variables. Overall survival (OS) was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method, and compared by the log-rank test. A p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: irAEs of any grade were observed in 98 of 414 patients (24%), whereas grades 3-4 irAEs were observed in 5.6%. The majority of patients (78%) were treated with monotherapy ICI (anti-PD1/PD-L1 92%). The most common all-grade irAEs were hypothyroidism (7.5%), hepatitis (6.5%), and rash (4.8%). Median onset of overall irAEs was 63 days. Pancreatitis and pneumonitis had the earliest onset at 30 and 34 days, respectively. ICIs were rechallenged in 68 of 98 patients with irAE. Eleven of sixty-eight patients (11.2%) with initial irAE had reoccurrence after ICI rechallenge. Based on a multivariate analysis, pre-existing hypothyroidism, ICI used in a clinical trial setting, and combinations of ICI/ICI were independent factors predicting irAE occurrence. Patients with irAE had a statistically significant longer overall survival (OS) when compared to patients without irAE (p = 0.019). A multivariate analysis revealed that occurrence of irAE was an independent prognostic factor for OS (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.51-0.96; p = 0.028). CONCLUSION: irAE was commonly observed in Thai cancer patients treated with ICIs. Most irAEs were low-grade and manageable. Re-occurrence of irAE after re-challenging ICI was not uncommonly observed. Patients who experienced irAEs might have significantly longer OS compared to patients without irAEs. However, OS in this study should be interpreted with caution since it might be affected by various tumor types, treatment settings, dosing schedule, and ICI combinations.

Experience from Asian centers in a named-patient-use program for afatinib in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer who had progressed following prior therapies, including patients with uncommon EGFR mutations.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated outcomes among patients with advanced/metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated at Asian centers participating in the global named-patient-use (NPU) program for afatinib. METHODS: Patients had progressed after initial benefit with erlotinib or gefitinib, and/or had an EGFR or HER2 mutation, had no other treatment options, and were ineligible for afatinib trials. The recommended starting dose of afatinib was 50 mg/day. Dose modifications were allowed, and afatinib was continued as long as deemed beneficial. Response and survival information was provided voluntarily. Safety reporting was mandatory. RESULTS: 2242 patients (26% aged ≥ 70 years, 96% with adenocarcinoma) received afatinib at centers in 10 Asian countries. Most were heavily pre-treated, including prior treatment with erlotinib or gefitinib. Of 1281 patients tested, 1240 had EGFR mutations (common: 1034/1101; uncommon: 117/1101). There were no new safety signals, the most common adverse events being rash and diarrhea. Objective response rate (ORR) was 24% overall (n = 431 with data available), 27% for patients with common EGFR mutations (n = 230) and 28% for those with uncommon mutations (n = 32); median time to treatment failure (TTF) in these groups was 7.6 months (n = 1550), 6.4 months (n = 692) and 8.4 months (n = 83), respectively. In patients with EGFR exon 20 insertions (n = 23) and HER2 mutations (n = 12), median TTF exceeded 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: Patient outcomes in this study were similar to those reported in the analysis of the global NPU. Afatinib achieved clinical benefits in patients with refractory NSCLC. ORR and TTF were similar between patients with tumors harboring uncommon and common EGFR mutations.

The efficacy and safety of the addition of olanzapine to ondansetron and dexamethasone for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of the addition of olanzapine to ondansetron and dexamethasone for chemotherapy-induced nausea vomiting (CINV) prevention in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study, we randomly assigned chemotherapy-naïve patients receiving HEC to receive olanzapine or placebo in addition to ondansetron and dexamethasone. All subjects were crossed over to another treatment arm on second-cycle chemotherapy. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR) rate defined as no vomiting and no use of rescue drugs. RESULTS: At the first cycle, there were significantly more patients with CR in the olanzapine group than in the placebo group in overall phase (68.7% vs. 25.0%, p < 0.001), acute phase (0-24 h) (75.0% vs. 31.2%, p < 0.001) and delayed phase (24-120 h) (68.7% vs. 43.7%, p = 0.038). After crossover, there were significantly more patients with CR in the olanzapine group than in the placebo group in overall phase (67.2% vs. 25.0%, p < 0.001), acute phase (71.9% vs. 32.8%, p < 0.001) and delayed phase (67.2% vs. 37.5%, p < 0.001). In crossover analysis, the olanzapine group had significantly lower mean nausea (1.28 vs. 3.05, p < 0.001) and fatigue (3.5 vs. 4.58, p < 0.001) scores but higher mean appetite (2.5 vs. 1.55, p = 0.003) and sleepiness (3.26 vs. 2.2, p < 0.001) scores. There were no grade 3 and 4 anti-emetic-drug-related toxicities. Mean QT interval changes did not different between two groups (-4.30 vs. -1.86, p = 0.69). CONCLUSION: The addition of olanzapine to ondansetron and dexamethasone significantly improved CINV prevention and was safe in patients receiving HEC.

Incidence of infusion hypersensitivity reaction after withholding dexamethasone premedication in early breast cancer patients not experiencing two previous cycles of infusion hypersensitivity reaction for weekly paclitaxel chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Premedication with dexamethasone is an essential part of the prevention of hypersensitivity reaction (HSR) associated with taxane administration. However, the possibility of stopping dexamethasone premedication has been investigated in previous studies to reduce the steroid's adverse events; however, either the result or the particular protocol was limited. Thus, our study aimed to evaluate the incidence of HSR after dexamethasone premedication discontinuation after lack of HSR in two previous weekly paclitaxel infusions. METHOD: Early breast cancer patients who received adjuvant weekly paclitaxel in a retrospective cohort from January 2012 through February 2016 at the King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital were reviewed. All patients received a standard premedication protocol prior to the first and second paclitaxel infusion. Dexamethasone was omitted in later cycles in all patients who did not undergo infusion HSR. Patients who developed HSR during the first or second cycles of paclitaxel infusion were excluded. The incidence of HSR during the later cycle of paclitaxel administration and factors associated with this adverse reaction were collected. RESULTS: Eighty-one of 85 patients who did not undergo infusion HSR after 2 cycles of weekly paclitaxel administration were retrospectively reviewed. The median age was 51 years (range 27-74 years). Only 16% of the patients had a BMI greater than 30 kg/m2, 57.8% were premenopausal, 67.9% had no comorbidity, none had a history of allergy or asthma, 65.4% received weekly paclitaxel as a single agent, and 34.6% received weekly paclitaxel in combination with trastuzumab. Five of 81 patients reported grade I-II HSR (6.25%), which occurred mostly during the first 6 cycles (60%). Temporary discontinuation of paclitaxel infusion was observed in all HSR patients. No differences regarding age, BMI, menopausal status, and underlying disease between the HSR and no HSR groups were identified. Concerning the safety profile, peripheral neuropathy (gr I 60%, gr II 13.5%, and gr III 2.4%), myalgia (43.4%), and edema (10.5%) were commonly reported, whereas dyspepsia (5.3%) and insomnia (14.5%) were rarely described in withholding patients. CONCLUSION: Withholding dexamethasone premedication in non-experiencing HSR patients after two previous cycles of weekly paclitaxel administration was safe and did not impact the higher incidence of HSR. A discontinuing dexamethasone protocol should be recommended generally in these patients, especially those with a high risk for steroid-induced side effects.

A Difference in the Incidences of Hypersensitivity Reactions to Original and Generic Taxanes.

PURPOSE: To compare incidences of hypersensitivity reaction (HSR) between original and generic taxanes including paclitaxel and docetaxel. METHODS: We conducted a prospective study enrolling all patients receiving taxanes at King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital. Taxanes were infused accordingly to the step-wise rate escalation protocol at this hospital. Active surveillance for HSRs was performed. During the study period, there was only 1 generic brand used for each taxane. We primarily compared the incidences of HSR between original and generic drugs for each taxane. RESULTS: During the period from January 1 to December 31, 2013, a total of 258 consecutive patients receiving taxanes were enrolled; 128 received paclitaxel, i.e. 65 and 63 in the original (Taxol) and generic arms, respectively, and 130 received docetaxel, i.e. 66 and 64 in the original (Taxotere) and generic arms, respectively. Premedication, including antihistamines and dexamethasone, was administered to all patients 30 min before taxane infusion. There were 26 (10.0%) HSR events including 24 grade 2 and 2 grade 3 HSRs. In the paclitaxel group, there were 9 (13.8%) and 7 (11.1%) HSRs in the original and generic arms, respectively (p = 0.791). In the docetaxel group, there were 9 (13.6%) and 1 (1.6%) HSRs in the original and generic arms, respectively (p = 0.017). No life-threatening symptoms or permanent discontinuation of taxanes occurred. CONCLUSIONS: In this prospective study, the incidences of HSR were similar with generic and original paclitaxel but significantly different with generic and original docetaxel.

Effect of a Proposed Trastuzumab Biosimilar Compared With Trastuzumab on Overall Response Rate in Patients With ERBB2 (HER2)-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Treatment with the anti-ERBB2 humanized monoclonal antibody trastuzumab and chemotherapy significantly improves outcome in patients with ERBB2 (HER2)-positive metastatic breast cancer; a clinically effective biosimilar may help increase access to this therapy. Objective: To compare the overall response rate and assess the safety of a proposed trastuzumab biosimilar plus a taxane or trastuzumab plus a taxane in patients without prior treatment for ERBB2-positive metastatic breast cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, phase 3 equivalence study in patients with metastatic breast cancer. From December 2012 to August 2015, 500 patients were randomized 1:1 to receive a proposed biosimilar or trastuzumab plus a taxane. Chemotherapy was administered for at least 24 weeks followed by antibody alone until unacceptable toxic effects or disease progression occurred. Interventions: Proposed biosimilar (n = 230) or trastuzumab (n = 228) with a taxane. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was week 24 overall response rate (ORR) defined as complete or partial response. Equivalence boundaries were 0.81 to 1.24 with a 90% CI for ORR ratio (proposed biosimilar/trastuzumab) and -15% to 15% with a 95% CI for ORR difference. Secondary outcome measures included time to tumor progression, progression-free and overall survival at week 48, and adverse events. Results: Among 500 women randomized, the intention-to-treat population included 458 women (mean [SD] age, 53.6 [11.11] years) and the safety population included 493 women. The ORR was 69.6% (95% CI, 63.62%-75.51%) for the proposed biosimilar vs 64.0% (95% CI, 57.81%-70.26%) for trastuzumab. The ORR ratio (1.09; 90% CI, 0.974-1.211) and ORR difference (5.53; 95% CI, -3.08 to 14.04) were within the equivalence boundaries. At week 48, there was no statistically significant difference with the proposed biosimilar vs trastuzumab for time to tumor progression (41.3% vs 43.0%; -1.7%; 95% CI, -11.1% to 6.9%), progression-free survival (44.3% vs 44.7%; -0.4%; 95% CI, -9.4% to 8.7%), or overall survival (89.1% vs 85.1%; 4.0%; 95% CI, -2.1% to 10.3%). In the proposed biosimilar and trastuzumab groups, 239 (98.6%) and 233 (94.7%) had at least 1 adverse event, the most common including neutropenia (57.5% vs 53.3%), peripheral neuropathy (23.1% vs 24.8%), and diarrhea (20.6% vs 20.7%). Conclusions and Relevance: Among women with ERBB2-positive metastatic breast cancer receiving taxanes, the use of a proposed trastuzumab biosimilar compared with trastuzumab resulted in an equivalent overall response rate at 24 weeks. Further study is needed to assess safety and long-term clinical outcome. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02472964; EudraCT Identifier: 2011-001965-42.

SHP-1 promoter 2 methylation in cerebrospinal fluid for diagnosis of leptomeningeal epithelial-derived malignancy (carcinomatous meningitis).

Current diagnostic methods for leptomeningeal metastasis (LM) from epithelial-derived malignancy (EDM) have limited sensitivity. Here, we explored SHP-1 promoter 2 methylation (SHP1P2)-an epithelial-specific methylation marker previously proven as risk stratification and potential diagnostic marker in non-small cell lung cancer-for EDM with LM. We prospectively recruited 136 patients who were diagnosed EDM with LM (n = 25), EDM without LM (n = 14), non-EDM with LM (n = 8), and benign meningeal diseases (n = 89). The primary cancer sites for EDM with LM were lung (n = 17), breast (n = 5), and colon (n = 3). We performed quantitative analyses of cell-free (cfSHP1P2) and whole fraction (wSHP1P2) from cerebrospinal fluid (CSF); results were correlated with the clinicopathological data, including CSF cytology. Median cfSHP1P2 and wSHP1P2 were 3.08 [range: 0-163.5] and 9.35 [0.69-91.63] ng/ml, respectively, in EDM with LM; 0 [0-0.08] and 0.23 [0-7.84] ng/ml in EDM without LM; and were undetectable in most cases of benign meningeal diseases and non-EDM with LM. The cut-off values of 0.22 ng/ml for methylated cfSHP1P2 and 0.59 ng/ml for wSHP1P2 were the best to discriminate EDM with LM from EDM without LM (sensitivity: 79-100 %; specificity: 83-100 %), as well as from other benign conditions (sensitivity: 85-100 % specificity: 78-100 %). CSF cytology yielded 76 % sensitivity for diagnosing EDM with LM. Further validation of CSF SHP1P2 methylation detection as a role of adjunctive tool for LM from EDM should be interested based on our study.

The role of SHP-1 promoter 2 hypermethylation detection of lymph node micrometastasis in resectable stage I non-small cell lung cancer as a prognostic marker of disease recurrence.

BACKGROUND: Despite adequate surgical management of stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), many patients still relapse. Nodal micrometastases which cannot be detected by the standard hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) method are the postulated mechanism. We conducted a study of an epithelial-specific methylation marker, SHP-1 promoter 2 (SHP1P2) methylation, as a potential molecular marker to determine its association with a high risk of disease relapse. MATERIAL AND METHOD: Lymph nodes from stage II-IIIA NSCLC patients were examined to explore the potential role of SHP1P2 methylation in detecting metastatic carcinoma according to H&E staining. Further study was done in lymph nodes from stage I NSCLC patients who underwent curative resection and follow-up at The King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand. No adjuvant treatment was given, according to the standard treatment in that stage. Patients who relapsed within 40 months after resection were defined as high risk. RESULTS: The nodal SHP1P2 methylation level from stage II-IIIA NSCLC patients was significantly higher in the metastasis group, median 674 [0-3536] ng, compared with the no metastasis group, median 230 [0-3832] ng (p = 0.004). One-hundred and ninety-eight lymph nodes from stage I NSCLC patients were analyzed, including hilar and mediastinal nodes. With a median follow-up period of 65 [46-109] months, high SHP1P2 methylation levels of more than 140 ng in hilar lymph nodes were associated with early relapse, with sensitivity and specificity of 85 and 54 %, respectively (hazard ratio 5.3; 95 % confidence interval 5.0-5.6; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: A high level of SHP1P2 methylation of hilar lymph nodes from stage I NSCLC patients is associated with early relapse of disease.

Intercalated combination of chemotherapy and erlotinib for patients with advanced stage non-small-cell lung cancer (FASTACT-2): a randomised, double-blind trial.

BACKGROUND: The results of FASTACT, a randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 2 study, showed that intercalated chemotherapy and erlotinib significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. We undertook FASTACT-2, a phase 3 study in a similar patient population. METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, patients with untreated stage IIIB/IV non-small-cell lung cancer were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio by use of an interactive internet response system with minimisation algorithm (stratified by disease stage, tumour histology, smoking status, and chemotherapy regimen) to receive six cycles of gemcitabine (1250 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8, intravenously) plus platinum (carboplatin 5 × area under the curve or cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) on day 1, intravenously) with intercalated erlotinib (150 mg/day on days 15-28, orally; chemotherapy plus erlotinib) or placebo orally (chemotherapy plus placebo) every 4 weeks. With the exception of an independent group responsible for monitoring data and safety monitoring board, everyone outside the interactive internet response system company was masked to treatment allocation. Patients continued to receive erlotinib or placebo until progression or unacceptable toxicity or death, and all patients in the placebo group were offered second-line erlotinib at the time of progression. The primary endpoint was PFS in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00883779. FINDINGS: From April 29, 2009, to Sept 9, 2010, 451 patients were randomly assigned to chemotherapy plus erlotinib (n=226) or chemotherapy plus placebo (n=225). PFS was significantly prolonged with chemotherapy plus erlotinib versus chemotherapy plus placebo (median PFS 7·6 months [95% CI 7·2-8·3], vs 6·0 months [5·6-7·1], hazard ratio [HR] 0·57 [0·47-0·69]; p<0·0001). Median overall survival for patients in the chemotherapy plus erlotinib and chemotherapy plus placebo groups was 18·3 months (16·3-20·8) and 15·2 months (12·7-17·5), respectively (HR 0·79 [0·64-0·99]; p=0·0420). Treatment benefit was noted only in patients with an activating EGFR gene mutation (median PFS 16·8 months [12·9-20·4] vs 6·9 months [5·3-7·6], HR 0·25 [0·16-0·39]; p<0·0001; median overall survival 31·4 months [22·2-undefined], vs 20·6 months [14·2-26·9], HR 0·48 [0·27-0·84]; p=0·0092). Serious adverse events were reported by 76 (34%) of 222 patients in the chemotherapy plus placebo group and 69 (31%) of 226 in the chemotherapy plus erlotinib group. The most common grade 3 or greater adverse events were neutropenia (65 [29%] patients and 55 [25%], respectively), thrombocytopenia (32 [14%] and 31 [14%], respectively), and anaemia (26 [12%] and 21 [9%], respectively). INTERPRETATION: Intercalated chemotherapy and erlotinib is a viable first-line option for patients with non-small-cell lung cancer with EGFR mutation-positive disease or selected patients with unknown EGFR mutation status. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Impact of LKB1 status on radiation outcome in patients with stage III non-small-cell lung cancer.

Preclinical studies suggest that loss of LKB1 expression renders cancer cells less responsive to radiation partly through NRF2-mediated upregulation of antioxidant enzymes protecting against radiation-induced DNA damage. Here we investigated the association of an alteration in this pathway with radio-resistance in lung cancer patients. Patients with locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC) who were treated with chemoradiotherapy (CRT) and analyzed for LKB1 expression using semiquantitative immunohistochemistry. Clinical characteristics and expression of LKB1 were analyzed for association with radiotherapy outcomes. We analyzed 74 available tumor specimens from 178 patients. After a median follow-up of 40.7 months, 2-year cumulative incidence of locoregional recurrence (LRR) in patients who had LKB1Low expression was significantly higher than those with LKB1High expression (68.8% vs. 31.3%, P = 0.0001). LKB1Low expression was found significantly associated with a higher incidence of distant metastases (DM) (P = 0.0008), shorter disease-free survival (DFS) (P = 0.006), and worse overall survival (OS) (P = 0.02) compared to LKB1High expression. Moreover, patients with LKB1Low expression showed a significantly higher 2-year cumulative incidence of LRR (77.6% vs. 21%; P = 0.02), higher DM recurrence (P = 0.002), and shorter OS (P < 0.0001) compared with the EGFR-mutant group. For all patients with LKB1Low who had LRR, these recurrences occurred within the field of radiation, in contrast to those with LKB1High expression having both in-field, marginal, and out-of-field failures. LKB1 expression may serve as a potential biomarker for poor outcomes after receiving radiation in LA-NSCLC patients. Further studies to confirm the association and application are warranted.

Top 20 EGFR+ NSCLC Clinical and Translational Science Papers That Shaped the 20 Years Since the Discovery of Activating EGFR Mutations in NSCLC. An Editor-in-Chief Expert Panel Consensus Survey.

The year 2024 is the 20th anniversary of the discovery of activating epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Since then, tremendous advances have been made in the treatment of NSCLC based on this discovery. Some of these studies have led to seismic changes in the concept of oncology research and spurred treatment advances beyond NSCLC, leading to a current true era of precision oncology for all solid tumors. We now routinely molecularly profile all tumor types and even plasma samples of patients with NSCLC for multiple actionable driver mutations, independent of patient clinical characteristics nor is profiling limited to the advanced incurable stage. We are increasingly monitoring treatment responses and detecting resistance to targeted therapy by using plasma genotyping. Furthermore, we are now profiling early-stage NSCLC for appropriate adjuvant targeted treatment leading to an eventual potential "cure" in early-stage EGFR+ NSCLC which have societal implication on implementing lung cancer screening in never-smokers as most EGFR+ NSCLC patients are never-smokers. All these advances were unfathomable in 2004 when the five papers that described "discoveries" of activating EGFR mutations (del19, L858R, exon 20 insertions, and "uncommon" mutations) were published. To commemorate this 20th anniversary, we assembled a global panel of thoracic medical oncology experts to select the top 20 papers (publications or congress presentation) from the 20 years since this seminal discovery with December 31, 2023 as the cutoff date for inclusion of papers to be voted on. Papers ranked 21 to 30 were considered "honorable mention" and also annotated. Our objective is that these 30 papers with their annotations about their impact and even all the ranked papers will serve as "syllabus" for the education of future thoracic oncology trainees. Finally, we mentioned potential practice-changing clinical trials to be reported. One of them, LAURA was published online on June 2, 2024 was not included in the list of papers to be voted on but will surely be highly ranked if this consensus survery is performed again on the 25th anniversay of the discovery EGFR mutations (i.e. top 25 papers on the 25 years since the discovery of activating EGFR mutations).

Development of Clinical Prediction Score for Chemotherapy Response in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients.

The outcomes of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients have been significantly improved with novel therapies, such as tyrosine kinase inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors. However, in resource-limited countries, platinum-doublet chemotherapy is mainly used as a first-line treatment. We investigate clinical parameters to predict the response after chemotherapy, which may be useful for patient selection. A clinical prediction score (CPS) was developed, based on data from a retrospective cohort study of unresectable stage IIIB or IV NSCLC patients who were treated with platinum-doublet chemotherapy in the first-line setting with at least two cycles and an evaluated response by RECIST 1.1 at Surin Hospital Cancer Center, Thailand, between July 2014 and December 2018. The clinical parameters in the prediction model were derived by risk regression analysis. There were 117 responders (CR or PR) and 90 non-responders (SD or PD). The clinical prediction score was developed by six clinical parameters including gender, age, smoking status, ECOG, pre-treatment albumin, and histologic subtype. The AuROC of the model was 0.71 (95% CI 0.63-0.78). The internal validation was performed using a bootstrap technique and showed a consistent AuROC of 0.66 (95% CI 0.59-0.72). The prediction score ranged from 0-13, with a score of 0-8 meaning a low probability (PPV = 50%) and a score of 8.5-13 meaning a high probability (PPV = 83.7%) for chemotherapy response. Advanced NSCLC patients who cannot access novel therapies and have a CPS of 8.5-13 have a high probability for chemotherapy response in the first-line setting. This CPS could be used for risk communication and making decisions with patients, especially in regard to chemotherapy.

Safety Following COVID-19 Booster Vaccine with BNT162b2 Compared to mRNA-1273 in Solid Cancer Patients Previously Vaccinated with ChAdOx1 or CoronaVac.

Safety data following the COVID-19 booster mRNA vaccine in solid cancer patients are scarce. We prospectively evaluated adverse events after a booster dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine as compared to the mRNA-1273 vaccine in solid malignancy patients who had previously received two doses of ChAdOx1 or heterogenous CoronaVac/ChAdOx1. Data regarding solicited and unsolicited adverse events were collected using questionnaires. The primary endpoint was the difference in incidence and severity of adverse events between BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines. A total of 370 subjects were enrolled, including 172 (47%) and 198 (54%) patients receiving booster doses of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines, respectively. The overall incidence of adverse events in the two groups was comparable (BNT162b2 vs. mRNA-1273; 63% vs. 66%, p = 0.6). There was no significant difference in severity, and the majority of adverse events reported were classed as mild to moderate. Tenderness at the injection site was the only reaction that had a statistically higher reported incidence after the mRNA-1273 vaccine than after the BNT162b2 vaccine (56% vs. 41%, p = 0.003). In conclusion, a booster dose of the mRNA vaccine, either BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273, in solid cancer patients previously vaccinated with ChAdOx1 and CoronaVac appears safe, and no new safety concerns were observed.

Efficacy and Safety of Ceritinib 450 mg/day with Food and 750 mg/day in Fasted State in Treatment-Naïve Patients with ALK+ Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Results from the ASCEND-8 Asian Subgroup Analysis.

PURPOSE: Previous report from the ASCEND-8 trial showed consistent efficacy with less gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity in patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase-rearranged (ALK+) advanced/metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with ceritinib 450-mg with food compared with 750-mg fasted. In this subgroup analysis, we report outcomes in Asian patients of the ASCEND-8 trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Key efficacy endpoints were blinded independent review committee (BIRC)-assessed overall response rate (ORR) and duration of response (DOR) evaluated per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors v1.1. Other efficacy endpoints were investigator-assessed ORR and DOR; BIRC- and investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) and disease control rate; overall survival (OS). Safety was evaluated by frequency and severity of adverse events. RESULTS: At final data cutoff (6 March 2020), 198 treatment-naïve patients were included in efficacy analysis, of which 74 (37%) comprised the Asian subset; 450-mg fed (n=29), 600-mg fed (n=19), and 750-mg fasted (n=26). Baseline characteristics were mostly comparable across study arms. At baseline, more patients in 450-mg fed arm (44.8%) had brain metastases than in 750-mg fasted arm (26.9%). Per BIRC, patients in the 450-mg fed arm had a numerically higher ORR, 24-month DOR rate and 24-month PFS rate than the 750-mg fasted arm. The 36-month OS rate was 93.1% in 450-mg fed arm and 70.9% in 750-mg fasted arm. Any-grade GI toxicity occurred in 82.8% and 96.2% of patients in the 450-mg fed and 750-mg fasted arms, respectively. CONCLUSION: Asian patients with ALK+ advanced/metastatic NSCLC treated with ceritinib 450-mg fed showed numerically higher efficacy and lower GI toxicity than 750-mg fasted patients.