Implementing circulating tumor DNA as a prognostic biomarker in resectable non-small cell lung cancer.

Systemic treatment of resectable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is evolving with emerging neoadjuvant, perioperative, and adjuvant immunotherapy approaches. Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) detection at clinical diagnosis, during neoadjuvant therapy, or after resection may discern high-risk patients who might benefit from therapy escalation or switch. This Review summarizes translational implications of data supporting ctDNA-based risk determination in NSCLC and outstanding questions regarding ctDNA validity/utility as a prognostic biomarker. We discuss emerging ctDNA capabilities to refine clinical tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) staging in lung adenocarcinoma, ctDNA dynamics during neoadjuvant therapy for identifying patients deriving suboptimal benefit, and postoperative molecular residual disease (MRD) detection to escalate systemic therapy. Considering differential relapse characteristics in landmark MRD-negative/MRD-positive patients, we propose how ctDNA might integrate with pathological response data for optimal postoperative risk stratification.

A Phase 1/2 Study to Evaluate the Safety and Activity of Nivolumab in Combination With Vorolanib, a Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor, in Patients With Refractory Thoracic Tumors.

Introduction: Targeting the tumor microenvironment may enhance response to immunotherapy (immune checkpoint inhibitors) and improve outcomes for patients. This study tested the safety and efficacy of vorolanib, a novel tyrosine kinase inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor, platelet-derived growth factor, and c-KIT, in combination with programmed cell death protein 1 blockade using nivolumab for refractory thoracic malignancies. Methods: This single-arm multicenter study enrolled patients with extensive-stage SCLC, thymic carcinoma, and NSCLC, either naive or had progressed on previous chemotherapy or immune checkpoint inhibitors (either primary or acquired resistance). The primary objective of phase 1 was to determine the maximum tolerated dose, and the primary end point for each dose-expansion cohort was the objective response rate. Results: A total of 88 patients were enrolled in phase 1 (n = 11) and dose expansion (n = 77) cohorts. Transaminitis was dose-limiting and expansion proceeded with oral vorolanib 200 mg daily combined with intravenous nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks. The objective response rate per cohort were as follows: NSCLC naive 33% (five of 15, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 13%-60%), NSCLC primary refractory 5.9% (one of 17, 95% CI: 0%-17.6%), NSCLC acquired resistance 11.1% (two of 18, 95% CI: 0%-27.8%); SCLC 0% (zero of 18), and thymic carcinoma 11% (one of nine, 95% CI: 0%-33%). Disease control rate ranged from 11.1% in SCLC (two of 18, 0%-27.8%) to 66.7 % in thymic carcinoma (six of nine, 95% CI: 33.3%-100%). The most common adverse events were fatigue (32%), aspartate transaminase (27%) and alanine transaminase elevation (25%), and diarrhea (19%). Transaminitis was more common in patients with thymic carcinoma than other tumors. Conclusions: Vorolanib plus nivolumab had a manageable safety profile and may have clinical benefits in various thoracic malignancies. The disease control rate in thymic malignancies warrants further assessment.

Disparities in outcomes between Black and White patients in North America with thoracic malignancies and COVID-19 infection (TERAVOLT).

BACKGROUND: Patients with thoracic malignancies who develop COVID-19 infection have a higher hospitalization rate compared to the general population and to those with other cancer types, but how this outcome differs by race and ethnicity is relatively understudied. METHODS: The TERAVOLT database is an international, multi-center repository of cross-sectional and longitudinal data studying the impact of COVID-19 on individuals with thoracic malignancies. Patients from North America with thoracic malignancies and confirmed COVID-19 infection were included for this analysis of racial and ethnic disparities. Patients with missing race data or races and ethnicities with fewer than 50 patients were excluded from analysis. Multivariable analyses for endpoints of hospitalization and death were performed on these 471 patients. RESULTS: Of the 471 patients, 73% were White and 27% were Black. The majority (90%) were non-Hispanic ethnicity, 5% were Hispanic, and 4% were missing ethnicity data. Black patients were more likely to have an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status ≥ 2 (p-value = 0.04). On multivariable analysis, Black patients were more likely than White patients to require hospitalization (Odds Ratio (OR): 1.69, 95% CI: 1.01-2.83, p-value = 0.044). These differences remained across different waves of the pandemic. However, no statistically significant difference in mortality was found between Black and White patients (OR 1.29, 95% CI: 0.69-2.40, p-value = 0.408). CONCLUSIONS: Black patients with thoracic malignancies who acquire COVID-19 infection are at a significantly higher risk of hospitalization compared to White patients, but there is no significant difference in mortality. The underlying drivers of racial disparity among patients with thoracic malignancies and COVID-19 infection require ongoing investigation.

Identification and Characterization of Avoidable Hospital Admissions in Patients With Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: More than 50% of patients with lung cancer are admitted to the hospital while receiving treatment, which is a burden to patients and the healthcare system. This study characterizes the risk factors and outcomes of patients with lung cancer who were admitted to the hospital. METHODS: A multidisciplinary oncology care team conducted a retrospective medical record review of patients with lung cancer admitted in 2018. Demographics, disease and admission characteristics, and end-of-life care utilization were recorded. Following a multidisciplinary consensus review process, admissions were determined to be either "avoidable" or "unavoidable." Generalized estimating equation logistic regression models assessed risks and outcomes associated with avoidable admissions. RESULTS: In all, 319 admissions for 188 patients with a median age of 66 years (IQR, 59-74 years) were included. Cancer-related symptoms accounted for 65% of hospitalizations. Common causes of unavoidable hospitalizations were unexpected disease progression causing symptoms, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbation, and infection. Of the 47 hospitalizations identified as avoidable (15%), the median overall survival was 1.6 months compared with 9.7 months (hazard ratio, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.34-3.19; P<.001) for unavoidable hospitalizations. Significant reasons for avoidable admissions included cancer-related pain (P=.02), hypervolemia (P=.03), patient desire to initiate hospice services (P=.01), and errors in medication reconciliation or distribution (P<.001). Errors in medication management caused 26% of the avoidable hospitalizations. Of admissions in patients receiving immunotherapy (n=102) or targeted therapy (n=44), 9% were due to adverse effects of treatment. Patients receiving immunotherapy and targeted therapy were at similar risk of avoidable hospitalizations compared with patients not receiving treatment (P=.3 and P=.1, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: We found that 15% of hospitalizations among patients with lung cancer were potentially avoidable. Uncontrolled symptoms, delayed implementation of end-of-life care, and errors in medication reconciliation were associated with avoidable inpatient admissions. Symptom management tools, palliative care integration, and medication reconciliations may mitigate hospitalization risk.

Associations of influenza vaccination with severity of immune-related adverse events in patients with advanced thoracic cancers on immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Background: Whether influenza vaccination (FV) is associated with the severity of immune-related adverse events (IRAEs) in patients with advanced thoracic cancer on immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) is not fully understood. Methods: Patients enrolled in this retrospective cohort study were identified from the Vanderbilt BioVU database and their medical records were reviewed. Patients with advanced thoracic cancer who received FV within 3 months prior to or during their ICI treatment period were enrolled in the FV-positive cohort and those who did not were enrolled in the FV-negative cohort. The primary objective was to detect whether FV is associated with decreased IRAE severity. The secondary objectives were to evaluate whether FV is associated with a decreased risk for grade 3-5 IRAEs and better survival times. Multivariable ordinal logistic regression was used for the primary analysis. Results: A total of 142 and 105 patients were enrolled in the FV-positive and FV-negative cohorts, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in patient demographics or cumulative incidences of IRAEs between the two cohorts. In the primary analysis, FV was inversely associated with the severity of IRAEs (OR 0.63; p=0.046). In the secondary analysis, FV was associated with a decreased risk for grade 3-5 IRAEs (OR 0.42; p=0.005). Multivariable Cox regression showed that FV was not associated with survival times. Conclusions: Our study showed that FV does not increase toxicity for patients with advanced thoracic cancer on ICIs and is associated with a decreased risk for grade 3-5 IRAEs. No statistically significant survival differences were found between patients with and without FV.

Cox Proportional Hazard Ratios Overestimate Survival Benefit of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: Cox-TEL Adjustment and Meta-Analyses of Programmed Death-Ligand 1 Expression and Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Survival Benefit.

INTRODUCTION: Survival benefit of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy in lung cancer is not fully understood. METHODS: PubMed-cataloged publications through February 14, 2022, were queried for randomized controlled trials of ICI in lung cancer, and identified publications were reviewed for inclusion. Reported Cox hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival were transformed to Cox-TEL HR for ICI short-term survivors (ST-HR) and difference in proportions for patients with long-term survival (LT-DP). Meta-analyses were performed using a frequentist random-effect model. Outcomes of interest were pooled overall survival Cox HR, ST-HR, and LT-DP in NSCLC, stratified by programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) level (primary outcome) and ICI treatment line (secondary). RESULTS: A total of nine publications representing eight clinical trials were selected for meta-analysis. Primary analysis yielded the following metrics for patients with PD-L1 expression less than 1%, more than or equal to 1%, and more than or equal to 50%, respectively: pooled Cox HR, 0.71 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.62-0.82), 0.74 (95% CI: 0.68-0.82), and 0.62 (95% CI: 0.54-0.70); pooled ST-HR, 0.91 (95% CI: 0.79-1.05), 0.88 (95% CI: 0.82-0.94), and 0.70 (95% CI: 0.60-0.83); and pooled LT-DP, 0.10 (95% CI: 0.00-0.20), 0.09 (95% CI: 0.06-0.12), and 0.11 (95% CI: 0.05-0.17). Results of secondary analysis revealed LT-DP of approximately 10% across treatment lines. CONCLUSIONS: This study reveals an approximately 10% long-term survival probability increment in ICI long-term survivors across PD-L1-positive subpopulations in both ICI treatment lines. Furthermore, ST-HR was consistently poorer than Cox HR. For patients with PD-L1 less than 1%, neither LT-DP nor ST-HR achieved statistical significance. The analysis provides greater insight into the treatment effect of ICI in published trials.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 Outcomes, Patient Vaccination Status, and Cancer-Related Delays During the Omicron Wave: A Brief Report From the TERAVOLT Analysis.

Introduction: The Thoracic Centers International coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) Collaboration (TERAVOLT) registry found approximately 30% mortality in patients with thoracic malignancies during the initial COVID-19 surges. Data from South Africa suggested a decrease in severity and mortality with the Omicron wave. Our objective was to assess mortality of patients with thoracic malignancies with the Omicron-predominant wave and evaluate efficacy of vaccination. Methods: A prospective, multicenter observational study was conducted. A total of 28 institutions contributed data from January 14, 2022, to February 4, 2022. Inclusion criteria were any thoracic cancer and a COVID-19 diagnosis on or after November 1, 2021. End points included mortality, hospitalization, symptomatic COVID-19 infection, asymptomatic COVID-19 infection, and delay in cancer therapy. Analysis was done through contingency tables and a multivariable logistic model. Results: We enrolled a total of 346 patients. Median age was 65 years, 52.3% were female, 74.2% were current or former smokers, 86% had NSCLC, 72% had stage IV at time of COVID-19 diagnosis, and 66% were receiving cancer therapy. Variant was unknown for 70%; for those known, Omicron represented 82%. Overall mortality was 3.2%. Using multivariate analysis, COVID-19 vaccination with booster compared with no vaccination had a protective effect on hospitalization or death (OR = 0.30, confidence interval: 0.15-0.57, p = 0.0003), whereas vaccination without booster did not (OR = 0.64, confidence interval: 0.33-1.24, p = 0.1864). Cancer care was delayed in 56.4% of the patients. Conclusions: TERAVOLT found reduced patient mortality with the most recent COVID-19 surge. COVID-19 vaccination with booster improved outcomes of hospitalization or death. Delays in cancer therapy remain an issue, which has the potential to worsen cancer-related mortality.

Short communication: The activity of brigatinib in patients with disease progression after next generation anaplastic lymphoma tyrosine kinase inhibitors and an exploratory analysis of circulating tumor DNA.

BACKGROUND: Brigatinib, a second generation anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), is central nervous system (CNS) penetrant and active against anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) resistance mutations. We prospectively studied the activity of brigatinib in patients with disease progression after second generation ALK TKIs. METHODS: Patients with stage IIIB/IV ALK + non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and progressive disease after second ALK TKIs were eligible. Cohort A enrolled patients with disease progression on any second ALK TKI, cohort B enrolled patients with disease progression after first-line therapy with alectinib, and cohort C enrolled patients who experienced disease progression on standard dose brigatinib. Brigatinib treatment was 90 mg daily for seven days and then escalated to 180 mg daily in cohorts A and B, and 240 mg daily in cohort C. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR), and a 2-stage design was used. The intended enrollment was 20 patients in stage 1, and 20 patients in stage 2. RESULTS: The study was closed due to slow accrual. Between March 2017 and June 2020, 32 patients received study therapy; three patients in cohort A moved to cohort C after initial progression for a total of 35 study subjects. Of the 32 patients, 16 (50%) were male, the median age was 55 years (range 32-76), and patients received a median number of 2 prior ALK TKI's (range 1-3). Cohort A enrolled 27 patients, cohort B enrolled four patients, and cohort C enrolled four patients. The ORR in cohorts A, B, and C was 33% (95% confidence interval (CI: 16% to 54%), 25% (95% CI: 0.63% to 81%), and 0%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Brigatinib has activity in ALK positive NSCLC patients with disease progression after second generation ALK TKIs.

Daratumumab Plus Atezolizumab in Previously Treated Advanced or Metastatic NSCLC: Brief Report on a Randomized, Open-Label, Phase 1b/2 Study (LUC2001 JNJ-54767414).

INTRODUCTION: The programmed death-ligand 1 inhibitor atezolizumab improves progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for patients with previously treated advanced NSCLC. Preclinical studies indicate that targeting CD38-positive cells with daratumumab may synergistically enhance atezolizumab's antitumor activity by increasing the effector T-cell activity. METHODS: This phase 1b-2 study included a safety run-in (one cycle of daratumumab plus atezolizumab) and randomized phases (daratumumab plus atezolizumab versus atezolizumab alone). The primary objective of the randomized phase was to compare overall response rates. The secondary objectives included evaluations of safety, clinical benefit rate (stable disease or better), PFS, OS, and pharmacokinetics. RESULTS: In total, 99 patients were enrolled (safety run-in, n = 7; randomized, n = 46 per arm). In the randomized phase, the overall response rate was 4.3% for daratumumab plus atezolizumab and 13.0% for atezolizumab alone (OR: 0.30; 95% confidence interval: 0.03-1.92). The respective clinical benefit rates were 52.2% and 43.5%. No improvements were observed in the median PFS or median OS for combination therapy. The study was terminated because of the limited efficacy of daratumumab plus atezolizumab. CONCLUSIONS: Daratumumab plus atezolizumab therapy did not improve efficacy versus atezolizumab monotherapy for patients with previously treated advanced NSCLC.

Circulating Tumor DNA as a Biomarker of Radiographic Tumor Burden in SCLC.

INTRODUCTION: Blood-based next-generation sequencing assays of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) have the ability to detect tumor-associated mutations in patients with SCLC. We sought to characterize the relationship between ctDNA mean variant allele frequency (VAF) and radiographic total-body tumor volume (TV) in patients with SCLC. METHODS: We identified matched blood draws and computed tomography (CT) or positron emission tomography (PET) scans within a prospective SCLC blood banking cohort. We sequenced plasma using our previously developed 14-gene SCLC-specific ctDNA assay. Three-dimensional TV was determined from PET and CT scans using MIM software and reviewed by radiation oncologists. Univariate association and multivariate regression analyses were performed to evaluate the association between mean VAF and total-body TV. RESULTS: We analyzed 75 matched blood draws and CT or PET scans from 25 unique patients with SCLC. Univariate analysis revealed a positive association between mean VAF and total-body TV (Spearman's ρ = 0.292, p < 0.01), and when considering only treatment-naive and pretreatment patients (n = 11), there was an increase in the magnitude of association (ρ = 0.618, p = 0.048). The relationship remained significant when adjusting for treatment status and bone metastases (p = 0.046). In the subgroup of patients with TP53 variants, univariate analysis revealed a significant association (ρ = 0.762, p = 0.037) only when considering treatment-naive and pretreatment patients (n = 8). CONCLUSIONS: We observed a positive association between mean VAF and total-body TV in patients with SCLC, suggesting mean VAF may represent a dynamic biomarker of tumor burden that could be followed to monitor disease status.

Ensartinib vs Crizotinib for Patients With Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase-Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Ensartinib, an oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor of anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK), has shown systemic and central nervous system efficacy for patients with ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). OBJECTIVE: To compare ensartinib with crizotinib among patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC who had not received prior treatment with an ALK inhibitor. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This open-label, multicenter, randomized, phase 3 trial conducted in 120 centers in 21 countries enrolled 290 patients between July 25, 2016, and November 12, 2018. Eligible patients were 18 years of age or older and had advanced, recurrent, or metastatic ALK-positive NSCLC. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized (1:1) to ensartinib, 225 mg once daily, or crizotinib, 250 mg twice daily. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary end point was blinded independent review committee-assessed progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included systemic and intracranial response, time to central nervous system progression, and overall survival. Efficacy was evaluated in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population as well as a prespecified modified ITT (mITT) population consisting of patients with central laboratory-confirmed ALK-positive NSCLC. RESULTS: A total of 290 patients (149 men [51.4%]; median age, 54 years [range, 25-90 years]) were randomized. In the ITT population, the median PFS was significantly longer with ensartinib than with crizotinib (25.8 [range, 0.03-44.0 months] vs 12.7 months [range, 0.03-38.6 months]; hazard ratio, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.35-0.72]; log-rank P < .001), with a median follow-up of 23.8 months (range, 0-44 months) for the ensartinib group and 20.2 months (range, 0-38 months) for the crizotinib group. In the mITT population, the median PFS in the ensartinib group was not reached, and the median PFS in the crizotinib group was 12.7 months (95% CI, 8.9-16.6 months; hazard ratio, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.30-0.66; log-rank P < .001). The intracranial response rate confirmed by a blinded independent review committee was 63.6% (7 of 11) with ensartinib vs 21.1% (4 of 19) with crizotinib for patients with target brain metastases at baseline. Progression-free survival for patients without brain metastases was not reached with ensartinib vs 16.6 months with crizotinib as a result of a lower central nervous system progression rate (at 12 months: 4.2% with ensartinib vs 23.9% with crizotinib; cause-specific hazard ratio, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.16-0.63; P = .001). Frequencies of treatment-related serious adverse events (ensartinib: 11 [7.7%] vs crizotinib: 9 [6.1%]), dose reductions (ensartinib: 34 of 143 [23.8%] vs crizotinib: 29 of 146 [19.9%]), or drug discontinuations (ensartinib: 13 of 143 [9.1%] vs crizotinib: 10 of 146 [6.8%]) were similar, without any new safety signals. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this randomized clinical trial, ensartinib showed superior efficacy to crizotinib in both systemic and intracranial disease. Ensartinib represents a new first-line option for patients with ALK-positive NSCLC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02767804.

Evidence-based smoking cessation treatment: a comparison by healthcare system.

BACKGROUND: A systems-level approach to smoking cessation treatment may optimize healthcare provider adherence to guidelines. Institutions such as the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) are unique in their systematic approach, but comparisons of provider behavior in different healthcare systems are limited. METHODS: We surveyed general medicine providers and specialists in a large academic health center (AHC) and its affiliated VHA in the Mid-South in 2017 to determine the cross-sectional association of healthcare system in which the provider practiced (exposure: AHC versus VHA) with self-reported provision of evidence-based smoking cessation treatment (delivery of counseling plus smoking cessation medication or referral) at least once in the past 12 months (composite outcome). Multivariable logistic regression with adjustment for specialty was performed in 2017-2019. RESULTS: Of 625 healthcare providers surveyed, 407 (65%) responded, and 366 (59%) were analyzed. Most respondents practiced at the AHC (273[75%] vs VHA 93[25%]) and were general internists (215[59%]); pulmonologists (39[11%]); hematologists/oncologists (69[19%]); and gynecologists (43[12%]). Most respondents (328[90%]) reported the primary outcome. The adjusted odds of evidence-based smoking cessation treatment were higher among VHA vs. AHC healthcare providers (aOR = 4.3; 95% CI 1.3-14.4; p = .02). Health systems differed by provision of individual treatment components, including smoking cessation medication use (98% VHA vs. 90% AHC, p = 0.02) and referral to smoking cessation services (91% VHA vs. 65% AHC p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: VHA healthcare providers were significantly more likely to provide evidence-based smoking cessation treatment compared to AHC healthcare providers. Healthcare systems' prioritization of and investment in smoking cessation treatment is critical to improving providers' adherence to guidelines.

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.

Establishing and Evaluating an ASCO Learning Cohort: a Longitudinal Project Assessing the Learning Needs and Behaviors of Oncology Professionals.

BACKGROUND: In 2013, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)'s Continuing Education Committee recommended establishing an interprofessional, longitudinal cohort pilot project. The main goals of the cohort were to gain feedback from oncology providers on how they use resources to address their learning needs and gain insights into the utility of different ASCO educational activities. METHODS: The ASCO Learning Cohort Pilot Project included 49 ASCO members that were representative of the overall Society membership demographics and ran from November 2015 through August 2016. Participants documented monthly learning needs and completed monthly feedback activities focused on specific ASCO educational resources. RESULTS: The Learning Cohort Pilot Project proved a viable and innovative cohort model for analyzing the learning process for oncology healthcare professionals. The development, operations, and compliance required unique infrastructure to accomplish this project. Relationships between participant demographic variables and learning preferences are reported elsewhere. CONCLUSION: The ASCO Learning Cohort Project is a unique educational project that demonstrated feasibility and has met its goals. This paper outlines the processes of establishing a learning cohort, including participant selection, project design, and participant feedback. We evaluate the project model as a means to better understand the learning needs and behaviors of oncology healthcare professionals.

Quantitative Assessment of Learning Behaviors for Oncology Providers.

How health care providers select topics and activities for learning is key to meeting their needs. The goal of this study was to investigate how oncology providers identify knowledge gaps and choose learning activities. An online focus group within a larger longitudinal study was conducted between November 2015 and August 2016. Participants were chosen by convenience and stratified random sampling of diverse types of oncology providers. Providers were asked monthly to identify learning needs, explain how they identified those needs, and describe the learning activity they chose to meet those needs. Thirty-two oncology providers recorded 201 learning needs via online journal entries (mean 6 entries per person). Needs were associated with practice setting and professional role (p < .05). Colleague recommendation predicted learning needs for advanced practice providers (APPs) (p = .003). Patient cases drove > 50% of identified learning needs across groups. Learning activity preferences were associated with practice setting (p < .05). Choice of learning activity was associated with practice setting, professional role, and geographic location. Colleague recommendation was important for APPs (p = .025). Over 75% of learner responses identify convenience and content quality as important factors in choosing an activity. This study represents a quantitative assessment of learning behaviors for oncology providers and shows that identification of learning needs and activity selection differ by provider demographics. Limitations include small size and underrepresentation of some groups. Our findings should be confirmed with larger samples. Future research should focus on assessment of cohort versus individual needs and learning priorities.

Preliminary Clinical and Molecular Analysis Results From a Single-Arm Phase 2 Trial of Brigatinib in Patients With Disease Progression After Next-Generation ALK Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors in Advanced ALK+ NSCLC.

INTRODUCTION: Brigatinib is a potent next-generation ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) with activity against ALK resistance mutations and central nervous system activity. We prospectively studied the activity and safety of brigatinib in patients with disease progression after other next-generation ALK TKIs. METHODS: Patients with stage IIIB or IV ALK+ NSCLC and progressive disease after next-generation ALK TKIs were eligible. Patients were required to undergo tumor biopsy less than or equal to 60 days before enrollment, and circulating tumor DNA was collected at baseline. Brigatinib treatment was 90 mg daily for 7 days and then escalated to 180 mg daily. Primary end point was objective response rate, and two-stage design was used. RESULTS: Between March 2017 and November 2018, a total of 20 patients were treated in stage 1; median age was 55 years (range: 32-71), median number of previous therapies was three (range: 1-6), median number of previous ALK TKIs was two (range: 1-4), and 11 had central nervous system disease at baseline. The objective response rate was 40% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 19%-62%), and the duration of response was 5.3 months (95% CI: 3.6-nonassessable). With follow-up of 22 months, the median progression-free survival was 7.0 months (95% CI: 4.6-10.1). Grade 3 or 4 adverse events were consistent with those of previous studies. CONCLUSIONS: Brigatinib has activity in ALK+ NSCLC after previous next-generation ALK TKIs. Further study in patients with disease progression on next-generation ALK TKI is warranted. National Clinical Trials #: NCT02706626.

How I Treat Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Refractory to Immunotherapy.

Lung cancer is a leading cause of cancer-related mortality despite continued advances in diagnostic and therapeutic strategies. Although the development of immune checkpoint inhibitors has revolutionized the treatment landscape for advanced non-small cell lung cancer, many patients either have primary resistance to these agents or eventually develop secondary resistance necessitating a change to an alternate therapy. Understanding novel patterns of response to immunotherapy is crucial in determining appropriate selection and sequencing of treatment. Chemotherapy remains the standard of care in immunotherapy-refractory disease, but multiple trials are ongoing to explore the role of combination radioimmunotherapy and rechallenging with immunotherapy either alone or in combination with other antineoplastic agents.

Randomized Trial of Afatinib Plus Cetuximab Versus Afatinib Alone for First-Line Treatment of EGFR-Mutant Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Final Results From SWOG S1403.

PURPOSE: The irreversible ErbB family tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) afatinib plus the EGFR monoclonal antibody cetuximab was previously shown to overcome resistance to EGFR TKIs. We studied whether the combination of afatinib plus cetuximab compared with afatinib alone would improve progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with treatment-naive EGFR-mutant non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) by preventing or delaying resistance. METHODS: Patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC without prior treatment of advanced disease were enrolled in this phase II, multicenter trial and randomly assigned to receive afatinib 40 mg orally daily plus cetuximab 500 mg/m2 intravenously every 2 weeks or afatinib alone. The primary end point was PFS. RESULTS: Between March 25, 2015 and April 23, 2018, 174 patients were randomly assigned, and 168 (83 on afatinib + cetuximab and 85 on afatinib) were eligible. There was no improvement in PFS in patients receiving afatinib plus cetuximab compared with afatinib alone (hazard ratio [HR], 1.01; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.43; P = .94; median, 11.9 months v 13.4 months). Similarly, there was no difference in response rate (67% v 74%; P = .38) or overall survival (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.50 to 1.36; P = .44). Toxicity was greater with the combination: grade ≥ 3 adverse events related to treatment occurred in 72% of patients receiving afatinib plus cetuximab compared with 40% of those receiving afatinib alone, most commonly rash and diarrhea. Dose reductions were more common in patients receiving the combination, and 30% of patients in this arm discontinued cetuximab due to toxicity. At interim analysis, there was insufficient evidence to support continued accrual, and the trial was closed. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of cetuximab to afatinib did not improve outcomes in previously untreated EGFR-mutant NSCLC, despite recognized activity in the acquired resistance setting.

Supporting Clinical Decision-Making during the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic through a Global Research Commitment: The TERAVOLT Experience.

To understand the real impact of COVID-19 on cancer patients, an entirely new data collection effort was initiated within the Thoracic Cancers International COVID-19 Collaboration (TERAVOLT). TERAVOLT reported high mortality related to COVID-19 infection in thoracic cancer patients and identified several negative prognostic factors. In this commentary, we discuss the importance and limits of patient registries to support decision-making in thoracic cancer during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.