Programmed Death Ligand-1 and Tumor Mutation Burden Testing of Patients With Lung Cancer for Selection of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapies: Guideline From the College of American Pathologists, Association for Molecular Pathology, International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, Pulmonary Pathology Society, and LUNGevity Foundation.

CONTEXT.­: Rapid advancements in the understanding and manipulation of tumor-immune interactions have led to the approval of immune therapies for patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Certain immune checkpoint inhibitor therapies require the use of companion diagnostics, but methodologic variability has led to uncertainty around test selection and implementation in practice. OBJECTIVE.­: To develop evidence-based guideline recommendations for the testing of immunotherapy/immunomodulatory biomarkers, including programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) and tumor mutation burden (TMB), in patients with lung cancer. DESIGN.­: The College of American Pathologists convened a panel of experts in non-small cell lung cancer and biomarker testing to develop evidence-based recommendations in accordance with the standards for trustworthy clinical practice guidelines established by the National Academy of Medicine. A systematic literature review was conducted to address 8 key questions. Using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, recommendations were created from the available evidence, certainty of that evidence, and key judgments as defined in the GRADE Evidence to Decision framework. RESULTS.­: Six recommendation statements were developed. CONCLUSIONS.­: This guideline summarizes the current understanding and hurdles associated with the use of PD-L1 expression and TMB testing for immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy selection in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer and presents evidence-based recommendations for PD-L1 and TMB testing in the clinical setting.

National Cancer Institute Collaborative Workshop on Shaping the Landscape of Brain Metastases Research: challenges and recommended priorities.

Brain metastases are an increasing global public health concern, even as survival rates improve for patients with metastatic disease. Both metastases and the sequelae of their treatment are key determinants of the inter-related priorities of patient survival, function, and quality of life, mandating a multidimensional approach to clinical care and research. At a virtual National Cancer Institute Workshop in September, 2022, key stakeholders convened to define research priorities to address the crucial areas of unmet need for patients with brain metastases to achieve meaningful advances in patient outcomes. This Policy Review outlines existing knowledge gaps, collaborative opportunities, and specific recommendations regarding consensus priorities and future directions in brain metastases research. Achieving major advances in research will require enhanced coordination between the ongoing efforts of individual organisations and consortia. Importantly, the continual and active engagement of patients and patient advocates will be necessary to ensure that the directionality of all efforts reflects what is most meaningful in the context of patient care.

Proceedings From the ASCO/College of American Pathologists Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Predictive Biomarker Summit.

PURPOSE: Immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) therapy represents one of the great advances in the field of oncology, highlighted by the Nobel Prize in 2018. Multiple predictive biomarkers for ICI benefit have been proposed. These include assessment of programmed death ligand-1 expression by immunohistochemistry, and determination of mutational genotype (microsatellite instability or mismatch repair deficiency or tumor mutational burden) as a reflection of neoantigen expression. However, deployment of these assays has been challenging for oncologists and pathologists alike. METHODS: To address these issues, ASCO and the College of American Pathologists convened a virtual Predictive Factor Summit from September 14 to 15, 2021. Representatives from the academic community, US Food and Drug Administration, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, National Institutes of Health, health insurance organizations, pharmaceutical companies, in vitro diagnostics manufacturers, and patient advocate organizations presented state-of-the-art predictive factors for ICI, associated problems, and possible solutions. RESULTS: The Summit provided an overview of the challenges and opportunities for improvement in assay execution, interpretation, and clinical applications of programmed death ligand-1, microsatellite instability-high or mismatch repair deficient, and tumor mutational burden-high for ICI therapies, as well as issues related to regulation, reimbursement, and next-generation ICI biomarker development. CONCLUSION: The Summit concluded with a plan to generate a joint ASCO/College of American Pathologists strategy for consideration of future research in each of these areas to improve tumor biomarker tests for ICI therapy.

A New Approach to Simplifying and Harmonizing Cancer Clinical Trials-Standardizing Eligibility Criteria.

Importance: Clinical trial sponsors rely on eligibility criteria to control the characteristics of patients in their studies, promote the safety of participants, and optimize the interpretation of results. However, in recent years, complex and often overly restrictive inclusion and exclusion criteria have created substantial barriers to patient access to novel therapies, hindered trial recruitment and completion, and limited generalizability of trial results. A LUNGevity Foundation working group developed a framework for lung cancer clinical trial eligibility criteria. The goals of this framework are to (1) simplify eligibility criteria, (2) facilitate stakeholders' (patients, clinicians, and sponsors) search for appropriate trials, and (3) harmonize trial populations to support intertrial comparisons of treatment effects. Observations: Clinicians and representatives from the pharmaceutical industry, the National Cancer Institute, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the European Medicines Agency, and the LUNGevity Foundation undertook a process to identify and prioritize key items for inclusion in trial eligibility criteria. The group generated a prioritized library of terms to guide investigators and sponsors in the design of first-line, advanced non-small cell lung cancer clinical trials intended to support marketing application. These recommendations address disease stage and histologic features, enrollment biomarkers, performance status, organ function, brain metastases, and comorbidities. This effort forms the basis for a forthcoming FDA draft guidance for industry. Conclusions and Relevance: As an initial step, the recommended cross-trial standardization of eligibility criteria may harmonize trial populations. Going forward, by connecting diverse stakeholders and providing formal opportunity for public input, the emerging FDA draft guidance may also provide an opportunity to revise and simplify long-standing approaches to trial eligibility. This work serves as a prototype for similar efforts now underway for other cancers.

A qualitative study of interactions with oncologists among patients with advanced lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: To support the care of lung cancer patients, oncologists have needed to stay current on treatment advancements and build relationships with a new group of survivors in an era where lung cancer survivorship has been re-defined. The objectives of the study were to (1) understand the perspectives of advanced lung cancer patients whose tumors have oncogenic alterations about their care experiences with their oncologist(s) and (2) describe the perceptions of advanced lung cancer patients about seeking second opinions and navigating care decisions. METHODS: In this qualitative study, patients with advanced lung cancer (n = 25) on targeted therapies were interviewed to discuss their ongoing experience with their oncologists. We used deductive and inductive qualitative approaches in the coding of the data. We organized the data using the self-determination framework. RESULTS: Patients described both positive and negative aspects of their care as related to autonomy, provider competency, and connectedness. Patients sought second opinions for three primary reasons: expertise, authoritative advice, and access to clinical trial opportunities. When there is disagreement in the treatment plan between the primary oncologist and the specialist, there can be confusion and tension, and patients have to make difficult choices about their path forward. CONCLUSIONS: Patients value interactions that support their autonomy, demonstrate the competency of their providers, and foster connectedness. To ensure that patients receive quality and goal-concordant care, developing decision aids and education materials that help patients negotiate recommendations from two providers is an area that deserves further attention.

Defining comprehensive biomarker-related testing and treatment practices for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: Results of a survey of U.S. oncologists.

BACKGROUND: An ASCO taskforce comprised of representatives of oncology clinicians, the American Cancer Society National Lung Cancer Roundtable (NLCRT), LUNGevity, the GO2 Foundation for Lung Cancer, and the ROS1ders sought to: characterize U.S. oncologists' biomarker ordering and treatment practices for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC); ascertain barriers to biomarker testing; and understand the impact of delays on treatment decisions. METHODS: We deployed a survey to 2374 ASCO members, targeting U.S. thoracic and general oncologists. RESULTS: We analyzed 170 eligible responses. For non-squamous NSCLC, 97% of respondents reported ordering tests for EGFR, ALK, ROS1, and BRAF. Testing for MET, RET, and NTRK was reported to be higher among academic versus community providers and higher among thoracic oncologists than generalists. Most respondents considered 1 (46%) or 2 weeks (52%) an acceptable turnaround time, yet 37% usually waited three or more weeks to receive results. Respondents who waited ≥3 weeks were more likely to defer treatment until results were reviewed (63%). Community and generalist respondents who waited ≥3 weeks were more likely to initiate non-targeted treatment while awaiting results. Respondents <5 years out of training were more likely to cite their concerns about waiting for results as a reason for not ordering biomarker testing (42%, vs. 19% with ≥6 years of experience). CONCLUSIONS: Respondents reported high biomarker testing rates in patients with NSCLC. Treatment decisions were impacted by test turnaround time and associated with practice setting and physician specialization and experience.

The Effect of Fluid Flow Shear Stress and Substrate Stiffness on Yes-Associated Protein (YAP) Activity and Osteogenesis in Murine Osteosarcoma Cells.

Osteosarcoma (OS) is an aggressive bone cancer originating in the mesenchymal lineage. Prognosis for metastatic disease is poor, with a mortality rate of approximately 40%; OS is an aggressive disease for which new treatments are needed. All bone cells are sensitive to their mechanical/physical surroundings and changes in these surroundings can affect their behavior. However, it is not well understood how OS cells specifically respond to fluid movement, or substrate stiffness-two stimuli of relevance in the tumor microenvironment. We used cells from spontaneous OS tumors in a mouse engineered to have a bone-specific knockout of pRb-1 and p53 in the osteoblast lineage. We silenced Sox2 (which regulates YAP) and tested the effect of fluid flow shear stress (FFSS) and substrate stiffness on YAP expression/activity-which was significantly reduced by loss of Sox2, but that effect was reversed by FFSS but not by substrate stiffness. Osteogenic gene expression was also reduced in the absence of Sox2 but again this was reversed by FFSS and remained largely unaffected by substrate stiffness. Thus we described the effect of two distinct stimuli on the mechanosensory and osteogenic profiles of OS cells. Taken together, these data suggest that modulation of fluid movement through, or stiffness levels within, OS tumors could represent a novel consideration in the development of new treatments to prevent their progression.

Cancer Patients' Perspectives and Experiences of Chemotherapy-Induced Myelosuppression and Its Impact on Daily Life.

PURPOSE: To evaluate which side effects of chemotherapy are considered most burdensome by patients with cancer, identify which health care professionals pay most attention to symptoms associated with chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression (CIM) from the patient perspective, and capture the "patient voice" describing how CIM impacts their daily lives. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: Online survey of participants with breast, lung, or colorectal cancer who had received chemotherapy within the past 12 months and experienced ≥1 episode of CIM in the past year. Participants were asked to answer close-ended questions and provide qualitative responses to: "In your own words, please describe how side effects from myelosuppression have impacted your life." RESULTS: Among 301 survey participants, fatigue was the most frequently reported side effect of chemotherapy; 55% of participants rated fatigue as highly bothersome (9 or 10 on a 1-10 scale of "bothersomeness"). Participants rated symptoms associated with CIM, including fatigue, weakened immune system (infections), bleeding and/or bruising, and shortness of breath, as being as bothersome as other side effects of chemotherapy, including alopecia, neuropathy, and nausea/vomiting. Overall, 24-43% of participants thought that CIM and its symptoms had a negative impact on their daily lives, including their ability to complete tasks at home and work, and to socialize. Qualitative responses supported these findings; participants highlighted that CIM-related symptoms, particularly fatigue and fear of infections, affected their ability to be physically active, complete work, or continue meaningful relationships with friends and family. CONCLUSION: Participants described a real-world impact of CIM that often isolates them from family and friends, and means that they are unable to work or perform tasks of daily living. Using measures that help patients to recognize and communicate the signs and symptoms of CIM might increase the likelihood of maintaining daily lives as close to normal as possible, during and after chemotherapy treatment.

Modernizing Clinical Trial Eligibility Criteria: Recommendations of the ASCO-Friends of Cancer Research Performance Status Work Group.

PURPOSE: Performance status (PS) is one of the most common eligibility criteria. Many trials are limited to patients with high-functioning PS, resulting in important differences between trial participants and patient populations with the disease. In addition, existing PS measures are subjective and susceptible to investigator bias. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: A multidisciplinary working group of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and Friends of Cancer Research evaluated how PS eligibility criteria could be more inclusive. The working group recommendations are based on a literature search, review of trials, simulation study, and multistakeholder consensus. The working group prioritized inclusiveness and access to investigational therapies, while balancing patient safety and study integrity. RESULTS: Broadening PS eligibility criteria may increase the number of potentially eligible patients for a given clinical trial, thus shortening accrual time. It may also result in greater participant diversity, potentially reduce trial participant and patient disparities, and enable clinicians to more readily translate trial results to patients with low-functioning PS. Potential impact on outcomes was explored through a simulation trial demonstrating that when the number of Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group PS2 participants was relatively small, the effect on the estimated HR and power was modest, even when PS2 patients did not derive a treatment benefit. CONCLUSIONS: Expanding PS eligibility criteria to be more inclusive may be justified in many cases and could result in faster accrual rates and more representative trial populations.See related commentary by Giantonio, p. 2369.

Line of therapy and patient preferences regarding lung cancer treatment: a discrete-choice experiment.

OBJECTIVE: A growing literature on patient preferences informs decisions in research, regulatory science, and value assessment, but few studies have explored how preferences vary across patients with differing treatment experience. We sought to quantify patient preferences for the benefits and risks of lung cancer treatment and test how preferences differed by line of therapy (LOT). METHODS: Preferences were elicited using a discrete choice experiment (DCE) following rigorous patient and stakeholder engagement. The DCE spanned five attributes (each with three levels): progression-free survival (PFS), short-term side effects, long-term side effects, risk of developing late-onset side effects, and mode of administration (MOA) - each defined across 3 relevant levels. A D-efficient design was used to generate 3 survey blocks of 9 paired-profile choice tasks each and respondents were asked which profile they preferred and then if they preferred to have no treatment (opt-out). A mixed logit model, controlling for opt-out, was used to estimate preferences. Preferences and trade-offs between PFS and other attributes were compared across two groups: those receiving ≤1 LOT and those receiving ≥2 LOT. RESULTS: Of the 466 participants, 42% received ≤1 LOT and 58% received ≥2 LOT. Stated preferences differed between the groups overall (p<.001) and specifically for 18 months of PFS (p<.001), moderate short-term side effects (p<.001), no long-term side effects (p=.03), and 30% chance of late-onset side effects (p=.02). Those receiving differing amounts of LOT were willing to trade different amounts of PFS to change from moderate to mild short-term side effects (p<.001), moderate to no (p<.001) and mild to no (p<.001) long-term side effects. There were also differing amounts of tradeoff acceptable between the groups for a 10% decrease in risk of late-onset side effects (p=.016), a decrease in MOA from infusion every 3 weeks to pills taken daily at any time (p=.005) and from pills taken daily without food to pills taken daily at any time (p<.001). CONCLUSION: We demonstrate differences in preferences based on experience with LOT, suggesting that patient treatment experience may have an impact on their preferences. As patient preference data become an important component of treatment decision making, preference differences should be considered when recommending therapies at different stages in the treatment journey. Understanding patient preferences regarding treatment decisions is essential to informing shared decision-making and ensuring treatment plans are consistent with patients' goals.

Reducing Uninformative IND Safety Reports: A List of Serious Adverse Events anticipated to Occur in Patients with Lung Cancer.

Expedited reporting of unexpected serious adverse reactions that occur during clinical trials conducted under an IND is a critical component of the clinical trial process designed to protect patients by identifying potential safety issues with new agents. However, in recent years, the US FDA has presented extensive data about the problem of uninformative IND safety reporting. Despite published guidance documents aimed at clarifying requirements for submission of IND safety reports for individual events, there continues to be significant over-reporting of these events by many sponsors. This leads to excessive burden for the sponsors, the investigators who conduct clinical trials, and the FDA reviewers, who must evaluate each individual report submitted by the sponsor. This trend has the potential to endanger patients by obscuring true safety signals. To address this problem, LUNGevity Foundation empaneled a multi-sector working group of its Scientific and Clinical Research Roundtable (SCRT) charged with identifying ways to reduce unnecessary distribution of serious adverse events (SAEs) reports. This paper outlines the working group's activities, including a brief list of serious adverse events "anticipated" to occur within the lung cancer population that are either related to the underlying disease or condition being studied, concomitant or background therapy, or events associated with a demographic parameter such as age. These "anticipated" events, while required to be reported by investigators to sponsors, in general, should not then be individually reported by sponsors to FDA and to individual investigators in an IND safety report because these events require aggregate analysis across the development program to determine if they occur more frequently in treated versus untreated patients. This paper also includes discussion of how the use of background threshold values, generated from real-world data, could serve as one potential tool to guide sponsors in making causality assessments. If sponsors and other key stakeholders within the clinical research ecosystem embrace this type of approach and refrain from reporting "anticipated" events as single IND safety reports to the FDA staff and to each participating investigator, it could significantly reduce the amount of unnecessary reporting and serve as a model for other disease areas.

Patient Burden and Real-World Management of Chemotherapy-Induced Myelosuppression: Results from an Online Survey of Patients with Solid Tumors.

INTRODUCTION: Chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression (CIM) is one of the most common dose-limiting complications of cancer treatment, and is associated with a range of debilitating symptoms that can significantly impact patients' quality of life. The purpose of this study was to understand patients' perspectives on how the side effects of CIM are managed in routine clinical practice. METHODS: An online survey was conducted of participants with breast, lung, or colorectal cancer who had received chemotherapy treatment within the past 12 months, and had experienced at least one episode of myelosuppression in the past year. The survey was administered with predominantly close-ended questions, and lay definitions of key terms were provided to aid response selection. RESULTS: Of 301 participants who completed the online survey, 153 (51%) had breast cancer, 100 (33%) had lung cancer, and 48 (16%) had colorectal cancer. Anemia, neutropenia, lymphopenia, and thrombocytopenia were reported by 61%, 59%, 37%, and 34% of participants, respectively. Most participants (79%) reported having received treatment for CIM, and 64% of participants recalled chemotherapy dose modifications as a result of CIM. Although most participants believed their oncologist was aware of the side effects of CIM, and treated them quickly, 30% of participants felt their oncologists did not understand how uncomfortable they were due to the side effects of CIM. Overall, 88% of participants considered CIM to have a moderate or major impact on their lives. CONCLUSION: The data highlight that despite the various methods used to address CIM, and the patient-focused approach of oncologists, the real-world impact of CIM on patients is substantial. Improving communication between patients and health care providers may help improve patients' understanding of CIM, and foster shared decision-making in terms of treatment. Additional insights from patients should be obtained to further elucidate the totality of life burden associated with CIM.

This study looked at people with cancer who received chemotherapy and developed a condition where their bone marrow activity was reduced, called myelosuppression. This meant they had fewer red blood cells that carry oxygen around the body, white blood cells that help fight infections, and platelets that help the blood to clot. The researchers wanted to understand how chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression affects peoples' lives and their cancer treatment, and people's experiences of treatment for myelosuppression. Overall, 301 people in the USA with breast, lung, or large bowel (colorectal) cancer completed an online survey. They had all received chemotherapy in the last year, and had myelosuppression at least once during their treatment. The survey showed that around 8 in 10 people (79%) had to be treated for myelosuppression, and around 7 in 10 people (73%) felt they received treatment for myelosuppression quickly. Chemotherapy was delayed, reduced, or stopped because of myelosuppression in around 6 in 10 people (64%). Around 3 in 10 people (30%) felt their oncologist did not understand the discomfort that myelosuppression caused them, and around 9 in 10 people (88%) felt that myelosuppression made their quality of life worse. The researchers concluded that because myelosuppression impacts peoples' lives and their ability to keep receiving chemotherapy to treat their cancer, effective prevention and treatment for this condition are important. Better communication between people and their health care teams could help them to understand how people experience myelosuppression and make plans for treatment together.

Expanding Access to Lung Cancer Clinical Trials by Reducing the Use of Restrictive Exclusion Criteria: Perspectives of a Multistakeholder Working Group.

Low rates of adult patient participation have been a persistent problem in cancer clinical trials and have continued to be a barrier to efficient drug development. The routine use of significant exclusion criteria has contributed to this problem by limiting participation in studies and creating significant clinical differences between the study cohorts and the real-world cancer patient populations. These routine exclusions also unnecessarily restrict opportunities for many patients to access potentially promising new therapies during clinical development. Multiple efforts are underway to broaden eligibility criteria, allowing more patients to enroll in studies and generating more robust data regarding the effect of novel therapies in the population at large. Focusing specifically on lung cancer as an example, a multistakeholder working group empaneled by the LUNGevity Foundation identified 14 restrictive and potentially outdated exclusion criteria that appear frequently in lung cancer clinical trials. As a part of the project, the group evaluated data from multiple recent lung cancer studies to ascertain the extent to which these 14 criteria appeared in study protocols and played a role in excluding patients (screen failures). The present report describes the working group's efforts to limit the use of these routine exclusions and presents clinical justifications for reducing the use of 14 criteria as routine exclusions in lung cancer studies, potentially expanding trial eligibility and improving the generalizability of the results from lung cancer trials.

Osteosarcoma cell proliferation and survival requires mGluR5 receptor activity and is blocked by Riluzole.

Osteosarcomas are malignant tumors of bone, most commonly seen in children and adolescents. Despite advances in modern medicine, the poor survival rate of metastatic osteosarcoma has not improved in two decades. In the present study we have investigated the effect of Riluzole on a human and mouse metastatic osteosarcoma cells. We show that LM7 cells secrete glutamate in the media and that mGluR5 receptors are required for the proliferation of LM7 cells. Riluzole, which is known to inhibit glutamate release, inhibits proliferation, induces apoptosis and prevents migration of LM7 cells. This is also seen with Fenobam, a specific blocker of mGluR5. We also show that Riluzole alters the phosphorylation status of AKT/P70 S6 kinase, ERK1/2 and JNK1/2. Thus Riluzole is an effective drug to inhibit proliferation and survival of osteosarcoma cells and has therapeutic potential for the treatment of osteosarcoma exhibiting autocrine glutamate signaling.