Pathophysiology and Management of Chest Wall Pain after Surgical and Non-Surgical Local Therapies for Lung Cancer.

Chest wall pain syndromes can emerge following local therapies for lung cancer and can adversely affect patients' quality-of-life. This can occur after lung surgery, radiation therapy, or percutaneous image-guided thermal ablation. This review describes the multifactorial pathophysiology of chest wall pain syndromes that develop following surgical and non-surgical local therapies for lung cancer and summarizes evidence-based management strategies for inflammatory, neuropathic, myofascial, and osseous pain. It discusses a step-wise approach to treating chest wall pain that begins with non-opioid oral analgesics and includes additional pharmacologic treatments as clinically indicated, such as anticonvulsants, serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, tricyclic antidepressants, and various topical treatments. For myofascial pain, physical medicine techniques, such as acupuncture, trigger point injections, deep tissue massage, and intercostal myofascial release can also offer pain relief. For severe or refractory cases, opioid analgesics, intercostal nerve blocks, or intercostal nerve ablations may be indicated. Fortunately, palliation of treatment-related chest wall pain syndromes can be managed by most clinical providers, regardless of the type of local therapy utilized for a patient's lung cancer treatment. In cases where a patient's pain fails to respond to initial medical management, clinicians can consider referring to a pain specialist who can tailor a more specific pharmacologic approach or perform a procedural intervention to relieve pain.

Evaluation of Major Pathologic Response and Pathologic Complete Response as Surrogate End Points for Survival in Randomized Controlled Trials of Neoadjuvant Immune Checkpoint Blockade in Resectable in NSCLC.

INTRODUCTION: Controversy remains as to whether pathologic complete response (pCR) and major pathologic response (MPR) represent surrogate end points for event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) in neoadjuvant trials for resectable NSCLC. METHODS: A search of PubMed and archives of international conference abstracts was performed from June 2017 through October 31, 2023. Studies incorporating a neoadjuvant arm with immune checkpoint blockade alone or in combination with chemotherapy were included. Those not providing information regarding pCR, MPR, EFS, or OS were excluded. For trial-level surrogacy, log ORs for pCR and MPR and log hazard ratios for EFS and OS were analyzed using a linear regression model weighted by sample size. The regression coefficient and R2 with 95% confidence interval were calculated by the bootstrapping approach. RESULTS: Seven randomized clinical trials were identified for a total of 2385 patients. At the patient level, the R2 of pCR and MPR with 2-year EFS were 0.82 (0.66-0.94) and 0.81 (0.63-0.93), respectively. The OR of 2-year EFS rates by response status was 0.12 (0.07-0.19) and 0.11 (0.05-0.22), respectively. For the 2-year OS, the R2 of pCR and MPR were 0.55 (0.09-0.98) and 0.52 (0.10-0.96), respectively. At the trial level, the R2 for the association of OR for response and HR for EFS was 0.58 (0.00-0.97) and 0.61 (0.00-0.97), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our analyses reveal a robust correlation between pCR and MPR with 2-year EFS but not OS. Trial-level surrogacy was moderate but imprecise. More mature follow-up and data to assess the impact of study crossover are needed.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of immune checkpoint inhibitors as single agent or in combination with chemotherapy in early-stage non-small cell lung cancer: Impact of clinicopathological factors and indirect comparison between treatment strategies.

BACKGROUND: In non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) revolution is rapidly moving from metastatic to early-stage, however, the impact of clinicopathological variables and optimal treatment sequencing remain unclear. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in patients with early-stage NSCLC treated with ICI as single agent or in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy (PCT) were included. Primary outcomes were pathological complete response (pCR), event free survival (EFS) (neoadjuvant/perioperative), and disease-free survival (DFS) (adjuvant). Secondary outcomes were major pathological response (MPR), overall survival (OS), toxicity, surgical outcomes (neoadjuvant/perioperative); OS and toxicity (adjuvant). An additional secondary endpoint was to compare EFS and OS between neoadjuvant and perioperative strategies. RESULTS: 8 RCTs (2 neoadjuvant, 4 perioperative, 2 adjuvant) (4661 participants) were included. Neoadjuvant/perioperative ICI+PCT significantly improved pCR, EFS, OS, MPR and R0 resection compared to PCT. Adjuvant ICI significantly improved DFS compared to placebo. There was a significant subgroup interaction by PD-L1 status (χ2 = 10.72, P = 0.005), pCR (χ2 = 17.80, P < 0.0001), and stage (χ2 = 4.46, P = 0.003) for EFS. No difference according to PD-L1 status was found for pCR, with 14% of patients having PD-L1 negative tumors still experiencing a pCR. No interaction by PD-L1 status was found for DFS upon adjuvant ICI. Indirect comparison showed no difference in EFS and OS between neoadjuvant and perioperative ICI+PCT. CONCLUSIONS: PD-L1 status, pCR and stage impact on survival upon neoadjuvant/perioperative ICI. The restriction of neoadjuvant/perioperative ICI to PD-L1 + patients could preclude pCR and long-term benefit in the PD-L1- subgroup. Neoadjuvant and perioperative could be equivalent strategies.

What is the ideal endpoint in early-stage immunotherapy neoadjuvant trials in lung cancer?

Numerous clinical trials investigating neoadjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have been performed over the last 5 years. As the number of neoadjuvant trials increases, attention must be paid to identifying informative trial endpoints. Complete pathologic response has been shown to be an appropriate surrogate endpoint for clinical outcomes, such as event-free survival or overall survival, in breast cancer and bladder cancer, but it is less established for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The simultaneous advances reported with adjuvant ICI make the optimal strategy for early-stage disease debatable. Considering the long time required to conduct trials, it is important to identify optimal endpoints and discover surrogate endpoints for survival that can help guide ongoing clinical research. Endpoints can be grouped into two categories: medical and surgical. Medical endpoints are measures of survival and drug activity; surgical endpoints describe the feasibility of neoadjuvant approaches at a surgical level as well as perioperative attrition and complications. There are also several exploratory endpoints, including circulating tumor DNA clearance and radiomics. In this review, we outline the advantages and disadvantages of commonly reported endpoints for clinical trials of neoadjuvant regimens in NSCLC.

Multi-Institutional Patterns of Use of Tumor-Treating Fields for Patients with Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma.

(1) Background: The objective of this analysis was to evaluate the device usage rates and patterns of use regarding Tumor-Treating Fields (TTFields) for patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) throughout the US. (2) Methods: We evaluated de-identified data from 33 patients with MPM enrolled in FDA-required HDE protocols at 14 institutions across the US from September 2019 to March 2022. (3) Results: The median number of total TTFields usage days was 72 (range: 6-649 days), and the total treatment duration was 160 months for all patients. A low usage rate (defined as less than 6 h per day, 25%) was observed in 34 (21.2%) months. The median TTFields usage in the first 3 months was 12 h per day (range: 1.9-21.6 h), representing 50% (range: 8-90%) of the potential daily duration. The median TTFields usage after 3 months decreased to 9.1 h per day (range: 3.1-17 h), representing 38% (range: 13-71%) of the daily duration, and was lower than usage in the first 3 months (p = 0.01). (4) Conclusions: This study represents the first multicenter analysis of real-world TTFields usage based on usage patterns for MPM patients in clinical practice. The real-world usage level was lower than the suggested daily usage. Further initiatives and guidelines should be developed to evaluate the impact of this finding on tumor control.

The majority of patients with resectable incidental lung cancers are ineligible for lung cancer screening.

Objective: The study objective was to determine what proportion of asymptomatic patients had resectable lung cancer detected through lung cancer screening versus incidentally. Methods: We performed a retrospective study of patients who underwent resection for lung cancer between January 2015 and December 2020. We then assessed whether asymptomatic patients with incidentally found lung cancers were eligible for lung cancer screening using the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, United States Preventive Services Task Force, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, American College of Chest Physicians, American Cancer Society, and American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines. Results: Of 539 patients who underwent resection for primary lung cancer, 437 (81%) were asymptomatic and 355 (66%) of these patients had lung cancer found discovered incidentally. Of the 355 patients with incidentally detected lung cancer, 10 were excluded for insufficient data. Of the remaining 345 patients, 110 (32%) would have been eligible for screening using National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, 65 (19%) using 2021 United States Preventive Services Task Force guidelines, 53 (15%) using 2013 United States Preventive Services Task Force guidelines, 64 (19%) using 2022 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services guidelines, 52 (15%) using 2015 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services/American College of Chest Physicians guidelines, and 45 (13%) using American Cancer Society/American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines. Of the 280 patients who were screen ineligible by 2021 United States Preventive Services Task Force criteria, 143 patients (51%) never smoked, 112 patients (40%) quit smoking more than 15 years ago, 89 patients (32%) did not smoke at least 20 pack-years, and 44 patients (16%) were ineligible due to age. Conclusions: The majority of asymptomatic patients with resectable lung cancers had lung cancer identified incidentally and not through lung cancer screening. Most of these patients were not eligible for screening under current guidelines. This study suggests a need for improved lung cancer screening implementation and further investigation in the identification and assessment of risk factors for lung cancer.

EZH2 inhibitor tazemetostat in patients with relapsed or refractory, BAP1-inactivated malignant pleural mesothelioma: a multicentre, open-label, phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: Treatment options for malignant pleural mesothelioma are scarce. Tazemetostat, a selective oral enhancer of zeste homolog 2 (EZH2) inhibitor, has shown antitumour activity in several haematological cancers and solid tumours. We aimed to evaluate the anti-tumour activity and safety of tazemetostat in patients with measurable relapsed or refractory malignant pleural mesothelioma. METHODS: We conducted an open-label, single-arm phase 2 study at 16 hospitals in France, the UK, and the USA. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with malignant pleural mesothelioma of any histology that was relapsed or refractory after treatment with at least one pemetrexed-containing regimen, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and a life expectancy of greater than 3 months. In part 1 of the study, participants received oral tazemetostat 800 mg once on day 1 and then twice daily from day 2 onwards. In part 2, participants received oral tazemetostat 800 mg twice daily starting on day 1 of cycle 1, using a two-stage Green-Dahlberg design. Tazemetostat was administered in 21-day cycles for approximately 17 cycles. The primary endpoint of part 1 was the pharmacokinetics of tazemetostat and its metabolite at day 15 after administration of 800 mg tazemetostat, as measured by maximum serum concentration (Cmax), time to Cmax (Tmax), area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) to day 15 (AUC0-t), area under the curve from time 0 extrapolated to infinity (AUC0-∞), and the half-life (t1/2) of tazemetostat, assessed in all patients enrolled in part 1. The primary endpoint of part 2 was the disease control rate (the proportion of patients with a complete response, partial response, or stable disease) at week 12 in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma per protocol with BAP1 inactivation determined by immunohistochemistry. The safety population included all the patients who had at least one post-dose safety assessment. This trial is now complete and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02860286. FINDINGS: Between July 29, 2016, and June 2, 2017, 74 patients were enrolled (13 in part 1 and 61 in part 2) and received tazemetostat, 73 (99%) of whom had BAP1-inactivated tumours. In part 1, following repeat dosing of tazemetostat at steady state, on day 15 of cycle 1, the mean Cmax was 829 ng/mL (coefficient of variation 56·3%), median Tmax was 2 h (range 1-4), mean AUC0-twas 3310 h·ng/mL (coefficient of variation 50·4%), mean AUC0-∞ was 3180 h·ng/mL (46·6%), and the geometric mean t1/2 was 3·1 h (13·9%). After a median follow-up of 35·9 weeks (IQR 20·6-85·9), the disease control rate in part 2 in patients with BAP1-inactivated malignant pleural mesothelioma was 54% (95% CI 42-67; 33 of 61 patients) at week 12. No patients had a confirmed complete response. Two patients had a confirmed partial response: one had an ongoing partial response with a duration of 18 weeks and the other had a duration of 42 weeks. The most common grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events were hyperglycaemia (five [7%] patients), hyponatraemia (five [7%]), and anaemia (four [5%]); serious adverse events were reported in 25 (34%) of 74 patients. Five (7%) of 74 patients died while on study; no treatment-related deaths occurred. INTERPRETATION: Further refinement of biomarkers for tazemetostat activity in malignant pleural mesothelioma beyond BAP1 inactivation could help identify a subset of tumours that are most likely to derive prolonged benefit or shrinkage from this therapy. FUNDING: Epizyme.

Classification of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer's Tumor Immune Micro-Environment and Strategies to Augment Its Response to Immune Checkpoint Blockade.

Immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) with checkpoint inhibitors has led to significant and durable response in a subset of patients with advanced stage EGFR and ALK wild-type non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This has been consistently shown to be correlated with the unique characteristics of each patient's tumor immune micro-environment (TIME), including the composition and distribution of the tumor immune cell infiltrate; the expression of various checkpoints by tumor and immune cells, such as PD-L1; and the presence of various cytokines and chemokines. In this review, the classification of various types of TIME that are present in NSCLC and their correlation with response to ICB in NSCLC are discussed. This is conducted with a focus on the characteristics and identifiable biomarkers of different TIME subtypes that may also be used to predict NSCLC's clinical response to ICB. Finally, treatment strategies to augment response to ICB in NSCLC with unresponsive types of TIME are explored.

Management of a large delayed esophageal perforation in a fresh liver transplant patient with endoscopic placement of a nasopleural drainage tube-a case report.

Esophageal perforation in liver transplant recipients is a rare phenomenon. We herein report a case of an esophageal perforation due to Sengstaken-Blakemore tube in a liver-transplant recipient diagnosed 6 weeks post-transplant. A 2.5-cm mid-esophageal perforation communicating with large complex fluid collection in the pleural space was found. During endoscopy, 16Fr Salem Sump nasopleural tube (NP) was placed traversing through esophageal perforation into inferior aspect of the collection. Over the following 4 weeks, NP decompressed the cavity, allowed its closure and the tube was slowly retracted. By the end of 4 weeks, NP was removed with follow-up esophagogram showing no extravasation of contrast and a healed perforation. Hence, the esophageal perforation was successfully treated via this unique nonoperative approach without the need for major surgery. In instances of chronic leak with a stable patient, this nonoperative strategy should be considered even in immunocompromised patients.