Validated machine learning tools to distinguish immune checkpoint inhibitor, radiotherapy, COVID-19 and other infective pneumonitis.

BACKGROUND: Pneumonitis is a well-described, potentially disabling, or fatal adverse effect associated with both immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) and thoracic radiotherapy. Accurate differentiation between checkpoint inhibitor pneumonitis (CIP) radiation pneumonitis (RP), and infective pneumonitis (IP) is crucial for swift, appropriate, and tailored management to achieve optimal patient outcomes. However, correct diagnosis is often challenging, owing to overlapping clinical presentations and radiological patterns. METHODS: In this multi-centre study of 455 patients, we used machine learning with radiomic features extracted from chest CT imaging to develop and validate five models to distinguish CIP and RP from COVID-19, non-COVID-19 infective pneumonitis, and each other. Model performance was compared to that of two radiologists. RESULTS: Models to distinguish RP from COVID-19, CIP from COVID-19 and CIP from non-COVID-19 IP out-performed radiologists (test set AUCs of 0.92 vs 0.8 and 0.8; 0.68 vs 0.43 and 0.4; 0.71 vs 0.55 and 0.63 respectively). Models to distinguish RP from non-COVID-19 IP and CIP from RP were not superior to radiologists but demonstrated modest performance, with test set AUCs of 0.81 and 0.8 respectively. The CIP vs RP model performed less well on patients with prior exposure to both ICI and radiotherapy (AUC 0.54), though the radiologists also had difficulty distinguishing this test cohort (AUC values 0.6 and 0.6). CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate the potential utility of such tools as a second or concurrent reader to support oncologists, radiologists, and chest physicians in cases of diagnostic uncertainty. Further research is required for patients with exposure to both ICI and thoracic radiotherapy.

Multimodality local consolidative treatment versus conventional care of advanced lung cancer after first-line systemic anti-cancer treatment: study protocol for the RAMON multicentre randomised controlled trial with an internal pilot.

INTRODUCTION: Lung cancer is the most common cause of cancer death worldwide and most patients present with extensive disease. One-year survival is improving but remains low (37%) despite novel systemic anti-cancer treatments forming the current standard of care. Although new therapies improve survival, most patients have residual disease after treatment, and little is known on how best to manage it. Therefore, residual disease management varies across the UK, with some patients receiving only maintenance systemic anti-cancer treatment while others receive local consolidative treatment (LCT), alongside maintenance systemic anti-cancer treatment. LCT can be a combination of surgery, radiotherapy and/or ablation to remove all remaining cancer within the lung and throughout the body. This is intensive, expensive and impacts quality of life, but we do not know if it results in better survival, nor the extent of impact on quality of life and what the cost might be for healthcare providers. The RAMON study (RAdical Management Of Advanced Non-small cell lung cancer) will evaluate the acceptability, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of LCT versus no LCT after first-line systemic treatment for advanced lung cancer. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: RAMON is a pragmatic open multicentre, parallel group, superiority randomised controlled trial. We aim to recruit 244 patients aged 18 years and over with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer from 40 UK NHS hospitals. Participants will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive LCT alongside maintenance treatment, or maintenance treatment alone. LCT will be tailored to each patient's specific disease sites. Participants will be followed up for a minimum of 2 years. The primary outcome is overall survival from randomisation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The West of Scotland Research Ethics Committee (22/WS/0121) gave ethical approval in August 2022 and the Health Research Authority in September 2022. Participants will provide written informed consent before participating in the study. Findings will be presented at international meetings, in peer-reviewed publications, through patient organisations and notifications to patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN11613852.

Pericardial Fluid Analysis in Diagnosis and Prognosis of Patients Who Underwent Pericardiocentesis.

In this study, we aimed to examine the diagnostic yield of pericardial fluid biochemistry and cytology and their prognostic significance in patients with percutaneously drained pericardial effusions, with and without malignancy. This is a single-center, retrospective study of patients who underwent pericardiocentesis between 2010 and 2020. Data were extracted from electronic patient records, including procedural information, underlying diagnosis, and laboratory results. Patients were grouped into those with and without underlying malignancy. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to analyze the association of variables with mortality. The study included 179 patients; 50% had an underlying malignancy. There were no significant differences in pericardial fluid protein and lactate dehydrogenase between the 2 groups. Diagnostic yield from pericardial fluid analysis was greater in the malignant group (32% vs 11%, p = 0.002); 72% of newly diagnosed malignancies had positive fluid cytology. The 1-year survival was 86% and 33% in nonmalignant and malignant groups, respectively (p <0.001). Of 17 patients who died within the nonmalignant group, idiopathic effusions were the largest group (n = 6). In malignancy, lower pericardial fluid protein and higher serum C-reactive protein were associated with increased risk of mortality. In conclusion, pericardial fluid biochemistry has limited value in determining the etiology of pericardial effusions; fluid cytology is the most important diagnostic test. Mortality in malignant pericardial effusions may be associated with lower pericardial fluid protein levels and a higher serum C-reactive protein. Nonmalignant pericardial effusions do not have a benign prognosis and close follow-up is required.

The Impact of COVID-19 on Lung Cancer Incidence in England: Analysis of the National Lung Cancer Audit 2019 and 2020 Rapid Cancer Registration Datasets.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused significant disruption to health-care services and delivery worldwide. The impact of the pandemic and associated national lockdowns on lung cancer incidence in England have yet to be assessed. RESEARCH QUESTION: What was the impact of the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic on the incidence and presentation of lung cancer in England? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: In this retrospective observational study, incidence rates for lung cancer were calculated from The National Lung Cancer Audit Rapid Cancer Registration Datasets for 2019 and 2020, using midyear population estimates from the Office of National Statistics as the denominators. Rates were compared using Poisson regression according to time points related to national lockdowns in 2020. RESULTS: Sixty-four thousand four hundred fifty-seven patients received a diagnosis of lung cancer across 2019 (n = 33,088) and 2020 (n = 31,369). During the first national lockdown, a 26% reduction in lung cancer incidence was observed compared with the equivalent calendar period of 2019 (adjusted incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.74; 95% CI, 0.71-0.78). This included a 23% reduction in non-small cell lung cancer (adjusted IRR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.74-0.81) and a 45% reduction in small cell lung cancer (adjusted IRR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.46-0.65) incidence. Thereafter, incidence rates almost recovered to baseline, without overcompensation (adjusted IRR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.94-0.98). INTERPRETATION: The incidence rates of lung cancer in England fell significantly by 26% during the first national lockdown in 2020 and did not compensate later in the year.

Phase 1, pharmacogenomic, dose-expansion study of pegargiminase plus pemetrexed and cisplatin in patients with ASS1-deficient non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: We evaluated the arginine-depleting enzyme pegargiminase (ADI-PEG20; ADI) with pemetrexed (Pem) and cisplatin (Cis) (ADIPemCis) in ASS1-deficient non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) via a phase 1 dose-expansion trial with exploratory biomarker analysis. METHODS: Sixty-seven chemonaïve patients with advanced non-squamous NSCLC were screened, enrolling 21 ASS1-deficient subjects from March 2015 to July 2017 onto weekly pegargiminase (36 mg/m2 ) with Pem (500 mg/m2 ) and Cis (75 mg/m2 ), every 3 weeks (four cycles maximum), with maintenance Pem or pegargiminase. Safety, pharmacodynamics, immunogenicity, and efficacy were determined; molecular biomarkers were annotated by next-generation sequencing and PD-L1 immunohistochemistry. RESULTS: ADIPemCis was well-tolerated. Plasma arginine and citrulline were differentially modulated; pegargiminase antibodies plateaued by week 10. The disease control rate was 85.7% (n = 18/21; 95% CI 63.7%-97%), with a partial response rate of 47.6% (n = 10/21; 95% CI 25.7%-70.2%). The median progression-free and overall survivals were 4.2 (95% CI 2.9-4.8) and 7.2 (95% CI 5.1-18.4) months, respectively. Two PD-L1-expressing (≥1%) patients are alive following subsequent pembrolizumab immunotherapy (9.5%). Tumoral ASS1 deficiency enriched for p53 (64.7%) mutations, and numerically worse median overall survival as compared to ASS1-proficient disease (10.2 months; n = 29). There was no apparent increase in KRAS mutations (35.3%) and PD-L1 (<1%) expression (55.6%). Re-expression of tumoral ASS1 was detected in one patient at progression (n = 1/3). CONCLUSIONS: ADIPemCis was safe and highly active in patients with ASS1-deficient non-squamous NSCLC, however, survival was poor overall. ASS1 loss was co-associated with p53 mutations. Therapies incorporating pegargiminase merit further evaluation in ASS1-deficient and treatment-refractory NSCLC.

Retrospective analysis of real-world treatment patterns and clinical outcomes in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer starting first-line systemic therapy in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: The treatment landscape for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) has evolved rapidly since immuno-oncology (IO) therapies were introduced. This study used recent data to assess real-world treatment patterns and clinical outcomes in aNSCLC in the United Kingdom. METHODS: Electronic prescribing records of treatment-naive patients starting first-line (1 L) treatment for aNSCLC between June 2016 and March 2018 (follow-up until December 2018) in the United Kingdom were assessed retrospectively. Patient characteristics and treatment patterns were analyzed descriptively. Outcomes assessed included overall survival (OS), time to treatment discontinuation, time to next treatment, and real-world tumor response. RESULTS: In all, 1003 patients were evaluated (median age, 68 years [range, 28-93 years]; 53.9% male). Use of 1 L IO monotherapy (0-25.9%) and targeted therapy (11.8-15.9%) increased during the study period, but chemotherapy remained the most common 1 L treatment at all time points (88.2-58.2%). Median OS was 9.5 months (95% CI, 8.8-10.7 months) for all patients, 8.1 months (95% CI, 7.4-8.9 months) with chemotherapy, 14.0 months (95% CI, 10.7-20.6 months) with IO monotherapy, and 20.2 months (95% CI, 16.0-30.5 months) with targeted therapy. In the 28.6% of patients who received second-line treatment, IO monotherapy was the most common drug class (used in 51.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Although use of 1 L IO monotherapy for aNSCLC increased in the United Kingdom during the study period, most patients received 1 L chemotherapy. An OS benefit for first-line IO monotherapy vs chemotherapy was observed but was numerically smaller than that reported in clinical trials. Targeted therapy was associated with the longest OS, highlighting the need for improved treatment options for tumors lacking targetable mutations.

Cardiac computed tomography in cardio-oncology: an update on recent clinical applications.

Chemotherapy and radiotherapy have drastically improved cancer survival, but they can result in significant short- and long-term cardiovascular complications, most commonly heart failure from chemotherapy, whilst radiotherapy increases the risk of premature coronary artery disease (CAD), valve, and pericardial diseases. Cardiac computed tomography (CT) with calcium scoring has a role in screening asymptomatic patients for premature CAD, cardiac CT angiography (CTCA) allows the identification of significant CAD, also in the acute settings where concerns exist towards invasive angiography. CTCA integrates the diagnostic work-up and guides surgical/percutaneous management of valvular heart diseases and allows the assessment of pericardial conditions, including detection of effusion and pericardial calcification. It is a widely available and fast imaging modality that allows a one-step evaluation of CAD, myocardial, valvular, and pericardial disease. This review aims to provide an update on its current use and accompanying evidence-base for cardiac CT in the management of cardio-oncology patients.

Rationale for concurrent chemoradiotherapy for patients with stage III non-small-cell lung cancer.

When treating patients with unresectable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), those with a good performance status and disease measured within a radical treatment volume should be considered for definitive concurrent chemoradiotherapy (cCRT). This guidance is based on key scientific rationale from two large Phase 3 randomised studies and meta-analyses demonstrating the superiority of cCRT over sequential (sCRT). However, the efficacy of cCRT comes at the cost of increased acute toxicity versus sequential treatment. Currently, there are several documented approaches that are addressing this drawback, which this paper outlines. At the point of diagnosis, a multidisciplinary team (MDT) approach can enable accurate assessment of patients, to determine the optimal treatment strategy to minimise risks. In addition, reviewing the Advisory Committee on Radiation Oncology Practice (ACROP) guidelines can provide clinical oncologists with additional recommendations for outlining target volume and organ-at-risk delineation for standard clinical scenarios in definitive cCRT (and adjuvant radiotherapy). Furthermore, modern advances in radiotherapy treatment planning software and treatment delivery mean that radiation oncologists can safely treat substantially larger lung tumours with higher radiotherapy doses, with greater accuracy, whilst minimising the radiotherapy dose to the surrounding healthy tissues. The combination of these advances in cCRT may assist in creating comprehensive strategies to allow patients to receive potentially curative benefits from treatments such as immunotherapy, as well as minimising treatment-related risks.

Capivasertib Plus Paclitaxel Versus Placebo Plus Paclitaxel As First-Line Therapy for Metastatic Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: The PAKT Trial.

PURPOSE: The phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K)/AKT signaling pathway is frequently activated in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). The AKT inhibitor capivasertib has shown preclinical activity in TNBC models, and drug sensitivity has been associated with activation of PI3K or AKT and/or deletions of PTEN. The PAKT trial was designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of adding capivasertib to paclitaxel as first-line therapy for TNBC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized phase II trial recruited women with untreated metastatic TNBC. A total of 140 patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to paclitaxel 90 mg/m2 (days 1, 8, 15) with either capivasertib (400 mg twice daily) or placebo (days 2-5, 9-12, 16-19) every 28 days until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included overall survival (OS), PFS and OS in the subgroup with PIK3CA/AKT1/PTEN alterations, tumor response, and safety. RESULTS: Median PFS was 5.9 months with capivasertib plus paclitaxel and 4.2 months with placebo plus paclitaxel (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74; 95% CI, 0.50 to 1.08; 1-sided P = .06 [predefined significance level, 1-sided P = .10]). Median OS was 19.1 months with capivasertib plus paclitaxel and 12.6 months with placebo plus paclitaxel (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.99; 2-sided P = .04). In patients with PIK3CA/AKT1/PTEN-altered tumors (n = 28), median PFS was 9.3 months with capivasertib plus paclitaxel and 3.7 months with placebo plus paclitaxel (HR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.11 to 0.79; 2-sided P = .01). The most common grade ≥ 3 adverse events in those treated with capivasertib plus paclitaxel versus placebo plus paclitaxel, respectively, were diarrhea (13% v 1%), infection (4% v 1%), neutropenia (3% v 3%), rash (4% v 0%), and fatigue (4% v 0%). CONCLUSION: Addition of the AKT inhibitor capivasertib to first-line paclitaxel therapy for TNBC resulted in significantly longer PFS and OS. Benefits were more pronounced in patients with PIK3CA/AKT1/PTEN-altered tumors. Capivasertib warrants further investigation for treatment of TNBC.

Fulvestrant Plus Vistusertib vs Fulvestrant Plus Everolimus vs Fulvestrant Alone for Women With Hormone Receptor-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer: The MANTA Phase 2 Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Randomized clinical trials have demonstrated a substantial benefit of adding everolimus to endocrine therapy. Everolimus inhibits the mammalian target of rapamycin complex 1 (mTORC1) complex but not mTORC2, which can set off an activating feedback loop via mTORC2. Vistusertib, a dual inhibitor of mTORC1 and mTORC2, has demonstrated broad activity in preclinical breast cancer models, showing superior activity to everolimus. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of vistusertib in combination with fulvestrant compared with fulvestrant alone or fulvestrant plus everolimus in postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor-positive advanced or metastatic breast cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The MANTA trial is an open-label, phase 2 randomized clinical trial in which 333 patients with estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer progressing after prior aromatase inhibitor treatment underwent randomization (2:3:3:2) between April 1, 2014, and October 24, 2016, at 88 sites in 9 countries: 67 patients were assigned to receive fulvestrant, 103 fulvestrant plus vistusertib daily, 98 fulvestrant plus vistusertib intermittently, and 65 fulvestrant plus everolimus. Treatment was continued until disease progression, development of unacceptable toxic effects, or withdrawal of consent. Analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis. INTERVENTIONS: Fulvestrant alone or in combination with vistusertib (continuous or intermittent dosing schedules) or everolimus. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: Among the 333 women in the study (median age, 63 years [range, 56-70 years]), median PFS was 5.4 months (95% CI, 3.5-9.2 months) with fulvestrant, 7.6 months (95% CI, 5.9-9.4 months) with fulvestrant plus daily vistusertib, 8.0 months (95% CI, 5.6-9.9 months) with fulvestrant plus intermittent vistusertib, and 12.3 months (95% CI, 7.7-15.7 months) with fulvestrant plus everolimus. There was no significant difference in PFS between those receiving fulvestrant plus daily or intermittent vistusertib and fulvestrant alone (hazard ratio, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.63-1.24]; P = .46; and hazard ratio, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.55-1.12]; P = .16). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The combination of fulvestrant plus everolimus demonstrated significantly longer PFS compared with fulvestrant plus vistusertib or fulvestrant alone. The trial failed to demonstrate a benefit of adding the dual mTORC1 and mTORC2 inhibitor vistusertib to fulvestrant. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02216786 and EudraCT number: 2013-002403-34.

Assessment of contour variability in target volumes and organs at risk in lung cancer radiotherapy.

AIMS: This study aimed to examine whether any significant differences existed in trial protocol compliance in target volumes (TV) and organs at risk (OARs) contouring amongst clinical oncologists specialised in lung cancer radiotherapy. MATERIALS/METHODS: Two lung radiotherapy trials that require all prospective investigators to submit pre-trial outlining quality assurance (QA) benchmark cases were selected. The contours from the benchmark cases were compared against a set of reference contours which were defined by the trial management group (TMG). In order to quantify the degree of variation in TV and OARs contouring, the matching index (MI), Dice coefficient (DICE), Jaccard index (JI), Van't Riet Index and geographical miss index (GMI) were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 198 structures contoured by 21 clinicians were collected from the outlining benchmark cases. There were 40 clinical target volumes (CTV), 32 spinal cord, 36 oesophagus, 36 heart and 54 lungs volumes included in the study. Analysis of the pre-trial benchmark cases revealed statistically significant differences (p ≤ 0.05) in trial protocol compliances between clinical oncologists' target volume and organs at risk contours. Our results demonstrated that the lung contours had the highest level of conformity, followed by heart, CTV, spinal cord and oesophagus respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that there was a statistically significant difference in trial protocol compliance for lung clinical oncologists' TV and OARs contouring within the pre-trial QA benchmark cases. Trial protocol compliances of TV and OARs delineation can be identified through assessing outlining QA benchmark cases.

Study protocol for the SARON trial: a multicentre, randomised controlled phase III trial comparing the addition of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy and radical radiotherapy with standard chemotherapy alone for oligometastatic non-small cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Following growing evidence to support the safety, local control (LC) and potential improvement in overall survival (OS) in patients with oligometastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) that have been treated with local ablative therapy such as stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) and stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), we initiate the SARON trial to investigate the impact and feasibility of adding SABR/SRS and radical radiotherapy (RRT) following standard chemotherapy on OS. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: SARON is a large, randomised controlled, multicentre, phase III trial for patients with oligometastatic EGFR, ALK and ROS1 mutation negative NSCLC (1-3 sites of synchronous metastatic disease, one of which must be extracranial). 340 patients will be recruited over 3 years from approximately 30 UK sites and randomised to receive either standard platinum-doublet chemotherapy only (control arm) or standard chemotherapy followed by RRT/SABR to their primary tumour and then SABR/SRS to all other metastatic sites (investigational arm). The primary endpoint is OS; the study is powered to detect an improvement in median survival from 9.9 months in the control arm to 14.3 months in the investigational arm with 85% power and two-sided 5% significance level. The secondary endpoints are LC, progression-free survival, new distant metastasis-free survival, toxicity and quality of life. An early feasibility review will take place after 50 randomised patients. Patients requiring both conventional thoracic RT to the primary and SABR to a thoracic metastasis will be included in a thoracic SABR safety substudy to assess toxicity and planning issues in this subgroup of patients more thoroughly. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: All participants are given a SARON patient information sheet and required to give written informed consent. Results will be submitted for presentation at local and international conferences and expected to be published in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02417662. SPONSOR REFERENCE: UCL/13/0594.

Practical multimodal care for cancer cachexia.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Cancer cachexia is common and reduces function, treatment tolerability and quality of life. Given its multifaceted pathophysiology a multimodal approach to cachexia management is advocated for, but can be difficult to realise in practice. We use a case-based approach to highlight practical approaches to the multimodal management of cachexia for patients across the cancer trajectory. RECENT FINDINGS: Four cases with lung cancer spanning surgical resection, radical chemoradiotherapy, palliative chemotherapy and no anticancer treatment are presented. We propose multimodal care approaches that incorporate nutritional support, exercise, and anti-inflammatory agents, on a background of personalized oncology care and family-centred education. Collectively, the cases reveal that multimodal care is part of everyone's remit, often focuses on supported self-management, and demands buy-in from the patient and their family. Once operationalized, multimodal care approaches can be tested pragmatically, including alongside emerging pharmacological cachexia treatments. SUMMARY: We demonstrate that multimodal care for cancer cachexia can be achieved using simple treatments and without a dedicated team of specialists. The sharing of advice between health professionals can help build collective confidence and expertise, moving towards a position in which every team member feels they can contribute towards multimodal care.