Treatment patterns and outcomes in KRASG12C-positive advanced NSCLC patients previously treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: A Canada-wide real-world, multi-center, retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: KRAS mutations, particularly KRASG12C, are prevalent in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have been a frontline treatment, but recently developed KRASG12C-selective inhibitors, such as sotorasib, present new therapeutic options. We conducted a multi-center retrospective cohort study to gain insights into real-world treatment patterns and outcomes in patients with KRASG12C-positive advanced NSCLC receiving systemic therapy post-ICI treatment. METHODS: From the CAnadian CAncers With Rare Molecular Alterations-Basket Real-world Observational Study (CARMA-BROS), a cohort of 102 patients with KRASG12C-positive advanced NSCLC across 9 Canadian centers diagnosed between 2015 and 2021 was analyzed. Clinico-demographic and treatment data were obtained from electronic health records. Survival outcomes were assessed using Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: The patients (median age 66 years; 58 % female; 99 % current/former tobacco exposure; 59 % PD-L1 ≥ 50 %), exhibited heterogeneous treatment patterns post-ICI. Most patients received ICIs as a first-line therapy, with varying subsequent lines including chemotherapy and targeted therapy. In patients receiving systemic therapy post-ICI, median overall survival was 12.6 months, and real-world progression-free survival was 4.7 months. KRASG12C-selective targeted therapy post-ICI (n = 20) showed longer real-world progression-free survival compared to single-agent chemotherapy (aHR = 0.39, p = 0.012). CONCLUSION: This study contributes valuable real-world data on KRASG12C-positive advanced NSCLC post-ICI treatment. The absence of a standard treatment sequencing post-ICI underscores the need for further investigation and consensus-building in the evolving landscape of KRASG12C-targeted therapies.

Neurocognitive Adverse Events Related to Lorlatinib in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Lorlatinib has been FDA-approved as a systemic therapy for ALK/ROS1-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. However, it has been associated with an increased frequency of neurocognitive adverse events (NAEs). Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the NAEs related to lorlatinib therapy in NSCLC patients. PubMed, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, and prominent conference proceedings were searched for eligible studies of lorlatinib in NSCLC patients. NAEs included cognitive, mood, speech, and psychotic effects. A total of 1147 patients from 12 studies were included; 62% had brain metastases. A pooled analysis of NAEs showed frequencies of cognitive effects of 14.57% (95% CI, 8.37 to 24.14, I2 = 84%), mood effects of 11.17% (95% CI, 5.93 to 20.07, I2 = 84%), speech effects of 7.24% (95% CI, 3.39 to 15.20, I2 = 72%), and psychotic effects of 4.97% (95% CI, 3.27 to 7.49, I2 = 21%). Clinical trials reported a significantly higher frequency of mood effects than was indicated by real-world data. These results highlight the importance of educating patients and healthcare professionals about lorlatinib-related NAEs for early detection and management to improve NSCLC patients' quality of life.

Immediate Versus Deferred Systemic Therapy in Patients With Mesothelioma.

BACKGROUND: The 2018 ASCO pleural mesothelioma (PM) treatment guideline states that "a trial of expectant observation may be offered" in patients with asymptomatic inoperable epithelioid mesothelioma with low disease burden. The aim of our analysis was to evaluate clinical characteristics and outcomes in PM-patients managed with initial observation and deferred treatment initiation. METHODS: We retrospectively collected clinicodemograhic and outcome data of patients with inoperable PM. Patients were assigned to 2 treatment decision groups: decision to start immediate systemic treatment (Immediate Treatment Group) versus observation and deferring treatment (Deferred Treatment group). RESULTS: Of 222 patients with advanced PM, systemic treatment was started immediately in the majority of patients (189, 85%; immediate group); treatment was deferred in 33 (15%) patients (deferred group); systemic therapy was chemotherapy-based in 91% and 79% respectively. Patients in the deferred group were older (70 vs 67 years, p = .05), less likely to have stage IV disease (28% vs. 51%, p = .08) and more often had epithelioid histology (90% vs. 70%, p = .03). Nineteen patients (58%) in the deferred group eventually received treatment. With a median follow-up time of 10.9 months median overall survival (OS) in the entire cohort was 12.4 months and was significantly longer in the deferred group (20.6 months vs. 11.5 months, p = .02). No difference in median progression-free survival (PFS) in first-line treatment between groups was seen (5.4 and 5.3 months). CONCLUSION: This real-world analysis suggests that deferral of systemic therapy and close observation may not impact OS or physician-assessed PFS in selected PM-patients.

Subcutaneous versus Intravenous Amivantamab, both in Combination with Lazertinib, in Refractory EGFR-mutated NSCLC: Primary Results from the Phase 3 PALOMA-3 Study.

PURPOSE: Phase 3 studies of intravenous amivantamab demonstrated efficacy across EGFR-mutated advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). A subcutaneous formulation could improve tolerability and reduce administration time while maintaining efficacy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC who progressed following osimertinib and platinum-based chemotherapy were randomized 1:1 to receive subcutaneous or intravenous amivantamab, both combined with lazertinib. Co-primary pharmacokinetic noninferiority endpoints were trough concentrations (Ctrough; on cycle-2-day-1 or cycle-4-day-1) and cycle-2 area under the curve (AUCD1-D15). Key secondary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS). Overall survival (OS) was a predefined exploratory endpoint. RESULTS: Overall, 418 patients underwent randomization (subcutaneous group, n=206; intravenous group, n=212). Geometric mean ratios of Ctrough for subcutaneous to intravenous amivantamab were 1.15 (90% CI, 1.04-1.26) at cycle-2-day-1 and 1.42 (90% CI, 1.27-1.61) at cycle-4-day-1; the cycle-2 AUCD1-D15 was 1.03 (90% CI, 0.98-1.09). ORR was 30% in the subcutaneous and 33% in the intravenous group; median PFS was 6.1 and 4.3 months, respectively. OS was significantly longer in the subcutaneous versus intravenous group (hazard ratio for death, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.42-0.92; nominal P=0.02). Fewer patients in the subcutaneous group experienced infusion-related reactions (13% versus 66%) and venous thromboembolism (9% versus 14%) versus the intravenous group. Median administration time for first infusion was reduced to 4.8 minutes (range, 0-18) for subcutaneous amivantamab from 5 hours (range, 0.2-9.9) for intravenous amivantamab. During cycle-1-day-1, 85% and 52% of patients in the subcutaneous and intravenous groups, respectively, considered treatment convenient; end-of-treatment rates were 85% and 35%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Subcutaneous amivantamab-lazertinib demonstrated noninferiority to intravenous amivantamab-lazertinib, offering a consistent safety profile with reduced infusion-related reactions, increased convenience, and prolonged survival.

Therapy for Stage IV Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer With Driver Alterations: ASCO Living Guideline, Version 2024.1.

Living guidelines are developed for selected topic areas with rapidly evolving evidence that drives frequent change in recommended clinical practice. Living guidelines are updated on a regular schedule by a standing expert panel that systematically reviews the health literature on a continuous basis, as described in the ASCO Guidelines Methodology Manual. ASCO Living Guidelines follow the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy Implementation for Clinical Practice Guidelines. Living Guidelines and updates are not intended to substitute for independent professional judgment of the treating provider and do not account for individual variation among patients. See appendix for disclaimers and other important information (Appendix 1 and Appendix 2). Updates are published regularly and can be found at https://ascopubs.org/nsclc-da-living-guideline.

Recommendations for reporting tissue and circulating tumour (ct)DNA next-generation sequencing results in non-small cell lung cancer.

Non-small cell lung cancer is a heterogeneous disease and molecular characterisation plays an important role in its clinical management. Next-generation sequencing-based panel testing enables many molecular alterations to be interrogated simultaneously, allowing for comprehensive identification of actionable oncogenic drivers (and co-mutations) and appropriate matching of patients with targeted therapies. Despite consensus in international guidelines on the importance of broad molecular profiling, adoption of next-generation sequencing varies globally. One of the barriers to its successful implementation is a lack of accepted standards and guidelines specifically for the reporting and clinical annotation of next-generation sequencing results. Based on roundtable discussions between pathologists and oncologists, we provide best practice recommendations for the reporting of next-generation sequencing results in non-small cell lung cancer to facilitate its use and enable easy interpretation for physicians. These are intended to complement existing guidelines related to the use of next-generation sequencing (solid and liquid). Here, we discuss next-generation sequencing workflows, the structure of next-generation sequencing reports, and our recommendations for best practice thereof. The aim of these recommendations and considerations is ultimately to ensure that reports are fully interpretable, and that the most appropriate treatment options are selected based on robust molecular profiles in well-defined reports.

Real-World Outcomes of Patients with Advanced Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor-Mutated Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in Canada Using Data Extracted by Large Language Model-Based Artificial Intelligence.

Real-world evidence for patients with advanced EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in Canada is limited. This study's objective was to use previously validated DARWENTM artificial intelligence (AI) to extract data from electronic heath records of patients with non-squamous NSCLC at University Health Network (UHN) to describe EGFR mutation prevalence, treatment patterns, and outcomes. Of 2154 patients with NSCLC, 613 had advanced disease. Of these, 136 (22%) had common sensitizing EGFR mutations (cEGFRm; ex19del, L858R), 8 (1%) had exon 20 insertions (ex20ins), and 338 (55%) had EGFR wild type. One-year overall survival (OS) (95% CI) for patients with cEGFRm, ex20ins, and EGFR wild type tumours was 88% (83, 94), 100% (100, 100), and 59% (53, 65), respectively. In total, 38% patients with ex20ins received experimental ex20ins targeting treatment as their first-line therapy. A total of 57 patients (36%) with cEGFRm received osimertinib as their first-line treatment, and 61 (39%) received it as their second-line treatment. One-year OS (95% CI) following the discontinuation of osimertinib was 35% (17, 75) post-first-line and 20% (9, 44) post-second-line. In this real-world AI-generated dataset, survival post-osimertinib was poor in patients with cEGFR mutations. Patients with ex20ins in this cohort had improved outcomes, possibly due to ex20ins targeting treatment, highlighting the need for more effective treatments for patients with advanced EGFRm NSCLC.

Cabozantinib Response in a Patient With NSCLC Harboring Both MET Exon 14 Skipping Mutation and Secondary RET Fusion: A Case Report.

MET exon 14 skipping mutation has emerged as a new oncogenic driver in NSCLC with available targeted therapies, including Food and Drug Administration-approved inhibitors capmatinib and tepotinib. Potential resistance mechanisms are beginning to be described and include several on-target and off-target mutations. Here, we report an emergent secondary RET fusion in a patient with a primary MET exon 14 skipping mutation that progressed on capmatinib after the initial response. Subsequently, this patient received both a RET inhibitor (selpercatinib) followed by another MET-targeted treatment (tepotinib) without clinical benefit. Thereafter, cabozantinib, a multikinase inhibitor with activity against RET and MET was started with a rapid clinical and radiologic benefit.

Screening for lung cancer with computed tomography: protocol for systematic reviews for the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care.

PURPOSE: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer deaths in Canada, and because early cancers are often asymptomatic screening aims to prevent mortality by detecting cancer earlier when treatment is more likely to be curative. These reviews will inform updated recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care on screening for lung cancer. METHODS: We will update the review on the benefits and harms of screening with CT conducted for the task force in 2015 and perform de novo reviews on the comparative effects between (i) trial-based selection criteria and use of risk prediction models and (ii) trial-based nodule classification and different nodule classification systems and on patients' values and preferences. We will search Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central (for questions on benefits and harms from 2015; comparative effects from 2012) and Medline, Scopus, and EconLit (for values and preferences from 2012) via peer-reviewed search strategies, clinical trial registries, and the reference lists of included studies and reviews. Two reviewers will screen all citations (including those in the previous review) and base inclusion decisions on consensus or arbitration by another reviewer. For benefits (i.e., all-cause and cancer-specific mortality and health-related quality of life) and harms (i.e., overdiagnosis, false positives, incidental findings, psychosocial harms from screening, and major complications and mortality from invasive procedures as a result of screening), we will include studies of adults in whom lung cancer is not suspected. We will include randomized controlled trials comparing CT screening with no screening or alternative screening modalities (e.g., chest radiography) or strategies (e.g., CT using different screening intervals, classification systems, and/or patient selection via risk models or biomarkers); non-randomized studies, including modeling studies, will be included for the comparative effects between trial-based and other selection criteria or nodule classification methods. For harms (except overdiagnosis) we will also include non-randomized and uncontrolled studies. For values and preferences, the study design may be any quantitative design that either directly or indirectly measures outcome preferences on outcomes pertaining to lung cancer screening. We will only include studies conducted in Very High Human Development Countries and having full texts in English or French. Data will be extracted by one reviewer with verification by another, with the exception of result data on mortality and cancer incidence (for calculating overdiagnosis) where duplicate extraction will occur. If two or more studies report on the same comparison and it is deemed suitable, we will pool continuous data using a mean difference or standardized mean difference, as applicable, and binary data using relative risks and a DerSimonian and Laird model unless events are rare (< 1%) where we will pool odds ratios using Peto's method or (if zero events) the reciprocal of the opposite treatment arm size correction. For pooling proportions, we will apply suitable transformation (logit or arcsine) depending on the proportions of events. If meta-analysis is not undertaken we will synthesize the data descriptively, considering clinical and methodological differences. For each outcome, two reviewers will independently assess within- and across-study risk of bias and rate the certainty of the evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation), and reach consensus. DISCUSSION: Since 2015, additional trials and longer follow-ups or additional data (e.g., harms, specific patient populations) from previously published trials have been published that will improve our understanding of the benefits and harms of screening. The systematic review of values and preferences will allow fulsome insights that will inform the balance of benefits and harms. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022378858.

Therapy for Stage IV Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Without Driver Alterations: ASCO Living Guideline, Version 2023.3.

PURPOSE: To provide evidence-based recommendations for patients with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) without driver alterations. METHODS: This ASCO living guideline offers continually updated recommendations based on an ongoing systematic review of randomized clinical trials (RCTs), with the latest time frame spanning February to October 2023. An Expert Panel of medical oncology, pulmonary, community oncology, research methodology, and advocacy experts were convened. The literature search included systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and randomized controlled trials. Outcomes of interest include efficacy and safety. Expert Panel members used available evidence and informal consensus to develop evidence-based guideline recommendations. RESULTS: This guideline consolidates all previous updates and reflects the body of evidence informing this guideline topic. Ten new RCTs were identified in the latest search of the literature to date. RECOMMENDATIONS: Evidence-based recommendations were updated to address first, second, and subsequent treatment options for patients without driver alterations.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/living-guidelines.

Therapy for Stage IV Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer With Driver Alterations: ASCO Living Guideline, Version 2023.3.

PURPOSE: To provide evidence-based recommendations for patients with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer with driver alterations. METHODS: This ASCO living guideline offers continually updated recommendations based on an ongoing systematic review of randomized clinical trials (RCTs), with the latest time frame spanning February to October 2023. An Expert Panel of medical oncology, pulmonary, community oncology, research methodology, and advocacy experts were convened. The literature search included systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and randomized controlled trials. Outcomes of interest include efficacy and safety. Expert Panel members used available evidence and informal consensus to develop evidence-based guideline recommendations. RESULTS: This guideline consolidates all previous updates and reflects the body of evidence informing this guideline topic. Eight new RCTs were identified in the latest search of the literature to date. RECOMMENDATIONS: Evidence-based recommendations were updated to address first, second, and subsequent treatment options for patients based on targetable driver alterations.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/living-guidelines.

The Perceived Value of Liquid Biopsy: Results From a Canadian Validation Study of Circulating Tumor DNA T790M Testing-Patient's Willingness-to-Pay: A Brief Report.

Introduction: Liquid biopsy is recommended to diagnose molecular resistance to targeted therapy in patients with lung cancer. Nevertheless, not all jurisdictions provide funding and patient access. We report patients' perceived value of liquid biopsy in targeted therapy resistance. Methods: Canadian patients participating in a national EGFR T790M liquid biopsy validation study completed structured interviews measuring perceived value and willingness-to-pay for plasma circulating tumor DNA testing as an alternative to tumor biopsy using open-ended and iterative bidding approaches. Results: A total of 60 patients with advanced lung cancer participated with a median age of 64 years (range: 31-87 y); 69% were Asian and 45% female. All had received prior EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor; 17% also received chemotherapy. All patients preferred to have plasma testing over repeat tumor biopsy. In the context of the Canadian publicly funded system, patients estimated that a median of 300 (interquartile range: 150-800) Canadian dollars was a reasonable price to pay for liquid biopsy. Patients were personally willing to pay a median 100 (interquartile range: 33-350) Canadian dollars. Conclusions: In a system that covers the cost of standard diagnostic tests, patients with lung cancer indicated high willingness-to-pay out-of-pocket for liquid biopsy in the setting of acquired targeted therapy resistance. Patients have high perceived value of plasma genotyping and prefer it to repeat tumor biopsy.

The impact of multidisciplinary cancer conferences on overall survival: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Multidisciplinary cancer conferences consist of regular meetings between diverse specialists working together to share clinical decision making in cancer care. The aim of this study was to systematically review and meta-analyze the effect of multidisciplinary cancer conference intervention on the overall survival of patients with cancer. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted on Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials for studies published up to July 2023. Studies reporting on the impact of multidisciplinary cancer conferences on patient overall survival were included. A standard random-effects model with the inverse variance-weighted approach was used to estimate the pooled hazard ratio of mortality (multidisciplinary cancer conference vs non-multidisciplinary cancer conference) across studies, and the heterogeneity was assessed by I2. Publication bias was examined using funnel plots and the Egger test. RESULTS: A total of 134 287 patients with cancer from 59 studies were included in our analysis, with 48 467 managed by multidisciplinary cancer conferences and 85 820 in the control arm. Across all cancer types, patients managed by multidisciplinary cancer conferences had an increased overall survival compared with control patients (hazard ratio = 0.67, 95% confidence interval = 0.62 to 0.71, I2 = 84%). Median survival time was 30.2 months in the multidisciplinary cancer conference group and 19.0 months in the control group. In subgroup analysis, a positive effect of the multidisciplinary cancer conference intervention on overall survival was found in breast, colorectal, esophageal, hematologic, hepatocellular, lung, pancreatic, and head and neck cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, our meta-analysis found a significant positive effect of multidisciplinary cancer conferences compared with controls. Further studies are needed to establish nuanced guidelines when optimizing multidisciplinary cancer conference integration for treating diverse patient populations.

Canadian Consensus Recommendations for the Management of Operable Stage II/III Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Results of a Modified Delphi Process.

The treatment paradigm for patients with stage II/III non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is rapidly evolving. We performed a modified Delphi process culminating at the Early-stage Lung cancer International eXpert Retreat (ELIXR23) meeting held in Montreal, Canada, in June 2023. Participants included medical and radiation oncologists, thoracic surgeons and pathologists from across Quebec. Statements relating to diagnosis and treatment paradigms in the preoperative, operative and postoperative time periods were generated and modified until all held a high level of consensus. These statements are aimed to help guide clinicians involved in the treatment of patients with stage II/III NSCLC.

Treatment decision for recurrences in non-small cell lung cancer during or after adjuvant osimertinib: an international Delphi consensus report.

Introduction: Osimertinib is recommended by major guidelines for use in the adjuvant setting in patients with EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC following the significant improvement in disease-free survival observed in the Phase III ADAURA trials. Due to limited real-world data in the adjuvant setting, little guidance exists on how to approach potential recurrences either during or after the completion of the treatment. This study aimed to reach a broad consensus on key treatment decision criteria in the events of recurrence. Methods: To reach a broad consensus, a modified Delphi panel study was conducted consisting of two rounds of surveys, followed by two consensus meetings and a final offline review of key statements. An international panel of experts in the field of NSCLC (n=12) was used to provide clinical insights regarding patient management at various stages of NSCLC disease including patient monitoring, diagnostics, and treatment approach for specific recurrence scenarios. This study tested recurrences occurring 1) within or outside the central nervous system (CNS), 2) during or after the adjuvant-osimertinib regimen in NSCLC disease which is 3) amenable or not amenable to local consolidative therapy. Results: Panellists agreed on various aspects of patient monitoring and diagnostics including the use of standard techniques (e.g., CT, MRI) and tumour biomarker assessment using tissue and liquid biopsies. Consensus was reached on 6 statements describing treatment considerations for the specific NSCLC recurrence scenarios. Panellists agreed on the value of osimertinib as a monotherapy or as part of the overall treatment strategy within the probed recurrence scenarios and acknowledged that more clinical evidence is required before precise recommendations for specific patient populations can be made. Discussion: This study provides a qualitative expert opinion framework for clinicians to consider within their treatment decision-making when faced with recurrence during or after adjuvant-osimertinib treatment.