Clinical activity of programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) blockade in never, light, and heavy smokers with non-small-cell lung cancer and PD-L1 expression ≥50.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are standard therapies for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and a programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) tumor proportion score (TPS) ≥50%. Tumor mutation burden (TMB) also predicts response to ICIs but is often not available in real time for decision making in the first-line setting. Smoking exposure can be a proxy for TMB in NSCLC. The impact of smoking status on efficacy of PD-1 blockade in NSCLC patients with PD-L1 TPS ≥50% has not been well defined. PATIENTS AND METHODS: To investigate the relationship between smoking and activity of ICIs in NSCLC, we retrospectively studied 315 patients with NSCLC and PD-L1 TPS ≥50% at five USA academic medical centers. Objective response rates (ORRs), progression-free survival (PFS), and duration of response (DOR) were compared between never (<100 lifetime cigarettes), light (≤10 pack-years), and heavy (>10 pack-years) smokers. A subset of patients underwent next-generation sequencing to estimate TMB. RESULTS: We identified 36 (11%) never, 42 (13%) light, and 237 (75%) heavy smokers with NSCLC and PD-L1 TPS ≥50% treated with ICIs. Objective responses were observed in 27%, 40%, and 40% of never, light, and heavy smokers, respectively (P = 0.180 never versus heavy; P = 1.000 light versus heavy). Median PFS and median DOR were numerically shorter in never and light smokers compared with heavy smokers (PFS 3.0 versus 4.0 versus 5.4 months; median DOR 6.9 versus 10.8 versus 17.8 months), but were not statistically different [PFS: hazard ratio (HR) 1.37, P = 0.135 and HR 1.24, P = 0.272; DOR: HR 1.92, P = 0.217 and HR 1.79, P = 0.141]. CONCLUSIONS: PD-(L)1 inhibitors are associated with antitumor activity in NSCLC with PD-L1 TPS ≥50% regardless of smoking status. Nevertheless, there is a signal of potentially decreased durability among never and light smokers that should be further evaluated. Distinct immunobiologic features may affect initial response versus durability of antitumor immunity to programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) blockade.

Presentations and outcomes of interstitial lung disease and the anti-Ro52 autoantibody.

BACKGROUND: Distinct clinical presentations of interstitial lung disease (ILD) with the myositis-specific antibodies, including anti-synthetase antibodies, are well-recognized. However, the association between ILD and the myositis-associated antibodies, including anti-Ro52, is less established. Our objectives were to compare presenting phenotypes of patients with anti-Ro52 alone versus in combination with myositis-specific autoantibodies and to identify predictors of disease progression or death. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of 73 adults with ILD and a positive anti-Ro52 antibody. We report clinical features, treatment, and outcomes. RESULTS: The majority of patients with ILD and anti-Ro52 had no established connective tissue disease (78%), and one-third had no rheumatologic symptoms. Thirteen patients (17.8%) required ICU admission for respiratory failure, with 84.6% all-cause mortality. Of the 73 subjects, 85.7% had a negative SS-A, and 49.3% met criteria for idiopathic pneumonia with autoimmune features (IPAF). The 50 patients with anti-Ro52 alone were indistinguishable from patients with anti-Ro52 plus a myositis-specific autoantibody. ICU admission was associated with poor outcomes (HR 12.97, 95% CI 5.07-34.0, p < 0.0001), whereas rheumatologic symptoms or ANA > = 1:320 were associated with better outcomes (HR 0.4, 95% CI 0.16-0.97, p = 0.04, and HR 0.29, 95% CI 0.09-0.81, p = 0.03, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Presentations of ILD with the anti-Ro52 antibody are heterogeneous, and outcomes are similar when compared to anti-Ro52 plus myositis-specific antibodies. Testing for anti-Ro52 may help to phenotype unclassifiable ILD patients, particularly as part of the serologic criteria for IPAF. Further research is needed to investigate treatment of ILD in the setting of anti-Ro52 positivity.

Severity of Chest Imaging is Correlated with Risk of Acute Neuroimaging Findings among Patients with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Severe respiratory distress in patients with COVID-19 has been associated with higher rate of neurologic manifestations. Our aim was to investigate whether the severity of chest imaging findings among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) correlates with the risk of acute neuroimaging findings. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included all patients with COVID-19 who received care at our hospital between March 3, 2020, and May 6, 2020, and underwent chest imaging within 10 days of neuroimaging. Chest radiographs were assessed using a previously validated automated neural network algorithm for COVID-19 (Pulmonary X-ray Severity score). Chest CTs were graded using a Chest CT Severity scoring system based on involvement of each lobe. Associations between chest imaging severity scores and acute neuroimaging findings were assessed using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Twenty-four of 93 patients (26%) included in the study had positive acute neuroimaging findings, including intracranial hemorrhage (n = 7), infarction (n = 7), leukoencephalopathy (n = 6), or a combination of findings (n = 4). The average length of hospitalization, prevalence of intensive care unit admission, and proportion of patients requiring intubation were significantly greater in patients with acute neuroimaging findings than in patients without them (P < .05 for all). Compared with patients without acute neuroimaging findings, patients with acute neuroimaging findings had significantly higher mean Pulmonary X-ray Severity scores (5.0 [SD, 2.9] versus 9.2 [SD, 3.4], P < .001) and mean Chest CT Severity scores (9.0 [SD, 5.1] versus 12.1 [SD, 5.0], P = .041). The pulmonary x-ray severity score was a significant predictor of acute neuroimaging findings in patients with COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with COVID-19 and acute neuroimaging findings had more severe findings on chest imaging on both radiographs and CT compared with patients with COVID-19 without acute neuroimaging findings. The severity of findings on chest radiography was a strong predictor of acute neuroimaging findings in patients with COVID-19.