miR-124 as a Liquid Biopsy Prognostic Biomarker in Small Extracellular Vesicles from NSCLC Patients.

Despite advances in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) research, this is still the most common cancer type that has been diagnosed up to date. microRNAs have emerged as useful clinical biomarkers in both tissue and liquid biopsy. However, there are no reliable predictive biomarkers for clinical use. We evaluated the preclinical use of seven candidate miRNAs previously identified by our group. We collected a total of 120 prospective samples from 88 NSCLC patients. miRNA levels were analyzed via qRT-PCR from tissue and blood samples. miR-124 gene target prediction was performed using RNA sequencing data from our group and interrogating data from 2952 NSCLC patients from two public databases. We found higher levels of all seven miRNAs in tissue compared to plasma samples, except for miR-124. Our findings indicate that levels of miR-124, both free-circulating and within exosomes, are increased throughout the progression of the disease, suggesting its potential as a marker of disease progression in both advanced and early stages. Our bioinformatics approach identified KPNA4 and SPOCK1 as potential miR-124 targets in NSCLC. miR-124 levels can be used to identify early-stage NSCLC patients at higher risk of relapse.

Prognostic Impact of Dihydropyrimidine Dehydrogenase Germline Variants in Unresectable Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients Treated with Platin-Based Chemotherapy.

Platin-based chemotherapy is the standard treatment for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, resistance to this therapy is a major obstacle in successful treatment. In this study, we aimed to investigate the impact of several pharmacogenetic variants in patients with unresectable NSCLC treated with platin-based chemotherapy. Our results showed that DPYD variant carriers had significantly shorter progression-free survival and overall survival compared to DPYD wild-type patients, whereas DPD deficiency was not associated with a higher incidence of high-grade toxicity. For the first time, our study provides evidence that DPYD gene variants are associated with resistance to platin-based chemotherapy in NSCLC patients. Although further studies are needed to confirm these findings and explore the underlying mechanisms of this association, our results suggest that genetic testing of DPYD variants may be useful for identifying patients at a higher risk of platin-based chemotherapy resistance and might be helpful in guiding future personalized treatment strategies in NSCLC patients.

Overall Survival with Durvalumab after Chemoradiotherapy in Stage III NSCLC.

BACKGROUND: An earlier analysis in this phase 3 trial showed that durvalumab significantly prolonged progression-free survival, as compared with placebo, among patients with stage III, unresectable non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who did not have disease progression after concurrent chemoradiotherapy. Here we report the results for the second primary end point of overall survival. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients, in a 2:1 ratio, to receive durvalumab intravenously, at a dose of 10 mg per kilogram of body weight, or matching placebo every 2 weeks for up to 12 months. Randomization occurred 1 to 42 days after the patients had received chemoradiotherapy and was stratified according to age, sex, and smoking history. The primary end points were progression-free survival (as assessed by blinded independent central review) and overall survival. Secondary end points included the time to death or distant metastasis, the time to second progression, and safety. RESULTS: Of the 713 patients who underwent randomization, 709 received the assigned intervention (473 patients received durvalumab and 236 received placebo). As of March 22, 2018, the median follow-up was 25.2 months. The 24-month overall survival rate was 66.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 61.7 to 70.4) in the durvalumab group, as compared with 55.6% (95% CI, 48.9 to 61.8) in the placebo group (two-sided P=0.005). Durvalumab significantly prolonged overall survival, as compared with placebo (stratified hazard ratio for death, 0.68; 99.73% CI, 0.47 to 0.997; P=0.0025). Updated analyses regarding progression-free survival were similar to those previously reported, with a median duration of 17.2 months in the durvalumab group and 5.6 months in the placebo group (stratified hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.63). The median time to death or distant metastasis was 28.3 months in the durvalumab group and 16.2 months in the placebo group (stratified hazard ratio, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.68). A total of 30.5% of the patients in the durvalumab group and 26.1% of those in the placebo group had grade 3 or 4 adverse events of any cause; 15.4% and 9.8% of the patients, respectively, discontinued the trial regimen because of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Durvalumab therapy resulted in significantly longer overall survival than placebo. No new safety signals were identified. (Funded by AstraZeneca; PACIFIC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02125461 .).

Neoadjuvant Chemoimmunotherapy in Patients with Resectable Non-small Cell Lung Cancer.

OPINION STATEMENT: Worldwide, lung cancer is the most common cause of cancer morbidity and mortality. Despite a trend towards an escalating diagnosis of resectable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), overall survival (OS) in patients with resectable NSCLC remains poor. The incorporation of chemotherapy into the neoadjuvant setting has improved disease-free survival (DFS), time to distant recurrence, and OS. Furthermore, the incorporation of immunotherapy and the combination of chemotherapy and immunotherapy have improved pathological responses, which seems to be associated with increased survival. Therefore, immunotherapy represents a paradigm shift in treating resectable NSCLC. However, validation in large randomized trials is mandatory and a longer postoperative follow-up period is required. Additionally, neoadjuvant therapy trials offer an exceptional environment for testing predictive biomarkers. PD-L1 expression and tumor mutational burden (TMB) are the most helpful tools for predicting the likelihood of response with immunotherapy in metastatic NSCLC. However, in the neoadjuvant setting, PD-L1 expression and TMB have had opposite results until now. Recently, the immune profiling and some immune-related genes also appear to be involved in the prognosis and response to immunotherapy in NSCLC. Further prospective studies are needed to derive definitive conclusions.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy and nivolumab in resectable non-small-cell lung cancer (NADIM): an open-label, multicentre, single-arm, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is terminal in most patients with locally advanced stage disease. We aimed to assess the antitumour activity and safety of neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy for resectable stage IIIA NSCLC. METHODS: This was an open-label, multicentre, single-arm phase 2 trial done at 18 hospitals in Spain. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with histologically or cytologically documented treatment-naive American Joint Committee on Cancer-defined stage IIIA NSCLC that was deemed locally to be surgically resectable by a multidisciplinary clinical team, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients received neoadjuvant treatment with intravenous paclitaxel (200 mg/m2) and carboplatin (area under curve 6; 6 mg/mL per min) plus nivolumab (360 mg) on day 1 of each 21-day cycle, for three cycles before surgical resection, followed by adjuvant intravenous nivolumab monotherapy for 1 year (240 mg every 2 weeks for 4 months, followed by 480 mg every 4 weeks for 8 months). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival at 24 months, assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, which included all patients who received neoadjuvant treatment, and in the per-protocol population, which included all patients who had tumour resection and received at least one cycle of adjuvant treatment. Safety was assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03081689, and is ongoing but no longer recruiting patients. FINDINGS: Between April 26, 2017, and Aug 25, 2018, we screened 51 patients for eligibility, of whom 46 patients were enrolled and received neoadjuvant treatment. At the time of data cutoff (Jan 31, 2020), the median duration of follow-up was 24·0 months (IQR 21·4-28·1) and 35 of 41 patients who had tumour resection were progression free. At 24 months, progression-free survival was 77·1% (95% CI 59·9-87·7). 43 (93%) of 46 patients had treatment-related adverse events during neoadjuvant treatment, and 14 (30%) had treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or worse; however, none of the adverse events were associated with surgery delays or deaths. The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events were increased lipase (three [7%]) and febrile neutropenia (three [7%]). INTERPRETATION: Our results support the addition of neoadjuvant nivolumab to platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with resectable stage IIIA NSCLC. Neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy could change the perception of locally advanced lung cancer as a potentially lethal disease to one that is curable. FUNDING: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme.

Durvalumab after Chemoradiotherapy in Stage III Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Most patients with locally advanced, unresectable, non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have disease progression despite definitive chemoradiotherapy (chemotherapy plus concurrent radiation therapy). This phase 3 study compared the anti-programmed death ligand 1 antibody durvalumab as consolidation therapy with placebo in patients with stage III NSCLC who did not have disease progression after two or more cycles of platinum-based chemoradiotherapy. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients, in a 2:1 ratio, to receive durvalumab (at a dose of 10 mg per kilogram of body weight intravenously) or placebo every 2 weeks for up to 12 months. The study drug was administered 1 to 42 days after the patients had received chemoradiotherapy. The coprimary end points were progression-free survival (as assessed by means of blinded independent central review) and overall survival (unplanned for the interim analysis). Secondary end points included 12-month and 18-month progression-free survival rates, the objective response rate, the duration of response, the time to death or distant metastasis, and safety. RESULTS: Of 713 patients who underwent randomization, 709 received consolidation therapy (473 received durvalumab and 236 received placebo). The median progression-free survival from randomization was 16.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 13.0 to 18.1) with durvalumab versus 5.6 months (95% CI, 4.6 to 7.8) with placebo (stratified hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.65; P<0.001); the 12-month progression-free survival rate was 55.9% versus 35.3%, and the 18-month progression-free survival rate was 44.2% versus 27.0%. The response rate was higher with durvalumab than with placebo (28.4% vs. 16.0%; P<0.001), and the median duration of response was longer (72.8% vs. 46.8% of the patients had an ongoing response at 18 months). The median time to death or distant metastasis was longer with durvalumab than with placebo (23.2 months vs. 14.6 months; P<0.001). Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 29.9% of the patients who received durvalumab and 26.1% of those who received placebo; the most common adverse event of grade 3 or 4 was pneumonia (4.4% and 3.8%, respectively). A total of 15.4% of patients in the durvalumab group and 9.8% of those in the placebo group discontinued the study drug because of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Progression-free survival was significantly longer with durvalumab than with placebo. The secondary end points also favored durvalumab, and safety was similar between the groups. (Funded by AstraZeneca; PACIFIC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02125461 .).

Four-year survival with nivolumab in patients with previously treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a pooled analysis.

BACKGROUND: Phase 3 clinical data has shown higher proportions of patients with objective response, longer response duration, and longer overall survival with nivolumab versus docetaxel in patients with previously treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We aimed to evaluate the long-term benefit of nivolumab and the effect of response and disease control on subsequent survival. METHODS: We pooled data from four clinical studies of nivolumab in patients with previously treated NSCLC (CheckMate 017, 057, 063, and 003) to evaluate survival outcomes. Trials of nivolumab in the second-line or later setting with at least 4 years follow-up were included. Comparisons of nivolumab versus docetaxel included all randomised patients from the phase 3 CheckMate 017 and 057 studies. We did landmark analyses by response status at 6 months to determine post-landmark survival outcomes. We excluded patients who did not have a radiographic tumour assessment at 6 months. Safety analyses included all patients who received at least one dose of nivolumab. FINDINGS: Across all four studies, 4-year overall survival with nivolumab was 14% (95% CI 11-17) for all patients (n=664), 19% (15-24) for those with at least 1% PD-L1 expression, and 11% (7-16) for those with less than 1% PD-L1 expression. In CheckMate 017 and 057, 4-year overall survival was 14% (95% CI 11-18) in patients treated with nivolumab, compared with 5% (3-7) in patients treated with docetaxel. Survival subsequent to response at 6 months on nivolumab or docetaxel was longer than after progressive disease at 6 months, with hazard ratios for overall survival of 0·18 (95% 0·12-0·27) for nivolumab and 0·43 (0·29-0·65) for docetaxel; for stable disease versus progressive disease, hazard ratios were 0·52 (0·37-0·71) for nivolumab and 0·80 (0·61-1·04) for docetaxel. Long-term data did not show any new safety signals. INTERPRETATION: Patients with advanced NSCLC treated with nivolumab achieved a greater duration of response compared with patients treated with docetaxel, which was associated with a long-term survival advantage. FUNDING: Bristol-Myers Squibb.

A phase 1, open-label, dose-escalation trial of oral TSR-011 in patients with advanced solid tumours and lymphomas.

BACKGROUND: Anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) gene rearrangements are oncogenic drivers in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). TSR-011 is a dual ALK and tropomyosin-related kinase (TRK) inhibitor, active against ALK inhibitor resistant tumours in preclinical studies. Here, we report the safety, tolerability and recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of TSR-011 in patients with relapsed or refractory ALK- and TRK-positive advanced cancers. METHODS: In this sequential, open-label, phase 1 trial (NCT02048488), patients received doses of 30 mg, escalated to 480 mg every 24 hours (Q24h), followed by an expansion cohort of patients with ALK-positive cancers. The primary objective was to evaluate safety and tolerability. Secondary objectives included pharmacokinetics. RESULTS: TSR-011 320- and 480-mg Q24h doses exceeded the maximum tolerated dose. At the RP2D of 40 mg every 8 hours (Q8h), the most common grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 3.2-6.5% of patients. Of 14 ALK inhibitor-naive patients with ALK-positive NSCLC, 6 experienced partial responses and 8 had stable disease. CONCLUSIONS: At the RP2D (40 mg Q8h), TSR-011 demonstrated a favourable safety profile with acceptable QTc changes. Limited clinical activity was observed. Based on the competitive ALK inhibitor landscape and benefit/risk considerations, further TSR-011 development was discontinued. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02048488.

The effect of itraconazole and rifampicin on the pharmacokinetics of osimertinib.

AIMS: We investigated the effects of a strong CYP3A4 inhibitor (itraconazole) or inducer (rifampicin) on the pharmacokinetics of the epidermal growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitor osimertinib, in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer in two Phase I, open-label, two-part clinical studies. Part one of both studies is reported. METHODS: In the itraconazole study (NCT02157883), patients received single-dose osimertinib 80 mg on Days 1 and 10 and itraconazole (200 mg twice daily) on Days 6-18 orally. In the rifampicin study (NCT02197247), patients received osimertinib 80 mg once daily on Days 1-77 and rifampicin 600 mg once daily on Days 29-49. RESULTS: In the itraconazole study (n = 36), the geometric least squares mean (GMLSM) ratios (osimertinib plus itraconazole/osimertinib alone) for Cmax and AUC were 80% (90% CI 73, 87) and 124% (90% CI 115, 135), respectively, below the predefined no-effect upper limit of 200%. In the rifampicin study (n = 40), the GMLSM ratios (osimertinib plus rifampicin/osimertinib alone) for Css,max and AUCτ were 27% (90% CI 24, 30) and 22% (90% CI 20, 24), respectively, below the predefined no-effect lower limit of 50%. The induction effect of rifampicin was apparent within 7 days of initiation; osimertinib Css,max and AUCτ values returned to pre-rifampicin levels within 3 weeks of rifampicin discontinuation. No new osimertinib safety findings were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Osimertinib can be co-administered with CYP3A4 inhibitors, but strong CYP3A inducers should be avoided if possible.

Cardiovascular toxicity of checkpoint inhibitors: review of associated toxicity and design of the Spanish Immunotherapy Registry of Cardiovascular Toxicity.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have changed the prognosis of many tumors. However, concerning associated cardiotoxicity has been reported. Little is known about the real-life incidence-specific surveillance protocols or the translational correlation between the underlying mechanisms and the clinical presentation of ICI-induced cardiotoxicity. The lack of data from prospective studies led us to review the current knowledge and to present the creation of the Spanish Immunotherapy Registry of Cardiovascular Toxicity (SIR-CVT), a prospective registry of patients receiving ICI that aims to examine the role of hsa-miR-Chr8:96, (a specific serum biomarker of myocarditis) in the early diagnosis of ICI-induced myocarditis. An exhaustive prospective cardiac imaging study will be performed before and during the first 12 months of treatment. The correlation between clinical, imaging, and immunologic parameters may improve our understanding of ICI-induced cardiotoxicity and enable simpler surveillance protocols. We assess ICI-induced cardiovascular toxicity and describe the rationale of the SIR-CVT.

Expert consensus to optimize the management of older adult patients with advanced EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer.

Lung cancer (LC) is associated with ageing, with the average age of affected individuals being approximately 70 years. However, despite a higher incidence and prevalence among older people, the older adult population is underrepresented in clinical trials. For LC with Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) mutations, there is no clear association of this mutation with age. Geriatric assessments (GAs) and a multidisciplinary approach are essential for defining the optimal treatment. In this consensus, a group of experts selected from the Oncogeriatrics Section of the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (Sección de Oncogeriatría de la Sociedad Española de Oncología Médica-SEOM), the Spanish Lung Cancer Group (Grupo Español de Cáncer de Pulmón-GECP) and the Association for Research on Lung Cancer in Women (Asociación para la Investigación del Cáncer de Pulmón en Mujeres-ICAPEM) evaluate the scientific evidence currently available and propose a series of recommendations to optimize the management of older adult patients with advanced LC with EGFR mutations.

Unravelling oligometastatic disease from the perspective of radiation and medical oncology. Part II: prostate cancer and colorectal cancer.

Oligometastatic disease (OMD) defines a status of cancer that is intermediate between localized and widely spread metastatic disease, and can be treated with curative intent. While imaging diagnostic tools have considerably improved in recent years, unidentified micrometastases can still escape from current detection techniques allowing disease to progress. The variety of OMD scenarios are mainly defined by the number of metastases, the biological and molecular tumour profiles, and the timing of the development of metastases. Increasing knowledge has contributed to the earlier and improved detection of OMD, underlining the importance of an early disease control. Based on increasing detection rates of OMD in the current real clinical practice and the lack of standardized evidence-based guidelines to treat this cancer status, a board of experts from the Spanish Societies of Radiation Oncology (SEOR) and Medical Oncology (SEOM) organized a series of sessions to update the current state-of-the-art on OMD from a multidisciplinary perspective, and to discuss how results from clinical studies may translate into promising treatment options. This experts' review series summarizes what is known and what it is pending clarification in the context of OMD in the scenarios of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer and Breast Cancer (Part I), and Prostate Cancer and Colorectal Cancer (Part II), aiming to offer specialists a pragmatic framework that might contribute to the improved management of patients.

Unravelling oligometastatic disease from the perspective of radiation and medical oncology. Part I: non-small cell lung cancer and breast cancer.

Oligometastatic disease (OMD) defines a cancer status that is intermediate between localized and widely spread metastatic disease, and can be treated with curative intent. While diagnostic imaging tools have considerably improved in recent years, unidentified micrometastases can still evade current detection techniques, allowing the disease to progress. The various OMD scenarios are mainly defined by the number of metastases, the biological and molecular tumour profiles, and the timing of the development of metastases. Increasing knowledge has contributed to the earlier and improved detection of OMD, underlining the importance of early disease control. In view of increasing OMD detection rates in current real-world clinical practice and the lack of standardized evidence-based guidelines to treat this cancer status, a board of experts from the Spanish Societies of Radiation Oncology (SEOR) and Medical Oncology (SEOM) organized a series of sessions to update the current state-of-the-art on OMD from a multidisciplinary perspective, and to discuss how results from clinical studies might translate into promising treatment options. This expert review series summarizes what is known and what it is pending clarification in the context of OMD in the scenarios of non-small cell lung cancer and breast cancer (Part I), and prostate cancer and colorectal cancer (Part II), aiming to offer specialists a pragmatic framework to help improve patient management.

Identification of sSIGLEC5 and sLAG3 as New Relapse Predictors in Lung Cancer.

Lung cancer (LC) continues to be the leading cause of cancer-related deaths in both men and women worldwide. After complete tumour resection, around half of the patients suffer from disease relapse, emphasising the critical need for robust relapse predictors in this disease. In search of such biomarkers, 83 patients with non-microcytic lung cancer and 67 healthy volunteers were studied. Pre-operative levels of sSIGLEC5 along with other soluble immune-checkpoints were measured and correlated with their clinical outcome. Soluble SIGLEC5 (sSIGLEC5) levels were higher in plasma from patients with LC compared with healthy volunteers. Looking into those patients who suffered relapse, sSIGLEC5 and sLAG3 were found to be strong relapse predictors. Following a binary logistic regression model, a sSIGLEC5 + sLAG3 score was established for disease relapse prediction (area under the curve 0.8803, 95% confidence intervals 0.7955−0.9652, cut-off > 2.782) in these patients. Based on score cut-off, a Kaplan−Meier analysis showed that patients with high sSIGLEC5 + sLAG3 score had significantly shorter relapse-free survival (p ≤ 0.0001) than those with low sSIGLEC5 + sLAG3 score.Our study suggests that pre-operative sSIGLEC5 + sLAG3 score is a robust relapse predictor in LC patients.

Overall Survival and Biomarker Analysis of Neoadjuvant Nivolumab Plus Chemotherapy in Operable Stage IIIA Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer (NADIM phase II trial).

PURPOSE: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus nivolumab has been shown to be effective in resectable non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the NADIM trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03081689). The 3-year overall survival (OS) and circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis have not been reported. METHODS: This was an open-label, multicenter, single-arm, phase II trial in which patients with stage IIIA NSCLC, who were deemed to be surgically resectable, were treated with neoadjuvant paclitaxel (200 mg/m2 once a day) and carboplatin (area under curve 6) plus nivolumab (360 mg) once on day 1 of each 21-day cycle, for three cycles, followed by adjuvant nivolumab monotherapy for 1 year (240 mg once every 2 weeks for 4 months, followed by 480 mg once every 4 weeks for 8 months). The 3-year OS and ctDNA analysis were secondary objectives of the trial. RESULTS: OS at 36 months was 81.9% (95% CI, 66.8 to 90.6) in the intention-to-treat population, rising to 91.0% (95% CI, 74.2 to 97.0) in the per-protocol population. Neither tumor mutation burden nor programmed cell death ligand-1 staining was predictive of survival. Conversely, low pretreatment levels of ctDNA were significantly associated with improved progression-free survival and OS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.20; 95% CI, 0.06 to 0.63, and HR, 0.07; 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.39, respectively). Clinical responses according to RECIST v1.1 criteria did not predict survival outcomes. However, undetectable ctDNA levels after neoadjuvant treatment were significantly associated with progression-free survival and OS (HR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.07 to 0.93, and HR, 0.04; 95% CI, 0.00 to 0.55, respectively). The C-index to predict OS for ctDNA levels after neoadjuvant treatment (0.82) was superior to that of RECIST criteria (0.72). CONCLUSION: The efficacy of neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus nivolumab in resectable NSCLC is supported by 3-year OS. ctDNA levels were significantly associated with OS and outperformed radiologic assessments in the prediction of survival.

Tumor microenvironment gene expression profiles associated to complete pathological response and disease progression in resectable NSCLC patients treated with neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has improved pathological responses and survival rates compared with chemotherapy alone, leading to Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of nivolumab plus chemotherapy for resectable stage IB-IIIA NSCLC (AJCC 7th edition) without ALK or EGFR alterations. Unfortunately, a considerable percentage of tumors do not completely respond to therapy, which has been associated with early disease progression. So far, it is impossible to predict these events due to lack of knowledge. In this study, we characterized the gene expression profile of tumor samples to identify new biomarkers and mechanisms behind tumor responses to neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy and disease recurrence after surgery. METHODS: Tumor bulk RNA sequencing was performed in 16 pretreatment and 36 post-treatment tissue samples from 41 patients with resectable stage IIIA NSCLC treated with neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy from NADIM trial. A panel targeting 395 genes related to immunological processes was used. Tumors were classified as complete pathological response (CPR) and non-CPR, based on the total absence of viable tumor cells in tumor bed and lymph nodes tested at surgery. Differential-expressed genes between groups and pathway enrichment analysis were assessed using DESeq2 and gene set enrichment analysis. CIBERSORTx was used to estimate the proportions of immune cell subtypes. RESULTS: CPR tumors had a stronger pre-established immune infiltrate at baseline than non-CPR, characterized by higher levels of IFNG, GZMB, NKG7, and M1 macrophages, all with a significant area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) >0.9 for CPR prediction. A greater effect of neoadjuvant therapy was also seen in CPR tumors with a reduction of tumor markers and IFNγ signaling after treatment. Additionally, the higher expression of several genes, including AKT1, BST2, OAS3, or CD8B; or higher dendritic cells and neutrophils proportions in post-treatment non-CPR samples, were associated with relapse after surgery. Also, high pretreatment PD-L1 and tumor mutational burden levels influenced the post-treatment immune landscape with the downregulation of proliferation markers and type I interferon signaling molecules in surgery samples. CONCLUSIONS: Our results reinforce the differences between CPR and non-CPR responses, describing possible response and relapse immune mechanisms, opening the possibility of therapy personalization of immunotherapy-based regimens in the neoadjuvant setting of NSCLC.

Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparisons in the assessment of hemato-oncological drugs.

OBJECTIVE: Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison is a methodology that has been developed to assess new treatments vs alternatives when a direct comparison is not available through a randomized controlled trial. These comparisons are of particular interest in the areas of oncology and hematology where uncertainty in decision-making on the inclusion of new drugs is frequently accentuated by both the severity of the disease and the high cost of treatment. The objective of this study was to describe how Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison methodology has been used to date in the assessment of hematological cancer drugs by international agencies. METHOD: Between January 2015 and October 2019, an exhaustive search was conducted of the websites of European National Agencies that provided public information on the assessment process. The assessments provided by these agencies were reviewed to obtain a list of hematological cancer drugs for which the presentation of a Matched-Adjusted Indirect Comparison was recorded. For this list of drugs, the role of the comparison in the assessment process was analyzed for each selected agency. RESULTS: Thirteen hematological and oncological treatments were found in which the pharmaceutical marketing authorization holder had presented Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparisons: most of this information referred to the first half of 2018. Acceptance of this methodology diverges among agencies, ranging from 50% in the case of the British National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, to 40% in the case of French National Authority for Health, to not having been taken into account in any of the 3 cases assessed by the German Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care. The main cause of non-acceptance was matching-related problems. CONCLUSIONS: Matching- Adjusted Indirect Comparison methodology is a tool that is being utilized in the decision-making process for assessing new hematological cancer treatments.

Objetivo: La comparación indirecta ajustada con emparejamiento es una metodología desarrollada para la evaluación de nuevos tratamientos frente a sus alternativas cuando no se dispone de comparación directa mediante un ensayo clínico aleatorizado y controlado. Estas comparaciones son de especial interés en el área de la hematooncología, en la que la incertidumbre en la toma de decisiones sobre la inclusión de nuevos fármacos se ve frecuentemente acentuada tanto por la gravedad de la enfermedad como por el elevado coste del tratamiento. El objetivo de este artículo es describir cómo la metodología de comparación indirecta ajustada con emparejamiento ha sido empleada hasta la fecha en la evaluación de fármacos hematooncológicos por parte de agencias internacionales.Método: Para la obtención de los datos del análisis se ha realizado una búsqueda exhaustiva en las páginas web de las agencias nacionales europeas entre enero de 2015 y octubre de 2019 que mostraran información pública del proceso evaluativo. Se revisaron las evaluaciones de estas agencias para obtener un listado de fármacos oncohematológicos para los que constara la presentación de documentación de una comparación indirecta ajustada con  emparejamiento. Para este listado de fármacos se analizó para cada agencia seleccionada el papel que dicha comparación tuvo en la evaluación.Resultados: Se han encontrado 13 tratamientos para patologías hematooncológicas en las que el laboratorio había presentado comparaciones con metodología de comparación indirecta ajustada con emparejamiento en su documentación, principalmente a partir del primer semestre de 2018. La aceptación de la metodología diverge entre agencias, pasando de un 50% en el caso del Instituto Nacional para la Salud y la Excelencia Clínica británico, a un 40% en el Alto Comisionado de Salud francés, a no haberse tenido en cuenta en ninguno de los tres casos evaluados por el Instituto para la Calidad y Eficiencia en los cuidados de salud alemán. La principal causa de no aceptación fue la existencia de problemas relacionados con el emparejamiento.Conclusiones: La metodología de comparación indirecta ajustada con emparejamiento es una herramienta de comparación indirecta que está siendo considerada por las agencias analizadas en el proceso de toma de decisiones de evaluación de nuevos medicamentos.

Effect of ceritinib on the pharmacokinetics of coadministered CYP3A and 2C9 substrates: a phase I, multicenter, drug-drug interaction study in patients with ALK + advanced tumors.

PURPOSE: Ceritinib is an ALK receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor approved as first- and second-line treatment in adult patients with ALK + metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The study investigated the drug-drug interaction (DDI) potential of ceritinib when coadministered with midazolam and warfarin as probe substrates for CYP3A and CYP2C9 activity, respectively. METHODS: This was a phase I, multicenter, open-label, single sequence, crossover DDI study in 33 adult patients with ALK + NSCLC or other advanced tumors. A single dose of a cocktail consisting of midazolam and warfarin was administered with and without concomitant administration of ceritinib. The primary objective was to evaluate the pharmacokinetics of midazolam and warfarin. Secondary objectives included pharmacokinetics, safety, tolerability, overall response rate (ORR), and duration of response (DOR) of ceritinib 750 mg once daily. RESULTS: Ceritinib inhibited CYP3A-mediated metabolism of midazolam, resulting in a markedly increased AUC (geometric mean ratio [90% confidence interval]) by 5.4-fold (4.6, 6.3). Ceritinib also led to an increase in the AUC of S-warfarin by 54% (36%, 75%). The pharmacokinetics and safety profile of ceritinib in this study are consistent with previous reports and no new safety signals were reported. Among the 19 patients with NSCLC, efficacy (ORR: 42.1% and DCR: 63.2%) was similar to that reported previously in studies of pretreated patients with ALK + NSCLC. CONCLUSION: Ceritinib is a strong CYP3A inhibitor and a weak CYP2C9 inhibitor. These findings should be reflected as actionable clinical recommendations in the prescribing information for ceritinib with regards to concomitant medications whose pharmacokinetics may be altered by ceritinib.

PD-L1 Inhibitors as Monotherapy for the First-Line Treatment of Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer in PD-L1 Positive Patients: A Safety Data Network Meta-Analysis.

This network meta-analysis (NMA) evaluates the safety of first-line programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor monotherapy in advanced NSCLC patients compared to platinum-based chemotherapy. We also compared the risk of adverse events (AEs) according to programmed cell death-1 receptor (PD-1) or PD-L1 inhibitors therapy. To that end, we conducted a series of metanalyses (MAs) using data from six phase III clinical trials, including 4053 patients. Our results show a reduced risk of any grade treatment-related AEs (risk ratio (RR) = 0.722 95% CI: 0.667-0.783, p = 0.002), and grade 3-5 AEs (RR = 0.406 95% CI: 0.340-0.485, p = 0.023) in immunotherapy as compared to chemotherapy. In contrast, a higher risk of immune-related AEs (irAEs) was estimated for immunotherapy versus chemotherapy. The subgroup MAs comparing PD-L1 to PD-1 inhibitors, determined a lower risk of AEs leading to treatment discontinuation in the anti-PD-L1 subgroup (RR = 0.47 95% CI: 0.29-0.75, p = 0.001); however, this statistically significant difference between anti-PD-L1 and anti-PD-1 subgroups was not reached for other safety outcomes analyzed. In conclusion, our findings show that PD-L1 inhibitor monotherapy improves safety outcomes in the 1L treatment of advanced NSCLC patients as compared to chemotherapy except for irAEs.

Updated Overall Survival and PD-L1 Subgroup Analysis of Patients With Extensive-Stage Small-Cell Lung Cancer Treated With Atezolizumab, Carboplatin, and Etoposide (IMpower133).

PURPOSE: IMpower133 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02763579), a randomized, double-blind, phase I/III study, demonstrated that adding atezolizumab (anti-programmed death-ligand 1 [PD-L1]) to carboplatin plus etoposide (CP/ET) for first-line (1L) treatment of extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) resulted in significant improvement in overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) versus placebo plus CP/ET. Updated OS, disease progression patterns, safety, and exploratory biomarkers (PD-L1, blood-based tumor mutational burden [bTMB]) are reported. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with untreated ES-SCLC were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive four 21-day cycles of CP (area under the curve 5 mg per mL/min intravenously [IV], day 1) plus ET (100 mg/m2 IV, days 1-3) with atezolizumab (1,200 mg IV, day 1) or placebo, and then maintenance atezolizumab or placebo until unacceptable toxicity, disease progression, or loss of clinical benefit. Tumor specimens were collected; PD-L1 testing was not required for enrollment. The two primary end points, investigator-assessed PFS and OS, were statistically significant at the interim analysis. Updated OS and PFS and exploratory biomarker analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Patients received atezolizumab plus CP/ET (n = 201) or placebo plus CP/ET (n = 202). At the updated analysis, median follow-up for OS was 22.9 months; 302 deaths had occurred. Median OS was 12.3 and 10.3 months with atezolizumab plus CP/ET and placebo plus CP/ET, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.95; descriptive P = .0154). At 18 months, 34.0% and 21.0% of patients were alive in atezolizumab plus CP/ET and placebo plus CP/ET arms, respectively. Patients derived benefit from the addition of atezolizumab, regardless of PD-L1 immunohistochemistry or bTMB status. CONCLUSION: Adding atezolizumab to CP/ET as 1L treatment for ES-SCLC continued to demonstrate improved OS and a tolerable safety profile at the updated analysis, confirming the regimen as a new standard of care. Exploratory analyses demonstrated treatment benefit independent of biomarker status.