Avanzando Caminos (Leading Pathways): design and procedures of the Hispanic/Latino Cancer Survivorship Study.

Avanzando Caminos (Leading Pathways): The Hispanic/Latino Cancer Survivorship Cohort Study aims to examine the influence of sociocultural, medical, stress-related, psychosocial, lifestyle, behavioral, and biological factors on symptom burden, health-related quality of life, and clinical outcomes among Hispanics/Latinos who have been previously treated for cancer. Avanzando Caminos is a prospective, cohort-based study of 3000 Hispanics/Latinos who completed primary cancer treatment within the past 5 years that is representative of the general Hispanic/Latino population in the United States. Participants will complete self-report measures at baseline (time [T] 1), 6 months (T2), 1 year (T3), 2 years (T4), 3 years (T5), 4 years (T6), and 5 years (T7). Blood samples drawn for assessment of leukocyte gene expression, cardiometabolic markers, and genetic admixture will be collected at baseline (T1), 1 year (T3), 3 years (T5), and 5 years (T7). Medical and cancer characteristics and clinical outcomes will be extracted from the electronic medical record and/or state cancer registry at each time point. Data analysis will include general latent variable modeling and latent growth modeling. Avanzando Caminos will fill critical gaps in knowledge in order to guide future secondary and tertiary prevention efforts to mitigate cancer disparities and optimize health-related quality of life among Hispanic/Latino cancer survivors.

Genomic, immunologic, and prognostic associations of TROP2 (TACSTD2) expression in solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: TROP2 (TACSTD2) expression is associated with decreased overall survival (OS) in some solid tumors, and the TROP2-targeting antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) sacituzumab govitecan has been approved in breast and urothelial carcinomas. We aimed to explore the multi-omic landscape associated with TACSTD2 gene expression in various solid tumors to identify patients most likely to benefit from this approach. METHODS: Breast (N = 11 246), colorectal (N = 15 425), hepatocellular (N = 433), pancreatic (N = 5488), and urothelial (N = 4125) tumors were stratified into quartiles by TACSTD2 gene expression, analyzed by next-generation DNA sequencing, whole transcriptome sequencing, and immunohistochemistry at Caris Life Sciences (Phoenix, AZ). Survival data were obtained from insurance claims, and Kaplan-Meier estimates were calculated for molecularly defined cohorts. RESULTS: Several pathogenic mutations were associated with TACSTD2-high tumors, including TP53 in breast, colorectal (CRC), pancreatic, and hepatocellular cancers; KRAS in pancreatic and CRC cancers; ARID1A and FGFR3 in urothelial cancer; and CTNNB1 in hepatocellular cancer. TACSTD2-low breast tumors were enriched for copy number amplifications in CCND1 and FGF/R family member genes. TACSTD2 high was generally associated with more immune cell infiltration and greater T-cell inflammation scores. Patients with TACSTD2-high breast, CRC, and pancreatic cancers demonstrated a significantly shorter OS than TACSTD2-low tumors. This was restricted to CRC with microsatellite stable tumors and patients with pancreatic cancer with KRAS-mutant tumors. Patients with breast cancer with TACSTD2-high tumors also experienced significantly worse OS following immune checkpoint inhibitors. CONCLUSIONS: TACSTD2 expression is associated with key driver alterations and a more active immune microenvironment, suggesting possible combinatorial strategies with TROP2-targeting ADCs plus immunotherapy in various solid tumors.

Does metformin reduce the risk of cancer in obesity and diabetes? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIM: To evaluate the effect of metformin on cancer incidence in subjects with overweight/obesity and/or prediabetes/diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in adults with overweight/obesity and/or prediabetes/diabetes that compared metformin to other interventions for ≥24 weeks. Independent reviewers selected and extracted data including population and intervention characteristics and new diagnoses of cancer. We used the RoB 2.0 risk-of-bias tool and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) framework to assess risk of bias and certainty of evidence. RESULTS: From 14 895 records after removal of duplicates, 27 trials were included, providing a total of 10 717 subjects in the metformin group and 10 003 in the control group, with 170 and 208 new cases of cancer, respectively. Using a random-effects model, the relative risk was 1.07 (95% confidence interval 0.87-1.31), with similar results in subgroup analyses by study duration or effect of control intervention on weight. Risk of bias in most studies was low, and no evidence of publication bias was found. Trial sequential analysis provided evidence that the cumulative sample size was large enough to exclude a significant effect of metformin on cancer incidence. CONCLUSIONS: Metformin did not reduce cancer incidence in RCTs involving subjects with overweight/obesity and/or prediabetes/diabetes.

BIPOC experiences of (anti-)racist patient engagement in adolescent and young adult oncology research: an electronic Delphi study.

Aims: To characterize Black, Indigenous and People of Color (BIPOC) adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer patients' experiences of patient engagement in AYA oncology and derive best practices that are co-developed by BIPOC AYAs and oncology professionals. Materials & methods: Following a previous call to action from AYA oncology professionals, a panel of experts composed exclusively of BIPOC AYA cancer patients (n = 32) participated in an electronic Delphi study. Results: Emergent themes described BIPOC AYA cancer patients' direct experiences and consensus opinion on recommendations to advance antiracist patient engagement from BIPOC AYA cancer patients and oncology professionals. Conclusion: The findings reveal high-priority practices across all phases of research and are instructional for advancing health equity.

The Impact of HIV Infection on Neoadjuvant and Adjuvant Chemotherapy Relative Dose Intensity in South African Patients with Breast Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: In the South African Breast Cancer and HIV Outcomes (SABCHO) study, we previously found that breast cancer patients living with HIV and treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy achieve lower rates of complete pathologic response than patients without HIV. We now assess the impact of comorbid HIV on receipt of timely and complete neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Since June 2015, the SABCHO study has collected data on women diagnosed with breast cancer at 6 South African hospitals. We selected a sample of participants with stages I-III cancer who received ≥2 doses of neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy. Data on chemotherapies prescribed and received, filgrastim receipt, and laboratory values measured during treatment were captured from patients' medical records. We calculated the mean relative dose intensity (RDI) for all prescribed chemotherapies. We tested for association between full regimen RDI and HIV status, using linear regression to control for demographic and clinical covariates, and for association of HIV with laboratory abnormalities. RESULTS: The 166 participants living with HIV and 159 without HIV did not differ in median chemotherapy RDI: 0.89 (interquartile range (IQR) 0.77-0.95) among those living with HIV and 0.87 (IQR 0.77-0.94) among women without HIV. Patients living with HIV experienced more grade 3+ anemia and leukopenia than those without HIV (anemia: 10.8% vs. 1.9%, P = .001; leukopenia: 8.4% vs. 1.9%, P = .008) and were more likely to receive filgrastim (24.7% vs. 10.7%, P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: HIV status did not impact neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy RDI, although patients with breast cancer living with HIV experienced more myelotoxicity during treatment.

The Effect of Biomarker Use on the Speed and Duration of Clinical Trials for Cancer Drugs.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to explore the effects biomarkers have on the duration and speed of clinical trials in oncology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Clinical trial data was pooled from www.clinicaltrials.gov within the 4 cancer indications of non-small cell lung cancer, breast cancer, melanoma, and colorectal cancer. Heatmaps of clinical timelines were used to display differences in the frequency and timing of clinical trials across trials that used or did not use biomarkers, for all 4 indications. RESULTS: Screening of 8630 clinical trials across the 4 indications yielded 671 unique drugs corresponding to 1224 eligible trials used in our analysis. The constructed heatmaps visually represented that biomarkers did not have an effect on the time gap between trial phases for non-small cell lung cancer and melanoma but did for colorectal and breast cancer trials, reducing the speed of trial timelines. It was also observed that biomarker trials were more often concurrent over shorter periods of time and began later in the timeline for non-small cell lung and colorectal cancers. CONCLUSION: The novel visualization method revealed longer gaps between trial phases, later clinical trial start times, and shorter periods of concurrently run trials for drugs that used biomarkers. The study highlights that biomarker-driven trials might impact drug approval timelines and need to be considered carefully in clinical development plan.

Pralsetinib for RET fusion-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (ARROW): a multi-cohort, open-label, phase 1/2 study.

BACKGROUND: Oncogenic alterations in RET have been identified in multiple tumour types, including 1-2% of non-small-cell lung cancers (NSCLCs). We aimed to assess the safety, tolerability, and antitumour activity of pralsetinib, a highly potent, oral, selective RET inhibitor, in patients with RET fusion-positive NSCLC. METHODS: ARROW is a multi-cohort, open-label, phase 1/2 study done at 71 sites (community and academic cancer centres) in 13 countries (Belgium, China, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Italy, Netherlands, Singapore, South Korea, Spain, Taiwan, the UK, and the USA). Patients aged 18 years or older with locally advanced or metastatic solid tumours, including RET fusion-positive NSCLC, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2 (later limited to 0-1 in a protocol amendment) were enrolled. In phase 2, patients received 400 mg once-daily oral pralsetinib, and could continue treatment until disease progression, intolerance, withdrawal of consent, or investigator decision. Phase 2 primary endpoints were overall response rate (according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1·1 and assessed by blinded independent central review) and safety. Tumour response was assessed in patients with RET fusion-positive NSCLC and centrally adjudicated baseline measurable disease who had received platinum-based chemotherapy or were treatment-naive because they were ineligible for standard therapy. This ongoing study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03037385, and enrolment of patients with treatment-naive RET fusion-positive NSCLC was ongoing at the time of this interim analysis. FINDINGS: Of 233 patients with RET fusion-positive NSCLC enrolled between March 17, 2017, and May 22, 2020 (data cutoff), 92 with previous platinum-based chemotherapy and 29 who were treatment-naive received pralsetinib before July 11, 2019 (efficacy enrolment cutoff); 87 previously treated patients and 27 treatment-naive patients had centrally adjudicated baseline measurable disease. Overall responses were recorded in 53 (61%; 95% CI 50-71) of 87 patients with previous platinum-based chemotherapy, including five (6%) patients with a complete response; and 19 (70%; 50-86) of 27 treatment-naive patients, including three (11%) with a complete response. In 233 patients with RET fusion-positive NSCLC, common grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events were neutropenia (43 patients [18%]), hypertension (26 [11%]), and anaemia (24 [10%]); there were no treatment-related deaths in this population. INTERPRETATION: Pralsetinib is a new, well-tolerated, promising, once-daily oral treatment option for patients with RET fusion-positive NSCLC. FUNDING: Blueprint Medicines.

Comparative efficacy of chemoimmunotherapy versus immunotherapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: A network meta-analysis of randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: To the authors' knowledge, in the absence of head-to-head trials, it is unclear whether chemoimmunotherapy provides an additional overall survival (OS) benefit compared with immunotherapy alone in the first-line treatment of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The authors conducted a systematic literature review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the efficacy of chemoimmunotherapy versus ICI. METHODS: MEDLINE, Excerpta Medica dataBASE (EMBASE), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception to April 2020. Phase 3 trials evaluating the efficacy of first-line ICI or chemoimmunotherapy and reporting efficacy outcomes (OS, progression-free survival [PFS], and the overall response rate [ORR]) stratified by programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) status were included. NMA with a Bayesian random effects model was performed. RESULTS: A total of 12 eligible trials comprising 7845 patients were included. In patients who were negative for PD-L1 (tumor proportion score [TPS] <1%), NMA comparing chemoimmunotherapy with dual-agent ICI failed to demonstrate a statistically significant difference with regard to OS, PFS, or the ORR. In patients with low PD-L1 (TPS 1%-49%), there was no statistically significant difference observed between chemoimmunotherapy compared with either single-agent ICI or dual-agent ICI with regard to OS or the ORR. In patients with high PD-L1 (TPS ≥50%), chemoimmunotherapy was found to be associated with an improved PFS and ORR compared with single-agent ICI, but not with dual-agent ICI. No differences in OS were observed with chemoimmunotherapy when compared with either single-agent or dual-agent ICIs. CONCLUSIONS: Although chemoimmunotherapy appears to improve the ORR and PFS in patients with PD-L1-high tumors when compared with single-agent ICI, it does not appear to confer an OS benefit over single-agent or dual-agent ICI for patients with advanced NSCLC regardless of PD-L1 status. Prospective trials are needed to validate these findings.

Clinical impact of COVID-19 on patients with cancer (CCC19): a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Data on patients with COVID-19 who have cancer are lacking. Here we characterise the outcomes of a cohort of patients with cancer and COVID-19 and identify potential prognostic factors for mortality and severe illness. METHODS: In this cohort study, we collected de-identified data on patients with active or previous malignancy, aged 18 years and older, with confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection from the USA, Canada, and Spain from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) database for whom baseline data were added between March 17 and April 16, 2020. We collected data on baseline clinical conditions, medications, cancer diagnosis and treatment, and COVID-19 disease course. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality within 30 days of diagnosis of COVID-19. We assessed the association between the outcome and potential prognostic variables using logistic regression analyses, partially adjusted for age, sex, smoking status, and obesity. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04354701, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Of 1035 records entered into the CCC19 database during the study period, 928 patients met inclusion criteria for our analysis. Median age was 66 years (IQR 57-76), 279 (30%) were aged 75 years or older, and 468 (50%) patients were male. The most prevalent malignancies were breast (191 [21%]) and prostate (152 [16%]). 366 (39%) patients were on active anticancer treatment, and 396 (43%) had active (measurable) cancer. At analysis (May 7, 2020), 121 (13%) patients had died. In logistic regression analysis, independent factors associated with increased 30-day mortality, after partial adjustment, were: increased age (per 10 years; partially adjusted odds ratio 1·84, 95% CI 1·53-2·21), male sex (1·63, 1·07-2·48), smoking status (former smoker vs never smoked: 1·60, 1·03-2·47), number of comorbidities (two vs none: 4·50, 1·33-15·28), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or higher (status of 2 vs 0 or 1: 3·89, 2·11-7·18), active cancer (progressing vs remission: 5·20, 2·77-9·77), and receipt of azithromycin plus hydroxychloroquine (vs treatment with neither: 2·93, 1·79-4·79; confounding by indication cannot be excluded). Compared with residence in the US-Northeast, residence in Canada (0·24, 0·07-0·84) or the US-Midwest (0·50, 0·28-0·90) were associated with decreased 30-day all-cause mortality. Race and ethnicity, obesity status, cancer type, type of anticancer therapy, and recent surgery were not associated with mortality. INTERPRETATION: Among patients with cancer and COVID-19, 30-day all-cause mortality was high and associated with general risk factors and risk factors unique to patients with cancer. Longer follow-up is needed to better understand the effect of COVID-19 on outcomes in patients with cancer, including the ability to continue specific cancer treatments. FUNDING: American Cancer Society, National Institutes of Health, and Hope Foundation for Cancer Research.

Impact of COVID-19 Infection on Patients with Cancer: Experience in a Latin American Country: The ACHOCC-19 Study.

INTRODUCTION: The ACHOCC-19 study was performed to characterize COVID-19 infection in a Colombian oncological population. METHODOLOGY: Analytical cohort study of patients with cancer and COVID-19 infection in Colombia. From April 1 to October 31, 2020. Demographic and clinical variables related to cancer and COVID-19 infection were collected. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality from all causes. The association between the outcome and the prognostic variables was analyzed using logistic regression models and survival analysis with Cox regression. RESULTS: The study included 742 patients; 72% were >51 years. The most prevalent neoplasms were breast (132, 17.77%), colorectal (92, 12.34%), and prostate (81, 10.9%). Two hundred twenty (29.6%) patients were asymptomatic and 96 (26.3%) died. In the bivariate descriptive analysis, higher mortality occurred in patients who were >70 years, patients with lung cancer, ≥2 comorbidities, former smokers, receiving antibiotics, corticosteroids, and anticoagulants, residents of rural areas, low socioeconomic status, and increased acute-phase reactants. In the logistic regression analysis, higher mortality was associated with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) 3 (odds ratio [OR] 28.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 8.2-99.6); ECOG PS 4 (OR 20.89; 95% CI, 3.36-129.7); two complications from COVID-19 (OR 5.3; 95% CI, 1.50-18.1); and cancer in progression (OR 2.08; 95% CI, 1.01-4.27). In the Cox regression analysis, the statistically significant hazard ratios (HR) were metastatic disease (HR 1.58; 95% CI, 1.16-2.16), cancer in progression (HR 1.08; 95% CI, 1.24-2.61) cancer in partial response (HR 0.31; 95% CI, 0.11-0.88), use of steroids (HR 1.44; 95% CI, 1.01-2.06), and use of antibiotics (HR 2.11; 95% CI, 1.47-2.95). CONCLUSION: In our study, patients with cancer have higher mortality due to COVID-19 infection if they have active cancer, metastatic or progressive cancer, ECOG PS >2, and low socioeconomic status. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This study's findings raise the need to carefully evaluate patients with metastatic cancer, in progression, and with impaired Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group status to define the relevance of cancer treatment during the pandemic, consider the risk/benefit of the interventions, and establish clear and complete communication with the patients and their families about the risk of complications. There is also the importance of offering additional support to patients with low income and residence in rural areas so that they can have more support during cancer treatment.

Clinical trial risk in leukemia: Biomarkers and trial design.

This study analyzed the risk of clinical trial failure for leukemia drug development between January 1999 and January 2020. The specific leukemia subtypes of interest were acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL), chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), acute myeloid leukemia (AML), and chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). Drug development was investigated using data obtained from https://www.clinicaltrials.gov and other publicly available databases. Drug compounds were excluded if they began phase I testing for the indication of interest before January 1999, if they were not industry sponsored, or if they treated secondary complications of the disease. Further analysis was conducted on biomarker usage, drug mechanisms of action, and line of treatment. Drugs were identified following our inclusion criteria for ALL (72), CLL (106), AML (159), and CML (47). The likelihood (cumulative pass rate), a drug would pass all phases of clinical testing and obtain Food and Drug Administration approval, was 18% (ALL), 10% (CLL), 7% (AML), and 12% (CML). Biomarker targeted therapies improved the success rates by three- and sevenfold, for ALL and AML, respectively. Enzyme inhibitors doubled the cumulative success rate for AML. First-line therapy and kinase inhibitors both independently doubled the cumulative success rate for CLL. Oncologists enrolling patients in clinical trials can increase success rates by up to sevenfold by prioritizing participation in trials involving biomarker usage, while consideration of factors such as drug mechanism of action and line of therapy can further double the clinical trial success rate.

A call to action: Antiracist patient engagement in adolescent and young adult oncology research and advocacy.

Amidst the concurrent global crises of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), uprisings against Anti-Black racism and police brutality, as well as anti-Asian racism and violence, the field of medicine found itself simultaneously called upon to respond as essential workers in the public health devastation of COVID-19, and as representatives of healthcare institutions wrought with the impacts of systemic racism. Clinicians, researchers, and advocates in adolescent and young adult (AYA) oncology, must come together in authentic activism to begin the work of creating structural change to advance antiracist approaches to patient engagement in AYA oncology research and advocacy. Critical review of existing practices is needed to ensure that ethical and effective research methods are employed when engaging with racial and ethnic minority AYA patients with cancer, who may be particularly vulnerable and exploited in the current context.

Association of the prognostic model iSEND with PD-1/L1 monotherapy outcome in non-small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Accessible biomarkers are needed for immunotherapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We previously described a multivariate risk prediction model, the iSEND, which categorises advanced NSCLC patients treated with nivolumab into Good, Intermediate or Poor groups. This model was developed by using only clinical and analytical variables (sex, ECOG-performance status, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio [NLR] and post-treatment delta NLR). METHODS: An international database of 439 patients who received post-platinum PD-1/L1 monotherapies was collected for validation. Performance of the iSEND to different PD-L1 groups was compared by using time-dependent positive predictive value (PPV) for their mortality events. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 18.2 months (95% CI: 15.9-19.6). The overall survival of the iSEND Good (HR = 0.31, 95% CI: 0.22-0.43, p < 0.0001) was superior to the iSEND Poor. Time-dependent PPV for mortality of iSEND Poor was superior to PD-L1 = 0% group at 12 (75 vs. 53%, p = 0.01) and 18 months (85 vs. 46%, p = 0.03). However, female gender did not independently associate with better outcome in the validation cohort. CONCLUSION: The iSEND model is associated with the outcome of post-platinum PD-1/L1 monotherapy in advanced NSCLC patients. The iSEND Poor demonstrated a superior performance to PD-L1 = 0% in negative prognostication. Prospective investigation and modelling with other significant parameters in a larger cohort are warranted.

Pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy for previously untreated, PD-L1-expressing, locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (KEYNOTE-042): a randomised, open-label, controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: First-line pembrolizumab monotherapy improves overall and progression-free survival in patients with untreated metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer with a programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) tumour proportion score (TPS) of 50% or greater. We investigated overall survival after treatment with pembrolizumab monotherapy in patients with a PD-L1 TPS of 1% or greater. METHODS: This randomised, open-label, phase 3 study was done in 213 medical centres in 32 countries. Eligible patients were adults (≥18 years) with previously untreated locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer without a sensitising EGFR mutation or ALK translocation and with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status score of 0 or 1, life expectancy 3 months or longer, and a PD-L1 TPS of 1% or greater. Randomisation was computer generated, accessed via an interactive voice-response and integrated web-response system, and stratified by region of enrolment (east Asia vs rest of world), ECOG performance status score (0 vs 1), histology (squamous vs non-squamous), and PD-L1 TPS (≥50% vs 1-49%). Enrolled patients were randomly assigned 1:1 in blocks of four per stratum to receive pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles or the investigator's choice of platinum-based chemotherapy for four to six cycles. Primary endpoints were overall survival in patients with a TPS of 50% or greater, 20% or greater, and 1% or greater (one-sided significance thresholds, p=0·0122, p=0·0120, and p=0·0124, respectively) in the intention-to-treat population, assessed sequentially if the previous findings were significant. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02220894. FINDINGS: From Dec 19, 2014, to March 6, 2017, 1274 patients (902 men, 372 women, median age 63 years [IQR 57-69]) with a PD-L1 TPS of 1% or greater were allocated to pembrolizumab (n=637) or chemotherapy (n=637) and included in the intention-to-treat population. 599 (47%) had a TPS of 50% or greater and 818 patients (64%) had a TPS of 20% or greater. As of Feb 26, 2018, median follow-up was 12·8 months. Overall survival was significantly longer in the pembrolizumab group than in the chemotherapy group in all three TPS populations (≥50% hazard ratio 0·69, 95% CI 0·56-0·85, p=0·0003; ≥20% 0·77, 0·64-0·92, p=0·0020, and ≥1% 0·81, 0·71-0·93, p=0·0018). The median surival values by TPS population were 20·0 months (95% CI 15·4-24·9) for pembrolizumab versus 12·2 months (10·4-14·2) for chemotherapy, 17·7 months (15·3-22·1) versus 13·0 months (11·6-15·3), and 16·7 months (13·9-19·7) versus 12·1 months (11·3-13·3), respectively. Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or worse occurred in 113 (18%) of 636 treated patients in the pembrolizumab group and in 252 (41%) of 615 in the chemotherapy group and led to death in 13 (2%) and 14 (2%) patients, respectively. INTERPRETATION: The benefit-to-risk profile suggests that pembrolizumab monotherapy can be extended as first-line therapy to patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer without sensitising EGFR or ALK alterations and with low PD-L1 TPS. FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme.

Outcomes associated with immune-related adverse events in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer treated with nivolumab: a pooled exploratory analysis from a global cohort.

BACKGROUND: Immune-related adverse events (irAEs) comprise a distinct spectrum of auto-inflammatory manifestations triggered due to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). Current data on the association of irAEs with outcomes in NSCLC treated with nivolumab are limited. METHODS AND OBJECTIVES: We pooled data from 531 metastatic NSCLC patients from five centers treated with nivolumab after failing platinum-based chemotherapy. The primary objective was to investigate the relationship between irAEs with clinical benefit to nivolumab as well as to elucidate patterns of irAE-related ICI discontinuations and their impact on survival. RESULTS: 33.0% (173/531) of patients treated with nivolumab were noted to have an irAE. Patients with irAEs had a significantly longer median PFS [6.1 vs. 3.1 months, HR 0.68 95% CI (0.55-0.85); p = 0.001] and OS [14.9 vs. 7.4 months, HR 0.66 95% CI (0.52-0.82); p < 0.001)] compared to those without irAEs. In multivariate analysis, the presence of irAEs showed a significantly better PFS [HR 0.69, 95% CI (0.55-0.87); p = 0.002] and a trend for better OS [HR 0.62, 95% CI (0.55-1.03); p = 0.057]. Patients with permanent ICI discontinuation secondary to index irAE had a significantly shorter median PFS [2.3 vs. 6.6 months, HR 1.74 95% CI (1.06-2.80); p = 0.02] and median OS [3.6 vs. 17.6 months; HR 2.61 95% CI (1.61-4.21); p < 0.001] compared to those that did not have permanent ICI discontinuation. CONCLUSIONS: Our pooled exploratory analysis demonstrates improved clinical benefit to nivolumab in NSCLC patients experiencing irAEs. We also observed negative impact of irAE-related treatment discontinuation on survival in this group of patients.

Correction to: Outcomes associated with immune-related adverse events in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer treated with nivolumab: a pooled exploratory analysis from a global cohort.

The original version of this article unfortunately contained a mistake. The second sentence of the section "irAEs and ICI efficacy" should read as.

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors and the Risk of Allograft Rejection: A Comprehensive Analysis on an Emerging Issue.

BACKGROUND: It is well known that the state of immune tolerance induced by broad immunosuppression to prevent allograft rejection leads to an increased risk of the development of cancer. One of the most promising new areas of cancer treatment has been the development of immune checkpoint inhibitors that target the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 and programmed cell death protein 1/programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) pathways. As a logical consequence, growing interest in these agents translated into their implementation in patients with transplant-related malignancies. Because of overlapping and perhaps mutually exclusive mechanisms of action of transplant immunosuppression and cancer immunomodulation, it is critical to examine these interactions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We carried out a systematic search for review articles and case reports published between July 2014 and November 2017 using three engines: Usearch, PubMed, and Up-to-date. RESULTS: Overall, there were 20 cases with 12 allograft rejections. The rejection rate associated with nivolumab was 73% (8/11) and with pembrolizumab it was 100% (2/2). The use of ipilimumab did not lead to rejection in any instance (0/4, 0%). Of the two patients treated with the sequential use of ipilimumab/nivolumab, one lost his allograft, yielding a rejection rate of 50%. The sequential use of ipilimumab/pembrolizumab led to a rejection rate of 100% (1/1, 100%). CONCLUSION: The use of agents that act on the PD-L1 pathway are contraindicated in the face of solid organ allografts because of unacceptably high rates of irreversible allograft rejection. It appears that the use of ipilimumab may be tolerated as the mechanism is different from that of the PD-L1 agents. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Transplant rejection is a complex process that puts stress on patients and their families and can lead to tragic results. Significant advancements in the field of immunosuppression have led to the engenderment of agents devised to extend the survival of transplant recipients. The advent of immunomodulators in cancer therapy has been paradigm-shifting; however, because of their mechanism of action, their use must be carefully considered in patients with allografts and concomitant cancer. It appears that ipilimumab can be administered safely in these patients but that agents acting on the programmed death-ligand 1 pathway are contraindicated because of high rates of irreversible rejection.

EGFR Mutation Testing: Changing Patterns of Molecular Testing in Brazil.

BACKGROUND: In Brazil, cancer is the second most common cause of death. Most patients in resource-limited countries are diagnosed in advanced stages. Current guidelines advocate for EGFR mutation testing in all patients with metastatic adenocarcinoma. Tyrosine kinase inhibitors are recommended in patients with advanced or metastatic disease harboring sensitizing mutations. In Brazil, there are limited data regarding the frequency of EGFR testing and the changes in patterns of testing overtime. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was an observational, retrospective study. We obtained deidentified data from a commercial database, which included 11,684 patients with non-small cell lung cancer treated between 2011 and 2016 in both public and private settings. We analyzed the frequency of EGFR mutation testing over time. We also directly studied 3,664 tumor samples, which were analyzed between 2011 and 2013. These samples were tested for EGFR mutations through an access program to tyrosine kinase inhibitors in Brazil. RESULTS: Overall, 38% of patients were tested for EGFR mutations; 76% of them were seen in the private sector, and 24% were seen in the public center. The frequency of testing for EGFR mutations increased significantly over time: 13% (287/2,228 patients) in 2011, 34% (738/2,142) in 2012, 39% (822/2,092) in 2013, 44% (866/1,972) in 2014, 53% (1,165/2,184) in 2015, and 42% (1,359/3,226) in 2016. EGFR mutations were detected in 25.5% of analyzed samples (857/3,364). Deletions in Exon 19 were the most frequent mutations, detected in 54% of patients (463/857). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that the frequency of EGFR mutation in this cohort was lower than that found in Asia but higher than in North American and Western European populations. The most commonly found mutations were in Exon 19 and Exon 21. Our study shows that fewer than half of patients are being tested and that the disparity is greater in the public sector. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: These data not only indicate the shortage of testing but also show that the rates of positivity in those tested seem to be higher than in other cohorts for which data have been published. This study further supports the idea that awareness and access to testing should be improved in order to improve survival rates in lung cancer in Brazil.

Clinical Implications of Circulating Tumor DNA Tumor Mutational Burden (ctDNA TMB) in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Tissue tumor mutational burden (TMB) has emerged as a potential biomarker predicting response to anti-programmed cell death-1 protein receptor (PD-1)/programmed cell death-1 protein ligand (PD-L1) therapy, but few studies have explored using circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) TMB in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 136 patients with NSCLC with ctDNA testing were retrospectively evaluated from a single institution, along with a validation cohort from a second institution. ctDNA TMB was derived using the number of detected mutations over the DNA sequencing length. RESULTS: Higher ctDNA TMB was significantly correlated with smoking history (p < .05, chi-squared test). Among patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (n = 20), higher ctDNA TMB was significantly correlated with shorter progressive free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS; 45 vs. 355 days; hazard ratio [HR], 5.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3-24.6; p < .01, and OS 106 days vs. not reached; HR, 6.0; 95% CI, 1.3-27.1; p < .01, respectively). In a small independent validation cohort (n = 12), there was a nonsignificant numerical difference for higher ctDNA TMB predicting shorter OS but not PFS. ctDNA TMB was not correlated with RECIST tumor burden estimation in the subset of patients treated with immune checkpoint blockade. CONCLUSION: The findings indicate that higher ctDNA TMB, at the current commercial sequencing length, reflects worse clinical outcomes. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Biomarkers to identify patients who will respond to immune checkpoint blockade are critical. Tissue tumor mutational burden (TMB) has emerged as a viable biomarker to predict response to anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy, but few studies have explored the meaning and potential clinical significance of noninvasive, blood-based TMB. Here, we investigated circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) TMB and present data demonstrating that current ctDNA TMB may reflect tumor burden and that ctDNA panels with a greater number of mutations may be necessary to more accurately reflect tissue TMB.

Cost-Effectiveness of Cabozantinib in the Second-Line Treatment of Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Treatment options are limited for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) that progresses after treatment with sorafenib. Cabozantinib, an oral small molecule inhibitor of multiple tyrosine kinase receptors, recently showed improved overall survival (OS) compared with placebo in sorafenib-pretreated patients with advanced HCC in the CELESTIAL trial. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of cabozantinib for second-line treatment of patients with advanced HCC from a US healthcare system perspective. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Cost and utility data were extracted from the CELESTIAL trial and used to determine the cost-effectiveness of cabozantinib compared with placebo plus best supportive care. The main outcome of this study was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), expressed as cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained by using cabozantinib compared with placebo plus best supportive care in sorafenib-pretreated HCC. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis using data from the CELESTIAL trial, the incremental QALY and ICER were 0.067 and $1,040,675 for cabozantinib compared with placebo and best supportive care. OS reported in the CELESTIAL trial (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.63-0.92) had the strongest association with the ICER. In one-way sensitivity analyses, there were no scenarios in which cabozantinib was cost-effective. In a cost-threshold analysis, cabozantinib would have to be priced at least $50 per pill to be cost-effective considering a willingness to pay of $100,000 per QALY. Although the CELESTIAL trial demonstrated that cabozantinib improves OS compared with placebo in patients with HCC that progresses after treatment with sorafenib, our analysis shows that cabozantinib is not a cost-effective therapy in this scenario. CONCLUSIONS: At current costs, cabozantinib is not cost-effective for second-line therapy of HCC in the United States.