Perioperative Nivolumab in Resectable Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Standard treatment with neoadjuvant nivolumab plus chemotherapy significantly improves outcomes in patients with resectable non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Perioperative treatment (i.e., neoadjuvant therapy followed by surgery and adjuvant therapy) with nivolumab may further improve clinical outcomes. METHODS: In this phase 3, randomized, double-blind trial, we assigned adults with resectable stage IIA to IIIB NSCLC to receive neoadjuvant nivolumab plus chemotherapy or neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus placebo every 3 weeks for 4 cycles, followed by surgery and adjuvant nivolumab or placebo every 4 weeks for 1 year. The primary outcome was event-free survival according to blinded independent review. Secondary outcomes were pathological complete response and major pathological response according to blinded independent review, overall survival, and safety. RESULTS: At this prespecified interim analysis (median follow-up, 25.4 months), the percentage of patients with 18-month event-free survival was 70.2% in the nivolumab group and 50.0% in the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio for disease progression or recurrence, abandoned surgery, or death, 0.58; 97.36% confidence interval [CI], 0.42 to 0.81; P<0.001). A pathological complete response occurred in 25.3% of the patients in the nivolumab group and in 4.7% of those in the chemotherapy group (odds ratio, 6.64; 95% CI, 3.40 to 12.97); a major pathological response occurred in 35.4% and 12.1%, respectively (odds ratio, 4.01; 95% CI, 2.48 to 6.49). Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 32.5% of the patients in the nivolumab group and in 25.2% of those in the chemotherapy group. CONCLUSIONS: Perioperative treatment with nivolumab resulted in significantly longer event-free survival than chemotherapy in patients with resectable NSCLC. No new safety signals were observed. (Funded by Bristol Myers Squibb; CheckMate 77T ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04025879.).

Neoadjuvant Nivolumab plus Chemotherapy in Resectable Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy confers a modest benefit over surgery alone for resectable non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In early-phase trials, nivolumab-based neoadjuvant regimens have shown promising clinical activity; however, data from phase 3 trials are needed to confirm these findings. METHODS: In this open-label, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients with stage IB to IIIA resectable NSCLC to receive nivolumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy or platinum-based chemotherapy alone, followed by resection. The primary end points were event-free survival and pathological complete response (0% viable tumor in resected lung and lymph nodes), both evaluated by blinded independent review. Overall survival was a key secondary end point. Safety was assessed in all treated patients. RESULTS: The median event-free survival was 31.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 30.2 to not reached) with nivolumab plus chemotherapy and 20.8 months (95% CI, 14.0 to 26.7) with chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio for disease progression, disease recurrence, or death, 0.63; 97.38% CI, 0.43 to 0.91; P = 0.005). The percentage of patients with a pathological complete response was 24.0% (95% CI, 18.0 to 31.0) and 2.2% (95% CI, 0.6 to 5.6), respectively (odds ratio, 13.94; 99% CI, 3.49 to 55.75; P<0.001). Results for event-free survival and pathological complete response across most subgroups favored nivolumab plus chemotherapy over chemotherapy alone. At the first prespecified interim analysis, the hazard ratio for death was 0.57 (99.67% CI, 0.30 to 1.07) and did not meet the criterion for significance. Of the patients who underwent randomization, 83.2% of those in the nivolumab-plus-chemotherapy group and 75.4% of those in the chemotherapy-alone group underwent surgery. Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 33.5% of the patients in the nivolumab-plus-chemotherapy group and in 36.9% of those in the chemotherapy-alone group. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with resectable NSCLC, neoadjuvant nivolumab plus chemotherapy resulted in significantly longer event-free survival and a higher percentage of patients with a pathological complete response than chemotherapy alone. The addition of nivolumab to neoadjuvant chemotherapy did not increase the incidence of adverse events or impede the feasibility of surgery. (Funded by Bristol Myers Squibb; CheckMate 816 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02998528.).

Plain language summary of the CheckMate 816 study results: nivolumab plus chemotherapy given before surgery for non-small-cell lung cancer.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: In this article, we summarize results from the ongoing phase 3 CheckMate 816 clinical study that were published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2022. The goal of CheckMate 816 was to find out if nivolumab, an immunotherapy that activates a person's immune system (the body's natural defense system) to fight cancer, plus chemotherapy works better than chemotherapy alone when given before surgery in people with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) that can be removed surgically (resectable NSCLC). WHAT HAPPENED IN THE STUDY?: Adults who had not previously taken medications to treat NSCLC and whose cancer could be removed with surgery were included in CheckMate 816. During this study, a computer randomly assigned the treatment each person would receive before surgery for NSCLC. In total, 179 people were randomly assigned to receive nivolumab plus chemotherapy, and 179 people were randomly assigned to receive chemotherapy alone. The researchers assessed whether people who received nivolumab plus chemotherapy lived longer without the cancer geting worse or coming back and whether there were any cancer cells left in the tumor and lymph nodes removed by surgery. The researchers also assessed how adding nivolumab to chemotherapy affected the timing and outcomes of surgery and whether the combination of these drugs was safe. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS?: Researchers found that people who took nivolumab plus chemotherapy lived longer without the cancer getting worse or coming back compared with those who took chemotherapy alone. More people in the nivolumab plus chemotherapy group had no cancer cells left in the tumor and lymph nodes removed by surgery. Most people went on to have surgery in both treatment groups; the people who took nivolumab plus chemotherapy instead of chemotherapy alone had less extensive surgeries and were more likely to have good outcomes after less extensive surgeries. Adding nivolumab to chemotherapy did not lead to an increase in the rate of side effects compared with chemotherapy alone, and side effects were generally mild and manageable. WHAT DO THE RESULTS OF THE STUDY MEAN?: Results from CheckMate 816 support the benefit of using nivolumab plus chemotherapy before surgery for people with resectable NSCLC. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02998528 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

First-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab combined with two cycles of chemotherapy in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (CheckMate 9LA): an international, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: First-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab has shown improved overall survival in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We aimed to investigate whether the addition of a limited course (two cycles) of chemotherapy to this combination would further enhance the clinical benefit. METHODS: This randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial was done at 103 hospitals in 19 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with treatment-naive, histologically confirmed stage IV or recurrent NSCLC, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by an interactive web response system via permuted blocks (block size of four) to nivolumab (360 mg intravenously every 3 weeks) plus ipilimumab (1 mg/kg intravenously every 6 weeks) combined with histology-based, platinum doublet chemotherapy (intravenously every 3 weeks for two cycles; experimental group), or chemotherapy alone (every 3 weeks for four cycles; control group). Randomisation was stratified by tumour histology, sex, and PD-L1 expression. The primary endpoint was overall survival in all randomly assigned patients. Safety was analysed in all treated patients. Results reported here are from a pre-planned interim analysis (when the study met its primary endpoint) and an exploratory longer-term follow-up analysis. This study is active but no longer recruiting patients, and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT03215706. FINDINGS: Between Aug 24, 2017, and Jan 30, 2019, 1150 patients were enrolled and 719 (62·5%) randomly assigned to nivolumab plus ipilimumab with two cycles of chemotherapy (n=361 [50%]) or four cycles of chemotherapy alone (n=358 [50%]). At the pre-planned interim analysis (median follow-up 9·7 months [IQR 6·4-12·8]), overall survival in all randomly assigned patients was significantly longer in the experimental group than in the control group (median 14·1 months [95% CI 13·2-16·2] vs 10·7 months [9·5-12·4]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·69 [96·71% CI 0·55-0·87]; p=0·00065). With 3·5 months longer median follow-up (median 13·2 months [IQR 6·4-17·0]), median overall survival was 15·6 months (95% CI 13·9-20·0) in the experimental group versus 10·9 months (9·5-12·6) in the control group (HR 0·66 [95% CI 0·55-0·80]). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were neutropenia (in 24 [7%] patients in the experimental group vs 32 [9%] in the control group), anaemia (21 [6%] vs 50 [14%]), diarrhoea (14 [4%] vs two [1%]), increased lipase (22 [6%] vs three [1%]), and asthenia (tjree [1%] vs eight [2%]). Serious treatment-related adverse events of any grade occurred in 106 (30%) patients in the experimental group and 62 (18%) in the control group. Seven (2%) deaths in the experimental group (acute kidney failure, diarrhoea, hepatotoxicity, hepatitis, pneumonitis, sepsis with acute renal insufficiency, and thrombocytopenia; one patient each) and six (2%) deaths in the control group (anaemia, febrile neutropenia, pancytopenia, pulmonary sepsis, respiratory failure, and sepsis; one patient each) were treatment related. INTERPRETATION: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab with two cycles of chemotherapy provided a significant improvement in overall survival versus chemotherapy alone and had a favourable risk-benefit profile. These data support this regimen as a new first-line treatment option for patients with advanced NSCLC. FUNDING: Bristol Myers Squibb.

Azacytidine plus olaparib for relapsed acute myeloid leukaemia, ineligible for intensive chemotherapy, diagnosed with a synchronous malignancy.

Patients with relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukaemia (AML), ineligible for intensive chemotherapy and allogeneic stem cell transplantation, have a dismal prognosis. For such cases, hypomethylating agents are a viable alternative, but with limited success. Combination chemotherapy using a hypomethylating agent plus another drug would potentially bring forward new alternatives. In the present manuscript, we present the cell and molecular background for a clinical scenario of a 44-year-old patient, diagnosed with high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma, diagnosed, and treated with a synchronous AML. Once the ovarian carcinoma relapsed, maintenance treatment with olaparib was initiated. Concomitantly, the bone marrow aspirate showed 30% myeloid blasts, consistent with a relapse of the underlying haematological disease. Azacytidine 75 mg/m2 treatment was started for seven days. The patient was administered two regimens of azacytidine monotherapy, additional to the olaparib-based maintenance therapy. After the second treatment, the patient presented with leucocytosis and 94% myeloid blasts on the bone marrow smear. Later, the patient unfortunately died. Following this clinical scenario, we reproduced in vitro the combination chemotherapy of azacytidine plus olaparib, to accurately assess the basic mechanisms of leukaemia progression, and resistance to treatment. Combination chemotherapy with drugs that theoretically target both malignancies might potentially be of use. Still, further research, both pre-clinical and clinical, is needed to accurately assess such cases.

Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab in Lung Cancer with a High Tumor Mutational Burden.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab showed promising efficacy for the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in a phase 1 trial, and tumor mutational burden has emerged as a potential biomarker of benefit. In this part of an open-label, multipart, phase 3 trial, we examined progression-free survival with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy among patients with a high tumor mutational burden (≥10 mutations per megabase). METHODS: We enrolled patients with stage IV or recurrent NSCLC that was not previously treated with chemotherapy. Those with a level of tumor programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression of at least 1% were randomly assigned, in a 1:1:1 ratio, to receive nivolumab plus ipilimumab, nivolumab monotherapy, or chemotherapy; those with a tumor PD-L1 expression level of less than 1% were randomly assigned, in a 1:1:1 ratio, to receive nivolumab plus ipilimumab, nivolumab plus chemotherapy, or chemotherapy. Tumor mutational burden was determined by the FoundationOne CDx assay. RESULTS: Progression-free survival among patients with a high tumor mutational burden was significantly longer with nivolumab plus ipilimumab than with chemotherapy. The 1-year progression-free survival rate was 42.6% with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus 13.2% with chemotherapy, and the median progression-free survival was 7.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.5 to 13.2) versus 5.5 months (95% CI, 4.4 to 5.8) (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.58; 97.5% CI, 0.41 to 0.81; P<0.001). The objective response rate was 45.3% with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 26.9% with chemotherapy. The benefit of nivolumab plus ipilimumab over chemotherapy was broadly consistent within subgroups, including patients with a PD-L1 expression level of at least 1% and those with a level of less than 1%. The rate of grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events was 31.2% with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 36.1% with chemotherapy. ical; CheckMate 227 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02477826 .). CONCLUSIONS: Progression-free survival was significantly longer with first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab than with chemotherapy among patients with NSCLC and a high tumor mutational burden, irrespective of PD-L1 expression level. The results validate the benefit of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in NSCLC and the role of tumor mutational burden as a biomarker for patient selection. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceut

Cardiotoxicity Associated with Chemotherapy Used in Gastrointestinal Tumours.

Cardiotoxicity is a well-recognised side effect of cancer-related therapies with a great impact on outcomes and quality of life in the cancer survivor population. The pathogenesis of chemotherapy-induced cardiotoxicity in patients with gastrointestinal cancers involves various molecular mechanisms, and the combined use of various chemotherapies augments the risk of each drug used alone. In terms of cardiotoxicity diagnosis, novel biomarkers, such as troponins, brain natriuretic peptide (BNP), myeloperoxidases and miRNAs have been recently assessed. Echocardiography is a noninvasive imaging method of choice for the primary assessment of chemotherapy-treated patients to generally evaluate the cardiovascular impact of these drugs. Novel echocardiography techniques, like three-dimensional and stress echocardiography, will improve diagnosis efficacy. Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) can evaluate cardiac morphology, function and wall structure. Corroborated data have shown the importance of CMR in the early evaluation of patients with gastrointestinal cancers, treated with anticancer drugs, but further studies are required to improve risk stratification in these patients. In this article, we review some important aspects concerning the cardiotoxicity of antineoplastic drugs used in gastrointestinal cancers. We also discuss the mechanism of cardiotoxicity, the role of biomarkers and the imaging methods used in its detection.

First-Line Nivolumab in Stage IV or Recurrent Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab has been associated with longer overall survival than docetaxel among patients with previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In an open-label phase 3 trial, we compared first-line nivolumab with chemotherapy in patients with programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive NSCLC. METHODS: We randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, patients with untreated stage IV or recurrent NSCLC and a PD-L1 tumor-expression level of 1% or more to receive nivolumab (administered intravenously at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram of body weight once every 2 weeks) or platinum-based chemotherapy (administered once every 3 weeks for up to six cycles). Patients receiving chemotherapy could cross over to receive nivolumab at the time of disease progression. The primary end point was progression-free survival, as assessed by means of blinded independent central review, among patients with a PD-L1 expression level of 5% or more. RESULTS: Among the 423 patients with a PD-L1 expression level of 5% or more, the median progression-free survival was 4.2 months with nivolumab versus 5.9 months with chemotherapy (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 1.15; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91 to 1.45; P=0.25), and the median overall survival was 14.4 months versus 13.2 months (hazard ratio for death, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.30). A total of 128 of 212 patients (60%) in the chemotherapy group received nivolumab as subsequent therapy. Treatment-related adverse events of any grade occurred in 71% of the patients who received nivolumab and in 92% of those who received chemotherapy. Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or 4 occurred in 18% of the patients who received nivolumab and in 51% of those who received chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab was not associated with significantly longer progression-free survival than chemotherapy among patients with previously untreated stage IV or recurrent NSCLC with a PD-L1 expression level of 5% or more. Overall survival was similar between groups. Nivolumab had a favorable safety profile, as compared with chemotherapy, with no new or unexpected safety signals. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and others; CheckMate 026 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02041533 .).

Randomised Phase 2 study of maintenance linsitinib (OSI-906) in combination with erlotinib compared with placebo plus erlotinib after platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Maintenance therapy is important in advanced/metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Erlotinib as switch maintenance following platinum-based chemotherapy increases survival. Cross-talk between the epidermal growth factor receptor and insulin-like growth factor receptor (IGFR) pathways mediate resistance to individual receptor blockade. This study compared maintenance linsitinib plus erlotinib vs erlotinib plus placebo in patients with NSCLC. METHODS: In this Phase II randomised trial, patients without progression following four cycles of first-line platinum-based chemotherapy (N=205) received continuous schedule maintenance oral linsitinib 150 mg or placebo BID combined with erlotinib 150 mg QD for 21-day cycles. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: The study was unblinded early due to linsitinib non-superiority. No difference was found between the two treatment groups in median PFS of 125 days linsitinib vs 129 days placebo (P=0.601); no difference in overall survival (OS) was observed. Tolerability was similar, although in the linsitinib group, treatment-related adverse events and discontinuations were more frequent. No drug-drug interaction was implicated. CONCLUSIONS: Linsitinib maintenance therapy added to erlotinib did not improve PFS or OS in non-progressing NSCLC patients. This highlights the need for robust biomarkers of response for combinations that incorporate IGFR-targeted therapies in maintenance or other therapeutic settings.

Biomarkers for the early detection of relapses in metastatic colorectal cancers.

PURPOSE: To assess prognostic/predictive value of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), transthyretin (TRT), αenolase (NNE), ß2-microglobulin (ß2-micro), B-cell activating factor (BAFF) and circulating tumor cells (CTCs) in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients treated with chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab. METHODS: 72 histologically confirmed mCRC patients treated at Oncology Institute Cluj were included. Biomarker levels were measured through validated methods. A manual method was used for CTCs, involving hemolysis, cytospin centrifugation and immunocytochemical staining for pan-cytokeratin. Statistical endpoints were response, progression- free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Initial chemotherapy was fluoropyrimidine/oxaliplatin-based in 93.1%; bevacizumab was added in 58.3% of the patients. Median PFS and OS were 16.4 and 24.4 months. Two-year OS for CR & PR vs SD vs PD were 90% vs 48% vs 12%, respectively (p<0.01). Two-year OS for chemo/ bevacizumab vs chemotherapy: 65% vs 42% (p=0.09). Baseline CEA ≥5 ng/ml had a negative prognostic impact on OS and PFS (p<0.01). High baseline CEA was predictive of improved OS when adding bevacizumab (2-year OS chemo/bevacizumab vs chemo: 60% vs 17%, p<0.01); adding bevacizumab in patients with normal CEA did not improve OS (p=0.29). Higher than cut-off values for TRT had a positive OS prognostic value (p<0.01); higher levels for NNE, ß2-microglobulin and BAFF had a negative impact (p<0.01). Two-year OS for baseline <1 CTC/ml vs ≥1 CTC/ ml was 74% vs 64% respectively (p=0.15). CONCLUSIONS: The evaluated biomarkers could be useful prognostic factors for survival. Baseline CEA also has predictive value, suggesting that patients with low levels do not benefit from bevacizumab. A non-statistically significant correlation was observed between the number of CTCs and outcome.

Ramucirumab versus placebo in combination with second-line FOLFIRI in patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma that progressed during or after first-line therapy with bevacizumab, oxaliplatin, and a fluoropyrimidine (RAISE): a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Angiogenesis is an important therapeutic target in colorectal carcinoma. Ramucirumab is a human IgG-1 monoclonal antibody that targets the extracellular domain of VEGF receptor 2. We assessed the efficacy and safety of ramucirumab versus placebo in combination with second-line FOLFIRI (leucovorin, fluorouracil, and irinotecan) for metastatic colorectal cancer in patients with disease progression during or after first-line therapy with bevacizumab, oxaliplatin, and a fluoropyrimidine. METHODS: Between Dec 14, 2010, and Aug 23, 2013, we enrolled patients into the multicentre, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 RAISE trial. Eligible patients had disease progression during or within 6 months of the last dose of first-line therapy. Patients were randomised (1:1) via a centralised, interactive voice-response system to receive 8 mg/kg intravenous ramucirumab plus FOLFIRI or matching placebo plus FOLFIRI every 2 weeks until disease progression, unacceptable toxic effects, or death. Randomisation was stratified by region, KRAS mutation status, and time to disease progression after starting first-line treatment. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01183780.ld FINDINGS: We enrolled 1072 patients (536 in each group). Median overall survival was 13·3 months (95% CI 12·4-14·5) for patients in the ramucirumab group versus 11·7 months (10·8-12·7) for the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·844 95% CI 0·730-0·976; log-rank p=0·0219). Survival benefit was consistent across subgroups of patients who received ramucirumab plus FOLFIRI. Grade 3 or worse adverse events seen in more than 5% of patients were neutropenia (203 [38%] of 529 patients in the ramucirumab group vs 123 [23%] of 528 in the placebo group, with febrile neutropenia incidence of 18 [3%] vs 13 [2%]), hypertension (59 [11%] vs 15 [3%]), diarrhoea (57 [11%] vs 51 [10%]), and fatigue (61 [12%] vs 41 [8%]). INTERPRETATION: Ramucirumab plus FOLFIRI significantly improved overall survival compared with placebo plus FOLFIRI as second-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma. No unexpected adverse events were identified and toxic effects were manageable. FUNDING: Eli Lilly.

Ramucirumab plus docetaxel versus placebo plus docetaxel for second-line treatment of stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer after disease progression on platinum-based therapy (REVEL): a multicentre, double-blind, randomised phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Ramucirumab is a human IgG1 monoclonal antibody that targets the extracellular domain of VEGFR-2. We aimed to assess efficacy and safety of treatment with docetaxel plus ramucirumab or placebo as second-line treatment for patients with stage IV non-small-cell-lung cancer (NSCLC) after platinum-based therapy. METHODS: In this multicentre, double-blind, randomised phase 3 trial (REVEL), we enrolled patients with squamous or non-squamous NSCLC who had progressed during or after a first-line platinum-based chemotherapy regimen. Patients were randomly allocated (1:1) with a centralised, interactive voice-response system (stratified by sex, region, performance status, and previous maintenance therapy [yes vs no]) to receive docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) and either ramucirumab (10 mg/kg) or placebo on day 1 of a 21 day cycle until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, withdrawal, or death. The primary endpoint was overall survival in all patients allocated to treatment. We assessed adverse events according to treatment received. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01168973. FINDINGS: Between Dec 3, 2010, and Jan 24, 2013, we screened 1825 patients, of whom 1253 patients were randomly allocated to treatment. Median overall survival was 10·5 months (IQR 5·1-21·2) for 628 patients allocated ramucirumab plus docetaxel and 9·1 months (4·2-18·0) for 625 patients who received placebo plus docetaxel (hazard ratio 0·86, 95% CI 0·75-0·98; p=0·023). Median progression-free survival was 4·5 months (IQR 2·3-8·3) for the ramucirumab group compared with 3·0 months (1·4-6·9) for the control group (0·76, 0·68-0·86; p<0·0001). We noted treatment-emergent adverse events in 613 (98%) of 627 patients in the ramucirumab safety population and 594 (95%) of 618 patients in the control safety population. The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were neutropenia (306 patients [49%] in the ramucirumab group vs 246 [40%] in the control group), febrile neutropenia (100 [16%] vs 62 [10%]), fatigue (88 [14%] vs 65 [10%]), leucopenia (86 [14%] vs 77 [12%]), and hypertension (35 [6%] vs 13 [2%]). The numbers of deaths from adverse events (31 [5%] vs 35 [6%]) and grade 3 or worse pulmonary haemorrhage (eight [1%] vs eight [1%]) did not differ between groups. Toxicities were manageable with appropriate dose reductions and supportive care. INTERPRETATION: Ramucirumab plus docetaxel improves survival as second-line treatment of patients with stage IV NSCLC. FUNDING: Eli Lilly.

Tecemotide (L-BLP25) versus placebo after chemoradiotherapy for stage III non-small-cell lung cancer (START): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Effective maintenance therapies after chemoradiotherapy for lung cancer are lacking. Our aim was to investigate whether the MUC1 antigen-specific cancer immunotherapy tecemotide improves survival in patients with stage III unresectable non-small-cell lung cancer when given as maintenance therapy after chemoradiation. METHODS: The phase 3 START trial was an international, randomised, double-blind trial that recruited patients with unresectable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer who had completed chemoradiotherapy within the 4-12 week window before randomisation and received confirmation of stable disease or objective response. Patients were stratified by stage (IIIA vs IIIB), response to chemoradiotherapy (stable disease vs objective response), delivery of chemoradiotherapy (concurrent vs sequential), and region using block randomisation, and were randomly assigned (2:1, double-blind) by a central interactive voice randomisation system to either tecemotide or placebo. Injections of tecemotide (806 µg lipopeptide) or placebo were given every week for 8 weeks, and then every 6 weeks until disease progression or withdrawal. Cyclophosphamide 300 mg/m(2) (before tecemotide) or saline (before placebo) was given once before the first study drug administration. The primary endpoint was overall survival in a modified intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00409188. FINDINGS: From Feb 22, 2007, to Nov 15, 2011, 1513 patients were randomly assigned (1006 to tecemotide and 507 to placebo). 274 patients were excluded from the primary analysis population as a result of a clinical hold, resulting in analysis of 829 patients in the tecemotide group and 410 in the placebo group in the modified intention-to-treat population. Median overall survival was 25.6 months (95% CI 22.5-29.2) with tecemotide versus 22.3 months (19.6-25.5) with placebo (adjusted HR 0.88, 0.75-1.03; p=0.123). In the patients who received previous concurrent chemoradiotherapy, median overall survival for the 538 (65%) of 829 patients assigned to tecemotide was 30.8 months (95% CI 25.6-36.8) compared with 20.6 months (17.4-23.9) for the 268 (65%) of 410 patients assigned to placebo (adjusted HR 0.78, 0.64-0.95; p=0.016). In patients who received previous sequential chemoradiotherapy, overall survival did not differ between the 291 (35%) patients in the tecemotide group and the 142 (35%) patients in the placebo group (19.4 months [95% CI 17.6-23.1] vs 24.6 months [18.8-33.0], respectively; adjusted HR 1.12, 0.87-1.44; p=0.38). Grade 3-4 adverse events seen with a greater than 2% frequency with tecemotide were dyspnoea (49 [5%] of 1024 patients in the tecemotide group vs 21 [4%] of 477 patients in the placebo group), metastases to central nervous system (29 [3%] vs 6 [1%]), and pneumonia (23 [2%] vs 12 [3%]). Serious adverse events with a greater than 2% frequency with tecemotide were pneumonia (30 [3%] in the tecemotide group vs 14 [3%] in the placebo group), dyspnoea (29 [3%] vs 13 [3%]), and metastases to central nervous system (32 [3%] vs 9 [2%]). Serious immune-related adverse events did not differ between groups. INTERPRETATION: We found no significant difference in overall survival with the administration of tecemotide after chemoradiotherapy compared with placebo for all patients with unresectable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer. However, tecemotide might have a role for patients who initially receive concurrent chemoradiotherapy, and further study in this population is warranted. FUNDING: Merck KGaA (Darmstadt, Germany).

MicroRNAs expression profile in chemotherapy-induced cardiotoxicity in NSCLC using a co-culture model.

Clinical application of chemotherapy in lung cancer is constrained by side effects, notably cardiotoxicity, the mechanisms of which remain elusive. This study assessed the potential of specific miRNAs as biomarkers for chemotherapy-induced cardiotoxicity in lung cancer. We employed two lung adenocarcinoma cell lines (Calu6 and H1792) and ventricular normal human cardiac fibroblasts (NHCF-V) in single and co-culture experiments. Functional tests were conducted using 100 µM carboplatin and 1µM vinorelbine doses. The effects of carboplatin and vinorelbine, both individually and in combination, were evaluated at cellular and molecular levels 48h post-therapy for both mono- and co-cultures. miR-205-5p, miR-21-5p, and miR-30a-5p, modulated by anticancer treatments and influencing cardiotoxicity, were analyzed. Vinorelbine and carboplatin treatment promoted apoptosis and autophagy in lung cancer cells and cardiac fibroblasts more than in controls. Western blot analyses revealed BCL2 and p53 protein upregulation. Using qRT-PCR, we investigated the expression dynamics of miR-21-5p, miR-30c-5p, and miR-205-5p in co-cultured cardiomyocytes and lung cancer cells, revealing altered miRNA patterns from vinorelbine and carboplatin treatment. Our findings underscore the intricate relationship between chemotherapy, miRNA regulation, and cardiotoxicity, highlighting the importance of cardiac health in lung cancer treatment decisions.

Use of Different Anti-PD-1 Checkpoint Combination Strategies for First-Line Advanced NSCLC Treatment-The Experience of Ion Chiricuța Oncology Institute.

PURPOSE: Different combination modalities between an anti-PD-1/PD-L1 agent and a platinum-based chemotherapy or another checkpoint inhibitor (with or without a short course or full course of a platinum doublet) proved superior to chemotherapy alone in multiple clinical trials, but these strategies were not directly compared. The aim of this study is to report the real-world data results with different immunotherapy combinations in a series of patients treated in consecutive cohorts at the Ion Chiricuța Oncology Institute. METHODS: A total of 122 patients were successively enrolled in three cohorts: (1A) nivolumab + ipilimumab (18 patients), (1B) nivolumab + ipilimumab + short-course chemotherapy (33 patients), and (2) pembrolizumab plus full-course chemotherapy (71 patients). Endpoints included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response (ORR), and univariate and multivariate exploratory analysis of prognostic factors. RESULTS: Median follow-up in the consecutive cohorts 1A, 1B, and 2 was 83 versus 59 versus 14.2 months. Median OS and PFS for all patients were 22.2 and 11.5 months, respectively, and 2-year actuarial OS and PFS were 49% and 35%, respectively. For the nivolumab + ipilimumab (cohorts 1A and 1B) versus pembrolizumab combinations (cohort 2), median OS was 14 vs. 24.8 months (p = 0.18) and 2-year actuarial survival 42% vs. 53%; median PFS was 8.6 vs. 12.7 months (p = 0.41) and 2-year actuarial PFS 34% vs. 35%; response rates were 33.3% vs. 47.9% (p = 0.22). Older age, impaired PS (2 versus 0-1), corticotherapy in the first month of immunotherapy, and >3.81 neutrophils to lymphocytes ratio were independent unfavorable prognostic factors in the multivariate analysis of survival (limited to 2 years follow-up). The 5-year long-term survival was 30.5% and 18.8% for cohorts 1A and 1B, respectively (not enough follow-up for cohort 2). CONCLUSIONS: Efficacy results using different immunotherapy combination strategies were promising and not significantly different between protocols at 2 years. Real-world efficacy and long-term results in our series were in line with those reported in the corresponding registration trials.

Sotorasib (960 mg or 240 mg) once daily in patients with previously treated KRAS G12C-mutated advanced NSCLC.

BACKGROUND: Sotorasib 960 mg once daily is approved to treat KRAS G12C-mutated locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Sotorasib exhibits non-dose proportional pharmacokinetics and clinical responses at lower doses; therefore, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of sotorasib 960 mg and 240 mg. METHODS: In this phase 2, randomized, open-label study, adults with KRAS G12C-mutated advanced NSCLC received sotorasib 960 mg or 240 mg once daily. Primary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR) and safety. Secondary endpoints included disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and pharmacokinetics. The study was not powered for formal statistical hypothesis testing. RESULTS: In the 960 mg group (n = 104), ORR was 32.7 % and DCR was 86.5 %. In the 240 mg group (n = 105), ORR was 24.8 % and DCR was 81.9 %. Median PFS was 5.4 months (960 mg) and 5.6 months (240 mg). At a median follow-up of 17.5 months, median OS was 13.0 months (960 mg) and 11.7 months (240 mg). AUC0-24 h and Cmax were 1.3-fold numerically higher with the 960 mg dose. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs, ≥10 %) for 960 mg and 240 mg doses, respectively, were diarrhea (39.4 %; 31.7 %), nausea (23.1 %; 19.2 %), increased alanine aminotransaminase (14.4 %; 17.3 %), and increased aspartate aminotransferase (13.5 %; 13.5 %). CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated with sotorasib 960 mg once daily had numerically higher ORR and DCR, and longer DOR and OS, than patients treated with 240 mg in this descriptive analysis. TEAEs were manageable with label-directed dose modifications. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03600883.

Four-year clinical update and treatment switching-adjusted outcomes with first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy for metastatic non-small cell lung cancer in the CheckMate 9LA randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: In CheckMate 9LA, nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy prolonged overall survival (OS) versus chemotherapy regardless of tumor PD-L1 expression or histology. We report updated efficacy and safety in all randomized patients with a minimum 4-year follow-up and an exploratory treatment-switching adjustment analysis in all treated patients who received chemotherapy and subsequent immunotherapy. METHODS: Adults with stage IV/recurrent non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), no sensitizing EGFR/ALK alterations, and ECOG performance status ≤1 were randomized 1:1 to nivolumab 360 mg every 3 weeks plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 6 weeks with chemotherapy (two cycles) or chemotherapy (four cycles, with optional maintenance pemetrexed for the nonsquamous population). Assessments included OS, progression-free survival, and objective response rate. Exploratory analyses included efficacy by tumor PD-L1 expression and histology and in patients who discontinued nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy due to treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), and a treatment-switching adjustment analysis using inverse probability of censoring weighting. RESULTS: With a 47.9-month minimum follow-up for OS, nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy continued to prolong OS over chemotherapy in all randomized patients (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.87; 4-year OS rate: 21% versus 16%), regardless of tumor PD-L1 expression (HR (95% CI): PD-L1<1%, 0.66 (0.50 to 0.86) and ≥1%, 0.74 (0.60 to 0.92)) or histology (squamous, 0.64 (0.48 to 0.84) and non-squamous, 0.80 (0.66 to 0.97)). In patients who discontinued all components of nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy due to TRAEs (n=61), the 4-year OS rate was 41%. With treatment-switching adjustment for the 36% of patients receiving subsequent immunotherapy in the chemotherapy arm, the estimated HR of nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy was 0.66 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.80). No new safety signals were observed. CONCLUSIONS: In this 4-year update, patients treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy continued to have long-term, durable efficacy benefit over chemotherapy regardless of tumor PD-L1 expression and/or histology. A greater estimated relative OS benefit was observed after adjustment for subsequent immunotherapy use in the chemotherapy arm. These results further support nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy as a first-line treatment for patients with metastatic/recurrent NSCLC, including those with tumor PD-L1<1% or squamous histology, populations with high unmet needs.

Exploring Therapeutic Avenues in Lung Cancer: The Epigenetic Perspective.

Lung cancer, primarily non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) and small cell lung carcinoma (SCLC), is distinguished by its high prevalence and marked mortality rates. Traditional therapeutic approaches, encompassing chemotherapy, radiation, and targeted therapies, frequently show limited efficacy due to acquired resistance and notable side effects. The objective of this review is to introduce a fresh perspective on the therapeutic strategies for lung cancer, emphasizing interventions targeting the epigenetic alterations often seen in this malignancy. This review presents the most recent advancements in the field, focusing on both past and current clinical trials related to the modulation of methylation patterns using diverse molecular agents. Furthermore, an in-depth analysis of the challenges and advantages of these methylation-modifying drugs will be provided, assessing their efficacy as individual treatments and their potential for synergy when integrated with prevailing therapeutic regimens.

First-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab with two cycles of chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone (four cycles) in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer: CheckMate 9LA 2-year patient-reported outcomes.

BACKGROUND: In CheckMate 9LA (NCT03215706), first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy (2 cycles) significantly improved overall survival versus chemotherapy (4 cycles) in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer and no known sensitising epidermal growth factor receptor/anaplastic lymphoma kinase alterations. We present exploratory patient-reported outcomes (PROs; minimum follow-up, 2 years). METHODS: In patients (N = 719) randomised 1:1 to nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy or chemotherapy alone, disease-related symptom burden and health-related quality of life were assessed using the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS) and 3-level EQ-5D (EQ-5D-3L). Treatment-phase changes in LCSS average symptom burden index (ASBI), LCSS three-item global index (3-IGI) and EQ-5D-3L visual analogue scale (VAS) and utility index (UI) over time were analysed descriptively and using mixed-effect model repeated measures. Time-to-deterioration/improvement analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Treatment-phase PRO questionnaire completion rates were >80%. Mean treatment-phase changes showed no deterioration from baseline in both arms for LCSS ASBI/3-IGI and EQ-5D-3L VAS/UI; however, minimally important differences were not met. Mixed-effect model repeated measures analyses showed overall reduction in symptom burden from baseline for both arms; changes from baseline for LCSS 3-IGI and EQ-5D-3L VAS/UI were numerically improved with nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy, but minimally important differences were not met. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy delayed time-to-definitive-deterioration versus chemotherapy (LCSS ASBI: hazard ratio, 0.62 [95% confidence interval, 0.45-0.87]); results were similar across PRO measures. CONCLUSIONS: At 2-year minimum follow-up, first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy reduced the risk of definitive deterioration in disease-related symptom burden and health-related quality of life versus chemotherapy and maintained QoL in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier, NCT03215706.

Five-Year Survival Outcomes With Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab Versus Chemotherapy as First-Line Treatment for Metastatic Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer in CheckMate 227.

PURPOSE: We present 5-year results from CheckMate 227 Part 1, in which nivolumab plus ipilimumab improved overall survival (OS) versus chemotherapy in patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer, regardless of tumor programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) status. METHODS: Adults with stage IV/recurrent non-small-cell lung cancer without EGFR mutations or ALK alterations and with tumor PD-L1 ≥ 1% or < 1% (n = 1739) were randomly assigned. Patients with tumor PD-L1 ≥ 1% were randomly assigned to first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab, nivolumab alone, or chemotherapy. Patients with tumor PD-L1 < 1% were randomly assigned to nivolumab plus ipilimumab, nivolumab plus chemotherapy, or chemotherapy. End points included exploratory 5-year results for efficacy, safety, and quality of life. RESULTS: At a minimum follow-up of 61.3 months, 5-year OS rates were 24% versus 14% for nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy (PD-L1 ≥ 1%) and 19% versus 7% (PD-L1 < 1%). The median duration of response was 24.5 versus 6.7 months (PD-L1 ≥ 1%) and 19.4 versus 4.8 months (PD-L1 < 1%). Among patients surviving 5 years, 66% (PD-L1 ≥ 1%) and 64% (PD-L1 < 1%) were off nivolumab plus ipilimumab without initiating subsequent systemic anticancer treatment by the 5-year time point. Survival benefit continued after nivolumab plus ipilimumab discontinuation because of treatment-related adverse events, with a 5-year OS rate of 39% (combined PD-L1 ≥ 1% and < 1% populations). Quality of life in 5-year survivors treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab was similar to that in the general US population through the 5-year follow-up. No new safety signals were observed. CONCLUSION: With all patients off immunotherapy treatment for ≥ 3 years, nivolumab plus ipilimumab increased 5-year survivorship versus chemotherapy, including long-term, durable clinical benefit regardless of tumor PD-L1 expression. These data support nivolumab plus ipilimumab as an effective first-line treatment for patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer.