Tarlatamab for Patients with Previously Treated Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Tarlatamab, a bispecific T-cell engager immunotherapy targeting delta-like ligand 3 and CD3, showed promising antitumor activity in a phase 1 trial in patients with previously treated small-cell lung cancer. METHODS: In this phase 2 trial, we evaluated the antitumor activity and safety of tarlatamab, administered intravenously every 2 weeks at a dose of 10 mg or 100 mg, in patients with previously treated small-cell lung cancer. The primary end point was objective response (complete or partial response), as assessed by blinded independent central review according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1. RESULTS: Overall, 220 patients received tarlatamab; patients had previously received a median of two lines of treatment. Among patients evaluated for antitumor activity and survival, the median follow-up was 10.6 months in the 10-mg group and 10.3 months in the 100-mg group. An objective response occurred in 40% (97.5% confidence interval [CI], 29 to 52) of the patients in the 10-mg group and in 32% (97.5% CI, 21 to 44) of those in the 100-mg group. Among patients with an objective response, the duration of response was at least 6 months in 59% (40 of 68 patients). Objective responses at the time of data cutoff were ongoing in 22 of 40 patients (55%) in the 10-mg group and in 16 of 28 patients (57%) in the 100-mg group. The median progression-free survival was 4.9 months (95% CI, 2.9 to 6.7) in the 10-mg group and 3.9 months (95% CI, 2.6 to 4.4) in the 100-mg group; the estimates of overall survival at 9 months were 68% and 66% of patients, respectively. The most common adverse events were cytokine-release syndrome (in 51% of the patients in the 10-mg group and in 61% of those in the 100-mg group), decreased appetite (in 29% and 44%, respectively), and pyrexia (in 35% and 33%). Cytokine-release syndrome occurred primarily during treatment cycle 1, and events in most of the patients were grade 1 or 2 in severity. Grade 3 cytokine-release syndrome occurred less frequently in the 10-mg group (in 1% of the patients) than in the 100-mg group (in 6%). A low percentage of patients (3%) discontinued tarlatamab because of treatment-related adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Tarlatamab, administered as a 10-mg dose every 2 weeks, showed antitumor activity with durable objective responses and promising survival outcomes in patients with previously treated small-cell lung cancer. No new safety signals were identified. (Funded by Amgen; DeLLphi-301 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05060016.).

Exploring the impact of patient-specific clinical features on osimertinib effectiveness in a real-world cohort of patients with EGFR mutated non-small cell lung cancer.

Osimertinib is prescribed to patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and a sensitizing EGFR mutation. Limited data exists on the impact of patient characteristics or osimertinib exposure on effectiveness outcomes. This was a Dutch, multicenter cohort study. Eligible patients were ≥18 years, with metastatic EGFRm+ NSCLC, receiving osimertinib. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS) and safety. Kaplan-Meier analyses and multivariate Cox proportional hazard models were performed. In total, 294 patients were included. Primary EGFR-mutations were mainly exon 19 deletions (54%) and p.L858R point mutations (30%). Osimertinib was given in first-line (40%), second-line (46%) or beyond (14%), with median PFS 14.4 (95% CI: 9.4-19.3), 13.9 (95% CI: 11.3-16.1) and 8.7 months (95% CI: 4.6-12.7), respectively. Patients with low BMI (<20.0 kg/m2 ) had significantly shorter PFS/OS compared to all other subgroups. Patients with a high plasma trough concentration in steady state (Cmin,SS ; >271 ng/mL) had shorter PFS compared to a low Cmin,SS (<163 ng/mL; aHR 2.29; 95% CI: 1.13-4.63). A significant longer PFS was seen in females (aHR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.45-0.82) and patients with the exon 19 deletion (aHR = 0.58, 95% CI: 0.36-0.92). A trend towards longer PFS was seen for TP53 wild-type patients, while age did not impact PFS. Patients with a primary EGFR exon 19 deletion had longer PFS, while a low BMI, male sex and a high Cmin,SS were indicative for shorter PFS and/or OS. Age was not associated with effectiveness outcomes of osimertinib.

Sotorasib versus docetaxel for previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer with KRASG12C mutation: a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Sotorasib is a specific, irreversible inhibitor of the GTPase protein, KRASG12C. We compared the efficacy and safety of sotorasib with a standard-of-care treatment in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with the KRASG12C mutation who had been previously treated with other anticancer drugs. METHODS: We conducted a randomised, open-label phase 3 trial at 148 centres in 22 countries. We recruited patients aged at least 18 years with KRASG12C-mutated advanced NSCLC, who progressed after previous platinum-based chemotherapy and a PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitor. Key exclusion criteria included new or progressing untreated brain lesions or symptomatic brain lesions, previously identified oncogenic driver mutation other than KRASG12C for which an approved therapy is available (eg EGFR or ALK), previous treatment with docetaxel (neoadjuvant or adjuvant docetaxel was allowed if the tumour did not progress within 6 months after the therapy was terminated), previous treatment with a direct KRASG12C inhibitor, systemic anticancer therapy within 28 days of study day 1, and therapeutic or palliative radiation therapy within 2 weeks of treatment initiation. We randomly assigned (1:1) patients to oral sotorasib (960 mg once daily) or intravenous docetaxel (75 mg/m2 once every 3 weeks) in an open-label manner using interactive response technology. Randomisation was stratified by number of previous lines of therapy in advanced disease (1 vs 2 vs >2), ethnicity (Asian vs non-Asian), and history of CNS metastases (present or absent). Treatment continued until an independent central confirmation of disease progression, intolerance, initiation of another anticancer therapy, withdrawal of consent, or death, whichever occurred first. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, which was assessed by a blinded, independent central review in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all treated patients. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04303780, and is active but no longer recruiting. FINDINGS: Between June 4, 2020, and April 26, 2021, 345 patients were randomly assigned to receive sotorasib (n=171 [50%]) or docetaxel (n=174 [50%]). 169 (99%) patients in the sotorasib group and 151 (87%) in the docetaxel group received at least one dose. After a median follow-up of 17·7 months (IQR 16·4-20·1), the study met its primary endpoint of a statistically significant increase in the progression-free survival for sotorasib, compared with docetaxel (median progression-free survival 5·6 months [95% CI 4·3-7·8] vs 4·5 months [3·0-5·7]; hazard ratio 0·66 [0·51-0·86]; p=0·0017). Sotorasib was well tolerated, with fewer grade 3 or worse (n=56 [33%] vs n=61 [40%]) and serious treatment-related adverse events compared with docetaxel (n=18 [11%] vs n=34 [23%]). For sotorasib, the most common treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or worse were diarrhoea (n= 20 [12%]), alanine aminotransferase increase (n=13 [8%]), and aspartate aminotransferase increase (n=9 [5%]). For docetaxel, the most common treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or worse were neutropenia (n=13 [9%]), fatigue (n=9 [6%]), and febrile neutropenia (n=8 [5%]). INTERPRETATION: Sotorasib significantly increased progression-free survival and had a more favourable safety profile, compared with docetaxel, in patients with advanced NSCLC with the KRASG12C mutation and who had been previously treated with other anticancer drugs. FUNDING: Amgen.

Prevalence and Predictors of Physician-Patient Discordance in Prognostic Perceptions in Advanced Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Discordance between physicians' and patients' prognostic perceptions in advanced cancer care threatens informed medical decision-making and end-of-life preparation, yet this phenomenon is poorly understood. We sought to: (1) describe the extent and direction of prognostic discordance, patients' prognostic information preferences in cases of prognostic discordance, and physicians' awareness of prognostic discordance; and (2) examine which patient, physician, and caregiver factors predict prognostic discordance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Oncologists and advanced cancer patients (median survival ≤12 months; n = 515) from 7 Dutch hospitals completed structured surveys in a cross-sectional study. Prognostic discordance was operationalized by comparing physicians' and patients' perceptions of the likelihood of cure, 2-year mortality risk, and 1-year mortality risk. RESULTS: Prognostic discordance occurred in 20% (likelihood of cure), 24%, and 35% (2-year and 1-year mortality risk) of physician-patient dyads, most often involving patients with more optimistic perceptions than their physician. Among patients demonstrating prognostic discordance, the proportion who preferred not knowing prognosis varied from 7% (likelihood of cure) to 37% (1-year mortality risk), and 45% (2-year mortality risk). Agreement between physician-perceived and observed prognostic discordance or concordance was poor (kappa = 0.186). Prognostic discordance was associated with several patient factors (stronger fighting spirit, self-reported absence of prognostic discussions, an information source other than the healthcare provider), and greater physician-reported uncertainty about prognosis. CONCLUSION: Up to one-third of the patients perceive prognosis discordantly from their physician, among whom a substantial proportion prefers not knowing prognosis. Most physicians lack awareness of prognostic discordance, raising the need to explore patients' prognostic information preferences and perceptions, and to tailor prognostic communication.

Differentiating interstitial lung diseases from other respiratory diseases using electronic nose technology.

INTRODUCTION: Interstitial lung disease (ILD) may be difficult to distinguish from other respiratory diseases due to overlapping clinical presentation. Recognition of ILD is often late, causing delay which has been associated with worse clinical outcome. Electronic nose (eNose) sensor technology profiles volatile organic compounds in exhaled breath and has potential to detect ILD non-invasively. We assessed the accuracy of differentiating breath profiles of patients with ILD from patients with asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and lung cancer using eNose technology. METHODS: Patients with ILD, asthma, COPD, and lung cancer, regardless of stage or treatment, were included in a cross-sectional study in two hospitals. Exhaled breath was analysed using an eNose (SpiroNose) and clinical data were collected. Datasets were split in training and test sets for independent validation of the model. Data were analyzed with partial least squares discriminant and receiver operating characteristic analyses. RESULTS: 161 patients with ILD and 161 patients with asthma (n = 65), COPD (n = 50) or lung cancer (n = 46) were included. Breath profiles of patients with ILD differed from all other diseases with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.99 (95% CI 0.97-1.00) in the test set. Moreover, breath profiles of patients with ILD could be accurately distinguished from the individual diseases with an AUC of 1.00 (95% CI 1.00-1.00) for asthma, AUC of 0.96 (95% CI 0.90-1.00) for COPD, and AUC of 0.98 (95% CI 0.94-1.00) for lung cancer in test sets. Results were similar after excluding patients who never smoked. CONCLUSIONS: Exhaled breath of patients with ILD can be distinguished accurately from patients with other respiratory diseases using eNose technology. eNose has high potential as an easily accessible point-of-care medical test for identification of ILD amongst patients with respiratory symptoms, and could possibly facilitate earlier referral and diagnosis of patients suspected of ILD.

Influence of Food With Different Fat Concentrations on Alectinib Exposure: A Randomized Crossover Pharmacokinetic Trial.

BACKGROUND: Alectinib is the keystone treatment in advanced anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive (ALK+) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). An exposure-response threshold of 435 ng/mL has recently been established, albeit 37% of patients do not reach this threshold. Alectinib is orally administered, and absorption is largely influenced by food. Hence, further investigation into this relationship is needed to optimize its bioavailability. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this randomized 3-period crossover clinical study in ALK+ NSCLC, alectinib exposure was compared among patients with different diets. Every 7 days, the first alectinib dose was taken with either a continental breakfast, 250-g of low-fat yogurt, or a self-chosen lunch, and the second dose was taken with a self-chosen dinner. Sampling for alectinib exposure (Ctrough) was performed at day 8, just prior to alectinib intake, and the relative difference in Ctrough was compared. RESULTS: In 20 evaluable patients, the mean Ctrough was 14% (95% CI, -23% to -5%; P=.009) and 20% (95% CI, -25% to -14%; P<.001) lower when taken with low-fat yogurt compared with a continental breakfast and a self-chosen lunch, respectively. Administration with a self-chosen lunch did not change exposure compared with a continental breakfast (+7%; 95% CI, -2% to +17%; P=.243). In the low-fat yogurt period, 35% of patients did not reach the threshold versus 5% with the other meals (P<.01). CONCLUSIONS: Patients and physicians should be warned for a detrimental food-drug interaction when alectinib is taken with low-fat yogurt, because it results in a clinically relevant lower alectinib exposure. Intake with a self-chosen lunch did not change drug exposure and could be a safe and patient-friendly alternative.

Clinical implications of germline variations for treatment outcome and drug resistance for small molecule kinase inhibitors in patients with non-small cell lung cancer.

Small-molecule kinase inhibitors (SMKIs) represent the cornerstone in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients harboring genetic driver mutations. Because of the introduction of SMKIs in the last decades, treatment outcomes have drastically improved. Their treatment efficacy, the development of drug resistance as well as untoward toxicity, all suffer from large patient variability. This variability can be explained, at least in part, by their oral route of administration, which leads to a large inter- and intra-patient variation in bioavailability based on differences in absorption. Additionally, drug-drug and food-drug interactions are frequently reported. These interactions could modulate SMKI efficacy and/or untoward toxicity. Furthermore, the large patient variability could be explained by the presence of germline variations in target receptor domains, metabolizing enzymes, and drug efflux transporters. Knowledge about these predictor variations is crucial for handling SMKIs in clinical practice, and for selecting the most optimal therapy. In the current review, the literature search included all SMKIs registered for locally-advanced and metastatic NSCLC by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or European Medicines Agency (EMA) until March 24th, 2022. The BIM deletion showed a significantly decreased PFS and OS for East-Asian patients treated with gefitinib, and has the potential to be clinically relevant for other SMKIs as well. Furthermore, we expect most relevance from the ABCG2 34 G>A and CYP1A1 variations during erlotinib and gefitinib treatment. Pre-emptive CYP2D6 testing before starting gefitinib treatment can also be considered to prevent severe drug-related toxicity. These and other germline variations are summarized and discussed, in order to provide clear recommendations for clinical practice.

Differential Orthopedia Homeobox expression in pulmonary carcinoids is associated with changes in DNA methylation.

Limited number of tumor types have been examined for Orthopedia Homeobox (OTP) expression. In pulmonary carcinoids, loss of expression is a strong indicator of poor prognosis. Here, we investigated OTP expression in 37 different tumor types, and the association between OTP expression and DNA methylation levels in lung neuroendocrine neoplasms. We analyzed publicly available multi-omics data (whole-exome-, whole-genome-, RNA sequencing and Epic 850K-methylation array) of 58 typical carcinoids, 27 atypical carcinoids, 69 large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma and 51 small cell lung cancer patients and TCGA (The Cancer Genome Atlas) data of 33 tumor types. 850K-methylation analysis was cross-validated using targeted pyrosequencing on 35 carcinoids. We report bimodality of OTP expression in carcinoids (OTPhigh vs OTPlow group, likelihood-ratio test P = 1.5 × 10-2 ), with the OTPhigh group specific to pulmonary carcinoids while absent from all other cohorts analyzed. Significantly different DNA methylation levels were observed between OTPhigh and OTPlow carcinoids in 12/34 OTP infinium probes (FDR < 0.05 and ß-value effect size > .2). OTPlow carcinoids harbor high DNA methylation levels as compared to OTPhigh carcinoids. OTPlow carcinoids showed a significantly worse overall survival (log-rank test P = .0052). Gene set enrichment analysis for somatically mutated genes associated with hallmarks of cancer showed robust enrichment of three hallmarks in the OTPlow group, that is, sustaining proliferative signaling, evading growth suppressor and genome instability and mutation. Together our data suggest that high OTP expression is a unique feature of pulmonary carcinoids with a favorable prognosis and that in poor prognostic patients, OTP expression is lost, most likely due to changes in DNA methylation levels.

In-depth molecular analysis of combined and co-primary pulmonary large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma and adenocarcinoma.

Up to 14% of large cell neuroendocrine carcinomas (LCNECs) are diagnosed in continuity with nonsmall cell lung carcinoma. In addition to these combined lesions, 1% to 7% of lung tumors present as co-primary tumors with multiple synchronous lesions. We evaluated molecular and clinicopathological characteristics of combined and co-primary LCNEC-adenocarcinoma (ADC) tumors. Ten patients with LCNEC-ADC (combined) and five patients with multiple synchronous ipsilateral LCNEC and ADC tumors (co-primary) were included. DNA was isolated from distinct tumor parts, and 65 cancer genes were analyzed by next generation sequencing. Immunohistochemistry was performed including neuroendocrine markers, pRb, Ascl1 and Rest. Pure ADC (N = 37) and LCNEC (N = 17) cases were used for reference. At least 1 shared mutation, indicating tumor clonality, was found in LCNEC- and ADC-parts of 10/10 combined tumors but only in 1/5 co-primary tumors. A range of identical mutations was observed in both parts of combined tumors: 8/10 contained ADC-related (EGFR/KRAS/STK11 and/or KEAP1), 4/10 RB1 and 9/10 TP53 mutations. Loss of pRb IHC was observed in 6/10 LCNEC- and 4/10 ADC-parts. The number and intensity of expression of Ascl1 and neuroendocrine markers increased from pure ADC (low) to combined ADC (intermediate) and combined and pure LCNEC (high). The opposite was true for Rest expression. In conclusion, all combined LCNEC-ADC tumors were clonally related indicating a common origin. A relatively high frequency of pRb inactivation was observed in both LCNEC- and ADC-parts, suggesting an underlying role in LCNEC-ADC development. Furthermore, neuroendocrine differentiation might be modulated by Ascl1(+) and Rest(-) expression.

Personalised selection of experimental treatment in patients with advanced solid cancer is feasible using whole-genome sequencing.

BACKGROUND: Biomarker-guided therapy in an experimental setting has been suggested to improve patient outcomes. However, trial-specific pre-screening tests are time and tissue consuming and complicate the personalised treatment of patients eligible for early-phase clinical trials. In this study the feasibility of whole-genome sequencing (WGS) as a one-test-for-all for guided inclusion in early-phase trials was investigated. METHODS: Phase I Molecular Tumor Board (MTB) at the Erasmus MC Cancer Institute reviewed patients with advanced cancer without standard-of-care treatment (SOC) options for a 'fresh-frozen' (FF) tumour biopsy for WGS based on clinical-pathological features. Clinical grade WGS was performed by Hartwig Medical Foundation. MTB matched the patient with a trial, if available. RESULTS: From September 2019-March 2021, 31 patients with highly diverse tumour types underwent a tumour biopsy for WGS. The median turnaround time (TAT) was 15 days [10-42 days]. At least one actionable event was found in 84% of the patients (26/31). One-third of the patients (11/31) received matched experimental treatment. CONCLUSIONS: WGS on fresh FF biopsies is a feasible tool for the selection of personalised experimental therapy in patients with advanced cancer without SOC options. WGS is now possible in an acceptable TAT and thus could fulfil the role of a universal genomic pre-screening test.

Characteristics of patients with advanced cancer preferring not to know prognosis: a multicenter survey study.

BACKGROUND: For some patients with advanced cancer not knowing prognosis is essential. Yet, in an era of informed decision-making, the potential protective function of unawareness is easily overlooked. We aimed to investigate 1) the proportion of advanced cancer patients preferring not to know prognosis; 2) the reasons underlying patients' prognostic information preference; 3) the characteristics associated with patients' prognostic information preference; and 4) the concordance between physicians' perceived and patients' actual prognostic information preference. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study with structured surveys (PROSPECT). Medical and thoracic oncologists included patients (n = 524), from seven Dutch hospitals, with metastatic/inoperable cancer and an expected median overall survival of ≤ 12 months. For analysis, descriptive statistics and logistic regression models were used. RESULTS: Twenty-five to 31% of patients preferred not to know a general life expectancy estimate or the 5/2/1-year mortality risk. Compared to patients preferring to know prognosis, patients preferring unawareness more often reported optimism, avoidance and inability to comprehend information as reasons for wanting limited information; and less often reported expectations of others, anxiety, autonomy and a sense of control as reasons for wanting complete information. Females (p < .05), patients receiving a further line of systemic treatment (p < .01) and patients with strong fighting spirit (p < .001) were more likely to prefer not to know prognosis. Concordance between physicians' perceived and patients' actual prognostic information preference was poor (kappa = 0.07). CONCLUSIONS: We encourage physicians to explore patients' prognostic information preferences and the underlying reasons explicitly, enabling individually tailored communication. Future studies may investigate changes in patients' prognostic information preferences over time and examine the impact of prognostic disclosure on patients who prefer unawareness.

Hyperhydration with cisplatin does not influence pemetrexed exposure.

Pemetrexed is a cytotoxic drug for first-line treatment of lung cancer. It is often combined with other anticancer drugs such as cisplatin or carboplatin. In clinical practice, hyperhydration regimens are applied to overcome cisplatin-related nephrotoxicity. As pemetrexed is almost completely eliminated from the body by the kidneys, hyperhydration can result in augmented clearance. Furthermore, administration of large quantities of fluid may increase the volume of distribution of pemetrexed. Pharmacokinetics and, thus, efficacy and toxicity may be influenced by hyperhydration. This has not yet been properly studied. We performed a population pharmacokinetic analysis to assess hyperhydration as a covariate for pemetrexed clearance and for volume of distribution A relevant change was defined as >25% increase in clearance or volume of distribution. In our extensive dataset of 133 individuals, we found that hyperhydration did not significantly or relevantly explain variability in pemetrexed clearance (unchanged, P = .196) or volume of distribution (+7% change, P = .002), despite a power of >99% to detect a relevant change. Therefore, dose adjustments of pemetrexed are not required during hyperhydration with cisplatin.

mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccination in patients receiving chemotherapy, immunotherapy, or chemoimmunotherapy for solid tumours: a prospective, multicentre, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with cancer have an increased risk of complications from SARS-CoV-2 infection. Vaccination to prevent COVID-19 is recommended, but data on the immunogenicity and safety of COVID-19 vaccines for patients with solid tumours receiving systemic cancer treatment are scarce. Therefore, we aimed to assess the impact of immunotherapy, chemotherapy, and chemoimmunotherapy on the immunogenicity and safety of the mRNA-1273 (Moderna Biotech, Madrid, Spain) COVID-19 vaccine as part of the Vaccination Against COVID in Cancer (VOICE) trial. METHODS: This prospective, multicentre, non-inferiority trial was done across three centres in the Netherlands. Individuals aged 18 years or older with a life expectancy of more than 12 months were enrolled into four cohorts: individuals without cancer (cohort A [control cohort]), and patients with solid tumours, regardless of stage and histology, treated with immunotherapy (cohort B), chemotherapy (cohort C), or chemoimmunotherapy (cohort D). Participants received two mRNA-1273 vaccinations of 100 µg in 0·5 mL intramuscularly, 28 days apart. The primary endpoint, analysed per protocol (excluding patients with a positive baseline sample [>10 binding antibody units (BAU)/mL], indicating previous SARS-CoV-2 infection), was defined as the SARS-CoV-2 spike S1-specific IgG serum antibody response (ie, SARS-CoV-2-binding antibody concentration of >10 BAU/mL) 28 days after the second vaccination. For the primary endpoint analysis, a non-inferiority design with a margin of 10% was used. We also assessed adverse events in all patients who received at least one vaccination, and recorded solicited adverse events in participants who received at least one vaccination but excluding those who already had seroconversion (>10 BAU/mL) at baseline. This study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04715438. FINDINGS: Between Feb 17 and March 12, 2021, 791 participants were enrolled and followed up for a median of 122 days (IQR 118 to 128). A SARS-CoV-2-binding antibody response was found in 240 (100%; 95% CI 98 to 100) of 240 evaluable participants in cohort A, 130 (99%; 96 to >99) of 131 evaluable patients in cohort B, 223 (97%; 94 to 99) of 229 evaluable patients in cohort C, and 143 (100%; 97 to 100) of 143 evaluable patients in cohort D. The SARS-CoV-2-binding antibody response in each patient cohort was non-inferior compared with cohort A. No new safety signals were observed. Grade 3 or worse serious adverse events occurred in no participants in cohort A, three (2%) of 137 patients in cohort B, six (2%) of 244 patients in cohort C, and one (1%) of 163 patients in cohort D, with four events (two of fever, and one each of diarrhoea and febrile neutropenia) potentially related to the vaccination. There were no vaccine-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: Most patients with cancer develop, while receiving chemotherapy, immunotherapy, or both for a solid tumour, an adequate antibody response to vaccination with the mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccine. The vaccine is also safe in these patients. The minority of patients with an inadequate response after two vaccinations might benefit from a third vaccination. FUNDING: ZonMw, The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development.

Toxicity of pemetrexed during renal impairment explained-Implications for safe treatment.

Pemetrexed is an important component of first line treatment in patients with non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer. However, a limitation is the contraindication in patients with renal impairment due to hematological toxicity. Currently, it is unknown how to safely dose pemetrexed in these patients. The aim of our study was to elucidate the relationship between pemetrexed exposure and toxicity to support the development of a safe dosing regimen in patients with renal impairment. A population pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic analysis was performed based on phase II study results in three patients with renal dysfunction, supplemented with data from 106 patients in early clinical studies. Findings were externally validated with data of different pemetrexed dosing regimens. Alternative dosing regimens were evaluated using the developed model. We found that pemetrexed toxicity was driven by the time above a toxicity threshold concentration. The threshold for vitamin-supplemented patients was 0.110 mg/mL (95% CI: 0.092-0.146 mg/mL). It was observed that in patients with renal impairment (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR]: <45 mL/min) the approved dose of 500 mg/m2 would yield a high probability of severe neutropenia in the range of 51.0% to 92.6%. A pemetrexed dose of 20 mg for patients (eGFR: 20 mL/min) is shown to be neutropenic-equivalent to the approved dose in patients with adequate renal function (eGFR: 90 mL/min), but would result in an approximately 13-fold lower area under the concentration-time curve. The pemetrexed exposure-toxicity relationship is explained by a toxicity threshold and substantially different from previously thought. Without prophylaxis for toxicity, it is unlikely that a therapeutic dose can be safely administered to patients with renal impairment.

Unique Metastatic Patterns in Neuroendocrine Neoplasms of Different Primary Origin.

INTRODUCTION: Neuroendocrine neoplasms (NEN) can originate in different organs, for example, the gastroenteral tract (GE), pancreas (Pan), or lungs (L). Our aim was to examine metastatic patterns for patients with NEN of various primary origins with a special focus on brain metastases to indicate utility for screening. METHODS: All NEN patients except for small cell lung cancer registered in the Netherlands Cancer Registry from 2008 to 2018 were selected. Metastatic patterns at initial diagnosis for NEN with different primary origins were compared. In a subcohort of patients from 2 referral hospitals (2014-2019), additional information on, for example, development of metastases after initial presentation was available. RESULTS: In the nationwide cohort, 4,768/11,120 (43%) patients had metastatic disease at diagnosis (GE: 1,504/4,710 [32%]; Pan: 489/1,150 [43%]; and L: 1,230/2,978 [41%]). For GE- and Pan-NEN, the most prevalent metastatic site was the liver (25 and 39%), followed by distant lymph nodes (8 and 8%), whereas only few patients with brain metastases were identified (0% in both). In contrast, for L-NEN, prevalence of metastases in the liver (19%), brain (9%), lung (7%), and bone (14%) was more equal. In the reference network cohort, slightly more NEN patients had metastatic disease (260/539, 48%) and similar metastatic patterns were observed. CONCLUSION: Almost half of NEN patients were diagnosed with synchronous metastatic disease. L-NEN have a unique metastatic pattern compared to GE- and Pan-NEN. Remarkably, an important part of L-NEN metastases was in the brain, whereas brain metastases were almost absent in GE- and Pan-NEN, indicating utility of screening in L-NEN.

Characterisation and classification of oligometastatic disease: a European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer consensus recommendation.

Oligometastatic disease has been proposed as an intermediate state between localised and systemically metastasised disease. In the absence of randomised phase 3 trials, early clinical studies show improved survival when radical local therapy is added to standard systemic therapy for oligometastatic disease. However, since no biomarker for the identification of patients with true oligometastatic disease is clinically available, the diagnosis of oligometastatic disease is based solely on imaging findings. A small number of metastases on imaging could represent different clinical scenarios, which are associated with different prognoses and might require different treatment strategies. 20 international experts including 19 members of the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer OligoCare project developed a comprehensive system for characterisation and classification of oligometastatic disease. We first did a systematic review of the literature to identify inclusion and exclusion criteria of prospective interventional oligometastatic disease clinical trials. Next, we used a Delphi consensus process to select a total of 17 oligometastatic disease characterisation factors that should be assessed in all patients treated with radical local therapy for oligometastatic disease, both within and outside of clinical trials. Using a second round of the Delphi method, we established a decision tree for oligometastatic disease classification together with a nomenclature. We agreed oligometastatic disease as the overall umbrella term. A history of polymetastatic disease before diagnosis of oligometastatic disease was used as the criterion to differentiate between induced oligometastatic disease (previous history of polymetastatic disease) and genuine oligometastatic disease (no history of polymetastatic disease). We further subclassified genuine oligometastatic disease into repeat oligometastatic disease (previous history of oligometastatic disease) and de-novo oligometastatic disease (first time diagnosis of oligometastatic disease). In de-novo oligometastatic disease, we differentiated between synchronous and metachronous oligometastatic disease. We did a final subclassification into oligorecurrence, oligoprogression, and oligopersistence, considering whether oligometastatic disease is diagnosed during a treatment-free interval or during active systemic therapy and whether or not an oligometastatic lesion is progressing on current imaging. This oligometastatic disease classification and nomenclature needs to be prospectively evaluated by the OligoCare study.

Stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) combined with immunotherapy (L19-IL2) versus standard of care in stage IV NSCLC patients, ImmunoSABR: a multicentre, randomised controlled open-label phase II trial.

BACKGROUND: About 50% of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients have metastatic disease at initial diagnosis, which limits their treatment options and, consequently, the 5-year survival rate (15%). Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI), either alone or in combination with chemotherapy, have become standard of care (SOC) for most good performance status patients. However, most patients will not obtain long-term benefit and new treatment strategies are therefore needed. We previously demonstrated clinical safety of the tumour-selective immunocytokine L19-IL2, consisting of the anti-ED-B scFv L19 antibody coupled to IL2, combined with stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR). METHODS: This investigator-initiated, multicentric, randomised controlled open-label phase II clinical trial will test the hypothesis that the combination of SABR and L19-IL2 increases progression free survival (PFS) in patients with limited metastatic NSCLC. One hundred twenty-six patients will be stratified according to their metastatic load (oligo-metastatic: ≤5 or poly-metastatic: 6 to 10) and randomised to the experimental-arm (E-arm) or the control-arm (C-arm). The C-arm will receive SOC, according to the local protocol. E-arm oligo-metastatic patients will receive SABR to all lesions followed by L19-IL2 therapy; radiotherapy for poly-metastatic patients consists of irradiation of one (symptomatic) to a maximum of 5 lesions (including ICI in both arms if this is the SOC). The accrual period will be 2.5-years, starting after the first centre is initiated and active. Primary endpoint is PFS at 1.5-years based on blinded radiological review, and secondary endpoints are overall survival, toxicity, quality of life and abscopal response. Associative biomarker studies, immune monitoring, CT-based radiomics, stool collection, iRECIST and tumour growth rate will be performed. DISCUSSION: The combination of SABR with or without ICI and the immunocytokine L19-IL2 will be tested as 1st, 2nd or 3rd line treatment in stage IV NSCLC patients in 14 centres located in 6 countries. This bimodal and trimodal treatment approach is based on the direct cytotoxic effect of radiotherapy, the tumour selective immunocytokine L19-IL2, the abscopal effect observed distant from the irradiated metastatic site(s) and the memory effect. The first results are expected end 2023. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ImmunoSABR Protocol Code: NL67629.068.18; EudraCT: 2018-002583-11; Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03705403; ISRCTN ID: ISRCTN49817477; Date of registration: 03-April-2019.

Randomised phase 3 study of adjuvant chemotherapy with or without nadroparin in patients with completely resected non-small-cell lung cancer: the NVALT-8 study.

BACKGROUND: Retrospective studies suggest that low molecular weight heparin may delay the development of metastasis in patients with resected NSCLC. METHODS: Multicentre phase 3 study with patients with completely resected NSCLC who were randomised after surgery to receive chemotherapy with or without nadroparin. The main exclusion criteria were R1/2 and wedge/segmental resection. FDG-PET was required. The primary endpoint was recurrence-free survival (RFS). RESULTS: Among 235 registered patients, 202 were randomised (nadroparin: n = 100; control n = 102). Slow accrual enabled a decrease in the number of patients needed from 600 to 202, providing 80% power to compare RFS with 94 events (α = 0.05; 2-sided). There were no differences in bleeding events between the two groups. The median RFS was 65.2 months (95% CI, 36-NA) in the nadroparin arm and 37.7 months (95% CI, 22.7-NA) in the control arm (HR 0.77 (95% CI, 0.53-1.13, P = 0.19). FDG-PET SUVmax ≥10 predicted a greater likelihood of recurrence in the first year (HR 0.48, 95% CI 0.22-0.9, P = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvant nadroparin did not improve RFS in patients with resected NSCLC. In this study, a high SUVmax predicted a greater likelihood of recurrence in the first year. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial registry: NTR1250/1217.

Is the sum of positive neuroendocrine immunohistochemical stains useful for diagnosis of large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (LCNEC) on biopsy specimens?

AIMS: Pulmonary large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (LCNEC) is underdiagnosed on biopsy specimens. We evaluated if routine neuroendocrine immunohistochemical (IHC) stains are helpful in the diagnosis of LCNEC on biopsy specimens. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using the Dutch pathology registry (PALGA), surgically resected LCNEC with matching pre-operative biopsy specimens were identified and haematoxylin and IHC slides (CD56, chromogranin-A, synaptophysin) requested. Subsequently, three pathologists assigned (1) the presence or absence of the WHO 2015 criteria and (2) cumulative size of all (biopsy) specimens. For validation, a tissue microarray (TMA) of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) (n = 77) and LCNEC (n = 19) was used. LCNEC was confirmed on the resection specimens in 32 of 48 re-reviewed cases. In 47% (n = 15 of 32) LCNEC was also confirmed in the paired biopsy specimens. Neuroendocrine morphology was absent in 53% (n = 17 of 32) of paired biopsy specimens, more often when smaller amounts of tissue were available for evaluation [29% < 5 mm (n = 14) versus 67% ≥5 mm (n = 18) P = 0.04]. Combined with current WHO criteria, positive staining for greater than or equal to two of three neuroendocrine IHC markers increased the sensitivity for LCNEC from 47% to 93% on paired biopsy specimens, and further validated using an independent TMA of LCNEC and NSCLC with sensitivity and specificity of 80% and 99%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: LCNEC is difficult to diagnose because neuroendocrine morphology is frequently absent in biopsy specimens. In NSCLC devoid of obvious morphological squamous or adenocarcinoma features, positive staining in greater than or equal to two of three neuroendocrine IHC stains supports the diagnosis of LCNEC.