Best first-line therapy for people with advanced non-small cell lung cancer, performance status 2 without a targetable mutation or with an unknown mutation status.

BACKGROUND: Most people who are newly diagnosed with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have advanced disease. For these people, survival is determined by various patient- and tumor-related factors, of which the performance status (PS) is the most important prognostic factor. People with PS 0 or 1 are usually treated with systemic therapies, whereas people with PS 3 or 4 most often receive supportive care. However, treatment for people with PS 2 without a targetable mutation remains unclear. Historically, people with a PS 2 cancer are frequently excluded from (important) clinical trials because of poorer outcomes and increased toxicity. We aim to address this knowledge gap, as this group of people represents a significant proportion (20% to 30%) of the total population with newly diagnosed lung cancer. OBJECTIVES: To identify the best first-line therapy for advanced lung cancer in people with performance status 2 without a targetable mutation or with an unknown mutation status. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 17 June 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared different chemotherapy (with or without angiogenesis inhibitor) or immunotherapy regimens, specifically designed for people with PS 2 only or studies including a subgroup of these people. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. overall survival (OS), 2. health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and 3. toxicity/adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were 4. tumor response rate, 5. progression-free survival, and 6. survival rates at six and 12 months' treatment. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included 22 trials in this review and identified one ongoing trial. Twenty studies compared chemotherapy with different regimens, of which 11 compared non-platinum therapy (monotherapy or doublet) versus platinum doublet. We found no studies comparing best supportive care with chemotherapy and only two abstracts analyzing chemotherapy versus immunotherapy. We found that platinum doublet therapy showed superior OS compared to non-platinum therapy (hazard ratio [HR] 0.67, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.57 to 0.78; 7 trials, 697 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There were no differences in six-month survival rates (risk ratio [RR] 1.00, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.41; 6 trials, 632 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), whereas 12-month survival rates were improved for treatment with platinum doublet therapy (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.87 to 0.97; 11 trials, 1567 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). PFS and tumor response rate were also better for people treated with platinum doublet therapy, with moderate-certainty evidence (PFS: HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.77; 5 trials, 487 participants; tumor response rate: RR 2.25, 95% CI 1.67 to 3.05; 9 trials, 964 participants). When analyzing toxicity rates, we found that platinum doublet therapy increased grade 3 to 5 hematologic toxicities, all with low-certainty evidence (anemia: RR 1.98, 95% CI 1.00 to 3.92; neutropenia: RR 2.75, 95% CI 1.30 to 5.82; thrombocytopenia: RR 3.96, 95% CI 1.73 to 9.06; all 8 trials, 935 participants). Only four trials reported HRQoL data; however, the methodology was different per trial and we were unable to perform a meta-analysis. Although evidence is limited, there were no differences in 12-month survival rates or tumor response rates between carboplatin and cisplatin regimens. With an indirect comparison, carboplatin seemed to have better 12-month survival rates than cisplatin compared to non-platinum therapy. The assessment of the efficacy of immunotherapy in people with PS 2 was limited. There might be a place for single-agent immunotherapy, but the data provided by the included studies did not encourage the use of double-agent immunotherapy. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review showed that as a first-line treatment for people with PS 2 with advanced NSCLC, platinum doublet therapy seems to be preferred over non-platinum therapy, with a higher response rate, PFS, and OS. Although the risk for grade 3 to 5 hematologic toxicity is higher, these events are often relatively mild and easy to treat. Since trials using checkpoint inhibitors in people with PS 2 are scarce, we identified an important knowledge gap regarding their role in people with advanced NSCLC and PS 2.

RSV infection among children born moderately preterm in a community-based cohort.

UNLABELLED: We aimed to determine the rates of proven respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) hospitalization and disease severity among children born moderately preterm (MP, gestational age [GA] 32-36 weeks, n = 964), children born full-term (FT, GA 38-42 weeks, n = 572), and children born early preterm (EP, GA <32 weeks, n = 524). Our second aim was to identify risk factors for RSV hospitalization among MP. We extracted data from parental questionnaires and medical records, retrieved from a community-based cohort of children aged 43-49 months. The RSV hospitalization rates of MP were higher than FT (3.9 vs. 1.2 %, relative rate 3.2; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.4-7.1) and equal to EP (3.9 vs. 3.2 %, relative rate 1.2; 95 % CI 0.7-2.1). MP were hospitalized at an earlier age than EP. Disease severity (based on the type of treatment and hospitalization length) was equal in all groups. Risk factors for RSV hospitalization in MP were younger age and lower birth weight. In multivariable analyses, shorter GA and passive smoking independently increased the likelihood of RSV hospitalization in MP. CONCLUSION: The rates of hospitalization due to proven RSV infection are higher in MP than FT and not different between MP and EP. No difference in disease severity was observed. Among MP, the rates of RSV hospitalization are higher for lower GA and when exposed to passive smoking.

ERS International Congress 2022: highlights from the Thoracic Oncology Assembly.

Thoracic malignancies are associated with a substantial public health burden. Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide, with significant impact on patients' quality of life. Following 2 years of virtual European Respiratory Society (ERS) Congresses due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the 2022 hybrid ERS Congress in Barcelona, Spain allowed peers from all over the world to meet again and present their work. Thoracic oncology experts presented best practices and latest developments in lung cancer screening, lung cancer diagnosis and management. Early lung cancer diagnosis, subsequent pros and cons of aggressive management, identification and management of systemic treatments' side-effects, and the application of artificial intelligence and biomarkers across all aspects of the thoracic oncology pathway were among the areas that triggered specific interest and will be summarised here.

Overall survival in advanced epidermal growth factor receptor mutated non-small cell lung cancer using different tyrosine kinase inhibitors in The Netherlands: a retrospective, nationwide registry study.

Background: Clinical guidelines advise osimertinib as preferred first line treatment for advanced epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with deletions in exon 19 (del19) or exon 21 L858R mutation. However, for first-line osimertinib the real world overall survival (OS) in mutation subgroups remains unknown. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the real-world OS of those patients treated with different generations of EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI), and to identify predictors of survival. Methods: Using real-world data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR) we assessed patients diagnosed with stage IV NSCLC with del19 or L858R mutation between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2020, primarily treated with then regularly available TKIs (including osimertinib). Findings: Between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2020, 57,592 patients were included in the NCR. Within this cohort we identified 1109 patients, 654 (59%) with del19 and 455 (41%) with L858R mutations, respectively; 230 (21%) patients were diagnosed with baseline brain metastases (BM). Patients were treated with gefitinib (19%, 213/1109), erlotinib (42%, 470/1109), afatinib (15%, 161/1109) or osimertinib (24%, 265/1109). Median OS was superior for del19 versus L858R (28.4 months (95% CI 25.6-30.6) versus 17.7 months (95% CI 16.1-19.5), p < 0.001. In multivariable analysis, no difference in survival was observed between various TKIs in both groups. Only in the subgroup of patients with del19 and baseline BM, a benefit was observed for treatment with osimertinib. Interpretation: In this nationwide real-world cohort, survival of Dutch patients with advanced NSCLC and an EGFR del19 mutation was superior versus those harboring an L858R mutation. Osimertinib performed only better as first-line treatment in patients with del19 and BM. Funding: None.

Randomised controlled trial of first-line tyrosine-kinase inhibitor (TKI) versus intercalated TKI with chemotherapy for EGFR-mutated nonsmall cell lung cancer.

Introduction: Previous studies have shown interference between epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors and chemotherapy in the cell cycle, thus reducing efficacy. In this randomised controlled trial we investigated whether intercalated erlotinib with chemotherapy was superior compared to erlotinib alone in untreated advanced EGFR-mutated nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Materials and methods: Treatment-naïve patients with an activating EGFR mutation, ECOG performance score of 0-3 and adequate organ function were randomly assigned 1:1 to either four cycles of cisplatin-pemetrexed with intercalated erlotinib (day 2-16 out of 21 days per cycle) followed by pemetrexed and erlotinib maintenance (CPE) or erlotinib monotherapy. The primary end-point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end-points were overall survival, objective response rate (ORR) and toxicity. Results: Between April 2014 and September 2016, 22 patients were randomised equally into both arms; the study was stopped due to slow accrual. Median follow-up was 64 months. Median PFS was 13.7 months (95% CI 5.2-18.8) for CPE and 10.3 months (95% CI 7.1-15.5; hazard ratio (HR) 0.62, 95% CI 0.25-1.57) for erlotinib monotherapy; when compensating for number of days receiving erlotinib, PFS of the CPE arm was superior (HR 0.24, 95% CI 0.07-0.83; p=0.02). ORR was 64% for CPE versus 55% for erlotinib monotherapy. Median overall survival was 31.7 months (95% CI 21.8-61.9 months) for CPE compared to 17.2 months (95% CI 11.5-45.5 months) for erlotinib monotherapy (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.22-1.41 months). Patients treated with CPE had higher rates of treatment-related fatigue, anorexia, weight loss and renal toxicity. Conclusion: Intercalating erlotinib with cisplatin-pemetrexed provides a longer PFS compared to erlotinib alone in EGFR-mutated NSCLC at the expense of more toxicity.

Clinical Value of EGFR Copy Number Gain Determined by Amplicon-Based Targeted Next Generation Sequencing in Patients with EGFR-Mutated NSCLC.

BACKGROUND: The clinical relevance of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) copy number gain in patients with EGFR mutated advanced non-small cell lung cancer on first-line tyrosine kinase inhibitor treatment has not been fully elucidated. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to estimate EGFR copy number gain using amplicon-based next generation sequencing data and explored its prognostic value. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Next generation sequencing data were obtained for 1566 patients with non-small cell lung cancer. EGFR copy number gain was defined based on an increase in EGFR read counts relative to internal reference amplicons and normal controls in combination with a modified z-score ≥ 3.5. Clinical follow-up data were available for 60 patients treated with first-line EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors. RESULTS: Specificity and sensitivity of next generation sequencing-based EGFR copy number estimations were above 90%. EGFR copy number gain was observed in 27.9% of EGFR mutant cases and in 7.4% of EGFR wild-type cases. EGFR gain was not associated with progression-free survival but showed a significant effect on overall survival with an adjusted hazard ratio of 3.14 (95% confidence interval 1.46-6.78, p = 0.003). Besides EGFR copy number gain, osimertinib in second or subsequent lines of treatment and the presence of T790M at relapse revealed significant effects in a multivariate analysis with adjusted hazard ratio of 0.43 (95% confidence interval 0.20-0.91, p = 0.028) and 0.24 (95% confidence interval 0.1-0.59, p = 0.001), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Pre-treatment EGFR copy number gain determined by amplicon-based next generation sequencing data predicts worse overall survival in EGFR-mutated patients treated with first-line EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors. T790M at relapse and subsequent treatment with osimertinib predict longer overall survival.

Nationwide Real-world Cohort Study of First-line Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor Treatment in Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor-mutated Non-small-cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Only a few randomized trials directly compared the relative efficacy of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) in patients with advanced epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and most trials comprised selected series from Asian populations. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess the overall survival (OS) of advanced EGFR-mutated NSCLC in a large white population and to evaluate variation between different TKIs and identify predictors of survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Information about clinical characteristics, treatment, and survival for 873 patients with stage IV EGFR + NSCLC, diagnosed from 2015 through 2017, was derived from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. OS was evaluated by actuarial analysis and multivariable Cox regression. Prognostic factors are reported as hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: A total of 596 (68%) patients received first-line treatment with regular TKIs, providing a median survival of 20.2 months. Forty-five percent of patients were 70 years and older, and 54% of patients had distant metastasis in multiple organs. In the multivariate analysis, survival was significantly worse for men, and patients with higher age, poorer performance, and ≥ 3 organs with metastasis. Compared with erlotinib, OS was worse for gefitinib users (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.30; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.64), predominantly in patients with brain metastasis. CONCLUSION: Dutch patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC who received first-line treatment with regular TKIs have a median OS of 20.2 months in a nationwide real-world cohort. In patients with brain metastasis, erlotinib showed superior results compared with gefitinib and was similar to afatinib.