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.).

Tumor Treating Fields therapy with standard systemic therapy versus standard systemic therapy alone in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer following progression on or after platinum-based therapy (LUNAR): a randomised, open-label, pivotal phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields) are electric fields that disrupt processes critical for cancer cell survival, leading to immunogenic cell death and enhanced antitumour immune response. In preclinical models of non-small-cell lung cancer, TTFields amplified the effects of chemotherapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors. We report primary results from a pivotal study of TTFields therapy in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. METHODS: This randomised, open-label, pivotal phase 3 study recruited patients at 130 sites in 19 countries. Participants were aged 22 years or older with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer progressing on or after platinum-based therapy, with squamous or non-squamous histology and ECOG performance status of 2 or less. Previous platinum-based therapy was required, but no restriction was placed on the number or type of previous lines of systemic therapy. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to TTFields therapy and standard systemic therapy (investigator's choice of immune checkpoint inhibitor [nivolumab, pembrolizumab, or atezolizumab] or docetaxel) or standard therapy alone. Randomisation was performed centrally using variable blocked randomisation and an interactive voice-web response system, and was stratified by tumour histology, treatment, and region. Systemic therapies were dosed according to local practice guidelines. TTFields therapy (150 kHz) was delivered continuously to the thoracic region with the recommendation to achieve an average of at least 18 h/day device usage. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. The safety population included all patients who received any study therapy and were analysed according to the actual treatment received. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02973789. FINDINGS: Between Feb 13, 2017, and Nov 19, 2021, 276 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive TTFields therapy with standard therapy (n=137) or standard therapy alone (n=139). The median age was 64 years (IQR 59-70), 178 (64%) were male and 98 (36%) were female, 156 (57%) had non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer, and 87 (32%) had received a previous immune checkpoint inhibitor. Median follow-up was 10·6 months (IQR 6·1-33·7) for patients receiving TTFields therapy with standard therapy, and 9·5 months (0·1-32·1) for patients receiving standard therapy. Overall survival was significantly longer with TTFields therapy and standard therapy than with standard therapy alone (median 13·2 months [95% CI 10·3-15·5] vs 9·9 months [8·1-11·5]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·74 [95% CI 0·56-0·98]; p=0·035). In the safety population (n=267), serious adverse events of any cause were reported in 70 (53%) of 133 patients receiving TTFields therapy plus standard therapy and 51 (38%) of 134 patients receiving standard therapy alone. The most frequent grade 3-4 adverse events were leukopenia (37 [14%] of 267), pneumonia (28 [10%]), and anaemia (21 [8%]). TTFields therapy-related adverse events were reported in 95 (71%) of 133 patients; these were mostly (81 [85%]) grade 1-2 skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders. There were three deaths related to standard therapy (two due to infections and one due to pulmonary haemorrhage) and no deaths related to TTFields therapy. INTERPRETATION: TTFields therapy added to standard therapy significantly improved overall survival compared with standard therapy alone in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer after progression on platinum-based therapy without exacerbating systemic toxicities. These data suggest that TTFields therapy is efficacious in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer and should be considered as a treatment option to manage the disease in this setting. FUNDING: Novocure.

Pembrolizumab versus placebo as adjuvant therapy for completely resected stage IB-IIIA non-small-cell lung cancer (PEARLS/KEYNOTE-091): an interim analysis of a randomised, triple-blind, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Pembrolizumab is a standard-of-care for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We assessed pembrolizumab as adjuvant therapy for completely resected stage IB-IIIA NSCLC. METHODS: In this randomised, triple-blind, phase 3 trial (PEARLS/KEYNOTE-091), patients were recruited from 196 medical centres in 29 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, with completely resected, pathologically confirmed stage IB (tumours of ≥4 cm in diameter), II, or IIIA NSCLC per the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system (7th edition) of any histology or PD-L1 expression level, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1; adjuvant chemotherapy was to be considered for stage IB disease and was strongly recommended for stage II and IIIA disease, according to national and local guidelines. Using a central interactive voice-response system, eligible participants were randomly assigned (1:1), using a minimisation technique and stratified by disease stage, previous adjuvant chemotherapy, PD-L1 expression, and geographical region, to pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo, both administered intravenously every 3 weeks for up to 18 cycles. Participants, investigators, and analysts were masked to treatment assignment. Dual primary endpoints were disease-free survival in the overall population and in the population with PD-L1 tumour proportion score (TPS) of 50% or greater. Efficacy was assessed in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population (ie, all participants randomly assigned to a treatment group). Safety was assessed in all participants randomly assigned to treatment who received at least one dose of study treatment. Here we report results of the second interim analysis, prespecified to occur when approximately 118 disease-free survival events had occurred in the PD-L1 TPS of 50% or greater population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02504372, and is active but not recruiting. FINDINGS: Between Jan 20, 2016, and May 6, 2020, 1177 (60%) of 1955 screened participants were randomly assigned to pembrolizumab (n=590, including n=168 with PD-L1 TPS of ≥50%) or placebo (n=587; including n=165 with PD-L1 TPS of ≥50%) and included in the ITT population. Median follow-up as of data cutoff (Sept 20, 2021) for this interim analysis was 35·6 months (IQR 27·1-45·5). In the overall population, median disease-free survival was 53·6 months (95% CI 39·2 to not reached) in the pembrolizumab group versus 42·0 months (31·3 to not reached) in the placebo group (HR 0·76 [95% CI 0·63-0·91], p=0·0014). In the PD-L1 TPS of 50% or greater population, median disease-free survival was not reached in either the pembrolizumab group (95% CI 44·3 to not reached) or the placebo group (95% CI 35·8 to not reached; HR 0·82 [95% CI 0·57-1·18]; p=0·14). Grade 3 or worse adverse events occurred in 198 (34%) of 580 participants who received pembrolizumab and 150 (26%) of 581 participants who received placebo. Grade 3 or worse events that occurred in at least ten participants in either treatment group were hypertension (35 [6%]) and pneumonia (12 [2%]) with pembrolizumab and hypertension (32 [6%]) with placebo. Serious adverse events occurred in 142 (24%) participants in the pembrolizumab group and 90 (15%) in the placebo group; serious adverse events that occurred in more than 1% of participants were pneumonia (13 [2%]), pneumonitis (12 [2%]), and diarrhoea (seven [1%]) with pembrolizumab and pneumonia (nine [2%]) with placebo. Treatment-related adverse events led to death in four (1%) participants treated with pembrolizumab (one due to both cardiogenic shock and myocarditis, one due to both septic shock and myocarditis, one due to pneumonia, and one due to sudden death) and in no participants treated with placebo. INTERPRETATION: Pembrolizumab significantly improved disease-free survival compared with placebo and was not associated with new safety signals in completely resected, PD-L1-unselected, stage IB-IIIA NSCLC. Pembrolizumab is potentially a new treatment option for stage IB-IIIA NSCLC after complete resection and, when recommended, adjuvant chemotherapy, regardless of PD-L1 expression. FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck & Co.

Durvalumab, with or without tremelimumab, plus platinum-etoposide versus platinum-etoposide alone in first-line treatment of extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (CASPIAN): updated results from a randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: First-line durvalumab plus etoposide with either cisplatin or carboplatin (platinum-etoposide) showed a significant improvement in overall survival versus platinum-etoposide alone in patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) in the CASPIAN study. Here we report updated results, including the primary analysis for overall survival with durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum-etoposide versus platinum-etoposide alone. METHODS: CASPIAN is an ongoing, open-label, sponsor-blind, randomised, controlled phase 3 trial at 209 cancer treatment centres in 23 countries worldwide. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older (20 years in Japan) and had treatment-naive, histologically or cytologically documented ES-SCLC, with a WHO performance status of 0 or 1. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) in blocks of six, stratified by planned platinum, using an interactive voice-response or web-response system to receive intravenous durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum-etoposide, durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide, or platinum-etoposide alone. In all groups, patients received etoposide 80-100 mg/m2 on days 1-3 of each cycle with investigator's choice of either carboplatin area under the curve 5-6 mg/mL/min or cisplatin 75-80 mg/m2 on day 1 of each cycle. Patients in the platinum-etoposide group received up to six cycles of platinum-etoposide every 3 weeks and optional prophylactic cranial irradiation (investigator's discretion). Patients in the immunotherapy groups received four cycles of platinum-etoposide plus durvalumab 1500 mg with or without tremelimumab 75 mg every 3 weeks followed by maintenance durvalumab 1500 mg every 4 weeks. The two primary endpoints were overall survival for durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide versus platinum-etoposide and for durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum-etoposide versus platinum-etoposide in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03043872. FINDINGS: Between March 27, 2017, and May 29, 2018, 972 patients were screened and 805 were randomly assigned (268 to durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum-etoposide, 268 to durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide, and 269 to platinum-etoposide). As of Jan 27, 2020, the median follow-up was 25·1 months (IQR 22·3-27·9). Durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum-etoposide was not associated with a significant improvement in overall survival versus platinum-etoposide (hazard ratio [HR] 0·82 [95% CI 0·68-1·00]; p=0·045); median overall survival was 10·4 months (95% CI 9·6-12·0) versus 10·5 months (9·3-11·2). Durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide showed sustained improvement in overall survival versus platinum-etoposide (HR 0·75 [95% CI 0·62-0·91]; nominal p=0·0032); median overall survival was 12·9 months (95% CI 11·3-14·7) versus 10·5 months (9·3-11·2). The most common any-cause grade 3 or worse adverse events were neutropenia (85 [32%] of 266 patients in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum-etoposide group, 64 [24%] of 265 patients in the durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide group, and 88 [33%] of 266 patients in the platinum-etoposide group) and anaemia (34 [13%], 24 [9%], and 48 [18%]). Any-cause serious adverse events were reported in 121 (45%) patients in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum-etoposide group, 85 (32%) in the durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide group, and 97 (36%) in the platinum-etoposide group. Treatment-related deaths occurred in 12 (5%) patients in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum-etoposide group (death, febrile neutropenia, and pulmonary embolism [n=2 each]; enterocolitis, general physical health deterioration and multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, pneumonia, pneumonitis and hepatitis, respiratory failure, and sudden death [n=1 each]), six (2%) patients in the durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide group (cardiac arrest, dehydration, hepatotoxicity, interstitial lung disease, pancytopenia, and sepsis [n=1 each]), and two (1%) in the platinum-etoposide group (pancytopenia and thrombocytopenia [n=1 each]). INTERPRETATION: First-line durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide showed sustained overall survival improvement versus platinum-etoposide but the addition of tremelimumab to durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide did not significantly improve outcomes versus platinum-etoposide. These results support the use of durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide as a new standard of care for the first-line treatment of ES-SCLC. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

First-Line Atezolizumab plus Chemotherapy in Extensive-Stage Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Enhancing tumor-specific T-cell immunity by inhibiting programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1)-programmed death 1 (PD-1) signaling has shown promise in the treatment of extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer. Combining checkpoint inhibition with cytotoxic chemotherapy may have a synergistic effect and improve efficacy. METHODS: We conducted this double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial to evaluate atezolizumab plus carboplatin and etoposide in patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer who had not previously received treatment. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive carboplatin and etoposide with either atezolizumab or placebo for four 21-day cycles (induction phase), followed by a maintenance phase during which they received either atezolizumab or placebo (according to the previous random assignment) until they had unacceptable toxic effects, disease progression according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1, or no additional clinical benefit. The two primary end points were investigator-assessed progression-free survival and overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. RESULTS: A total of 201 patients were randomly assigned to the atezolizumab group, and 202 patients to the placebo group. At a median follow-up of 13.9 months, the median overall survival was 12.3 months in the atezolizumab group and 10.3 months in the placebo group (hazard ratio for death, 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.54 to 0.91; P=0.007). The median progression-free survival was 5.2 months and 4.3 months, respectively (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.62 to 0.96; P=0.02). The safety profile of atezolizumab plus carboplatin and etoposide was consistent with the previously reported safety profile of the individual agents, with no new findings observed. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of atezolizumab to chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer resulted in significantly longer overall survival and progression-free survival than chemotherapy alone. (Funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech; IMpower133 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02763579 .).

Durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide versus platinum-etoposide in first-line treatment of extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (CASPIAN): a randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Most patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) have extensive-stage disease at presentation, and prognosis remains poor. Recently, immunotherapy has demonstrated clinical activity in extensive-stage SCLC (ES-SCLC). The CASPIAN trial assessed durvalumab, with or without tremelimumab, in combination with etoposide plus either cisplatin or carboplatin (platinum-etoposide) in treatment-naive patients with ES-SCLC. METHODS: This randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial was done at 209 sites across 23 countries. Eligible patients were adults with untreated ES-SCLC, with WHO performance status 0 or 1 and measurable disease as per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1. Patients were randomly assigned (in a 1:1:1 ratio) to durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide; durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum-etoposide; or platinum-etoposide alone. All drugs were administered intravenously. Platinum-etoposide consisted of etoposide 80-100 mg/m2 on days 1-3 of each cycle with investigator's choice of either carboplatin area under the curve 5-6 mg/mL per min or cisplatin 75-80 mg/m2 (administered on day 1 of each cycle). Patients received up to four cycles of platinum-etoposide plus durvalumab 1500 mg with or without tremelimumab 75 mg every 3 weeks followed by maintenance durvalumab 1500 mg every 4 weeks in the immunotherapy groups and up to six cycles of platinum-etoposide every 3 weeks plus prophylactic cranial irradiation (investigator's discretion) in the platinum-etoposide group. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. We report results for the durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide group versus the platinum-etoposide group from a planned interim analysis. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of their assigned study treatment. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03043872, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Patients were enrolled between March 27, 2017, and May 29, 2018. 268 patients were allocated to the durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide group and 269 to the platinum-etoposide group. Durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide was associated with a significant improvement in overall survival, with a hazard ratio of 0·73 (95% CI 0·59-0·91; p=0·0047]); median overall survival was 13·0 months (95% CI 11·5-14·8) in the durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide group versus 10·3 months (9·3-11·2) in the platinum-etoposide group, with 34% (26·9-41·0) versus 25% (18·4-31·6) of patients alive at 18 months. Any-cause adverse events of grade 3 or 4 occurred in 163 (62%) of 265 treated patients in the durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide group and 166 (62%) of 266 in the platinum-etoposide group; adverse events leading to death occurred in 13 (5%) and 15 (6%) patients. INTERPRETATION: First-line durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide significantly improved overall survival in patients with ES-SCLC versus a clinically relevant control group. Safety findings were consistent with the known safety profiles of all drugs received. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

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 .).

Nivolumab versus Docetaxel in Advanced Squamous-Cell Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced squamous-cell non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who have disease progression during or after first-line chemotherapy have limited treatment options. This randomized, open-label, international, phase 3 study evaluated the efficacy and safety of nivolumab, a fully human IgG4 programmed death 1 (PD-1) immune-checkpoint-inhibitor antibody, as compared with docetaxel in this patient population. METHODS: We randomly assigned 272 patients to receive nivolumab, at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram of body weight every 2 weeks, or docetaxel, at a dose of 75 mg per square meter of body-surface area every 3 weeks. The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS: The median overall survival was 9.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 7.3 to 13.3) with nivolumab versus 6.0 months (95% CI, 5.1 to 7.3) with docetaxel. The risk of death was 41% lower with nivolumab than with docetaxel (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.79; P<0.001). At 1 year, the overall survival rate was 42% (95% CI, 34 to 50) with nivolumab versus 24% (95% CI, 17 to 31) with docetaxel. The response rate was 20% with nivolumab versus 9% with docetaxel (P=0.008). The median progression-free survival was 3.5 months with nivolumab versus 2.8 months with docetaxel (hazard ratio for death or disease progression, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.81; P<0.001). The expression of the PD-1 ligand (PD-L1) was neither prognostic nor predictive of benefit. Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or 4 were reported in 7% of the patients in the nivolumab group as compared with 55% of those in the docetaxel group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with advanced, previously treated squamous-cell NSCLC, overall survival, response rate, and progression-free survival were significantly better with nivolumab than with docetaxel, regardless of PD-L1 expression level. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb; CheckMate 017 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01642004.).

Efficacy of the MAGE-A3 cancer immunotherapeutic as adjuvant therapy in patients with resected MAGE-A3-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (MAGRIT): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Fewer than half of the patients with completely resected non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are cured. Since the introduction of adjuvant chemotherapy in 2004, no substantial progress has been made in adjuvant treatment. We aimed to assess the efficacy of the MAGE-A3 cancer immunotherapeutic in surgically resected NSCLC. METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we recruited patients aged at least 18 years with completely resected stage IB, II, and IIIA MAGE-A3-positive NSCLC who did or did not receive adjuvant chemotherapy from 443 centres in 34 countries (Europe, the Americas, and Asia Pacific). Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive 13 intramuscular injections of recMAGE-A3 with AS15 immunostimulant (MAGE-A3 immunotherapeutic) or placebo during 27 months. Randomisation and treatment allocation at the investigator site was done centrally via internet with stratification for chemotherapy versus no chemotherapy. Participants, investigators, and those assessing outcomes were masked to group assignment. A minimisation algorithm accounted for the number of chemotherapy cycles received, disease stage, lymph node sampling procedure, performance status score, and lifetime smoking status. The primary endpoint was broken up into three co-primary objectives: disease-free survival in the overall population, the no-chemotherapy population, and patients with a potentially predictive gene signature. The final analyses included the total treated population (all patients who had received at least one treatment dose). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00480025. FINDINGS: Between Oct 18, 2007, and July 17, 2012, we screened 13 849 patients for MAGE-A3 expression; 12 820 had a valid sample and of these, 4210 (33%) had a MAGE-A3-positive tumour. 2312 of these patients met all eligibility criteria and were randomly assigned to treatment: 1515 received MAGE-A3 and 757 received placebo and 40 were randomly assigned but never started treatment. 784 patients in the MAGE-A3 group also received chemotherapy, as did 392 in the placebo group. Median follow-up was 38·1 months (IQR 27·9-48·4) in the MAGE-A3 group and 39·5 months (27·9-50·4) in the placebo group. In the overall population, median disease-free survival was 60·5 months (95% CI 57·2-not reached) for the MAGE-A3 immunotherapeutic group and 57·9 months (55·7-not reached) for the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] 1·02, 95% CI 0·89-1·18; p=0·74). Of the patients who did not receive chemotherapy, median disease-free survival was 58·0 months (95% CI 56·6-not reached) in those in the MAGE-A3 group and 56·9 months (44·4-not reached) in the placebo group (HR 0·97, 95% CI 0·80-1·18; p=0·76). Because of the absence of treatment effect, we could not identify a gene signature predictive of clinical benefit to MAGE-A3 immunotherapeutic. The frequency of grade 3 or worse adverse events was similar between treatment groups (246 [16%] of 1515 patients in the MAGE-A3 group and 122 [16%] of 757 in the placebo group). The most frequently reported grade 3 or higher adverse events were infections and infestations (37 [2%] in the MAGE-A3 group and 19 [3%] in the placebo group), vascular disorders (30 [2%] vs 17 [3%]), and neoplasm (benign, malignant, and unspecified (29 [2%] vs 16 [2%]). INTERPRETATION: Adjuvant treatment with the MAGE-A3 immunotherapeutic did not increase disease-free survival compared with placebo in patients with MAGE-A3-positive surgically resected NSCLC. Based on our results, further development of the MAGE-A3 immunotherapeutic for use in NSCLC has been stopped. FUNDING: GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA.

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).

Durvalumab ± Tremelimumab + Platinum-Etoposide in Extensive-Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer (CASPIAN): Outcomes by PD-L1 Expression and Tissue Tumor Mutational Burden.

PURPOSE: In the CASPIAN trial, first-line durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide (EP) significantly improved overall survival (OS) versus EP alone in extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). We report exploratory analyses of CASPIAN outcomes by programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression and tissue tumor mutational burden (tTMB). EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients were randomized (1:1:1) to durvalumab (1,500 mg) plus EP, durvalumab plus tremelimumab (75 mg) plus EP, or EP alone. Treatment effects in PD-L1 and tTMB subgroups were estimated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: The PD-L1 and tTMB biomarker-evaluable populations (BEP) comprised 54.4% (438/805) and 35.2% (283/805) of the intention-to-treat population, respectively. PD-L1 prevalence was low: 5.7%, 25.8%, and 28.3% had PD-L1 expression on ≥1% tumor cells (TC), ≥1% immune cells (IC), and ≥1% TCs or ICs, respectively. OS benefit with durvalumab plus EP versus EP was similar across PD-L1 subgroups, with HRs all falling within the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the PD-L1 BEP (0.47‒0.79). OS benefit with durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus EP versus EP was greater in PD-L1 ≥1% versus <1% subgroups, although CIs overlapped. There was no evidence of an interaction between tTMB and treatment effect on OS (durvalumab plus EP vs. EP, P = 0.916; durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus EP vs. EP, P = 0.672). CONCLUSIONS: OS benefit with first-line durvalumab plus EP in patients with ES-SCLC was observed regardless of PD-L1 or tTMB status. PD-L1 expression may prove to be a useful biomarker for combined treatment with PD-(L)1 and CTLA-4 inhibition, although this requires confirmation with an independent dataset. See related commentary by Rolfo and Russo, p. 652.

Future perspective for the application of predictive biomarker testing in advanced stage non-small cell lung cancer.

For patients with advanced stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), treatment strategies have changed significantly due to the introduction of targeted therapies and immunotherapy. In the last few years, we have seen an explosive growth of newly introduced targeted therapies in oncology and this development is expected to continue in the future. Besides primary targetable aberrations, emerging diagnostic biomarkers also include relevant co-occurring mutations and resistance mechanisms involved in disease progression, that have impact on optimal treatment management. To accommodate testing of pending biomarkers, it is necessary to establish routine large-panel next-generation sequencing (NGS) for all patients with advanced stage NSCLC. For cost-effectiveness and accessibility, it is recommended to implement predictive molecular testing using large-panel NGS in a dedicated, centralized expert laboratory within a regional oncology network. The central molecular testing center should host a regional Molecular Tumor Board and function as a hub for interpretation of rare and complex testing results and clinical decision-making.

CNS Efficacy of Osimertinib With or Without Chemotherapy in Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor-Mutated Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: We report CNS efficacy of first-line osimertinib plus chemotherapy versus osimertinib monotherapy in patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from the phase III FLAURA2 study according to baseline CNS metastasis status. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to osimertinib plus platinum-pemetrexed (combination) or osimertinib monotherapy until disease progression or discontinuation. Brain scans were performed in all patients at baseline and progression and at scheduled assessments until progression for patients with baseline CNS metastases; scans were assessed by neuroradiologist CNS blinded independent central review (BICR). RESULTS: On the basis of baseline CNS BICR, 118 of 279 (combination) and 104 of 278 (monotherapy) randomly assigned patients had ≥one measurable and/or nonmeasurable CNS lesion and were included in the CNS full analysis set (cFAS); 40 of 118 and 38 of 104 had ≥one measurable target CNS lesion and were included in the post hoc CNS evaluable-for-response set (cEFR). In the cFAS, the hazard ratio (HR) for CNS progression or death was 0.58 (95% CI, 0.33 to 1.01). In patients without baseline CNS metastases, the HR for CNS progression or death was 0.67 (95% CI, 0.43 to 1.04). In the cFAS, CNS objective response rates (ORRs; 95% CI) were 73% (combination; 64 to 81) versus 69% (monotherapy; 59 to 78); 59% versus 43% had CNS complete response (CR). In the cEFR, CNS ORRs (95% CI) were 88% (73 to 96) versus 87% (72 to 96); 48% versus 16% had CNS CR. CONCLUSION: Osimertinib plus platinum-pemetrexed demonstrated improved CNS efficacy compared with osimertinib monotherapy, including delaying CNS progression, irrespective of baseline CNS metastasis status. These data support this combination as a new first-line treatment for patients with EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC, including those with CNS metastases.

Developments in predictive biomarker testing and targeted therapy in advanced stage non-small cell lung cancer and their application across European countries.

In the past two decades, the treatment of metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), has undergone significant changes due to the introduction of targeted therapies and immunotherapy. These advancements have led to the need for predictive molecular tests to identify patients eligible for targeted therapy. This review provides an overview of the development and current application of targeted therapies and predictive biomarker testing in European patients with advanced stage NSCLC. Using data from eleven European countries, we conclude that recommendations for predictive testing are incorporated in national guidelines across Europe, although there are differences in their comprehensiveness. Moreover, the availability of recently EMA-approved targeted therapies varies between European countries. Unfortunately, routine assessment of national/regional molecular testing rates is limited. As a result, it remains uncertain which proportion of patients with metastatic NSCLC in Europe receive adequate predictive biomarker testing. Lastly, Molecular Tumor Boards (MTBs) for discussion of molecular test results are widely implemented, but national guidelines for their composition and functioning are lacking. The establishment of MTB guidelines can provide a framework for interpreting rare or complex mutations, facilitating appropriate treatment decision-making, and ensuring quality control.

Effectiveness of first-line anticancer treatment may predict treatment response in further lines in stage III/IV patients with non-small cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: The aim of our study was to evaluate if therapeutic success in the first-line of anticancer treatments in patients with NSCLC may predict treatment success in the following lines. METHODS: We analyzed the data of patients with NSCLC stage III/IV from the TULUNG registry separately for chemotherapy, TKIs, ALK inhibitors, and immunotherapy in the first line during the years 2011-2019. "Succesful treatment " was defined as PFS ≥ 6 months, a "good responder " was a patient with ˃50% of "successful treatment " lines. Treatment responses were analyzed separately for each drug group. Descriptive statistics, Fisher exact test, Pearson Chi-Squared test, log-rank test, and univariate/multivariate logistic regression models were used. RESULTS: The first-line TKI therapy was successful in 66.2%, while good responders accounted for 50.7% of the cohort and their rates were similar for all types of TKIs. First-line platinum-based chemotherapy was successful in 43.1% and 48.6% for combinations with pemetrexed and bevacizumab, respectively. Good responders accounted for 29.5% and 25.9%, respectively. In the group of ALK inhibitors, we observed treatment success in 52.3% of cases, while alectinib showed the highest effectiveness (up to 70%). Good responders constituted 50% of the group. In the first-line immunotherapy group, survival benefit was observed in 52.3%, and good responders constituted 52.3% of the cohort. CONCLUSION: We concluded that the treatment success in first-line therapies in patients with NSCLC may predict survival benefits in the subsequent lines, particularly in EGFR- or ALK-positive disease and immunotherapy-treated patients.

Worse Prognosis in the Symptomatic Patients With Lung Cancer - Czech Multicentric Study.

Background/Aim: This study aimed at contributing to a better diagnosis of lung cancer by analyzing the patient's symptoms and their linkage to other characteristics. Patients and Methods: We analyzed the data of 3,322 patients from LUCAS (LUngCAncerfocuS) National Registry of the Czech Republic. Overall survival was assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: The most common symptoms were cough (47.5%), dyspnea (45.6%), pain (27.3%), and weight loss (25.7%). Among all patients, 16% were asymptomatic. We demonstrated the negative prognostic significance of increasing number of lung cancer symptoms, that was significant after adjustment for age, TNM stages, and performance status, and morphological types of the cancer. Conclusion: Monitoring the severity and type of symptoms in patients with lung cancer can help in the diagnostics of the disease and the estimation of prognosis.

Impact of Brain Metastases on Treatment Patterns and Outcomes With First-Line Durvalumab Plus Platinum-Etoposide in Extensive-Stage SCLC (CASPIAN): A Brief Report.

Introduction: In the phase 3 study involving the use of durvalumab with or without tremelimumab in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy in untreated extensive-stage SCLC (CASPIAN study), first-line durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide (EP) significantly improved overall survival (OS) versus EP alone (p = 0.0047). We report exploratory subgroup analyses of treatment patterns and outcomes according to the presence of baseline brain or central nervous system metastases. Methods: Patients (WHO performance status 0 or 1), including those with asymptomatic or treated-and-stable brain metastases, were randomized to four cycles of durvalumab plus EP followed by maintenance durvalumab until progression or up to six cycles of EP and optional prophylactic cranial irradiation. Prespecified analyses of OS and progression-free survival (PFS) in subgroups with or without brain metastases used unstratified-Cox proportional hazards models. The data cutoff was on January 27, 2020. Results: At baseline, 28 out of 268 patients (10.4%) in the durvalumab plus EP arm and 27 out of 269 patients (10.0%) in the EP arm had known brain metastases, of whom 3 of 28 (10.7%) and 4 of 27 (14.8%) had previous brain radiotherapy, respectively. Durvalumab plus EP (versus EP alone) prolonged OS (hazard ratio, 95% confidence interval) in patients with (0.79, 0.44-1.41) or without (0.76, 0.62-0.92) brain metastases, with similar PFS results (0.73, 0.42-1.29 and 0.80, 0.66-0.97, respectively). Among patients without brain metastases, similar proportions in each arm developed new brain lesions as part of their first progression (8.8% and 9.5%), although 8.3% in the EP arm received prophylactic cranial irradiation. Similar proportions in each arm received subsequent brain radiotherapy (20.5% and 21.2%), although more common in patients with than without baseline brain metastases (45.5% and 18.0%). Conclusions: The OS and PFS benefit with first-line durvalumab plus EP were maintained irrespective of the presence of brain metastases, further supporting its standard-of-care use.

An ocular lesion of unknown aetiology.

Can you diagnose this patient with vision problems? https://bit.ly/3vGe5qy.

Lung Cancer in Non-smokers in Czech Republic: Data from LUCAS Lung Cancer Clinical Registry.

BACKGROUND/AIM: LUCAS is a clinical lung cancer registry (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier is NCT04228237), prospectively collecting data from newly diagnosed lung cancer patients in seven pneumooncology centers in the Czech Republic, since June 1, 2018. The aim of the study was to assess the stage of the disease at the time of diagnosis, percentage of morphological types, survival, percentage of driving mutations, eligibility for radical surgery, and percentage of patients who undergo radical surgery, in the non-smoking population in comparison with smokers and former smokers. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The total number of patients in the registry at the time of the analysis was 2,743. Only 2,439 patients with complete records (smoking status, stage, and type of tumor) were included in this study. RESULTS: The analysis indicated that non-smokers are diagnosed at a later stage of the disease but they have a better survival rate than smokers. Fewer smokers with stage III disease who are eligible for radical surgery will undergo surgery compared to non-smokers with the same clinical stage. Driving mutations are more common in non-smokers, even after adjustment for the more frequent occurrence of adenocarcinoma in the group of non-smokers. CONCLUSION: The data from LUCAS registry are consistent with already known facts, suggesting that the LUCAS registry is a useful clinical tool.

Autologous dendritic cell-based immunotherapy (DCVAC/LuCa) and carboplatin/paclitaxel in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: A randomized, open-label, phase I/II trial.

PURPOSE: To investigate the efficacy and safety of an active cellular immunotherapy (DCVAC/LuCa) and chemotherapy in patients with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: SLU01 was a multicenter, open-label, parallel-group, randomized, phase I/II trial. NSCLC patients were randomized in a ratio of 1:1:1 to receive: DCVAC/LuCa and chemotherapy (carboplatin and paclitaxel; Group A); DCVAC/LuCa, chemotherapy, pegylated interferon-α2b, and hydroxychloroquine (Group B); or chemotherapy alone (Group C). DCVAC/LuCa was administered subcutaneously every 3-6 weeks (up to 15 doses). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). During the study, enrollment into Group B was discontinued for strategic reasons. RESULTS: Forty-five patients were randomized to Group A, 29 patients to Group B, and 38 patients to Group C. The median OS in the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population was 3.7 months longer in Group A than in Group C (15.5 vs. 11.8 months; p = 0.0179; hazard ratio = 0.54; 95% confidence interval: 0.32-0.91). This OS effect was consistent across subgroups of the mITT population (females, males, current smokers, former smokers, and patients with non-squamous and squamous cell histology). The most common treatment-emergent adverse events of any grade reported in Groups A, B, and C, respectively, were neutropenia (50.0%, 29.6%, and 20.6%), fatigue (40.0%, 18.5%, and 20.6%), anemia (35.0%, 44.4%, and 32.4%), paresthesia (27.5%, 25.9%, and 17.6%), and alopecia (25.0%, 29.6%, and 41.2%). CONCLUSION: DCVAC/LuCa in combination with carboplatin and paclitaxel extended OS and was well tolerated.