First-line atezolizumab monotherapy versus single-agent chemotherapy in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer ineligible for treatment with a platinum-containing regimen (IPSOS): a phase 3, global, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Despite immunotherapy advancements for patients with advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), pivotal first-line trials were limited to patients with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) 0-1 and a median age of 65 years or younger. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of first-line atezolizumab monotherapy with single-agent chemotherapy in patients ineligible for platinum-based chemotherapy. METHODS: This trial was a phase 3, open-label, randomised controlled study conducted at 91 sites in 23 countries across Asia, Europe, North America, and South America. Eligible patients had stage IIIB or IV NSCLC in whom platinum-doublet chemotherapy was deemed unsuitable by the investigator due to an ECOG PS 2 or 3, or alternatively, being 70 years or older with an ECOG PS 0-1 with substantial comorbidities or contraindications for platinum-doublet chemotherapy. Patients were randomised 2:1 by permuted-block randomisation (block size of six) to receive 1200 mg of atezolizumab given intravenously every 3 weeks or single-agent chemotherapy (vinorelbine [oral or intravenous] or gemcitabine [intravenous]; dosing per local label) at 3-weekly or 4-weekly cycles. The primary endpoint was overall survival assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses were conducted in the safety-evaluable population, which included all randomised patients who received any amount of atezolizumab or chemotherapy. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03191786. FINDINGS: Between Sept 11, 2017, and Sept 23, 2019, 453 patients were enrolled and randomised to receive atezolizumab (n=302) or chemotherapy (n=151). Atezolizumab improved overall survival compared with chemotherapy (median overall survival 10·3 months [95% CI 9·4-11·9] vs 9·2 months [5·9-11·2]; stratified hazard ratio 0·78 [0·63-0·97], p=0·028), with a 2-year survival rate of 24% (95% CI 19·3-29·4) with atezolizumab compared with 12% (6·7-18·0) with chemotherapy. Compared with chemotherapy, atezolizumab was associated with stabilisation or improvement of patient-reported health-related quality-of-life functioning scales and symptoms and fewer grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events (49 [16%] of 300 vs 49 [33%] of 147) and treatment-related deaths (three [1%] vs four [3%]). INTERPRETATION: First-line treatment with atezolizumab monotherapy was associated with improved overall survival, a doubling of the 2-year survival rate, maintenance of quality of life, and a favourable safety profile compared with single-agent chemotherapy. These data support atezolizumab monotherapy as a potential first-line treatment option for patients with advanced NSCLC who are ineligible for platinum-based chemotherapy. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech Inc, a member of the Roche group.

Symptom relief, prognostic factors, and outcome in patients receiving urgent radiation therapy for superior vena cava syndrome : A single-center retrospective analysis of 21 years' practice.

PURPOSE: Superior vena cava syndrome (SVCS) often results from external vessel compression due to tumor growth. Urgent symptom-guided radiotherapy (RT) remains a major treatment approach in histologically proven, rapidly progressive disease. Despite several publications, recent data concerning symptom relief and oncological outcome as well as potential confounders in treatment response are still scarce. METHODS: We performed a retrospective single-center analysis of patients receiving urgent RT between 2000 and 2021 at the University Medical Center Göttingen. Symptom relief was evaluated by CTCAE score during the RT course. Effects of variables on symptom relief were assessed by logistic regression. The impact of parameters on overall survival (OS) was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier plot along with the log-rank test and by Cox regression analyses. Statistically significant (p-value < 0.05) confounders were tested in multivariable analyses. RESULTS: A total of 79 patients were included. Symptom relief was achieved in 68.4%. Mean OS was 59 days, 7.6% (n = 6) of patients showed long-term survival (> 2 years). Applied RT dose > 39 Gy, clinical target volume (CTV) size < 387 ml, concomitant chemotherapy, and completion of the prescribed RT course were found to be statistically significant for OS; applied RT dose and completion of the prescribed RT course were found to be statistically significant for symptom relief. CONCLUSION: Symptom relief by urgent RT for SVCS was achieved in the majority of patients. RT dose and completion of the RT course were documented as predictors for OS and symptom relief, CTV < 387 ml and concomitant chemotherapy were predictive for OS.

Smoking cessation by combined medication and counselling: a feasibility study in lung cancer patients.

PURPOSE: Smoking cessation in patients with diagnosed lung cancer has positive effects on cancer therapy and overall prognosis. Despite this, knowledge on smoking cessation in lung cancer patients is sparse. METHODS: This is an observational single centre, 12-week, prospective, single-arm trial at a tertiary lung cancer centre. Responsive patients were enrolled following confirmed lung cancer diagnosis. Smoking cessation intervention included counselling as well as pharmacotherapy. The primary endpoint was the point prevalence abstinence rate at week 12 based on biochemical verification. Secondary endpoints were the abstinence rate at week 26, quality of life and side effects. RESULTS: 80 patients were enrolled. Mean age was 62.6 ± 7.9 years. Most patients (63%) were treated with chemotherapy or radiochemotherapy. 39 patients used nicotine replacement therapy, 35 varenicline whereas six patients did not use pharmacotherapy. During the study period 13 patients died. Data were available in 72 patients after 12 weeks and 57 patients at week 24. Point prevalence abstinence rates were 37.5% (95% CI 26.4-49.7%) at week 12 and 32.8% (95% CI 21.8-45.4%) at week 26, respectively. Quality of life and side effects were not significantly affected by pharmacotherapy. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, our results suggest that smoking cessation is feasible in patients with newly diagnosed lung cancer. The observed abstinence rate is comparable to other patient cohorts. Furthermore, pharmacotherapy in addition to cancer therapy was safe and did not show novel side effects in these seriously ill patients. Thus, smoking cessation should be an integral part of lung cancer treatment. Trial registration The study was conducted in accordance with good clinical practice standards (GCP) and approved by the local ethics committee (16/3/14), the European PAS registry (EUPAS8748) and the German BfArM (NIS-Studien-Nr. 5508). All patients provided written informed consent before study enrollment.

Atezolizumab in combination with carboplatin plus nab-paclitaxel chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone as first-line treatment for metastatic non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (IMpower130): a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Atezolizumab (a monoclonal antibody against PD-L1), which restores anticancer immunity, improved overall survival in patients with previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer and also showed clinical benefit when combined with chemotherapy as first-line treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer. IMpower130 aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone as first-line therapy for non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer. METHODS: IMpower130 was a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 study done in 131 centres across eight countries (the USA, Canada, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and Israel). Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, and had histologically or cytologically confirmed stage IV non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and received no previous chemotherapy for stage IV disease. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1; permuted block [block size of six] with an interactive voice or web response system) to receive atezolizumab (1200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks) plus chemotherapy (carboplatin [area under the curve 6 mg/mL per min every 3 weeks] plus nab-paclitaxel [100 mg/m2 intravenously every week]) or chemotherapy alone for four or six 21-day cycles followed by maintenance therapy. Stratification factors were sex, baseline liver metastases, and PD-L1 tumour expression. Co-primary endpoints were investigator-assessed progression-free survival and overall survival in the intention-to-treat wild-type (ie, EGFRwt and ALKwt) population. The safety population included patients who received at least one dose of the study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02367781. FINDINGS: Between April 16, 2015, and Feb 13, 2017, 724 patients were randomly assigned and 723 were included in the intention-to-treat population (one patient died before randomisation, but was assigned to a treatment group; this patient was excluded from the intention-to-treat population) of the atezolizumab plus chemotherapy group (483 patients in the intention-to-treat population and 451 patients in the intention-to-treat wild-type population) or the chemotherapy group (240 patients in the intention-to-treat population and 228 patients in the intention-to-treat wild-type population). Median follow-up in the intention-to-treat wild-type population was similar between groups (18·5 months [IQR 15·2-23·6] in the atezolizumab plus chemotherapy group and 19·2 months [15·4-23·0] in the chemotherapy group). In the intention-to-treat wild-type population, there were significant improvements in median overall survival (18·6 months [95% CI 16·0-21·2] in the atezolizumab plus chemotherapy group and 13·9 months [12·0-18·7] in the chemotherapy group; stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0·79 [95% CI 0·64-0·98]; p=0·033) and median progression-free survival (7·0 months [95% CI 6·2-7·3] in the atezolizumab plus chemotherapy group and 5·5 months [4·4-5·9] in the chemotherapy group; stratified HR 0·64 [95% CI 0·54-0·77]; p<0·0001]). The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events were neutropenia (152 [32%] of 473 in the atezolizumab plus chemotherapy group vs 65 [28%] of 232 in the chemotherapy group), anaemia (138 [29%] vs 47 [20%]), and decreased neutrophil count (57 [12%] vs 19 [8%]). Treatment-related serious adverse events were reported in 112 (24%) of 473 patients in the atezolizumab plus chemotherapy group and 30 (13%) of 232 patients in the chemotherapy group. Treatment-related (any treatment) deaths occurred in eight (2%) of 473 patients in the atezolizumab plus chemotherapy group and one (<1%) of 232 patients in the chemotherapy group. INTERPRETATION: IMpower130 showed a significant and clinically meaningful improvement in overall survival and a significant improvement in progression-free survival with atezolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy as first-line treatment of patients with stage IV non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer and no ALK or EGFR mutations. No new safety signals were identified. This study supports the benefit of atezolizumab, in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy, as first-line treatment of metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. FUNDING: F. Hoffmann-La Roche.

Atezolizumab versus docetaxel in patients with previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer (OAK): a phase 3, open-label, multicentre randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Atezolizumab is a humanised antiprogrammed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) monoclonal antibody that inhibits PD-L1 and programmed death-1 (PD-1) and PD-L1 and B7-1 interactions, reinvigorating anticancer immunity. We assessed its efficacy and safety versus docetaxel in previously treated patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. METHODS: We did a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial (OAK) in 194 academic or community oncology centres in 31 countries. We enrolled patients who had squamous or non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer, were 18 years or older, had measurable disease per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients had received one to two previous cytotoxic chemotherapy regimens (one or more platinum based combination therapies) for stage IIIB or IV non-small-cell lung cancer. Patients with a history of autoimmune disease and those who had received previous treatments with docetaxel, CD137 agonists, anti-CTLA4, or therapies targeting the PD-L1 and PD-1 pathway were excluded. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to intravenously receive either atezolizumab 1200 mg or docetaxel 75 mg/m2 every 3 weeks by permuted block randomisation (block size of eight) via an interactive voice or web response system. Coprimary endpoints were overall survival in the intention-to-treat (ITT) and PD-L1-expression population TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 (≥1% PD-L1 on tumour cells or tumour-infiltrating immune cells). The primary efficacy analysis was done in the first 850 of 1225 enrolled patients. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02008227. FINDINGS: Between March 11, 2014, and April 29, 2015, 1225 patients were recruited. In the primary population, 425 patients were randomly assigned to receive atezolizumab and 425 patients were assigned to receive docetaxel. Overall survival was significantly longer with atezolizumab in the ITT and PD-L1-expression populations. In the ITT population, overall survival was improved with atezolizumab compared with docetaxel (median overall survival was 13·8 months [95% CI 11·8-15·7] vs 9·6 months [8·6-11·2]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·73 [95% CI 0·62-0·87], p=0·0003). Overall survival in the TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 population was improved with atezolizumab (n=241) compared with docetaxel (n=222; median overall survival was 15·7 months [95% CI 12·6-18·0] with atezolizumab vs 10·3 months [8·8-12·0] with docetaxel; HR 0·74 [95% CI 0·58-0·93]; p=0·0102). Patients in the PD-L1 low or undetectable subgroup (TC0 and IC0) also had improved survival with atezolizumab (median overall survival 12·6 months vs 8·9 months; HR 0·75 [95% CI 0·59-0·96]). Overall survival improvement was similar in patients with squamous (HR 0·73 [95% CI 0·54-0·98]; n=112 in the atezolizumab group and n=110 in the docetaxel group) or non-squamous (0·73 [0·60-0·89]; n=313 and n=315) histology. Fewer patients had treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events with atezolizumab (90 [15%] of 609 patients) versus docetaxel (247 [43%] of 578 patients). One treatment-related death from a respiratory tract infection was reported in the docetaxel group. INTERPRETATION: To our knowledge, OAK is the first randomised phase 3 study to report results of a PD-L1-targeted therapy, with atezolizumab treatment resulting in a clinically relevant improvement of overall survival versus docetaxel in previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer, regardless of PD-L1 expression or histology, with a favourable safety profile. FUNDING: F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Genentech, Inc.

Atezolizumab versus docetaxel for patients with previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer (POPLAR): a multicentre, open-label, phase 2 randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Outcomes are poor for patients with previously treated, advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The anti-programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) antibody atezolizumab is clinically active against cancer, including NSCLC, especially cancers expressing PD-L1 on tumour cells, tumour-infiltrating immune cells, or both. We assessed efficacy and safety of atezolizumab versus docetaxel in previously treated NSCLC, analysed by PD-L1 expression levels on tumour cells and tumour-infiltrating immune cells and in the intention-to-treat population. METHODS: In this open-label, phase 2 randomised controlled trial, patients with NSCLC who progressed on post-platinum chemotherapy were recruited in 61 academic medical centres and community oncology practices across 13 countries in Europe and North America. Key inclusion criteria were Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 or 1, measurable disease by Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST v1.1), and adequate haematological and end-organ function. Patients were stratified by PD-L1 tumour-infiltrating immune cell status, histology, and previous lines of therapy, and randomly assigned (1:1) by permuted block randomisation (with a block size of four) using an interactive voice or web system to receive intravenous atezolizumab 1200 mg or docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) once every 3 weeks. Baseline PD-L1 expression was scored by immunohistochemistry in tumour cells (as percentage of PD-L1-expressing tumour cells TC3≥50%, TC2≥5% and <50%, TC1≥1% and <5%, and TC0<1%) and tumour-infiltrating immune cells (as percentage of tumour area: IC3≥10%, IC2≥5% and <10%, IC1≥1% and <5%, and IC0<1%). The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population and PD-L1 subgroups at 173 deaths. Biomarkers were assessed in an exploratory analysis. We assessed safety in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01903993. FINDINGS: Patients were enrolled between Aug 5, 2013, and March 31, 2014. 144 patients were randomly allocated to the atezolizumab group, and 143 to the docetaxel group. 142 patients received at least one dose of atezolizumab and 135 received docetaxel. Overall survival in the intention-to-treat population was 12·6 months (95% CI 9·7-16·4) for atezolizumab versus 9·7 months (8·6-12·0) for docetaxel (hazard ratio [HR] 0·73 [95% CI 0·53-0·99]; p=0·04). Increasing improvement in overall survival was associated with increasing PD-L1 expression (TC3 or IC3 HR 0·49 [0·22-1·07; p=0·068], TC2/3 or IC2/3 HR 0·54 [0·33-0·89; p=0·014], TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 HR 0·59 [0·40-0·85; p=0·005], TC0 and IC0 HR 1·04 [0·62-1·75; p=0·871]). In our exploratory analysis, patients with pre-existing immunity, defined by high T-effector-interferon-γ-associated gene expression, had improved overall survival with atezolizumab. 11 (8%) patients in the atezolizumab group discontinued because of adverse events versus 30 (22%) patients in the docetaxel group. 16 (11%) patients in the atezolizumab group versus 52 (39%) patients in the docetaxel group had treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events, and one (<1%) patient in the atezolizumab group versus three (2%) patients in the docetaxel group died from a treatment-related adverse event. INTERPRETATION: Atezolizumab significantly improved survival compared with docetaxel in patients with previously treated NSCLC. Improvement correlated with PD-L1 immunohistochemistry expression on tumour cells and tumour-infiltrating immune cells, suggesting that PD-L1 expression is predictive for atezolizumab benefit. Atezolizumab was well tolerated, with a safety profile distinct from chemotherapy. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech Inc.

Treatment of limited disease small cell lung cancer: the multidisciplinary team.

Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) presents multiple interdisciplinary challenges with several paradigm shifts in its treatment in recent years. SCLC treatment requires multidisciplinary management and timely treatment. The aim of this review is to focus on the team management aspects in the treatment of limited disease SCLC and how this can contribute towards improving outcomes.

Therapeutic Patterns and Clinical Outcomes in Limited Disease Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Decade of Analysis at a Tertiary Cancer Center.

In this study, we investigated the outcomes and factors influencing treatment efficacy in 93 patients with limited disease small cell lung cancer (LD-SCLC), with a median age of 64 years. We focused on the impact of chemotherapy regimens, prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI), and patient-related variables. The median follow-up for OS was 17.3 months. We observed a statistically significant difference in PFS between LD-SCLC patients treated with cisplatin and etoposide (EP) and those treated with carboplatin and etoposide (CP) (PFS: EP 13.63 months vs. CP 6.54 months, p < 0.01). Patients treated with EP had better overall survival (OS) than CP-treated patients (OS: EP 26.9 months vs. CP 16.16 months, p < 0.01). Concomitant chemotherapy was associated with improved PFS (p = 0.003) and OS (p = 0.002). Patients receiving PCI showed superior OS (p = 0.05) and a trend towards improved PFS (p = 0.057). Female gender was associated with better OS (p = 0.025). Most patients had an ECOG performance status of 0 (71%). This real-world study underscores the importance of multidisciplinary LD-SCLC management, emphasizing the roles of chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and PCI. These findings inform personalized treatment strategies and emphasize the need for prospective trials to validate these results and optimize LD-SCLC treatment.

SKYSCRAPER-02: Tiragolumab in Combination With Atezolizumab Plus Chemotherapy in Untreated Extensive-Stage Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: The phase III SKYSCRAPER-02 study determined whether the benefits of atezolizumab plus carboplatin and etoposide (CE) could be enhanced by the addition of tiragolumab in untreated extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). We report final progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) analyses. METHODS: Patients received tiragolumab 600 mg/placebo, plus atezolizumab 1,200 mg and CE (four cycles), then maintenance tiragolumab/placebo plus atezolizumab. Primary end points were investigator-assessed PFS and OS in patients without history/presence of brain metastases (primary analysis set [PAS]). Additional end points included PFS and OS in all patients regardless of brain metastases status (full analysis set [FAS]), response, and safety. RESULTS: Four hundred ninety patients were randomly assigned (FAS): 243 to tiragolumab arm and 247 to control arm. At the cutoff date (February 6, 2022; median duration of follow-up, 14.3 months [PAS] and 13.9 months [FAS]), final analysis of PFS in the PAS (n = 397) did not reach statistical significance (stratified hazard ratio [HR], 1.11; P = .3504; median, 5.4 months tiragolumab v 5.6 months control). At the cutoff date (September 6, 2022; median duration of follow-up, 21.2 months [FAS]), median OS in the PAS at final OS analysis was 13.1 months in both arms (stratified HR, 1.14; P = .2859). Median PFS and OS in the FAS were consistent with the PAS. The proportion of patients with immune-mediated adverse events (AEs) in the tiragolumab and control arms was 54.4% and 49.2%, respectively (grade 3/4: 7.9% and 7.7%). AEs leading to treatment withdrawal occurred in 8.4% and 9.3% of tiragolumab- and control-treated patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: Tiragolumab did not provide additional benefit over atezolizumab and CE in untreated ES-SCLC. The combination was well tolerated with no new safety signals.

Outcome of First-Line Treatment With Pembrolizumab According to KRAS/TP53 Mutational Status for Nonsquamous Programmed Death-Ligand 1-High (≥50%) NSCLC in the German National Network Genomic Medicine Lung Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Programmed death-ligand 1 expression currently represents the only validated predictive biomarker for immune checkpoint inhibition in metastatic NSCLC in the clinical routine, but it has limited value in distinguishing responses. Assessment of KRAS and TP53 mutations (mut) as surrogate for an immunosupportive tumor microenvironment (TME) might help to close this gap. METHODS: A total of 696 consecutive patients with programmed death-ligand 1-high (≥50%), nonsquamous NSCLC, having received molecular testing within the German National Network Genomic Medicine Lung Cancer between 2017 and 2020, with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status less than or equal to 1 and pembrolizumab as first-line palliative treatment, were included into this retrospective cohort analysis. Treatment efficacy and outcome according to KRAS/TP53 status were correlated with TME composition and gene expression analysis of The Cancer Genome Atlas lung adenocarcinoma cohort. RESULTS: Proportion of KRASmut and TP53mut was 53% (G12C 25%, non-G12C 28%) and 51%, respectively. In KRASmut patients, TP53 comutations increased response rates (G12C: 69.7% versus 46.5% [TP53mut versus wild-type (wt)], p = 0.004; non-G12C: 55.4% versus 39.5%, p = 0.03), progression-free survival (G12C: hazard ratio [HR] = 0.59, p = 0.009, non-G12C: HR = 0.7, p = 0.047), and overall survival (G12C: HR = 0.72, p = 0.16, non-G12C: HR = 0.56, p = 0.002), whereas no differences were observed in KRASwt patients. After a median follow-up of 41 months, G12C/TP53mut patients experienced the longest progression-free survival and overall survival (33.7 and 65.3 mo), which correlated with high tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte densities in the TME and up-regulation of interferon gamma target genes. Proinflammatory pathways according to TP53 status (mut versus wt) were less enhanced and not different in non-G12C and KRASwt, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: G12C/TP53 comutations identify a subset of patients with a very favorable long-term survival with immune checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy, mediated by highly active interferon gamma signaling in a proinflammatory TME.

Sotorasib in KRAS G12C-mutated non-small cell lung cancer: A multicenter real-world experience from the compassionate use program in Germany.

BACKGROUND: Sotorasib is a first-in-class KRAS p.G12C-inhibitor that has entered clinical trials in pretreated patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in 2018. First response rates were promising in the CodeBreaK trials. It remains unclear whether response to sotorasib and outcomes differ in a real-world setting when including patients underrepresented in clinical trials. METHODS: Patients with KRAS p.G12C-mutated advanced or metastatic NSCLC received sotorasib within the German multicenter sotorasib compassionate use program between 2020 to 2022. Data on efficacy, tolerability, and survival were analyzed in the full cohort and in subgroups of special interest such as co-occurring mutations and across PD-L1 expression levels. RESULTS: We analyzed 163 patients who received sotorasib after a median of two treatment lines (range, 0 to 7). Every fourth patient had a poor performance status and 38% had brain metastases (BM). The objective response rate was 38.7%. The median overall survival was 9.8 months (95% CI, 6.5 to not reached). Median real-world (rw) progression-free survival was 4.8 months (9% CI, 3.9 to 5.9). Dose reductions and permanent discontinuation were necessary in 35 (21.5%) and 7 (4.3%) patients, respectively. Efficacy seems to be influenced by PD-L1 expression and a co-occurring KEAP1 mutation. KEAP1 was associated with an inferior survival. Other factors such as BM, STK11, and TP53 mutations had no impact on response and survival. CONCLUSION: First results from a real-world population confirm promising efficacy of sotorasib for the treatment of advanced KRAS p.G12C-mutated NSCLC. Patients with co-occurring KEAP1 mutations seem to derive less benefit.

Real-World Progression-Free Survival as an Endpoint in Lung Cancer: Replicating Atezolizumab and Docetaxel Arms of the OAK Trial Using Real-World Data.

Evaluating cancer treatments in real-world data (RWD) requires informative endpoints. This study replicated the atezolizumab and docetaxel arms of the OAK trial using RWD and compared progression-free survival (PFS) outcomes derived from abstracted physician's notes in RWD (rwPFS) against PFS outcomes derived from the clinical trial PFS (ctPFS). Atezolizumab and docetaxel arms of the phase III OAK randomized controlled trial (RCT; NCT02008227) were replicated in a US nationwide real-world database using selected OAK inclusion/exclusion criteria and propensity score-based adjustment for baseline prognostic variables. Concordance of outcomes was assessed using Kaplan-Meier medians and hazard ratios (HRs). The RWD cohorts comprised 133 patients on atezolizumab and 479 patients on docetaxel. After adjustment, prognostic variables were balanced between RCT arms and corresponding RWD cohorts. The rwPFS and ctPFS outcomes showed better concordance for docetaxel (2.99 vs. 3.52 months; HR: 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.85-1.15) than for atezolizumab (3.71 vs. 2.76 months; HR: 0.8, 95% CI: 0.61-1.02). Excluding events labeled "pseudo-progression" from both RWD and RCT improved concordance for atezolizumab (4.24 vs. 4.14 months; HR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.70-1.25). These findings were robust across sensitivity analyses. Replicating RCTs using RWD and comparing outcomes can help characterize RWD endpoints. Similarity of results between rwPFS and ctPFS at the cohort level may depend on drug category, highlighting the need for further studies to verify and understand when the corresponding outcomes can be compared, including within the same patient.

NTRK Gene Fusions in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Real-World Screening Data of 1068 Unselected Patients.

(1) Background: The main objectives of our study are (i) to determine the prevalence of NTRK (neurotrophic tyrosine kinase) fusions in a routine diagnostic setting in NSCLC (non-small cell lung cancer) and (ii) to investigate the feasibility of screening approaches including immunohistochemistry (IHC) as a first-line test accompanied by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and RNA-(ribonucleic acid-)based next-generation sequencing (RNA-NGS). (2) Methods: A total of 1068 unselected consecutive patients with NSCLC were screened in two scenarios, either with initial IHC followed by RNA-NGS (n = 973) or direct FISH testing (n = 95). (3) Results: One hundred and thirty-three patients (14.8%) were IHC positive; consecutive RNA-NGS testing revealed two patients (0.2%) with NTRK fusions (NTRK1-EPS15 (epidermal growth factor receptor pathway substrate 15) and NTRK1-SQSTM1 (sequestosome 1)). Positive RNA-NGS was confirmed by FISH, and NTRK-positive patients benefited from targeted treatment. All patients with direct FISH testing were negative. RNA-NGS- or FISH-positive results were mutually exclusive with alterations in EGFR (epidermal growth factor receptor), ALK (anaplastic lymphoma kinase), ROS1 (ROS proto-oncogene 1), BRAF (proto-oncogene B-Raf), RET (rearranged during transfection) or KRAS (kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene). Excluding patients with one of these alterations raised the prevalence of NTRK-fusion positivity among panTrk-(tropomyosin receptor kinase-) IHC positive samples to 30.5%. (4) Conclusions: NTRK fusion-positive lung cancers are exceedingly rare and account for less than 1% of patients in unselected all-comer populations. Both RNA-NGS and FISH are suitable to determine clinically relevant NTRK fusions in a real-world setting. We suggest including panTrk-IHC in a diagnostic workflow followed by RNA-NGS. Excluding patients with concurrent molecular alterations to EGFR/ALK/ROS1/BRAF/RET or KRAS might narrow the target population.

Comparison of SP142 and 22C3 Immunohistochemistry PD-L1 Assays for Clinical Efficacy of Atezolizumab in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Results From the Randomized OAK Trial.

BACKGROUND: This phase III OAK trial (NCT02008227) subgroup analysis (data cutoff, January 9, 2019) evaluated the predictive value of 2 PD-L1 IHC tests (VENTANA SP142 and Dako 22C3) for benefit from atezolizumab versus docetaxel by programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) status in patients with previously treated metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. METHODS: PD-L1 expression was assessed prospectively with SP142 on tumor cells (TC) and tumor-infiltrating immune cells (IC) and retrospectively with 22C3 using a tumor proportion score (TPS) based on TC membrane staining. Efficacy was assessed in the 22C3 biomarker-evaluable population (22C3-BEP) (n = 577; 47.1% of SP142-intention-to-treat population) and non-22C3-BEP (n = 648) in PD-L1 subgroups (high, low, and negative) and according to selection by 1 or both assays. RESULTS: In the 22C3-BEP, overall survival benefits with atezolizumab versus docetaxel were observed across PD-L1 subgroups; benefits were greatest in SP142-defined PD-L1-high (TC3 or IC3: hazard ratio [HR], 0.39 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.25-0.63]) and 22C3-defined PD-L1-high (TPS ≥ 50%: HR, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.38-0.82]) and low (TPS, 1% to < 50%: HR, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.37-0.82]) groups. Progression-free survival improved with increasing PD-L1 expression for both assays. SP142 and 22C3 assays identified overlapping and unique patient populations in PD-L1-high, positive, and negative subgroups. Overall survival and progression-free survival benefits favored atezolizumab over docetaxel in double PD-L1-positive and negative groups; patients with both SP142- and 22C3-positive tumors derived the greatest benefit. CONCLUSIONS: Despite different scoring algorithms and differing sensitivity levels, the SP142 and 22C3 assays similarly predicted atezolizumab benefit at validated PD-L1 thresholds in patients with non-small cell lung cancer.

Update on recent key publications in lung oncology: picking up speed.

INTRODUCTION: As incidence rates for lung cancer are still very high and lung cancer remains the most deadly cancer since the turn of the millennium, efforts have been made to find new approaches in cancer research. This systematic review highlights how therapeutic options were extended and how the development of new drugs has picked up speed during the last 20 years. METHODS: A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Cochrane Library and the European Union Trial Register and 443 records were identified. Our inclusion criteria constituted completed phase I, II and III studies investigating drugs approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). Overall, 127 articles were analysed. RESULTS: During the 5 year interval from 2015 to 2020, significantly more drugs were approved after phase III, and occasionally after phase II, trials than between 2000 and 2005 (p=0.002). Furthermore, there was a significant time difference (p=0.00001) indicating an increasingly briefer time interval between the publication of phase I and phase III results in the last few years. DISCUSSION: Due to novel therapeutic approaches, numerous new drugs in lung oncology were approved. This has improved symptoms and prognoses in patients with advanced lung cancer. However, faster approval could make it difficult to scrutinise new options regarding safety and efficacy with sufficient diligence.

Efficacy of docetaxel plus ramucirumab as palliative second-line therapy following first-line chemotherapy plus immune-checkpoint-inhibitor combination treatment in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) UICC stage IV.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy plus immune-checkpoint inhibitor (CTx+ICI) therapy has become the preferred 1st line treatment in patients with metastatic NSCLC without oncogenic driven mutations. However, the optimal subsequent 2nd line treatment is not defined and several alternatives exist. The purpose of this analysis was to evaluate the efficacy of 2nd line docetaxel plus ramucirumab (D+R) initiated after failure of 1st line CTx+ICI. METHODS: Retrospective data were collected during routine care from German thoracic oncology centers. Only patients who had received at least one course of 2nd line D+R were included. ORR, PFS, OS and numbers of courses of D+R were investigated with PFS after initiation of D+R being the primary endpoint. RESULTS: Seventy-seven patients met the inclusion criteria. 2nd line treatment with D+R achieved an ORR and DCR of 32.5% and 62.4%, respectively. Median PFS for 2nd line therapy was 3.9 months with a DOR of 6.4 months. Median OS of 15.5 and 7.5 months were observed from the start of 1st line therapy and 2nd line treatment, respectively. No unexpected toxicities occurred. Presence of KRAS mutations was associated with significantly worse median PFS to D+R (2.8 vs. 4.5 months in wild-type cases; P=0.021) and was an independent predictor of inferior PFS in multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: D+R is an effective and safe 2nd line treatment after failure of 1st line CTx+ICI irrespective of NSCLC histology. However, patients with a KRAS mutation did not benefit from D+R in terms of PFS and will require further investigations.

Prognostic and predictive value of PD-L1 expression and tumour infiltrating lymphocytes (TiLs) in locally advanced NSCLC treated with simultaneous radiochemotherapy in the randomized, multicenter, phase III German Intergroup lung Trial (GILT).

OBJECTIVES: Immune checkpoint inhibition after radiochemotherapy (RTCT) has become a new standard of care for locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer with programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression. However, little is known about the prognostic role of immune response markers in this setting. We analysed PD-L1 expression and tumour infiltrating lymphocytes (TiLs) in tumour biopsies from the multicenter German Intergroup Lung Trial (GILT), which previously randomised patients with stage III NSCLC to RTCT with or without consolidation chemotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed tumour biopsies from patients treated in the GILT trial. PD-L1 expression was analysed using the Ventana SP263 assay and TiL score (low, intermediate, high) and pattern (excluded, inflamed, desert) were assessed. The primary endpoint of the biomarker analysis was PFS in patients with PD-L1 ≥ 1% vs. PD-L1 < 1% NSCLC. Secondary endpoints explored the prognostic relevance of additional PD-L1 expression levels and TiL score and pattern. RESULTS: Biopsies were available from 92 patients treated with RTCT. Patients with available tumor tissue did not differ significantly from the whole study population. PD-L1 scores from 78 samples were available for analysis. There was no difference in PFS in the PD-L1 < 1% vs. PD-L1 ≥ 1% subgroups. TiL score was available in 66 patients. Patients with high TiL score showed favourable overall survival compared to the low TiL subgroup. This trend was most pronounced in those patients treated with consolidative chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: In this analysis, PD-L1 expression did not correlate with PFS following RTCT. However, patients with TiLs > 10% were found to have longer overall survival, especially for those patients treated with consolidation chemotherapy after the end of RTCT. Further analyses to explore the prognostic and predictive relevance of TiLs in the context of consolidative checkpoint inhibition with durvalumab are required.

Fast progression in non-small cell lung cancer: results from the randomized phase III OAK study evaluating second-line atezolizumab versus docetaxel.

BACKGROUND: Treatment-induced accelerated tumor growth is a progression pattern reported with immune checkpoint inhibitors that has never been evaluated in randomized phase III studies because it requires two pretreatment scans. This study aimed to develop clinically relevant and applicable criteria for fast progression (FP), incorporating tumor growth kinetics and early death from disease progression to analyze data from the randomized phase III OAK study. METHODS: The OAK study evaluated the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab versus docetaxel as second-line or third-line treatment for stage IIIb/IV non-small cell lung cancer. FP rates and associated baseline factors were analyzed. FP was defined as either a ≥50% increase in the sum of largest diameters (SLDs) within 6 weeks of treatment initiation or death due to cancer progression within 12 weeks (absent post-baseline scan). RESULTS: Forty-two of 421 patients (10%) receiving atezolizumab and 37 of 402 (9%) receiving docetaxel had FP. Twenty patients with FP (48%) receiving atezolizumab versus 12 (30%) receiving docetaxel had a ≥50% SLD increase within 6 weeks. FP was significantly associated with an ECOG (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group) performance status of 1 (vs 0), ≥3 metastatic sites at baseline, and failure of preceding first-line treatment within 6 months, but not with epidermal growth factor receptor mutation, programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 or tumor mutational burden. Overall survival in patients with FP and a ≥50% SLD increase at week 6 was similar with atezolizumab and docetaxel (unstratified HR 0.89 (95% CI 0.41 to 1.92)). CONCLUSIONS: FP rates were similar with atezolizumab and docetaxel in the OAK study, suggesting that FP may not be unique to checkpoint inhibitors, although the underlying mechanisms may differ from those of chemotherapy. Applying the FP criteria to other phase III checkpoint inhibitor trials may further elucidate the risk factors for FP. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02008227.

Atezolizumab Versus Docetaxel in Pretreated Patients With NSCLC: Final Results From the Randomized Phase 2 POPLAR and Phase 3 OAK Clinical Trials.

INTRODUCTION: The phase 2 POPLAR and phase 3 OAK studies of the anti-programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) immunotherapy atezolizumab in patients with previously treated advanced NSCLC revealed significant improvements in survival versus docetaxel (p = 0.04 and 0.0003, respectively). Longer follow-up permits evaluation of continued benefit of atezolizumab. This study reports the final overall survival (OS) and safety findings from both trials. METHODS: POPLAR randomized 287 patients (atezolizumab, 144; docetaxel, 143) and OAK randomized 1225 patients (atezolizumab, 613; docetaxel, 612). The patients received atezolizumab (1200 mg fixed dose) or docetaxel (75 mg/m2) every 3 weeks. Efficacy and safety outcomes were evaluated. RESULTS: A longer OS was observed in patients receiving atezolizumab versus docetaxel in POPLAR (median OS = 12.6 mo versus 9.7 mo; hazard ratio = 0.76, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.58-1.00) and OAK (median OS = 13.3 versus 9.8 mo; hazard ratio = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.68-0.89). The 4-year OS rates in POPLAR were 14.8% (8.7-20.8) and 8.1% (3.2-13.0) and those in OAK were 15.5% (12.4-18.7) and 8.7% (6.2-11.3) for atezolizumab and docetaxel, respectively. Atezolizumab had improved OS benefit compared with docetaxel across all PD-L1 expression and histology groups. Most 4-year survivors in the docetaxel arms received subsequent immunotherapy (POPLAR, 50%; OAK, 65%). Of the 4-year survivors, most had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 and nonsquamous histological classification and approximately half were responders (POPLAR: atezolizumab, seven of 15; docetaxel, three of four; OAK: atezolizumab, 24 of 43; docetaxel, 11 of 26). Treatment-related grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in 27% and 16% of atezolizumab 4-year survivors in POPLAR and OAK, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term follow-up suggests a consistent survival benefit with atezolizumab versus docetaxel in patients with previously treated NSCLC regardless of PD-L1 expression, histology, or subsequent immunotherapy. Atezolizumab had no new safety signals, and the safety profile was similar to that in previous studies.

Biomarker testing in non-small cell lung cancer in routine care: Analysis of the first 3,717 patients in the German prospective, observational, nation-wide CRISP Registry (AIO-TRK-0315).

OBJECTIVES: An increasing number of treatment-determining biomarkers has been identified in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and molecular testing is recommended to enable optimal individualized treatment. However, data on implementation of these recommendations in the "real-world" setting are scarce. This study presents comprehensive details on the frequency, methodology and results of biomarker testing of advanced NSCLC in Germany. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This analysis included 3,717 patients with advanced NSCLC (2,921 non-squamous; 796 squamous), recruited into the CRISP registry at start of systemic therapy by 150 German sites between December 2015 and June 2019. Evaluated were the molecular biomarkers EGFR, ALK, ROS1, BRAF, KRAS, MET, TP53, RET, HER2, as well as expression of PD-L1. RESULTS: In total, 90.5 % of the patients were tested for biomarkers. Testing rates were 92.2 % (non-squamous), 70.7 % (squamous) and increased from 83.2 % in 2015/16 to 94.2% in 2019. Overall testing rates for EGFR, ALK, ROS1, and BRAF were 72.5 %, 74.5 %, 66.1 %, and 53.0 %, respectively (non-squamous). Testing rates for PD-L1 expression were 64.5 % (non-squamous), and 58.5 % (squamous). The most common testing methods were immunohistochemistry (68.5 % non-squamous, 58.3 % squamous), and next-generation sequencing (38.7 % non-squamous, 14.4 % squamous). Reasons for not testing were insufficient tumor material or lack of guideline recommendations (squamous). No alteration was found in 37.8 % (non-squamous), and 57.9 % (squamous), respectively. Most common alterations in non-squamous tumors (all patients/all patients tested for the respective biomarker): KRAS (17.3 %/39.2 %), TP53 (14.1 %/51.4 %), and EGFR (11.0 %/15.1 %); in squamous tumors: TP53 (7.0 %/69.1 %), MET (1.5 %/11.1 %), and EGFR (1.1 %/4.4 %). Median PFS (non-squamous) was 8.7 months (95 % CI 7.4-10.4) with druggable EGFR mutation, and 8.0 months (95 % CI 3.9-9.2) with druggable ALK alterations. CONCLUSION: Testing rates in Germany are high nationwide and acceptable in international comparison, but still leave out a significant portion of patients, who could potentially benefit. Thus, specific measures are needed to increase implementation.