Development and validation of a biomarker index for HCC treatment response.

BACKGROUND: Serum AFP-L3%, AFP, and DCP are useful biomarkers for HCC detection, but their utility in assessing treatment response remains unknown. We aim to evaluate the accuracy of a biomarker model in the detection of posttreatment viable tumors. METHODS: For model derivation, recipients with HCC undergoing liver transplant from 2018 to 2022 who had biomarkers collected within 3 months before transplant were included. We developed a generalized linear model for detecting posttreatment viable tumors with the 3 biomarkers as covariates, which we termed the "LAD Score." An independent cohort of 117 patients with HCC was used for external validation. RESULTS: Among 205 recipients of transplant, 70.2% had evidence of viable tumor on explant. The median LAD score was higher among patients with viable versus nonviable tumors (1.06 vs. 0.465, p < 0.001). The LAD score had a sensitivity of 55.6% and a specificity of 85.1% at the cutoff of 0.927, which was more accurate than imaging for detecting posttreatment viable tumors (AUROC 0.736 vs. 0.643, respectively; p = 0.045). The superior performance of the LAD score over imaging is primarily driven by its greater accuracy in detecting tumors <2 cm in diameter (AUROC of the LAD score 0.721 vs. imaging 0.595, p = 0.02). In the validation data set, the LAD score had an AUROC of 0.832 (95% CI: 0.753, 0.911) with a sensitivity of 72.5% and a specificity of 89.4% at the cutoff of 0.927. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest the utility of LAD score in treatment response assessment after locoregional therapy for HCC, particularly in detecting small tumors. A larger prospective study is in progress to validate its accuracy and evaluate its performance in recurrence monitoring.

Pragmaticism in Cancer Clinical Trials.

Clinical trials are essential for advancing oncology treatment strategies and have contributed significantly to the decline in cancer mortality rates over the past decades. Traditional explanatory trials, focused on establishing intervention efficacy in ideal settings, often lack generalizability and may not reflect real-world patient care scenarios. Furthermore, increasing complexity in cancer clinical trial design has led to challenges such as protocol deviations, slow enrollment leading to lengthened durations of trial, and escalating costs. By contrast, pragmatic trials aim to assess intervention effectiveness in more representative patient populations under routine clinical conditions. Here, we review the principles, methodologies, challenges, and advantages of incorporating pragmatic features (PFs) into cancer clinical trials. We illustrate the application of pragmatic trial designs in oncology and discuss the QUASAR collaborative, TAPUR study, and the ongoing PRAGMATICA-LUNG trial. Although not all oncology trials may be amenable to adopting fully pragmatic designs, integration of PFs when feasible will enhance trial generalizability and real-world applicability. Project Pragmatica and similar initiatives advocate for the integration of real-world practice with clinical trials, fostering a nuanced approach to oncology research that balances efficacy and effectiveness assessments, ultimately with a goal of improving patient outcomes.

Consolidation Osimertinib Versus Durvalumab Versus Observation After Concurrent Chemoradiation in Unresectable EGFR-Mutant NSCLC: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study.

INTRODUCTION: Durvalumab improves survival when used as consolidation therapy after chemoradiation (CRT) in patients with stage III NSCLC. The optimal consolidation therapy for patients with EGFR-mutant (EGFRmut) stage III NSCLC remains unknown. METHODS: In this multi-institutional, international retrospective analysis across 24 institutions, we evaluated outcomes in patients with stage III EGFRmut NSCLC treated with concurrent CRT followed by consolidation therapy with osimertinib, durvalumab, or observation between 2015 and 2022. Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS, primary end point) and overall survival (secondary end point). Treatment-related adverse events (trAEs) during consolidation treatment were defined using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0. Multivariable Cox regression analysis was used. RESULTS: Of 136 patients with stage III EGFRmut NSCLC treated with definitive concurrent CRT, 56 received consolidation durvalumab, 33 received consolidation osimertinib, and 47 was on observation alone. Baseline characteristics were similar across the three cohorts. With a median follow-up of 46 months for the entire cohort, the median duration of treatment was not reached (NR) for osimertinib (interquartile range: NR-NR) and was 5.5 (interquartile range: 2.4-10.8) months with durvalumab. After adjusting for nodal status, stage III A/B/C, and age, patients treated with consolidation osimertinib had significantly longer 24-month rwPFS compared to those treated with durvalumab or in the observation cohorts (osimertinib: 86%, durvalumab: 30%, observation: 27%, p < 0.001 for both comparisons). There was no difference in rwPFS between the durvalumab and the observation cohorts. No significant difference in overall survival across the three cohorts was detected, likely due to the limited follow-up. Any-grade trAE occurred in 52% (2 [6.1%] grade ≥3) and 48% (10 [18%] grade ≥3) of patients treated with osimertinib and durvalumab, respectively. Of 45 patients who progressed on consolidation durvalumab, 37 (82%) subsequently received EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Of these, 14 (38%) patients developed trAEs including five patients with pneumonitis (14%; 2 [5.4%] grade ≥3) and five patients with diarrhea (14%; 1 [2.7%] grade ≥3). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that among patients with stage III unresectable NSCLC with a sensitizing EGFR mutation, consolidation osimertinib was associated with a significantly longer rwPFS compared to durvalumab or observation. No unanticipated safety signals were observed with consolidation osimertinib.

Pneumonitis After Chemoradiotherapy and Adjuvant Durvalumab in Stage III Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: Adjuvant durvalumab after definitive chemoradiotherapy (CRT) for unresectable stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is well-tolerated in clinical trials. However, pneumonitis rates outside of clinical trials remain poorly defined with CRT followed by durvalumab. We aimed to describe the influence of durvalumab on pneumonitis rates among a large cohort of patients with stage III NSCLC. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We studied patients with stage III NSCLC in the national Veterans Health Administration from 2015 to 2021 who received concurrent CRT alone or with adjuvant durvalumab. We defined pneumonitis as worsening respiratory symptoms with radiographic changes within 2 years of CRT and graded events according to National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.03. We used Cox regression to analyze risk factors for pneumonitis and the effect of postbaseline pneumonitis on overall survival. RESULTS: Among 1994 patients (989 CRT alone, 1005 CRT followed by adjuvant durvalumab), the 2-year incidence of grade 2 or higher pneumonitis was 13.9% for CRT alone versus 22.1% for CRT plus durvalumab (unadjusted P < .001). On multivariable analysis, durvalumab was associated with higher risk of grade 2 pneumonitis (hazard ratio, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.09-1.93; P = .012) but not grade 3 to 5 pneumonitis (P = .2). Grade 3 pneumonitis conferred worse overall survival (hazard ratio, 2.51; 95% CI, 2.06-3.05; P < .001) but grade 2 pneumonitis did not (P = .4). CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvant durvalumab use was associated with increased risk of low-grade but not higher-grade pneumonitis. Reassuringly, low-grade pneumonitis did not increase mortality risk. We observed increased rates of high-grade pneumonitis relative to clinical trials; the reasons for this require further study.

Recent advances in the management of hepatocellular carcinoma.

Liver cancer remains a challenge of global health, being the 4th leading cause of cancer death worldwide. Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common type of primary liver cancer, and is usually precipitated by chronic viral infections (hepatitis B and C), non-alcoholic steatohepatitis, heavy alcohol use, and other factors which may lead to chronic inflammation and cirrhosis of the liver. There have been significant advances in the systemic treatment options for HCC over the past decades, with several approvals of both immune checkpoint inhibitors and tyrosine kinase inhibitors in patients with preserved liver function. These advances have led to improvement in survival outcomes, with expected survival of greater than 18 months, in those with sensitive tumors, adequate liver function, and those functionally fit to receive sequential therapies. Several ongoing and promising trials are now evaluating combinational strategies with novel systemic agents and combinations of systemic therapy with locoregional therapy. In view of these trials, further advances in the treatment of HCC are foreseen in the near future.

Impact of immune tolerance mechanisms on the efficacy of immunotherapy in primary and secondary liver cancers.

The liver is a functionally unique organ with an immunosuppressive microenvironment. The liver is the sixth most common site of primary cancer in humans and is a frequent site of metastasis from other solid tumors. The development of effective therapies for primary and metastatic liver cancer has been challenging due to the complex metabolic and immune microenvironment of the liver. The liver tumor microenvironment (TME) in primary and secondary (metastatic) liver cancers is heterogenous and consists of unique immune and stromal cell populations. Crosstalk between these cell populations and tumor cells creates an immunosuppressive microenvironment within the liver which potentiates cancer progression. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are now clinically approved for the management of primary and secondary liver cancer and can partially overcome liver immune tolerance, but their efficacy is limited. In this review, we describe the liver microenvironment and the use of immunotherapy in primary and secondary liver cancer. We discuss emerging combination strategies utilizing locoregional and systemic therapy approaches which may enhance efficacy of immunotherapy in primary and secondary liver cancer. A deeper understanding of the immunosuppressive microenvironment of the liver will inform novel therapies and therapeutic combinations in order to improve outcomes of patients with primary and secondary liver cancer.

Immunotherapy and Transarterial Radioembolization Combination Treatment for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

INTRODUCTION: The efficacy and safety of combined immunotherapy and transarterial radioembolization (TARE) were suggested in preclinical and early-phase trials, but these were limited by small sample sizes. We sought to compare the efficacy of combined therapy and immunotherapy alone in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). METHODS: The National Cancer Database was used to identify patients with advanced HCC diagnosed between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2019. We included patients who received combined therapy or immunotherapy alone as first-line treatment. Multivariable logistic regression was conducted to determine predictors of combined therapy. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression approaches were used to identify predictors of overall survival and to compare hazards of mortality between the patients who received combined therapy and immunotherapy alone. RESULTS: Of 1,664 eligible patients with advanced-stage HCC, 142 received combined TARE/immunotherapy and 1,522 received immunotherapy alone. Receipt of combination therapy was associated with care at an academic center and inversely associated with racial/ethnic minority status (Hispanic and Black individuals). The median overall survival was significantly higher in the combination group than in the immunotherapy alone group (19.8 vs 9.5 months). In multivariable analysis, combined therapy was independently associated with reduced mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 0.50, 95% confidence interval: 0.36-0.68, P < 0.001). Results were consistent across subgroups and in sensitivity analyses using propensity score matching and inverse probability of treatment weighting. DISCUSSION: The combination of TARE and immunotherapy was associated with improved survival compared with immunotherapy alone in patients with advanced-stage HCC. Our findings underly the importance of large clinical trials evaluating combination therapy in these patients.

Predictive Biomarkers for Immune-Checkpoint Inhibitor Treatment Response in Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has one of the highest mortality rates among solid cancers. Late diagnosis and a lack of efficacious treatment options contribute to the dismal prognosis of HCC. Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based immunotherapy has presented a new milestone in the treatment of cancer. Immunotherapy has yielded remarkable treatment responses in a range of cancer types including HCC. Based on the therapeutic effect of ICI alone (programmed cell death (PD)-1/programmed death-ligand1 (PD-L)1 antibody), investigators have developed combined ICI therapies including ICI + ICI, ICI + tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), and ICI + locoregional treatment or novel immunotherapy. Although these regimens have demonstrated increasing treatment efficacy with the addition of novel drugs, the development of biomarkers to predict toxicity and treatment response in patients receiving ICI is in urgent need. PD-L1 expression in tumor cells received the most attention in early studies among various predictive biomarkers. However, PD-L1 expression alone has limited utility as a predictive biomarker in HCC. Accordingly, subsequent studies have evaluated the utility of tumor mutational burden (TMB), gene signatures, and multiplex immunohistochemistry (IHC) as predictive biomarkers. In this review, we aim to discuss the current state of immunotherapy for HCC, the results of the predictive biomarker studies, and future direction.

Intersection of immune and oncometabolic pathways drives cancer hyperprogression during immunotherapy.

Immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) can produce durable responses against cancer. We and others have found that a subset of patients experiences paradoxical rapid cancer progression during immunotherapy. It is poorly understood how tumors can accelerate their progression during ICB. In some preclinical models, ICB causes hyperprogressive disease (HPD). While immune exclusion drives resistance to ICB, counterintuitively, patients with HPD and complete response (CR) following ICB manifest comparable levels of tumor-infiltrating CD8+ T cells and interferon γ (IFNγ) gene signature. Interestingly, patients with HPD but not CR exhibit elevated tumoral fibroblast growth factor 2 (FGF2) and ß-catenin signaling. In animal models, T cell-derived IFNγ promotes tumor FGF2 signaling, thereby suppressing PKM2 activity and decreasing NAD+, resulting in reduction of SIRT1-mediated ß-catenin deacetylation and enhanced ß-catenin acetylation, consequently reprograming tumor stemness. Targeting the IFNγ-PKM2-ß-catenin axis prevents HPD in preclinical models. Thus, the crosstalk of core immunogenic, metabolic, and oncogenic pathways via the IFNγ-PKM2-ß-catenin cascade underlies ICB-associated HPD.

An evaluation of sotorasib for the treatment of patients with non-small cell lung cancer with KRASG12C mutations.

INTRODUCTION: Improving the clinical outcomes of patients with KRASG12C-mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the majority of whom are current or former smokers, has been a barrier to improving population-level outcomes in NSCLC. Novel and effective KRASG12C inhibitors are emerging, and sotorasib is the first member of that class to achieve commercial availability. AREAS COVERED: In this review, we survey the epidemiology of KRASG12C-mutated NSCLC, as well as sotorasib's chemistry, pharmacology, and clinical trial data. EXPERT OPINION: While sotorasib's development has been unique and exciting, questions persist regarding its intracranial penetrance, optimal dose, and efficacy relative to standard-of-care therapy. Improvements in the clinical activity of KRAS inhibition will hinge on better understanding of resistance mechanisms, the development of broad-spectrum inhibitors with activity beyond G12C mutations, and combination therapy targeting multiple mediators of KRAS signaling and alternative pathways. From a regulatory perspective, sotorasib's development may, in time, prove to be an instructive example for early-phase clinical trialists and regulators focused on dose optimization.

Molecular biomarkers and liquid biopsies in lung cancer.

Liquid biopsy refers to the identification of tumor-derived materials in body fluids including in blood circulation. In the age of immunotherapy and targeted therapies used for the treatment of advanced malignancies, molecular analysis of the tumor is considered a crucial step to guide management. In lung cancer, the concept of liquid biopsies is particularly relevant given the invasiveness of tumor biopsies in certain locations, and the potential risks of biopsy in a patient population with significant co-morbidities. Liquid biopsies have many advantages including non-invasiveness, lower cost, potential for genomic testing, ability to monitor tumor evolution through treatment, and the ability to overcome spatial and temporal intertumoral heterogeneity. The potential clinical applications of liquid biopsy are vast and include screening, detection of minimal residual disease and/or early relapse after curative intent treatment, monitoring response to immunotherapy, and identifying mutations that might be targetable or can confer resistance. Herein, we review the potential role of circulating tumor DNA and circulating tumor cells as forms of liquid biopsies and blood biomarkers in non-small cell lung cancer. We discuss the methodologies/platforms available for each, clinical applications, and limitations/challenges in incorporation into clinical practice. We additionally review emerging forms of liquid biopsies including tumor educated platelets, circular RNA, and exosomes.

De-escalating adjuvant durvalumab treatment duration in stage III non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: One year of adjuvant durvalumab following concurrent chemoradiotherapy significantly improves progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for patients with stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, the optimal length of adjuvant therapy has not been determined. METHODS: We identified patients with stage III NSCLC treated with definitive chemoradiation and adjuvant durvalumab from November 2017 to April 2021 from the United States Veterans Affairs system. Predictors of early durvalumab discontinuation were evaluated with Cox proportional hazards regression. The effect of differing durations of durvalumab treatment (up to 6, 9, and 12 months) on PFS and OS were compared with a marginal structural model and time-dependent Cox modelling. RESULTS: We included 1006 patients with stage III non-small cell lung cancer who received concurrent chemoradiotherapy and at least one dose of adjuvant durvalumab. The median duration of durvalumab treatment was 7 months (interquartile range 2.8-11.5) and 31% completed the intended durvalumab course. The most common reasons for early discontinuation were tumour progression (22%), immune-related adverse events (15%), and non-immune-related toxicity (6.0%), Marginal structural models suggested similar PFS for 9 months versus 12 months of durvalumab treatment and inferior PFS for 6 months versus 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial proportion of patients undergoing adjuvant durvalumab discontinue therapy early due to toxicity, and shorter durvalumab treatment durations may provide similar disease control to 12 months of therapy. Prospective randomised controlled studies are needed to characterise the optimal durvalumab treatment duration in locally advanced NSCLC patients.

The role of biomarkers in personalized immunotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors have revolutionized cancer therapeutic paradigm and substantially improved the survival of patients with advanced malignancies. However, a significant limitation is the wide variability in clinical response. MAIN TEXT: Several biomarkers have been evaluated in prior and ongoing clinical trials to investigate their prognostic and predictive role of patient response, nonetheless, most have not been comprehensively incorporated into clinical practice. We reviewed published data regarding biomarkers that have been approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration as well as experimental tissue and peripheral blood biomarkers currently under investigation. We further discuss the role of current biomarkers to predict response and response to immune checkpoint inhibitors and the promise of combination biomarker strategies. Finally, we discuss ideal biomarker characteristics, and novel platforms for clinical trial design including enrichment and stratification strategies, all of which are exciting and dynamic to advance the field of precision immuno-oncology. CONCLUSION: Incorporation and standardization of strategies to guide selection of combination biomarker approaches will facilitate expansion of the clinical benefit of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy to appropriate subsets of cancer patients.

Prognostic and Predictive Role of PD-L1 Expression in Stage III Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Treated With Definitive Chemoradiation and Adjuvant Durvalumab.

PURPOSE: It is unclear whether programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression is prognostic or predictive of immunotherapy benefit among patients with stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with definitive chemoradiation and adjuvant durvalumab. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We determined pretreatment tumor PD-L1 expression for 312 patients with stage III NSCLC treated with definitive chemoradiation and at least 1 dose of adjuvant durvalumab between November 2017 and April 2021 across the national Veterans Health Administration. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in PD-L1 expression subgroups (<1%, 1%-49%, and 50%-100%) were compared with 994 patients with stage III NSCLC treated without adjuvant durvalumab from 2015 to 2016. RESULTS: PD-L1 expression was <1%, 1% to 49%, and 50% to 100% in 109 (34.9%), 96 (30.7%), and 107 (34.3%) patients, respectively. Increasing PD-L1 expression was associated with longer PFS (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.84 per 25% absolute increase in expression; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75-0.94; P = .003) and OS (aHR, 0.86 per 25% absolute increase in expression; 95% CI, 0.74-0.99; P = .036). Compared with the no-durvalumab group, PFS was longer for PD-L1 50% to 100% (aHR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.32-0.60; P < .001) and PD-L1 1% to 49% (aHR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.47-0.86; P = .003) but not PD-L1 <1% (aHR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.64-1.10; P = .19). Similar results were found for OS, with no significant difference between the no-durvalumab group and PD-L1 <1% (aHR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.58-1.13; P = .22). CONCLUSIONS: Increasing tumor PD-L1 expression is prognostic for PFS and OS among patients with stage III NSCLC treated with adjuvant durvalumab, and patients with PD-L1 expression <1% may have limited benefit from adjuvant durvalumab.

Timing of Adjuvant Durvalumab Initiation Is Not Associated With Outcomes in Stage III Non-small Cell Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: It is unclear whether time from radiation therapy (RT) completion to durvalumab initiation influences the outcomes of stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with definitive chemoradiation and adjuvant durvalumab. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Using the US Veterans Health Administration database, we retrospectively identified 728 patients with stage III NSCLC treated with definitive chemoradiation who started durvalumab within 120 days of radiation completion. Time between the last radiation treatment and first durvalumab infusion was analyzed in multivariable Cox regression models for the primary outcomes of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), adjusting for baseline patient and disease characteristics. The primary analysis used a 120-day landmark, measuring OS and PFS from 120 days after radiation completion. RESULTS: Among 728 patients, the median time from RT completion to durvalumab start was 41 days (interquartile range 30-58). In multivariable Cox regression, time from RT completion to durvalumab start showed no association with PFS (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.01 per week, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.98-1.04, P = .4) or OS (aHR 1.02 per week, 95% CI 0.98-1.06, P = .3). Starting durvalumab ≤14 days after RT was also not associated with improved PFS or OS. Results were robust in sensitivity analyses varying analytical technique. CONCLUSIONS: Timing of durvalumab initiation up to 120 days after RT completion is not associated with PFS or OS in this real-world patient cohort.

Real World Outcomes versus Clinical Trial Results of Durvalumab Maintenance in Veterans with Stage III Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

One year of durvalumab following concurrent chemoradiotherapy improves progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for patients with stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, the real-world efficacy of durvalumab has not been determined. We conducted a multi-center observational cohort study across the Veterans Health Administration, including patients with stage III NSCLC who received concurrent chemoradiotherapy and durvalumab, compared to patients who received concurrent chemoradiotherapy alone. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression approaches were used to identify factors associated with PFS and OS. We calculated a hazard ratio and efficacy-effectiveness factor to compare OS of veterans to the referenced clinical trial population. A total of 1006 patients with stage III NSCLC who received concurrent chemoradiotherapy and at least one dose of durvalumab from November 2017 to April 2021 were compared to 989 patients who received concurrent chemoradiotherapy alone from January 2015 to December 2016. Adjuvant durvalumab was associated with higher PFS (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.55-0.70, p < 0.001) and OS (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.50-0.66, p < 0.001). OS was shorter in veterans compared to PACIFIC (HR 1.24, 95% CI 1.03-1.48, p = 0.02: EE gap 0.73). OS of veterans with stage III NSCLC treated with adjuvant durvalumab is improved compared to a modern comparator but is reduced compared to the PACIFIC population.

Prognostic and predictive value of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio with adjuvant immunotherapy in stage III non-small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Elevated pre-treatment neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) may reflect immune dysfunction and is negatively prognostic in cancer patients treated with immunotherapy, but it is unclear if NLR is predictive of immunotherapy benefit. METHODS: We identified stage III non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients treated with definitive chemoradiation and adjuvant durvalumab within the national Veterans Affairs system from 2017 to 2021. We compared the prognostic value of NLR measured before durvalumab start to a control group of stage III NSCLC patients treated with definitive chemoradiation alone from 2015 to 2016 (no-durvalumab group) before the approval of adjuvant durvalumab. We estimated the predictive value of NLR through the statistical interaction of durvalumab group by NLR level. Outcomes included progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: The primary analysis for NLR included 821 durvalumab patients and 445 no-durvalumab patients. Higher NLR was associated with inferior PFS in both groups (no-durvalumab: adjusted HR [aHR] 1.14 per 7.43 unit increase in NLR, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06-1.23; durvalumab: aHR 1.42, 95% CI 1.23-1.64), though this effect was greater in durvalumab patients (p for interaction = 0.009). Similar results were found for OS (no-durvalumab: aHR 1.16, 95% CI 1.09-1.24; durvalumab: aHR 1.48, 95% CI 1.25-1.76; p for interaction = 0.010). Absolute lymphocytes, eosinophils, and basophils were not prognostic in either group. Estimates of durvalumab treatment efficacy suggested declining efficacy with higher NLR. CONCLUSION: Pre-treatment NLR is especially prognostic among stage III NSCLC patients treated with adjuvant immunotherapy compared to control patients treated without immunotherapy and may be a predictive biomarker of immunotherapy benefit.

Immunotherapy for ALK-Rearranged Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Challenges Inform Promising Approaches.

Rearrangements in the Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase (ALK) gene have been implicated in 5-6% of all non-small cell lung cancers. ALK-rearranged non-small cell lung cancers are sensitive to ALK-directed tyrosine kinase inhibitors, but generally resistant to single-agent immune checkpoint inhibitors. Here, we aim to describe the mechanisms of ALK aberrations in non-small cell lung cancer by which an immunosuppressed tumor microenvironment is created, leading to host immune evasion. We report pre-clinical and clinical studies evaluating novel immunotherapeutic approaches and describe the promises and challenges of incorporating immune-based treatments for ALK-rearranged non-small cell lung cancer.