Atezolizumab Plus Carboplatin and Etoposide in Patients with Untreated Extensive-Stage Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Interim Results of the MAURIS Phase IIIb Trial.

BACKGROUND: MAURIS is an Italian multicenter, open-label, phase IIIb ongoing trial, aiming at evaluating the safety and effectiveness of atezolizumab + carboplatin/etoposide in patients with newly diagnosed, extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). The primary objective is the safety evaluation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients received atezolizumab + carboplatin/etoposide Q3W for 4-6 cycles in the induction phase, followed by atezolizumab maintenance Q3W. We presented the interim analysis on safety (referring to the induction phase) and clinical effectiveness, in all patients (N = 154) and in subgroups that received ≤3 (N = 23), 4 (N = 43), and 5-6 cycles (N = 89) of induction. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 10.5 months, 139 patients (90.3%) discontinued treatment. Serious adverse events occurred in 29.9% of patients overall, and the rate was lower in patients with 5-6 cycles (19.1%) than in those with 4 (34.9%) or ≤3 (63.6%) cycles. Immune-mediated adverse events were reported in 14.9%, 15.7%, 11.6%, and 18.2% of patients, overall and by subgroup, respectively. The median overall survival and progression-free survival were 10.7 and 5.5 months, respectively. Overall, 111 patients (71.6%) had a tumor response. CONCLUSIONS: Interim results provide further evidences about safety and efficacy profile of atezolizumab + carboplatin/etoposide treatment in a ES-SCLC patient population closer to that observed in clinical practice. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Eudract No. 2019-001146-17, NCT04028050.

Post-Progression Analysis of EGFR-Mutant NSCLC Following Osimertinib Therapy in Real-World Settings.

BACKGROUND: Platinum-based chemotherapy is the current standard treatment option in patients with EGFR-mutant non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who progress on osimertinib. However, outcomes with chemotherapy are dismal, and the treatment of central nervous system (CNS) disease is an unmet need in this setting. METHODS: Patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC who were candidates to receive osimertinib in the metastatic setting at our Center from 2015 to 2022 were retrospectively evaluated to identify patients who received standard platinum-based chemotherapy post-osimertinib. Data were collected on treatment outcomes, with a focus on brain metastases and progression patterns. RESULTS: A total of 220 patients received indication for osimertinib in the study period; n = 176 had adequate follow-up data. Overall, n = 117 patients experienced disease progression on osimertinib. The median time to osimertinib progressive disease (PD) was 15 months (95% confidence interval CI 13-18). Of them, 51 patients (45%) had no access to further treatments. Of the remaining patients, n = 8 received experimental treatments, and n = 55 received standard platinum-based chemotherapy and were considered for this study. Median duration of chemotherapy was 3 months (95% CI 2-5); the best responses among 53 evaluable patients were observed as follows: 15% partial response/complete response (PR/CR), 40% stable disease (SD), 45% PD. Median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 3 (95% CI 2-5) and 10 (95% CI 6-15) months, respectively. All patients had baseline and follow-up brain radiologic assessments, and n = 23 had brain metastases at the start of chemotherapy. With a median follow-up of 13 months, intracranial PD occurred in 47% patients, being the first site of PD in 59% of cases. The median time for intracranial (IC) PD was 2 months (95% CI 2-7). IC PD occurred as oligometastatic in 29%, whereas in 71% of cases, it was associated with systemic PD. CONCLUSIONS: Access to subsequent treatments and CNS progression are confirmed unmet needs in EGFR-mutant NSCLC patients. Clinical and CNS-specific outcomes in patients receiving standard chemotherapy after the failure of osimertinib are dismal. Novel upfront treatment options with demonstrated prolonged PFS and better CNS outcomes may help address this important issue.

The Evolving Scenario of ES-SCLC Management: From Biology to New Cancer Therapeutics.

Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is an aggressive neuroendocrine carcinoma accounting for 15% of lung cancers with dismal survival outcomes. Minimal changes in therapy and prognosis have occurred in SCLC for the past four decades. Recent progress in the treatment of extensive-stage disease (ES-SCLC) has been marked by incorporating immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) into platinum-based chemotherapy, leading to modest improvements. Moreover, few second-line-and-beyond treatment options are currently available. The main limitation for the molecular study of SCLC has been the scarcity of samples, because only very early diseases are treated with surgery and biopsies are not performed when the disease progresses. Despite all these difficulties, in recent years we have come to understand that SCLC is not a homogeneous disease. At the molecular level, in addition to the universal loss of retinoblastoma (RB) and TP53 genes, a recent large molecular study has identified other mutations that could serve as targets for therapy development or patient selection. In recent years, there has also been the identification of new genetic subtypes which have shown us how intertumor heterogeneity exists. Moreover, SCLC can also develop intratumoral heterogeneity linked mainly to the concept of cellular plasticity, mostly due to the development of resistance to therapies. The aim of this review is to quickly present the current standard of care of ES-SCLC, to focus on the molecular landscapes and subtypes of SCLC, subsequently present the most promising therapeutic strategies under investigation, and finally recap the future directions of ongoing clinical trials for this aggressive disease which still remains a challenge.

Alectinib vs. Lorlatinib in the Front-Line Setting for ALK-Rearranged Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC): A Deep Dive into the Main Differences across ALEX and CROWN Phase 3 Trials.

Various next-generation ALK TKIs are available as first-line options for ALK-positive NSCLC, with alectinib and lorlatinib being commonly preferred. However, no direct comparison between them has been conducted, making it impossible to pick a winner. We performed an analytic, 'non-comparative' assessment of the two phase 3 pivotal clinical trials showing superiority of alectinib (ALEX) and lorlatinib (CROWN) in comparison to crizotinib. Overall, the two studies were very similar in the study design and patient characteristics, with the exception of the selection and evaluation of brain metastases. PFS hazard ratios numerically favored lorlatinib, both according to the investigator and to BICR. Notably, the 3-year PFS rate was numerically higher with lorlatinib (64%) than with alectinib (46.4%). Despite similar response rates and overall intracranial response, the rate of complete intracranial response was higher with lorlatinib, with a cumulative incidence risk of CNS disease progression at 12 months of 9.4% with alectinib and 2.8% with lorlatinib. The peculiar toxicities of lorlatinib were related to lipidic profile alterations, peripheral oedema and cognitive effects, with no impact on cardiovascular risk nor impairment in quality of life versus crizotinib. Furthermore, the rate of permanent treatment discontinuation due to adverse events was numerically higher with alectinib (26%) than with lorlatinib (7%). In conclusion, despite the immature OS data for both drugs, the efficacy of lorlatinib appears higher than alectinib while maintaining a manageable toxicity profile.

Management of patients with extensive small-cell lung cancer in the immunotherapy era: An Italian consensus through a Delphi approach.

BACKGROUND: Immunotherapy represented a turning point for treating extensive small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). Although, many issues remain debated. METHODS: A group of Italian medical and radiation oncologists with expertise in managing patients with ES-SCLC developed a list of statements divided in six areas of interest. The Delphi method was used to assess the consensus on the defined list of statements. RESULTS: 32 statements were included in the final list to be voted by the Delphi panel, and 26 reached a consensus on the agreement. A prompt involvement of a multidisciplinary team is a priority to provide an integrated treatment strategy. First-line recommended treatment is immunotherapy in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy and etoposide for four cycles followed by maintenance immunotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: While awaiting new data from clinical trials and real-world studies, these recommendations can represent a useful tool to guide the management of ES-SCLC patients in daily practice.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors in EGFR-mutant non-small cell lung cancer: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Since their first introduction in clinical practice, immune checkpoint inhibitors showed limited benefit in patients with NSCLC harboring EGFR mutations. With the rationale of increasing immune activation, combinatorial ICI strategies have been evaluated also in this subgroup of patients. METHODS: We performed a systematic review on efficacy of ICI-based strategies in EGFR-mutant NSCLC according to most updated evidence. RESULTS: Overall, ICI monotherapy and ICI plus chemotherapy confirm to be ineffective in EGFR-mutant NSCLC, whereas the combination of ICI with antiangiogenic and chemotherapy showed promising results. Limited data are available with alternative ICI combination strategies, driven by strong biological rationale of modulating the tumor immune microenvironment. CONCLUSIONS: To date, the available evidence do not support the use of ICI in patients with NSCLC harboring EGFR mutations. Clinical trials are ongoing to define which is the best timing and exploring novel combinations with ICI in this specific disease.

New Generations of Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors in Treating NSCLC with Oncogene Addiction: Strengths and Limitations.

Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) revolutionized the treatment of patients with advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring most driver gene alterations. Starting from the first generation, research rapidly moved to the development of newer, more selective generations of TKIs, obtaining improved results in terms of disease control and survival. However, the use of novel generations of TKIs is not without limitations. We reviewed the main results obtained, as well as the ongoing clinical trials with TKIs in oncogene-addicted NSCLC, together with the biology underlying their potential strengths and limitations. Across driver gene alterations, novel generations of TKIs allowed delayed resistance, prolonged survival, and improved brain penetration compared to previous generations, although with different toxicity profiles, that generally moved their use from further lines to the front-line treatment. However, the anticipated positioning of novel generation TKIs leads to abolishing the possibility of TKI treatment sequencing and any role of previous generations. In addition, under the selective pressure of such more potent drugs, resistant clones emerge harboring more complex and hard-to-target resistance mechanisms. Deeper knowledge of tumor biology and drug properties will help identify new strategies, including combinatorial treatments, to continue improving results in patients with oncogene-addicted NSCLC.

MET in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC): Cross 'a Long and Winding Road' Looking for a Target.

Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) can harbour different MET alterations, such as MET overexpression (MET OE), MET gene amplification (MET AMP), or MET gene mutations. Retrospective studies of surgical series of patients with MET-dysregulated NSCLC have shown worse clinical outcomes irrespective of the type of specific MET gene alteration. On the other hand, earlier attempts failed to identify the 'druggable' molecular gene driver until the discovery of MET exon 14 skipping mutations (METex14). METex14 are rare and amount to around 3% of all NSCLCs. Patients with METex14 NSCLC attain modest results when they are treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). New selective MET inhibitors (MET-Is) showed a long-lasting clinical benefit in patients with METex14 NSCLC and modest activity in patients with MET AMP NSCLC. Ongoing clinical trials are investigating new small molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitors, bispecific antibodies, or antibodies drug conjugate (ADCs). This review focuses on the prognostic role of MET, the summary of pivotal clinical trials of selective MET-Is with a focus on resistance mechanisms. The last section is addressed to future developments and challenges.

Sustained Improvement in the Management of Patients with Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) Harboring ALK Translocation: Where Are We Running?

ALK translocation amounts to around 3-7% of all NSCLCs. The clinical features of ALK+ NSCLC are an adenocarcinoma histology, younger age, limited smoking history, and brain metastases. The activity of chemotherapy and immunotherapy is modest in ALK+ disease. Several randomized trials have proven that ALK inhibitors (ALK-Is) have greater efficacy with respect to platinum-based chemotherapy and that second/third generation ALK-Is are better than crizotinib in terms of improvements in median progression-free survival and brain metastases management. Unfortunately, most patients develop acquired resistance to ALK-Is that is mediated by on- and off-target mechanisms. Translational and clinical research are continuing to develop new drugs and/or combinations in order to raise the bar and further improve the results attained up to now. This review summarizes first-line randomized clinical trials of several ALK-Is and the management of brain metastases with a focus on ALK-I resistance mechanisms. The last section addresses future developments and challenges.

New oral multitargeted antiangiogenics in non-small-cell lung cancer treatment.

Non-small-cell lung cancer is a particularly aggressive cancer. Combination chemotherapy remains the standard therapy for patients with advanced or metastatic disease. However, despite the available treatment options for patients who progress beyond first-line therapy, prognosis remains poor. Angiogenesis is a tightly regulated process controlled by a delicate balance between pro- and antiangiogenic factors and their receptors; tumors induce angiogenesis by disrupting this balance and secreting various growth factors. Inhibition of tumor-related angiogenesis has become an attractive target for anticancer therapy. Antiangiogenic strategy includes monoclonal antibodies against VEGF and VEGF receptor and small molecule inhibitors of VEGF tyrosine kinase activity (tyrosine kinase inhibitors). Tyrosine kinase inhibitors are orally active, small molecules that represent a new class of drugs with a relatively high safety profile. They are targeted therapies that play their anticancer role interfering with specific cell signaling. This review focuses on such oral antiangiogenic agents that have been approved and are in advanced clinical development for the treatment of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

The new era of immune checkpoint inhibition and target therapy in early-stage non-small cell lung cancer. A review of the literature.

Surgery is the best option for patients with early stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, the rate of local and metastatic recurrences following surgery alone is high, especially in NSCLC patients with N2 lymph node involvement. A recent American study showed that 60% of lung cancers are diagnosed in an advanced stage, and less than 20% are diagnosed in an early, resectable stage. The same study reported the 5 year survival of patients with stage IV NSCLC was 6% compared to 50% in patients with resectable NSCLC depending by stage. The addition of adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy only improves 5 year survival by 5%-10%. Recently, immunotherapy with or without chemotherapy and novel targeted therapies have yielded excellent results, in terms of both progression-free survival and overall survival, in advanced NSCLC. Published studies have shown a benefit in using immunotherapy and targeted therapy in both the adjuvant and neoadjuvant settings with many further studies still ongoing. Here we review the published data on immunotherapy and targeted therapy in the adjuvant and neoadjuvant settings in patients with operable NSCLC.

Comparison of real-world data (RWD) analysis on efficacy and post-progression outcomes with pembrolizumab plus chemo vs chemo alone in metastatic non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer with PD-L1 < 50.

Background: Following the introduction of immunotherapy (IO) in the first-line (1L) treatment in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) without sensitizing EGFR/ALK mutations, increasing real-world data depict how difficult it is to replicate data from clinical trials to clinical practice, with high rates of early treatment failure. In the context of chemo-IO, our study aims to compare platinum-pemetrexed-pembrolizumab combination to platinum-doublet alone in patients with low PD-L1 (<50%). Methods: We retrospectively collected medical records from patients with stage IV non-squamous NSCLC with PD-L1<50%, consecutively treated at our Centre from 2016 to 2021. Patients were grouped according to 1L treatment received: chemo-IO (group A) or platinum-doublet (group B). Survival outcomes were analyzed and compared among the two groups. Results: Overall, 105 patients were included: 49 in group A and 56 in group B. At data cut-off, median follow-up was 12.4 and 34.8 months, with 32/49 and 52/56 events for progression-free survival (PFS) and 21/49 and 29/56 events for overall survival (OS), respectively. No difference in PFS was observed between group B and group A (6.6 versus 8 months, HR 1.12, 95%CI 0.57-1.40). Patients receiving 1L platinum-doublet had significantly longer OS compared to those receiving chemo-IO (median OS 23.8 vs 14.9 months, HR 0.47, 95% CI 1.15- 3.98, p=0.01). 12 month-OS was 58% (95% CI 44-76%) in group A and 78% (95% CI 68-91%) in group B (p=0.040). Subgroup analysis identified KRAS G12C mutation as potentially affecting PFS in patients receiving chemo-IO (HR 0.29, 95% CI 0-10-0.91). The OS benefit of platinum-doublet was consistent across subgroups, with particular benefit in female sex, liver or pleural metastases, PD-L1 negative. Overall, only 46.9% of patients with progression received subsequent treatment in group A (15/32), compared to 86.5% in group B (45/52, all receiving 2L IO), with no difference in PFS to 2L (group A 3.7months, group B 4.1months, p=0.3). Conclusions: Despite small study population and differential follow-up, our study demonstrates that sequential use of 1L platinum-doublet and 2L IO is not inferior to 1L chemo-IO in non-squamous NSCLC with PD-L1<50%. In addition, we identified subgroups who might benefit differentially from the two approaches.

Palonosetron plus 3-day aprepitant and dexamethasone to prevent nausea and vomiting in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: The combination of a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, dexamethasone, and a 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist is currently the standard antiemetic treatment in patients receiving cisplatin-based high emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a combination of palonosetron, a unique second-generation 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist, aprepitant, the only approved neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, and dexamethasone as antiemetic prophylaxis in patients receiving HEC (cisplatin ≥50 mg/mq). METHODS: Chemotherapy-naïve adult patients, receiving cisplatin-based HEC, were treated with palonosetron 0.25 mg/i.v., dexamethasone 20 mg/i.v., and aprepitant 125 mg/p.o., 1-h before chemotherapy. Aprepitant 80 mg/p.o. and dexamethasone 4 mg p.o. were administered on days 2-3. Primary end point was complete response (CR; no vomiting and no use of rescue medication), during the overall study period (0-120 h). Secondary end points were complete control (CR and no more than mild nausea), emesis-free rate, and nausea-free rate during the acute (0-24 h), delayed (24-120 h), and overall (0-120 h) periods. Safety was also evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 222 patients were included in the study. Median age was 62 years, 76.6% were male and 23.4% female, and most common tumors were lung (66.7%) and head and neck (15.8%); 70.3% of patients achieved CR during the overall study period. Complete control, emesis-free rate, and nausea-free rate were 70.3%, 92.8%, and 59.9%, respectively, during the overall phase. The most commonly reported side effects were constipation (39% of patients) and headache (5%). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that palonosetron in combination with aprepitant and dexamethasone is effective to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients treated with cisplatin-based HEC.

Surgery for small cell lung cancer: When and how.

OBJECTIVE: Since data from large retrospective observational studies and cancer registries became available, suggesting a benefit for patients undergoing surgery, the role of surgery in the treatment of small cell lung cancer (SCLC) needs to be reconsidered. The aim of this study was to evaluate outcomes and results of patients with SCLC undergoing intent-to-treat surgery. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 324 patients (1998-2018) with a diagnosis of SCLC referred to our Institution. 65 patients underwent surgical resection with curative intent. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses were used to compare overall survival (OS) for all patients. RESULTS: Among the patients, 39 (60.0 %) patients had surgery upfront, whereas 24 (36.9 %) had surgery after chemotherapy (CT) alone, and 2 (3.1 %) after CT plus radiotherapy (RT). Twenty-nine (44.6 %) patients were stage I or had a complete response to induction treatment, 21 (32.3 %) had stage II, and 15 (23.1 %) stage III. Forty-four (67.7 %) patients underwent adjuvant treatment: 21 (32.3 %) had CT, 31 (47.7 %) RT, and 7 (10.8 %) both. Prophylactic cranial irradiation was administered in 15 patients (23.1 %). The median OS after initial diagnosis at 1, 5, 10 years was 1, 5, 10 years was 81.4 %, 41.4 % and 25.4 % respectively. Among patients who underwent surgical resection with curative intent, those with clinical stage I had a longer survival (5-year OS 62.9 %) p < 0.0001. CONCLUSION: patients with stage I SCLC could be considered the best candidates for surgery, in a multidisciplinary setting. Instead, considering their worse survival, those with stage II and III should be carefully selected for the surgical approach, and alternative therapy should be considered.

Fears and Perception of the Impact of COVID-19 on Patients With Lung Cancer: A Mono-Institutional Survey.

In February 2020, Italy became one of the first countries to be plagued by the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, COVID-19. In March 2020, the Italian government decreed a lockdown for the whole country, which overturned communication systems, hospital organization, and access to patients and their relatives and carers. This issue had a particular regard for cancer patients. Our Thoracic Oncology Division therefore reorganized patient access in order to reduce the risk of contagion and, at the same time, encourage the continuation of treatment. Our staff contacted all patients to inform them of any changes in treatment planning, check that they were taking safety measures, and ascertain their feelings and whether they had any COVID-19 symptoms. To better understand patients' fears and expectations of during the pandemic period, we created a nine-question interview, administered from April to May 2020 to 156 patients with lung cancer. Patients were classified by age, sex, comorbidity, disease stage, prior treatment, and treatment type. The survey showed that during the pandemic period some patients experienced fear of COVID-19, in particular: women (55% vs. 33%), patients with comorbidities (24% vs. 9%), and patients who had already received prior insult (radiotherapy or surgery) on the lung (30% vs. 11%). In addition, the patients who received oral treatment at home or for whom intravenous treatment was delayed, experienced a sense of relief (90% and 72% respectively). However, only 21% of the patients were more afraid of COVID-19 than of their cancer, in particular patients with long-term (> 12 months) vs. short-term cancer diagnosis (28% vs. 12.5%, respectively). Furthermore, the quarantine period or even just the lockdown period alone, worsened the quality of life of some patients (40%), especially those in oral treatment (47%). Our data demonstrate how lung cancer patients are more afraid of their disease than of a world pandemic. Also this interview indirectly highlights the clinician's major guiding principle in correctly and appropriately managing not just the patient's expectations of their illness and its treatment, but also and especially of the patient's fears.

Results of Multilevel Containment Measures to Better Protect Lung Cancer Patients From COVID-19: The IEO Model.

A novel coronavirus causing severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), named SARS-CoV-2, was identified at the end of 2019. The spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has progressively expanded from China, involving several countries throughout the world, leading to the classification of the disease as a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO). According to published reports, COVID-19 severity and mortality are higher in elderly patients and those with active comorbidities. In particular, lung cancer patients were reported to be at high risk of pulmonary complications related to SARS-CoV2 infection. Therefore, the management of cancer care during the COVID-19 pandemic is a crucial issue, to which national and international oncology organizations have replied with recommendations concerning patients receiving anticancer treatments, delaying follow-up visits and limiting caregiver admission to the hospitals. In this historical moment, medical oncologists are required to consider the possibility to delay active treatment administration based on a case-by-case risk/benefit evaluation. Potential risks associated with COVID-19 infection should be considered, considering tumor histology and natural course, disease setting, clinical conditions, and disease burden, together with the expected benefit, toxicities (e.g., myelosuppression or interstitial lung disease), and response obtained from the planned or ongoing treatment. In this study, we report the results of proactive measures including social media, telemedicine, and telephone triage for screening patients with lung cancer during the COVID-19 outbreak in the European Institute of Oncology (Milan, Italy). Proactive management and containment measures, applied in a structured and daily way, has significantly aided the identification of advance patients with suspected symptoms related to COVID-19, limiting their admission to our cancer center; we have thus been more able to protect other patients from possible contamination and at the same time guarantee to the suspected patients the immediate treatment and evaluation in referral hospitals for COVID-19.

Efficacy of Anti-PD1/PD-L1 Therapy (IO) in KRAS Mutant Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Patients: A Retrospective Analysis.

BACKGROUND/AIM: The role of anti-PD1/PD-L1 therapy (IO) in NSCLC harboring driver mutations is questionable. This study aimed to examine the efficacy of IO in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with a KRAS mutation (KRAS+). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively identified NSCLC patients harboring KRAS mutation treated with IO in our Institution. We analyzed the results in comparison to non-KRAS patients. RESULTS: Among 328 consecutive KRAS+ NSCLC patients, 43 (13.1%) received IO in our Institution. In parallel 117 non-KRAS NSCLC patients treated with IO were selected for comparison. The baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups. No significant difference was observed between KRAS+ and non-KRAS patients in terms of mPFS (4.6 vs. 3.3 months, p=0.58) or OS (8.1 vs. 13.0 months, p=0.38). CONCLUSION: KRAS mutations seem to be irrelevant for selecting patients for IO that could be therefore considered an effective therapy for NSCLC patients, independently of KRAS status.

Clinical features affecting survival in metastatic NSCLC treated with immunotherapy: A critical review of published data.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) represent one of the main steps forward for the treatment of advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), without oncogenic driver alterations. Despite this recent progress, only a minority of patients achieve a broad and durable benefit and another proportion report poor survival and sometimes fast disease progression, confirming the need to optimise the patient's selection. To date, several issues are unsolved about how to personalise the immunotherapy treatment for individual patients. In this review, analysing data from pivotal randomised clinical trials (RCTs), we discuss patient baseline clinical and demographic features, including sex, age, ECOG performance status, smoking habit and specific site of metastases (liver, bone and brain) that may influence the efficacy outcomes in patients treated with ICIs. The high performance of the ICIs blurred the vision on different efficacy-limiting factors, which require extensive evaluation to improve the understanding ofthe tumour-specificimmune response, in which clinical drivers could be useful for better patient stratification.

The role of multimodal treatment in patients with advanced lung neuroendocrine tumors.

Lung neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) comprise typical (TC) and atypical carcinoids (AC). They represent the well differentiated (WD) or low/intermediate grade forms of lung neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs). Unlike the lung poorly differentiated NENs, that are usually treated with chemotherapy, lung NETs can be managed with several different therapies, making a multidisciplinary interaction a key point. We critically discussed the multimodal clinical management of patients with advanced lung NETs. Provided that no therapeutic algorithm has been validate so far, each clinical case should be discussed within a NEN-dedicated multidisciplinary team. Among the systemic therapies available for metastatic lung NETs everolimus is the only approved drug, on the basis of the results of the phase III RADIANT-4 trial. Another phase III trial, the SPINET, is ongoing comparing lanreotide with placebo. Peptide receptor radionuclide therapy and chemotherapy were not studied within phase III trials for lung NETs, and they have been reported to be active within retrospective or phase II prospective studies. Temozolomide and oxaliplatin are two interesting chemotherapeutic agents in lung NETs. While some European Institutions were certificated as Centers of Excellence for gastroenteropancreatic NENs by the European Neuroendocrine Tumor Society (ENETS), an equivalent ENETS certification for lung NENs does not exist yet. Ideally a lung NEN-dedicated multidisciplinary tumor board should include NEN-dedicated medical oncologists, thoracic medical oncologist, thoracic surgeons, pathologists, interventional radiologists, endocrinologists, radiotherapists, interventional pneumologists, nuclear physician.

Afatinib in first-line setting for NSCLC harbouring common EGFR mutations: new light after the preliminary results of LUX-Lung 7?

The development of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) changed dramatically the history of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring EGFR sensitive mutations. Several randomized prospective trials confirmed the superiority of these target agents about survival and response rate when comparing with platinum-based chemotherapy. Knowledge about EGFR mutations increased gradually during the development of target agents and different clinical trials. EGFR mutations cannot be considered all equal, but different entities should be considered in our clinical practice: exon 19 deletions, exon 21 mutation (L858R) and uncommon mutation (exon 20, exon 18 and double mutation). Nowadays, we dispose of three different EGFR TKIs (afatinib, erlotinib and gefitinib) approved for the treatment for first-line treatment of patients di NSCLC carrying EGFR, that was compared only by indirect analysis, producing data not always clear and convincing. This research highlight is an overview of data about EGFR TKIs in first-line setting, focusing on differences about exon 19 deletions and L585R mutation in patients treated with different TKIs. In addition, we report the preliminary results of the first head-to-head randomized clinical trial between two different EGFR TKIs, the LUX-Lung 7 (LL7) that compared afatinib and gefitinib showing interesting results.