STereotactic Ablative RadioTherapy in NEWly Diagnosed and Recurrent Locally Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients Unfit for ConcurrEnt RAdio-Chemotherapy: Early Analysis of the START-NEW-ERA Non-Randomised Phase II Trial.

PURPOSE: This is a single arm phase 2 trial (Clinical trials.gov NCT05291780) to assess local control (LC) and safety of SAbR in patients with unresectable locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC) unfit for concurrent chemo-radiation therapy (ChT-RT). METHODS: Neoadjuvant ChT was prescribed in fit patients. The tumor volume included primary tumor and any regionally positive node/s. The coprimary study endpoints were LC and safety. RESULTS: Between December 31, 2015, and December 31, 2020, 50 patients with LA-NSCLC were enrolled. Histology was squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma (ADC) in 52% and 48%, respectively. Forty (80%) patients had ultracentral tumor. Twenty-seven (54%) received neoadjuvant ChT and 7 (14%) adjuvant durvalumab. Median prescribed dose was 45 Gy (range, 35-55) and 40 Gy (35-45) in 5 daily fractions to tumor and node/s, respectively. After a median follow-up of 38 months (range, 12-80), 19 (38%) patients had experienced local recurrence (LR) at a median time of 13 months (range, 7-34). The median LR-free survival (FS) was not reached (95% confidence interval [CI], 28 to not reached). The 1-, 2-, and 3-year LR-FS rates were 86% ± 5%, 66% ± 7%, and 56% ± 8%, respectively. At last follow-up, 33 (66%) patients were alive. Median overall survival (OS) was 55 months (95% CI, 43-55 months). The 1-, 2-, and 3-year OS rates were 94% ± 3%, 79% ± 6%, and 72% ± 7%, respectively. No patients developed ≥ grade (G) 3 toxicity. ADC (hazard ratio [HR], 3.61; 95% CI, 1.15-11.35) was a significant predictor of better LC, while OS was significantly conditioned by smaller planning target volumes (HR, 1.004; 95% CI, 1.001-1.010) and tumor, node, and metastasis stage (HR, 4.8; 95% CI, 1.34-17). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with LA-NSCLC treated with SABR had optimal LC and promising OS in absence of ≥G3 toxicity. Our early outcomes would suggest the feasibility of using this approach in patients with LA-NSCLC unfit for concurrent ChT-RT.

First-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab for metastatic non-small cell lung cancer, including patients with ECOG performance status 2 and other special populations: CheckMate 817.

BACKGROUND: CheckMate 817, a phase 3B study, evaluated flat-dose nivolumab plus weight-based ipilimumab in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Here, in this research, we report on first-line treatment in patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) 0-1 (cohort A) and special populations (cohort A1: ECOG PS 2; or ECOG PS 0-1 with untreated brain metastases, renal impairment, hepatic impairment, or controlled HIV infection). METHODS: Cohorts A and A1 received nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 6 weeks. The primary endpoint was the incidence of grade 3-4 and grade 5 immune-mediated adverse events (IMAEs; adverse events (AEs) deemed potentially immune-related, occurring <100 days of last dose, and treated with immune-modulating medication (except endocrine events)) and treatment-related select AEs (treatment-related AEs with potential immunological etiology requiring frequent monitoring/intervention, reported between first dose and 30 days after the last dose) in cohort A; efficacy endpoints were secondary/exploratory. In cohort A1, safety/efficacy assessment was exploratory. RESULTS: The most common grade 3-4 IMAEs were pneumonitis (5.1%), diarrhea/colitis (4.9%), and hepatitis (4.6%) in cohort A (N=391) and diarrhea/colitis (3.5%), hepatitis (3.5%), and rash (3.0%) in cohort A1 (N=198). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related select AEs were hepatic (5.9%), gastrointestinal (4.9%), and pulmonary (4.6%) events in cohort A and gastrointestinal (4.0%), skin (3.5%), and endocrine (3.0%) events in cohort A1. No grade 5 IMAEs or treatment-related select AEs occurred. Treatment-related deaths occurred in 4 (1.0%) and 3 (1.5%) patients in cohorts A and A1, respectively. Three-year overall survival (OS) rates were 33.7% and 20.5%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Flat-dose nivolumab plus weight-based ipilimumab was associated with manageable safety and durable efficacy in cohort A, consistent with data from phase 3 metastatic NSCLC studies. Special populations of cohort A1 including patients with ECOG PS 2 or ECOG PS 0-1 with untreated brain metastases had manageable treatment-related toxicity and clinically meaningful 3-year OS rate. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02869789.

Evaluating the role of FAMIly history of cancer and diagnosis of multiple neoplasms in cancer patients receiving PD-1/PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitors: the multicenter FAMI-L1 study.

Background: We investigate the role of family history of cancer (FHC) and diagnosis of metachronous and/or synchronous multiple neoplasms (MN), during anti-PD-1/PD-L1 immunotherapy. Design: This was a multicenter retrospective study of advanced cancer patients treated with anti-PD-1/PD-L1 immunotherapy. FHC was collected in lineal and collateral lines, and patients were categorized as follows: FHC-high (in case of cancer diagnoses in both the lineal and collateral family lines), FHC-low (in case of cancer diagnoses in only one family line), and FHC-negative. Patients were also categorized according to the diagnosis of MN as follows: MN-high (>2 malignancies), MN-low (two malignancies), and MN-negative. Objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and incidence of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) of any grade were evaluated. Results: 822 consecutive patients were evaluated. 458 patients (55.7%) were FHC-negative, 289 (35.2%) were FHC-low, and 75 (9.1%) FHC-high, respectively. 29 (3.5%) had a diagnosis of synchronous MN and 94 (11.4%) of metachronous MN. 108 (13.2%) and 15 (1.8%) patients were MN-low and MN-high, respectively. The median follow-up was 15.6 months. No significant differences were found regarding ORR among subgroups. FHC-high patients had a significantly longer PFS (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.69 [95% CI: 0.48-0.97], p = .0379) and OS (HR = 0.61 [95% CI: 0.39-0.93], p = .0210), when compared to FHC-negative patients. FHC-high was confirmed as an independent predictor for PFS and OS at multivariate analysis. No significant differences were found according to MN categories. FHC-high patients had a significantly higher incidence of irAEs of any grade, compared to FHC-negative patients (p = .0012). Conclusions: FHC-high patients seem to benefit more than FHC-negative patients from anti-PD-1/PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitors.

Could thymomectomy be a reasonable option for non-myasthenic thymoma patients?

BACKGROUND: Complete resection is the mainstay of treatment for thymoma, but few studies have investigated the extent of resection on normal thymus. Extended thymectomy is considered the treatment of choice for myasthenic patients with thymoma, while the optimal therapy for non-myasthenic patients is still a matter of debate. The aim of this retrospective study was to compare extended thymectomy vs. thymomectomy in non-myasthenic thymoma patients for (I) oncological outcome, (II) multicentric thymoma occurrence and (III) postoperative myasthenia gravis (MG) development. METHODS: A retrospective comparative study was conducted on 92 non-myasthenic patients with completely resected thymoma, according to the extent of resection: extended thymectomy (70 patients) vs. R0-mediastinal thymomectomy (22 patients). Clinical and pathological characteristics, oncological outcome and postoperative MG occurrence were compared between the two study groups. RESULTS: We did not observe any significant differences in gender, age, symptomology, preoperative chemotherapy, histology, tumour size, adjuvant therapy or complications. There were no recorded postoperative mortalities. Stage distribution was different between the two groups: similar percentages of early stage thymoma for both groups were present, but there was a prevalence of stage III for extended thymectomy and stage IV for thymomectomy (P<0.01). At a median follow-up of 77.4 months (range 1-255 months), no statistically significant differences were recorded in local recurrence (P=0.396), thymoma related deaths (P=0.504), multicentric thymoma occurrence (P=0.742) and postoperative MG development (P=0.343). A high preoperative anti-acetylcholine receptor antibodies (ARAb) serum titer assay was statistically correlated with postoperative MG occurrence (r=0.49, P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Thymomectomy appears to be a valid treatment option for non-myasthenic thymoma patients, as this procedure was associated to the same 5-year oncological results, compared to extended thymectomy, for both stage I-II small thymomas and patients with giant unilateral masses, as well as advanced diseases. Moreover, thymomectomy was not associated to an increased rate of postoperative MG.