Small Cell Lung Cancer in Light/Never Smokers - A Role for Molecular Testing?

This report describes the management of small cell lung cancer (SCLC) transformation in a patient with untreated ALK-mutated advanced disease and a minimal smoking history, and a separate case of a de novo SCLC in a lifelong nonsmoker found to have a potentially targetable ERBB2 alteration. In the first case, chemotherapy followed by a targeted inhibitor was chosen due to the presence of the ALK rearrangement, as well as a somewhat discordant response to induction chemotherapy, suggesting possible progression of the ALK inhibitor-sensitive component. Molecular testing for the identification of driver mutations should be considered in patients with SCLC who have light/never smoking histories in order to help understand the incidence and ultimate optimal management strategies.

Pembrolizumab versus Chemotherapy for PD-L1-Positive Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Pembrolizumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody against programmed death 1 (PD-1) that has antitumor activity in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), with increased activity in tumors that express programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1). METHODS: In this open-label, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 305 patients who had previously untreated advanced NSCLC with PD-L1 expression on at least 50% of tumor cells and no sensitizing mutation of the epidermal growth factor receptor gene or translocation of the anaplastic lymphoma kinase gene to receive either pembrolizumab (at a fixed dose of 200 mg every 3 weeks) or the investigator's choice of platinum-based chemotherapy. Crossover from the chemotherapy group to the pembrolizumab group was permitted in the event of disease progression. The primary end point, progression-free survival, was assessed by means of blinded, independent, central radiologic review. Secondary end points were overall survival, objective response rate, and safety. RESULTS: Median progression-free survival was 10.3 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.7 to not reached) in the pembrolizumab group versus 6.0 months (95% CI, 4.2 to 6.2) in the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.68; P<0.001). The estimated rate of overall survival at 6 months was 80.2% in the pembrolizumab group versus 72.4% in the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio for death, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.89; P=0.005). The response rate was higher in the pembrolizumab group than in the chemotherapy group (44.8% vs. 27.8%), the median duration of response was longer (not reached [range, 1.9+ to 14.5+ months] vs. 6.3 months [range, 2.1+ to 12.6+]), and treatment-related adverse events of any grade were less frequent (occurring in 73.4% vs. 90.0% of patients), as were grade 3, 4, or 5 treatment-related adverse events (26.6% vs. 53.3%). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with advanced NSCLC and PD-L1 expression on at least 50% of tumor cells, pembrolizumab was associated with significantly longer progression-free and overall survival and with fewer adverse events than was platinum-based chemotherapy. (Funded by Merck; KEYNOTE-024 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02142738 .).

Health-related quality-of-life results for pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy in advanced, PD-L1-positive NSCLC (KEYNOTE-024): a multicentre, international, randomised, open-label phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In the phase 3 KEYNOTE-024 trial, treatment with pembrolizumab conferred longer progression-free survival than did platinum-based therapy in patients with treatment-naive, advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with a programmed cell death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) tumour proportion score of 50% or greater (PD-L1-positive). Here we report the prespecified exploratory endpoint of pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy on patient-reported outcomes (PROs). METHODS: In this multicentre, international, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial, we recruited patients with treatment-naive, stage IV NSCLC in 102 sites in 16 countries. Eligible patients had measurable disease (per RECIST version 1.1) and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status 0 or 1. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via an interactive voice response system and integrated web response system to receive either pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks (35 cycles) or investigator-choice platinum-doublet chemotherapy (4-6 cycles or until documented disease progression or unacceptable toxicity). Randomisation was stratified according to geography, ECOG performance status, and histology. PROs were assessed at day 1 of cycles 1-3, every 9 weeks thereafter, at the treatment discontinuation visit, and at the 30-day safety assessment visit using the European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 items (QLQ-C30), the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire Lung Cancer 13 items (QLQ-LC13), and the European Quality of Life 5 Dimensions-3 Level (EQ-5D-3L) questionnaire. The key exploratory PRO endpoints (analysed for all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment and completed at least one PRO instrument at at least one timepoint) were baseline-to-week-15 change in the QLQ-C30 global health status (GHS)/quality-of-life (QOL) score and time to deterioration of the composite of cough, chest pain, and dyspnoea in the QLQ-LC13. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02142738, and is ongoing but no longer enrolling patients. FINDINGS: Between Sept 19, 2014, and Oct 29, 2015, 305 patients were randomly assigned to pembrolizumab (n=154) or chemotherapy (n=151). Three patients in each group did not complete any PRO instruments at any timepoints, and so 299 patients were included in the full analysis set. Of these patients, one in each group did not complete any PRO instruments before week 15, and so were not included in analyses of change from baseline to week 15. PRO compliance was greater than 90% at baseline and approximately 80% at week 15 for both groups. Least-squares mean baseline-to-week-15 change in QLQ-C30 GHS/QOL score was 6·9 (95% CI 3·3 to 10·6) for pembrolizumab and -0·9 (-4·8 to 3·0) for chemotherapy, for a difference of 7·8 (2·9 to 12·8; two-sided nominal p=0·0020). Fewer pembrolizumab-treated patients had deterioration in the QLQ-LC13 composite endpoint than did chemotherapy-treated patients (46 [31%] of 151 patients vs 58 [39%] of 148 patients). Time to deterioration was longer with pembrolizumab than with chemotherapy (median not reached [95% CI 8·5 to not reached] vs 5·0 months [3·6 to not reached]; hazard ratio 0·66, 95% CI 0·44-0·97; two-sided nominal p=0·029). INTERPRETATION: Pembrolizumab improves or maintains health-related QOL compared with that for chemotherapy, and might represent a new first-line standard of care for PD-L1-expressing, advanced NSCLC. FUNDING: Merck & Co.

Use of Palliative Chemotherapy for Advanced Bladder Cancer: Patterns of Care in Routine Clinical Practice.

BACKGROUND: Palliative chemotherapy for advanced bladder cancer is recommended in clinical practice guidelines. Patterns of care in routine clinical practice have not been well described. This article describes use rates of chemotherapy and referral rates to medical oncology in the last year of life among patients who have died of bladder cancer. METHODS: A population-based cohort of patients with bladder cancer was identified from the Ontario Cancer Registry; the study population included patients who died of bladder cancer between 1995 and 2009. Electronic records of treatment and physician billing records were used to identify treatment patterns and referral to medical oncology. Log-binomial and modified Poisson regression were used to examine factors associated with chemotherapy use and medical oncology consultation. RESULTS: A total of 8,005 patients died of bladder cancer, 25% (n=1,964) of whom received chemotherapy in the last year of life. Use was independently associated with patient age, comorbidities, socioeconomic status, sex, time period, and treatment region. A total of 68% (n=5,426) of patients were seen by a medical oncologist. Referral to medical oncology was associated with age, comorbidities, year of death. Geographic variation was seen with chemotherapy use-from 18% to 30%-that persisted on adjusted analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy of palliative chemotherapy demonstrated in clinical trials and recommended in guidelines has not translated into widespread use in practice. Understanding the extent to which patient preferences and health system factors influence use is needed. Access to acceptable palliative systemic treatments remains an unmet need for most patients dying of bladder cancer.

Trajectories of Health Care Contact Days for Patients With Stage IV Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

Importance: Patients with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) experience substantial morbidity and mortality. Contact days (ie, the number of days with health care contact outside the home) measure how much of a person's life is consumed by health care, yet little is known about patterns of contact days for patients with NSCLC. Objective: To describe the trajectories of contact days in patients with stage IV NSCLC and how trajectories vary by receipt of cancer-directed treatment in routine practice. Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective, population-based decedent cohort study was conducted in Ontario, Canada. Participants included adults aged 20 years or older who were diagnosed with stage IV NSCLC (January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2017) and died (January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2019); there was a maximum 2-year follow-up. Data analysis was conducted from February 22 to August 16, 2023. Exposure: Systemic cancer-directed therapy (yes or no) and type of therapy (chemotherapy vs immunotherapy vs targeted therapy). Main Outcomes and Measures: Contact days (days with health care contact, outpatient or institution-based, outside the home) were identified through administrative data. The weekly percentage of contact days and fitted models with cubic splines were quantified to describe trajectories from diagnosis until death. Results: A total of 5785 decedents with stage IV NSCLC were included (median age, 70 [IQR 62-77] years; 3108 [53.7%] were male, and 1985 [34.3%] received systemic therapy). The median overall survival was 108 (IQR, 49-426) days, median contact days were 36 (IQR, 21-62), and the median percentage that were contact days was 33.3%. A median of 5 (IQR, 2-10) days were spent with specialty palliative care. Patients who did not receive systemic therapy had a median overall survival of 66 (IQR, 34-130) days and median contact days of 28 (IQR, 17-44), of which a median of 5 (IQR, 2-9) days were spent with specialty palliative care. Overall and for subgroups, normalized trajectories followed a U-shaped distribution: contact days were most frequent immediately after diagnosis and before death. Patients who received targeted therapy had the lowest contact day rate during the trough (10.6%; vs immunotherapy, 15.4%; vs chemotherapy, 17.7%). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, decedents with stage IV NSCLC had a median survival in the order of 3.5 months and spent 1 in every 3 days alive interacting with the health care system outside the home. These results highlight the need to better support patients and care partners, benchmark appropriateness, and improve care delivery.

Is cancer stage data missing completely at random? A report from a large population-based cohort of non-small cell lung cancer.

Introduction: Population-based datasets are often used to estimate changes in utilization or outcomes of novel therapies. Inclusion or exclusion of unstaged patients may impact on interpretation of these studies. Methods: A large population-based dataset in Ontario, Canada of non-small cell lung cancer patients was examined to evaluate the characteristics and outcomes of unstaged patients compared to staged patients. Multivariable Poisson regression was used to evaluate differences in patient-level characteristics between groups. Kaplan-Meier estimates of survival and log-rank statistics were utilized. Results: In our Ontario cohort of 51,152 patients with NSCLC, 11.2% (n=5,707) were unstaged, and there was evidence that stage data was not missing completely at random. Those without assigned stage were more likely than staged patients to be older (RR [95%CI]), (70-79 vs. 20-59: 1.51 [1.38-1.66]; 80+ vs. 20-59: 2.87 [2.62-3.15]), have a higher comorbidity index (Score 1-2 vs 0: 1.19 [1.12-1.27]; 3 vs. 0: 1.49 [1.38-1.60]), and have a lower socioeconomic class (4 vs. 1 (lowest): 0.91 [0.84-0.98]; 5 vs. 1 (lowest): 0.89 [0.83-0.97]). Overall survival of unstaged patients suggested a mixture of early and advanced stage, but with a large proportion that are probably stage IV patients with more rapid death than those with reported stage IV disease. Conclusion: In this case study, evaluation of stage-specific health care utilization and outcomes for staged patients with stage IV disease at the population level may have a bias as a distinct subset of stage IV patients with rapid death are likely among those without a documented stage in administrative data.

Therapy for Stage IV Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer With Driver Alterations: ASCO Living Guideline, Version 2023.2.

Living guidelines are developed for selected topic areas with rapidly evolving evidence that drives frequent change in clinical practice. Living guidelines are updated on a regular schedule by a standing expert panel that systematically reviews the health literature on a continuous basis; as described in the ASCO Guidelines Methodology Manual. ASCO Living Guidelines follow the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy Implementation for Clinical Practice Guidelines. Living Guidelines and updates are not intended to substitute for independent professional judgment of the treating provider and do not account for individual variation among patients. See appendix for disclaimers and other important information (Appendix 1 and Appendix 2). Updates are published regularly and can be found at https://ascopubs.org/nsclc-da-living-guideline.

Pembrolizumab Plus Chemotherapy in Squamous Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: 5-Year Update of the Phase III KEYNOTE-407 Study.

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported.We report 5-year efficacy and safety outcomes from the phase III KEYNOTE-407 study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02775435). Eligible patients with previously untreated, metastatic squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) were randomly assigned 1:1 to pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo plus carboplatin and paclitaxel/nab-paclitaxel once every 3 weeks for four cycles, followed by pembrolizumab or placebo for up to 35 cycles. Primary end points were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) per RECIST version 1.1 by blinded independent central review (BICR). Five hundred fifty-nine patients were randomly assigned in the intention-to-treat population (pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy, n = 278; placebo plus chemotherapy, n = 281). The median time from random assignment to data cutoff was 56.9 (range, 49.9-66.2) months. OS and PFS were improved with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus placebo plus chemotherapy (hazard ratio [95% CI], 0.71 [0.59 to 0.85] and 0.62 [0.52 to 0.74]), with 5-year OS rates of 18.4% versus 9.7%, respectively. Toxicity was manageable. Among 55 patients who completed 35 cycles of pembrolizumab, the objective response rate was 90.9% and the 3-year OS rate after completion of 35 cycles (approximately 5 years after random assignment) was 69.5%. Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy maintained an OS and PFS benefit versus placebo plus chemotherapy in previously untreated, metastatic squamous NSCLC and is a standard-of-care first-line treatment option for metastatic squamous NSCLC regardless of programmed death ligand 1 expression.

Therapy for Stage IV Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Without Driver Alterations: ASCO Living Guideline, Version 2022.2.

Living guidelines are developed for selected topic areas with rapidly evolving evidence that drives frequent change in recommended clinical practice. Living guidelines are updated on a regular schedule by a standing expert panel that systematically reviews the health literature on a continuous basis, as described in the ASCO Guidelines Methodology Manual. ASCO Living Guidelines follow the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy Implementation for Clinical Practice Guidelines. Living Guidelines and updates are not intended to substitute for independent professional judgment of the treating provider and do not account for individual variation among patients. See Appendix 1 (online only) for disclaimers and other important information. Updates are published regularly and can be found at https://ascopubs.org/nsclc-non-da-living-guideline.

Therapy for Stage IV Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer With Driver Alterations: ASCO Living Guideline, Version 2022.2.

Living guidelines are developed for selected topic areas with rapidly evolving evidence that drives frequent change in recommended clinical practice. Living guidelines are updated on a regular schedule by a standing expert panel that systematically reviews the health literature on a continuous basis, as described in the ASCO Guidelines Methodology Manual. ASCO Living Guidelines follow the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy Implementation for Clinical Practice Guidelines. Living Guidelines and updates are not intended to substitute for independent professional judgment of the treating provider and do not account for individual variation among patients. See Appendix 1 (online only) for disclaimers and other important information. Updates are published regularly and can be found at https://ascopubs.org/nsclc-da-living-guideline.

Use of imaging for active surveillance in testicular cancer: Is real-world practice concordant with guidelines?

INTRODUCTION: Imaging is an integral component of active surveillance (AS) following orchiectomy for stage 1 non-seminoma (NSGCT) and seminoma germ cell tumors. In this population-based study, we describe use of imaging among patients with early-stage testicular cancer and evaluate whether they are concordant with guideline recommendations. METHODS: This is a population-based, retrospective cohort study to describe use of imaging among all patients with early-stage testicular cancer treated with AS in the Canadian province of Ontario. The Ontario Cancer Registry was linked to electronic records of treatment to identify use of chest and abdomen/pelvis imaging. Data from 2000-2010 were included, with followup for up to five years for patients with non-seminoma and 10 years for patients with seminoma. The key outcome of interest was the frequency of imaging at temporal milestones following orchiectomy. Compared to the most contemporaneous guidelines in Ontario, any discordant frequency of imaging was defined as underuse or overuse. Substantial under- or overuse was defined as >1 imaging test less/ more than what was recommended during a 12-month period. RESULTS: The study population included 569 patients with NSGCT (median age 28) and 1107 with seminoma (median age 37). Among patients with NSGCT, adherence with body imaging was low in years 1-3 of surveillance (range 26-37%, predominantly underuse) and higher in years 4-5 (63-67%, predominantly overuse). Adherence with chest imaging was even lower (range 11-34% during years 1-5). Among patients with seminoma, adherence with abdominal and chest imaging was relatively stable and comparable throughout the 10-year followup period (range 23-47% abdomen and 28-47% chest). Multivariable analysis confirmed that underuse of imaging was more common in recent years. NSGCT histology was associated with underuse in years 1-2 but overse in years 3-5. CONCLUSIONS: In routine clinical practice, patients with testicular cancer commonly receive imaging discordant to the protocol for AS, with a substantial proportion receiving both under- and overuse at various times during surveillance followup.

Therapy for Stage IV Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer With Driver Alterations: ASCO Living Guideline.

PURPOSE: To provide evidence-based recommendations updating the 2021 ASCO and Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario) guideline on systemic therapy for patients with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with driver alterations. METHODS: ASCO updated recommendations on the basis of an ongoing systematic review of randomized control trials from 2020 to 2021. RESULTS: This guideline update reflects changes in evidence since the previous update. Two studies provide the evidence base. Outcomes of interest include efficacy and safety. RECOMMENDATIONS: For patients with an anaplastic lymphoma kinase rearrangement, a performance status (PS) of 0-2, and previously untreated NSCLC, clinicians should offer alectinib or brigatinib or lorlatinib. For patients with an anaplastic lymphoma kinase rearrangement, a PS of 0-2, and previously untreated NSCLC, if alectinib, brigatinib, or lorlatinib are not available, clinicians should offer ceritinib or crizotinib. For patients with a RET rearrangement, a PS of 0-2, and previously untreated NSCLC, clinicians may offer selpercatinib or pralsetinib. In second line, for patients with a RET rearrangement who have not received RET-targeted therapy, clinicians may offer selpercatinib or pralsetinib.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/thoracic-cancer-guidelines.

Therapy for Stage IV Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Without Driver Alterations: ASCO Living Guideline.

PURPOSE: To provide evidence-based recommendations updating the 2020 ASCO and Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario) guideline on systemic therapy for patients with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer without driver alterations. METHODS: ASCO updated recommendations on the basis of an ongoing systematic review of randomized clinical trials from 2018 to 2021. RESULTS: This guideline update reflects changes in evidence since the previous update. Five randomized clinical trials provide the evidence base. Outcomes of interest include efficacy and safety. RECOMMENDATIONS: In addition to 2020 options for patients with high programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression (tumor proportion score [TPS] ≥ 50%), nonsquamous cell carcinoma (non-SCC), and performance status (PS) 0-1, clinicians may offer single-agent atezolizumab. With high PD-L1 expression (TPS ≥ 50%), non-SCC, and PS 0-1, clinicians may offer nivolumab and ipilumumab alone or nivolumab and ipilimumab plus chemotherapy. With negative (0%) and low positive PD-L1 expression (TPS 1%-49%), non-SCC, and PS 0-1, clinicians may offer nivolumab and ipilimumab alone or nivolumab and ipilimumab plus chemotherapy. With high PD-L1 expression, SCC, and PS 0-1, clinicians may offer single-agent atezolizumab. With high PD-L1 expression, squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), and PS 0-1, clinicians may offer nivolumab and ipilimumab alone or in combination with two cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy. With negative and low positive PD-L1 expression, SCC, and PS 0-1, clinicians may offer nivolumab and ipilimumab alone or in combination with two cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy. With non-SCC who received an immune checkpoint inhibitor and chemotherapy as first-line therapy, clinicians may offer second-line paclitaxel plus bevacizumab. With non-SCC, who received chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab and immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy, clinicians should offer the options of third-line single-agent pemetrexed, docetaxel, or paclitaxel plus bevacizumab.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/thoracic-cancer-guidelines.

Treatment and Patient Selection for Patients with Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate After Progression on Docetaxel and Abiraterone/Enzalutamide: When to Play Your CARD and When to Do Your PARP.

For patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) progressing after an androgen receptor axis-targeted therapy and docetaxel, poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors and chemotherapy with cabazitaxel have shown promise. We address the trials for the two approaches and consider possible sequencing of these drugs. We suggest that only patients with a BRCA2 mutation should receive a PARP inhibitor, and docetaxel or cabazitaxel should be favored in the absence of BRCA2 alterations, provided the patient is naïve to these drugs.

Patient perspectives of value of delayed disease progression on imaging (imaging PFS). A treatment trade-off experiment.

BACKGROUND: Progression-free survival (PFS) is often used as a clinical trials outcome for evaluating new therapies for solid tumors. While PFS is a validated surrogate for overall survival (OS) or quality of life (QOL) in some settings, it is increasingly used in contexts where surrogacy is not established. PFS is a composite endpoint of survival, symptomatic progression, and imaging-only progression. The intrinsic value of asymptomatic (imaging-only) progression from the patient perspective is not known. METHODS: Patients with advanced metastatic cancer (lung, colorectal, or ovarian) participated in a discrete choice experiment, with a structured treatment choice trade-off exercise. The interview guide and visual aids were developed by a multidisciplinary team including patient representatives. Participants were provided with a hypothetical clinical scenario and treatment options resulting in the same OS duration. A sliding scale was used for duration of delay in imaging progression to determine each patient's willingness to trade longer time for a given level of toxicity. RESULTS: 20 (11 M, 9 F) patients participated. 85 % (n = 17) of patients chose treatment with less toxicity and shorter duration even if associated with a shorter time to worsening imaging. Two patients chose a trade-off for a more toxic treatment with an increase in imaging PFS by 18 months and 24 months respectively. One patient chose to always opt for most aggressive treatment irrespective of PFS benefit and toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients with metastatic cancer currently being treated with palliative chemotherapy considered delayed imaging progression in the absence of OS gain to be of low value. POLICY STATEMENT: PFS should not be assumed to have intrinsic value to patients in the absence of surrogacy for OS or QOL when making drug treatment and policy decisions.

A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Dual Therapy in Patients With Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma of Favourable Risk.

OBJECTIVE: To define the impact of first-line dual therapy involving immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) on survival outcomes in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) of International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium favourable-risk. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Systematic review of Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials were conducted to select all phase II/III randomized clinical trials involving first-line, palliative-intent dual therapy in aRCC patients of favourable-risk. Inverse-variance with random-effects model was used for meta-analysis. Sensitivity analysis with exclusion of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI)-ICI combination was conducted. Study outcomes were overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS). RESULTS: Seven phase II/III randomized controlled trials (N = 1214) were included in the meta-analysis. There were no significant OS differences detected in the favourable-risk group on dual therapy in comparison to sunitinib monotherapy (HR 0.96, 95%CI 0.73-1.26, P = .79). Sensitivity analysis also did not show significant OS benefit when excluding ICI-ICI regimen (HR 0.99, 95%CI 0.69-1.43, P = .96). PFS was not shown to have significant benefit for dual therapy in the favourable-risk group (HR 0.75, 95%CI 0.50-1.13, P = .17), but it met statistical significance when ICI-ICI regimen was excluded from the analysis (HR 0.63, 95%CI 0.50-0.79, P <.001). CONCLUSION: There was no OS benefit when comparing dual therapy vs sunitinib monotherapy in aRCC favourable-risk group. Longer follow-up would be required to definitively detect potential OS benefit, if any. Careful patient-clinician discussion of alternative management options are required prior to initiating dual-therapy in all aRCC favourable-risk group.

Quality of End-of-Life Care for People with Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in Ontario: A Population-Based Study.

Ensuring high quality end of life (EOL) care is necessary for people with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), given its high incidence, mortality and symptom burden. Aggressive EOL care can adversely affect the quality of life of NSCLC patients without providing meaningful oncologic benefit. OBJECTIVES: (1) To describe EOL health services quality indicators and timing of palliative care consultation provided to patients dying of NSCLC. (2) To examine associations between aggressive and supportive care and patient, disease and treatment characteristics. METHODS: This retrospective population-based cohort study describes those who died of NSCLC in Ontario, Canada from 2009-2017. Socio-demographic, patient, disease and treatment characteristics as well as EOL health service quality and use of palliative care consultation were investigated. Multivariable logistic regression models examined factors associated with receiving aggressive or supportive care. RESULTS: Aggressive care quality indicators were present in 50.3% and supportive care indicators in 60.3% of the cohort (N = 37,203). Aggressive care indicators decreased between 2009 and 2017 (57.4% to 45.3%) and increased for supportive care (54.2% to 67.5%). Benchmarks were not met by 2017 in 3 of 4 cases. Male sex and greater comorbidity were associated with more aggressive EOL care and less supportive care. Older age was negatively associated and rurality positively associated with aggressive care. No palliative care consultation occurred in 56.0%. CONCLUSIONS: While improvements in the use of supportive rather than aggressive care were noted, established Canadian benchmarks were not met. Moreover, there is variation in EOL quality between groups and use of earlier palliative care must improve.

Long-Term Mental Health Service Utilization Among Survivors of Testicular Cancer: A Population-Based Cohort Study.

PURPOSE: Testicular cancer survivors may experience mental illness as a consequence of their cancer diagnosis and treatment. METHODS: All incident cases of testicular cancer treated with orchiectomy in Ontario, Canada (2000-2010), were identified using the Ontario Cancer Registry. Cases were matched to controls in a 1:5 ratio on age and geography. Population-level databases were used to identify mental health service use episodes; outpatient use included visits to a general practitioner for a mental health concern or any visit to a psychiatrist. Negative binomial regression modeling was used to estimate the rate of mental health service use in the pretreatment (2 years prior until 1 month before orchiectomy), peritreatment (1 month before until 1 month after orchiectomy), and post-treatment periods (1 month after orchiectomy until end of follow-up). Rate ratios (RR) comparing cases with controls in the peri- and post-treatment periods were adjusted for baseline mental health service use. RESULTS: Two thousand six hundred nineteen cases of testicular cancer were matched to 13,095 controls. There was no baseline difference in the rate of mental health service use. Cases were significantly more likely than controls to have an outpatient visit for a mental health concern in the peritreatment (adjusted RR [aRR], 2.45; 95% CI, 2.06 to 2.92) and post-treatment periods (aRR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.52). The difference in mental health service use persisted over a median follow-up of 12 years. In the postorchiectomy period, cases with baseline mental health service use were those most likely to use mental health services (aRR, 5.64; 95% CI, 4.64 to 6.85). CONCLUSION: Testicular cancer survivors use mental health services more often than healthy controls. Survivorship care plans that address the long-term mental healthcare needs of this population are needed.

Outcomes With Pembrolizumab Monotherapy in Patients With Programmed Death-Ligand 1-Positive NSCLC With Brain Metastases: Pooled Analysis of KEYNOTE-001, 010, 024, and 042.

INTRODUCTION: We retrospectively evaluated outcomes in patients with programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) to determine whether baseline (i.e., at study enrollment) brain metastases were associated with the efficacy of pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy. METHODS: We pooled data for patients with previously treated or untreated PD-L1‒positive (tumor proportion score [TPS], ≥1%) advanced or metastatic NSCLC in KEYNOTE-001 (NCT01295827), KEYNOTE-010 (NCT01905657), KEYNOTE-024 (NCT02142738), and KEYNOTE-042 (NCT02220894). Patients received pembrolizumab (2 mg/kg, 10 mg/kg, or 200 mg every 3 wk or 10 mg/kg every 2 wk); chemotherapy was a comparator in all studies except KEYNOTE-001. All studies included patients with previously treated, stable brain metastases. RESULTS: A total of 3170 patients were included, 293 (9.2%) with and 2877 (90.8%) without baseline brain metastases; median (range) follow-up at data cutoff was 12.9 (0.1‒43.7) months. Pembrolizumab improved overall survival versus chemotherapy in patients with or without baseline brain metastases: benefit was seen in patients with PD-L1 TPS ≥50% (0.67 [95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.44‒1.02] and 0.66 [95% CI: 0.58‒0.76], respectively) and PD-L1 TPS ≥1% (0.83 [95% CI: 0.62‒1.10] and 0.78 [95% CI: 0.71‒0.85], respectively). Progression-free survival was improved, objective response rates were higher, and duration of response was longer with pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy regardless of brain metastasis status. The incidence of treatment-related adverse events with pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy was 66.3% versus 84.4% in patients with brain metastases and 67.2% versus 88.3% in those without. CONCLUSIONS: Pembrolizumab monotherapy improved outcomes and was associated with fewer adverse events than chemotherapy in patients with treatment-naive and previously treated PD-L1‒positive advanced/metastatic NSCLC regardless of the presence of baseline treated, stable brain metastases.

Five-Year Outcomes With Pembrolizumab Versus Chemotherapy for Metastatic Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer With PD-L1 Tumor Proportion Score ≥ 50.

PURPOSE: We report the first 5-year follow-up of any first-line phase III immunotherapy trial for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). KEYNOTE-024 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02142738) is an open-label, randomized controlled trial of pembrolizumab compared with platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with previously untreated NSCLC with a programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) tumor proportion score of at least 50% and no sensitizing EGFR or ALK alterations. Previous analyses showed pembrolizumab significantly improved progression-free survival and overall survival (OS). METHODS: Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to pembrolizumab (200 mg once every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles) or platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients in the chemotherapy group with progressive disease could cross over to pembrolizumab. The primary end point was progression-free survival; OS was a secondary end point. RESULTS: Three hundred five patients were randomly assigned: 154 to pembrolizumab and 151 to chemotherapy. Median (range) time from randomization to data cutoff (June 1, 2020) was 59.9 (55.1-68.4) months. Among patients initially assigned to chemotherapy, 99 received subsequent anti-PD-1 or PD-L1 therapy, representing a 66.0% effective crossover rate. Median OS was 26.3 months (95% CI, 18.3 to 40.4) for pembrolizumab and 13.4 months (9.4-18.3) for chemotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.81). Kaplan-Meier estimates of the 5-year OS rate were 31.9% for the pembrolizumab group and 16.3% for the chemotherapy group. Thirty-nine patients received 35 cycles (ie, approximately 2 years) of pembrolizumab, 82.1% of whom were still alive at data cutoff (approximately 5 years). Toxicity did not increase with longer treatment exposure. CONCLUSION: Pembrolizumab provides a durable, clinically meaningful long-term OS benefit versus chemotherapy as first-line therapy for metastatic NSCLC with PD-L1 tumor proportion score of at least 50%.