Small Cell Lung Cancer, Version 2.2022, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Small Cell Lung Cancer (SCLC) provide recommended management for patients with SCLC, including diagnosis, primary treatment, surveillance for relapse, and subsequent treatment. This selection for the journal focuses on metastatic (known as extensive-stage) SCLC, which is more common than limited-stage SCLC. Systemic therapy alone can palliate symptoms and prolong survival in most patients with extensive-stage disease. Smoking cessation counseling and intervention should be strongly promoted in patients with SCLC and other high-grade neuroendocrine carcinomas. The "Summary of the Guidelines Updates" section in the SCLC algorithm outlines the most recent revisions for the 2022 update, which are described in greater detail in this revised Discussion text.

A Phase II Trial of Selinexor (KPT-330) for Metastatic Triple-Negative Breast Cancer.

LESSONS LEARNED: Single-agent selinexor has limited activity in heavily pretreated patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer.Selinexor 60 mg by mouth twice weekly was generally well tolerated with a side-effect profile consistent with previous clinical trials.Future studies of selinexor in this population should focus on combination approaches and a biomarker-driven strategy to identify patients most likely to benefit. BACKGROUND: This phase II trial evaluated the safety, pharmacodynamics, and efficacy of selinexor (KPT-330), an oral selective inhibitor of nuclear export (SINE) in patients with advanced triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). METHODS: This phase II trial was designed to enroll 30 patients with metastatic TNBC. Selinexor was given at 60 mg orally twice weekly on days 1 and 3 of each week, three of each 4-week cycle. The primary objective of this study was to determine the clinical benefit rate (CBR), defined as complete response + partial response + stable disease (SD) ≥12 weeks. RESULTS: Ten patients with a median age of 60 years (range 44-71 years) were enrolled between July 2015 and January 2016. The median number of prior chemotherapy lines was 2 (range 1-5). A planned interim analysis for the first stage per protocol was performed. Three patients had SD and seven had progressive disease. On the basis of these results and predefined stoppage rules, the study was halted. CONCLUSION: Selinexor was fairly well tolerated in patients with advanced TNBC but did not result in objective responses. However, clinical benefit rate was 30%, and further investigation of selinexor in this patient population should focus on combination therapies.

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Early-Stage and Locally Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

OPINION STATEMENT: Surgical resection ± chemotherapy ± radiation or stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) are established treatment modalities for resectable stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and concurrent chemotherapy with radiation is the therapy of choice for unresectable locally advanced disease. Despite treatment with curative intent, most patients subsequently relapse and develop distant disease. Treatment with checkpoint inhibitors represents a major advancement in the treatment of metastatic NSCLC. Therapy against programed cell death-1/programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-1/PD-L1) is associated with a significant improvement in overall survival in stage IV disease, and these results have led to a great interest in evaluating these agents in earlier-stage NSCLC. The preliminary data from ongoing trials suggest that the integration of checkpoint blockage into the treatment of early-stage and locally advanced NSCLC is safe, tolerable, and has the potential to improve outcomes without adding substantial toxicity. In the current review, we provide an overview of the emerging data on the role of PD-1/PD-L1 and cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) inhibitors in the treatment of early-stage and locally advanced NSCLC, with a focus on ongoing clinical trials and combination strategies.

Treatment of the Pregnant Patient with Breast Cancer.

Pregnancy-associated breast cancer is defined as invasive breast cancer diagnosed during gestation, within 1 year postpartum, or during lactation. Of particular interest is the treatment of invasive breast cancer during gestation; standard treatment protocols must take into account the health of the fetus. This article reviews the literature and emerging data regarding the treatment of pregnancy-associated breast cancer. Existing staging and treatment practices need slight modification in the setting of pregnancy. The timing of surgery and the administration of cytotoxic chemotherapy must take into account age of gestation, but these modalities are safe in pregnancy.

Reduced-intensity allogeneic transplantation using alemtuzumab from HLA-matched related, unrelated, or haploidentical related donors for patients with hematologic malignancies.

We present a comparative study on 124 patients with hematologic malignancies who had undergone reduced-intensity conditioning and then received a transplant from an HLA-matched related (MRD), an HLA-matched unrelated (MUD), or an HLA-haploidentical related (HAPLO) donor. The conditioning regimen, which consisted of fludarabine, melphalan or busulfan, and alemtuzumab was administered to patients with lymphoid (n = 62) or myeloid disease (n = 62). Mycophenolate mofetil was used as prophylaxis for graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), and 38, 58, and 33 patients received transplants from MRD, MUD, and HAPLO donors, respectively. Only 2 patients experienced primary graft failure (GF) after melphalan-based regimen, whereas 8 of the 17 patients who received a transplant from HAPLO donors experienced a primary GF after busulfan-based regimen. The cumulative incidence of grade III to IV acute GVHD in engrafted patients who had received transplants from MRD, MUD, or HAPLO donors was 3%, 11%, and 27%, respectively, and the 2-year overall survival (OS) rates were 51%, 22%, and 23%, respectively. According to multivariate analysis, transplantation from either MUD or HAPLO donors compared with MRD were adverse factors that affected the OS (P = .006 and P = .002, respectively). In conclusion, the reduced-intensity regimen that included fludarabine, busulfan, or melphalan and alemtuzumab using only mycophenolate mofetil as the GVHD prophylaxis conferred favorable outcomes in the MRD group but lower survival rates in the MUD and HAPLO groups. The busulfan-based regimen led to a high incidence of GF in the HAPLO group, suggesting the need for modification or intensification of immunosuppression.

Safety Monitoring Activity During EGFR or Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase Inhibitor Therapy for Patients With Lung Cancer.

Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) are highly effective for treatment of EGFR- or ALK-mutated lung cancer. Nevertheless, they are associated with several unique toxicities. Although the available US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved drug label can provide guidance for safety monitoring, its integration into clinical practice has not been previously described. We studied the conduct of safety monitoring activity (SMA) at a large academic institution. On the basis of FDA-approved drug labels, two drug-specific SMAs were identified for osimertinib, crizotinib, alectinib, or lorlatinib. Electronic medical records of patients initiated on these drugs from 2017 to 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. Each course of treatment was evaluated for the occurrence of SMAs and the corresponding adverse events. Analyses included 130 treatment courses from 111 unique patients. For each SMA evaluated, the prevalence of SMA conduct ranged from 10.0% to 84.6%. The most frequently conducted SMA was ECG for lorlatinib therapy and the least was creatine phosphokinase analysis for alectinib. We observed none of the assessed SMAs being conducted in 41 treatment courses (31.5%). EGFR inhibitor predicted a higher likelihood of both SMAs being conducted than ALK inhibitors (P = .02). Serious, grade 3 or 4 adverse events were observed in 21 treatment courses (16.2%), including one grade 4 transaminitis related to alectinib. On the basis of our experience, the conduct of SMA was more challenging to implement for ALK inhibitor than for EGFR inhibitor. Clinicians should be vigilant and review the FDA-approved drug label before prescribing.

Enhanced Efficacy of Chemotherapy by Addition of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Stage IV Large Cell Neuroendocrine Carcinoma of the Lung: A Real-World Analysis.

Background: Large Cell Neuroendocrine Carcinoma (LCNEC) is a high-grade malignancy with limited treatment options. Despite promising results of immunotherapy in non-small cell and small cell lung cancers, its benefit in LCNEC remains elusive. Methods: We included 24 patients diagnosed with stage IV LCNEC from the Moffitt Cancer Center database who received systemic therapy between January 2016 and May 2021. Group A comprised patients who received first-line CT and ICI (anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 therapy for ICI, n = 11), and Group B received first-line CT only (n = 13). The collected data encompassed overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and toxicities since treatment initiation. Results: Kaplan-Meier survival analysis revealed median OS was 56 weeks (95%CI = 22.2-89.8) and 28 weeks (95% CI=16.3-39.7) in groups A and B, respectively. Log-rank test showed the difference was statistically significant (p=0.029). Median PFS was 32 weeks (95%CI=14.7-49.3) in group A and 20 weeks (95% CI=13.8-26.2) in groups B, but the difference was not statistically significant (p= 0.136). Univariate Cox analysis confirmed that the addition of ICI to CT significantly improved OS in patients with stage IV LCNEC (HR=0.35, 95% CI=0.13-0.95, p = 0.039). The ORR (63.6% vs 45.4%, p= 0.670) and DCR (81.8% vs 63.6%, p= 0.635) tended to be higher in group A than in group B but the difference was not statistically significant. Importantly, the combined treatment demonstrated a satisfactory safety profile, with only two patients reporting grade 2 or higher adverse events. Conclusions: Our results suggest that the combination of immunotherapy with chemotherapy holds potential for improving outcomes in stage IV LCNEC. Despite the retrospective nature and limited sample size of our study, these preliminary findings provide a valuable insight into the potential of immunotherapy in LCNEC treatment and encourage further research through larger, prospective trials.

A phase I/IB trial of binimetinib in combination with erlotinib in NSCLC harboring activating KRAS or EGFR mutations.

BACKGROUND: Activating mutations in EGFR or KRAS are highly prevalent in NSCLC, share activation of the MAPK pathway and may be amenable to combination therapy to prevent negative feedback activation. METHODS: In this phase 1/1B trial, we tested the combination of binimetinib and erlotinib in patients with advanced NSCLC with at least 1 prior line of treatment (unless with activating EGFR mutation which could be treatment-naïve). A subsequent phase 1B expansion accrued patients with either EGFR- or KRAS-mutation using the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) from Phase 1. The primary objective was to evaluate the safety of binimetinib plus erlotinib and establish the RP2D. RESULTS: 43 patients enrolled (dose-escalation = 23; expansion = 20). 17 harbored EGFR mutation and 22 had KRAS mutation. The RP2D was erlotinib 100 mg daily and binimetinib 15 mg BID × 5 days/week. Common AEs across all doses included diarrhea (69.8%), rash (44.2%), fatigue (32.6%), and nausea (32.6%), and were primarily grade 1/2. Among KRAS mutant patients, 1 (5%) had confirmed partial response and 8 (36%) achieved stable disease as best overall response. Among EGFR mutant patients, 9 were TKI-naïve with 8 (89%) having partial response, and 8 were TKI-pretreated with no partial responses and 1 (13%) stable disease as best overall response. CONCLUSIONS: Binimetinib plus erlotinib demonstrated a manageable safety profile and modest efficacy including one confirmed objective response in a KRAS mutant patient. While clinical utility of this specific combination was limited, these results support development of combinations using novel small molecule inhibitors of RAS, selective EGFR- and other MAPK pathway inhibitors, many of which have improved therapeutic indices. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01859026.

Osimertinib vs. afatinib as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer with an EGFR exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R mutation.

Background: The optimal treatment sequencing for patients with metastatic epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutant non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) remains a subject of debate. In the United States, osimertinib is the preferred EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) in the first-line setting. However, small retrospective studies suggest that alternative EGFR TKI sequencing strategies may produce similar outcomes. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of patients with metastatic NSCLC harboring an EGFR exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R mutation treated with osimertinib vs. afatinib as first-line therapy. Methods: This retrospective, single-institution study examined 86 patients with metastatic EGFR-mutant NSCLC treated with either afatinib (n=15) or osimertinib (n=71) in the first-line setting. The primary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS), and secondary endpoints included time on EGFR TKI, overall survival (OS), and the incidence of adverse events (AEs). Results: There was no difference in the PFS (median: 27.9 vs. 29.0 months, P=0.75), OS (P=0.18), and the median time on first-line EGFR TKI (23.9 vs. 15.2 months, P=0.10) between the afatinib and osimertinib groups, respectively. The number of AEs was also similar between the two treatment groups (P=0.17). Conclusions: In this real-world retrospective study, there were no differences in PFS or OS between patients treated with afatinib or osimertinib in the first-line setting. These findings should be further investigated in larger prospective studies.

Dose-Limiting Pulmonary Toxicity in a Phase 1/2 Study of Radiation and Chemotherapy with Ipilimumab Followed by Nivolumab for Patients With Stage 3 Unresectable Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: We hypothesized that concurrent ipilimumab with chemoradiationtherapy (chemoRT) followed by maintenance nivolumab would be safe for patients with unresectable stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We aimed to assess the safety (phase 1) and the 12-month progression-free survival (PFS) (phase 2) in a multi-institution prospective trial. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Eligible patients had unresectable stage III NSCLC. The treatment included platinum doublet chemotherapy with concurrent thoracic radiation therapy to 60 Gy in 30 fractions and ipilimumab (1 mg/kg) delivered during weeks 1 and 4. After chemoRT, maintenance nivolumab (480 mg) was given every 4 weeks for up to 12 cycles. Adverse events (AEs) were assessed according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 5.0. Survival analyses were performed with Kaplan Meier (KM) methods and log-rank tests. RESULTS: The trial was discontinued early after enrolling 19 patients without proceeding to the phase 2 component because of unacceptable toxicity. Sixteen patients (84%) had grade ≥3 (G3+) possible treatment-related toxicity, most commonly pulmonary AEs (n = 8, 42%). Fourteen patients (74%) discontinued study therapy early because of AEs (n = 12, 63%) or patient choice (n = 2, 11%). Eleven patients (58%) experienced G2+ pulmonary toxicity with median time to onset 4.1 months (95% CI 2.6-not reached [NR]), and 12-month freedom from G2+ pulmonary toxicity 37% (95% CI, 16-59). Five patients had G5 AEs, including 3 with G5 pulmonary AEs (1 respiratory failure with pneumonitis and pulmonary embolism, 1 pneumonia/chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbation, 1 pulmonary fibrosis). Despite toxicities, the median PFS was 19.2 months (95% CI 6.1-NR) and the median overall survival was NR (95% CI 6.1-NR) with median follow-up of 30.1 months by the reverse KM method. CONCLUSIONS: Concurrent ipilimumab with chemoRT for unresectable stage III NSCLC is associated with pulmonary toxicity that may limit opportunities for improved outcomes. Future studies aiming to incorporate ipilimumab or other anti-CTLA4 therapies into management of unresectable stage III NSCLC should consider careful measures to minimize toxicity risk.

Rapid Improvement Following Receipt of Infliximab in Steroid-refractory Durvalumab-Associated Grade 3 Pneumonitis.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are important novel agents used in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) standard regimens; however, their use increases the risk of immune-related adverse effects (IRAEs). The incidence of IRAE pneumonitis is well documented in ICI use. Corticosteroids continue to be the mainstay of treatment for IRAEs. Here we report one of the first cases of using infliximab to treat durvalumab-associated pneumonitis.

A Phase Ib/II Study of Pepinemab in Combination with Avelumab in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: The CLASSICAL-Lung clinical trial tested the combination of pepinemab, an IgG4 humanized mAb targeting semaphorin 4D, with the PD-L1 inhibitor avelumab to assess the effects of coupling increased T-cell infiltration and reversal of immune suppression via pepinemab with sustained T-cell activation via checkpoint inhibition. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This phase Ib/II, single-arm study was designed to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of pepinemab in combination with avelumab in 62 patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), including immunotherapy-naïve (ION) patients and patients whose tumors progressed following anti-PD-1/L1 monotherapy (IOF). The main objectives were to evaluate safety/tolerability, establish a recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D), obtain a preliminary evaluation of antitumor activity, and investigate candidate biomarker activity. RESULTS: The combination was well tolerated with no major safety signals identified. Pepinemab, 10 mg/kg with avelumab, 10 mg/kg, every 2 weeks, was selected as the RP2D. Among 21 evaluable ION patients, 5 patients experienced partial responses (PR), 4 patients evidenced clinical benefit ≥1 year, and the disease control rate (DCR) was 81%. Notably, overall response rate with the combination therapy was higher than previously reported for single-agent avelumab in the PD-L1-negative/low population. Among 29 evaluable IOF patients, the combination resulted in a DCR of 59%, including 2 PR and 7 patients with durable clinical benefit of ≥23 weeks. Biomarker analysis of biopsies demonstrated increased CD8 T-cell density correlating with RECIST response criteria. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of pepinemab with avelumab was well tolerated in NSCLC and showed signs of antitumor activity in immunotherapy-resistant and PD-L1-negative/low tumors.

Prospective Single-Arm Phase 1 and 2 Study: Ipilimumab and Nivolumab With Thoracic Radiation Therapy After Platinum Chemotherapy in Extensive-Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: Consolidative thoracic radiation therapy (TRT) has been shown to improve outcomes for patients with extensive stage small cell lung cancer. We hypothesized that the addition of ipilimumab (IPI) and nivolumab (NIVO) after TRT would improve outcomes for patients with extensive stage small cell lung cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Eligibility required stable disease or better after platinum doublet chemotherapy. Study therapy included consolidative TRT to 30 Gy in 10 fractions, targeting residual primary tumor and initially involved regional lymph nodes. Two weeks after TRT, patients received concurrent IPI (3 mg/kg) and NIVO (1 mg/kg) every 3 weeks for 4 doses followed by NIVO monotherapy (480 mg) every 4 weeks until progression or up to 1 year. RESULTS: The study enrolled 21 patients, with 6-month progression-free survival (PFS) of 24% (90% confidence interval [CI], 11%-40%) and a median PFS of 4.5 months (95% CI, 2.7%-4.6%). The 12-month overall survival (OS) was 48% (95% CI, 29%-64%) with a median OS of 11.7 months (95% CI, 4.7%-16.0%). Fifty-two percent of patients had ≥1 possibly related grade 3 to 4 immune-related adverse event. Grade 3 pulmonary and gastrointestinal immune-related adverse events were recorded in 19% and 24% of patients, respectively. Exploratory analysis showed increased cytotoxic T cell (CD3+CD8+) tumor infiltration was associated with favorable PFS (P = .01) and OS (P = .02). Reduction in peripheral blood CD3+CD8+ from baseline to after first dose of IPI/NIVO was associated with improved PFS (P = .02) and OS (P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: Consolidative IPI and NIVO after platinum-based chemotherapy and TRT demonstrated a toxicity profile consistent with the known adverse events attributable to IPI and NIVO. Although the study regimen did not significantly improve PFS, the OS was higher than historic expectations. CD3+CD8+ tumor infiltration and migration may identify patients most likely to have improved outcomes in small cell lung cancer.

Combination checkpoint inhibitors for treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer: an update on dual anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapies.

Immunotherapy has revolutionized cancer treatment. In non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), monotherapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors has improved survival in metastatic disease. Combinations of immune checkpoint inhibitors have shown synergy in preclinical models and are being studied as part of the treatment armamentarium in NSCLC. This review discusses the rationale, outcomes, and challenges of combination immune checkpoint blockade. Despite the challenges, this paper also presents some solutions and ways to improve our understanding and implementation of such combinations in the future.

Update on the Biology, Management, and Treatment of Small Cell Lung Cancer (SCLC).

Small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) accounts for 13-15% of all new lung cancer cases in the US. The tumor has a tendency to disseminate early resulting in 80-85% of patients being diagnosed with extensive disease (ES-SCLC). Chemotherapy has provided SCLC patients considerable survival benefits over the past three decades. Nonetheless, most patients relapse and rarely survive beyond 2 years. Despite consistent overall response rates of ≥50%, until recently, median survival times and 2-year survivals only ranged between 7-10 months and 10-20%, respectively. Several chemotherapy agents possess activity against SCLC, both, as single agents and in combinations but etoposide-platinum emerged as the preferred first line regimen. Upon relapse, many patients remain candidates for additional therapy. However, the sensitivity of relapsed SCLC to further therapies is markedly reduced and dependent upon the level and duration of response to the initial treatment (platinum-sensitive vs. resistant relapse). Multiple factors suggest a therapeutic role for immunotherapy in SCLC: SCLC has been associated with immune-mediated paraneoplastic processes (cerebellar degeneration, limbic encephalitis, and Lambert-Eaton syndrome) and patients presenting with these paraneoplastic syndromes have shown more favorable outcomes, suggesting an underlying immune response mechanism.Comprehensive genomic profiling of SCLC indicates that the majority lack functional p53 (90%) and Rb1 (65%). These universal genetic aberrations facilitate poor genomic stability, thus perpetuating the generation of tumor associated antigens, amenable to targeting with immunotherapy.SCLC has one of the highest mutational loads, likely a reflection of the myriad of insults inflicted by smoking-related carcinogens. The relationship between tumor mutational load and response to immune checkpoint inhibitors has been established in multiple solid tumors, including preliminary results in relapsed SCLC. In this manuscript, we review the early (some failed and discontinued, some partly successful, and still ongoing) attempts to incorporate immunotherapy (particularly vaccine based approaches) to the treatment of SCLC, and the latest attempts (mostly incorporating the use of checkpoint inhibitors), including those with favorable but preliminary results (CheckMate 032, Keynote 028 and 158), and those with more definitive positive (iMpower 133 and CASPIAN) and negative (CheckMate 331 and 451) results.

Immunotherapy alone or chemo-immunotherapy as front-line treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Immunotherapy, either as monotherapy or in combination with chemotherapy, has demonstrated superior efficacy to chemotherapy alone in the frontline setting. To date, there has been no randomized study comparing immunotherapy alone with chemo-immunotherapy. AREAS COVERED: This paper reviews the immunobiological rationale for combining chemotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors as well as the data from recent phase-3 studies to understand the risks and benefits associated with either therapeutic approach for diverse patient populations. EXPERT OPINION: Frontline pembrolizumab monotherapy remains the treatment of choice for patients with high PD-L1 expression. For those with low PD-L1 expression, pembrolizumab in combination with chemotherapy can be considered.

Phase I/Ib Study of Pembrolizumab Plus Vorinostat in Advanced/Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: Histone deacetylase inhibitors (HDACi) enhance tumor immunogenicity through several mechanisms and may improve response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). In a phase I/Ib trial, we tested the oral HDACi vorinostat combined with the programmed cell death protein 1 inhibitor pembrolizumab in advanced/metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients received intravenous pembrolizumab (200 mg every 3 weeks) plus oral vorinostat (200 or 400 mg/day). Primary endpoint was safety/tolerability. Secondary endpoints included response rate, progression-free survival, disease control rate (DCR), and overall survival. Tumor gene expression changes, T-cell density, and myeloid cell levels were studied in serial tissue specimens. RESULTS: Thirty-three patients were treated (13 in phase I, 20 in phase Ib). In phase I, both ICI-naïve and ICI-pretreated patients were enrolled to determine dose-limiting toxicities (DLT). No DLTs were observed, and the recommended phase I dose was pembrolizumab 200 mg and vorinostat 400 mg. Any-grade adverse events were mainly fatigue (33%) and nausea/vomiting (27%). Of six ICI-naïve and 24 ICI-pretreated patients evaluable for response, four (13%) had partial response [two confirmed, one unconfirmed with subsequent prolonged stable disease (SD), one unconfirmed with subsequent progressive disease (PD)], 16 (53%) had SD, and 10 (33%) had PD for a DCR of 67%. In the ICI-pretreated cohort, three patients (one confirmed, two unconfirmed) had partial response and 10 had SD. Pretreatment CD8+ T-cell presence in tumor stromal regions was associated with treatment benefit. CONCLUSIONS: Pembrolizumab plus vorinostat was well tolerated and demonstrated preliminary antitumor activity despite progression on prior ICI treatment.

Durvalumab: a potential maintenance therapy in surgery-ineligible non-small-cell lung cancer.

Lung cancer is the most common cancer worldwide and the most common cause of cancer-related death. Non-small-cell lung cancer comprises ~87% of newly diagnosed cases of lung cancer, and nearly one-third of these patients have stage III disease. Despite improvements in the treatment of stage IV lung cancer, particularly with the introduction and dissemination of checkpoint inhibitors, very little progress has been made in the treatment of stage III lung cancer. In this article, we discuss the general staging criteria and treatment options for stage III lung cancer. We review how concurrent radiation and chemotherapy can have immunomodulatory effects, supporting the rationale for incorporating immunotherapy into existing treatment paradigms. Finally, we discuss the results of the PACIFIC trial and implications for the treatment of stage III lung cancer. In the PACIFIC trial, adding durvalumab as a maintenance therapy following the completion of chemoradiotherapy improved progression-free survival in patients with locally advanced unresectable stage III lung cancer. On the strength of these results, durvalumab has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for use in this setting, representing the first advance in the treatment of stage III lung cancer in nearly a decade.

Infectious complications in living-donor kidney transplant recipients undergoing multi-modal desensitization.

BACKGROUND: Pre-existing humoral barriers challenge the transplantation of living donor kidneys (LDK) into highly sensitized ABO- and human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-incompatible recipients. Conditioning these LDK recipients' immune systems is required before they undergo transplantation. We hypothesized that medical desensitization would yield higher post-transplantation rates of infection. METHODS: We conducted a study in which matched controls consisting of non-desensitized (NDS) LDK recipients were compared with desensitized (DS) receipients. Pre-transplantation desensitization included treatment with rituximab and mycophenolate mofetil followed by intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) and plasmapheresis. All participants in the study underwent induction therapy and maintenance immunosuppression. Primary outcomes included infection (opportunistic, local, systemic) within 12 mo after transplantation. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients underwent desensitization and LDK transplantation. Graft survival in the DS and NDS groups of patients was 96% and 98%, respectively. The mean 3- and 12-mo serum creatinine concentrations in the DS and NDS groups were 1.1±0.2 mg/dL and 1.2±0.3 mg/dL and 0.95±0.4 mg/dL and 0.73±0.8 mg/dL (p=0.3 and p=0.01), respectively. Thirty-six percent of the patients in the DS group had one or more infections, vs. 28% of those in the NDS group (p=0.1). No difference was observed in the frequency of opportunistic or systemic infections in the two groups. Local infections were statistically significantly more frequent in the DS group (60% vs. 30%, respectively; p=0.02). CONCLUSION: Pre-operative desensitization in highly sensitized LDK recipients is followed by a similar incidence of opportunistic and systemic infections as in NDS patients. Local infections were significantly more frequent in the DS than in the NDS patients in the study. With careful monitoring of infectious complications, pre-transplant desensitization permits LDK transplantation into highly sensitized patients.