SAPPHIRE: phase III study of sitravatinib plus nivolumab versus docetaxel in advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Checkpoint inhibitor (CPI) therapy revolutionized treatment for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC); however, most patients progress due to primary or acquired resistance. Sitravatinib is a receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor that can shift the immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment toward an immunostimulatory state. Combining sitravatinib with nivolumab (sitra + nivo) may potentially overcome initial CPI resistance. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In the phase III SAPPHIRE study, patients with advanced non-oncogenic driven, nonsquamous NSCLC who initially benefited from (≥4 months on CPI without progression) and subsequently experienced disease progression on or after CPI combined with or following platinum-based chemotherapy were randomized 1 : 1 to sitra (100 mg once daily administered orally) + nivo (240 mg every 2 weeks or 480 mg every 4 weeks administered intravenously) or docetaxel (75 mg/m2 every 3 weeks administered intravenously). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). The secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), clinical benefit rate (CBR), duration of response (DOR; all assessed by blinded independent central review), and safety. RESULTS: A total of 577 patients included randomized: sitra + nivo, n = 284; docetaxel, n = 293 (median follow-up, 17.1 months). Sitra + nivo did not significantly improve OS versus docetaxel [median, 12.2 versus 10.6 months; hazard ratio (HR) 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70-1.05; P = 0.144]. The median PFS was 4.4 versus 5.4 months, respectively (HR 1.08, 95% CI 0.89-1.32; P = 0.452). The ORR was 15.6% for sitra + nivo and 17.2% for docetaxel (P = 0.597); CBR was 75.5% and 64.5%, respectively (P = 0.004); median DOR was 7.4 versus 7.1 months, respectively (P = 0.924). Grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events were observed in 53.0% versus 66.7% of patients receiving sitra + nivo versus docetaxel, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Although median OS was numerically longer with sitra + nivo, the primary endpoint was not met in patients with previously treated advanced nonsquamous NSCLC. The safety profiles demonstrated were consistent with previous reports.

Single-cell DNA-seq depicts clonal evolution of multiple driver alterations in osimertinib-resistant patients.

BACKGROUND: The development of targeted agents, such as osimertinib for EGFR-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), has drastically improved patient outcome, but tumor resistance eventually always occurs. In osimertinib-resistant NSCLC, the emergence of a second molecular driver alteration (such as ALK, RET, FGFR3 fusions or BRAF, KRAS mutations) has been described. Whether those alterations and the activating EGFR mutations occur within a single cancer cell or in distinct cell populations is largely debated. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Tumor sequencing was used to identify the acquired resistance mechanisms to osimertinib in the MATCH-R trial (NCT0251782). We implemented single-cell next-generation sequencing to investigate tumor heterogeneity on patient's frozen tissues in which multiple alterations have been identified. Patient-derived models, cell lines, and patient-derived xenografts were exposed to specific inhibitors to investigate combination treatment strategies. RESULTS: Among the 45 patients included in MATCH-R who progressed on osimertinib, 9 developed a second targetable alteration (n = 2 FGFR3-TACC3, n = 1 KIF5B-RET, n = 1 STRN-ALK fusions; n = 2 BRAFV600E, n = 1 KRASG12V, n = 1 KRASG12R, n = 1 KRASG12D mutations). Single-cell analysis revealed that the two driver alterations coexist within one single cancer cell in the four patients whose frozen samples were fully contributive. A high degree of heterogeneity within samples and sequential acquisitions of molecular events were highlighted. A combination treatment concomitantly targeting the two driver alterations was required on the corresponding patient-derived models to restore cell sensitivity, which was consistent with clinical data showing efficacy of brigatinib in the patient with ALK fusion after progression to osimertinib and crizotinib administered sequentially. CONCLUSIONS: Distinct molecular driver alterations at osimertinib resistance coexist with initial EGFR mutations in single cancer cells. The clonal evolution of cancer cell populations emphasized their heterogeneity leading to osimertinib relapse. Combining two targeted treatments is effective to achieve clinical benefit.

Circulating L-arginine predicts the survival of cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: The discovery of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) has revolutionized the systemic approach to cancer treatment. Most patients receiving ICIs, however, do not derive benefits. Therefore, it is crucial to identify reliable predictive biomarkers of response to ICIs. One important pathway in regulating immune cell reactivity is L-arginine (ARG) metabolism, essential to T-cell activation. We therefore aimed to evaluate the association between baseline plasma ARG levels and the clinical benefit of ICIs. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The correlation between ARG levels and clinical ICI activity was assessed by analyzing plasma samples obtained before treatment onset in two independent cohorts of patients with advanced cancer included in two institutional molecular profiling programs (BIP, NCT02534649, n = 77; PREMIS, NCT03984318, n = 296) and from patients in a phase 1 first-in-human study of budigalimab monotherapy (NCT03000257). Additionally, the correlation between ARG levels and ICI efficacy in preclinical settings was evaluated using a syngeneic mouse model of colorectal cancer responsive to ICIs. Using matched peripheral blood mononuclear cell (PBMC) plasma samples, we analyzed the correlation between ARG levels and PBMC features through multiplexed flow cytometry analysis. RESULTS: In both discovery and validation cohorts, low ARG levels at baseline (<42 µM) were significantly and independently associated with a worse clinical benefit rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival. Moreover, at the preclinical level, the tumor rejection rate was significantly higher in mice with high baseline ARG levels than in those with low ARG levels (85.7% versus 23.8%; P = 0.004). Finally, PBMC immunophenotyping showed that low ARG levels were significantly associated with increased programmed death-ligand 1 expression in several immune cell subsets from the myeloid lineage. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate that baseline ARG levels predict ICI response. Plasma ARG quantification may therefore represent an attractive biomarker to tailor novel therapeutic regimens targeting the ARG pathway in combination with ICIs.

ESMO expert consensus statements on the management of EGFR mutant non-small-cell lung cancer.

The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) held a virtual consensus-building process on epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutant non-small-cell lung cancer in 2021. The consensus included a multidisciplinary panel of 34 leading experts in the management of lung cancer. The aim of the consensus was to develop recommendations on topics that are not covered in detail in the current ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline and where the available evidence is either limited or conflicting. The main topics identified for discussion were: (i) tissue and biomarkers analyses; (ii) early and locally advanced disease; (iii) metastatic disease and (iv) clinical trial design, patient's perspective and miscellaneous. The expert panel was divided into four working groups to address questions relating to one of the four topics outlined above. Relevant scientific literature was reviewed in advance. Recommendations were developed by the working groups and then presented to the entire panel for further discussion and amendment before voting. This manuscript presents the recommendations developed, including findings from the expert panel discussions, consensus recommendations and a summary of evidence supporting each recommendation.

Small cell lung cancer: a slightly less orphan disease after immunotherapy.

Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is an aggressive malignancy accounting for 15% of all diagnosed cases of lung cancer. After >15 years without any clinically relevant therapeutic advances, extensive-disease SCLC has become the second thoracic malignancy for which immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have shifted the treatment paradigm to improve overall survival. Today, atezolizumab or durvalumab in combination with platinum-etoposide chemotherapy is considered the new standard of care in the first-line setting in SCLC. However, the magnitude of benefit with this immune-chemotherapy strategy in SCLC is more modest than that observed in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer patients. The immunosuppressive phenotype of SCLC plays an important role in hampering ICI efficacy and may explain the differences in outcomes between these two types of lung cancer. In this review, we provide a summary of recent therapeutic advances in SCLC in light of ICIs, as well as current challenges of this strategy in patients who are elderly, have poor performance status or brain metastases. We also address future perspectives of immunotherapeutic strategies currently in clinical development for these patients.

Plasma proteomics identifies leukemia inhibitory factor (LIF) as a novel predictive biomarker of immune-checkpoint blockade resistance.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint blockers (ICBs) are now widely used in oncology. Most patients, however, do not derive benefit from these agents. Therefore, there is a crucial need to identify novel and reliable biomarkers of resistance to such treatments in order to prescribe potentially toxic and costly treatments only to patients with expected therapeutic benefits. In the wake of genomics, the study of proteins is now emerging as the new frontier for understanding real-time human biology. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We analyzed the proteome of plasma samples, collected before treatment onset, from two independent prospective cohorts of cancer patients treated with ICB (discovery cohort n = 95, validation cohort n = 292). We then investigated the correlation between protein plasma levels, clinical benefit rate, progression-free survival and overall survival by Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: By using an unbiased proteomics approach, we show that, in both discovery and validation cohorts, elevated baseline serum level of leukemia inhibitory factor (LIF) is associated with a poor clinical outcome in cancer patients treated with ICB, independently of other prognostic factors. We also demonstrated that the circulating level of LIF is inversely correlated with the presence of tertiary lymphoid structures in the tumor microenvironment. CONCLUSION: This novel clinical dataset brings strong evidence for the role of LIF as a potential suppressor of antitumor immunity and suggests that targeting LIF or its pathway may represent a promising approach to improve efficacy of cancer immunotherapy in combination with ICB.

Outcomes with durvalumab by tumour PD-L1 expression in unresectable, stage III non-small-cell lung cancer in the PACIFIC trial.

BACKGROUND: In the PACIFIC trial, durvalumab significantly improved progression-free and overall survival (PFS/OS) versus placebo, with manageable safety, in unresectable, stage III non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients without progression after chemoradiotherapy (CRT). We report exploratory analyses of outcomes by tumour cell (TC) programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to intravenous durvalumab 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks or placebo ≤12 months, stratified by age, sex, and smoking history, but not PD-L1 status. Where available, pre-CRT samples were tested for PD-L1 expression (immunohistochemistry) and scored at pre-specified (25%) and post hoc (1%) TC cut-offs. Treatment-effect hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated from unstratified Cox proportional hazards models (Kaplan-Meier-estimated medians). RESULTS: In total, 713 patients were randomly assigned, 709 of whom received at least 1 dose of study treatment durvalumab (n = 473) or placebo (n = 236). Some 451 (63%) were PD-L1-assessable: 35%, 65%, 67%, 33%, and 32% had TC ≥25%, <25%, ≥1%, <1%, and 1%-24%, respectively. As of 31 January 2019, median follow-up was 33.3 months. Durvalumab improved PFS versus placebo (primary-analysis data cut-off, 13 February 2017) across all subgroups [HR, 95% confidence interval (CI); medians]: TC ≥25% (0.41, 0.26-0.65; 17.8 versus 3.7 months), <25% (0.59, 0.43-0.82; 16.9 versus 6.9 months), ≥1% (0.46, 0.33-0.64; 17.8 versus 5.6 months), <1% (0.73, 0.48-1.11; 10.7 versus 5.6 months), 1%-24% [0.49, 0.30-0.80; not reached (NR) versus 9.0 months], and unknown (0.59, 0.42-0.83; 14.0 versus 6.4 months). Durvalumab improved OS across most subgroups (31 January 2019 data cut-off; HR, 95% CI; medians): TC ≥ 25% (0.50, 0.30-0.83; NR versus 21.1 months), <25% (0.89, 0.63-1.25; 39.7 versus 37.4 months), ≥1% (0.59, 0.41-0.83; NR versus 29.6 months), 1%-24% (0.67, 0.41-1.10; 43.3 versus 30.5 months), and unknown (0.60, 0.43-0.84; 44.2 versus 23.5 months), but not <1% (1.14, 0.71-1.84; 33.1 versus 45.6 months). Safety was similar across subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: PFS benefit with durvalumab was observed across all subgroups, and OS benefit across all but TC <1%, for which limitations and wide HR CI preclude robust conclusions.

ARCTIC: durvalumab with or without tremelimumab as third-line or later treatment of metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Many patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) experience disease progression after first- and second-line treatment; more treatment options are required for these patients. ARCTIC, a phase III, randomized, open-label study, assessed durvalumab ± tremelimumab versus standard of care (SoC) as ≥ third-line treatment of mNSCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: ARCTIC comprised two independent sub-studies. Study A: 126 patients with ≥25% of tumor cells (TCs) expressing programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1) were randomized (1 : 1) to durvalumab [up to 12 months 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks (q2w)] or SoC. Study B: 469 patients with PD-L1 TC <25% were randomized (3 : 2 : 2 : 1) to durvalumab + tremelimumab (12 weeks durvalumab 20 mg/kg + tremelimumab 1 mg/kg q4w then 34 weeks durvalumab 10 mg/kg q2w), SoC, durvalumab (up to 12 months 10 mg/kg q2w), or tremelimumab (24 weeks 10 mg/kg q4w then 24 weeks q12w). Primary end points: overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) for durvalumab versus SoC (study A; descriptive only) and durvalumab + tremelimumab versus SoC (study B). RESULTS: Study A: median OS 11.7 (durvalumab) versus 6.8 (SoC) months {hazard ratio (HR) 0.63 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.42-0.93]}; median PFS 3.8 (durvalumab) versus 2.2 (SoC) months [HR 0.71 (95% CI, 0.49-1.04)]. Study B: median OS 11.5 (durvalumab + tremelimumab) versus 8.7 (SoC) months [HR 0.80 (95% CI, 0.61-1.05); P = 0.109]. Median PFS of 3.5 months for both groups [HR 0.77 (95% CI, 0.59-1.01); P = 0.056]. Treatment-related grade 3/4 adverse events: 9.7% (durvalumab) and 44.4% (SoC; study A) and 22.0% (durvalumab + tremelimumab) and 36.4% (SoC; study B). CONCLUSIONS: In heavily pretreated patients with mNSCLC, durvalumab demonstrated clinically meaningful improvements in OS and PFS versus SoC (patients with PD-L1 TC ≥25%); numerical improvements in OS and PFS for durvalumab + tremelimumab versus SoC were observed (patients with PD-L1 TC <25%). Safety profiles were consistent with previous studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02352948.

Pan-Asian adapted Clinical Practice Guidelines for the management of patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer: a CSCO-ESMO initiative endorsed by JSMO, KSMO, MOS, SSO and TOS.

The most recent version of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Clinical Practice Guidelines for the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) was published in 2016. At the ESMO Asia Meeting in November 2017 it was decided by both ESMO and the Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology (CSCO) to convene a special guidelines meeting immediately after the Chinese Thoracic Oncology Group Annual Meeting 2018, in Guangzhou, China. The aim was to adapt the ESMO 2016 guidelines to take into account the ethnic differences associated with the treatment of metastatic NSCLC cancer in Asian patients. These guidelines represent the consensus opinions reached by experts in the treatment of patients with metastatic NSCLC representing the oncological societies of China (CSCO), Japan (JSMO), Korea (KSMO), Malaysia (MOS), Singapore (SSO) and Taiwan (TOS). The voting was based on scientific evidence, and was independent of both the current treatment practices and the drug availability and reimbursement situations in the six participating Asian countries. During the review process, the updated ESMO 2018 Clinical Practice Guidelines for metastatic NSCLC were released and were also considered, during the final stages of the development of the Pan-Asian adapted Clinical Practice Guidelines.

A prospective examination of circulating tumor cell profiles in non-small-cell lung cancer molecular subgroups.

BACKGROUND: We report the first study examining the clinical, numerical and biological properties of circulating tumor cells according to molecular subtypes of non-small-cell lung cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 125 patients with treatment-naïve stage IIIb-IV NSCLC were prospectively recruited for CellSearch analysis. Anti-vimentin antibody was included for examination of CTCs to assess their mesenchymal character. Associations of total CTCs and vimentin-positive (vim +) CTCs with clinical characteristics, tumor genotype, and survival were assessed. RESULTS: 51/125 patients (40.8%) were total CTC+ and 26/125 (20.8%) were vim CTC+ at baseline. Multivariate analysis showed patients with ≥5 total CTCs had significantly reduced OS (HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.33-0.92, P = 0.022) but not PFS (HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.42-1.1, P = 0.118) compared to patients with <5 total CTCs. No OS difference was evident between vim+ CTC and vim-negative CTC patients overall (HR 1.24, 95% CI 0.67-2.28, P = 0.494), but after subdivision according to NSCLC driver mutation, we found an increase of vim+ CTCs in the EGFR-mutated subgroup (N = 21/94 patients; mean 1.24 vs 1.22 vim+ CTCs, P = 0.013), a reduction of total CTCs in the ALK-rearranged subgroup (N = 13/90 patients; mean 1.69 vs 5.82 total CTCs, P = 0.029), and a total absence of vim+ CTCs in KRAS-mutated adenocarcinomas (N = 19/78 patients; mean 0 vs 1.4 vim+ CTCs, P = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: We validate that the baseline presence of ≥5 total CTCs in advanced NSCLC confers a poor prognosis. CTCs from EGFR-mutant NSCLC express epithelial-mesenchymal transition characteristics, not seen in CTCs from patients with KRAS-mutant adenocarcinoma.

Osimertinib benefit in EGFR-mutant NSCLC patients with T790M-mutation detected by circulating tumour DNA.

Background: Approximately 50% of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutant non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients treated with EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) will acquire resistance by the T790M mutation. Osimertinib is the standard of care in this situation. The present study assesses the efficacy of osimertinib when T790M status is determined in circulating cell-free tumour DNA (ctDNA) from blood samples in progressing advanced EGFR-mutant NSCLC patients. Material and methods: ctDNA T790M mutational status was assessed by Inivata InVision™ (eTAm-Seq™) assay in 48 EGFR-mutant advanced NSCLC patients with acquired resistance to EGFR TKIs without a tissue biopsy between April 2015 and April 2016. Progressing T790M-positive NSCLC patients received osimertinib (80 mg daily). The objectives were to assess the response rate to osimertinib according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST) 1.1, the progression-free survival (PFS) on osimertinib, and the percentage of T790M positive in ctDNA. Results: The ctDNA T790M mutation was detected in 50% of NSCLC patients. Among assessable patients, osimertinib gave a partial response rate of 62.5% and a stable disease rate of 37.5%. All responses were confirmed responses. After median follow up of 8 months, median PFS by RECIST criteria was not achieved (95% CI: 4-NA), with 6- and 12-months PFS of 66.7% and 52%, respectively. Conclusion(s): ctDNA from liquid biopsy can be used as a surrogate marker for T790M in tumour tissue.

Afatinib beyond progression in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer following chemotherapy, erlotinib/gefitinib and afatinib: phase III randomized LUX-Lung 5 trial.

BACKGROUND: Afatinib has demonstrated clinical benefit in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer progressing after treatment with erlotinib/gefitinib. This phase III trial prospectively assessed whether continued irreversible ErbB-family blockade with afatinib plus paclitaxel has superior outcomes versus switching to chemotherapy alone in patients acquiring resistance to erlotinib/gefitinib and afatinib monotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with relapsed/refractory disease following ≥1 line of chemotherapy, and whose tumors had progressed following initial disease control (≥12 weeks) with erlotinib/gefitinib and thereafter afatinib (50 mg/day), were randomized 2:1 to receive afatinib plus paclitaxel (40 mg/day; 80 mg/m(2)/week) or investigator's choice of single-agent chemotherapy. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Other end points included objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), safety and patient-reported outcomes. RESULTS: Two hundred and two patients with progressive disease following clinical benefit from afatinib were randomized to afatinib plus paclitaxel (n = 134) or single-agent chemotherapy (n = 68). PFS (median 5.6 versus 2.8 months, hazard ratio 0.60, P = 0.003) and ORR (32.1% versus 13.2%, P = 0.005) significantly improved with afatinib plus paclitaxel. There was no difference in OS. Global health status/quality of life was maintained with afatinib plus paclitaxel over the entire treatment period. The median treatment duration was 133 and 51 days with afatinib plus paclitaxel and single-agent chemotherapy, respectively; 48.5% of patients receiving afatinib plus paclitaxel and 30.0% of patients receiving single-agent chemotherapy experienced drug-related grade 3/4 adverse events. Treatment-related adverse events were consistent with those previously reported with each agent. CONCLUSION: Afatinib plus paclitaxel improved PFS and ORR compared with single-agent chemotherapy in patients who acquired resistance to erlotinib/gefitinib and progressed on afatinib after initial benefit. LUX-Lung 5 is the first prospective trial to demonstrate the benefit of continued ErbB targeting post-progression, versus switching to single-agent chemotherapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01085136 (clinicaltrials.gov).

EGFR-independent mechanisms of acquired resistance to AZD9291 in EGFR T790M-positive NSCLC patients.

BACKGROUND: AZD9291 is an oral, irreversible, mutant-selective epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKI), which specifically targets both sensitizing and resistant T790M mutations. This compound has shown outstanding activity, in a phase I/II (AURA) trial. However, despite impressive tumor responses in T790M-positive patients, acquired resistance to this drug limits the benefit of this compound. Mutations at the EGFR C797 codon, located within the kinase-binding site, were very recently reported to be a potential mechanism of resistance to AZD9291 in T790M-positive patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: To identify potential mechanisms of resistance to AZD9291, we report here on two patients with resistant biopsy specimens that had been treated with AZD9291. RESULTS: We identified in two distinct cases, HER2 and MET amplification by FISH and CGH as a potential mechanism of acquired resistance to third-generation EGFR-TKI. Interestingly, this event occurred with complete loss of the T790M mutation. In one case, we observed a different molecular status at two biopsy sites (the T790M mutation at the primary site and wild-type T790M at the metastatic site with different pathways of acquired resistance to AZD9291). CONCLUSION: Our observations suggest that T790M-positive and wild-type T790M clones may coexist at baseline. AZD9291 efficiently suppresses the growth of T790M-positive cells, but a population of wild-type T790M cells at baseline will mediate the development of resistance, here via a by-pass pathway activating either HER2 or MET.

High level of chromosomal instability in circulating tumor cells of ROS1-rearranged non-small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Genetic aberrations affecting the c-ros oncogene 1 (ROS1) tyrosine kinase gene have been reported in a small subset of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We evaluated whether ROS1-chromosomal rearrangements could be detected in circulating tumor cells (CTCs) and examined tumor heterogeneity of CTCs and tumor biopsies in ROS1-rearranged NSCLC patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using isolation by size of epithelial tumor cells (ISET) filtration and filter-adapted-fluorescence in situ hybridization (FA-FISH), ROS1 rearrangement was examined in CTCs from four ROS1-rearranged patients treated with the ROS1-inhibitor, crizotinib, and four ROS1-negative patients. ROS1-gene alterations observed in CTCs at baseline from ROS1-rearranged patients were compared with those present in tumor biopsies and in CTCs during crizotinib treatment. Numerical chromosomal instability (CIN) of CTCs was assessed by DNA content quantification and chromosome enumeration. RESULTS: ROS1 rearrangement was detected in the CTCs of all four patients with ROS1 rearrangement previously confirmed by tumor biopsy. In ROS1-rearranged patients, median number of ROS1-rearranged CTCs at baseline was 34.5 per 3 ml blood (range, 24-55). In ROS1-negative patients, median background hybridization of ROS1-rearranged CTCs was 7.5 per 3 ml blood (range, 7-11). Tumor heterogeneity, assessed by ROS1 copy number, was significantly higher in baseline CTCs compared with paired tumor biopsies in the three patients experiencing PR or SD (P < 0.0001). Copy number in ROS1-rearranged CTCs increased significantly in two patients who progressed during crizotinib treatment (P < 0.02). CTCs from ROS1-rearranged patients had a high DNA content and gain of chromosomes, indicating high levels of aneuploidy and numerical CIN. CONCLUSION: We provide the first proof-of-concept that CTCs can be used for noninvasive and sensitive detection of ROS1 rearrangement in NSCLC patients. CTCs from ROS1-rearranged patients show considerable heterogeneity of ROS1-gene abnormalities and elevated numerical CIN, a potential mechanism to escape ROS1-inhibitor therapy in ROS1-rearranged NSCLC tumors.

A randomized phase II study of the MEK1/MEK2 inhibitor trametinib (GSK1120212) compared with docetaxel in KRAS-mutant advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC)†.

BACKGROUND: KRAS mutations are detected in 25% of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and no targeted therapies are approved for this subset population. Trametinib, a selective allosteric inhibitor of MEK1/MEK2, demonstrated preclinical and clinical activity in KRAS-mutant NSCLC. We report a phase II trial comparing trametinib with docetaxel in patients with advanced KRAS-mutant NSCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients with histologically confirmed KRAS-mutant NSCLC previously treated with one prior platinum-based chemotherapy were randomly assigned in a ratio of 2 : 1 to trametinib (2 mg orally once daily) or docetaxel (75 mg/m(2) i.v. every 3 weeks). Crossover to the other arm after disease progression was allowed. Primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). The study was prematurely terminated after the interim analysis of 92 PFS events, which showed the comparison of trametinib versus docetaxel for PFS crossed the futility boundary. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-nine patients with KRAS-mutant NSCLC were randomized; of which, 86 patients received trametinib and 43 received docetaxel. Median PFS was 12 weeks in the trametinib arm and 11 weeks in the docetaxel arm (hazard ratio [HR] 1.14; 95% CI 0.75-1.75; P = 0.5197). Median overall survival, while the data are immature, was 8 months in the trametinib arm and was not reached in the docetaxel arm (HR 0.97; 95% CI 0.52-1.83; P = 0.934). There were 10 (12%) partial responses (PRs) in the trametinib arm and 5 (12%) PRs in the docetaxel arm (P = 1.0000). The most frequent adverse events (AEs) in ≥20% of trametinib patients were rash, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and fatigue. The most frequent grade 3 treatment-related AEs in the trametinib arm were hypertension, rash, diarrhea, and asthenia. CONCLUSION: Trametinib showed similar PFS and a response rate as docetaxel in patients with previously treated KRAS-mutant-positive NSCLC. CLINICALTRIALSGOV REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01362296.

Immune checkpoint blockers in solid organ transplant recipients and cancer: the INNOVATED cohort.

BACKGROUND: Patients with solid organ transplant (SOT) and solid tumors are usually excluded from clinical trials testing immune checkpoint blockers (ICB). As transplant rates are increasing, we aimed to evaluate ICB outcomes in this population, with a special focus on lung cancer. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter retrospective cohort study collecting real data of ICB use in patients with SOT and solid tumors. Clinical data and treatment outcomes were assessed by using retrospective medical chart reviews in every participating center. Study endpoints were: overall response rate (ORR), 6-month progression-free survival (PFS), and grade ≥3 immune-related adverse events. RESULTS: From August 2016 to October 2022, 31 patients with SOT (98% kidney) and solid tumors were identified (36.0% lung cancer, 19.4% melanoma, 13.0% genitourinary cancer, 6.5% gastrointestinal cancer). Programmed death-ligand 1 expression was positive in 29% of tumors. Median age was 61 years, 69% were males, and 71% received ICB as first-line treatment. In the whole cohort the ORR was 45.2%, with a 6-month PFS of 56.8%. In the lung cancer cohort, the ORR was 45.5%, with a 6-month PFS of 32.7%, and median overall survival of 4.6 months. The grade 3 immune-related adverse events rate leading to ICB discontinuation was 12.9%. Allograft rejection rate was 25.8%, and risk of rejection was similar regardless of the type of ICB strategy (monotherapy or combination, 28% versus 33%, P = 1.0) or response to ICB treatment. CONCLUSIONS: ICB could be considered a feasible option for SOT recipients with some advanced solid malignancies and no alternative therapeutic options. Due to the risk of allograft rejection, multidisciplinary teams should be involved before ICB therapy.