The Clinical and Molecular Profile of Lung Cancer Patients Harboring the TP53 R337H Germline Variant in a Brazilian Cancer Center: The Possible Mechanism of Carcinogenesis.

In southern and southeastern Brazil, the TP53 founder variant c.1010G>A (R337H) has been previously documented with a prevalence of 0.3% within the general population and linked to a heightened incidence of lung adenocarcinomas (LUADs). In the present investigation, we cover clinical and molecular characterizations of lung cancer patients from the Brazilian Li-Fraumeni Syndrome Study (BLISS) database. Among the 175 diagnosed malignant neoplasms, 28 (16%) were classified as LUADs, predominantly occurring in females (68%), aged above 50 years, and never-smokers (78.6%). Significantly, LUADs manifested as the initial clinical presentation of Li-Fraumeni Syndrome in 78.6% of cases. Molecular profiling was available for 20 patients, with 14 (70%) revealing EGFR family alterations. In total, 23 alterations in cancer driver genes were identified, comprising 7 actionable mutations and 4 linked to resistance against systemic treatments. In conclusion, the carriers of TP53 R337H demonstrate a predisposition to LUAD development. Furthermore, our results indicate that environmental pollution potentially impacts the carcinogenesis of lung tumors in the carriers of TP53 R337H.

A phase 2 study of first-line nivolumab in patients with locally advanced or metastatic cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma (CSCC) is among the most frequent malignancies worldwide. For those not amenable to treatment with curative intent, immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) with anti-programmed death receptor 1 (PD-1) antibodies has emerged as a novel therapeutic option. In this study, the authors sought to investigate the activity of the anti-PD-1 agent nivolumab in patients with advanced CSCC (aCSCC). METHODS: CA209-9JC was an open-label, single-arm, phase 2 study to evaluate the safety and/or efficacy of nivolumab in systemic treatment-naive patients with aCSCC. Nivolumab (3 mg/kg) was administered every 2 weeks until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or 12 months of treatment. The primary end point was the best objective response rate (BORR) as per RECIST 1.1 criteria. Secondary end points included safety, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Twenty-four patients with aCSCC were enrolled with a median age of 74 years (range, 48-93). Among the 24 patients evaluable for response, the BORR was 58.3% (14/24); there were no complete responses. With a median follow-up of 17.6 months, median duration of response has not been reached, and the estimated median PFS and OS were 12.7 and 20.7 months, respectively. Prior exposure to radiotherapy was associated with worse outcomes (p = .035, univariate analysis). Treatment-related adverse events of any grade and grade ≥ 3 occurred in 21 (87.5%) and six (25%) patients, respectively, and one patient discontinued nivolumab due to toxicities. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab resulted in robust antitumor activity, sustained responses, and good tolerability in systemic treatment-naive patients with aCSCC. These data provide further evidence to support the use of ICI as the standard treatment of aCSCC.

Extraoral photobiomodulation for prevention of oral and oropharyngeal mucositis in head and neck cancer patients: interim analysis of a randomized, double-blind, clinical trial.

PURPOSE: To assess the safety and efficacy of prophylactic extraoral photobiomodulation (PBM) for the prevention of oral and oropharyngeal mucositis (OM) on clinical outcomes and survival in patients with oral cavity and oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OOPSCC). METHODS: OOPSCC patients who received radiotherapy (RT) were prospectively randomized to two groups: prophylactic extraoral PBM and placebo. OM grade (NCI), pain (VAS), analgesia, and anti-inflammatory prescriptions were assessed weekly. Quality of life questionnaires (QoL) were performed at the first and last day of RT. Following RT, participants were evaluated quarterly for oncological outcomes follow-up. RESULTS: Fifty-five patients met the inclusion criteria. The first occurrence of OM was observed at week 1, for the placebo group (p = 0.014). Later, OM onset and severity was observed for the PBM group, with first occurrence at week 2 (p = 0.009). No difference in severe OM incidence was observed (p > 0.05). Lower mean pain score was noted at week 7 for the PBM group (2.1) compared to placebo group (4.5) (p = 0.009). Less analgesics (week 3; p = 0.009/week 7; p = 0.02) and anti-inflammatory prescription (week 5; p = 0.0346) were observed for the PBM group. Better QoL scores were observed for the PBM group at last day of RT (p = 0.0034). No difference in overall survival among groups was observed in 1 year of follow-up (p = 0.889). CONCLUSION: Prophylactic extraoral PBM can delay OM onset, reduce pain, and reduce analgesic and anti-inflammatory prescription requirements. Extraoral PBM was associated with better QoL. There was no evidence of PBM impact on oncological outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: TRN:RBR-4w4swx (date of registration: 01/20/2020).

Exercise prescription for symptoms and quality of life improvements in lung cancer patients: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic review to assess the effect of exercise on symptoms and quality of life in lung cancer patients. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. PubMed, Medline, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and SciELO were searched for studies published from January 1998 to January 2019. The review included all randomized controlled trials that evaluated the effect of exercise on symptoms and quality of life of lung cancer patients. Two reviewers independently assessed the quality of all the included studies using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database scale. RESULTS: In total, ten studies (835 participants) met all inclusion criteria. Three studies investigated the effect of exercise after lung resection, whereas four studies investigated it as a pre-surgery intervention. Two studies investigated the effect of exercise in patients under systemic treatment only, and one study included patients on diverse treatment plans. Exercise protocols consisted of different combinations of strength, aerobic, and inspiratory muscle training. Two trials, including 101 participants, found significant difference in quality of life between groups, favoring the intervention group; and five trials, including 549 participants, found significant inter-group differences in isolated symptoms, also favoring the intervention group. CONCLUSIONS: Exercise can lead to improvements of symptoms and of quality of life in lung cancer survivors. Providing resistance training combined with high-intensity interval aerobic exercise after lung resection seems to be particularly effective. Further studies are warranted to investigate exercise for patients with poor performance status.

Pembrolizumab alone or with chemotherapy versus cetuximab with chemotherapy for recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (KEYNOTE-048): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Pembrolizumab is active in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC), with programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression associated with improved response. METHODS: KEYNOTE-048 was a randomised, phase 3 study of participants with untreated locally incurable recurrent or metastatic HNSCC done at 200 sites in 37 countries. Participants were stratified by PD-L1 expression, p16 status, and performance status and randomly allocated (1:1:1) to pembrolizumab alone, pembrolizumab plus a platinum and 5-fluorouracil (pembrolizumab with chemotherapy), or cetuximab plus a platinum and 5-fluorouracil (cetuximab with chemotherapy). Investigators and participants were aware of treatment assignment. Investigators, participants, and representatives of the sponsor were masked to the PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) results; PD-L1 positivity was not required for study entry. The primary endpoints were overall survival (time from randomisation to death from any cause) and progression-free survival (time from randomisation to radiographically confirmed disease progression or death from any cause, whichever came first) in the intention-to-treat population (all participants randomly allocated to a treatment group). There were 14 primary hypotheses: superiority of pembrolizumab alone and of pembrolizumab with chemotherapy versus cetuximab with chemotherapy for overall survival and progression-free survival in the PD-L1 CPS of 20 or more, CPS of 1 or more, and total populations and non-inferiority (non-inferiority margin: 1·2) of pembrolizumab alone and pembrolizumab with chemotherapy versus cetuximab with chemotherapy for overall survival in the total population. The definitive findings for each hypothesis were obtained when statistical testing was completed for that hypothesis; this occurred at the second interim analysis for 11 hypotheses and at final analysis for three hypotheses. Safety was assessed in the as-treated population (all participants who received at least one dose of allocated treatment). This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02358031. FINDINGS: Between April 20, 2015, and Jan 17, 2017, 882 participants were allocated to receive pembrolizumab alone (n=301), pembrolizumab with chemotherapy (n=281), or cetuximab with chemotherapy (n=300); of these, 754 (85%) had CPS of 1 or more and 381 (43%) had CPS of 20 or more. At the second interim analysis, pembrolizumab alone improved overall survival versus cetuximab with chemotherapy in the CPS of 20 or more population (median 14·9 months vs 10·7 months, hazard ratio [HR] 0·61 [95% CI 0·45-0·83], p=0·0007) and CPS of 1 or more population (12·3 vs 10·3, 0·78 [0·64-0·96], p=0·0086) and was non-inferior in the total population (11·6 vs 10·7, 0·85 [0·71-1·03]). Pembrolizumab with chemotherapy improved overall survival versus cetuximab with chemotherapy in the total population (13·0 months vs 10·7 months, HR 0·77 [95% CI 0·63-0·93], p=0·0034) at the second interim analysis and in the CPS of 20 or more population (14·7 vs 11·0, 0·60 [0·45-0·82], p=0·0004) and CPS of 1 or more population (13·6 vs 10·4, 0·65 [0·53-0·80], p<0·0001) at final analysis. Neither pembrolizumab alone nor pembrolizumab with chemotherapy improved progression-free survival at the second interim analysis. At final analysis, grade 3 or worse all-cause adverse events occurred in 164 (55%) of 300 treated participants in the pembrolizumab alone group, 235 (85%) of 276 in the pembrolizumab with chemotherapy group, and 239 (83%) of 287 in the cetuximab with chemotherapy group. Adverse events led to death in 25 (8%) participants in the pembrolizumab alone group, 32 (12%) in the pembrolizumab with chemotherapy group, and 28 (10%) in the cetuximab with chemotherapy group. INTERPRETATION: Based on the observed efficacy and safety, pembrolizumab plus platinum and 5-fluorouracil is an appropriate first-line treatment for recurrent or metastatic HNSCC and pembrolizumab monotherapy is an appropriate first-line treatment for PD-L1-positive recurrent or metastatic HNSCC. FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme.

Impact of pandemic COVID-19 outbreak on oral mucositis preventive and treatment protocols: new perspectives for extraoral photobiomodulation therapy.

This communication discusses the current challenges of oral mucositis (OM) management during the pandemic COVID-19 outbreak and reflects about an extraoral photobiomodulation protocol as an optimal alternative for preventing and treating OM in advanced cancer patients while minimizing the risk of infection by avoiding intraoral manipulation.

ASTRIS: a global real-world study of osimertinib in >3000 patients with EGFR T790M positive non-small-cell lung cancer.

Aim: Osimertinib is a third-generation, irreversible, oral EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor. We report real-world effectiveness and safety data. Patients & methods: EGFR T790M positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer adults, who received ≥1 prior EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor, received osimertinib 80 mg daily. Primary effectiveness outcome: overall survival. Secondary effectiveness outcomes included: investigator-assessed clinical response, progression-free survival, time-to-treatment discontinuation. Results: At data cutoff, 3015 patients had enrolled: 57.1% had investigator-assessed response (95% CI: 55.2-58.9). Median progression-free survival: 11.1 months (95% CI: 11.0-12.0) and median time-to-treatment discontinuation: 13.5 months (95% CI: 12.6-13.9). Interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis-like events reported in 28 (1%) patients. Conclusion: Osimertinib demonstrated clinical effectiveness similar to efficacy observed in the clinical trial program with no new safety signals.

First-line ceritinib versus platinum-based chemotherapy in advanced ALK-rearranged non-small-cell lung cancer (ASCEND-4): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of ceritinib in patients with untreated anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-rearranged non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is not known. We assessed the efficacy and safety of ceritinib versus platinum-based chemotherapy in these patients. METHODS: This randomised, open-label, phase 3 study in untreated patients with stage IIIB/IV ALK-rearranged non-squamous NSCLC was done in 134 centres across 28 countries. Eligible patients were assigned via interactive response technology to oral ceritinib 750 mg/day or platinum-based chemotherapy ([cisplatin 75 mg/m2 or carboplatin AUC 5-6 plus pemetrexed 500 mg/m2] every 3 weeks for four cycles followed by maintenance pemetrexed); randomisation was stratified by World Health Organization performance status (0 vs 1-2), previous neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy, and presence of brain metastases as per investigator's assessment at screening. Investigators and patients were not masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was blinded independent review committee assessed progression-free survival, based on all randomly assigned patients (the full analysis set). Efficacy analyses were done based on the full analysis set. All safety analyses were done based on the safety set, which included all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01828099. FINDINGS: Between Aug 19, 2013, and May 11, 2015, 376 patients were randomly assigned to ceritinib (n=189) or chemotherapy (n=187). Median progression-free survival (as assessed by blinded independent review committee) was 16·6 months (95% CI 12·6-27·2) in the ceritinib group and 8·1 months (5·8-11·1) in the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio 0·55 [95% CI 0·42-0·73]; p<0·00001). The most common adverse events were diarrhoea (in 160 [85%] of 189 patients), nausea (130 [69%]), vomiting (125 [66%]), and an increase in alanine aminotransferase (114 [60%]) in the ceritinib group and nausea (in 97 [55%] of 175 patients), vomiting (63 [36%]), and anaemia (62 [35%]) in the chemotherapy group. INTERPRETATION: First-line ceritinib showed a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival versus chemotherapy in patients with advanced ALK-rearranged NSCLC. FUNDING: Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.

De-escalation treatment of human papillomavirus-positive oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma: an evidence-based review for the locally advanced disease.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Oropharyngeal cancer (OPC) incidence is increasing worldwide, especially in developed countries where it seems to be etiologically related to the elevating rates of high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) infection. Considered a distinct disease because of its weak correlation with the traditional risk factors (tobacco use and alcohol), it has different patterns of survival outcomes, locoregional and distant failure, generally with better prognosis independently of the treatment. The standard therapeutic approach for locally advanced (LA) OPCs includes radiation therapy with concurrent chemotherapy, resulting in severe toxicities with negative impacts in quality of life (QoL). Considering this, efforts emerged to de-intensify treatment modalities in selected patients and achieve less morbidity while maintaining the favorable outcome. RECENT FINDINGS: Several de-escalated treatment strategies for HPV-related OPCs have been proposed to date with some of them being assessed in ongoing clinical trials. The main approaches encompass: minimally invasive surgery and reduced adjuvant treatment; antiepidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) as alternative to chemotherapy concurrent with radiation therapy; adjusted radiation therapy dose intensity in responders to induction chemotherapy; reduced-dose radiation therapy. SUMMARY: There is still a lack of evidence to support de-intensification treatment for HPV-positive LA-OPC in clinical practice, and it remains investigational. Ongoing trials based on risk stratification might identify subgroups with greatest benefits of de-escalation strategies, reducing treatment morbidity without constituting the favorable prognosis.

Locally advanced oral squamous cell carcinoma patients treated with photobiomodulation for prevention of oral mucositis: retrospective outcomes and safety analyses.

PURPOSE: The well-established clinical efficacy of photobiomodulation (PBM) therapy in management of oral mucositis (OM) is leading to increasing use in oncology care. This protection and enhanced repair of damage to mucosal tissue have led to the question of the potential effects of PBM therapy on pre-malignant and malignant cells. The purpose of this study was to examine the outcome of cancer therapy and incidence of tumor recurrence in locally advanced oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) patients treated with PBM therapy for OM. METHODS: A retrospective clinical analysis of 152 advanced OSCC patients treated with prophylactic PBM therapy for radiotherapy-induced OM from January 2009 to December 2014 was conducted. RESULTS: Of the 152 OSCC patients treated with PBM therapy in this study, 19 (12.5%) had stage III and 133 (87.5%) had stage IV tumors. Of these, 52 (34.2%) received initial treatment with surgery followed by adjuvant radiotherapy, 94 (61.8%) with exclusive chemoradiation, and 6 (4%) with induction chemotherapy followed by surgery and radiotherapy. After a mean follow-up of 40.84 (± 11.71) months, the overall survival and disease-free survival rates were 46.7 and 51.8%, respectively. Forty-five (29.6%) patients developed local-regional recurrence, 10 (6.57%) patients developed distant relapse, and 19 (12.5%) developed new (second) primary tumors. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicopathological features and survival outcomes in the PBM-treated patients were similar to previously published data for conventional treatments in patients with advanced OSCC. In this study, prophylactic use of PBM therapy did not impact treatment outcomes of the primary cancer, recurrence or new primary tumors, or survival in advanced OSCC patients.

Pembrolizumab versus docetaxel for previously treated, PD-L1-positive, advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (KEYNOTE-010): a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite recent advances in the treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer, there remains a need for effective treatments for progressive disease. We assessed the efficacy of pembrolizumab for patients with previously treated, PD-L1-positive, advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. METHODS: We did this randomised, open-label, phase 2/3 study at 202 academic medical centres in 24 countries. Patients with previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer with PD-L1 expression on at least 1% of tumour cells were randomly assigned (1:1:1) in blocks of six per stratum with an interactive voice-response system to receive pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg, pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg, or docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks. The primary endpoints were overall survival and progression-free survival both in the total population and in patients with PD-L1 expression on at least 50% of tumour cells. We used a threshold for significance of p<0.00825 (one-sided) for the analysis of overall survival and a threshold of p<0.001 for progression-free survival. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01905657. FINDINGS: Between Aug 28, 2013, and Feb 27, 2015, we enrolled 1034 patients: 345 allocated to pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg, 346 allocated to pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg, and 343 allocated to docetaxel. By Sept 30, 2015, 521 patients had died. In the total population, median overall survival was 10.4 months with pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg, 12.7 months with pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg, and 8.5 months with docetaxel. Overall survival was significantly longer for pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg versus docetaxel (hazard ratio [HR] 0.71, 95% CI 0.58-0.88; p=0.0008) and for pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg versus docetaxel (0.61, 0.49-0.75; p<0.0001). Median progression-free survival was 3.9 months with pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg, 4.0 months with pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg, and 4.0 months with docetaxel, with no significant difference for pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg versus docetaxel (0.88, 0.74-1.05; p=0.07) or for pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg versus docetaxel (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.66-0.94; p=0.004). Among patients with at least 50% of tumour cells expressing PD-L1, overall survival was significantly longer with pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg than with docetaxel (median 14.9 months vs 8.2 months; HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.38-0.77; p=0.0002) and with pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg than with docetaxel (17.3 months vs 8.2 months; 0.50, 0.36-0.70; p<0.0001). Likewise, for this patient population, progression-free survival was significantly longer with pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg than with docetaxel (median 5.0 months vs 4.1 months; HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.44-0.78; p=0.0001) and with pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg than with docetaxel (5.2 months vs 4.1 months; 0.59, 0.45-0.78; p<0.0001). Grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events were less common with pembrolizumab than with docetaxel (43 [13%] of 339 patients given 2 mg/kg, 55 [16%] of 343 given 10 mg/kg, and 109 [35%] of 309 given docetaxel). INTERPRETATION: Pembrolizumab prolongs overall survival and has a favourable benefit-to-risk profile in patients with previously treated, PD-L1-positive, advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. These data establish pembrolizumab as a new treatment option for this population and validate the use of PD-L1 selection. FUNDING: Merck & Co.

Afatinib versus methotrexate as second-line treatment in patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck progressing on or after platinum-based therapy (LUX-Head & Neck 1): an open-label, randomised phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck (HNSCC) progressing after first-line platinum regimens have a poor prognosis and few treatment options. Afatinib, an irreversible ERBB family blocker, has shown efficacy in a phase 2 study in this setting. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of afatinib compared with methotrexate as second-line treatment in patients with recurrent or metastatic HNSCC progressing on or after platinum-based therapy. METHODS: In this open-label, phase 3, randomised controlled trial conducted in 101 centres in 19 countries, we enrolled patients aged 18 years or older with histologically or cytologically confirmed HNSCC that was recurrent, metastatic, or both who had progressed on or after first-line platinum-based therapy, were not amenable for salvage surgery or radiotherapy, and who had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1. Previous treatment with more than one systemic regimen in this setting was not allowed; previous treatment with EGFR-targeted antibody therapy (but not EGFR-targeted tyrosine-kinase inhibitors) was allowed. We randomly assigned eligible patients in a 2:1 ratio to receive oral afatinib (40 mg/day) or intravenous methotrexate (40 mg/m(2) per week), stratified by ECOG performance status and previous EGFR-targeted antibody therapy for recurrent or metastatic disease. Randomisation was done centrally with an interactive voice or web-based response system. Clinicians and patients were not masked to treatment allocation; independent review of tumour response was done in a blinded manner. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival as assessed by an independent, central imaging review committee. Efficacy analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population and safety analyses were done in patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This ongoing study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01345682. FINDINGS: Between Jan 10, 2012, and Dec 12, 2013, we enrolled 483 patients and randomly assigned 322 to afatinib and 161 to methotrexate. After a median follow-up of 6·7 months (IQR 3·1-9·0), progression-free survival was longer in the afatinib group than in the methotrexate group (median 2·6 months [95% CI 2·0-2·7] for the afatinib group vs 1·7 months [1·5-2·4] for the methotrexate group; hazard ratio [HR] 0·80 [95% CI 0·65-0·98], p=0·030). The most frequent grade 3 or 4 drug-related adverse events were rash or acne (31 [10%] of 320 patients in the afatinib group vs none of 160 patients in the methotrexate group), diarrhoea (30 [9%] vs three [2%]), stomatitis (20 [6%] vs 13 [8%]), fatigue (18 [6%] vs five [3%]), and neutropenia (1 [<1%] vs 11 [7%]); serious adverse events occurred in 44 (14%) of afatinib-treated patients and 18 (11%) of methotrexate-treated patients. INTERPRETATION: Afatinib was associated with significant improvements in progression-free survival and had a manageable safety profile. These findings provide important new insights into the treatment of this patient population and support further investigations with irreversible ERBB family blockers in HNSCC. FUNDING: Boehringer Ingelheim.

Necitumumab plus pemetrexed and cisplatin as first-line therapy in patients with stage IV non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (INSPIRE): an open-label, randomised, controlled phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Necitumumab is a second-generation recombinant human immunoglobulin G1 EGFR monoclonal antibody that competitively inhibits ligand binding. We aimed to compare necitumumab plus pemetrexed and cisplatin with pemetrexed and cisplatin alone in patients with previously untreated, stage IV, non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: We did this randomised, open-label, controlled phase 3 study at 103 sites in 20 countries. Patients aged 18 years or older, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-2 and adequate organ function, were randomly assigned 1:1 to treatment with a block randomisation scheme (block size of four) via a telephone-based interactive voice-response system or interactive web-response system. Patients received either cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) and pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) on day 1 of a 3-week cycle for a maximum of six cycles alone, or with necitumumab 800 mg on days 1 and 8. Necitumumab was continued after the end of chemotherapy until disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects. Randomisation was stratified by smoking history, ECOG performance status, disease histology, and geographical region. Patients and study investigators were not masked to group assignment. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Efficacy analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00982111. FINDINGS: Between Nov 11, 2009, and Feb 2, 2011, we randomly assigned 633 patients to receive either necitumumab plus pemetrexed and cisplatin (n=315) or pemetrexed and cisplatin alone (n=318). Enrolment was stopped on Feb 2, 2011, after a recommendation from the independent data monitoring committee. There was no significant difference in overall survival between treatment groups, with a median overall survival of 11·3 months (95% CI 9·5-13·4) in the necitumumab plus pemetrexed and cisplatin group versus 11·5 months (10·1-13·1) in the pemetrexed and cisplatin group (hazard ratio 1·01 [95% CI 0·84-1·21]; p=0·96). The incidence of grade 3 or worse adverse events, including deaths, was higher in the necitumumab plus pemetrexed and cisplatin group than in the pemetrexed and cisplatin group; in particular, deaths regarded as related to study drug were reported in 15 (5%) of 304 patients in the necitumumab group versus nine (3%) of 312 patients in the pemetrexed and cisplatin group. Serious adverse events were likewise more frequent in the necitumumab plus pemetrexed and cisplatin group than in the pemetrexed and cisplatin group (155 [51%] of 304 vs 127 [41%] of 312 patients). Patients in the necitumumab plus pemetrexed and cisplatin group had more grade 3-4 rash (45 [15%] of 304 vs one [<1%] of 312 patients in the pemetrexed and cisplatin alone group), hypomagnesaemia (23 [8%] vs seven [2%] patients), and grade 3 or higher venous thromboembolic events (23 [8%] vs 11 [4%] patients) than did those in the pemetrexed and cisplatin alone group. INTERPRETATION: Our findings show no evidence to suggest that the addition of necitumumab to pemetrexed and cisplatin increases survival of previously untreated patients with stage IV non-squamous NSCLC. Unless future studies identify potentially useful predictive biomarkers, necitumumab is unlikely to provide benefit in this patient population when combined with pemetrexed and cisplatin. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company.

Canakinumab Versus Placebo in Combination With First-Line Pembrolizumab Plus Chemotherapy for Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Results From the CANOPY-1 Trial.

PURPOSE: The addition of checkpoint inhibitors to first-line treatment has prolonged survival of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but prognosis remains poor, with new treatment options needed. Canakinumab, a human, monoclonal anti-interleukin (IL)-1ß antibody, has potential to enhance the activity of PD-L1 inhibitors and chemotherapy (CT) by inhibiting protumor inflammation. METHODS: CANOPY-1 was a phase III, randomized, double-blind study comparing canakinumab (200 mg subcutaneously once every 3 weeks) versus placebo, both combined with pembrolizumab (200 mg intravenously once every 3 weeks) and platinum-based doublet CT, as first-line treatment for advanced/metastatic NSCLC without EGFR or ALK mutations. The primary end points were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). The secondary endpoints included overall response rate, safety, and patient-reported outcomes. RESULTS: Overall, 643 patients were randomly assigned to canakinumab (n = 320) or placebo (n = 323). With a median study follow-up of 6.5 months, the median PFS was 6.8 months with canakinumab versus 6.8 months with placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.85; 95% CI, 0.67 to 1.09; P = .102). With a median study follow-up of 21.2 months, the median OS was 20.8 months with canakinumab versus 20.2 months with placebo (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.70 to 1.10; P = .123). No unexpected safety signals were observed for canakinumab combination. Infection rates were comparable between treatment and control arms. A higher frequency of neutropenia and ALT increase (grade ≤2) were reported in the treatment arm. Higher baseline C-reactive protein and IL-6 levels were associated with shorter PFS and OS. Patients treated with canakinumab had clinically meaningful delays in deterioration of lung cancer symptoms, including chest pain and coughing per LC13 and dyspnea per LC13 and C30. CONCLUSION: The addition of canakinumab to first-line pembrolizumab and CT did not prolong PFS or OS in patients with NSCLC.

Health Services Access Inequalities in Brazil Result in Poorer Outcomes for Stage III NSCLC-RELANCE/LACOG 0118.

Introduction: Stage III NSCLC is a heterogeneous disease, representing approximately one-third of newly diagnosed lung cancers. Brazil lacks detailed information regarding stage distribution, treatment patterns, survival, and prognostic variables in locally advanced NSCLC. Methods: RELANCE/LACOG 0118 is an observational, retrospective cohort study assessing sociodemographic and clinical data of patients diagnosed with having stage III NSCLC from January 2015 to June 2019, regardless of treatment received. The study was conducted across 13 cancer centers in Brazil. Disease status and survival data were collected up to June 2021. Descriptive statistics, survival analyses, and a multivariable Cox regression model were performed. p values less than 0.05 were considered significant. Results: We recruited 403 patients with stage III NSCLC. Most were male (64.0%), White (31.5%), and smokers or former smokers (86.1%). Most patients had public health insurance (67.5%), had stage IIIA disease (63.2%), and were treated with concurrent chemoradiation (53.1%). The median follow-up time was 33.83 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 30.43-37.50). Median overall survival (OS) was 27.97 months (95% CI: 21.57-31.73), and median progression-free survival was 11.23 months (95% CI: 10.70-12.77). The type of treatment was independently associated with OS and progression-free survival, whereas the types of health insurance and histology were independent predictors of OS only. Conclusions: Brazilian patients with stage III NSCLC with public health insurance are diagnosed later and have poorer OS. Nevertheless, patients with access to adequate treatment have outcomes similar to those reported in the pivotal trials. Health policy should be improved to make lung cancer diagnosis faster and guarantee prompt access to adequate treatment in Brazil.

Predicting survival in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer patients with poor ECOG-PS: A single-arm prospective study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are a heterogeneous population with short lifespan. We aimed to develop methods to better differentiate patients whose survival was >90 days. METHODS: We evaluated 83 characteristics of 106 treatment-naïve, stage IV NSCLC patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG-PS) >1. Automated machine learning was used to select a model and optimize hyperparameters. 100-fold bootstrapping was performed for dimensionality reduction for a second ("lite") model. Performance was measured by C-statistic and accuracy metrics in an out-of-sample validation cohort. The "lite" model was validated on a second independent, prospective cohort (N = 42). Network analysis (NA) was performed to evaluate the differences in centrality and connectivity of features. RESULTS: The selected method was ExtraTrees Classifier, with C-statistic of 0.82 (p < 0.01) and accuracy of 0.81 (p = 0.01). The "lite" model had 16 variables and obtained C-statistic of 0.84 (p < 0.01) and accuracy of 0.75 (p = 0.039) in the first cohort, and C-statistic of 0.706 (p < 0.01) and accuracy of 0.714 (p < 0.01) in the second cohort. The networks of patients with lower survival were more interconnected. Features related to cachexia, inflammation, and quality of life had statistically different prestige scores in NA. CONCLUSIONS: Machine learning can assist in the prognostic evaluation of advanced NSCLC. The model generated with a reduced number of features showed high accessibility and reasonable metrics. Features related to quality of life, cachexia, and performance status had increased correlation and importance scores, suggesting that they play a role at later disease stages, in line with the biological rationale already described.

Does Multidisciplinary Team Management Improve Clinical Outcomes in NSCLC? A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis.

Introduction: The implementation of multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) has been found to be effective for improving outcomes in oncology. Nevertheless, there is still a dearth of robust literature on patients with NSCLC. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review regarding the impact of MDTs on patient with NSCLC outcomes. Methods: Databases were systematically searched up to February 2023. Two reviewers independently performed study selection and data extraction. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa and certainty of evidence by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Overall survival was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included mortality, length of survival, progression-free survival, time from diagnosis to treatment, complete staging, treatment received, and adherence to guidelines. A meta-analysis with a random-effect model was performed. Statistical analysis was performed with the R 3.6.2 package. Results: A total of 22 studies were included in the systematic review. Ten outcomes were identified, favoring the MDT group over the non-MDT group. Pooled analysis revealed that patients managed by MDTs had better overall survival (three studies; 38,037 participants; hazard ratio 0.60, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.49-0.75, I2 = 78%), shorter treatment time compared with patients in the non-MDT group (six studies; 15,235 participants; mean difference = 12.20 d, 95% CI: 10.76-13.63, I2 = 63%), and higher proportion of complete staging (four studies; 14,925 participants; risk ratio = 1.36, 95% CI: 1.17-1.57, I2 = 89%). Conclusions: This meta-analysis revealed that MDT-based patient care was associated with longer overall survival and better quality-of-care-related outcomes.

Increased sympathetic nervous system impairs prognosis in lung cancer patients: a scoping review of clinical studies.

Aim: To summarize current knowledge, gaps, quality of the evidence and show main results related to the role of the autonomic nervous system in lung cancer. Methods: Studies were identified through electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Embase and Cochrane Library) in October 2023, and a descriptive analysis was performed. Twenty-four studies were included, and most were observational. Results: Our data indicated an increased expression of ß-2-adrenergic receptors in lung cancer, which was associated with poor prognosis. However, the use of ß-blockers as an add-on to standard treatment promoted enhanced overall survival, recurrence-free survival and reduced metastasis occurrence. Conclusion: Although the results herein seem promising, future research using high-quality prospective clinical trials is required to draw directions to guide clinical interventions.

Lung cancer is one of the most common causes of cancer-related deaths in the world, which often goes undiagnosed until it is in an advanced stage. Recently, the autonomic nervous system (sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems) has been identified as a regulator of cancer growth and spread, including lung cancer. In fact, preclinical studies have demonstrated that autonomic innervation in lung cancer can trigger tumor progression, metastasis, and resistance to treatment, worsening the prognosis. In this sense, add-on strategies to standard cancer treatments have been investigating and one of them has stood out: the incidental use of ß-blockers (patients who used ß-blockers for the treatment of hypertension and/or cardiovascular diseases or anxiety) before surgeries or during chemotherapy, which has been associated with improved clinical outcomes. Thus, a scoping review was conducted to summarizing the current knowledge about the quality of evidence, gaps and main results related to the role of the autonomic nervous system in human lung cancer. Data from this review indicated an increase in sympathetic nervous system receptors associated with a worse prognosis in patients with lung cancer. Indeed, those patients who took ß-blockers along with lung cancer treatment showed an increase in survival and a reduction in the occurrence of metastases. Although the results herein seem promising, further prospective clinical studies are needed to investigate the effect of the intentional and controlled use of ß-blockers as an add-on strategy on the treatment of different types and stages of lung cancer.