COVID-19 in cancer patients: update from the joint analysis of the ESMO-CoCARE, BSMO, and PSMO international databases.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has significantly affected patients with cancer and revealed unanticipated challenges in securing optimal cancer care across different disciplines. The European Society for Medical Oncology COVID-19 and CAncer REgistry (ESMO-CoCARE) is an international, real-world database, collecting data on the natural history, management, and outcomes of patients with cancer and SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: This is the 2nd CoCARE analysis, jointly with Belgian (Belgian Society of Medical Oncology, BSMO) and Portuguese (Portuguese Society of Medical Oncology, PSMO) registries, with data from January 2020 to December 2021. The aim is to identify significant prognostic factors for COVID-19 hospitalization and mortality (primary outcomes), as well as intensive care unit admission and overall survival (OS) (secondary outcomes). Subgroup analyses by pandemic phase and vaccination status were carried out. RESULTS: The cohort includes 3294 patients (CoCARE: 2049; BSMO: 928, all hospitalized by eligibility criteria; PSMO: 317), diagnosed in four distinct pandemic phases (January to May 2020: 36%; June to September 2020: 9%; October 2020 to February 2021: 41%; March to December 2021: 12%). COVID-19 hospitalization rate was 54% (CoCARE/PSMO), ICU admission 14%, and COVID-19 mortality 22% (all data). At a 6-month median follow-up, 1013 deaths were recorded with 73% 3-month OS rate. No significant change was observed in COVID-19 mortality among hospitalized patients across the four pandemic phases (30%-33%). Hospitalizations and ICU admission decreased significantly (from 78% to 34% and 16% to 10%, respectively). Among 1522 patients with known vaccination status at COVID-19 diagnosis, 70% were non-vaccinated, 24% had incomplete vaccination, and 7% complete vaccination. Complete vaccination had a protective effect on hospitalization (odds ratio = 0.24; 95% confidence interval [0.14-0.38]), ICU admission (odds ratio = 0.29 [0.09-0.94]), and OS (hazard ratio = 0.39 [0.20-0.76]). In multivariable analyses, COVID-19 hospitalization was associated with patient/cancer characteristics, the first pandemic phase, the presence of COVID-19-related symptoms or inflammatory biomarkers, whereas COVID-19 mortality was significantly higher in symptomatic patients, males, older age, ethnicity other than Asian/Caucasian, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≥2, body mass index <25, hematological malignancy, progressive disease versus no evident disease, and advanced cancer stage. CONCLUSIONS: The updated CoCARE analysis, jointly with BSMO and PSMO, highlights factors that significantly affect COVID-19 outcomes, providing actionable clues for further reducing mortality.

ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale for haematological malignancies (ESMO-MCBS:H) version 1.0.

BACKGROUND: The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO)-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (MCBS) has been accepted as a robust tool to evaluate the magnitude of clinical benefit reported in trials for oncological therapies. However, the ESMO-MCBS hitherto has only been validated for solid tumours. With the rapid development of novel therapies for haematological malignancies, we aimed to develop an ESMO-MCBS version that is specifically designed and validated for haematological malignancies. METHODS: ESMO and the European Hematology Association (EHA) initiated a collaboration to develop a version for haematological malignancies (ESMO-MCBS:H). The process incorporated five landmarks: field testing of the ESMO-MCBS version 1.1 (v1.1) to identify shortcomings specific to haematological diseases, drafting of the ESMO-MCBS:H forms, peer review and revision of the draft based on re-scoring (resulting in a second draft), assessment of reasonableness of the scores generated, final review and approval by ESMO and EHA including executive boards. RESULTS: Based on the field testing results of 80 haematological trials and extensive review for feasibility and reasonableness, five amendments to ESMO-MCBS were incorporated in the ESMO-MCBS:H addressing the identified shortcomings. These concerned mainly clinical trial endpoints that differ in haematology versus solid oncology and the very indolent nature of nevertheless incurable diseases such as follicular lymphoma, which hampers presentation of mature data. In addition, general changes incorporated in the draft version of the ESMO-MCBS v2 were included, and specific forms for haematological malignancies generated. Here we present the final approved forms of the ESMO-MCBS:H, including instructions. CONCLUSION: The haematology-specific version ESMO-MCBS:H allows now full applicability of the scale for evaluating the magnitude of clinical benefit derived from clinical studies in haematological malignancies.

Off-label despite high-level evidence: a clinical practice review of commonly used off-patent cancer medicines.

INTRODUCTION: Off-label use of medicines is generally discouraged. However, several off-patent, low-cost cancer medicines remain off-label for indications in which they are commonly used in daily practice, supported by high-level evidence based on results of phase III clinical trials. This discrepancy may generate prescription and reimbursement obstacles as well as impaired access to established therapies. METHODS: A list of cancer medicines that remain off-label in specific indications despite the presence of high-level evidence was generated and subjected to European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) expert peer review to assess for accountability of reasonableness. These medicines were then surveyed on approval procedures and workflow impact. The most illustrative examples of these medicines were reviewed by experts from the European Medicines Agency to ascertain the apparent robustness of the supporting phase III trial evidence from a regulatory perspective. RESULTS: A total of 47 ESMO experts reviewed 17 cancer medicines commonly used off-label in six disease groups. Overall, high levels of agreement were recorded on the off-label status and the high quality of data supporting the efficacy in the off-label indications, often achieving high ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) scores. When prescribing these medicines, 51% of the reviewers had to implement a time-consuming process associated with additional workload, in the presence of litigation risks and patient anxiety. Finally, the informal regulatory expert review identified only 2 out of 18 (11%) studies with significant limitations that would be difficult to overcome in the context of a potential marketing authorisation application without additional studies. CONCLUSIONS: We highlight the common use of off-patent essential cancer medicines in indications that remain off-label despite solid supporting data as well as generate evidence on the adverse impact on patient access and clinic workflows. In the current regulatory framework, incentives to promote the extension of indications of off-patent cancer medicines are needed for all stakeholders.

COVID-19 in patients with cancer: first report of the ESMO international, registry-based, cohort study (ESMO-CoCARE).

BACKGROUND: ESMO COVID-19 and CAncer REgistry (ESMO-CoCARE) is an international collaborative registry-based, cohort study gathering real-world data from Europe, Asia/Oceania and Africa on the natural history, management and outcomes of patients with cancer infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). PATIENTS AND METHODS: ESMO-CoCARE captures information on patients with solid/haematological malignancies, diagnosed with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Data collected since June 2020 include demographics, comorbidities, laboratory measurements, cancer characteristics, COVID-19 clinical features, management and outcome. Parameters influencing COVID-19 severity/recovery were investigated as well as factors associated with overall survival (OS) upon SARS-CoV-2 infection. RESULTS: This analysis includes 1626 patients from 20 countries (87% from 24 European, 7% from 5 North African, 6% from 8 Asian/Oceanian centres), with COVID-19 diagnosis from January 2020 to May 2021. Median age was 64 years, with 52% of female, 57% of cancer stage III/IV and 65% receiving active cancer treatment. Nearly 64% patients required hospitalization due to COVID-19 diagnosis, with 11% receiving intensive care. In multivariable analysis, male sex, older age, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status ≥2, body mass index (BMI) <25 kg/m2, presence of comorbidities, symptomatic disease, as well as haematological malignancies, active/progressive cancer, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) ≥6 and OnCovid Inflammatory Score ≤40 were associated with COVID-19 severity (i.e. severe/moderate disease requiring hospitalization). About 98% of patients with mild COVID-19 recovered, as opposed to 71% with severe/moderate disease. Advanced cancer stage was an additional adverse prognostic factor for recovery. At data cut-off, and with median follow-up of 3 months, the COVID-19-related death rate was 24.5% (297/1212), with 380 deaths recorded in total. Almost all factors associated with COVID-19 severity, except for BMI and NLR, were also predictive of inferior OS, along with smoking and non-Asian ethnicity. CONCLUSIONS: Selected patient and cancer characteristics related to sex, ethnicity, poor fitness, comorbidities, inflammation and active malignancy predict for severe/moderate disease and adverse outcomes from COVID-19 in patients with cancer.

Impact of smoking status on the relative efficacy of the EGFR TKI/angiogenesis inhibitor combination therapy in advanced NSCLC-a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The ETOP 10-16 BOOSTER trial failed to demonstrate a progression-free survival (PFS) benefit for adding bevacizumab to osimertinib in second line. An exploratory subgroup analysis, however, suggested a PFS benefit of the combination in patients with a smoking history and prompted us to do this study. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the differential effect of smoking status on the benefit of adding an angiogenesis inhibitor to epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy was carried out. All relevant randomized controlled trials appearing in main oncology congresses or in PubMed as of 1 November 2021 were used according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses statement. Primarily PFS according to smoking status, and secondarily overall survival (OS) were of interest. Pooled and interaction hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated by fixed or random effects models, depending on the detected degree of heterogeneity. Bias was assessed using the revised Cochrane tool for randomized controlled trials (RoB 2). RESULTS: Information by smoking was available for 1291 patients for PFS (seven studies) and 678 patients for OS (four studies). The risk of bias was low for all studies. Combination treatment significantly prolonged PFS for smokers [n = 502, HR = 0.55, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.44-0.69] but not for nonsmokers (n = 789, HR = 0.92, 95% CI: 0.66-1.27; treatment-by-smoking interaction P = 0.02). Similarly, a significant OS benefit was found for smokers (n = 271, HR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.47-0.93) but not for nonsmokers (n = 407, HR = 1.07, 95% CI: 0.82-1.42; treatment-by-smoking interaction P = 0.03). CONCLUSION: In advanced EGFR-non-small-cell lung cancer patients, the addition of an angiogenesis inhibitor to EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy provides a statistically significant PFS and OS benefit in smokers, but not in non-smokers. The biological basis for this observation should be pursued and could determine whether this might be due to a specific co-mutational pattern produced by tobacco exposure.

Effectiveness of PD-(L)1 inhibitors alone or in combination with platinum-doublet chemotherapy in first-line (1L) non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (Nsq-NSCLC) with PD-L1-high expression using real-world data.

BACKGROUND: Anti-programmed cell death protein (death-ligand) 1 [PD-(L)1] therapy alone [cancer immunotherapy (CIT)-mono] or combined with platinum-based chemotherapy (CIT-chemo) is used as the first-line treatment for patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Our study compared clinical outcomes with CIT-mono versus CIT-chemo in the specific clinical scenario of non-squamous (Nsq)-NSCLC with a high PD-L1 expression of ≥50% [tumor proportion score (TPS) or tumor cells (TC)]. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study using a real-world de-identified database. Patients with metastatic Nsq-NSCLC with high PD-L1 expression initiating first-line CIT-mono or CIT-chemo between 24 October 2016 and 28 February 2019 were followed up until 28 February 2020. We compared overall survival (OS) and real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS) using the Kaplan-Meier methodology. Hazard ratios (HRs) were adjusted (aHR) for differences in baseline key prognostic characteristics using the inverse probability of treatment weighting methodology. RESULTS: Patients with PD-L1-high Nsq-NSCLC treated with CIT-mono (n = 351) were older and less often presented with de novo stage IV disease than patients treated with CIT-chemo (n = 169). With a median follow-up of 19.9 months for CIT-chemo versus 23.5 months for CIT-mono, median OS and rwPFS did not differ between the two groups [median OS: CIT-chemo, 21.0 months versus CIT-mono, 22.1 months, aHR = 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77-1.39, P = 0.83; median rwPFS: CIT-chemo, 10.8 months versus CIT-mono, 11.5 months, aHR = 1.04, 95% CI 0.78-1.37, P = 0.81]. CIT-chemo showed significant and meaningful improvement in OS and rwPFS versus CIT-mono only in the never-smoker subgroup, albeit among a small sample of patients (n = 50; OS HR = 0.25, 95% CI 0.07-0.83, interaction P = 0.02; rwPFS HR = 0.40, 95% CI 0.17-0.95, interaction P = 0.04). CONCLUSION: Except in the subgroup of never-smoker patients, sparing the chemotherapy in first-line CIT treatment does not appear to impact survival outcomes in Nsq-NSCLC patients with high PD-L1 expression.

Consolidation nivolumab and ipilimumab versus observation in limited-disease small-cell lung cancer after chemo-radiotherapy - results from the randomised phase II ETOP/IFCT 4-12 STIMULI trial.

BACKGROUND: Concurrent chemotherapy and thoracic radiotherapy followed by prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) is the standard treatment in limited-disease small-cell lung cancer (LD-SCLC), with 5-year overall survival (OS) of only 25% to 33%. PATIENTS AND METHODS: STIMULI is a 1:1 randomised phase II trial aiming to demonstrate superiority of consolidation combination immunotherapy versus observation after chemo-radiotherapy plus PCI (protocol amendment-1). Consolidation immunotherapy consisted of four cycles of nivolumab [1 mg/kg, every three weeks (Q3W)] plus ipilimumab (3 mg/kg, Q3W), followed by nivolumab monotherapy (240 mg, Q2W) for up to 12 months. Patient recruitment closed prematurely due to slow accrual and the statistical analyses plan was updated to address progression-free survival (PFS) as the only primary endpoint. RESULTS: Of the 222 patients enrolled, 153 were randomised (78: experimental; 75: observation). Among the randomised patients, median age was 62 years, 60% males, 34%/65% current/former smokers, 31%/66% performance status (PS) 0/1. Up to 25 May 2020 (median follow-up 22.4 months), 40 PFS events were observed in the experimental arm, with median PFS 10.7 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 7.0-not estimable (NE)] versus 42 events and median 14.5 months (8.2-NE) in the observation, hazard ratio (HR) = 1.02 (0.66-1.58), two-sided P = 0.93. With updated follow-up (03 June 2021; median: 35 months), median OS was not reached in the experimental arm, while it was 32.1 months (26.1-NE) in observation, with HR = 0.95 (0.59-1.52), P = 0.82. In the experimental arm, median time-to-treatment-discontinuation was only 1.7 months. CTCAE v4 grade ≥3 adverse events were experienced by 62% of patients in the experimental and 25% in the observation arm, with 4 and 1 fatal, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The STIMULI trial did not meet its primary endpoint of improving PFS with nivolumab-ipilimumab consolidation after chemo-radiotherapy in LD-SCLC. A short period on active treatment related to toxicity and treatment discontinuation likely affected the efficacy results.

A randomised phase II study of osimertinib and bevacizumab versus osimertinib alone as second-line targeted treatment in advanced NSCLC with confirmed EGFR and acquired T790M mutations: the European Thoracic Oncology Platform (ETOP 10-16) BOOSTER trial.

BACKGROUND: While osimertinib, a third-generation epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) is the standard treatment in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with sensitising EGFR and acquired T790M mutations, progression inevitably occurs. The angiogenic pathway is implicated in EGFR TKI resistance. PATIENTS AND METHODS: BOOSTER is an open-label randomised phase II trial investigating the efficacy and safety of combined osimertinib 80 mg daily and bevacizumab 15 mg/kg every 3 weeks, versus osimertinib alone, in patients with EGFR-mutant advanced NSCLC and acquired T790M mutations after failure on previous EGFR TKI therapy. Primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR) and adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: Between May 2017 and February 2019, 155 patients were randomised (combination: 78; osimertinib: 77). At data cut-off of 22 February 2021, median follow-up was 33.8 months [interquartile range (IQR): 26.5-37.6 months] and 129 (83.2%) PFS events were reported in the intention-to-treat population. There was no difference in median PFS between the combination [15.4 months; 95% confidence interval (CI) 9.2-18.0 months] and osimertinib arm (12.3 months; 95% CI 6.2-17.2 months; stratified log-rank P = 0.83), [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.96; 95% CI 0.68-1.37]. Median OS was 24.0 months (95% CI 17.8-32.1 months) in the combination arm and 24.3 months (95% CI 16.9-37.0 months) in the osimertinib arm (stratified log-rank P = 0.91), (HR = 1.03; 95% CI 0.67-1.56). Exploratory analysis revealed a significant interaction of smoking history with treatment for PFS (adjusted P = 0.0052) with a HR of 0.52 (95% CI 0.30-0.90) for smokers, and 1.47 (95% CI 0.92-2.33) for never smokers. ORR was 55% in both arms and the median time to treatment failure was significantly shorter in the combination than in the osimertinib arm, 8.2 months versus 10.8 months, respectively (P = 0.0074). Safety of osimertinib and bevacizumab was consistent with previous reports with grade ≥3 treatment-related AEs (TRAEs) reported in 47% and 18% of patients on combination and osimertinib alone, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: No difference in PFS was observed between osimertinib plus bevacizumab and osimertinib alone. Grade ≥3 TRAEs were more common in patients on combination.

Female leadership in oncology-has progress stalled? Data from the ESMO W4O authorship and monitoring studies.

BACKGROUND: Exploratory research showed that female oncologists are frequently under-represented in leadership roles. European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Women for Oncology (W4O) therefore implemented gender equality programs in career development and established international studies on female representation at all stages of the oncology career pathway. METHODS: For 2017-2019, data were collected on (i) first and last authorship of publications in five major oncology journals and (ii) representation of women in leadership positions in oncology-as invited speakers at National/International congresses, board members or presidents of National/International societies and ESMO members. The 2015/2016 data from the first published W4O Study were incorporated for comparisons. RESULTS: Across 2017-2019, female oncologists were significantly more likely to be first than last authors (P < 0.001). The proportion of female first authors was similar across years: 38.0% in 2017, 37.1% in 2018, 41.0% in 2019 (P = 0.063). The proportion of female last authors decreased from 30.4% in 2017 to 24.2% in 2018 (P = 0.0018) and increased to 28.5% in 2019 (P = 0.018). Across 2015-2019, invited speakers at International/National oncology congresses were significantly less likely to be female than male (P < 0.001; 29.7% in 2015 to 36.8% in 2019). Across 2016-2019, board members of International/National oncology societies were significantly less likely to be female than male (P < 0.001; 26.8% in 2016 to 35.8% in 2019). There were statistically significant increasing trends in female speakers and board members across the study periods (P < 0.001 for both). Societies with a female president had a higher proportion of female board members across these periods (P = 0.026). CONCLUSIONS: Reported progress towards gender equality in career development in oncology is real but slow. Women in leadership positions are essential for encouraging young women to aspire to and work towards similar or greater success. Therefore, continued monitoring is needed to inform ESMO W4O initiatives to promote gender balance at all stages of the career pathway.

Biases in study design, implementation, and data analysis that distort the appraisal of clinical benefit and ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) scoring.

BACKGROUND: The European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) is a validated, widely used tool developed to score the clinical benefit from cancer medicines reported in clinical trials. ESMO-MCBS scores assume valid research methodologies and quality trial implementation. Studies incorporating flawed design, implementation, or data analysis may generate outcomes that exaggerate true benefit and are not generalisable. Failure to either indicate or penalise studies with bias undermines the intention and diminishes the integrity of ESMO-MCBS scores. This review aimed to evaluate the adequacy of the ESMO-MCBS to address bias generated by flawed design, implementation, or data analysis and identify shortcomings in need of amendment. METHODS: As part of a refinement of the ESMO-MCBS, we reviewed trial design, implementation, and data analysis issues that could bias the results. For each issue of concern, we reviewed the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 approach against standards derived from Helsinki guidelines for ethical human research and guidelines from the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use, the Food and Drugs Administration, the European Medicines Agency, and European Network for Health Technology Assessment. RESULTS: Six design, two implementation, and two data analysis and interpretation issues were evaluated and in three, the ESMO-MCBS provided adequate protections. Seven shortcomings in the ability of the ESMO-MCBS to identify and address bias were identified. These related to (i) evaluation of the control arm, (ii) crossover issues, (iii) criteria for non-inferiority, (iv) substandard post-progression treatment, (v) post hoc subgroup findings based on biomarkers, (vi) informative censoring, and (vii) publication bias against quality-of-life data. CONCLUSION: Interpretation of the ESMO-MCBS scores requires critical appraisal of trials to understand caveats in trial design, implementation, and data analysis that may have biased results and conclusions. These will be addressed in future iterations of the ESMO-MCBS.

Efficacy of cancer vaccines in selected gynaecological breast and ovarian cancers: A 20-year systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Therapeutic cancer vaccination is an area of interest, even though promising efficacy has not been demonstrated so far. DESIGN: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate vaccines' efficacy on breast cancer (BC) and ovarian cancer (OC) patients. Our search was based on the PubMed electronic database, from 1st January 2000 to 4th February 2020. OBJECTIVE: response rate (ORR) was the primary end-point of interest, while progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and toxicity were secondary end-points. Analysis was performed separately for BC and OC patients. Pooled ORRs were estimated by fixed or random effects models, depending on the detected degree of heterogeneity, for all studies with more than five patients. Subgroup analyses by vaccine type and treatment schema as well as sensitivity analyses, were implemented. RESULTS: Among 315 articles initially identified, 67 were eligible for our meta-analysis (BC: 46, 1698 patients; OC: 32, 426 patients; where both BC/OC in 11). Dendritic-cell and peptide vaccines were found in more studies, 6/10 BC and 10/13 OC studies, respectively. In our primary BC analysis (21 studies; 428 patients), the pooled ORR estimate was 9% (95%CI[5%,13%]). The primary OC analysis (12 studies; 182 patients), yielded pooled ORR estimate of 4% (95%CI[1%,7%]). Similar were the results derived in sensitivity analyses. No statistically significant differences were detected by vaccine type or treatment schema. Median PFS was 2.6 months (95% confidence interval (CI)[1.9,2.9]) and 13.0 months (95%CI[8.5,16.3]) for BC and OC respectively, while corresponding median OS was 24.8 months (95%CI[15.0,46.0]) and 39.0 months (95%CI[31.0,49.0]). In almost all cases, the observed toxicity was only moderate. CONCLUSION: Despite their modest results in terms of ORR, therapeutic vaccines in the last 20 years display relatively long survival rates and low toxicity. Since a plethora of different approaches have been tested, a better understanding of the underlying mechanisms is needed in order to further improve vaccine efficacy.

A multicentre randomised phase III trial comparing pembrolizumab versus single-agent chemotherapy for advanced pre-treated malignant pleural mesothelioma: the European Thoracic Oncology Platform (ETOP 9-15) PROMISE-meso trial.

BACKGROUND: Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is an aggressive malignancy characterised by limited treatment options and a poor prognosis. At relapse after platinum-based chemotherapy, single-agent chemotherapy is commonly used and single-arm trials of immune-checkpoint inhibitors have demonstrated encouraging activity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: PROMISE-meso is an open-label 1:1 randomised phase III trial investigating the efficacy of pembrolizumab (200 mg/Q3W) versus institutional choice single-agent chemotherapy (gemcitabine or vinorelbine) in relapsed MPM patients with progression after/on previous platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients were performance status 0-1 and unselected for programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) status. At progression, patients randomly assigned to receive chemotherapy were allowed to crossover to pembrolizumab. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS), assessed by blinded independent central review (BICR). Secondary end points were overall survival (OS), investigator-assessed PFS, objective response rate (ORR), and safety. Efficacy by PD-L1 status was investigated in exploratory analyses. RESULTS: Between September 2017 and August 2018, 144 patients were randomly allocated (pembrolizumab: 73; chemotherapy: 71). At data cut-off [20 February 2019, median follow-up of 11.8 months (interquartile range: 9.9-14.5)], 118 BICR-PFS events were observed. No difference in BICR-PFS was detected [hazard ratio = 1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.73-1.53; P = 0.76], and median BICR-PFS (95% CI) for pembrolizumab was 2.5 (2.1-4.2), compared with 3.4 (2.2-4.3) months for chemotherapy. A difference in ORR for pembrolizumab was identified (22%, 95% CI: 13% to 33%), over chemotherapy (6%, 95% CI: 2% to 14%; P = 0.004). Forty-five patients (63%) assigned to chemotherapy received pembrolizumab at progression. With follow-up to 21 August 2019 [17.5 months: (14.8-19.7)], no difference in OS was detected between groups (HR = 1.12, 95% CI: 0.74-1.69; P = 0.59), even after adjusting for crossover. Pembrolizumab safety was consistent with previous observations. Exploratory efficacy analyses by PD-L1 status demonstrated no improvements in ORR/PFS/OS. CONCLUSION: This is the first randomised trial evaluating the efficacy of pembrolizumab in MPM patients progressing after/on previous platinum-based chemotherapy. In biologically unselected patients, although associated with an improved ORR, pembrolizumab improves neither PFS nor OS over single-agent chemotherapy.

Survival outcome of non-small cell lung cancer patients: Comparing results between the database of the Comprehensive Cancer Center Zürich and the Epidemiological Cancer Registry Zurich and Zug.

BACKGROUND: Cancer cases among the population of the canton Zurich, are registered in the Cancer Registry of the cantons of Zurich and Zug (KKR). The Thoracic Oncology Center, founded in 2011 is one of 17 multidisciplinary centers within the Comprehensive Cancer Center Zurich (CCCZ). METHODS: The aim of the current study is to quantify the mortality risk of patients with NSCLC and identify differences on survival and other factors between patients receiving their primary treatment at the CCCZ and those treated elsewhere and registered by KKR. The differential effect between CCCZ and KKR cohorts on survival: overall, by stage, sex and age, is explored. Stratified log-rank and Wilcoxon tests, Cox models and restricted mean survival times (RMST) are estimated. Propensity score matching (PSM) is also used to adjust for confounding factors. RESULTS: Analysis included 848 NSCLC cases from the CCCZ and 1759 from the KKR, diagnosed between January 2011 and December 2015. At a median follow-up of 57 months, overall survival (OS) was significantly superior for patients treated at the CCCZ compared to KKR [Median OS: 36.0 months (95%CI: 31.0-45.0) and 12.0 months (95%CI: 11.0-13.0), respectively, stratified log-rank p < 0.001; adjusted HR = 1.31, (95% CI: 1.18-1.46), difference in RMST up to 72 months: 13.8 months (95%CI: 11.5-16.2), p < 0.001]. The effect of cohort was significant for stages III and IV (overall and also by sex and age). After PSM OS remained significantly superior for patients treated at the CCCZ compared to KKR. CONCLUSIONS: The survival probability for patients in the CCCZ cohort was superior to that of patients in the canton Zürich treated outside the center. This analysis provides further evidence of the importance of the volume of experience and the availability of a multidisciplinary organization and research environment, as delivered by a comprehensive cancer center, on the outcome of patients with NSCLC.

Efficacy of adoptive therapy with tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and recombinant interleukin-2 in advanced cutaneous melanoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Adoptive cell therapy (ACT) using autologous tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL) has been tested in advanced melanoma patients at various centers. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess its efficacy on previously treated advanced metastatic cutaneous melanoma. The PubMed electronic database was searched from inception to 17 December 2018 to identify studies administering TIL-ACT and recombinant interleukin-2 (IL-2) following non-myeloablative chemotherapy in previously treated metastatic melanoma patients. Objective response rate (ORR) was the primary end point. Secondary end points were complete response rate (CRR), overall survival (OS), duration of response (DOR) and toxicity. Pooled estimates were derived from fixed or random effect models, depending on the amount of heterogeneity detected. Analysis was carried out separately for high dose (HD) and low dose (LD) IL-2. Sensitivity analyses were carried out. Among 1211 records screened, 13 studies (published 1988 - 2016) were eligible for meta-analysis. Among 410 heavily pretreated patients (some with brain metastasis), 332 received HD-IL-2 and 78 LD-IL-2. The pooled overall ORR estimate was 41% [95% confidence interval (CI) 35% to 48%], and the overall CRR was 12% (95% CI 7% to 16%). For the HD-IL-2 group, the ORR was 43% (95% CI 36% to 50%), while for the LD-IL-2 it was 35% (95% CI 25% to 45%). Corresponding pooled estimates for CRR were 14% (95% CI 7% to 20%) and 7% (95% CI 1% to 12%). The majority of HD-IL-2 complete responders (27/28) remained in remission during the extent of follow-up after CR (median 40 months). Sensitivity analyses yielded similar results. Higher number of infused cells was associated with a favorable response. The ORR for HD-IL-2 compared favorably with the nivolumab/ipilimumab combination following anti-PD-1 failure. TIL-ACT therapy, especially when combined with HD-IL-2, achieves durable clinical benefit and warrants further investigation. We discuss the current position of TIL-ACT in the therapy of advanced melanoma, particularly in the era of immune checkpoint blockade therapy, and review future opportunities for improvement of this approach.

Gender medicine and oncology: report and consensus of an ESMO workshop.

BACKGROUND: The importance of sex and gender as modulators of disease biology and treatment outcomes is well known in other disciplines of medicine, such as cardiology, but remains an undervalued issue in oncology. Considering the increasing evidence for their relevance, European Society for Medical Oncology decided to address this topic and organized a multidisciplinary workshop in Lausanne, Switzerland, on 30 November and 1 December 2018. DESIGN: Twenty invited faculty members and 40 selected physicians/scientists participated. Relevant content was presented by faculty members on the basis of a literature review conducted by each speaker. Following a moderated consensus session, the final consensus statements are reported here. RESULTS: Clinically relevant sex differences include tumour biology, immune system activity, body composition and drug disposition and effects. The main differences between male and female cells are sex chromosomes and the level of sexual hormones they are exposed to. They influence both local and systemic determinants of carcinogenesis. Their effect on carcinogenesis in non-reproductive organs is largely unknown. Recent evidence also suggests differences in tumour biology and molecular markers. Regarding body composition, the difference in metabolically active, fat-free body mass is one of the most prominent: in a man and a woman of equal weight and height, it accounts for 80% of the man's and 65% of the woman's body mass, and is not taken into account in body-surface area based dosing of chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: Sex differences in cancer biology and treatment deserve more attention and systematic investigation. Interventional clinical trials evaluating sex-specific dosing regimens are necessary to improve the balance between efficacy and toxicity for drugs with significant pharmacokinetic differences. Especially in diseases or disease subgroups with significant differences in epidemiology or outcomes, men and women with non-sex-related cancers should be considered as biologically distinct groups of patients, for whom specific treatment approaches merit consideration.

Safety evaluation of nivolumab added concurrently to radiotherapy in a standard first line chemo-radiotherapy regimen in stage III non-small cell lung cancer-The ETOP NICOLAS trial.

OBJECTIVES: Chemo-radiotherapy (CRT) and concurrent PD-1 inhibition has shown promising results in pre-clinical models. So far, the feasibility of delivering concurrent CRT and PD-1/PD-L1 inhibition has never been assessed in a clinical trial. MATERIAL AND METHODS: NICOLAS is a phase-II trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of nivolumab combined with CRT in stage III NSCLC. Patients received 3 cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy and concurrent RT (66 Gy/33fractions). Nivolumab started concurrently with RT. The primary endpoint was 6-month post-RT rate of grade-≥3-pneumonitis. A formal interim safety analysis (IA) was scheduled when the first 21 patients reached 3 months follow-up post-RT. An early positive safety conclusion would be reached at IA if there were no grade ≥3-pneumonitis in those patients. Efficacy evaluation was planned provided the safety conclusion was reached. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: As of 13 December 2018, 82 patients were recruited with median follow-up of 13.4 months. The most frequent adverse events (AEs) were anaemia, fatigue and pneumonitis. No unexpected AEs or increased toxicities were observed. For the first 21 patients, no grade-≥3-pneumonitis was observed by the end of the 3-month post-RT follow-up period. The early safety IA provides evidence that the addition of nivolumab to concurrent CRT is safe and tolerable regarding the 6-month rate of pneumonitis grade ≥3 at the one-sided significance level of 5%. Following that, the 1-year progression-free survival will be evaluated in an expanded patient cohort. NICOLAS trial creates the opportunity for assessing the activity of the combination of checkpoint with concurrent CRT in larger prospective trials for locally advanced NSCLC.