Dissecting the clinicopathologic, genomic, and immunophenotypic correlates of KRASG12D-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Allele-specific KRAS inhibitors are an emerging class of cancer therapies. KRAS-mutant (KRASMUT) non-small-cell lung cancers (NSCLCs) exhibit heterogeneous outcomes, driven by differences in underlying biology shaped by co-mutations. In contrast to KRASG12C NSCLC, KRASG12D NSCLC is associated with low/never-smoking status and is largely uncharacterized. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Clinicopathologic and genomic information were collected from patients with NSCLCs harboring a KRAS mutation at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (DFCI), Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, MD Anderson Cancer Center, and Imperial College of London. Multiplexed immunofluorescence for CK7, programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1), programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), Foxp3, and CD8 was carried out on a subset of samples with available tissue at the DFCI. Clinical outcomes to PD-(L)1 inhibition ± chemotherapy were analyzed according to KRAS mutation subtype. RESULTS: Of 2327 patients with KRAS-mutated (KRASMUT) NSCLC, 15% (n = 354) harbored KRASG12D. Compared to KRASnon-G12D NSCLC, KRASG12D NSCLC had a lower pack-year (py) smoking history (median 22.5 py versus 30.0 py, P < 0.0001) and was enriched in never smokers (22% versus 5%, P < 0.0001). KRASG12D had lower PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) (median 1% versus 5%, P < 0.01) and lower tumor mutation burden (TMB) compared to KRASnon-G12D (median 8.4 versus 9.9 mt/Mb, P < 0.0001). Of the samples which underwent multiplexed immunofluorescence, KRASG12D had lower intratumoral and total CD8+PD1+ T cells (P < 0.05). Among 850 patients with advanced KRASMUT NSCLC who received PD-(L)1-based therapies, KRASG12D was associated with a worse objective response rate (ORR) (15.8% versus 28.4%, P = 0.03), progression-free survival (PFS) [hazard ratio (HR) 1.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.45-2.00, P = 0.003], and overall survival (OS; HR 1.45, 1.05-1.99, P = 0.02) to PD-(L)1 inhibition alone but not to chemo-immunotherapy combinations [ORR 30.6% versus 35.7%, P = 0.51; PFS HR 1.28 (95%CI 0.92-1.77), P = 0.13; OS HR 1.36 (95%CI 0.95-1.96), P = 0.09] compared to KRASnon-G12D. CONCLUSIONS: KRASG12D lung cancers harbor distinct clinical, genomic, and immunologic features compared to other KRAS-mutated lung cancers and worse outcomes to PD-(L)1 blockade. Drug development for KRASG12D lung cancers will have to take these differences into account.

Evaluation of COVID-19 impact on DELAYing diagnostic-therapeutic pathways of lung cancer patients in Italy (COVID-DELAY study): fewer cases and higher stages from a real-world scenario.

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 has disrupted the global health care system since March 2020. Lung cancer (LC) patients (pts) represent a vulnerable population highly affected by the pandemic. This multicenter Italian study aimed to evaluate whether the COVID-19 outbreak had an impact on access to cancer diagnosis and treatment of LC pts compared with pre-pandemic time. METHODS: Consecutive newly diagnosed LC pts referred to 25 Italian Oncology Departments between March and December 2020 were included. Access rate and temporal intervals between date of symptoms onset and diagnostic and therapeutic services were compared with the same period in 2019. Differences between the 2 years were analyzed using the chi-square test for categorical variables and the Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables. RESULTS: A slight reduction (-6.9%) in newly diagnosed LC cases was observed in 2020 compared with 2019 (1523 versus 1637, P = 0.09). Newly diagnosed LC pts in 2020 were more likely to be diagnosed with stage IV disease (P < 0.01) and to be current smokers (someone who has smoked more than 100 cigarettes, including hand-rolled cigarettes, cigars, cigarillos, in their lifetime and has smoked in the last 28 days) (P < 0.01). The drop in terms of new diagnoses was greater in the lockdown period (percentage drop -12% versus -3.2%) compared with the other months included. More LC pts were referred to a low/medium volume hospital in 2020 compared with 2019 (P = 0.01). No differences emerged in terms of interval between symptoms onset and radiological diagnosis (P = 0.94), symptoms onset and cytohistological diagnosis (P = 0.92), symptoms onset and treatment start (P = 0.40), and treatment start and first radiological revaluation (P = 0.36). CONCLUSIONS: Our study pointed out a reduction of new diagnoses with a shift towards higher stage at diagnosis for LC pts in 2020. Despite this, the measures adopted by Italian Oncology Departments ensured the maintenance of the diagnostic-therapeutic pathways of LC pts.

Antibiotic-exposed patients with non-small-cell lung cancer preserve efficacy outcomes following first-line chemo-immunotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Prior antibiotic therapy (pATB) is known to impair efficacy of single-agent immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), potentially through the induction of gut dysbiosis. Whether ATB also affects outcomes to chemo-immunotherapy combinations is still unknown. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this international multicentre study, we evaluated the association between pATB, concurrent ATB (cATB) and overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR) in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with first-line chemo-immunotherapy at eight referral institutions. RESULTS: Among 302 patients with stage IV NSCLC, 216 (71.5%) and 61 (20.2%) patients were former and current smokers, respectively. Programmed death-ligand 1 tumour expression in assessable patients (274, 90.7%) was ≥50% in 76 (25.2%), 1%-49% in 84 (27.9%) and <1% in 113 (37.5%). Multivariable analysis showed pATB-exposed patients to have similar OS {hazard ratio (HR) = 1.42 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.91-2.22]; P = 0.1207} and PFS [HR = 1.12 (95% CI: 0.76-1.63); P = 0.5552], compared to unexposed patients, regardless of performance status. Similarly, no difference with respect to ORR was found across pATB exposure groups (42.6% versus 57.4%, P = 0.1794). No differential effect was found depending on pATB exposure duration (≥7 versus <7 days) and route of administration (intravenous versus oral). Similarly, cATB was not associated with OS [HR = 1.29 (95% CI: 0.91-1.84); P = 0.149] and PFS [HR = 1.20 (95% CI: 0.89-1.63); P = 0.222] when evaluated as time-varying covariate in multivariable analysis. CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to what has been reported in patients receiving single-agent ICIs, pATB does not impair clinical outcomes to first-line chemo-immunotherapy of patients with NSCLC. pATB status should integrate currently available clinico-pathologic factors for guiding first-line treatment decisions, whilst there should be no concern in offering cATB during chemo-immunotherapy when needed.

The systemic pro-inflammatory response: targeting the dangerous liaison between COVID-19 and cancer.

Inflammation is an established driver of severe SARS-CoV-2 infection and a mechanism linked to the increased susceptibility to fatal COVID-19 demonstrated by patients with cancer. As patients with cancer exhibit a higher level of inflammation compared with the general patient population, patients with cancer and COVID-19 may uniquely benefit from strategies targeted at overcoming the unrestrained pro-inflammatory response. Targeted and non-targeted anti-inflammatory therapies may prevent end-organ damage in SARS-CoV-2-infected patients with cancer and decrease mortality. Here, we review the clinical role of selective inhibition of pro-inflammatory interleukins, tyrosine kinase modulation, anti-tumor necrosis factor agents, and other non-targeted approaches including corticosteroids in their roles as disease-modulating agents in patients with COVID-19 and cancer. Investigation of these therapeutics in this highly vulnerable patient group is posited to facilitate the development of tailored therapeutics for this patient population, aiding the transition of systemic inflammation from a prognostic domain to a source of therapeutic targets.

The lung immuno-oncology prognostic score (LIPS-3): a prognostic classification of patients receiving first-line pembrolizumab for PD-L1 ≥ 50% advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: To stratify the prognosis of patients with programmed cell death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) ≥ 50% advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) treated with first-line immunotherapy. METHODS: Baseline clinical prognostic factors, the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), PD-L1 tumour cell expression level, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) and their combination were investigated by a retrospective analysis of 784 patients divided between statistically powered training (n = 201) and validation (n = 583) cohorts. Cut-offs were explored by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and a risk model built with validated independent factors by multivariate analysis. RESULTS: NLR < 4 was a significant prognostic factor in both cohorts (P < 0.001). It represented 53% of patients in the validation cohort, with 1-year overall survival (OS) of 76.6% versus 44.8% with NLR > 4, in the validation series. The addition of PD-L1 ≥ 80% (21% of patients) or LDH < 252 U/l (25%) to NLR < 4 did not result in better 1-year OS (of 72.6% and 74.1%, respectively, in the validation cohort). Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) of 2 [P < 0.001, hazard ratio (HR) 2.04], pretreatment steroids (P < 0.001, HR 1.67) and NLR < 4 (P < 0.001, HR 2.29) resulted in independent prognostic factors. A risk model with these three factors, namely, the lung immuno-oncology prognostic score (LIPS)-3, accurately stratified three OS risk-validated categories of patients: favourable (0 risk factors, 40%, 1-year OS of 78.2% in the whole series), intermediate (1 or 2 risk factors, 54%, 1-year OS 53.8%) and poor (>2 risk factors, 5%, 1-year OS 10.7%) prognosis. CONCLUSIONS: We advocate the use of LIPS-3 as an easy-to-assess and inexpensive adjuvant prognostic tool for patients with PD-L1 ≥ 50% aNSCLC.

Osimertinib beyond disease progression in T790M EGFR-positive NSCLC patients: a multicenter study of clinicians' attitudes.

BACKGROUND: In most cases, T790M EGFR-positive NSCLC patients receiving osimertinib developed "non-drugable" progression, as the patients with common EGFR-sensitizing mutations were treated with first-line osimertinib. In both settings, chemotherapy represents the standard treatment and local ablative treatments (LATs) are potential useful options in the case of oligo-progression. METHODS: We conducted a study on "post-progression" (pp) outcomes of T790M EGFR-positive NSCLC patients treated with osimertinib, according to the therapeutic strategy applied: osimertinib beyond progression (± LATs), "switched therapies" or best supportive care only (BSC). RESULTS: 144 consecutive patients were evaluated: 53 (36.8%) did not received post-progression treatments (BSC), while 91 (63.2%) patients received at least 1 subsequent treatment; 50 patients (54.9%) received osimertinib beyond disease progression [19 (20.9%) of them with adjunctive LATs] and 41 (45.1%) a switched therapy. Median ppPFS (progression-free survival) and median ppOS (overall survival) of patients who received osimertinib beyond progression vs. switched therapies were 6.4 months vs. 4.7 months, respectively [HR 0.57 (95% CI 0.35-0.92), p = 0.0239] and 11.3 months vs 7.8 months, respectively [HR 0.57 (95% CI 0.33-0.98), p = 0.0446]. Among patients who received osimertinib beyond progression with and without LATs median ppPFS was 6.4 months and 5.7 months, respectively [HR 0.90 (95% CI 0.68-1.18), p = 0.4560], while median ppOS was 20.2 months and 9.9 months, respectively [HR 0.73 (95% CI 0.52-1.03), p = 0.0748]. At the univariate analysis, the only factor significantly related to the ppPFS was the therapeutic strategy in favor of osimertinib beyond progression (± LATs). Moreover, the only variable which was significantly related to ppOS at the multivariate analysis was osimertinib beyond progression (± LATs). CONCLUSION: Our study confirmed that in clinical practice, in case of "non-druggable" disease progression, maintaining osimertinib beyond progression (with adjunctive LATs) is an effective option.

Clinical outcomes to pemetrexed-based versus non-pemetrexed-based platinum doublets in patients with KRAS-mutant advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: KRAS mutation has been associated with enhanced dependency on the folate metabolism in preclinical studies. However, whether KRAS mutation correlates to increased sensitivity to pemetrexed in patients with advanced NSCLC is unknown. METHODS: Patients with advanced non-squamous NSCLC who had a documented EGFR and ALK WT genotype with simultaneous KRAS mutation assessment were evaluated for clinical outcome to pemetrexed- and non-pemetrexed-based first-line platinum doublet according to KRAS mutation status. RESULTS: Of 356 patients identified, 138 harbored a KRAS mutation. Among KRAS-mutant NSCLCs, those treated with platinum/pemetrexed (81/138) had significantly lower ORR (30.9% versus 47.4%, P = 0.05), DCR (51.8% versus 71.9%, P = 0.02) and shorter median progression-free survival [mPFS 4.1 versus 7.1 months, HR 1.48 (95% CI 1.03-2.12), P = 0.03] and median overall survival [mOS 9.7 versus 26.9 months, HR 1.93 (95% CI 1.27-2.94), P = 0.002] compared to those who received a non-pemetrexed-based platinum doublet (57/138). No difference in ORR, DCR, mPFS and mOS was observed between KRAS WT patients who received a pemetrexed-based (124/218) versus non-pemetrexed base platinum doublets (94/218). After adjusting for performance status, age and the presence of brain metastasis at baseline, treatment with pemetrexed-based platinum doublet was associated with an increased risk of death [HR 2.27 (95% CI 1.12-4.63), P = 0.02] among KRAS-mutant patients in multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION: Patients with KRAS-mutant lung adenocarcinoma have a poorer outcome on pemetrexed-based first-line chemotherapy. Whether KRAS-mutant NSCLCs should be excluded from pemetrexed-containing regimens should be assessed prospectively.

First-line carboplatin/nab-paclitaxel in advanced ovarian cancer patients, after hypersensitivity reaction to solvent-based taxanes: a single-institution experience.

One of the major challenges related to solvent-based taxanes administration in clinical practice is the high rate of hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs). Nab-paclitaxel is a solvent-free, albumin-bound, paclitaxel, which minimize the risk of HSR occurrence. In this single-institution, retrospective analysis, we evaluated stage IIIc-IV epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) patients, treated with first-line carboplatin/nab-paclitaxel (± bevacizumab), after the occurrence of an HSR with solvent-based paclitaxel (and/or docetaxel). Between April 2012 and December 2018, ten patients (20.8%) received carboplatin/nab-paclitaxel (± bevacizumab) after the occurrence of an HSR to solvent-based taxanes. Among the evaluable patients, ORR was 100%. At median follow-up of 28.5 months, median PFS was 16.7 months, and median OS was 65.4 months, respectively. Median received dose intensity (DI) was 86% and 80% of the projected DI for nab-paclitaxel and carboplatin, respectively. There were no treatment-related grade 4 adverse events. Most relevant treatment-related grade 3 adverse events were: asthenia (10%), hypertransaminasemia (10%), neutropenia (20%), thrombocytopenia (20%), and anemia (10%). No HSR recurrence was observed. The high rate of HSR occurrence could limit first-line treatment options in clinical practice. Carboplatin/nab-paclitaxel association could represent a valid treatment option in this setting.