RET Fusion Testing in Patients With NSCLC: The RETING Study.

Introduction: RET inhibitors with impressive overall response rates are now available for patients with NSCLC, yet the identification of RET fusions remains a difficult challenge. Most guidelines encourage the upfront use of next-generation sequencing (NGS), or alternatively, fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) or reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) when NGS is not possible or available. Taken together, the suboptimal performance of single-analyte assays to detect RET fusions, although consistent with the notion of encouraging universal NGS, is currently widening some of the clinical practice gaps in the implementation of predictive biomarkers in patients with advanced NSCLC. Methods: This situation prompted us to evaluate several RET assays in a large multicenter cohort of RET fusion-positive NSCLC (n = 38) to obtain real-world data. In addition to RNA-based NGS (the criterion standard method), all positive specimens underwent break-apart RET FISH with two different assays and were also tested by an RT-PCR assay. Results: The most common RET partners were KIF5B (78.9%), followed by CCDC6 (15.8%). The two RET NGS-positive but FISH-negative samples contained a KIF5B(15)-RET(12) fusion. The three RET fusions not identified with RT-PCR were AKAP13(35)-RET(12), KIF5B(24)-RET(9) and KIF5B(24)-RET(11). All three false-negative RT-PCR cases were FISH-positive, exhibited a typical break-apart pattern, and contained a very high number of positive tumor cells with both FISH assays. Signet ring cells, psammoma bodies, and pleomorphic features were frequently observed (in 34.2%, 39.5%, and 39.5% of tumors, respectively). Conclusions: In-depth knowledge of the advantages and disadvantages of the different RET testing methodologies could help clinical and molecular tumor boards implement and maintain sensible algorithms for the rapid and effective detection of RET fusions in patients with NSCLC. The likelihood of RET false-negative results with both FISH and RT-PCR reinforces the need for upfront NGS in patients with NSCLC.

The S-REAL study: Spanish real-world data on unresectable stage III NSCLC patients treated with durvalumab after chemoradiotherapy.

OBJECTIVES: The S-REAL study aimed to assess the effectiveness of durvalumab as consolidation therapy after definitive chemoradiotherapy (CRT) in a real-world cohort of patients with locally advanced, unresectable stage III non-small cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC) included in a Spanish early access program (EAP). METHODS: In this multicentre, observational, retrospective study we analysed data from patients treated in 39 Spanish hospitals, who started intravenous durvalumab (10 mg/kg every 2 weeks) between September 2017 and December 2018. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included patient characterization and adverse events of special interest (AESI). RESULTS: A total of 244 patients were followed up for a median of 21.9 months [range 1.2-34.7]. Median duration of durvalumab was 45.5 weeks (11.4 months) [0-145]. Median PFS was 16.7 months (95% CI 12.2-25). No remarkable differences in PFS were observed between patients with programmed cell death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression ≥ 1% or < 1% (16.7 versus 15.6 months, respectively). However, PFS was higher in patients who had received prior concurrent CRT (cCRT) versus sequential CRT (sCRT) (20.6 versus 9.4 months). AESIs leading to durvalumab discontinuation were registered in 11.1% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: These results are in line with prior published evidence and confirm the benefits of durvalumab in the treatment of LA-NSCLC patients in a real-world setting. We also observed a lower incidence of important treatment-associated toxicities, such as pneumonitis, compared with the pivotal phase III PACIFIC clinical study.

Four-year clinical update and treatment switching-adjusted outcomes with first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy for metastatic non-small cell lung cancer in the CheckMate 9LA randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: In CheckMate 9LA, nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy prolonged overall survival (OS) versus chemotherapy regardless of tumor PD-L1 expression or histology. We report updated efficacy and safety in all randomized patients with a minimum 4-year follow-up and an exploratory treatment-switching adjustment analysis in all treated patients who received chemotherapy and subsequent immunotherapy. METHODS: Adults with stage IV/recurrent non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), no sensitizing EGFR/ALK alterations, and ECOG performance status ≤1 were randomized 1:1 to nivolumab 360 mg every 3 weeks plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 6 weeks with chemotherapy (two cycles) or chemotherapy (four cycles, with optional maintenance pemetrexed for the nonsquamous population). Assessments included OS, progression-free survival, and objective response rate. Exploratory analyses included efficacy by tumor PD-L1 expression and histology and in patients who discontinued nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy due to treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), and a treatment-switching adjustment analysis using inverse probability of censoring weighting. RESULTS: With a 47.9-month minimum follow-up for OS, nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy continued to prolong OS over chemotherapy in all randomized patients (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.87; 4-year OS rate: 21% versus 16%), regardless of tumor PD-L1 expression (HR (95% CI): PD-L1<1%, 0.66 (0.50 to 0.86) and ≥1%, 0.74 (0.60 to 0.92)) or histology (squamous, 0.64 (0.48 to 0.84) and non-squamous, 0.80 (0.66 to 0.97)). In patients who discontinued all components of nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy due to TRAEs (n=61), the 4-year OS rate was 41%. With treatment-switching adjustment for the 36% of patients receiving subsequent immunotherapy in the chemotherapy arm, the estimated HR of nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy was 0.66 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.80). No new safety signals were observed. CONCLUSIONS: In this 4-year update, patients treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy continued to have long-term, durable efficacy benefit over chemotherapy regardless of tumor PD-L1 expression and/or histology. A greater estimated relative OS benefit was observed after adjustment for subsequent immunotherapy use in the chemotherapy arm. These results further support nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy as a first-line treatment for patients with metastatic/recurrent NSCLC, including those with tumor PD-L1<1% or squamous histology, populations with high unmet needs.

Tarlatamab for Patients with Previously Treated Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Tarlatamab, a bispecific T-cell engager immunotherapy targeting delta-like ligand 3 and CD3, showed promising antitumor activity in a phase 1 trial in patients with previously treated small-cell lung cancer. METHODS: In this phase 2 trial, we evaluated the antitumor activity and safety of tarlatamab, administered intravenously every 2 weeks at a dose of 10 mg or 100 mg, in patients with previously treated small-cell lung cancer. The primary end point was objective response (complete or partial response), as assessed by blinded independent central review according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1. RESULTS: Overall, 220 patients received tarlatamab; patients had previously received a median of two lines of treatment. Among patients evaluated for antitumor activity and survival, the median follow-up was 10.6 months in the 10-mg group and 10.3 months in the 100-mg group. An objective response occurred in 40% (97.5% confidence interval [CI], 29 to 52) of the patients in the 10-mg group and in 32% (97.5% CI, 21 to 44) of those in the 100-mg group. Among patients with an objective response, the duration of response was at least 6 months in 59% (40 of 68 patients). Objective responses at the time of data cutoff were ongoing in 22 of 40 patients (55%) in the 10-mg group and in 16 of 28 patients (57%) in the 100-mg group. The median progression-free survival was 4.9 months (95% CI, 2.9 to 6.7) in the 10-mg group and 3.9 months (95% CI, 2.6 to 4.4) in the 100-mg group; the estimates of overall survival at 9 months were 68% and 66% of patients, respectively. The most common adverse events were cytokine-release syndrome (in 51% of the patients in the 10-mg group and in 61% of those in the 100-mg group), decreased appetite (in 29% and 44%, respectively), and pyrexia (in 35% and 33%). Cytokine-release syndrome occurred primarily during treatment cycle 1, and events in most of the patients were grade 1 or 2 in severity. Grade 3 cytokine-release syndrome occurred less frequently in the 10-mg group (in 1% of the patients) than in the 100-mg group (in 6%). A low percentage of patients (3%) discontinued tarlatamab because of treatment-related adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Tarlatamab, administered as a 10-mg dose every 2 weeks, showed antitumor activity with durable objective responses and promising survival outcomes in patients with previously treated small-cell lung cancer. No new safety signals were identified. (Funded by Amgen; DeLLphi-301 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05060016.).

Sex Differences in the Efficacy of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Neoadjuvant Therapy of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Meta-Analysis.

Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is one of the world's leading causes of morbidity and mortality. ICIs alone or combined with chemotherapy have become the standard first-line treatment of metastatic NSCLC. The impressive results obtained have stimulated our interest in applying these therapies in early disease stage treatments, as neoadjuvant immunotherapy has shown promising results. Among many of the factors that may influence responses, the role played by sex is attracting increased interest and needs to be addressed. Here, we aim to first review the state of the art regarding neoadjuvant ICIs, whether they are administered in monotherapy or in combination with chemotherapy at stages IB-IIIA, particularly at stage IIIA, before analyzing whether sex may influence responses. To this end, a meta-analysis of publicly available data comparing male and female major pathological responses (MPR) and pathological complete responses (pCR) was performed. In our meta-analysis, MPR was found to be significantly higher in females than in males, with an odds ratio (OR) of 1.82 (95% CI 1.13-2.93; p = 0.01), while pCR showed a trend to be more favorable in females than in males, but the OR of 1.62 was not statistically significant (95% CI 0.97-2.75; p = 0.08). Overall, our results showed that sex should be systematically considered in future clinical trials settings in order to establish the optimal treatment sequence.

Immunogenicity of COVID-19 vaccines in lung cancer patients.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with lung cancer are at increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe complications from COVID-19, but information on the efficacy of anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in these patients is scarce. We aimed at evaluating the safety and immunogenicity of COVID-19 vaccines in this population. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The prospective, nationwide SOLID substudy, enrolled adults with lung cancer who were fully vaccinated against COVID-19. Serum anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody levels were quantitatively assessed two weeks and six months after receipt of the last dose using a chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay. Multivariate odds ratios for the association between demographic and clinical factors and seronegativity after vaccination were estimated. RESULTS: 1973 lung cancer patients were enrolled. Most patients had stage IV disease (66%) and were receiving active cancer treatment (82.7%). No significant differences were found in the probability of being seronegative for anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies after full vaccination between patients who were receiving active cancer treatment and those who were not (p = 0.396). The administration of immunotherapy or oral targeted therapy and immunization with mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccine were factors independently associated with increased odds of being seropositive after vaccination. From all patients, 1405 received the second dose of vaccine and high levels of antibody titers were observed in 93.6% of patients two weeks after second dose. At six months, multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that performance status ≥ 2 was independently associated with a higher probability of being seronegative after full vaccination with an OR 4.15. On the other hand, received chemotherapy or oral target therapy and vaccination with mRNA-1273 were a factor independently associated with lower odds of being seronegative after full vaccination with an OR 0.52, 0.37 and 0.34, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Lung cancer patients can safely achieve a strong immune response against SARS-CoV-2 after full vaccination, regardless of the cancer treatment received. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04407143.

SEOM-GECP Clinical guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) (2022).

Small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) is a highly aggressive malignancy comprising approximately 15% of lung cancers. Only one-third of patients are diagnosed at limited-stage (LS). Surgical resection can be curative in early stages, followed by platinum-etoposide adjuvant therapy, although only a minority of patients with SCLC qualify for surgery. Concurrent chemo-radiotherapy is the standard of care for LS-SCLC that is not surgically resectable, followed by prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) for patients without progression. For extensive-stage (ES)-SCLC, a combination of platinum and etoposide has historically been a mainstay of treatment. Recently, the efficacy of programmed death-ligand 1 inhibitors combined with chemotherapy has become the new front-line standard of care for ES-SCLC. Emerging knowledge regarding SCLC biology, including genomic characterization and molecular subtyping, and new treatment approaches will potentially lead to advances in SCLC patient care.

Sex differences in the diagnosis, treatment and prognosis of cancer: the rationale for an individualised approach

Background Precision medicine in oncology aims to identify the most beneficial interventions based on a patient’s individual features and disease. However, disparities exist when providing cancer care to patients based on an individual’s sex. Objective To discuss how sex differences impact the epidemiology, pathophysiology, clinical manifestations, disease progression, and response to treatment, with a focus on data from Spain. Results Genetic and environmental factors (social or economic inequalities, power imbalances, and discrimination) that contribute to these differences adversely affect cancer patient health outcomes. Increased health professional awareness of sex differences is essential to the success of translational research and clinical oncological care. Conclusions The Sociedad Española de Oncología Médica created a Task Force group to raise oncologists’ awareness and to implement measures to address sex differences in cancer patient management in Spain. This is a necessary and fundamental step towards optimizing precision medicine that will benefit all individuals equally and equitably (AU)

First-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab with two cycles of chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone (four cycles) in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer: CheckMate 9LA 2-year patient-reported outcomes.

BACKGROUND: In CheckMate 9LA (NCT03215706), first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy (2 cycles) significantly improved overall survival versus chemotherapy (4 cycles) in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer and no known sensitising epidermal growth factor receptor/anaplastic lymphoma kinase alterations. We present exploratory patient-reported outcomes (PROs; minimum follow-up, 2 years). METHODS: In patients (N = 719) randomised 1:1 to nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy or chemotherapy alone, disease-related symptom burden and health-related quality of life were assessed using the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS) and 3-level EQ-5D (EQ-5D-3L). Treatment-phase changes in LCSS average symptom burden index (ASBI), LCSS three-item global index (3-IGI) and EQ-5D-3L visual analogue scale (VAS) and utility index (UI) over time were analysed descriptively and using mixed-effect model repeated measures. Time-to-deterioration/improvement analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Treatment-phase PRO questionnaire completion rates were >80%. Mean treatment-phase changes showed no deterioration from baseline in both arms for LCSS ASBI/3-IGI and EQ-5D-3L VAS/UI; however, minimally important differences were not met. Mixed-effect model repeated measures analyses showed overall reduction in symptom burden from baseline for both arms; changes from baseline for LCSS 3-IGI and EQ-5D-3L VAS/UI were numerically improved with nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy, but minimally important differences were not met. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy delayed time-to-definitive-deterioration versus chemotherapy (LCSS ASBI: hazard ratio, 0.62 [95% confidence interval, 0.45-0.87]); results were similar across PRO measures. CONCLUSIONS: At 2-year minimum follow-up, first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy reduced the risk of definitive deterioration in disease-related symptom burden and health-related quality of life versus chemotherapy and maintained QoL in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier, NCT03215706.

FAMetA: a mass isotopologue-based tool for the comprehensive analysis of fatty acid metabolism.

The use of stable isotope tracers and mass spectrometry (MS) is the gold standard method for the analysis of fatty acid (FA) metabolism. Yet, current state-of-the-art tools provide limited and difficult-to-interpret information about FA biosynthetic routes. Here we present FAMetA, an R package and a web-based application (www.fameta.es) that uses 13C mass isotopologue profiles to estimate FA import, de novo lipogenesis, elongation and desaturation in a user-friendly platform. The FAMetA workflow covers the required functionalities needed for MS data analyses. To illustrate its utility, different in vitro and in vivo experimental settings are used in which FA metabolism is modified. Thanks to the comprehensive characterization of FA biosynthesis and the easy-to-interpret graphical representations compared to previous tools, FAMetA discloses unnoticed insights into how cells reprogram their FA metabolism and, when combined with FASN, SCD1 and FADS2 inhibitors, it enables the identification of new FAs by the metabolic reconstruction of their synthesis route.

Sex differences in the diagnosis, treatment and prognosis of cancer: the rationale for an individualised approach.

BACKGROUND: Precision medicine in oncology aims to identify the most beneficial interventions based on a patient's individual features and disease. However, disparities exist when providing cancer care to patients based on an individual's sex. OBJECTIVE: To discuss how sex differences impact the epidemiology, pathophysiology, clinical manifestations, disease progression, and response to treatment, with a focus on data from Spain. RESULTS: Genetic and environmental factors (social or economic inequalities, power imbalances, and discrimination) that contribute to these differences adversely affect cancer patient health outcomes. Increased health professional awareness of sex differences is essential to the success of translational research and clinical oncological care. CONCLUSIONS: The Sociedad Española de Oncología Médica created a Task Force group to raise oncologists' awareness and to implement measures to address sex differences in cancer patient management in Spain. This is a necessary and fundamental step towards optimizing precision medicine that will benefit all individuals equally and equitably.

First-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab for metastatic non-small cell lung cancer, including patients with ECOG performance status 2 and other special populations: CheckMate 817.

BACKGROUND: CheckMate 817, a phase 3B study, evaluated flat-dose nivolumab plus weight-based ipilimumab in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Here, in this research, we report on first-line treatment in patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) 0-1 (cohort A) and special populations (cohort A1: ECOG PS 2; or ECOG PS 0-1 with untreated brain metastases, renal impairment, hepatic impairment, or controlled HIV infection). METHODS: Cohorts A and A1 received nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 6 weeks. The primary endpoint was the incidence of grade 3-4 and grade 5 immune-mediated adverse events (IMAEs; adverse events (AEs) deemed potentially immune-related, occurring <100 days of last dose, and treated with immune-modulating medication (except endocrine events)) and treatment-related select AEs (treatment-related AEs with potential immunological etiology requiring frequent monitoring/intervention, reported between first dose and 30 days after the last dose) in cohort A; efficacy endpoints were secondary/exploratory. In cohort A1, safety/efficacy assessment was exploratory. RESULTS: The most common grade 3-4 IMAEs were pneumonitis (5.1%), diarrhea/colitis (4.9%), and hepatitis (4.6%) in cohort A (N=391) and diarrhea/colitis (3.5%), hepatitis (3.5%), and rash (3.0%) in cohort A1 (N=198). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related select AEs were hepatic (5.9%), gastrointestinal (4.9%), and pulmonary (4.6%) events in cohort A and gastrointestinal (4.0%), skin (3.5%), and endocrine (3.0%) events in cohort A1. No grade 5 IMAEs or treatment-related select AEs occurred. Treatment-related deaths occurred in 4 (1.0%) and 3 (1.5%) patients in cohorts A and A1, respectively. Three-year overall survival (OS) rates were 33.7% and 20.5%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Flat-dose nivolumab plus weight-based ipilimumab was associated with manageable safety and durable efficacy in cohort A, consistent with data from phase 3 metastatic NSCLC studies. Special populations of cohort A1 including patients with ECOG PS 2 or ECOG PS 0-1 with untreated brain metastases had manageable treatment-related toxicity and clinically meaningful 3-year OS rate. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02869789.

Avelumab in Combination With Cetuximab and Chemotherapy as First-Line Treatment for Patients With Advanced Squamous NSCLC.

Introduction: We present the results of a phase 2a trial of first-line avelumab (anti-programmed death-ligand 1 antibody) plus cetuximab (anti-EGFR antibody) in patients with advanced squamous NSCLC. Methods: Patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous NSCLC received avelumab 800 mg (d 1 and 8), cetuximab 250 mg/m2 (d 1) and 500 mg/m2 (d 8), cisplatin 75 mg/m2 (d 1), and gemcitabine 1250 mg/m2 (d 1 and 8) for four 3-week cycles, followed by avelumab 800 mg and cetuximab 500 mg/m2 every 2 weeks. The primary end point was the best overall response; the secondary end points were progression-free survival, duration of response, overall survival, and safety. Efficacy analyses were reported from an updated data cutoff. Results: A total of 43 patients were enrolled. The median follow-up was 6.6 months for the primary analyses and 9.2 months for the efficacy analyses. In the efficacy analyses, 15 patients had a confirmed partial response (objective response rate, 34.9% [95% confidence interval: 21.0%-50.9%]), and the median duration of response was 7.1 months (95% confidence interval: 4.2-12.5 mo). The median progression-free survival and overall survival were 6.1 months and 10.0 months, respectively. In the safety analyses (primary analysis), 38 patients (88.4%) had a treatment-related adverse event, of whom 24 (55.8%) had a grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse event. Conclusions: The combination of avelumab + cetuximab and chemotherapy showed antitumor activity and tolerable safety; however, the ORR was not improved compared with those reported for current standards of care (NCT03717155).

Combination lurbinectedin and doxorubicin versus physician's choice of chemotherapy in patients with relapsed small-cell lung cancer (ATLANTIS): a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Lurbinectedin is a synthetic marine-derived anticancer agent that acts as a selective inhibitor of oncogenic transcription. Lurbinectedin monotherapy (3·2 mg/m2 every 3 weeks) received accelerated approval from the US Food and Drug Administration on the basis of efficacy in patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) who relapsed after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. The ATLANTIS trial assessed the efficacy and safety of combination lurbinectedin and the anthracycline doxorubicin as second-line treatment for SCLC. METHODS: In this phase 3, open-label, randomised study, adult patients aged 18 years or older with SCLC who relapsed after platinum-based chemotherapy were recruited from 135 hospitals across North America, South America, Europe, and the Middle East. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) centrally by dynamic allocation to intravenous lurbinectedin 2·0 mg/m2 plus doxorubicin 40·0 mg/m2 administered on day 1 of 21-day cycles or physician's choice of control therapy (intravenous topotecan 1·5 mg/m2 on days 1-5 of 21-day cycles; or intravenous cyclophosphamide 1000 mg/m2, doxorubicin 45·0 mg/m2, and vincristine 2·0 mg on day 1 of 21-day cycles [CAV]) administered until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Primary granulocyte-colony stimulating factor prophylaxis was mandatory in both treatment groups. Neither patients nor clinicians were masked to treatment allocation, but the independent review committee, which assessed outcomes, was masked to patients' treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02566993, and with EudraCT, 2015-001641-89, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between Aug 30, 2016, and Aug 20, 2018, 613 patients were randomly assigned to lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin (n=307) or control (topotecan, n=127; CAV, n=179) and comprised the intention-to-treat population; safety endpoints were assessed in patients who had received any partial or complete study treatment infusions (lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin, n=303; control, n=289). After a median follow-up of 24·1 months (95% CI 21·7-26·3), 303 patients in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group and 289 patients in the control group had discontinued study treatment; progressive disease was the most common reason for discontinuation (213 [70%] patients in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group vs 152 [53%] in the control group). Median overall survival was 8·6 months (95% CI 7·1-9·4) in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group versus 7·6 months (6·6-8·2) in the control group (stratified log-rank p=0·90; hazard ratio 0·97 [95% CI 0·82-1·15], p=0·70). 12 patients died because of treatment-related adverse events: two (<1%) of 303 in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group and ten (3%) of 289 in the control group. 296 (98%) of 303 patients in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group had treatment-emergent adverse events compared with 284 (98%) of 289 patients in the control group; treatment-related adverse events occurred in 268 (88%) patients in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group and 266 (92%) patients in the control group. Grade 3 or worse haematological adverse events were less frequent in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group than the control group (anaemia, 57 [19%] of 302 patients in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group vs 110 [38%] of 288 in the control group; neutropenia, 112 [37%] vs 200 [69%]; thrombocytopenia, 42 [14%] vs 90 [31%]). The frequency of treatment-related adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation was lower in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group than in the control group (26 [9%] of 303 patients in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group vs 47 [16%] of 289 in the control group). INTERPRETATION: Combination therapy with lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin did not improve overall survival versus control in patients with relapsed SCLC. However, lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin showed a favourable haematological safety profile compared with control. FUNDING: PharmaMar.

Determination of essential biomarkers in lung cancer: a real-world data study in Spain with demographic, clinical, epidemiological and pathological characteristics.

BACKGROUND: The survival of patients with lung cancer has substantially increased in the last decade by about 15%. This increase is, basically, due to targeted therapies available for advanced stages and the emergence of immunotherapy itself. This work aims to study the situation of biomarker testing in Spain. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The Thoracic Tumours Registry (TTR) is an observational, prospective, registry-based study that included patients diagnosed with lung cancer and other thoracic tumours, from September 2016 to 2020. This TTR study was sponsored by the Spanish Lung Cancer Group (GECP) Foundation, an independent, scientific, multidisciplinary oncology society that coordinates more than 550 experts and 182 hospitals across the Spanish territory. RESULTS: Nine thousand two hundred thirty-nine patients diagnosed with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) between 2106 and 2020 were analysed. 7,467 (80.8%) were non-squamous and 1,772 (19.2%) were squamous. Tumour marker testing was performed in 85.0% of patients with non-squamous tumours vs 56.3% in those with squamous tumours (p-value < 0.001). The global testing of EGFR, ALK, and ROS1 was 78.9, 64.7, 35.6% respectively, in non-squamous histology. PDL1 was determined globally in the same period (46.9%), although if we focus on the last 3 years it exceeds 85%. There has been a significant increase in the last few years of all determinations and there are even close to 10% of molecular determinations that do not yet have targeted drug approval but will have it in the near future. 4,115 cases had a positive result (44.5%) for either EGFR, ALK, KRAS, BRAF, ROS1, or high PDL1. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the lack of a national project and standard protocol in Spain that regulates the determination of biomarkers, the situation is similar to other European countries. Given the growing number of different determinations and their high positivity, national strategies are urgently needed to implement next-generation sequencing (NGS) in an integrated and cost-effective way in lung cancer.

A Randomized, Open-Label Phase II Study Evaluating Emibetuzumab Plus Erlotinib and Emibetuzumab Monotherapy in MET Immunohistochemistry Positive NSCLC Patients with Acquired Resistance to Erlotinib.

INTRODUCTION: The hepatocyte growth factor receptor MET represents a resistance mechanism to epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibition in EGFR mutant (mt) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This Phase 2 study tested whether acquired resistance to erlotinib in MET protein positive NSCLC patients enriched for EGFRmt can be overcome by emibetuzumab plus erlotinib. PATIENT AND METHODS: Patients with Stage IV NSCLC with acquired resistance to erlotinib and MET diagnostic (+) (≥ 10% of cells expressing MET at ≥ 2+ IHC staining intensity at any time) were randomized (3:1) to receive emibetuzumab 750 mg every 2 weeks with or without erlotinib 150 mg once daily. The primary objective was to evaluate the overall response rate (ORR) relative to historic control, with a co-primary objective of ORR in patients with MET expression in ≥ 60% of cells ≥ 2+ (MET ≥ 60%). RESULTS: One hundred and eleven MET+ patients received emibetuzumab plus erlotinib (N = 83) or emibetuzumab monotherapy (N = 28). 89 of 111 MET+ samples were post-erlotinib. ORR was 3.0% for emibetuzumab plus erlotinib (95% CI: 0.4, 10.5) and 4.3% for emibetuzumab (95% CI: 0.1, 21.9), in patients with post-erlotinib progression biopsies available (n = 89). Similar results were observed in patients with MET ≥ 60% expression (n = 74). Disease control rate and progression-free survival were higher for emibetuzumab plus erlotinib (50%/3.3 months) than for emibetuzumab (26%/1.6 months). No unexpected safety signals emerged. Partial responses were observed in patients with and without EGFRmt or MET amplification. EGFR sensitizing mutations were identified retrospectively in 84.2% of those with available tissue (85/101). CONCLUSION: Acquired resistance to erlotinib in MET diagnostic (+) patients was not reversed by emibetuzumab plus erlotinib or emibetuzumab monotherapy, although a subset of patients obtained clinical benefit.

Randomized phase 3 study of the anti-disialoganglioside antibody dinutuximab and irinotecan vs irinotecan or topotecan for second-line treatment of small cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Topotecan is approved as second-line treatment for small cell lung cancer (SCLC). Irinotecan is also frequently used given its more convenient schedule and superior tolerability. Preclinical studies support disialoganglioside (GD2) as an SCLC target and the combination of dinutuximab, an anti-GD2 antibody, plus irinotecan in this setting. We tested dinutuximab/irinotecan versus irinotecan or topotecan as second-line therapy in relapsed/refractory (RR) SCLC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with RR SCLC and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-1 were randomized 2:2:1 to receive dinutuximab 16-17.5 mg/m2 intravenous (IV)/irinotecan 350 mg/m2 IV (day 1), irinotecan 350 mg/m2 IV (day 1), or topotecan 1.5 mg/m2 IV (days 1-5) in 21-day cycles. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS); secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR; complete response [CR] + partial response [PR]), and clinical benefit rate (CBR; CR + PR + stable disease). Safety/tolerability were also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 471 patients were randomized to dinutuximab/irinotecan (n = 187), irinotecan (n = 190), or topotecan (n = 94). Age, sex, performance status, prior therapies, and metastatic disease sites were similar between groups. Survival and response rates were not improved for patients receiving dinutuximab/irinotecan versus those receiving irinotecan or topotecan (median OS 6.9 vs 7.0 vs 7.4 months [p = 0.3132]; median PFS 3.5 vs 3.0 vs 3.4 months [p = 0.3482]; ORR confirmed 17.1% vs 18.9% vs 20.2% [p = 0.8043]; and CBR 67.4% vs 58.9% vs 68.1% [p = 0.0989]), respectively. Grade 3/4 adverse events (≥5% receiving dinutuximab/irinotecan) included neutropenia, anemia, diarrhea, and asthenia. CONCLUSIONS: Dinutuximab/irinotecan treatment did not result in improved OS in RR SCLC versus irinotecan alone. Irinotecan administered every 21 days demonstrated comparable activity to topotecan administered daily × 5 every 21 days. CLINICALTRIALS: gov Identifier. NCT03098030.

Seroprevalence and immunological memory against SARS-CoV-2 in lung cancer patients: the SOLID study.

BACKGROUND: At present, we did not find any articles that studied seroprevalence and its persistence several months later in lung cancer patients in the setting of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Most patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) go on to develop antibodies (Abs) against viral proteins. However, it is not known how long these Abs last nor whether cancer treatments could affect the duration of immune response. METHODS: This prospective, longitudinal, multicenter serological study in the setting of SARS-CoV-2 infection was carried out in 50 Spanish hospitals. Eligibility criterion was the diagnosis of any lung cancer. The determination of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG Abs was performed by qualitative immuno-enzymatic assay using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) kit from NovaLisa whose Abs target the recombinant antigen N of the nucleocapsid of SARS-CoV-2. The first Ab determination was performed between April 21 and June 3, 2020. The second Ab determination was performed in all previously seropositive patients, between September 10 and November 20, 2020. Study objectives were to prospectively determine seroprevalence in unselected lung cancer patients during the first wave of the pandemic; the persistence of immunity; protection or lack thereof against reinfection; and the influence of treatments on maintenance or loss of immunity. RESULTS: Of 1,500 patients, 128 were seropositive, overall prevalence of 8.5% seropositivity [95% confidence interval (CI): 7.2-10.1%]. Seventy-five percent were in active cancer treatment. Forty-seven point seven percent of IgG positive participants had experienced a symptomatic illness suspected of being infected with SARS-CoV-2 (95% CI: 38.8-56.6%). A second determination was performed on average 4.5 months later [interquartile range (IQR), 4.0-5.0 months] and obtained for 104 of the initially seropositive patients (81%), it could not be obtained in 24 patients, the majority due to death caused by disease progression (73%). In the second determination, IgG was not detected in 30.8% of patients. The severity of the infection, the need for hospitalization (P=0.032) and the presence of symptoms at diagnosis (P=0.02) were associated with persistence of immunity in the second determination. No variables or treatments received were associated with Abs loss. CONCLUSIONS: Immunity against SARS-CoV-2 does not appear to be compromised by treatment and persists beyond 4 months. Neither do mortality rates appear to be particularly high in this unselected population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04407143.