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.