Efficacy and safety of crizotinib in the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer with ROS1 gene fusion: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of real-world evidence.

BACKGROUND: Crizotinib was approved to treat patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) with ROS proto-oncogene 1 (ROS1) gene fusion in 2016. We conducted a systematic literature review to identify real-world evidence (RWE) studies and estimated the efficacy and safety of crizotinib using meta-analyses (MA) for objective response rate (ORR), real-world progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). METHODS: We searched MEDLINE®, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL from January 2016 to March 2023 using Ovid® for published single-arm or comparative RWE studies evaluating patients (N ≥ 20) receiving crizotinib monotherapy for aNSCLC with ROS1 gene fusion. Pooled estimates for ORR and grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) were derived using the metafor package in R while pooled estimates for median real-world PFS (rwPFS) and OS were derived using reconstructed individual patient data from published Kaplan-Meier curves. The primary analysis included all studies regardless of crizotinib line of therapy; a subgroup analysis (SA) was conducted using studies evaluating patients receiving first-line crizotinib. RESULTS: Fourteen studies met the eligibility criteria and were considered feasible for MA. For the primary analysis, the pooled ORR (N = 9 studies) was 70.6 % (95 % confidence interval [CI]: 57.0, 81.3), median rwPFS was 14.5 months (N = 11 studies), and OS was 40.2 months (N = 9 studies). In the SA, the pooled ORR (N = 4 studies) was 81.1 % (95 % CI: 76.1, 85.2) and the median rwPFS (N = 4 studies) and OS (N = 2 studies) were 18.1 and 60 months, respectively. All MAs were associated with significant heterogeneity (I2 > 25 %). Grade 3/4 AEs occurred in 18.7 % of patients (pooled estimate). CONCLUSION: The results from this study are consistent with clinical trial data and, taken collectively, supports crizotinib as a safe and effective treatment across different lines of therapy in patients with ROS1 aNSCLC in the real-world setting.

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.

Multidisciplinary approach for locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): 2023 expert consensus of the Spanish Lung Cancer Group GECP.

INTRODUCTION: Recent advances in the treatment of locally advanced NSCLC have led to changes in the standard of care for this disease. For the selection of the best approach strategy for each patient, it is necessary the homogenization of diagnostic and therapeutic interventions, as well as the promotion of the evaluation of patients by a multidisciplinary oncology team. OBJECTIVE: Development of an expert consensus document with suggestions for the approach and treatment of locally advanced NSCLC leaded by Spanish Lung Cancer Group GECP. METHODS: Between March and July 2023, a panel of 28 experts was formed. Using a mixed technique (Delphi/nominal group) under the guidance of a coordinating group, consensus was reached in 4 phases: 1. Literature review and definition of discussion topics 2. First round of voting 3. Communicating the results and second round of voting 4. Definition of conclusions in nominal group meeting. Responses were consolidated using medians and interquartile ranges. The threshold for agreement was defined as 85% of the votes. RESULTS: New and controversial situations regarding the diagnosis and management of locally advanced NSCLC were analyzed and reconciled based on evidence and clinical experience. Discussion issues included: molecular diagnosis and biomarkers, radiologic and surgical diagnosis, mediastinal staging, role of the multidisciplinary thoracic committee, neoadjuvant treatment indications, evaluation of response to neoadjuvant treatment, postoperative evaluation, and follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Consensus clinical suggestions were generated on the most relevant scenarios such as diagnosis, staging and treatment of locally advanced lung cancer, which will serve to support decision-making in daily practice.

A plain language summary of the PHAROS study: the combination of encorafenib and binimetinib for people with BRAF V600E-mutant metastatic non-small cell lung cancer.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This is a summary of the results of a study called PHAROS. This study looked at combination treatment with encorafenib (BRAFTOVI®) and binimetinib (MEKTOVI®). This combination of medicines was studied in people with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). NSCLC is the most common type of lung cancer. Metastatic means that the cancer has spread to other parts of the body. All people in this study had a type of NSCLC that has a change in a gene called BRAF termed a BRAF V600E mutation. A gene is a part of the DNA that has instructions for making things that your body needs to work, and the BRAF V600E mutation contributes to the growth of the lung cancer. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS?: In this study, 98 people with BRAF V600E-mutant metastatic NSCLC were treated with the combination of encorafenib and binimetinib (called encorafenib plus binimetinib in this summary). Before starting the study, 59 people had not received any treatment for their metastatic NSCLC, and 39 people had received previous anticancer treatment. At the time of this analysis, 44 (75%) out of 59 people who did not receive any treatment before taking encorafenib plus binimetinib had their tumors shrink or disappear. Eighteen (46%) out of 39 people who had received treatment before starting encorafenib plus binimetinib also had their tumors shrink or disappear. The most common side effects of encorafenib plus binimetinib were nausea, diarrhea, fatigue, and vomiting. WHAT DO THE RESULTS MEAN?: These results support the use of encorafenib plus binimetinib combination treatment as a new treatment option in people with BRAF V600E-mutant metastatic NSCLC. The side effects of encorafenib plus binimetinib in this study were similar to the side effects seen with encorafenib plus binimetinib in people with a type of skin cancer called metastatic melanoma.

RELAY, Erlotinib Plus Ramucirumab in Untreated, EGFR-Mutated, Metastatic NSCLC: Outcomes by EGFR Exon 19 Deletion Variants.

Introduction: EGFR gene mutations are drivers of NSCLC. The RELAY double-blind, placebo (PBO)-controlled phase 3 study revealed superior progression-free survival (PFS) for ramucirumab plus erlotinib (RAM + ERL) versus PBO (PBO + ERL) in patients with untreated advanced NSCLC and an EGFR-activating mutation. This exploratory analysis evaluated potential associations between EGFR exon 19 deletion (ex19del) variants and clinical outcomes. Methods: Patients (N = 449) were randomized (1:1) to RAM plus ERL or PBO plus ERL. Plasma samples were collected at baseline, on treatment, and at 30-day post-study treatment discontinuation follow-up. Baseline and treatment-emergent gene alterations were investigated by Guardant360 next-generation sequencing. Patients with a valid baseline plasma sample and ex19del were included (RAM + ERL, n = 62; PBO + ERL, n = 72). Results: The most common ex19del variant was E746_A750del (67.2%); EGFR E746 deletions (E746del) occurred more frequently than L747 deletions (74.6% versus 25.4%, respectively). TP53 mutations were the most frequently co-occurring baseline gene alterations. With treatment arms combined, median PFS was 18.0 months versus 12.5 months for patients with uncommon (non-E746_A750del, n = 44) versus common (E746_A750del, n = 90) ex19del variants (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.657 [95% confidence interval or CI:1.044-2.630]). Median PFS was longer with RAM plus ERL versus PBO plus ERL for patients with the common (15.2 versus 9.9 mo; HR = 0.564 [95% CI: 0.344-0.926]) and E746del (15.4 versus 9.9 mo; HR = 0.587 [95% CI: 0.363-0.951]) variants. Treatment-emergent post-progression EGFR T790M rates were higher in the common versus uncommon and E746del versus L747 deletion subgroups. Conclusions: RAM plus ERL provides benefit and improves treatment outcomes for patients with metastatic NSCLC with EGFR ex19del variants.

Transcriptional analysis of landmark molecular pathways in lung adenocarcinoma results in a clinically relevant classification with potential therapeutic implications.

Lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD) is a molecularly heterogeneous disease. In addition to genomic alterations, cancer transcriptional profiling can be helpful to tailor cancer treatment and to estimate each patient's outcome. Transcriptional activity levels of 50 molecular pathways were inferred in 4573 LUAD patients using Gene Set Variation Analysis (GSVA) method. Seven LUAD subtypes were defined and independently validated based on the combined behavior of the studied pathways: AD (adenocarcinoma subtype) 1-7. AD1, AD4, and AD5 subtypes were associated with better overall survival. AD1 and AD4 subtypes were enriched in epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations, whereas AD2 and AD6 showed higher tumor protein p53 (TP53) alteration frequencies. AD2 and AD6 subtypes correlated with higher genome instability, proliferation-related pathway expression, and specific sensitivity to chemotherapy, based on data from LUAD cell lines. LUAD subtypes were able to predict immunotherapy response in addition to CD274 (PD-L1) gene expression and tumor mutational burden (TMB). AD2 and AD4 subtypes were associated with potential resistance and response to immunotherapy, respectively. Thus, analysis of transcriptomic data could improve patient stratification beyond genomics and single biomarkers (i.e., PD-L1 and TMB) and may lay the foundation for more personalized treatment avenues, especially in driver-negative LUAD.

Difficulties on the access to innovative targeted therapies for lung cancer in Spain.

PURPOSE: Spanish Lung Cancer Group (SLCG) conducted a review to analyze the barriers to access to innovative targeted therapies for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in clinical practice in Spain. METHODS: Review all relevant content published on websites of European Commission, European Medicines Agency, and Spanish Agency of Medicines and Medical Products regarding the authorization and access to oncology treatments. RESULTS: More than 20 targeted therapies are available to treat different molecular alterations in patients with NSCLC. European Commission has approved treatments for genomic alterations involving the following genes: ALK, RET, ROS1, EGFR, BRAF, NTRK, KRAS, MET. However, the availability of these therapies in Spain is not complete, as innovative treatments are not reimbursed or funded late, with only five of these alterations currently covered by National Health System. CONCLUSION: SLCG considers imperative to improve the access in Spain to innovative treatments for NSCLC to reduce inequity across European countries.

Association Between Lung Immune Prognostic Index and Durvalumab Consolidation Outcomes in Patients With Locally Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: The LIPI, based on pretreatment derived neutrophils/[leukocytes-neutrophils] ratio (dNLR) and LDH, is associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) outcomes in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We aimed to assess baseline LIPI correlation with durvalumab consolidation outcomes in the locally advanced setting. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Multicentre retrospective study (330 patients) with stage III unresectable NSCLC treated with durvalumab after chemo-radiotherapy between April 2015 and December 2020; 65 patients treated with chemo-radiotherapy only. Baseline LIPI characterized 3 groups: good (dNLR≤3+LDH≤ULN), intermediate (dNLR>3/LDH>ULN) and poor (dNLR>3+LDH>ULN). Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). RESULTS: In the durvalumab cohort, median age was 67 years, 95% smokers, 98% with a performance status of 0-1; 60% had nonsquamous histology and 16% a PD-L1 expression <1%. Radiotherapy was delivered concurrently in 81%. LIPI was evaluable in 216 patients: 66% good, 31% intermediate, 3% poor. LIPI significantly correlated with median OS (median follow-up: 19 months): 18.1 months vs. 47.0 months vs. not reached in poor, intermediate and good LIPI groups, respectively (P = .03). A trend between objective response rate and LIPI groups was observed: 0% vs. 41% vs. 45%, respectively (P = .05). The pooled intermediate/poor LIPI group was associated with shorter OS (HR 1.97; P = .03) and higher risk of progressive disease (OR 2.68; P = .047). Survivals and response were not influenced in the control cohort. CONCLUSION: Baseline LIPI correlated with outcomes in patients with locally advanced NSCLC treated with durvalumab consolidation, but not in those who only received chemo-radiotherapy, providing further evidence of its prognostic and potential predictive role of ICI benefit in NSCLC.

Brief report: High incidence of peridiagnosis thromboembolic events in patients with BRAF-mutant lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: We aimed to determine if advanced BRAF-mutant NSCLC has a higher thromboembolic events (TEE) rate than the expected. METHODS: Between 2008 and 2021, 182 patients with BRAF-mutant advanced NSCLC (BRAF V600E, n = 70; BRAF non-V600E, n = 112) were retrospectively identified from 18 centers in Spain. Patients received chemotherapy (n = 147), immunotherapy (n = 69), targeted therapy (n = 42), and immunotherapy + chemotherapy (n = 26). RESULTS: Incidence rate of TEE was 26.4 % (95%CI: 19.9 %-32.9 %). A total of 72 TEE were documented among 48 patients, as 18 patients (37.5 %) developed more than one event. Median time to TEE onset was 2 months, 69 % of TEE occurred in the peridiagnostic period (+/- 90 days from cancer diagnosis), and in 16 pts. (33 %) TEE was the form of lung cancer presentation. Although most TEE were only venous (82 %; PE, n = 33; DVT, n = 16), arterial events were reported in 31 % and occurred earlier, or TEE presented in atypical locations (13.9 %). TEE were related to high hospitalization rate (59 %), recurrence (23 %), and mortality (10.4 %) despite appropriate anticoagulant/antiaggregant treatment. Median OS in patients without-TEE was 19.4 months (95%CI: 4.6-34.1), and significantly shorter in patients with arterial-TEE vs venous-TEE vs both of them: 9.9 months (95%CI: 0-23.5) vs 41.7 months (95%CI: 11.3-72.2 m) vs 2.7 months (95%CI: 2.1-3.3), p = 0.001. Neither clinical or molecular features (BRAF V600E/non-V600E), nor cancer treatment was associated to TEE occurrence. Khorana score underperformed to predict thrombosis at cancer diagnosis, as only 19.2 % of patients were classified as high-risk. CONCLUSIONS: Thrombotic events represent a new clinical feature of BRAF-mutant lung cancer. Patients with almost a 30 % incidence of TEE should be offered systematic anticoagulation.

Expert consensus to optimize the management of older adult patients with advanced EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer

Lung cancer (LC) is associated with ageing, with the average age of affected individuals being approximately 70 years. However, despite a higher incidence and prevalence among older people, the older adult population is underrepresented in clinical trials. For LC with Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) mutations, there is no clear association of this mutation with age. Geriatric assessments (GAs) and a multidisciplinary approach are essential for defining the optimal treatment. In this consensus, a group of experts selected from the Oncogeriatrics Section of the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (Sección de Oncogeriatría de la Sociedad Española de Oncología Médica—SEOM), the Spanish Lung Cancer Group (Grupo Español de Cáncer de Pulmón—GECP) and the Association for Research on Lung Cancer in Women (Asociación para la Investigación del Cáncer de Pulmón en Mujeres—ICAPEM) evaluate the scientific evidence currently available and propose a series of recommendations to optimize the management of older adult patients with advanced LC with EGFR mutations (AU)

Expert consensus to optimize the management of older adult patients with advanced EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer.

Lung cancer (LC) is associated with ageing, with the average age of affected individuals being approximately 70 years. However, despite a higher incidence and prevalence among older people, the older adult population is underrepresented in clinical trials. For LC with Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) mutations, there is no clear association of this mutation with age. Geriatric assessments (GAs) and a multidisciplinary approach are essential for defining the optimal treatment. In this consensus, a group of experts selected from the Oncogeriatrics Section of the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (Sección de Oncogeriatría de la Sociedad Española de Oncología Médica-SEOM), the Spanish Lung Cancer Group (Grupo Español de Cáncer de Pulmón-GECP) and the Association for Research on Lung Cancer in Women (Asociación para la Investigación del Cáncer de Pulmón en Mujeres-ICAPEM) evaluate the scientific evidence currently available and propose a series of recommendations to optimize the management of older adult patients with advanced LC with EGFR mutations.

Phase II Trial of Atezolizumab Combined With Carboplatin and Pemetrexed for Patients With Advanced Nonsquamous Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer With Untreated Brain Metastases (Atezo-Brain, GECP17/05).

PURPOSE: The Atezo-Brain study evaluated atezolizumab combined with chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with untreated brain metastases, a population traditionally excluded from trials. METHODS: This single-arm phase II clinical trial enrolled patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC with untreated brain metastases without neurologic symptoms or asymptomatic with medical treatment. Dexamethasone was allowed up to 4 mg once daily. Atezolizumab plus carboplatin and pemetrexed was given for four to six cycles followed by atezolizumab plus pemetrexed until progression for a maximum of 2 years. The primary end points were to determine the progression-free survival (PFS) rate at 12 weeks and the incidence of grade ≥3 adverse events during the first 9 weeks. Intracranial outcomes were assessed using response assessment in neuro-oncology brain metastases criteria. RESULTS: Forty patients were enrolled and 22 (55%) were receiving corticosteroids at baseline. The overall 12-week PFS rate was 62.2% (95% credibility interval [CrI], 47.1 to 76.2). The rate of grade 3/4 adverse events during the first 9 weeks was 27.5%. Most neurologic events were grade 1 and 2 but five patients (12.5%) experienced grade 3-4 neurologic events. With a median follow-up of 31 months, intracranial median PFS was 6.9 months and response rate was 42.7% (95% CrI, 28.1 to 57.9). Systemic median PFS was 8.9 months and response rate was 45% (95% CrI, 28.1 to 57.9). The median overall survival (OS) was 11.8 months (95% CI, 7.6 to 16.9) and the 2-year OS rate was 27.5% (95% CI, 16.6 to 45.5). CONCLUSION: Atezolizumab plus carboplatin and pemetrexed demonstrates activity in patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC with untreated brain metastases with an acceptable safety profile.

Bintrafusp Alfa Versus Pembrolizumab in Patients With Treatment-Naive, Programmed Death-Ligand 1-High Advanced NSCLC: A Randomized, Open-Label, Phase 3 Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Bintrafusp alfa, a first-in-class bifunctional fusion protein composed of the extracellular domain of TGF-ßRII (a TGF-ß "trap") fused to a human immunoglobulin G1 monoclonal antibody blocking programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), has exhibited clinical activity in a phase 1 expansion cohort of patients with PD-L1-high advanced NSCLC. METHODS: This adaptive phase 3 trial (NCT03631706) compared the efficacy and safety of bintrafusp alfa versus pembrolizumab as first-line treatment in patients with PD-L1-high advanced NSCLC. Primary end points were progression-free survival according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 per independent review committee and overall survival. RESULTS: Patients (N = 304) were randomized one-to-one to receive either bintrafusp alfa or pembrolizumab (n = 152 each). The median follow-up was 14.3 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 13.1-16.0 mo) for bintrafusp alfa and 14.5 months (95% CI: 13.1-15.9 mo) for pembrolizumab. Progression-free survival by independent review committee was not significantly different between bintrafusp alfa and pembrolizumab arms (median = 7.0 mo [95% CI: 4.2 mo-not reached (NR)] versus 11.1 mo [95% CI: 8.1 mo-NR]; hazard ratio = 1.232 [95% CI: 0.885-1.714]). The median overall survival was 21.1 months (95% CI: 21.1 mo-NR) for bintrafusp alfa and 22.1 months (95% CI: 20.4 mo-NR) for pembrolizumab (hazard ratio = 1.201 [95% CI: 0.796-1.811]). Treatment-related adverse events were higher with bintrafusp alfa versus pembrolizumab; grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 42.4% versus 13.2% of patients, respectively. The study was discontinued at an interim analysis as it was unlikely to meet the primary end point. CONCLUSIONS: First-line treatment with bintrafusp alfa did not exhibit superior efficacy compared with pembrolizumab in patients with PD-L1-high, advanced NSCLC.

Pembrolizumab as first-line treatment for advanced NSCLC in older adults: A phase II clinical trial evaluating geriatric and quality-of-life outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: Since specific data on immunotherapy in older adults with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) are scarce, we designed this study to determine the overall survival (OS) at one year of first-line pembrolizumab in patients older than 70 years with aNSCLC expressing PD-L1. Secondary objectives included progression-free survival, disease-specific survival, response rate, tolerability, quality of life (QoL) changes, and geriatric assessments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A single-arm, open-label, phase II clinical trial was carried out by the Spanish Lung Cancer Group between February 2018 and November 2019 at ten active sites in Spain. We included patients 70 years old and older with histological or cytological documented stage IIIB or IV aNSCLC and PD-L1 expression ≥ 1%. Each subject received 200 mg of intravenous pembrolizumab every three weeks for a maximum of two years. RESULTS: 83 patients were recruited for the study and 74 were finally analysed. Most were male (N = 64, 86.5%) and former smokers (N = 51, 68.9%). 24 patients (32.4%) completed at least one year of treatment, 62 (83.7%) discontinued treatment, and 30 (40.5%) experienced disease progression. The median follow-up of our cohort was 18.0 months [range: 0.1-47.7] and 46 patients (62.2%) died during the period of study. The estimated OS at one year was 61.7% (95% CI: 49.6-71.8%) and the median OS of our cohort was 19.2 months (95% CI: 11.3-25.5). QoL tended to improve throughout the study, although the differences were not statistically significant. The main geriatric scores remained stable, except for a worsening in nutritional status (P = 0.004) and an improvement in frailty (P = 0.028). CONCLUSION: Our results support treating older adults with aNSCLC expressing PD-L1 with pembrolizumab in monotherapy. The stability of most geriatric scores and the positive trend on the patients' QoL should be highlighted, although our results did not reach statistical significance.

A phase Ib/II study of galunisertib in combination with nivolumab in solid tumors and non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: In this phase Ib/II open-label study, tumor immune suppression was targeted in patients with advanced refractory solid tumors and patients with recurrent/refractory non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) using galunisertib with nivolumab. METHODS: Eligible patients were ≥ 18 years old, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤ 1, and were treatment-naive for anti-programmed cell death-1, its ligand, or transforming growth factor ß receptor 1 kinase inhibitors. Phase Ib was an open-label, dose-escalation assessment of the safety and tolerability of galunisertib with nivolumab in patients with advanced refractory solid tumors. Phase II evaluated the safety of galunisertib with nivolumab in NSCLC patients who had received prior platinum-based treatment but were immuno-oncology agent-naive. RESULTS: This trial was conducted between October 2015 and August 2020. No dose-limiting toxicities were observed in phase I. In the phase II NSCLC cohort (n = 25), patients received 150 mg twice daily galunisertib (14 days on/14 days off dosing schedule for all phases) plus nivolumab at 3 mg/kg (intravenously every 2 weeks). In this phase, the most frequent treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were pruritus (n = 9, 36%), fatigue (n = 8, 32%), and decreased appetite (n = 7, 28%). No grade 4 or 5 treatment-related AEs were observed. Six (24%) patients had confirmed partial response (PR) and 4 (16%) had stable disease; 1 additional patient had confirmed PR after initial pseudo-progression. The median duration of response was 7.43 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.75, NR). Among the 7 responders, including the delayed responder, 1 had high PD-L1 expression (≥ 50%). The median progression-free survival was 5.26 months (95% CI: 1.77, 9.20) and the median overall survival was 11.99 months (95% CI: 8.15, NR). Interferon gamma response genes were induced post-treatment and cell adhesion genes were repressed, although the association of these observations with tumor response and clinical outcomes was not statistically powered due to limited samples available. CONCLUSIONS: The study met its primary endpoint as galunisertib combined with nivolumab was well tolerated. Preliminary efficacy was observed in a subset of patients in the Phase 2 NSCLC cohort. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02423343; 22.04.2015).

Phase II, Open-Label Study of Encorafenib Plus Binimetinib in Patients With BRAFV600-Mutant Metastatic Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: The combination of encorafenib (BRAF inhibitor) plus binimetinib (MEK inhibitor) has demonstrated clinical efficacy with an acceptable safety profile in patients with BRAFV600E/K-mutant metastatic melanoma. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of encorafenib plus binimetinib in patients with BRAFV600E-mutant metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: In this ongoing, open-label, single-arm, phase II study, patients with BRAFV600E-mutant metastatic NSCLC received oral encorafenib 450 mg once daily plus binimetinib 45 mg twice daily in 28-day cycles. The primary end point was confirmed objective response rate (ORR) by independent radiology review (IRR). Secondary end points included duration of response (DOR), disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival, time to response, and safety. RESULTS: At data cutoff, 98 patients (59 treatment-naïve and 39 previously treated) with BRAFV600E-mutant metastatic NSCLC received encorafenib plus binimetinib. Median duration of treatment was 9.2 months with encorafenib and 8.4 months with binimetinib. ORR by IRR was 75% (95% CI, 62 to 85) in treatment-naïve and 46% (95% CI, 30 to 63) in previously treated patients; median DOR was not estimable (NE; 95% CI, 23.1 to NE) and 16.7 months (95% CI, 7.4 to NE), respectively. DCR after 24 weeks was 64% in treatment-naïve and 41% in previously treated patients. Median PFS was NE (95% CI, 15.7 to NE) in treatment-naïve and 9.3 months (95% CI, 6.2 to NE) in previously treated patients. The most frequent treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were nausea (50%), diarrhea (43%), and fatigue (32%). TRAEs led to dose reductions in 24 (24%) and permanent discontinuation of encorafenib plus binimetinib in 15 (15%) patients. One grade 5 TRAE of intracranial hemorrhage was reported. Interactive visualization of the data presented in this article is available at the PHAROS dashboard (https://clinical-trials.dimensions.ai/pharos/). CONCLUSION: For patients with treatment-naïve and previously treated BRAFV600E-mutant metastatic NSCLC, encorafenib plus binimetinib showed a meaningful clinical benefit with a safety profile consistent with that observed in the approved indication in melanoma.

An eHealth ecosystem for stepped and early psychosocial care in advanced lung cancer: Rationale and protocol for a randomized control trial.

Background: Receiving a diagnosis of lung cancer is an emotional event, not least because it is usually diagnosed at advanced stages with limited life expectancy. Although evidence-based educational, emotional, and social interventions exist, they reach few patients and usually when it is too late. Objective: This project will be carried out in a comprehensive center for cancer care and health research, aiming to study the efficacy, costs, and utility of an eHealth ecosystem to meet the psychosocial needs of patients with advanced lung cancer. Method: We will enroll 76 patients with advanced lung cancer into an eHealth ecosystem of stepped and personalized psychosocial care for 9 months. These patients will be compared with another 76 receiving usual care in a non-inferiority randomized controlled trial. The following main outcomes will be measured every 3 months: emotional distress, spirituality, demoralization, quality of life, and medication adherence. Secondary outcomes will include symptomatology, health education, cost-utility analyses, usability and satisfaction with the platform, and time to detect emotional needs and provide care. Baseline differences between groups will be measured with the Student t-test or chi-square test, as appropriate. We will then compare the main outcomes between groups over time using multilevel linear models, report effect sizes (Hedges' g), and assess non-inferiority. The cost-utility of both interventions will be considered in terms of quality adjusted life years and quality of life given the costs of providing each treatment. Discussion: This randomized controlled trial should provide new evidence on the efficacy and cost-utility of an eHealth ecosystem to deliver personalized and timely psychosocial care to patients with advanced lung cancer. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ID "NCT05497973".