NTRK gene fusion testing and management in lung cancer.

Neurotrophic tyrosine receptor kinase (NTRK) gene fusions are recurrent oncogenic drivers found in a variety of solid tumours, including lung cancer. Several tropomyosin receptor kinase (TRK) inhibitors have been developed to treat tumours with NTRK gene fusions. Larotrectinib and entrectinib are first-generation TRK inhibitors that have demonstrated efficacy in patients with TRK fusion lung cancers. Genomic testing is recommended for all patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer for optimal drug therapy selection. Multiple testing methods can be employed to identify NTRK gene fusions in the clinic and each has its own advantages and limitations. Among these assays, RNA-based next-generation sequencing (NGS) can be considered a gold standard for detecting NTRK gene fusions; however, several alternatives with minimally acceptable sensitivity and specificity are also available in areas where widespread access to NGS is unfeasible. This review highlights the importance of testing for NTRK gene fusions in lung cancer, ideally using the gold-standard method of RNA-based NGS, the various assays that are available, and treatment algorithms for patients.

Extended pleurectomy decortication and chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for pleural mesothelioma (MARS 2): a phase 3 randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Extended pleurectomy decortication for complete macroscopic resection for pleural mesothelioma has never been evaluated in a randomised trial. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes after extended pleurectomy decortication plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone. METHODS: MARS 2 was a phase 3, national, multicentre, open-label, parallel two-group, pragmatic, superiority randomised controlled trial conducted in the UK. The trial took place across 26 hospitals (21 recruiting only, one surgical only, and four recruiting and surgical). Following two cycles of chemotherapy, eligible participants with pleural mesothelioma were randomly assigned (1:1) to surgery and chemotherapy or chemotherapy alone using a secure web-based system. Individuals aged 16 years or older with resectable pleural mesothelioma and adequate organ and lung function were eligible for inclusion. Participants in the chemotherapy only group received two to four further cycles of chemotherapy, and participants in the surgery and chemotherapy group received pleurectomy decortication or extended pleurectomy decortication, followed by two to four further cycles of chemotherapy. It was not possible to mask allocation because the intervention was a major surgical procedure. The primary outcome was overall survival, defined as time from randomisation to death from any cause. Analyses were done on the intention-to-treat population for all outcomes, unless specified. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02040272, and is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: Between June 19, 2015, and Jan 21, 2021, of 1030 assessed for eligibility, 335 participants were randomly assigned (169 to surgery and chemotherapy, and 166 to chemotherapy alone). 291 (87%) participants were men and 44 (13%) women, and 288 (86%) were diagnosed with epithelioid mesothelioma. At a median follow-up of 22·4 months (IQR 11·3-30·8), median survival was shorter in the surgery and chemotherapy group (19·3 months [IQR 10·0-33·7]) than in the chemotherapy alone group (24·8 months [IQR 12·6-37·4]), and the difference in restricted mean survival time at 2 years was -1·9 months (95% CI -3·4 to -0·3, p=0·019). There were 318 serious adverse events (grade ≥3) in the surgery group and 169 in the chemotherapy group (incidence rate ratio 3·6 [95% CI 2·3 to 5·5], p<0·0001), with increased incidence of cardiac (30 vs 12; 3·01 [1·13 to 8·02]) and respiratory (84 vs 34; 2·62 [1·58 to 4·33]) disorders, infection (124 vs 53; 2·13 [1·36 to 3·33]), and additional surgical or medical procedures (15 vs eight; 2·41 [1·04 to 5·57]) in the surgery group. INTERPRETATION: Extended pleurectomy decortication was associated with worse survival to 2 years, and more serious adverse events for individuals with resectable pleural mesothelioma, compared with chemotherapy alone. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (15/188/31), Cancer Research UK Feasibility Studies Project Grant (A15895).

Developments in predictive biomarker testing and targeted therapy in advanced stage non-small cell lung cancer and their application across European countries.

In the past two decades, the treatment of metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), has undergone significant changes due to the introduction of targeted therapies and immunotherapy. These advancements have led to the need for predictive molecular tests to identify patients eligible for targeted therapy. This review provides an overview of the development and current application of targeted therapies and predictive biomarker testing in European patients with advanced stage NSCLC. Using data from eleven European countries, we conclude that recommendations for predictive testing are incorporated in national guidelines across Europe, although there are differences in their comprehensiveness. Moreover, the availability of recently EMA-approved targeted therapies varies between European countries. Unfortunately, routine assessment of national/regional molecular testing rates is limited. As a result, it remains uncertain which proportion of patients with metastatic NSCLC in Europe receive adequate predictive biomarker testing. Lastly, Molecular Tumor Boards (MTBs) for discussion of molecular test results are widely implemented, but national guidelines for their composition and functioning are lacking. The establishment of MTB guidelines can provide a framework for interpreting rare or complex mutations, facilitating appropriate treatment decision-making, and ensuring quality control.

Challenges and controversies in resectable non-small cell lung cancer: a clinician's perspective.

The treatment landscape of resectable early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is transforming due to the approval of novel adjuvant and neoadjuvant systemic treatments. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) recently approved adjuvant osimertinib, adjuvant atezolizumab, adjuvant pembrolizumab, and neoadjuvant nivolumab combined with chemotherapy, and the approval of other agents or new indications may follow soon. Despite encouraging results, many unaddressed questions remain. Moreover, the transformed treatment paradigm in resectable NSCLC can pose major challenges to healthcare systems and magnify existing disparities in care as differences in reimbursement may vary across different European countries. This Viewpoint discusses the challenges and controversies in resectable early-stage NSCLC and how existing inequalities in access to these treatments could be addressed.

New systemic treatment paradigms in resectable non-small cell lung cancer and variations in patient access across Europe.

The treatment landscape of resectable early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is set to change significantly due to encouraging results from randomized trials evaluating neoadjuvant and adjuvant immunotherapy, as well as adjuvant targeted therapy. As of January 2024, marketing authorization has been granted for four new indications in Europe, and regulatory approvals for other study regimens are expected. Because cost-effectiveness and reimbursement criteria for novel treatments often differ between European countries, access to emerging developments may lead to inequalities due to variations in recommended and available lung cancer care throughout Europe. This Series paper (i) highlights the clinical studies reshaping the treatment landscape in resectable early-stage NSCLC, (ii) compares and contrasts approaches taken by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for drug approval to that taken by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and (iii) evaluates the differences in access to emerging treatments from an availability perspective across European countries.

Future perspective for the application of predictive biomarker testing in advanced stage non-small cell lung cancer.

For patients with advanced stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), treatment strategies have changed significantly due to the introduction of targeted therapies and immunotherapy. In the last few years, we have seen an explosive growth of newly introduced targeted therapies in oncology and this development is expected to continue in the future. Besides primary targetable aberrations, emerging diagnostic biomarkers also include relevant co-occurring mutations and resistance mechanisms involved in disease progression, that have impact on optimal treatment management. To accommodate testing of pending biomarkers, it is necessary to establish routine large-panel next-generation sequencing (NGS) for all patients with advanced stage NSCLC. For cost-effectiveness and accessibility, it is recommended to implement predictive molecular testing using large-panel NGS in a dedicated, centralized expert laboratory within a regional oncology network. The central molecular testing center should host a regional Molecular Tumor Board and function as a hub for interpretation of rare and complex testing results and clinical decision-making.

Discordance in Recommendation Between Next-Generation Sequencing Test Reports and Molecular Tumor Boards in India.

PURPOSE: Accurate understanding of the genomic and transcriptomic data provided by next-generation sequencing (NGS) is essential for the effective utilization of precision oncology. Molecular tumor boards (MTBs) aim to translate the complex data in NGS reports into effective clinical interventions. Often, MTB treatment recommendations differ from those in the NGS reports. In this study, we analyze the discordance between these recommendations and the rationales behind the discordances, in a non-high-income setting, with international input to evaluate the necessity of MTB in clinical practice. METHODS: We collated data from MTB that were virtually hosted in Chennai, India. We included patients with malignancies who had NGS reports on solid tissue or liquid biopsies, and excluded those with incomplete data. MTB forms and NGS reports of each clinical case were analyzed and evaluated for recommendation concordance. Concordance was defined as an agreement between the first recommendation in the MTB forms and the therapeutic recommendations suggested in the NGS report. Discordance was the absence of the said agreement. The rationales for discordance were identified and documented. RESULTS: Seventy MTB reports were analyzed with 49 cases meeting the inclusion criteria. The recommendation discordance was 49% (24 of 49). Discordant recommendations were mainly due to low level of evidence for the drug (75% of cases). CONCLUSION: The discordance between MTB and NGS vendor recommendations highlights the clinical utility of MTB. The educational experiences provided by this initiative are an example of how virtual academic collaborations can enhance patient care and provider education across geographic borders.

Lung Cancer Related Thrombosis (LCART): Focus on Immune Checkpoint Blockade.

Cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) is a common complication in lung cancer patients. Lung cancer confers an increased risk of thrombosis compared to other solid malignancies across all stages of the disease. Newer treatment agents, including checkpoint immunotherapy and targeted agents, may further increase the risk of CAT. Different risk-assessment models, such as the Khorana Risk Score, and newer approaches that incorporate genetic risk factors have been used in lung cancer patients to evaluate the risk of thrombosis. The management of CAT is based on the results of large prospective trials, which show similar benefits to low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in ambulatory patients. The anticoagulation agent and duration of therapy should be personalized according to lung cancer stage and histology, the presence of driver mutations and use of antineoplastic therapy, including recent curative lung surgery, chemotherapy or immunotherapy. Treatment options should be evaluated in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has been shown to impact the thrombotic risk in cancer patients. This review focuses on the epidemiology, pathophysiology, risk factors, novel predictive scores and management of CAT in patients with active lung cancer, with a focus on immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Repotrectinib in ROS1 Fusion-Positive Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The early-generation ROS1 tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) that are approved for the treatment of ROS1 fusion-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have antitumor activity, but resistance develops in tumors, and intracranial activity is suboptimal. Repotrectinib is a next-generation ROS1 TKI with preclinical activity against ROS1 fusion-positive cancers, including those with resistance mutations such as ROS1 G2032R. METHODS: In this registrational phase 1-2 trial, we assessed the efficacy and safety of repotrectinib in patients with advanced solid tumors, including ROS1 fusion-positive NSCLC. The primary efficacy end point in the phase 2 trial was confirmed objective response; efficacy analyses included patients from phase 1 and phase 2. Duration of response, progression-free survival, and safety were secondary end points in phase 2. RESULTS: On the basis of results from the phase 1 trial, the recommended phase 2 dose of repotrectinib was 160 mg daily for 14 days, followed by 160 mg twice daily. Response occurred in 56 of the 71 patients (79%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 68 to 88) with ROS1 fusion-positive NSCLC who had not previously received a ROS1 TKI; the median duration of response was 34.1 months (95% CI, 25.6 to could not be estimated), and median progression-free survival was 35.7 months (95% CI, 27.4 to could not be estimated). Response occurred in 21 of the 56 patients (38%; 95% CI, 25 to 52) with ROS1 fusion-positive NSCLC who had previously received one ROS1 TKI and had never received chemotherapy; the median duration of response was 14.8 months (95% CI, 7.6 to could not be estimated), and median progression-free survival was 9.0 months (95% CI, 6.8 to 19.6). Ten of the 17 patients (59%; 95% CI, 33 to 82) with the ROS1 G2032R mutation had a response. A total of 426 patients received the phase 2 dose; the most common treatment-related adverse events were dizziness (in 58% of the patients), dysgeusia (in 50%), and paresthesia (in 30%), and 3% discontinued repotrectinib owing to treatment-related adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Repotrectinib had durable clinical activity in patients with ROS1 fusion-positive NSCLC, regardless of whether they had previously received a ROS1 TKI. Adverse events were mainly of low grade and compatible with long-term administration. (Funded by Turning Point Therapeutics, a wholly owned subsidiary of Bristol Myers Squibb; TRIDENT-1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03093116.).

Quantitative bias analysis for external control arms using real-world data in clinical trials: a primer for clinical researchers.

Development of medicines in rare oncologic patient populations are growing, but well-powered randomized controlled trials are typically extremely challenging or unethical to conduct in such settings. External control arms using real-world data are increasingly used to supplement clinical trial evidence where no or little control arm data exists. The construction of an external control arm should always aim to match the population, treatment settings and outcome measurements of the corresponding treatment arm. Yet, external real-world data is typically fraught with limitations including missing data, measurement error and the potential for unmeasured confounding given a nonrandomized comparison. Quantitative bias analysis (QBA) comprises a collection of approaches for modelling the magnitude of systematic errors in data which cannot be addressed with conventional statistical adjustment. Their applications can range from simple deterministic equations to complex hierarchical models. QBA applied to external control arm represent an opportunity for evaluating the validity of the corresponding comparative efficacy estimates. We provide a brief overview of available QBA approaches and explore their application in practice. Using a motivating example of a comparison between pralsetinib single-arm trial data versus pembrolizumab alone or combined with chemotherapy real-world data for RET fusion-positive advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) patients (1-2% among all NSCLC), we illustrate how QBA can be applied to external control arms. We illustrate how QBA is used to ascertain robustness of results despite a large proportion of missing data on baseline ECOG performance status and suspicion of unknown confounding. The robustness of findings is illustrated by showing that no meaningful change to the comparative effect was observed across several 'tipping-point' scenario analyses, and by showing that suspicion of unknown confounding was ruled out by use of E-values. Full R code is also provided.

TARGET: A Phase II, Open-Label, Single-Arm Study of 5-Year Adjuvant Osimertinib in Completely Resected EGFR-Mutated Stage II to IIIB NSCLC Post Complete Surgical Resection.

INTRODUCTION: Osimertinib is a central nervous system (CNS)-active, third generation, irreversible, epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EGFR-TKI) that potently and selectively inhibits EGFR-TKI sensitizing and EGFR T790M resistance mutations, with demonstrated efficacy in EGFR-mutated (EGFRm) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We present the rationale and design for TARGET (NCT05526755), which will evaluate the efficacy and safety of 5 years of adjuvant osimertinib in patients with completely resected EGFRm stage II to IIIB NSCLC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: TARGET is a phase II, multinational, open-label, single-arm study. Adults aged ≥18 years (Taiwan ≥20 years), with resected stage II to IIIB NSCLC are eligible; prior adjuvant chemotherapy is allowed. Eligible patients must have locally confirmed common (exon 19 deletion or L858R) or uncommon (G719X, L861Q, and/or S768I) EGFR-TKI sensitizing mutations, alone or in combination. Patients will receive osimertinib 80 mg once daily for 5 years or until disease recurrence, discontinuation or death. The primary endpoint is investigator-assessed disease-free survival (DFS) at 5 years (common EGFR mutations cohort). Secondary endpoints include: investigator-assessed DFS at 3 and 4 years; overall survival at 3, 4, and 5 years (common EGFR mutations cohort); DFS at 3, 4, and 5 years (uncommon EGFR mutations cohort); safety and tolerability, type of recurrence and CNS metastases (both cohorts). Exploratory endpoints include: tissue/plasma concordance; analysis of circulating molecules in plasma samples using different profiling approaches to detect minimal residual disease; incidence and change over time of incidental pulmonary nodules. RESULTS: TARGET is currently recruiting, and completion is expected in 2029.

Updates in Management of Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma.

OPINION STATEMENT: Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is an aggressive asbestos-associated thoracic malignancy that is usually incurable. As demonstrated in the landmark MARS2 trial, surgical resection does not improve survival outcomes and its role in managing MPM is limited. Whilst platinum-pemetrexed chemotherapy in combination with bevacizumab was the standard first-line approach for unresectable disease, landmark phase 3 trials have now established the role of immune checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) in the upfront management of unresectable disease: either nivolumab-ipilimumab or carboplatin-pemetrexed-pembrolizumab. Patient selection for optimal strategy remains an ongoing question. For relapsed disease novel genomic-based therapies targeting a range of aberrations including losses of the tumour suppressor genes BAP1, CDKN2A and NF2, are being evaluated. Nonetheless, the future of MPM therapeutics holds promise. Here we overview current treatment strategies in the management of MPM.

Salvage Therapy With Selpercatinib for RET-Rearranged NSCLC With Pralsetinib-Related Pneumonitis and Leptomeningeal Disease: A Case Report.

Selpercatinib and pralsetinib are RET inhibitors with substantial activity in advanced RET-rearranged NSCLC. We present a case of pralsetinib-related pneumonitis and leptomeningeal and brain metastases progression during treatment suspension for pneumonitis. During recovery, selpercatinib administration led to rapid neurologic response and complete intracranial response and allowed pneumonitis resolution. This case supports the safety of selpercatinib in patients with pneumonitis on pralsetinib and highlights its marked efficacy in leptomeningeal disease.

Amivantamab Compared with Real-World Physician's Choice after Platinum-Based Therapy from a Pan-European Chart Review of Patients with Lung Cancer and Activating EGFR Exon 20 Insertion Mutations.

Patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with epidermal growth factor receptor gene (EGFR) Exon 20 insertions (Exon20ins) at the second line and beyond (2L+) have an unmet need for new treatment. Amivantamab, a bispecific EGFR- and MET-targeted antibody, demonstrated efficacy in this setting in the phase 1b, open-label CHRYSALIS trial (NCT02609776). The primary objective was to compare the efficacy of amivantamab to the choices made by real-world physicians (RWPC) using an external control cohort from the real-world evidence (RWE) chart review study, CATERPILLAR-RWE. Adjustment was conducted to address differences in prognostic variables between cohorts using inverse probability weighting (IPW) and covariate adjustments based on multivariable regression. In total, 114 patients from CHRYSALIS were compared for 55 lines of therapy from CATERPILLAR-RWE. Baseline characteristics were comparable between the amivantamab and IPW-weighted RWPC cohorts. For amivantamab versus RWPC using IPW adjustment, the response rate ratio for the overall response was 2.14 (p = 0.0181), and the progression-free survival (PFS), time-to-next-treatment (TTNT) and overall survival (OS) hazard ratios (HRs) were 0.42 (p < 0.0001), 0.47 (p = 0.0063) and 0.48 (p = 0.0207), respectively. These analyses provide evidence of clinical and statistical benefits across multiple outcomes and adjustment methods, of amivantamab in platinum pre-treated patients with advanced NSCLC harboring EGFR Exon20ins. These results confirm earlier comparisons versus pooled national registry data.

A tailored approach to horizon scanning for cancer medicines.

BACKGROUND: Horizon scanning (HS) is the systematic identification of emerging therapies to inform policy and decision-makers. We developed an agile and tailored HS methodology that combined multi-criteria decision analysis weighting and Delphi rounds. As secondary objectives, we aimed to identify new medicines in melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer and colorectal cancer most likely to impact the Australian government's pharmaceutical budget by 2025 and to compare clinician and consumer priorities in cancer medicine reimbursement. METHOD: Three cancer-specific clinician panels (total n = 27) and a consumer panel (n = 7) were formed. Six prioritisation criteria were developed with consumer input. Criteria weightings were elicited using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Candidate medicines were identified and filtered from a primary database and validated against secondary and tertiary sources. Clinician panels participated in a three-round Delphi survey to identify and score the top five medicines in each cancer type. RESULTS: The AHP and Delphi process was completed in eight weeks. Prioritisation criteria focused on toxicity, quality of life (QoL), cost savings, strength of evidence, survival, and unmet need. In both curative and non-curative settings, consumers prioritised toxicity and QoL over survival gains, whereas clinicians prioritised survival. HS results project the ongoing prevalence of high-cost medicines. Since completion in October 2021, the HS has identified 70 % of relevant medicines submitted for Pharmaceutical Benefit Advisory Committee assessment and 60% of the medicines that received a positive recommendation. CONCLUSION: Tested in the Australian context, our method appears to be an efficient and flexible approach to HS that can be tailored to address specific disease types by using elicited weights to prioritise according to incremental value from both a consumer and clinical perspective. POLICY SUMMARY: Since HS is of global interest, our example provides a reproducible blueprint for adaptation to other healthcare settings that integrates consumer input and priorities.

MesoGraph: Automatic profiling of mesothelioma subtypes from histological images.

Mesothelioma is classified into three histological subtypes, epithelioid, sarcomatoid, and biphasic, according to the relative proportions of epithelioid and sarcomatoid tumor cells present. Current guidelines recommend that the sarcomatoid component of each mesothelioma is quantified, as a higher percentage of sarcomatoid pattern in biphasic mesothelioma shows poorer prognosis. In this work, we develop a dual-task graph neural network (GNN) architecture with ranking loss to learn a model capable of scoring regions of tissue down to cellular resolution. This allows quantitative profiling of a tumor sample according to the aggregate sarcomatoid association score. Tissue is represented by a cell graph with both cell-level morphological and regional features. We use an external multicentric test set from Mesobank, on which we demonstrate the predictive performance of our model. We additionally validate our model predictions through an analysis of the typical morphological features of cells according to their predicted score.

Amivantamab plus Chemotherapy in NSCLC with EGFR Exon 20 Insertions.

BACKGROUND: Amivantamab has been approved for the treatment of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) exon 20 insertions who have had disease progression during or after platinum-based chemotherapy. Phase 1 data showed the safety and antitumor activity of amivantamab plus carboplatin-pemetrexed (chemotherapy). Additional data on this combination therapy are needed. METHODS: In this phase 3, international, randomized trial, we assigned in a 1:1 ratio patients with advanced NSCLC with EGFR exon 20 insertions who had not received previous systemic therapy to receive intravenous amivantamab plus chemotherapy (amivantamab-chemotherapy) or chemotherapy alone. The primary outcome was progression-free survival according to blinded independent central review. Patients in the chemotherapy group who had disease progression were allowed to cross over to receive amivantamab monotherapy. RESULTS: A total of 308 patients underwent randomization (153 to receive amivantamab-chemotherapy and 155 to receive chemotherapy alone). Progression-free survival was significantly longer in the amivantamab-chemotherapy group than in the chemotherapy group (median, 11.4 months and 6.7 months, respectively; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.40; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.30 to 0.53; P<0.001). At 18 months, progression-free survival was reported in 31% of the patients in the amivantamab-chemotherapy group and in 3% in the chemotherapy group; a complete or partial response at data cutoff was reported in 73% and 47%, respectively (rate ratio, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.32 to 1.68; P<0.001). In the interim overall survival analysis (33% maturity), the hazard ratio for death for amivantamab-chemotherapy as compared with chemotherapy was 0.67 (95% CI, 0.42 to 1.09; P = 0.11). The predominant adverse events associated with amivantamab-chemotherapy were reversible hematologic and EGFR-related toxic effects; 7% of patients discontinued amivantamab owing to adverse reactions. CONCLUSIONS: The use of amivantamab-chemotherapy resulted in superior efficacy as compared with chemotherapy alone as first-line treatment of patients with advanced NSCLC with EGFR exon 20 insertions. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development; PAPILLON ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04538664.).

PD-1-expressing macrophages and CD8 T cells are independent predictors of clinical benefit from PD-1 inhibition in advanced mesothelioma.

BACKGROUND: Few tissue biomarkers exist to date that could enrich patient with cancer populations to benefit from immune checkpoint blockade by programmed cell death protein 1/ligand-1 (PD-/L-1) inhibitors. PD-L1 expression has value in this context in some tumor types but is an imperfect predictor of clinical benefit. In malignant pleural mesothelioma, PD-L1 expression is not predictive of the benefit from PD-1 blockade. We aimed to identify novel markers in malignant pleural mesothelioma to select patients better. METHODS: We performed a multiplex-immune histochemistry analysis of tumor samples from the phase III PROMISE-meso study, which randomized 144 pretreated patients to receive either pembrolizumab or standard second-line chemotherapy. Our panel focused on CD8+T cell, CD68+macrophages, and the expression of PD-1 and PD-L1 on these and cancer cells. We analyzed single and double positive cells within cancer tissues (infiltrating immune cells) and in the stroma. In addition, we performed cell neighborhood analysis. The cell counts were compared with clinical outcomes, including responses, progression-free and overall survivals. RESULTS: We confirmed the absence of predictive value for PD-L1 in this cohort of patients. Furthermore, total CD8 T cells, CD68+macrophages, or inflammatory subtypes (desert, excluded, inflamed) did not predict outcomes. In contrast, PD-1-expressing CD8+T cells (exhausted T cells) and PD-1-expressing CD68+macrophages were both independent predictors of progression-free survival benefit from pembrolizumab. Patients with tumors simultaneously harboring PD1+T cells and PD-1+macrophages benefited the most from immune therapy. CONCLUSION: We analyzed a large cohort of patients within a phase III study and found that not only PD-1+CD8 T cells but also PD-1+CD68+ macrophages are predictive. This data provides evidence for the first time for the existence of PD-1+macrophages in mesothelioma and their clinical relevance for immune checkpoint blockade.

Malignant Mesothelioma subtyping via sampling driven multiple instance prediction on tissue image and cell morphology data.

Malignant Mesothelioma is a difficult to diagnose and highly lethal cancer usually associated with asbestos exposure. It can be broadly classified into three subtypes: Epithelioid, Sarcomatoid, and a hybrid Biphasic subtype in which significant components of both of the previous subtypes are present. Early diagnosis and identification of the subtype informs treatment and can help improve patient outcome. However, the subtyping of malignant mesothelioma, and specifically the recognition of transitional features from routine histology slides has a high level of inter-observer variability. In this work, we propose an end-to-end multiple instance learning (MIL) approach for malignant mesothelioma subtyping. This uses an adaptive instance-based sampling scheme for training deep convolutional neural networks on bags of image patches that allows learning on a wider range of relevant instances compared to max or top-N based MIL approaches. We also investigate augmenting the instance representation to include aggregate cellular morphology features from cell segmentation. The proposed MIL approach enables identification of malignant mesothelial subtypes of specific tissue regions. From this a continuous characterisation of a sample according to predominance of sarcomatoid vs epithelioid regions is possible, thus avoiding the arbitrary and highly subjective categorisation by currently used subtypes. Instance scoring also enables studying tumor heterogeneity and identifying patterns associated with different subtypes. We have evaluated the proposed method on a dataset of 234 tissue micro-array cores with an AUROC of 0.89±0.05 for this task. The dataset and developed methodology is available for the community at: https://github.com/measty/PINS.

Brigatinib Versus Alectinib in ALK-Positive NSCLC After Disease Progression on Crizotinib: Results of Phase 3 ALTA-3 Trial.

INTRODUCTION: This open-label, phase 3 trial (ALTA-3; NCT03596866) compared efficacy and safety of brigatinib versus alectinib for ALK+ NSCLC after disease progression on crizotinib. METHODS: Patients with advanced ALK+ NSCLC that progressed on crizotinib were randomized 1:1 to brigatinib 180 mg once daily (7-d lead-in, 90 mg) or alectinib 600 mg twice daily, aiming to test superiority. The primary end point was blinded independent review committee-assessed progression-free survival (PFS). Interim analysis for efficacy and futility was planned at approximately 70% of 164 expected PFS events. RESULTS: The population (N = 248; brigatinib, n = 125; alectinib, n = 123) was notable for long median duration of prior crizotinib (16.0-16.8 mo) and low rate of ALK fusion in baseline circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA; 78 of 232 [34%]). Median blinded independent review committee-assessed PFS was 19.3 months with brigatinib and 19.2 months with alectinib (hazard ratio = 0.97 [95% confidence interval: 0.66-1.42], p = 0.8672]). The study met futility criterion. Overall survival was immature (41 events [17%]). Exploratory analyses pooled across the treatment groups revealed median PFS of 11.1 versus 22.5 months in patients with versus without ctDNA-detectable ALK fusion at baseline (hazard ratio: 0.48 [95% confidence interval: 0.32-0.71]). Treatment-related adverse events in more than 30% of patients (brigatinib, alectinib) were elevated levels of blood creatine phosphokinase (70%, 29%), aspartate aminotransferase (53%, 38%), and alanine aminotransferase (40%, 36%). CONCLUSIONS: Brigatinib was not superior to alectinib for PFS in crizotinib-pretreated ALK+ NSCLC. Safety was consistent with the well-established and unique profiles of each drug. The low proportion of patients with ctDNA-detectable ALK fusion may account for prolonged PFS with both drugs in ALTA-3.