Inhaled corticosteroids with combination inhaled long-acting beta2-agonists and long-acting muscarinic antagonists for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

BACKGROUND: Management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) commonly involves a combination of long-acting bronchodilators including beta2-agonists (LABA) and muscarinic antagonists (LAMA). LABA and LAMA bronchodilators are now available in single-combination inhalers. In individuals with persistent symptoms or frequent exacerbations, inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are also used with combination LABA and LAMA inhalers. However, the benefits and risks of adding ICS to combination LABA/LAMA inhalers as a triple therapy remain unclear. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of adding an ICS to combination LABA/LAMA inhalers for the treatment of stable COPD. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Register of Trials, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase up to 30 November 2022. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP up to 30 November 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included parallel-group randomised controlled trials of three weeks' duration or longer that compared the treatment of stable COPD with ICS in addition to combination LABA/LAMA inhalers against combination LABA/LAMA inhalers alone. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. The primary outcomes were acute exacerbations of COPD, respiratory health-related quality of life, pneumonia and other serious adverse events. The secondary outcomes were symptom scores, lung function, physical capacity, and mortality. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for studies that contributed data to our prespecified outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: Four studies with a total of 15,412 participants met the inclusion criteria. The mean age of study participants ranged from 64.4 to 65.3 years; the proportion of female participants ranged from 28% to 40%. Most participants had symptomatic COPD (COPD Assessment Test Score ≥ 10) with severe to very severe airflow limitation (forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) < 50% predicted) and one or more moderate-to-severe COPD exacerbations in the last 12 months. Trial medications differed amongst studies. The duration of follow-up was 52 weeks in three studies and 24 weeks in one study. We assessed the risk of selection, performance, and detection bias to be low in the included studies; one study was at high risk of attrition bias, and one study was at high risk of reporting bias. Triple therapy may reduce rates of moderate-to-severe COPD exacerbations compared to combination LABA/LAMA inhalers (rate ratio (RR) 0.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67 to 0.81; n = 15,397; low-certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis stratifying by blood eosinophil counts showed there may be a greater reduction in rate of moderate-to-severe COPD exacerbations with triple therapy in participants with high-eosinophils (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.75) compared to low-eosinophils (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.93) (test for subgroup differences: P < 0.01) (high/low cut-offs: 150 eosinophils/µL in three studies; 200 eosinophils/µL in one study). However, moderate-to-substantial heterogeneity was observed in both high- and low-eosinophil subgroups. These subgroup analyses are observational by nature and thus results should be interpreted with caution. Triple therapy may be associated with reduced rates of severe COPD exacerbations (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.84; n = 14,131; low-certainty evidence). Triple therapy improved health-related quality of life assessed using the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) by the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) threshold (4-point decrease) (35.3% versus 42.4%, odds ratio (OR) 1.35, 95% CI 1.26 to 1.45; n = 14,070; high-certainty evidence). Triple therapy may result in fewer symptoms measured using the Transition Dyspnoea Index (TDI) (OR 1.33, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.57; n = 3044; moderate-certainty evidence) and improved lung function as measured by change in trough FEV1 (mean difference 38.68 mL, 95% CI 22.58 to 54.77; n = 11,352; low-certainty evidence). However, these benefits fell below MCID thresholds for TDI (1-unit decrease) and trough FEV1 (100 mL), respectively. Triple therapy is probably associated with a higher risk of pneumonia as a serious adverse event compared to combination LABA/LAMA inhalers (3.3% versus 1.9%, OR 1.74, 95% CI 1.39 to 2.18; n = 15,412; moderate-certainty evidence). In contrast, all-cause serious adverse events may be similar between groups (19.7% versus 19.7%, OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.03; n = 15,412; low-certainty evidence). All-cause mortality may be lower with triple therapy (1.4% versus 2.0%, OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.90; n = 15,397; low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence suggests that triple therapy may reduce rates of COPD exacerbations (low-certainty evidence) and results in an improvement in health-related quality of life (high-certainty evidence) compared to combination LABA/LAMA inhalers, but probably confers an increased pneumonia risk as a serious adverse event (moderate-certainty evidence). Triple therapy probably improves respiratory symptoms and may improve lung function (moderate- and low-certainty evidence, respectively); however, these benefits do not appear to be clinically significant. Triple therapy may reduce the risk of all-cause mortality compared to combination LABA/LAMA inhalers (low-certainty evidence). The certainty of the evidence was downgraded most frequently for inconsistency or indirectness. Across the four included studies, there were important differences in inclusion criteria, trial medications, and duration of follow-up. Investigation of heterogeneity was limited due to the small number of included studies. We found limited data on the effects of triple therapy compared to combination LABA/LAMA inhalers in patients with mild-moderate COPD and those without a recent exacerbation history.

Prognostic Implication of KRAS G12C Mutation in a Real-World KRAS-Mutated Stage IV NSCLC Cohort Treated With Immunotherapy in The Netherlands.

Introduction: With the approval of G12C inhibitors as the second line of treatment for KRAS G12C-mutated NSCLC, and the expanding research regarding targeting KRAS, it is key to understand the prognostic implication of KRAS G12C in the current first line of treatment. We compared overall survival (OS) of patients with stage IV KRAS G12C-mutated NSCLC to those with a KRAS non-G12C mutation in a first-line setting of (chemo)immunotherapy. Methods: This nationwide population-based study used real-world data from The Netherlands Cancer Registry. We selected patients with stage IV KRAS-mutated lung adenocarcinoma diagnosed in 2019 to 2020 who received first-line (chemo-)immunotherapy. Primary outcome was OS. Results: From 28,120 registered patients with lung cancer, 1185 were selected with a KRAS mutation, of which 494 had a KRAS G12C mutation. Median OS was 15.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 13.6-18.4) for KRAS G12C versus 14.0 months (95% CI:11.2-15.7) for KRAS non-G12C (p = 0.67). In multivariable analysis, KRAS subtype was not associated with OS (hazard ratio = 0.95, 95% CI: 0.82-1.10). For the subgroup with programmed death-ligand 1 at 0% to 49% who received chemoimmunotherapy, median OS was 13.3 months (95% CI: 10.5-15.2) for G12C and 9.8 months (95% CI: 8.6-11.3) for non-G12C (p = 0.48). For the subgroup with programmed death-ligand 1 more than or equal to 50% who received monoimmunotherapy, the median OS was 22.0 months (95% CI: 18.4-27.3) for G12C and 18.9 months (95% CI: 14.9-25.2) for non-G12C (p = 0.36). Conclusions: There was no influence of KRAS subtype (G12C versus non-G12C) on OS in patients with KRAS-mutated stage IV NSCLC treated with first-line (chemo)immunotherapy.

ERS International Congress 2022: highlights from the Thoracic Oncology Assembly.

Thoracic malignancies are associated with a substantial public health burden. Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide, with significant impact on patients' quality of life. Following 2 years of virtual European Respiratory Society (ERS) Congresses due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the 2022 hybrid ERS Congress in Barcelona, Spain allowed peers from all over the world to meet again and present their work. Thoracic oncology experts presented best practices and latest developments in lung cancer screening, lung cancer diagnosis and management. Early lung cancer diagnosis, subsequent pros and cons of aggressive management, identification and management of systemic treatments' side-effects, and the application of artificial intelligence and biomarkers across all aspects of the thoracic oncology pathway were among the areas that triggered specific interest and will be summarised here.

Survival of patients with KRAS G12C mutated stage IV non-small cell lung cancer with and without brain metastases treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors.

INTRODUCTION: Few data is available on whether brain metastases (BM) influence survival in patients with stage IV KRAS G12C mutated (KRAS G12C+ ) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with first-line immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) +/- chemotherapy ([chemo]-ICI). METHODS: Data was retrospectively collected from the population-based Netherlands Cancer Registry. The cumulative incidence of intracranial progression, overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) was determined for patients with KRAS G12C+ stage IV NSCLC diagnosed January 1 - June 30, 2019, treated with first-line (chemo)-ICI. OS and PFS were estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods and BM+ and BM- groups were compared using log-rank tests. RESULTS: Of 2489 patients with stage IV NSCLC, 153 patients had KRAS G12C+ and received first-line (chemo)-ICI. Of those patients, 35% (54/153) underwent brain imaging (CT and/or MRI), of which 85% (46/54) MRI. Half of the patients with brain imaging (56%; 30/54) had BM, concerning one-fifth (20%; 30/153) of all patients, of which 67% was symptomatic. Compared to BM-, patients with BM+ were younger and had more organs affected with metastasis. Around one-third (30%) of patients with BM+ had ≥5 BM at diagnosis. Three quarters of patients with BM+ received cranial radiotherapy prior to start of (chemo)-ICI. The 1-year cumulative incidence of intracranial progression was 33% for patients with known baseline BM and 7% for those without (p = 0.0001). Median PFS was 6.6 (95% CI 3.0-15.9) and 6.7 (95% CI 5.1-8.5) months for BM+ and BM- (p = 0.80), respectively. Median OS was 15.7 (95% CI 6.2-27.3) and 17.8 (95% CI 13.4-22.0) months for BM+ and BM- (p = 0.77), respectively. CONCLUSION: Baseline BM are common in patients with metastatic KRAS G12C+ NSCLC. During (chemo)-ICI treatment, intracranial progression was more frequent in patients with known baseline BM, justifying regular imaging during treatment. In our study, presence of known baseline BM did not influence OS or PFS.

Best first-line therapy for people with advanced non-small cell lung cancer, performance status 2 without a targetable mutation or with an unknown mutation status.

BACKGROUND: Most people who are newly diagnosed with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have advanced disease. For these people, survival is determined by various patient- and tumor-related factors, of which the performance status (PS) is the most important prognostic factor. People with PS 0 or 1 are usually treated with systemic therapies, whereas people with PS 3 or 4 most often receive supportive care. However, treatment for people with PS 2 without a targetable mutation remains unclear. Historically, people with a PS 2 cancer are frequently excluded from (important) clinical trials because of poorer outcomes and increased toxicity. We aim to address this knowledge gap, as this group of people represents a significant proportion (20% to 30%) of the total population with newly diagnosed lung cancer. OBJECTIVES: To identify the best first-line therapy for advanced lung cancer in people with performance status 2 without a targetable mutation or with an unknown mutation status. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 17 June 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared different chemotherapy (with or without angiogenesis inhibitor) or immunotherapy regimens, specifically designed for people with PS 2 only or studies including a subgroup of these people. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. overall survival (OS), 2. health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and 3. toxicity/adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were 4. tumor response rate, 5. progression-free survival, and 6. survival rates at six and 12 months' treatment. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included 22 trials in this review and identified one ongoing trial. Twenty studies compared chemotherapy with different regimens, of which 11 compared non-platinum therapy (monotherapy or doublet) versus platinum doublet. We found no studies comparing best supportive care with chemotherapy and only two abstracts analyzing chemotherapy versus immunotherapy. We found that platinum doublet therapy showed superior OS compared to non-platinum therapy (hazard ratio [HR] 0.67, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.57 to 0.78; 7 trials, 697 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There were no differences in six-month survival rates (risk ratio [RR] 1.00, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.41; 6 trials, 632 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), whereas 12-month survival rates were improved for treatment with platinum doublet therapy (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.87 to 0.97; 11 trials, 1567 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). PFS and tumor response rate were also better for people treated with platinum doublet therapy, with moderate-certainty evidence (PFS: HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.77; 5 trials, 487 participants; tumor response rate: RR 2.25, 95% CI 1.67 to 3.05; 9 trials, 964 participants). When analyzing toxicity rates, we found that platinum doublet therapy increased grade 3 to 5 hematologic toxicities, all with low-certainty evidence (anemia: RR 1.98, 95% CI 1.00 to 3.92; neutropenia: RR 2.75, 95% CI 1.30 to 5.82; thrombocytopenia: RR 3.96, 95% CI 1.73 to 9.06; all 8 trials, 935 participants). Only four trials reported HRQoL data; however, the methodology was different per trial and we were unable to perform a meta-analysis. Although evidence is limited, there were no differences in 12-month survival rates or tumor response rates between carboplatin and cisplatin regimens. With an indirect comparison, carboplatin seemed to have better 12-month survival rates than cisplatin compared to non-platinum therapy. The assessment of the efficacy of immunotherapy in people with PS 2 was limited. There might be a place for single-agent immunotherapy, but the data provided by the included studies did not encourage the use of double-agent immunotherapy. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review showed that as a first-line treatment for people with PS 2 with advanced NSCLC, platinum doublet therapy seems to be preferred over non-platinum therapy, with a higher response rate, PFS, and OS. Although the risk for grade 3 to 5 hematologic toxicity is higher, these events are often relatively mild and easy to treat. Since trials using checkpoint inhibitors in people with PS 2 are scarce, we identified an important knowledge gap regarding their role in people with advanced NSCLC and PS 2.

Overall survival in advanced epidermal growth factor receptor mutated non-small cell lung cancer using different tyrosine kinase inhibitors in The Netherlands: a retrospective, nationwide registry study.

Background: Clinical guidelines advise osimertinib as preferred first line treatment for advanced epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with deletions in exon 19 (del19) or exon 21 L858R mutation. However, for first-line osimertinib the real world overall survival (OS) in mutation subgroups remains unknown. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the real-world OS of those patients treated with different generations of EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI), and to identify predictors of survival. Methods: Using real-world data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR) we assessed patients diagnosed with stage IV NSCLC with del19 or L858R mutation between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2020, primarily treated with then regularly available TKIs (including osimertinib). Findings: Between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2020, 57,592 patients were included in the NCR. Within this cohort we identified 1109 patients, 654 (59%) with del19 and 455 (41%) with L858R mutations, respectively; 230 (21%) patients were diagnosed with baseline brain metastases (BM). Patients were treated with gefitinib (19%, 213/1109), erlotinib (42%, 470/1109), afatinib (15%, 161/1109) or osimertinib (24%, 265/1109). Median OS was superior for del19 versus L858R (28.4 months (95% CI 25.6-30.6) versus 17.7 months (95% CI 16.1-19.5), p < 0.001. In multivariable analysis, no difference in survival was observed between various TKIs in both groups. Only in the subgroup of patients with del19 and baseline BM, a benefit was observed for treatment with osimertinib. Interpretation: In this nationwide real-world cohort, survival of Dutch patients with advanced NSCLC and an EGFR del19 mutation was superior versus those harboring an L858R mutation. Osimertinib performed only better as first-line treatment in patients with del19 and BM. Funding: None.

Diagnosing Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer by Exhaled Breath Profiling Using an Electronic Nose: A Multicenter Validation Study.

BACKGROUND: Despite the potential of exhaled breath analysis of volatile organic compounds to diagnose lung cancer, clinical implementation has not been realized, partly due to the lack of validation studies. RESEARCH QUESTION: This study addressed two questions. First, can we simultaneously train and validate a prediction model to distinguish patients with non-small cell lung cancer from non-lung cancer subjects based on exhaled breath patterns? Second, does addition of clinical variables to exhaled breath data improve the diagnosis of lung cancer? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: In this multicenter study, subjects with non-small cell lung cancer and control subjects performed 5 min of tidal breathing through the aeoNose, a handheld electronic nose device. A training cohort was used for developing a prediction model based on breath data, and a blinded cohort was used for validation. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed, including breath data and clinical variables, in which the formula and cutoff value for the probability of lung cancer were applied to the validation data. RESULTS: A total of 376 subjects formed the training set, and 199 subjects formed the validation set. The full training model (including exhaled breath data and clinical parameters from the training set) were combined in a multivariable logistic regression analysis, maintaining a cut off of 16% probability of lung cancer, resulting in a sensitivity of 95%, a specificity of 51%, and a negative predictive value of 94%; the area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve was 0.87. Performance of the prediction model on the validation cohort showed corresponding results with a sensitivity of 95%, a specificity of 49%, a negative predictive value of 94%, and an area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve of 0.86. INTERPRETATION: Combining exhaled breath data and clinical variables in a multicenter, multi-device validation study can adequately distinguish patients with lung cancer from subjects without lung cancer in a noninvasive manner. This study paves the way to implement exhaled breath analysis in the daily practice of diagnosing lung cancer. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Netherlands Trial Register; No.: NL7025; URL: https://trialregister.nl/trial/7025.

High-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy for admitted COPD-patients. A retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The use of High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is increasing in admitted COPD-patients and could provide a step in between non-invasive ventilation (NIV) and standard oxygen supply. Recent studies demonstrated that HFNC is capable of facilitating secretion removal and reduce the work of breathing. Therefore, it might be of advantage in the treatment of acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPD). No randomized trials have assessed this for admitted COPD-patients on a regular ward and only limited data from non-randomized studies is available. OBJECTIVES: The aim of our study was to identify the reasons to initiate treatment with HFNC in a group of COPD-patients during an exacerbation, further identify those most likely to benefit from HFNC treatment and to find factors associated with treatment success on the pulmonary ward. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This retrospective study included COPD-patients admitted to the pulmonary ward and treated with HFNC from April 2016 until April 2019. Only patients admitted with severe acute exacerbations were included. Patients who had an indication for NIV-treatment where treated with NIV and were included only if they subsequently needed HFNC, e.g. when they did not tolerate NIV. Known asthma patients were excluded. RESULTS: A total of 173 patients were included. Stasis of sputum was the indication most reported to initiate HFNC-treatment. Treatment was well tolerated in 83% of the patients. Cardiac and vascular co-morbidities were significantly associated with a smaller chance of successful treatment (Respectively OR = 0.435; p = 0.013 and OR = 0.493;p = 0.035). Clinical assessment judged HFNC-treatment to be successful in 61% of the patients. Furthermore, in-hospital treatment with NIV was associated with a higher chance of HFNC failure afterwards (OR = 0.439; p = 0.045). CONCLUSION: This large retrospective study showed that HFNC-treatment in patients with an AECOPD was initiated most often for sputum stasis as primary reason. Factors associated with improved outcomes of HFNC-treatment was the absence of vascular and/or cardiac co-morbidities and no need for in-hospital NIV-treatment.

Randomised controlled trial of first-line tyrosine-kinase inhibitor (TKI) versus intercalated TKI with chemotherapy for EGFR-mutated nonsmall cell lung cancer.

Introduction: Previous studies have shown interference between epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors and chemotherapy in the cell cycle, thus reducing efficacy. In this randomised controlled trial we investigated whether intercalated erlotinib with chemotherapy was superior compared to erlotinib alone in untreated advanced EGFR-mutated nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Materials and methods: Treatment-naïve patients with an activating EGFR mutation, ECOG performance score of 0-3 and adequate organ function were randomly assigned 1:1 to either four cycles of cisplatin-pemetrexed with intercalated erlotinib (day 2-16 out of 21 days per cycle) followed by pemetrexed and erlotinib maintenance (CPE) or erlotinib monotherapy. The primary end-point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end-points were overall survival, objective response rate (ORR) and toxicity. Results: Between April 2014 and September 2016, 22 patients were randomised equally into both arms; the study was stopped due to slow accrual. Median follow-up was 64 months. Median PFS was 13.7 months (95% CI 5.2-18.8) for CPE and 10.3 months (95% CI 7.1-15.5; hazard ratio (HR) 0.62, 95% CI 0.25-1.57) for erlotinib monotherapy; when compensating for number of days receiving erlotinib, PFS of the CPE arm was superior (HR 0.24, 95% CI 0.07-0.83; p=0.02). ORR was 64% for CPE versus 55% for erlotinib monotherapy. Median overall survival was 31.7 months (95% CI 21.8-61.9 months) for CPE compared to 17.2 months (95% CI 11.5-45.5 months) for erlotinib monotherapy (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.22-1.41 months). Patients treated with CPE had higher rates of treatment-related fatigue, anorexia, weight loss and renal toxicity. Conclusion: Intercalating erlotinib with cisplatin-pemetrexed provides a longer PFS compared to erlotinib alone in EGFR-mutated NSCLC at the expense of more toxicity.

Timely administration of tocilizumab improves outcome of hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to determine the efficacy of early tocilizumab treatment for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 disease. METHODS: Open-label randomized phase II clinical trial investigating tocilizumab in patients with proven COVID-19 admitted to the general ward and in need of supplemental oxygen. The primary endpoint of the study was 30-day mortality with a prespecified 2-sided significance level of α = 0.10. A post-hoc analysis was performed for a combined endpoint of mechanical ventilation or death at 30 days. Secondary objectives included comparing the duration of hospital stay, ICU admittance and duration of ICU stay and the duration of mechanical ventilation. RESULTS: A total of 354 patients (67% men; median age 66 years) were enrolled of whom 88% received dexamethasone. Thirty-day mortality was 19% (95% CI 14%-26%) in the standard arm versus 12% (95% CI: 8%-18%) in the tocilizumab arm, hazard ratio (HR) = 0.62 (90% CI 0.39-0.98; p = 0.086). 17% of patients were admitted to the ICU in each arm (p = 0.89). The median stay in the ICU was 14 days (IQR 9-28) in the standard arm versus 9 days (IQR 5-14) in the tocilizumab arm (p = 0.014). Mechanical ventilation or death at thirty days was 31% (95% CI 24%-38%) in the standard arm versus 21% (95% CI 16%-28%) in the tocilizumab arm, HR = 0.65 (95% CI 0.42-0.98; p = 0.042). CONCLUSIONS: This randomized phase II study supports efficacy for tocilizumab when given early in the disease course in hospitalized patients who need oxygen support, especially when concomitantly treated with dexamethasone. TRIAL REGISTRATION: https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/8504.

Identifying Responders and Exploring Mechanisms of Action of the Endobronchial Coil Treatment for Emphysema.

BACKGROUND: So far, 3 randomized controlled trials have shown that the endobronchial treatment using coils is safe and effective. However, the more exact underlying mechanism of the treatment and best predictors of response are unknown. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to gain more knowledge about the underlying physiological mechanism of the lung volume reduction coil treatment and to identify potential predictors of response to this treatment. METHODS: This was a prospective nonrandomized single-center study which included patients who were bilaterally treated with coils. Patients underwent an extensive number of physical tests at baseline and 3 months after treatment. RESULTS: Twenty-four patients (29% male, mean age 62 years, forced expiratory volume in 1 s [FEV1] 26% pred, residual volume (RV) 231% pred) were included. Three months after treatment, significant improvements were found in spirometry, static hyperinflation, air trapping, airway resistance, treated lobe RV and treated lobes air trapping measured on CT scan, exercise capacity, and quality of life. The change in RV and airway resistance was significantly associated with a change in FEV1, forced vital capacity, air trapping, maximal expiratory pressure, dynamic compliance, and dynamic hyperinflation. Predictors of treatment response at baseline were a higher RV, larger air trapping, higher emphysema score in the treated lobes, and a lower physical activity level. CONCLUSIONS: Our results confirm that emphysema patients benefit from endobronchial coil treatment. The primary mechanism of action is decreasing static hyperinflation with improvement of airway resistance which consequently changes dynamic lung mechanics. However, the right patient population needs to be selected for the treatment to be beneficial which should include patients with severe lung hyperinflation, severe air trapping, and significant emphysema in target lobes.

Long-acting dual bronchodilator therapy (indacaterol/glycopyrronium) versus nebulized short-acting dual bronchodilator (salbutamol/ipratropium) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Most guidelines recommend long-acting bronchodilators over short-acting bronchodilators for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The available evidence for the guidelines was based on dry powder or pressurized metered dose inhalers, but not nebulizations. Nevertheless, there is considerable, poorly evidenced based, use of short acting nebulized bronchodilators. METHODS: This was an investigator initiated, randomized, active controlled, cross-over, double-blind and double-dummy single centre study in patients with stable COPD. The active comparators were indacaterol/glycopyrronium 110/50 µg as Ultibro® via Breezhaler® (IND/GLY) and salbutamol/ipratropium 2,5/0,5 mg via air driven nebulization (SAL/IPR), both given as a single dose on separate days. The primary end point was the area under the FEV1 curve from baseline till 6 h. Secondary end points included change in Borg dyspnoea score, adverse events and change in hyperinflation measured by the inspiratory capacity. RESULTS: A total of 33 COPD patients completed the trial and were evaluable, most of them were ex-smokers. The difference between the tested regimens for the primary endpoint, FEV1 AUC 0-6 h, 2965 ± 1544 mL (mean ± SD) for IND/GLY versus 3513 ± 1762 mL for SAL/IPR, was not significant (P = 0.08). The peak in FEV1 was higher and was reached faster with SAL/IPR compared to IND/GLY. No other significant differences were detected for the secondary endpoints including the Borg score, or adverse events. CONCLUSION: Among patients with stable COPD, dry powder long-acting single inhalation of a LABA and a LAMA (IND/GLY) was not superior compared to nebulized short-acting salbutamol plus ipratropium (SAL/IPR) in its bronchodilating effects over 6 h.The effects of the nebulization kicked in faster and peaked higher. The observed differences may be caused by the difference in dosing between the two regimens. The improvement in Borg dyspnoea score did not favour the nebulization. Long-term outcomes were not assessed in this study.

Nationwide Real-world Cohort Study of First-line Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor Treatment in Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor-mutated Non-small-cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Only a few randomized trials directly compared the relative efficacy of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) in patients with advanced epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and most trials comprised selected series from Asian populations. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess the overall survival (OS) of advanced EGFR-mutated NSCLC in a large white population and to evaluate variation between different TKIs and identify predictors of survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Information about clinical characteristics, treatment, and survival for 873 patients with stage IV EGFR + NSCLC, diagnosed from 2015 through 2017, was derived from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. OS was evaluated by actuarial analysis and multivariable Cox regression. Prognostic factors are reported as hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: A total of 596 (68%) patients received first-line treatment with regular TKIs, providing a median survival of 20.2 months. Forty-five percent of patients were 70 years and older, and 54% of patients had distant metastasis in multiple organs. In the multivariate analysis, survival was significantly worse for men, and patients with higher age, poorer performance, and ≥ 3 organs with metastasis. Compared with erlotinib, OS was worse for gefitinib users (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.30; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.64), predominantly in patients with brain metastasis. CONCLUSION: Dutch patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC who received first-line treatment with regular TKIs have a median OS of 20.2 months in a nationwide real-world cohort. In patients with brain metastasis, erlotinib showed superior results compared with gefitinib and was similar to afatinib.

Risk factors for neurocognitive decline in lung cancer patients treated with prophylactic cranial irradiation: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) reduces brain metastasis incidence in lung cancer, however with risk of neurocognitive decline. Nevertheless, risk factors for neurocognitive decline after PCI remain unclear. METHODS: We systematically reviewed the PubMed database according to the PRISMA guideline. Inclusion criteria were: randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational/single arm trials evaluating PCI, including ≥20 patients, reporting neurocognitive test results for lung cancer. Primary aim: evaluate risk factors associated with neurocognitive decline after PCI. RESULTS: Twenty records were eligible (8 different RCTs, 8 observational studies), including 3553 patients in total (858 NSCLC, 2695 SCLC) of which 73.6% received PCI. Incidence of mild/moderate cognitive decline after PCI varied from 8 to 89% (grading not always provided); for those without PCI, this was 3.4-42%. Interestingly, 23-95% had baseline cognitive impairment. Risk factors were often not reported. In one trial, both age (>60 years) and higher PCI dose (36 Gy) including twice-daily PCI were associated with a higher risk of cognitive decline. In one trial, white matter abnormalities were more frequent in the concurrent or sandwiched PCI arm, but without significant neuropsychological differences. One trial identified hippocampal sparing PCI to limit the neurocognitive toxicities of PCI and another reported an association between hippocampal dose volume effects and memory decline. As neurocognition was a secondary endpoint in most RCTs, and was assessed by various instruments with often poor/moderate compliance, high-quality data is lacking. CONCLUSIONS: Age, PCI dose, regimen and timing might be associated with cognitive impairment after PCI in lung cancer patients, but high-quality data is lacking. Future PCI trials should collect and evaluate possible risk factors systematically.

Prioritisation of treatment goals among older patients with non-curable cancer: the OPTion randomised controlled trial in Dutch primary care.

BACKGROUND: Older patients with cancer often find it difficult to take part in shared decision making. AIM: To assess the utility of the Outcome Prioritisation Tool (OPT), designed to aid discussion with a patient in regards to their treatment goals, to empower patients with cancer through structured conversations about generic treatment goals with GPs. DESIGN AND SETTING: A randomised controlled trial of 114 Dutch participants recruited between November 2015 and January 2019, aged ≥60 years with non-curable cancer who had to make a treatment decision with an oncologist. The intervention group used the OPT while the control group received care as usual. METHOD: The primary outcome was patient empowerment using the score on the decision self-efficacy (DSE) scale. Secondary outcomes were symptoms measures of fatigue, anxiety, and depression. The experiences of participants were also explored. RESULTS: No effect was found on patient empowerment between the OPT group (n = 48; DSE 86.8; standard deviation [SD] = 18.2) and the control group (n = 58; DSE 84.2; SD = 17.6; P = 0.47). In the OPT group, although statistically non-significant, fewer patients had low empowerment (18.8%, n = 9 versus 24.1%, n = 14; P = 0.50), but they did have statistically significant lower mean anxiety scores (6.0, SD = 4.6 versus 7.6, SD = 4.4; P<0.05) and less mild fatigue (58.8%, n = 30 versus 77.2%, n = 44; P = 0.05). Overall, 44.8% (n = 13) of patients indicated that the OPT-facilitated conversation helped them make a treatment decision, and 31.1% (n = 14) of the GPs reported that they gained new insights from the conversation. CONCLUSION: An OPT-facilitated conversation about generic treatment goals between patients and their GPs is associated with less anxiety and fatigue, but did not show statistically significant improvements in patient empowerment. Adding the OPT to routine care might ensure more patient-tailored care.

Continuous professional development: elevating thoracic oncology education in Europe.

The @EuroRespSoc launches a new thoracic oncology continuous professional development programme http://bit.ly/31ShuTp.

Quantitative Evaluation of Lobar Pulmonary Function of Emphysema Patients with Endobronchial Coils.

BACKGROUND: Recent advances in bronchoscopic lung volume reduction offer new therapies for patients with emphysema and hyperinflation. Pulmonary lobe segmentation with quantification of lobar volumes and emphysema severity plays a pivotal role in treatment planning and post-interventional assessment. Computed tomography (CT)-derived lobar volumes could reflect more accurate regional changes in pulmonary function. OBJECTIVES: The aim of our study is to validate the reliability of an in-house CT Lung Segmentation software (LungSeg; the Hamlyn Centre, Imperial College London, UK) for lung lobar volume and emphysema quantification for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients. METHODS: A total of 108 CT scans from subjects who participated in an endobronchial coil treatment trial were included. Lobar volume and emphysema quantification were performed using the LungSeg and Syngo CT Pulmo 3D package (Siemens Healthcare GmbH, Germany). The inter-user reliability of the LungSeg program was investigated. Correlation coefficients and Bland-Altman analyses were used to quantify the inter-software variability. The agreement between CT volume analysis and plethysmography analysis was also examined. RESULTS: The high intraclass correlation coefficients (mean ICC = 0.98) of the lobar volumes and emphysema indices measured by LungSeg suggest its excellent reproducibility. The LungSeg and Syngo program have good correlation (rho ≥0.94) and agreement for both lobar volume (median difference = 94 mL and LOAnp = 214.6 mL) and emphysema index (median difference ≤1.5% and LOAnp ≤2.03%) calculations. CT analysis provides a higher estimation of total lung capacity (TLCCT) than body plethysmography (TLCpleth), while there is a fair agreement on residual volume (RVCT) by LungSeg as compared with body plethysmography (RVpleth). CONCLUSIONS: CT-derived lobar volume and emphysema quantification using the LungSeg program is efficient and reliable in allowing lobar volume assessment. LungSeg has low inter-user variability and agrees better with plethysmography for COPD assessment in our study.