RESILIENT Part 2: A Randomized, Open-Label Phase III Study of Liposomal Irinotecan Versus Topotecan in Adults With Relapsed Small Cell Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: The phase III RESILIENT trial compared second-line liposomal irinotecan with topotecan in patients with small cell lung cancer (SCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with SCLC and progression on or after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy were randomly assigned (1:1) to intravenous (IV) liposomal irinotecan (70 mg/m2 every 2 weeks in a 6-week cycle) or IV topotecan (1.5 mg/m2 daily for 5 consecutive days, every 3 weeks in a 6-week cycle). The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Key secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR). RESULTS: Among 461 randomly assigned patients, 229 received liposomal irinotecan and 232 received topotecan. The median follow-up was 18.4 months. The median OS was 7.9 months with liposomal irinotecan versus 8.3 months with topotecan (hazard ratio [HR], 1.11 [95% CI, 0.90 to 1.37]; P = .31). The median PFS per blinded independent central review (BICR) was 4.0 months with liposomal irinotecan and 3.3 months with topotecan (HR, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.77 to 1.20]; nominal P = .71); ORR per BICR was 44.1% (95% CI, 37.6 to 50.8) and 21.6% (16.4 to 27.4), respectively. Overall, 42.0% and 83.4% of patients receiving liposomal irinotecan and topotecan, respectively, experienced grade ≥3 related treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). The most common grade ≥3 related TEAEs were diarrhea (13.7%), neutropenia (8.0%), and decreased neutrophil count (4.4%) with liposomal irinotecan and neutropenia (51.6%), anemia (30.9%), and leukopenia (29.1%) with topotecan. CONCLUSION: Liposomal irinotecan and topotecan demonstrated similar median OS and PFS in patients with relapsed SCLC. Although the primary end point of OS was not met, liposomal irinotecan demonstrated a higher ORR than topotecan. The safety profile of liposomal irinotecan was consistent with its known safety profile; no new safety concerns emerged.

The Efficacy and Safety of Treating Acquired MET Resistance Through Combinations of Parent and MET Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors in Patients With Metastatic Oncogene-Driven NSCLC.

Introduction: Acquired MET gene amplification, MET exon 14 skip mutations, or MET fusions can emerge as resistance mechanisms to tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) in patients with lung cancer. The efficacy and safety of combining MET TKIs (such as crizotinib, capmatinib, or tepotinib) with parent TKIs to target acquired MET resistance are not well characterized. Methods: Multi-institutional retrospective chart review identified 83 patients with metastatic oncogene-driven NSCLC that were separated into the following two pairwise matched cohorts: (1) MET cohort (n = 41)-patients with acquired MET resistance continuing their parent TKI with a MET TKI added or (2) Chemotherapy cohort (n = 42)-patients without any actionable resistance continuing their parent TKI with a platinum-pemetrexed added. Clinicopathologic features, radiographic response (by means of Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1), survival outcomes, adverse events (AEs) (by means of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0), and genomic data were collected. Survival outcomes were assessed using Kaplan-Meier methods. Multivariate modeling adjusted for lines of therapy, brain metastases, TP53 mutations, and oligometastatic disease. Results: Within the MET cohort, median age was 56 years (range: 36-83 y). Most patients were never smokers (28 of 41, 68.3%). Baseline brain metastases were common (21 of 41, 51%). The most common oncogenes in the MET cohort were EGFR (30 of 41, 73.2%), ALK (seven of 41, 17.1%), and ROS1 (two of 41, 4.9%). Co-occurring TP53 mutations (32 of 41, 78%) were frequent. Acquired MET alterations included MET gene amplification (37 of 41, 90%), MET exon 14 mutations (two of 41, 5%), and MET gene fusions (two of 41, 5%). After multivariate adjustment, the objective response rate (ORR) was higher in the MET cohort versus the chemotherapy cohort (ORR: 69.2% versus 20%, p < 0.001). Within the MET cohort, MET gene copy number (≥10 versus 6-10) did not affect radiographic response (54.5% versus 68.4%, p = 0.698). There was no difference in ORR on the basis of MET TKI used (F [2, 36] = 0.021, p = 0.978). There was no difference in progression-free survival (5 versus 6 mo; hazard ratio = 0.64; 95% confidence interval: 0.34-1.23, p = 0.18) or overall survival (13 versus 11 mo; hazard ratio = 0.75; 95% confidence interval: 0.42-1.35, p = 0.34) between the MET and chemotherapy cohorts. In the MET cohort, dose reductions for MET TKI-related toxicities were common (17 of 41, 41.4%) but less frequent for parent TKIs (two of 41, 5%). Grade 3 AEs were not significant between crizotinib, capmatinib, and tepotinib (p = 0.3). The discontinuation rate of MET TKIs was 17% with no significant differences between MET TKIs (p = 0.315). Among pre- and post-treatment biopsies (n = 17) in the MET cohort, the most common next-generation sequencing findings were loss of MET gene amplification (15 of 17, 88.2%), MET on-target mutations (seven of 17, 41.2%), new Ras-Raf-MAPK alterations (three of 17, 17.6%), and EGFR gene amplification (two of 17, 11.7%). Conclusions: The efficacy and safety of combining MET TKIs (crizotinib, capmatinib, or tepotinib) with parent TKIs for acquired MET resistance are efficacious. Radiographic response and AEs did not differ significantly on the basis of the underlying MET TKI used. Loss of MET gene amplification, development of MET on-target mutations, Ras-Raf-MAPK alterations, and EGFR gene amplification were molecular patterns found on progression with dual parent and MET TKI combinations.

Artificial Intelligence-Powered Assessment of Pathologic Response to Neoadjuvant Atezolizumab in Patients With NSCLC: Results From the LCMC3 Study.

INTRODUCTION: Pathologic response (PathR) by histopathologic assessment of resected specimens may be an early clinical end point associated with long-term outcomes with neoadjuvant therapy. Digital pathology may improve the efficiency and precision of PathR assessment. LCMC3 (NCT02927301) evaluated neoadjuvant atezolizumab in patients with resectable NSCLC and reported a 20% major PathR rate. METHODS: We determined PathR in primary tumor resection specimens using guidelines-based visual techniques and developed a convolutional neural network model using the same criteria to digitally measure the percent viable tumor on whole-slide images. Concordance was evaluated between visual determination of percent viable tumor (n = 151) performed by one of the 47 local pathologists and three central pathologists. RESULTS: For concordance among visual determination of percent viable tumor, the interclass correlation coefficient was 0.87 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.84-0.90). Agreement for visually assessed 10% or less viable tumor (major PathR [MPR]) in the primary tumor was 92.1% (Fleiss kappa = 0.83). Digitally assessed percent viable tumor (n = 136) correlated with visual assessment (Pearson r = 0.73; digital/visual slope = 0.28). Digitally assessed MPR predicted visually assessed MPR with outstanding discrimination (area under receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.98) and was associated with longer disease-free survival (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.30; 95% CI: 0.09-0.97, p = 0.033) and overall survival (HR = 0.14, 95% CI: 0.02-1.06, p = 0.027) versus no MPR. Digitally assessed PathR strongly correlated with visual measurements. CONCLUSIONS: Artificial intelligence-powered digital pathology exhibits promise in assisting pathologic assessments in neoadjuvant NSCLC clinical trials. The development of artificial intelligence-powered approaches in clinical settings may aid pathologists in clinical operations, including routine PathR assessments, and subsequently support improved patient care and long-term outcomes.

Longitudinal nucleocapsid antibody testing reveals undocumented SARS-CoV-2 infections in patients with lung cancer.

Patients diagnosed with lung cancer (LC) exhibit increased susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Rodilla et al. monitor the levels of plasma anti-nucleocapsid antibodies within a cohort of fully vaccinated LC patients and reveal that the actual infection rate is nearly twice the documented rate, indicating a significant prevalence of unreported cases.

International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer Study of Reproducibility in Assessment of Pathologic Response in Resected Lung Cancers After Neoadjuvant Therapy.

INTRODUCTION: Pathologic response has been proposed as an early clinical trial end point of survival after neoadjuvant treatment in clinical trials of NSCLC. The International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC) published recommendations for pathologic evaluation of resected lung cancers after neoadjuvant therapy. The aim of this study was to assess pathologic response interobserver reproducibility using IASLC criteria. METHODS: An international panel of 11 pulmonary pathologists reviewed hematoxylin and eosin-stained slides from the lung tumors of resected NSCLC from 84 patients who received neoadjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitors in six clinical trials. Pathologic response was assessed for percent viable tumor, necrosis, and stroma. For each slide, tumor bed area was measured microscopically, and pre-embedded formulas calculated unweighted and weighted major pathologic response (MPR) averages to reflect variable tumor bed proportion. RESULTS: Unanimous agreement among pathologists for MPR was observed in 68 patients (81%), and inter-rater agreement (IRA) was 0.84 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.76-0.92) and 0.86 (95% CI: 0.79-0.93) for unweighted and weighted averages, respectively. Overall, unweighted and weighted methods did not reveal significant differences in the classification of MPR. The highest concordance by both methods was observed for cases with more than 95% viable tumor (IRA = 0.98, 95% CI: 0.96-1) and 0% viable tumor (IRA = 0.94, 95% CI: 0.89-0.98). The most common reasons for discrepancies included interpretations of tumor bed, presence of prominent stromal inflammation, distinction between reactive and neoplastic pneumocytes, and assessment of invasive mucinous adenocarcinoma. CONCLUSIONS: Our study revealed excellent reliability in cases with no residual viable tumor and good reliability for MPR with the IASLC recommended less than or equal to 10% cutoff for viable tumor after neoadjuvant therapy.

Prevalence, molecular markers, and outcome of bronchial squamous carcinoma in situ in high-risk subjects.

Bronchial squamous carcinoma in situ (CIS) is a preinvasive lesion that is thought to precede invasive carcinoma. We conducted prospective autofluorescence and white light bronchoscopy trials between 1992 and 2016 to assess the prevalence, molecular markers, and outcome of individuals with CIS and other preneoplastic bronchial lesions. Biopsies were evaluated at multiple levels and selected biopsies were tested for aneuploidy and DNA sequenced for TP53 mutation. Thirty-one individuals with CIS were identified. Twenty-two cases of CIS occurred in association with concurrent invasive carcinomas. Seven of the invasive tumors were radiographically occult. In two cases, CIS spread from the focus of invasive carcinoma into contralateral lung lobes, forming secondary invasive tumors. In nine cases, CIS occurred as isolated lesions and one progressed to invasive squamous carcinoma at the same site 40 months after discovery. In a second case, CIS was a precursor of carcinoma at a separate site in a different lobe. In seven cases CIS regressed to a lower grade or disappeared. High level chromosomal aneusomy was often associated with TP53 mutation and with invasive carcinoma. CIS most often occurs in association with invasive squamous carcinoma and may extend along the airways into distant lobes. In rare cases, CIS may be observed to directly transform into invasive carcinoma. CIS may be indicative of invasive tumor at a separate distant site. Isolated CIS may regress. Molecular changes parallel histological changes in CIS and may be used to map clonal expansion in the airways.

Clinical insights into small cell lung cancer: Tumor heterogeneity, diagnosis, therapy, and future directions.

Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is characterized by rapid growth and high metastatic capacity. It has strong epidemiologic and biologic links to tobacco carcinogens. Although the majority of SCLCs exhibit neuroendocrine features, an important subset of tumors lacks these properties. Genomic profiling of SCLC reveals genetic instability, almost universal inactivation of the tumor suppressor genes TP53 and RB1, and a high mutation burden. Because of early metastasis, only a small fraction of patients are amenable to curative-intent lung resection, and these individuals require adjuvant platinum-etoposide chemotherapy. Therefore, the vast majority of patients are currently being treated with chemoradiation with or without immunotherapy. In patients with disease confined to the chest, standard therapy includes thoracic radiotherapy and concurrent platinum-etoposide chemotherapy. Patients with metastatic (extensive-stage) disease are treated with a combination of platinum-etoposide chemotherapy plus immunotherapy with an anti-programmed death-ligand 1 monoclonal antibody. Although SCLC is initially very responsive to platinum-based chemotherapy, these responses are transient because of the development of drug resistance. In recent years, the authors have witnessed an accelerating pace of biologic insights into the disease, leading to the redefinition of the SCLC classification scheme. This emerging knowledge of SCLC molecular subtypes has the potential to define unique therapeutic vulnerabilities. Synthesizing these new discoveries with the current knowledge of SCLC biology and clinical management may lead to unprecedented advances in SCLC patient care. Here, the authors present an overview of multimodal clinical approaches in SCLC, with a special focus on illuminating how recent advancements in SCLC research could accelerate clinical development.

Randomized Phase III Trial of Pemetrexed Versus Docetaxel in Patients With Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Previously Treated With Chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy and toxicity of pemetrexed versus docetaxel in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) previously treated with chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients had a performance status 0 to 2, previous treatment with one prior chemotherapy regimen for advanced NSCLC, and adequate organ function. Patients received pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 intravenously (IV) day 1 with vitamin B12, folic acid, and dexamethasone or docetaxel 75 mg/m2 IV day 1 with dexamethasone every 21 days. The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS: Five hundred seventy-one patients were randomly assigned. Overall response rates were 9.1% and 8.8% (analysis of variance P = .105) for pemetrexed and docetaxel, respectively. Median progression-free survival was 2.9 months for each arm, and median survival time was 8.3 versus 7.9 months (P = not significant) for pemetrexed and docetaxel, respectively. The 1-year survival rate for each arm was 29.7%. Patients receiving docetaxel were more likely to have grade 3 or 4 neutropenia (40.2% v 5.3%; P < .001), febrile neutropenia (12.7% v 1.9%; P < .001), neutropenia with infections (3.3% v 0.0%; P = .004), hospitalizations for neutropenic fever (13.4% v 1.5%; P < .001), hospitalizations due to other drug related adverse events (10.5% v 6.4%; P = .092), use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor support (19.2% v 2.6%, P < .001) and all grade alopecia (37.7% v 6.4%; P < .001) compared with patients receiving pemetrexed. CONCLUSION: Treatment with pemetrexed resulted in clinically equivalent efficacy outcomes, but with significantly fewer side effects compared with docetaxel in the second-line treatment of patients with advanced NSCLC and should be considered a standard treatment option for second-line NSCLC when available.

CNS Downstaging: An Emerging Treatment Paradigm for Extensive Brain Metastases in Oncogene-Addicted Lung Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: For extensive brain metastases (BrM) presentations arising from oncogene-addicted lung cancer, tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) with high response rates in the central nervous system (CNS) could potentially downstage the CNS disease burden, allowing for the avoidance of upfront whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) and the conversion of some patients into candidates for focal stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS). METHODS: We describe the outcomes of patients with ALK, EGFR, and ROS1-driven NSCLC with extensive BrM presentations (defined as > 10 BrMs or leptomeningeal disease) treated with upfront newer generation CNS-active TKIs alone, including osimertinib, alectinib, brigatinib, lorlatinib, and entrectinib, from 2012 to 2021 at our institution. All BrMs were contoured at study entry, best CNS response (nadir), and first CNS progression. RESULTS: Twelve patients met criteria including 6 with ALK, 3 with EGFR, and 3 with ROS1-driven NSCLC. The median number and volume of BrMs at presentation were 49 and 19.6 cm3, respectively. Eleven patients (91.7 %) achieved a CNS response by modified-RECIST criteria to upfront TKI (10 partial responses, 1 complete response, 1 stable disease) with nadir observed at a median of 5.1 months. At nadir, the median number and volume of BrMs were 5 (median 91.7 % reduction per-patient) and 0.3 cm3(median 96.5 % reduction per-patient), respectively. Eleven patients (91.6 %) developed subsequent CNS progression (7 local failures, 3 local + distant, 1 distant) at a median of 17.9 months. At CNS progression, the median number and volume of BrMs were 7 and 0.7 cm3, respectively. Seven patients (58.3 %) received salvage SRS and no patients received salvage WBRT. The median overall survival from initiation of TKI for the extensive BrM presentation was 43.2 months. CONCLUSION: In this initial case series, we describe CNS downstaging as a promising multidisciplinary treatment paradigm involving the upfront administration CNS-active systemic therapy and close MRI surveillance for extensive BrMs as a strategy to avoid upfront WBRT and to convert some patients into SRS candidates.

Features of tumor-microenvironment images predict targeted therapy survival benefit in patients with EGFR-mutant lung cancer.

Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) targeting epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) are effective for many patients with lung cancer with EGFR mutations. However, not all patients are responsive to EGFR TKIs, including even those harboring EGFR-sensitizing mutations. In this study, we quantified the cells and cellular interaction features of the tumor microenvironment (TME) using routine H&E-stained biopsy sections. These TME features were used to develop a prediction model for survival benefit from EGFR TKI therapy in patients with lung adenocarcinoma and EGFR-sensitizing mutations in the Lung Cancer Mutation Consortium 1 (LCMC1) and validated in an independent LCMC2 cohort. In the validation data set, EGFR TKI treatment prolonged survival in the predicted-to-benefit group but not in the predicted-not-to-benefit group. Among patients treated with EGFR TKIs, the predicted-to-benefit group had prolonged survival outcomes compared with the predicted not-to-benefit group. The EGFR TKI survival benefit positively correlated with tumor-tumor interaction image features and negatively correlated with tumor-stroma interaction. Moreover, the tumor-stroma interaction was associated with higher activation of the hepatocyte growth factor/MET-mediated PI3K/AKT signaling pathway and epithelial-mesenchymal transition process, supporting the hypothesis of fibroblast-involved resistance to EGFR TKI treatment.

Surgical results of the Lung Cancer Mutation Consortium 3 trial: A phase II multicenter single-arm study to investigate the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab as neoadjuvant therapy in patients with stages IB-select IIIB resectable non-small cell lung cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Multimodality treatment for resectable non-small cell lung cancer has long remained at a therapeutic plateau. Immune checkpoint inhibitors are highly effective in advanced non-small cell lung cancer and promising preoperatively in small clinical trials for resectable non-small cell lung cancer. This large multicenter trial tested the safety and efficacy of neoadjuvant atezolizumab and surgery. METHODS: Patients with stage IB to select IIIB resectable non-small cell lung cancer and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0/1 were eligible. Patients received atezolizumab 1200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks for 2 cycles or less followed by resection. The primary end point was major pathological response in patients without EGFR/ALK+ alterations. Pre- and post-treatment computed tomography, positron emission tomography, pulmonary function tests, and biospecimens were obtained. Adverse events were recorded by Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v.4.0. RESULTS: From April 2017 to February 2020, 181 patients were entered in the study. Baseline characteristics were mean age, 65.1 years; female, 93 of 181 (51%); nonsquamous histology, 112 of 181 (62%); and clinical stages IIB to IIIB, 147 of 181 (81%). In patients without EGFR/ALK alterations who underwent surgery, the major pathological response rate was 20% (29/143; 95% confidence interval, 14-28) and the pathological complete response rate was 6% (8/143; 95% confidence interval, 2-11). There were no grade 4/5 treatment-related adverse events preoperatively. Of 159 patients (87.8%) undergoing surgery, 145 (91%) had pathologic complete resection. There were 5 (3%) intraoperative complications, no intraoperative deaths, and 2 postoperative deaths within 90 days, 1 treatment related. Median disease-free and overall survival have not been reached. CONCLUSIONS: Neoadjuvant atezolizumab in resectable stage IB to IIIB non-small cell lung cancer was well tolerated, yielded a 20% major pathological response rate, and allowed safe, complete surgical resection. These results strongly support the further development of immune checkpoint inhibitors as preoperative therapy in locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

Neoadjuvant atezolizumab for resectable non-small cell lung cancer: an open-label, single-arm phase II trial.

In an ongoing, open-label, single-arm phase II study ( NCT02927301 ), 181 patients with untreated, resectable, stage IB-IIIB non-small cell lung cancer received two doses of neoadjuvant atezolizumab monotherapy. The primary end point was major pathological response (MPR; ≤10% viable malignant cells) in resected tumors without EGFR or ALK alterations. Of the 143 patients in the primary end point analysis, the MPR was 20% (95% confidence interval, 14-28%). With a minimum duration of follow-up of 3 years, the 3-year survival rate of 80% was encouraging. The most common adverse events during the neoadjuvant phase were fatigue (39%, 71 of 181) and procedural pain (29%, 53 of 181), along with expected immune-related toxicities; there were no unexpected safety signals. In exploratory analyses, MPR was predicted using the pre-treatment peripheral blood immunophenotype based on 14 immune cell subsets. Immune cell subsets predictive of MPR in the peripheral blood were also identified in the tumor microenvironment and were associated with MPR. This study of neoadjuvant atezolizumab in a large cohort of patients with resectable non-small cell lung cancer was safe and met its primary end point of MPR ≥ 15%. Data from this single-arm, non-randomized trial suggest that profiles of innate immune cells in pre-treatment peripheral blood may predict pathological response after neoadjuvant atezolizumab, but additional studies are needed to determine whether these profiles can inform patient selection and new therapeutic approaches.

Adjuvant Osimertinib in EGFR-Mutant Early-Stage NSCLC: Does HRQoL Influence Decisions?

The ADAURA adjuvant randomized trial demonstrated that osimertinib prolonged DFS. It has now been reported that health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was not adversely affected by adjuvant osimertinib. Does this mean that adjuvant osimertinib should now be standard as we await survival results? See related article by Majem et al., p. 2286.

RESILIENT part 1: a phase 2 dose-exploration and dose-expansion study of second-line liposomal irinotecan in adults with small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: RESILIENT (NCT03088813) is a phase 2/3 study assessing the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of liposomal irinotecan monotherapy in patients with small cell lung cancer and disease progression on/after first-line platinum-based therapy. Here, we present results from RESILIENT part 1. METHODS: This open-label, single-arm, safety run-in evaluation with dose-exploration and dose-expansion phases included patients ≥18 years old with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0/1; those with asymptomatic central nervous system metastases were eligible. The primary objectives were to evaluate safety and tolerability and recommend a dose for further development. Efficacy end points were objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: During dose exploration, 5 patients received intravenous liposomal irinotecan at 85 mg/m2 (deemed not tolerable; dose-limiting toxicity) and 12 patients received 70 mg/m2 (deemed tolerable). During dose expansion, 13 additional patients received intravenous liposomal irinotecan at 70 mg/m2 . Of these 25 patients (median age [range], 59.0 [48.0-73.0] years, 92.0% with metastatic disease), 10 experienced grade ≥3 treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), most commonly diarrhea (20.0%) and neutropenia (16.0%), and 3 had serious treatment-related TEAEs, of whom 2 died. ORR was 44.0% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 24.40-65.07; 1 complete response, 10 partial responses) and median (95% CI) PFS and OS were 3.98 (1.45-4.24) months and 8.08 (5.16-9.82) months, respectively. CONCLUSION: Overall, no new safety signals were identified with liposomal irinotecan, and antitumor activity was promising. RESILIENT part 2, a randomized, controlled, phase 3 study of liposomal irinotecan versus topotecan, is ongoing. LAY SUMMARY: Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is an aggressive disease with few treatment options after platinum-based therapy. Administering 1 option, irinotecan, as a "liposomal" formulation, may extend drug exposure and improve outcomes. The RESILIENT part 1 trial assessed the safety and efficacy of liposomal irinotecan in 25 adults with SCLC after disease progression despite platinum-based therapy. No new safety concerns were reported. The most common moderate-to-severe side effects were diarrhea (20% of patients) and neutropenia (16%). Tumors responded to treatment in 44% of patients. Average survival was 8.08 months, and time to disease progression was 3.98 months. Liposomal irinotecan trials are ongoing.

International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer Study of the Impact of Coronavirus Disease 2019 on International Lung Cancer Clinical Trials.

INTRODUCTION: To evaluate the effects of the global coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on lung cancer trials, we surveyed investigators and collected aggregate enrollment data for lung cancer trials across the world before and during the pandemic. METHODS: A Data Collection Survey collected aggregate monthly enrollment numbers from 294 global lung cancer trials for 2019 to 2020. A 64-question Action Survey evaluated the impact of COVID-19 on clinical trials and identified mitigation strategies implemented. RESULTS: Clinical trial enrollment declined from 2019 to 2020 by 14% globally. Most reductions in enrollment occurred in April to June where we found significant decreases in individual site enrollment (p = 0.0309). Enrollment was not significantly different in October 2019 to December of 2019 versus 2020 (p = 0.25). The most frequent challenges identified by the Action Survey (N = 172) were fewer eligible patients (63%), decrease in protocol compliance (56%), and suspension of trials (54%). Patient-specific challenges included access to trial site (49%), ability to travel (54%), and willingness to visit the site (59%). The most frequent mitigation strategies included modified monitoring requirements (47%), telehealth visits (45%), modified required visits (25%), mail-order medications (25%), and laboratory (27%) and radiology (21%) tests at nonstudy facilities. Sites that felt the most effective mitigation strategies were telehealth visits (85%), remote patient-reported symptom collection (85%), off-site procedures (85%), and remote consenting (89%). CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic created many challenges for lung cancer clinical trials conduct and enrollment. Mitigation strategies were used and, although the pandemic worsened, trial enrollment improved. A more flexible approach may improve enrollment and access to clinical trials, even beyond the pandemic.

Lung Cancer and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection: Identifying Important Knowledge Gaps for Investigation.

Patients with lung cancer are especially vulnerable to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) with a greater than sevenfold higher rate of becoming infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) COVID-19, a greater than threefold higher hospitalization rate with high complication rates, and an estimated case fatality rate of more than 30%. The reasons for the increased vulnerability are not known. In addition, beyond the direct impact of the pandemic on morbidity and mortality among patients with lung cancer, COVID-19, with its disruption of patient care, has also resulted in substantial impact on lung cancer screening and treatment/management.COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective in people with lung cancer. On the basis of the available data, patients with lung cancer should continue their course of cancer treatment and get vaccinated against the SARS-CoV-2 virus. For unknown reasons, some patients with lung cancer mount poor antibody responses to vaccination. Thus, boosting vaccination seems urgently indicated in this subgroup of vulnerable patients with lung cancer. Nevertheless, many unanswered questions regarding vaccination in this population remain, including the magnitude, quality, and duration of antibody response and the role of innate and acquired cellular immunities for clinical protection. Additional important knowledge gaps also remain, including the following: how can we best protect patients with lung cancer from developing COVID-19, including managing care in patient with lung cancer and the home environment of patients with lung cancer; are there clinical/treatment demographics and tumor molecular demographics that affect severity of COVID-19 disease in patients with lung cancer; does anticancer treatment affect antibody production and protection; does SARS-CoV-2 infection affect the development/progression of lung cancer; and are special measures and vaccine strategies needed for patients with lung cancer as viral variants of concern emerge.