Biomarker-directed targeted therapy plus durvalumab in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a phase 2 umbrella trial.

For patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) tumors without currently targetable molecular alterations, standard-of-care treatment is immunotherapy with anti-PD-(L)1 checkpoint inhibitors, alone or with platinum-doublet therapy. However, not all patients derive durable benefit and resistance to immune checkpoint blockade is common. Understanding mechanisms of resistance-which can include defects in DNA damage response and repair pathways, alterations or functional mutations in STK11/LKB1, alterations in antigen-presentation pathways, and immunosuppressive cellular subsets within the tumor microenvironment-and developing effective therapies to overcome them, remains an unmet need. Here the phase 2 umbrella HUDSON study evaluated rational combination regimens for advanced NSCLC following failure of anti-PD-(L)1-containing immunotherapy and platinum-doublet therapy. A total of 268 patients received durvalumab (anti-PD-L1 monoclonal antibody)-ceralasertib (ATR kinase inhibitor), durvalumab-olaparib (PARP inhibitor), durvalumab-danvatirsen (STAT3 antisense oligonucleotide) or durvalumab-oleclumab (anti-CD73 monoclonal antibody). Greatest clinical benefit was observed with durvalumab-ceralasertib; objective response rate (primary outcome) was 13.9% (11/79) versus 2.6% (5/189) with other regimens, pooled, median progression-free survival (secondary outcome) was 5.8 (80% confidence interval 4.6-7.4) versus 2.7 (1.8-2.8) months, and median overall survival (secondary outcome) was 17.4 (14.1-20.3) versus 9.4 (7.5-10.6) months. Benefit with durvalumab-ceralasertib was consistent across known immunotherapy-refractory subgroups. In ATM-altered patients hypothesized to harbor vulnerability to ATR inhibition, objective response rate was 26.1% (6/23) and median progression-free survival/median overall survival were 8.4/22.8 months. Durvalumab-ceralasertib safety/tolerability profile was manageable. Biomarker analyses suggested that anti-PD-L1/ATR inhibition induced immune changes that reinvigorated antitumor immunity. Durvalumab-ceralasertib is under further investigation in immunotherapy-refractory NSCLC.ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03334617.

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.).

The Perceived Value of Liquid Biopsy: Results From a Canadian Validation Study of Circulating Tumor DNA T790M Testing-Patient's Willingness-to-Pay: A Brief Report.

Introduction: Liquid biopsy is recommended to diagnose molecular resistance to targeted therapy in patients with lung cancer. Nevertheless, not all jurisdictions provide funding and patient access. We report patients' perceived value of liquid biopsy in targeted therapy resistance. Methods: Canadian patients participating in a national EGFR T790M liquid biopsy validation study completed structured interviews measuring perceived value and willingness-to-pay for plasma circulating tumor DNA testing as an alternative to tumor biopsy using open-ended and iterative bidding approaches. Results: A total of 60 patients with advanced lung cancer participated with a median age of 64 years (range: 31-87 y); 69% were Asian and 45% female. All had received prior EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor; 17% also received chemotherapy. All patients preferred to have plasma testing over repeat tumor biopsy. In the context of the Canadian publicly funded system, patients estimated that a median of 300 (interquartile range: 150-800) Canadian dollars was a reasonable price to pay for liquid biopsy. Patients were personally willing to pay a median 100 (interquartile range: 33-350) Canadian dollars. Conclusions: In a system that covers the cost of standard diagnostic tests, patients with lung cancer indicated high willingness-to-pay out-of-pocket for liquid biopsy in the setting of acquired targeted therapy resistance. Patients have high perceived value of plasma genotyping and prefer it to repeat tumor biopsy.

Patient-Reported Health-Related Quality of Life in KEYNOTE-604: Pembrolizumab or Placebo Added to Etoposide and Platinum as First-Line Therapy for Extensive-Stage SCLC.

Introduction: In the phase 3 KEYNOTE-604 study (NCT03066778), pembrolizumab plus etoposide and platinum chemotherapy (EP) significantly (p = 0.0023) improved progression-free survival versus placebo plus EP in previously untreated extensive-stage SCLC (ES-SCLC). We present health-related quality of life (HRQoL) results from KEYNOTE-604. Methods: Patients with stage IV SCLC were randomized 1:1 to pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo every 3 weeks for 35 cycles plus four cycles of EP. Secondary end points included mean change from baseline to week 18 in the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (QLQ-C30) global health status/quality of life (GHS/QoL) scale and time to deterioration in the composite outcome of cough, chest pain, or dyspnea from QLQ-C30 and QLQ-Lung Cancer Module 13. Two-sided, nominal p values are reported. Results: A total of 439 patients completed at least one QLQ-C30 and QLQ-Lung Cancer Module 13 assessment (pembrolizumab + EP, n = 221; placebo + EP, n = 218). GHS/QoL scores improved from baseline to week 18: least squares mean (95% confidence interval [CI]) changes were 8.7 (5.3-12.1) for pembrolizumab plus EP and 4.2 (0.9-7.5) for placebo plus EP. Between-group differences in least squares mean scores were improved for pembrolizumab plus EP (4.4 [95% CI: 0.2-8.7], p = 0.040]). Median time to deterioration for the composite end point was not reached and 8.7 (95% CI: 5.9-not reached) months, respectively (hazard ratio = 0.80 [95% CI: 0.56-1.14], p = 0.208). Conclusions: First-line pembrolizumab plus EP therapy maintained HRQoL in patients with ES-SCLC and may be associated with greater improvement than placebo plus EP. Together with the efficacy and safety findings in KEYNOTE-604, HRQoL data support the benefit of pembrolizumab in ES-SCLC.

Programmed Cell Death Protein 1 Inhibitors and MET Targeted Therapies in NSCLC With MET Exon 14 Skipping Mutations: Efficacy and Toxicity as Sequential Therapies.

Introduction: NSCLC with MET exon 14 skipping mutation (METex14) is associated with poor outcomes. Integration of novel targeted therapies is challenging because of barriers in testing and drug access. We, therefore, sought to characterize the treatment patterns, outcomes, and emerging issues of treatment sequencing in patients with METex14-mutant NSCLC. Methods: We reviewed all NSCLC cases with METex14 alterations between 2014 and 2020 across four Canadian cancer centers. Demographics, disease characteristics, systemic therapy, overall response rates (ORRs), survival, and toxicity were summarized. Results: Among 64 patients with METex14-mutant NSCLC, the median overall survival was 23.1 months: 127.0 months in stage 1, 27.3 months in resected stage 2 and 3, and 16.6 months in unresectable stage 3 or 4 disease, respectively. In patients with advanced disease, 22% were too unwell for systemic treatment. MET tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) were administered to 28 patients with an ORR of 33%, median progression-free survival of 2.7 months, and 3.8 months for selective TKIs. Programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) inhibitors were given to 25 patients-the ORR was 44% and progression-free survival was 10.6 months. No responses were seen with subsequent MET TKIs after initial TKI treatment. Grade 3 or higher toxicities occurred in 64% of patients who received MET TKI after PD-1 inhibitors versus 8% in those who did not receive PD-1 inhibitors. Conclusions: Many patients with advanced METex14 NSCLC were too unwell to receive treatment. PD-1 inhibitors seem effective as an initial treatment, although greater toxicity was seen with subsequent MET TKIs. Thus, timely testing for METex14 skipping and initial therapy are imperative to improving patient survival.

Canadian Consensus Recommendations on the Management of Extensive-Stage Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

Small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) is an aggressive, neuroendocrine tumour with high relapse rates, and significant morbidity and mortality. Apart from advances in radiation therapy, progress in the systemic treatment of SCLC had been stagnant for over three decades despite multiple attempts to develop alternative therapeutic options that could improve responses and survival. Recent promising developments in first-line and subsequent therapeutic approaches prompted a Canadian Expert Panel to convene to review evidence, discuss practice patterns, and reach a consensus on the treatment of extensive-stage SCLC (ES-SCLC). The literature search included guidelines, systematic reviews, and randomized controlled trials. Regular meetings were held from September 2022 to March 2023 to discuss the available evidence to propose and agree upon specific recommendations. The panel addressed biomarkers and histological features that distinguish SCLC from non-SCLC and other neuroendocrine tumours. Evidence for initial and subsequent systemic therapies was reviewed with consideration for patient performance status, comorbidities, and the involvement and function of other organs. The resulting consensus recommendations herein will help clarify evidence-based management of ES-SCLC in routine practice, help clinician decision-making, and facilitate the best patient outcomes.

Canadian Consensus Recommendations on the Management of KRAS G12C-Mutated NSCLC.

Activating mutations in Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homologue (KRAS), in particular, a point mutation leading to a glycine-to-cysteine substitution at codon 12 (G12C), are among the most frequent genomic alterations in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Several agents targeting KRAS G12C have recently entered clinical development. Sotorasib, a first-in-class specific small molecule that irreversibly inhibits KRAS G12C, has since obtained Health Canada approval. The emergence of novel KRAS-targeted therapies warrants the development of evidence-based consensus recommendations to help clinicians better understand and contextualize the available data. A Canadian expert panel was convened to define the key clinical questions, review recent evidence, and discuss and agree on recommendations for the treatment of advanced KRAS G12C-mutated NSCLC. The panel agreed that testing for KRAS G12C should be performed as part of a comprehensive panel that includes current standard-of-care biomarkers. Sotorasib, the only approved KRAS G12C inhibitor in Canada, is recommended for patients with advanced KRAS G12C-mutated NSCLC who progressed on guideline-recommended first-line standard of care for advanced NSCLC without driver alterations (immune-checkpoint inhibitor(s) [ICIs] +/- chemotherapy). Sotorasib could also be offered as second-line therapy to patients who progressed on ICI monotherapy that are not candidates for a platinum doublet and those that received first-line chemotherapy with a contraindication to ICIs. Preliminary data indicate the activity of KRAS G12C inhibitors in brain metastases; however, the evidence is insufficient to make specific recommendations. Regular liver function monitoring is recommended when patients are prescribed KRAS G12C inhibitors due to risk of hepatotoxicity.

Comparison of tumor-agnostic and tumor-specific clinical oncology trial designs: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Aim: To examine whether tumor-specific and tumor-agnostic oncology trials produce comparable estimates of objective response rate (ORR) in BRAF-altered cancers. Materials & methods: Electronic database searches were performed to identify phase I-III clinical trials testing tyrosine kinase inhibitors from 2000 to 2021. A random-effects model was used to pool ORRs. A total of 22 cohorts from five tumor-agnostic trials and 41 cohorts from 27 tumor-specific trials had published ORRs. Results: There was no significant difference between pooled ORRs from either trial design for multitumor analyses (37 vs 50%; p = 0.05); thyroid cancer (57 vs 33%; p = 0.10); non-small-cell lung cancer (39 vs 53%; p = 0.18); or melanoma (55 vs 51%; p = 0.58). Conclusion: For BRAF-altered advanced cancers, tumor-agnostic trials do not yield substantially different results from tumor-specific trials.

Two types of studies were sought, including studies that measured health outcomes in patients who were selected to receive medicine based on the location of their cancer (tumor), called tumor-specific studies; and studies that measured health outcomes in patients who were selected to receive cancer medicine regardless of the location of their cancer (tumor), called tumor-agnostic studies. From the studies found, only the studies that tested a specific type of cancer medicine (called tyrosine kinase inhibitors) on cancers with a specific genetic alteration (called BRAF-altered cancers) were identified. These studies were included in the analysis. The goal of the analysis was to determine if the two types of studies gave similar estimates of response rate, which is a type of trial outcome that measures whether the cancer shrinks or disappears. To do this, the results from the tumor-specific studies were combined with the results of the tumor-agnostic studies. No meaningful differences in the results from the tumor-specific studies compared with the tumor-agnostic studies were found. This suggests that tumor-specific studies do not yield very different results from tumor-agnostic studies.

Feasibility of Point-of-Care Genomic Profiling in the Diagnosis and Treatment of Cancer of Unknown Primary.

INTRODUCTION: Cancer of unknown primary remains a challenging clinical entity. Despite receiving empiric chemotherapy, median overall survival is approximately 6-12 months. Site-specific therapy based on molecular characterization has been shown to improve outcomes; however, feasibility outside of clinical trials, especially in community centers, is lacking. This study explores the application of rapid next-generation sequencing in defining cancer of unknown primary and to identify therapeutic biomarkers. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed by identifying pathological samples designated cancer of unknown primary. Next-generation sequencing testing was based on an automated workflow utilizing the Genexus integrated sequencer, validated for clinical use. Genomic profiling was further integrated within a routine immunohistochemistry service, with results reported directly by anatomic pathologists. RESULTS: Between October 2020 and October 2021, 578 solid tumor samples underwent genomic profiling. Among this cohort, 40 were selected based on an initial diagnosis of cancer of unknown primary. The median (range) age at diagnosis was 70 (42-85) and 23 (57%) were female. Genomic data were used to support a site-specific diagnosis in 6 patients (15%). Median turnaround time was 3 business days (IQR: 1-5). Most common alterations identified were KRAS (35%), CDKN2A (15%), TP53 (15%), and ERBB2 (12%). Actionable molecular targeted therapies were identified in 23 (57%) patients, including alterations in BRAF, CDKN2A, ERBB2, FGFR2, IDH1, and KRAS. Immunotherapy-sensitizing mismatch repair deficiency was identified in 1 patient. CONCLUSION: This study supports the adoption of rapid next-generation sequencing among patients with cancer of unknown primary. We also demonstrate the feasibility of integration of genomic profiling with diagnostic histopathology and immunohistochemistry in a community practice setting. Diagnostic algorithms incorporating genomic profiling to better define cancer of unknown primary should be considered for future study.

Cost Savings of Expedited Care with Upfront Next-Generation Sequencing Testing versus Single-Gene Testing among Patients with Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Based on Current Canadian Practices.

This study assessed the total costs of testing, including the estimated costs of delaying care, associated with next-generation sequencing (NGS) versus single-gene testing strategies among patients with newly diagnosed metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) from a Canadian public payer perspective. A decision tree model considered testing for genomic alterations using tissue biopsy NGS or single-gene strategies following Canadian guideline recommendations. Inputs included prevalence of mNSCLC, the proportion that tested positive for each genomic alteration, rebiopsy rates, time to test results, testing/medical costs, and costs of delaying care based on literature, public data, and expert opinion. Among 1,000,000 hypothetical publicly insured adult Canadians (382 with mNSCLC), the proportion of patients that tested positive for a genomic alteration with an approved targeted therapy was 38.0% for NGS and 26.1% for single-gene strategies. The estimated mean time to appropriate targeted therapy initiation was 5.1 weeks for NGS and 9.2 weeks for single-gene strategies. Based on literature, each week of delayed care cost CAD 406, translating to total mean per-patient costs of CAD 3480 for NGS and CAD 5632 for single-gene strategies. NGS testing with mNSCLC in current Canadian practice resulted in more patients with an identified mutation, shorter time to appropriate targeted therapy initiation, and lower total testing costs compared to single-gene strategies.

Evaluation of Cost-Effectiveness of Adjuvant Osimertinib in Patients with Resected EGFR Mutation-Positive Non-small Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: For many patients with resected epidermal growth factor receptor mutation-positive (EGFRm) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), current standard of care (SoC) is adjuvant chemotherapy; however, disease recurrence remains high. Based on positive results from ADAURA (NCT02511106), adjuvant osimertinib was approved for treatment of resected stage IB‒IIIA EGFRm NSCLC. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to assess the cost-effectiveness of adjuvant osimertinib in patients with resected EGFRm NSCLC. METHODS: A five-health-state, state-transition model with time dependency was developed to estimate lifetime (38 years) costs and survival of resected EGFRm patients treated with adjuvant osimertinib or placebo (active surveillance), with/without prior adjuvant chemotherapy, using a Canadian Public Healthcare perspective. Transitions between health states were modeled using ADAURA and FLAURA (NCT02296125) data, Canadian life tables, and real-world data (CancerLinQ Discovery®). The model used a 'cure' assumption: patients remaining disease free for 5 years after treatment completion for resectable disease were deemed 'cured.' Health state utility values and healthcare resource usage estimates were derived from Canadian real-world evidence. RESULTS: In the reference case, adjuvant osimertinib treatment led to a mean 3.20 additional quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs; (11.77 vs 8.57) per patient, versus active surveillance. The modeled median percentage of patients alive at 10 years was 62.5% versus 39.3%, respectively. Osimertinib was associated with mean added costs of Canadian dollars (C$)114,513 per patient and a cost/QALY (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio) of C$35,811 versus active surveillance. Model robustness was demonstrated by scenario analyses. CONCLUSIONS: In this cost-effectiveness assessment, adjuvant osimertinib was cost-effective compared with active surveillance for patients with completely resected stage IB‒IIIA EGFRm NSCLC after SoC.

A real-world study of second or later-line osimertinib in patients with EGFR T790M-positive NSCLC: the final ASTRIS data.

Aim: Report the final analysis from ASTRIS, the largest real-world study of second-/later-line osimertinib in advanced/metastatic EGFR T790M non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods: Patients with advanced/metastatic EGFR T790M NSCLC and prior EGFR-TKI treatment, received once-daily osimertinib 80 mg. Primary end point: overall survival (OS); secondary end points: progression-free survival (PFS), time-to-treatment discontinuation (TTD) and response rate. Safety was also recorded. Results: In 3014 patients, median OS: 22.8 months (21.6-23.8), median PFS: 11.1 months (11.0-12.0), median TTD: 13.5 months (12.6-13.9), and response rate: 57.3% (55.5-59.2). All end points reported with 95% CIs. Numerically longer median OS was observed in patients with baseline WHO performance status <2 versus 2 (24.0 vs 11.1 months) and those without versus with brain/leptomeningeal metastases (25.4 vs 18.0 months). No new safety signals were identified. Conclusion: Second-/later-line osimertinib demonstrated real-world clinical benefit and safety in advanced/metastatic EGFR T790M NSCLC. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02474355 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Osimertinib is a drug that blocks the activity of a protein called EGFR on cancer cells, reducing their growth and spread. ASTRIS is the largest real-world study that evaluated the outcomes with osimertinib treatment for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and the EGFR T790M mutation, who had received previous treatment for their cancer. There were 3014 patients included in this study. The main aim of this study was to measure the time at which half of the patients were still alive after starting osimertinib treatment, this was 22.8 months. The study also measured the time at which half of the patients had experienced worsening (progression) of their cancer (11.1 months) and the time when half of the patients had stopped receiving osimertinib treatment (13.5 months). None of the patients experienced any unexpected side effects of the treatment. These data are consistent with those observed in comparable clinical trials with osimertinib, supporting the use of osimertinib treatment for patients with advanced NSCLC and the EGFR T790M mutation after their initial cancer treatment has stopped working.

EGFR mutation prevalence, real-world treatment patterns, and outcomes among patients with resected, early-stage, non-small cell lung cancer in Canada.

OBJECTIVES: The ADAURA trial demonstrated the benefit of adjuvant osimertinib among patients with resected, early-stage, epidermal growth factor receptor-mutated (EGFRm) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). To understand the potential population impact, it is critical to deduce the prevalence, management, and outcomes of this patient population in the real-world setting before use of adjuvant osimertinib. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using PALEOS (Pan-cAnadian Lung cancEr Observational Study) data (2012-2019), a retrospective, multi-center, observational cohort study was conducted among patients with early-stage (IB-IIIA) resected NSCLC who had not received neoadjuvant therapy. Study outcomes included EGFRm prevalence, treatment patterns, recurrence outcomes, and overall and disease-free survival (OS/DFS). RESULTS: Among patients undergoing reflexive EGFRm testing by a pathologist at time of diagnosis irrespective of disease stage (N = 535), 23 % were EGFRm-positive; 15.9 % had common mutations and 5.6 % had uncommon mutations. Within the EGFRm-positive cohort (N = 156), mean age at diagnosis was 68 years, 65 % of patients were female, and 35 % were of Asian descent. At diagnosis, 48 %, 31 %, and 21 % had stage IB, II, or IIIA disease, respectively; 46 % received adjuvant therapy after resection. Half of patients experienced disease recurrence, typically involving distant sites; central nervous system metastasis varied from 12 % to 15.0 % across disease stages. EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors were the most commonly received therapy after first metastatic recurrence. Median OS (DFS) was not reached, 71.2 (22.8) months, and 50.1 (18.0) months among stage IB, II, and IIIA patients. Patients with uncommon EGFRm had a lower probability of survival than those with common EGFRm (2 years: 87 % vs 91 %-94 %; 4 years: 56 % vs 73 %-82 %). CONCLUSION: Approximately-one-quarter of patients with resected, early-stage NSCLC were EGFRm-positive in this study. These patients had high recurrence rates and suboptimal long-term survival after treatment with current therapies. New adjuvant treatments are warranted.

Atezolizumab versus chemotherapy in advanced or metastatic NSCLC with high blood-based tumor mutational burden: primary analysis of BFAST cohort C randomized phase 3 trial.

Tumor mutational burden (TMB) is being explored as a predictive biomarker for cancer immunotherapy outcomes in non-small cell lung cancer. BFAST (NCT03178552)-an open-label, global, multicohort trial-evaluated the safety and efficacy of first-line targeted therapies or immunotherapy in patients with unresectable Stage IIIB or IV advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer who were selected for biomarker status using blood-based targeted next-generation sequencing. In the Phase 3 cohort C evaluating blood-based (b)TMB as a biomarker of atezolizumab efficacy, patients with bTMB of ≥10 (N = 471) were randomized 1:1 to receive atezolizumab or platinum-based chemotherapy per local standard of care. Cohort C did not meet its primary endpoint of investigator-assessed progression-free survival in the population with bTMB of ≥16 (hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% confidence interval: 0.59, 1.00; P = 0.053). Adverse events leading to treatment withdrawal occurred in 10% of patients in the atezolizumab arm and 20% in the chemotherapy arm. Adverse events of special interest occurred in 42% of patients in the atezolizumab arm and 26% in the chemotherapy arm. A prespecified exploratory analysis compared the bTMB clinical trial assay with the FoundationOne Liquid Companion Diagnostic assay and showed high concordance between assays. Additional exploration of bTMB to identify optimal cutoffs, confounding factors, assay improvements or cooperative biomarkers is warranted.

Consensus Recommendations to Optimize Testing for New Targetable Alterations in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has historically been associated with a poor prognosis and low 5-year survival, but the use of targeted therapies in NSCLC has improved patient outcomes over the past 10 years. The pace of development of new targeted therapies is accelerating, with the associated need for molecular testing of new targetable alterations. As the complexity of biomarker testing in NSCLC increases, there is a need for guidance on how to manage the fluid standard-of-care in NSCLC, identify pragmatic molecular testing requirements, and optimize result reporting. An expert multidisciplinary working group with representation from medical oncology, pathology, and clinical genetics convened via virtual meetings to create consensus recommendations for testing of new targetable alterations in NSCLC. The importance of accurate and timely testing of all targetable alterations to optimize disease management using targeted therapies was emphasized by the working group. Therefore, the panel of experts recommends that all targetable alterations be tested reflexively at NSCLC diagnosis as part of a comprehensive panel, using methods that can detect all relevant targetable alterations. In addition, comprehensive biomarker testing should be performed at the request of the treating clinician upon development of resistance to targeted therapy. The expert multidisciplinary working group also made recommendations for reporting to improve clarity and ease of interpretation of results by treating clinicians and to accommodate the rapid evolution in clinical actionability of these alterations. Molecular testing of all targetable alterations in NSCLC is the key for treatment decision-making and access to new therapies. These consensus recommendations are intended as a guide to further optimize molecular testing of new targetable alterations.

Intracranial Metastatic Disease: Present Challenges, Future Opportunities.

Intracranial metastatic disease (IMD) is a prevalent complication of cancer that significantly limits patient survival and quality of life. Over the past half-century, our understanding of the epidemiology and pathogenesis of IMD has improved and enabled the development of surveillance and treatment algorithms based on prognostic factors and tumor biomolecular characteristics. In addition to advances in surgical resection and radiation therapy, the treatment of IMD has evolved to include monoclonal antibodies and small molecule antagonists of tumor-promoting proteins or endogenous immune checkpoint inhibitors. Moreover, improvements in the sensitivity and specificity of imaging as well as the development of new serological assays to detect brain metastases promise to revolutionize IMD diagnosis. In this review, we will explore current treatment principles in patients with IMD, including the emerging role of targeted and immunotherapy in select primary cancers, and discuss potential areas for further investigation.

Point of Care Molecular Testing: Community-Based Rapid Next-Generation Sequencing to Support Cancer Care.

Purpose: Biomarker data are critical to the delivery of precision cancer care. The average turnaround of next-generation sequencing (NGS) reports is over 2 weeks, and in-house availability is typically limited to academic centers. Lengthy turnaround times for biomarkers can adversely affect outcomes. Traditional workflows involve moving specimens through multiple facilities. This study evaluates the feasibility of rapid comprehensive NGS using the Genexus integrated sequencer and a novel streamlined workflow in a community setting. Methods: A retrospective chart review was performed to assess the early experience and performance characteristics of a novel approach to biomarker testing at a large community center. This approach to NGS included an automated workflow utilizing the Genexus integrated sequencer, validated for clinical use. NGS testing was further integrated within a routine immunohistochemistry (IHC) service, utilizing histotechnologists to perform technical aspects of NGS, with results reported directly by anatomic pathologists. Results: Between October 2020 and October 2021, 578 solid tumor samples underwent genomic profiling. Median turnaround time for biomarker results was 3 business days (IQR: 2-5). Four hundred eighty-one (83%) of the cases were resulted in fewer than 5 business days, and 66 (11%) of the cases were resulted simultaneously with diagnosis. Tumor types included lung cancer (310), melanoma (97), and colorectal carcinoma (68), among others. NGS testing detected key driver alterations at expected prevalence rates: lung EGFR (16%), ALK (3%), RET (1%), melanoma BRAF (43%), colorectal RAS/RAF (67%), among others. Conclusion: This is the first study demonstrating clinical implementation of rapid NGS. This supports the feasibility of automated comprehensive NGS performed and interpreted in parallel with diagnostic histopathology and immunohistochemistry. This novel approach to biomarker testing offers considerable advantages to clinical cancer care.

A Guide to Implementing Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors within a Cancer Program: Experience from a Large Canadian Community Centre.

The increased use of immune checkpoint inhibitors across cancer programs has created the need for standardized patient assessment, education, monitoring, and management of immune-related adverse events (irAEs). At William Osler Health System in Brampton, Ontario, a practical step-wise approach detailing the implementation of cancer immunotherapy in routine practice was developed. The approach focuses on four key steps: (1) identification of patient educators; (2) development of patient education materials; (3) development of patient monitoring tools; (4) involvement and education of multidisciplinary teams. Here, we provide an in-depth description of what was included in each step and how we integrated the different elements of the program. For each step, resources, tools, and materials that may be useful for patients, healthcare providers, and multidisciplinary teams were developed or modified based on existing materials. At our centre, the program led to improved patient comprehension of irAEs, the ability to act on symptoms (patient self-efficacy), and low rates of emergency room visits at first presentation for irAEs. We recognize that centres may need to tailor the approaches to their institutional policies and encourage centres to adapt and modify the forms and tools according to their needs and requirements.

Safety Related to the Timing of Radiotherapy and Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Patients with Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Single Institutional Experience.

BACKGROUND: The safety impact of radiotherapy (RT) timing relative to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is unclear. We investigated if RT within 14 days (Interval 1) and 90 days (Interval 2) of ICI use is associated with toxicities compared to RT outside these intervals. METHODS: Advanced NSCLC patients treated with both RT and ICIs were reviewed. Toxicities were graded as per CTCAE v4.0 and attributed to either ICIs or RT by clinicians. Associations between RT timing and Grade ≥2 toxicities were analyzed using logistic regression models adjusted for patient, disease, and treatment factors (α = 0.05). RESULTS: Sixty-four patients were identified. Twenty received RT within Interval 1 and 40 within Interval 2. There were 20 Grade ≥2 toxicities in 18 (28%) patients; pneumonitis (6) and nausea (2) were most prevalent. One treatment-related death (immune encephalitis) was observed. Rates of patients with Grade ≥2 toxicities were 35%/25% in the group with/without RT within Interval 1 and 30%/25% in the group with/without RT within Interval 2. No significant association between RT timing relative to ICI use period and Grade ≥2 toxicities was observed. CONCLUSION: Albeit limited by the small sample size, the result suggested that pausing ICIs around RT use may not be necessary.

The Evolving Role of Immunotherapy in Stage III Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

The management of Stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is complex and requires multidisciplinary input. Since the publication of the PACIFIC trial (consolidative durvalumab post concurrent chemotherapy and radiation in Stage III disease) which showed improved survival for patients in the immunotherapy arm, there has been much interest in the use of immunotherapy in the Stage III setting. In this review, we explore the biologic and clinical rationale for the use of immunotherapy in Stage III NSCLC, present previously published and upcoming data in the neoadjuvant, adjuvant, and concurrent realms of Stage III management, and discuss unanswered questions and challenges moving forward.