The lung immuno-oncology prognostic score (LIPS-3): a prognostic classification of patients receiving first-line pembrolizumab for PD-L1 ≥ 50% advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: To stratify the prognosis of patients with programmed cell death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) ≥ 50% advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) treated with first-line immunotherapy. METHODS: Baseline clinical prognostic factors, the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), PD-L1 tumour cell expression level, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) and their combination were investigated by a retrospective analysis of 784 patients divided between statistically powered training (n = 201) and validation (n = 583) cohorts. Cut-offs were explored by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and a risk model built with validated independent factors by multivariate analysis. RESULTS: NLR < 4 was a significant prognostic factor in both cohorts (P < 0.001). It represented 53% of patients in the validation cohort, with 1-year overall survival (OS) of 76.6% versus 44.8% with NLR > 4, in the validation series. The addition of PD-L1 ≥ 80% (21% of patients) or LDH < 252 U/l (25%) to NLR < 4 did not result in better 1-year OS (of 72.6% and 74.1%, respectively, in the validation cohort). Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) of 2 [P < 0.001, hazard ratio (HR) 2.04], pretreatment steroids (P < 0.001, HR 1.67) and NLR < 4 (P < 0.001, HR 2.29) resulted in independent prognostic factors. A risk model with these three factors, namely, the lung immuno-oncology prognostic score (LIPS)-3, accurately stratified three OS risk-validated categories of patients: favourable (0 risk factors, 40%, 1-year OS of 78.2% in the whole series), intermediate (1 or 2 risk factors, 54%, 1-year OS 53.8%) and poor (>2 risk factors, 5%, 1-year OS 10.7%) prognosis. CONCLUSIONS: We advocate the use of LIPS-3 as an easy-to-assess and inexpensive adjuvant prognostic tool for patients with PD-L1 ≥ 50% aNSCLC.

Osimertinib beyond disease progression in T790M EGFR-positive NSCLC patients: a multicenter study of clinicians' attitudes.

BACKGROUND: In most cases, T790M EGFR-positive NSCLC patients receiving osimertinib developed "non-drugable" progression, as the patients with common EGFR-sensitizing mutations were treated with first-line osimertinib. In both settings, chemotherapy represents the standard treatment and local ablative treatments (LATs) are potential useful options in the case of oligo-progression. METHODS: We conducted a study on "post-progression" (pp) outcomes of T790M EGFR-positive NSCLC patients treated with osimertinib, according to the therapeutic strategy applied: osimertinib beyond progression (± LATs), "switched therapies" or best supportive care only (BSC). RESULTS: 144 consecutive patients were evaluated: 53 (36.8%) did not received post-progression treatments (BSC), while 91 (63.2%) patients received at least 1 subsequent treatment; 50 patients (54.9%) received osimertinib beyond disease progression [19 (20.9%) of them with adjunctive LATs] and 41 (45.1%) a switched therapy. Median ppPFS (progression-free survival) and median ppOS (overall survival) of patients who received osimertinib beyond progression vs. switched therapies were 6.4 months vs. 4.7 months, respectively [HR 0.57 (95% CI 0.35-0.92), p = 0.0239] and 11.3 months vs 7.8 months, respectively [HR 0.57 (95% CI 0.33-0.98), p = 0.0446]. Among patients who received osimertinib beyond progression with and without LATs median ppPFS was 6.4 months and 5.7 months, respectively [HR 0.90 (95% CI 0.68-1.18), p = 0.4560], while median ppOS was 20.2 months and 9.9 months, respectively [HR 0.73 (95% CI 0.52-1.03), p = 0.0748]. At the univariate analysis, the only factor significantly related to the ppPFS was the therapeutic strategy in favor of osimertinib beyond progression (± LATs). Moreover, the only variable which was significantly related to ppOS at the multivariate analysis was osimertinib beyond progression (± LATs). CONCLUSION: Our study confirmed that in clinical practice, in case of "non-druggable" disease progression, maintaining osimertinib beyond progression (with adjunctive LATs) is an effective option.

Health information technology in oncology practice: a literature review.

The adoption and implementation of information technology are dramatically remodeling healthcare services all over the world, resulting in an unstoppable and sometimes overwhelming process. After the introduction of the main elements of electronic health records and a description of what every cancer-care professional should be familiar with, we present a narrative review focusing on the current use of computerized clinical information and decision systems in oncology practice. Following a detailed analysis of the many coveted goals that oncologists have reached while embracing informatics progress, the authors suggest how to overcome the main obstacles for a complete physicians' engagement and for a full information technology adoption, and try to forecast what the future holds.

Does KRAS mutational status predict chemoresistance in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)?

BACKGROUND: Clinical implications of KRAS mutational status in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) remain unclear. To clarify this point, we retrospectively explored whether KRAS mutations could impact tumor response, and disease control rate (DCR) to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy (CT) as well as progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS). METHODS: Between June 2009 and June 2012, 340 patients with advanced (stage IIIB/IV) NSCLC were reviewed in a single institution (Institut Gustave Roussy). Two hundred and one patients had a biomolecular profile and received a platinum-based first-line CT. Patients with an unknown mutational status or with actionable alterations were excluded. We retained two groups: patients with KRAS mutated tumor (MUT) and patients with wild-type KRAS/EGFR (WT). Multivariate analyses with Cox model were used. Survival curves were calculated with Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: One hundred and eight patients were included in the analysis: 39 in the MUT group and 69 in the WT group. Baseline radiological assessment demonstrated more brain (P=0.01) and liver (P=0.04) metastases in MUT patients. DCR was 76% for MUT vs. 91% for WT group (P=0.03), regardless of the type of platinum-based CT (use of pemetrexed or not). Although no statistically significant differences were found, shorter PFS (4.9 vs. 6.0 months; P=0.79) and OS (10.3 vs. 13.2 months; P=0.40) were observed for patients with KRAS mutated tumors in univariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: KRAS mutant tumors had a lower DCR after the first-line platinum-based CT, but this difference did not translate in PFS or OS. The presence of KRAS mutations may confer a more aggressive disease, with greater baseline incidence of hepatic and cerebral metastases.