Outcomes for pembrolizumab stratified by pemetrexed maintenance post pembrolizumab-platinum-pemetrexed induction in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer.

Aim: We assessed treatment patterns and outcomes in patients with metastatic nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) who initiated first-line pembrolizumab-platinum-pemetrexed (induction) in US community oncology settings. Methods: Patients initiating induction were retrospectively identified. Patients continuing pembrolizumab afterward underwent chart review. Clinical outcomes were described by maintenance pemetrexed exposure after inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). Results: Median induction pembrolizumab and pemetrexed durations were 5.1 and 4.2 months. Among patients continuing pembrolizumab after induction, 64% received maintenance pemetrexed. Common discontinuation reasons for induction pemetrexed were completion of planned therapy (79%) and partial response (68%) and progressive disease (38%) and toxicity (29%) for maintenance pemetrexed. After IPTW, median overall survival and real-world progression-free survival were longer in patients continuing pembrolizumab with versus without maintenance pemetrexed (20.3 vs 12.0 months and 10.3 vs 5.8 months, respectively). Conclusion: Patient characteristics and planned treatment decisions affect maintenance pemetrexed utilization in the community oncology setting.

What is this summary about? Pembrolizumab is a drug that helps the lung cancer patient's immune system fight the cancer, even after the cancer has spread, or metastasized. After the patient gets better, the patient is treated with chemotherapy so the cancer will not come back. This is called 'maintenance treatment'. In KEYNOTE-189, a clinical trial, patients lived longer if they had pembrolizumab added to pemetrexed and platinum, which are chemotherapy drugs. If patients had maintenance treatment with pembrolizumab and pemetrexed, they also lived longer. However, do patients in community practices get those treatments? What were the results? We found that at cancer practices in the community instead of clinical trials, not all patients received pemetrexed in maintenance treatment. Many had finished their planned therapy and their tumors had shrunk. Also, some physicians chose not to give their patients pemetrexed. In addition, some women and some older and sicker patients did not get pemetrexed. Some patients had pemetrexed in maintenance but stopped because their cancer grew worse or because they had side effects. Those patients did not live as long as patients who did have maintenance pemetrexed. What do the results mean? Patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer in the community practice do better on the treatments tested in clinical trials. However, certain patients do not get those treatments. The reasons need to be understood, to make sure that those patients get better treatments.

Clinical Nomogram Using Novel Computed Tomography-Based Radiomics Predicts Survival in Patients With Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Treated With Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy.

PURPOSE: Improved survival prediction and risk stratification in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) would lead to better prognosis counseling, adjuvant therapy selection, and clinical trial design. We propose the persistent homology (PHOM) score, the radiomic quantification of solid tumor topology, as a solution. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients diagnosed with stage I or II NSCLC primarily treated with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) were selected (N = 554). The PHOM score was calculated for each patient's pretreatment computed tomography scan (October 2008-November 2019). PHOM score, age, sex, stage, Karnofsky Performance Status, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and post-SBRT chemotherapy were predictors in the Cox proportional hazards models for OS and cancer-specific survival. Patients were split into high- and low-PHOM score groups and compared using Kaplan-Meier curves for overall survival (OS) and cumulative incidence curves for cause-specific death. Finally, we generated a validated nomogram to predict OS, which is publicly available at Eashwarsoma.Shinyapps. RESULTS: PHOM score was a significant predictor for OS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.17; 95% CI, 1.07 to 1.28) and was the only significant predictor for cancer-specific survival (1.31; 95% CI, 1.11 to 1.56) in the multivariable Cox model. The median survival for the high-PHOM group was 29.2 months (95% CI, 23.6 to 34.3), which was significantly worse compared with the low-PHOM group (45.4 months; 95% CI, 40.1 to 51.8; P < .001). The high-PHOM group had a significantly greater chance of cancer-specific death at post-treatment month 65 (0.244; 95% CI, 0.192 to 0.296) compared with the low-PHOM group (0.171; 95% CI, 0.123 to 0.218; P = .029). CONCLUSION: The PHOM score is associated with cancer-specific survival and predictive of OS. Our developed nomogram can be used to inform clinical prognosis and assist in making post-SBRT treatment considerations.

Clinical Outcomes With Pembrolizumab-Based Therapies in Recurrent/Refractory NSCLC After Chemoradiation and Consolidative Durvalumab.

BACKGROUND: Often, patients with NSCLC experience recurrent/refractory (R/R) disease within 2 years of chemoradiation (CRT) and consolidative durvalumab. Despite prior immune checkpoint inhibitor exposure, immunotherapy with or without chemotherapy is typically initiated if a driver-oncogene is absent. However, there remains a paucity of data regarding the efficacy of immunotherapy in this patient population. Here, we present survival outcomes associated with pembrolizumab for R/R NSCLC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively assessed adults with NSCLC who received pembrolizumab for R/R disease between January 2016 to January 2023. Primary objective was to estimate OS and PFS in this cohort compared to historical outcomes. Secondary objective was to compare OS and PFS among subgroups. RESULTS: Fifty patients were evaluated. Median follow-up time was 11.3 months (2.9-38.2). OS was 10.6 months (95% CI, 8.8-19.2); 1-year OS rate 49% (95% CI, 36 - 67%). PFS was 6.1 months (95% CI, 4.7-9.0); 1-year PFS rate 25% (95% CI, 15%-42%). Current smokers had significantly better median OS/PFS as compared to former smokers (NA vs. 10.5 and 9.9 vs. 6.0 months, respectively). The addition of chemotherapy demonstrated an OS benefit (median OS 12.9 vs. 6.0 months) but was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Patients with R/R NSCLC represent a distinct cohort with inferior survival outcomes when compared to those with de novo stage IV disease treated with pembrolizumab-based regimens. Based on our findings, we recommend oncologists exercise caution when considering checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy in the front-line setting for R/R NSCLC, regardless of PD-L1 expression.

Genomic and transcriptomic analysis of checkpoint blockade response in advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

Anti-PD-1/PD-L1 agents have transformed the treatment landscape of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). To expand our understanding of the molecular features underlying response to checkpoint inhibitors in NSCLC, we describe here the first joint analysis of the Stand Up To Cancer-Mark Foundation cohort, a resource of whole exome and/or RNA sequencing from 393 patients with NSCLC treated with anti-PD-(L)1 therapy, along with matched clinical response annotation. We identify a number of associations between molecular features and outcome, including (1) favorable (for example, ATM altered) and unfavorable (for example, TERT amplified) genomic subgroups, (2) a prominent association between expression of inducible components of the immunoproteasome and response and (3) a dedifferentiated tumor-intrinsic subtype with enhanced response to checkpoint blockade. Taken together, results from this cohort demonstrate the complexity of biological determinants underlying immunotherapy outcomes and reinforce the discovery potential of integrative analysis within large, well-curated, cancer-specific cohorts.

TRUST-II: a global phase II study of taletrectinib in ROS1-positive non-small-cell lung cancer and other solid tumors.

Crizotinib and entrectinib have been approved to treat ROS1 fusion-positive (ROS1+) non-small-cell lung cancer. However, unmet needs remain, including treatment of patients with resistance mutations, efficacy in brain metastasis and avoidance of neurological side effects. Taletrectinib was designed to: improve efficacy; overcome resistance to first-generation ROS1 inhibitors; and address brain metastasis while conferring fewer neurological adverse events. All of these features are demonstrated and supported by the interim data from the regional phase II TRUST-I clinical study. Here we describe the rationale and design of TRUST-II, a global phase II study of taletrectinib in patients with locally advanced/metastatic ROS1+ non-small-cell lung cancer and other ROS1+ solid tumors. The primary end point is confirmed objective response rate. Secondary end points include duration of response, progression-free survival, overall survival and safety. This trial is enrolling patients in North America, Europe and Asia.

The targeted therapies crizotinib and entrectinib are the first options available to treat a type of lung cancer called ROS1 fusion-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (ROS1⁺ NSCLC). However, not all patients with ROS1⁺ NSCLC respond to these drugs. In addition, most patients who take these drugs find their cancer eventually develops resistance and begins to grow again. Patients with disease that has spread (metastasized) to the brain have worse outcomes. Taletrectinib is a new type of targeted therapy that is being developed to treat people who have metastatic ROS1⁺ NSCLC. Data from a regional phase II clinical trial showed that taletrectinib is well tolerated, effective for patients who have never taken a ROS1 targeted therapy and inhibits ROS1⁺ NSCLC for patients whose cancer has developed some types of resistance to these drugs. It has also been shown to treat ROS1⁺ NSCLC tumors that have spread to the brain. This article discusses the rationale and design of a new trial called TRUST-II, which is a global phase II clinical trial looking at how well taletrectinib works and how safe it is. TRUST-II is actively enrolling patients in North America, Europe and Asia. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT04919811 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Modeling Costs and Life-Years Gained by Population-Wide Next-Generation Sequencing or Single-Gene Testing in Nonsquamous Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer in the United States.

PURPOSE: Many patients with actionable driver oncogenes (ADOs) are never identified and thus never receive targeted treatment. This study evaluated the economic impact and the potential life-years gained (LYG) that can be attributed to the extent of next-generation sequencing (NGS) testing in the United States compared with single-gene testing (SGT) in patients with metastatic nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer in the United States. METHODS: A model was developed to evaluate incremental rates of SGT or NSG testing on the basis of LYG and cost per LYG. ADOs included for NGS included EGFR, ALK, ROS1, BRAF, RET, MET, and NTRK. SGT included EGFR and ALK. Assumptions were made for expected incidence of ADOs. Survival distributions were fit to published trial averages of median and 5-year overall survival. Treatment costs were estimated from drug cost averages. Reimbursement costs were based on data from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services. RESULTS: Each incremental 10% increase in NGS testing produces an average of 2,627.4 additional LYG, with an average cost savings per LYG of $75 US dollars (USD). Replacing SGT at the current rate of 80% with NGS testing would result in an average additional 21,09.6 LYG and reduce cost per LYG by an average of $599 USD. If 100% of eligible patients were tested with NGS and each identified patient had matched treatment, the total average cost per LYG would be $16,641.57 USD. CONCLUSION: On the basis of current evidence, population-level simulations demonstrate that clinically relevant gains in survival with non-negligible reduction in costs are obtainable from widespread adoption of NGS testing and appropriate treatment matching for patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer.

Optimal predictive probability designs for randomized biomarker-guided oncology trials.

Introduction: Efforts to develop biomarker-targeted anti-cancer therapies have progressed rapidly in recent years. With efforts to expedite regulatory reviews of promising therapies, several targeted cancer therapies have been granted accelerated approval on the basis of evidence acquired in single-arm phase II clinical trials. And yet, in the absence of randomization, patient prognosis for progression-free survival and overall survival may not have been studied under standard of care chemotherapies for emerging biomarker subpopulations prior to the submission of an accelerated approval application. Historical control rates used to design and evaluate emerging targeted therapies often arise as population averages, lacking specificity to the targeted genetic or immunophenotypic profile. Thus, historical trial results are inherently limited for inferring the potential "comparative efficacy" of novel targeted therapies. Consequently, randomization may be unavoidable in this setting. Innovations in design methodology are needed, however, to enable efficient implementation of randomized trials for agents that target biomarker subpopulations. Methods: This article proposes three randomized designs for early phase biomarker-guided oncology clinical trials. Each design utilizes the optimal efficiency predictive probability method to monitor multiple biomarker subpopulations for futility. Only designs with type I error between 0.05 and 0.1 and power of at least 0.8 were considered when selecting an optimal efficiency design from among the candidate designs formed by different combinations of posterior and predictive threshold. A simulation study motivated by the results reported in a recent clinical trial studying atezolizumab treatment in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma is used to evaluate the operating characteristics of the various designs. Results: Out of a maximum of 300 total patients, we find that the enrichment design has an average total sample size under the null of 101.0 and a total average sample size under the alternative of 218.0, as compared to 144.8 and 213.8 under the null and alternative, respectively, for the stratified control arm design. The pooled control arm design enrolled a total of 113.2 patients under the null and 159.6 under the alternative, out of a maximum of 200. These average sample sizes that are 23-48% smaller under the alternative and 47-64% smaller under the null, as compared to the realized sample size of 310 patients in the phase II study of atezolizumab. Discussion: Our findings suggest that potentially smaller phase II trials to those used in practice can be designed using randomization and futility stopping to efficiently obtain more information about both the treatment and control groups prior to phase III study.

Perioperative Systemic Therapy for Resectable Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

Despite remarkable treatment advancements in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), recurrence rates for those with resectable, early-stage disease remains high. Immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapies are 2 promising treatment modalities that may improve survival outcomes for patients with resected NSCLC when moved from the advanced stage to the curable setting. There are many clinical studies that have evaluated or are currently evaluating immunotherapy or targeted therapy in the perioperative setting, and recent trials such as CheckMate 816, ADAURA, and IMpower010 have led to new approvals and demonstrated the promise of this approach. This review discusses recent and ongoing neoadjuvant and adjuvant systemic therapy trials in NSCLC, and where the field may be going in the near future.

A Phase 1 Study of Concurrent Neoadjuvant Pembrolizumab Plus Chemoradiation Followed by Consolidation Pembrolizumab in Patients With Resectable Stage IIIA NSCLC.

Introduction: Evidence supports the addition of immunotherapy to definitive chemoradiation for unresectable stage IIIA NSCLC. Adding pembrolizumab to neoadjuvant chemoradiation in patients with resectable stage IIIA NSCLC requires study for safety and feasibility. Methods: Patients with resectable stage IIIA NSCLC received neoadjuvant cisplatin, etoposide, and pembrolizumab concurrently with thoracic radiotherapy of 45 Gy in 25 fractions. Patients without progression underwent resection followed by 6 months of consolidation pembrolizumab. Safety and feasibility were defined as less than or equal to 30% grade 3 or higher pulmonary toxicity or any grade 4 or 5 nonhematologic toxicity. A total of 10 patients were to be enrolled initially. If less than or equal to two patients had events, another 10 were to be enrolled. Results: The study closed after enrolling nine patients. The median age was 66 (range: 49-76) years. A total of 67% were female. Median follow-up was 38.3 months. Serious adverse events occurred in seven patients, including two grade 5 events: one sudden cardiac arrest in the neoadjuvant phase and one fatal pneumocystis pneumonia after resection. Eight patients were assessable for response. The overall response rate was 67%. Six underwent complete resection. Four achieved pathologic complete response, whereas one additional patient had complete nodal clearance. Median progression-free survival has not been reached. The 3-year overall survival was 64%. Conclusions: Adding pembrolizumab to neoadjuvant concurrent cisplatin, etoposide, and radiotherapy in resectable stage IIIA NSCLC resulted in an encouraging pathologic complete response rate. Higher-than-expected toxicities necessitated trial closure after meeting the rule for infeasibility. The relationship of grade 5 events to the addition of pembrolizumab is unclear.

Impact of Socioeconomic Factors on Overall Survival in SCLC.

Objectives: To determine how the incidence and demographics of SCLC have changed over time and to evaluate whether patient demographics, disease presentation, and treatment characteristics affect patient outcomes. Methods: We identified patients with SCLC in the National Cancer Database from 2004 to 2016. Differences in demographics, disease, and treatment characteristics were assessed by year of diagnosis using chi-square test. The effect of age, race, insurance status, income, distance to treatment center, and education level on overall survival (OS) was evaluated by multivariable Cox proportional hazard model. Results: Patients diagnosed after 2010 were significantly older, more frequently treated at academic centers, had more comorbidities, had government payer insurance, had more stage IV disease, and lived further from treatment centers. More females, African Americans, patients without high school diplomas, and those from rural areas were diagnosed after 2010. In patients diagnosed between 2004 and 2010, 5-year OS was 6.8% (95% confidence interval: 6.6-6.9), and after 2010, 5-year OS was 8.7% (95% confidence interval: 8.5-8.9), despite an increase in stage IV disease in the latter group. Older patients, males, Caucasians, patients with stage IV disease, those with government primary payer insurance, and those from rural areas had significantly worse OS. Patients without comorbidities and treated at academic centers had significantly better OS. OS significantly increased with community income and education level. Conclusions: Despite improvement in OS, disparities were noted in demographics which may complicate patient and provider access to health care resources, including rural communities, distance to academic centers, income, insurer, and education level. Efforts to affect these variables will improve outcomes for patients with SCLC.

A Review of Concurrent Chemo/Radiation, Immunotherapy, Radiation Planning, and Biomarkers for Locally Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer and Their Role in the Development of ECOG-ACRIN EA5181.

ECOG-ACRIN EA5181 is a current prospective, randomized trial that is investigating whether the addition of concomitant durvalumab to standard chemo/radiation followed by 1 year of consolidative durvalumab results in an overall survival benefit over standard chemo/radiation alone followed by 1 year of consolidative durvalumab in patients with locally advanced, unresectable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Because multiple phase I/II trials have shown the relative safety of adding immunotherapy to chemo/radiation and due to the known synergism between chemotherapy and immunotherapy, it is hoped that concomitant durvalumab can reduce the relatively high incidence of local failure (38%-46%) as seen in recent prospective, randomized trials of standard chemo/radiation in this patient population. We will review the history of radiation for LA-NSCLC and discuss the role of induction, concurrent and consolidative chemotherapy as well as the concerns for late cardiac and pulmonary toxicities associated with treatment. Furthermore, we will review the potential role of next generation sequencing, PD-L1, ctDNA and tumor mutation burden and their possible impact on this trial.

Adagrasib in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Harboring a KRASG12C Mutation.

BACKGROUND: Adagrasib, a KRASG12C inhibitor, irreversibly and selectively binds KRASG12C, locking it in its inactive state. Adagrasib showed clinical activity and had an acceptable adverse-event profile in the phase 1-1b part of the KRYSTAL-1 phase 1-2 study. METHODS: In a registrational phase 2 cohort, we evaluated adagrasib (600 mg orally twice daily) in patients with KRASG12C -mutated non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) previously treated with platinum-based chemotherapy and anti-programmed death 1 or programmed death ligand 1 therapy. The primary end point was objective response assessed by blinded independent central review. Secondary end points included the duration of response, progression-free survival, overall survival, and safety. RESULTS: As of October 15, 2021, a total of 116 patients with KRASG12C -mutated NSCLC had been treated (median follow-up, 12.9 months); 98.3% had previously received both chemotherapy and immunotherapy. Of 112 patients with measurable disease at baseline, 48 (42.9%) had a confirmed objective response. The median duration of response was 8.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.2 to 13.8), and the median progression-free survival was 6.5 months (95% CI, 4.7 to 8.4). As of January 15, 2022 (median follow-up, 15.6 months), the median overall survival was 12.6 months (95% CI, 9.2 to 19.2). Among 33 patients with previously treated, stable central nervous system metastases, the intracranial confirmed objective response rate was 33.3% (95% CI, 18.0 to 51.8). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 97.4% of the patients - grade 1 or 2 in 52.6% and grade 3 or higher in 44.8% (including two grade 5 events) - and resulted in drug discontinuation in 6.9% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with previously treated KRASG12C -mutated NSCLC, adagrasib showed clinical efficacy without new safety signals. (Funded by Mirati Therapeutics; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03785249.).

Impact of Workforce Challenges and Funds Flow on Cancer Clinical Trial Development and Conduct.

The conduct of clinical cancer research has faced considerable challenges in recent years, and the situation has only been exacerbated by the global pandemic. The growing complexity of clinical trials and rising administrative burdens had been causing greater expense and difficulty in recruiting and retaining an appropriately trained workforce even before the well-publicized increase in turnover caused by the pandemic. Longstanding issues such as restrictive inclusion criteria and complicated trial designs have negatively affected already low clinical trial accrual rates, limited sites capable of opening studies and enrolling patients, and worsened disparities in trial participation. Opposing these elements are efforts by ASCO and other organizations to increase affordability, access, and equity in clinical trial enrollment. To provide diverse perspectives on how these challenges are affecting cancer research as we emerge from the pandemic, we asked a panel of experienced clinical research leaders from both academic and community cancer centers to answer questions they felt most pressing about the business of conducting clinical research today and where they felt the field was moving in the near future.

The Rise of the Expert Patient in Cancer: From Backseat Passenger to Co-navigator.

PURPOSE: Patients who have cancer have leveraged the Internet to gain a better understanding of their disease and connect across geographic boundaries with others facing the same challenges. Online cancer communities have developed into resources that highlight new research and evolving care pathways. Combined with increasing health literacy and social media, they have enabled some patients to become experts in their cancer. This combination of empowerment and expertise describes the new "e-patients." METHODS: We reviewed the literature to identify key areas where expert e-patients have directly participated in advancing cancer medicine, as well as opportunities available to those who wish to become more involved in research advocacy. RESULTS: E-patients are widely acknowledged as key stakeholders in oncology by clinicians, researchers, cancer centers, government agencies, and nonprofits. Their input is vital for informing cancer care delivery, developing and launching research initiatives, creating care guidelines and pathways, and formulating policy. CONCLUSION: Expert e-patients play an expanded role in their own care and in larger conversations regarding practice, research, and policy. Clinicians can engage e-patients as partners in cancer care as we work together towards improving health care access and outcomes for people with cancer.

Modeling the Cost-Effectiveness of Adjuvant Osimertinib for Patients with Resected EGFR-mutant Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: The epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor osimertinib was recently approved for resected EGFR-mutant stages IB-IIIA non-small cell lung cancer due to improved disease-free survival (DFS) in this population compared with placebo. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness (CE) of this strategy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We constructed a Markov model using post-resection health state transitions with digitized DFS data from the ADAURA trial to compare cost and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of 3 years of adjuvant osimertinib versus placebo over a 10-year time horizon. An overall survival (OS) benefit of 5% was assumed. Costs and utility values were derived from Medicare reimbursement data and literature. A CE threshold of 3 times the gross domestic product per capita was used. Sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for adjuvant osimertinib was $317 119 per QALY-gained versus placebo. Initial costs of osimertinib are higher in years 1-3. Costs due to progressive disease (PD) are higher in the placebo group through the first 6.5 years. Average pre-PD, post-PD, and total costs were $2388, $379 047, and $502 937, respectively, in the placebo group, and $505 775, $255 638, and $800 697, respectively, in the osimertinib group. Sensitivity analysis of OS gains reaches CE with an hazard ratio (HR) of 0.70-0.75 benefit of osimertinib over placebo. A 50% discount to osimertinib drug cost yielded an ICER of $115 419. CONCLUSIONS: Three-years of adjuvant osimertinib is CE if one is willing to pay $317 119 more per QALY-gained. Considerable OS benefit over placebo or other economic interventions will be needed to reach CE.

Novel imaging biomarkers predict outcomes in stage III unresectable non-small cell lung cancer treated with chemoradiation and durvalumab.

BACKGROUND: The landmark study of durvalumab as consolidation therapy in NSCLC patients (PACIFIC trial) demonstrated significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with locally advanced, unresectable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with durvalumab (immunotherapy, IO) therapy after chemoradiotherapy (CRT). In clinical practice in the USA, durvalumab continues to be used in patients across all levels of programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression. While immune therapies have shown promise in several cancers, some patients either do not respond to the therapy or have cancer recurrence after an initial response. It is not clear so far who will benefit of this therapy or what the mechanisms behind treatment failure are. METHODS: A total of 133 patients with unresectable stage III NSCLC who underwent durvalumab after CRT or CRT alone were included. Patients treated with durvalumab IO after CRT were randomly split into training (D1=59) and test (D2=59) sets and the remaining 15 patients treated with CRT alone were grouped in D3. Radiomic textural patterns from within and around the target nodules were extracted. A radiomic risk score (RRS) was built and was used to predict PFS and overall survival (OS). Patients were divided into high-risk and low-risk groups based on median RRS. RESULTS: RRS was found to be significantly associated with PFS in D1 (HR=2.67, 95% CI 1.85 to 4.13, p<0.05, C-index=0.78) and D2 (HR=2.56, 95% CI 1.63 to 4, p<0.05, C-index=0.73). Similarly, RRS was associated with OS in D1 (HR=1.89, 95% CI 1.3 to 2.75, p<0.05, C-index=0.67) and D2 (HR=2.14, 95% CI 1.28 to 3.6, p<0.05, C-index=0.69), respectively. RRS was found to be significantly associated with PFS in high PD-L1 (HR=3.01, 95% CI 1.41 to 6.45, p=0.0044) and low PD-L1 (HR=2.74, 95% CI 1.8 to 4.14, p=1.77e-06) groups. Moreover, RRS was not significantly associated with OS in the high PD-L1 group (HR=2.08, 95% CI 0.98 to 4.4, p=0.054) but was significantly associated with OS in the low PD-L1 group (HR=1.61, 95% CI 1.14 to 2.28, p=0.0062). In addition, RRS was significantly associated with PFS (HR=2.77, 95% CI 1.17 to 6.52, p=0.019, C-index=0.77) and OS (HR=2.62, 95% CI 1.25 to 5.51, p=0.01, C-index=0.77) in D3, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Tumor radiomics of pretreatment CT images from patients with stage III unresectable NSCLC were prognostic of PFS and OS to CRT followed by durvalumab IO and CRT alone.

Geriatric risk factors for serious COVID-19 outcomes among older adults with cancer: a cohort study from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium.

BACKGROUND: Older age is associated with poorer outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 infection, although the heterogeneity of ageing results in some older adults being at greater risk than others. The objective of this study was to quantify the association of a novel geriatric risk index, comprising age, modified Charlson comorbidity index, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, with COVID-19 severity and 30-day mortality among older adults with cancer. METHODS: In this cohort study, we enrolled patients aged 60 years and older with a current or previous cancer diagnosis (excluding those with non-invasive cancers and premalignant or non-malignant conditions) and a current or previous laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis who reported to the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) multinational, multicentre, registry between March 17, 2020, and June 6, 2021. Patients were also excluded for unknown age, missing data resulting in unknown geriatric risk measure, inadequate data quality, or incomplete follow-up resulting in unknown COVID-19 severity. The exposure of interest was the CCC19 geriatric risk index. The primary outcome was COVID-19 severity and the secondary outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality; both were assessed in the full dataset. Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs were estimated from ordinal and binary logistic regression models. FINDINGS: 5671 patients with cancer and COVID-19 were included in the analysis. Median follow-up time was 56 days (IQR 22-120), and median age was 72 years (IQR 66-79). The CCC19 geriatric risk index identified 2365 (41·7%) patients as standard risk, 2217 (39·1%) patients as intermediate risk, and 1089 (19·2%) as high risk. 36 (0·6%) patients were excluded due to non-calculable geriatric risk index. Compared with standard-risk patients, high-risk patients had significantly higher COVID-19 severity (adjusted OR 7·24; 95% CI 6·20-8·45). 920 (16·2%) of 5671 patients died within 30 days of a COVID-19 diagnosis, including 161 (6·8%) of 2365 standard-risk patients, 409 (18·5%) of 2217 intermediate-risk patients, and 350 (32·1%) of 1089 high-risk patients. High-risk patients had higher adjusted odds of 30-day mortality (adjusted OR 10·7; 95% CI 8·54-13·5) than standard-risk patients. INTERPRETATION: The CCC19 geriatric risk index was strongly associated with COVID-19 severity and 30-day mortality. Our CCC19 geriatric risk index, based on readily available clinical factors, might provide clinicians with an easy-to-use risk stratification method to identify older adults most at risk for severe COVID-19 as well as mortality. FUNDING: US National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute Cancer Center.