Safety and efficacy of second-line metronomic oral vinorelbine-atezolizumab combination in stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer: An open-label phase II trial (VinMetAtezo).

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of second-line metronomic oral vinorelbine-atezolizumab combination for stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer. METHODS: This was a multicenter, open-label, single-arm Phase II study performed in patients with advanced NSCLC without activating EGFR mutation or ALK rearrangement who progressed after first-line platinum-doublet chemotherapy. Combination treatment was atezolizumab (1200 mg IV day 1, every 3 weeks) and oral vinorelbine (40 mg, 3 times by week). The primary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS) during the 4-month follow-up from the first dose of treatment. Statistical analysis was based on the exact single-stage Phase II design defined by A'Hern. Based on literature data, the Phase III trial threshold was set at 36 successes in 71 patients. RESULTS: 71 patients were analyzed (median age, 64 years; male, 66.2%; ex-smokers/active smokers, 85.9%; ECOG performance status 0-1, 90.2%; non-squamous NSCLC, 83.1%; PD-L1 ≥ 50%, 4.4%). After a median follow-up of 8.1 months from treatment initiation, 4-month PFS rate was 32% (95% CI, 22-44), i.e. 23 successes out 71 patients. OS rate was 73.2% at 4 months and 24.3% at 24 months. Median PFS and OS were 2.2 (95% CI, 1.5-3.0) months and 7.9 (95% CI, 4.8-11.4) months, respectively. Overall response rate and disease control rate at 4 months were 11% (95% CI, 5-21) and 32% (95% CI, 22-44), respectively. No safety signal was evidenced. CONCLUSION: Metronomic oral vinorelbine-atezolizumab in the second-line setting did not achieve the predefined PFS threshold. No new safety signal was reported for vinorelbine-atezolizumab combination.

Clinical management of molecular alterations identified by high throughput sequencing in patients with advanced solid tumors in treatment failure: Real-world data from a French hospital.

Background: In the context of personalized medicine, screening patients to identify targetable molecular alterations is essential for therapeutic decisions such as inclusion in clinical trials, early access to therapies, or compassionate treatment. The objective of this study was to determine the real-world impact of routine incorporation of FoundationOne analysis in cancers with a poor prognosis and limited treatment options, or in those progressing after at least one course of standard therapy. Methods: A FoundationOneCDx panel for solid tumor or liquid biopsy samples was offered to 204 eligible patients. Results: Samples from 150 patients were processed for genomic testing, with a data acquisition success rate of 93%. The analysis identified 2419 gene alterations, with a median of 11 alterations per tumor (range, 0-86). The most common or likely pathogenic variants were on TP53, TERT, PI3KCA, CDKN2A/B, KRAS, CCDN1, FGF19, FGF3, and SMAD4. The median tumor mutation burden was three mutations/Mb (range, 0-117) in 143 patients with available data. Of 150 patients with known or likely pathogenic actionable alterations, 13 (8.6%) received matched targeted therapy. Sixty-nine patients underwent Molecular Tumor Board, which resulted in recommendations in 60 cases. Treatment with genotype-directed therapy had no impact on overall survival (13 months vs. 14 months; p = 0.95; hazard ratio = 1.04 (95% confidence interval, 0.48-2.26)]. Conclusions: This study highlights that an organized center with a Multidisciplinary Molecular Tumor Board and an NGS screening system can obtain satisfactory results comparable with those of large centers for including patients in clinical trials.

First-Line Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab in Advanced NSCLC: 4-Year Outcomes From the Randomized, Open-Label, Phase 3 CheckMate 227 Part 1 Trial.

INTRODUCTION: In CheckMate 227, nivolumab plus ipilimumab prolonged overall survival (OS) versus chemotherapy in patients with tumor programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) greater than or equal to 1% (primary end point) or less than 1% (prespecified descriptive analysis). We report results with minimum 4 years' follow-up. METHODS: Adults with previously untreated stage IV or recurrent NSCLC were randomized (1:1:1) to nivolumab plus ipilimumab, nivolumab, or chemotherapy (PD-L1 ≥1%); or to nivolumab plus ipilimumab, nivolumab plus chemotherapy, or chemotherapy (PD-L1 <1%). Efficacy included OS and other measures. Safety included timing and management of immune-mediated adverse events (AEs). A post hoc analysis evaluated efficacy in patients who discontinued nivolumab plus ipilimumab due to treatment-related AEs (TRAEs). RESULTS: After 54.8 months' median follow-up, OS remained longer with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy in patients with PD-L1 greater than or equal to 1% (hazard ratio = 0.76; 95% confidence interval: 0.65-0.90) and PD-L1 less than 1% (0.64; 0.51-0.81); 4-year OS rate with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy was 29% versus 18% (PD-L1 ≥1%); and 24% versus 10% (PD-L1 <1%). Benefits were observed in both squamous and nonsquamous histologies. In a descriptive analysis, efficacy was improved with nivolumab plus ipilimumab relative to nivolumab (PD-L1 ≥1%) and nivolumab plus chemotherapy (PD-L1 <1%). Safety was consistent with previous reports. The most common immune-mediated AE with nivolumab plus ipilimumab, nivolumab, and nivolumab plus chemotherapy was rash; most immune-mediated AEs (except endocrine events) occurred within 6 months from start of treatment and resolved within 3 months after, mainly with systemic corticosteroids. Patients who discontinued nivolumab plus ipilimumab due to TRAEs had long-term OS benefits, as seen in the all randomized population. CONCLUSIONS: At more than 4 years' minimum follow-up, with all patients off immunotherapy treatment for at least 2 years, first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab continued to demonstrate durable long-term efficacy in patients with advanced NSCLC. No new safety signals were identified. Immune-mediated AEs occurred early and resolved quickly with guideline-based management. Discontinuation of nivolumab plus ipilimumab due to TRAEs did not have a negative impact on the long-term benefits seen in all randomized patients.

Multicenter phase II trial of nintedanib plus docetaxel in second-line treatment in advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer patients refractory to first-line platin-based chemotherapy (REFRACT GFPC 02-15 study).

INTRODUCTION: Advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NsqNSCLC) progressing at the induction of a first-line of platin-based chemotherapy is a subgroup of patients with poor prognosis and few second-line treatment options. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This single-stage phase II prospective multicenter open-label trial performed in platin-based refractory (i.e. progressing during induction phase of first-line platin-based chemotherapy) advanced NsqNSCLC assessed the efficacy of the nintedanib-docetaxel combination in second-line treatment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) rates at 12 weeks with a cut-off at 30% for ineffectiveness and 50% for minimal efficacy. RESULTS: A total of 59 patients from 23 centers were included (mean age, 58.5 years; male gender, 73.6%; performance status 0-1, 100%; former/current smokers, 92.5%; adenocarcinoma, 92.5%, median platin-based first-line chemotherapy, 2). Nintedanib-docetaxel combination was administered for a median of 4 cycles. The rate of PFS at 12 weeks was 39.6% (95% CI, 28.2-56.8). Median PFS was 2.7 (95% CI, 1.4-4.1) months and one-year PFS was 11.8% (95% CI, 4.8-22.2). Median overall survival (OS) was 6.9 (95% CI, 4.3-8.2) months and 12-month OS was 32.1% (95% CI, 19.8-45.0); 18-month OS was 27.6% (95% CI, 16,1-40.4). Twenty-nine (53.7%) patients reported at least one serious treatment-related adverse events leading to permanent discontinuation of at least one study drug in 12 (22.2%) patients. CONCLUSION: The predefined minimal efficacy was not demonstrated. However, a number of NsqNSCLC patients refractory to first-line platin-based chemotherapy appeared to benefit from this combination.

Two-Stage Bronchoscopic Endobronchial Valve Treatment Can Lead to Progressive Lung Volume Reduction and May Decrease Pneumothorax Risk.

Background: Since successful development of endobronchial valves (EBV) as treatment for severe emphysema, its main complication, pneumothorax, remains an important concern. Objective: We hypothesized that a two-step EBV implantation, during two distinct iterative procedures could lead to a more progressive target lobe volume reduction (TLVR) and thus ipsilateral lobe re-expansion, resulting in a significant decrease in the pneumothorax rate. Methods: This retrospective bi-center study carried out by Limoges and Toulouse University Hospitals included patients following the inclusion criteria established by the BLVR expert panel. All patients were treated by two distinct procedures: first, EBVs were placed in all but the most proximal segment or sub-segment. The remaining segment was treated subsequently. All patients had a complete evaluation before treatment, and 3 months after the second procedure. Results: Out of 58 patients included, only 4 pneumothoraxes (7%) occurred during the study. The other complications were pneumonia and severe COPD exacerbation (8.6% and 13.7% of patients, respectively). Significant improvement was found for FEV1 (+19.6 ± 25%), RV (-468 ± 960mL), 6MWD (30 ± 85m), BODE Index (-1.4 ± 1.8 point) and TLVR (50.6 ± 35.1%). Significant TLVR (MCID) was obtained in 74.1% of patients (43/58). Conclusion: This new approach using EBV could reduce the incidence of pneumothorax without increasing other complication rates. Clinical and physiological outcomes are similar to those reported in studies using the conventional single-step treatment.

Updated Overall Survival Analysis From IMpower110: Atezolizumab Versus Platinum-Based Chemotherapy in Treatment-Naive Programmed Death-Ligand 1-Selected NSCLC.

INTRODUCTION: IMpower110 previously revealed significant overall survival (OS) benefit with atezolizumab versus chemotherapy in patients with treatment-naive EGFR- and ALK-negative (wild type [WT]) metastatic NSCLC with high programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression (≥50% on tumor cells [TCs] or ≥10% on tumor-infiltrating immune cells [ICs], per SP142 immunohistochemistry assay; p = 0.0106). We present primary OS analyses in lower PD-L1 expression groups and an updated, exploratory analysis in the high PD-L1 expression group. METHODS: This open-label, phase 3 trial randomized patients with PD-L1 expression on greater than or equal to 1% of TC or IC to receive atezolizumab or platinum-based chemotherapy. The primary end point was OS, hierarchically tested in PD-L1 expression WT subgroups: first the high PD-L1 expression subgroup, then the high-or-intermediate PD-L1 expression subgroup (≥5% on TC or IC), and then the any PD-L1 expression subgroup (≥1% on TC or IC). RESULTS: The any PD-L1 expression WT population included 554 patients (excluded 18 EGFR- or ALK-positive patients). With 17 months' additional follow-up, OS improvement in the atezolizumab versus chemotherapy arm was not statistically significant in high-or-intermediate PD-L1 expression WT patients (n = 328; hazard ratio = 0.87, 95% confidence interval: 0.66-1.14, p = 0.3091; median = 19.9 versus 16.1 mo), precluding formal OS testing in any PD-L1 expression WT patients. Exploratory analysis in high PD-L1 expression WT patients (n = 205) revealed maintained OS benefit in the atezolizumab arm (hazard ratio = 0.76, 95% confidence interval: 0.54-1.09; median = 20.2 versus 14.7 mo). Updated safety data continued to favor atezolizumab. CONCLUSIONS: Statistical significance for OS was not revealed in the high-or-intermediate expression WT group, and, as a result, OS in the any PD-L1 expression WT group was not formally tested. No new safety signals were found. This updated analysis of IMpower110 supports using atezolizumab in treatment-naive, metastatic WT NSCLC with high PD-L1 expression.

Phase III randomized study of carboplatin pemetrexed with or without bevacizumab with initial versus "at progression" cerebral radiotherapy in advanced non squamous non-small cell lung cancer with asymptomatic brain metastasis.

BACKGROUND: The role and timing of whole or stereotaxic brain radiotherapy (BR) in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) and asymptomatic brain metastases (aBMs) are not well established. This study investigates whether deferring BR until cerebral progression was superior to upfront BR for patients with aNSCLC and aBM. METHODS: This open-label, multicenter, phase III trial, randomized (1:1) aNSCLC patients with aBMs to receive upfront BR and chemotherapy: platin-pemetrexed and bevacizumab in eligible patients, followed by maintenance pemetrexed with or without bevacizumab, BR arm, or the same chemotherapy with BR only at cerebral progression, chemotherapy (ChT) arm. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), global, extra-cerebral and cerebral objective response rate (ORR), toxicity, and quality of life [ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02162537]. RESULTS: The trial was stopped early because of slow recruitment. Among 95 included patients, 91 were randomized in 24 centers: 45 to BR and 46 to ChT arms (age: 60 ± 8.1, men: 79%, PS 0/1: 51.7%/48.3%; adenocarcinomas: 92.2%, extra-cerebral metastases: 57.8%, without differences between arms.) Significantly more patients in the BR-arm received BR compare with those in the ChT arm (87% versus 20%; p < 0.001); there were no significant differences between BR and ChT arms for median PFS: 4.7, 95% confidence interval (CI):3.4-7.5 versus 4.8, 95% CI: 2.4-6.5 months, for median OS: 8.5, 95% CI:.6-11.1 versus 8.3, 95% CI:4.5-11.5 months, cerebral and extra-cerebral ORR (27% versus 13%, p = 0.064, and 30% versus 41%, p = 0.245, respectively). The ChT arm had more grade 3/4 neutropenia than the BR arm (13% versus 6%, p = 0.045); others toxicities were comparable. CONCLUSION: The significant BR rate difference between the two arms suggests that upfront BR is not mandatory in aNSCLC with aBM but this trial failed to show that deferring BR for aBM is superior in terms of PFS from upfront BR.

Economic analyses of immune-checkpoint inhibitors to treat lung cancer.

Introduction: Total lung-cancer-management costs are increasing dramatically. The widespread use of immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) explains this rise in large part and financially impacts healthcare systems. Economic assessment has been adapted to this new challenge.Areas covered: This review provides an overview of the economic literature on the use of ICIs to treat lung cancer. Numerous papers have been published over the last few years. Cancers analyzed were non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), squamous NSCLC, locally advanced NSCLC, or small-cell lung cancer.Expert commentary: For the majority of patients, ICIs are cost-effective for lung cancer management. However, these results are influenced by the threshold chosen by each of the different countries. Patient selection, treatment duration, and factors predictive of efficacy are mandatory to decrease costs.

Atezolizumab for First-Line Treatment of PD-L1-Selected Patients with NSCLC.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of the anti-programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) monoclonal antibody atezolizumab, as compared with those of platinum-based chemotherapy, as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with PD-L1 expression are not known. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial involving patients with metastatic nonsquamous or squamous NSCLC who had not previously received chemotherapy and who had PD-L1 expression on at least 1% of tumor cells or at least 1% of tumor-infiltrating immune cells as assessed by the SP142 immunohistochemical assay. Patients were assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive atezolizumab or chemotherapy. Overall survival (primary end point) was tested hierarchically according to PD-L1 expression status among patients in the intention-to-treat population whose tumors were wild-type with respect to EGFR mutations or ALK translocations. Within the population with EGFR and ALK wild-type tumors, overall survival and progression-free survival were also prospectively assessed in subgroups defined according to findings on two PD-L1 assays as well as by blood-based tumor mutational burden. RESULTS: Overall, 572 patients were enrolled. In the subgroup of patients with EGFR and ALK wild-type tumors who had the highest expression of PD-L1 (205 patients), the median overall survival was longer by 7.1 months in the atezolizumab group than in the chemotherapy group (20.2 months vs. 13.1 months; hazard ratio for death, 0.59; P = 0.01). Among all the patients who could be evaluated for safety, adverse events occurred in 90.2% of the patients in the atezolizumab group and in 94.7% of those in the chemotherapy group; grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 30.1% and 52.5% of the patients in the respective groups. Overall and progression-free survival favored atezolizumab in the subgroups with a high blood-based tumor mutational burden. CONCLUSIONS: Atezolizumab treatment resulted in significantly longer overall survival than platinum-based chemotherapy among patients with NSCLC with high PD-L1 expression, regardless of histologic type. (Funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech; IMpower110 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02409342.).

Carboplatin plus etoposide versus topotecan as second-line treatment for patients with sensitive relapsed small-cell lung cancer: an open-label, multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Topotecan is currently the only drug approved in Europe in a second-line setting for the treatment of small-cell lung cancer. This study investigated whether the doublet of carboplatin plus etoposide was superior to topotecan as a second-line treatment in patients with sensitive relapsed small-cell lung cancer. METHODS: In this open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial done in 38 hospitals in France, we enrolled patients with histologically or cytologically confirmed advanced stage IV or locally relapsed small-cell lung cancer, who responded to first-line platinum plus etoposide treatment, but who had disease relapse or progression at least 90 days after completion of first-line treatment. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2. Enrolled patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive combination carboplatin plus etoposide (six cycles of intravenous carboplatin [area under the curve 5 mg/mL per min] on day 1 plus intravenous etoposide [100 mg/m2 from day 1 to day 3]) or oral topotecan (2·3 mg/m2 from day 1 to day 5, for six cycles). Randomisation was done using the minimisation method with biased-coin balancing for ECOG performance status, response to the first-line chemotherapy, and treatment centre. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, which was centrally reviewed and analysed in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02738346. FINDINGS: Between July 18, 2013, and July 2, 2018, we enrolled and randomly assigned 164 patients (82 in each study group). One patient from each group withdrew consent, therefore 162 patients (81 in each group) were included in the intention-to-treat population. With a median follow-up of 22·7 months (IQR 20·0-37·3), median progression-free survival was significantly longer in the combination chemotherapy group than in the topotecan group (4·7 months, 90% CI 3·9-5·5 vs 2·7 months, 2·3-3·2; stratified hazard ratio 0·57, 90% CI 0·41-0·73; p=0·0041). The most frequent grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia (18 [22%] of 81 patients in the topotecan group vs 11 [14%] of 81 patients in the combination chemotherapy group), thrombocytopenia (29 [36%] vs 25 [31%]), anaemia (17 [21%] vs 20 [25%]), febrile neutropenia (nine [11%] vs five [6%]), and asthenia (eight [10%] vs seven [9%]). Two treatment-related deaths occurred in the topotecan group (both were febrile neutropenia with sepsis) and no treatment-related deaths occurred in the combination group. INTERPRETATION: Our results suggest that carboplatin plus etoposide rechallenge can be considered as a reasonable second-line chemotherapy option for patients with sensitive relapsed small-cell lung cancer. FUNDING: Amgen and the French Lung Cancer Group (Groupe Français de Pneumo-Cancérologie).

Open-label Phase II trial to evaluate safety and efficacy of second-line metronomic oral vinorelbine-atezolizumab combination for stage-IV non-small-cell lung cancer - VinMetAtezo trial, (GFPC‡ 04-2017).

Metronomic chemotherapy is defined as frequent low-dose administration without prolonged drug-free breaks. Combining immune-checkpoint inhibitors and metronomic chemotherapy is a new approach to improve responses and delay onset of resistance to immune-checkpoint inhibitors. This multicenter, Phase II, open-label, single-arm study was designed to assess the safety and efficacy of metronomic oral vinorelbine in combination with immune-checkpoint inhibitors in advanced non-small-cell lung cancers progressing after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. The recommended metronomic oral vinorelbine dose will be determined during a safety run-in period including 12 patients; the main study will include 59 additional patients. The primary outcome is progression-free survival at 4 months. Secondary outcomes are safety of the combination, median overall survival, objective response rate, disease-control rate at 4 months and quality of life (NCT03801304).

Management and outcomes of non-small cell lung cancer patients with rapid progression under second-or-more-line immune checkpoint inhibitors: ERORECI study (GFPC 2016-04).

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have been approved as second-line therapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLCs) progressing after platinum-based chemotherapy. However, some patients' disease progressed rapidly and sometimes exhibited explosive tumor progression. This descriptive, prospective study aimed to assess the characteristics of nonresponders with rapid progression (RP), defined as progression-free survival (PFS) ≤2 or 2-4 months under ICIs. METHODS: This analysis included all consecutive ICI-treated (second-or-more line) patients with RP ≤4 months from 1 September 2016 to 31 August 2017 and compared the clinical characteristics, treatments, and outcomes (overall survival [OS]; responses; PFS, according to treatment line) of NSCLCs that progressed after ≤2 vs 2-4 months on ICIs. RESULTS: Comparisons of the 224 (70.2%) patients with ≤2-month and 95 (29.8%) with 2- to 4-month RP revealed the former had less frequent nonsmokers and ECOG PS = 0, more frequent stage IV disease and higher neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio. Their respective ICI PFS rates were: 1.6 [95% CI: 0.1-2] and 2.7 [2.0-4.2] months, with 16.5% and 11.6% having partial responses to first- and second-line therapies post-ICI chemotherapy. Their respective median OS rates were 6.0 and 9.0 months (P ≤ .009). Multivariate analysis retained only PFS of the first-line therapy pre-ICI and neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio at ICI onset as being significantly associated with ≤2-month RP. CONCLUSION: In the real-life setting, NSCLC RP on ICI remains a challenge. New descriptive and analytic studies are needed to identify factors predictive of RP.

First-line PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor plus chemotherapy vs chemotherapy alone for negative or < 1% PD-L1-expressing metastatic non-small-cell lung cancers.

AIMS: Single-agent anti-PD-1/PD-L1 clinical efficacy against < 1% PD-L1-expressing non-small-cell lung cancers (NSCLCs) is controversial. METHODS: This meta-analysis examined randomized-trial data comparing first-line PD-1/PD-L1-inhibitor + chemotherapy (CT) vs CT alone for advanced < 1% PD-L1 NSCLCs. Outcome measures included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR). RESULTS: IMpower (atezolizumab + CT), Keynote (pembrolizumab + CT) and CheckMate (nivolumab + CT) trials included 2037 NSCLCs (1246 PD-L1-negative; 791 < 1% PD-L1 expression). Anti-PD-1/PD-L1 + CT was significantly associated (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval]) with prolonged OS (0.75 [0.63-0.89]; p = 0.0008) and PFS (0.72 [0.65-0.80]; p < 0.0001), and higher ORR (odds ratio 2.06 [1.50-2.83]; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: First-line anti-PD-1/PD-L1 + CT combination appears superior to CT alone for advanced, < 1% PD-L1-expressing NSCLCs for OS, PFS and ORR.

Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab in Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: In an early-phase study involving patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the response rate was better with nivolumab plus ipilimumab than with nivolumab monotherapy, particularly among patients with tumors that expressed programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1). Data are needed to assess the long-term benefit of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with NSCLC. METHODS: In this open-label, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients with stage IV or recurrent NSCLC and a PD-L1 expression level of 1% or more in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive nivolumab plus ipilimumab, nivolumab alone, or chemotherapy. The patients who had a PD-L1 expression level of less than 1% were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive nivolumab plus ipilimumab, nivolumab plus chemotherapy, or chemotherapy alone. All the patients had received no previous chemotherapy. The primary end point reported here was overall survival with nivolumab plus ipilimumab as compared with chemotherapy in patients with a PD-L1 expression level of 1% or more. RESULTS: Among the patients with a PD-L1 expression level of 1% or more, the median duration of overall survival was 17.1 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 15.0 to 20.1) with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 14.9 months (95% CI, 12.7 to 16.7) with chemotherapy (P = 0.007), with 2-year overall survival rates of 40.0% and 32.8%, respectively. The median duration of response was 23.2 months with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 6.2 months with chemotherapy. The overall survival benefit was also observed in patients with a PD-L1 expression level of less than 1%, with a median duration of 17.2 months (95% CI, 12.8 to 22.0) with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 12.2 months (95% CI, 9.2 to 14.3) with chemotherapy. Among all the patients in the trial, the median duration of overall survival was 17.1 months (95% CI, 15.2 to 19.9) with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 13.9 months (95% CI, 12.2 to 15.1) with chemotherapy. The percentage of patients with grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events in the overall population was 32.8% with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 36.0% with chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: First-line treatment with nivolumab plus ipilimumab resulted in a longer duration of overall survival than did chemotherapy in patients with NSCLC, independent of the PD-L1 expression level. No new safety concerns emerged with longer follow-up. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical; CheckMate 227 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02477826.).

Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio evolution is an independent predictor of early progression of second-line nivolumab-treated patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancers.

INTRODUCTION: Although second-line immunotherapy obtained better outcomes than chemotherapy for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancers (NSCLCs), it is expensive and only a minority of patients seem to benefit, based on early tumor progression post-immunotherapy. Notable host inflammation, characterized by biomarkers (e.g. neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR])), prolongs overall survival (OS) of surgery-, chemotherapy- and immunotherapy-treated patients. To our knowledge, no previous studies used biomarker evolution to analyze the immunotherapy impact on host inflammation. Immunotherapy mainly exerts its activity by lymphocyte reactivation. METHODS: This retrospective study was conducted on patients, selected by their progression status just before their 4th nivolumab injection, and treated at Bordeaux and Limoges University Hospitals. A comparative group of at least 1-year responders was also selected. Clinical parameters and hematological data just before the 1st (baseline) and 4th nivolumab infusions were collected to calculate the NLR change (ΔNLR) between those two infusions. The combined impact of the different known prognostic factors was also analyzed with multivariable analyses. RESULTS: Fifty-nine patients were included. The 29 early progressors had significantly more frequent ΔNLR > 1 (p = 0.0007), OR 18.08 [95% CI 2.96-246.24] with progressive disease as best response to prior treatment line (p = 0.0014). ΔNLR < 1 prolonged OS (HR 0.001 [0.0007-0.18], p = 0.001); as did a partial response to prior line of systemic treatment (HR 0.14 [0.03--0.56], p = 0.005). CONCLUSION: Based on selected early progressors given second-line immunotherapy for advanced NSCLC, progression as best response to prior treatment and ΔNLR > 1 characterized the early progressors and shortened OS after starting nivolumab. This phenomenon questions nivolumab utility in patients with a major host neutrophil inflammation.

Real-Life Efficacy of Osimertinib in Pretreated Octogenarian Patients with T790M-Mutated Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The resistance mutation T790M is reported in 50-60% of patients pretreated with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). Osimertinib has been approved in these patients, but data in octogenarians remain rare. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this retrospective analysis was to evaluate in real life the efficacy of osimertinib in a population of octogenarian patients. METHODS: This retrospective multicentric study included pretreated octogenarian patients with EGFR T790M-mutated advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the setting of the French early access program for osimertinib. The primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) from osimertinib initiation. RESULTS: In total, 43 patients were included (mean age 84.6 years; women 90.7%: adenocarcinoma 100%; never smokers 90.5%; at osimertinib initiation: performance status ≥ 2, 42.4%; stage 4, 93.0%; brain metastases 16.3%). Patients received a median of two lines of treatment before osimertinib initiation, and all received first- or second-generation EGFR TKIs before osimertinib (first line in 79.1%). Osimertinib was used as a second-line treatment in 41.9% of cases and third line or more in 58.1%. Median PFS was 17.5 (95% confidence interval [CI] 12.2-19.0) months for the entire population: 20.6 (95% CI 18.8-not reached) months in patients with brain metastases and 16.7 (95% CI 10.4-18.9) months in patients without (p = 0.1). There was no significant difference for osimertinib treatment as second or third line or more (17.1 vs. 18.6 months, respectively). OS was 22.8 (95% CI 15.7-not reached) months from osimertinib initiation. CONCLUSION: The efficacy of osimertinib as second-line treatment or more in octogenarian pretreated patients with EGFR T790M-mutated advanced NSCLC in a real-life setting was similar to that in randomized controlled trials.

Association of PALB2 Messenger RNA Expression with Platinum-Docetaxel Efficacy in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Partner and localizer of BRCA2 (PALB2) is essential for homologous recombination repair. We examined mRNA levels of DNA repair genes, including partner and localizer of BRCA2 gene (PALB2), ring finger protein 8 gene (RNF8), replication timing regulatory factor 1 gene (RIF1), ATM serine/threonine kinase gene (ATM), and tumor protein p53 binding protein 1 gene (53BP1) as predictive biomarkers for cisplatin-docetaxel in the European phase III BRCA1, DNA repair associated (BRCA1)-receptor-associated protein 80 (RAP80) expression customization (BREC) phase III clinical trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00617656). METHODS: The study was a prespecified secondary objective of the BREC trial. We assessed mRNA levels of PALB2 and four more DNA repair genes (RNF8, RIF1, ATM and 53BP1) as biomarkers in tissue from 177 patients with cisplatin-docetaxel-treated NSCLC. We examined the relationship of gene expression levels with progression-free survival, overall survival, and response. RESULTS: In 177 patients with NSCLC (who had a median age of 62 years and included 140 men and 91 patients with adenocarcinoma), only high PALB2 mRNA expression was predictive in the progression-free survival Cox regression analysis (hazard ratio = 0.63, 95% confidence interval: 0.42-0.83, p = 0.0080). PALB2 was also predictive of overall survival (hazard ratio = 0.68, 95% confidence interval: 0.42-0.90, p = 0.0266). Among the 158 patients evaluable for response, high PALB2 mRNA expression was predictive of response to cisplatin-docetaxel. Specifically, an objective response rate of 77% to cisplatin-docetaxel was observed for patients with high PALB2 mRNA expression compared with a rate of only 23 % for those with low PALB2 mRNA expression (p = 0.0448). CONCLUSIONS: High PALB2 mRNA expression identified patients with NSCLC who significantly benefited from cisplatin-docetaxel chemotherapy in the European BREC phase III clinical trial. The combination of chemotherapy with immunotherapy will become the standard of care, and a predictive marker of response to chemotherapy may accurately guide therapeutic decision making.

Potential Antiangiogenic Treatment Eligibility of Patients with Squamous Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: EPISQUAMAB Study (GFPC 2015-01).

BACKGROUND: Antiangiogenic agents have improved the prognosis of non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancers (NSCLCs), even though all the patients are not eligible to receive them because of counterindications linked to the tumor's characteristics or comorbidities. Much less information is available about the eligibility of patients with squamous non-small-cell lung cancers (SQ-NSCLCs) to receive antivascular endothelial growth-factor (VEGF) treatments, even though such molecules are being developed for this histology. This study was undertaken to determine the percentage of advanced SQ-NSCLC patients who would be eligible to receive an antiVEGF agent as second-line systemic therapy. METHODS: This observational, multicenter, prospective study evaluated advanced SQ-NSCLC patients' criteria for ineligibility to receive an antiVEGF during a multidisciplinary meeting to choose their standard second-line systemic therapy. RESULTS: Among the 317 patients included, 53.6% had at least one ineligibility criterion, and ~20% had at least two, with disease extension to large vessels (39.8%), tumor cavitation (20.5%), cardiovascular disease (11%) and/or hemoptysis (7.2%) being the most frequent. Patients with an ECOG performance score of 1/2 had more cardiovascular contraindications that those with scores of 0. CONCLUSION: Almost half of the SQ-NSCLC patients included in this study would have been eligible to receive an antiVEGF agent. The development of these molecules for these indications should be encouraged.

Oral vinorelbine-based concomitant chemoradiotherapy in unresectable stage III non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Cisplatin-based chemotherapy administered concomitantly to thoracic radiotherapy is the treatment recommended by the European guidelines for fit patients with unresectable stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Cisplatin may be combined with etoposide, vinorelbine or other vinca alkaloids, which act also as radiation sensitizers. Initially administered intravenously, vinorelbine is also available as oral formulation and is the only orally available microtubule-targeting agent. In addition, the oral formulation avoids the risk of extravasation and phlebitis. Areas covered: A literature search has been performed for articles reporting phase II-III trials aimed to evaluate efficacy and safety of oral vinorelbine-based chemoradiotherapy in unresectable locally advanced NSCLC. Expert commentary: In a series of trials with various protocols published from 2008 to 2018, mostly phase II studies, oral vinorelbine demonstrated a significant activity in concomitant chemoradiotherapy for unresectable locally advanced NSCLC typically as part of combination schedules with cisplatin. Main toxicities were hematologic (neutropenia and anemia); non-hematological toxicities included esophagitis and gastro-duodenal adverse events. Large prospective phase III trials are needed to confirm the role of vinorelbine-based chemotherapy associated to thoracic radiotherapy in unresectable stage III NSCLC and more particularly trials with metronomic oral vinorelbine.