Therapy for Stage IV Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer With Driver Alterations: ASCO Living Guideline, Version 2023.3.

PURPOSE: To provide evidence-based recommendations for patients with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer with driver alterations. METHODS: This ASCO living guideline offers continually updated recommendations based on an ongoing systematic review of randomized clinical trials (RCTs), with the latest time frame spanning February to October 2023. An Expert Panel of medical oncology, pulmonary, community oncology, research methodology, and advocacy experts were convened. The literature search included systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and randomized controlled trials. Outcomes of interest include efficacy and safety. Expert Panel members used available evidence and informal consensus to develop evidence-based guideline recommendations. RESULTS: This guideline consolidates all previous updates and reflects the body of evidence informing this guideline topic. Eight new RCTs were identified in the latest search of the literature to date. RECOMMENDATIONS: Evidence-based recommendations were updated to address first, second, and subsequent treatment options for patients based on targetable driver alterations.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/living-guidelines.

Therapy for Stage IV Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Without Driver Alterations: ASCO Living Guideline, Version 2023.3.

PURPOSE: To provide evidence-based recommendations for patients with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) without driver alterations. METHODS: This ASCO living guideline offers continually updated recommendations based on an ongoing systematic review of randomized clinical trials (RCTs), with the latest time frame spanning February to October 2023. An Expert Panel of medical oncology, pulmonary, community oncology, research methodology, and advocacy experts were convened. The literature search included systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and randomized controlled trials. Outcomes of interest include efficacy and safety. Expert Panel members used available evidence and informal consensus to develop evidence-based guideline recommendations. RESULTS: This guideline consolidates all previous updates and reflects the body of evidence informing this guideline topic. Ten new RCTs were identified in the latest search of the literature to date. RECOMMENDATIONS: Evidence-based recommendations were updated to address first, second, and subsequent treatment options for patients without driver alterations.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/living-guidelines.

The Inherited KRAS-variant as a Biomarker of Cetuximab Response in NSCLC.

PURPOSE: RTOG 0617 was a phase III randomized trial for patients with unresectable stage IIIA/IIIB non-small cell lung cancer comparing standard-dose (60 Gy) versus high-dose (74 Gy) radiotherapy and chemotherapy, plus or minus cetuximab. Although the study was negative, based on prior evidence that patients with the KRAS-variant, an inherited germline mutation, benefit from cetuximab, we evaluated KRAS-variant patients in RTOG 0617. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: From RTOG 0617, 328 of 496 (66%) of patients were included in this analysis. For time-to-event outcomes, stratified log-rank tests and multivariable Cox regression models were used. For binary outcomes, Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel tests and multivariable logistic regression models were used. All statistical tests were two sided, and a P value <0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: A total of 17.1% (56/328) of patients had the KRAS-variant, and overall survival rates were similar between KRAS-variant and non-variant patients. However, there was a time-dependent effect of cetuximab seen only in KRAS-variant patients-while the hazard of death was higher in cetuximab-treated patients within year 1 [HR = 3.37, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.13-10.10, P = 0.030], death was lower from year 1 to 4 (HR = 0.33, 95% CI: 0.11-0.97, P = 0.043). In contrast, in non-variant patients, the addition of cetuximab significantly increased local failure (HR = 1.59, 95% CI: 1.11-2.28, P = 0.012). CONCLUSIONS/DISCUSSION: Although an overall survival advantage was not achieved in KRAS-variant patients, there is potential impact of cetuximab for this genetic subset of patients. In contrast, cetuximab seems to harm non-variant patients. These findings further support the importance of genetic patient selection in trials studying the addition of systemic agents to radiotherapy. SIGNIFICANCE: The KRAS-variant is the first functional, inherited miRNA-disrupting variant identified in cancer. Our findings support that cetuximab has a potentially beneficial impact on KRAS-variant patients treated with radiation. The work confirms prior evidence that KRAS-variant patients are a subgroup who are especially sensitive to radiation. These findings further support the potential of this class of variants to enable true treatment personalization, considering the equally important endpoints of response and toxicity.

Therapy for Stage IV Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer With Driver Alterations: ASCO Living Guideline, Version 2023.2.

Living guidelines are developed for selected topic areas with rapidly evolving evidence that drives frequent change in clinical practice. Living guidelines are updated on a regular schedule by a standing expert panel that systematically reviews the health literature on a continuous basis; as described in the ASCO Guidelines Methodology Manual. ASCO Living Guidelines follow the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy Implementation for Clinical Practice Guidelines. Living Guidelines and updates are not intended to substitute for independent professional judgment of the treating provider and do not account for individual variation among patients. See appendix for disclaimers and other important information (Appendix 1 and Appendix 2). Updates are published regularly and can be found at https://ascopubs.org/nsclc-da-living-guideline.

Validation of Immunotherapy Response Score as Predictive of Pan-solid Tumor Anti-PD-1/PD-L1 Benefit.

Immunotherapy response score (IRS) integrates tumor mutation burden (TMB) and quantitative expression biomarkers to predict anti-PD-1/PD-L1 [PD-(L)1] monotherapy benefit. Here, we evaluated IRS in additional cohorts. Patients from an observational trial (NCT03061305) treated with anti-PD-(L)1 monotherapy were included and assigned to IRS-High (-H) versus -Low (-L) groups. Associations with real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS) and overall survival (OS) were determined by Cox proportional hazards (CPH) modeling. Those with available PD-L1 IHC treated with anti-PD-(L)1 with or without chemotherapy were separately assessed. Patients treated with PD-(L)1 and/or chemotherapy (five relevant tumor types) were assigned to three IRS groups [IRS-L divided into IRS-Ultra-Low (-UL) and Intermediate-Low (-IL), and similarly assessed]. In the 352 patient anti-PD-(L)1 monotherapy validation cohort (31 tumor types), IRS-H versus IRS-L patients had significantly longer rwPFS and OS. IRS significantly improved CPH associations with rwPFS and OS beyond microsatellite instability (MSI)/TMB alone. In a 189 patient (10 tumor types) PD-L1 IHC comparison cohort, IRS, but not PD-L1 IHC nor TMB, was significantly associated with anti-PD-L1 rwPFS. In a 1,103-patient cohort (from five relevant tumor types), rwPFS did not significantly differ in IRS-UL patients treated with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy plus anti-PD-(L)1, nor in IRS-H patients treated with anti-PD-(L)1 versus anti-PD-(L)1 + chemotherapy. IRS associations were consistent across subgroups, including both Europeans and non-Europeans. These results confirm the utility of IRS utility for predicting pan-solid tumor PD-(L)1 monotherapy benefit beyond available biomarkers and demonstrate utility for informing on anti-PD-(L)1 and/or chemotherapy treatment. Significance: This study confirms the utility of the integrative IRS biomarker for predicting anti-PD-L1/PD-1 benefit. IRS significantly improved upon currently available biomarkers, including PD-L1 IHC, TMB, and MSI status. Additional utility for informing on chemotherapy, anti-PD-L1/PD-1, and anti-PD-L1/PD-1 plus chemotherapy treatments decisions is shown.

Development and validation of an integrative pan-solid tumor predictor of PD-1/PD-L1 blockade benefit.

BACKGROUND: Anti-PD-1 and PD-L1 (collectively PD-[L]1) therapies are approved for many advanced solid tumors. Biomarkers beyond PD-L1 immunohistochemistry, microsatellite instability, and tumor mutation burden (TMB) may improve benefit prediction. METHODS: Using treatment data and genomic and transcriptomic tumor tissue profiling from an observational trial (NCT03061305), we developed Immunotherapy Response Score (IRS), a pan-tumor predictive model of PD-(L)1 benefit. IRS real-world progression free survival (rwPFS) and overall survival (OS) prediction was validated in an independent cohort of trial patients. RESULTS: Here, by Cox modeling, we develop IRS-which combines TMB with CD274, PDCD1, ADAM12 and TOP2A quantitative expression-to predict pembrolizumab rwPFS (648 patients; 26 tumor types; IRS-High or -Low groups). In the 248 patient validation cohort (248 patients; 24 tumor types; non-pembrolizumab PD-[L]1 monotherapy treatment), median rwPFS and OS are significantly longer in IRS-High vs. IRS-Low patients (rwPFS adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.52, p = 0.003; OS aHR 0.49, p = 0.005); TMB alone does not significantly predict PD-(L)1 rwPFS nor OS. In 146 patients treated with systemic therapy prior to pembrolizumab monotherapy, pembrolizumab rwPFS is only significantly longer than immediately preceding therapy rwPFS in IRS-High patients (interaction test p = 0.001). In propensity matched lung cancer patients treated with first-line pembrolizumab monotherapy or pembrolizumab+chemotherapy, monotherapy rwPFS is significantly shorter in IRS-Low patients, but is not significantly different in IRS-High patients. Across 24,463 molecularly-evaluable trial patients, 7.6% of patients outside of monotherapy PD-(L)1 approved tumor types are IRS-High/TMB-Low. CONCLUSIONS: The validated, predictive, pan-tumor IRS model can expand PD-(L)1 monotherapy benefit outside currently approved indications.

Therapies activating the immune system (checkpoint inhibitors) have revolutionized the treatment of patients with advanced cancer, however new molecular tests may better identify patients who could benefit. Using treatment data and clinical molecular test results, we report the development and validation of Immunotherapy Response Score (IRS) to predict checkpoint inhibitor benefit. Across patients with more than 20 advanced cancer types, IRS better predicted checkpoint inhibitor benefit than currently available tests. Data from >20,000 patients showed that IRS identifies ~8% of patients with advanced cancer who may dramatically benefit from checkpoint inhibitors but would not receive them today based on currently available tests. Our approach may help clinicians to decide which patients should receive checkpoint inhibitors to treat their disease.

High-Dose Once-Daily Thoracic Radiotherapy in Limited-Stage Small-Cell Lung Cancer: CALGB 30610 (Alliance)/RTOG 0538.

PURPOSE: Although level 1 evidence supports 45-Gy twice-daily radiotherapy as standard for limited-stage small-cell lung cancer, most patients receive higher-dose once-daily regimens in clinical practice. Whether increasing radiotherapy dose improves outcomes remains to be prospectively demonstrated. METHODS: This phase III trial, CALGB 30610/RTOG 0538 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00632853), was conducted in two stages. In the first stage, patients with limited-stage disease were randomly assigned to receive 45-Gy twice-daily, 70-Gy once-daily, or 61.2-Gy concomitant-boost radiotherapy, starting with either the first or second (of four total) chemotherapy cycles. In the second stage, allocation to the 61.2-Gy arm was discontinued following planned interim toxicity analysis, and the study continued with two remaining arms. The primary end point was overall survival (OS) in the intention-to-treat population. RESULTS: Trial accrual opened on March 15, 2008, and closed on December 1, 2019. All patients randomly assigned to 45-Gy twice-daily (n = 313) or 70-Gy once-daily radiotherapy (n = 325) are included in this analysis. After a median follow-up of 4.7 years, OS was not improved on the once-daily arm (hazard ratio for death, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.17; P = .594). Median survival is 28.5 months for twice-daily treatment, and 30.1 months for once-daily treatment, with 5-year OS of 29% and 32%, respectively. Treatment was tolerable, and the frequency of severe adverse events, including esophageal and pulmonary toxicity, was similar on both arms. CONCLUSION: Although 45-Gy twice-daily radiotherapy remains the standard of care, this study provides the most robust information available to help guide the choice of thoracic radiotherapy regimen for patients with limited-stage small-cell lung cancer.

Consensus statement and clinical pathway for the management of colon cancer with peritoneal metastases in the state of Delaware.

BACKGROUND: Increasing data suggests that the combination of modern systemic therapies and Cytoreductive surgery with or without Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy (HIPEC) may improve the outcome of patients with colon cancer with peritoneal metastases. Patient selection and sequence of treatments remains ill-defined. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A working group, the State of Delaware Peritoneal Surface Malignancies Task Force (DE-PSM-TF), was created including representatives from medical and surgical oncology from the acute care hospitals in Delaware. An extensive review of all available literature was carried out. Virtual meetings were held, and interpretation and discussion of the data was conducted. RESULTS: A clinical pathway that includes a multidisciplinary evaluation at the time of diagnosis of colon cancer with peritoneal metastases and reflects a consensus from the Task Force on 7 key points that suggest the management of these patients based on the severity of their peritoneal metastases and incorporates all currently available therapies was created. The sequence of therapies of this multimodality treatment was determined by the Peritoneal Surface Disease Severity Score (PSDSS) (Fig. 1). CONCLUSION: The current pathway represents a comprehensive, team effort that should improve the outcome of patients with Colon Cancer with peritoneal metastases in the state of Delaware by having multidisciplinary discussions at the time of diagnosis, selecting the best order of sequence of currently available therapies in order to maximize benefits and minimize morbidity.

Therapy for Stage IV Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Without Driver Alterations: ASCO Living Guideline, Version 2022.2.

Living guidelines are developed for selected topic areas with rapidly evolving evidence that drives frequent change in recommended clinical practice. Living guidelines are updated on a regular schedule by a standing expert panel that systematically reviews the health literature on a continuous basis, as described in the ASCO Guidelines Methodology Manual. ASCO Living Guidelines follow the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy Implementation for Clinical Practice Guidelines. Living Guidelines and updates are not intended to substitute for independent professional judgment of the treating provider and do not account for individual variation among patients. See Appendix 1 (online only) for disclaimers and other important information. Updates are published regularly and can be found at https://ascopubs.org/nsclc-non-da-living-guideline.

Therapy for Stage IV Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer With Driver Alterations: ASCO Living Guideline, Version 2022.2.

Living guidelines are developed for selected topic areas with rapidly evolving evidence that drives frequent change in recommended clinical practice. Living guidelines are updated on a regular schedule by a standing expert panel that systematically reviews the health literature on a continuous basis, as described in the ASCO Guidelines Methodology Manual. ASCO Living Guidelines follow the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy Implementation for Clinical Practice Guidelines. Living Guidelines and updates are not intended to substitute for independent professional judgment of the treating provider and do not account for individual variation among patients. See Appendix 1 (online only) for disclaimers and other important information. Updates are published regularly and can be found at https://ascopubs.org/nsclc-da-living-guideline.

Therapy for Stage IV Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer With Driver Alterations: ASCO Living Guideline.

PURPOSE: To provide evidence-based recommendations updating the 2021 ASCO and Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario) guideline on systemic therapy for patients with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with driver alterations. METHODS: ASCO updated recommendations on the basis of an ongoing systematic review of randomized control trials from 2020 to 2021. RESULTS: This guideline update reflects changes in evidence since the previous update. Two studies provide the evidence base. Outcomes of interest include efficacy and safety. RECOMMENDATIONS: For patients with an anaplastic lymphoma kinase rearrangement, a performance status (PS) of 0-2, and previously untreated NSCLC, clinicians should offer alectinib or brigatinib or lorlatinib. For patients with an anaplastic lymphoma kinase rearrangement, a PS of 0-2, and previously untreated NSCLC, if alectinib, brigatinib, or lorlatinib are not available, clinicians should offer ceritinib or crizotinib. For patients with a RET rearrangement, a PS of 0-2, and previously untreated NSCLC, clinicians may offer selpercatinib or pralsetinib. In second line, for patients with a RET rearrangement who have not received RET-targeted therapy, clinicians may offer selpercatinib or pralsetinib.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/thoracic-cancer-guidelines.

Therapy for Stage IV Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Without Driver Alterations: ASCO Living Guideline.

PURPOSE: To provide evidence-based recommendations updating the 2020 ASCO and Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario) guideline on systemic therapy for patients with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer without driver alterations. METHODS: ASCO updated recommendations on the basis of an ongoing systematic review of randomized clinical trials from 2018 to 2021. RESULTS: This guideline update reflects changes in evidence since the previous update. Five randomized clinical trials provide the evidence base. Outcomes of interest include efficacy and safety. RECOMMENDATIONS: In addition to 2020 options for patients with high programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression (tumor proportion score [TPS] ≥ 50%), nonsquamous cell carcinoma (non-SCC), and performance status (PS) 0-1, clinicians may offer single-agent atezolizumab. With high PD-L1 expression (TPS ≥ 50%), non-SCC, and PS 0-1, clinicians may offer nivolumab and ipilumumab alone or nivolumab and ipilimumab plus chemotherapy. With negative (0%) and low positive PD-L1 expression (TPS 1%-49%), non-SCC, and PS 0-1, clinicians may offer nivolumab and ipilimumab alone or nivolumab and ipilimumab plus chemotherapy. With high PD-L1 expression, SCC, and PS 0-1, clinicians may offer single-agent atezolizumab. With high PD-L1 expression, squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), and PS 0-1, clinicians may offer nivolumab and ipilimumab alone or in combination with two cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy. With negative and low positive PD-L1 expression, SCC, and PS 0-1, clinicians may offer nivolumab and ipilimumab alone or in combination with two cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy. With non-SCC who received an immune checkpoint inhibitor and chemotherapy as first-line therapy, clinicians may offer second-line paclitaxel plus bevacizumab. With non-SCC, who received chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab and immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy, clinicians should offer the options of third-line single-agent pemetrexed, docetaxel, or paclitaxel plus bevacizumab.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/thoracic-cancer-guidelines.

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.

Attention to diet, exercise, and weight in oncology care: Results of an American Society of Clinical Oncology national patient survey.

BACKGROUND: The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) surveyed cancer patients to assess practice patterns related to weight, diet, and exercise as a part of cancer care. METHODS: An online survey was distributed between March and June 2020 through ASCO channels and patient advocacy organizations. Direct email communication was sent to more than 25,000 contacts, and information about the survey was posted on Cancer.Net. Eligibility criteria included being aged at least 18 years, living in the United States, and having been diagnosed with cancer. Logistic regression was used to determine factors associated with recommendation and referral patterns. RESULTS: In total, 2419 individuals responded to the survey. Most respondents were female (60.1%), 61.1% had an early-stage malignancy, and 48.4% were currently receiving treatment. Breast cancer was the most common cancer (35.7%). The majority of respondents consumed ≤2 servings of fruits and vegetables/d (50.5%) and exercised ≤2 times/wk (50.1%). Exercise was addressed at most or some oncology visits in 56.8% of respondents, diet in 50.1%, and weight in 28.0%. Respondents whose oncology provider provided diet and/or exercise recommendations were more likely to report changes in these behaviors vs. those whose oncology provider did not (exercise: 79.6% vs 69.0%, P < .001; diet 81.1% vs 71.3%, P < .001; weight 81.0% vs 73.3%, P = .003). CONCLUSIONS: In a national survey of oncology patients, slightly more than one-half reported attention to diet and exercise during oncology visits. Provider recommendations for diet, exercise, and weight were associated with positive changes in these behaviors, reinforcing the importance of attention to these topics as a part of oncology care.

Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) clinical practice guideline on immune checkpoint inhibitor-related adverse events.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are the standard of care for the treatment of several cancers. While these immunotherapies have improved patient outcomes in many clinical settings, they bring accompanying risks of toxicity, specifically immune-related adverse events (irAEs). There is a need for clear, effective guidelines for the management of irAEs during ICI treatment, motivating the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) to convene an expert panel to develop a clinical practice guideline. The panel discussed the recognition and management of single and combination ICI irAEs and ultimately developed evidence- and consensus-based recommendations to assist medical professionals in clinical decision-making and to improve outcomes for patients.

Short Communication: Interim toxicity analysis for patients with limited stage small cell lung cancer (LSCLC) treated on CALGB 30610 (Alliance) / RTOG 0538.

INTRODUCTION: The CALGB 30610/RTOG 0538 randomized trial was designed to test whether high-dose thoracic radiotherapy (TRT) would improve survival compared with 45 Gy twice-daily (BID) TRT in limited stage small cell lung cancer (LSCLC). Two piloted experimental TRT regimens were of interest to study, 70 Gy daily (QD) and 61.2 Gy concomitant boost (CB). Driven by concerns about adequate patient accrual, a study design was employed that eliminated one experimental TRT arm based on early interim toxicity and tolerability, with the study then continuing as a traditional 2-arm phase III study. METHODS: Patients with LSCLC were assigned to receive four cycles of cisplatin and etoposide chemotherapy with one of 3 TRT regimens starting with either the first or second cycle of chemotherapy. The interim endpoint was the cumulative highest toxicity calculated from a scoring system based on treatment-related grade 3 and higher toxicity and the ability to complete therapy in the experimental arms. RESULTS: The final interim analysis was performed after 70 patients accrued to each experimental cohort, and a difference in treatment related toxicity scoring was not found (p = 0.739). Severe esophageal toxicity was comparable in both cohorts. Pulmonary toxicity was low overall, though 4 patients (5.7 %) on the 61.2 Gy arm developed grade 4 dyspnea, which was not observed in the 70 Gy arm. A protocol mandated decision was made to discontinue the 61.2 Gy arm following review of toxicity with the Data and Safety Monitoring Board. CONCLUSION: A randomized trial design using a planned early interim toxicity analysis to discriminate between experimental treatment arms is feasible in a phase III setting. Refinement of the design could increase the likelihood of detecting clinically meaningful differences in toxicity in future studies.

Immune suppressive activity of myeloid-derived suppressor cells in cancer requires inactivation of the type I interferon pathway.

Myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSC) are pathologically activated neutrophils and monocytes with potent immune suppressive activity. These cells play an important role in accelerating tumor progression and undermining the efficacy of anti-cancer therapies. The natural mechanisms limiting MDSC activity are not well understood. Here, we present evidence that type I interferons (IFN1) receptor signaling serves as a universal mechanism that restricts acquisition of suppressive activity by these cells. Downregulation of the IFNAR1 chain of this receptor is found in MDSC from cancer patients and mouse tumor models. The decrease in IFNAR1 depends on the activation of the p38 protein kinase and is required for activation of the immune suppressive phenotype. Whereas deletion of IFNAR1 is not sufficient to convert neutrophils and monocytes to MDSC, genetic stabilization of IFNAR1 in tumor bearing mice undermines suppressive activity of MDSC and has potent antitumor effect. Stabilizing IFNAR1 using inhibitor of p38 combined with the interferon induction therapy elicits a robust anti-tumor effect. Thus, negative regulatory mechanisms of MDSC function can be exploited therapeutically.

Analysis of classical neutrophils and polymorphonuclear myeloid-derived suppressor cells in cancer patients and tumor-bearing mice.

In this study, using single-cell RNA-seq, cell mass spectrometry, flow cytometry, and functional analysis, we characterized the heterogeneity of polymorphonuclear neutrophils (PMNs) in cancer. We describe three populations of PMNs in tumor-bearing mice: classical PMNs, polymorphonuclear myeloid-derived suppressor cells (PMN-MDSCs), and activated PMN-MDSCs with potent immune suppressive activity. In spleens of mice, PMN-MDSCs gradually replaced PMNs during tumor progression. Activated PMN-MDSCs were found only in tumors, where they were present at the very early stages of the disease. These populations of PMNs in mice could be separated based on the expression of CD14. In peripheral blood of cancer patients, we identified two distinct populations of PMNs with characteristics of classical PMNs and PMN-MDSCs. The gene signature of tumor PMN-MDSCs was similar to that in mouse activated PMN-MDSCs and was closely associated with negative clinical outcome in cancer patients. Thus, we provide evidence that PMN-MDSCs are a distinct population of PMNs with unique features and potential for selective targeting opportunities.

A Review of Immunotherapy for Stage III and Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer and the Rationale for the ECOG-ACRIN EA5181 Study.

ECOG-ACRIN EA5181 is a phase III prospective, randomized trial that randomizes patients undergoing chemo/radiation for locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC) to concomitant durvalumab or no additional therapy, with both arms receiving 1 year of consolidative durvalumab. Radiation dose escalation failed to improve overall survival in RTOG 0617. However, conventionally fractionated radiation to 60 Gy with concomitant chemotherapy is associated with a high risk of local failure (38%-46%). It is hoped that concomitant immunotherapy during chemo/radiation can help decrease the risk of local failure, thereby improving overall survival and progression-free survival with acceptable toxicity. In this article, we review conventional chemo/radiation therapy for LA-NSCLC, as well as the quickly evolving world of immunotherapy in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer and discuss the rationale and study design of EA5181. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This article provides an up-to-date assessment of how immunotherapy is reshaping the landscape of metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and how the impact of this therapy is now rapidly moving into the treatment of patients with locally advanced NSCLC who are presenting for curative treatment. This article reviews the recent publications of chemo/radiation as well as those combining immunotherapy with chemotherapy and chemo/radiation, and provides a strategy for improving overall survival of patients with locally advanced NSCLC by using concomitant immunotherapy with standard concurrent chemo/radiation.

Therapy for Stage IV Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer With Driver Alterations: ASCO and OH (CCO) Joint Guideline Update.

PURPOSE: To provide evidence-based recommendations updating the 2017 ASCO guideline on systemic therapy for patients with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with driver alterations. A guideline update for systemic therapy for patients with stage IV NSCLC without driver alterations was published separately. METHODS: The American Society of Clinical Oncology and Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario) NSCLC Expert Panel updated recommendations based on a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from December 2015 to January 2020 and meeting abstracts from ASCO 2020. RESULTS: This guideline update reflects changes in evidence since the previous update. Twenty-seven RCTs, 26 observational studies, and one meta-analysis provide the evidence base (total 54). Outcomes of interest included efficacy and safety. Additional literature suggested by the Expert Panel is discussed. RECOMMENDATIONS: All patients with nonsquamous NSCLC should have the results of testing for potentially targetable mutations (alterations) before implementing therapy for advanced lung cancer, regardless of smoking status recommendations, when possible, following other existing high-quality testing guidelines. Most patients should receive targeted therapy for these alterations: Targeted therapies against ROS-1 fusions, BRAF V600e mutations, RET fusions, MET exon 14 skipping mutations, and NTRK fusions should be offered to patients, either as initial or second-line therapy when not given in the first-line setting. New or revised recommendations include the following: Osimertinib is the optimal first-line treatment for patients with activating epidermal growth factor receptor mutations (exon 19 deletion, exon 21 L858R, and exon 20 T790M); alectinib or brigatinib is the optimal first-line treatment for patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase fusions. For the first time, to our knowledge, the guideline includes recommendations regarding RET, MET, and NTRK alterations. Chemotherapy is still an option at most stages.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/thoracic-cancer-guidelines.