Nivolumab plus chemotherapy in first-line metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer: results of the phase III CheckMate 227 Part 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: In CheckMate 227 Part 1, first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab prolonged overall survival (OS) in patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and tumor programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression ≥1% versus chemotherapy. We report results from CheckMate 227 Part 2, which evaluated nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy in patients with metastatic NSCLC regardless of tumor PD-L1 expression. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Seven hundred and fifty-five patients with systemic therapy-naive, stage IV/recurrent NSCLC without EGFR mutations or ALK alterations were randomized 1 : 1 to nivolumab 360 mg every 3 weeks plus chemotherapy or chemotherapy. Primary endpoint was OS with nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy in patients with nonsquamous NSCLC. OS in all randomized patients was a hierarchically tested secondary endpoint. RESULTS: At 19.5 months' minimum follow-up, no significant improvement in OS was seen with nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy in patients with nonsquamous NSCLC [median OS 18.8 versus 15.6 months, hazard ratio (HR) 0.86, 95.62% confidence interval (CI) 0.69-1.08, P = 0.1859]. Descriptive analyses showed OS improvement with nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy in all randomized patients (median OS 18.3 versus 14.7 months, HR 0.81, 95.62% CI 0.67-0.97) and in an exploratory analysis in squamous NSCLC (median OS 18.3 versus 12.0 months, HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.50-0.97). A trend toward improved OS was seen with nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy, regardless of the tumor mutation status of STK11 or TP53, regardless of tumor mutational burden, and in patients with intermediate/poor Lung Immune Prognostic Index scores. Safety with nivolumab plus chemotherapy was consistent with previous reports of first-line settings. CONCLUSIONS: CheckMate 227 Part 2 did not meet the primary endpoint of OS with nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy in patients with metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC. Descriptive analyses showed prolonged OS with nivolumab plus chemotherapy in all-randomized and squamous NSCLC populations, suggesting that this combination may benefit patients with untreated metastatic NSCLC.

Ramucirumab plus erlotinib versus placebo plus erlotinib in previously untreated EGFR-mutated metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (RELAY): exploratory analysis of next-generation sequencing results.

BACKGROUND: Ramucirumab plus erlotinib (RAM + ERL) demonstrated superior progression-free survival (PFS) over placebo + ERL (PBO + ERL) in the phase III RELAY study of patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutated metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (EGFR+ mNSCLC; NCT02411448). Next-generation sequencing (NGS) was used to identify clinically relevant alterations in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) and explore their impact on treatment outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients with EGFR+ mNSCLC were randomized 1 : 1 to ERL (150 mg/day) plus RAM (10 mg/kg)/PBO every 2 weeks. Liquid biopsies were to be prospectively collected at baseline, cycle 4 (C4), and postdiscontinuation follow-up. EGFR and co-occurring/treatment-emergent (TE) genomic alterations in ctDNA were analyzed using Guardant360 NGS platform. RESULTS: In those with valid baseline samples, detectable activating EGFR alterations in ctDNA (aEGFR+) were associated with shorter PFS [aEGFR+: 12.7 months (n = 255) versus aEGFR-: 22.0 months (n = 131); hazard ratio (HR) = 1.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.42-2.51]. Irrespective of detectable/undetectable baseline aEGFR, RAM + ERL was associated with longer PFS versus PBO + ERL [aEGFR+: median PFS (mPFS) = 15.2 versus 11.1 months, HR = 0.63, 95% CI 0.46-0.85; aEGFR-: mPFS = 22.1 versus 19.2 months, HR = 0.80, 95% CI 0.49-1.30]. Baseline alterations co-occurring with aEGFR were identified in 69 genes, most commonly TP53 (43%), EGFR (other than aEGFR; 25%), and PIK3CA (10%). PFS was longer in RAM + ERL, irrespective of baseline co-occurring alterations. Clearance of baseline aEGFR by C4 was associated with longer PFS (mPFS = 14.1 versus 7.0 months, HR = 0.481, 95% CI 0.33-0.71). RAM + ERL improved PFS outcomes, irrespective of aEGFR mutation clearance. TE gene alterations were most commonly in EGFR [T790M (29%), other (19%)] and TP53 (16%). CONCLUSIONS: Baseline aEGFR alterations in ctDNA were associated with shorter mPFS. RAM + ERL was associated with improved PFS outcomes, irrespective of detectable/undetectable aEGFR, co-occurring baseline alterations, or aEGFR+ clearance by C4. aEGFR+ clearance by C4 was associated with improved PFS outcomes. Monitoring co-occurring alterations and aEGFR+ clearance may provide insights into mechanisms of EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor resistance and the patients who may benefit from intensified treatment schedules.

Pathologist-initiated reflex testing for biomarkers in non-small-cell lung cancer: expert consensus on the rationale and considerations for implementation.

Biomarker tests in lung cancer have been traditionally ordered by the treating oncologist upon confirmation of an appropriate pathological diagnosis. The delay this introduces prolongs yet further what is already a complex, multi-stage, pre-treatment pathway and delays the start of first-line systemic treatment, which is crucially informed by the results of such analysis. Reflex testing, in which the responsibility for testing for an agreed range of biomarkers lies with the pathologist, has been shown to standardise and expedite the process. Twelve experts discussed the rationale and considerations for implementing reflex testing as standard clinical practice.

Long-term survival with first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a pooled analysis.

BACKGROUND: First-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab prolongs survival versus chemotherapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We further characterized clinical benefit with this regimen in a large pooled patient population and assessed the effect of response on survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data were pooled from four studies of first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab in advanced NSCLC (CheckMate 227 Part 1, 817 cohort A, 568 Part 1, and 012). Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate, duration of response, and safety were assessed. Landmark analyses of OS by response status at 6 months and by tumor burden reduction in responders to nivolumab plus ipilimumab were also assessed. RESULTS: In the pooled population (N = 1332) with a minimum follow-up of 29.1-58.9 months, median OS was 18.6 months, with a 3-year OS rate of 35%; median PFS was 5.4 months (3-year PFS rate, 17%). Objective response rate was 36%; median duration of response was 23.7 months, with 38% of responders having an ongoing response at 3 years. In patients with tumor programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) <1%, ≥1%, 1%-49%, or ≥50%, 3-year OS rates were 30%, 38%, 30%, and 48%. Three-year OS rates were 30% and 38% in patients with squamous or non-squamous histology. Efficacy outcomes in patients aged ≥75 years were similar to the overall pooled population (median OS, 20.1 months; 3-year OS rate, 34%). In the pooled population, responders to nivolumab plus ipilimumab at 6 months had longer post-landmark OS than those with stable or progressive disease; 3-year OS rates were 66%, 22%, and 14%, respectively. Greater depth of response was associated with prolonged survival; in patients with tumor burden reduction ≥80%, 50% to <80%, or 30% to <50%, 3-year OS rates were 85%, 72%, and 44%, respectively. No new safety signals were identified in the pooled population. CONCLUSION: Long-term survival benefit and durable response with nivolumab plus ipilimumab in this large patient population further support this first-line treatment option for advanced NSCLC.

Isatuximab plus atezolizumab in patients with advanced solid tumors: results from a phase I/II, open-label, multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: The anti-CD38 antibody isatuximab is approved for the treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, but there are no data on its efficacy in solid tumors. This phase I/II study (NCT03637764) assessed the safety and activity of isatuximab plus atezolizumab (Isa + Atezo), an anti-programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) antibody, in patients with immunotherapy-naive solid tumors: epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC), glioblastoma (GBM), hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Phase I assessed safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) of isatuximab 10 mg/kg intravenously (i.v.) every week for 3 weeks followed by once every 3 weeks + atezolizumab 1200 mg i.v. every 3 weeks. Phase II used a Simon's two-stage design to assess the overall response rate or progression-free survival rate at 6 months (GBM cohort). Interim analysis was carried out at 6 months following first dose of the last enrolled patient in each cohort. Pharmacodynamic biomarkers were tested for CD38, PD-L1, tumor-infiltrating immune cells, and FOXP3+ regulatory T cells (Tregs) in the tumor microenvironment (TME). RESULTS: Overall, 107 patients were treated (EOC, n = 18; GBM, n = 33; HCC, n = 27; SCCHN, n = 29). In phase I, Isa + Atezo showed an acceptable safety profile, no dose-limiting toxicities were observed, and RP2D was confirmed. Most patients experienced ≥1 treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE), with ≤48.5% being grade ≥3. The most frequent TEAE was infusion reactions. The study did not continue to stage 2 based on prespecified targets. Tumor-infiltrating CD38+ immune cells were reduced and almost cleared after treatment. Isa + Atezo did not significantly modulate Tregs or PD-L1 expression in the TME. CONCLUSIONS: Isa + Atezo had acceptable safety and tolerability. Clinical pharmacodynamic evaluation revealed efficient target engagement of isatuximab via treatment-mediated reduction of CD38+ immune cells in the TME. Based on clinical data, CD38 inhibition does not improve responsiveness to PD-L1 blockade in these patients.

Safety and efficacy of pralsetinib in RET fusion-positive non-small-cell lung cancer including as first-line therapy: update from the ARROW trial.

BACKGROUND: RET fusions are present in 1%-2% of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Pralsetinib, a highly potent, oral, central nervous system-penetrant, selective RET inhibitor, previously demonstrated clinical activity in patients with RET fusion-positive NSCLC in the phase I/II ARROW study, including among treatment-naive patients. We report an updated analysis from the ARROW study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: ARROW is a multi-cohort, open-label, phase I/II study. Eligible patients were ≥18 years of age with locally advanced or metastatic solid tumours and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2 (later 0-1). Patients initiated pralsetinib at the recommended phase II dose of 400 mg once daily until disease progression, intolerance, consent withdrawal, or investigator's decision. The co-primary endpoints (phase II) were overall response rate (ORR) by blinded independent central review and safety. RESULTS: Between 17 March 2017 and 6 November 2020 (data cut-off), 281 patients with RET fusion-positive NSCLC were enrolled. The ORR was 72% [54/75; 95% confidence interval (CI) 60% to 82%] for treatment-naive patients and 59% (80/136; 95% CI 50% to 67%) for patients with prior platinum-based chemotherapy (enrolment cut-off for efficacy analysis: 22 May 2020); median duration of response was not reached for treatment-naive patients and 22.3 months for prior platinum-based chemotherapy patients. Tumour shrinkage was observed in all treatment-naive patients and in 97% of patients with prior platinum-based chemotherapy; median progression-free survival was 13.0 and 16.5 months, respectively. In patients with measurable intracranial metastases, the intracranial response rate was 70% (7/10; 95% CI 35% to 93%); all had received prior systemic treatment. In treatment-naive patients with RET fusion-positive NSCLC who initiated pralsetinib by the data cut-off (n = 116), the most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were neutropenia (18%), hypertension (10%), increased blood creatine phosphokinase (9%), and lymphopenia (9%). Overall, 7% (20/281) discontinued due to TRAEs. CONCLUSIONS: Pralsetinib treatment produced robust efficacy and was generally well tolerated in treatment-naive patients with advanced RET fusion-positive NSCLC. Results from the confirmatory phase III AcceleRET Lung study (NCT04222972) of pralsetinib versus standard of care in the first-line setting are pending.

Results of screening in early and advanced thoracic malignancies in the EORTC pan-European SPECTAlung platform.

Access to a comprehensive molecular alteration screening is patchy in Europe and quality of the molecular analysis varies. SPECTAlung was created in 2015 as a pan-European screening platform for patients with thoracic malignancies. Here we report the results of almost 4 years of prospective molecular screening of patients with thoracic malignancies, in terms of quality of the program and molecular alterations identified. Patients with thoracic malignancies at any stage of disease were recruited in SPECTAlung, from June 2015 to May 2019, in 7 different countries. Molecular tumour boards were organised monthly to discuss patients' molecular and clinical profile and possible biomarker-driven treatments, including clinical trial options. FFPE material was collected and analysed for 576 patients with diagnosis of pleural, lung, or thymic malignancies. Ultimately, 539 patients were eligible (93.6%) and 528 patients were assessable (91.7%). The turn-around time for report generation and molecular tumour board was 214 days (median). Targetable molecular alterations were observed in almost 20% of cases, but treatment adaptation was low (3% of patients). SPECTAlung showed the feasibility of a pan-European screening platform. One fifth of the patients had a targetable molecular alteration. Some operational issues were discovered and adapted to improve efficiency.

Outcomes with durvalumab after chemoradiotherapy in stage IIIA-N2 non-small-cell lung cancer: an exploratory analysis from the PACIFIC trial.

BACKGROUND: The phase III PACIFIC trial (NCT02125461) established consolidation durvalumab as standard of care for patients with unresectable, stage III non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and no disease progression following chemoradiotherapy (CRT). In some cases, patients with stage IIIA-N2 NSCLC are considered operable, but the relative benefit of surgery is unclear. We report a post hoc, exploratory analysis of clinical outcomes in the PACIFIC trial, in patients with or without stage IIIA-N2 NSCLC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with unresectable, stage III NSCLC and no disease progression after ≥2 cycles of platinum-based, concurrent CRT were randomized 2 : 1 to receive durvalumab (10 mg/kg intravenously; once every 2 weeks for up to 12 months) or placebo, 1-42 days after CRT. The primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS; assessed by blinded independent central review according to RECIST version 1.1) and overall survival (OS). Treatment effects within subgroups were estimated by hazard ratios (HRs) from unstratified Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Of 713 randomized patients, 287 (40%) had stage IIIA-N2 disease. Baseline characteristics were similar between patients with and without stage IIIA-N2 NSCLC. With a median follow-up of 14.5 months (range: 0.2-29.9 months), PFS was improved with durvalumab versus placebo in both patients with [HR = 0.46; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.33-0.65] and without (HR = 0.62; 95% CI 0.48-0.80) stage IIIA-N2 disease. Similarly, with a median follow-up of 25.2 months (range: 0.2-43.1 months), OS was improved with durvalumab versus placebo in patients with (HR = 0.56; 95% CI 0.39-0.79) or without (HR = 0.78; 95% CI 0.57-1.06) stage IIIA-N2 disease. Durvalumab had a manageable safety profile irrespective of stage IIIA-N2 status. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with the intent-to-treat population, treatment benefits with durvalumab were confirmed in patients with stage IIIA-N2, unresectable NSCLC. Prospective studies are needed to determine the optimal treatment approach for patients who are deemed operable.

Durvalumab, with or without tremelimumab, plus platinum-etoposide in first-line treatment of extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer: 3-year overall survival update from CASPIAN.

BACKGROUND: In the phase III CASPIAN study, first-line durvalumab in combination with etoposide plus either cisplatin or carboplatin (EP) significantly improved overall survival (OS) versus EP alone in extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). Durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus EP numerically improved OS versus EP, but did not reach statistical significance. Here we report updated OS in censored patients after median follow-up of >3 years. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 805 patients with treatment-naïve ES-SCLC were randomized 1 : 1 : 1 to durvalumab plus EP, durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus EP, or EP. The two primary endpoints were OS for durvalumab plus EP versus EP and for durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus EP versus EP. RESULTS: As of 22 March 2021 (median follow-up 39.4 months, 86% maturity), durvalumab plus EP continued to demonstrate improved OS versus EP: hazard ratio (HR) 0.71 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60-0.86; nominal P = 0.0003]; median OS was 12.9 versus 10.5 months, and 36-month OS rate was 17.6% versus 5.8%. Durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus EP continued to numerically improve OS versus EP: HR 0.81 (95% CI: 0.67-0.97; nominal P = 0.0200); median OS was 10.4 months, and 36-month OS rate was 15.3%. Twenty-seven and nineteen patients in the durvalumab plus EP and durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus EP arms, respectively, remained on durvalumab treatment at data cut-off. CONCLUSIONS: Three times more patients were estimated to be alive at 3 years when treated with durvalumab plus EP versus EP, with the majority still receiving durvalumab at data cut-off, further establishing durvalumab plus EP as first-line standard of care for ES-SCLC.

ESMO expert consensus statements on the management of EGFR mutant non-small-cell lung cancer.

The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) held a virtual consensus-building process on epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutant non-small-cell lung cancer in 2021. The consensus included a multidisciplinary panel of 34 leading experts in the management of lung cancer. The aim of the consensus was to develop recommendations on topics that are not covered in detail in the current ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline and where the available evidence is either limited or conflicting. The main topics identified for discussion were: (i) tissue and biomarkers analyses; (ii) early and locally advanced disease; (iii) metastatic disease and (iv) clinical trial design, patient's perspective and miscellaneous. The expert panel was divided into four working groups to address questions relating to one of the four topics outlined above. Relevant scientific literature was reviewed in advance. Recommendations were developed by the working groups and then presented to the entire panel for further discussion and amendment before voting. This manuscript presents the recommendations developed, including findings from the expert panel discussions, consensus recommendations and a summary of evidence supporting each recommendation.

Recommendations for a practical implementation of circulating tumor DNA mutation testing in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Liquid biopsy (LB) is a rapidly evolving diagnostic tool for precision oncology that has recently found its way into routine practice as an adjunct to tissue biopsy (TB). The concept of LB refers to any tumor-derived material, such as circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) or circulating tumor cells that are detectable in blood. An LB is not limited to the blood and may include other fluids such as cerebrospinal fluid, pleural effusion, and urine, among others. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The objective of this paper, devised by international experts from various disciplines, is to review current challenges as well as state-of-the-art applications of ctDNA mutation testing in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We consider pragmatic scenarios for the use of ctDNA from blood plasma to identify actionable targets for therapy selection in NSCLCs. RESULTS: Clinical scenarios where ctDNA mutation testing may be implemented in clinical practice include complementary tissue and LB testing to provide the full picture of patients' actual predictive profiles to identify resistance mechanism (i.e. secondary mutations), and ctDNA mutation testing to assist when a patient has a discordant clinical history and is suspected of showing intertumor or intratumor heterogeneity. ctDNA mutation testing may provide interesting insights into possible targets that may have been missed on the TB. Complementary ctDNA LB testing also provides an option if the tumor location is hard to biopsy or if an insufficient sample was taken. These clinical use cases highlight practical scenarios where ctDNA LB may be considered as a complementary tool to TB analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Proper implementation of ctDNA LB testing in routine clinical practice is envisioned in the near future. As the clinical evidence of utility expands, the use of LB alongside tissue sample analysis may occur in the patient cases detailed here.

First-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab with two cycles of chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone (four cycles) in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: CheckMate 9LA 2-year update.

BACKGROUND: To further characterize survival benefit with first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab with two cycles of chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, we report updated data from the phase III CheckMate 9LA trial with a 2-year minimum follow-up. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Adult patients were treatment naïve, with stage IV/recurrent non-small-cell lung cancer, no known sensitizing EGFR/ALK alterations, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤1. Patients were randomized 1 : 1 to nivolumab 360 mg every 3 weeks plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 6 weeks with two cycles of chemotherapy, or four cycles of chemotherapy. Updated efficacy and safety outcomes are reported, along with progression-free survival (PFS) after next line of treatment (PFS2), treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) by treatment cycle, and efficacy outcomes in patients who discontinued all treatment components in the experimental arm due to TRAEs. RESULTS: With a median follow-up of 30.7 months, nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy continued to prolong overall survival (OS) versus chemotherapy. Median OS was 15.8 versus 11.0 months [hazard ratio 0.72 (95% confidence interval 0.61-0.86)]; 2-year OS rate was 38% versus 26%. Two-year PFS rate was 20% versus 8%. ORR was 38% versus 25%, respectively; 34% versus 12% of all responses were ongoing at 2 years. Median PFS2 was 13.9 versus 8.7 months. Improved efficacy outcomes in the experimental versus control arm were observed across most subgroups, including by programmed death-ligand 1 and histology. No new safety signals were observed; onset of grade 3/4 TRAEs was mostly observed during the first two treatment cycles in the experimental arm. In patients who discontinued all components of nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy treatment due to TRAEs (n = 61) median OS was 27.5 months; 56% of responders had an ongoing response ≥1 year after discontinuation. CONCLUSIONS: With a 2-year minimum follow-up, nivolumab plus ipilimumab with two cycles of chemotherapy provided durable efficacy benefits over chemotherapy with a manageable safety profile and remains an efficacious first-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

Overview of virus and cancer relationships. Position paper.

The role of certain viruses in the etiology of some tumors is today indisputable, but there is a lack, however, of annoverview of the relationship between viruses and cancer with amultidisciplinary approach. For this reason, the Health Sciences Foundation has convened a group of professionals from different areas of knowledge to discuss the relationship between viruses and cancer, and the present document is the result of these deliberations. Although viruses cause only 10-15% of cancers, advances in oncology research are largely due to the work done during the last century on tumor viruses. The clearest cancer-inducing viruses are: HPV, HBV, HCV, EBV and, depending on the geographical area, HHV-8, HTLV-1 and HIV. HPVs, for example, are considered to be the causative agents of cervical carcinomas and, more recently, of a proportion of other cancers. Among the Herpes viruses, the association with the development of neoplasms is well established for EBV and HHV-8. Viruses can also be therapeutic agents in certain neoplasms and, thus, some oncolytic viruses with selective tropism for tumor cells have been approved for clinical use in humans. It is estimated that the prophylaxis or treatment of viral infections could prevent at least 1.5 million cancer deaths per year.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the care of cancer patients in Spain.

BACKGROUND: Studies evaluating the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on public healthcare systems are limited, particularly in cancer management. As no such studies have been carried out in Spain, our objective is to describe and quantify the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer patients in Spanish hospitals during the first wave of the pandemic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective, multicenter, nationwide study collected information from hospital departments treating oncology patients. An electronic questionnaire comparing outcomes and management of oncohematological patients for the March-June 2019 and March-June 2020 periods was used. RESULTS: Information from 78 departments (36 tertiary hospitals) was analyzed. Forty-four departments implemented adapted protocols during March 2020. Most of these (n = 38/44; 86.4%) carried out COVID-19 triage, while 26 of 44 (59.1%) carried out onsite polymerase chain reaction tests for clinically suspected cases. A shift from in-person to telephone visits was observed in 43 of 44 (97.7%) departments. Comparing the March-June 2019 and March-June 2020 periods, the number of new patients decreased by 20.8% (from 160.2 to 126.4). Decreases were also seen in the mean number of total (2858.2 versus 1686.1) and cancer (465.5 versus 367.2) biopsies, as well as the mean number of bone marrow biopsies (30.5 versus 18.6). Concerning the number of patients visiting specific cancer care departments, a decrease from 2019 to 2020 was seen for mean number of chemotherapy treatments (712.7 versus 643.8) and radiation therapy (2169.9 versus 2139.9). Finally, a reduction from 2019 to 2020 of 12.9% (from 8.6 to 7.4) in the mean number of patients included in clinical trials was noted. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides the first comprehensive data concerning the impact of COVID-19 on cancer care in Spain. The pandemic caused a 20.8% decrease in newly diagnosed patients, which may impact future outcomes. Measures must be taken to ensure cancer management receives priority in times of healthcare emergencies.

Patient-reported outcomes from STARTRK-2: a global phase II basket study of entrectinib for ROS1 fusion-positive non-small-cell lung cancer and NTRK fusion-positive solid tumours.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly relevant endpoints in clinical trials, contributing to our understanding of risk-benefit profiles, in addition to efficacy and safety data. We investigated the impact of entrectinib on patient-reported symptoms, functioning, and health-related quality of life. PATIENTS AND METHODS: STARTRK-2 is a phase II basket study in patients with locally advanced/metastatic neurotrophic receptor tyrosine kinase 1/2/3 (NTRK1/2/3) and ROS proto-oncogene 1 (ROS1) fusion-positive solid tumours. PROs (prespecified secondary endpoint) were evaluated using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality-of-life questionnaire (QLQ-C30), lung cancer module (QLQ-LC13), and colorectal cancer module (QLQ-CR29), and the EuroQoL 5-Dimension 3-Level instruments, completed before cycle 1 day 1 and each subsequent 4-week cycle of entrectinib dosing, and the end of treatment. Adverse events and treatment-related symptoms were assessed in the safety analysis (SA)-PRO population. Tumour-related symptoms, functioning, and global health status were assessed in the efficacy analysis (EA)-PRO population. Data cut-offs: 31 October 2018 NTRK cohort; 01 May 2019 ROS1 cohort. RESULTS: SA-PRO populations comprised patients with NTRK fusion-positive solid tumours (N = 88) or ROS1 fusion-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (N = 180) who received one or more doses of entrectinib, completed PRO questionnaires on cycle 1 day 1 and answered one or more questions on-study. EA-PRO populations (N = 71) and (N = 145), respectively, comprised SA-PRO patients with measurable baseline disease. Moderate-to-high baseline global health status scores were maintained in EA-PRO populations during treatment. Role and physical functioning scores were moderate-to-high at baseline, with trends towards clinical improvement during treatment. Both cohorts reported low-to-moderate symptom burden at baseline, which was maintained or trended towards clinically meaningful improvement. Symptoms commonly associated with cancer treatment (e.g. nausea, fatigue) remained stable or improved during treatment. All SA-PRO patients experienced one or more adverse events, most frequently constipation or diarrhoea. CONCLUSIONS: PRO findings were consistent with the favourable safety profile of entrectinib, and further reinforce the positive benefit-risk profile of this treatment, indicating minimal overall treatment burden.

First-line immune checkpoint inhibitors for extensive stage small-cell lung cancer: clinical developments and future directions.

Small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) is an aggressive and rapidly growing disease with poor prognosis. Despite intense efforts to improve clinical outcomes, platinum/etoposide chemotherapy has remained the most effective regimen for first-line extensive disease SCLC for decades. The addition of immune checkpoint inhibitors, and specifically programmed death-ligand 1 inhibitors, to standard platinum/etoposide, significantly improves survival and represents a promising advance in this field. However, identification of a predictive biomarker to refine patient selection is an area of unmet need. Further understanding of tumour immunity and mechanism of resistance is required to design novel strategies that improve survival. In this review, we describe recent developments and future directions on first-line immune checkpoint blockade for extensive disease-SCLC.

Choice of second-line systemic therapy in stage IV small cell lung cancer (SCLC) - A decision-making analysis amongst European lung cancer experts.

OBJECTIVES: Stage IV small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is associated with short survival and progression after first-line systemic therapy frequently occurs within months. Although topotecan is approved for second-line treatment, its efficacy is limited, and treatment heterogeneity exists. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The decision-making patterns for second line treatment of 13 European medical oncologists with expertise in SCLC were analyzed. RESULTS: The two criteria most relevant to decision-making were the performance status and the interval of recurrence since first-line treatment. With an interval of less than 3 months since the end of first-line chemotherapy, 62 % of the experts recommended cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin and vincristine (CAV) for fit patients and 54 % recommended topotecan for unfit patients. For an interval of more than 6 months, a clear consensus for a re-challenge with a platinum doublet was achieved (92 %). However, there was no consensus on the second-line therapy with an interval of 3-6 months since the end of first-line therapy. CONCLUSION: Real world practice may differ from recommendations in general guidelines and cannot always be directly derived from trial results as other factor such as habits, patient's preference, convenience or costs have to be factored in.

Treatment of brain metastases in small cell lung cancer: Decision-making amongst a multidisciplinary panel of European experts.

BACKGROUND: Brain metastases (BM) are common in patients with small cell lung cancer (SCLC). In recent years, the role of whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) for brain metastases in lung cancer is being reevaluated, especially in the context of new systemic treatments available for SCLC. With this analysis, we investigate decision-making in SCLC patients with BM among European experts in medical oncology and radiation oncology. METHODS: We analyzed decision-making from 13 medical oncologists (selected by IASLC) and 13 radiation oncologists (selected by ESTRO) specialized in SCLC. Management strategies of individual experts were converted into decision trees and analyzed for consensus. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: In asymptomatic patients, chemotherapy alone is the most commonly recommended first line treatment. In asymptomatic patients with limited volume of brain metastases, a higher preference for chemotherapy without WBRT among medical oncologists compared to radiation oncologists was observed. For symptomatic patients, WBRT followed by chemotherapy was recommended most commonly. For limited extent of BM in symptomatic patients, some experts chose stereotactic radiotherapy as an alternative to WBRT. Significant variation in clinical decision-making was observed among European SCLC experts for the first line treatment of patients with SCLC and BM.

Outcomes with durvalumab by tumour PD-L1 expression in unresectable, stage III non-small-cell lung cancer in the PACIFIC trial.

BACKGROUND: In the PACIFIC trial, durvalumab significantly improved progression-free and overall survival (PFS/OS) versus placebo, with manageable safety, in unresectable, stage III non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients without progression after chemoradiotherapy (CRT). We report exploratory analyses of outcomes by tumour cell (TC) programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to intravenous durvalumab 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks or placebo ≤12 months, stratified by age, sex, and smoking history, but not PD-L1 status. Where available, pre-CRT samples were tested for PD-L1 expression (immunohistochemistry) and scored at pre-specified (25%) and post hoc (1%) TC cut-offs. Treatment-effect hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated from unstratified Cox proportional hazards models (Kaplan-Meier-estimated medians). RESULTS: In total, 713 patients were randomly assigned, 709 of whom received at least 1 dose of study treatment durvalumab (n = 473) or placebo (n = 236). Some 451 (63%) were PD-L1-assessable: 35%, 65%, 67%, 33%, and 32% had TC ≥25%, <25%, ≥1%, <1%, and 1%-24%, respectively. As of 31 January 2019, median follow-up was 33.3 months. Durvalumab improved PFS versus placebo (primary-analysis data cut-off, 13 February 2017) across all subgroups [HR, 95% confidence interval (CI); medians]: TC ≥25% (0.41, 0.26-0.65; 17.8 versus 3.7 months), <25% (0.59, 0.43-0.82; 16.9 versus 6.9 months), ≥1% (0.46, 0.33-0.64; 17.8 versus 5.6 months), <1% (0.73, 0.48-1.11; 10.7 versus 5.6 months), 1%-24% [0.49, 0.30-0.80; not reached (NR) versus 9.0 months], and unknown (0.59, 0.42-0.83; 14.0 versus 6.4 months). Durvalumab improved OS across most subgroups (31 January 2019 data cut-off; HR, 95% CI; medians): TC ≥ 25% (0.50, 0.30-0.83; NR versus 21.1 months), <25% (0.89, 0.63-1.25; 39.7 versus 37.4 months), ≥1% (0.59, 0.41-0.83; NR versus 29.6 months), 1%-24% (0.67, 0.41-1.10; 43.3 versus 30.5 months), and unknown (0.60, 0.43-0.84; 44.2 versus 23.5 months), but not <1% (1.14, 0.71-1.84; 33.1 versus 45.6 months). Safety was similar across subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: PFS benefit with durvalumab was observed across all subgroups, and OS benefit across all but TC <1%, for which limitations and wide HR CI preclude robust conclusions.