A plain language summary of the PHAROS study: the combination of encorafenib and binimetinib for people with BRAF V600E-mutant metastatic non-small cell lung cancer.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This is a summary of the results of a study called PHAROS. This study looked at combination treatment with encorafenib (BRAFTOVI®) and binimetinib (MEKTOVI®). This combination of medicines was studied in people with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). NSCLC is the most common type of lung cancer. Metastatic means that the cancer has spread to other parts of the body. All people in this study had a type of NSCLC that has a change in a gene called BRAF termed a BRAF V600E mutation. A gene is a part of the DNA that has instructions for making things that your body needs to work, and the BRAF V600E mutation contributes to the growth of the lung cancer. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS?: In this study, 98 people with BRAF V600E-mutant metastatic NSCLC were treated with the combination of encorafenib and binimetinib (called encorafenib plus binimetinib in this summary). Before starting the study, 59 people had not received any treatment for their metastatic NSCLC, and 39 people had received previous anticancer treatment. At the time of this analysis, 44 (75%) out of 59 people who did not receive any treatment before taking encorafenib plus binimetinib had their tumors shrink or disappear. Eighteen (46%) out of 39 people who had received treatment before starting encorafenib plus binimetinib also had their tumors shrink or disappear. The most common side effects of encorafenib plus binimetinib were nausea, diarrhea, fatigue, and vomiting. WHAT DO THE RESULTS MEAN?: These results support the use of encorafenib plus binimetinib combination treatment as a new treatment option in people with BRAF V600E-mutant metastatic NSCLC. The side effects of encorafenib plus binimetinib in this study were similar to the side effects seen with encorafenib plus binimetinib in people with a type of skin cancer called metastatic melanoma.

Brief Report: Comprehensive Clinicogenomic Profiling of Small Cell Transformation From EGFR-Mutant NSCLC Informs Potential Therapeutic Targets.

Introduction: NSCLC transformation to SCLC has been best characterized with EGFR-mutant NSCLC, with emerging case reports seen in ALK, RET, and KRAS-altered NSCLC. Previous reports revealed transformed SCLC from EGFR-mutant NSCLC portends very poor prognosis and lack effective treatment. Genomic analyses revealed TP53 and RB1 loss of function increase the risk of SCLC transformation. Little has been reported on the detailed clinicogenomic characteristics and potential therapeutic targets for this patient population. Methods: In this study, we conducted a single-center retrospective analysis of clinical and genomic characteristics of patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC transformed to SCLC. Demographic data, treatment course, and clinical molecular testing reports were extracted from electronic medical records. Kaplan-Meier analyses were used to estimate survival outcomes. Next generation sequencing-based assays was used to identify EGFR and co-occurring genetic alterations in tissue or plasma before and after SCLC transformation. Single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) was performed on a patient-derived-xenograft model generated from a patient with EGFR-NSCLC transformed SCLC tumor. Results: A total of 34 patients were identified in our study. Median age at initial diagnosis was 58, and median time to SCLC transformation was 24.2 months. 68% were female and 82% were never smokers. 79% of patients were diagnosed as stage IV disease, and over half had brain metastases at baseline. Median overall survival of the entire cohort was 38.3 months from initial diagnoses and 12.4 months from time of SCLC transformation. Most patients harbored EGFR exon19 deletions as opposed to exon21 L858R alteration. Continuing EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor post-transformation did not improve overall survival compared with those patients where tyrosine kinase inhibitor was stopped in our cohort. In the 20 paired pretransformed and post-transformed patient samples, statistically significant enrichment was seen with PIK3CA alterations (p = 0.04) post-transformation. Profiling of longitudinal liquid biopsy samples suggest emergence of SCLC genetic alterations before biopsy-proven SCLC, as shown by increasing variant allele frequency of TP53, RB1, PIK3CA alterations. ScRNA-seq revealed potential therapeutic targets including DLL3, CD276 (B7-H3) and PTK7 were widely expressed in transformed SCLC. Conclusions: SCLC transformation is a potential treatment resistance mechanism in driver-mutant NSCLC. In our cohort of 34 EGFR-mutant NSCLC, poor prognosis was observed after SCLC transformation. Clinicogenomic analyses of paired and longitudinal samples identified genomic alterations emerging post-transformation and scRNA-seq reveal potential therapeutic targets in this population. Further studies are needed to rigorously validate biomarkers and therapeutic targets for this patient population.

Pegargiminase Plus First-Line Chemotherapy in Patients With Nonepithelioid Pleural Mesothelioma: The ATOMIC-Meso Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Arginine deprivation using ADI-PEG20 (pegargiminase) combined with chemotherapy is untested in a randomized study among patients with cancer. ATOMIC-Meso (ADI-PEG20 Targeting of Malignancies Induces Cytotoxicity-Mesothelioma) is a pivotal trial comparing standard first-line chemotherapy plus pegargiminase or placebo in patients with nonepithelioid pleural mesothelioma. Objective: To determine the effect of pegargiminase-based chemotherapy on survival in nonepithelioid pleural mesothelioma, an arginine-auxotrophic tumor. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a phase 2-3, double-blind randomized clinical trial conducted at 43 centers in 5 countries that included patients with chemotherapy-naive nonepithelioid pleural mesothelioma from August 1, 2017, to August 15, 2021, with at least 12 months' follow-up. Final follow-up was on August 15, 2022. Data analysis was performed from March 2018 to June 2023. Intervention: Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive weekly intramuscular pegargiminase (36.8 mg/m2) or placebo. All patients received intravenous pemetrexed (500 mg/m2) and platinum (75-mg/m2 cisplatin or carboplatin area under the curve 5) chemotherapy every 3 weeks up to 6 cycles. Pegargiminase or placebo was continued until progression, toxicity, or 24 months. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was overall survival, and secondary end points were progression-free survival and safety. Response rate by blinded independent central review was assessed in the phase 2 portion only. Results: Among 249 randomized patients (mean [SD] age, 69.5 [7.9] years; 43 female individuals [17.3%] and 206 male individuals [82.7%]), all were included in the analysis. The median overall survival was 9.3 months (95% CI, 7.9-11.8 months) with pegargiminase-chemotherapy as compared with 7.7 months (95% CI, 6.1-9.5 months) with placebo-chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] for death, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.55-0.93; P = .02). The median progression-free survival was 6.2 months (95% CI, 5.8-7.4 months) with pegargiminase-chemotherapy as compared with 5.6 months (95% CI, 4.1-5.9 months) with placebo-chemotherapy (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.46-0.90; P = .02). Grade 3 to 4 adverse events with pegargiminase occurred in 36 patients (28.8%) and with placebo in 21 patients (16.9%); drug hypersensitivity and skin reactions occurred in the experimental arm in 3 patients (2.4%) and 2 patients (1.6%), respectively, and none in the placebo arm. Rates of poststudy treatments were comparable in both arms (57 patients [45.6%] with pegargiminase vs 58 patients [46.8%] with placebo). Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial of arginine depletion with pegargiminase plus chemotherapy, survival was extended beyond standard chemotherapy with a favorable safety profile in patients with nonepithelioid pleural mesothelioma. Pegargiminase-based chemotherapy as a novel antimetabolite strategy for mesothelioma validates wider clinical testing in oncology. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02709512.

Real-World Efficacy and Safety of Amivantamab for EGFR-Mutant NSCLC.

INTRODUCTION: Amivantamab-vmjw (amivantamab) is a bispecific EGFR/MET antibody approved for patients with advanced NSCLC with EGFR exon 20 insertion mutations, after prior therapy. Nevertheless, the benefits and safety of amivantamab in other EGFR-mutant lung cancer, with or without osimertinib, and with concurrent radiation therapy, are less known. METHODS: We queried the MD Anderson Lung Cancer GEMINI, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, University of California Davis Comprehensive Cancer Center, and Stanford Cancer Center's database for patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC treated with amivantamab, not on a clinical trial. The data analyzed included initial response, duration of treatment, and concomitant radiation safety in overall population and prespecified subgroups. RESULTS: A total of 61 patients received amivantamab. Median age was 65 (31-81) years old; 72.1% were female; and 77% were patients with never smoking history. Median number of prior lines of therapies was four. On the basis of tumor's EGFR mutation, 39 patients were in the classical mutation cohort, 15 patients in the exon 20 cohort, and seven patients in the atypical cohort. There were 37 patients (58.7%) who received amivantamab concomitantly with osimertinib and 25 patients (39.1%) who received concomitant radiation. Furthermore, 54 patients were assessable for response in the overall population; 19 patients (45.2%) had clinical response and disease control rate (DCR) was 64.3%. In the classical mutation cohort of the 33 assessable patients, 12 (36.4%) had clinical response and DCR was 48.5%. In the atypical mutation cohort, six of the seven patients (85.7%) had clinical response and DCR was 100%. Of the 13 assessable patients in the exon 20 cohort, five patients (35.7%) had clinical response and DCR was 64.3%. Adverse events reported with amivantamab use were similar as previously described in product labeling. No additional toxicities were noted when amivantamab was given with radiation with or without osimertinib. CONCLUSIONS: Our real-world multicenter analysis revealed that amivantamab is a potentially effective treatment option for patients with EGFR mutations outside of exon 20 insertion mutations. The combination of osimertinib with amivantamab is safe and feasible. Radiation therapy also seems safe when administered sequentially or concurrently with amivantamab.

Radiographic response to neoadjuvant therapy in pleural mesothelioma should serve as a guide for patient selection for cytoreductive operations.

Background: Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is associated with poor prognosis despite advances in multimodal therapeutic strategies. While patients with resectable disease may benefit from added survival with oncologic resection, patient selection for mesothelioma operations often relies on both objective and subjective evaluation metrics. We sought to evaluate factors associated with improved overall survival (OS) in patients with mesothelioma who underwent macroscopic complete resection (MCR). Methods: Patients with MPM who received neoadjuvant therapy and underwent MCR were identified in a prospectively maintained departmental database. Clinicopathologic, blood-based, and radiographic variables were collected and included in a Cox regression analysis (CRA). Response to neoadjuvant therapy was characterized by a change in tumor thickness from pretherapy to preoperative scans using the modified RECIST criteria. Results: In this study, 99 patients met the inclusion criteria. The median age of the included patients was 64.7 years, who were predominantly men, had smoking and asbestos exposure, and who received neoadjuvant therapy. The median change in tumor thickness following neoadjuvant therapy was -16.5% (interquartile range of -49.7% to +14.2%). CRA demonstrated reduced OS associated with non-epithelioid histology [hazard ratio (HR): 3.06, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.62-5.78, p < 0.001] and a response to neoadjuvant therapy inferior to the median (HR: 2.70, CI: 1.55-4.72, p < 0.001). Patients who responded poorly (below median) to neoadjuvant therapy had lower median survival (15.8 months compared to 38.2 months, p < 0.001). Conclusion: Poor response to neoadjuvant therapy in patients with MPM is associated with poor outcomes even following maximum surgical cytoreduction and should warrant a patient-centered discussion regarding goals of care and may therefore help guide further therapeutic decisions.

Brief Report: Clinical Response, Toxicity, and Resistance Mechanisms to Osimertinib Plus MET Inhibitors in Patients With EGFR-Mutant MET-Amplified NSCLC.

Introduction: MET amplification is a known resistance mechanism to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) treatment in EGFR-mutant NSCLC. Dual EGFR-MET inhibition has been reported with success in overcoming such resistance and inducing clinical benefit. Resistance mechanisms to dual EGFR-MET inhibition require further investigation and characterization. Methods: Patients with NSCLC with both MET amplification and EGFR mutation who have received crizotinib, capmatinib, savolitinib, or tepotinib plus osimertinib (OSI) after progression on OSI at MD Anderson Cancer Center were included in this study. Molecular profiling was completed by means of fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and next-generation sequencing (NGS). Radiological response was assessed on the basis of Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. Results: From March 2016 to March 2022, 23 treatments with dual MET inhibitor and osi were identified with a total of 20 patients included. Three patients received capmatinib plus OSI after progression on crizotinib plus OSI. Median age was 64 (38-89) years old and 75% were female. MET amplification was detected by FISH in 14 patients in the tissue, NGS in 10 patients, and circulating tumor DNA in three patients. Median MET gene copy number was 13.6 (6.4-20). Overall response rate was 34.8% (eight of 23). In assessable patients, tumor shrinkage was observed in 82.4% (14 of 17). Median time on treatment was 27 months. Two of three patients responded to capmatinib plus OSI after progression on crizotinib plus OSI. Dual EGFR-MET inhibition was overall well tolerated. Two patients on crizotinib plus OSI and one pt on capmatinib plus OSI discontinued therapy due to pneumonitis. One pt discontinued crizotinib plus OSI due to gastrointestinal toxicity. Six patients were still on double TKI treatment. At disease progression to dual EGFR-MET inhibition, FISH and NGS on tumor and plasma were completed in six patients. Notable resistance mechanisms observed include acquired MET D1246H (n = 1), acquired EGFR C797S (n = 2), FGFR2 fusion (n = 1, concurrent with C797S), and EGFR G796S (n = 1, concurrent with C797S). Four patients lost MET amplification. Conclusions: Dual EGFR and MET inhibition yielded high clinical response rate after progression on OSI. Resistance mechanisms to EGFR-MET double TKI inhibition include MET secondary mutation, EGFR secondary mutation, or loss of MET amplification.

Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy with or without immunotherapy for early-stage or isolated lung parenchymal recurrent node-negative non-small-cell lung cancer: an open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) is the standard treatment for medically inoperable early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but regional or distant relapses, or both, are common. Immunotherapy reduces recurrence and improves survival in people with stage III NSCLC after chemoradiotherapy, but its utility in stage I and II cases is unclear. We therefore conducted a randomised phase 2 trial of SABR alone compared with SABR with immunotherapy (I-SABR) for people with early-stage NSCLC. METHODS: We did an open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial comparing SABR to I-SABR, conducted at three different hospitals in TX, USA. People aged 18 years or older with histologically proven treatment-naive stage IA-IB (tumour size ≤4 cm, N0M0), stage IIA (tumour size ≤5 cm, N0M0), or stage IIB (tumour size >5 cm and ≤7 cm, N0M0) as per the American Joint Committee on Cancer version 8 staging system or isolated parenchymal recurrences (tumour size ≤7 cm) NSCLC (TanyNanyM0 before definitive surgery or chemoradiotherapy) were included in this trial. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1; using the Pocock & Simon method) to receive SABR with or without four cycles of nivolumab (480 mg, once every 4 weeks, with the first dose on the same day as, or within 36 h after, the first SABR fraction). This trial was unmasked. The primary endpoint was 4-year event-free survival (local, regional, or distant recurrence; second primary lung cancer; or death). Analyses were both intention to treat (ITT) and per protocol. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03110978) and is closed to enrolment. FINDINGS: From June 30, 2017, to March 22, 2022, 156 participants were randomly assigned, and 141 participants received assigned therapy. At a median 33 months' follow-up, I-SABR significantly improved 4-year event-free survival from 53% (95% CI 42-67%) with SABR to 77% (66-91%; per-protocol population, hazard ratio [HR] 0·38; 95% CI 0·19-0·75; p=0·0056; ITT population, HR 0·42; 95% CI 0·22-0·80; p=0·0080). There were no grade 3 or higher adverse events associated with SABR. In the I-SABR group, ten participants (15%) had grade 3 immunologial adverse events related to nivolumab; none had grade 3 pneumonitis or grade 4 or higher toxicity. INTERPRETATION: Compared with SABR alone, I-SABR significantly improved event-free survival at 4 years in people with early-stage treatment-naive or lung parenchymal recurrent node-negative NSCLC, with tolerable toxicity. I-SABR could be a treatment option in these participants, but further confirmation from a number of currently accruing phase 3 trials is required. FUNDING: Bristol-Myers Squibb and MD Anderson Cancer Center Alliance, National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health through Cancer Center Core Support Grant and Clinical and Translational Science Award to The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center.

Phase II, Open-Label Study of Encorafenib Plus Binimetinib in Patients With BRAFV600-Mutant Metastatic Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: The combination of encorafenib (BRAF inhibitor) plus binimetinib (MEK inhibitor) has demonstrated clinical efficacy with an acceptable safety profile in patients with BRAFV600E/K-mutant metastatic melanoma. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of encorafenib plus binimetinib in patients with BRAFV600E-mutant metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: In this ongoing, open-label, single-arm, phase II study, patients with BRAFV600E-mutant metastatic NSCLC received oral encorafenib 450 mg once daily plus binimetinib 45 mg twice daily in 28-day cycles. The primary end point was confirmed objective response rate (ORR) by independent radiology review (IRR). Secondary end points included duration of response (DOR), disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival, time to response, and safety. RESULTS: At data cutoff, 98 patients (59 treatment-naïve and 39 previously treated) with BRAFV600E-mutant metastatic NSCLC received encorafenib plus binimetinib. Median duration of treatment was 9.2 months with encorafenib and 8.4 months with binimetinib. ORR by IRR was 75% (95% CI, 62 to 85) in treatment-naïve and 46% (95% CI, 30 to 63) in previously treated patients; median DOR was not estimable (NE; 95% CI, 23.1 to NE) and 16.7 months (95% CI, 7.4 to NE), respectively. DCR after 24 weeks was 64% in treatment-naïve and 41% in previously treated patients. Median PFS was NE (95% CI, 15.7 to NE) in treatment-naïve and 9.3 months (95% CI, 6.2 to NE) in previously treated patients. The most frequent treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were nausea (50%), diarrhea (43%), and fatigue (32%). TRAEs led to dose reductions in 24 (24%) and permanent discontinuation of encorafenib plus binimetinib in 15 (15%) patients. One grade 5 TRAE of intracranial hemorrhage was reported. Interactive visualization of the data presented in this article is available at the PHAROS dashboard (https://clinical-trials.dimensions.ai/pharos/). CONCLUSION: For patients with treatment-naïve and previously treated BRAFV600E-mutant metastatic NSCLC, encorafenib plus binimetinib showed a meaningful clinical benefit with a safety profile consistent with that observed in the approved indication in melanoma.

Vidutolimod in Combination With Atezolizumab With and Without Radiation Therapy in Patients With Programmed Cell Death Protein 1 or Programmed Death-Ligand 1 Blockade-Resistant Advanced NSCLC.

Introduction: Vidutolimod, a CpG-A TLR9 agonist, was investigated in a phase 1b study (CMP-001-003; ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03438318) in combination with atezolizumab with and without radiation therapy (RT) in patients with advanced NSCLC. Methods: Patients with progressive disease after anti-programmed cell death protein 1 or programmed death-ligand 1 therapy received either vidutolimod and atezolizumab (part A) or vidutolimod, atezolizumab, and RT (part B). The primary objective was to evaluate the safety of vidutolimod and atezolizumab with and without RT. Key secondary end point was best objective response rate per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1. Results: Between March 28, 2018, and July 25, 2019, a total of 29 patients were enrolled and received at least one dose of vidutolimod (part A, n = 13; part B, n = 16). Intratumoral injections of vidutolimod were administered successfully, including injection of visceral lesions. The most common treatment-related adverse events (≥30%) were flu-like symptoms and hypotension. No objective responses were observed; 23.1% and 50.0% of the patients in parts A and B, respectively, had stable disease as best response. In parts A and B, 15.4% and 25.0% of the patients, respectively, had tumor shrinkage (<30% decrease in tumor size, nonirradiated). Enrollment was stopped owing to lack of objective responses. In the two patients with initial tumor shrinkage in part A, a strong serum induction of C-X-C motif chemokine ligand 10 was observed. Conclusions: Vidutolimod and atezolizumab with and without RT had a manageable safety profile, with minimal clinical activity in heavily pretreated patients with programmed cell death protein 1 or programmed death-ligand 1 blockade-resistant NSCLC.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus nivolumab with or without ipilimumab in operable non-small cell lung cancer: the phase 2 platform NEOSTAR trial.

Neoadjuvant ipilimumab + nivolumab (Ipi+Nivo) and nivolumab + chemotherapy (Nivo+CT) induce greater pathologic response rates than CT alone in patients with operable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The impact of adding ipilimumab to neoadjuvant Nivo+CT is unknown. Here we report the results and correlates of two arms of the phase 2 platform NEOSTAR trial testing neoadjuvant Nivo+CT and Ipi+Nivo+CT with major pathologic response (MPR) as the primary endpoint. MPR rates were 32.1% (7/22, 80% confidence interval (CI) 18.7-43.1%) in the Nivo+CT arm and 50% (11/22, 80% CI 34.6-61.1%) in the Ipi+Nivo+CT arm; the primary endpoint was met in both arms. In patients without known tumor EGFR/ALK alterations, MPR rates were 41.2% (7/17) and 62.5% (10/16) in the Nivo+CT and Ipi+Nivo+CT groups, respectively. No new safety signals were observed in either arm. Single-cell sequencing and multi-platform immune profiling (exploratory endpoints) underscored immune cell populations and phenotypes, including effector memory CD8+ T, B and myeloid cells and markers of tertiary lymphoid structures, that were preferentially increased in the Ipi+Nivo+CT cohort. Baseline fecal microbiota in patients with MPR were enriched with beneficial taxa, such as Akkermansia, and displayed reduced abundance of pro-inflammatory and pathogenic microbes. Neoadjuvant Ipi+Nivo+CT enhances pathologic responses and warrants further study in operable NSCLC. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT03158129 .).

Tumor thickness in mesothelioma predicts differential response to neoadjuvant therapy and survival.

OBJECTIVE: Neoadjuvant systemic therapy in resectable malignant pleural mesothelioma remains controversial and demonstrates variable responses. We sought to evaluate tumor thickness as a predictor of response to neoadjuvant therapy and as a prognostic marker for overall survival. METHODS: Data from patients who underwent neoadjuvant therapy followed by cytoreductive surgery from 2002 to 2019 were reviewed. Baseline and postneoadjuvant therapy tumor thickness were measured on computed tomography. Radiological tumor response was categorized as progressive disease (≥20% increase), partial response (≥30% decrease), or stable disease (in between). Tumor response outcomes were modeled using logistic regression and multinomial regression models. Overall survival was evaluated based on tumor thickness and tumor response. RESULTS: Of the 143 patients reviewed, 36 (25%) had progressive disease, 54 (38%) had stable disease, and 56 (39%) had partial response. The baseline tumor thickness of the progressive disease group (36 mm) was lower than in both stable disease and partial response groups (both 63 mm; P < .001). Both logistic regression and multinomial regression analyses demonstrated that thicker baseline tumor thickness was associated with decreased probability of progressive disease and increased probability of partial response. In a multivariable Cox model, thicker postneoadjuvant therapy tumor thickness was associated with worse overall survival (hazard ratio, 1.01, 95% confidence interval, 1.00-1.01, P = .008). The same trend was observed for thicker baseline tumor thickness (hazard ratio, 1.02, 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.04, P = .008), and the risk was decreased in tumors with partial response (hazard ratio, 0.98, 95% confidence interval, 0.96-0.100, P = .014). CONCLUSIONS: We present the first study demonstrating the relationship between baseline tumor thickness and differential radiographic response to neoadjuvant therapy and survival. Further studies are needed to validate tumor thickness as both a prognostic and predictive biomarker.

Final efficacy outcomes of atezolizumab with chemoradiation for unresectable NSCLC: The phase II DETERRED trial.

INTRODUCTION: The phase II DETERRED trial assessed the safety and efficacy of consolidation and concurrent immunotherapy with chemoradiation in unresectable locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer. We present updated efficacy analysis of this trial. METHODS: The trial was conducted in 2 parts with patients in part 1 (n = 10) receiving chemoradiation with consolidation atezolizumab, while patients in part 2 (n = 30) received concurrent and consolidation atezolizumab. Progression-free survival (PFS), time to second progression (PFS2), and overall survival (OS) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Subset analyses were performed by programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1) status and targetable driver oncogene mutation status. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 39.2 months, the median PFS for part 1 was 18.9 months and 15.1 months for part 2. Median OS for part 1 was 26.5 months and was not reached for part 2. For the cohort, 3-year OS was 53.8%, while 4-year OS was 47.4%. Patients with targetable driver oncogene mutations had a median PFS of 9.4 months and OS of not reached compared to 16.6 months (HR: 3.49, p = 0.02) and 26.9 months (HR: 0.40, p = 0.12) respectively compared to those without targetable driver oncogene mutations. Patients with PD-L1 < 1% had median PFS of 11.0 months and OS of 26.5 months compared to 27.4 months (HR: 2.01, p = 0.10) and not reached (HR: 1.49, p = 0.41) respectively for those with PD-L1 ≥ 1%. CONCLUSIONS: In the DETERRED trial, chemoradiation with concurrent and/or consolidative atezolizumab led to comparable efficacy as consolidative durvalumab in the PACIFIC trial. The presence of targetable driver oncogene mutations led to worse PFS, while PD-L1 < 1% trended to worse PFS.

Effect of dexamethasone on dyspnoea in patients with cancer (ABCD): a parallel-group, double-blind, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Systemic corticosteroids are commonly prescribed for palliation of dyspnoea in patients with cancer, despite scarce evidence to support their use. We aimed to assess the effect of high-dose dexamethasone versus placebo on cancer-related dyspnoea. METHODS: The parallel-group, double-blind, randomised, controlled ABCD (Alleviating Breathlessness in Cancer Patients with Dexamethasone) trial was done at the at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and the general oncology clinic at Lyndon B Johnson General Hospital (both in Houston, TX, USA). Ambulatory patients with cancer, aged 18 years or older, and with an average dyspnoea intensity score on an 11-point numerical rating scale (NRS; 0=none, 10=worst) over the past week of 4 or higher were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive dexamethasone 8 mg orally every 12 h for 7 days followed by 4 mg orally every 12 h for 7 days, or matching placebo capsules for 14 days. Pharmacists did permuted block randomisation with a block size of six, and patients were stratified by baseline dyspnoea score (4-6 vs 7-10) and study site. Patients, research staff, and clinicians were masked to group assignment. The primary outcome was change in dyspnoea NRS intensity over the past 24 h from baseline to day 7 (±2 days). Analyses were done by modified intention-to-treat (ie, including all patients who were randomly assigned and started the study treatment, regardless of whether they completed the study). Enrolment was stopped after the second preplanned interim analysis, when the futility criterion was met. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03367156) and is now completed. FINDINGS: Between Jan 11, 2018, and April 23, 2021, we screened 2867 patients, enrolled 149 patients, and randomly assigned 128 to dexamethasone (n=85) or placebo (n=43). The mean change in dyspnoea NRS intensity from baseline to day 7 (±2 days) was -1·6 (95% CI -2·0 to -1·2) in the dexamethasone group and -1·6 (-2·3 to -0·9) in the placebo group, with no significant between-group difference (mean 0 [95% CI -0·8 to 0·7]; p=0·48). The most common all-cause grade 3-4 adverse events were infections (nine [11%] of 85 patients in the dexamethasone group vs three [7%] of 43 in the placebo group), insomnia (seven [8%] vs one [2%]), and neuropsychiatric symptoms (three [4%] vs none [0%]). Serious adverse events, all resulting in hospital admissions, were reported in 24 (28%) of 85 patients in the dexamethasone group and in three (7%) of 43 patients in the placebo group. No treatment-related deaths occurred in either group. INTERPRETATION: High-dose dexamethasone did not improve dyspnoea in patients with cancer more effectively than placebo and was associated with a higher frequency of adverse events. These data suggest that dexamethasone should not be routinely given to unselected patients with cancer for palliation of dyspnoea. FUNDING: US National Cancer Institute.

Poziotinib for EGFR exon 20-mutant NSCLC: Clinical efficacy, resistance mechanisms, and impact of insertion location on drug sensitivity.

We report a phase II study of 50 advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with point mutations or insertions in EGFR exon 20 treated with poziotinib (NCT03066206). The study achieved its primary endpoint, with confirmed objective response rates (ORRs) of 32% and 31% by investigator and blinded independent review, respectively, with a median progression-free survival of 5.5 months. Using preclinical studies, in silico modeling, and molecular dynamics simulations, we found that poziotinib sensitivity was highly dependent on the insertion location, with near-loop insertions (amino acids A767 to P772) being more sensitive than far-loop insertions, an observation confirmed clinically with ORRs of 46% and 0% observed in near versus far-loop, respectively (p = 0.0015). Putative mechanisms of acquired resistance included EGFR T790M, MET amplifications, and epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT). Our data demonstrate that poziotinib is active in EGFR exon 20-mutant NSCLC, although this activity is influenced by insertion location.

Medical and Surgical Care of Patients With Mesothelioma and Their Relatives Carrying Germline BAP1 Mutations.

The most common malignancies that develop in carriers of BAP1 germline mutations include diffuse malignant mesothelioma, uveal and cutaneous melanoma, renal cell carcinoma, and less frequently, breast cancer, several types of skin carcinomas, and other tumor types. Mesotheliomas in these patients are significantly less aggressive, and patients require a multidisciplinary approach that involves genetic counseling, medical genetics, pathology, surgical, medical, and radiation oncology expertise. Some BAP1 carriers have asymptomatic mesothelioma that can be followed by close clinical observation without apparent adverse outcomes: they may survive many years without therapy. Others may grow aggressively but very often respond to therapy. Detecting BAP1 germline mutations has, therefore, substantial medical, social, and economic impact. Close monitoring of these patients and their relatives is expected to result in prolonged life expectancy, improved quality of life, and being cost-effective. The co-authors of this paper are those who have published the vast majority of cases of mesothelioma occurring in patients carrying inactivating germline BAP1 mutations and who have studied the families affected by the BAP1 cancer syndrome for many years. This paper reports our experience. It is intended to be a source of information for all physicians who care for patients carrying germline BAP1 mutations. We discuss the clinical presentation, diagnostic and treatment challenges, and our recommendations of how to best care for these patients and their family members, including the potential economic and psychosocial impact.

First-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy for the treatment of unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma: patient-reported outcomes in CheckMate 743.

OBJECTIVE: In CheckMate 743 (NCT02899299), nivolumab + ipilimumab significantly prolonged overall survival in patients with unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). We present patient-reported outcomes (PROs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients (N = 605) were randomized to nivolumab + ipilimumab or chemotherapy. Changes in disease-related symptom burden and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) were evaluated descriptively using the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS)-Mesothelioma (Meso) average symptom burden index (ASBI), LCSS-Meso 3-item global index (3-IGI), 3-level EuroQol 5-dimensional (EQ-5D-3L) visual analog score (VAS), and EQ-5D-3L utility index. PROs were assessed at baseline and every 2 (nivolumab + ipilimumab) or 3 weeks (chemotherapy) through 12 weeks, every 6 weeks through 12 months, every 12 weeks thereafter, and at specified follow-ups. Mixed-effect model repeated measures (MMRM) and time to deterioration analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Completion rates were generally >80%. LCSS-Meso ASBI mean changes from baseline trended to improve over time with nivolumab + ipilimumab and deteriorate with chemotherapy, but did not meet clinically important difference thresholds [±10 score change]. EQ-5D-3L VAS mean scores improved over time with nivolumab + ipilimumab; by week 60, patients had scores consistent with United Kingdom normal population values. MMRM analyses favored nivolumab + ipilimumab for all individual symptoms except cough. Nivolumab + ipilimumab delayed time to definitive deterioration in HRQoL (hazard ratio 0.52 [95% confidence interval 0.36-0.74]) and showed a trend in symptom delay versus chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab + ipilimumab decreased the risk of deterioration in disease-related symptoms and HRQoL versus chemotherapy and maintained QoL in patients with unresectable MPM.

Surgical outcomes after neoadjuvant nivolumab or nivolumab with ipilimumab in patients with non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Surgical outcomes for non-small cell lung cancer after neoadjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitors continue to be debated. We assessed perioperative outcomes of patients treated with Nivolumab or Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab (NEOSTAR) and compared them with patients treated with chemotherapy or previously untreated patients with stage I-IIIA non-small cell lung cancer. METHODS: Forty-four patients with stage I to IIIA non-small cell lung cancer (American Joint Committee on Cancer Staging Manual, seventh edition) were randomized to nivolumab (N; 3 mg/kg intravenously on days 1, 15, and 29; n = 23) or nivolumab with ipilimumab (NI; I, 1 mg/kg intravenously on day 1; n = 21). Curative-intent operations were planned between 3 and 6 weeks after the last dose of neoadjuvant N. Patients who completed resection upfront or after chemotherapy from the same time period were used as comparison. RESULTS: In the N arm, 21 (91%) were resected on-trial, 1 underwent surgery off-trial, and one was not resected (toxicity-related). In the NI arm, 16 (76%) resections were performed on-trial, one off-trial, and 4 were not resected (none toxicity-related). Median time to operation was 31 days, and consisted of 2 (5%) pneumonectomies, 33 (89%) lobectomies, and 1 (3%) each of segmentectomy and wedge resection. The approach was 27 (73%) thoracotomy, 7 (19%) thoracoscopy, and 3 (8%) robotic-assisted. Conversion occurred in 17% (n = 2/12) of minimally invasive cases. All 37 achieved R0 resection. Pulmonary, cardiac, enteric, neurologic, and wound complications occurred in 9 (24%), 4 (11%), 2 (5%), 1 (3%), and 1 (3%) patient, respectively. The 30- and 90-day mortality rate was 0% and 2.7% (n = 1), respectively. Postoperative complication rates were comparable with lung resection upfront or after chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Operating after neoadjuvant N or NI is overall safe and effective and yields perioperative outcomes similar to those achieved after chemotherapy or upfront resection.

New Era for Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma: Updates on Therapeutic Options.

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a rare malignancy with few treatment options. Recent advances have led to US Food and Drug Administration approvals and changes in the standard of care with a novel biomedical device approved for use with platinum-pemetrexed, and also for immunotherapy agents to be included as a frontline treatment option in unresectable disease. Although predictive biomarkers for systemic therapy are not currently in use in clinical practice, it is essential to correctly identify the MPM histology to determine an optimal treatment plan. Patients with nonepithelioid MPM may have a greater magnitude of benefit to dual immunotherapy checkpoint inhibitors and this regimen should be preferred in the frontline setting for these patients. However, all patients with MPM can derive benefit from immunotherapy treatments, and these agents should ultimately be used at some point during their treatment journey. There are ongoing studies in the frontline unresectable setting that may further define the frontline therapy space, but a critical area of research will need to focus on the immunotherapy refractory population. This review article will describe the new developments in the areas of biology with genomics and chromothripsis, and also focus on updates in treatment strategies in radiology, surgery, radiation, and medical oncology with cellular therapies. These recent innovations are generating momentum to find better therapies for this disease.

Phase I Trial of Definitive Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy and Trametinib for KRAS-Mutated Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: This phase I trial (NCT01912625) evaluated the safety and pharmacokinetics of definitive concurrent chemoradiotherapy (cCRT) and the radiosensitizer trametinib (MEK1/2 inhibitor) for KRAS-mutated nonmetastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: Patients received cCRT (carboplatin/paclitaxel and 60 Gy/30 fractions radiotherapy); oral trametinib (7 days/week) commenced on day 1 and completed on the final day of radiotherapy. Dose-finding of trametinib was done using the time-to-event continual reassessment method (TiTE-CRM); dose levels were 0.5mg (level -1), 1mg (initial, level 1), 1.5mg (level 2), and 2mg (level 3). Progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) times were also recorded. RESULTS: Fifteen patients (stage III, variety of KRAS mutations) were treated, with 1/5/4/5 at dose levels -1/1/2/3, respectively. Five patients received dose reductions (n=2, levels 2 and 3; n=1, level 1). Twelve patients completed the full cCRT course. One patient (following 12d trametinib) was taken off protocol for an unrelated/unresolved grade 1 event and later experienced grade 5 sepsis/respiratory failure. There was one grade 4 retinal detachment; grade 3 events included skin rash (n=2) and ventricular dysfunction, pneumonitis, pain, fatigue, and diarrhea (n=1 each). The final dose selected by the TiTE-CRM of trametinib was 1.5 mg. Pharmacokinetic profiles were elucidated and extensively described. At median follow-up of 70 months, median PFS was 11 months and median OS was 38 months. CONCLUSIONS: The MTD for trametinib when combined with cCRT is 1.5 mg, with encouraging preliminary outcomes. This combination merits further study to combine with consolidation durvalumab in non-metastatic KRAS mutant NSCLC.