Structure-based classification predicts drug response in EGFR-mutant NSCLC.

Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations typically occur in exons 18-21 and are established driver mutations in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)1-3. Targeted therapies are approved for patients with 'classical' mutations and a small number of other mutations4-6. However, effective therapies have not been identified for additional EGFR mutations. Furthermore, the frequency and effects of atypical EGFR mutations on drug sensitivity are unknown1,3,7-10. Here we characterize the mutational landscape in 16,715 patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC, and establish the structure-function relationship of EGFR mutations on drug sensitivity. We found that EGFR mutations can be separated into four distinct subgroups on the basis of sensitivity and structural changes that retrospectively predict patient outcomes following treatment with EGFR inhibitors better than traditional exon-based groups. Together, these data delineate a structure-based approach for defining functional groups of EGFR mutations that can effectively guide treatment and clinical trial choices for patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC and suggest that a structure-function-based approach may improve the prediction of drug sensitivity to targeted therapies in oncogenes with diverse mutations.

Phase 1 trial of CV301 in combination with anti-PD-1 therapy in nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer.

CV301, a poxviral-based vaccine, has been evaluated in a phase 1 clinical trial (NCT02840994) and shown to be safe and immunologically active (phase 1a). Preclinical data support a combination of CV301 with programmed death-1 inhibitors, which has been evaluated in the phase 1b part of this trial and is reported here. Patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) without actionable genomic alterations received two priming doses of modified vaccinia Ankara-BN-CV301 (MVA) 4 weeks apart, followed by boosting doses of fowlpox-CV301 (FPV) at increasing time intervals for a maximum of 17 doses in combination with nivolumab for cohort 1 (C1) and 15 doses in combination with pembrolizumab for cohort 2 (C2). The primary objective was evaluation of safety and tolerability. Between October 2017 and September 14, 2018, patients were enrolled (C1: 4; median age: 64 years). Mean treatment duration was 332 days in C1 and 289 days in C2. CTCAE ≥grade 3 adverse events (AEs) were observed in four (100%) patients in C1 and three (37.5%) patients in C2. There was one death on trial. Immune-related AEs (irAEs) fulfilling criteria for a dose-limiting toxicity included 1 case of pneumonitis. Among 11 evaluable patients, 1 (9%) had a complete response, 1 (9%) had a partial response and 9 (82%) had stable disease. We conclude that CV301 administered with PD-1 inhibitors is safe and clinically active in patients with advanced NSCLC. The frequency or severity of AEs is not increased, including irAEs for each component of the combination.

Overall Survival with Osimertinib in Untreated, EGFR-Mutated Advanced NSCLC.

BACKGROUND: Osimertinib is a third-generation, irreversible tyrosine kinase inhibitor of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR-TKI) that selectively inhibits both EGFR-TKI-sensitizing and EGFR T790M resistance mutations. A phase 3 trial compared first-line osimertinib with other EGFR-TKIs in patients with EGFR mutation-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The trial showed longer progression-free survival with osimertinib than with the comparator EGFR-TKIs (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.46). Data from the final analysis of overall survival have not been reported. METHODS: In this trial, we randomly assigned 556 patients with previously untreated advanced NSCLC with an EGFR mutation (exon 19 deletion or L858R allele) in a 1:1 ratio to receive either osimertinib (80 mg once daily) or one of two other EGFR-TKIs (gefitinib at a dose of 250 mg once daily or erlotinib at a dose of 150 mg once daily, with patients receiving these drugs combined in a single comparator group). Overall survival was a secondary end point. RESULTS: The median overall survival was 38.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 34.5 to 41.8) in the osimertinib group and 31.8 months (95% CI, 26.6 to 36.0) in the comparator group (hazard ratio for death, 0.80; 95.05% CI, 0.64 to 1.00; P = 0.046). At 3 years, 79 of 279 patients (28%) in the osimertinib group and 26 of 277 (9%) in the comparator group were continuing to receive a trial regimen; the median exposure was 20.7 months and 11.5 months, respectively. Adverse events of grade 3 or higher were reported in 42% of the patients in the osimertinib group and in 47% of those in the comparator group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with previously untreated advanced NSCLC with an EGFR mutation, those who received osimertinib had longer overall survival than those who received a comparator EGFR-TKI. The safety profile for osimertinib was similar to that of the comparator EGFR-TKIs, despite a longer duration of exposure in the osimertinib group. (Funded by AstraZeneca; FLAURA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02296125.).

Qualitative Findings From a Survey on Patient Experiences and Satisfaction with Lung Cancer Screening.

BACKGROUND: To reveal successes and potential limitations of the lung cancer screening program, we conducted a survey that included both quantitative and open-ended questions to measure patient experiences and satisfaction with screening. METHODS: We report on the five open-ended items related to barriers to returning for screening, experience with other cancer prevention screenings, positive and negative experiences, and suggestions for improving future appointments. The open-ended responses were analyzed using constant comparison method and inductive content analysis. RESULTS: Respondents (182 patients, 86% response rate for open-ended questions) provided generally positive comments about their lung cancer screening experience. Negative comments were related to desire for more information about results, long wait times for results, and billing issues. Suggestions for improvements included: scheduling on-line appointments and text or email reminders, lower costs, and responding to uncertainty about eligibility criteria. CONCLUSION: Findings provide insights about patient experiences and satisfaction with lung cancer screening which is important given low uptake. Ongoing patient-centered feedback may improve the lung cancer screening experience and increase follow-up screening rates.

Goals and goal perceptions in patients with advanced stage lung cancer: a mixed methods study.

PURPOSE: Goals provide insight into what is important to an individual. We describe the development and application of a mixed methods approach to elicit goals and perceptions about goals in patients with advanced cancer. METHODS: Patients receiving first-line treatment for advanced lung cancer participated in semi-structured interviews about their goals. Participants self-generated goals, then selected and ranked their three most important goals and provided Likert scale ratings of goal-related perceptions (e.g., attainability, locus of control). Independent raters coded goals into content domains. One month later, participants reported perceived progress toward goals and facilitators of and barriers to progress. RESULTS: Participants (N = 75, Mage = 64.5 years, 59% female) identified goals across eight domains: social/role/relationship, everyday/practical, leisure/pleasure, psychological/existential/spiritual, major life changes or achievements, cancer treatment response/disease outcomes, palliative outcomes, and behavioral health improvement. Of all goals identified (N = 352), 72% of patients had at least one social/role/relationship goal, 68% had a leisure/pleasure goal, and 29% had a cancer treatment response goal. On average, participants considered their goals to be attainable, perceived a high degree of control over reaching goals, anticipated making "some" progress in the short term, and perceived a high likelihood of reaching goals in the future. Facilitators of progress included mental fortitude, feeling physically well, and social support. Barriers included cancer-related side effects, practical challenges, and COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: A majority of participant goals focused on meaningful engagement and living well. Goals were largely viewed as attainable and under participants' control. Cancer clinicians may consider how to support patients in working toward valued goals in conjunction with oncology care.

Osimertinib in Untreated EGFR-Mutated Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Osimertinib is an oral, third-generation, irreversible epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EGFR-TKI) that selectively inhibits both EGFR-TKI-sensitizing and EGFR T790M resistance mutations. We compared osimertinib with standard EGFR-TKIs in patients with previously untreated, EGFR mutation-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: In this double-blind, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 556 patients with previously untreated, EGFR mutation-positive (exon 19 deletion or L858R) advanced NSCLC in a 1:1 ratio to receive either osimertinib (at a dose of 80 mg once daily) or a standard EGFR-TKI (gefitinib at a dose of 250 mg once daily or erlotinib at a dose of 150 mg once daily). The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival. RESULTS: The median progression-free survival was significantly longer with osimertinib than with standard EGFR-TKIs (18.9 months vs. 10.2 months; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.46; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37 to 0.57; P<0.001). The objective response rate was similar in the two groups: 80% with osimertinib and 76% with standard EGFR-TKIs (odds ratio, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.90; P=0.24). The median duration of response was 17.2 months (95% CI, 13.8 to 22.0) with osimertinib versus 8.5 months (95% CI, 7.3 to 9.8) with standard EGFR-TKIs. Data on overall survival were immature at the interim analysis (25% maturity). The survival rate at 18 months was 83% (95% CI, 78 to 87) with osimertinib and 71% (95% CI, 65 to 76) with standard EGFR-TKIs (hazard ratio for death, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.88; P=0.007 [nonsignificant in the interim analysis]). Adverse events of grade 3 or higher were less frequent with osimertinib than with standard EGFR-TKIs (34% vs. 45%). CONCLUSIONS: Osimertinib showed efficacy superior to that of standard EGFR-TKIs in the first-line treatment of EGFR mutation-positive advanced NSCLC, with a similar safety profile and lower rates of serious adverse events. (Funded by AstraZeneca; FLAURA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02296125 .).

Overall Survival with Durvalumab after Chemoradiotherapy in Stage III NSCLC.

BACKGROUND: An earlier analysis in this phase 3 trial showed that durvalumab significantly prolonged progression-free survival, as compared with placebo, among patients with stage III, unresectable non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who did not have disease progression after concurrent chemoradiotherapy. Here we report the results for the second primary end point of overall survival. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients, in a 2:1 ratio, to receive durvalumab intravenously, at a dose of 10 mg per kilogram of body weight, or matching placebo every 2 weeks for up to 12 months. Randomization occurred 1 to 42 days after the patients had received chemoradiotherapy and was stratified according to age, sex, and smoking history. The primary end points were progression-free survival (as assessed by blinded independent central review) and overall survival. Secondary end points included the time to death or distant metastasis, the time to second progression, and safety. RESULTS: Of the 713 patients who underwent randomization, 709 received the assigned intervention (473 patients received durvalumab and 236 received placebo). As of March 22, 2018, the median follow-up was 25.2 months. The 24-month overall survival rate was 66.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 61.7 to 70.4) in the durvalumab group, as compared with 55.6% (95% CI, 48.9 to 61.8) in the placebo group (two-sided P=0.005). Durvalumab significantly prolonged overall survival, as compared with placebo (stratified hazard ratio for death, 0.68; 99.73% CI, 0.47 to 0.997; P=0.0025). Updated analyses regarding progression-free survival were similar to those previously reported, with a median duration of 17.2 months in the durvalumab group and 5.6 months in the placebo group (stratified hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.63). The median time to death or distant metastasis was 28.3 months in the durvalumab group and 16.2 months in the placebo group (stratified hazard ratio, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.68). A total of 30.5% of the patients in the durvalumab group and 26.1% of those in the placebo group had grade 3 or 4 adverse events of any cause; 15.4% and 9.8% of the patients, respectively, discontinued the trial regimen because of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Durvalumab therapy resulted in significantly longer overall survival than placebo. No new safety signals were identified. (Funded by AstraZeneca; PACIFIC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02125461 .).

Pembrolizumab plus Chemotherapy in Metastatic Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: First-line therapy for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) that lacks targetable mutations is platinum-based chemotherapy. Among patients with a tumor proportion score for programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) of 50% or greater, pembrolizumab has replaced cytotoxic chemotherapy as the first-line treatment of choice. The addition of pembrolizumab to chemotherapy resulted in significantly higher rates of response and longer progression-free survival than chemotherapy alone in a phase 2 trial. METHODS: In this double-blind, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned (in a 2:1 ratio) 616 patients with metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC without sensitizing EGFR or ALK mutations who had received no previous treatment for metastatic disease to receive pemetrexed and a platinum-based drug plus either 200 mg of pembrolizumab or placebo every 3 weeks for 4 cycles, followed by pembrolizumab or placebo for up to a total of 35 cycles plus pemetrexed maintenance therapy. Crossover to pembrolizumab monotherapy was permitted among the patients in the placebo-combination group who had verified disease progression. The primary end points were overall survival and progression-free survival, as assessed by blinded, independent central radiologic review. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 10.5 months, the estimated rate of overall survival at 12 months was 69.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 64.1 to 73.8) in the pembrolizumab-combination group versus 49.4% (95% CI, 42.1 to 56.2) in the placebo-combination group (hazard ratio for death, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.64; P<0.001). Improvement in overall survival was seen across all PD-L1 categories that were evaluated. Median progression-free survival was 8.8 months (95% CI, 7.6 to 9.2) in the pembrolizumab-combination group and 4.9 months (95% CI, 4.7 to 5.5) in the placebo-combination group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.64; P<0.001). Adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 67.2% of the patients in the pembrolizumab-combination group and in 65.8% of those in the placebo-combination group. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with previously untreated metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC without EGFR or ALK mutations, the addition of pembrolizumab to standard chemotherapy of pemetrexed and a platinum-based drug resulted in significantly longer overall survival and progression-free survival than chemotherapy alone. (Funded by Merck; KEYNOTE-189 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02578680 .).

Durvalumab after Chemoradiotherapy in Stage III Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Most patients with locally advanced, unresectable, non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have disease progression despite definitive chemoradiotherapy (chemotherapy plus concurrent radiation therapy). This phase 3 study compared the anti-programmed death ligand 1 antibody durvalumab as consolidation therapy with placebo in patients with stage III NSCLC who did not have disease progression after two or more cycles of platinum-based chemoradiotherapy. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients, in a 2:1 ratio, to receive durvalumab (at a dose of 10 mg per kilogram of body weight intravenously) or placebo every 2 weeks for up to 12 months. The study drug was administered 1 to 42 days after the patients had received chemoradiotherapy. The coprimary end points were progression-free survival (as assessed by means of blinded independent central review) and overall survival (unplanned for the interim analysis). Secondary end points included 12-month and 18-month progression-free survival rates, the objective response rate, the duration of response, the time to death or distant metastasis, and safety. RESULTS: Of 713 patients who underwent randomization, 709 received consolidation therapy (473 received durvalumab and 236 received placebo). The median progression-free survival from randomization was 16.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 13.0 to 18.1) with durvalumab versus 5.6 months (95% CI, 4.6 to 7.8) with placebo (stratified hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.65; P<0.001); the 12-month progression-free survival rate was 55.9% versus 35.3%, and the 18-month progression-free survival rate was 44.2% versus 27.0%. The response rate was higher with durvalumab than with placebo (28.4% vs. 16.0%; P<0.001), and the median duration of response was longer (72.8% vs. 46.8% of the patients had an ongoing response at 18 months). The median time to death or distant metastasis was longer with durvalumab than with placebo (23.2 months vs. 14.6 months; P<0.001). Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 29.9% of the patients who received durvalumab and 26.1% of those who received placebo; the most common adverse event of grade 3 or 4 was pneumonia (4.4% and 3.8%, respectively). A total of 15.4% of patients in the durvalumab group and 9.8% of those in the placebo group discontinued the study drug because of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Progression-free survival was significantly longer with durvalumab than with placebo. The secondary end points also favored durvalumab, and safety was similar between the groups. (Funded by AstraZeneca; PACIFIC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02125461 .).

Radiomics of 18F-FDG PET/CT images predicts clinical benefit of advanced NSCLC patients to checkpoint blockade immunotherapy.

INTRODUCTION: Immunotherapy has improved outcomes for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), yet durable clinical benefit (DCB) is experienced in only a fraction of patients. Here, we test the hypothesis that radiomics features from baseline pretreatment 18F-FDG PET/CT scans can predict clinical outcomes of NSCLC patients treated with checkpoint blockade immunotherapy. METHODS: This study included 194 patients with histologically confirmed stage IIIB-IV NSCLC with pretreatment PET/CT images. Radiomics features were extracted from PET, CT, and PET+CT fusion images based on minimum Kullback-Leibler divergence (KLD) criteria. The radiomics features from 99 retrospective patients were used to train a multiparametric radiomics signature (mpRS) to predict DCB using an improved least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) method, which was subsequently validated in both retrospective (N = 47) and prospective test cohorts (N = 48). Using these cohorts, the mpRS was also used to predict progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) by training nomogram models using multivariable Cox regression analyses with additional clinical characteristics incorporated. RESULTS: The mpRS could predict patients who will receive DCB, with areas under receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) of 0.86 (95%CI 0.79-0.94), 0.83 (95%CI 0.71-0.94), and 0.81 (95%CI 0.68-0.92) in the training, retrospective test, and prospective test cohorts, respectively. In the same three cohorts, respectively, nomogram models achieved C-indices of 0.74 (95%CI 0.68-0.80), 0.74 (95%CI 0.66-0.82), and 0.77 (95%CI 0.69-0.84) to predict PFS and C-indices of 0.83 (95%CI 0.77-0.88), 0.83 (95%CI 0.71-0.94), and 0.80 (95%CI 0.69-0.91) to predict OS. CONCLUSION: PET/CT-based signature can be used prior to initiation of immunotherapy to identify NSCLC patients most likely to benefit from immunotherapy. As such, these data may be leveraged to improve more precise and individualized decision support in the treatment of patients with advanced NSCLC.

Locally Advanced, Unresectable Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Treatment of locally advanced, unresectable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has recently been revolutionized by the incorporation of immunotherapy to standard platinum-based concurrent chemoradiation. This review examines the current standard practices and ongoing studies on the management of locally advanced, unresectable NSCLC. RECENT FINDINGS: Concurrent chemoradiation is the cornerstone of treatment of unresectable, locally advanced NSCLC. However, chemoradiation can be associated with high therapy-related toxicities, and risk of disease relapse remains significantly elevated despite treatment with curative intent. Durvalumab, a PD-L1 inhibitor, was recently approved as consolidation therapy following concurrent chemoradiation; this agent represents a major advancement in treatment of unresectable stage III NSCLC. Several clinical trials are currently underway to evaluate the benefit of different immunotherapy sequencing and other biomarker-driven strategies in this disease setting. Multiple trials are presently ongoing to assess novel immunotherapy and targeted therapy strategies to improve outcomes and decrease treatment-associated toxicities in patients with locally advanced NSCLC.

Patient-reported outcomes with durvalumab after chemoradiotherapy in stage III, unresectable non-small-cell lung cancer (PACIFIC): a randomised, controlled, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: In the ongoing, phase 3 PACIFIC trial, durvalumab improved the primary endpoints of progression-free survival and overall survival compared with that for placebo, with similar safety, in patients with unresectable, stage III non-small-cell lung cancer. In this analysis, we aimed to evaluate one of the secondary endpoints, patient-reported outcomes (PROs). METHODS: PACIFIC is an ongoing, international, multicentre, double-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial. Eligible patients were aged at least 18 years, had a WHO performance status of 0 or 1, with histologically or cytologically documented stage III, unresectable non-small-cell lung cancer, for which they had received at least two cycles of platinum-based chemoradiotherapy, with no disease progression after this treatment. We randomly assigned patients (2:1) using an interactive voice response system and a blocked design (block size=3) stratified by age, sex, and smoking history to receive 10 mg/kg intravenous durvalumab or matching placebo 1-42 days after concurrent chemoradiotherapy, then every 2 weeks up to 12 months. The primary endpoints of progression-free survival and overall survival have been reported previously. PROs were a prespecified secondary outcome. We assessed PRO symptoms, functioning, and global health status or quality of life in the intention-to-treat population with the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (QLQ-C30) version 3 and its lung cancer module, the Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lung Cancer 13 (QLQ-LC13) at the time of random allocation to groups, at weeks 4 and 8, every 8 weeks until week 48, and then every 12 weeks until progression. Changes from baseline to 12 month in key symptoms were analysed with mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) and time-to-event analyses. A 10-point or greater change from baseline (deterioration or improvement) was deemed clinically relevant. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02125461, and EudraCT, 2014-000336-42. FINDINGS: Between May 9, 2014, and April 22, 2016, 476 patients were assigned to receive durvalumab, and 237 patients were assigned to receive placebo. As of March 22, 2018, the median follow-up was 25·2 months (IQR 14·1-29·5). More than 79% of patients given durvalumab and more than 82% of patients given placebo completed questionnaires up to week 48. Between baseline and 12 months, the prespecified longitudinal PROs of interest, cough (MMRM-adjusted mean change 1·8 [95% CI 0·06 to 3·54] in the durvalumab group vs 0·7 [-1·91 to 3·30] in the placebo group), dyspnoea (3·1 [1·75 to 4·36] vs 1·4 [-0·51 to 3·34]), chest pain (-3·1 [-4·57 to -1·60] vs -3·5 [-5·68 to -1·29]), fatigue (-3·0 [-4·53 to -1·50] vs -5·2 [-7·45 to -2·98]), appetite loss (-5·8 [-7·28 to -4·36] vs -7·0 [-9·17 to -4·87]), physical functioning (0·1 [-1·10 to 1·28] vs 2·0 [0·22 to 3·73]), and global health status or quality of life (2·6 [1·21 to 3·94] vs 1·8 [-0·25 to 3·81]) remained stable with both treatments, with no clinically relevant changes from baseline. The between-group differences in changes from baseline to 12 months in cough (difference in adjusted mean changes 1·1, 95% CI -1·89 to 4·11), dyspnoea (1·6, -0·58 to 3·87), chest pain (0·4, -2·13 to 2·93), fatigue (2·2, -0·38 to 4·78), appetite loss (1·2, -1·27 to 3·67), physical functioning (-1·9, -3·91 to 0·15), or global health status or quality of life (0·8, -1·55 to 3·14) were not clinically relevant. Generally, there were no clinically important between-group differences in time to deterioration of prespecified key PRO endpoints. INTERPRETATION: Our findings suggest that a clinical benefit with durvalumab can be attained without compromising PROs. This result is of note because the previous standard of care was observation alone, with no presumed detriment to PROs. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

Phase 1 trial of dasatinib combined with afatinib for epidermal growth factor receptor- (EGFR-) mutated lung cancer with acquired tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) resistance.

BACKGROUND: Bypass activation of Src family kinases can confer resistance to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) based on preclinical models. We prospectively assessed the safety and clinical activity of dasatinib and afatinib in combination for patients with resistant EGFR-mutant lung cancer. METHODS: An open-label, dose-escalation phase 1/2 trial (NCT01999985) with 2-stage expansion was conducted with 25 lung cancer patients. Dose expansion required activating EGFR mutations and progression following prior EGFR TKI. RESULTS: Patients were 72% Caucasian and received median of 2 prior lines of therapy. Maximum-tolerated dose was 30 mg afatinib with 100 mg dasatinib. New or increased pleural effusions were observed in 56% of patients. No radiologic responses were observed, although several EGFR-mutant TKI-resistant patients (26%) had prolonged stable disease over 6 months. The combination reduced the EGFR mutation and T790M variant allele frequency in cell-free DNA (p < .05). Nonetheless, the threshold for futility was met, based on 6-month progression-free survival. For EGFR TKI-resistant patients, median progression-free survival was 3.7 months (95% confidence interval (CI), 2.3-5.0) and overall survival was 14.7 months (95% CI, 8.5-20.9). CONCLUSIONS: The combination had a manageable toxicity profile and in vivo T790M modulation, but no objective clinical responses were observed.

Randomized-controlled phase II trial of salvage chemotherapy after immunization with a TP53-transfected dendritic cell-based vaccine (Ad.p53-DC) in patients with recurrent small cell lung cancer.

Small cell lung cancer TP53 mutations lead to expression of tumor antigens that elicits specific cytotoxic T-cell immune responses. In this phase II study, dendritic cells transfected with wild-type TP53 (vaccine) were administered to patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer after chemotherapy. Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to arm A (observation), arm B (vaccine alone), or arm C (vaccine plus all-trans-retinoic acid). Vaccine was administered every 2 weeks (3 times), and all patients were to receive paclitaxel at progression. Our primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR) to paclitaxel. The study was not designed to detect overall response rate differences between arms. Of 69 patients enrolled (performance status 0/1, median age 62 years), 55 were treated in stage 1 (18 in arm A, 20 in arm B, and 17 in arm C) and 14 in stage 2 (arm C only), per 2-stage Simon Minimax design. The vaccine was safe, with mostly grade 1/2 toxicities, although 1 arm-B patient experienced grade 3 fatigue and 8 arm-C patients experienced grade 3 toxicities. Positive immune responses were obtained in 20% of arm B (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.3-48.6) and 43.3% of arm C (95% CI 23.9-65.1). The ORRs to the second-line chemotherapy (including paclitaxel) were 15.4% (95% CI 2.7-46.3), 16.7% (95% CI 2.9-49.1), and 23.8% (95% CI 9.1-47.5) for arms A, B, and C, with no survival differences between arms. Although our vaccine failed to improve ORRs to the second-line chemotherapy, its safety profile and therapeutic immune potential remain. Combinations with the other immunotherapeutic agents are reasonable options.

Loneliness as a mediator of the relationship of social cognitive variables with depressive symptoms and quality of life in lung cancer patients beginning treatment.

OBJECTIVE: Loneliness, or the discrepancy between perceived and desired level of social connectedness, is an understudied but important psychosocial factor in cancer patients. The current study investigated the relationship between loneliness, depressive symptoms, quality of life, and social cognitive variables (eg, stigma, social constraint, and cancer-related negative social expectations), and explored loneliness as a mediator of the relationship between social cognitive variables and depressive symptoms and quality of life in lung cancer patients beginning treatment. METHODS: Patients within 3 months of beginning treatment for lung cancer completed measures of loneliness, depressive symptoms, quality of life, and social cognitive variables. Correlational, chi-square, and hierarchical regression analyses evaluated relationships among variables. Bias-corrected bootstrapping methods estimated the indirect effect and 95% confidence interval for mediation models. RESULTS: Participants (n = 105, M = 65.5 years, 55% female) endorsed low to moderate levels of loneliness. Greater loneliness was associated with greater depressive symptoms and worse quality of life (P's < .001), and loneliness explained unique variance in depressive symptoms (F = 10.18, P < .001, ΔR2  = .06, Total R2  = .35) and quality of life (F = 19.55, P < .001, ΔR2  = .05, Total R2  = .52) after controlling for significant covariates. Greater stigma, social constraint, and cancer-related negative social expectations were associated with greater loneliness and depressive symptoms and worse quality of life (P's < .001). Loneliness partially mediated the relationship of social cognitive variables with depressive symptoms and quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: Beyond its direct impact on clinically relevant outcomes, the experience of loneliness may be a mechanism by which social cognitive factors influence depressive symptoms and quality of life in lung cancer patients.

Durvalumab as third-line or later treatment for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (ATLANTIC): an open-label, single-arm, phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors are a new standard of care for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) without EGFR tyrosine kinase or anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) genetic aberrations (EGFR-/ALK-), but clinical benefit in patients with EGFR mutations or ALK rearrangements (EGFR+/ALK+) has not been shown. We assessed the effect of durvalumab (anti-PD-L1) treatment in three cohorts of patients with NSCLC defined by EGFR/ALK status and tumour expression of PD-L1. METHODS: ATLANTIC is a phase 2, open-label, single-arm trial at 139 study centres in Asia, Europe, and North America. Eligible patients had advanced NSCLC with disease progression following at least two previous systemic regimens, including platinum-based chemotherapy (and tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy if indicated); were aged 18 years or older; had a WHO performance status score of 0 or 1; and measurable disease per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1. Key exclusion criteria included mixed small-cell lung cancer and NSCLC histology; previous exposure to any anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 antibody; and any previous grade 3 or worse immune-related adverse event while receiving any immunotherapy agent. Patients in cohort 1 had EGFR+/ALK+ NSCLC with at least 25%, or less than 25%, of tumour cells with PD-L1 expression. Patients in cohorts 2 and 3 had EGFR-/ALK- NSCLC; cohort 2 included patients with at least 25%, or less than 25%, of tumour cells with PD-L1 expression, and cohort 3 included patients with at least 90% of tumour cells with PD-L1 expression. Patients received durvalumab (10 mg/kg) every 2 weeks, via intravenous infusion, for up to 12 months. Retreatment was allowed for patients who benefited but then progressed after completing 12 months. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with increased tumour expression of PD-L1 (defined as ≥25% of tumour cells in cohorts 1 and 2, and ≥90% of tumour cells in cohort 3) who achieved an objective response, assessed in patients who were evaluable for response per independent central review according to RECIST version 1.1. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of durvalumab and for whom any post-dose data were available. The trial is ongoing, but is no longer open to accrual, and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02087423. FINDINGS: Between Feb 25, 2014, and Dec 28, 2015, 444 patients were enrolled and received durvalumab: 111 in cohort 1, 265 in cohort 2, and 68 in cohort 3. Among patients with at least 25% of tumour cells expressing PD-L1 who were evaluable for objective response per independent central review, an objective response was achieved in 9 (12·2%, 95% CI 5·7-21·8) of 74 patients in cohort 1 and 24 (16·4%, 10·8-23·5) of 146 patients in cohort 2. In cohort 3, 21 (30·9%, 20·2-43·3) of 68 patients achieved an objective response. Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 40 (9%) of 444 patients overall: six (5%) of 111 patients in cohort 1, 22 (8%) of 265 in cohort 2, and 12 (18%) of 68 in cohort 3. The most common treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events were pneumonitis (four patients [1%]), elevated gamma-glutamyltransferase (four [1%]), diarrhoea (three [1%]), infusion-related reaction (three [1%]), elevated aspartate aminotransferase (two [<1%]), elevated transaminases (two [<1%]), vomiting (two [<1%]), and fatigue (two [<1%]). Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in 27 (6%) of 444 patients overall: five (5%) of 111 patients in cohort 1, 14 (5%) of 265 in cohort 2, and eight (12%) of 68 in cohort 3. The most common serious adverse events overall were pneumonitis (five patients [1%]), fatigue (three [1%]), and infusion-related reaction (three [1%]). Immune-mediated events were manageable with standard treatment guidelines. INTERPRETATION: In patients with advanced and heavily pretreated NSCLC, the clinical activity and safety profile of durvalumab was consistent with that of other anti-PD-1 and anti-PD-L1 agents. Responses were recorded in all cohorts; the proportion of patients with EGFR-/ALK- NSCLC (cohorts 2 and 3) achieving a response was higher than the proportion with EGFR+/ALK+ NSCLC (cohort 1) achieving a response. The clinical activity of durvalumab in patients with EGFR+ NSCLC with ≥25% of tumour cells expressing PD-L1 was encouraging, and further investigation of durvalumab in patients with EGFR+/ALK+ NSCLC is warranted. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

A phase I/randomized phase II study of GM.CD40L vaccine in combination with CCL21 in patients with advanced lung adenocarcinoma.

The GM.CD40L vaccine, which recruits and activates dendritic cells, migrates to lymph nodes, activating T cells and leading to systemic tumor cell killing. When combined with the CCL21 chemokine, which recruits T cells and enhances T-cell responses, additive effects have been demonstrated in non-small cell lung cancer mouse models. Here, we compared GM.CD40L versus GM.CD40L plus CCL21 (GM.CD40L.CCL21) in lung adenocarcinoma patients with ≥ 1 line of treatment. In this phase I/II randomized trial (NCT01433172), patients received intradermal vaccines every 14 days (3 doses) and then monthly (3 doses). A two-stage minimax design was used. During phase I, no dose-limiting toxicities were shown in three patients who received GM.CD40L.CCL21. During phase II, of evaluable patients, 5/33 patients (15.2%) randomized for GM.DCD40L (p = .023) and 3/32 patients (9.4%) randomized for GM.DCD40L.CCL21 (p = .20) showed 6-month progression-free survival. Median overall survival was 9.3 versus 9.5 months with GM.DCD40L versus GM.DCD40L.CCL21 (95% CI 0.70-2.25; p = .44). For GM.CD40L versus GM.CD40L.CCL21, the most common treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were grade 1/2 injection site reaction (51.4% versus 61.1%) and grade 1/2 fatigue (35.1% versus 47.2%). Grade 1 immune-mediated TRAEs were isolated to skin. No patients showed evidence of pseudo-progression or immune-related TRAEs of grade 1 or greater of pneumonitis, endocrinopathy, or colitis, and none discontinued treatment due to toxicity. Although we found no significant associations between vaccine immunogenicity and outcomes, in limited biopsies, one patient treated with GMCD40L.CCL21 displayed abundant tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes. This possible effectiveness warrants further investigation of GM.CD40L in combination approaches.

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Early-Stage and Locally Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

OPINION STATEMENT: Surgical resection ± chemotherapy ± radiation or stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) are established treatment modalities for resectable stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and concurrent chemotherapy with radiation is the therapy of choice for unresectable locally advanced disease. Despite treatment with curative intent, most patients subsequently relapse and develop distant disease. Treatment with checkpoint inhibitors represents a major advancement in the treatment of metastatic NSCLC. Therapy against programed cell death-1/programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-1/PD-L1) is associated with a significant improvement in overall survival in stage IV disease, and these results have led to a great interest in evaluating these agents in earlier-stage NSCLC. The preliminary data from ongoing trials suggest that the integration of checkpoint blockage into the treatment of early-stage and locally advanced NSCLC is safe, tolerable, and has the potential to improve outcomes without adding substantial toxicity. In the current review, we provide an overview of the emerging data on the role of PD-1/PD-L1 and cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) inhibitors in the treatment of early-stage and locally advanced NSCLC, with a focus on ongoing clinical trials and combination strategies.

Prediction of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting from patient-reported and genetic risk factors.

PURPOSE: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is common among cancer patients. Early identification of patients at risk for CINV may help to personalize anti-emetic therapies. To date, few studies have examined the combined contributions of patient-reported and genetic risk factors to CINV. The goal of this study was to evaluate these risk factors. METHODS: Prior to their first chemotherapy infusion, participants completed demographic and risk factor questionnaires and provided a blood sample to measure genetic variants in ABCB1 (rs1045642) and HTR3B (rs45460698) as well as CYP2D6 activity score. The M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory was completed at 24 h and 5-day post-infusion to assess the severity of acute and delayed CINV, respectively. RESULTS: Participants were 88 patients (55% female, M = 60 years). A total of 23% experienced acute nausea and 55% delayed nausea. Younger age, history of pregnancy-related nausea, fewer hours slept the night prior to infusion, and variation in ABCB1 were associated with more severe acute nausea; advanced-stage cancer and receipt of highly emetogenic chemotherapy were associated with more severe delayed nausea (p values < 0.05). In multivariable analyses, ABCB1 added an additional 5% predictive value beyond the 13% variance explained by patient-reported risk factors. CONCLUSIONS: The current study identified patient-reported and genetic factors that may place patients at risk for acute nausea despite receipt of guideline-consistent anti-emetic prophylaxis. Additional studies examining other genetic variants are needed, as well as the development of risk prediction models including both patient-reported and genetic risk factors.