Search

Background Oncolytic virus V937 showed activity and safety with intratumoral administration. This phase 1 study evaluated intravenous V937±pembrolizumab in patients with advanced solid tumors.Methods Patients had advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), urothelial cancer, metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, or melanoma in part A (V937 monotherapy), and metastatic NSCLC or urothelial cancer in part B (V937+pembrolizumab). Prior immunotherapy was permitted >28 days before study treatment. Patients received intravenous V937 on days 1, 3, and 5 (also on day 8 in part B) of the first 21-day cycle and on day 1 of subsequent cycles for eight cycles. Three ascending dose-escalation cohorts were studied. Dose-escalation proceeded if no dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) occurred in cycle 1 of the previous cohort. In part B, patients also received pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks from day 8 for 2 years; dose-expansion occurred at the highest-dose cohort. Serial biopsies were performed.Results No DLTs occurred in parts A (n=18) or B (n=85). Grade 3–5 treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were not observed in part A and were experienced by 10 (12%) patients in part B. The most frequent treatment-related AEs (any grade) in part B were fatigue (36%), pruritus (18%), myalgia (14%), diarrhea (13%), pyrexia (13%), influenza-like illness (12%), and nausea (12%). At the highest tested dose, median intratumoral V937 concentrations were 117,631 copies/mL on day 8, cycle 1 in part A (n=6) and below the detection limit for most patients (86% (19/22)) on day 15, cycle 1 in part B. Objective response rates were 6% (part A), 9% in the NSCLC dose-expansion cohort (n=43), and 20% in the urothelial cancer dose-expansion cohort (n=35).Conclusions Intravenous V937+pembrolizumab had a manageable safety profile. Although V937 was detected in tumor tissue, in NSCLC and urothelial cancer, efficacy was not greater than that observed in previous studies with pembrolizumab monotherapy.Trial registration number NCT02043665.

Introduction Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer mortality, comprising the largest national cancer disease burden in Australia and New Zealand. Regional reports identify substantial evidence-practice gaps, unwarranted variation from best practice, and variation in processes and outcomes of care between treating centres. The Australia and New Zealand Lung Cancer Registry (ANZLCR) will be developed as a Clinical Quality Registry to monitor the safety, quality and effectiveness of lung cancer care in Australia and New Zealand.Methods and analysis Patient participants will include all adults >18 years of age with a new diagnosis of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), SCLC, thymoma or mesothelioma. The ANZLCR will register confirmed diagnoses using opt-out consent. Data will address key patient, disease, management processes and outcomes reported as clinical quality indicators. Electronic data collection facilitated by local data collectors and local, state and federal data linkage will enhance completeness and accuracy. Data will be stored and maintained in a secure web-based data platform overseen by registry management. Central governance with binational representation from consumers, patients and carers, governance, administration, health department, health policy bodies, university research and healthcare workers will provide project oversight.Ethics and dissemination The ANZLCR has received national ethics approval under the National Mutual Acceptance scheme. Data will be routinely reported to participating sites describing performance against measures of agreed best practice and nationally to stakeholders including federal, state and territory departments of health. Local, regional and (bi)national benchmarks, augmented with online dashboard indicator reporting will enable local targeting of quality improvement efforts.

Lung adenocarcinomas frequently harbour KRAS mutations, of which a subset are characterized by co-mutation of KEAP1. Here the authors show, in mice, that Kras G12D mutant tumours are metabolically distinct, with a bronchiolar cell-of-origin.

Background: Prehabilitation to maximize exercise capacity before lung cancer surgery has the potential to improve operative tolerability and patient outcomes. However, translation of this evidence into clinical practice is limited. Aims: To determine the acceptability and perceived benefit of prehabilitation in lung cancer among thoracic surgeons. Procedure: 198 cardiothoracic surgeons within Australia and New Zealand were surveyed to evaluate their attitudes and perceived benefits of prehabilitation in lung cancer. Results: Response rate was 14%. A moderate proportion of respondents reported that there is a need to refer lung resection patients to preoperative physiotherapy/prehabilitation, particularly high-risk patients or those with borderline fitness for surgery. 91% of surgeons were willing to delay surgery (as indicated by cancer stage/type) to optimize patients via prehabilitation. The main barriers to prehabilitation reported were patient comorbidities and access to allied health professionals, with 33% stating that they were unsure who to refer to for prehabilitation in thoracic surgery. This is despite 60% of the cohort reporting that pulmonary rehabilitation is available as a preoperative resource. 92% of respondents believe that further research into prehabilitation in lung cancer is warranted. Conclusion: The benefits of prehabilitation for the oncology population have been well documented in the literature over recent years and this is reflected in the perceptions surgeons had on the benefits of prehabilitation for their patients. This survey demonstrates an interest among cardiothoracic surgeons in favor of prehabilitation, and therefore further research and demonstration of its benefit is needed in lung cancer to facilitate implementation into practice.