Search

Background: Several rare surfactant-related gene (SRG) variants associated with interstitial lung disease are suspected to be associated with lung cancer, but data are missing. We aimed to study the epidemiology and phenotype of lung cancer in an international cohort of SRG variant carriers., Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study of all adults with SRG variants in the OrphaLung network and compared lung cancer risk with telomere-related gene (TRG) variant carriers., Results: We identified 99 SRG adult variant carriers ( SFTPA1 (n=18), SFTPA2 (n=31), SFTPC (n=24), ABCA3 (n=14) and NKX2-1 (n=12)), including 20 (20.2%) with lung cancer ( SFTPA1 (n=7), SFTPA2 (n=8), SFTPC (n=3), NKX2-1 (n=2) and ABCA3 (n=0)). Among SRG variant carriers, the odds of lung cancer was associated with age (OR 1.04, 95% CI 1.01-1.08), smoking (OR 20.7, 95% CI 6.60-76.2) and SFTPA1 / SFTPA2 variants (OR 3.97, 95% CI 1.39-13.2). Adenocarcinoma was the only histological type reported, with programmed death ligand-1 expression ≥1% in tumour cells in three samples. Cancer staging was localised (I/II) in eight (40%) individuals, locally advanced (III) in two (10%) and metastatic (IV) in 10 (50%). We found no somatic variant eligible for targeted therapy. Seven cancers were surgically removed, 10 received systemic therapy, and three received the best supportive care according to their stage and performance status. The median overall survival was 24 months, with stage I/II cancers showing better survival. We identified 233 TRG variant carriers. The comparative risk (subdistribution hazard ratio) for lung cancer in SRG patients versus TRG patients was 18.1 (95% CI 7.1-44.7)., Conclusions: The high risk of lung cancer among SRG variant carriers suggests specific screening and diagnostic and therapeutic challenges. The benefit of regular computed tomography scan follow-up should be evaluated., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: P. Bonniaud reports grants from AstraZeneca, lecture honoraria from Sanofi and AstraZeneca, travel support from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Sanofi, Boehringer and Stallergenes, and advisory board membership with AstraZeneca, Novartis, Sanofi, GSK and Boehringer. J. Cadranel had a patent planned, received consulting fees and participated on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Daichi, Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, MSD, Roche and Takeda. A. Cazes reports lecture honoraria and travel support from Boehringer Ingelheim. B. Crestani reports grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, consulting fees from Apellis, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim and Sanofi, lecture honoraria from Apellis, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis and Sanofi, support for attending meetings or travel from AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim and Sanofi, participated on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Apellis, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim and Sanofi, and had a leadership role as President of the Board of Trustees of the Fondation du Souffle. R. Epaud reports consulting fees from AstraZeneca, lecture honoraria from GSK, AstraZeneca and Menarini, travel support from GSK and AstraZeneca, and advisory board membership with AstraZeneca and Novartis. M-P. Debray reports lecture honoraria and travel support from Boehringer Ingelheim. E. Manali reports lecture honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim, CLS Behring and Hoffman-La Roche, support for attending meetings or travel from Boehringer Ingelheim, CLS Behring, Hoffman-La Roche and Elpen, and had a leadership role as a Chair in the ERS Task Force for transition of chILD to adult care. S. Papiris reports lecture honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim and Hoffmann-La Roche, and travel support from Boehringer Ingelheim and Elpen. N. Nathan reports grants from Legs poix de la Chancellerie des Universités 2022 (number 2022000594). C. Andréjak participated on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for the EVER-ILD2 study (rituximab in diffuse interstitial pneumonia) and received funding via a grant from the French Research Ministry. S. Jouneau reports grants from AIRB, Boehringer Ingelheim and Roche, lecture honoraria from AIRB, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Genzyme, GSK, LVL, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and Sanofi, travel support from Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche and AIRB, and advisory board participation for Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK and Sanofi. G. Beltramo reports lecture honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, and support for attending meetings or travel from Sanofi Aventis France and Boehringer Ingelheim France. S. Hirschi reports research grants from Agence de la Biomedécine, CSL Behring and Adiral medical assistance, lecture honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim, travel support from CSL Behring, Boehringer Ingelheim and ISIS Medical, and received medical equipment from ISIS Medical. C. Picard reports lecture honoraria and consulting fees from Boehringer Ingelheim. G. Prévot reports honoraria for presentations and educational event from Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Jansen and MSD. G. Zalcman reports consulting fees from AstraZeneca, BMS, Pfizer and Sanofi, lecture honoraria from BMS, AstraZeneca and Sanofi, support for attending meetings or travel from AstraZeneca and BMS, and participated on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for AstraZeneca and BMS. V. Cottin reports grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene/BMS, CSL Behring, Ferrer/United Therapeutics, GSK, Pliant, Pure Tech, RedX, Roche, Sanofi and Shionogi, lecture honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim, Ferrer/United Therapeutics and Roche, support for attending meetings or travel from Boehringer Ingelheim and Roche, participated on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Galapagos, Galecto and GSK, and had a leadership role in an adjudication committee for Fibrogen. R. Borie reports consulting fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Ferrer and Sanofi, lecture honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim and Roche, travel support from Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche and Chiesi, and advisory board participation for Savara. The remaining authors have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright ©The authors 2024.)

Background: 3-9% of low-grade preinvasive bronchial lesions progress to cancer. This study assessed the usefulness of an intensive bronchoscopy surveillance strategy in patients with bronchial lesions up to moderate squamous dysplasia., Methods: SELEPREBB (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00213603) was a randomised study conducted in 17 French centres. After baseline lung computed tomography (CT) and autofluorescence bronchoscopy (AFB) to exclude lung cancer and bronchial severe squamous dysplasia or carcinoma in situ (CIS), patients were assigned to standard surveillance (arm A) with CT and AFB at 36 months or to intensive surveillance (arm B) with AFB every 6 months. Further long-term data were obtained with a median follow-up of 4.7 years., Results: 364 patients were randomised (A: 180, B: 184). 27 patients developed invasive lung cancer and two developed persistent CIS during the study, with no difference between arms (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.20-1.96, p=0.42). Mild or moderate dysplasia at baseline bronchoscopy was a significant lung cancer risk factor both at 3 years (8 of 74 patients, OR 6.9, 95% CI 2.5-18.9, p<0.001) and at maximum follow-up (16 of 74 patients, OR 5.9, 95% CI 2.9-12.0, p<0.001). Smoking cessation was significantly associated with clearance of bronchial dysplasia on follow-up (OR 0.12, 95% CI 0.01-0.66, p=0.005) and with a reduced risk of lung cancer at 5 years (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.003-0.99, p=0.04)., Conclusion: Patients with mild or moderate dysplasia are at very high risk for lung cancer at 5 years, with smoking cessation significantly reducing the risk. Whereas intensive bronchoscopy surveillance does not improve patient outcomes, the identification of bronchial dysplasia using initial bronchoscopy maybe useful for risk stratification strategies in lung cancer screening programmes., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: All authors report payment for study completion to participating institutions from the French Ministry of Health (PHRC National). In addition, within the 36 months prior to manuscript submission: S. Lachkar reports consulting fees and payment or honoraria from Olympus, Fuji and TSC; payment or honoraria from Merck Sharp & Dohme; and participation on a data safety monitoring or advisory board for Boston Scientific. P. Hofman reports consulting fees, payment or honoraria and participation on data safety or advisory boards from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, Pfizer, Bayer, Novartis, Illumina, Thermo Fisher, AbbVie, Biocartis and Lilly. G. Zalcman reports consulting fees from Bristol Myers Squibb and AstraZeneca, paid to their institution, and support for attending meetings or travel from AstraZeneca (ASCO 2019), Bristol Myers Squibb (ESMO 2018 and 2019) and AbbVie (ASCO 2019). All other authors declare no additional competing interests., (Copyright ©The authors 2022. For reproduction rights and permissions contact permissions@ersnet.org.)

ALK rearrangement and EGFR / KRAS mutations constitute the primary biomarkers tested to provide targeted or nontargeted therapies in advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. Our objective was to assess the cost-effectiveness of biomarker testing for NSCLC.Between 2013 and 2014, 843 treatment-naive patients were prospectively recruited at 19 French hospitals into a longitudinal observational cohort study. Two testing strategies were compared, i.e. with "at least one biomarker status known" and "at least KRAS status known", in addition to "no biomarker testing" as the reference strategy. The Kaplan-Meier approach was employed to assess restricted mean survival time. Direct medical costs incurred by hospitals were estimated with regard to treatment, inpatient care and biomarker testing.Compared with "no biomarker testing", the "at least one biomarker status known" strategy yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of EUR13 230 per life-year saved, which decreased to EUR7444 per life-year saved with the "at least KRAS status known" testing strategy. In sensitivity analyses, biomarker testing strategies were less costly and more effective in 41% of iterations.In summary, molecular testing prior to treatment initiation proves to be cost-effective in advanced NSCLC management and may assist decision makers in defining conditions for further implementation of these innovations in general practice., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: D. Moro-Sibilot has received personal fees from Eli Lilly, Roche, Pfizer, Ariad, Boehringer, AstraZeneca, Novartis, MSD and BMS, outside the submitted work. S. Friard has received nonfinancial support from Roche, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer, Lilly, Novartis and Pfizer, outside the submitted work. M. Wislez has received grants from BMS Fondation, nonfinancial support from Roche, personal fees and nonfinancial support from Lilly and Boehringer Ingelheim, and personal fees from AstraZeneca, MSD and BMS, outside the submitted work. V. Westeel has received personal fees (speaker's bureau, advisory role, meeting expenses) from Lilly, personal fees (speaker's bureau, advisory role, meeting expenses, research funding) from Roche, personal fees (speaker's bureau, advisory role) from AstraZeneca and personal fees (speaker's bureau, meeting expenses, research funding) from Boehringer Ingelheim, outside the submitted work. H. Léna has received grants and nonfinancial support from Roche, personal fees from AstraZeneca, Merck, Pierre Fabre Oncology, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Boehringer Ingelheim, and personal fees and nonfinancial support from Pfizer and Lilly, outside the submitted work. G. Zalcman has received grants, personal fees and acted as an investigator in clinical trials for Roche and Pfizer, and has acted as an investigator in clinical trials for AstraZeneca, Boehringer and GSK, during the conduct of the study; and has received grants and acted as an investigator in clinical trials for BMS and Roche, outside the submitted work. M. Antoine has received personal fees (for board participation) from Roche and MSD, outside the submitted work. F. Barlesi has received personal fees from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Clovis Oncology, Eli Lilly Oncology, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Novartis, Merck, MSD, Pierre Fabre and Pfizer, outside the submitted work. J. Cadranel has received grants (for research in ALK immune response) and personal fees (for participation on the board of clinical trials) from Pfizer, grants (for research in NGS) and personal fees (for participation on the board of clinical trials) from Novartis and AstraZeneca, and personal fees (for participation on the board of clinical trials) from Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS and Lilly, outside the submitted work., (Copyright ©ERS 2018.)

Epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) are approved for second-line treatment of EGFR wild-type ( EGFR -wt) nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, results from randomised trials performed to compare EGFR-TKIs with chemotherapy in this population did not show any survival benefit. In the era of immunotherapy, many drugs are approved for second-line treatment of EGFR- wt NSCLC and there is a need to reassess the role of EGFR-TKIs in this setting.The Biomarkers France study is a large nationwide cohort of NSCLC patients tested for EGFR mutations. We used this database to collect clinical, biological, treatment and outcome data on EGFR- wt patients who received second-line treatment with either EGFR-TKIs or chemotherapy.Among 1278 patients, 868 received chemotherapy and 410 received an EGFR-TKI. Median overall survival and progression-free survival were longer with chemotherapy than with an EGFR-TKI. Overall survival was 8.38 versus 4.99 months, respectively (hazard ratio 0.70, 95% CI 0.59-0.83; p<0.0001) and progression-free survival was 4.30 versus 2.83 months, respectively (hazard ratio 0.66, 95% CI 0.57-0.77; p<0.0001).This study is helpful to guide a multiline treatment strategy for EGFR- wt NSCLC patients. Immunotherapy is approved for second-line treatment. For third-line treatment, chemotherapy results in longer overall survival and progression-free survival, and should be preferred to EGFR-TKIs., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: Disclosures can be found alongside this article at erj.ersjournals.com, (Copyright ©ERS 2017.)

In the Intergroupe Francophone de Cancérologie Thoracique 0501 trial the carboplatin-paclitaxel chemotherapy increased toxicity (most frequent, decreased neutrophil count, asthenia). We longitudinally compared health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of the two treatment arms.In total, 451 patients aged 70-89 years with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) were randomly assigned to receive carboplatin plus paclitaxel or vinorelbine or gemcitabine. HRQoL was assessed by means of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 questionnaire at baseline, week 6 and week 18.Using a five-point decrease as the minimal clinically important difference, patients treated with the chemotherapy doublet exhibited a significant longer time until definitive deterioration (TUDD) for two HRQoL dimensions: physical functioning (median TUDD: 2.04 for the doublet versus 1.71 months for monotherapy; log-rank p=0.01) and nausea and vomiting (median: not reached versus 4.83, respectively; log-rank p=0.046). Cox multivariate analysis revealed the carboplatin and paclitaxel arm to be independently associated with longer TUDD for these two HRQoL dimensions. In addition, TUDD didn't significantly differ between the two arms for all the other HRQoL dimensions.The chemotherapy doublet did not reduce TUDD in elderly patients with advanced NSCLC. Moreover, TUDD was prolonged for two HRQoL dimensions, namely physical functioning and nausea and vomiting., (Copyright ©ERS 2016.)

The IFCT-0504 phase II trial evaluated the efficacy of erlotinib versus carboplatin-paclitaxel (CP) as first-line treatment in 130 cases of advanced lepidic-predominant adenocarcinoma (ADC).The primary objective of the study was treatment efficacy, evaluated based on an end-point of disease control at 16 weeks.The primary objective was met, with a disease control in 35 (53%) out of 66 patients treated with CP and in 25 (39.1%) out of 64 patients treated with erlotinib. Median progression-free survival (PFS) for the total population was 3.6 months. The disease control rate did not differ between either the therapeutic arms or pathological subtypes, whereas there was a strong interaction between treatment arms and tumour pathological subtypes for PFS (p=0.009). Mucinous tumour patients treated with erlotinib exhibited an increased progression risk (hazard ratio 3.4, 95% CI 1.7-6.5; p≤0.001). The PFS for nonmucinous tumour patients was similar in both arms. Median overall survival was 20.1 months and did not differ between therapeutic arms. These findings were not further elucidated by molecular analyses and the toxicity profiles were as expected.Our study demonstrated the dominant role of CP alongside erlotinib in the management of advanced lepidic ADC. Based on these findings, erlotinib should not be administered in first-line therapy to patients with lepidic ADC in the absence of an epidermal growth factor receptor mutation., (Copyright ©ERS 2015.)

Lung cancer in never-smokers (LCINS) (fewer than 100 cigarettes in lifetime) is considered as a distinct entity and harbours an original molecular profile. However, the epidemiological and molecular features of LCINS in Europe remain poorly understood. All consecutive newly diagnosed LCINS patients were included in this prospective observational study by 75 participating centres during a 14-month period. Each patient completed a detailed questionnaire about risk factor exposure. Biomarker and pathological analyses were also collected. We report the main descriptive overall results with a focus on sex differences. 384 patients were included: 65 men and 319 women. 66% had been exposed to passive smoking (significantly higher among women). Definite exposure to main occupational carcinogens was significantly higher in men (35% versus 8% in women). A targetable molecular alteration was found in 73% of patients (without any significant sex difference): EGFR in 51%, ALK in 8%, KRAS in 6%, HER2 in 3%, BRAF in 3%, PI3KCA in less than 1%, and multiple in 2%. We present the largest and most comprehensive LCINS analysis in a European population. Physicians should track occupational exposure in men (35%), and a somatic molecular alteration in both sexes (73%)., (Copyright ©ERS 2015.)

EGFR and HER2 mutations and ALK rearrangement are known to be related to lung cancer in never-smokers, while KRAS, BRAF and PIK3CA mutations are typically observed among smokers. There is still debate surrounding whether never-smokers exposed to passive smoke exhibit a "smoker-like" somatic profile compared with unexposed never-smokers. Passive smoke exposure was assessed in the French BioCAST/IFCT-1002 never-smoker lung cancer cohort and routine molecular profiles analyses were compiled. Of the 384 patients recruited into BioCAST, 319 were tested for at least one biomarker and provided data relating to passive smoking. Overall, 219 (66%) reported having been exposed to passive smoking. No significant difference was observed between mutation frequency and passive smoke exposure (EGFR mutation: 46% in never exposed versus 41% in ever exposed; KRAS: 7% versus 7%; ALK: 13% versus 11%; HER2: 4% versus 5%; BRAF: 6% versus 5%; PIK3CA: 4% versus 2%). We observed a nonsignificant trend for a negative association between EGFR mutation and cumulative duration of passive smoke exposure. No association was found for other biomarkers. There is no clear association between passive smoke exposure and somatic profile in lifelong, never-smoker lung cancer., (Copyright ©ERS 2015.)

There is no dedicated study on second-line treatment for elderly patients with advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We report the results on second-line erlotinib therapy from our previously published phase III study comparing single-agent therapy with platinum-based doublet (carboplatin plus paclitaxel) therapy in 451 elderly patients. Erlotinib was given to patients exhibiting disease progression or experiencing excessive toxicity during first-line therapy, until further progression or unacceptable toxicity. In total, 292 (64.7%) patients received erlotinib as second-line therapy. Initial performance status 0-1, stage IV NSCLC and an Activities of Daily Living score of 6 were independent factors for receiving erlotinib. Median (95% CI) overall survival was 4 (3.2-6.7) versus 6.8 (5.0-8.3) months in the single-agent and doublet arms, respectively (p=0.089). Performance status 0-1, never having smoked, adenocarcinoma and weight loss ≤5% were favourable independent prognostic factors of survival, whereas the randomisation arm had no significant impact. Among the 292 patients who received erlotinib, 60 (20.5%) experienced grade 3-4 toxic effects, the most frequent being rash. Erlotinib as second-line therapy is feasible, leading to efficacy results similar to those obtained in a previous randomised study that was not dedicated to elderly patients, with acceptable toxicity.

Probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy (pCLE) allows microscopic imaging of the alveoli during bronchoscopy. The objective of the study was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of pCLE for amiodarone-related pneumonia (AMR-IP). Alveolar pCLE was performed in 36 nonsmoking patients, including 33 consecutive patients with acute or subacute interstitial lung disease (ILD), of which 17 were undergoing treatment with amiodarone, and three were amiodarone-treated patients without ILD. Nine out of 17 patients were diagnosed with high-probability AMR-IP (HP-AMR-IP) by four experts, and three separate observers. Bronchoalveolar lavage findings did not differ between HP-AMR-IP and low-probability AMR-IP (LP-AMR-IP) patients. In HP-AMR-IP patients, pCLE showed large (>20 μm) and strongly fluorescent cells in 32 out of 38 alveolar areas. In contrast, these cells were observed in only two out of 39 areas from LP-AMR-IP patients, in one out of 59 areas from ILD patients not receiving amiodarone and in none of the 10 areas from amiodarone-treated patients without ILD (p<0.001; HP-AMR-IP versus other groups). The presence of at least one alveolar area with large and fluorescent cells had a sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value and positive predictive value for the diagnosis of AMR-IP of 100%, 88%, 100% and 90%, respectively. In conclusion, pCLE appears to be a valuable tool for the in vivo diagnosis of AMR-IP in subacute ILD patients.

The principle of preferentially selecting patients most likely to benefit from therapy according to their genetic profile has led to substantial clinical benefit in some tumour types, and has potential to considerably refine treatment in advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Effective, reliable use of molecular biomarkers to inform clinical practice requires the standardisation of testing methods and careful assessment of biomarkers' predictive and prognostic value. Although a number of studies have shown that patients with activating mutations in exons 18-21 of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) gene respond particularly well to gefitinib and erlotinib, a prospective, randomised study was needed to differentiate between the prognostic and predictive value of EGFR mutations. From one such study, it appeared that mutational testing should become standard at diagnosis, at least for adenocarcinoma patients with a never or low smoking history, as clinical predictors are insufficient to optimise treatment. However, outstanding questions remain: what are the treatment options for patients with tumours resistant to erlotinib/gefitinib? What conclusions about treatment can we draw from EGFR copy number or KRAS mutation status? What role should anti-EGFR antibodies play in NSCLC treatment, and in which patients? This review considers current evidence linking biomarker profile to efficacy of EGFR-targeted therapy in NSCLC, and clinical implications of recent findings.