Search

Introduction: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab-based treatment regimens have shown long-term, durable efficacy benefits in patients with metastatic NSCLC. Here we report clinical outcomes from a pooled analysis of patients with metastatic NSCLC and tumor programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) lower than 1% treated with first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab with or without two cycles of chemotherapy versus up to four cycles of chemotherapy in the randomized phase 3 CheckMate 227 and CheckMate 9LA studies., Methods: Patients were aged 18 years or older and had stage IV or recurrent NSCLC with no sensitizing EGFR/ALK alterations. Assessments included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate, duration of response, and safety., Results: In patients with tumor PD-L1 lower than 1% in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab with or without chemotherapy (n = 322) versus chemotherapy (n = 315) arms, median OS was 17.4 versus 11.3 months, respectively, (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.64, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.54-0.76; 5-y OS rate, 20% versus 7%) at a median follow-up of 73.7 months. The OS benefit was observed across key subgroups, including difficult-to-treat populations such as those with baseline brain metastases (HR = 0.44, 95% CI: 0.26-0.75) or squamous NSCLC (HR = 0.51, 95% CI: 0.36-0.72). In the overall pooled population, the median PFS was 5.4 versus 4.9 months (HR = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.60-0.87; 5-y PFS rate, 9% versus 2%), the objective response rate was 29% versus 22%, and the median duration of response was 18.0 versus 4.6 months. No new safety signals were observed., Conclusion: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab with or without chemotherapy provides a long-term, durable clinical benefit in patients with metastatic NSCLC and tumor PD-L1 lower than 1%, supporting the use of this strategy as a first-line treatment option in this population with high unmet need., Clinical Trial Registrations: NCT02477826, NCT03215706., Competing Interests: Disclosure Dr. Peters reports grants or contracts to her institution from Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Roche/Genentech; consulting fees to her institution from AbbVie, AiCME, Amgen, Arcus, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, Biocartis, BioInvent, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, Debiopharm, ecancer, Eli Lilly, Elsevier, F-Star, Fishawack, Foundation Medicine, Genzyme, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Illumina, Imedex, IQVIA, Incyte, Ipsen, iTeos, Janssen, Medscape, medtoday, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck Serono, Merrimack, Novartis, Novocure, OncologyEducation, PharmaMar, Phosplatin Therapeutics, PER, PeerView, Pfizer, PRIME, Regeneron, RMEI, Roche/Genentech, RTP, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda, and Vaccibody; honoraria to her institution from AiCME, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, ecancer, Eli Lilly, Foundation Medicine, Illumina, Imedex, Medscape, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mirati, Novartis, PeerView, PER, Pfizer, Prime, Roche/Genentech, RTP, Sanofi, and Takeda; support for attending meetings and/or travel paid to her institution from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, and Takeda; and participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for AbbVie, Amgen, Arcus, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, Biocartis, BioInvent, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, Debiopharm, Eli Lilly, F-Star, Foundation Medicine, Genzyme, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Illumina, Incyte, iTeos, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck Serono, Merrimack, Novartis, Novocure, PharmaMar, Phosplatin Therapeutics, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche/Genentech, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda, and Vaccibody with fees paid to her institution. Dr. Paz-Ares reports grants or contracts from Merck Sharp & Dohme, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Bristol Myers Squibb; consulting fees from Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, PharmaMar, Merck KGaA (Darmstadt, Germany), AstraZeneca, Novartis, Servier, Amgen, Pfizer, Sanofi, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Mirati, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Takeda, and Daiichi Sankyo; honoraria from AstraZeneca, Janssen, Merck, and Mirati; and has participated on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Altum Sequencing and Genomica. Dr. Reck reports consulting fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, BeiGene, Eli Lilly, Mirati, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Regeneron, Roche, Takeda, and Samsung Bioepis; honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, BeiGene, Eli Lilly, Mirati, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Regeneron, Roche, Takeda, and Samsung Bioepis; meeting or travel support from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, BeiGene, Eli Lilly, Mirati, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Regeneron, Roche, Takeda, and Samsung Bioepis; and has participated on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, BeiGene, Eli Lilly, Mirati, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Regeneron, Roche, Takeda, and Samsung Bioepis. Dr. Carbone reports consulting fees from Arcus Biosciences, Bristol Myers Squibb, Bristol Myers Squibb KK, Boehringer Ingelheim, Curio Science, Daiichi Sankyo, Genentech/Roche, GI Therapeutics (Intellisphere), GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Merck, Mirati, Novartis, Novocure, OncoCyte, OncoHost, Roche China, and Seattle Genetics; and has participated on the Advisory Board of Amgen, Arcus Biosciences, AstraZeneca, Merck, Flame Biosciences, Gritstone Oncology, Cantargia (PPD), Daiichi Sankyo, EMD Serono GlaxoSmithKline, Eli Lilly, Regeneron, Sanofi, and Seattle Genetics and the Data Safety Monitoring Board of EORTC, AbbVie, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Brahmer reports grants or contracts to her institution from Bristol Myers Squibb and AstraZeneca; consulting fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Merck, and Regeneron; honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb; participation in Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Johnson & Johnson, Sanofi, and GlaxoSmithKline; board membership for Society for the Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC), LUNGevity, Lung Cancer Research Foundation, and Lung Cancer Foundation of America; and medical writing support from Bristol Myers Squibb and Merck. Dr. Borghaei reports research support from Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, and Amgen; participation as a consultant or advisory board member for Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Genentech, Pfizer, Merck, EMD Serono, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Genmab, Regeneron, BioNTech, Amgen, Axiom, PharmaMar, Takeda, Mirati, Daiichi Sankyo, Guardant, Natera, Oncocyte, BeiGene, iTEO, Jazz, Janssen, Puma, BerGenBio, Bayer, Iobiotech, Grid Therapeutics, and RAPT; participation in Data and Safety Monitoring Boards for the University of Pennsylvania CAR T Program, Takeda, Incyte, Novartis, and SpringWorks; employment with Fox Chase Cancer Center; stock options with Sonnet Bio, Inspirna (formerly Rgenix), and Nucleai; honoraria from Amgen, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, and Regeneron; and travel support from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Genentech, Regeneron, and Mirati. Dr. Lu reports research support from AstraZeneca, Hutchinson MediPharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, Hengrui Therapeutics, BeiGene, Roche, and Hansoh; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Hutchinson MediPharma, Simcere Zaiming Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Yuhan Corporation, and Zai Lab; honoraria from AstraZeneca, Roche, Hansoh, and Hengrui Therapeutics; participation as an advisor and consultant of AstraZeneca, Yuhan Corporation, and InventisBio Co. Ltd.; participation as an independent director and board member of Innovent Biologics, Inc.; participated as a scientific advisory board member of Simcere Zaiming Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Shanghai Fosun Pharmaceutical, and Phanes Therapeutics, Inc.; and stock ownership and other financial or nonfinancial interests. Dr. O’Byrne reports consulting fees from TriStar; honoraria from Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Roche; travel support from Bayer; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board, Advisory Board, or other board or committee for AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Ipsen, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Roche, Takeda, TriStar, and Yuhan; and stock or stock options for Carpe Vitae Pharmaceuticals, DGC Diagnostics, and RepLuca Pharmaceuticals. Dr. John reports consulting fees from Roche, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Puma, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Amgen, Gilead, and Specialised Therapeutics; and honoraria from AstraZeneca. Dr. Ciuleanu reports honoraria from Astellas, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck Serono, Amgen, Roche, Pfizer, Sanofi Genzyme, Servier, Ipsen, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Bristol Myers Squibb; and has participated on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board of Astellas, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck Serono, Amgen, Roche, Pfizer, Sanofi Genzyme, Servier, Ipsen, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr. Schenker has received funding from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck Serono, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, Roche, Bayer, Astellas, Amgen, Gilead, Tesaro, Clovis, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Regeneron, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, PharmaMar, Mylan, Samsung Pharmaceuticals, Bioven, BeiGene, and Daiichi Sankyo. Dr. Caro reports investigational grants from Roche; honoraria from Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Amgen, Takeda, and AstraZeneca; and participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Takeda, Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, and AstraZeneca. Dr. Nishio reports honoraria from Ono Pharmaceuticals, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme, AbbVie, Takeda, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Nippon Kayaku, Merck, and Janssen. Dr. Zurawski reports honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen-Cilag, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Roche. Dr. Pluzanski reports consulting fees from Roche and Amgen; honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Takeda, Amgen, Pfizer, and Astra; meeting or travel support from Bristol Myers Squibb, Takeda, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Astra; and participation in Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Takeda, Sanofi, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Merck Sharp & Dohme. Dr. Aoyama is an employee and stockholder of Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr. Tschaika is an employee and stockholder of Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr. Devas is an employee and shareholder of Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr. Grootendorst is an employee and stockholder of Bristol Myers Squibb. The remaining authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Programmed death-ligand 1 expression currently represents the only validated predictive biomarker for immune checkpoint inhibition in metastatic NSCLC in the clinical routine, but it has limited value in distinguishing responses. Assessment of KRAS and TP53 mutations (mut) as surrogate for an immunosupportive tumor microenvironment (TME) might help to close this gap., Methods: A total of 696 consecutive patients with programmed death-ligand 1-high (≥50%), nonsquamous NSCLC, having received molecular testing within the German National Network Genomic Medicine Lung Cancer between 2017 and 2020, with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status less than or equal to 1 and pembrolizumab as first-line palliative treatment, were included into this retrospective cohort analysis. Treatment efficacy and outcome according to KRAS/TP53 status were correlated with TME composition and gene expression analysis of The Cancer Genome Atlas lung adenocarcinoma cohort., Results: Proportion of KRASmut and TP53mut was 53% (G12C 25%, non-G12C 28%) and 51%, respectively. In KRASmut patients, TP53 comutations increased response rates (G12C: 69.7% versus 46.5% [TP53mut versus wild-type (wt)], p = 0.004; non-G12C: 55.4% versus 39.5%, p = 0.03), progression-free survival (G12C: hazard ratio [HR] = 0.59, p = 0.009, non-G12C: HR = 0.7, p = 0.047), and overall survival (G12C: HR = 0.72, p = 0.16, non-G12C: HR = 0.56, p = 0.002), whereas no differences were observed in KRASwt patients. After a median follow-up of 41 months, G12C/TP53mut patients experienced the longest progression-free survival and overall survival (33.7 and 65.3 mo), which correlated with high tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte densities in the TME and up-regulation of interferon gamma target genes. Proinflammatory pathways according to TP53 status (mut versus wt) were less enhanced and not different in non-G12C and KRASwt, respectively., Conclusions: G12C/TP53 comutations identify a subset of patients with a very favorable long-term survival with immune checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy, mediated by highly active interferon gamma signaling in a proinflammatory TME., (Copyright © 2023 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: We report the primary analysis from JAVELIN Lung 100, a phase 3 trial comparing avelumab (anti⁠-programmed death-ligand 1 [PD-L1]) versus platinum-based doublet chemotherapy as first-line treatment for PD-L1-positive (+) advanced NSCLC., Methods: Adults with PD-L1+ (≥1% of tumor cells; PD-L1 immunohistochemistry 73-10 pharmDx), EGFR and ALK wild-type, previously untreated, stage IV NSCLC were randomized to avelumab 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks (Q2W), avelumab 10 mg/kg once weekly (QW) for 12 weeks and Q2W thereafter, or platinum-based doublet chemotherapy every 3 weeks. Primary end points were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) per independent review committee. The primary analysis population was patients with high-expression PD-L1+ tumors (≥80% of tumor cells)., Results: A total of 1214 patients were randomized to avelumab Q2W (n = 366), avelumab QW (n = 322), or chemotherapy (n = 526). In the primary analysis population, hazard ratios (HRs) for OS and PFS with avelumab Q2W (n = 151) versus chemotherapy (n = 216) were 0.85 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.67-1.09; one-sided p = 0.1032; median OS, 20.1 versus 14.9 mo) and 0.71 (95% CI: 0.54-0.93; one-sided p = 0.0070; median PFS, 8.4 versus 5.6 mo), respectively. With avelumab QW (n = 130) versus chemotherapy (n = 129), HRs were 0.79 (95% CI: 0.59-1.07; one-sided p = 0.0630; median OS, 19.3 versus 15.3 mo) and 0.72 (95% CI: 0.52-0.98; one-sided p = 0.0196; median PFS, 7.5 versus 5.6 mo), respectively. No new safety signals were observed., Conclusions: Longer median OS and PFS were observed with avelumab versus platinum-based doublet chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC, but differences in OS and PFS were not statistically significant, and the trial did not meet its primary objective., Clinicaltrials: gov Identifier: NCT02576574., (Copyright © 2023 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Preclinical evaluation of bintrafusp alfa (BA) combined with radiotherapy revealed greater antitumor effects than BA or radiotherapy alone. In a phase 1 study, BA exhibited encouraging clinical activity in patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC who had received previous treatment., Methods: This multicenter, double-blind, controlled phase 2 study (NCT03840902) evaluated the safety and efficacy of BA with concurrent chemoradiotherapy (cCRT) followed by BA (BA group) versus placebo with cCRT followed by durvalumab (durvalumab group) in patients with unresectable stage III NSCLC. The primary end point was progression-free survival according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 as assessed by the investigator. On the basis of the recommendation of an independent data monitoring committee, the study was discontinued before the maturity of overall survival data (secondary end point)., Results: A total of 153 patients were randomized to either BA (n = 75) or durvalumab groups (n = 78). The median progression-free survival was 12.8 months versus 14.6 months (stratified hazard ratio = 1.48 [95% confidence interval: 0.69-3.17]), in the BA and durvalumab groups, respectively. Trends for overall response rate (29.3% versus 32.1%) and disease control rate (66.7% versus 70.5%) were similar between the two groups. Any-grade treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 94.6% versus 96.1% of patients in the BA versus durvalumab groups, respectively. Bleeding events in the BA group were mostly grade 1 (21.6%) or 2 (9.5%)., Conclusions: BA with cCRT followed by BA exhibited no efficacy benefit over placebo with cCRT followed by durvalumab in patients with stage III unresectable NSCLC., (Copyright © 2023 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Bintrafusp alfa, a first-in-class bifunctional fusion protein composed of the extracellular domain of TGF-βRII (a TGF-β "trap") fused to a human immunoglobulin G1 monoclonal antibody blocking programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), has exhibited clinical activity in a phase 1 expansion cohort of patients with PD-L1-high advanced NSCLC., Methods: This adaptive phase 3 trial (NCT03631706) compared the efficacy and safety of bintrafusp alfa versus pembrolizumab as first-line treatment in patients with PD-L1-high advanced NSCLC. Primary end points were progression-free survival according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 per independent review committee and overall survival., Results: Patients (N = 304) were randomized one-to-one to receive either bintrafusp alfa or pembrolizumab (n = 152 each). The median follow-up was 14.3 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 13.1-16.0 mo) for bintrafusp alfa and 14.5 months (95% CI: 13.1-15.9 mo) for pembrolizumab. Progression-free survival by independent review committee was not significantly different between bintrafusp alfa and pembrolizumab arms (median = 7.0 mo [95% CI: 4.2 mo-not reached (NR)] versus 11.1 mo [95% CI: 8.1 mo-NR]; hazard ratio = 1.232 [95% CI: 0.885-1.714]). The median overall survival was 21.1 months (95% CI: 21.1 mo-NR) for bintrafusp alfa and 22.1 months (95% CI: 20.4 mo-NR) for pembrolizumab (hazard ratio = 1.201 [95% CI: 0.796-1.811]). Treatment-related adverse events were higher with bintrafusp alfa versus pembrolizumab; grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 42.4% versus 13.2% of patients, respectively. The study was discontinued at an interim analysis as it was unlikely to meet the primary end point., Conclusions: First-line treatment with bintrafusp alfa did not exhibit superior efficacy compared with pembrolizumab in patients with PD-L1-high, advanced NSCLC., (Copyright © 2023 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Lung cancer remains the deadliest cancer in the world, and lung cancer survival is heavily dependent on tumor stage at the time of detection. Low-dose computed tomography screening can reduce mortality; however, annual screening is limited by low adherence in the United States of America and still not broadly implemented in Europe. As a result, less than 10% of lung cancers are detected through existing programs. Thus, there is a great need for additional screening tests, such as a blood test, that could be deployed in the primary care setting., Methods: We prospectively recruited 1384 individuals meeting the National Lung Screening Trial demographic eligibility criteria for lung cancer and collected stabilized whole blood to enable the pipetting-free collection of material, thus minimizing preanalytical noise. Ultra-deep small RNA sequencing (20 million reads per sample) was performed with the addition of a method to remove highly abundant erythroid RNAs, and thus open bandwidth for the detection of less abundant species originating from the plasma or the immune cellular compartment. We used 100 random data splits to train and evaluate an ensemble of logistic regression classifiers using small RNA expression of 943 individuals, discovered an 18-small RNA feature consensus signature (miLung), and validated this signature in an independent cohort (441 individuals). Blood cell sorting and tumor tissue sequencing were performed to deconvolve small RNAs into their source of origin., Results: We generated diagnostic models and report a median receiver-operating characteristic area under the curve of 0.86 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.84-0.86) in the discovery cohort and generalized performance of 0.83 in the validation cohort. Diagnostic performance increased in a stage-dependent manner ranging from 0.73 (95% CI: 0.71-0.76) for stage I to 0.90 (95% CI: 0.89-0.90) for stage IV in the discovery cohort and from 0.76 to 0.86 in the validation cohort. We identified a tumor-shed, plasma-bound ribosomal RNA fragment of the L1 stalk as a dominant predictor of lung cancer. The fragment is decreased after surgery with curative intent. In additional experiments, results of dried blood spot collection and sequencing revealed that small RNA analysis could potentially be conducted through home sampling., Conclusions: These data suggest the potential of a small RNA-based blood test as a viable alternative to low-dose computed tomography screening for early detection of smoking-associated lung cancer., (Copyright © 2023 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: In CheckMate 227 Part 1, nivolumab plus ipilimumab prolonged overall survival (OS) versus chemotherapy in patients with metastatic NSCLC, regardless of tumor programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression. Here, we report post hoc exploratory systemic and intracranial efficacy outcomes and safety by baseline brain metastasis status at 5 years' minimum follow-up., Methods: Treatment-naive adults with stage IV or recurrent NSCLC without EGFR or ALK alterations, including asymptomatic patients with treated brain metastases, were enrolled. Patients with tumor PD-L1 greater than or equal to 1% were randomized to nivolumab plus ipilimumab, nivolumab, or chemotherapy; patients with tumor PD-L1 less than 1% were randomized to nivolumab plus ipilimumab, nivolumab plus chemotherapy, or chemotherapy groups. Assessments included OS, systemic and intracranial progression-free survival per blinded independent central review, new brain lesion development, and safety. Brain imaging was performed at baseline (all randomized patients) and approximately every 12 weeks thereafter (patients with baseline brain metastases only)., Results: Overall, 202 of 1739 randomized patients had baseline brain metastases (nivolumab plus ipilimumab: 68; chemotherapy: 66). At 61.3 months' minimum follow-up, nivolumab plus ipilimumab prolonged OS versus chemotherapy in patients with baseline brain metastases (hazard ratio = 0.63; 95% confidence interval: 0.43-0.92) and in those without (hazard ratio = 0.76; 95% confidence interval: 0.66-0.87). In patients with baseline brain metastases, 5-year systemic and intracranial progression-free survival rates were higher with nivolumab plus ipilimumab (12% and 16%, respectively) than chemotherapy (0% and 6%). Fewer patients with baseline brain metastases developed new brain lesions with nivolumab plus ipilimumab (4%) versus chemotherapy (20%). No new safety signals were observed., Conclusions: With all patients off immunotherapy for more than or equal to 3 years, nivolumab plus ipilimumab continued to provide a long-term, durable survival benefit in patients with or without brain metastases. Intracranial efficacy outcomes favored nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy. These results further support nivolumab plus ipilimumab as an efficacious first-line treatment for patients with metastatic NSCLC, regardless of baseline brain metastasis status., (Copyright © 2023 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Targeted therapies have revolutionized the treatment and improved the outcome for oncogene-driven NSCLC and an increasing number of oncogenic driver therapies have become available. For MET-dysregulated NSCLC (especially MET exon 14 skipping mutations and MET-amplifications, which is one of the most common bypass mechanisms of resistance in oncogene-addicted NSCLC), several anti-MET-targeted therapies have been approved recently (MET exon 14 skipping mutation) and multiple others are in development. In this narrative review, we summarize the role of MET as an oncogenic driver in NSCLC, discuss the different testing methods for exon 14 skipping mutations, gene amplification, and protein overexpression, and review the existing data and ongoing clinical trials regarding targeted therapies in MET-altered NSCLC. As immunotherapy with or without chemotherapy has become the standard of care for advanced NSCLC, immunotherapy data for MET-dysregulated NSCLC are put into perspective. Finally, we discuss future challenges in this rapidly evolving landscape., (Copyright © 2022 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Approximately 10% of EGFR mutations (EGFRmuts) are uncommon (ucEGFRmuts). We aimed to collect real-world data about osimertinib for patients with ucEGFRmuts., Methods: This is a multicenter, retrospective study of ucEGFRmut (exon 20 insertions excluded) metastatic NSCLC treated with osimertinib as first EGFR inhibitor. The Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors and response assessment in neuro-oncology brain metastases brain objective response rate (ORR) were evaluated by the investigators. Median progression-free survival (mPFS), median overall survival, and median duration of response (mDOR) were calculated from osimertinib initiation. Mutations found at resistance were collected., Results: A total of 60 patients were included (22 centers, nine countries), with median age of 64 years, 75% females, and 83% Caucasian. The largest subgroups were G719X (30%), L861Q (20%), and de novo Thr790Met (T790M) (15%). The ORR was 61%, mPFS 9.5 months, mDOR 17.4 months, and median overall survival 24.5 months. Regarding patients with no concurrent common mutations or T790M (group A, n = 44), ORR was 60%, mPFS 8.6 months, and mDOR 11 months. For G719X, ORR was 47%, mPFS 8.8 months, and mDOR 9.1 months. For L861Q, ORR was 80%, mPFS 16 months, and mDOR 16 months. For de novo T790M, ORR was 44%, mPFS 12.7 months, and mDOR 46.2 months. Compound EGFRmut including common mutations had better outcome compared with only ucEGFRmut. For 13 patients with a response assessment in neuro-oncology brain metastases-evaluable brain metastases, brain ORR was 46%. For 14 patients, rebiopsy results were analyzed: four patients with additional EGFR mutation (C797S, D585Y, E709K), three with new TP53 mutation, one with c-Met amplification, one with PIK3CA mutation, and one with neuroendocrine transformation., Conclusions: Osimertinib was found to have an activity in ucEGFRmut with a high rate of disease control systemically and intracranially. Several resistance mechanisms were identified. This report comprises, to the best of our knowledge, the largest data set of its kind., (Copyright © 2022 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: We characterized the safety of first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) in a large patient population with metastatic NSCLC and efficacy outcomes after NIVO+IPI discontinuation owing to treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs)., Methods: We pooled data from three first-line NIVO+IPI studies (NIVO, 3 mg/kg or 240 mg every 2 wk; IPI, 1 mg/kg every 6 wk) in metastatic NSCLC (CheckMate 227 part 1, CheckMate 817 cohort A, CheckMate 568 part 1). Safety end points included TRAEs and immune-mediated adverse events (IMAEs) in the pooled population and patients aged 75 years or older., Results: In the pooled population (N = 1255), any-grade TRAEs occurred in 78% of the patients, grade 3 or 4 TRAEs in 34%, and discontinuation of any regimen component owing to TRAEs in 21%. The most frequent TRAE and IMAE were diarrhea (20%; grade 3 or 4, 2%) and rash (17%; grade 3 or 4, 3%), respectively. The most common grade 3 or 4 IMAEs were hepatitis (5%) and diarrhea/colitis and pneumonitis (4% each). Pneumonitis was the most common cause of treatment-related death (5 of 16). Safety in patients aged 75 years or older (n = 174) was generally similar to the overall population, but discontinuation of any regimen component owing to TRAEs was more common (29%). In patients discontinuing NIVO+IPI owing to TRAEs (n = 225), 3-year overall survival was 50% (95% confidence interval: 42.6-56.0), and 42% (31.2-52.4) of 130 responders remained in response 2 years after discontinuation., Conclusions: First-line NIVO+IPI was well tolerated in this large population with metastatic NSCLC and in patients aged 75 years or older. Discontinuation owing to TRAEs did not reduce long-term survival., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Introduction: On the basis of the findings of the phase 3 PACIFIC trial (NCT02125461), durvalumab is standard of care for patients with stage III, unresectable NSCLC and no disease progression after concurrent chemoradiotherapy (cCRT). Many patients are considered unsuitable for cCRT owing to concerns with tolerability. The phase 2 PACIFIC-6 trial (NCT03693300) evaluates the safety and tolerability of durvalumab after sequential CRT (sCRT)., Methods: Patients with stage III, unresectable NSCLC and no progression after platinum-based sCRT were enrolled to receive durvalumab (1500 mg intravenously) every 4 weeks for up to 24 months. The primary end point was the incidence of grade 3 or 4 adverse events possibly related to treatment occurring within 6 months. Secondary end points included investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS; Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1) and overall survival., Results: Overall, 117 patients were enrolled (59.8% with performance status >0, 65.8% aged ≥65 y, and 37.6% with stage IIIA disease). Median treatment duration was 32.0 weeks; 37.6% of patients remained on treatment at data cutoff (July 15, 2021). Grade 3 or 4 AEs occurred in 18.8% of patients. Five patients had grade 3 or 4 possibly related adverse events within 6 months (incidence: 4.3%; 95% confidence interval: 1.4-9.7), including two pneumonitis cases. Two patients (1.7%) had grade 5 AEs of any cause. Survival data maturity was limited. Median PFS was 10.9 months (95% confidence interval: 7.3-15.6), and 12-month PFS and overall survival rates were 49.6% and 84.1%, respectively., Conclusions: Durvalumab after sCRT had a comparable safety profile with that observed with durvalumab after cCRT in PACIFIC and had encouraging preliminary efficacy in a frailer population., (Copyright © 2022 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: In the phase 1/3 IMpower133 study, atezolizumab plus carboplatin and etoposide (CP/ET) followed by maintenance atezolizumab for first-line treatment of extensive-stage SCLC (ES-SCLC) led to improvement in both overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) versus placebo plus CP/ET followed by maintenance placebo. We explored the benefit of atezolizumab versus placebo in the subset of patients who reached the IMpower133 maintenance phase and the safety profile of maintenance therapy., Methods: Patients with untreated ES-SCLC were randomized 1:1 to four 21-day cycles of CP/ET with atezolizumab or placebo, followed by maintenance atezolizumab or placebo. The primary end points were OS and investigator-assessed PFS. A multivariate Cox model from the start of maintenance treatment was used to evaluate the treatment effect and account for lead-time bias; a generalized linear model was used to identify prognostic or predictive characteristics for reaching the maintenance phase., Results: A similar proportion of patients in each arm received at least the first dose of maintenance therapy (atezolizumab: 77%, n = 154 of 201; placebo: 81%, n = 164 of 202) and were included in the maintenance analysis population. An Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 and absence of liver metastases at baseline were identified as prognostic factors for reaching the maintenance phase. The positive treatment effect with atezolizumab remained after adjusting for baseline characteristics. Median OS and PFS from the start of maintenance therapy in the atezolizumab versus placebo arm were 12.5 versus 8.4 months (hazard ratio = 0.59, 95% confidence interval: 0.43-0.80) and 2.6 versus 1.8 months (hazard ratio = 0.63 [95% confidence interval: 0.49-0.80]), respectively. Treatment-related adverse events from the start of maintenance therapy occurred in 41% (n = 64 of 155) and 25% (n = 41 of 163) of safety-evaluable patients in the atezolizumab and placebo arms, respectively, and were grade 3 or 4 in 28% (n = 43 of 155) and 23% (n = 37 of 163) of the respective populations; no patient in the atezolizumab arm and one patient in the placebo arm had a grade 5 treatment-related adverse event., Conclusions: These data in the context of other immunotherapy trials in ES-SCLC suggest that induction with atezolizumab plus CP/ET and maintenance treatment with atezolizumab are important components that contributed to the OS benefit observed in IMpower133. Safety results from randomization and from the start of maintenance therapy were similar between the treatment arms despite the continuation of atezolizumab in the maintenance phase., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Introduction: Final overall survival (OS) analyses are presented for EGFR mutations and liver or brain metastases subgroups in the phase 3 IMpower150 study (NCT02366143) evaluating atezolizumab plus bevacizumab plus carboplatin and paclitaxel (ABCP) or atezolizumab plus carboplatin and paclitaxel (ACP) versus bevacizumab plus carboplatin and paclitaxel (BCP)., Methods: Overall, 1202 patients (intention-to-treat population) with chemotherapy-naive, metastatic, nonsquamous NSCLC were randomized to ABCP, ACP, or BCP. Patients with treated, stable brain metastases were permitted. OS was evaluated in EGFR mutations and baseline liver metastases subgroups; rate and time to development of new brain metastases were evaluated in the intention-to-treat patients., Results: At data cutoff (September 13, 2019; median follow-up, 39.3 mo), OS improvements were sustained with ABCP versus BCP in sensitizing EGFR mutations (all: hazard ratio [HR] = 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.31-1.14; previous tyrosine kinase inhibitor [TKI]: HR = 0.74; 95% CI: 0.38-1.46) and baseline liver metastases (HR = 0.68; 95% CI: 0.45-1.02) subgroups. ACP did not have survival benefit versus BCP in sensitizing EGFR mutations (all: HR = 1.0; 95% CI: 0.57-1.74; previous TKI: HR = 1.22; 95% CI: 0.68-2.22) or liver metastases (HR = 1.01; 95% CI: 0.68-1.51) subgroups. Overall, 100 patients (8.3%) developed new brain metastases. Although not formally evaluated, an improvement toward delayed time to development was found with ABCP versus BCP (HR = 0.68; 95% CI: 0.39-1.19)., Conclusions: This final exploratory analysis revealed OS benefits for ABCP versus BCP in patients with sensitizing EGFR mutations, including those with previous TKI failures, and with liver metastases, although these results should be interpreted with caution. The impact of ABCP on delaying the development of new brain lesions requires further investigation., (Copyright © 2021 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: In CheckMate 227, nivolumab plus ipilimumab prolonged overall survival (OS) versus chemotherapy in patients with tumor programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) greater than or equal to 1% (primary end point) or less than 1% (prespecified descriptive analysis). We report results with minimum 4 years' follow-up., Methods: Adults with previously untreated stage IV or recurrent NSCLC were randomized (1:1:1) to nivolumab plus ipilimumab, nivolumab, or chemotherapy (PD-L1 ≥1%); or to nivolumab plus ipilimumab, nivolumab plus chemotherapy, or chemotherapy (PD-L1 <1%). Efficacy included OS and other measures. Safety included timing and management of immune-mediated adverse events (AEs). A post hoc analysis evaluated efficacy in patients who discontinued nivolumab plus ipilimumab due to treatment-related AEs (TRAEs)., Results: After 54.8 months' median follow-up, OS remained longer with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy in patients with PD-L1 greater than or equal to 1% (hazard ratio = 0.76; 95% confidence interval: 0.65-0.90) and PD-L1 less than 1% (0.64; 0.51-0.81); 4-year OS rate with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy was 29% versus 18% (PD-L1 ≥1%); and 24% versus 10% (PD-L1 <1%). Benefits were observed in both squamous and nonsquamous histologies. In a descriptive analysis, efficacy was improved with nivolumab plus ipilimumab relative to nivolumab (PD-L1 ≥1%) and nivolumab plus chemotherapy (PD-L1 <1%). Safety was consistent with previous reports. The most common immune-mediated AE with nivolumab plus ipilimumab, nivolumab, and nivolumab plus chemotherapy was rash; most immune-mediated AEs (except endocrine events) occurred within 6 months from start of treatment and resolved within 3 months after, mainly with systemic corticosteroids. Patients who discontinued nivolumab plus ipilimumab due to TRAEs had long-term OS benefits, as seen in the all randomized population., Conclusions: At more than 4 years' minimum follow-up, with all patients off immunotherapy treatment for at least 2 years, first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab continued to demonstrate durable long-term efficacy in patients with advanced NSCLC. No new safety signals were identified. Immune-mediated AEs occurred early and resolved quickly with guideline-based management. Discontinuation of nivolumab plus ipilimumab due to TRAEs did not have a negative impact on the long-term benefits seen in all randomized patients., (Copyright © 2021 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: We report the final overall survival (OS) analyses of atezolizumab-carboplatin-paclitaxel (ACP [experimental arm]) and OS data with approximately 39.8 months of median follow-up with atezolizumab-bevacizumab-carboplatin-paclitaxel (ABCP) versus bevacizumab-carboplatin-paclitaxel (BCP) in chemotherapy-naive patients with metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC in the phase 3 IMpower150 study (NCT02366143)., Methods: In this randomized, open-label study (N = 1202), coprimary end points included investigator-assessed progression-free survival and OS in intention-to-treat (ITT) wild-type (WT; no EGFR or ALK alterations) patients. Secondary and exploratory end points included OS in ITT and programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) subgroups defined by the VENTANA SP142 and SP263 immunohistochemistry assays., Results: At the final analysis with ACP versus BCP (data cutoff: September 13, 2019; minimum follow-up: 32.4 mo), ACP had numerical, but not statistically significant, improvements in OS (ITT-WT: median OS = 19.0 versus 14.7 mo; hazard ratio = 0.84; 95% confidence interval: 0.71-1.00). OS benefit was sustained with ABCP versus BCP (ITT-WT: 19.5 versus 14.7 mo; hazard ratio = 0.80; 95% confidence interval: 0.67-0.95). Exploratory analyses in the SP142-defined PD-L1 subgroups revealed longer median OS with ABCP and ACP versus BCP in PD-L1-high and PD-L1-positive subgroups; in the PD-L1-negative subgroups, median OS was similar with ACP and ABCP versus BCP. Safety was consistent with that in earlier analyses (data cutoff: January 22, 2018)., Conclusions: At the final IMpower150 OS analysis, ACP had numerical, but not statistically significant, OS improvement versus BCP. Updated data with an additional 20 months of follow-up revealed continued OS improvement with ABCP versus BCP in all patients., (Copyright © 2021 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: In the Phase 3, placebo-controlled PACIFIC trial of patients with unresectable, stage III NSCLC without disease progression after concurrent chemoradiotherapy, consolidative durvalumab was associated with significant improvements in the primary end points of overall survival (OS) (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.68; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.53-0.87; p = 0.00251; data cutoff, March 22, 2018) and progression-free survival (PFS) (blinded independent central review; Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1) (HR = 0.52; 95% CI: 0.42-65; p < 0.0001; February 13, 2017) with manageable safety. Here, we report updated analyses of OS and PFS, approximately 4 years after the last patient was randomized., Methods: Patients with WHO performance status of 0 or 1 (and any tumor programmed death-ligand 1 status) were randomized (2:1) to intravenous durvalumab (10 mg/kg) or placebo, administered every 2 weeks (≤12 months), stratified by age, sex, and smoking history. OS and PFS were analyzed using a stratified log-rank test in the intent-to-treat population. Medians and 4-year OS and PFS rates were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method., Results: Overall, 709 of 713 randomized patients received durvalumab (n/N=473/476) or placebo (n/N=236/237). As of March 20, 2020 (median follow-up = 34.2 months; range: 0.2-64.9), updated OS (HR = 0.71; 95% CI: 0.57-0.88) and PFS (HR = 0.55; 95% CI: 0.44-0.67) remained consistent with the primary analyses. The median OS for durvalumab was reached (47.5 mo; placebo, 29.1 months). Estimated 4-year OS rates were 49.6% versus 36.3% for durvalumab versus placebo, and 4-year PFS rates were 35.3% versus 19.5% respectively., Conclusion: These updated exploratory analyses demonstrate durable PFS and sustained OS benefit with durvalumab after chemoradiotherapy. An estimated 49.6% of patients randomized to durvalumab remain alive at 4 years (placebo, 36.3%), and 35.3% remain alive and progression-free (placebo, 19.5%)., (Copyright © 2021 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: In CheckMate 227 (NCT02477826), patients with treatment-naive stage IV or recurrent NSCLC and 1% or greater tumor programmed death ligand 1 expression had significantly improved overall survival with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy. We present the patient-reported outcomes (PROs)., Methods: Patients (N = 1189) were randomized to nivolumab plus ipilimumab, nivolumab, or chemotherapy. PROs were exploratory. Changes in Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS) average symptom burden index, LCSS 3-item global index, EQ-5D visual analog scale (VAS), and EQ-5D utility index were analyzed descriptively. Mixed-effect model repeated measures and time-to-first deterioration and improvement analyses were conducted., Results: PRO completion rates were generally greater than 80%. On-treatment improvements from baseline in LCSS measures of symptom burden and global health status with nivolumab plus ipilimumab generally met or exceeded the minimal important difference (smallest clinically meaningful change) from weeks 24 and 30, respectively; improvements with chemotherapy generally remained below the minimal important difference. Mean on-treatment EQ-5D VAS scores for both treatments approached the U.K. population norm at week 24, remaining so throughout the treatment period. Mixed-effect model repeated measures analyses revealed numerically greater improvements from baseline with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy across LCSS average symptom burden index and 3-item global index, and EQ-5D VAS and utility index. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab had delayed time-to-first deterioration (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval] 0.74 [0.56 to 0.98]) and a trend for more rapid time-to-first improvement (1.24 [0.98 to 1.59]) versus chemotherapy., Conclusions: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab revealed delayed deterioration and numerical improvement in symptoms and health-related quality of life versus chemotherapy in patients with advanced NSCLC and 1% or greater programmed death ligand 1 expression., (Copyright © 2021 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The VEGF pathway has been recognized as a key mediator of angiogenesis to support tumorigenesis. Multiple therapeutic agents targeting VEGF and VEGF receptors have been developed and approved for use in NSCLCs. Preclinical studies have found that the VEGF and EGFR pathways share common downstream signaling, and these pathways can function exclusively of one another during oncogenesis. In EGFR-mutant NSCLCs, up-regulated EGFR signaling increases VEGF through hypoxia-independent mechanisms, and elevated VEGF, in turn, contributes to the emergence of resistance to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). In clinical trials, the addition of anti-VEGF therapy to EGFR TKIs considerably improved clinical outcomes. In recently reported large randomized studies, the addition of bevacizumab or ramucirumab to EGFR TKIs substantially improved progression-free survival in patients with TKI-naive EGFR-mutant NSCLC. This article reviews the preclinical and clinical data supporting dual inhibition of EGFR and VEGF in EGFR-mutant NSCLC as a way to improve patient outcomes., (Copyright © 2020 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Several programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) immunohistochemistry (IHC) assays have been developed independently within clinical programs for therapeutic anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (anti-PD-1) or PD-L1 antibodies, necessitating assessment of assay comparability. We characterized the Dako PD-L1 IHC 73-10 assay used in clinical trials of avelumab (anti-PD-L1) or bintrafusp alfa (M7824; bifunctional immunotherapy) and compared it with the Dako PD-L1 IHC 22C3 pharmDx assay, an approved companion diagnostic for pembrolizumab monotherapy in patients with advanced NSCLC., Methods: Formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded NSCLC tumor samples from a commercial source and from the JAVELIN Solid Tumor phase 1 trial of avelumab (NCT01772004) were stained using the 73-10 and 22C3 IHC assays with a standard protocol., Results: Both assays displayed expected PD-L1 staining patterns. In 148 commercial NSCLC samples, the 73-10 assay stained greater than or equal to 1%, greater than or equal to 50%, and greater than or equal to 80% of tumor cells as PD-L1+ in 64.2%, 36.5%, and 23.6% of the samples, respectively, whereas the 22C3 assay stained 20.3% of the samples as greater than or equal to 50% PD-L1+. In 83 NSCLC clinical trial samples, the 73-10 assay stained 79.5% and 31.3% of the samples as greater than or equal to 1% and greater than or equal to 80% PD-L1+, respectively, whereas the 22C3 assay stained 59.0% and 21.7% as greater than or equal to 1% and greater than or equal to 50% PD-L1+, respectively. Efficacy of avelumab was similar in the subgroups classified with the 73-10 and 22C3 assays using greater than or equal to 80% and greater than or equal to 50% PD-L1+ cutoffs, with objective response rates of 26.9% and 33.3%, respectively., Conclusions: The 73-10 assay demonstrated high sensitivity for PD-L1 staining, and staining was comparable between the greater than or equal to 80% cutoff of the 73-10 assay and greater than or equal to 50% cutoff of the 22C3 assay., (Copyright © 2020 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

In the past 10 years, a deeper understanding of the immune landscape of cancers, including immune evasion processes, has allowed the development of a new class of agents. The reactivation of host antitumor immune response offers the potential for long-term survival benefit in a portion of patients with thoracic malignancies. The advent of programmed cell death protein 1/programmed death ligand-1 immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), both as single agents and in combination with chemotherapy, and more recently, the combination of ICI, anti-programmed cell death protein 1, and anticytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 antibody, have led to breakthrough therapeutic advances for patients with advanced NSCLC, and to a lesser extent, patients with SCLC. Encouraging activity has recently emerged in pretreated patients with thymic carcinoma (TC). Conversely, in malignant pleural mesothelioma, pivotal positive signs of activity have not been fully confirmed in randomized trials. The additive effects of chemoradiation and immunotherapy suggested intriguing potential for therapeutic synergy with combination strategies. This has led to the introduction of ICI consolidation therapy in stage III NSCLC, creating a platform for future therapeutic developments in earlier-stage disease. Despite the definitive clinical benefit observed with ICI, primary and acquired resistance represent well-known biological phenomena, which may affect the therapeutic efficacy of these agents. The development of innovative strategies to overcome ICI resistance, standardization of new patterns of ICI progression, identification of predictive biomarkers of response, optimal treatment duration, and characterization of ICI efficacy in special populations, represent crucial issues to be adequately addressed, with the aim of improving the therapeutic benefit of ICI in patients with thoracic malignancies. In this article, an international panel of experts in the field of thoracic malignancies discussed these topics, evaluating currently available scientific evidence, with the final aim of providing clinical recommendations, which may guide oncologists in their current practice and elucidate future treatment strategies and research priorities., (Copyright © 2020 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Improved outcome has been shown in patients with synchronous oligometastatic (sOM) NSCLC when treated with radical intent. As a uniform definition of sOM NSCLC is lacking, we developed a definition and diagnostic criteria by a consensus process., Methods: A pan-European multidisciplinary consensus group was established. Consensus questions were built on the basis of current controversies, and definitions were extracted from a survey, cases and a systematic review. This statement was formulated during a consensus meeting., Results: It was determined that definition of sOM NSCLC is relevant when a radical treatment that may modify the disease course (leading to long-term disease control) is technically feasible for all tumor sites with acceptable toxicity. On the basis of the review, a maximum of five metastases and three organs was proposed. Mediastinal lymph node involvement was not counted as a metastatic site. Fludeoxyglucose F 18 positron emission tomography-computed tomography and brain imaging were considered mandatory. A dedicated liver magnetic resonance imaging scan was advised for a solitary liver metastasis, and thoracoscopy and biopsies of distant ipsilateral pleural sites were recommended for a solitary pleural metastasis. For mediastinal staging, fludeoxyglucose F 18 positron emission tomography-computed tomography was deemed the minimum requirement, with pathological confirmation recommended if this influences the treatment strategy. Biopsy of a solitary metastatic location was mandated unless the multidisciplinary team is of the opinion that the risks outweigh the benefits., Conclusion: A multidisciplinary consensus statement on the definition and staging of sOM NSCLC has been formulated. This statement will help to standardize inclusion criteria in future clinical trials., (Copyright © 2019 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: ROS1 rearrangements are found in 1% of lung cancer patients. Therapeutic efficacy of crizotinib in this subset has been shown in early phase trials in the United States and East Asia. Here we present data on efficacy and safety of a prospective phase II trial evaluating crizotinib in European ROS1-positive patients (EUCROSS)., Patients and Methods: The trial was a multicenter, single-arm phase II trial (Clinicaltrial.gov identifier: NCT02183870). Key eligibility criteria included patients who were 18 years of age or older with advanced/metastatic lung cancer and centrally confirmed ROS1-rearranged lung cancer (fluorescence-in situ hybridization). Treatment included 250 mg crizotinib twice daily. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR) (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1). Key secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival, efficacy by independent radiologic review, safety, health-related quality of life, and molecular characterization of tumor tissue., Results: Thirty-four patients received treatment. Four patients were excluded from efficacy analysis. Investigator ORR was 70% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 51-85; 21 of 30 patients) and median PFS was 20.0 months (95% CI: 10.1-not reached). Two patients with ROS1 wild-type sequences assessed by DNA sequencing had progression as best response. CD74-ROS1-positive patients had a trend towards a higher ORR and longer median PFS. TP53-co-mutant patients had a significantly shorter median PFS than wild-type patients (7.0 months, 95% CI: 1.7-20.0 versus 24.1 months, 95% CI: 10.1-not reached; p = 0.022). Treatment-related adverse events were documented in 33 of 34 patients (97%)., Conclusions: Crizotinib is highly effective and safe in patients with ROS1-rearranged lung cancer. ROS1-/TP53-co-aberrant patients had a significantly worse outcome compared to TP53 wild-type patients., (Copyright © 2019 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: This phase II study evaluated the efficacy and safety of the pan-cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor roniciclib with platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with extensive-disease SCLC., Methods: In this randomized, double-blind study, unselected patients with previously untreated extensive-disease SCLC received roniciclib, 5 mg, or placebo twice daily according to a 3 days-on, 4 days-off schedule in 21-day cycles, with concomitant cisplatin or carboplatin on day 1 and etoposide on days 1 to 3. The primary end point was progression-free survival. Other end points included overall survival, objective response rate, and safety., Results: A total of 140 patients received treatment: 70 with roniciclib plus chemotherapy and 70 with placebo plus chemotherapy. Median progression-free survival times was 4.9 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.2-5.5) with roniciclib plus chemotherapy and 5.5 months (95% CI: 4.6-5.6) with placebo plus chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.242, 95% CI: 0.820-1.881, p = 0.8653). Median overall survival times was 9.7 months (95% CI: 7.9-11.1) with roniciclib plus chemotherapy and 10.3 months (95% CI: 8.7-11.9) with placebo plus chemotherapy (HR = 1.281, 95% CI: 0.776-1.912, p = 0.7858). The objective response rates were 60.6% with roniciclib plus chemotherapy and 74.6% with placebo plus chemotherapy. Common treatment-emergent adverse events in both groups included nausea, vomiting, and fatigue. Serious treatment-emergent adverse events were more common with roniciclib plus chemotherapy (57.1%) than with placebo plus chemotherapy (38.6%)., Conclusions: Roniciclib combined with chemotherapy demonstrated an unfavorable risk-benefit profile in patients with extensive-disease SCLC, and the study was prematurely terminated., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

The isolation and analysis of circulating cell-free tumor DNA in plasma is a powerful tool with considerable potential to improve clinical outcomes across multiple cancer types, including NSCLC. Assays of this nature that use blood as opposed to tumor samples are frequently referred to as liquid biopsies. An increasing number of innovative platforms have been recently developed that improve not only the fidelity of the molecular analysis but also the number of tests performed on a single specimen. Circulating tumor DNA assays for detection of both EGFR sensitizing and resistance mutations have already entered clinical practice and many other molecular tests - such as detection of resistance mutations for Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase (ALK) receptor tyrosine kinase rearrangements - are likely to do so in the near future. Due to an abundance of new evidence, an appraisal was warranted to review strengths and weaknesses, to describe what is already in clinical practice and what has yet to be implemented, and to highlight areas in need of further investigation. A multidisciplinary panel of experts in the field of thoracic oncology with interest and expertise in liquid biopsy and molecular pathology was convened by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer to evaluate current available evidence with the aim of producing a set of recommendations for the use of liquid biopsy for molecular analysis in guiding the clinical management of advanced NSCLC patients as well as identifying unmet needs. In summary, the panel concluded that liquid biopsy approaches have significant potential to improve patient care, and immediate implementation in the clinic is justified in a number of therapeutic settings relevant to NSCLC., (Copyright © 2018 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Squamous cell lung cancer (SqCLC) is a distinct histologic subtype of NSCLC that is challenging to treat because of specific clinicopathologic characteristics, which include older age, advanced disease at diagnosis, comorbid diseases, and the central location of tumors. These characteristics have a bearing on treatment outcomes in advanced SqCLC, resulting in a median survival approximately 30% shorter than for patients with other NSCLC subtypes. In the context of the specific features of SqCLC, we review challenges of treating SqCLC and the current guideline-recommended treatments for advanced (metastatic) SqCLC in different patient subpopulations. We also evaluate recently approved treatment options, including necitumumab, afatinib, nivolumab, pembrolizumab, and atezolizumab; discuss the survival benefits associated with each agent in the advanced SqCLC population; and propose a treatment algorithm incorporating these agents for this challenging-to-treat disease. Lastly, we review the preliminary clinical evidence for immunotherapy agents in development for advanced NSCLC., (Copyright © 2018 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: In the phase III CheckMate 017 study, nivolumab prolonged overall survival versus docetaxel in previously treated patients with advanced squamous NSCLC. Study objectives included health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and symptom assessments., Methods: Patients serially completed the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS) and European Quality of Life Five Dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaires. The LCSS average symptom burden index (ASBI) (mean score for six lung cancer-specific symptoms; range 0-100), LCSS three-item global index, EQ-5D utility index, and EQ-5D visual analog scale scores were analyzed. The proportion of patients exhibiting clinically meaningful improvement (a ≥10-point decrease) in ASBI scores by week 12 was a secondary end point. Mixed-effect model repeated measures analysis of HRQoL changes from baseline and analyses of time to HRQoL deterioration were conducted., Results: Baseline mean plus or minus SD LCSS ASBI scores were similar in the nivolumab (29.6 ± 16.4) and docetaxel (29.6 ± 14.7) groups. By week 12, the proportions of patients (95% confidence interval) with clinically meaningful improvement in ASBI scores were 20.0% (13.6-27.7) with nivolumab and 21.9% (15.3-29.8) with docetaxel. At weeks 16 to 54, significant improvements in ASBI scores from baseline were seen with nivolumab; clinically meaningful improvements were observed at weeks 42 to 84. No significant changes in ASBI scores from baseline were observed with docetaxel; at week 36, a clinically meaningful deterioration was seen. Improvements in HRQoL with nivolumab versus with docetaxel were supported by other measures, and time to first HRQoL deterioration was longer., Conclusion: Nivolumab alleviates symptom burden and improves health status versus docetaxel as second-line squamous NSCLC treatment., (Copyright © 2017 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Tobacco-related NSCLC is associated with reduced survival and greater genomic instability. Veliparib, a potent poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor, augments platinum-induced DNA damage. A phase 2 trial of untreated advanced NSCLC showed a trend for improved outcomes (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.80, 95% confidence interval: 0.54-1.18, p = 0.27 for overall survival and HR = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.45-1.15, p = 0.17 for progression-free survival) when veliparib was added to carboplatin/paclitaxel. Here we report an exploratory analysis by smoking history., Methods: Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive carboplatin/paclitaxel with veliparib, 120 mg (n = 105), or placebo (n = 53). Patients were stratified by histologic subtype and smoking history (recent smokers [n = 95], former smokers [n = 42], and never-smokers [n = 21]). Plasma cotinine level was measured as a chemical index of smoking. Mutation status was assessed by whole exome sequencing (n = 38)., Results: Smoking history, histologic subtype, age, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, sex, and geographic region predicted veliparib benefit in univariate analyses. In multivariate analysis, history of recent smoking was most predictive for veliparib benefit. Recent smokers treated with veliparib derived significantly greater progression-free survival and overall survival benefits (HR = 0.38 [p < 0.01] and HR = 0.43 [p < 0.01]) than former smokers (HR = 2.098 [p = 0 0208] and HR = 1.62 [p = 0.236]) and never-smokers (HR = 1.025 [p = 0.971] and HR = 1.33 [p = 0.638]). Sequencing data revealed that mutational burden was not associated with veliparib benefit. The rate of grade 3 or 4 adverse events was higher in recent smokers with veliparib treatment; all-grade and serious adverse events were similar in both treatment arms., Conclusions: Smoking history predicted for efficacy with a veliparib-chemotherapy combination; toxicity was acceptable regardless of smoking history. A prespecified analysis of recent smokers is planned for ongoing phase 3 studies of veliparib in NSCLC., (Copyright © 2017 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Over the past few years, there have been considerable advances in the treatments available to patients with metastatic or locally advanced NSCLC, particularly those who have progressed during first-line treatment. Some of the treatment options available to patients are discussed here, with a focus on checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapies (nivolumab and pembrolizumab) and antiangiogenic agents (bevacizumab, ramucirumab, and nintedanib). It is hypothesized that combining immunotherapy with antiangiogenic treatment may have a synergistic effect and enhance the efficacy of both treatments. In this review, we explore the theory and potential of this novel treatment option for patients with advanced NSCLC. We discuss the growing body of evidence that proangiogenic factors can modulate the immune response (both by reducing T-cell infiltration into the tumor microenvironment and through systemic effects on immune-regulatory cell function), and we examine the preclinical evidence for combining these treatments. Potential challenges are also considered, and we review the preliminary evidence of clinical efficacy and safety with this novel combination in a variety of solid tumor types., (Copyright © 2016 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Type 1 insulin-like growth factor receptor is deregulated in solid tumors. Cixutumumab, a monoclonal antibody that inhibits the activity of type 1 insulin-like growth factor receptor, was investigated in combination with pemetrexed/cisplatin in the frontline setting., Methods: In this open-label, phase II study, patients with stage IV nonsquamous NSCLC and a performance status of 0 to 1 were randomized (1:1) to receive 20 mg/kg cixutumumab, 500 mg/m 2 pemetrexed, and 75 mg/m 2 cisplatin (cixutumumab [n = 87]) or pemetrexed and cisplatin (control [n = 85]). Eligible patients received pemetrexed-based maintenance therapy with cixutumumab (cixutumumab arm) or without it (control arm). The primary end point was progression-free survival. Secondary end points assessed overall survival, objective response rate, and safety. Survival was analyzed by the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazard model. Exploratory correlative analyses were also performed., Results: The mean age of the intent-to-treat population (n = 172) was 59 years (range 32-83). Median progression-free survival was 5.45 months with cixutumumab versus 5.22 months in the control (hazard ratio = 1.15, 95% confidence interval: 0.81-1.61; p = 0.44). Median overall survival was 11.33 months with cixutumumab versus 10.38 months in the control (hazard ratio = 0.93, 95% confidence interval: 0.64-1.36). Objective response rate did not differ between treatments (p = 0.338). Grade 3 or 4 hyperglycemia occurred at a higher rate with cixutumumab than in the control (9.4% versus 1.2%). One death possibly related to cixutumumab occurred., Conclusions: Efficacy was not improved in patients with nonsquamous NSCLC when cixutumumab was added to pemetrexed/cisplatin. Combination therapy was well tolerated and no new safety concerns were reported., (Copyright © 2016 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Squamous cell lung cancer (sqCLC) is an aggressive form of cancer that poses many therapeutic challenges. Patients tend to be older, present at a later stage, and have a high incidence of comorbidities, which can compromise treatment delivery and exacerbate toxicity. In addition, certain agents routinely available for nonsquamous cell histologic subtypes, such as bevacizumab and pemetrexed, are contraindicated or lack efficacy in sqCLC. Therapeutic progress has been much slower for advanced sqCLC, with median survival times of approximately 9 to 11 months in most studies. Herein, we discuss the current therapeutic landscape for patients with sqCLC versus with nonsquamous NSCLC. Current evidence indicates that new targeted treatments, notably monoclonal antibodies such as ramucirumab and necitumumab, and immunotherapies such as nivolumab and pembrolizumab can provide survival prolongation, although the benefits are still relatively modest. These incremental improvements, all realized since 2012, in aggregate, will very likely have a clinically meaningful impact for patients with sqCLC. We also discuss recent genomic studies of sqCLC that have identified potentially actionable molecular targets, as well as the relevant targeted agents in clinical development. Finally, we discuss the magnitude of survival benefit and the risk-to-benefit ratio that would prove clinically meaningful in this underserved patient population with unmet needs., (Copyright © 2016 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: To offer patients with EGFR mutation-positive advanced NSCLC appropriate EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor treatment, mutation testing of tumor samples is required. However, tissue/cytologic samples are not always available or evaluable. The large, noninterventional diagnostic ASSESS study (NCT01785888) evaluated the utility of circulating free tumor-derived DNA (ctDNA) from plasma for EGFR mutation testing., Methods: ASSESS was conducted in 56 centers (in Europe and Japan). Eligible patients (with newly diagnosed locally advanced/metastatic treatment-naive advanced NSCLC) provided diagnostic tissue/cytologic and plasma samples. DNA extracted from tissue/cytologic samples was subjected to EGFR mutation testing using local practices; designated laboratories performed DNA extraction/mutation testing of blood samples. The primary end point was level of concordance of EGFR mutation status between matched tissue/cytologic and plasma samples., Results: Of 1311 patients enrolled, 1288 were eligible. Concordance of mutation status in 1162 matched samples was 89% (sensitivity 46%, specificity 97%, positive predictive value 78%, and negative predictive value 90%). A group of 25 patients with apparent false-positive plasma results was overrepresented for cytologic samples, use of less sensitive tissue testing methodologies, and smoking habits associated with high EGFR mutation frequency, indicative of false-negative tumor results. In cases in which plasma and tumor samples were tested with identical highly sensitive methods, positive predictive value/sensitivity were generally improved., Conclusions: These real-world data suggest that ctDNA is a feasible sample for EGFR mutation analysis. It is important to conduct mutation testing of both tumor and plasma samples in specialized laboratories, using robust/sensitive methods to ensure that patients receive appropriate treatments that target the molecular features of their disease., (Copyright © 2016 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide. NSCLC accounts for more than 85% of all lung cancers, and the prognosis for advanced-stage disease is typically poor. In recent years, the importance of histologic subtypes of NSCLC has been recognized, and the distinction between squamous and other NSCLC histologic subtypes is now critical to patient management. Squamous cell lung cancer (sqCLC) represents approximately 25% to 30% of NSCLC. The prognosis for patients with advanced NSCLC is poorer for those with sqCLC than for those with adenocarcinoma. This is partly due to a number of clinical characteristics that distinguish sqCLC from other NSCLC histologic subtypes, such as smoking history, comorbid diseases, age, and molecular profile. Together, these factors make sqCLC an especially challenging disease to manage. Herein, we review some of the key clinicopathologic features of sqCLC. Understanding these features to optimally address many of the unique therapeutic challenges of this disease is likely to be central to ultimately improving outcomes for patients with squamous NSCLC., (Copyright © 2016 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Necitumumab, a second-generation, recombinant human immunoglobulin G1 epidermal growth factor receptor antibody in the phase 3 SQUIRE trial (NCT00981058), increased survival benefit for patients randomized to receive necitumumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin compared with those who received gemcitabine-cisplatin. Here we characterize health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and tolerability results., Methods: A total of 1093 patients with stage IV squamous non-small cell lung cancer were randomized 1:1 to receive necitumumab (800 mg absolute dose intravenously [IV]) plus gemcitabine-cisplatin (gemcitabine = 1250 mg/m(2) IV on days 1 and 8; cisplatin = 75 mg/m(2) IV on day 1) or gemcitabine-cisplatin alone (every 21 days) for up to six cycles. Patients receiving necitumumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin without disease progression continued necitumumab until progression. HRQoL was measured by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS), and the European Quality of Life Five-Dimensions questionnaire. Efficacy and LCSS outcomes were analyzed using the baseline maximum severity score of the LCSS. Tolerability was measured in terms of exposure to the study treatment and adverse events. Hospitalization rates were collected., Results: Most patients in both study arms similarly maintained Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status and comparable LCSS and European Quality of Life Five-Dimensions questionnaire assessments. Patients with a higher baseline LCSS had a greater survival benefit on the necitumumab arm. Chemotherapy exposure was similar in both treatment arms; 51% of patients on the necitumumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin arm continued on single-agent necitumumab. The most frequent grade 4 adverse events were neutropenia (6.1% versus 7.9%) and thrombocytopenia (3.2% versus 4.3%) in the necitumumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin versus gemcitabine-cisplatin arms, respectively. Hospitalizations were slightly higher with necitumumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin (36.4%) than with gemcitabine-cisplatin (34.0%)., Conclusions: The addition of necitumumab to gemcitabine-cisplatin was well tolerated, did not negatively affect HRQoL or toxicity, and particularly benefited patients with more severe baseline symptoms or lower HRQoL., (Copyright © 2016 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Exon 19 deletions and the exon 21 L858R mutation of the epidermal growth factor receptor gene (EGFR) predict activity of EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors, including erlotinib; however, the ability of less common EGFR mutations to predict efficacy of erlotinib is unclear., Methods: The efficacy of erlotinib in individual patients with rare EGFR mutations from the MERIT, SATURN, TITAN, TRUST, ATLAS, BeTa, and FASTACT-2 trials was analyzed and compared with data from the literature., Results: In the patients tested for biomarkers, the frequency of rare mutations identified here ranged from 1.7% (eight of 467) in the SATURN study to 7.4% (27 of 364) in ATLAS. Some rare mutations were associated with greater clinical benefit from EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy or improved prognosis independent of treatment, whereas others appeared to have a poorer prognosis. In particular, exon 18 G719 mutations, exon 19 K757R and E746G mutations, the exon 20 S768I mutation, and the exon 21 G836S mutation appeared to confer a good outcome with erlotinib treatment, whereas exon 18 S720I showed a particularly poor outcome. Owing to the small number of patients with each mutation, however, it is difficult to confirm whether these rare mutations do indeed confer sensitivity or resistance to erlotinib., Conclusions: Erlotinib can have different efficacy depending on the specific EGFR mutation. More research is needed to create a central database such as the My Cancer Genome database of rare mutations to definitively confirm whether these mutations are activating, resistant, or neutral., (Copyright © 2016 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Adjuvant chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) improves survival but is associated with significant toxicity. The Randomized Phase II Trial on Refinement of Early-Stage NSCLC Adjuvant Chemotherapy with Cisplatin and Pemetrexed versus Cisplatin and Vinorelbine (TREAT study) was designed to test the hypothesis that a protocol with reduced toxicity might improve feasibility of postoperative delivery of adjuvant chemotherapy drugs to patients with NSCLC, thereby improving compliance and, potentially, survival., Methods: Two adjuvant regimens were evaluated for feasibility in 132 patients with NSCLC: the standard regimen of cisplatin and vinorelbine (CVb) (cisplatin 50 mg/m(2) on day 1 and day 8 and vinorelbine 25 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 every 4 weeks) and a regimen consisting of cisplatin and pemetrexed (CPx) (cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) and pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) on day 1 every 3 weeks). The primary end-point analysis showing that CPx is safe and feasible with dose delivery superior to that of CVb has already been published. Here we report the 3-year follow-up results of the secondary efficacy end points-overall, relapse-free, distant metastasis-free, and local relapse-free survival-also with regard to histologic diagnosis., Results: After a median of 39 months, no significant differences in any of the outcome parameters between CVb and CPx were observed. Also, histologic diagnosis and tumor size in stage IB did not influence survival in the CPx-treated patients. Yet, Cox regression analyses showed that overall survival at 3 years was significantly correlated with feasibility and the occurrence of dose-limiting toxicity., Conclusions: Although adjuvant chemotherapy with CPx is safe and characterized by less toxicity and better dose delivery than CVb, overall survival was not influenced by treatment arm in the context of this phase II trial., (Copyright © 2015 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: To assess the safety and immunogenicity of MAGE-A3 immunotherapeutic in patients with stage IB-III MAGE-A3-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who were or were not undergoing standard cisplatin/vinorelbine chemotherapy., Methods: This open, prospective, multicenter, parallel-group phase I study (NCT00455572) enrolled patients with resected (cohorts 1-3) or unresectable (cohort 4) MAGE-A3-positive NSCLC. MAGE-A3 immunotherapeutic (300 μg recombinant MAGE-A3 formulated with AS15) was administered (eight doses, 3 weeks apart) concurrent with (cohort 1), after (cohort 2), or without (cohort 3) standard-adjuvant chemotherapy, or after standard radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy (cohort 4)., Results: Sixty-seven patients received greater than or equal to 1 dose of MAGE-A3 immunotherapeutic. Grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) were reported for 16 out of 19 (84%), 2 out of 18 (11%), 5 out of 18 (28%), and 1 out of 12 (8%) patients in cohorts 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. Many grade 3/4 AEs in cohort 1 (e.g., neutropenia) were typical of chemotherapy. Six patients, including three in cohort 1, reported study treatment-related grade 3/4 AEs (injection-site reactions or musculoskeletal/back pain, which resolved within 5 days). One patient (in cohort 4) died, but this and the other serious adverse events were not study treatment related. MAGE-A3-specific antibody responses to immunotherapy were induced in all patients evaluated in all cohorts. MAGE-A3-specific CD4 T-cell responses to immunotherapy were detected in 4 out of 11 (36%), 4 out of 15 (27%), 2 out of 8 (25%), and 5 out of 6 (83%) evaluated patients in cohorts 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively; and CD8 T-cell responses were only detected in four patients., Conclusion: In resected and unresectable NSCLC patients and irrespective of whether standard chemotherapy was concurrent or not, MAGE-A3 immunotherapeutic is well tolerated and induces MAGE-A3-specific immune responses.

Introduction: The phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K) pathway promotes tumor growth and treatment resistance in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The aim of the open-label, two-stage, Phase II study BASALT-1 (NCT01820325) was to investigate the pan-PI3K inhibitor buparlisib (BKM120) in patients with PI3K pathway-activated, relapsed NSCLC., Methods: After prescreening for PI3K pathway activation, patients with PI3K pathway-activated, metastatic, squamous or nonsquamous NSCLC, who had relapsed after prior systemic antineoplastic therapy, were enrolled. In Stage 1, patients received single-agent buparlisib (100 mg/day). A futility analysis was performed independently in each histology group, based on the 12-week progression-free survival rate for the first 30 patients treated in each group being less than 50%. Exploratory biomarker analyses were performed in archival tissue samples and circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA)., Results: Of 1242 prescreened patients, 13.5% exhibited PI3K pathway activation. As of June 5, 2014, 63 patients (30 squamous and 33 nonsquamous) were treated in Stage 1. The 12-week progression-free survival rates were 23.3% (95% confidence interval: 9.9-42.3) and 20.0% (95% confidence interval: 7.7-38.6) in the squamous and nonsquamous groups, respectively. Stage 2 was therefore not initiated in either group. PI3K pathway mutations in ctDNA were more concordant with metastatic tissue than with primary biopsies., Conclusions: Despite preselecting patients for targeted treatment, BASALT-1 did not meet its primary objective during Stage 1. PI3K pathway activation can be detected using ctDNA, but may not be the main oncogenic driver in NSCLC. Combinations of PI3K inhibitors with other agents may demonstrate greater efficacy than monotherapy.

Introduction: Avastin Biomarkers In lunG And 3D Innovative anaLysis (ABIGAIL), which is a phase II, open-label, randomized study, investigated correlations between biomarkers and best overall response to bevacizumab plus platinum-doublet chemotherapy for patients with advanced/recurrent non-small-cell lung cancer., Methods: Patients received bevacizumab (7.5 or 15 mg/kg, 3-weekly until disease progression/unacceptable toxicity) plus carboplatin/gemcitabine or carboplatin/paclitaxel (maximum six cycles). Plasma samples (baseline/throughout treatment) were analyzed for vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-A (baseline only), VEGF receptors (VEGFR-1/VEGFR-2), basic fibroblast growth factor, E-selectin, intercellular adhesion molecule-1, and placental growth factor (baseline only). Tumor samples (primary specimen) were analyzed for VEGF-A, VEGFR-1/VEGFR-2, neuropilin (NRP), and CD31. Response was evaluated at baseline and every 6 weeks (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors)., Results: Patients were randomized to receive chemotherapy plus 7.5 mg/kg (n =154) or 15 mg/kg (n =149) bevacizumab. For the primary analysis, none of the baseline plasma biomarkers correlated with best overall response. Exploratory analyses showed that low VEGF-A levels were associated with longer progression-free survival (7.4 versus 6.1 months; hazard ratio, 1.57; 95% confidence intervals, 1.17 to 2.09; p = 0.002) and overall survival (19.8 versus 11.1 months; hazard ratio, 1.57; 95% confidence interval, 1.15-2.13; p = 0.004) compared with these in high baseline plasma VEGF-A levels. No plasma biomarkers changed significantly over time. No significant correlations were observed between tumor biomarkers and clinical outcomes. No new safety signals were observed., Conclusion: Baseline and/or dynamic changes in plasma basic fibroblast growth factor, E-selectin, intercellular adhesion molecule-1, placental growth factor, VEGFR-1 and VEGFR-2, and tumor biomarkers did not correlate statistically with treatment outcomes for bevacizumab plus chemotherapy. Only baseline plasma VEGF-A was significantly correlated with progression-free survival/overall survival.

Introduction: The PARAMOUNT phase III trial demonstrated that pemetrexed continuation maintenance significantly reduced the risk of disease progression (hazard ratio = 0.62) and death (hazard ratio = 0.78) versus placebo in patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer. To further understand the survival data, descriptive subgroup analyses were undertaken., Methods: Nine hundred thirty-nine patients received induction therapy (four 21-day cycles pemetrexed 500 mg/m and cisplatin 75 mg/m), after which 539 nonprogressing patients with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (PS) of 0/1 were randomized (2:1) to maintenance pemetrexed (500 mg/m) cycles or placebo until disease progression., Results: Baseline characteristics of patients surviving for longer periods were comparable to patients surviving shorter periods, suggesting overall survival (OS) benefit for all subgroups of patients on maintenance therapy. An examination of type and severity of induction adverse events also found no association with survival duration. Response to induction (tumor response versus stable disease) was not determinate of pemetrexed maintenance OS outcome as assessed by waterfall plot and scattergrams and by the distribution of patients among various OS intervals. The length of the interval before beginning maintenance therapy (<7 days versus ≥7/≤30 days) also did not impact the survival results. PS, a known prognostic factor, was the only baseline characteristic associated with improved OS; however, both PS 0 and PS 1 patients exhibited a survival benefit from pemetrexed maintenance., Conclusions: In PARAMOUNT, the OS benefit was seen across all subgroups. Other than PS, no baseline or clinical parameter clearly identified a subgroup more likely to benefit. Maintenance treatment decisions should be made on an individual basis.

Introduction: This randomized open-label phase II study evaluated the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of pazopanib in combination with pemetrexed compared with the standard cisplatin/pemetrexed doublet in patients with previously untreated, advanced, nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer., Methods: Patients were randomized (2:1 ratio) to receive pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) intravenously once every 3 weeks plus either oral pazopanib 800 mg daily or cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) intravenously once every 3 weeks up to six cycles. All patients received folic acid, vitamin B12, and steroid prophylaxis. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS)., Results: The study was terminated after 106 of 150 patients were randomized due to a higher incidence of adverse events leading to withdrawal from the study and severe and fatal adverse events in the pazopanib/pemetrexed arm than in the cisplatin/pemetrexed arm. At the time enrolment was discontinued, there were three fatal adverse events in the pazopanib/pemetrexed arm, including ileus, tumor embolism, and bronchopneumonia/sepsis. Treatment with pazopanib/pemetrexed was discontinued resulting in more PFS data censored for patients in the pazopanib/pemetrexed arm than those in the cisplatin/pemetrexed arm. There was no statistically significant difference between the pazopanib/pemetrexed and cisplatin/pemetrexed arms for PFS (median PFS, 25.0 versus 22.9 weeks, respectively; hazard ratio = 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.43%-1.28%; p = 0.26) or objective response rate (23% versus 34%, respectively; 95% confidence interval, -30.6% to 7.2%; p = 0.21)., Conclusion: The combination of pazopanib/pemetrexed in first-line treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer showed some antitumor activity but had unacceptable levels of toxicity.

Introduction: In a phase III, randomized, double-blind study (PARAMOUNT), maintenance pemetrexed demonstrated significant benefit in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We present safety, resource use, and quality of life (QoL) results., Methods: After four 21-day cycles of pemetrexed-cisplatin (N = 939), patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC, whose disease had not progressed and who had a performance status of 0/1, were randomized 2:1 (N = 539) to maintenance pemetrexed 500 mg/m plus best supportive care or placebo plus best supportive care every 21 days until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. QoL was measured using the EuroQol 5-dimensional questionnaire (EQ-5D)., Results: Frequently reported grade 3 to 4 drug-related toxicities with maintenance pemetrexed versus placebo were anemia (4.5% versus 0.6%; p = 0.016), fatigue (4.2% versus 0.6%; p = 0.016), and neutropenia (3.6% versus 0.0%; p < 0.006). No significant differences in drug-related grade 3 to 5 toxicities were observed with long-term pemetrexed exposure (>6 cycles), except grade 3 to 4 neutropenia, which did not result in increased infections. Patients on maintenance pemetrexed required more transfusions (13.4% versus 5.0%; p = 0.003), granulocyte colony- or granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factors (5.3% versus 0.0%; p <0.001), anti-infectives (25.3% versus 16.7%; p = 0.028), and hospitalizations because of study drug (8.4% versus 3.3%, p = 0.028) than placebo-treated patients did. No significant treatment-by-time interactions, overall treatment differences, or clinically relevant changes from baseline were observed in EQ-5D scores during treatment., Conclusions: Long-term use of continuation maintenance pemetrexed was well tolerated; resource use was low, corresponding with known pemetrexed toxicities. The EQ-5D results demonstrate that patients tolerate long-term maintenance pemetrexed without worsening QoL.

Introduction: Tasisulam sodium (hereafter referred to as tasisulam) is a novel anticancer compound that induces apoptosis and exhibits antiangiogenesis activity in a broad range of cancer models, including non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC)., Methods: Tasisulam was administered as a 2-hour infusion every 21 days as third-line treatment in patients with advanced (stage IIIB/IV) NSCLC., Results: Thirty-two patients received a Cmax target dose of 420 µg/ml. Median time to progression was 3.12 months, median progression-free survival was 2.69 months, and median overall survival was 8.48 months. There were no objective responses; 43.8% of patients achieved stable disease. A high rate of grade-4 hematologic toxicity in the first 30 patients led to exploration of a lower Cmax target dose of 380 µg/ml. The rate of grade-4 hematologic toxicity (thrombocytopenia and/or neutropenia) at the 380-µg/ml dose (n = 20) was 20% versus 34% at the 420-µg/ml dose., Conclusions: Tasisulam has only modest activity as a third-line treatment of patients with unresectable/metastatic NSCLC. The high rate of grade-4 hematologic toxicity observed with this highly albumin- bound compound in this patient population provided challenges for fixed Cmax-based dosing. Alternative dosing methods, including varying the Cmax target dose by predose albumin, are under investigation in other studies.