Search

Introduction: Small cell transformation (SCT) is a typical mechanism of adaptive resistance to third generation epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors (EGFRi) which have become the standard of care for EGFR-driven non-small cell lung cancer (EGFR+ NSCLC). Little is known about the optimal management of SCT patients. This study aimed to compare outcomes under platinum/etoposide chemotherapy alone (chemo) or in combination with EGFR inhibitors (EGFRi+chemo) or immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI+chemo). In addition, DLL3 expression was explored as potential novel therapeutic target., Methods: We conducted a retrospective study on patients with EGFR+ NSCLC and SCT treated at 19 centers in Europe and the United States. A total of 47 patients were included of whom 17 received chemo, 20 ICI+chemo, and 10 EGFRi+chemo. We analyzed DLL3 expression by immunohistochemistry., Results: In the entire cohort, median overall survival (OS) from start of first SCT therapy was 11 months (95 % confidence interval [95 %CI] 9.1-12.9) and median progression-free survival (PFS) was 5 months (95 %CI 4.2-5.8). Median PFS was similar in all three groups (chemo and ICI+chemo 4 months, EGFRi+chemo 6 months), and 12-months PFS was 12 % (95 %CI 2 %-31 %), 13 % (95 %CI 0 %-43 %), and 0 % for ICI+chemo, EGFRi+chemo, and chemo, respectively. Median OS in the ICI+chemo group was 13 months (95 %CI 5.5-20.5) compared to 10 months (95 %CI 7.6-12.4) with chemo and EGFRi+chemo (95 %CI 8.1-11.9), respectively. Before and after SCT, 0 % and 93 % of tumors were DLL3-positive., Conclusions: Our results suggest that ICI+chemo and DLL3-targeting agents are worth further exploration in EGFR+ NSCLC undergoing SCT., Presented Elsewhere: Part of this work has been presented at ESMO annual meeting in Madrid, Spain in October 2023 (Poster 1336 P)., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Allgäuer, M received speaker fees from Boehringer Ingelheim. Alt, J received speaker fees and/or honoraria for advisory boards by Astra Zeneca, Pfizer, Daichii Sankyo, Roche, Amgen, MSD, Novartis, Janssen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, BMS. Aust, DEA received honoraria from Roche, Astra Zeneca, MSD, Pfizer, Novartis. Christopoulos. P received research funding from Roche, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Takeda, Merck, AstraZeneca, and Novartis, honoraria from Roche, Takeda, Gilead, AstraZeneca, Merck, Thermo Fisher, Janssen, Pfizer, and Novartis, travel support from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Janssen, Merck, Gilead, Daiichi Sankyo, Takeda, Novartis, Eli Lilly and compensation for advisory roles for Pfizer, Chugai, Boehringer Ingelheim, Takeda, Janssen, Novartis, astraZeneca, MSD, Roche. Griesinger, F received speaker fees and/or honoraria for advisory boards from AstraZeneca, Boehringer, BMS, Celgene, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Takeda, Ariad, Abbvie, Tesaro/GSK, Siemens, Tesaro, Amgen, Sanofi, Daiichi-Sankyo, Beigene. Grohé, C received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, and Roche, and has had consulting or advisory roles with Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Novartis, and Roche. Hochmair, M received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, and Roche, and has had consulting or advisory roles with Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Novartis, and Roche. Illini, O received speaker fees and/or honoraria for advisory boards from Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Johnson & Johnson, Menarini, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, and Roche and received research grants from Amgen and AstraZeneca outside of the submitted study. Jöhrens, K received compensation for advisory roles for BMS, GSK, Merck Sharp & Dohme, honoraria from AstraZeneca, Agilent, Boehringer Ingelheim, and DSO, and serves as medical advisor for QuIP. Kauffmann-Guerrero received speaker fees and/or honoraria for advisory boards from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Takeda. Kirfel, J received speaker fees and/or honoraria for advisory boards, from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pfizer and Roche. König, D received a personal grant from Geistlich-Stucki-Stiftung, consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Merck, MSD, Novartis, PharmaMar, honoraria for presentations from Amgen, BMS, Mirati, Sanofi, Swiss Oncology in Motion, support for attending meetings from Amgen, Roche, Sanofi, honoraria for advisory boards from AstraZeneca, BMS, Merck, MSD, PharmaMar, Roche. Michels, S received research grants from Novartis and Pfizer, personal fees from Eli Lilly, Janssen, and Astra Zeneca as well as support for attending meetings and/or travel from Eli Lilly, and Janssen. Overbeck, T received speaker fees and/or honoraria for advisory boards by AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Janssen-Cilag, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Takeda, Tesaro/GSK, Lilly, Roche, travel reimbursement by AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Janssen-Cilag, Lilly, and Roche. Rohde, G received personal fees from Astra Zeneca, Atriva, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, Insmed, MSD, Sanofi, Novartis and Pfizer for consultancy during advisory board meetings and personal fees from Astra Zeneca, Berlin Chemie, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Essex Pharma, Grifols, GSK, Insmed, MSD, Roche, Sanofi, Solvay, Takeda, Novartis, Pfizer and Vertex for lectures. Rothschild, S received honoraria (institutional) from, Roche, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boheringer Ingelheim, MSD Oncology, Novartis, Amgen, Lilly, Eisai, Merck serono, Pfizer, Takeda, Bayer, Janssen Oncology, Otsuka, PharmaMar, and Sanofi, compensation for advisory roles for AstraZeneca, Boerhinger Ingelheim, BMS, Pfizer, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Merck Serono, MSD Oncology, Novartis, Roche Pharma AG, Takeda, Amgen, Otsuka, PharmaMar, serves for the speakers bureau of Roche Pharma AG, Sanodi/Aventis, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Takeda, received research funding from Abbvie, BMS, AstraZeneca, Boerhinger Ingelheim, Merck Serono, Roche Pharma AG, and travel support, accomodation, expenses from Sanofi, Roche Pharma AG, BMS, MSD Oncology, AstraZeneca, Takeda, Boehringer Ingelheim, Amgen. He serves at the Federal Drug Comission of the Federal Office of Public Health and the Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research (SAKK). Saalfeld, F received research funding from Roche, consultancy fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, honoraria for lectures from AstraZeneca, Janssen, Takeda, Pfizer, Novartis, Thieme, and GWT-TUD, travel support from Janssen and Eli Lilly, and compensation for advisory meetings with BMS, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Janssen, MSD, and Roche. Stenzinger, A received research grants from Bayer, BMS, Chugai, Incyte, and MSD, and compensation for advisory boards/speaker’s bureau: Agilent, Aignostics, Amgen, Astellas, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, BMS, Eli Lilly, Illumina, Incyte, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Qlucore, QuiP, Roche, Sanofi, Seagen, Servier, Takeda, Thermo Fisher. Syrigos, K received honoraria for advisory boards from Merck Sharp & Dohme, AstraZeneca, BMS Amgen. Thomas, M received research funding (institution) from AstraZeneca, BMS, Merck, Roche, Takeda, speaker fees and/or honoraria for advisory boards by Amgen, AstraZeneca, Beigene, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Oncology, Lilly, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda. Veluswamy, R served on advisory boards for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Astrazeneca, Merck, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merus, Novocure, Regeneron, BerGenBio, and Serna Bio, on unbranded speaker’s bureau of Astrazeneca and EMD Serono, received consulting honorarium from Beigene, received research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Onconova, Astrazeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lung Cancer Research Foundation, Stand Up 2 Cancer. Wenzel, C received speaker fees from Astra Zeneca. Wermke, M received honorary from Lilly, Boehringer-Ingelheim, SYNLAB, Janssen, Merck Serono, GWT, Amgen, Novartis, Pfizer, BMS and has/had paid consulting or advisory positions for BMS, Novartis, Lilly, Boehringer-Ingelheim, ISA Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, Immatics, Bayer, ImCheck, AstraZeneca, Tacalyx, Regeneron, Daiichi, Zymeworks, PharmaMar. He receive research funding (instution) from Roche and travel support from Pfizer, BMS, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Gemoab, Sanofi-Aventis, Merck Serono, Immatics, Janssen, Iovance, Daiichi-Sankyo. Wesseler, C received speaker fees and/or honoraria for advisory boards from Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Roche, MSD, Novartis, Takeda, AstraZeneca, Chugai, BMS. Wiesweg, M received honoraria and Advisory Role: Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Takeda, and travel costs from Amgen, Janssen, Daiichi Sankyo, and research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Takeda. Klimova, A, Kulhvay, J, Möller, J, Pelusi, N, Rasokat, A, Schubart, C, Schütz, M, Wang, A, and Vathiotis, J have nothing to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Adenosquamous carcinoma of the lung (ASC) is a rare non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) subtype combining components of squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) and adenocarcinoma (AC). Data on ASC, particularly in Caucasian populations, are limited. Methods: We reviewed clinicopathological and radiological characteristics of ASC patients diagnosed between 1996 and 2023. Patients were classified into AC-predominant ASC (AC-ASC) and SCC-predominant ASC (SCC-ASC) groups for analysis. Results: Among the 66 patients included, the median overall survival was 41.7 (95% CI, 25.0-54.4), while it was 48.1 (95% CI, 27.3-88.0) in patients treated with curative surgery (n = 44) and 15.3 (95% CI, 6.5-42.6) months for palliative patients (n = 22). The five-year survival rates were 39% and 26%, respectively. Recurrence occurred in 43% of stage I patients and was associated with worse survival (HR 3.303 (95% CI, 1.10-9.89) p = 0.033). AC-ASCs (n = 17) more frequently showed air-bronchogram ( p = 0.002) and pleural effusions ( p = 0.054) compared to SCC-ASCs (n = 26). SCC-ASCs exhibited more vascular invasion ( p = 0.006) and PD-L1 values between 1 and 49% (TPS) ( p = 0.032). The subtype did not influence survival. EGFR and ALK alterations were found in 17% and 2% of patients, respectively. Conclusions: Despite early-stage disease, ASC patients had a high recurrence rate, associated with worse survival. Clinicopathologic differences between AC-ASCs and SCC-ASCs did not influence survival.

Background: Sotorasib 960 mg once daily is approved to treat KRAS G12C-mutated locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Sotorasib exhibits non-dose proportional pharmacokinetics and clinical responses at lower doses; therefore, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of sotorasib 960 mg and 240 mg., Methods: In this phase 2, randomized, open-label study, adults with KRAS G12C-mutated advanced NSCLC received sotorasib 960 mg or 240 mg once daily. Primary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR) and safety. Secondary endpoints included disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and pharmacokinetics. The study was not powered for formal statistical hypothesis testing., Results: In the 960 mg group (n = 104), ORR was 32.7 % and DCR was 86.5 %. In the 240 mg group (n = 105), ORR was 24.8 % and DCR was 81.9 %. Median PFS was 5.4 months (960 mg) and 5.6 months (240 mg). At a median follow-up of 17.5 months, median OS was 13.0 months (960 mg) and 11.7 months (240 mg). AUC 0-24 h and C max were 1.3-fold numerically higher with the 960 mg dose. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs, ≥10 %) for 960 mg and 240 mg doses, respectively, were diarrhea (39.4 %; 31.7 %), nausea (23.1 %; 19.2 %), increased alanine aminotransaminase (14.4 %; 17.3 %), and increased aspartate aminotransferase (13.5 %; 13.5 %)., Conclusions: Patients treated with sotorasib 960 mg once daily had numerically higher ORR and DCR, and longer DOR and OS, than patients treated with 240 mg in this descriptive analysis. TEAEs were manageable with label-directed dose modifications., Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03600883., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: M. J. Hochmair: Financial Interests, Personal, Other, Consulting or Advisory role: Takeda, Roche, Lilly, AstraZeneca/Daiichi Sankyo; Financial Interests, Personal, Speaker’s Bureau: Lilly, MSD Oncology, Novartis, Roche, Amgen. K. Vermaelen: Financial Interests, Personal, Research Grant: Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS); Financial Interests, Personal, Other, Honoraria: BMS; Financial Interests, Personal, Other, Support for Attending Meetings: AstraZeneca, BMS, Merck; Financial Interests, Personal, Other, Patents Planned/Issued/Pending: Ghent University; Financial Interests, Personal, Other, Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board: Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Merck. G. Mountzios: Financial Interests, Personal, Other, Honoraria: Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS GmbH & Co. KG, Boehringer Ingelheim, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Takeda; Financial Interests, Personal, Other, Consulting or Advisory Board: Amgen, AstraZeneca/Greece, BMS GmbH & Co. KG, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Takeda; Financial Interests, Personal, Speaker’s Bureau: AstraZeneca, MSD; Financial Interests, Personal, Other, Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: AstraZeneca, BMS GmbH & Co. KG, Ipsen, MSD, Novartis, Roche. E. Carcereny: No conflicts to disclose. C. Dooms: No conflicts to disclose. S.-H. Lee: Financial Interests, Personal, Other, Honoraria: Amgen, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Lilly, Merck, Roche; Financial Interests, Personal, Other, Consulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, BMS/Ono, IMBdx, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Pfizer, Roche, Takeda; Financial Interests, Personal, Research Grant: AstraZeneca, Lunit, Merck; Financial Interests, Personal, Other, Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Novartis. E. Morocz: No conflicts to disclose. T. Kato: Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board, Speaker, Consultancy: AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Merck Biopharma, MSD; Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board, Speaker: Pfizer, Amgen, Janssen; Financial Interests, Personal, Other, Consultancy: Daiichi Sankyo, Takeda, Taiho; Financial Interests, Personal, Other, Consultancy, Speaker: Chugai; Financial Interests, Personal, Invited Speaker: Ono, Novartis, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim; Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: BeiGene, GSK; Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board, Steering Committee: Roche; Financial Interests, Personal, Full or Part-Time Employment, Family Member: Eli Lilly; Financial Interests, Institutional, Invited Speaker: Chugai, MSD, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, AbbVie, Regeneron, Novartis, Amgen, Merck Biopharma, Haihe Biopharma, Blueprint Medicines, Turning Point, BeiGene, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Bayer, Takeda, Daiichi Sankyo; Financial Interests, Institutional, Invited Speaker, Local PI: AstraZeneca. T.-E. Ciuleanu: Financial Interests, Personal, Other, Consulting or Advisory Role: Astellas Pharma, Janssen, BMS, Merck Serono, Amgen, Roche, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Sanofi, Novartis, Servier, A&D Pharma; Financial Interests, Personal, Other, Travel Support: Pfizer, Sanofi, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Servier, Ipsen, Amgen, A&D Pharma, AstraZeneca, Genentech, BMS, MSD Oncology, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Astellas Pharma. G. K. Dy: Financial Interests, Personal, Other, Consulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, Mirati Therapeutics, Lilly, Amgen, Regeneron, Eli Lilly; Financial Interests, Institutional, Research Grant: Amgen, AstraZeneca, Mirati Therapeutics, Lilly, Sanofi, BioAtla, Regeneron, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Revolution Medicines. B. Parente: No conflicts to disclose. K. J. O’Byrne: Financial Interests, Personal, Stocks/Shares: Carpe Vitae Pharmaceuticals, DGC Diagnostics, Replica Pharmaceuticals; Financial Interests, Personal, Speaker’s Bureau: Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Ipsen, Janssen-Cilag, Merck Group, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Seagen, Takeda, TriStar, Yuhan; Financial Interests, Personal, Other, Consulting or advisory Role: Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Ipsen, Janssen-Cilag, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, Sanofi, Seagen, Yuhan; Financial Interests, Personal, Other, Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: three active patents. Q. S. Chu: Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: AbbVie, Amgen, AnHeart Therapeutics, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Eli Lilly, Jazz Pharmaceutical, Johnson and Johnson, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Takeda. G. De Castro Jr.: Financial Interests, Personal, Other, Honoraria: AstraZeneca, Pfizer, MSD, BMS, Novartis, Roche, Amgen, Janssen, Merck Serono, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi, Lilly; Financial Interests, Personal, Other, Consulting or Advisory Role: Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Bayer, Roche, MSD, BMS, AstraZeneca, Yuhan, Merck Serono, Janssen, Libbs, Sanofi, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly; Financial Interests, Personal, Speaker’s Bureau: AstraZeneca, Bayer, Novartis, Roche, Merck Serono, BMS, MSD, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Janssen, Amgen, Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo; Financial Interests, Personal, Other, Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, BMS, Merck Serono, Daiichi Sankyo. N. Girard: Financial Interests, Personal, Research Grant: AstraZeneca, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Hoffmann-La Roche, Janssen, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sivan, Trizell; Financial Interests, Personal, Other, Consulting or Advisory Role: BMS, AstraZeneca, AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Hoffmann-La Roche, Janssen, Merck, MSD, Mirati, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Sivan; Financial Interests, Personal, Expert Testimony: AstraZeneca; Financial Interests, Personal, Invited Speaker, Participation in Data Safety Monitoring Board: Roche; Financial Interests, Personal, Other, Leadership Role: International Thymic Malignancy Interest Group; Financial Interests, Personal, Full or Part-Time Employment, Employment of a Family Member: AstraZeneca. W. Snyder, Q. Tran, W. Kormany, B. Houk, B. Mehta: Financial Interests, Personal, Full or Part-Time Employment: Amgen Inc.; Financial Interests, Personal, Stocks/Shares: Amgen Inc. A. Curioni-Fontecedro: Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, MSD, Novartis, Amgen, Roche, Takeda, Janssen; Non-Financial Interests, Personal, Leadership Role: Swiss Academy for Clinical Cancer Research (SAKK); Non-Financial Interests, Personal, Principal Investigator of Clinical Trials: Roche; Non-Financial Interests, Personal, Principal Investigator, Clinical Trials: Takeda, MSD, BMS., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Introduction: Small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) accounts for 15% of lung cancers and has a dismal prognosis due to early dissemination and acquired chemoresistance. The initial good response to chemotherapy is followed by refractory relapses within 1-2 years. Mechanisms leading to chemoresistance are not clear and progress is poor., Areas Covered: This article reviews the current evidence of the resistance of SCLCs at the cellular level including alteration of key proteins and the possible presence of cancer stem cells (CSCs). Without compelling evidence for cellular mechanisms and clinical failures of novel approaches, the study of SCLC has advanced to the role of 3D tumor cell aggregates in chemoresistance., Expert Opinion: The scarcity of viable tumor specimen from relapsed SCLC patients has hampered the investigations of acquired chemoresistance but a panel of nine SCLC circulating tumor cell (CTC) cell lines have revealed characteristics of SCLC in the advanced refractory states. The chemoresistance of relapsed SCLC seems to be linked to the spontaneous formation of large spheroids, termed tumorospheres, which contain resistant quiescent and hypoxic cells shielded by a physical barrier. So far, drugs to tackle large tumor spheroids are in preclinical and early clinical development.

Non-small cell lung cancer is a heterogeneous disease and molecular characterisation plays an important role in its clinical management. Next-generation sequencing-based panel testing enables many molecular alterations to be interrogated simultaneously, allowing for comprehensive identification of actionable oncogenic drivers (and co-mutations) and appropriate matching of patients with targeted therapies. Despite consensus in international guidelines on the importance of broad molecular profiling, adoption of next-generation sequencing varies globally. One of the barriers to its successful implementation is a lack of accepted standards and guidelines specifically for the reporting and clinical annotation of next-generation sequencing results. Based on roundtable discussions between pathologists and oncologists, we provide best practice recommendations for the reporting of next-generation sequencing results in non-small cell lung cancer to facilitate its use and enable easy interpretation for physicians. These are intended to complement existing guidelines related to the use of next-generation sequencing (solid and liquid). Here, we discuss next-generation sequencing workflows, the structure of next-generation sequencing reports, and our recommendations for best practice thereof. The aim of these recommendations and considerations is ultimately to ensure that reports are fully interpretable, and that the most appropriate treatment options are selected based on robust molecular profiles in well-defined reports., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) is a fatal disease with limited treatment options. Circulating tumor cells (CTCs) in liquid biopsy samples may serve as predictive and prognostic biomarkers; but the analysis of CTCs is still challenging. By using microfluidic or density gradient CTC enrichment in combination with immunofluorescent (IF) staining or qPCR of CTC-related transcripts, we achieved a 60.8% to 88.0% positivity in SCLC blood samples. Epithelial and neuroendocrine transcripts including the druggable target DLL3 were associated with shorter overall survival (OS), indicating the clinical value of these markers in terms of differential diagnosis and treatment decisions. High CTC counts and the presence of CTC duplets detected by IF staining were prognostic for OS, and thus may serve as indicators of disease progression or therapy failure. In patient samples with high CTC load detected by IF staining, a concordance of the transcripts positivity in circulating free plasma RNA and CTCs was observed. Our data emphasize the role of CTCs and CTC-related transcripts and underline the clinical value of liquid biopsy analysis in SCLC., (© 2024 The Authors. International Journal of Cancer published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of UICC.)

EGFR exon 20 (EGFR Ex20) insertion mutations in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are insensitive to traditional EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). Mobocertinib is the only approved TKI specifically designed to target EGFR Ex20. We performed an international, real-world safety and efficacy analysis on patients with EGFR Ex20-positive NSCLC enrolled in a mobocertinib early access program. We explored the mechanisms of resistance by analyzing postprogression biopsies, as well as cross-resistance to amivantamab. Data from 86 patients with a median age of 67 years and a median of two prior lines of treatment were analyzed. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 95% of patients. Grade ≥3 TRAEs were reported in 38% of patients and included diarrhea (22%) and rash (8%). In 17% of patients, therapy was permanently discontinued, and two patients died due to TRAEs. Women were seven times more likely to discontinue treatment than men. In the overall cohort, the objective response rate to mobocertinib was 34% (95% CI, 24-45). The response rate in treatment-naïve patients was 27% (95% CI, 8-58). The median progression-free and overall survival was 5 months (95% CI, 3.5-6.5) and 12 months (95% CI, 6.8-17.2), respectively. The intracranial response rate was limited (13%), and one-third of disease progression cases involved the brain. Mobocertinib also showed antitumor activity following EGFR Ex20-specific therapy and vice versa. Potential mechanisms of resistance to mobocertinib included amplifications in MET, PIK3CA, and NRAS. Mobocertinib demonstrated meaningful efficacy in a real-world setting but was associated with considerable gastrointestinal and cutaneous toxicity.

Background: Pulmonary carcinoids (PCs) are rare neuroendocrine lung tumors which may recur, thus worsening their otherwise favorable overall prognosis. Aiming to identify patients at risk for recurrence, we examined parameters affecting disease-free survival (DFS)., Methods: A retrospective single-center analysis of 82 consecutive patients undergoing curative intent resection for primary PC tumors between 2010 and 2019 was carried out. Kaplan-Meier method was utilized for survival analysis. Independent prognostic factors were determined using multivariable Cox and logistic regression., Results: During the observation period 82 patients, 48 females (58.5%) and 34 males (41.5%) were operated, representing 84 cases of PCs, 56 typical (TCs) (66.7%) and 28 atypical (ACs) (33.3%) carcinoids. Five-year overall survival was 87.5% and 84.7%, 5-year DFS 97.5% and 74.9% (P=0.012) for TCs and ACs, respectively. Recurrences occurred in one patient (1.8%) with TCs and five patients (17.9%) with ACs (P=0.014). Using multivariable Cox regression, tumor size (cm) remained as an independent prognostic factor for reduced DFS (P=0.018). In logistic regression, nodal involvement (P=0.043) and tumor size (cm) (P=0.023) were independently associated with higher risk of recurrence. Age, sex, smoking, location, and Ki-67 index were not independently associated with recurrence or DFS., Conclusions: Recurrence in PCs after complete resection is relatively rare. However, DFS is reduced in ACs compared to TCs. Tumor size (cm) and nodal involvement appear as the most important prognostic factors associated with recurrence in PCs, independent of histologic type., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://jtd.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/jtd-23-1681/coif). The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (2024 Journal of Thoracic Disease. All rights reserved.)

In the past two decades, the treatment of metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), has undergone significant changes due to the introduction of targeted therapies and immunotherapy. These advancements have led to the need for predictive molecular tests to identify patients eligible for targeted therapy. This review provides an overview of the development and current application of targeted therapies and predictive biomarker testing in European patients with advanced stage NSCLC. Using data from eleven European countries, we conclude that recommendations for predictive testing are incorporated in national guidelines across Europe, although there are differences in their comprehensiveness. Moreover, the availability of recently EMA-approved targeted therapies varies between European countries. Unfortunately, routine assessment of national/regional molecular testing rates is limited. As a result, it remains uncertain which proportion of patients with metastatic NSCLC in Europe receive adequate predictive biomarker testing. Lastly, Molecular Tumor Boards (MTBs) for discussion of molecular test results are widely implemented, but national guidelines for their composition and functioning are lacking. The establishment of MTB guidelines can provide a framework for interpreting rare or complex mutations, facilitating appropriate treatment decision-making, and ensuring quality control., Competing Interests: WT has received consulting fees from Merck Sharp and Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Altana (fees to institution), is board member of Dutch Society of Pathology and member of Council for Research and Innovation of the Federation of Medical Specialists (FMS); AB has received consulting fees from Sanofi (OncoCollective advisory board), payments or honoraria from Roche (oral presentation), support for attending ASCO 2023 from Pfizer; JB has received research grants from Amgen and Bristol-Myers Squibb, lecture honoraria from AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Roche, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, GSK, Eli Lilly, Amgen, and Sanofi, and support for attending meetings and/or travel from Amgen; LB has received grants or contract from Takeda, Roche, AstraZeneca, and Bristol-Myers Squibb, payments or honoraria from Invitae, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Roche, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Novartis, Takeda, and Janssen, has participated in data safety monitoring boards or advisory boards for Invitae, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Roche, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Novartis, Takeda, and Janssen, is Int. Secretary of the Austrian Society of Pathology, PPS Membership and Awards Committee, and is Member of the Mesothelioma Committee of IASLC; RB has received payments or honoraria for lectures and advisory boards for Abbvie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Illumina, Janssen, Lilly, Merck-Serono, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Qiagen, Pfizer, Roche, and Targos MP Inc., has received payments for expert testimony from Merck Sharp and Dohme, is co-founder and co-owner of Gnothis Inc. (SE), Timer Therapeutics Inc. (GE); GF has received fees for advisory boards participation, meetings, or as invited speaker, from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Lilly, Janssen, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Pfizer, Roche Farmacêutica Química Lda, and Takeda; MH has received payments or honoraria from Merck Sharp and Dohme, Roche, Lilly, AstraZeneca, and Takeda; PH has received consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Roche, Abbvie, Qiagen, and Pfizer, has received payments or honoraria from Thermofisher Scientist, Novartis, Janssen, AstraZeneca, and Biocartis, has received support for attending meetings and/or travel from Thermofisher Scientist, Novartis, Janssen, AstraZeneca, and Biocartis, has participated on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Thermofisher Scientist, Novartis, Janssen, AstraZeneca, Biocartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Sanofi, Roche, and Abbvie; LvK has received institutional grants or contract from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Janssen-Cilag, Merck, Roche, and Servier, has received institutional payments or honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche, has received institutional support for attending meeting and/or travel from Roche, has participated on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board from Janssen-Cilag, Merck, and Roche, has a leadership or fiduciary role in the Commission Personalized Medicine—Belgium (unpaid), has stock or stock options in Cyclomics (institutional/personal); JCM has received payments or honoraria from Lilly Portugal, Novartis Portugal, Roche Portugal, Fresco Produções, Janssen-Cilag Portugal, Pierre Fabre Portugal, and Servier Portugal; has participated on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board of Roche Portugal; KM has received payments or honoraria from Takeda, Janssen, Pfizer, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Amgen, Novartis, and Eli Lilly, has participated on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board of BMS, Takeda, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Janssen; SP has received consulting fees (personal fees) from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Blueprint, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, GSK, Guardant Health, Incyte, Janssen, Lilly, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Roche, Takeda, Pfizer, Seattle Genetics, Turning Point Therapeutics, and EQRx, has received payments or honoraria (personal fees) from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Guardant Health, Janssen, Merck Serono, Roche, and Takeda, has received payments for expert testimony (personal fees) from Roche, and Merck Serono, has received reimbursement of travel expenses from Janssen, and Roche, has participated on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board as per consulting fees, has a leadership role or fiduciary role (all unpaid) in the British Thoracic Oncology Group, ALK Positive UK, Lung Cancer Europe, Ruth Strauss Foundation, Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation, and ETOP-IBCSG Partners Foundation Board; AR has received consulting fees for participation on advisory boards of AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Amgen, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Gilead, and Sanofi, has received honoraria for lectures and presentations from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Amgen, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Gilead, Roche, Merck-Serono, has received support for attendings meetings and travel from Sanofi, Gilead, Roche, and Bristol-Myers Squibb; JW has received payments or honoraria, has received support for attendings meetings and travel, and has participated in a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board, from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Blueprint, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Janssen, Lilly, Loxo, Merck, Mirati, MSD, Novartis, Nuvalent, Pfizer, Pierre-Fabre, Roche, Seattle Genetics, Takeda, and Turning Point; ES has received unrestricted grants (all paid to UMCG institution) from Abbott, Biocartis, AstraZeneca, Invitae/Archer, Bayer, Bio-Rad, Roche, Agena Bioscience, CC Diagnostics, MSD/MERCK, and Boehringer Ingelheim, has received consulting fees (all paid to UMCG institution) from MSD/Merck, AstraZeneca, Roche, Novartis, Bayer, BMS, Lilly, Amgen, Illumina, Agena Bioscience, CC Diagnostics, Janssen Cilag (Johnson & Johnson), Astellas Pharma, GSK, Sinnovisionlab, and Sysmex, has received payments or honoraria (all paid to UMCG institution) from Bio-Rad, Seracare, Roche, Biocartis, Lilly, Agena Bioscience, and Illumina, has received support for attending meetings and/or travel from BioRad, Biocartis, Ageno Sciences, and Illumina, is a board member for the Dutch Society of Pathology (unpaid), European Society of Pathology (unpaid), European Liquid Biopsy Society (unpaid), is a secretary/member of the advisory committee for assessment of molecular diagnostics (cieBOD) (honoraria paid to UMCG institution), is committee member of national guideline advisory (honoraria paid to UMCG institution); AvdW, has received grants or contracts from AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda, has received consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Janssen, Lilly, Roche, and Takeda, has received payments or honoraria from AstraZeneca, BMS, Lilly, Pfizer, and Roche, has a leadership or fiduciary role in the oncology section NVALT, guideline committee NSCLC and CUP, dure geneesmiddelen committee NVALT and FMS. All other authors declare no competing interests., (© 2024 The Authors.)

For patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) tumors without currently targetable molecular alterations, standard-of-care treatment is immunotherapy with anti-PD-(L)1 checkpoint inhibitors, alone or with platinum-doublet therapy. However, not all patients derive durable benefit and resistance to immune checkpoint blockade is common. Understanding mechanisms of resistance-which can include defects in DNA damage response and repair pathways, alterations or functional mutations in STK11/LKB1, alterations in antigen-presentation pathways, and immunosuppressive cellular subsets within the tumor microenvironment-and developing effective therapies to overcome them, remains an unmet need. Here the phase 2 umbrella HUDSON study evaluated rational combination regimens for advanced NSCLC following failure of anti-PD-(L)1-containing immunotherapy and platinum-doublet therapy. A total of 268 patients received durvalumab (anti-PD-L1 monoclonal antibody)-ceralasertib (ATR kinase inhibitor), durvalumab-olaparib (PARP inhibitor), durvalumab-danvatirsen (STAT3 antisense oligonucleotide) or durvalumab-oleclumab (anti-CD73 monoclonal antibody). Greatest clinical benefit was observed with durvalumab-ceralasertib; objective response rate (primary outcome) was 13.9% (11/79) versus 2.6% (5/189) with other regimens, pooled, median progression-free survival (secondary outcome) was 5.8 (80% confidence interval 4.6-7.4) versus 2.7 (1.8-2.8) months, and median overall survival (secondary outcome) was 17.4 (14.1-20.3) versus 9.4 (7.5-10.6) months. Benefit with durvalumab-ceralasertib was consistent across known immunotherapy-refractory subgroups. In ATM-altered patients hypothesized to harbor vulnerability to ATR inhibition, objective response rate was 26.1% (6/23) and median progression-free survival/median overall survival were 8.4/22.8 months. Durvalumab-ceralasertib safety/tolerability profile was manageable. Biomarker analyses suggested that anti-PD-L1/ATR inhibition induced immune changes that reinvigorated antitumor immunity. Durvalumab-ceralasertib is under further investigation in immunotherapy-refractory NSCLC.ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03334617., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Purpose: In the CASPIAN trial, first-line durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide (EP) significantly improved overall survival (OS) versus EP alone in extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). We report exploratory analyses of CASPIAN outcomes by programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression and tissue tumor mutational burden (tTMB)., Experimental Design: Patients were randomized (1:1:1) to durvalumab (1,500 mg) plus EP, durvalumab plus tremelimumab (75 mg) plus EP, or EP alone. Treatment effects in PD-L1 and tTMB subgroups were estimated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model., Results: The PD-L1 and tTMB biomarker-evaluable populations (BEP) comprised 54.4% (438/805) and 35.2% (283/805) of the intention-to-treat population, respectively. PD-L1 prevalence was low: 5.7%, 25.8%, and 28.3% had PD-L1 expression on ≥1% tumor cells (TC), ≥1% immune cells (IC), and ≥1% TCs or ICs, respectively. OS benefit with durvalumab plus EP versus EP was similar across PD-L1 subgroups, with HRs all falling within the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the PD-L1 BEP (0.47‒0.79). OS benefit with durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus EP versus EP was greater in PD-L1 ≥1% versus <1% subgroups, although CIs overlapped. There was no evidence of an interaction between tTMB and treatment effect on OS (durvalumab plus EP vs. EP, P = 0.916; durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus EP vs. EP, P = 0.672)., Conclusions: OS benefit with first-line durvalumab plus EP in patients with ES-SCLC was observed regardless of PD-L1 or tTMB status. PD-L1 expression may prove to be a useful biomarker for combined treatment with PD-(L)1 and CTLA-4 inhibition, although this requires confirmation with an independent dataset. See related commentary by Rolfo and Russo, p. 652., (©2023 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is a neuroendocrine aggressive tumor with a dismal prognosis due to the lack of curative therapeutic modalities. Approximately 11% of these patients show a malignant pleural effusion (MPE) that increase in frequency with progression of the disease. In MPE, fluid accumulates due to leaky vessels and mesothelial surfaces as well as impaired removal of fluid due to impaired drainage., Methods: For this investigation, three SCLC MPE samples and supernatants of the corresponding isolated cell lines were analyzed for the content of 105 cytokines, chemokines, and growth factors. Overexpressed pathways including these cytokines were identified using Reactome analysis tools., Results: A large range of cytokines, including vascular endothelial growth factor A ( VEGFA ), were found to be expressed in the MPEs and conditioned media of the corresponding cell line. These mediators are involved in pathways such as interleukin ( IL ) signaling, growth factor stimulation, modulation of cell adhesion molecules and proliferative cell signaling. Cytokine expression by the corresponding SCLC cell lines revealed the specific contributions of the tumor cells and included high expression of VEGFA , tumor-promoting factors and mediators exerting immunosuppressive and protumor effects. MPEs used here showed marked stimulation of the proliferation of four permanent SCLC cell lines., Conclusions: MPEs comprise a large number of cytokines with mixed activities on tumor cells and the invading SCLC cells release a number of protumor mediators and induce an immunosuppressive pleural environment., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://tlcr.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/tlcr-23-569/coif). G.H. serves as an unpaid editorial board member of Translational Lung Cancer Researchfrom September 2023 to August 2025. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (2024 Translational Lung Cancer Research. All rights reserved.)

Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer-related deaths in Europe, with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) accounting for approximately 85% of cases. NSCLC is a heterogeneous disease encompassing various oncogenic alterations. Among them, EGFR exon 20 insertion mutations, constituting 0.3-2.2% of NSCLC cases, rank as the third most common EGFR alteration after exon 19 deletions and the L858R point mutation in exon 21, also known as "typical" EGFR alterations. Recent advancements in understanding the molecular pathogenesis of NSCLC have led to significant breakthroughs in targeted therapies, revolutionizing treatment options for patients with specific genetic alterations.This article presents the outcomes of a Virtual Meeting conducted on the online platform (provided Within3©) from September 19 to October 30, 2022. The meeting focused on addressing the challenges in the diagnosis and treatment of NSCLC patients with EGFR exon 20 insertion mutations. The participants consisted of healthcare professionals from ten Central and Eastern European countries who shared their experiences and opinions on various aspects, including epidemiology, treatment options, and diagnostic approaches employed in their respective healthcare institutions. The discussions were facilitated through open-ended and multiple-choice questions.The primary objective of this article is to provide an overview of the identified challenges associated with the diagnosis and treatment of this heterogeneous disease, based on the assessments of the meeting participants. Among the major emerging challenges discussed, the reimbursement issues concerning next-generation sequencing (NGS), a recommended method in NSCLC molecular diagnosis, and the availability of approved targeted treatments to enhance patient outcomes were of paramount importance. Furthermore, fostering community awareness of lung cancer and promoting harmonized lung cancer care were identified as areas deserving greater attention. Notably, the rapidly evolving treatment landscape, particularly with NGS for NSCLC patients with genomic alterations like EGFR, ALK, RET, MET, NTRK, and ROS1, necessitates prioritizing the development of new drugs, even for the relatively smaller subgroup with exon 20 insertion mutations., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Objectives: In the Phase I/III IMpower133 study, first-line atezolizumab plus carboplatin and etoposide (CP/ET) treatment for extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) significantly improved overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival versus placebo plus CP/ET. We explored patient and disease characteristics associated with long-term survival in IMpower133, and associations of differential gene expression and SCLC-A (ASCL1-driven), SCLC-N (NEUROD1-driven), SCLC-P (POU2F3-driven), and SCLC-inflamed (SCLC-I) transcriptional subtypes with long-term survival., Materials and Methods: Patients with previously untreated ES-SCLC were randomized 1:1 to four 21-day cycles of CP/ET with atezolizumab or placebo. Long-term survivors (LTS) were defined as patients who lived ≥ 18 months post randomization. A generalized linear model was used to evaluate the odds of living ≥ 18 months. Differential gene expression was analyzed using RNA-sequencing data in LTS and non-LTS. OS was assessed by T-effector and B-cell gene signature expression. Distribution of SCLC transcriptional subtypes was assessed in LTS and non-LTS., Results: More LTS were in the atezolizumab arm (34%) than in the placebo arm (20%). The odds ratio for living ≥ 18 months in the atezolizumab arm versus the placebo arm was 2.1 (P < 0.03). Enhanced immune-related signaling was seen in LTS in both arms. Exploratory OS analyses showed atezolizumab treatment benefit versus placebo across T-effector and B-cell gene signature expression subgroups. A higher proportion of LTS than non-LTS in both arms had the SCLC-I subtype; this difference was particularly pronounced in the atezolizumab arm., Conclusion: These exploratory analyses suggest that long-term survival is more likely with atezolizumab than placebo in ES-SCLC, confirming the treatment benefit of the IMpower133 regimen., Clinicaltrial: gov Identifier: NCT02763579., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: S.V.L. declares grants or contracts from Alkermes, Bayer, Blueprint, Bristol Myers Squibb, Elevation Oncology, Genentech, Lilly, Merck, Merus, Pfizer, Rain Therapeutics, RAPT, Turning Point Therapeutics; consulting fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, Blueprint, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Elevation Oncology, Genentech/Roche, Gilead, Guardant Health, Janssen, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Lilly, Merck/Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis, Regeneron, Sanofi, Takeda, Turning Point Therapeutics; and participation on a Data Safety Monitoring or Advisory Board for Candel Therapeutics. T.S.K.M. declares consulting and advisory personal fees from AbbVie, Inc., ACEA Pharma, Alpha Biopharma Co. Ltd., Amgen, Amoy Diagnostics Co. Ltd., AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Blueprint Medicines Corporation, CStone Pharmaceuticals, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Fishawack Facilitate Ltd., geneDecode (uncompensated), Gritstone Oncology Inc., Guardant Health, Hengrui Therapeutics, Ignyta Inc., IQVIA, Incyte Corporation, Janssen, Lilly, Loxo-Oncology, Lunit USA, Inc., Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mirati Therapeutics Inc., Novartis, OrigiMed, Pfizer, Inc., Puma Biotechnology Inc., Roche, Sanofi-Aventis R&D, Takeda, Yuhan Corporation, SFJ Pharmaceuticals, Curio Science, Inivata, Berry Oncology, Qiming Development (HK) Ltd., Gilead Sciences, Inc., Vertex Pharmaceuticals, and Covidien LP; lecture personal fees from ACEA Pharmaceuticals, Alpha Biopharma Co. Ltd., Amgen, Amoy Diagnostics Co. Ltd., AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Fishawack Facilitate Ltd., geneDecode, (uncompensated), InMed Medical Communication, Janssen, Lilly, Lunit USA, Inc., MD Health (Brazil), Medscape/WebMD, Merck Serono, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis, OrigiMed, PeerVoice, Physicians’ Education Resource, P. Permanyer SL, Pfizer, Inc., PrIME Oncology, Research to Practice, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis R&D, Takeda, Touch Medical Media, Daz Group, Lucence Health Inc., Merck Pharmaceuticals HK Ltd., Shanghai BeBirds Translation & Consulting Co. Ltd., Liangyihui Network Technology Co. Ltd., and Taiho; grants from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Serono, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Inc., Roche, Takeda, Clovis Oncology, SFJ Pharmaceuticals, XCovery, and G1 Therapeutics Inc.; personal fees for supporting an advisory board for Inivata, Berry Therapeutics Inc., and G1 Therapeutics Inc.; shareholding for Aurora, Sanomics Ltd., Hutchison ChiMed; and a role on the Board of Directors for Lunit USA, Inc., AstraZeneca PLC, Hutchison ChiMed, Sanomics Ltd., Aurora. B.Y.N declares employment by Genentech and stockholding in Roche. A.S.M declares grants or contracts from NIH/NCI, Verily, Novartis, Department of Defense, and Mark Foundation; payment or honoraria to institution for lecture, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or education events from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech; support for attending meetings and/or travel from Shanghai Roche Pharmaceuticals; patents planned, issues, or pending for patents submitted unrelated to this work; and other financial or non-financial interests from non-remunerated director of the Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation. R. De Boer declares payment of honoraria from Novartis, AstraZeneca, and Gilead; and support for attending meetings and/or travel from Amgen, Novartis, and Roche. S.S. declares payment or honoraria for lectures, presentation, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educations events from Chugai Pharma, AstraZeneca, Ono Pharmaceutical, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Nippon Boehringer-Ingelheim, Pfizer, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Eli Lilly, and Company, Novartis, Kyowa Kirin, Yakult Honsha, and Towa Pharmaceutical. R. Dziadziuszko declares consulting fees from Roche, Boehringer-Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Takeda, Pfizer, Foundation Medicine, Novartis, and Karyopharm; and payment or honoraria from Roche, Novartis, AstraZeneca, and Pfizer. A.S. declares payment or honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis, and Pfizer; support for attending meetings and/or travel from Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, Boehringer-Ingelheim, and AstraZeneca; and participation on data safety monitoring or advisory boards for Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, Takeda, AstraZeneca, BIOCAD, and Boehringer-Ingelheim. M.J.H declares payment or honoraria from Boehringer-Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Takeda, Pfizer, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, and Roche; and participation on data safety monitoring or advisory boards for Boehringer-Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Takeda, Pfizer, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, and Roche. M.C.G. declares grants from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Merck Serono, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Amgen, GSK, Sanofi; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Janssen, Lilly, Yuhan, Merck Serono, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Amgen, Libbs, and Sanofi; payment of honoraria from Boehringer-Ingelheim, Pfizer, Bayer, Roche, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Merck Serono, Janssen, and Amgen; support for attending meetings and/or travel from Boehringer-Ingelheim, Pfizer, Bayer, Roche, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Merck Serono; participation on data safety monitoring or advisory boards for TEVA, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bayer, Pfizer, Roche, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Yuhan, Janssen, Merck Serono, Novartis, Amgen; and payment of honoraria for promotional activities from Boehringer-Ingelheim, Pfizer, Roche, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Novartis, TEVA, Amgen, and Janssen. C.M.G. declares research grants/funding to self from AstraZeneca; advisory/consultancy to AstraZeneca, Kisoji Biotechnology, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, and Bristol Myers Squibb; and speaker bureau/expert testimony for AstraZeneca and BeiGene. J.V.H declares advisory/consultancy for Bristol Myers Squibb, BrightPath Biotherapeutics, Janssen Global Services, Nexus Health Systems Pneuma Respiratory, Kairos Venture Investments, Roche, Leads Biolabs, AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Catalyst, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Guardant Health, Foundation Medicine, Hengrui Therapeutics, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Spectrum, EMD Serono, Sanofi, Takeda, and Mirati Therapeutics; research support to AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, and Spectrum; and royalties/licensing fees from Spectrum. L.A.B. declares an advisory role/consultancy for AstraZeneca, AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Merck; and research funding from AstraZeneca and AbbVie. S.L. declares employment by Genentech and stockholding in Roche. A.C. declares employment by Roche and stockholding in Roche. S.M. declares employment by Roche and stockholding in Roche. L.A. declares employment by Roche and stockholding in Roche. D.S.S. declares employment by Genentech and stockholding in Roche. M.R. declares consulting fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Lilly, Merck, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Mirati, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Roche; payment of honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Lilly, Merck, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Mirati, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Roche; support for attending meetings and/or travel from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Lilly, Merck, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Mirati, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Roche; and participation on data safety monitoring or advisory boards for DSMB Sanofi. G.L. and M.K. declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

The intestinal microbiome is by now an undebatable key player in the clinical outcome of ICI therapies. However, no microbiome profiling method to aid therapy decision is yet validated. We conducted a multi-centric study in patients with stage III/IV melanoma, NSCLC, or RCC receiving ICI treatment. The stool microbiome profile of 63 patients was analyzed with BiomeOne ® , a microbiome-based algorithm that anticipates whether a patient will achieve clinical benefit with ICIs prior to therapy initiation. Classification of patient samples as Rs and NRs was achieved with a sensitivity of 81% and a specificity of 50% in this validation cohort. An ICI-favorable response was characterized by an intestinal microbiome rich in bacteria such as Oscillospira sp., Clostridia UCG-014, Lachnospiraceae UCG-010 sp., Prevotella copri , and a decrease in Sutterella sp., Lactobacillales, and Streptococcus sp. Patients who developed immune-related adverse events (irAEs) had an overall increased microbial diversity and richness, and a stool microbiome depleted in Agathobacter . When compared with the programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression test in the subcohort of NSCLC patients ( n = 38), BiomeOne ® exhibited a numerically higher sensitivity (78.6%) in identifying responders when compared with the PD-L1 test (67.9%). This study provides an evaluation of BiomeOne ® , the first microbiome-based test for prediction of ICI response, to achieve market authorization. Validation with further indications and expansion to other microbiome-based interventions will be essential to bring microbiome-based diagnostics into standard clinical practice.

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically on the based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported. We present 5-year outcomes from the phase 3 KEYNOTE-189 study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02578680). Eligible patients with previously untreated metastatic nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer without EGFR/ALK alterations were randomly assigned 2:1 to pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo once every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles with pemetrexed and investigator's choice of carboplatin/cisplatin for four cycles, followed by maintenance pemetrexed until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Primary end points were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Among 616 randomly assigned patients (n = 410, pembrolizumab plus pemetrexed-platinum; n = 206, placebo plus pemetrexed-platinum), median time from random assignment to data cutoff (March 8, 2022) was 64.6 (range, 60.1-72.4) months. Hazard ratio (95% CI) for OS was 0.60 (0.50 to 0.72) and PFS was 0.50 (0.42 to 0.60) for pembrolizumab plus platinum-pemetrexed versus placebo plus platinum-pemetrexed. 5-year OS rates were 19.4% versus 11.3%. Toxicity was manageable. Among 57 patients who completed 35 cycles of pembrolizumab, objective response rate was 86.0% and 3-year OS rate after completing 35 cycles (approximately 5 years after random assignment) was 71.9%. Pembrolizumab plus pemetrexed-platinum maintained OS and PFS benefits versus placebo plus pemetrexed-platinum, regardless of programmed cell death ligand-1 expression. These data continue to support pembrolizumab plus pemetrexed-platinum as a standard of care in previously untreated metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer without EGFR/ALK alterations.

The introduction of neoadjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitors plus platinum-based chemotherapy has changed treatment regimens of patient's early-stage lung cancer. This treatment combination induces high rates of complete pathologic response and improves clinical endpoints. Imaging plays a fundamental role in assessment of treatment response, monitoring of (immune-related) adverse events and enables both the surgeon and pathologist optimal treatment and diagnostic workup of the resected tumor samples. Knowledge of the strengths and weaknesses of diagnostic imaging in this setting are essential for radiologists to provide valuable input in multidisciplinary team decisions., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper: [Helmut Prosch reports financial support was provided by Christian Doppler Laboratories. Lucian Beer reports a relationship with Bayer, Novartis, MSD, Roche that includes: speaking and lecture fees and travel reimbursement]., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The ratio of positive and resected lymph nodes (LN ratio) has been shown to be prognostic in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Contrary to the LN ratio, calculating the LN log-odds ratio (LN-LOR) additionally considers the total number of resected lymph nodes. We aim to evaluate LN-LOR between positive and resected lymph nodes as a prognostic factor in operable NSCLC., Methods: Patients with NSCLC who underwent curative intent lobectomy treated at two high-volume centers were retrospectively studied. LN-LOR was dichotomized according to impact on OS and further combined with N descriptors and correlated with clinical variables and survival., Results: 944 patients were included. Cut-off analysis revealed that an LN-LOR of -0.34 significantly discriminated patients according to OS ( p < 0.001, chi-squared test 41.26). When combined with N1 and N2 descriptors, LN-LOR low risk (median OS not reached and 83 months) and LN-LOR high-risk patients (median OS 50 and 59 months) had similar survival irrespective of the anatomical location of the positive lymph nodes. Multivariable Cox regression analysis revealed that age (HR 1.02, 95% CI 1.001-1.032), sex (male, HR 1.65, 95% CI 1.25-2.19), histological subtype (HR 2.11, 95% CI 1.35-3.29), pathological stage (HR 1.23, 95% CI 1.01-1.45) and LN-LOR risk groups (low risk, HR 0.48, 95% CI 0.32-0.72) were independent prognostic factors for OS., Conclusions: This retrospective two-center analysis shows that LN-LOR is significantly associated with OS in resectable NSCLC and might better reflect the biological behavior of the disease, regardless of anatomical lymph node locations. This finding may additionally support the value of extensive LN dissection.

Background: Brigatinib is a next-generation anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitor with demonstrated efficacy in locally advanced and metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in crizotinib-refractory and ALK inhibitor-naive settings. This analysis assessed brigatinib in Asian vs. non-Asian patients from the first-line ALTA-1L trial., Patients and Methods: This was a subgroup analysis from the phase III ALTA-1L trial of brigatinib vs. crizotinib in ALK inhibitor-naive ALK+ NSCLC. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) as assessed by blinded independent review committee (BIRC). Secondary endpoints included confirmed objective response rate (ORR) and overall survival (OS) in the overall population and BIRC-assessed intracranial ORR and PFS in patients with brain metastases., Results: Of the 275 randomized patients, 108 were Asian. Brigatinib showed consistent superiority in BIRC-assessed PFS vs. crizotinib in Asian (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.35 [95% CI: 0.20-0.59]; log-rank P = .0001; median 24.0 vs. 11.1 months) and non-Asian (HR: 0.56 [95% CI: 0.38-0.84]; log-rank P = .0041; median 24.7 vs. 9.4 months) patients. Results were consistent with investigator-assessed PFS and BIRC-assessed intracranial PFS. Brigatinib was well tolerated. Toxicity profiles and dose modification rates were similar between Asian and non-Asian patients., Conclusion: Efficacy with brigatinib was consistently better than with crizotinib in Asian and non-Asian patients with locally advanced or metastatic ALK inhibitor-naive ALK-+ NSCLC. There were no clinically notable differences in overall safety in Asian vs. non-Asian patients., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objectives: The stability of gene transcripts associated with the presence of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) has been predominantly studied in cultured cancer cell lines added to blood samples under artificial conditions. In the present study the effect of storage on CTC-related transcripts was assessed in blood samples taken from patients with non-small lung cancer (n=58)., Methods: The blood samples were split in two equal parts to compare the gene expression with and without storage for 24 h at ambient temperature without preservative added. After enrichment using the microfluidic Parsortix ® technology, the expression levels of selected genes were assessed using quantitative PCR following a gene-specific pre-amplification. The prognostic relevance of each gene in fresh and stored blood samples was evaluated using the R-package Survminer., Results: Some genes were either not affected ( TWIST 1, CDH5 , CK19 ) or upregulated upon storage ( NANOG , MET , UCHL1 ) but still associated with poor prognosis. In contrast, ERBB3 , PTHLH , EpCAM , and TERT were no longer associated with the overall survival of the patients., Conclusions: The study demonstrates the surprising stability of CTC-related transcripts, which makes overnight shipping of native blood samples possible. Careful verification is required when using model systems - such as normal blood spiked with tumor cells - or other CTC-related markers, as individual transcripts may respond differently to storage., (© 2022 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.)

Objective: Two recent non-interventional trials, GioTag and UpSwinG, demonstrated encouraging time-to-treatment failure (TTF) and overall survival (OS) in patients with epidermal growth factor receptor ( EGFR) mutation-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) (Del19 or L858R) who received sequential afatinib/osimertinib, especially in Asians. Here, we have undertaken a combined analysis of Asian patients from both studies., Materials and Methods: Existing medical/electronic records were identified for consecutive EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI)-naïve patients who received first-line afatinib/second-line osimertinib in "real-world" practice (all T790M-positive). Patients with active brain metastases were excluded. The primary objective was TTF. OS was a key secondary objective., Results: One hundred and sixty-eight patients were analyzed. Most patients were recruited from South Korea or Japan (52/21%). At the start of afatinib, median age (range) was 61.5 years (35-88), 58% were female, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS) (0/1/≥2) was 29/62/9%, 17% had brain metastases, and EGFR mutation status (Del19/L858R) was 65/35%. At the start of osimertinib, ECOG PS (0/1/≥2) was 22/61/17% and 14% had brain metastases. Median TTF and OS were 30.0 months (95% CI: 24.5-32.5) and 45.2 months (95% CI: 41.7-71.1), respectively. Median OS was 63.5 months in patients with a Del19 mutation. Median OS in patients with brain metastases or ECOG PS ≥2 was 26.4 and 33.1 months, respectively., Conclusion: Sequential afatinib/osimertinib showed encouraging activity in Asian patients with EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC and T790M-mediated acquired resistance, especially those with Del19-positive disease. Activity was observed across "real-world" patients including those with poor ECOG PS and/or brain metastases. ECOG PS and incidence of brain metastases remained stable prior to, and after, afatinib., Competing Interests: SM reports receiving honoraria from Chugai Pharma, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Taiho Pharma, and Pfizer. HAJ, SYL, SHL, MKL, and YCL declare no potential conflict of interest. MJH reports receiving consulting fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, and honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Roche. C-TY declares no potential conflict of interest. AM declares employment with Boehringer Ingelheim. JC-HY reports receiving personal and/or institutional fees from Amgen; personal and institutional fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Roche/Genentech, Takeda Oncology, Yuhan Pharmaceuticals; institutional fees from Bayer, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Merck KGaA (Darmstadt, Germany), Merck Sharp & Dohme, Johnson & Johnson; personal fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Ono Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer; grants from AstraZeneca. SP reports receiving grant support, honoraria, consulting fees, and travel support from Boehringer Ingelheim; consulting fees and travel support from Bristol Myers Squibb; honoraria and consulting fees from Roche, Takeda, AstraZeneca; honoraria from Chugai Pharma; consulting fees from Novartis, Guardant Health, AbbVie, Pfizer; consulting fees and travel support from Merck Sharp & Dohme., (© 2022 Miura et al.)

Introduction: We report brigatinib long-term efficacy and safety from phase 1/2 and phase 2 (ALTA) trials in ALK -rearrangement positive ( ALK +) NSCLC., Methods: The phase 1/2 study evaluated brigatinib 30 to 300 mg/d in patients with advanced malignancies. ALTA randomized patients with crizotinib-refractory ALK+ NSCLC to brigatinib 90 mg once daily (arm A) or 180 mg once daily (7-d lead-in at 90 mg; arm B)., Results: In the phase 1/2 study, 79 of 137 brigatinib-treated patients had ALK+ NSCLC; 71 were crizotinib pretreated. ALTA randomized 222 patients (n = 112 in arm A; n = 110 in arm B). Median follow-up at phase 1/2 study end (≈5.6 y after last patient enrolled) was 27.7 months; at ALTA study end (≈4.4 y after last patient enrolled), 19.6 months (A) and 28.3 months (B). Among patients with ALK + NSCLC in the phase 1/2 study, median investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) was 14.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 10.8-21.2); median overall survival was 47.6 months (28.6-not reached). In ALTA, median investigator-assessed PFS was 9.2 months (7.4-11.1) in arm A and 15.6 months (11.1-18.5) in arm B; median independent review committee (IRC)-assessed PFS was 9.9 (7.4-12.8) and 16.7 (11.6-21.4) months, respectively; median overall survival was 25.9 (18.2-45.8) and 40.6 (32.5-not reached) months, respectively. Median intracranial PFS for patients with any brain metastases was 12.8 (9.2-18.4) months in arm A and 18.4 (12.6-23.9) months in arm B. No new safety signals were identified versus previous analyses., Conclusions: Brigatinib exhibited sustained long-term activity and PFS with manageable safety in patients with crizotinib-refractory ALK+ NSCLC., (© 2022 The Authors.)

Patients with lung cancer frequently suffer from physical deconditioning, low exercise capacity, and reduced quality of life. There is little evidence on the effects of a structured outpatient pulmonary rehabilitation program (OPR) on exercise capacity and symptom load in these patients. We performed a retrospective, single-center analysis of surgically resected lung cancer patients, who underwent a multiprofessional 6-week OPR. The primary endpoint was a change in the six-minute walk test distance (6 MWT). Secondary endpoints included changes in maximal workload and constant work-rate test results during cycle-ergometry, upper and lower extremity strength, and inspiratory muscle strength. The COPD Assessment Test (CAT) was used to assess symptom burden. Fifty-seven patients were included. Of those, fifty-two (91.2%) completed the full 6 weeks of OPR. The mean age was 56.4 (SD 9.2) years, and 58% were female. At completion of OPR, there was a statistically significant mean of a 50 m (95% CI, 29.6−70.7; p < 0.001) increase in 6 MWT. Significant improvements were also seen in all other exercise and strength tests (p < 0.001), accompanied by a significant reduction in the CAT score (mean difference −3.1, p = 0.001). No adverse effects were reported. OPR for surgically resected lung cancer patients was safe and effective and showed high adherence in the current study.

About 15% of patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harbor the Kirsten rat sarcoma homolog G12C mutation ( KRAS G12C ). Selective KRAS G12C inhibitors offer new treatment opportunities, but little is known about the prevalence, characteristics, and outcomes of standard-of-care treatment (SOC) in this population. We retrospectively assessed the clinicopathological features of patients with KRAS G12C -mutated advanced NSCLC and responses to SOC at two high-volume centers in Austria. Out of 2495 NSCLC patients tested, we identified 174 patients with advanced-stage disease carrying a KRAS G12C mutation. Most patients were ≥65 years old (55%), heavy smokers (55%), and presented with comorbidities. The most frequent co-alteration was TP53 (18%). PD-L1 expression was high (TPS ≥ 50%) in 31%, very high (TPS ≥ 90%) in 11%, and negative in 31% of patients. A total of 138 patients (79%) received oncologic systemic treatment. The most common first-line therapy (1 L) was anti-PD-1/PD-L1 plus platinum-based chemotherapy. Median overall survival measured from 1 L treatment was 15.3 months (95% CI, 8.6-21.9), 9.4 (95% CI, 5.3-13.5) from 2 L treatment, and 8.4 (95% CI, 1.7-15.1) from 3 L treatment. The time-to-next-treatment was 8.4 (95% CI, 5.2-11.6) from 1 L and 6.1 (95% CI, 2.7-9.7) months from 2 L to 3 L. These poor outcomes underscore the need for the implementation of new treatment options and for specific molecular testing.

Background: Patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) presenting with mesenchymal-epithelial transition ( MET ) exon 14 skipping mutation have an unfavorable prognosis with standard treatments. Capmatinib is a selective MET inhibitor, which showed promising efficacy in this patient population in early trials., Methods: We performed a retrospective, international, multicenter efficacy and safety analysis in patients with NSCLC treated with capmatinib in an early access program between March 2019 and December 2021., Results: Data from 81 patients with advanced MET exon 14 mutated NSCLC treated with capmatinib in first- or later-line therapy were analyzed. Median age was 77 years (range, 48-91), 56% were women, 86% had stage IV disease, and 27% had brain metastases. For all patients, the objective response rate (ORR) to capmatinib was 58% (95% CI, 47-69), whereas it was 68% (95% CI, 50-82) in treatment-naïve and 50% (95% CI, 35-65) in pretreated patients. The median progression-free survival was 9.5 months (95% CI, 4.7-14.3), whereas it was 10.6 months (95% CI, 5.5-15.7) in first-line and 9.1 months (95% CI, 3.1-15.1) in pretreated patients. After a median follow-up of 11.0 months, the median overall survival was 18.2 months (95% CI, 13.2-23.1). In patients with measurable brain metastases ( n  = 11), the intracranial ORR was 46% (95% CI, 17-77). Capmatinib showed a manageable safety profile. Grade ⩾ 3 treatment-related adverse events included peripheral edema (13%), elevated creatinine (4%), and elevated liver enzymes (3%)., Conclusion: In patients with MET exon 14 skipping mutation, capmatinib showed durable systemic and intracranial efficacy and a manageable safety profile. This analysis confirms previously reported phase II data in a real-world setting., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement: Oliver Illini: Received speaker fees and/or honoraria for advisory boards from Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Menarini, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, and Roche. Hannah Fabikan: Speaker fee from Roche. Aurélie Swalduz: Honoraria for Advisory Boards: Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Takeda, Lilly, Pfizer, Amgen, Janssen. Symposiums: Roche, AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Takeda. Anders Vikström: Speaker fees, consultations and honoraria for advisory boards from Amgen, Astra Zeneca, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, ELI-Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda. Research grants from Boehringer-Ingelheim. Dagmar Krenbek: Received speaker fees and/or honoraria for advisory boards from Amgen, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Janssen, Merck, Novartis. Michael Schumacher: Received speaker fees and/or honoraria for advisory boards and/or travel grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Menarini, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Roche, BMS, Novartis, Takeda, Amgen. Elizabeth Dudnik: Personal fees from Roche, grants and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, grants and personal fees from Astra Zeneca, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from MSD, personal fees from BMS, personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Takeda, personal fees from Sanofi, personal fees from Janssen – all outside the submitted work. Michael Studnicka: Nothing to declare. Ronny Öhman: Speaker fee and advisory board for; Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Roche, MSD, Takeda, BMS, Novartis, and Janssen. Robert Wurm: Received speaker fees and/or honoraria for advisory boards from Amgen, Astra Zeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and Takeda. Luciano Wannesson: Received speaker fees and/or honoraria for advisory boards from Novartis, Eli Lilly, Takeda, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Roche. Received a research grant from Roche. Nir Peled: NP reports receiving grants and personal fees from: Advisor & Honorarium from & Research with AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Foundation Medicine, Gaurdant360, Merk, MSD, Novartis, NovellusDx, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda. Waleed Kian: Nothing to declare. Jair Bar: Research funding (for the institute): MSD, Abbvie, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Roche, and Takeda. Consultant fees: MSD, Takeda, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Abbvie, Merck, Causalis, Roche, BMS, and Pfizer. Sameh Daher: Received speaker fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Rhenium, Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Takeda, and Roche. Alfredo Addeo: Consulting or Advisory Role: BMS, AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Roche, MSD, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, and Astellas. Speaker Bureau: Eli Lilly and Astrazeneca. Ofer Rotem: Received speaker fees and/or honoraria for advisory boards from Astrazeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Takeda, and Teva. Georg Pall: Speaker fees and/or honoraria for advisory boards: Novartis, Merck, Astra Zeneca, and Pfizer. Alona Zer: Received speaker fees and/or honoraria for advisory boards from Takeda, Astra Zeneca, Menarini, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Novartis, and Roche. Akram Saad: Nothing to declare. Tanja Cufer: Received speaker fees and/or honoraria for advisory boards from Astra Zeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda. Hadas Gantz Sorotsky: Lectures/Speakers Bureau/Personal fees/Travel, Accommodations, Expenses Expert Testimony – Roche-Genentech, MSD, BMS, AstraZeneca, Takeda, Astellas, Pfizer, and Medison. Sayed M.S. Hashemi: Advisory Board/Speaker fee: Abbvie, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Eli Lilly, Janssen, GSK, Loxo, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Takeda, and Xcovery. Katja Mohorcic: Received speaker fees and/or honoraria for advisory boards from Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Roche, Takeda, BMS Astra Zeneca, Amgen, and Jansen. Ronen Stoff: Received speaker fees from: BMS, MSD, Roche, Medison, Dexcel, and Novartis. Yulia Rovitsky: Nothing to declare. Shoshana Keren-Rosenberg: Nothing to declare. Thomas Winder: Received speakers fees and/or honoraria for advisory boards from MSD, Roche, Merck, Bayer, Servier, Eli Lilly, and Pfizer. Christoph Weinlinger: Nothing to declare. Arschang Valipour: Personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Menarini, Merck, Novartis, and Roche for lectures and/or advisory boards outside of the submitted study. Maximilian J. Hochmair: Honoraria from AstraZeneca, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, and Roche, and has had consulting or advisory roles with Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Novartis, and Roche., (© The Author(s), 2022.)

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a rare pleural cancer associated with asbestos exposure. According to current evidence, the combination of chemotherapy, surgery and radiotherapy improves patients’ survival. However, the optimal sequence and weighting of the respective treatment modalities is unclear. In anticipation of the upcoming results of the MARS-2 trial, we sought to determine the relative impact of the respective treatment modalities on complications and overall survival in our own consecutive institutional series of 112 patients. Fifty-seven patients (51%) underwent multimodality therapy with curative intent, while 55 patients (49%) were treated with palliative intent. The median overall survival (OS) of the entire cohort was 16.9 months (95% CI: 13.4−20.4) after diagnosis; 5-year survival was 29% for patients who underwent lung-preserving surgery. In univariate analysis, surgical treatment (p < 0.001), multimodality therapy (p < 0.001), epithelioid subtype (p < 0.001), early tumor stage (p = 0.02) and the absence of arterial hypertension (p = 0.034) were found to be prognostic factors for OS. In multivariate analysis, epithelioid subtype was associated with a survival benefit, whereas the occurrence of complications was associated with worse OS. Multimodality therapy including surgery significantly prolonged the OS of MPM patients compared with multimodal therapy without surgery.

Introduction: In the phase 3 study involving the use of durvalumab with or without tremelimumab in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy in untreated extensive-stage SCLC (CASPIAN study), first-line durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide (EP) significantly improved overall survival (OS) versus EP alone ( p = 0.0047). We report exploratory subgroup analyses of treatment patterns and outcomes according to the presence of baseline brain or central nervous system metastases., Methods: Patients (WHO performance status 0 or 1), including those with asymptomatic or treated-and-stable brain metastases, were randomized to four cycles of durvalumab plus EP followed by maintenance durvalumab until progression or up to six cycles of EP and optional prophylactic cranial irradiation. Prespecified analyses of OS and progression-free survival (PFS) in subgroups with or without brain metastases used unstratified-Cox proportional hazards models. The data cutoff was on January 27, 2020., Results: At baseline, 28 out of 268 patients (10.4%) in the durvalumab plus EP arm and 27 out of 269 patients (10.0%) in the EP arm had known brain metastases, of whom 3 of 28 (10.7%) and 4 of 27 (14.8%) had previous brain radiotherapy, respectively. Durvalumab plus EP (versus EP alone) prolonged OS (hazard ratio, 95% confidence interval) in patients with (0.79, 0.44-1.41) or without (0.76, 0.62-0.92) brain metastases, with similar PFS results (0.73, 0.42-1.29 and 0.80, 0.66-0.97, respectively). Among patients without brain metastases, similar proportions in each arm developed new brain lesions as part of their first progression (8.8% and 9.5%), although 8.3% in the EP arm received prophylactic cranial irradiation. Similar proportions in each arm received subsequent brain radiotherapy (20.5% and 21.2%), although more common in patients with than without baseline brain metastases (45.5% and 18.0%)., Conclusions: The OS and PFS benefit with first-line durvalumab plus EP were maintained irrespective of the presence of brain metastases, further supporting its standard-of-care use., (© 2022 The Authors.)

Background: In the phase III CASPIAN study, first-line durvalumab in combination with etoposide plus either cisplatin or carboplatin (EP) significantly improved overall survival (OS) versus EP alone in extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). Durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus EP numerically improved OS versus EP, but did not reach statistical significance. Here we report updated OS in censored patients after median follow-up of >3 years., Patients and Methods: 805 patients with treatment-naïve ES-SCLC were randomized 1 : 1 : 1 to durvalumab plus EP, durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus EP, or EP. The two primary endpoints were OS for durvalumab plus EP versus EP and for durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus EP versus EP., Results: As of 22 March 2021 (median follow-up 39.4 months, 86% maturity), durvalumab plus EP continued to demonstrate improved OS versus EP: hazard ratio (HR) 0.71 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60-0.86; nominal P = 0.0003]; median OS was 12.9 versus 10.5 months, and 36-month OS rate was 17.6% versus 5.8%. Durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus EP continued to numerically improve OS versus EP: HR 0.81 (95% CI: 0.67-0.97; nominal P = 0.0200); median OS was 10.4 months, and 36-month OS rate was 15.3%. Twenty-seven and nineteen patients in the durvalumab plus EP and durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus EP arms, respectively, remained on durvalumab treatment at data cut-off., Conclusions: Three times more patients were estimated to be alive at 3 years when treated with durvalumab plus EP versus EP, with the majority still receiving durvalumab at data cut-off, further establishing durvalumab plus EP as first-line standard of care for ES-SCLC., Competing Interests: Disclosure LPA reports receiving grants from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, and Pfizer; consulting fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Blueprint Medicines, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Lilly, Merck, Mirati, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Roche, Sanofi, and Servier; and honoraria from AstraZeneca, Janssen, Merck, Mirati, and Sanofi, and reports a leadership role with Genomica and Altum Sequencing, all outside the submitted work. YC reports receiving honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Guardant Health, Jazz Pharmaceutical, Merck, Pfizer, and Takeda; and a research contract and support for meeting attendance/travel from Ipsen, all outside the submitted work. NR reports receiving honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Hoffmann-La Roche, Lilly, Merck, MSD, Pfizer, and Takeda; and consulting fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Hoffmann-La Roche, Merck, MSD, Pfizer, and Takeda, all outside the submitted work. KH reports receiving grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca during the conduct of the study; grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai, Lilly, and MSD outside the submitted work; and honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai, Lilly, MSD, Nippon Kayaku, Ono, Pfizer, Taiho, and Takeda outside the submitted work. MJH reports receiving speakers’ honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda outside the submitted work. MCG reports receiving grants from AstraZeneca and Merck, and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda, all outside the submitted work. EM reports receiving grants from AstraZeneca during the conduct of the study and grants from Roche outside the submitted work. HM and TD report full-time employment and stock ownership with AstraZeneca. HJ reports full-time employment and stock ownership with AstraZeneca, and a patent pending for the CASPIAN study trial design. JWG reports receiving research grants from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, and Merck; consulting fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Genentech; and support for travel from AstraZeneca all outside the submitted work. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest. Data sharing Data underlying the findings described in this manuscript may be obtained in accordance with AstraZeneca’s data-sharing policy described at https://astrazenecagrouptrials.pharmacm.com/ST/Submission/Disclosure., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of temporal muscle thickness (TMT), a surrogate marker for sarcopenia, in radiosurgically treated patients with brain metastases (BMs) from non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)., Methods: For 566 patients with BMs from NSCLC in the period between June 2012 and December 2019, TMT values were retrospectively measured on the planning brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies that had been obtained before their first Gamma Knife radiosurgery treatment (GKRS1). Predefined sex-specific TMT cutoff values were used to stratify the study cohort into patients at risk for sarcopenia and patients with normal muscle status. Cox regression models adjusted for other prognostic parameters were used to evaluate sarcopenia as an independent prognostic factor., Results: In sarcopenia patients with a TMT below the sex-specific cutoff values, the risk of death was significantly increased (HR 1.908, 95% CI 1.550-2.349, p < 0.001). In addition, sarcopenia was revealed as an independent prognostic factor even after adjusting for age groups, sex, number of BMs, presence of extracranial metastases, NSCLC subtypes, Karnofsky Performance Status groups, recursive partitioning analysis classes, and concomitant immunotherapy or targeted therapy (HR 1.680, 95% CI 1.347-2.095, p < 0.001). However, patients at risk for sarcopenia showed no significant differences in the estimated mean time until local BM progression after GKRS1, compared to patients with normal muscle status (p = 0.639)., Conclusions: TMT obtained from planning MRI studies is an independent prognostic marker in radiosurgically treated patients with BMs from NSCLC and may aid patient stratification in future clinical trials.

Introduction: In the phase 3 study entitled ALK in Lung cancer Trial of brigAtinib in 1st Line (ALTA-1L), which is a study of brigatinib in ALK inhibitor-naive advanced ALK-positive NSCLC, brigatinib exhibited superior progression-free survival (PFS) versus crizotinib in the two planned interim analyses. Here, we report the final efficacy, safety, and exploratory results., Methods: Patients were randomized to brigatinib 180 mg once daily (7-d lead-in at 90 mg once daily) or crizotinib 250 mg twice daily. The primary end point was a blinded independent review committee-assessed PFS. Genetic alterations in plasma cell-free DNA were assessed in relation to clinical efficacy., Results: A total of 275 patients were enrolled (brigatinib, n = 137; crizotinib, n = 138). At study end, (brigatinib median follow-up = 40.4 mo), the 3-year PFS by blinded independent review committee was 43% (brigatinib) versus 19% (crizotinib; median = 24.0 versus 11.1 mo, hazard ratio [HR] = 0.48, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.35-0.66). The median overall survival was not reached in either group (HR = 0.81, 95% CI: 0.53-1.22). Posthoc analyses suggested an overall survival benefit for brigatinib in patients with baseline brain metastases (HR = 0.43, 95% CI: 0.21-0.89). Detectable baseline EML4-ALK fusion variant 3 and TP53 mutation in plasma were associated with poor PFS. Brigatinib exhibited superior efficacy compared with crizotinib regardless of EML4-ALK variant and TP53 mutation. Emerging secondary ALK mutations were rare in patients progressing on brigatinib. No new safety signals were observed., Conclusions: In the ALTA-1L final analysis, with longer follow-up, brigatinib continued to exhibit superior efficacy and tolerability versus crizotinib in patients with or without poor prognostic biomarkers. The suggested survival benefit with brigatinib in patients with brain metastases warrants future study., (Copyright © 2021 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) are standard of care for EGFR mutation-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, optimal sequence of treatment has yet to be defined. Overall survival (OS) is influenced by the availability/use of subsequent therapy after first-line treatment. Emergence of T790M is the main mechanism of resistance to afatinib and second-line osimertinib could be a treatment option in this instance., Methods: In this non-interventional, global study (NCT04179890), existing medical/electronic records were identified for consecutive EGFR TKI-naïve patients with EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC (Del19 or L858R) treated with first-line afatinib and second-line osimertinib in regular clinical practice (n = 191; all T790M-positive). The primary objective was time to treatment failure (TTF). Key secondary objectives were OS and objective response rate (ORR)., Results: At the start of afatinib treatment, median age (range) was 62 years (34-88). Fifty-five percent of patients were female and 67% were Asian. ECOG PS (0/1/≥2) was 31%/57%/12%. Fourteen percent of patients had brain metastases. At the start of osimertinib treatment, ECOG PS (0/1/≥2) was 25%/61%/14% and 14% had brain metastases (rising to 29% at the end of osimertinib treatment). The source of biopsy material (solid/liquid) was 86%/3% at the start of afatinib and 54%/33% at start of osimertinib. Mutations were mainly detected with PCR methods. Overall, median TTF was 27.7 months (95% CI: 24.0-30.2) and median OS was 36.5 months (95% CI: 32.9-41.8). ORR with afatinib and osimertinib was 74% and 45%. TTF, OS and ORR were generally consistent across subgroups., Conclusion: Sequential afatinib and osimertinib demonstrated encouraging activity in patients with EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC and acquired T790M. Activity was observed across all subgroups, including patients with poor ECOG PS or brain metastases. ECOG PS and incidence of brain metastases remained stable prior to, and after, afatinib treatment., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)