Search

Background: Amivantamab-lazertinib significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) versus osimertinib in patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutant advanced non-small-cell lung cancer [NSCLC; hazard ratio (HR) 0.70; P < 0.001], including those with a history of brain metastases (HR 0.69). Patients with TP53 co-mutations, detectable circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), baseline liver metastases, and those without ctDNA clearance on treatment have poor prognoses. We evaluated outcomes in these high-risk subgroups., Patients and Methods: This analysis included patients with treatment-naive, EGFR-mutant advanced NSCLC randomized to amivantamab-lazertinib (n = 429) or osimertinib (n = 429) in MARIPOSA. Pathogenic alterations were identified by next-generation sequencing (NGS) of baseline blood ctDNA with Guardant360 CDx. Ex19del and L858R ctDNA in blood was analyzed at baseline and cycle 3 day 1 (C3D1) with Biodesix droplet digital polymerase chain reaction (ddPCR)., Results: Baseline ctDNA for NGS of pathogenic alterations was available for 636 patients (amivantamab-lazertinib, n = 320; osimertinib, n = 316). Amivantamab-lazertinib improved median PFS (mPFS) versus osimertinib for patients with TP53 co-mutations {18.2 versus 12.9 months; HR 0.65 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.48-0.87]; P = 0.003} and for patients with wild-type TP53 [22.1 versus 19.9 months; HR 0.75 (95% CI 0.52-1.07)]. In patients with EGFR-mutant, ddPCR-detectable baseline ctDNA, amivantamab-lazertinib significantly prolonged mPFS versus osimertinib [20.3 versus 14.8 months; HR 0.68 (95% CI 0.53-0.86); P = 0.002]. Amivantamab-lazertinib significantly improved mPFS versus osimertinib in patients without ctDNA clearance at C3D1 [16.5 versus 9.1 months; HR 0.49 (95% CI 0.27-0.87); P = 0.015] and with clearance [24.0 versus 16.5 months; HR 0.64 (95% CI 0.48-0.87); P = 0.004]. Amivantamab-lazertinib significantly prolonged mPFS versus osimertinib among randomized patients with [18.2 versus 11.0 months; HR 0.58 (95% CI 0.37-0.91); P = 0.017] and without baseline liver metastases [24.0 versus 18.3 months; HR 0.74 (95% CI 0.60-0.91); P = 0.004]., Conclusions: Amivantamab-lazertinib effectively overcomes the effect of high-risk features and represents a promising new standard of care for patients with EGFR-mutant advanced NSCLC., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Extended pleurectomy decortication for complete macroscopic resection for pleural mesothelioma has never been evaluated in a randomised trial. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes after extended pleurectomy decortication plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone., Methods: MARS 2 was a phase 3, national, multicentre, open-label, parallel two-group, pragmatic, superiority randomised controlled trial conducted in the UK. The trial took place across 26 hospitals (21 recruiting only, one surgical only, and four recruiting and surgical). Following two cycles of chemotherapy, eligible participants with pleural mesothelioma were randomly assigned (1:1) to surgery and chemotherapy or chemotherapy alone using a secure web-based system. Individuals aged 16 years or older with resectable pleural mesothelioma and adequate organ and lung function were eligible for inclusion. Participants in the chemotherapy only group received two to four further cycles of chemotherapy, and participants in the surgery and chemotherapy group received pleurectomy decortication or extended pleurectomy decortication, followed by two to four further cycles of chemotherapy. It was not possible to mask allocation because the intervention was a major surgical procedure. The primary outcome was overall survival, defined as time from randomisation to death from any cause. Analyses were done on the intention-to-treat population for all outcomes, unless specified. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02040272, and is closed to new participants., Findings: Between June 19, 2015, and Jan 21, 2021, of 1030 assessed for eligibility, 335 participants were randomly assigned (169 to surgery and chemotherapy, and 166 to chemotherapy alone). 291 (87%) participants were men and 44 (13%) women, and 288 (86%) were diagnosed with epithelioid mesothelioma. At a median follow-up of 22·4 months (IQR 11·3-30·8), median survival was shorter in the surgery and chemotherapy group (19·3 months [IQR 10·0-33·7]) than in the chemotherapy alone group (24·8 months [IQR 12·6-37·4]), and the difference in restricted mean survival time at 2 years was -1·9 months (95% CI -3·4 to -0·3, p=0·019). There were 318 serious adverse events (grade ≥3) in the surgery group and 169 in the chemotherapy group (incidence rate ratio 3·6 [95% CI 2·3 to 5·5], p<0·0001), with increased incidence of cardiac (30 vs 12; 3·01 [1·13 to 8·02]) and respiratory (84 vs 34; 2·62 [1·58 to 4·33]) disorders, infection (124 vs 53; 2·13 [1·36 to 3·33]), and additional surgical or medical procedures (15 vs eight; 2·41 [1·04 to 5·57]) in the surgery group., Interpretation: Extended pleurectomy decortication was associated with worse survival to 2 years, and more serious adverse events for individuals with resectable pleural mesothelioma, compared with chemotherapy alone., Funding: National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (15/188/31), Cancer Research UK Feasibility Studies Project Grant (A15895)., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests EL reports grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, Medela, Johnson & Johnson/Ethicon, Covidien/Medtronic, Guardant Health, Takeda, Lilly Oncology, and Bayer, paid to his institution, his company, or personally; consulting fees from BeiGene, Roche, and BMS; honoraria from Medela; two patents (P52435GB and P57988GB) issued to Imperial Innovations; and being founder of My Cancer Companion, Healthcare Companion. SP reports consulting fees from AnHeart Therapeutics, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Blueprint, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Ellipses, EQRx, Daiichi Sankyo, GSK, Guardant Health, IO Biotech, Janssen, Lilly, Merck Serono, Mirati, MSD, Novocure, Novartis, PharmaMar, Roche, Takeda, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, and Turning Point Therapeutics; honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Guardant Health, Janssen, Merck Serono, Roche, and Takeda; fees for expert testimony from Roche and Merck Serono; support for meeting attendance from Janssen, Roche, and Gilead; and being a member of the British Thoracic Oncology Group, ALK Positive UK, Lung Cancer Europe, Ruth Strauss Foundation, Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation, and ETOP-IBCSG Partners Foundation Board. NT reports honoraria from BMS. DF reports grants from Astex Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer Oncology, Bergen Bio, GSK, MSD, Owkin, Roche, and RS Oncology paid to his institution; consulting fees from MSD, Cambridge Clinical Laboratories, and RS Oncology; honoraria from BMS, BI, MSD, Ikena, and Owkin; and meeting support from RS Oncology and MSD, all paid to Thoracic Oncology Services where he is director. RCR reports research funding from Cancer Research UK, Asthma and Lung UK, June Hancock Mesothelioma Research Fund, Mick Knighton Mesothelioma Research Fund, and Mesobank; and participation on an advisory board for the UK Lung Cancer Coalition. PT reports honoraria from AstraZeneca. LC-S reports support for meeting attendance from Lilly. RC reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, MSD, Takeda, Janssen, Roche, and GSK; support for meeting attendance from Takeda and Janssen; participation on advisory boards for GSK, Takeda, Janssen, Pharmamar, and Amgen; and stock options with TCC and Supportive Care UK. YS reports honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, AbbVie, BMS, MSD, Lilly, Roche, and Takeda; and support for meeting attendance from Takeda and Roche. ZT reports honoraria from AstraZeneca. RS reports honoraria and support for meeting attendance from Lilly and BMS. EF reports membership of the National Lung Cancer and Mesothelioma Clinical Experts Group and Northern Cancer Alliance Targeted Lung Health Check Clinical Lead. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Amivantamab plus carboplatin-pemetrexed (chemotherapy) with and without lazertinib demonstrated antitumor activity in patients with refractory epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in phase I studies. These combinations were evaluated in a global phase III trial., Patients and Methods: A total of 657 patients with EGFR-mutated (exon 19 deletions or L858R) locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC after disease progression on osimertinib were randomized 2 : 2 : 1 to receive amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy, chemotherapy, or amivantamab-chemotherapy. The dual primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) of amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy versus chemotherapy. During the study, hematologic toxicities observed in the amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy arm necessitated a regimen change to start lazertinib after carboplatin completion., Results: All baseline characteristics were well balanced across the three arms, including by history of brain metastases and prior brain radiation. PFS was significantly longer for amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy versus chemotherapy [hazard ratio (HR) for disease progression or death 0.48 and 0.44, respectively; P < 0.001 for both; median of 6.3 and 8.3 versus 4.2 months, respectively]. Consistent PFS results were seen by investigator assessment (HR for disease progression or death 0.41 and 0.38 for amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy, respectively; P < 0.001 for both; median of 8.2 and 8.3 versus 4.2 months, respectively). Objective response rate was significantly higher for amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy versus chemotherapy (64% and 63% versus 36%, respectively; P < 0.001 for both). Median intracranial PFS was 12.5 and 12.8 versus 8.3 months for amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy versus chemotherapy (HR for intracranial disease progression or death 0.55 and 0.58, respectively). Predominant adverse events (AEs) in the amivantamab-containing regimens were hematologic, EGFR-, and MET-related toxicities. Amivantamab-chemotherapy had lower rates of hematologic AEs than amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy., Conclusions: Amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy improved PFS and intracranial PFS versus chemotherapy in a population with limited options after disease progression on osimertinib. Longer follow-up is needed for the modified amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy regimen., Competing Interests: Disclosure AP: consulting or advisory role for AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly, GSK, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mundipharma, Novartis, and Roche; speakers bureaus for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, eCancer, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Medscape, PeerVoice, and touchONCOLOGY; steering committee member for Janssen and ArriVent Biopharma. SHL: received honoraria from AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Roche, Merck, Lilly, and Amgen; consulting or advisory role for AstraZeneca, Roche, Merck, Pfizer, and Lilly; received research funding from Merck. BM: received speaking honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Janssen, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and Takeda; received support for attending meetings from Janssen, Pfizer, and Sanofi. JYS: participated in advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Chugai Pharmaceutical Co, Ono Pharmaceutical, Takeda, CStone Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, and Bristol Myers Squibb; received speaking honoraria from AstraZeneca, Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Chugai Pharmaceutical Co, Ono Pharmaceutical, and Bristol Myers Squibb; received grant from Roche. KA: received lecture fees for AstraZeneca K.K., MSD K.K., Ono Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., Bristol Myers Squibb, and Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. OJV: honoraria or advisory role for Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche/Genentech, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Lilly, Takeda, and Janssen; received travel, accommodations, and expenses from Takeda, AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, and Roche/Genentech. EF: consulting or advisory role for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Lilly, GSK, Janssen, Merck Serono, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Takeda, Peptomyc, Daiichi Sankyo Europe GmbH, F. Hoffman La-Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme, BerGenBio, and Turning Point Therapeutics; speakers bureaus for AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Lilly, Medscape, Merck Sharp & Dohme, PeerVoice, Pfizer, Takeda, Amgen, F. Hoffman La-Roche, Janssen, Medical Trends, Merck Serono, Sanofi, and touchONCOLOGY; other relationships with GRIFOLS; received research funding from Merck and Merck KgaA. NG: invited speaker for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Mirati Therapeutics, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi; advisory roles for AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Grünenthal, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Owkin, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and Takeda; received research funding for institution from Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Roche, and Sivan; leadership role at ITMIG; family employment at AstraZeneca. ABC: invited speaker for Pfizer, Amgen, Takeda, Novartis, Roche, AstraZeneca, MSD, Janssen, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Sanofi; advisory roles for Novartis, AbbVie, Roche, Exeliom Biosciences, Pfizer, Janssen, Amgen, Takeda, AstraZeneca, and MSD; research funding of institution from Exeliom Biosciences; support for attending meetings from Roche, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Amgen, and Bristol Myers Squibb; participation on data monitoring safety board for InhaTarget Therapeutics and Merck. RC: invited speaker for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Lilly, GSK, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda; participated in advisory boards for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Lilly, GSK, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Roche, Sanofi, and Takeda; speaker in educational activities for Medscape, PeerVoice, and TouchIME; holds stocks or shares in Supportive Care UK; has ownership interest in Christie Private Care; principal investigator for AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Clovis, Lilly, GSK, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Roche, and Takeda. FC: received consulting fees from Roche, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Takeda, Lilly, Bayer, Amgen, Sanofi, PharmaMar, Novocure, Mirati Therapeutics, Galecto, OSE Immunotherapeutics, and MSD; received honoraria for advisory role from Roche, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Takeda, Lilly, Bayer, Amgen, Sanofi, PharmaMar, Novocure, Mirati Therapeutics, Galecto, OSE Immunotherapeutics, and MSD; received support for attending meetings from OSE Immunotherapeutics; participated in advisory boards for Roche, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Takeda, Lilly, Bayer, Amgen, Sanofi, PharmaMar, Novocure, Mirati Therapeutics, Galecto, OSE Immunotherapeutics, and MSD. SO: received advisory board consulting fees from Janssen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novocure, and Roche. SP: participated in advisory boards for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, Blueprint Medicines, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, EQRx, GSK, Guardant Health, Janssen, Lilly, Medscape, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Takeda; consulting fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Blueprint Medicines, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, GSK, Guardant Health, Incyte, Janssen, Lilly, Merck Serono, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Takeda, Pfizer, Seattle Genetics, Turning Point Therapeutics, and EQRx; expert testimony for Merck Serono and Roche; invited speaker for VJOncology; received payment or honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Guardant Health, Janssen, Merck Serono, Roche, and Takeda; principal investigator for ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Janssen, Lilly, Roche, Takeda, Trizel, and Turning Point Therapeutics; received support for attending meetings from Janssen and Roche; research grant from Guardant Health; other financial relationships with Amgen, Blueprint Medicines, Elsevier, and MSD. JLT: invited speaker for AstraZeneca, Lilly, MSD, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, and Takeda; participated in advisory boards for Amgen and AstraZeneca; received support for attending meetings from MSD. PT: received grants and nonfinancial support from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Roche, and Takeda. RDG: received grants from Alliance Foundation, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Big Ten Cancer Research Consortium, Bristol Myers Squibb, Chugai Pharmaceutical Co, Daiichi Sankyo, ECOG-ACRIN, Helsinn, Hoosier Cancer Research Network, Janssen, Jounce Therapeutics, Merck, National Cancer Institute, Pfizer, and Takeda; received payment or honoraria from Clinical Care Options, OncLive, Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer, and Targeted Oncology; received support for attending meetings from the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer; participated in advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Blueprint Medicines, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, Janssen, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Mirati Therapeutics, Oncocyte, Sanofi, and Takeda; leadership or other role in ASCO Scientific Review Committee and Meeting Abstracts, Hoosier Cancer Research Network, Journal of Clinical Oncology, National Cancer Institute Investigational Drug Steering Committee, and the Thoracic Clinical Trial Working Group. WNWJr: participated in advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Bayer, Merck, Novartis, Sanofi, and Takeda; invited speaker for Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Lilly, Genentech/Roche, Janssen, Pfizer, and United Medical; expert testimony for Boehringer Ingelheim. KR: consultant for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Blueprint Medicines, Daiichi Sankyo, EMD Serono, Genentech, GSK, Janssen, Lilly, Merck KGA, Mirati Therapeutics, Seattle Genetics, and Takeda; writing assistance from Blueprint Medicines, Genentech, Janssen, Merck, Mirati Therapeutics, Seattle Genetics, and Takeda; research funding of institution from Genentech, Blueprint Medicines, Calithera, Daiichi Sankyo, Elevation Oncology, and Janssen. TT: received honoraria from AstraZeneca K.K., Pfizer Japan Inc, Eli Lilly Japan, Chugai Pharmaceutical Co, MSD K.K., Pfizer Japan Inc, Takeda, Bristol Myers Squibb Japan, Amgen K.K., and Novartis; research funding of institution from Janssen Pharmaceutical K.K., AstraZeneca K.K., Pfizer Japan Inc, Eli Lilly Japan, Chugai Pharmaceutical Co, MSD K.K., Amgen K.K., Merck Biopharma Co., Ltd., and AnHeart Therapeutics Inc. SG: principal investigator for AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Janssen (fees to institution). DMK: participated in advisory boards for MSD, Merck, Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, Takeda, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, Amgen, Sanofi-Aventis, and Novartis. AB: received consulting fees from Pfizer and Roche; honoraria from Novartis and Eli Lilly; participated in advisory boards for Pfizer, Roche, and Regeneron. MM: received consulting fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, Takeda, and AstraZeneca. PB, ABB, AG, JG, DM, MW, JX, TS, SS, BD, REK, JMB: employee of Janssen and may hold stock in Johnson & Johnson. RGC: invited speaker for AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda; advisory roles for AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and Takeda; steering committee member for AstraZeneca and Janssen. BCC: consulting or advisory role for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Yuhan Corporation, Janssen, Takeda, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Ono Pharmaceutical, Lilly, MedPacto, Blueprint Medicines, Cyrus Therapeutics, Guardant Health, Novartis, CJ, ABION, BeiGene, CureLogen, Onegene Biotechnology, GI-Cell, HK inno.N, IMNEWRUN, Hanmi Pharmaceutical, Kanaph Therapeutics, BridgeBio, and Oscotec; leadership roles for Interpark Bio and J INTS BIO; patents, royalties, or other intellectual property for Champions Oncology, Crown Bioscience, and Imagen; other relationships with DAAN Biotherapeutics; owns stock or has other ownership interests with Theravance Biopharma, Gencurix, BridgeBio, Kanaph Therapeutics, Cyrus Therapeutics, Interpark Bio, and J INTS BIO; received research funding from Novartis, Bayer, AstraZeneca, MOGAM Biotechnology Research Institute, Dong-A ST, Champions Oncology, Janssen, Yuhan Corporation, Ono Pharmaceutical, Dizal Pharma, Merck Sharp & Dohme, AbbVie, GI Innovation, Lilly, Blueprint Medicines, Interpark Bio, LG Chem, Oscotec, GI-Cell, ABION, Boehringer Ingelheim, CJ Bioscience, CJ Blossom Park, Cyrus Therapeutics, Genexine, Nuvalent Inc, Oncternal Therapeutics, Regeneron, BridgeBio, ImmuneOncia, Illumina, Kanaph Therapeutics, Therapex, J INTS Bio, Hanmi Pharmaceutical, and CHA Bundang Medical Center. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Despite immunotherapy advancements for patients with advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), pivotal first-line trials were limited to patients with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) 0-1 and a median age of 65 years or younger. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of first-line atezolizumab monotherapy with single-agent chemotherapy in patients ineligible for platinum-based chemotherapy., Methods: This trial was a phase 3, open-label, randomised controlled study conducted at 91 sites in 23 countries across Asia, Europe, North America, and South America. Eligible patients had stage IIIB or IV NSCLC in whom platinum-doublet chemotherapy was deemed unsuitable by the investigator due to an ECOG PS 2 or 3, or alternatively, being 70 years or older with an ECOG PS 0-1 with substantial comorbidities or contraindications for platinum-doublet chemotherapy. Patients were randomised 2:1 by permuted-block randomisation (block size of six) to receive 1200 mg of atezolizumab given intravenously every 3 weeks or single-agent chemotherapy (vinorelbine [oral or intravenous] or gemcitabine [intravenous]; dosing per local label) at 3-weekly or 4-weekly cycles. The primary endpoint was overall survival assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses were conducted in the safety-evaluable population, which included all randomised patients who received any amount of atezolizumab or chemotherapy. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03191786., Findings: Between Sept 11, 2017, and Sept 23, 2019, 453 patients were enrolled and randomised to receive atezolizumab (n=302) or chemotherapy (n=151). Atezolizumab improved overall survival compared with chemotherapy (median overall survival 10·3 months [95% CI 9·4-11·9] vs 9·2 months [5·9-11·2]; stratified hazard ratio 0·78 [0·63-0·97], p=0·028), with a 2-year survival rate of 24% (95% CI 19·3-29·4) with atezolizumab compared with 12% (6·7-18·0) with chemotherapy. Compared with chemotherapy, atezolizumab was associated with stabilisation or improvement of patient-reported health-related quality-of-life functioning scales and symptoms and fewer grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events (49 [16%] of 300 vs 49 [33%] of 147) and treatment-related deaths (three [1%] vs four [3%])., Interpretation: First-line treatment with atezolizumab monotherapy was associated with improved overall survival, a doubling of the 2-year survival rate, maintenance of quality of life, and a favourable safety profile compared with single-agent chemotherapy. These data support atezolizumab monotherapy as a potential first-line treatment option for patients with advanced NSCLC who are ineligible for platinum-based chemotherapy., Funding: F Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech Inc, a member of the Roche group., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests SML declares support from Roche for attending meetings and travelling to present the first-line atezolizumab versus single-agent chemotherapy in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer ineligible for treatment with a platinum-containing regimen (IPSOS) trial at the European Society of Medical Oncology 2022 meeting, and membership for the UK commission on Human Medicines and the Oncology and Haematology Expert Advisory Group. CS declares provision of study material from Roche; clinical trial support, consulting fees, and payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events, from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda; and support for attending meetings or travel from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, and Takeda. KP declares institutional funding from Alkem Laboratories and Roche. DK declares membership on an advisory board for Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Amgen, Roche, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Takeda, Sanofi-Aventis, and Janssen. AR declares consulting fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche and support for attending meetings or travel from Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, and Roche. TT declares payment for advisory board activity relating to atezolizumab in early-stage NSCLC. DV declares consulting fees from Lilly, Roche, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Novartis, MSD, Bristol Myers Squibb, Takeda, and Gilead; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AstraZeneca, Roche, MSD, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Gilead, Takeda, and Bayer; and support for attending meetings or travel from AstraZeneca and Pfizer. RC declares receiving a grant to run the study; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly Oncology, Roche, Pfizer, MSD, Bristol Myers Squibb, Takeda, Bayer, Sanofi, Novartis, and Janssen; honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly Oncology, Roche, Pfizer, MSD, Bristol Myers Squibb, Takeda, Bayer, Sanofi, Novartis, and Janssen; support for attending meetings or travel from MSD, Takeda, Roche, and Janssen; participation on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly Oncology, Roche, Pfizer, MSD, Bristol Myers Squibb, Takeda, Bayer, Sanofi, Novartis, and Janssen; and owning stock or stock options for Leaders in Oncology at The Christie Private Care. DC declares payment for speakers bureaus or scientific advisory from MSD, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Amgen, and Sanofi Genzyme. GL declares institutional grants or contracts from the US National Cancer Institute, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute (Canada), AstraZeneca, Takeda, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Amgen; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, EMD Serono, Takeda, Jazz, and Novartis; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for AstraZeneca, Pfizer, EMD Serono, Merck, AbbVie, Jazz, Takeda, Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, and Lilly. MR declares consulting fees, payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events, and support for attending meetings or travel from Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, GlaxoSmithKline, Mirati, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Roche; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Sanofi and Daiichi-Sankyo. RP declares consulting fees from AstraZeneca; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Guardant Health and Pfizer; support for attending meetings or travel from MSD; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for AstraZeneca. MPM declares honoraria for lectures from Roche and MSD. YH and SM are employed by Roche. EH declares study support from Roche, discounted prices on stocks as a Roche employee, and employment by Roche. MC declares stocks as part of employment at Genentech and employment at Genentech. HKV is employed by Roche and declares holding stock for Roche. SP declares consultation or an advisory role for AbbVie, AiCME, Amgen, Arcus, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, Biocartis, BioInvent, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Clovis, Daiichi-Sankyo, Debiopharm, ecancer, Eli Lilly, Elsevier, F-Star, Fishawack, Foundation Medicine, Genzyme, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Illumina, Imedex, IQVIA, Incyte, Ipsen, iTeos, Janssen, Medscape, Medtoday, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck Serono, Merrimack, Novartis, Novocure, OncologyEducation, PharmaMar, Phosplatin Therapeutics, Physicians' Education Resource, Peerview, Pfizer, PRIME, Regeneron, RMEI, Roche and Genentech, Research to Practice, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda, and Vaccibody; speaking in a company's organised public event for AiCME, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, ecancer, Eli Lilly, Foundation Medicine, GlaxoSmithKline, Illumina, Imedex, Ipsen, Medscape, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mirati, Novartis, PER, Peerview, Pfizer, Prime, Roche and Genentech, RTP, Sanofi, and Takeda; and receipt of grants and research support (institutional financial support for clinical trials) as a principal investigator in trials sponsored by Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Roche and Genentech. SML is partially supported by the University College London Hospitals and University College London Biochemical Research Centre. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

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.)

Background: Rates of disease recurrence and death following surgery remain high in early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), despite adjuvant treatment and curative intent. Recently, osimertinib showed overwhelming evidence for disease-free survival (DFS), as demonstrated by an overall reduction in the risk of disease recurrence or death in the adjuvant setting of 80% versus control in the ADAURA study (stage IB-IIIA; hazard ratio 0.20; 99.12% confidence interval 0.14-0.30; P < 0.001). However, due to the early unblinding of ADAURA and lack of mature overall survival data, there is a need to qualitatively confirm consensus on the clinical and patient relevance of DFS., Materials and Methods: We conducted a modified Delphi panel study consisting of two rounds of surveys, followed by a consensus meeting. An international panel of experts in the field of NSCLC and epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) (n = 13) was asked to rate agreement and comment on a list of pre-defined statements covering key consensus gaps. Statements were eliminated or updated between surveys, depending on the level of agreement. A final list of agreed-upon statements was drafted in the consensus meeting., Results: Consensus was reached on 32 qualitative statements, with topics including unmet needs in early-stage NSCLC, the value of DFS, and the value of osimertinib. Crucially, DFS was agreed to be a clinically and patient-relevant endpoint in adjuvant NSCLC. The relevance of DFS was found to relate to the ability of an adjuvant therapy, such as osimertinib, to keep patients in the clinically valuable curative intent setting, while preventing the burden associated with distant and locoregional recurrence, and progressive disease., Conclusions: Addressing the need for measures that reflect clinical benefit is essential to continue improving outcomes for NSCLC patients. To that end, this work provides a qualitative framework for clinicians to consider the clinical and patient relevance of DFS in adjuvant NSCLC and the benefit demonstrated in ADAURA thus far., Competing Interests: Disclosure MP reports being an advisor to Takeda, Pfizer, Roche, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Eli Lilly, Amgen, Sanofi, Gritstone, GlaxoSmithKline; speaker fees from Takeda, Pfizer, Roche, Chugai, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Illumina; institutional research grants from Takeda, AstraZeneca, Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim. BMS reports being a consultant to Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Galvanize Therapeutics, Flame Therapeutics; advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Genentech, Bristol Myers Squibb; research support to Bristol Myers Squibb; board of Lung Cancer Research Foundation; employment at Xalud Therapeutics, PPD, Pfizer. CG reports receiving honoraria, speaker’s bureau and advisory board fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, and MSD; received travel and accommodation fees from Boehringer-Ingelheim. RC reports honoraria and consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, Boeringher Ingelheim, Lilly Oncology, Roche, Pfizer, MSD, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Takeda, Bayer, Sanofi, and Novartis; grants paid to institution for conduct of clinical trials or contracted research by Roche, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Clovis, Lilly Oncology, MSD, BMS, Abbvie, Takeda, Janssen, and Novartis. FdM reports advisor fees from AstraZeneca, Roche, BMS, Novartis, MSD, XCovery, Takeda, Eli Lilly. RAS reports participation in advisory boards for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lily, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Taiho, Takeda, Yuhan; research grant from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim. MT reports honoraria and lecture fees from Johnson & Johnson Japan, AstraZeneca KK, Eli Lilly Japan, Chugai Pharmaceutical CO., LTD, Taiho Pharma, Medtronic Japan, Ono Pharmaceutical CO.,LTD, MSD, Bristol-Myers Squibb KK, Teijin Pharma; consulting or advisory roles for AstraZeneca KK, Chugai Pharmaceutical CO Ltd, MSD, Novartis; receiving facilities research grant and commissioned research for Boehringer-Ingelheim Japan, MSD, AstraZeneca KK, Ono Pharmaceutical CO Ltd, MSD, Bristol-Myers Squibb KK, Eli Lilly Japan. SL reports receiving research support from AstraZeneca, Hutchison, BMS, Heng Rui Beigene and Roche, Hansoh; receiving speaker fees from AstraZeneca, Roche, Hansoh, Hengrui Therapeutics; advisor/consultant for Astra Zeneca, Pfizer, Hutchison MediPharma, ZaiLab, GenomiCare, Yuhan Corporation, Menarini, InventisBio Co. Ltd., and Roche. GL reports honoraria and advisory board membership/chair from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Hoffman La Roche, Pfizer, Abbvie, Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Takeda; industry research funding from Takeda, AstraZeneca, and Boehringer Ingelheim; educational sessions for AstraZeneca, Takeda, EMD-Serono, Pfizer. RGC reports participating in advisory boards for MSD, Bristol-Myers, Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Takeda; consulting for MSD, Bristol-Myers, Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Takeda; receiving speaker honoraria from MSD, Bristol-Myers, Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Takeda. MT reports speaker and consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Eli-Lilly, BMS, Novartis, Roche, MSD, Boehringer Ingelheim, Otsuka, Takeda, Pierre Fabre, Amgen, Merck; received institutional research grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest, (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: The current standard of care for patients with newly diagnosed limited-stage small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) is concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT). The prognosis remains poor due to the aggressiveness and high risk of progression or relapse of SCLC even if an initial response is achieved. Therefore, there is an urgent unmet clinical need in this population. The multicenter, phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind KEYLYNK-013 study evaluates the addition of pembrolizumab to CCRT followed by pembrolizumab with or without olaparib in participants with previously untreated limited-stage SCLC. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04624204)., Methods: Eligible participants aged ≥18 years with newly diagnosed, pathologically confirmed, limited-stage (ie, stage I-III) SCLC will be randomized 1:1:1 to CCRT (ie, etoposide plus carboplatin or cisplatin for 4 cycles and standard thoracic radiotherapy) plus pembrolizumab (Groups A and B) or CCRT plus placebo (Group C). In the absence of disease progression, participants will receive pembrolizumab plus placebo (Group A), pembrolizumab plus olaparib (Group B), or placebo (Group C). Dual primary endpoints are progression-free survival per RECIST version 1.1 by blinded independent central review and overall survival., Results: Enrollment began in December 2020 and is ongoing at approximately 150 sites., Conclusions: KEYLYNK-013 will provide valuable information on the efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab plus CCRT and pembrolizumab with or without olaparib post CCRT in participants with limited-stage SCLC., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

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.)

Small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) is an aggressive and rapidly growing disease with poor prognosis. Despite intense efforts to improve clinical outcomes, platinum/etoposide chemotherapy has remained the most effective regimen for first-line extensive disease SCLC for decades. The addition of immune checkpoint inhibitors, and specifically programmed death-ligand 1 inhibitors, to standard platinum/etoposide, significantly improves survival and represents a promising advance in this field. However, identification of a predictive biomarker to refine patient selection is an area of unmet need. Further understanding of tumour immunity and mechanism of resistance is required to design novel strategies that improve survival. In this review, we describe recent developments and future directions on first-line immune checkpoint blockade for extensive disease-SCLC., Competing Interests: Disclosure LP-A has received honoraria for consultancy and advisory board from Roche/Genentech, Lilly, Pfizer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, AstraZeneca, Merck Serono, PharmaMar, Novartis, Celgene, Sysmex, Amgen, Incyte, Genomica and ltum Sequencing (founding partner and member of the board), RC has received honoraria for consultancy, speaker's bureau and advisory board from Roche, BMS, MSD and Astrazeneca/Medimmune. The remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: The addition of atezolizumab to carboplatin and etoposide (CP/ET) significantly improved progression-free and overall survival for patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) in the IMpower133 study (NCT02763579). We have evaluated adverse events (AEs) and patient-reported outcomes in IMpower133 to assess the benefit-risk profile of this regimen., Patients and Methods: Patients received four 21-day cycles of CP/ET plus intravenous atezolizumab 1200 mg or placebo (induction phase), followed by atezolizumab or placebo (maintenance phase) until progression or loss of benefit. AEs were assessed and patient-reported outcomes were evaluated every 3 weeks during treatment using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire - Core 30 (QLQ-C30) and QLQ-LC13., Results: Overall, 394 patients were assessable for safety in the induction phase and 318 in the maintenance phase. The frequency of AEs, grade 3-4 AEs, and serious AEs was similar between arms in both phases. Immune-related AEs were more frequent in the atezolizumab arm during both induction (28% versus 17%; leading to atezolizumab/placebo interruption 9% versus 5%, leading to withdrawal 4% versus 0%) and maintenance (26% versus 15%; leading to atezolizumab/placebo interruption, 3% versus 2%, leading to withdrawal 1% versus 1%), most commonly rash (induction 11% versus 9%, maintenance 14% versus 4%), and hypothyroidism (induction 4.0% versus 0%, maintenance 10% versus 1%). Changes in patient-reported treatment-related symptoms commonly associated with quality of life impairment were generally similar during induction and most of the maintenance phase. Patient-reported function and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) improved in both arms after initiating treatment, with more pronounced and persistent HRQoL improvements in the atezolizumab arm., Conclusions: In patients with ES-SCLC, atezolizumab plus CP/ET has a comparable safety profile to placebo plus CP/ET, and the addition of atezolizumab did not adversely impact patient-reported HRQoL. These data demonstrate the positive benefit-risk profile of first-line atezolizumab plus CP/ET in ES-SCLC and further support this regimen as a new standard of care in this setting., Clinical Trials Number: NCT02763579., (Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Burnout in health care professionals could have serious negative consequences on quality of patient care, professional satisfaction and personal life. Our aim was to investigate the burnout prevalence, work and lifestyle factors potentially affecting burnout amongst European oncologists ≤40 (YOs)., Methods: A survey was conducted using the validated Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) and additional questions exploring work/lifestyle factors. Statistical analyses were carried out to identify factors associated with burnout., Results: Total of 737 surveys (all ages) were collected from 41 European countries. Countries were divided into six regions. Results from 595 (81%) YOs were included (81% medical oncologists; 52% trainees, 62% women). Seventy-one percent of YOs showed evidence of burnout (burnout subdomains: depersonalization 50%; emotional exhaustion 45; low accomplishment 35%). Twenty-two percent requested support for burnout during training and 74% reported no hospital access to support services. Burnout rates were significantly different across Europe (P < 0.0001). Burnout was highest in central European (84%) and lowest in Northern Europe (52%). Depersonalization scores were higher in men compared with women (60% versus 45% P = 0.0001) and low accomplishment was highest in the 26-30 age group (P < 0.01). In multivariable linear regression analyses, European region, work/life balance, access to support services, living alone and inadequate vacation time remained independent burnout factors (P < 0.05)., Conclusions: This is the largest burnout survey in European Young Oncologists. Burnout is common amongst YOs and rates vary across Europe. Achieving a good work/life balance, access to support services and adequate vacation time may reduce burnout levels. Raising awareness, support and interventional research are needed., (© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) is one of the leading societies of oncology professionals in the world. Approximately 30% of the 13 000 ESMO members are below the age of 40 and thus meet the society's definition of young oncologists (YOs). ESMO has identified the training and development of YOs as a priority and has therefore established a comprehensive career development programme. This includes a leadership development programme to help identify and develop the future leaders in oncology. Well-trained and highly motivated future generations of multidisciplinary oncologists are essential to ensure the optimal evolution of the field of oncology with the ultimate goal of providing the best possible care to patients with cancer. ESMO's career development portfolio is managed and continuously optimised by several dedicated committees composed of ESMO officers and is directly supervised by the ESMO Executive Board and the ESMO President. It offers unique resources for YOs at all stages of training and includes a broad variety of fellowship opportunities, educational courses, scientific meetings, publications and resources. In this article, we provide an overview of the activities and career development opportunities provided by ESMO to the next generation of oncologists., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.

Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is a very aggressive disease, characterised by rapid growth, high response rates to both chemotherapy and radiotherapy and subsequent development of treatment resistance in the vast majority of patients. In the past 30 years, little progress has been made in systemic treatments and the established management paradigm of platinum-based chemotherapy has reached an efficacy plateau. Several clinical trials have investigated targeted therapies, without producing clinically significant benefits. Recently presented early phase clinical trials with immune checkpoint inhibitors (blockade of the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4) and blockade of the programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) receptor) have shown promising results. In this review, we present the emerging evidence on immune checkpoint blockade for SCLC., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

Unlabelled: Small-cell lung cancer has a high chemotherapeutic sensitivity but with disappointing outcome results. Patients with “sensitive disease” are those who respond to treatment with a long relapse-free interval (RFI): in these cases rechallenge with first-line chemotherapy might represent a therapeutic opportunity. Our largest retrospective experience confirmed that rechallenge is feasible with interesting outcome results; there are no statistical differences between RFI and outcome., Introduction: Patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) that progresses after first-line (FL) chemotherapy have a poor prognosis and second-line (SL) chemotherapy has limited efficacy. Patients whose disease relapses/progresses > 90 days after FL platinum-based treatment are considered platinum-sensitive and could be rechallenged with a similar regimen. We conducted a multicenter retrospective analysis to evaluate outcomes of SCLC patients rechallenged with platinum/etoposide., Patients and Methods: Records of all SCLC patients treated in 7 institutions between January 2007 and December 2011 were reviewed. The primary end point was overall survival from the time of rechallenge (OS-R); secondary end points were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival from the time of diagnosis (OS-D). Survival curves were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method., Results: Of the 2000 SCLC patients identified, 112 (5.6%) had sensitive disease treated with rechallenge platinum/etoposide; 65% were men with a median age of 64 years. At the time of diagnosis, 44% of patients had limited disease, 82% had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 1. A median of 4 cycles of rechallenge was administered. Tumor response was 3% for complete response and 42% for partial response, 19% of patients maintained stable disease, 27% progressive disease, and 9% were not evaluable. Median PFS from the time of rechallenge was 5.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.4-6.3). Median OS-R and OS-D were 7.9 months (95% CI, 6.9-9.7) and 21.4 months (95% CI, 19.8-24.1), respectively. Subgroup analysis according to relapse-free interval (90-119 vs. 120-149 vs. > 150 days) did not show any statistically significant difference in PFS or OS-R., Conclusion: The outcome for SL chemotherapy for SCLC is poor. Rechallenge platinum/etoposide is a reasonable option with potentially better outcomes than standard chemotherapy., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

During the last decade, thoracic oncology has witnessed an unprecedented outburst of knowledge regarding molecular biology of non small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The implementation of high-throughput sequencing analysis and genomic technologies has led to the identification of novel molecular events that characterize NSCLC transformation and may represent critical oncogenic drivers amenable to targeted therapy. Among these, the presence of activating mutations of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) gene and of chromosomic rearrangements in the anaplastic-lymphoma kinase (ALK) proto-oncogene, have been the first well characterized genetic alterations with corresponding targeted agents to enter the clinical arena. Nevertheless, in the recent years a number of other oncogenic drivers beyond EGFR and ALK inhibition have emerged as novel molecular targets with potential therapeutic implications, including mutations in the genes KRAS, BRAF, HER2, PI3KCA and DDR2, as well as ROS1 and RET rearrangements and MET, HER2 and FGFR1 gene amplifications. The aim of this review is to provide comprehensive information on the novel therapeutic targets identified by recent preclinical evidence and to discuss developments in molecular treatments targeting these oncogenic drivers or actionable mutations beyond EGFR and ALK in advanced NSCLC., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Small-cell lung cancer is an aggressive disease for which the mainstay of treatment is chemotherapy. Despite good initial responses most patients will relapse. Some will receive second-line therapy with clinical benefit, but for third-line chemotherapy there is little evidence to guide treatment decisions and the benefits of treatment are unknown. This study investigated the treatment of SCLC in the third-line setting., Patients and Methods: An international, multicenter retrospective analysis of patients who received at least 3 lines of chemotherapy for their SCLC was performed., Results: From 2000 to 2010, 120 patients were identified from 5 centers: median age 61, 40% (n = 72) limited stage, and 79% (n = 95) Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 1. Only 22% of these patients received 3 distinct lines of chemotherapy. The remainder were rechallenged with a chemotherapy regimen used at least once previously. Six percent received platinum-based chemotherapy in all 3 lines. In third-line, response rate was 18% and median overall survival was 4.7 months. Factors associated with longer survival included normal baseline LDH levels and response to second-line chemotherapy. On multivariate analysis only normal baseline LDH retained statistical significance. Thirty-five patients went on to receive chemotherapy beyond the third line., Conclusion: Few SCLC patients receive 3 chemotherapy lines. Most patients were rechallenged with a similar regimen at least once. Response and survival in the third-line setting are modest. Lack of response to second-line chemotherapy and elevated baseline LDH level might predict lack of benefit from third-line treatment. This data set does not include patients receiving fewer lines for comparison., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The number of cancer patients in Europe is rising and significant advances in basic and applied cancer research are making the provision of optimal care more challenging. The concept of cancer as a systemic, highly heterogeneous and complex disease has increased the awareness that quality cancer care should be provided by a multidisciplinary team (MDT) of highly qualified healthcare professionals. Cancer patients also have the right to benefit from medical progress by receiving optimal treatment from adequately trained and highly skilled medical professionals. Built on the highest standards of professional training and continuing medical education, medical oncology is recognised as an independent medical specialty in many European countries. Medical oncology is a core member of the MDT and offers cancer patients a comprehensive and systemic approach to treatment and care, while ensuring evidence-based, safe and cost-effective use of cancer drugs and preserving the quality of life of cancer patients through the entire 'cancer journey'. Medical oncologists are also engaged in clinical and translational research to promote innovation and new therapies and they contribute to cancer diagnosis, prevention and research, making a difference for patients in a dynamic, stimulating professional environment. Medical oncologists play an important role in shaping the future of healthcare through innovation and are also actively involved at the political level to ensure a maximum contribution of the profession to Society and to tackle future challenges. This position paper summarises the multifarious and vital contributions of medical oncology and medical oncologists to today's and tomorrow's professional cancer care.

The incidence of melanoma is increasing worldwide. Advances in targeted agents and immunotherapy have improved outcomes in metastatic disease, but biomarkers are required to optimize treatment. We determined the prevalence of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) and explored their utility as prognostic and pharmacodynamic biomarkers. A total of 101 patients with metastatic cutaneous melanoma were recruited prospectively. CTC number was determined using the CellSearch platform and melanoma kits in samples taken at baseline and serially during treatment. CTC numbers ranged between 0 and 36 per 7.5 ml blood; 26% of patients had ≥ 2 CTCs. Baseline CTC number was prognostic for median overall survival (OS) in univariate analysis (2.6 vs. 7.2 months (P<0.011) for patients with ≥ 2 CTCs vs. <2 CTCs, respectively). In multivariate analysis, CTC number was an independent prognostic biomarker of OS (hazard ratio (HR) 2.403, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.303-4.430, P=0.005). Patients receiving treatment in whom CTC number remained ≥ 2 CTCs during treatment had shorter median OS than those who maintained <2 CTCs (7 vs. 10 months, HR 0.34, 95% CI 0.14-0.81, log-rank test P=0.015). In conclusion, CTC number in metastatic cutaneous melanoma patients is prognostic for OS with a cutoff of 2 CTCs per 7.5 ml blood. CTC number measured before and throughout treatment provided additional prognostic information. Larger studies are warranted to confirm CTC biomarker utility in melanoma patients.