Search

The aim of this study was to develop and evaluate a proof-of-concept open-source individualized Patient Decision Aid (iPDA) with a group of patients, physicians, and computer scientists. The iPDA was developed based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS). A previously published questionnaire was adapted and used to test the user-friendliness and content of the iPDA. The questionnaire contained 40 multiple-choice questions, and answers were given on a 5-point Likert Scale (1–5) ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.” In addition to the questionnaire, semi-structured interviews were conducted with patients. We performed a descriptive analysis of the responses. The iPDA was evaluated by 28 computer scientists, 21 physicians, and 13 patients. The results demonstrate that the iPDA was found valuable by 92% (patients), 96% (computer scientists), and 86% (physicians), while the treatment information was judged useful by 92%, 96%, and 95%, respectively. Additionally, the tool was thought to be motivating for patients to actively engage in their treatment by 92%, 93%, and 91% of the above respondents groups. More multimedia components and less text were suggested by the respondents as ways to improve the tool and user interface. In conclusion, we successfully developed and tested an iPDA for patients with stage I–II Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC).

BackgroundAlectinib is first-line therapy in patients with stage IV non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) and an anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) fusion. A shorter median progression-free survival (mPFS) was observed when alectinib minimum plasma concentrations during steady state (Cmin,SS) were below 435 ng/mL. This may suggest that patients should have an alectinib Cmin,SS ≥ 435 ng/mL for a more favorable outcome. This potential target could be attained by using therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM), i.e. adjusting the dose based on measured plasma trough concentrations. Hypothetically, this will increase mPFS, but this has not yet been evaluated in a randomized controlled trial (RCT). Therefore, the ADAPT ALEC trial is designed, with the primary objective to prolong mPFS in NSCLC patients treated with alectinib by using TDM.MethodsADAPT ALEC is a multicenter, phase IV RCT, in which patients aged ≥ 18 years with advanced ALK positive (+) NSCLC eligible for alectinib in daily care are enrolled. Participants will be randomized (1:1 ratio) into intervention arm A (TDM) or B (control), stratified by brain metastases and prior ALK treatments. Starting dose in both arms is the approved flat fixed dose of alectinib 600 mg taken twice daily with food. In case of alectinib Cmin,SS < 435 ng/mL, arm A will receive increased doses of alectinib till Cmin,SS ≥ 435 ng/mL when considered tolerable. The primary outcome is mPFS, where progressive disease is defined according to RECIST v1.1 or all-cause death and assessed by CT-scans and MRI brain. Secondary endpoints are feasibility and tolerability of TDM, patient and physician adherence, overall response rate, median overall survival, intracranial PFS, quality of life, toxicity, alectinib-M4 concentrations and cost-effectiveness of TDM. Exploratory endpoints are circulating tumor DNA and body composition.DiscussionThe ADAPT ALEC will show whether treatment outcomes of patients with advanced ALK+ NSCLC improve when using TDM-guided dosing of alectinib instead of fixed dosing. The results will provide high quality evidence for deciding whether TDM should be implemented as standard of care and this will have important consequences for the prescribing of alectinib.Clinical trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT05525338.

IntroductionThere is a cumulative risk of 20–40% of developing brain metastases (BM) in solid cancers. Stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) enables the application of high focal doses of radiation to a volume and is often used for BM treatment. However, SRT can cause adverse radiation effects (ARE), such as radiation necrosis, which sometimes cause irreversible damage to the brain. It is therefore of clinical interest to identify patients at a high risk of developing ARE. We hypothesized that models trained with radiomics features, deep learning (DL) features, and patient characteristics or their combination can predict ARE risk in patients with BM before SRT.MethodsGadolinium-enhanced T1-weighted MRIs and characteristics from patients treated with SRT for BM were collected for a training and testing cohort (N = 1,404) and a validation cohort (N = 237) from a separate institute. From each lesion in the training set, radiomics features were extracted and used to train an extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) model. A DL model was trained on the same cohort to make a separate prediction and to extract the last layer of features. Different models using XGBoost were built using only radiomics features, DL features, and patient characteristics or a combination of them. Evaluation was performed using the area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic curve on the external dataset. Predictions for individual lesions and per patient developing ARE were investigated.ResultsThe best-performing XGBoost model on a lesion level was trained on a combination of radiomics features and DL features (AUC of 0.71 and recall of 0.80). On a patient level, a combination of radiomics features, DL features, and patient characteristics obtained the best performance (AUC of 0.72 and recall of 0.84). The DL model achieved an AUC of 0.64 and recall of 0.85 per lesion and an AUC of 0.70 and recall of 0.60 per patient.ConclusionMachine learning models built on radiomics features and DL features extracted from BM combined with patient characteristics show potential to predict ARE at the patient and lesion levels. These models could be used in clinical decision making, informing patients on their risk of ARE and allowing physicians to opt for different therapies.

The use of prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) for small cell lung cancer (SCLC) patients is controversial. Risk factors for brain metastasis (BM) development are largely lacking, hampering personalized treatment strategies. This study aimed to identify the possible risk factors for BM in SCLC.We systematically searched the Pubmed database (1 January 1995 to 18 January 2021) according to the PRISMA guidelines. Eligibility criteria: studies reporting detailed BM data with an adequate sample size (randomized clinical trials [RCTs]: N ≥50; non-RCTs: N ≥100) in patients with SCLC. We summarized the reported risk factors and performed meta-analysis to estimate the pooled hazard ratios (HR) if enough qualified data (i.e., two or more studies; the same study type; the same analysis method; and HRs retrievable) were available. In total, 61/536 records were eligible (18 RCTs and 39 non-RCTs comprising 13,188 patients), in which 57 factors were reported. Ten factors qualified BM data for meta-analysis: Limited stage disease (LD) (HR = 0.34, 95% CI: 0.17–0.67; P = 0.002) and older age (≥65) (HR = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.54–0.92; P = 0.01) were associated with less BM; A higher T stage (≥T3) (HR = 1.72, 95% CI: 1.16–2.56; P = 0.007) was a significant risk factor for BM. Male sex (HR = 1.24, 95% CI: 0.99–1.54; P = 0.06) tended to be a risk factor, and better PS (0–1) (HR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.42–1.02; P = 0.06) tended to have less BM. Smoking, thoracic radiotherapy dose were not significant (P >0.05). PCI significantly decreased BM (P

Metabolic reprogramming is recognized as one of the hallmarks of cancer. Alterations in the micro-environmental metabolic characteristics are recognized as important tools for cancer cells to interact with the resident and infiltrating T-cells within this tumor microenvironment. Cancer-induced metabolic changes in the micro-environment also affect treatment outcomes. In particular, immune therapy efficacy might be blunted because of somatic mutation-driven metabolic determinants of lung cancer such as acidity and oxygenation status. Based on these observations, new onco-immunological treatment strategies increasingly include drugs that interfere with metabolic pathways that consequently affect the composition of the lung cancer tumor microenvironment (TME). Positron emission tomography (PET) imaging has developed a wide array of tracers targeting metabolic pathways, originally intended to improve cancer detection and staging. Paralleling the developments in understanding metabolic reprogramming in cancer cells, as well as its effects on stromal, immune, and endothelial cells, a wave of studies with additional imaging tracers has been published. These tracers are yet underexploited in the perspective of immune therapy. In this review, we provide an overview of currently available PET tracers for clinical studies and discuss their potential roles in the development of effective immune therapeutic strategies, with a focus on lung cancer. We report on ongoing efforts that include PET/CT to understand the outcomes of interactions between cancer cells and T-cells in the lung cancer microenvironment, and we identify areas of research which are yet unchartered. Thereby, we aim to provide a starting point for molecular imaging driven studies to understand and exploit metabolic features of lung cancer to optimize immune therapy.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have become the standard of care treatment for several tumor types. ICI-induced pneumonitis is a serious complication seen with treatment with these agents. Cancer has been reported to be one of the risk factors for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), that has engulfed the world in the last couple of months. In patients with cancer treated with ICI who present at the emergency department with respiratory symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic, correct diagnosis can be challenging. Symptoms and radiological features of ICI pneumonitis can be overlapping with those of COVID-19 related pneumonia. For the latter, dexamethasone and remdesivir have shown encouraging results, while vaccines are currently being evaluated in phase III trials. The mainstay of treatment in ICI pneumonitis is immunosuppressive therapy, as this is a potentially fatal adverse event. It has been speculated that immunosuppression may be associated with increased risk of progression to severe COVID-19, especially during the early stage of infection with SARS-CoV-2. Therefore, distinction between these two entities is warranted. We summarize the clinical, radiological features as well as additional investigations of both entities, and suggest a diagnostic algorithm for distinction between the two. This algorithm may be a supportive tool for clinicians to diagnose the underlying cause of the pneumonitis in patients treated with ICI during this COVID-19 pandemic.

IntroductionCancer induced bone pain (CIBP) is frequent in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Radiation therapy continues to be the gold standard for treatment of painful bone metastases, however only a limited number of metastases can be irradiated. We evaluated non-radiation based early CIBP relief options in NSCLC through a systematic review.MethodsSystematic review including all prospective articles published between 01-1994 and 06-2020 on Pubmed, Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov database. Inclusion: non-radiation based trials evaluating CIBP early pain relief options (initially defined as pain score evaluated within two weeks, because of no randomized trials, later inclusion broadened to pain score evaluated within six weeks) in ≥10 NSCLC patients. Radioisotope trials were excluded as these treatments have interactions with systemic anticancer therapy.Results188 articles were found; 10 articles (6 randomized controlled (4 double blinded), 1 phase II single-arm, and 3 prospective trials) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Six of these trials consisted of ≥2 treatment arms, whereas the others were single-arm studies. In total, 554 NSCLC patients were evaluated in these trials. The included trials were very heterogeneous regarding evaluated treatment options, methods of pain measuring, and endpoints. No high-level evidence for specific early pain relief treatment options was found.DiscussionNon-radiation based studies evaluating treatment options to rapidly reduce CIBP in NSCLC are scarce. This systematic review shows that there is no high-level evidence to recommend a specific treatment for early pain relief. Future research should focus on early pain relief treatment options for CIBP in NSCLC.

Introduction: Approximately 80% of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with bone metastases have cancer induced bone pain (CIBP).Methods: The NVALT-9 was an open-label, single arm, phase II, multicenter study. Main inclusion criterion: bone metastasized NSCLC patients with uncontrolled CIBP [brief pain inventory [BPI] ≥ 5 over last 7 days]. Patients were treated with six milligram ibandronate intravenously (day 1–3) once a day. Main exclusion criteria: active secondary malignancy, systemic anti-tumor treatment and radiotherapy ≤4 weeks before study start, previous bisphosphonate treatment. Statistics: Simon's Optimal two-stage design with a 90% power to declare the treatment active if the pain response rate is ≥ 80% and 95% confidence to declare the treatment inactive if the pain response rate is ≤ 60%. If pain response is observed in ≤ 12 of the first 19 patients further enrollment will be stopped. Primary endpoint: bone pain response, defined as 25% decrease in worst pain score (PSc) over a 3-day period (day 5–7) compared to baseline PSc with maximum of 25% increase in mean analgesic consumption during the same period. Secondary endpoints: BPI score, quality of life, toxicity and World Health Organization Performance Score.Results: Of the 19 enrolled patients in the first stage, 18 were evaluable for response. All completed ibandronate treatment according to protocol. In 4 (22.2%), a bone pain response was observed. According to the stopping rule, further enrollment was halted.Discussion: Ibandronate loading doses lead to insufficient pain relief in NSCLC patients with CIBP.

Immunotherapy in lung cancer treatment is a long history paved with failures and some successes. During the last decade, the discovery of checkpoints inhibitors led to major advances in treating advanced and metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Impressive data from early phase I-II studies were subsequently confirmed in large prospective randomized trials and meta-analyses (High-level of evidence). Three anti- programmed death-1 (PD1) (pembrolizumab, nivolumab) or antiPD-ligand(L)1 (atezolizumab) antibodies showed clinically significant improved survival compared to second-line docetaxel. Then, first-line pembrolizumab monotherapy demonstrated its superiority over platinum-doublet in high PD-L1 NSCLC. The addition of pembrolizumab or atezolizumab to chemotherapy derived the same results regardless of the PD-L1 status. On the opposite, antiCTLA4 (Cytotoxic T-Lymphocyte Associated 4) results are currently disappointing in unselected patients while recent development suggest that the combination of antiPD1 and antiCTLA4 (nivolumab-ipilimumab) positively impact on overall survival. Some secondary analyses also showed that immunotherapy has a positive impact on quality of life and that the clinical improvement can be done at an acceptable incremental cost per QALY. A lot of questions remain unresolved: which is the best treatment duration and is it the same for all patients, how to choose the patients that will have the highest benefit of immunotherapy, how to identify the patients who will have rapid progression, how to improve the current data (new targets, new combinations)…

BackgroundNon-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients frequently develop brain metastases (BM), even though the initial imaging with brain CT or MRI was negative. Stage III patients have the highest risk to develop BM, with an incidence of approximately 30%. BM can lead to neurocognitive disorders, loss of quality of life (QoL), and they are the most important factors influencing patient’s overall survival (OS). Although a radical local treatment of BM may be possible with primary radiosurgery or after resection, the prognosis often remains poor. Preventing the development of BM through prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) may improve the outcome of these patients.MethodsData from published randomized trials comparing PCI with non-PCI were sought using electronic database (PubMed) searching, hand searching, and by contacting experts. Trials were included if they considered a randomized comparison of PCI and non-PCI, enrolled NSCLC patients, excluded patients with recurrent or metastatic disease, and reported results on BM occurrence. Each randomized controlled trial (RCT) was assessed for methodological quality using the Cochrane collaboration’s tool for the assessment of risk of bias. Study estimates were pooled using a fixed effects sample-weighted meta-analysis approach to calculate an overall estimate and 95% confidence interval (CI). Results on PCI-related toxicity, QoL, and OS were only reported descriptively.ResultsSeven RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. In total, 1,462 patients were analyzed, including 717 patients who received PCI and 745 patients who did not. The risk of developing BM was significantly decreased through PCI (13% reduction, RR 0.33; 95% CI 0.22–0.45). PCI-related toxicity and QoL data were limited. Acute toxicity mostly included fatigue, skin-related toxicity, and nausea or vomiting. Late toxicities such as headache, dyspnea, lethargy, and low grade cognitive impairments were also reported in some of the included RCTs. Results on OS were inconclusive.ConclusionThe risk of developing BM was reduced in patients who received PCI compared to patients who did not. To implement PCI as the standard treatment for patients with NSCLC, the impact of PCI-related toxicity on QoL should be further investigated, as well as long-term OS. A future individual patient data meta-analysis could produce definitive answers to this clinical question.

In a patient with a medical history of cancer, the most probable diagnosis of an 18FDG-avid pulmonary mass combined with intracranial abnormalities on brain imaging is metastasized cancer. However, sometimes a differential diagnosis with an infectious cause such as aspergillosis can be very challenging as both cancer and infection are sometimes difficult to distinguish. Pulmonary aspergillosis can present as an infectious pseudotumour with clinical and imaging characteristics mimicking lung cancer. Even in the presence of cerebral lesions, radiological appearance of abscesses can look like brain metastasis. These similarities can cause significant diagnostic difficulties with a subsequent therapeutic delay and a potential adverse outcome. Awareness of this infectious disease that can mimic lung cancer, even in an immunocompetent patient, is important. We report a case of a 65-year-old woman with pulmonary aspergillosis disseminated to the brain mimicking metastatic lung cancer.