Search

Purpose: No evidence exists as to whether type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) impairs clinical outcome from immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in patients with solid tumors., Experimental Design: In a large cohort of ICI recipients treated at 21 institutions from June 2014 to June 2020, we studied whether patients on glucose-lowering medications (GLM) for T2DM had shorter overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). We used targeted transcriptomics in a subset of patients to explore differences in the tumor microenvironment (TME) of patients with or without diabetes., Results: A total of 1,395 patients were included. Primary tumors included non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC; 54.7%), melanoma (24.7%), renal cell (15.0%), and other carcinomas (5.6%). After multivariable analysis, patients on GLM (n = 226, 16.2%) displayed an increased risk of death [HR, 1.29; 95% confidence interval (CI),1.07-1.56] and disease progression/death (HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.03-1.43) independent of number of GLM received. We matched 92 metformin-exposed patients with 363 controls and 78 patients on other oral GLM or insulin with 299 control patients. Exposure to metformin, but not other GLM, was associated with an increased risk of death (HR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.16-2.03) and disease progression/death (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.04-1.72). Patients with T2DM with higher pretreatment glycemia had higher neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (P = 0.04), while exploratory tumoral transcriptomic profiling in a subset of patients (n = 22) revealed differential regulation of innate and adaptive immune pathways in patients with T2DM., Conclusions: In this study, patients on GLM experienced worse outcomes from immunotherapy, independent of baseline features. Prospective studies are warranted to clarify the relative impact of metformin over a preexisting diagnosis of T2DM in influencing poorer outcomes in this population., (©2023 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: We previously demonstrated the cumulative poor prognostic role of concomitant medications on the clinical outcome of patients with advanced cancer treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors, creating and validating a drug-based prognostic score to be calculated before immunotherapy initiation in patients with advanced solid tumours. This 'drug score' was calculated assigning score 1 for each between proton-pump inhibitor and antibiotic administration until a month before cancer therapy initiation and score 2 in case of corticosteroid intake. The good risk group included patients with score 0, intermediate risk with score 1-2 and poor risk with score 3-4., Methods: Aiming at validating the prognostic and putative predictive ability depending on the anticancer therapy, we performed the present comparative analysis in two cohorts of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), respectively, receiving first-line pembrolizumab or chemotherapy through a random case-control matching and through a pooled multivariable analysis including the interaction between the computed score and the therapeutic modality (pembrolizumab vs chemotherapy)., Results: Nine hundred fifty and 595 patients were included in the pembrolizumab and chemotherapy cohorts, respectively. After the case-control random matching, 589 patients from the pembrolizumab cohort and 589 from the chemotherapy cohort were paired, with no statistically significant differences between the characteristics of the matched subjects. Among the pembrolizumab-treated group, good, intermediate and poor risk evaluable patients achieved an objective response rate (ORR) of 50.0%, 37.7% and 23.4%, respectively, (p < 0.0001), whereas among the chemotherapy-treated group, patients achieved an ORR of 37.0%, 40.0% and 32.4%, respectively (p = 0.4346). The median progression-free survival (PFS) of good, intermediate and poor risk groups was 13.9 months, 6.3 months and 2.8 months, respectively, within the pembrolizumab cohort (p < 0.0001), and 6.2 months, 6.2 months and 4.3 months, respectively, within the chemotherapy cohort (p = 0.0280). Among the pembrolizumab-treated patients, the median overall survival (OS) for good, intermediate and poor risk patients was 31.4 months, 14.5 months and 5.8 months, respectively, (p < 0.0001), whereas among the chemotherapy-treated patients, it was 18.3 months, 16.8 months and 10.6 months, respectively (p = 0.0003). A similar trend was reported considering the two entire populations. At the pooled analysis, the interaction term between the score and the therapeutic modality was statistically significant with respect to ORR (p = 0.0052), PFS (p = 0.0003) and OS (p < 0.0001), confirming the significantly different effect of the score within the two cohorts., Conclusion: Our 'drug score' showed a predictive ability with respect to ORR in the immunotherapy cohort only, suggesting it might be a useful tool for identifying patients unlikely to benefit from first-line single-agent pembrolizumab. In addition, the prognostic stratification in terms of PFS and OS was significantly more pronounced among the pembrolizumab-treated patients., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement S.B. received honoraria as a speaker at scientific events and for the advisory role from Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Pfizer, MSD, Ipsen, Roche, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca and Novartis. M.B. received honoraria as a speaker at scientific events from Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Novartis, AstraZeneca and Pfizer and as a consultant for the advisory role from Novartis, BMS and Pfizer; she also received fees for copyright transfer from Sciclone Pharmaceuticals and research funding from Seqirus UK, Pfizer, Novartis, BMS, AstraZeneca, Roche S.p.A. and Sanofi Genzyme. R.G. received speaker fees and grant consultancies from AstraZeneca and Roche. J.G.J.V.A. reports receiving commercial research grants from Amphera and Roche, holds ownership interest (including patents) in Amphera BV and is a consultant/advisory board member for Amphera, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, MSD and Roche. A.F. received grant consultancies from Roche, Pfizer, Astellas and BMS. F.M. received grant consultancies from MSD and Takeda. R.C. received speaker fees from BMS, MSD, Takeda, Pfizer, Roche and AstraZeneca. C.G. received speaker fees/grant consultancies from AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche and MSD. M.R. received honoraria for scientific events from Roche, AstraZeneca, BMS, MSD and Boehringer Ingelheim. E.B. received speaker and travel fees from MSD, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Helsinn, Eli Lilly, BMS, Novartis and Roche and grant consultancies from Roche and Pfizer. M.C.G. received grants from MSD, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, Celgene, Tiziana Sciences, Clovis, Merck, Bayer, GSK, Spectrum and Blueprint; personal fees from Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Otsuka Pharma, AstraZeneca, Novartis, BMS, Roche, Pfizer, Celgene, Incyte, Inivata, Takeda, Bayer, MSD, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics and Daiichi Sankyo and other financial supports from Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Novartis, BMS, Roche, Pfizer, Celgene, Tiziana Sciences, Clovis, Merck Serono, MSD, GSK, Spectrum and Blueprint. A.A. received grant consultancies from Takeda, MSD, BMJ, AstraZeneca, Roche and Pfizer. M.D.M. received research funding from Tesaro-GlaxoSmithKline and acted in a consulting/advisory role for Novartis, Pfizer, Eisai, Takeda, Janssen, Astellas, Roche and AstraZeneca. D.J.P. received lecture fees from ViiV Healthcare and Bayer Healthcare; travel expenses from BMS and Bayer Healthcare; consulting fees for Mina Therapeutics, EISAI, Roche and AstraZeneca and research funding (to the institution) from MSD and BMS. M.T. received honoraria from MSD, BMS, Boehringer (BI), Takeda and AstraZeneca and research funding from AstraZeneca. A.C. received speaker fees and grant consultancies from AstraZeneca, MSD, BMS, Roche, Novartis, Istituto Gentili and Astellas. All the other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Treatment sequencing with first-line immunotherapy, followed by second-line chemotherapy, is still a viable option for NSCLC patients with PD-L1 expression ≥50%., Methods: We evaluated post-progression treatment pathways in a large real-world cohort of metastatic NSCLC patients with PD-L1 expression ≥ 50% treated with first-line pembrolizumab monotherapy., Results: Overall, 974 patients were included. With a median follow-up of 22.7 months (95%CI: 21.6-38.2), the median overall survival (OS) of the entire population was 15.8 months (95%CI: 13.5-17.5; 548 events). At the data cutoff, among the 678 patients who experienced disease progression, 379 (55.9%) had not received any further treatment, and 359 patients (52.9%) had died. Patients who did not receive post-progression therapies were older (p = 0.0011), with a worse ECOG-PS (p < 0.0001) and were on corticosteroids prior to pembrolizumab (p = 0.0024). At disease progression, 198 patients (29.2%) received a switched approach and 101 (14.9%) received pembrolizumab ByPD either alone (64 [9.4%]) or in combination with local ablative treatments (37 [5.5%]) (LATs). After a random-case control matching according to ECOG-PS, CNS metastases, bone metastases, and (previous) best response to pembrolizumab, patients receiving pembrolizumab ByPD plus LATs were confirmed to have a significantly longer post-progression OS compared to patients receiving pembrolizumab ByPD alone 13.9 months versus 7.8 months (p = 0.0179) 241 patients (35.5%) among the 678 who had experienced PD, received a second-line systemic treatment (regardless of previous treatment beyond PD). As compared to first-line treatment commencement, patients' features at the moment of second-line initiation showed a significantly higher proportion of patients aged under 70 years (p = 0.0244), with a poorer ECOG-PS (p < 0.0001) and having CNS (p = 0.0001), bone (p = 0.0266) and liver metastases (p = 0.0148)., Conclusions: In the real-world scenario NSCLC patients with PD-L1 expression ≥50% treated with first-line single-agent pembrolizumab achieve worse outcomes as compared to the Keynote-024 trial. Poor post-progression outcomes are major determinants of the global results that should be considered when counselling patients for first-line treatment choices., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement Dr Alessio Cortellini received speaker fees and grant consultancies by Astrazeneca, MSD, BMS, Roche, Novartis, Istituto Gentili and Astellas. Dr Raffaele Giusti received speaker fees and grant consultancies by Astrazeneca and Roche. Dr Joachim GJV Aerts reports receiving commercial research grants from Amphera and Roche, holds ownership interest (including patents) in Amphera BV, and is a consultant/advisory board member for Amphera, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli-Lilly, MSD and Roche. Dr Alex Friedlaender received grant consultancies by Roche, Pfizer, Astellas and BMS. Dr Alessandro Morabito received speaker fees by Astra, Roche, BMS, MSD, Boehringer, Pfizer, Takeda. Dr Francesca Mazzoni received grant consultancies by MSD and Takeda. Dr Rita Chiari received speaker fees by BMS, MSD, Takeda, Pfizer, Roche and Astrazeneca. Dr Carlo Genova received speaker fees/grant consultancies by Astrazeneca, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Roche and MSD. Dr Marco Russano received honoraria for scientific events by Roche, Astrazeneca, BMS, MSD and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr Marcello Tiseo received speakers’ and consultants’ fee from Astra-Zeneca, Pfizer, Eli-Lilly, BMS, Novartis, Roche, MSD, Boehringer Ingelheim, Otsuka, Takeda, Pierre Fabre. Dr Alfredo Addeo received grant consultancies by Takeda, MSD, BMJ, Astrazeneca, Roche and Pfizer. Dr Rita Chiari received speaker fees by BMS, MSD, Takeda, Pfizer, Roche and Astrazeneca. Dr Carlo Genova received speaker fees/grant consultancies by Astrazeneca, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Roche and MSD. Dr David J Pinato received lecture fees from ViiV Healthcare, Bayer Healthcare and travel expenses from BMS and Bayer Healthcare; consulting fees for Mina Therapeutics, EISAI, Roche, Astra Zeneca; received research funding (to institution) from MSD, BMS. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Some concomitant medications including antibiotics (ATB) have been reproducibly associated with worse survival following immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in unselected patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) (according to programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression and treatment line). Whether such relationship is causative or associative is matter of debate., Methods: We present the outcomes analysis according to concomitant baseline medications (prior to ICI initiation) with putative immune-modulatory effects in a large cohort of patients with metastatic NSCLC with a PD-L1 expression ≥50%, receiving first-line pembrolizumab monotherapy. We also evaluated a control cohort of patients with metastatic NSCLC treated with first-line chemotherapy. The interaction between key medications and therapeutic modality (pembrolizumab vs chemotherapy) was validated in pooled multivariable analyses., Results: 950 and 595 patients were included in the pembrolizumab and chemotherapy cohorts, respectively. Corticosteroid and proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy but not ATB therapy was associated with poorer performance status at baseline in both the cohorts. No association with clinical outcomes was found according to baseline statin, aspirin, β-blocker and metformin within the pembrolizumab cohort. On the multivariable analysis, ATB emerged as a strong predictor of worse overall survival (OS) (HR=1.42 (95% CI 1.13 to 1.79); p=0.0024), and progression free survival (PFS) (HR=1.29 (95% CI 1.04 to 1.59); p=0.0192) in the pembrolizumab but not in the chemotherapy cohort. Corticosteroids were associated with shorter PFS (HR=1.69 (95% CI 1.42 to 2.03); p<0.0001), and OS (HR=1.93 (95% CI 1.59 to 2.35); p<0.0001) following pembrolizumab, and shorter PFS (HR=1.30 (95% CI 1.08 to 1.56), p=0.0046) and OS (HR=1.58 (95% CI 1.29 to 1.94), p<0.0001), following chemotherapy. PPIs were associated with worse OS (HR=1.49 (95% CI 1.26 to 1.77); p<0.0001) with pembrolizumab and shorter OS (HR=1.12 (95% CI 1.02 to 1.24), p=0.0139), with chemotherapy. At the pooled analysis, there was a statistically significant interaction with treatment (pembrolizumab vs chemotherapy) for corticosteroids (p=0.0020) and PPIs (p=0.0460) with respect to OS, for corticosteroids (p<0.0001), ATB (p=0.0290), and PPIs (p=0.0487) with respect to PFS, and only corticosteroids (p=0.0033) with respect to objective response rate., Conclusion: In this study, we validate the significant negative impact of ATB on pembrolizumab monotherapy but not chemotherapy outcomes in NSCLC, producing further evidence about their underlying immune-modulatory effect. Even though the magnitude of the impact of corticosteroids and PPIs is significantly different across the cohorts, their effects might be driven by adverse disease features., Competing Interests: Competing interests: AC received speaker fees and grant consultancies by Astrazeneca, MSD, BMS, Roche, Novartis, Istituto Gentili and Astellas. RG received speaker fees and grant consultancies by Astrazeneca and Roche. JA reports receiving commercial research grants from Amphera and Roche, holds ownership interest (including patents) in Amphera BV, and is a consultant/advisory board member for Amphera, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli-Lilly, MSD and Roche. AF received grant consultancies by Roche, Pfizer, Astellas and BMS. FM received grant consultancies by MSD and Takeda. RC received speaker fees by BMS, MSD, Takeda, Pfizer, Roche and Astrazeneca. CG received speaker fees/grant consultancies by Astrazeneca, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Roche and MSD. MR received honoraria for scientific events by Roche, Astrazeneca, BMS, MSD and Boehringer Ingelheim. EB received speaker and travel fees from MSD, Astra-Zeneca, Pfizer, Helsinn, Eli-Lilly, BMS, Novartis and Roche; grant consultancies by Roche and Pfizer. MCG received grants from MSD, Astrazeneca, Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, Celgene, Tiziana Sciences, Clovis, Merck, Bayer, GSK, Spectrum, Blueprint, personal fees from Eli Lilly, Boheringer, Otsuka Pharma, Astrazeneca, Novartis, BMS, Roche, Pfizer, Celgene, Incyte, Inivata, Takeda, Bayer, MSD, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Daichii Sankyo, other financial supports from Eli Lilly, Astrazeneca, Novartis, BMS, Roche, Pfizer, Celgene, Tiziana Sciences, Clovis, Merck Serono, MSD, GSK, Spectrum and Blueprint. AA received grant consultancies by Takeda, MSD, BMJ, Astrazeneca, Roche and Pfizer. MDM received research funding from Tesaro-GlaxoSmithKline; acted in a consulting/advisory role for Novartis, Pfizer, Eisai, Takeda, Janssen, Astellas, Roche, AstraZeneca. FP received grant consultancies by MSD and Astrazeneca. PB received grant consultancies by Astrazeneca and Boehringer-Ingelheim. DJP received lecture fees from ViiV Healthcare, Bayer Healthcare and travel expenses from BMS and Bayer Healthcare; consulting fees for Mina Therapeutics, EISAI, Roche, Astra Zeneca; received research funding (to institution) from MSD, BMS. All other authors declare no competing interests. DJP is supported by grant funding from the Wellcome Trust Strategic Fund (PS3416) and has received direct project funding by the NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre (BRC), ITMAT Push for Impact Grant Scheme 2019. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Improved outcome in tobacco smoking patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) following immunotherapy has previously been reported. However, little is known regarding this association during first-line immunotherapy in patients with high PD-L1 expression. In this study we compared clinical outcomes according to the smoking status of two large multicenter cohorts., Methods: We compared clinical outcomes according to the smoking status (never smokers vs. current/former smokers) of two retrospective multicenter cohorts of metastatic NSCLC patients, treated with first-line pembrolizumab and platinum-based chemotherapy., Results: A total of 962 NSCLC patients with PD-L1 expression ≥50% who received first-line pembrolizumab and 462 NSCLC patients who received first-line platinum-based chemotherapy were included in the study. Never smokers were confirmed to have a significantly higher risk of disease progression (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.49 [95% CI: 1.15-1.92], p = 0.0022) and death (HR = 1.38 [95% CI: 1.02-1.87], p = 0.0348) within the pembrolizumab cohort. On the contrary, a nonsignificant trend towards a reduced risk of disease progression (HR = 0.74 [95% CI: 0.52-1.05], p = 0.1003) and death (HR = 0.67 [95% CI: 0.45-1.01], p = 0.0593) were reported for never smokers within the chemotherapy cohort. After a random case-control matching, 424 patients from both cohorts were paired. Within the matched pembrolizumab cohort, never smokers had a significantly shorter progression-free survival (PFS) (HR = 1.68 [95% CI: 1.17-2.40], p = 0.0045) and a nonsignificant trend towards a shortened overall survival (OS) (HR = 1.32 [95% CI: 0.84-2.07], p = 0.2205). On the contrary, never smokers had a significantly longer PFS (HR = 0.68 [95% CI: 0.49-0.95], p = 0.0255) and OS (HR = 0.66 [95% CI: 0.45-0.97], p = 0,0356) compared to current/former smoker patients within the matched chemotherapy cohort. On pooled multivariable analysis, the interaction term between smoking status and treatment modality was concordantly statistically significant with respect to ORR (p = 0.0074), PFS (p = 0.0001) and OS (p = 0.0020), confirming the significantly different impact of smoking status across the two cohorts., Conclusions: Among metastatic NSCLC patients with PD-L1 expression ≥50% receiving first-line pembrolizumab, current/former smokers experienced improved PFS and OS. On the contrary, worse outcomes were reported among current/former smokers receiving first-line chemotherapy., (© 2021 The Authors. Thoracic Cancer published by China Lung Oncology Group and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.)

Background: The role of immune-related adverse events (irAEs), as a surrogate predictor of the efficacy of checkpoint inhibitors, has not yet been described in the setting of first-line, single-agent pembrolizumab for patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung-cancer (NSCLC) with a programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression of ≥ 50%., Patients and Methods: We previously conducted a multicenter retrospective analysis in patients with treatment-naive metastatic NSCLC and a PD-L1 expression of ≥ 50% receiving first-line pembrolizumab. Here, we report the results of the irAE analysis and the potential correlation between irAEs and clinical outcomes., Results: A total of 1010 patients were included in this analysis; after a 6-week landmark selection, 877 (86.8%) patients were included in the efficacy analysis. Any grade irAEs (P < .0001), grade 3/4 irAEs (P = .0025), leading to discontinuation irAEs (P = .0144), multiple-site and single-site irAEs (P < .0001), cutaneous irAEs (P = .0001), endocrine irAEs (P = .0227), pulmonary irAEs (P = .0479), and rheumatologic irAEs (P = .0018) were significantly related to a higher objective response rate. Any grade irAEs (P < .0001), single-site irAEs (P < .0001), multiple-site irAEs (P = .0005), cutaneous irAEs (P = .0042), endocrine irAEs (P < .0001), gastrointestinal irAEs (P = .0391), and rheumatologic irAEs (P = .0086) were significantly related to progression-free survival. Any grade irAEs (P < .0001), single-site irAEs (P < .0001), multiple-site irAEs (P = .0003), cutaneous irAEs (P = .0002), endocrine irAEs (P = .0001), and rheumatologic irAEs (P = .0214) were significantly related to overall survival., Conclusions: This study confirms the feasibility and the safety of first-line, single-agent pembrolizumab, in a large, real-world cohort of patients with NSCLC with PD-L1 expression ≥ 50%. The occurrence of irAEs may be a surrogate of clinical activity and improved outcomes in this setting., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: In most cases, T790M EGFR-positive NSCLC patients receiving osimertinib developed "non-drugable" progression, as the patients with common EGFR-sensitizing mutations were treated with first-line osimertinib. In both settings, chemotherapy represents the standard treatment and local ablative treatments (LATs) are potential useful options in the case of oligo-progression., Methods: We conducted a study on "post-progression" (pp) outcomes of T790M EGFR-positive NSCLC patients treated with osimertinib, according to the therapeutic strategy applied: osimertinib beyond progression (± LATs), "switched therapies" or best supportive care only (BSC)., Results: 144 consecutive patients were evaluated: 53 (36.8%) did not received post-progression treatments (BSC), while 91 (63.2%) patients received at least 1 subsequent treatment; 50 patients (54.9%) received osimertinib beyond disease progression [19 (20.9%) of them with adjunctive LATs] and 41 (45.1%) a switched therapy. Median ppPFS (progression-free survival) and median ppOS (overall survival) of patients who received osimertinib beyond progression vs. switched therapies were 6.4 months vs. 4.7 months, respectively [HR 0.57 (95% CI 0.35-0.92), p = 0.0239] and 11.3 months vs 7.8 months, respectively [HR 0.57 (95% CI 0.33-0.98), p = 0.0446]. Among patients who received osimertinib beyond progression with and without LATs median ppPFS was 6.4 months and 5.7 months, respectively [HR 0.90 (95% CI 0.68-1.18), p = 0.4560], while median ppOS was 20.2 months and 9.9 months, respectively [HR 0.73 (95% CI 0.52-1.03), p = 0.0748]. At the univariate analysis, the only factor significantly related to the ppPFS was the therapeutic strategy in favor of osimertinib beyond progression (± LATs). Moreover, the only variable which was significantly related to ppOS at the multivariate analysis was osimertinib beyond progression (± LATs)., Conclusion: Our study confirmed that in clinical practice, in case of "non-druggable" disease progression, maintaining osimertinib beyond progression (with adjunctive LATs) is an effective option.

Sarcopenia represents one of the hallmarks of all chronic diseases, including cancer, and was already investigated as a prognostic marker in the pre-immunotherapy era. Sarcopenia can be evaluated using cross-sectional image analysis of CT-scans, at the level of the third lumbar vertebra (L3), to estimate the skeletal muscle index (SMI), a surrogate of skeletal muscle mass, and to evaluate the skeletal muscle density (SMD). We performed a retrospective analysis of consecutive advanced cancer patient treated with PD-1/PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitors. Baseline SMI and SMD were evaluated and optimal cut-offs for survival, according to sex and BMI (+/-25) were computed. The evaluated clinical outcomes were: objective response rate (ORR), immune-related adverse events (irAEs), progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). From April 2015 to April 2019, 100 consecutive advanced cancer patients were evaluated. 50 (50%) patients had a baseline low SMI, while 51 (51%) had a baseline low SMD according to the established cut offs. We found a significant association between SMI and ECOG-PS (p = 0.0324), while no correlations were found regarding SMD and baseline clinical factors. The median follow-up was 20.3 months. Patients with low SMI had a significantly shorter PFS (HR = 1.66 [95% CI: 1.05-2.61]; p = 0.0291) at univariate analysis, but not at the multivariate analysis. They also had a significantly shorter OS (HR = 2.19 [95% CI: 1.31-3.64]; p = 0.0026). The multivariate analysis confirmed baseline SMI as an independent predictor for OS (HR = 2.19 [1.31-3.67]; p = 0.0027). We did not find significant relationships between baseline SMD and clinical outcomes, nor between ORR, irAEs and baseline SMI (data not shown). Low SMI is associated with shortened survival in advanced cancer patients treated with PD1/PDL1 checkpoint inhibitors. However, the lack of an association between SMI and clinical response suggests that sarcopenia may be generally prognostic in this setting rather than specifically predictive of response to immunotherapy.

Background: Immune-related adverse events (irAEs) developed during immunotherapy with anti-PD-1 agents, could be a predictive surrogate marker of clinical benefit in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC)., Methods: Patients with NSCLC, treated with anti-PD-1 agents, were retrospectively evaluated. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to evaluate the relationships between types of irAEs (differentiated according to system/organ involved and to single-site/multiple-site), overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). We further performed a 6-week landmark analysis., Results: A total of 559 patients were enrolled; 231 patients (41.3%) developed irAEs of any grade and 50 patients (8.9%) G3/G4 events; 191 of them (82.6%) developed "single-site" irAEs and 40 (17.4%) "multiple-site" irAEs. At multivariate analysis, higher ORR was related to irAEs of any grade (P < .0001), "single-site" irAEs (P < .0001), endocrine (P = .0043) and skin irAEs (P = .0005). Longer PFS was related to irAEs of any grade (P < .0001), "single-site" irAEs (P < .0001), "multiple-site" irAEs (P = .0374), endocrine irAEs (P = .0084) and skin irAEs (P = .0001). Longer OS was related to irAEs of any grade (P < .0001), "single-site" irAEs (P < .0001), endocrine irAEs (P = .0044), gastrointestinal irAEs (P = .0437), skin irAEs (P = .0006), and others irAEs (P = .0378). At the 6-week landmark analysis, irAEs of any grade was confirmed an independent predictor of higher ORR, longer PFS, and longer OS., Conclusion: Our study confirmed that irAEs are concordantly related to higher ORR, longer PFS, and longer OS with anti-PD-1 immunotherapy in patients with NSCLC., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Sarcopenia represents one of the hallmarks of all chronic disease, including non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). A computed tomography scan is an easy modality to estimate the skeletal muscle mass through cross-sectional image analysis at the level of the third lumbar vertebra (L3). Baseline skeletal muscle mass (SMM) was evaluated using gender-specific cutoffs for skeletal muscle index in NSCLC patients administered immunotherapy with nivolumab to evaluate its possible correlations with clinical outcomes. From April 2015 to August 2018, 23 stage IV NSCLC patients were eligible for image analysis. Nine patients (39.1%) had low SMM. Among patients with baseline low and non-low SMM, median progression free survival was 3.1 and 3.8 months, respectively (P = 0.0560), while median overall survival was 4.1 and 13 months, respectively (P = 0.2866). This hypothesis-generating preliminary report offers the opportunity to speculate about the negative influence of sarcopenia on immune response. In our opinion, nutritional status could affect the clinical outcomes of immunotherapy, even if we cannot make definitive conclusions here. Further studies on the topic are required., (© 2019 The Authors. Thoracic Cancer published by China Lung Oncology Group and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.)

Background: Sarcopenia and muscle tissue degradation are hallmarks of the majority of chronic diseases, including non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). A computed tomography scan could be an easy modality to estimate the skeletal muscle mass through cross-sectional image analysis at the level of the third lumbar vertebra., Methods: Baseline skeletal muscle mass (SMM) was evaluated through the skeletal muscle index (SMI), together with skeletal muscle radiodensity (SMD), in NSCLC patients undergoing first-line chemotherapy to evaluate correlations with safety and clinical outcomes. When SMIs at different time points were available, further comparison was made between patients with worse and improved SMIs., Results: Among 81 stage IV NSCLC patients, 28 had low SMM and 23 had low SMD. There were no significant differences in univariate analysis of progression-free survival (PFS) between patients with baseline low and non-low SMM (P = 0.06388) or between patients with low and non-low SMD (P = 0.9126). Baseline low SMM, however, proved a significant predictor of shorter PFS in multivariate analysis (hazard ratio 0.54, 95% confidence interval 0.31-0.93; P = 0.0278), but not low SMD. There were no differences in overall survival (OS) between patients with baseline low and non-low SMM or low and non-low SMD. No differences in PFS and OS between evaluable patients with worse or improved SMI were found. A significant difference in hematological toxicities between patients with baseline low and non-low SMM (P = 0.0358) was observed., Conclusions: Low SMM is predictive of shorter PFS, while consecutive changes in muscular mass do not seem to be a predictor of PFS or OS. The role of muscle radiodensity remains a matter of debate., (© 2018 The Authors. Thoracic Cancer published by China Lung Oncology Group and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.)

Background: The major challenge for treating non-squamous (non-Sq) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients without actionable biomarkers is the actual selection of proper treatment, weighing expected clinical outcomes and safety profile., Methods: Consecutive non-Sq NSCLC patients were treated with platinum-pemetrexed (PP) doublets in clinical practice. Subgroup analyses were conducted in patients treated with standard (s)PP and modified (m)PP doublets (because of age, performance status, and/or comorbidities) and in patients treated with cisplatin-based and carboplatin-based PP doublets. Activity, efficacy, safety, and toxicities were evaluated., Results: From November 2009 to April 2017, 111 patients were treated: 87 (78.4%) with sPP and 24 (21.6%) with mPP; 76 (68.5%) with cisplatin-based and 35 (31.5%) with carboplatin-based regimens. The objective response rate (ORR), median progression-free survival (PFS), and median overall survival (OS) were 49.0%, 7, and 13 months in the entire patient population, respectively. We found no significant differences in ORR, median PFS, and median OS between sPP and mPP. Cisplatin-based PP showed higher ORR (53.7%) versus carboplatin-based PP (38.7%) and longer PFS (7 vs. 6 months; P = 0.028) and OS (18 vs. 11 months; P = 0.006). We confirm that carboplatin has a better toxicity profile than cisplatin. The received dose-intensities were ~80% of standard full doses., Conclusions: Accurate management allowed us to treat the majority of advanced non-Sq NSCLC patients with PP combination therapy without significant differences in ORR, median PFS, and median OS. Even considering the selection bias, our data seems to confirm the greater effectiveness of cisplatin-based over carboplatin-based regimens., (© 2017 The Authors. Thoracic Cancer published by China Lung Oncology Group and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.)