Search

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

Background: Sotorasib is a first-in-class KRAS p.G12C-inhibitor that has entered clinical trials in pretreated patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in 2018. First response rates were promising in the CodeBreaK trials. It remains unclear whether response to sotorasib and outcomes differ in a real-world setting when including patients underrepresented in clinical trials., Methods: Patients with KRAS p.G12C-mutated advanced or metastatic NSCLC received sotorasib within the German multicenter sotorasib compassionate use program between 2020 to 2022. Data on efficacy, tolerability, and survival were analyzed in the full cohort and in subgroups of special interest such as co-occurring mutations and across PD-L1 expression levels., Results: We analyzed 163 patients who received sotorasib after a median of two treatment lines (range, 0 to 7). Every fourth patient had a poor performance status and 38% had brain metastases (BM). The objective response rate was 38.7%. The median overall survival was 9.8 months (95% CI, 6.5 to not reached). Median real-world (rw) progression-free survival was 4.8 months (9% CI, 3.9 to 5.9). Dose reductions and permanent discontinuation were necessary in 35 (21.5%) and 7 (4.3%) patients, respectively. Efficacy seems to be influenced by PD-L1 expression and a co-occurring KEAP1 mutation. KEAP1 was associated with an inferior survival. Other factors such as BM, STK11, and TP53 mutations had no impact on response and survival., Conclusion: First results from a real-world population confirm promising efficacy of sotorasib for the treatment of advanced KRAS p.G12C-mutated NSCLC. Patients with co-occurring KEAP1 mutations seem to derive less benefit., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: JAS reports personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Roche, personal fees from BMS, personal fees from Amgen, personal fees from LEO pharma, personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Takeda, outside of the submitted work. FCA has received a research grant from Novartis, support for attending meetings and/or travel from Amgen, and consultant fees from IQVIA.PD has nothing to disclose. JR has nothing to disclose. AT has nothing to disclose. ANH has nothing to disclose. NF reports personal fees from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Berlinchemie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers&Squibb, Lilly, Merck Sharp&Dohme, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda, outside of the submitted work. HY has nothing to disclose. PC has received research funding from AstraZeneca, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Roche, and Takeda, speaker’s honoraria from AstraZeneca, Janssen, Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, Thermo Fisher, Takeda, support for attending meetings from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda, and personal fees for participating to advisory boards from Boehringer Ingelheim, Chugai, Pfizer, Novartis, MSD, Takeda and Roche, all outside the submitted work. OB has nothing to disclose. CMB has nothing to disclose. ABVD has nothing to disclose. JA has nothing to disclose. SPA as nothing to disclose. MW has nothing to disclose. SK has nothing to disclose. MU has nothing to disclose. GT has nothing to disclose. CFW has nothing to disclose. AR reports grants from AbbVie, grants from AstraZeneca, grants from BMS, grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, grants from Daichi Sankyo, grants from Eli Lilly, grants from GSK, grants from MSD, grants from Novartis, grants from Pfizer, grants from Roche, outside the submitted work. PH has nothing to disclose. JB has nothing to disclose. HGK has nothing to disclose. CG has nothing to disclose. MSch has nothing to disclose. CSch has nothing to disclose. FG reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Celgene, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Takeda, Siemens, Amgen, Ariad, Abbvie, Tesaro / GSK, Sanofi, Daiichi-Sankyo, Beigene, outside of the submitted work. MSch has nothing to disclose. MS reports personal fees from Lilly, Astra-Zeneca, Bristol-Myers & Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Takeda, Roche, AbbVie, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Celgene, Novartis, grants from Astra Zeneca outside the submitted work. NR reports personal fees from Amgen, personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, personal fees from Boehringer-Ingelheim, personal fees from Daiichi Sankyo, personal fees from GSK, personal fees from Hoffmann-La Roche, personal fees from Janssen, personal fees from MSD, personal fees from Merck, personal fees from Lilly, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Takeda, outside the submitted work., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: The efficacy of checkpoint inhibitors for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with MET exon 14 skipping (METΔ14ex) remains controversial., Materials and Methods: 110 consecutive METΔ14ex NSCLC patients receiving first-line chemotherapy (CHT) and/or immunotherapy (IO) in 10 German centers between 2016-2022 were analyzed., Results: Combined CHT-IO was given to 35/110 (32%) patients, IO alone to 43/110 (39%), and CHT to 32/110 (29%) upfront. Compared to CHT, CHT-IO showed longer progression-free survival (median PFS 6 vs. 2.5 months, p = 0.004), more objective responses (ORR 49% vs. 28%, p = 0.086) and numerically longer overall survival (OS 16 vs. 10 months, p = 0.240). For IO monotherapy, OS (14 vs. 16 months) and duration of response (26 vs. 22 months) were comparable to those of CHT-IO. Primary progressive disease (PD) was more frequent with IO compared to CHT-IO (13/43 vs. 3/35, p = 0.018), particularly for never-smokers (p = 0.041). Higher PD-L1 TPS were not associated with better IO outcomes, but TP53 mutated tumors showed numerically improved ORR (56% vs. 32%, p = 0.088) and PFS (6 vs. 3 months, p = 0.160), as well as longer OS in multivariable analysis (HR=0.54, p = 0.034) compared to their wild-type counterparts. Any second-line treatment was administered to 35/75 (47%) patients, with longer survival for capmatinib or tepotinib compared to crizotinib (PFS 10 vs. 3 months, p = 0.013; OS 16 vs. 13 months, p = 0.270)., Conclusion: CHT-IO is superior to CHT, and IO alone also effective for METΔ14ex NSCLC, especially in the presence of TP53 mutations and independent of PD-L1 expression, but never-smokers are at higher risk of primary PD., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: JK: speaker’s honoraria from BMS, AstraZeneca and Pfizer, travel grants from Takeda, advisory board honoraria from Takeda, Roche and AstraZeneca. DM: advisory board/lecture fees from AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi and Takeda. DiKa: advisory boards/speaker´s honoraria from BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, MSD, Roche, Janssen, Pfizer, AstraZeneca; support for attending meetings from Novartis, Boehringer-Ingelheim. MH: advisory board, speaker’s honoraria and travel grants from Boehringer-Ingelheim. BH: advisory board/lecture fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, MSD, Roche, Pfizer. MF: grants from AstraZeneca, BMS, MSD, and Roche; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, MSD, Roche, BMS; speaker´s honoraria from AstraZeneca, MSD, Roche, BMS. MK: speaker’s honoraria and travel grants from Veracyte Inc. AV: speaker’s honoraria from AstraZeneca. MA: speaker’s honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim. CG: advisory board/lecture fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Takeda, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, AbbVie, Tesaro/GSK and Blueprints Medicines. AT: consulting fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi, Astra Zeneca, Roche, Pfizer, BMS, MSD, Sanofi, Lilly, Novartis; speaker’s honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi, Astra Zeneca, Roche, Pfizer, BMS, MSD, Sanofi, Lilly, Novartis; travel grants from Sanofi, Janssen, Daiichi; BMS, MSD, AstraZeneca. MR: advisory board/lecture fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer, Lilly, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung. NF: grants from Roche, consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Berlinchemie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers&Squibb, Lilly, Merck Sharp&Dohme, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda; support for attending meetings from Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Janssen, Lilly, Takeda. AS: advisory board honoraria from BMS, AstraZeneca, ThermoFisher, Novartis, speaker’s honoraria from BMS, Illumina, AstraZeneca, Novartis, ThermoFisher, MSD, Roche, and research funding from Chugai and BMS. MT: research funding from AstraZeneca, BMS, Merck, Roche, Takeda; speaker’s honoraria from AstraZeneca, Beigene, Novartis, Eli Lilly, BMS, MSD, Roche, Celgene, Takeda, AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, MSD, Takeda, Pfizer, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Oncology, Merck, Sanofi and travel grants from AstraZeneca, BMS, MSD, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo, Janssen Oncology, Lilly, Merck, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda, Boehringer Ingelheim. PC: research funding from AstraZeneca, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Roche, and Takeda, speaker’s honoraria from AstraZeneca, Janssen, Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, Thermo Fisher, Takeda, support for attending meetings from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda, and personal fees for participating to advisory boards from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chugai, Pfizer, Novartis, MSD, Takeda and Roche, all outside the submitted work. All other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Objective: First-line pembrolizumab alone, as approved for PD-L1 ≥50%, or with chemotherapy was analyzed in older non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients, for whom evidence is scarce., Materials and Methods: A total of 156 consecutive ≥70 year-old patients treated between January 2016 and May 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. Tumor progression was verified through radiologic review, while toxicity was captured from records., Results: Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy (n = 95) caused higher rates of adverse events (91% vs. 51%, P < .001), treatment discontinuation (37% vs. 21%, P = .034), and hospitalization (56% vs. 23%, P < .001), but similar rates of immune-related adverse events (irAEs, mean 35%, P = .998) compared to pembrolizumab monotherapy (n = 61). Progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were similar between the 2 groups (7 vs. 8 months, and 16 vs. 14 months in median, P > .25). Occurrence of irAEs was associated with longer survival in a 12-week landmark analysis (median PFS 11 vs. 5 months, hazard ratio [HR] 0.51, P = .001; median OS 33 vs. 10 months, HR 0.46, P < .001), but occurrence of other AEs not (both P > .35). A worse ECOG performance status (PS) ≥2, presence of brain metastases at diagnosis, squamous histology and lack of tumor PD-L1 expression were independent predictors of shorter PFS and OS in multivariable analysis (HR 1.6-3.9 for PFS and OS, all P < .05)., Conclusion: Chemoimmunotherapy increases the rate of adverse events and hospitalization without prolonging PFS or OS in newly diagnosed NSCLC patients aged 70 years or older compared to pembrolizumab monotherapy. ECOG PS 2, presence of brain metastases at diagnosis, squamous histology and PD-L1 negativity are associated with poor outcome., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest MB: none. JK: speaker's honoraria from BMS, AstraZeneca and Pfizer, travel grants from Takeda, advisory board honoraria from Takeda, Roche and AstraZeneca. RS: research funding from BMS, speaker's honoraria from AstraZeneca, Roche, Novartis. FB: research funding from BMS and travel grants from BMS and MSD. FE: speaker's honoraria from MSD, BMS, Novartis and AstraZeneca, consulting fees from BMS. SL: commercial research grants from BerGenBio AS, BMS, Eli Lilly and Roche Pharma, honoraria from the Speakers Bureau and/or is a consultant/advisory board member and/or received travel grants of BerGenBio AS, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Roche Pharma, Medac GmbH, Astra Zeneca, Chugai, Novartis, Abbvie, MDS and Sanofi Aventis. AS: advisory board honoraria from BMS, AstraZeneca, ThermoFisher, Novartis, speaker's honoraria from BMS, Illumina, AstraZeneca, Novartis, ThermoFisher, MSD, Roche, and research funding from Chugai. CPH: consultation, lecture and other fees from Novartis, Basilea, Bayer, Grifols, Boehringer, Pierre Fabre, Covidien, Siemens, Chiesi, Intermune, MEDA Pharma, Bracco, Pfizer, MSD, Roche, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Schering-Plough, Essex, Gilead, MeVis, Fresenius, Astellas as well as ownership of GSK stocks FJH: advisory board fees and honoraria from Lilly, Roche, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Boehringer, Chiesi, Teva, Pulmonx BTG and Olympus as well as research funding from Lilly, Roche, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Boehringer, Chiesi and Teva. MT: advisory board honoraria from Novartis, Lilly, BMS, MSD, Roche, Celgene, Takeda, AbbVie, Boehringer, speaker's honoraria from Lilly, MSD, Takeda, research funding from AstraZeneca, BMS, Celgene, Novartis, Roche and travel grants from BMS, MSD, Novartis, Boehringer. PC: research funding from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Roche, Takeda, and advisory board/lecture fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chugai, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Takeda, Thermo Fisher., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: EGFR exon20 insertions (ex20ins) are targeted by novel compounds in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, data about outcome under conventional therapies and the influence of molecular features are scarce., Patients and Methods: We retrospectively analysed 118 patients with evaluation of radiologic response based on RECIST v1.1. TP53 status was available for 88 cases., Results: Platinum doublets and chemoimmunotherapy showed similar response rates (20-25%), disease control rates (80%) and median progression-free survival (mPFS, ≈7 months), which were longer compared to monochemotherapy (9%, 59%, 4.1 months), EGFR inhibitors (0%, 46%, 3.0) and PD-(L)1 inhibitors (0%, 30%, 2.1; p < 0.05). Overall survival (OS) was not dependent on the choice of first-line treatment, but related to more lines of systemic therapy (p < 0.05). TP53 mutations and brain metastases were associated with shorter PFS under platinum doublets and EGFR inhibitors (HR 3.3-6.1, p < 0.01), and shorter OS for patients receiving both treatments (p < 0.05). More tumour CD8 + and less Th1 cells were associated with longer OS independent of brain and TP53 status (p < 0.01). No difference in outcome was noted according to the ex20ins site and use of pemetrexed (vs. other cytotoxics) or bevacizumab. Long-lasting responses (>1 year) occasionally occurred under EGFR inhibitors for both 'near-' and 'far-loop' variants., Conclusions: Platinum doublets and chemoimmunotherapy have the highest activity with ORR of 20-25% and mPFS of approximately 7 months, regardless of the cytotoxic partner, while PD-(L)1 inhibitors show limited efficacy. TP53 mutations, brain metastases and a lower tumour CD8/Th1-cell ratio are independently associated with shorter survival., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement PC: research funding from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Roche, Takeda, and advisory board/lecture fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Takeda. JR: lecture fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim. FCS: research funding from Roche; non-financial support from Lilly; personal fees from Takeda, and Pfizer, outside the submitted work. BH: advisory board/lecture fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, MSD, Roche, Pfizer. JK: research funding from AstraZeneca and Celgene. MJ: speaker's honoraria from Roche, Boehringer, and travel grants from Daiichi Sankyo. DK: advisory boards/speakers honoraria from AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Takeda. FE: speaker's honoraria from Roche. FB: research funding from AstraZeneca, BMS and Roche, and travel grants from BMS and MSD. RS: research funding from BMS, and speaker's honoraria from AstraZeneca and Roche. AT: research funding from BMS. MW: research funding from Roche; Personal fees from Roche, AstraZeneca, Boehringer, Kite, Novartis, Merck, BMS, Heidelberg Pharma; Non-financial support from AstraZeneca, BMS, Glenmark; outside the submitted work. SL: advisory board, speaker's honoraria and travel support from BerGenBio, Novartis, Lilly, BMS, MSD, Roche, Celgene, Takeda, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, as well as research funding from Roche, BMS, BerGenBio. WB: consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, honoraria for lectures from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi. Travel grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, MSD, Roche. CS: advisory board honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, Takeda. Speaker's honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer, Lilly, Roche, MSD, Takeda. DM: advisory board/lecture fees from AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi and Takeda (no personal honoraria) NF: advisory board/lecture fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Roche, MSD, Takeda. JK: advisory board member without receiving any personal fees for Roche Pharma, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, MSD, Amgen, Lilly and Takeda. MR: advisory board/lecture fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer, Lilly, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung. FG: grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Takeda, as well as personal fees from AbbVie, Tesaro/GSK, Blueprint Medicines, Amgen. CG: advisory board/lecture fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Takeda, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, AbbVie, Tesaro/GSK and Blueprints Medicines. AS: advisory board honoraria from BMS, AstraZeneca, ThermoFisher, Novartis, speaker's honoraria from BMS, Illumina, AstraZeneca, Novartis, ThermoFisher, MSD, Roche, and research funding from Chugai and BMS. MT: advisory board honoraria from Novartis, Eli Lilly, BMS, MSD, Roche, Celgene, Takeda, AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, speaker's honoraria from Eli Lilly, MSD, Takeda, Pfizer, research funding from AstraZeneca, BMS, Celgene, Novartis, Roche, Takeda, and travel grants from BMS, MSD, Novartis, Boehringer. All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Data are currently insufficient to support the use of adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) after surgical resection for stage II or III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in patients aged ≥ 75 years. In this study we evaluated efficacy and safety profile of ACT in this population., Methods: We retrospectively evaluated 140 patients ≥ 75 years who underwent curative surgical resection for stage II-III NSCLC from 2010 to 2018 with an indication to ACT according to current guidelines. A propensity score-matched analysis was performed to avoid cofounding biases., Results: Thirty of 140 patients (21%) received ACT. Most patients (n = 24, 80%) received carboplatin in combination with vinorelbine, while 5 patients (17%) received cisplatin plus vinorelbine and one patient (3%) carboplatin plus gemcitabine. The occurrence of adverse events led to treatment discontinuation in 8 (27%) cases, while 19 (63%) patients completed 4 chemotherapy cycles. Common reported adverse events with ACT were anemia (n = 20, 67%), neutropenia (n = 18, 60%), thrombocytopenia (n = 9, 30%), renal impairment (n = 4, 13%) and transaminase elevation (n = 4, 13%). No toxic deaths occurred. The median follow-up was 67 months (IQR: 53-87). ACT was associated with a significant benefit in both relapse-free survival (median 36 vs. 18.5 months, p = 0.049) and overall survival (median not reached [NR] vs. 33.5 months, p = 0.023) in a propensity score-matched analysis which controlled for cofounders., Conclusion: ACT confers a survival benefit after curative resection of stage II-III NSCLC in selected patients aged 75 years or older with a manageable toxicity profile., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to investigate changes over time in quality of life (QoL) in incurable lung cancer patients and the impact of determinants like molecular alterations (MA)., Methods: In a prospective, longitudinal, multicentric study, we assessed QoL, symptom burden, psychological distress, unmet needs, and prognostic understanding of patients diagnosed with incurable lung cancer at the time of the diagnosis (T0) and after 3 (T1), 6 (T2) and 12 months (T3) using validated questionnaires like FACT-L, National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Distress Thermometer (DT), PHQ-4, SCNS-SF-34, and SEIQoL., Results: Two hundred seventeen patients were enrolled, 22 (10%) with reported MA. QoL scores improved over time, with a significant trend for DT, PHQ-4, and SCNS-SF-34. Significant determinants for stable or improving scores over time were survival > 6 months, performance status at the time of diagnosis, and presence of MA. Patients with MA showed better QoL scores (FACT-L at T1 104.4 vs 86.3; at T2 107.5 vs 90.0; at T3 100.9 vs 92.8) and lower psychological distress (NCCN DT at T1 3.3 vs 5; at T2 2.7 vs 4.5; at T3 3.7 vs 4.5; PHQ-4 at T1 2.3 vs 4.1; at T2 1.7 vs 3.6; at T3 2.2 vs 3.6), but also a worsening of the scores at 1 year and a higher percentage of inaccurate prognostic understanding (27 vs 17%) compared to patients without MA., Conclusion: Patients with tumors harboring MA are at risk of QoL deterioration during the course of the disease. Physicians should adapt their communication strategies in order to maintain or improve QoL., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: The advanced lung cancer inflammation index [ALI: body mass index × serum albumin/neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR)] reflects systemic host inflammation, and is easily reproducible. We hypothesized that ALI could assist guidance of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs)., Patients and Methods: This retrospective study included 672 stage IV NSCLC patients treated with programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors alone or in combination with chemotherapy in 25 centers in Greece and Germany, and a control cohort of 444 stage IV NSCLC patients treated with platinum-based chemotherapy without subsequent targeted or immunotherapy drugs. The association of clinical outcomes with biomarkers was analyzed with Cox regression models, including cross-validation by calculation of the Harrell's C-index., Results: High ALI values (>18) were significantly associated with longer overall survival (OS) for patients receiving ICI monotherapy [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.402, P < 0.0001, n = 460], but not chemo-immunotherapy (HR = 0.624, P = 0.111, n = 212). Similar positive correlations for ALI were observed for objective response rate (36% versus 24%, P = 0.008) and time-on-treatment (HR = 0.52, P < 0.001), in case of ICI monotherapy only. In the control cohort of chemotherapy, the association between ALI and OS was weaker (HR = 0.694, P = 0.0002), and showed a significant interaction with the type of treatment (ICI monotherapy versus chemotherapy, P < 0.0001) upon combined analysis of the two cohorts. In multivariate analysis, ALI had a stronger predictive effect than NLR, PD-L1 tumor proportion score, lung immune prognostic index, and EPSILoN scores. Among patients with PD-L1 tumor proportion score ≥50% receiving first-line ICI monotherapy, a high ALI score >18 identified a subset with longer OS and time-on-treatment (median 35 and 16 months, respectively), similar to these under chemo-immunotherapy., Conclusions: The ALI score is a powerful prognostic and predictive biomarker for patients with advanced NSCLC treated with PD-L1 inhibitors alone, but not in combination with chemotherapy. Its association with outcomes appears to be stronger than that of other widely used parameters. For PD-L1-high patients, an ALI score >18 could assist the selection of cases that do not need addition of chemotherapy., Competing Interests: Disclosure GM reports advisory/consultation fees from Roche, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Takeda, Pfizer, Amgen, and Merck outside from the submitted work. ES reports advisory/consultation fees from Roche, AstraZeneca, BMS, MSD, Pfizer, Amgen, and Merck outside from the submitted work. EZ reports advisory/consultation fees from MSD and Roche outside from the submitted work. KS reports advisory/consultation fees from MSD and Roche outside from the submitted work. SA reports advisory/consultation fees from Roche, AstraZeneca, BMS, MSD, Takeda, Pfizer, Amgen, and Merck outside from the submitted work. SB reports advisory/consultation fees from Roche, AstraZeneca, BMS, MSD, Takeda, Pfizer, and Amgen outside from the submitted work. IA reports advisory/consultation fees from Roche, AstraZeneca, BMS, MSD, Pfizer, Amgen, and Merck outside from the submitted work. AC reports advisory/consultation fees from Roche, AstraZeneca, BMS, MSD, Pfizer, and Amgen outside from the submitted work. GP reports advisory/consultation fees from Roche, AstraZeneca, BMS, MSD, Pfizer, Amgen, and Merck outside from the submitted work. EL reports advisory/consultation fees from Roche, AstraZeneca, MSD, and Pfizer outside from the submitted work. HL reports advisory/consultation fees from Roche, AstraZeneca, BMS, MSD, Pfizer, Amgen, and Merck outside from the submitted work. PK reports advisory/consultation fees from Roche, AstraZeneca, BMS, MSD, Pfizer, Amgen, and Merck outside from the submitted work. AP reports advisory/consultation fees from Roche, AstraZeneca, BMS, MSD, Pfizer, Amgen, and Merck outside from the submitted work. CA reports advisory/consultation fees from Roche, AstraZeneca, BMS, MSD, Pfizer, Amgen, and Merck outside from the submitted work. EF reports advisory/consultation fees from Roche, AstraZeneca, BMS, MSD, Pfizer, Amgen, and Merck outside from the submitted work. FJH reports advisory board fees and honoraria from Lilly, Roche, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Boehringer, Chiesi, Teva, Pulmonx BTG, and Olympus, as well as research funding from Lilly, Roche, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Boehringer, Chiesi, and Teva, outside of the submitted work. CE reports advisory/consultation fees from Roche, AstraZeneca, BMS, MSD, Pfizer, Amgen, and Merck outside from the submitted work. GO reports advisory/consultation fees from Roche, AstraZeneca, BMS, and MSD outside from the submitted work. TM reports research funding from Roche and patents with Roche, outside from the submitted work. ZS reports advisory/consultation fees from Roche, AstraZeneca, BMS, MSD, Pfizer, Amgen, and Merck outside from the submitted work. ER reports advisory/consultation fees from Roche, AstraZeneca, BMS, MSD, Pfizer, and Amgen outside from the submitted work. AS reports advisory board honoraria from BMS, AstraZeneca, ThermoFisher, Novartis, speaker's honoraria from BMS, Illumina, AstraZeneca, Novartis, ThermoFisher, MSD, Roche, and research funding from Chugai, outside from the submitted work. IB reports advisory/consultation fees from Roche, AstraZeneca, BMS, MSD, Pfizer, and Amgen outside from the submitted work. MR reports personal fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Lilly, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Samsung, outside the submitted work. KS reports advisory/consultation fees from Roche, AstraZeneca, BMS, and MSD. MT reports advisory board honoraria from Novartis, Lilly, BMS, MSD, Roche, Celgene, Takeda, AbbVie, Boehringer, speaker's honoraria from Lilly, MSD, Takeda, research funding from AstraZeneca, BMS, Celgene, Novartis, Roche, and travel grants from BMS, MSD, Novartis, Boehringer, outside from the submitted work. PC reports research funding from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Roche, Takeda, and advisory board/lecture fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chugai, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Takeda. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Elderly patients represent a major fraction of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients in routine clinical practice, but they are still underrepresented in clinical trials. In particular, data regarding efficacy and safety in frail or elderly patients with respect to immunotherapy are lacking. Importantly, immunosenescence in elderly patients might interfere with activities of immune-modulating drugs such as PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors. Thus, there is an urgent need to assess safety and efficacy of such inhibitors in this group., Methods/design: This prospective, open label, treatment stratified, randomized phase II study will enroll 200 patients with stage IV NSCLC amenable at least to single-agent chemotherapy (CT). Eligible patients must be aged 70 years or older and/or "frail" (Charlson Comorbidity Index > 1) or have a restricted performance status (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group, ECOG > 1). Patients are stratified according to modified Cancer and Age Research Group (CARG) score: "fit" patients are allocated to combination CT (carboplatin/nab-paclitaxel) and "less fit" patients receive single-agent CT (gemcitabine or vinorelbine). After allocation to strata, patients are randomized 1:1 to receive either four cycles of CT or two cycles of CT followed by two cycles of durvalumab and subsequent maintenance treatment with durvalumab every 4 weeks. The primary endpoint is the rate of treatment-related grade III/IV adverse events (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) V4.03). As secondary endpoints, progression-free survival (PFS) according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST) version 1.1, response rate (RR), overall survival (OS), descriptive subgroup analyses according to PD-L1 expression, and quality of life are addressed. Geriatric screening assessments and functional tests will be performed to complete the phenotyping of a potential "frail" and "elderly" patient cohort. The trial is accompanied by a biomaterial repository to explore potential biomarkers., Discussion: The DURATION trial will prospectively investigate the safety and tolerability of anti-PD-L1 treatment with durvalumab after chemotherapy in elderly and frail patients and thereby provide new insights into the effect of PD-L1 blockade and the impact of immunosenescence in this cohort of patients., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03345810; initially registered on 17 November 2017. Eudra-CT, 2016-003963-20; initially registered on 3 January 2017.

Background: Hypofractionated palliative radiotherapy for metastatic lung cancer patients is frequently used in order to ease pain, to increase bone stability, to treat local mass effects, or to prolong progression-free survival at critical sites. Recently introduced, immunotherapy for patients with non-squamous non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) has significantly improved outcome in this cohort. Preclinical and early clinical data suggest that the combination of photon radiation with programmed death-1 (PD-1) targeting immunotherapies may promote a strong and durable immune response against tumor manifestations both within and beyond radiation targets., Methods/design: In the present prospective, two-group, non-randomized, open-label phase II trial, 130 patients with stage IV non-squamous NSCLC in 2nd-line or 3rd-line treatment will be included. 65 patients with a clinical indication for palliative radiotherapy to non-cerebral/non-pulmonary metastatic sites will receive 240 mg nivolumab followed by palliative radiotherapy with 5 × 4 Gray (Gy) = 20 Gy photon radiation, which will be initiated within 72 h after first nivolumab administration (Group A). 65 patients without an indication for radiotherapy will only receive nivolumab (Group B). Nivolumab will be further administered every two weeks in both groups and will be continued until progression and loss of clinical benefit or until occurrence of limiting toxicities. The primary endpoint will be the objective response rate (ORR) according to response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST) 1.1. Secondary endpoints will be progression-free survival (PFS) according to RECIST 1.1, overall survival, descriptive subgroup analyses according to PD-L1 expression, toxicity and quality of life. Since response patterns following immunotherapies differ from those after conventional cytostatic agents, both objective response rate and progression-free survival will additionally be assessed according to immune-related RECIST (irRECIST) criteria., Discussion: The FORCE study will prospectively investigate response rates, progression-free and overall survival (OS), and toxicity of nivolumab with and without hypofractionated palliative radiotherapy in a group of 130 patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (non-squamous histology) in 2nd-line or 3rd-line treatment. This trial will contribute prospective data to the repeatedly published observation that the combination of hypofractionated photon radiotherapy and medical immunotherapy is not only safe but will also promote antitumoral immune responses., Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03044626 (Date of initial registration: 05 January 2017). Eudra-CT Number: 2015-005741-31 (Date of initial registration: 18 December 2015).

Background: Little is known on symptom burden, psychosocial needs, and perception of prognosis in advanced lung cancer patients at the time of diagnosis, although early assessment is strongly recommended within the setting of daily routine care., Methods: Twelve study sites cross-sectionally assessed symptoms and psychosocial needs of patients suffering from newly diagnosed incurable lung cancer. Assessment comprised NCCN distress thermometer, FACT-L, SEIQoL-Q, PHQ-4, and shortened and modified SCNS-SF-34 questionnaires. Additional prognostic information from both patients and physicians were collected., Results: A total of 208 patients were evaluated. Mean age was 63.6 years, 58% were male, 84% suffered from stage IV lung cancer, and 71% had an ECOG performance status of 0-1. Mean distress level was 5.4 (SD 2.5), FACT-L total score was 86 (21.5), and TOI 50.5 (14.9). PHQ-4 was 4.6 (3.3), and shortened and modified SCNS-SF-34 showed 9 (8.7) unmet needs per patient. According to their physicians' perspective, 98.1% of patients were reflecting on and 85.2% were accepting incurability, while 26.5% of patients considered the treatment to be of curative intent., Conclusion: Our findings emphasize substantial domains of symptom burden seen in newly diagnosed, incurable lung cancer patients. Oncologists should be aware of these features and address prognostic issues early in the disease trajectory to facilitate opportunities to improve coping, advance care planning, and appropriate integration of palliative care, thus improving quality of life., (© 2019 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Objectives: This study was performed to evaluate for a potentially important role of T cells in the pathophysiology and treatment sensitivity of large cell neuroendocrine lung carcinoma (LCNEC), an orphan disease with poor prognosis and scarce data to guide novel therapeutic strategies., Materials and Methods: We performed T-cell receptor (TCR) β-chain spectratyping on blood samples of patients treated within the CRAD001KDE37 trial (n = 35) using age-matched current or former (n = 11) and never smokers (n = 10) as controls. The data were analyzed in conjunction with the complete blood counts of the probands as well as the data about response to treatment and overall survival in the clinical trial., Results and Conclusion: Untreated stage IV LCNEC patients had significant T-cell repertoire alterations (p < 0.001) compared to age-matched smokers. These changes correlated positively with blood lymphocyte counts (r = 0.49, p < 0.01), suggesting antigen-induced T-cell proliferation as the causative mechanism. At the same time, LCNEC patients showed mild lymphopenia (1.54 vs. 2.51/nl in median, p < 0.01), which reveals a second, antigen-independent mechanism of systemic immune dysregulation. More pronounced T-cell repertoire alterations and higher blood lymphocyte counts at diagnosis were associated with a better treatment response by RECIST and with a longer overall survival (441 vs. 157 days in median, p = 0.019). A higher degree of T-cell repertoire normalization after 3 months of therapy also distinguished a patient group with more favourable prognosis (median overall survival 617 vs. 316 days, p = 0.036) independent of radiological response. Thus, LCNEC induces clinically relevant changes of the T-cell repertoire, which are measurable in the blood and could be exploited for prognostic, predictive and therapeutic purposes. Their pathogenesis appears to involve antigen-induced oligoclonal T-cell expansions superimposed on TCR-independent lymphopenia., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Communication and the care of patients with advanced cancer are a dynamic, interactive and challenging process, often characterised in every day practice by discontinuity and lack of coordination. The objective of this study was to explore the patients' and family-caregivers' needs and preferences regarding communication, quality of life and care over the trajectory of disease. The second aim was to assess health professionals' views on a longitudinally structured, forward-thinking communication approach based on defined milestones. A qualitative approach was chosen incorporating semi-structured interviews with nine patients with metastatic lung cancer and nine relatives, and focus groups with 15 healthcare providers from different professions involved in the care of these patients. Patients and relatives described a situation of shock and coping deficits with moments of insufficient communication and lack of continuity in care. Healthcare providers reported the strong need for improvement in communication within the team and between patients and professionals and welcomed the implementation of a longitudinal communication approach. Requirements for the implementation of a longitudinal communication approach include specific communication training with focus on the process that patients and relatives are involved in. Team-building measures and the necessary flexibility to respect individuality in life should be incorporated., (© 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)