Search

Background The PET-derived metabolic tumor volume (MTV) is an independent prognosticator in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. We analyzed the prognostic value of residual MTV (rMTV) after completion of chemoradiotherapy (CRT) in inoperable stage III NSCLC patients with and without immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI). Methods Fifty-six inoperable stage III NSCLC patients (16 female, median 65.0 years) underwent 18F-FDG PET/CT after completion of standard CRT. rMTV was delineated on 18F-FDG PET/CT using a standard threshold (liver SUVmean + 2 × standard deviation). 21/56 patients underwent additional ICI (CRT-IO, 21/56 patients) thereafter. Patients were divided in volumetric subgroups using median split dichotomization (MTV ≤ 4.3 ml vs. > 4.3 ml). rMTV, clinical features, and ICI-application were correlated with clinical outcome parameters (progression-free survival (PFS), local PFS (LPFS), and overall survival (OS). Results Overall, median follow-up was 52.0 months. Smaller rMTV was associated with longer median PFS (29.3 vs. 10.5 months, p = 0.015), LPFS (49.9 vs. 13.5 months, p = 0.001), and OS (63.0 vs. 23.0 months, p = 0.003). CRT-IO patients compared to CRT patients showed significantly longer median PFS (29.3 vs. 11.2 months, p = 0.034), LPFS (median not reached vs. 14.0 months, p = 0.016), and OS (median not reached vs. 25.2 months, p = 0.007). In the CRT subgroup, smaller rMTV was associated with longer median PFS (33.5 vs. 8.6 months, p = 0.001), LPFS (49.9 vs. 10.1 months, p = 0.001), and OS (63.0 vs. 16.3 months, p = 0.004). In the CRT-IO subgroup, neither PFS, LPFS, nor OS were associated with MTV (p > 0.05 each). The findings were confirmed in subsequent multivariate analyses. Conclusion In stage III NSCLC, smaller rMTV is highly associated with superior clinical outcome, especially in patients undergoing CRT without ICI. Patients with CRT-IO show significantly improved outcome compared to CRT patients. Of note, clinical outcome in CRT-IO patients is independent of residual MTV. Hence, even patients with large rMTV might profit from ICI despite extensive tumor load.

SummaryBackground. The present study evaluates outcome after chemoradiotherapy (CRT) with concurrent and/or sequential Programmed Cell Death 1 (PD-1) or Ligand 1 (PD-L1) immune checkpoint inhibition (CPI) for inoperable stage III NSCLC patients depending on planning target volume (PTV). Method and patients. Prospective data of thirty-three consecutive patients with inoperable stage III NSCLC treated with CRT and sequential durvalumab (67%, 22 patients) or concurrent and sequential nivolumab (33%, 11 patients) were analyzed. Different PTV cut offs and PTV as a continuous variable were evaluated for their association with progression-free (PFS), local–regional progression-free (LRPFS), extracranial distant metastasis-free (eMFS) and brain-metastasis free-survival (BMFS). Results. All patients were treated with conventionally fractionated thoracic radiotherapy (TRT); 93% to a total dose of at least 60 Gy, 97% of patients received two cycles of concurrent platinum-based chemotherapy. Median follow-up for the entire cohort was 19.9 (range: 6.0–42.4) months; median overall survival (OS), LRFS, BMFS and eMFS were not reached. Median PFS was 22.8 (95% CI: 10.7–34.8) months. Patients with PTV ≥ 900ccm had a significantly shorter PFS (6.9 vs 22.8 months, p = 0.020) and eMFS (8.1 months vs. not reached, p = 0.003). Furthermore, patients with PTV ≥ 900ccm and stage IIIC disease (UICC-TNM Classification 8th Edition) achieved a very poor outcome with a median PFS and eMFS of 3.6 vs 22.8 months (p Conclusion. In this prospective analysis of inoperable stage III NSCLC patients treated with definitive CRT combined with concurrent and/or sequential CPI, significantly shorter PFS and eMFS were observed in patients with initial PTV ≥ 900ccm.

The aim of this retrospective study was to investigate the implementation of measures to prevent perioperative COVID-19 in thoracic surgery during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic 2020 allowing a continued surgical treatment of patients. The implemented preventive measures in patient management of the thoracic surgery department of the Asklepios Lung Clinic Munich-Gauting, Germany were retrospectively analyzed. Postoperative COVID-19 incidence before and after implementation of preventive measures was investigated. Patients admitted for thoracic surgical procedures between March and May 2020 were included in the study. Patient characteristics were analyzed. For the early detection of putative postoperative COVID-19 symptoms, typical post-discharge symptomatology of thoracic surgery patients was compared to non-surgical patients hospitalized for COVID-19. Thirty-five surgical procedures and fifty-seven surgical procedures were performed before and after implementation of the preventive measures, respectively. Three patients undergoing thoracic surgery before implementation of preventive measures developed a COVID-19 pneumonia post-discharge. After implementation of preventive measures, no postoperative COVID-19 cases were identified. Fever, dyspnea, dry cough and diarrhea were significantly more prevalent in COVID-19 patients compared to normally recovering thoracic surgery patients, while anosmia, phlegm, low energy levels, body ache and nausea were similarly frequent in both groups. Based on the lessons learned during the first pandemic wave, we here provide a blueprint for successful easily implementable preventive measures minimizing SARS-CoV-2 transmission to thoracic surgery patients perioperatively. While symptoms of COVID-19 and the normal postoperative course of thoracic surgery patients substantially overlap, we found dyspnea, fever, cough, and diarrhea significantly more prevalent in COVID-19 patients than in normally recovering thoracic surgery patients. These symptoms should trigger further diagnostic testing for postoperative COVID-19 in thoracic surgery patients. Ziel dieser retrospektiven Studie war die Untersuchung von Maßnahmen zur Prävention perioperativer COVID-19-Erkrankungen bei fortgesetztem Vollbetrieb der Thoraxchirurgie während der ersten Welle der COVID-19-Pandemie 2020. Es erfolgte eine retrospektive Analyse von eingesetzten Präventionsmaßnahmen in der Abteilung für Thoraxchirurgie der Asklepios Lungenklinik München-Gauting. Hierzu wurde die Inzidenz postoperativer COVID-19-Erkrankungen vor und nach der Einführung der Präventionsmaßnahmen ausgewertet. Patienten mit thoraxchirurgischen Operationen zwischen März und Mai 2020 wurden in die Studie eingeschlossen. Durch den Vergleich der postoperativen Symptome thoraxchirurgischer Patienten mit Symptomen von COVID-19-Patienten wurden spezifische Symptome zur Früherkennung der postoperativen COVID-19-Erkrankung identifiziert. Vor Einführung der Präventionsmaßnahmen erfolgten 35 thoraxchirurgische Operationen innerhalb von 22 Tagen während hoher COVID-19-Prävalenz im Einzugsgebiet der Klinik. Nach Einführung der Präventionsmaßnahmen erfolgten 57 thoraxchirurgische Eingriffe innerhalb von 54 Tagen. Vor Umsetzung der Präventionsmaßnahmen entwickelten 3 Patienten postoperativ eine COVID-19-Pneumonie. Nach Umsetzung zeigte sich kein postoperativer COVID-19-Fall. Fieber, Atemnot, trockener Husten und Durchfall waren bei an COVID-19 erkrankten Patienten signifikant häufiger als bei thoraxchirurgischen Patienten mit regelhaftem postoperativem Verlauf. Anosmie, Auswurf, Abgeschlagenheit, Gliederschmerzen und Übelkeit traten in beiden Gruppen ähnlich häufig auf. Basierend auf unseren Erfahrungen in der ersten Pandemiewelle bieten wir eine Blaupause für erfolgreiche, leicht umzusetzende präventive Maßnahmen zur Minimierung des Risikos für eine perioperative COVID-19-Erkrankung bei thoraxchirurgischen Patienten. Wir konnten zeigen, dass Symptome einer postoperativen COVID-19-Pneumonie teilweise schwer von klassischen postoperativen Beschwerden abgrenzbar sind. Postoperative Dyspnoe, Fieber, Husten und Diarrhöen traten jedoch signifikant häufiger bei COVID-19-Erkrankten als im postoperativen Verlauf thoraxchirurgischer Patienten auf und sollten daher differenzialdiagnostisch an eine postoperative COVID-19-Erkrankung denken lassen.

Small cell lung cancer is an aggressive cancer entity and characterized by rapid progression, early distant metastasis and poor prognosis. Only the minority of patients presents with a non-metastatic stage disease where chemo-radiotherapy or - in very selected cases - even surgical resection may be discussed. For most patients, the efficacy of systemic therapy is crucial. However, although most patients respond to platinum doublet chemotherapy, virtually all patients with metastatic disease eventually develop tumor progression for which there are limited treatment options. Recently and for the first time since decades, the systemic approaches have been enriched by the implementation of immunotherapy. Moreover, novel therapeutic approaches such as new cytotoxic agents or further immune modulatory strategies are being tested in clinical studies that might broaden our treatment options in the future even further.

SummaryThe aim of this prospective study is to evaluate the clinical use and real-world efficacy of durvalumab maintenance treatment after chemoradiotherapy (CRT) in unresectable stage, locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). All consecutive patients with unresectable, locally advanced NSCLC and PD-L1 expression (≥1%) treated after October 2018 were included. Regular follow up, including physical examination, PET/CT and/or contrast-enhanced CT-Thorax/Abdomen were performed every three months after CRT. Descriptive treatment pattern analyses, including reasons of discontinuation and salvage treatment, were undertaken. Statistics were calculated from the last day of thoracic irradiation (TRT). Twenty-six patients were included. Median follow up achieved 20.6 months (range: 1.9–30.6). Durvalumab was initiated after a median of 25 (range: 13–103) days after completion of CRT. In median 14 (range: 2–24) cycles of durvalumab were applied within 6.4 (range 1–12.7) months. Six patients (23%) are still in treatment and seven (27%) have completed treatment with 24 cycles. Maintenance treatment was discontinued in 13 (50%) patients: 4 (15%) patients developed grade 3 pneumonitis according to CTCAE v5 after a median of 3.9 (range: 0.5–11.6) months and 7 (range: 2–17) cycles of durvalumab. Four (15%) patients developed grade 2 skin toxicity. One (4%) patient has discontinued treatment due to incompliance. Six and 12- month progression-free survival (PFS) rates were 82% and 62%, median PFS was not reached. No case of hyperprogression was documented. Eight (31%) patients have relapsed during maintenance treatment after a median of 4.8 (range: 2.2–11.3) months and 11 (range: 6–17) durvalumab cycles. Two patients (9%) developed a local-regional recurrence after 14 and 17 cycles of durvalumab. Extracranial distant metastases and brain metastases as first site of failure were detected in 4 (15%) and 2 (8%) patients, respectively. Three (13%) patients presented with symptomatic relapse. Our prospective study confirmed a favourable safety profile of durvalumab maintenance treatment after completion of CRT in unresectable stage, locally advanced NSCLC in a real-world setting. In a median follow-up time of 20.6 months, durvalumab was discontinued in 27% of all patients due to progressive disease. All patients with progressive disease were eligible for second-line treatment.

PURPOSE: IMpower133 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02763579 ), a randomized, double-blind, phase I/III study, demonstrated that adding atezolizumab (anti-programmed death-ligand 1 [PD-L1]) to carboplatin plus etoposide (CP/ET) for first-line (1L) treatment of extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) resulted in significant improvement in overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) versus placebo plus CP/ET. Updated OS, disease progression patterns, safety, and exploratory biomarkers (PD-L1, blood-based tumor mutational burden [bTMB]) are reported. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with untreated ES-SCLC were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive four 21-day cycles of CP (area under the curve 5 mg per mL/min intravenously [IV], day 1) plus ET (100 mg/m2 IV, days 1-3) with atezolizumab (1,200 mg IV, day 1) or placebo, and then maintenance atezolizumab or placebo until unacceptable toxicity, disease progression, or loss of clinical benefit. Tumor specimens were collected; PD-L1 testing was not required for enrollment. The two primary end points, investigator-assessed PFS and OS, were statistically significant at the interim analysis. Updated OS and PFS and exploratory biomarker analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Patients received atezolizumab plus CP/ET (n = 201) or placebo plus CP/ET (n = 202). At the updated analysis, median follow-up for OS was 22.9 months; 302 deaths had occurred. Median OS was 12.3 and 10.3 months with atezolizumab plus CP/ET and placebo plus CP/ET, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.95; descriptive P = .0154). At 18 months, 34.0% and 21.0% of patients were alive in atezolizumab plus CP/ET and placebo plus CP/ET arms, respectively. Patients derived benefit from the addition of atezolizumab, regardless of PD-L1 immunohistochemistry or bTMB status. CONCLUSION: Adding atezolizumab to CP/ET as 1L treatment for ES-SCLC continued to demonstrate improved OS and a tolerable safety profile at the updated analysis, confirming the regimen as a new standard of care. Exploratory analyses demonstrated treatment benefit independent of biomarker status.

Die Lunge ist bei Tumorerkrankungen sehr oft und auf sehr vielfaltige Weise betroffen. Das Lungenkarzinom ist eine der haufigsten Tumorerkrankungen und erfahrt gerade in den letzten Jahren eine erhebliche Erweiterung der Therapiemoglichkeiten. Die Lunge ist zudem ein haufiges Metastasierungsorgan verschiedenster Tumorentitaten. Aber auch Therapieansatze wie Tyrosinkinase- und Checkpointinhibitoren, chimare Antigenrezeptorzelltherapien oder strahlentherapeutische Verfahren konnen pulmonale Nebenwirkungen verursachen. Schlieslich gibt es viele Patienten, deren pulmonale Grunderkrankung auf den klinischen Verlauf und die Prognose der Tumorerkrankung Einfluss nimmt und ihrerseits beeinflusst werden kann. Beispielhaft werden verschiedene Aspekte wie pulmonale venookklusive Erkrankung, chronisch-obstruktive Atemwegserkrankung und idiopathische pulmonale Fibrose diskutiert.

Background: First-line durvalumab plus etoposide with either cisplatin or carboplatin (platinum–etoposide) showed a significant improvement in overall survival versus platinum–etoposide alone in patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) in the CASPIAN study. Here we report updated results, including the primary analysis for overall survival with durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum–etoposide versus platinum–etoposide alone. Methods: CASPIAN is an ongoing, open-label, sponsor-blind, randomised, controlled phase 3 trial at 209 cancer treatment centres in 23 countries worldwide. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older (20 years in Japan) and had treatment-naive, histologically or cytologically documented ES-SCLC, with a WHO performance status of 0 or 1. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) in blocks of six, stratified by planned platinum, using an interactive voice-response or web-response system to receive intravenous durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum–etoposide, durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide, or platinum–etoposide alone. In all groups, patients received etoposide 80–100 mg/m2 on days 1–3 of each cycle with investigator's choice of either carboplatin area under the curve 5–6 mg/mL/min or cisplatin 75–80 mg/m2 on day 1 of each cycle. Patients in the platinum–etoposide group received up to six cycles of platinum–etoposide every 3 weeks and optional prophylactic cranial irradiation (investigator's discretion). Patients in the immunotherapy groups received four cycles of platinum–etoposide plus durvalumab 1500 mg with or without tremelimumab 75 mg every 3 weeks followed by maintenance durvalumab 1500 mg every 4 weeks. The two primary endpoints were overall survival for durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide versus platinum–etoposide and for durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum–etoposide versus platinum–etoposide in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03043872. Findings: Between March 27, 2017, and May 29, 2018, 972 patients were screened and 805 were randomly assigned (268 to durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum–etoposide, 268 to durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide, and 269 to platinum–etoposide). As of Jan 27, 2020, the median follow-up was 25·1 months (IQR 22·3–27·9). Durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum–etoposide was not associated with a significant improvement in overall survival versus platinum–etoposide (hazard ratio [HR] 0·82 [95% CI 0·68–1·00]; p=0·045); median overall survival was 10·4 months (95% CI 9·6–12·0) versus 10·5 months (9·3–11·2). Durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide showed sustained improvement in overall survival versus platinum–etoposide (HR 0·75 [95% CI 0·62–0·91]; nominal p=0·0032); median overall survival was 12·9 months (95% CI 11·3–14·7) versus 10·5 months (9·3–11·2). The most common any-cause grade 3 or worse adverse events were neutropenia (85 [32%] of 266 patients in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum–etoposide group, 64 [24%] of 265 patients in the durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide group, and 88 [33%] of 266 patients in the platinum–etoposide group) and anaemia (34 [13%], 24 [9%], and 48 [18%]). Any-cause serious adverse events were reported in 121 (45%) patients in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum–etoposide group, 85 (32%) in the durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide group, and 97 (36%) in the platinum–etoposide group. Treatment-related deaths occurred in 12 (5%) patients in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum–etoposide group (death, febrile neutropenia, and pulmonary embolism [n=2 each]; enterocolitis, general physical health deterioration and multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, pneumonia, pneumonitis and hepatitis, respiratory failure, and sudden death [n=1 each]), six (2%) patients in the durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide group (cardiac arrest, dehydration, hepatotoxicity, interstitial lung disease, pancytopenia, and sepsis [n=1 each]), and two (1%) in the platinum–etoposide group (pancytopenia and thrombocytopenia [n=1 each]). Interpretation: First-line durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide showed sustained overall survival improvement versus platinum–etoposide but the addition of tremelimumab to durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide did not significantly improve outcomes versus platinum–etoposide. These results support the use of durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide as a new standard of care for the first-line treatment of ES-SCLC. Funding: AstraZeneca.

Mit der Entdeckung der therapeutischen Relevanz von Checkpointinhibitoren hat sich die Therapie des nichtkleinzelligen Lungenkarzinoms erheblich verandert. Aktuell sind verschiedene Programmed-cell-death-1(PD-1)- und Programmed-cell-death-1-ligand-1(PD-L1)-Checkpointinhibitoren in den Stadien III und IV zugelassen worden. Insbesondere im Stadium IV stehen derzeit verschiedene Therapieoptionen mit Checkpointinhibitoren zur Auswahl, allein oder in Kombination mit Chemotherapie. Daruber hinaus werden verschiedene Checkpointinhibitoren in Kombination, fur fruhe Stadien und auch gegen neuartige Checkpoints klinisch entwickelt. Damit ist zu erwarten, dass wir in naher Zukunft noch vielfaltigere Therapien einsetzen konnen. Dies wird die Etablierung von Entscheidungskriterien notwendig machen, die ihrerseits ein breiteres Verstandnis aufseiten des behandelnden Arztes voraussetzen.

Background The efficacy and safety of the anti–programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) monoclonal antibody atezolizumab, as compared with those of platinum-based chemotherapy, as first-line trea...

Was ist wichtig? Mögliche Screening-Verfahren Die Notwendigkeit eines Früherkennungsprogramms für Lungenkarzinome gilt als unumstritten. Röntgenübersichtsaufnahmen der Lunge sowie Sputum-Untersuchungen werden nicht empfohlen, jedoch haben jüngst publizierte Daten aus Studien mit Niedrigdosis-CT dieses Thema erneut aufleben lassen. Bei der Bewertung der Daten müssen jedoch verschiedene Besonderheiten dieser Studien berücksichtigt werden. Die aktuelle neue Bewertung stellt eine bedeutsame und notwendige Chance dar, die medizinische Versorgung und Prognose von Patienten mit Lungenkarzinom in Deutschland signifikant zu verbessern. Implementierung von Lungenkrebsscreening Um ein Screening-Programm möglichst effektiv auszuarbeiten, müssen insbesondere die Einschlusskriterien der Patienten genau definiert sein. Darüber hinaus ist es wichtig, die Zahl der falsch positiven Befunde zum Schutz der Patienten und zur Vermeidung unnötiger Kosten möglichst klein zu halten. Weitere Ansätze Weitere neue Verfahren zum Lungenkrebsscreening werden derzeit in klinischen Studien untersucht.

Background: Most patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) have extensive-stage disease at presentation, and prognosis remains poor. Recently, immunotherapy has demonstrated clinical activity in extensive-stage SCLC (ES-SCLC). The CASPIAN trial assessed durvalumab, with or without tremelimumab, in combination with etoposide plus either cisplatin or carboplatin (platinum–etoposide) in treatment-naive patients with ES-SCLC. Methods: This randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial was done at 209 sites across 23 countries. Eligible patients were adults with untreated ES-SCLC, with WHO performance status 0 or 1 and measurable disease as per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1. Patients were randomly assigned (in a 1:1:1 ratio) to durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide; durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum–etoposide; or platinum–etoposide alone. All drugs were administered intravenously. Platinum–etoposide consisted of etoposide 80–100 mg/m2 on days 1–3 of each cycle with investigator's choice of either carboplatin area under the curve 5–6 mg/mL per min or cisplatin 75–80 mg/m2 (administered on day 1 of each cycle). Patients received up to four cycles of platinum–etoposide plus durvalumab 1500 mg with or without tremelimumab 75 mg every 3 weeks followed by maintenance durvalumab 1500 mg every 4 weeks in the immunotherapy groups and up to six cycles of platinum–etoposide every 3 weeks plus prophylactic cranial irradiation (investigator's discretion) in the platinum–etoposide group. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. We report results for the durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide group versus the platinum–etoposide group from a planned interim analysis. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of their assigned study treatment. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03043872, and is ongoing. Findings: Patients were enrolled between March 27, 2017, and May 29, 2018. 268 patients were allocated to the durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide group and 269 to the platinum–etoposide group. Durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide was associated with a significant improvement in overall survival, with a hazard ratio of 0·73 (95% CI 0·59–0·91; p=0·0047]); median overall survival was 13·0 months (95% CI 11·5–14·8) in the durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide group versus 10·3 months (9·3–11·2) in the platinum–etoposide group, with 34% (26·9–41·0) versus 25% (18·4–31·6) of patients alive at 18 months. Any-cause adverse events of grade 3 or 4 occurred in 163 (62%) of 265 treated patients in the durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide group and 166 (62%) of 266 in the platinum–etoposide group; adverse events leading to death occurred in 13 (5%) and 15 (6%) patients. Interpretation: First-line durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide significantly improved overall survival in patients with ES-SCLC versus a clinically relevant control group. Safety findings were consistent with the known safety profiles of all drugs received. Funding: AstraZeneca.

Background PF-06439535 is a bevacizumab biosimilar. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of PF-06439535 with that of reference bevacizumab (Avastin®) sourced from the EU (bevacizumab-EU), each with paclitaxel and carboplatin, in the first-line treatment of advanced non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods In this double-blind, parallel-group study, we recruited patients from 159 centers in 27 countries. Participants were randomized 1:1 to receive PF-06439535 plus paclitaxel and carboplatin or bevacizumab-EU plus paclitaxel and carboplatin on day 1 of each 21-day cycle for 4–6 cycles, followed by blinded monotherapy with PF-06439535 or bevacizumab-EU until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, withdrawal of consent, or the end of the study. Randomization was stratified by region, sex, and smoking history. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) in accordance with RECIST 1.1, based on responses achieved by week 19 and confirmed by week 25. Results Between 21 May 2015 and 14 November 2016, 719 patients were randomized to the PF-06439535 group (n = 358) or the bevacizumab-EU group (n = 361). As of data cutoff for analysis of the primary endpoint (8 May 2017), 45.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] 40.01–50.57) of patients in the PF-06439535 group and 44.6% (95% CI 39.40–49.89) of patients in the bevacizumab-EU group achieved an objective response by week 19 that was confirmed by week 25. The unstratified ORR risk ratio was 1.015 (95% CI 0.863–1.193; 90% CI 0.886–1.163), and the unstratified ORR risk difference was 0.653% (95% CI − 6.608 to 7.908); all three CIs fell within pre-specified equivalence margins. Using final data after study completion (22 December 2017), no notable differences in progression-free survival or overall survival were observed between the groups. The most frequently reported grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events were hypertension, neutropenia, and anemia. There were no clinically meaningful differences in safety, pharmacokinetics, or immunogenicity across treatment groups. Conclusion Among patients with advanced non-squamous NSCLC, PF-06439535 demonstrated similarity to bevacizumab-EU in terms of efficacy. Safety profiles for the two treatments were comparable. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02364999. Funding Pfizer. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s40259-019-00363-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Summary Background Atezolizumab (a monoclonal antibody against PD-L1), which restores anticancer immunity, improved overall survival in patients with previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer and also showed clinical benefit when combined with chemotherapy as first-line treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer. IMpower130 aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone as first-line therapy for non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer. Methods IMpower130 was a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 study done in 131 centres across eight countries (the USA, Canada, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and Israel). Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, and had histologically or cytologically confirmed stage IV non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and received no previous chemotherapy for stage IV disease. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1; permuted block [block size of six] with an interactive voice or web response system) to receive atezolizumab (1200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks) plus chemotherapy (carboplatin [area under the curve 6 mg/mL per min every 3 weeks] plus nab-paclitaxel [100 mg/m2 intravenously every week]) or chemotherapy alone for four or six 21-day cycles followed by maintenance therapy. Stratification factors were sex, baseline liver metastases, and PD-L1 tumour expression. Co-primary endpoints were investigator-assessed progression-free survival and overall survival in the intention-to-treat wild-type (ie, EGFRwt and ALKwt) population. The safety population included patients who received at least one dose of the study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02367781. Findings Between April 16, 2015, and Feb 13, 2017, 724 patients were randomly assigned and 723 were included in the intention-to-treat population (one patient died before randomisation, but was assigned to a treatment group; this patient was excluded from the intention-to-treat population) of the atezolizumab plus chemotherapy group (483 patients in the intention-to-treat population and 451 patients in the intention-to-treat wild-type population) or the chemotherapy group (240 patients in the intention-to-treat population and 228 patients in the intention-to-treat wild-type population). Median follow-up in the intention-to-treat wild-type population was similar between groups (18·5 months [IQR 15·2–23·6] in the atezolizumab plus chemotherapy group and 19·2 months [15·4–23·0] in the chemotherapy group). In the intention-to-treat wild-type population, there were significant improvements in median overall survival (18·6 months [95% CI 16·0–21·2] in the atezolizumab plus chemotherapy group and 13·9 months [12·0–18·7] in the chemotherapy group; stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0·79 [95% CI 0·64–0·98]; p=0·033) and median progression-free survival (7·0 months [95% CI 6·2–7·3] in the atezolizumab plus chemotherapy group and 5·5 months [4·4–5·9] in the chemotherapy group; stratified HR 0·64 [95% CI 0·54–0·77]; p Interpretation IMpower130 showed a significant and clinically meaningful improvement in overall survival and a significant improvement in progression-free survival with atezolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy as first-line treatment of patients with stage IV non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer and no ALK or EGFR mutations. No new safety signals were identified. This study supports the benefit of atezolizumab, in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy, as first-line treatment of metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. Funding F. Hoffmann-La Roche.

The immune oncological treatment approach uses immune checkpoint inhibitors to prevent tumor cells from shutting down the immune system, and thus from escaping immune response. Following the clinical success of immune checkpoint inhibitors, the number of approved immune oncological therapies continues to increase. Response rates and overall survival with anti-PD-1/PD-L1 and CTLA-4 blockade could be further improved by combining both treatment approaches. However, checkpoint inhibition is associated with a unique spectrum of side effects termed immune-related adverse events. These typically occur 3 to 6 months after treatment start and resolve with adequate management procedures if detected early on. Therefore, profound patient education, sensitizing and monitoring are mandatory. We describe in this article selected frequent and rare adverse events that are clinically relevant. Furthermore, using case reports, interdisciplinary experts share their practice-based experience in the management of frequent pneumonic, endocrine, and gastro-intestinal immune-related adverse events.

Simple Summary Concurrent platinbased chemoradiotherapy followed by maintenance treatment with the PD-L1 inhibitor durvalumab is the new standard of care for inoperable stage III NSCLC. The present study compares the oncological outcome of patients treated with chemoradiotherapy to those treated with chemoradiotherapy and durvalumab (CRT-IO) in the real-world setting. Median follow-up for entire cohort was 33.1 months and median overall survival was 27.2 months. In the CRT-IO cohort after a median follow-up of 20.9 (range: 6.3–27.4) months, local-regional-progression-free-survival, progression-free, and overall survival (PFS, OS) were significantly improved compared to the historical cohort of conventional chemoradiotherapy patients. This real-world analysis demonstrated that durvalumab after chemoradiotherapy (CRT) led to significant improvement of local-regional control, PFS, and OS in PD-L1 expressing inoperable stage III NSCLC patients compared to a historical cohort. Abstract Concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CRT) followed by maintenance treatment with the PD-L1 inhibitor durvalumab is a new standard of care for inoperable stage III NSCLC. The present study compares the oncological outcome of patients treated with CRT to those treated with CRT and durvalumab (CRT-IO) in the real-world setting. The analysis was performed based on the retro- and prospectively collected data of 144 consecutive inoperable stage III NSCLC patients treated between 2011–2020. Local-regional-progression-free-survival (LRPFS—defined as progression in the mediastinum, hilum and/or supraclavicular region at both sites and the involved lung), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were evaluated from the last day of thoracic radiotherapy (TRT). Median follow-up for the entire cohort was 33.1 months (range: 6.3–111.8) and median overall survival was 27.2 (95% CI: 19.5–34.9) months. In the CRT-IO cohort after a median follow-up of 20.9 (range: 6.3–27.4) months, median PFS was not reached, LRPFS (p = 0.002), PFS (p = 0.018), and OS (p = 0.005) were significantly improved vs. the historical cohort of conventional CRT patients. After propensity-score matching (PSM) analysis with age, gender, histology, tumor volume, and treatment mode, and exact matching for T-and N-stage, 22 CRT-IO patients were matched 1:2 to 44 CRT patients. Twelve-month LRPFS, PFS, and OS rates in the CRT-IO vs. CRT cohort were 78.9 vs. 45.5% (p = 0.002), 60.0 vs. 31.8% (p = 0.007), and 100 vs. 70.5% (p = 0.003), respectively. This real-world analysis demonstrated that durvalumab after CRT led to significant improvement of local-regional control, PFS, and OS in PD-L1 expressing inoperable stage III NSCLC patients compared to a historical cohort.

Robust data on the outcome of MET-aberrant NSCLC with nontargeted therapies are limited, especially in consideration of the heterogeneity of MET-amplified tumors (METamp).A total of 337 tumor specimens of patients with MET-altered Union for International Cancer Control stage IIIB/IV NSCLC were analyzed using next-generation sequencing, fluorescence in situ hybridization, and immunohistochemistry. The evaluation focused on the type of MET aberration, co-occurring mutations, programmed death-ligand 1 expression, and overall survival (OS).METamp tumors (n = 278) had a high frequency of co-occurring mutations (80% for all amplification levels), whereas 57.6% of the 59 patients with MET gene and exon 14 (METex14) tumors had no additional mutations. In the METamp tumors, with increasing gene copy number (GCN), the frequency of inactivating TP53 mutations increased (GCN4: 58.2%; GCN ≥ 10: 76.5%), whereas the frequency of KRAS mutations decreased (GCN4: 43.2%; GCN ≥ 10: 11.8%). A total of 10.1% of all the METamp tumors with a GCN ≥ 10 had a significant worse OS (4.0 mo; 95% CI: 1.9-6.0) compared with the tumors with GCN10 (12.0 mo; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 9.4-14.6). In the METamp NSCLC, OS with immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy was significantly better compared with chemotherapy with 19.0 months (95% CI: 15.8-22.2) versus 8.0 months (95% CI: 5.8-10.2, p0.0001). No significant difference in median OS was found between ICI therapy and chemotherapy in the patients with METex14 (p = 0.147).METex14, METamp GCN ≥ 10, and METamp GCN10 represent the subgroups of MET-dysregulated NSCLC with distinct molecular and clinical features. The patients with METex14 do not seem to benefit from immunotherapy in contrast to the patients with METamp, which is of particular relevance for the prognostically poor METamp GCN ≥ 10 subgroup.

OZGUROGLU, MUSTAFA/0000-0002-8417-8628 WOS:000579504300008 PubMed ID: 32961445 Objectives: In the phase III CASPIAN study, first-line durvalumab plus etoposide in combination with either cisplatin or carboplatin (EP) significantly improved overall survival (primary endpoint) versus EP alone in patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) at the interim analysis. Here we report patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Materials and methods: Treatment-naive patients with ES-SCLC received 4 cycles of durvalumab plus EP every 3 weeks followed by maintenance durvalumab every 4 weeks until progression, or up to 6 cycles of EP every 3 weeks. PROs, assessed with the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (QLQ-C30) version 3 and its lung cancer module, the Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lung Cancer 13 (QLQ-LC13), were prespecified secondary endpoints. Changes from baseline to disease progression or 12 months in prespecified key disease-related symptoms (cough, dyspnea, chest pain, fatigue, appetite loss) were analyzed with a mixed model for repeated measures. Time to deterioration (TTD) of symptoms, functioning, and global health status/quality of life (QoL) from randomization was analyzed. Results: In the durvalumab plus EP and EP arms, 261 and 260 patients were PRO-evaluable. Patients in both arms experienced numerically reduced symptom burden over 12 months or until progression for key symptoms. For the improvements from baseline in appetite loss, the between-arm difference was statistically significant, favoring durvalumab plus EP (difference, 4.5; 99% CI: 9.04, 0.04; nominal p = 0.009). Patients experienced longer TTD with durvalumab plus EP versus EP for all symptoms (hazard ratio [95% CI] for key symptoms: cough 0.78 [0.600-1.026]; dyspnea 0.79 [0.625-1.006]; chest pain 0.76 [0.575-0.996]; fatigue 0.82 [0.653-1.027]; appetite loss 0.70 [0.542-0.899]), functioning, and global health status/QoL. Conclusion: Addition of durvalumab to first-line EP maintained QoL and delayed worsening of patient-reported symptoms, functioning, and global health status/QoL compared with EP. AstraZenecaAstraZeneca The study was funded by AstraZeneca.

Background PD-L1/PD-1 inhibitors (CPI) as monotherapy or in combination with platinum-based doublet chemo (± bevacizumab) are 1L treatment options in metastatic NSCLC, with choice of agent(s) determined by PD-L1 expression. For patients (pts) who may be ineligible for combination therapy, CPI monotherapy remains an attractive treatment choice. IMpower110 evaluated atezo as 1L treatment in PD-L1–selected pts independent of tumor histology. Methods IMpower110 enrolled 572 chemo-naive pts with stage IV nonsquamous (nsq) or squamous (sq) NSCLC, PD-L1 expression ≥ 1% on TC or IC, measurable disease by RECIST 1.1 and ECOG PS 0-1. Pts were randomized 1:1 to receive atezo 1200 mg IV q3w (Arm A) or platinum-based chemo (Arm B; 4 or 6 21-day cycles). Arm B nsq pts received cisplatin (cis) 75 mg/m2 or carboplatin (carbo) AUC 6 + pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 IV q3w; Arm B sq pts received cis 75 mg/m2 + gemcitabine (gem) 1250 mg/m2 or carbo AUC 5 + gem 1000 mg/m2 IV q3w. Stratification factors were sex, ECOG PS, histology and tumor PD-L1 status (TC1/2/3 and any IC vs TC0 and IC1/2/3). The primary endpoint of OS is tested hierarchically in the wild-type (WT; EGFR/ALK-negative) population (TC3 or IC3 then TC2/3 or IC2/3 then TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3). Results The 3 primary efficacy populations included 554 TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 WT pts, 328 TC2/3 or IC2/3 WT pts and 205 TC3 or IC3 WT pts. Median follow-up was 15.7 months (range, 0-35) in TC3 or IC3 WT pts. In the TC3 or IC3 WT population, atezo monotherapy improved median OS by 7.1 months (HR, 0.595; P = 0.0106) compared with chemo (table 1). The safety population comprised 286 pts in Arm A and 263 in Arm B. Treatment-related AEs (TRAEs) and Grade 3-4 TRAEs occurred in 60.5% (Arm A) and 85.2% (Arm B), and 12.9% (Arm A) and 44.1% (Arm B), respectively. Conclusions At this interim analysis, IMpower110 met the primary endpoint of OS with statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in the TC3 or IC3 WT population. The safety profile favored Arm A, with no new or unexpected safety signals identified. Trial Registration NCT02409342 Ethics Approval The trial was conducted according to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. All patients provided written informed consent. Protocol approval was obtained from independent review boards or ethics committees at each site.

Contains fulltext : 225429.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) IMPORTANCE: Checkpoint inhibitors targeting programmed cell death 1 or its ligand (PD-L1) as monotherapies or in combination with anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 have shown clinical activity in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. OBJECTIVE: To compare durvalumab, with or without tremelimumab, with chemotherapy as a first-line treatment for patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This open-label, phase 3 randomized clinical trial (MYSTIC) was conducted at 203 cancer treatment centers in 17 countries. Patients with treatment-naive, metastatic non-small cell lung cancer who had no sensitizing EGFR or ALK genetic alterations were randomized to receive treatment with durvalumab, durvalumab plus tremelimumab, or chemotherapy. Data were collected from July 21, 2015, to October 30, 2018. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized (1:1:1) to receive treatment with durvalumab (20 mg/kg every 4 weeks), durvalumab (20 mg/kg every 4 weeks) plus tremelimumab (1 mg/kg every 4 weeks, up to 4 doses), or platinum-based doublet chemotherapy. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary end points, assessed in patients with ≥25% of tumor cells expressing PD-L1, were overall survival (OS) for durvalumab vs chemotherapy, and OS and progression-free survival (PFS) for durvalumab plus tremelimumab vs chemotherapy. Analysis of blood tumor mutational burden (bTMB) was exploratory. RESULTS: Between July 21, 2015, and June 8, 2016, 1118 patients were randomized. Baseline demographic and disease characteristics were balanced between treatment groups. Among 488 patients with ≥25% of tumor cells expressing PD-L1, median OS was 16.3 months (95% CI, 12.2-20.8) with durvalumab vs 12.9 months (95% CI, 10.5-15.0) with chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.76; 97.54% CI, 0.56-1.02; P = .04 [nonsignificant]). Median OS was 11.9 months (95% CI, 9.0-17.7) with durvalumab plus tremelimumab (HR vs chemotherapy, 0.85; 98.77% CI, 0.61-1.17; P = .20). Median PFS was 3.9 months (95% CI, 2.8-5.0) with durvalumab plus tremelimumab vs 5.4 months (95% CI, 4.6-5.8) with chemotherapy (HR, 1.05; 99.5% CI, 0.72-1.53; P = .71). Among 809 patients with evaluable bTMB, those with a bTMB ≥20 mutations per megabase showed improved OS for durvalumab plus tremelimumab vs chemotherapy (median OS, 21.9 months [95% CI, 11.4-32.8] vs 10.0 months [95% CI, 8.1-11.7]; HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.32-0.74). Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 55 (14.9%) of 369 patients who received treatment with durvalumab, 85 (22.9%) of 371 patients who received treatment with durvalumab plus tremelimumab, and 119 (33.8%) of 352 patients who received treatment with chemotherapy. These adverse events led to death in 2 (0.5%), 6 (1.6%), and 3 (0.9%) patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The phase 3 MYSTIC study did not meet its primary end points of improved OS with durvalumab vs chemotherapy or improved OS or PFS with durvalumab plus tremelimumab vs chemotherapy in patients with ≥25% of tumor cells expressing PD-L1. Exploratory analyses identified a bTMB threshold of ≥20 mutations per megabase for optimal OS benefit with durvalumab plus tremelimumab. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalT rials.gov Identifier: NCT02453282.

Introduction: Receptor activator of NF-kB ligand stimulates NF-kB-dependent cell signaling and acts as the primary signal for bone resorption. Retrospective analysis of a large trial comparing denosumab versus zoledronic acid in bone metastatic solid tumors suggested significant overall survival (OS) advantage for patients with lung cancer with denosumab (p = 0.01). The randomized open-label phase III SPLENDOUR trial was designed to evaluate whether the addition of denosumab to standard first-line platinum-based doublet chemotherapy improved OS in advanced NSCLC. Methods: Patients with stage IV NSCLC were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either chemotherapy with or without denosumab (120 mg every 3-4 wks), stratified by the presence of bone metastases (at diagnosis), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, histology, and region. To detect an OS increase from 9 to 11.25 months (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.80), 847 OS events were required. The trial closed prematurely owing to decreasing accrual rate. Results: A total of 514 patients were randomized, with 509 receiving one or more doses of the assigned treatment (chemotherapy: 252, chemotherapy-denosumab: 257). The median age was 66.1 years, 71% were men, and 59% were former smokers. Bone metastases were identified in 275 patients (53%). Median OS (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 8.7 (7.6-11.0) months in the control arm versus 8.2 (7.5-10.4) months in the chemotherapy-denosumab arm (HR = 0.96; 95% CI: 0.78-1.19; one-sided p = 0.36). For patients with bone metastasis, HR was 1.02 (95% CI: 0.77-1.35), whereas for those without, HR was 0.90 (95% CI: 0.66-1.23). Adverse events grade 3 or greater were observed in 40.9%, 5.2%, 8.7% versus 45.5%, 10.9%, 10.5% of patients. Conditional power for OS benefit was less than or equal to 10%. Conclusions: Denosumab was well-tolerated without unexpected safety concerns. There was no OS improvement for denosumab when added to chemotherapy in the intention-to-treat population and the subgroups with and without bone metastases. Our data do not provide evidence of a clinical benefit for denosumab in patients with NSCLC without bone metastases. (C) 2020 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

ZusammenfassungDer Einzug von Immuntherapien mit Checkpoint-Inhibitoren in die Behandlung des fortgeschrittenen nicht kleinzelligen Lungenkarzinoms (NSCLC) hat die Erst- und Zweitlinientherapie revolutioniert. Nach langem therapeutischem Stillstand für die große Gruppe von Patienten ohne therapierbare Treibermutationen stehen nun erstmals neue Behandlungsoptionen zur Verfügung. Aktuell werden Kombinationstherapien geprüft, die das Potenzial der Immuntherapien noch besser ausschöpfen sollen. Für den Kliniker heißt das aber auch, dass die Therapieentscheidungen beim metastasierten NSCLC immer komplexer werden. Daher möchte die vorliegende Publikation vor allem folgende Fragen beantworten: Wie verändern die aktuell etablierten Immuntherapien unser Vorgehen in der klinischen Praxis? Welche Kriterien eignen sich zur Auswahl geeigneter Therapieschemata? Welche Herausforderungen müssen zukünftig noch gemeistert werden?

Ungefahr die Halfte aller Patienten mit nichtkleinzelligem Lungenkarzinom entwickelt im Krankheitsverlauf zereabrale Metastasen. Sie stellen eine besondere klinische Herausforderung dar. Weiterentwicklungen im Hinblick auf Resektionsverfahren, Bestrahlungsmodalitaten und neue Substanzen kommen aber auch diesen Patienten zugute.

The phase 3 MYSTIC study of durvalumab ± tremelimumab versus chemotherapy in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with tumor cell (TC) programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression ≥ 25% did not meet its primary endpoints. We report patient-reported outcomes (PROs).Treatment-naïve patients were randomized (1:1:1) to durvalumab, durvalumab + tremelimumab, or chemotherapy. PROs were assessed in patients with PD-L1 TC ≥ 25% using EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ)-C30/LC13. Changes from baseline (12 months) for prespecified PRO endpoints of interest were analyzed by mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) and time to deterioration (TTD) by stratified log-rank tests.There were no between-arm differences in baseline PROs (N = 488). Between-arm differences in MMRM-adjusted mean changes from baseline favored at least one of the durvalumab-containing arms versus chemotherapy (nominal P.01) for C30 fatigue: durvalumab (-9.5; 99% confidence interval [CI], -17.0 to -2.0), durvalumab + tremelimumab (-11.7; 99% CI, -19.4 to -4.1); and for C30 appetite loss: durvalumab (-11.9; 99% CI, -21.1 to -2.7). TTD was longer with at least one of the durvalumab-containing arms versus chemotherapy (nominal P.01) for global health status/quality of life: durvalumab (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.7; 95% CI, 0.5-1.0), durvalumab + tremelimumab (HR = 0.7; 95% CI, 0.5-1.0); and for physical functioning: durvalumab (HR = 0.6; 95% CI, 0.4-0.8), durvalumab + tremelimumab (HR = 0.6; 95% CI, 0.5-0.9) (both C30); as well as for the key symptoms of dyspnea: durvalumab (HR = 0.6; 95% CI, 0.5-0.9), durvalumab + tremelimumab (HR = 0.7; 95% CI, 0.5-1.0) (both LC13); fatigue: durvalumab + tremelimumab (HR = 0.6; 95% CI, 0.4-0.8); and appetite loss: durvalumab (HR = 0.5; 95% CI, 0.4-0.7), durvalumab + tremelimumab (HR = 0.7; 95% CI, 0.5-0.9) (both C30).Durvalumab ± tremelimumab versus chemotherapy reduced symptom burden and improved TTD of PROs, suggesting it had no detrimental effects on quality of life in metastatic NSCLC patients.

ZusammenfassungDas Lungenkarzinom ist weiterhin die häufigste zum Tode führende Krebserkrankung in Deutschland und durch eine frühe Metastasierung charakterisiert. Die systemische Therapie insbesondere des metastasierten, nicht kleinzelligen Lungenkarzinoms (NSCLC) hat sich in den letzten Jahren insbesondere durch die Identifikation von behandelbaren molekularen Alterationen und durch Einführung neuer Medikamente wie Tyrosinkinaseinhibitoren und Immunmodulatoren deutlich erweitert. Diese raschen Veränderungen der therapeutischen Möglichkeiten stellen auch eine Herausforderung für den behandelnden Arzt dar und erfordern neue diagnostische Vorgehensweisen sowie die Bildung molekular, histologisch oder klinisch definierter Patientensubgruppen. Zudem werden supportive Möglichkeiten immer bedeutsamer. Mit der Therapieempfehlung soll ein kurzer Überblick über aktuelle Therapieentwicklungen beim metastasierten NSCLC gegeben werden.

Many patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) experience disease progression after first- and second-line treatment; more treatment options are required for these patients. ARCTIC, a phase III, randomized, open-label study, assessed durvalumab ± tremelimumab versus standard of care (SoC) as ≥ third-line treatment of mNSCLC.ARCTIC comprised two independent sub-studies. Study A: 126 patients with ≥25% of tumor cells (TCs) expressing programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1) were randomized (1 : 1) to durvalumab [up to 12 months 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks (q2w)] or SoC. Study B: 469 patients with PD-L1 TC25% were randomized (3 : 2 : 2 : 1) to durvalumab + tremelimumab (12 weeks durvalumab 20 mg/kg + tremelimumab 1 mg/kg q4w then 34 weeks durvalumab 10 mg/kg q2w), SoC, durvalumab (up to 12 months 10 mg/kg q2w), or tremelimumab (24 weeks 10 mg/kg q4w then 24 weeks q12w). Primary end points: overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) for durvalumab versus SoC (study A; descriptive only) and durvalumab + tremelimumab versus SoC (study B).Study A: median OS 11.7 (durvalumab) versus 6.8 (SoC) months {hazard ratio (HR) 0.63 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.42-0.93]}; median PFS 3.8 (durvalumab) versus 2.2 (SoC) months [HR 0.71 (95% CI, 0.49-1.04)]. Study B: median OS 11.5 (durvalumab + tremelimumab) versus 8.7 (SoC) months [HR 0.80 (95% CI, 0.61-1.05); P = 0.109]. Median PFS of 3.5 months for both groups [HR 0.77 (95% CI, 0.59-1.01); P = 0.056]. Treatment-related grade 3/4 adverse events: 9.7% (durvalumab) and 44.4% (SoC; study A) and 22.0% (durvalumab + tremelimumab) and 36.4% (SoC; study B).In heavily pretreated patients with mNSCLC, durvalumab demonstrated clinically meaningful improvements in OS and PFS versus SoC (patients with PD-L1 TC ≥25%); numerical improvements in OS and PFS for durvalumab + tremelimumab versus SoC were observed (patients with PD-L1 TC25%). Safety profiles were consistent with previous studies.Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02352948.

Substantial new data on the early detection of lung cancer with low-dose CT has become available since the last joint statement of the German Radiological Society and the German Respiratory Society was published in 2011. The German S3 guideline on lung cancer was revised in 2018 and now contains a weak recommendation regarding the early detection of lung cancer with low-dose CT in a quality-assured early detection program. These new developments required a change in the position of the involved professional societies. This joint statement describes the main features of a quality-assured program for the early detection of lung cancer with low-dose CT in Germany. KEY POINTS:: · New study data on early detection of lung cancer with low-dose CT and the new German S3 guideline on lung cancer required a new positioning of the involved professional societies.. · The involved professional societies strongly recommend that low-dose CT examinations for early detection of lung cancer should only be performed within a quality-assured program.. · The article describes some fundamentals of such a quality-assured early detection program.. CITATION FORMAT: · Wormanns D, Kauczor H, Antoch G et al. Joint Statement of the German Radiological Society and the German Respiratory Society on a Quality-Assured Early Detection Program for Lung Cancer with Low-Dose CT. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2019; 191: 993 - 997.Seit dem letzten gemeinsamen Positionspapier der Deutschen Röntgengesellschaft und der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Pneumologie und Beatmungsmedizin im Jahr 2011 hat sich die Datenlage zur Lungenkrebsfrüherkennung mit Niedrigdosis-CT deutlich erweitert, und in der 2018 revidierten S3-Leitlinie Lungenkarzinom wird eine schwache Empfehlung zur Lungenkrebsfrüherkennung mit Niedrigdosis-CT in einem qualitätsgesicherten Früherkennungsprogramm ausgesprochen. Diese neuen Entwicklungen erforderten eine Neupositionierung der beteiligten Fachgesellschaften. Das vorliegende Positionspapier beschreibt Grundzüge eines qualitätsgesicherten Früherkennungsprogramms für Lungenkrebs in Deutschland. KERNAUSSAGEN:: · Neue Studiendaten zur Lungenkrebsfrüherkennung mit Niedrigdosis-CT und die neue S3-Leitlinie Lungenkarzinom machten eine Neupositionierung der Fachgesellschaften erforderlich.. · Untersuchungen zur Früherkennung von Lungenkrebs mittels Niedrigdosis-CT sollten nach Einschätzung der beteiligten Fachgesellschaften nur innerhalb eines qualitätsgesicherten Früherkennungsprogramms durchgeführt werden.. · Im Artikel werden Eckpunkte eines solchen qualitätsgesicherten Früherkennungsprogramms dargestellt.. ZITIERWEISE: · Wormanns D, Kauczor H, Antoch G et al. Joint Statement of the German Radiological Society and the German Respiratory Society on a Quality-Assured Early Detection Program for Lung Cancer with Low-Dose CT. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2019; 191: 993 – 997.

The aim of the present study was to assess the expression of epithelial-mesenchymal transition biomarkers (E-cadherin and vimentin) and their potential significance as prognostic markers in patients with stage IIIB/IV non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) enrolled in the INNOVATIONS trial, receiving treatment with either erlotinib/bevacizumab (EB) or cisplatin/gemcitabine/bevacizumab (PGB). The tumor tissues of 104 patients were retrospectively analyzed using immunohistochemistry to assess the expression of E-cadherin and vimentin. The distribution between the treatment arms was 46 patients in the EB-arm and 58 in the PGB-arm. Comparing the treatment arms according to E-cadherin and vimentin expression, the analysis revealed that progression-free survival (PFS) was increased in the PGB treatment group when compared with EB treatment in patients with low expression of E-cadherin [hazard ratio (HR)=0.353; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.189- 0.658; log-rank P=0.0007] and in those with high expression of vimentin [HR=0.276 (95% CI, 0.115- 0.659), log-rank P=0.0021]. In patients that exhibited high E-cadherin and were negative for vimentin, there was no difference in the PFS between the PGB and EB treatment groups. In conclusion, in non-squamous NSCLC with downregulated E-cadherin and upregulated vimentin, the efficacy of chemotherapy with PGB was superior compared with EB; but the same effect was not observed in patients with high E-cadherin and low vimentin. Although increased PFS was observed in patients with PGB treatment compared with EB treatment in the whole analysis populations, in the subgroup of patients with the mesenchymal phenotype, no prognostic or predictive value of either biomarker could be identified. The potential role of bevacizumab in overcoming chemotherapy resistance in the population with the mesenchymal phenotype has to be further explored.

e20558 Background: PET-derived metabolic-tumor-volume (MTV) has shown to be an independent prognosticator in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients treated with chemoradiotherapy (CRT). We analysed the prognostic value of residual MTV after completion of thoracic irradiation (TRT) in inoperable stage III NSCLC patients treated with CRT with and without immune check-point inhibition (ICI). Methods: Fifty-six inoperable stage III NSCLC patients (16 female, median age: 65 years) underwent 18F-FDG PET/CT at the same institution before and after completion of CRT. MTV was delineated on 18F-FDG PET/CT using a standard threshold (hepatic SUVmean + 2 x standard-deviation). Patients were divided in volumetric subgroups using median split dichotomization (residual MTV ≤4.0 ml & > 4.0 ml). Residual MTV, clinical features and ICI maintenance (RCT-IO; 21/56 (37.5%) patients) were correlated with clinical outcome (progression-free survival (PFS), local PFS (LPFS), metastasis-free survival (MFS), and overall survival (OS). Results: Median follow-up was 52.0 months. 52 (93%) patients were treated with CRT, 12 (21%) patients with CRT followed by durvalumab, and 9 (16%) patients treated with CRT plus nivolumab (concurrent and sequential). In the entire cohort, smaller residual MTV was associated with longer PFS (median 29.3 vs. 10.5 months, p = 0.015); PFS in patients treated with CRT and ICI was also significantly longer compared to the CRT-only subgroup (median 29.3 vs. 11.2 months, p = 0.010). However, residual MTV was predictive for longer PFS in CRT-only (median 33.5 vs. 8.6 months, p = 0.001), but not in the CRT-ICI patients (p = 0.909). Analogously, patients with smaller MTV had a longer LPFS (median 49.9 vs. 16.3 months, p = 0.002); CRT-ICI patients showed a significantly longer LPFS compared to CRT-only patients (median not reached vs. 16.9 months, p = 0.016). Residual MTV remained a significant prognosticator for LPFS in the CRT-only (median 49.9 vs. 10.1 months, p = 0.01), but not in CRT-ICI patients (p = 0.291). Again, smaller residual MTV remained a significant prognosticator for OS in the CRT-only subgroup (median 63.0 vs. 16.3 months, p = 0.004), but not in CRT-ICI patients (p = 0.720). Even in patients with larger residual MTV, the application of ICI significantly improved OS compared to CRT-only subgroup (median not reached vs. 22.9 months, p = 0.004). Conclusions: Smaller residual MTV is associated with superior clinical outcome in inoperable stage III NSCLC, especially in patients undergoing CRT-only. In contrast, in patients undergoing concurrent or sequential consolidation clinical outcome was independent of residual MTV. Hence, even patients with extensive residual MTV might significantly profit from ICI consolidation.

e20503 Background: Acute lymphocytopenia is associated with poor survival in solid cancers treated with multimodal therapy. A prospective analysis of peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) during multimodal treatment in inoperable stage III NSCLC patients was performed to assess a correlation of T-lymphocytes changes with 6-months progression-free survival rates (PFS6M). Methods: Twenty patients at median age of 65.5 years (range 33-77), 85% male, 55% with adenocarcinoma and 40% with squamous cell carcinoma, were prospectively enrolled in this study. Eighteen (90%) patients received platinum-based concurrent chemo-radiotherapy (cCRT); seven (35%) patients additional concurrent and/or sequential immune check-point inhibition (four patients nivolumab and three durvalumab); patients treated with nivolumab received induction chemotherapy. Thoracic irradiation (TRT) was applied in all patients with median cumulative dose in equivalent 2Gy fractions (EQD2) of 64Gy (range: 52-65Gy). Peripheral blood was collected 5-10 days before treatment begin (A1), on the last day of TRT (RTend), and during follow-up. Samples were analyzed using polychromatic flow cytometry. Results are reported for three time-points: A1, RTend, and 6 months after TRT (C3) or the last sample available before that time-point. Results: From A1 to RTend, 16 (80%) patients experienced severe T-cell (CD3+, CD3+CD4+, CD3+CD8+) depletion, including 3 (15%) patients who received two doses of concurrent nivolumab. T-lymphocyte nadir was independent of the absolute numbers of PBMCs before treatment begin. In two patients, T-cell count remained stable, and increased in two other patients. No correlation of dynamic changes from A1 to RTend with PFS6M was observed. From RTend to C3, T-lymphocytes recovered in 11 (55%) patients; in 6 (30%) T-cell count further decreased or remained at very low levels. For total CD3 T-cells, CD3+CD4+ and CD3+CD8+ subsets, progressive disease in the first six months after TRT was associated with a decrease of median values (P = 0.03 for total CD3+ and CD3+CD4+, P = 0.08 for CD3+CD8+ T-cells). In contrast, an increase of all medians was associated with PFS6M (P = 0.007 for total CD3+, P = 0.002 for CD3+CD4+, P = 0.06 for CD3+CD8+ T-cells). Conclusions: There is a significant difference between patients with regards to T-lymphocytes recovery after the end of TRT, which is predictive for PFS6M, with poor median recovery observed in patients with early progress.

9012 Background: In the VISION study, tepotinib in METex14 skipping NSCLC pts (Cohort A) had robust and durable clinical activity. Serial LBx samples were collected for biomarker analyses, presented herein. Methods: LBx samples taken at baseline (BL), Week 6, 12, & end of treatment (EOT) were analyzed using Guardant360® CDx (73 genes). Investigator (INV)-assessed clinical outcome was evaluated per BL biomarker profiles and by molecular response (MR; defined as > 75% depletion from BL in METex14 variant allele frequency [VAF] ctDNA confirmed in 2 consecutive samples) or molecular progression (MP; defined as VAF increase > 0 from BL). Acquired resistance was investigated in EOT samples, following progression per INV. Results: LBx pts (n = 99) had a median age of 72 yrs (range 49–88), 53% were male, 44% never smokers, 85% had adenocarcinoma. INV ORR was 53% (95% CI 42, 63); ORR in 1L (n = 44) was 59% (43, 74) & ≥2L (n = 55) was 47% (33, 61). 94 pts had BL biomarker profiles; these were similar in 1L and ≥2L pts, except EGFR amp: 1/43 1L [2%] vs 8/51 ≥2L [16%]. Outcomes were not impacted by location/type of METex14 alteration. 1 pt with concomitant MET M1250T mutation had a PFS of 17.3 months. A trend towards better efficacy was seen in pts with concomitant MET amp (6 responses in 8 pts). Response to tepotinib occurred both in pts with wt or mutant TP53; however, there was a trend for longer mDOR in pts with wt TP53 (18.3 [95% CI 9.7, ne] vs 7.1 [4.7, 10.9] months) and mPFS (9.5 [6.7, 19.7] vs 5.1 [2.8, 6.9] months). Concomitant oncogenic mutations were rare, with no responses in 3 pts with KRAS, NRAS alterations and 3 responses in 5 pts with PI3K/AKT alterations. 65 pts had 2 consecutive on-treatment samples: 46 (71%) had confirmed MR, 5 (8%) had confirmed MP, 14 (22%) had no change in VAF or lacked confirmation. MR was associated with clinical response and MP was associated with no response/short PFS (Table). 52 pts with progression had EOT LBx samples. Emerging MET resistance mutations (Y1230H/C & D1228H/N) occurred in 7 (13%) pts, all responders and 5/7 had PFS > 10 months. Analyses on non-MET-driven resistance mechanisms will be presented. Conclusions: LBx biomarker analysis from the largest on-treatment data set for a MET inhibitor in METex14 skipping NSCLC, showed that ctDNA depletion in METex14 VAF is associated with improved clinical response in pts treated with tepotinib. This suggests serial LBx could help us to monitor response/non-response, understand resistance, and guide trials that test escalation/de-escalation strategies to improve outcomes and maximize QOL. Clinical trial information: NCT02864992. [Table: see text]

Introduction: Previously reported data on patients with thoracic malignancies who develop COVID-19 have suggested a higher mortality rate compared to the general population and to other cancer types, particularly in patients over 65 years of age or suffering from active or progressive disease Preliminary data from other studies have suggested that gender and ethnicity may also impact patient outcomes Methods: TERAVOLT is a multi-center, international observational study composed of a cross-sectional component and a longitudinal cohort component Eligibility criteria include the presence of any thoracic cancer and a COVID-19 diagnosis confirmed in the laboratory with RT-PCR/serology, highly suspicious radiological and clinical findings, or suspected with symptoms and known contact with a positive person The overarching goals of this consortium are to provide data for guidance to oncology professionals on managing patients with thoracic malignancies while understanding the risk factors for morbidity and mortality from this novel virus Clinical outcomes including hospitalization, ICU admission, oxygen requirement and mortality were collected The association between demographic/clinical characteristics and outcomes were measured with odds ratio with 95% confidence intervals using a logistic regression model Results: As of August 20, 2020, a total of 1,053 patients with COVID-19 and thoracic cancers from 19 countries and 130 centers have been identified, including 42% females and 84% White, 9 3% African American, 25% Hispanic The median age of male patients was 69 compared to 66 years of age for females While ECOG PS was similar between treatment groups, 77% of males were admitted to hospital with a mortality rate of 37% compared to 66% of females with a mortality rate of 28% The median age of African American patients was 66 years of age compared to 68 and 69 years of age for white and Hispanic patients, respectively;26% of African American and 25% White patients had an ECOG PS ≥2 compared to 19% of Hispanics A similar percentage of patients were admitted to the hospital and ICU, while the mortality rate for Hispanics was 36% compared to 34% for whites and 26% for African Americans Conclusion: Similar to the general population, the mortality rate of males with thoracic cancer is higher than females Regarding ethnicity, there is a difference in the median age of African American patients compared to Whites and Hispanics Although the severity of COVID-19 disease, as defined by hospital admission, is similar between ethnic groups, the mortality rate in Hispanics is higher We will present a multivariate analysis of these data according to gender and ethnicity, including the impact of cancer stage, prior cancer therapy, and COVID-19 therapy on outcomes Keywords: TERAVOLT, international COVID-19 registry, thoracic malignancies

Background We evaluated maintenance nanoparticle albumin-bound (nab) paclitaxel in the treatment of advanced squamous non–small-cell lung cancer. Patients and Methods Patients with treatment-naive squamous non–small-cell lung cancer received four 21-day cycles of nab-paclitaxel 100 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, 15 plus carboplatin area under the curve 6 on day 1 as induction therapy. Patients without disease progression after induction were randomized 2:1 to maintenance nab-paclitaxel 100 mg/m2 (days 1 and 8 every 21 days) plus best supportive care (BSC) or BSC alone. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included safety and overall survival (OS). Results Overall, 420 patients had received induction therapy; 202 (nab-paclitaxel plus BSC, 136; BSC, 66) had received maintenance therapy. Enrollment was discontinued after a preplanned interim futility analysis (patients could remain in the study at the investigator’s discretion). The median PFS was 3.12 months for nab-paclitaxel plus BSC and 2.60 months for BSC; the difference was not statistically significant (hazard ratio [HR], 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61-1.19; P = .36). The median OS (median follow-up, 24.2 months) was 17.18 months for nab-paclitaxel plus BSC and 12.16 months for BSC (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.48-1.02; nominal P = .07). An updated analysis (median follow-up, 28.4 months) revealed a median OS of 17.61 months for nab-paclitaxel plus BSC and 12.16 months for BSC (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.47-0.98; nominal P = .037). The most frequent grade 3 and 4 treatment-emergent adverse events for the entire study were neutropenia (53.1% [nab-paclitaxel plus BSC] vs. 50.0% [BSC]) and anemia (33.1% [nab-paclitaxel plus BSC] vs. 32.3% [BSC]). Only peripheral neuropathy had occurred in ≥ 5% of patients during maintenance therapy (13.1%; nab-paclitaxel plus BSC). Conclusions The results of the ABOUND.sqm did not meet the primary endpoint of PFS. An updated OS analysis revealed a trend favoring nab-paclitaxel plus BSC.

Fur Patienten mit nichtkleinzelligem Lungenkarzinom im metastasierten Stadium war lange eine zytotoxische Chemotherapie die Standardbehandlung. Ein besseres Verstandnis der Tumorbiologie fuhrte zu neuen Behandlungsansatzen. Sie haben bereits heute bei bestimmten Behandlungssituationen eine Chemotherapie als Standard verdrangt.