Search

Osimertinib is an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) used in first line for the treatment of advanced EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).The identification of related histomolecular resistance mechanisms to first-line osimertinib is a critical step to define the optimal treatment strategy beyond progression.All consecutive patients treated in the first line with osimertinib for advanced EGFR-mutated NSCLC at 10 hospitals in the Greater Paris area between April 2015 and January 2021 were included. Histomolecular data from plasma and tissue samples taken at progression under osimertinib were collected, and all samples were analyzed using DNA next-generation sequencing. Data on objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and time to treatment discontinuation (TTD) were also collected.Overall, 104 patients were included. Most patients had adenocarcinoma (n = 102, 98%) with an exon 19 EGFR deletion (n = 54, 52%). Forty-two patients (50%) had central nervous system (CNS) metastasis at the time of osimertinib initiation. ORR was 76%, median PFS and OS were 12.6 months and 52 months, respectively, and TTD was 33 months. At the time of analysis, 44 patients (42%) had tumor progression, and among these patients, 27 (61%) contributive samples were available. The most frequent molecular alterations at progression were mesenchymal epithelial transition factor (MET) amplification (15%; n = 4) and EGFR C797S mutation (11%; n = 3). Histological transformation was found in one patient (4%). RNA next-generation sequencing was performed in eight patients and showed a CCDC6-RET fusion in one patient (12%).We confirmed the efficacy of osimertinib in patients with advanced EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC. At progression, the most frequent histomolecular alterations were MET amplification and EGFR C797S mutation.

Background: We aimed to evaluate the prognostic value of imaging biomarkers on 18F-FDG PET/CT in extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) patients undergoing first-line chemo-immunotherapy. Methods: In this multicenter and retrospective study, we considered two cohorts, depending on the type of first-line therapy: chemo-immunotherapy (CIT) versus chemotherapy alone (CT). All patients underwent baseline 18-FDG PET/CT before therapy between June 2016 and September 2021. We evaluated clinical, biological, and PET parameters, and used cutoffs from previously published studies or predictiveness curves to assess the association with progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) with Cox prediction models. Results: Sixty-eight patients were included (CIT: CT) (36: 32 patients). The median PFS was 5.9:6.5 months, while the median OS was 12.1:9.8 months. dNLR (the derived neutrophils/(leucocytes-neutrophils) ratio) was an independent predictor of short PFS and OS in the two cohorts (p < 0.05). High total metabolic tumor volume (TMTVhigh if > 241 cm3) correlated with outcomes, but only in the CIT cohort (PFS for TMTVhigh in multivariable analysis: HR 2.5; 95%CI 1.1–5.9). Conclusion: Baseline 18F-FDG PET/CT using TMTV could help to predict worse outcomes for ES-SCLC patients undergoing first-line CIT. This suggests that baseline TMTV may be used to identify patients that are unlikely to benefit from CIT.

Here, we aimed to assess the specific features of lung cancer in patients with long-term oxygen therapy (LTOT), and compare their outcomes with patients suffering from lung cancer without LTOT.This retrospective, case-controlled study included patients with LTOT and an incident diagnosis of lung cancer treated at Rouen University Hospital.Out of 2201 patients with LTOT, 31 were diagnosed with lung cancer. Among 24 patients with proven lung cancer, the most frequent histological type was squamous cell carcinoma (n = 12/24, 50%). Active treatment of any type was given in 19/31 (61%) and 41/62 (66%) of patients in the LTOT and control groups, respectively (p = 0.83). In the LTOT group, median survival was 38 days with best supportive care and 462 days with active treatment (p = 0.003). However, when adjusting on performance status and disease stage, LTOT was not significantly associated with a worse outcome. Hazard ratio (HR): 1.56 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.87 to 2.81) (p = 0.137). Administration of any treatment was associated with a better prognostic: HR: 0.35 (95% CI: 0.19 to 0.66). Both groups had a similar treatment safety profile.Incidence of lung cancer in patients with LTOT was comparable to the general population. The proportion of LTOT patients who received active treatment was similar to controls, and overall survival did not differ from controls in a multivariate analysis. Although reaching a histological diagnosis may be challenging in LTOT patients, the efficacy and safety of the management strategies of lung cancer seem preserved.

The most frequent mutation in advanced non-small–cell lung cancer (NSCLC), Kirsten rat-sarcoma viral oncogene (KRAS) is found in 20–25% of these patients’ tumors. While phase III trials on therapies targeting KRAS, especially KRASG12C, are ongoing, the clinical efficacy of anti-programmed death protein-1 (PD-1) or its ligand (PD-L1) against KRAS-mutant NSCLCs remains a topic of debate. This meta-analysis examined randomized-trial data comparing first- or second-line anti-PD-(L)1 with or without chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy alone for advanced KRAS-mutant NSCLCs. Outcome measures included overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Analyses were computed using the Cochrane method of collaboration for meta-analyses, with Review Manager software (RevMan version 5.3; Oxford, UK). We analyzed 3 first-line trials (IMpower-150, Keynote-189 and Keynote-042) and 3 second-line trials (Oak, Poplar and CheckMate-057) that included 1313 NSCLCs (386 KRAS-mutant and 927 KRAS wild-type tumors). For KRAS-mutant NSCLCs, anti-PD-(L)1 with or without chemotherapy was significantly associated (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval]) with prolonged OS (0.59 [0.49–0.72]; p

BackgroundNew mutational detection techniques like next-generation sequencing have resulted in an increased number of cases with uncommon mutation and compound mutations [3%–14% of all epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations]. In rare exon 18 mutations (3%–6%), G719X and E709X represent the majority, but CMut associating these exon 18 points mutations are even rarer, making the understanding of the impact of epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors still limited. Three generations of EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) are available to target EGFR mutations, but according to the types of mutations, the sensitivity to TKI is different. Afatinib, osimertinib, and neratinib have showed some effectiveness in single exon 18, but no report has precisely described their efficiency and acquired mechanism of resistance in a CMut of exon 18–18 (G719A and E709A).Case presentationWe report a case of a 26-year-old woman with bilateral advanced adenocarcinoma of the lung harboring a compound mutation associating G719A and E709A in exon 18, who developed an EGFR amplification as resistance mechanism to osimertinib. She presented a significant clinical and morphological response under sequential TKIs treatment (afatinib, osimertinib, and then neratinib).ConclusionA non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with rare compound mutation exon 18–exon 18 (G719A and E709A) and EGFR amplification can be overcome with adapted sequential second- and third-generation TKIs. This report has potential implications in guiding decisions for the treatment of these rare EGFR mutations.

Purpose: CD28, CD57, and KLRG1 have been previously identified as markers of T-cell immunosenescence. The impact of immunosenescence on anti-PD(L)-1 (ICI) or platinum-based chemotherapy (PCT) in patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) is unknown. Experimental Design: The percentage of CD28−, CD57+, KLRG1+ among CD8+ T cells [senescent immune phenotype (SIP)] was assessed by flow cytometry on blood from patients with aNSCLC before single-agent ICI (discovery cohort). A SIP cut-off was identified by log-rank maximization method and patients with aNSCLC treated with ICI (validation cohort) or PCT were classified accordingly. Proliferation and functional properties of SIP+ CD8+ T cells were assessed in vitro. Results: In the ICI discovery cohort (N = 37), SIP cut-off was 39.5%, 27% of patients were SIP+. In the ICI validation cohort (N = 46), SIP+ status was found in 28% of patients and significantly correlated with worse objective response rate (ORR; 0% vs. 30%, P = 0.04), median progression-free survival (PFS) [1.8 (95% confidence interval (CI), 1.3-NR) vs. 6.4 (95% CI, 2–19) months, P = 0.009] and median overall survival, OS [2.8 (95% CI, 2.0-NR) vs. 20.8 (95% CI, 6.0-NR) months, P = 0.02]. SIP+ status was significantly associated with circulating specific immunephenotypes, in vitro lower CD8+ T cells proliferation, lower IL2 and higher TNFα and IFNγ production. In the ICI-pooled population (N = 83), SIP+ status did not correlate with any clinical characteristics and it was associated with significantly worse ORR, PFS, and OS. In PCT cohort (N = 61), 11% of patients were SIP+. SIP status did not correlate with outcomes upon PCT. Conclusions: Circulating T-cell immunosenescence is observed in up to 28% of patients with aNSCLC and correlates with lack of benefit from ICI but not from PCT. See related commentary by Salas-Benito et al., p. 374

PURPOSE Hyperprogressive disease (HPD), fast progression (FP), and early death (ED) have been described in 13.8%, 4.7%, and 5.6% and in 5.1%, 2.8%, and 6.8%, respectively, of patients with non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with single-agent programmed cell death ligand 1 inhibitors (ICI) or chemotherapy, respectively. Whether FP/ED and HPD represent overlapping patterns is unknown. PATIENTS AND METHODS FP, ED, and HPD were retrospectively assessed in patients with NSCLC treated with single-agent ICI or chemotherapy. Eligibility required 2 computed tomography (CT) scans before and 1 CT scan during treatment. (1) HPD, (2) FP, (3) ED were defined as (1) RECIST version 1.1 progression at first CT scan and tumor growth rate variation per month > 50%, (2) ≥ 50% increase in the sum of the longest diameters of target lesions within 6 weeks from baseline, and (3) death as a result of radiologic progression within 12 weeks from baseline CT scan, respectively. RESULTS Of 406 ICI-treated NSCLC, 56 patients (13.8%), 9 patients (2.2%), and 36 patients (8.8%) were HPD, FP, and ED, respectively. Eight (14.2%) and 20 (35.7%) of 56 patients with HPD were also FP and ED. ED significantly correlated with baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≥ 2 compared with HPD (33% v 13%, P = .02). Overall survival was significantly longer for HPD (3.4 months [95% CI, 2.7 to 4.0 months]) compared with FP (0.7 months [95% CI, 0.6 to 0.8 months]); HR, 0.18 [95% CI, 0.08 to 0.42]; P < .0001) and ED (1.4 months [95% CI, 1.3 to 1.6 months]); HR, 0.19 [95% CI, 0.11 to 0.34]); P < .0001), whereas it did not differ between FP and ED (HR, 1.3 [95% CI, 0.56 to 3.0]; P = .55). Of 59 patients with NSCLC treated with single-agent chemotherapy, the HPD, FP, and ED rates were 5.1%, 1.7%, and 6.7%, respectively. CONCLUSION FP, ED, and HPD represent distinct progression patterns with limited overlap and different survival outcomes.

To determine FDG-PET biomarkers associated with long-term benefit (LTB) and survival in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients receiving first-line immunotherapy. In this multicenter study, we retrospectively analyzed advanced NSCLC patients with a PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) ≥ 50%, who underwent FDG-PET/CT before first-line pembrolizumab, received from August 2017 to September 2019. Parameters extracted were SUVmax, SUVmean, TMTV (total metabolic tumor volume) and TLG (total lesion glycolysis). LTB was defined as objective (complete or partial) response or stable disease as best overall response, maintained for ≥ 12 months. A multivariate prediction model was developed using logistic regression for LTB and Cox models for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). On the 63 eligible patients, with a median follow-up of 13.4 (range, 1.5–29.1) months, 17 (27%) had LTB. Median PFS and OS were 7.7 months (95%CI 5.0–10.5) and 12.1 months (95%CI 8.6–15.6). In multivariate analyses, high TMTV (> 84cm3) and high tumor SUVmean (> 10.1) remained independent factors for predicting LTB (OR 0.2; p = 0.03 and OR 3.7; p = 0.04) and PFS (HR 2.2; p = 0.02 and HR 0.5; p = 0.045). High TMTV was significantly associated with poor OS (HR 3.1; p = 0.03). No association was observed between tumor SUVmax or TLG and clinical outcomes. In patients with advanced NSCLC and PD-L1 TPS ≥ 50%, baseline low TMTV and high tumor SUVmean correlate with survival and LTB from upfront pembrolizumab. Beyond the initial staging, FDG-PET/CT scan could provide relevant biomarkers associated with clinical outcomes that should be taken into account when considering first-line treatment options.

Erlotinib is indicated as first-line treatment for patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring an epidermal growth-factor–receptor (EGFR) mutation. Addition of a vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitor (anti-VEGF) in combination with the tyrosine-kinase inhibitor erlotinib in this setting is controversial. We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing anti-VEGF plus erlotinib vs erlotinib alone as first-line therapy for advanced NSCLC harboring an EGFR mutation. Outcomes included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR) and median duration of response (DOR). A fixed-effect model was used. Four studies evaluated bevacizumab + erlotinib (ARTEMIS, NEJ026, J025667, Stinchcombe et al.), and another evaluated ramucirumab + erlotinib (RELAY). These five eligible studies included 1230 non-squamous NSCLC patients, 654 (53.2%) with exon 19 deletion (ex19del) and 568 (46.8%) with EGFRL858R. Patients were predominantly women (63%), Asians (85%) and non-smokers (60%); the median age was 64 years. The combination (anti-VEGF + erlotinib) was significantly associated with prolonged PFS (hazards ratio [HR] 0.59 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.51–0.69]; p

BackgroundProgrammed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) expression has been associated with activation and exhaustion of both the CD4 and CD8 populations in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC). Nevertheless, the impact of the balance between circulating CD8+PD-1+ and CD4+PD-1+ in patients treated with immune checkpoint blockers (ICB) is unknown.MethodsThe CD8+PD-1+ to CD4+PD-1+ ratio (PD-1-Expressing Ratio on Lymphocytes in a Systemic blood sample, or ‘PERLS’) was determined by cytometry in fresh whole blood from patients with aNSCLC before treatment with single-agent ICB targeting PD-1 or programmed cell death-ligand 1 (PD-L1 (discovery cohort). A PERLS cut-off was identified by log-rank maximization. Patients treated with ICB (validation cohort) or polychemotherapy (control cohort) were classified as PERLS+/− (above/below cut-off). Circulating immune cell phenotype and function were correlated with PERLS. A composite score (good, intermediate and poor) was determined using the combination of PERLS and senescent immune phenotype as previously described in aNSCLC.ResultsIn the discovery cohort (N=75), the PERLS cut-off was 1.91, and 11% of patients were PERLS+. PERLS + correlated significantly with median progression-free survival (PFS) of 9.63 months (95% CI 7.82 to not reached (NR)) versus 2.69 months (95% CI 1.81 to 5.52; p=0.03). In an independent validation cohort (N=36), median PFS was NR (95% CI 7.9 to NR) versus 2.00 months (95% CI 1.3 to 4.5; p=0.04) for PERLS + and PERLS−, respectively; overall survival (OS) followed a similar but non-significant trend. In the pooled cohort (N=111), PERLS + correlated significantly with PFS and OS. PERLS did not correlate with outcome in the polychemotherapy cohort. PERLS did not correlate with clinical characteristics but was significantly associated with baseline circulating naïve CD4+ T cells and the increase of memory T cells post-ICB treatment. Accumulation of memory T cells during treatment was linked to CD4+ T cell polyfunctionality. The composite score was evaluated in the pooled cohort (N=68). The median OS for good, intermediate and poor composite scores was NR (95% CI NR to NR), 8.54 months (95% CI 4.96 to NR) and 2.42 months (95% CI 1.97 to 15.5; p=0.001), respectively. The median PFS was 12.60 months (95% CI 9.63 to NR), 2.58 months (95% CI 1.74 to 7.29) and 1.76 months (95% CI 1.31 to 4.57; pConclusionsElevated PERLS, determined from a blood sample before immunotherapy, was correlated with benefit from PD-(L)1 blockers in aNSCLC.

Background: Up to 10% of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) have pre-existing interstitial lung disease (ILD). These patients are usually excluded from immunotherapy clinical trials. Consequently, knowledge on outcomes following nivolumab treatment in these patients remains limited. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate survival outcome following nivolumab treatment in ILD patients with pre-treated aNSCLC in the real-world setting. Patients and methods: The study included all patients with aNSCLC recorded in the French hospital database, starting nivolumab in 2015–2016. Patients were stratified by pre-existing ILD and three subgroups were studied [auto-immune or granulomatous (AI/G) ILD, other known causes ILD and idiopathic ILD]. Time to discontinuation of nivolumab treatment [time to treatment duration (TTD)] and overall survival (OS) were estimated using Kaplan–Meier survival analysis. Results: Of 10,452 aNSCLC patients initiating nivolumab, 148 (1.4%) had pre-existing ILD. Mean age at nivolumab initiation was 64.6 ± 9.4 years in ILD and 63.8 ± 9.6 years in non-ILD. Compared to non-ILD, patients in the ILD group were more frequently men ( p Conclusion: In this large cohort of aNSCLC patients with ILD, outcomes are similar to those obtained in the non-ILD population. Immunotherapy could be beneficial for these patients.

Simple Summary EGFR exon 20 insertions are rare genetic alterations in non-small-cell lung cancers (NSCLCs) that are usually unresponsive to approved EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), but data is limited about this population. We aim to describe clinical features, survival, and response to chemotherapy and TKIs in this patient population. Abstract EGFR exon 20 insertions are rare genetic alterations in non-small-cell lung cancers (NSCLCs) that are usually unresponsive to approved EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). In this paper, we describe the clinical characteristics, efficacy of EFGR TKIs and chemotherapy, and resulting survival in this population. We retrospectively collected patients with EGFR exon 20 insertions (Exon20ins) from 11 French genetic platforms and paired them (1:2 ratio) with classic Exon 19/21 EGFR mutation patients (controls). Between 2012 and 2017, 35 Exon20ins patients were included. These patients were younger at diagnosis than the controls. All Exon20ins patients who were treated with first-line EGFR TKIs (n = 6) showed progressive disease as the best tumor response. There was no significant difference in the tumor response or the disease control rate with first-line platinum-based chemotherapy between the two groups. A trend towards shorter overall survival was observed in Exon20ins vs. controls (17 months (14—not reach(NR) 95% confidence interval(CI) vs. 29 months (17–NR 95%CI), p = 0.09), respectively. A significant heterogeneity in amino acid insertion in EGFR exon 20 was observed. EGFR exon 20 insertions are heterogeneous molecular alterations in NSCLC that are resistant to classic EGFR TKIs, which contraindicates their use as a first-line treatment.

Immunotherapy has gained great interest in thoracic malignancies in the last decade, first in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but also more recently in small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) and malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). However, while 15-20% of patients will greatly benefit from immune checkpoint blockers (ICBs), a vast majority will rapidly exhibit resistance. Reasons for this are multiple: non-immunogenic tumors, immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment or defects in immune cells trafficking to the tumor sites being some of the most frequent. Current progress in adoptive cell therapies could offer a way to overcome these hurdles and bring effective immune cells to the tumor site. In this review, we discuss advantages, limits and future perspectives of adoptive cell therapy (ACT) in thoracic malignancies from lymphokine-activated killer cells (LAK), cytokine-induced killer cells (CIK), natural killer cells (NK), dendritic cells (DC) vaccines and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) to TCR engineering and CARs. Trials are still in their early phases, and while there may still be many limitations to overcome, a combination of these different approaches with ICBs, chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy could vastly improve the way we treat thoracic cancers.

Introduction: Although frequent in NSCLC, patients with brain metastases (BMs) are often excluded from immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) trials. We evaluated BM outcome in a less-selected NSCLC cohort.Methods: Data from consecutive patients with advanced ICI-treated NSCLC were collected. Active BMs were defined as new and/or growing lesions without any subsequent local treatment before the start of ICI treatment. Objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival, and overall survival (OS) were evaluated. Multivariate analyses were performed by using a Cox proportional hazards model and logistic regression.Results: A total of 1025 patients were included; the median follow-up time from start of ICI treatment was 15.8 months. Of these patients, 255 (24.9%) had BMs (39.2% active, 14.3% symptomatic, and 27.4% being treated with steroids). Disease-specific Graded Prognostic Assessment (ds-GPA) score was known for 94.5% of patients (35.7% with a score of 0-1, 58.5% with a score of 1.5-2.5, and 5.8% with a score of 3). The ORRs with BM versus without BM were similar: 20.6% (with BM) versus 22.7% (without BM) (p = 0.484). The intracranial ORR (active BM with follow-up brain imaging [n = 73]) was 27.3%. The median progression-free survival times were 1.7 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.5-2.1) and 2.1 (95% CI: 1.9-2.5) months, respectively (p = 0.009). Of the patients with BMs, 12.7% had a dissociated cranial-extracranial response and two (0.8%) had brain pseudoprogression. Brain progression occurred more in active BM than in stable BM (54.2% versus 30% [p Conclusion: In multivariate analysis BMs are not associated with a poorer survival in patients with ICI-treated NSCLC. Stable patients with BM without baseline corticosteroids and a good ds-GPA classification have the best prognosis. (C) 2019 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Background Immunotherapy represents a new therapeutic approach in non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) with the potential for prolonged benefits. Because of the systemic nature and heterogeneity of tumoral diseases, as well as the immune restoration process induced by immunotherapy, the assessment of therapeutic efficacy is challenging, and the role of FDG PET is not well established. We evaluated the potential of FDG PET to monitor NSCLC patients treated with a checkpoint inhibitor. Results This was a retrospective analysis of 28 NSCLC patients treated with nivolumab, a programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) blocker. All patients underwent a PET scan before treatment (SCAN-1) and another scan 2 months later (SCAN-2). Disease progression was assessed by immune PET Response Criteria in Solid Tumors (iPERCIST), which was adapted from PERCIST; and the immune Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (iRECIST). iPERCIST is a dual-time-point evaluation of “unconfirmed progressive metabolic disease” (UPMD) status at SCAN-2. UPMD at SCAN-2 was re-evaluated after 4 weeks with SCAN-3 to confirm PMD. Patients with complete/partial metabolic response (CMR or PMR) or stable metabolic disease (SMD) at SCAN-2 or -3 were considered responders. Patients with UPMD confirmed at SCAN-3 were considered non-responders. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival. At SCAN-2, we found 9/28 cases of PMR, 4/28 cases of SMD, 2/28 cases of CMR, and 13/28 cases of UPMD. Four of the 13 UPMD patients were classified as responders at SCAN-3 (PMR n = 1, SMD n = 3). The remaining nine UPMD patients were classified as non-responders due to clinical degradation, and treatment was stopped. The median follow-up was 16.7 months [3.6–32.2]. Responders continued treatment for a mean of 10.7 months [3.8–26.3]. Overall survival was longer for responders than that for non-responders (19.9 vs. 3.6 months, log rank p = 0.0003). The 1-year survival rates were 94% for responders and 11% for non-responders. A comparison with iRECIST showed reclassification in 39% (11/28) of patients with relevant additional prognostic information. Conclusions iPERCIST dual-time-point evaluation might be a powerful tool for evaluating anti-PD-1-based immunotherapy, with the ability to identify patients who can benefit most from treatment. The prognostic value of iPERCIST criteria should be confirmed in large prospective multicentric studies. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13550-019-0473-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Introduction: Platin-based chemotherapy (CT) has long been the first-line standard-of-care for patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES–SCLC). Adding immune-checkpoint inhibitor(s) to CT (ICI+CT) in this setting is an option of interest, although its benefit is apparently modest. Methods: This meta-analysis was conducted on randomized trials comparing first-line ICI+CT versus CT alone for ES–SCLC. Outcomes included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), response at 12 months and adverse events (AEs). Subgroup analyses were computed according to the immunotherapy used, performance status (PS), age, platinum salt, liver metastases and brain metastases at diagnosis. Results: The literature search identified one randomized phase II (ECOG-ACRIN-5161) and four phase III trials (CASPIAN, IMPOWER-133, KEYNOTE-604 and Reck et al. 2016) that included 2775 patients (66% males, 95% smokers, median age: 64 years, PS = 0 or 1). ICI+CT was significantly associated (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval]) with prolonged OS [0.82 (0.75–0.89); p Conclusions: First-line ICI+CT appears to be superior to CT alone for ES–SCLC except for patients with brain metastases at diagnosis.

Resume Objectif de l’etude Les ressources humaines, materielles et financieres etant limitees, l’organisation du systeme de soins doit permettre une allocation des ressources efficiente. La prise en charge des cancers amene a des soins specifiques et repetitifs pour lesquels le remboursement des frais de transports represente un cout important. Nous avons realise une analyse du surcout de transport, lies a la prise en charge des patients franciliens, dans un centre autre, que le centre de radiotherapie le plus proche de leur domicile. Materiel et methodes A partir de donnees de l’Agence regionale de sante d’Ile-de-France, nous avons cree un modele evaluant le surcout lie aux transports engendres par la prise en charge d’un patient en radiotherapie a distance de son domicile. Afin de prendre en compte les incertitudes lies aux hypotheses faites dans l’elaboration du modele nous avons realises des analyses de sensibilite deterministe et probabiliste. Resultats Dans le cas de base, le surcout annuel lie au transport etait de 841 176 euros en Ile-de-France. L’analyse de sensibilite probabiliste rapporte un surcout total annuel de 2 817 481 euros. Conclusion Nos resultats se rapprochent d’un rapport de l’Inspection generale des affaires sociales publie en juillet 2011 qui pointait alors un surcout compris entre 4 et 6 millions d’euros annuels. La prise en charge a distance de leur domicile des patients atteints de cancer participe a une degradation de la qualite de vie liee aux temps de transport, a un retard a la prise en charge de potentielles complications des traitements et a la diffusion de maladies infectieuses, telle que le COVID-19, et de bacteries resistantes aux antibiotiques.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have been validated as an effective new treatment strategy in several tumoral types including lung cancer. This remarkable shift in the therapeutic paradigm is in large part due to the duration of responses and long-term survival seen with ICI. However, despite this, the majority of cancer patients do not experience benefit from ICI. Even among patients who initially respond to ICI, disease progression may ultimately occur. Moreover, in some patients, these drugs may be associated with new patterns of progression such as pseudo-progression and hyper-progressive disease, and different toxicity profiles with immune-related adverse events. Therefore, the identification of predictive biomarkers may help to select those patients most likely to obtain a true benefit from these drugs, and avoid exposure to potential toxicity in patients who will not obtain clinical benefit, while also reducing the economic impact. In this review, we summarize current and promising potential predictive biomarkers of ICI in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), as well as pitfalls encountered with their use and areas of focus to optimize their routine clinical implementation.

Background Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICPi) rechallenge could represent an attractive option in non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), yet no sufficient data supporting this strategy are available. This retrospective observational multicenter national study explored the efficacy of anti–programmed cell death 1 (PD-1)/programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) rechallenge in advanced NSCLC patients, looking for potential clinical features associated with greater outcomes. Patients and Methods We retrospectively collected data from 144 advanced NSCLC patients whose disease was rechallenged with ICPis after ≥ 12 weeks of discontinuation. The progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated from first or second ICPi initiation to disease progression (PFS1 and PFSR, respectively), death, or last follow-up (OS1, OSR), respectively. Results The median (interquartile range) age was 63 (58-70) years. Most patients were male (67%) and smokers (87%). Most had adenocarcinomas (62%) and/or stage IV disease at diagnosis (66%). The best response at rechallenge was not associated with that under the first ICPi (P = 1.10−1). The median (95% confidence interval) PFS1 and PFSR were 13 (10-16.5) and 4.4 (3-6.5) months, respectively. The median (95% confidence interval) OS1 and OSR were 3.3 (2.9-3.9) and 1.5 (1.0-2.1) years, respectively. Longer PFSR and OSR were found in patients discontinuing first ICPi because of toxicity or clinical decision, those not receiving systemic treatment between the two ICPis, and those with good Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status at rechallenge. Only performance status proved to affect outcomes at multivariate analysis. Conclusion Patients discontinuing first ICPi because of toxicity or clinical decision, those able to maintain a treatment-free period, and those with good performance status may be potential candidates for rechallenge.

International audience; Lymphoepithelioma-like carcinoma of the lung (LELC) is a rare, Epstein-Barr virus-associated tumor. LELC occurs mostly in young, Asian nonsmokers. A few hundred cases have been reported, mostly from retrospective Asian studies. Optimal treatment has not been clearly established. Treatment options are based on surgery for early stage and on cisplatin-based chemotherapy as first-line therapy for metastatic disease. Prognosis may seem better than for other types of nonesmall-cell lung cancer, but it remains poor in advanced disease, with a median survival of 24 months, and new treatments options are still warranted. Immunotherapies are now key players in the treatment of non esmall-cell lung cancer. However, few data are available for this rare histologic subgroup. We have reviewed the available data on LELC with a focus on the first few cases reported with a response to a programmed cell death 1 inhibitor.

Introduction: Patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) experience leptomeningeal metastases (LM) in 3-9% of cases. Because overall survival (OS) and performance status are very poor, they are mostly excluded from clinical trials. Here, we evaluated survival of patients with NSCLC having LM treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs).Methods: A prospectively collected list of patients with advanced NSCLC treated with ICIs between November 2012 and July 2018 in 7 European centres was merged. All patients with LM before ICI start were selected, data were retrospectively added and patients were classified according to the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) LM prognostic classification (good/poor). Progression-free survival (PFS) and OS on ICIs were evaluated.Results: Nineteen of 1288 (1.5%) patients had LM; 73.7% had synchronous brain metastases; 73.7% had neurological symptoms at the start of ICIs and 52.6% were in the NCCN LM good prognosis group. Programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression was known for 42.1% of patients (87.5% positive). Median follow-up was 13 months from the start of ICIs, and median (95% confidence interval [CI]) PFS on ICIs was 2.0 (1.8-2.2) months. Six-month PFS rate was 21.0% and was significantly higher in the NCCN good versus poor prognostic group: 40% vs 0% (p = 0.05). Twelve-month PFS rate was 0%. Median (95% CI) OS from the start of ICIs was 3.7 (0.9-6.6) months. Six-month OS rate was 36.8%, and 12-month OS rate was 21.1%; both were not statistically significantly different for the good versus poor NCCN prognostic group (p = 0.40 and p = 0.56, respectively).Conclusion: Some patients with NSCLC having LM do benefit from ICI treatment; specifically, those in the NCCN LM good prognosis group can obtain a long survival. (C) 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Anti-PD1 immunotherapies have become an essential treatment for bronchial cancer. According to published studies, PD1 and PD-L1 inhibitors have a better toxicity profile than chemotherapy. Nevertheless, some immune related toxicities can be potentially severe, such as induced interstitial lung disease (ILD). Currently, ILD patients are excluded from clinical trials using immunotherapy in lung cancer. IPF is the most frequent and severe form of ILD. Lung cancer represents a major complication of this disease and to date few data exist on the safety of immunotherapy in this context. We report 3 cases of IPF with lung cancer treated by nivolumab. All had a clinically mild to moderate IPF. The patients had received at least one line of chemotherapy before nivolumab and had progressive, metastatic lung cancer. Two patients experienced rapid cancer progression without immune toxicities. The third had a partial response but developed grade III immune colitis that led to discontinuation of the treatment. None developed lung toxicity or worsening of IPF on CT during follow-up, and death was always related to progression of the cancer. In our series of three patients with IPF, nivolumab was well tolerated with regard to their pulmonary condition. As inflammation and autoimmunity are probably marginal mechanisms in the pathogenesis of IPF, we do not believe that the presence of IPF should definitely disqualify potential candidates for treatment with nivolumab. Decisions should be taken, case-by-case, in selected patients without severe IPF and with no evidence of autoimmunity. In view of the epidemiology of lung cancer in IPF and the critical role of immunotherapy in the management of lung cancer, studies of prospective cohorts are urgently needed in this population.

9025 Background: KRAS comprise the most frequently found oncogene driver mutation in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), accounting for 20-25% of these patients. Single-agent Anti PD-(L)1 clinical efficacy against KRAS mutant NSCLC is a topic of debate. Methods: This meta-analysis examined randomized-trial data comparing first-or second line Anti PD-(L)1 +/- chemotherapy (CT) vs CT alone for KRAS mutant advanced NSCLCs. Outcome measures included overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Analyses were computed using the Cochrane method of collaboration for meta-analyses, with Review Manager software (RevMan version 5.3; Oxford, UK). Results: We analyzed 3 trials in first line (IMPOWER-150, KEYNOTE-189 and KEYNOTE-042), as well as 3 trials in second line (OAK, POPLAR and CHECKMATE-057) including 1313 NSCLCs (386 KRAS mutant and 927 KRAS wild-type tumor). Anti PD-(L)1 +/- CT was significantly associated (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval]) with prolonged OS (0.59 [0.49-0.72]; p < 0.00001) and PFS (0.58 [0.43-0.78]; p = 0.0003) compared to CT alone in KRAS mutant NSCLCs. Survival benefits occured in both first and second line. Survival benefits observed in KRAS wild-type NSCLCs were (0.87 [0.76-0.99]; p = 0.03) and (0.79 [0.56-1.11]; p = 0.17) respectively. OS benefit in KRAS mutant was significantly superior compared to OS benefit in KRAS wild-type (p = 0,001). Conclusions: Anti PD-(L)1 (+/- CT) appears superior to CT alone both for mutant and wild-type KRAS in advanced NSCLCs for OS and PFS with higher magnitude of benefit in KRAS mutated group for OS.

Simple Summary Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are now a cornerstone of treatment for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Despite reporting tremendous results for some patients, ICI efficacy remains reserved to a subgroup that is not yet fully characterized. Tissue based assays, such as Programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-L1) expression may enrich the responder population, but this biomarker is not always available or reliable, as responses have been observed in patients with negative PD-L1. Blood markers are hoped to be easier to access and follow, and to give an insight on patient’s immune status and tumor as well. To date, several papers have been looking for circulating biomarkers that are focused on tumor cells or host specific or general immunity in NSCLC treated with ICI. In this article, we review these circulating biomarkers in peculiar circulating immune cell, tumor related cell and soluble systemic marker. We describe the available data and comment on the technical requirements and limits of these promising techniques. Abstract Immune checkpoint inhibitors are now a cornerstone of treatment for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Tissue-based assays, such as Programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-L1) expression or mismatch repair deficiency/microsatellite instability (MMRD/MSI) status, are approved as treatment drivers in various settings, and represent the main field of research in biomarkers for immunotherapy. Nonetheless, responses have been observed in patients with negative PD-L1 or low tumor mutational burden. Some aspects of biomarker use remain poorly understood and sub-optimal, in particular tumoral heterogeneity, time-evolving sampling, and the ability to detect patients who are unlikely to respond. Moreover, tumor biopsies offer little insight into the host’s immune status. Circulating biomarkers offer an alternative non-invasive solution to address these pitfalls. Here, we summarize current knowledge on circulating biomarkers while using liquid biopsies in patients with lung cancer who receive treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors, in terms of their potential as being predictive of outcome as well as their role in monitoring ongoing treatment. We address host biomarkers, notably circulating immune cells and soluble systemic immune and inflammatory markers, and also review tumor markers, including blood-based tumor mutational burden, circulating tumor cells, and circulating tumor DNA. Technical requirements are discussed along with the current limitations that are associated with these promising biomarkers.

Background: We aimed to assess the clinical utility of a previously published score combining the total metabolic tumor volume (TMTV) on baseline FDG-PET/CT and pretreatment derived from the neutrophils to lymphocytes ratio (dNLR) for prognostication in NSCLC patients undergoing first-line immunotherapy (IT). Methods: In this multicenter retrospective study, 63 advanced NSCLC patients with a PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) &ge, 50%, who underwent FDG-PET/CT before first-line IT, treated from January 2017 to September 2019, were enrolled. Associations between this score and the progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), disease control rate (DCR), and overall response rate (ORR) were evaluated. Results: The median (m) PFS and mOS were 7.7 (95% CI 4.9&ndash, 10.6) and 12.1 (8.6&ndash, 15.6) months, respectively, and DCR and ORR were 65% and 58%, respectively. mOS was 17.9 months (14.6 not reached) for the good group versus 13.8 (95%CI 8.4&ndash, 18.9) and 6.6 (CI 2.0&ndash, 11.2) months for the intermediate and poor groups, respectively. mPFS was 15.1 (95%CI 12.1&ndash, 20.0) months for the good group versus 5.2 (1.9&ndash, 8.5) and 1.9 (95%CI 1.3&ndash, 2.5) months for the intermediate and poor groups, respectively. The poor prognosis group was associated with DCR and ORR (p &lt, 0.05). Conclusions: The metabolic score combining TMTV on the baseline FDG-PET/CT scan and pretreatment dNLR was associated with the survival and response in a cohort of advanced NSCLC patients with &ge, 50% PD-L1 receiving frontline IT.

9569 Background: Erlotinib is indicated in first line treatment for patients with Non-Small-Cell-Lung cancer (NSCLC) harbouring EGFR mutation. Addition of anti-VEGF in combination with erlotinib in this setting is controversial. Methods: We performed a meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing VEGF inhibitor plus erlotinib with erlotinib alone in first line treatment for advanced NSCLC harbouring EGFR mutation. The outcomes included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) objective response rate (ORR), and median duration of response (DOR). A fixed-effect model was used. Results: Four studies evaluated bevacizumab + erlotinib (ARTEMIS, NEJ026, J025667, Stinchcombe et al), and one study evaluated ramucirumab + erlotinib (RELAY). These five eligible studies included 1230 non-squamous NSCLC patients (654 with Ex19del and 568 with Leu858Arg);. Most of the patients were women (63%), Asian (85%) and non-smokers (60%), with a median age of 64 years. The combination (anti-VEGF + erlotinib) was significantly associated with improvement of PFS (hazards ratio [HR]: 0.59, 95%CI: 0.51-0.69, p < 0.00001). Improvement in PFS was seen across all subgroups analyzed. Interim analysis of OS (HR: 0.90, 95%CI; 0.68-1.19, p = 0.45) and ORR (odds ratio [OR], 1.19, 0.91-1.55, p = 0.21) were not statistically significant. DOR was statistically longer with combination (p < 0.005). Conclusions: For patients with untreated advanced NSCLC with EGFR mutation, the anti-VEGF combination with erlotinib, compared with erlotinib alone, is associated with significantly improved PFS and DOR, but mature data for OS are needed to confirm the benefit of this strategy.

Background: Nivo is the gold standard for second line treatment of advanced NSCLC. Hyper-progression (HP) is a form of early progression observed during treatment by immune checkpoint inhibitors and usually fatal which has been poorly evaluated. Aim: To determine factors associated with HP in patients with advanced NSCLC treated with nivo. Methods: Our multi-center retrospective study included all patients with advanced NSCLC receiving nivo during the French authorisation for temporary use between January and December 2015. HP was defined as progression or death occurring before any tumour evaluation or before 3 injections of nivo. Results: 263 patients were included with 14.6-months median follow-up. Median overall survival (OS) at the date of cut-off was 10.1 months [95% CI (7.7 – 13.0)]. Baseline characteristics were as follows: 65 years, 68% male, 92% smokers, 62% with adenocarcinoma histology, 28% with squamous cell carcinoma and 10% with other, 66% with PS 0-1 at nivo initiation. Fifty-one patients (19%) had progressed before receiving 3 injections of nivo and a further 51 (19%) before receiving 5. Patients who presented with more rapid progression had worse PS at nivo initiation (p=0.042), worse PS at first nivo evaluation (p Conclusion: Nearly 20% of our patients experienced HP before 3 injections of nivo resulting in worsening OS. HP needs to be further studied in order to better select patients who will truly benefit from immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Background The Lung Immune Prognostic Index (LIPI), combining the derived neutrophils/[leucocytes minus neutrophils] ratio (dNLR) and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), has been associated with survival for ICI-single agent in large cohorts of refractory advanced NSCLC. However the role of LIPI in untreated NSCLC patients has not been explored yet. We assessed the value of LIPI in the front-line setting of advanced NSCLC patients (pts) treated with ICI-single agent or in combination with chemotherapy and compared to a cohort of pts treated exclusively with chemotherapy (CT). Methods Retrospective multicenter study of pts treated in first-line ICI single agent if PD-L1 ≥50% (ICI-cohort), or in combination with chemotherapy (Combo-cohort) from 15 centers worldwide. A control cohort with pts treated with platinum-based CT (CT-cohort) was extracted from the prospective MSN study. LIPI was calculated as previously reported. We correlated pretreatment LIPI with overall survival (OS) in the 3 cohorts. Results A total of 470 pts were enrolled in the three cohorts between 2011 and 2019. Median follow-up is 13.9 months. In the ICI-cohort (N = 252), 165 (65%) were male, with median age of 67, 195 (77%) with PS ≤ 1. Based on LIPI (available for 195 pts): 81 (42%) were considered good, 86 (44%) intermediate and 28 (14%) poor group. In the combo-cohort (N = 98), 71 (72%) were male, with median age of 66, and 84 (86%) with PS ≤ 1. Based on LIPI (available for 69): 23 (33%) were good group, 34 (49%) intermediate and 12 (17%) poor group. In the CT-cohort (N = 120), no differences were observed by LIPI groups. The impact of LIPI groups in the 3 cohorts is summarized in the table. Table . 17P OS and PFS in the 3 cohorts; OS according to the LIPI groups OS ICI-cohort Combo-Cohort Chemo-cohort Median PFS 8.5m. [6.6-11.8] 9.6m. [6.7-11] 5.7m. [5.1-6.6] Median OS 21.3 m. [12.8-NR] 24.7m. [14.9-25.7] 13.8m. [9.6-15.3] LIPI good Median OS NR [17.36-NR] 25.7m. [25.6-NR] 14.4 m. [9.6-18.1] LIPI intermediate Median OS NR [9.2-NR] 16.9 m. [12.8-NR] 13.8 m. [8.5-15.8] LIPI poor Median OS 7.9m. [2.3-NR] 6.2m. [5.7-NR] 6.5 m. [6-NR] P value P = 0.01 P = 0.02 P = 0.19 NR: not reached; OS: overall survival; PFS: progression-free survival. Conclusion Pretreatment LIPI correlates with ICI survival in monotherapy and in combination with chemotherapy in front-line in advanced NSCLC pts. The correlation is not statistically significant in the chemotherapy alone group. The value of LIPI for ICI upfront should be explored in prospective clinical trials. Legal entity responsible for the study The authors. Funding Has not received any funding. Disclosure E. Auclin: Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Mundipharma; Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Sanofi Genzyme. D. Planchard: Honoraria (self), Honoraria (institution), Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: AstraZeneca; Honoraria (self), Honoraria (institution), Advisory / Consultancy: Bristol-Myers Squibb; Honoraria (self), Honoraria (institution), Advisory / Consultancy: Boehringer; Honoraria (self), Honoraria (institution), Advisory / Consultancy: Celgene; Advisory / Consultancy: Daiichi Sankyo; Honoraria (self), Honoraria (institution), Advisory / Consultancy: Eli Lilly; Honoraria (self), Honoraria (institution), Advisory / Consultancy: Merck; Honoraria (self), Honoraria (institution), Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Novartis; Honoraria (self), Honoraria (institution), Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Pfizer; Honoraria (self), Honoraria (institution), Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: prIME Oncology; Honoraria (self), Honoraria (institution), Advisory / Consultancy: Peer CME; Honoraria (self), Honoraria (institution), Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Roche. L. Hendriks: Research grant / Funding (self), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Roche; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (self): Boehringer; Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Research grant / Funding (institution): AstraZeneca; Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Bristol-Myers Squibb; Advisory / Consultancy: Lilly; Honoraria (self): Quadia. B. Besse: Honoraria (institution): AbbVie; Honoraria (institution): Amgen; Honoraria (institution): AstraZeneca; Honoraria (institution): Biogen; Honoraria (institution): Blueprint Medicines; Honoraria (institution): Bristol-Myers Squibb; Honoraria (institution): Celgene; Honoraria (institution): Eli Lilly; Honoraria (institution): GSK; Honoraria (institution): Ingnyta; Honoraria (institution): Ipsen; Honoraria (institution): Merck KGaA; Honoraria (institution): MSD; Honoraria (institution): Nektar; Honoraria (institution): Onxeo; Honoraria (institution): Pfizer; Honoraria (institution): Pharma Mar; Honoraria (institution): Sanofi; Honoraria (institution): Spectrum Pharmaceuticals; Honoraria (institution): Takeda. L. Mezquita: Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Roche diagnostics; Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Bristol-Myers Squibb; Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Tecnofarma; Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Research grant / Funding (self): AstraZeneca; Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Chugai. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer, after lung/bronchus, breast, or prostate cancer. The association between diabetes and cancer has been reported in many cohorts, with an association described in both colon cancer and rectal cancer, in both genders. Duration could be a determinant factor of the risk. The relationship between diabetes and colorectal cancer could be directly due to hyperglycemia or indirectly via hyperinsulinemia or elevated levels of IGF-1, even more as both diseases share common risk factors such as obesity. Antidiabetic treatments should be taken in account; treatment by metformin could decrease colorectal cancer risk whereas sulfonylureas or insulin seem to be associated with an increased risk. However, epidemiological studies include different biases. Indeed, implication of insulin therapy itself is uncertain. Some authors suggest that colorectal cancer screening should be proposed earlier in all patients with type 2 diabetes without current recommendations.

Nivolumab for the treatment of advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) evaluated in phase III trials showed 50% progression at first evaluation, but better overall survival (OS), suggesting regained efficacy of treatments given thereafter. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of nivolumab and of next treatment received after nivolumab progression in patients with advanced NSCLC. Our multicentre retrospective study included all patients receiving nivolumab between January and December 2015. The primary end-point was progression-free survival (PFS) of treatment given after nivolumab. The 303 patients had the following characteristics: median age 63 years, 69% males, 92% smokers, 67% performance status 0–1 and 61% adenocarcinoma. Nivolumab was given as second-line treatment in 40% of patients. With 13.7 months of median follow-up, nivolumab PFS and OS were 2.6 and 11.3 months, respectively. At the cut-off analysis 18% were controlled under nivolumab, 14% were deceased and 5% were lost to follow-up under nivolumab. Among the 191 (63%) patients eligible for post-nivolumab (PN) treatment, 115 (38%) received further treatment and were characterised by better performance status (p=0.028) and by receiving more injections of nivolumab (p=0.001). Global PN-OS and PN-PFS were 5.2 and 2.8 months, respectively. Drugs most frequently used after nivolumab were gemcitabine (23%), docetaxel (22%) and erlotinib (16%), with median PFS of 2.8, 2.7 and 2.0 months, respectively. Nivolumab produced similar efficacy as in phase III trials, although patients received nivolumab later and had worse performance status. 38% received treatment after nivolumab progression with efficacy comparable to historical second-line trials., Efficacy of nivolumab in nonsmall cell lung cancer http://ow.ly/k2uX30iGZbY

9107 Background: HPD was described in 13.8% of NSCLC pts upon single-agent IO and correlated with high metastatic burden and poor prognosis. Other progression (PD) patterns as FP and ED within 12 weeks have been reported respectively in 4.7% and 5.6% of atezolizumab treated NSCLC pts. Whether FP/ED and HPD are different or overlapping patterns is currently unknown. Methods: We analyzed FP, ED and HPD in a multicentric (8 centers) retrospective cohort of IO treated NSCLC pts (11/2012-04/2017). Eligibility criteria required 2 CT scans before and one after IO start. HPD was defined as RECIST v 1.1 PD at first CT scan and a variation per month of tumor growth rate (TGR upon IO – TGR before IO) > 50%. ED was defined as deaths due to disease PD within 12 wks of IO start. FP was defined as ≥ 50% increase in the sum of long diameters within 6 weeks (wks) from baseline. The associations between PD patterns and pts’ characteristics were performed using Fisher or t-student tests. Median overall survival (mOS) was estimated by Kaplan-Meier method and compared by log-rank test. Results: Out of 406 NSCLC pts, 46% were ≥65 years, 72% had non-squamous NSCLC, > 90% received single agent IO in ≥2 line. 56 (13.8%) were HPD by TGR analysis. Among 72 pts (18%) who performed a CT scan within 6 wks after IO start, 6 (8.3%) were FP. These 6 FP pts were also classified as HPD by TGR analysis, while the other 50 (89%) of 56 HPD pts were not FP. The rate of PD in ≥ 3 sites (54% vs 0%, p = 0.002), the rate of liver PD (62% vs 5%, p = 0.002), the baseline tumor burden (BTB) (mean 176± 26 mm vs 55 ± 6 mm, p < 0.0001) and the TGR upon IO (mean 439± 119% vs 216 ± 41%, p = 0.03) were significantly higher in FP pts compared to HPD pts who were not FP. At 4.4 months of median follow-up, FP pts had significantly worse mOS compared to HPD pts not FP [0.7 months (95% CI 0.6,0.8) vs 1.6 months (95% CI 1.1, 2.1); p = 0.02]. Of 406 IO treated pts, 46 (11%) were ED within 12 wks, and 21 (46%) of ED pts had also HPD by TGR analysis. Conclusions: FP and ED are not a surrogate of HPD. FP occurs in a small subgroup (11%) of HPD and correlates with more aggressive features (PD in ≥3 sites, liver-PD, high BTB, high TGR upon IO) and worse OS. ED within 12 wks overlapped with HPD for only 46% of pts.

Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is an aggressive malignancy distinct from non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in its metastatic potential and treatment response. Using an integrative proteomic and transcriptomic analysis, we investigated molecular differences contributing to the distinct clinical behavior of SCLCs and NSCLCs. SCLCs showed lower levels of several receptor tyrosine kinases and decreased activation of phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K) and Ras/mitogen-activated protein (MAP)/extracellular signal–regulated kinase (ERK) kinase (MEK) pathways but significantly increased levels of E2F1-regulated factors including enhancer of zeste homolog 2 (EZH2), thymidylate synthase, apoptosis mediators, and DNA repair proteins. In addition, PARP1, a DNA repair protein and E2F1 co-activator, was highly expressed at the mRNA and protein levels in SCLCs. SCLC growth was inhibited by PARP1 and EZH2 knockdown. Furthermore, SCLC was significantly more sensitive to PARP inhibitors than were NSCLCs, and PARP inhibition downregulated key components of the DNA repair machinery and enhanced the efficacy of chemotherapy. Significance: SCLC is a highly lethal cancer with a 5-year survival rate of less than 10%. To date, no molecularly targeted agents have prolonged survival in patients with SCLCs. As a step toward identifying new targets, we systematically profiled SCLCs with a focus on therapeutically relevant signaling pathways. Our data reveal fundamental differences in the patterns of pathway activation in SCLCs and NSCLCs and identify several potential therapeutic targets for SCLCs, including PARP1 and EZH2. On the basis of these results, clinical studies evaluating PARP and EZH2 inhibition, together with chemotherapy or other agents, warrant further investigation. Cancer Discov; 2(9); 798–811. ©2012 AACR. Read the Commentary on this article by Rosell and Wannesson, p. 769. This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 753.

The Ras/Raf/Mek/Erk pathway is a key component of tumor progression and modulates proliferation, survival, differentiation and angiogenesis. Hyperactivation of this pathway is highly implicated in tumorigenesis especially by gain of function mutation of Kras or Braf. Mek position at the end of the pathway seems to be a promising new therapeutic target in the Kras or Braf mutated cancers. In this review, we aimed at describing the Ras/Raf/Mek/Erk pathway, the new therapeutic approaches in solid tumors and their toxicities. However, there seems to be predictives factors of tumor responses to these new agents and mechanisms of resistance that we will tend to analyse.