Search

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have become standard treatments for lung cancer patients. Immune checkpoint inhibitor-related pneumonitis (CIP) was the leading cause of death among ICIs-related adverse events (irAEs). Recurrent episodes of CIP without rechallenge of ICIs were reported in several cases and maybe a unique feature of CIP. Knowledge gaps remain regarding the rate and risk factors associated to CIP’s recurrence. METHODS: Data from 1,102 lung cancer patients receiving ICIs treatment between January 2016 and January 2021 were retrospectively collected and analyzed. CIP was diagnosed according to typical clinical features and/or new typical imaging changes. Recurrence of CIP (CIP-R) was defined as recurrent CIP after initial CIP improved after proper treatment. Logistic regression was used to assess risk factors associated with CIP recurrence. RESULTS: Eighty out of 1,102 (7.26%) patients were diagnosed with CIP. Twenty of those 78 (25.64%) patients suffered CIP-R, 2 patients died and were therefore excluded from the denominator. The median onset of initial pneumonitis for patients without and with recurrence was 3.49 months [interquartile range (IQR), 0.26–31.93 months] and 2.78 months (IQR, 1.22–20.93 months), respectively (P=0.48). The median interval duration between initial CIP and CIP-R was 1.54 months (IQR, 0.98–16.70 months). Recurrence of CIP was more common in males (P=0.03), squamous histology (P=0.016), and in patients who received chest radiotherapy (P=0.049). The duration of prednisolone equivalent dose ≥15 mg/day in CIP-R was significantly shorter, at 3.71 weeks (2.86–6.57 weeks) compared with 6.36 weeks in those without recurrence (IQR, 3.12–9.86 weeks) (P=0.001). Non-squamous histology [odds ratio (OR), 0.182; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.038–0.860; P=0.031] and prolonged administration of prednisolone equivalent dose ≥15 mg/day for more than 4 weeks (OR, 0.082; 95% CI: 0.02–0.342; P=0.001) were independently associated with a decreased odds of CIP-R development. CONCLUSIONS: CIP-R in a real-world lung cancer cohort is not uncommon, both in patients with and without rechallenge of ICIs. A duration of prednisolone equivalent dose ≥15 mg/day of at least 4 weeks during the tapering process of corticosteroids were recommend in patients with CIP.

The Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) exon (ex) 20 insertions (ins) has been considered as an "undruggable target" for a long time, with platinum-pemetrexed combination recommended as upfront standard treatment for newly diagnosed advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. Recent preliminary data from early phase clinical trials have demonstrated that pharmacological inhibition of EGFRex20ins is possible, offering new treatment opportunities to 1-2% of advanced NSCLC patients harboring such hard-to-treat molecular alteration. Among the different drugs under clinical investigation, both amivantamab and mobocertinib have received regulatory approval in the United States, by the Food and Drugs Administration (FDA), while amivantamab has been recently approved also in Europe, for the clinical treatment of advanced NSCLC patients harboring EGFRex20ins who failed at least one prior line of systemic therapy, representing a major breakthrough in lung cancer treatment over the last year. With novel effective targeted options on the horizon, there is a renewed interest on optimizing the molecular screening of advanced NSCLC, and next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based genotyping is currently considered the gold standard approach to profile advanced NSCLC patients, as recommended by international guidelines. Herein we provide an updated overview of the most recent findings and upcoming challenges regarding both molecular detection and therapeutic management of EGFR ex20ins mutant advanced NSCLC patients.

Background: Alectinib, a highly selective next generation ALK-inhibitor, has exhibited potent anti-tumour activity in RET-rearranged NSCLC in the preclinical stage. Methods: ALERT-lung is a single-arm, phase II trial evaluating the activity of alectinib for the treatment of pretreated RET-rearranged advanced NSCLC. Alectinib was administered orally, 600 mg, twice per day until progression, refusal or unacceptable toxicity (treatment could continue beyond progression, if patient was deriving clinical benefit). Patient recruitment closed prematurely due to discouraging results for alectinib in a phase I/II study in the same indication. Results: All 14 patients who enrolled until the premature accrual closure, received at lease one dose of alectinib. Among them, median age was 61 years, majority (71 %) was female, never smokers, of ECOG PS 1. No objective response (complete or partial response) was recorded. Of the 13 evaluable patients, three (23 %) achieved and maintained disease stabilisation for 24 weeks. Up to 31 March 2021 (median follow-up 15.9 months), 12 PFS-events (92 %) were observed, with median PFS of 3.7 months (95 % C.I.: 1.8 – 7.3 months). Overall, three deaths (23 %) were reported. Seven patients (50 %) experienced grade ≥ 3 adverse events, while three discontinued treatment due to erythema multiforme of grade 3, related to alectinib. No treatment-related serious adverse event was reported. Conclusions: Accrual into our trial was terminated early in response to other reports of limited activity of alectinib in patients with RET-fusion NSCLC and the emergence of more potent selective RET-inhibitors. Also in our trial, alectinib did not show the expected potential for anti-tumour activity in NSCLC.

The development of innovative technologies and the advances in the genetics and genomics, have offered new opportunities for personalized treatment in oncology. Although the selection of the patient based on the molecular characteristics of the neoplasm has the potential to revolutionize the therapeutic scenario of oncology, this approach is extremely challenging. The access, homogeneity, and economic sustainability of the required genomic tests should be warranted in the clinical practice, as well as the specific scientific and clinical expertise for the choice of medical therapies. All these elements make essential the collaboration of different specialists within the Molecular Tumor Boards (MTBs). In this position paper, based on experts' opinion, the AIOM-SIAPEC/IAP-SIBioC-SIC-SIF-SIGU-SIRM Italian Scientific Societies critically discuss the available molecular profiling technologies, the proposed criteria for the selection of patients candidate for evaluation by the MTB, the criteria for the selection and analysis of biological samples, and the regulatory and pharmaco-economic issues.

c-Met inhibitors are a class of drugs that include nonselective and selective molecules. These drugs can differ in terms of pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties that may be clinically relevant. c-Met inhibitors with high potency and selectivity may allow achieving optimal c-Met inhibition in c-Met-driven tumors while reducing unwanted off-target toxicities due to activation of multiple kinases. Nonselective drugs can instead be considered in tumors that also recognize other drivers (e.g., ALK, ROS, VEGF). Improved understanding of the clinical pharmacokinetics of c-Met inhibitors can help avoid drug-drug interactions and optimize schedules for continuous in vivo inhibition of c-Met phosphorylation. The current review article provides a detailed overview of the clinical pharmacology of molecules used in c-Met-driven tumors.

Rat sarcoma (RAS) oncogenes have intensively been investigated during the last decades. Taking into account all human tumours, Kirsten Rat Sarcoma Viral Oncogene Homolog (KRAS) gene is the most frequently mutated (about 22%) among the three isoforms, followed by Neuroblastoma RAS Viral Oncogene Homolog (NRAS) (8%) and Harvey Rat Sarcoma Viral Oncogene Homolog (HRAS) (3%). In the last years, careful attention has been paid on KRAS and NRAS gene mutations in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and colorectal cancer (CRC) patients because of their prognostic and predictive roles. In particular, a large body of literature data has been generated investigating clinical outcomes of targeted treatments in NSCLC and CRC KRAS- and NRAS-mutated patients. The latest evidences are here reviewed, providing also an overview of the real-world RAS mutation testing practice across different Italian laboratories. On this basis, we propose a knowledge-based system, www.rasatlas.com, to support the healthcare personnel in the management of patients featuring RAS gene mutations in the landscape of precision oncology.

Since their discovery, relevant efforts have been made to optimize the detection approaches to EGFR mutations as well as the clinical management of EGFR-mutated NSCLC. The recent shift from single gene testing to novel comprehensive detection platforms along with the development of new generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors, targeting both common and uncommon EGFR-mutations, is leading to a progressive increase in the number of patients who may benefit from targeted approaches, with subsequent impact on their long-term survival and quality of life. However, a prompt and adequate implementation of the most recent diagnostic and treatment advances in the routine practice often remains critical to be specifically addressed. In this review we provide a complete and updated overview of the different detection platforms and therapeutic options currently available for the clinical management of advanced EGFR-positive NSCLC, summarizing scientific evidence and describing molecular testing as well as treatment practice in the real-word scenario.

Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) exon 20 insertions occur rarely among different cancer types, with the highest frequency reported among non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients, particularly adenocarcinomas (ADCs). Exon 20 insertions fall back in the tyrosine kinase domain, and can be clustered into two principal groups represented by in frame insertions and three to 21 bp (corresponding to 1–7 amino acids) duplications within amino acids 762 and 774. The identification of these alterations is key for an adequate management of NSCLC patients due to the possibility to treat these patients with specific targeted therapies. Next generation sequencing (NGS) technology, able to detect several hotspot gene mutations for different patients simultaneously, is the best detection approach due to its higher sensitivity and specificity compared to other techniques. Here we reviewed the principal biological characteristics, the main detection technologies and treatment options for NSCLC patients harbouring EGFR exon 20 insertions.

The identification of reliable predictive biomarkers of efficacy or resistance to immune-oncology (I–O) agents is a major issue for translational research and clinical practice. However, along with PDL1 and molecular features other clinical, radiological and laboratory factors can be considered for the selection of those patients who would not be the best candidate for immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICPIs). We examined these factors, emerging from the results of currently available studies in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), aiming to provide a useful and manageable tool which can help Oncologists in their everyday clinical practice. A thorough patient evaluation and close clinical monitoring, due to limited, early or inconclusive currently available data, should be deserved for patients with a pre-existing symptomatic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, age >75 years, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) ≥ 1, a time to progression (TTP) < three months and progressive disease (PD) as the best response to the previous treatment, hepatitis or HIV-infections, high neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR), or on treatment with high-dose steroids, when the use of ICPIs is considered. Limited data are available to consider that ICPIs are safe in patients with interstitial lung disease, bronchiolitis obliterans organizing pneumonia and autommune diseases. Early evidence on steroids, vaccinations and antibiotics suggest their possible interaction with ICPIs and need to be more investigated in clinical trials. Oncogene-addicted NSCLC harboring EGFR-mutations and low tumor-infiltrating T-lymphocytes (TILs) seems not to gain benefit from I–O.

This pooled analysis aims at evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of circulating tumor (ct) DNA for the detection of EGFR-T790M mutation in NSCLC patients who progressed after EGFR-TKIs. Data from all published studies, reporting both sensitivity and specificity of plasma-based EGFR-T790M mutation testing by ctDNA were collected by searching in PubMed, Cochrane Library, American Society of Clinical Oncology, European Society of Medical Oncology and World Conference of Lung Cancer meeting proceedings. A total of twenty-one studies, with 1639 patients, were eligible. The pooled sensitivity of ctDNA analysis was 0.67 (95% CI: 0.64–0.70) and the pooled specificity was 0.80 (95% CI: 0.77–0.83). The pooled positive predictive value (PPV) was 0.85 (95% CI: 0.82–0.87) and the pooled negative predictive value (NPV) was 0.60 (95% CI: 0.56–0.63). The positive likelihood ratio (PLR) and negative likelihood ratio (NLR) were 2.67 (95% CI: 1.86–3.82) and 0.46 (95% CI: 0.38–0.54), respectively. The pooled diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) was 7.27 (4.39–12.05) and the area under the curve (AUC) of the summary receiver operating characteristics (sROC) curve was 0.77. The ctDNA analysis represents a promising, non-invasive approach to detect and monitor the T790M mutation status in NSCLC patients. Development of standardized methodologies and clinical validation are recommended.

Background: We investigated whether early dynamic changes of circulating free (cfDNA) levels as well as the neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR) could predict nivolumab effectiveness in pretreated patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods: A total of 45 patients receiving nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks were enrolled. Patients underwent a computed tomography scan and responses were evaluated by the response evaluation criteria in solid tumors. Peripheral blood samples were obtained from the patients and the cfDNA level as well as the NLR were assessed. Time to progression (TTP) and overall survival (OS) were determined. Results: Patients with increased cfDNA >20% at the sixth week reported significantly worse survival outcomes (median OS: 5.7 versus 14.2 months, p < 0.001; median TTP: 3.3 versus 10.2 months, p < 0.001), as well as patients with increased NLR >20% (median OS: 8.7 versus 14.6 months, p = 0.035; median TTP: 5.2 versus 10.3 months, p = 0.039). The combined increase of cfDNA and NLR >20% was associated with significantly worse survival outcomes as compared with the remained population (median OS: 5.8 versus 15.5 months, p = 0.012; median TTP: 3.2 versus 11.9 months, p = 0.028). Multivariable analysis identified three significant factors associated with worse OS: combined cfDNA/NLR increase >20% [hazard ratio (HR): 5.16; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.09–24.29; p = 0.038], liver metastasis (HR: 0.44; 95% CI, 0.20–0.96; p = 0.038), and extra-thoracic disease (HR: 0.33; 95% CI, 0.12–0.89; p = 0.029). Conclusion: An early combined increase of both cfDNA and NLR over the course of the first 6 weeks of nivolumab therapy predicted worse survival in pretreated patients with advanced NSCLC, suggesting a potential role in the real-time monitoring of immunotherapy resistance.

Immune-checkpoint inhibitors represent the new standard of care in patients with advanced NSCLC who progressed after first-line treatment. This work aim to assess any difference in both efficacy and safety profiles among Nivolumab, Pembrolizumab and Atezolizumab in pre-treated NSCLC patients. Randomized clinical trials comparing immune-checkpoint inhibitor versus docetaxel in pre-treated patients with advanced NSCLC were included and direct comparison meta-analysis of selected trials have been performed. Subsequently the summary estimates of Nivolumab, Pembrolizumab and Atezolizumab emerging from the direct meta-analysis were selected to provide the pooled estimates of hazard ratio (HR) and relative risk (RR) for the indirect comparisons among these agents. A total of 5 studies met the selection criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. Indirect comparisons for efficacy outcomes showed the RR for ORR nivolumab versus atezolizumab 1.66 (95% CI 1.07−2.58), pembrolizumab versus atezolizumab 1.94 (95% CI 1.30−2.90). No significant differences in both PFS and OS have been observed. Indirect comparisons for safety showed the RR for G3-5 AEs nivolumab versus pembrolizumab 0.41 (95% CI 0.29−0.60), nivolumab versus atezolizumab 0.50 (95% CI 0.35−0.72). No significant differences in both pneumonitis and discontinuation rate have been observed. The results of this work revealed that nivolumab and pembrolizumab are associated with a significant increase of ORR as compared to atezolizumab and nivolumab is associated with a significant lower incidence of G3-5 AEs as compared to the other drugs. These evidences could support the oncologists to select the best drug for each patient.

// Silvia Vecchiarelli 1, * , Francesco Passiglia 2, * , Armida D’Incecco 3, * , Marianna Gallo 4 , Antonella De Luca 4 , Elisa Rossi 5 , Federica D’Inca 1 , Gabriele Minuti 1 , Lorenza Landi 1 , Chiara Bennati 1 , Michela Spreafico 1 , Manolo D’Arcangelo 1 , Valentina Mazza 1 , Nicola Normanno 4 and Federico Cappuzzo 1 1 Department of Oncology and Hematology, AUSL della Romagna, Ravenna, Italy 2 Department of Surgical, Oncological and Stomatological Disciplines, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy 3 Medical Oncology and Immunotherapy, University Hospital of Siena, Siena, Italy 4 Cell Biology and Biotherapy Unit, Istituto Nazionale Tumori "Fondazione G Pascale"-IRCCS, Naples, Italy 5 Fondazione Ricerca Traslazionale, Rome, Italy * These authors contributed equally to this work Correspondence to: Federico Cappuzzo, email: federico.cappuzzo@auslromagna.it Keywords: PD-L1; immunotherapy; biomarkers; non-small-cell lung cancer Received: November 28, 2017 Accepted: February 27, 2018 Published: April 03, 2018 ABSTRACT Background: This study aimed at investigating feasibility of programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) testing in plasma samples of advanced NSCLC patients receiving first-line treatment, assessing whether circulating (c)PD-L1 levels were modified by the therapy and whether baseline cPD-L1 levels were associated with patients’ clinical responses and survival outcome. Methods: Peripheral blood samples were collected from 16 healthy volunteers and 56 newly diagnosed NSCLC patients before and at 12th week during the course of first-line therapy. The level of PD-L1 was measured in plasma samples using the human (PD-L1/CD274) ELISA kit (CUSABIO, MD, USA). The Mann Whitney test or Fisher’s test were used for comparisons. Survival analysis was performed using Kaplan Meyer method, providing median and p -value. Results: Baseline median cPD-L1 was 42.21 pg/ml (range 12.00-143.49) in NSCLC patients and 37.81 pg/ml (range 9.73-90.21) in healthy control cohort ( p = 0.78). Median cPD-L1 increased in patients treated with first-line chemotherapy (63.20 pg/ml vs 39.34 pg/ml; p = 0.002), with no changes in patients exposed to non-chemotherapy drugs (42.39 pg/ml vs 50.67 pg/ml; p = 0.398). Time to progression and overall survival were 4.4 vs 6.9 months ( p = 0.062) and 8.8 vs 9.3 months ( p = 0.216) in cPD-L1 positive vs cPD-L1 negative patients. Baseline cPD-L1 levels increased with the ascending number of metastatic sites, even if the association was not statistically significant ( p = 0.063). Conclusions: This study showed that cPD-L1 testing is feasible, with chemotherapy influencing PD-L1 plasma levels. The possibility of using such test for predicting or monitoring the effect of immunotherapy or combination of chemotherapy and immunotherapy warrant further investigations.

Introduction: The introduction of monoclonal antibodies (moAbs) into clinical practice revolutionized the treatment strategies in several solid tumors. These agents differ from cytotoxic chemotherapy for their mechanism of action and toxicity. By targeting specific antigens present on healthy cells and modulating immune system activity, these biological drugs are able to generate a wide spectrum of peculiar adverse events that can negatively impact on patients' quality of life. Areas covered: In this review, the main side effects associated with the use of moAbs have been described to show their incidence and current management strategies, which may drive clinicians in their daily practice. Expert opinion: The majority of these drugs represents an example of successful innovation, since they are able to induce a significant improvement of patients' survival and quality of life without any increase in related side effects as compared to standard cancer treatments. For this reason, they have become new milestones in personalized therapy for different non-hematological malignancies. With the increasing use of moAbs in treatment regimens, it is strongly recommended that clinicians are knowledgeable about the side effects associated with these agents, their management and monitoring, to optimize the clinical treatment of cancer patients.

Tumor angiogenesis is one of the main pathways targeted to treat cancer. Bevacizumab added survival benefit when combined with platinum-based chemotherapy in NSCLC. Recently, Phase III trials showed survival benefit when anti-angiogenic drugs are added to docetaxel as second-line treatment for NSCLC. These anti-angiogenic agents include nintedanib and ramucirumab, a tyrosine-kinase inhibitor and a monoclonal antibody, respectively, which target receptors involved in angiogenesis. These studies have some similarities and differences. We propose a new algorithm for treatment sequences in performance status 0-1 patients with non-oncogene-addicted NSCLC type adenocarcinoma. Indeed clearer scientific evidences are available for this subgroup of patients.

Two new drugs, the CYP17 inhibitor abiraterone acetate and the androgen receptor (AR) antagonist enzalutamide, have recently shown to prolong OS prior chemotherapy or in docetaxel treated mCRPC patients, using steroidal therapy or placebo as control group. Updated analyses underlined the role of these new agents on two prostate-specific endpoints as radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) and time to first skeletal-related event (tSRE). On the basis of these reports, we made an indirect comparison between abiraterone and enzalutamide. We obtained a clinically but not significant difference favouring enzalutamide over abiraterone in terms of rPFS (HR 0.48, 95% CI 0.22–1.02). No significant difference was shown in term of tSRE (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.83–1.17). In conclusion, abiraterone and enzalutamide have both demonstrated to significantly delay the bone progression resulting in similar improvements in bone-related endpoints in patients with mCRPC.

In The Journal of Clinical Oncology , William J. Magnuson (1) and colleagues have recently reported the results of a multicenter retrospective analysis comparing the impact of three different treatment strategies on survival outcomes of 351 patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and brain metastases (BM). Treatment options included stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) followed by EGFR-TKI (n=100), whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) followed by EGFR-TKI (n=120), or EGFR-TKI followed by SRS or WBRT at the time of intracranial progression (n=131). Results showed a significantly longer median overall survival (OS) in patients who received upfront SRS (46 months) as compared to WBRT (30 months) or upfront TKI (25 months) (P EGFR mutation, and extracranial metastases, which were included in the multivariable analysis. The upfront use of radiotherapy resulted also in a significantly longer median time to intracranial progression (23 vs . 18 months; P=0.025) and 2-year OS rate (78% vs . 51%; P

Lung cancer is rich in molecular complexities and driven by different abnormal molecular pathways. Personalised medicine has begun to bring new hope for the treatment of patients with lung cancer, especially non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The development of molecularly targeted therapy (small molecules and monoclonal antibodies) has significantly improved outcomes in the metastatic setting for patients with NSCLC whose tumours harbour activated oncogenes such as epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and translocated genes like anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK). In addition, immune checkpoint inhibitors have also dramatically changed the therapeutic landscape of NSCLC. In particular, monoclonal antibodies targeting the programmed death-1 receptor (PD-1) /PD ligand 1 (PD-L1) pathway have emerged as powerful new therapeutic tools in several clinical trials, and some of them are already approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and American Medical Association (AMA). Immunotherapy is a novel type of treatment that has been tested in patients with metastatic NSCLC. Two anti-PD-1 drugs (nivolumab and pembrolizumab) and one anti-PD-L1 drug (atezolizumab) have been approved as monotherapy for second-line treatment for NSCLC. Recent trials in first-line treatment of advanced or metastatic NSCLC with nivolumab and pembrolizumab have shown promising and also controversial results. The FDA has approved pembrolizumab as a first-line treatment for patients with NSCLC whose tumours express PD-L1 in more than 50% cells based on Keynote-024 trial.1 This high PD-L1 presence is only observed on about 30% of patients with NSCLC, limiting the use of the newly approved drug in less than one-third newly diagnosed patients. The results of nivolumab activity, in Checkmate-26 study, compared with chemotherapy were disappointing.2 We are still trying to understand the possible reasons for the disappointing progression-free survival (PFS) data and trying to find out how to improve survival with first-line immunotherapy. Either combination with chemotherapy, …

In The Journal of Clinical Oncology , Ying Cheng and colleagues (1) have recently reported the results of a phase II randomized trial comparing pemetrexed plus gefitinib vs. gefitinib in treatment-naive, East Asian patients, with advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and activating epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations. The study met its primary end-point in the intent-to-treat population, showing a significantly longer median progression free survival (PFS) in favors of the combination arm (15.8 months) compared to single agent arm (10.9 months) [hazard ratio (HR): 0.68; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.96; one-sided P=0.014; two-sided P=0.029].