Search

BACKGROUND The ETOP 10-16 BOOSTER trial failed to demonstrate a progression-free survival (PFS) benefit for adding bevacizumab to osimertinib in second line. An exploratory subgroup analysis, however, suggested a PFS benefit of the combination in patients with a smoking history and prompted us to do this study. METHODS A systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the differential effect of smoking status on the benefit of adding an angiogenesis inhibitor to epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy was carried out. All relevant randomized controlled trials appearing in main oncology congresses or in PubMed as of 1 November 2021 were used according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses statement. Primarily PFS according to smoking status, and secondarily overall survival (OS) were of interest. Pooled and interaction hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated by fixed or random effects models, depending on the detected degree of heterogeneity. Bias was assessed using the revised Cochrane tool for randomized controlled trials (RoB 2). RESULTS Information by smoking was available for 1291 patients for PFS (seven studies) and 678 patients for OS (four studies). The risk of bias was low for all studies. Combination treatment significantly prolonged PFS for smokers [n = 502, HR = 0.55, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.44-0.69] but not for nonsmokers (n = 789, HR = 0.92, 95% CI: 0.66-1.27; treatment-by-smoking interaction P = 0.02). Similarly, a significant OS benefit was found for smokers (n = 271, HR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.47-0.93) but not for nonsmokers (n = 407, HR = 1.07, 95% CI: 0.82-1.42; treatment-by-smoking interaction P = 0.03). CONCLUSION In advanced EGFR-non-small-cell lung cancer patients, the addition of an angiogenesis inhibitor to EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy provides a statistically significant PFS and OS benefit in smokers, but not in non-smokers. The biological basis for this observation should be pursued and could determine whether this might be due to a specific co-mutational pattern produced by tobacco exposure.

Background: Splicing factor mutations can drive oncogenesis in different cancer types. More importantly, strategies to target splicing-dependent cancers have been developed, including PRMT5 inhibition which regulates alternative splicing and targets posttranslational modification; PRMT5 inhibitors are in ongoing phase I clinical trials. The characterization of splicing alterations in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has not been extensively studied and represents an unmet need. Methods: Based on previously known genes associated with splicing alterations, genomic and clinicopathologic data from NSCLC patients with hotspot or loss of function mutations identified by next-generation sequencing in the splicing factors SF3B1, SRSF2, U2AF1, ZRSR2, RBM10, and FUBP1 were explored. Results: Among 626 NSCLC patients with at least one splicing mutation, 85% (529/626) also harbored a co-occurring oncogenic driver, such as alterations involving KRAS (60%; 319/529), EGFR (25%;132/529), MET (5%; 27/529), BRAF(4%; 24/529), and ERBB2 (3%; 17/529). After excluding patients with concurrent drivers, 97 splicing-factor-mutant NSCLCs were identified, with 80 (82%) adenocarcinomas and 6 (6%) squamous cell carcinomas. The median age was 71 years (43-89). Forty-nine patients (51%) were female. Sixty patients (62%) were diagnosed with stage I-III disease. Eleven (11%) were never smokers, while 86 (89%) were former/current smokers, with a median of pack years of 30. The median tumor mutational burden was 7.9 mut/Mb (0.9-90.4). Regarding splicing factor mutations, sixty-two patients (64%) had nonsense or splice-site RBM10 mutations, 17 (17%) had missense hotspot SF3B1 mutations, 16 (16%) had hotspot missense U2AF1 mutations, and 7 (7%) had nonsense, splice-site, or hotspot missense FUBP1 mutation. No patients with ZRSR2 or SRSF2 were identified. Only three patients presented concurrent splicing mutations: one with two SF3B1 mutations; one with RBM10 and SF3B1 mutations; and one with U2AF1 and SF3B1 mutations. Conclusion: Most patients with splicing factor mutant NSCLCs are smokers whose cancers commonly harbor RBM10 mutations and higher TMB compared to other driver-positive cancers. The characterization of this profile is key to identifying appropriate patients for ongoing targeted therapy trials for this population. Citation Format: Guilherme Harada, Christina J. Falcon, Fernando C. Santini, Jason C. Chang, Soo R. Yang, Maria E. Arcila, Natasha Rekhtman, Alexander Drilon. Splicing factor mutant lung cancers: A comprehensive molecular and clinicopathologic characterization [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2022; 2022 Apr 8-13. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(12_Suppl):Abstract nr 868.

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors are a new standard of care for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) without EGFR tyrosine kinase or anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) genetic aberrations (EGFR−/ALK−), but clinical benefit in patients with EGFR mutations or ALK rearrangements (EGFR+/ALK+) has not been shown. We assessed the effect of durvalumab (anti-PD-L1) treatment in three cohorts of patients with NSCLC defined by EGFR/ALK status and tumour expression of PD-L1. Methods: ATLANTIC is a phase 2, open-label, single-arm trial at 139 study centres in Asia, Europe, and North America. Eligible patients had advanced NSCLC with disease progression following at least two previous systemic regimens, including platinum-based chemotherapy (and tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy if indicated); were aged 18 years or older; had a WHO performance status score of 0 or 1; and measurable disease per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1. Key exclusion criteria included mixed small-cell lung cancer and NSCLC histology; previous exposure to any anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 antibody; and any previous grade 3 or worse immune-related adverse event while receiving any immunotherapy agent. Patients in cohort 1 had EGFR+/ALK+ NSCLC with at least 25%, or less than 25%, of tumour cells with PD-L1 expression. Patients in cohorts 2 and 3 had EGFR−/ALK− NSCLC; cohort 2 included patients with at least 25%, or less than 25%, of tumour cells with PD-L1 expression, and cohort 3 included patients with at least 90% of tumour cells with PD-L1 expression. Patients received durvalumab (10 mg/kg) every 2 weeks, via intravenous infusion, for up to 12 months. Retreatment was allowed for patients who benefited but then progressed after completing 12 months. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with increased tumour expression of PD-L1 (defined as ≥25% of tumour cells in cohorts 1 and 2, and ≥90% of tumour cells in cohort 3) who achieved an objective response, assessed in patients who were evaluable for response per independent central review according to RECIST version 1.1. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of durvalumab and for whom any post-dose data were available. The trial is ongoing, but is no longer open to accrual, and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02087423. Findings: Between Feb 25, 2014, and Dec 28, 2015, 444 patients were enrolled and received durvalumab: 111 in cohort 1, 265 in cohort 2, and 68 in cohort 3. Among patients with at least 25% of tumour cells expressing PD-L1 who were evaluable for objective response per independent central review, an objective response was achieved in 9 (12·2%, 95% CI 5·7–21·8) of 74 patients in cohort 1 and 24 (16·4%, 10·8–23·5) of 146 patients in cohort 2. In cohort 3, 21 (30·9%, 20·2–43·3) of 68 patients achieved an objective response. Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 40 (9%) of 444 patients overall: six (5%) of 111 patients in cohort 1, 22 (8%) of 265 in cohort 2, and 12 (18%) of 68 in cohort 3. The most common treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events were pneumonitis (four patients [1%]), elevated gamma-glutamyltransferase (four [1%]), diarrhoea (three [1%]), infusion-related reaction (three [1%]), elevated aspartate aminotransferase (two [

INTRODUCTION: In the phase II ATLANTIC study, durvalumab provided durable responses with acceptable tolerability in heavily pretreated patients with advanced NSCLC, across three independent patient cohorts defined by EGFR/ALK status and tumour PD-L1 expression. Preliminary overall survival (OS) data were encouraging. We now report final OS and updated safety data. METHODS: Patients with advanced NSCLC with disease progression following ≥2 previous systemic regimens received durvalumab 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks. The primary endpoint was objective response rate among patients with increased PD-L1 expression (defined as ≥25 % or ≥90 % of tumour cells [TCs], cohort-dependent). Secondary endpoints included OS and safety. RESULTS: 444 patients received durvalumab: 111 in Cohort 1 (EGFR+/ALK+), 265 in Cohort 2 (EGFR-/ALK-), and 68 in Cohort 3 (EGFR-/ALK-; TC ≥ 90 %). Median (95 % CI) OS was 13.3 months (6.3-24.5) in patients with EGFR+/ALK+ NSCLC with TC ≥ 25 %, 10.9 months (8.6-13.6) in patients with EGFR-/ALK- NSCLC with TC ≥ 25 %, and 13.2 months (5.9-not reached) in patients with EGFR-/ALK- NSCLC with TC ≥ 90 %. Median (95 % CI) OS was slightly shorter in patients with TC

The global coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic continues to escalate at a rapid pace inundating medical facilities and creating substantial challenges globally. The risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in patients with cancer seems to be higher, espe- cially as they are more likely to present with an immuno- compromised condition, either from cancer itself or from the treatments they receive. A major consideration in the delivery of cancer care during the pandemic is to balance the risk of patient exposure and infection with the need to provide effective cancer treatment. Many aspects of the SARS-CoV-2 infection currently remain poorly characterized and even less is known about the course of infection in the context of a patient with cancer. As SARS-CoV-2 is highly contagious, the risk of infection directly affects the cancer patient being treated, other cancer patients in close prox- imity, and health care providers. Infection at any level for patients or providers can cause considerable disruption to even the most effective treatment plans. Lung cancer pa- tients, especially those with reduced lung function and cardiopulmonary comorbidities are more likely to have increased risk and mortality from coronavirus disease 2019 as one of its common manifestations is as an acute respi- ratory illness. The purpose of this manuscript is to present a practical multidisciplinary and international overview to assist in treatment for lung cancer patients during this pandemic, with the caveat that evidence is lacking in many areas. It is expected that firmer recommendations can be developed as more evidence becomes available. (C) 2020 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Alectinib, a highly selective inhibitor of anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK), has shown systemic and central nervous system (CNS) efficacy in the treatment of ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We investigated alectinib as compared with crizotinib in patients with previously untreated, advanced ALK-positive NSCLC, including those with asymptomatic CNS disease. In a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 303 patients with previously untreated, advanced ALK-positive NSCLC to receive either alectinib (600 mg twice daily) or crizotinib (250 mg twice daily). The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival. Secondary end points were independent review committee-assessed progression-free survival, time to CNS progression, objective response rate, and overall survival. During a median follow-up of 17.6 months (crizotinib) and 18.6 months (alectinib), an event of disease progression or death occurred in 62 of 152 patients (41%) in the alectinib group and 102 of 151 patients (68%) in the crizotinib group. The rate of investigator-assessed progression-free survival was significantly higher with alectinib than with crizotinib (12-month event-free survival rate, 68.4% [95% confidence interval (CI), 61.0 to 75.9] with alectinib vs. 48.7% [95% CI, 40.4 to 56.9] with crizotinib; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.47 [95% CI, 0.34 to 0.65]; P