Search

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have revolutionized cancer treatment but can trigger immune-related encephalitis. We report one of the largest case series of patients with immune-related encephalitis and review of the literature., Methods: Retrospective series of patients with immune-related encephalitis and literature review., Results: Fourteen patients with cancer treated with ICI (50% combination therapy) developed immune-related encephalitis. Diagnostic testing revealed cerebral spinal fluid (CSF) lymphocytic pleocytosis (85%) and elevated protein (69%), abnormal brain magnetic resonance imaging(MRI) (33%) or brain FDG-PET (25%), electroencephalogram (EEG) abnormalities (30%), and autoantibodies (31%). Encephalitis treatment included: corticosteroids (86%), intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) (36%), plasmapheresis (7%), and rituximab (29%). There were no deaths and 12 patients had significant recovery, although long-term complications were observed. All patients discontinued ICI. Longitudinal follow-up demonstrated anti-cancer response to ICI at 3 months (85%) and 6 months post-ICI initiation (77%). A literature review identified 132 patients with immune-related encephalitis. Most were treated with PD-1 inhibitors (18% combination). Common abnormalities included elevated CSF protein (84%) or pleocytosis (77%), abnormal brain MRI (65%), or autoantibodies (47%). Nearly all were treated with corticosteroids, many required additional therapy with IVIg (26%) or rituximab (12%). Most patients had clinical improvement (81%) but a minority (10%) had a clinical relapse after completing corticosteroid taper. ICIs were resumed in 7 patients (5%), with relapse in 3., Conclusions and Relevance: Immune-related encephalitis is treatable and improves with corticosteroids in most cases but may require additional immunosuppression. Re-emergence of encephalitis is rare and does not typically result in adverse outcomes, and this should be considered in neurological immune-related adverse event management guidelines., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Background: Despite surgical resection, long-term survival of patients with resectable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) remains poor. Adjuvant chemotherapy, the standard of care for locally advanced NSCLC, provides a marginal 5.4% benefit in survival. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have shown a significant survival benefit in some patients with advanced NSCLC and are being evaluated for perioperative use in resectable NSCLC., Methods: We conducted a literature search using the PubMed online database to identify clinical trials of immunotherapy in resectable NSCLC and studies analyzing biomarkers and immune priming strategies., Results: Building on previous phase I and II trials, randomized phase III trials have shown efficacy of neoadjuvant nivolumab, perioperative pembrolizumab, adjuvant atezolizumab, and adjuvant pembrolizumab in the treatment of NSCLC with improvement of event-free/disease-free survival of 24% to 42%, leading to United States Food and Drug Administration approval of these drugs in the treatment of resectable NSCLC. Three additional phase III trials have also recently reported the use of immunotherapy both before and after surgery, with pathologic complete response rates of 17% to 25%, significantly better than chemotherapy alone. Perioperative ICI therapy has comparable perioperative morbidity to chemotherapy alone and does not impair surgical outcomes., Conclusions: Perioperative immunotherapy, in combination with chemotherapy, is safe and improves outcomes in patients with resectable NSCLC. Questions regarding patient selection, the need for adjuvant ICI therapy after neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy, and the duration of perioperative immunotherapy remain to be answered by future trials., (Copyright © 2024 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Controversy remains as to whether pathologic complete response (pCR) and major pathologic response (MPR) represent surrogate end points for event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) in neoadjuvant trials for resectable NSCLC., Methods: A search of PubMed and archives of international conference abstracts was performed from June 2017 through October 31, 2023. Studies incorporating a neoadjuvant arm with immune checkpoint blockade alone or in combination with chemotherapy were included. Those not providing information regarding pCR, MPR, EFS, or OS were excluded. For trial-level surrogacy, log ORs for pCR and MPR and log hazard ratios for EFS and OS were analyzed using a linear regression model weighted by sample size. The regression coefficient and R 2 with 95% confidence interval were calculated by the bootstrapping approach., Results: Seven randomized clinical trials were identified for a total of 2385 patients. At the patient level, the R 2 of pCR and MPR with 2-year EFS were 0.82 (0.66-0.94) and 0.81 (0.63-0.93), respectively. The OR of 2-year EFS rates by response status was 0.12 (0.07-0.19) and 0.11 (0.05-0.22), respectively. For the 2-year OS, the R 2 of pCR and MPR were 0.55 (0.09-0.98) and 0.52 (0.10-0.96), respectively. At the trial level, the R 2 for the association of OR for response and HR for EFS was 0.58 (0.00-0.97) and 0.61 (0.00-0.97), respectively., Conclusions: Our analyses reveal a robust correlation between pCR and MPR with 2-year EFS but not OS. Trial-level surrogacy was moderate but imprecise. More mature follow-up and data to assess the impact of study crossover are needed., Competing Interests: Disclosure Drs. Hines and Cameron were supported by the National Institute for General Medical Sciences (T32 GM07019). Dr. Bestvina reports receiving institutional research funding from AstraZeneca and Bristol Myers Squibb; and advisory board membership/consulting for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, CVS, Daiichi Sankyo, EMD Serono, Gilead, JNJ, Mirati, Novocure, Regeneron, Sanofi, Takeda, and Tempus. Dr. Garassino reports receiving personal financial support from AstraZeneca, Abion, Merck Sharp & DohmeInternational GmbH, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim Italia S.p.A, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Takeda, Seattle Genetics, Mirati, Daiichi Sankyo, Regeneron, Merck, Blueprint, Janssen, Sanofi, AbbVie, BeiGenius, Oncohost, and Medscape; received institutional financial support from Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer (MISP), AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme International GmbH, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim Italia S.p.A, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Ignyta, Incyte, MedImmune, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Takeda, Tiziana, Foundation Medicine, GlaxoSmithKline, and Spectrum pharmaceuticals; received other forms of support from AIRC, AIFA, Italian Moh, and Transcan; and received research funding from Horizon 2020. Dr. Veronesi has received honoraria from Ab Medica Spa, AstraZeneca, Roche, and Merck Sharp & Dohme outside the submitted work. Dr. Cascone reports receiving speaker fees/honoraria from ASCO Post, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Clinical Care Options, IDEOlogy Health, Mark Foundation for Cancer Research, Medscape, OncLive, PeerView, Physicians’ Education Resource, Roche, and Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer; has advisory role/consulting fees from Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech, Merck & Co., Pfizer, and Regeneron; and received institutional research funding from AstraZeneca and Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr. Taube reports having an advisory role or have received consulting fees from Akoya Biosciences, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck & Co., Genentech, Lunaphore, Compugen, Elephas, and Regeneron; received institutional research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb and Akoya Biosciences; and received reagents and equipment loan and has stock options from Akoya Biosciences. The remaining authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Advances in the multidisciplinary care of early stage resectable NSCLC (rNSCLC) are emerging at an unprecedented pace. Numerous phase 3 trials produced results that have transformed patient outcomes for the better, yet these findings also require important modifications to the patient treatment journey trajectory and reorganization of care pathways. Perhaps, most notably, the need for multispecialty collaboration for this patient population has never been greater. These rapid advances have inevitably left us with important gaps in knowledge for which definitive answers will only become available in several years. To this end, the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer commissioned a diverse multidisciplinary international expert panel to evaluate the current landscape and provide diagnostic, staging, and therapeutic recommendations for patients with rNSCLC, with particular emphasis on patients with American Joint Committee on Cancer-Union for International Cancer Control TNM eighth edition stages II and III disease. Using a team-based approach, we generated 19 recommendations, of which all but one achieved greater than 85% consensus among panel members. A public voting process was initiated, which successfully validated and provided qualitative nuance to our recommendations. Highlights include the following: (1) the critical importance of a multidisciplinary approach to the evaluation of patients with rNSCLC driven by shared clinical decision-making of a multispecialty team of expert providers; (2) biomarker testing for rNSCLC; (3) a preference for neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy for stage III rNSCLC; (4) equipoise regarding the optimal management of patients with stage II between upfront surgery followed by adjuvant therapy and neoadjuvant or perioperative strategies; and (5) the robust preference for adjuvant targeted therapy for patients with rNSCLC and sensitizing EGFR and ALK tumor alterations. Our primary goals were to provide practical recommendations sensitive to the global differences in biology and resources for patients with rNSCLC and to provide expert consensus guidance tailored to the individualized patient needs, goals, and preferences in their cancer care journey as these are areas where physicians must make daily clinical decisions in the absence of definitive data. These recommendations will continue to evolve as the treatment landscape for rNSCLC expands and more knowledge is acquired on the best therapeutic approach in specific patient and disease subgroups., Competing Interests: Disclosure Dr. Spicer reports receiving grants or contracts from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Amgen, Roche, Regeneron, and Pfizer; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Daiichi Sankyo, and Merck Sharp & Dohme; honoraria from AstraZeneca, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Pfizer; meeting support from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Merck Sharp & Dohme; data safety monitoring board for AstraZeneca; and receipt of other services from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Merck Sharp & Dohme, outside the submitted work. Dr. Cascone reports receiving speaker fees and/or honoraria from the American Society for Clinical Oncology Post, AstraZeneca, Bio Ascend, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Clinical Care Options, IDEOlogy Health, Medical Educator Consortium, Medscape, OncLive, PEAK Medical, PeerView, Physicians' Education Resource, Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer, and Targeted Oncology; advisory role/consulting fees from Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Mark Foundation for Cancer Research, Merck, oNKo-innate, Pfizer, RAPT Therapeutics, and Regeneron; and institutional research funding from AstraZeneca and Bristol-Myers Squibb, outside the submitted work. Dr.Ahn reports receiving consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Alpha Pharmaceuticals, Genxin, and Pfizer; and honoraria from Takeda, Roche, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Boronoi, Arcus, Daiichi Sankyo, Bayer, and Janssen, outside the submitted work. Dr.Dacic reports receiving consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Genentech, and Medscape, outside the submitted work. Dr. Felip reports receiving consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Genmab, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Peptomyc, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Takeda, Turning Point, and Daiichi Sankyo; honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Genentech, Janssen, Medical Trends, Medscape, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, PeerVoice, Pfizer, Sanofi, Takeda, and Touch Oncology; travel support from AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Roche; and other from Grifols as an independent member of the board, outside the submitted work. Dr. Forde reports receiving grants or contracts from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Regeneron, and BioNTech; consulting fees from Ascendis, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Curevac, Novartis, Regeneron, G1, Genlux, Genentech, Gritstone, Merck, Janssen, F Star, Sanofi, Amgen, Fosun, Teva, Synthekine, Flame, Iteos, and Tavotek. Dr. Higgins reports receiving grants or contracts from Jazz Pharmaceuticals, RefleXion Medicalx; consulting fees from AstraZeneca and Janssen; positions on the NRG Oncology Board of Directors and RTOG Foundation Board of Directors; and stock or stock options in Picture Health. Dr. Kris reports receiving grant or contracts from BerGenBio, Merus, AstraZeneca, Mirati, Pfizer, Janssen, Sanofi, and Novartis; honoraria from Pfizer and AstraZeneca; and personal fees from AstraZeneca and Roche/Genentech, outside the submitted work. Dr. Mitsudomi reports receiving grants or contracts from Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Chugai, Pfizer, Ono, Daiichi Sankyo, and Eli Lilly; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Chugai, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Thermo Fisher, Roche Diagnostics, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Ono Pharmaceuticals, Taiho, Takeda, Janssen, Daiichi Sankyo, and Regeneron; honoraria from AstraZeneca, Chugai, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Taiho, Eli Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, Thermo Fisher, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Ono Pharmaceuticals, Invitae, Guardant, Novartis, Amgen, Merck biopharma, and Kyorin; data safety monitoring board for Taiho Pharmaceutical, outside the submitted work. Dr. Provencio reports receiving grants or contracts from Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Roche, Janssen, and Takeda; consulting fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Takeda; honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Takeda, Roche, AstraZeneca, and Merck Sharp & Dohme; and meeting attendance support from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, and Bristol-Myers Squibb, outside the submitted work. Dr. Senan reports receiving grants or contracts from AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Bristol-Myers Squibb; consulting fees from AstraZeneca and Bristol-Myers Squibb; honoraria from AstraZeneca; advisory board participation for AstraZeneca and Merck Sharp & Dohme; and membership on ETOP scientific committee, outside the submitted work. Dr. Solomon reports receiving travel support from IASLC to attend meeting related to manuscript; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lily, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, and Amgen; honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Roche, and GlaxoSmithKline; unpaid leadership roles at the IASLC, Thoracic Oncology Group of Australasia, and Cancer Council of Victoria. Dr. Tsao reports receiving travel support from IASLC to attend meeting related to manuscript; grants or contracts from AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Lily; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Amgen, AbbVie, Regeneron, Sanofi, Daiichi Sankyo, and Lily; honoraria from AbbVie and Sanofi; and board of directors for IASLC. Dr. Tsuboi reports receiving grant from AstraZeneca KK, Ono Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Bristol-Myers Squibb KK, Novartis Japan, BMG KK, MiRXES, and Johnson & Johnson Japan; honoraria from Amgen KK, Johnson & Johnson Japan, AstraZeneca KK, Eli Lilly Japan, Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Taiho Pharma, Medtronic Japan, Ono Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Merck Sharp & Dohme KK, Bristol-Myers Squibb KK, Daiichi Sanko KK, and Novalis; advisory committee participation for Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., and AstraZeneca KK; and Board of Directors for Japan Lung Cancer Society (JLCS), Bronchology Committee Chair for JLCS, and Educational Committee working group chair for IASLC, outside the submitted work. Dr. Wakelee reports receiving grants or contracts from ACEA Biosciences, Arrys Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Clovis Oncology, Genentech/Roche, Merck, Novartis, SeaGen, Xcovery, and Helsinn; advisory board participation for AstraZeneca, Blueprint, Mirati, Merck, and Genentech/Roche; and leadership positions on the IASLC Board of Directors and ECOG-ACRIN executive committee. Dr. Wu reports receiving grants and contracts form AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Henqrui, and Roche; honoraria from AstraZeneca, Beigene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi; and unpaid leadership role for Chinese Thoracic Oncology Group. Dr. Yang reports receiving personal fees and other from Amgen, Bayer Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Merck KGaA, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Roche/Genentech, Takeda Oncology, and Yuhan Pharmaceuticals; grants, personal fees, and other from AstraZeneca; other from Eli Lilly; personal fees from Ono Pharmaceuticals and Pfizer; and other from JNJ, Puma Technology, Gilead, and GlaxoSmithKline, outside the submitted work. Dr. Zhou reports receiving consulting fees from Innovent Biologics, Hengrui, Qila, and TopAlliance Biosciences; honoraria from Lily China, Sanofi, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Qilu, Hengrui, Innovent Biologics, Alice, C-Stone, LUYE Pharma, TopAlliance Biosciences, Amoy Diagnostics, and AnHeart. Dr. Kelly reports receiving grants from AstraZeneca, during the conduct of the study; grants and personal fees from Genentech and Bristol-Myers Squibb; and personal fees from AstraZeneca, outside the submitted work. The remaining authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Up to 20% of EGFR-mutated NSCLC cases harbor uncommon EGFR mutations, including atypical exon 19 and compound mutations. Relatively little is known about the efficacy of osimertinib in these cases., Methods: Patients treated with first-line osimertinib for NSCLC with rare EGFR exon 19 (non E746_A750del) or compound mutations were included. Response assessment and time to progression were determined using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 criteria. Kaplan-Meier analyses were used to estimate progression-free survival (PFS), time to treatment discontinuation (TTD), and overall survival (OS)., Results: Thirty-seven patients with NSCLC harboring an atypical EGFR exon 19 mutation or compound mutation were treated with first-line osimertinib at Johns Hopkins from 2016 to 2021. Overall response rate (ORR) was 76% and median PFS, TTD, and OS were 13 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 10-15), 22 months (95% CI: 17-32) and 36 months (95% CI, 29-48), respectively. Among atypical exon 19 mutations (n = 25), ORR was 80%, median PFS was 12 months (95% CI: 10-15), median TTD was 19 months (95% CI: 17-38), and median OS was 48 months (95% CI: 25-not reached). Compound mutations (n = 12) had an ORR of 67%, median PFS of 14 months (95% CI: 5-22), median TTD of 26 months (95% CI: 5-36), and median OS of 36 months (95% CI: 20-46). Twelve patients (32%) continued first-line osimertinib after local therapy for oligoprogression., Conclusions: Osimertinib exhibited favorable outcomes for rare EGFR exon 19 and compound mutations. The heterogeneity in outcomes among these groups of tumors with similar mutations underscores the need for continued reporting and further study of outcomes among rare variants to optimize management for each patient., Competing Interests: Dr. Houseknecht has been consulting for AstraZeneca, Aptar Pharma, and has stock ownership with Pfizer. Dr. Feliciano has received research funding direct to the institution from 10.13039/100004325AstraZeneca, 10.13039/100004319Pfizer, 10.13039/100002491Bristol Myers Squibb and was consulting for Regeneron, AstraZeneca, Coherus, Eli Lilly, Genentech, Takeda, Jansen, Daiichi Sankyo. Dr. Hann has received research funding direct to the institution from AstraZeneca, Amgen, Daiichi, Bristol Meyers Squibb, AbbVie; and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Puma BioTechnology, Daiichi, Janssen and Bristol Meyers Squibb. Dr. Lam was consulting for Iovance Biotherapeutics, Anheart Therapeutics, Takeda, Seattle Genetics, Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, and Guardant Health; and has received research funding direct to the institution from GlaxoSmithKline, Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Merck and Seattle Genetics. Dr. Levy has received personal fees from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Genentech, Pfizer, Guardant 360, Takeda, Bristol Meyers Squibb, Novocure, Janssen, Daiichi Sankyo, Merck. Dr. Murray has received personal fees from Regeneron, Johnson & Johnson. Dr. Brahmer has received personal fees from 10.13039/100004337Roche, grants and personal fees from Bristol Meyers Squibb, grants from 10.13039/100004334Merck, personal fees from 10.13039/100009857Regeneron, grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from 10.13039/100002429Amgen, personal fees from Summit, personal fees from Mestag, grants and personal fees from RAPT therapeutics, personal fees from 10.13039/100004330GlaxoSmithKline, and personal fees from Sanofi.Dr.Forde has received research funding direct to the institution from AstraZeneca, BMS, Novartis, Regeneron, BioNTech; consulting fees from Ascendis, AstraZeneca, BMS, Curevac, Novartis, Regeneron, G1, Genelux, Genentech, Gritstone, Merck, Janssen, F Star, Sanofi, Amgen, Fosun, Teva, Synthekine, Flame, Iteos, Tavotek, Teva; and has DSMB membership for Polaris. Dr. Marrone has been consulting for AstraZeneca, Amgen, Janssen, Mirati Therapeutics, Daiichi Sankyo/Lilly and Puma Biotechnology; and has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, research funding direct to the institution from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Mirati Therapeutics. Dr. Scott has received research funding direct to the institution from Mirati and Janssen; and has been consulting for AstraZeneca, Foundation Medicine, Genentech, Regeneron, and Tempus. The remaining authors declare no conflict of interest., (© 2024 The Authors.)

Importance: To date, no meta-analyses have comprehensively assessed the association of neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy with clinical outcomes in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in randomized and nonrandomized settings. In addition, there exists controversy concerning the efficacy of neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy for patients with NSCLC with programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 (PD-L1) levels less than 1%., Objective: To compare neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy with chemotherapy by adverse events and surgical, pathological, and efficacy outcomes using recently published randomized clinical trials and nonrandomized trials., Data Sources: MEDLINE and Embase were systematically searched from January 1, 2013, to October 25, 2023, for all clinical trials of neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy and chemotherapy that included at least 10 patients., Study Selection: Observational studies and trials reporting the use of neoadjuvant radiotherapy, including chemoradiotherapy, molecular targeted therapy, or immunotherapy monotherapy, were excluded., Main Outcomes and Measures: Surgical, pathological, and efficacy end points and adverse events were pooled using a random-effects meta-analysis., Results: Among 43 eligible trials comprising 5431 patients (4020 males [74.0%]; median age range, 55-70 years), there were 8 randomized clinical trials with 3387 patients. For randomized clinical trials, pooled overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.54-0.79; I2 = 0%), event-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.52-0.67; I2 = 14.9%), major pathological response (risk ratio, 3.42; 95% CI, 2.83-4.15; I2 = 31.2%), and complete pathological response (risk ratio, 5.52; 95% CI, 4.25-7.15; I2 = 27.4%) favored neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy over neoadjuvant chemotherapy. For patients with baseline tumor PD-L1 levels less than 1%, there was a significant benefit in event-free survival for neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy compared with chemotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.62-0.89; I2 = 0%)., Conclusion and Relevance: This study found that neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy was superior to neoadjuvant chemotherapy across surgical, pathological, and efficacy outcomes. These findings suggest that patients with resectable NSCLC with tumor PD-L1 levels less than 1% may have an event-free survival benefit with neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy.

Importance: Despite a growing population of survivors of lung cancer, there is limited understanding of the survivorship journey. Survivors of lung cancer experience unmet physical, social, emotional, and medical needs regardless of stage at diagnosis or treatment modalities., Objective: To investigate the association of unmet needs with quality of life (QOL) and financial toxicity (FT) among survivors of lung cancer., Design, Setting, and Participants: This survey study was conducted at Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center thoracic oncology clinics between December 1, 2020, and September 30, 2021, to assess needs (physical, social, emotional, and medical), QOL, and FT among survivors of lung cancer. Patients had non-small cell lung cancer of any stage and were alive longer than 1 year from diagnosis. A cross-sectional survey was administered, which consisted of an adapted needs survey developed by the Mayo Survey Research Center, the Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity measure, and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 QOL scale. Demographic and clinical information was obtained through retrospective medical record review. Data analysis was performed between May 9 and December 8, 2022., Main Outcomes and Measures: Separate multiple linear regression models, treating QOL and FT as dependent variables, were performed to assess the adjusted association of total number of unmet needs and type of unmet need (physical, emotional, social, or medical) with QOL and FT., Results: Of the 360 survivors of lung cancer approached, 232 completed the survey and were included in this study. These 232 respondents had a median age of 69 (IQR, 60.5-75.0) years. Most respondents were women (144 [62.1%]), were married (165 [71.1%]), and had stage III or IV lung cancer (140 [60.3%]). Race and ethnicity was reported as Black (33 [14.2%]), White (172 [74.1%]), or other race or ethnicity (27 [11.6%]). A higher number of total unmet needs was associated with lower QOL (β [SE], -1.37 [0.18]; P < .001) and higher FT (β [SE], -0.33 [0.45]; P < .001). In the context of needs domains, greater unmet physical needs (β [SE], -1.24 [0.54]; P = .02), social needs (β [SE], -3.60 [1.34]; P = .01), and medical needs (β [SE], -2.66 [0.98]; P = .01) were associated with lower QOL, whereas only greater social needs was associated with higher FT (β [SE], -3.40 [0.53]; P < .001)., Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this survey study suggest that among survivors of lung cancer, unmet needs were associated with lower QOL and higher FT. Future studies evaluating targeted interventions to address these unmet needs may improve QOL and FT among survivors of lung cancer.

While tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) have shown remarkable efficacy in anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) fusion-positive advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), clinical outcomes vary and acquired resistance remains a significant challenge. We conducted a retrospective study of patients with ALK-positive NSCLC who had clinico-genomic data independently collected from two academic institutions (n = 309). This was paired with a large-scale genomic cohort of patients with ALK-positive NSCLC who underwent liquid biopsies (n = 1,118). Somatic co-mutations in TP53 and loss-of-function alterations in CDKN2A/B were most commonly identified (24.1% and 22.5%, respectively in the clinical cohort), each of which was independently associated with inferior overall survival (HR: 2.58; 95% confidence interval, CI: 1.62-4.09 and HR: 1.93; 95% CI: 1.17-3.17, respectively). Tumors harboring EML4-ALK variant 3 (v3) were not associated with specific co-alterations but were more likely to develop ALK resistance mutations, particularly G1202R and I1171N (OR: 4.11; P < 0.001 and OR: 2.94; P = 0.026, respectively), and had inferior progression-free survival on first-line TKI (HR: 1.52; 95% CI: 1.03-2.25). Non-v3 tumors were associated with L1196M resistance mutation (OR: 4.63; P < 0.001). EML4-ALK v3 and somatic co-alterations in TP53 and CDKN2A/B are associated with inferior clinical outcomes. v3 status is also associated with specific patterns of clinically important ALK resistance mutations. These tumor-intrinsic features may inform rational selection and optimization of first-line and consolidative therapy., Significance: In a large-scale, contemporary cohort of patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC, we evaluated molecular characteristics and their impact on acquired resistance mutations and clinical outcomes. Our findings that certain ALK variants and co-mutations are associated with differential survival and specific TKI-relevant resistance patterns highlight potential molecular underpinnings of the heterogenous response to ALK TKIs and nominate biomarkers that may inform patient selection for first-line and consolidative therapies., (© 2024 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

For patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) tumors without currently targetable molecular alterations, standard-of-care treatment is immunotherapy with anti-PD-(L)1 checkpoint inhibitors, alone or with platinum-doublet therapy. However, not all patients derive durable benefit and resistance to immune checkpoint blockade is common. Understanding mechanisms of resistance-which can include defects in DNA damage response and repair pathways, alterations or functional mutations in STK11/LKB1, alterations in antigen-presentation pathways, and immunosuppressive cellular subsets within the tumor microenvironment-and developing effective therapies to overcome them, remains an unmet need. Here the phase 2 umbrella HUDSON study evaluated rational combination regimens for advanced NSCLC following failure of anti-PD-(L)1-containing immunotherapy and platinum-doublet therapy. A total of 268 patients received durvalumab (anti-PD-L1 monoclonal antibody)-ceralasertib (ATR kinase inhibitor), durvalumab-olaparib (PARP inhibitor), durvalumab-danvatirsen (STAT3 antisense oligonucleotide) or durvalumab-oleclumab (anti-CD73 monoclonal antibody). Greatest clinical benefit was observed with durvalumab-ceralasertib; objective response rate (primary outcome) was 13.9% (11/79) versus 2.6% (5/189) with other regimens, pooled, median progression-free survival (secondary outcome) was 5.8 (80% confidence interval 4.6-7.4) versus 2.7 (1.8-2.8) months, and median overall survival (secondary outcome) was 17.4 (14.1-20.3) versus 9.4 (7.5-10.6) months. Benefit with durvalumab-ceralasertib was consistent across known immunotherapy-refractory subgroups. In ATM-altered patients hypothesized to harbor vulnerability to ATR inhibition, objective response rate was 26.1% (6/23) and median progression-free survival/median overall survival were 8.4/22.8 months. Durvalumab-ceralasertib safety/tolerability profile was manageable. Biomarker analyses suggested that anti-PD-L1/ATR inhibition induced immune changes that reinvigorated antitumor immunity. Durvalumab-ceralasertib is under further investigation in immunotherapy-refractory NSCLC.ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03334617., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Purpose: Although immunotherapy is the mainstay of therapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), robust biomarkers of clinical response are lacking. The heterogeneity of clinical responses together with the limited value of radiographic response assessments to timely and accurately predict therapeutic effect-especially in the setting of stable disease-calls for the development of molecularly informed real-time minimally invasive approaches. In addition to capturing tumor regression, liquid biopsies may be informative in capturing immune-related adverse events (irAE)., Experimental Design: We investigated longitudinal changes in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in patients with metastatic NSCLC who received immunotherapy-based regimens. Using ctDNA targeted error-correction sequencing together with matched sequencing of white blood cells and tumor tissue, we tracked serial changes in cell-free tumor load (cfTL) and determined molecular response. Peripheral T-cell repertoire dynamics were serially assessed and evaluated together with plasma protein expression profiles., Results: Molecular response, defined as complete clearance of cfTL, was significantly associated with progression-free (log-rank P = 0.0003) and overall survival (log-rank P = 0.01) and was particularly informative in capturing differential survival outcomes among patients with radiographically stable disease. For patients who developed irAEs, on-treatment peripheral blood T-cell repertoire reshaping, assessed by significant T-cell receptor (TCR) clonotypic expansions and regressions, was identified on average 5 months prior to clinical diagnosis of an irAE., Conclusions: Molecular responses assist with the interpretation of heterogeneous clinical responses, especially for patients with stable disease. Our complementary assessment of the peripheral tumor and immune compartments provides an approach for monitoring of clinical benefits and irAEs during immunotherapy., (©2023 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

Neoadjuvant immunotherapy plus chemotherapy improves event-free survival (EFS) and pathologic complete response (0% residual viable tumor (RVT) in primary tumor (PT) and lymph nodes (LNs)), and is approved for treatment of resectable lung cancer. Pathologic response assessment after neoadjuvant therapy is the potential analog to radiographic response for advanced disease. However, %RVT thresholds beyond pathologic complete response and major pathologic response (≤10% RVT) have not been explored. Pathologic response was prospectively assessed in the randomized, phase 3 CheckMate 816 trial (NCT02998528), which evaluated neoadjuvant nivolumab (anti-programmed death protein 1) plus chemotherapy in patients with resectable lung cancer. RVT, regression and necrosis were quantified (0-100%) in PT and LNs using a pan-tumor scoring system and tested for association with EFS in a prespecified exploratory analysis. Regardless of LN involvement, EFS improved with 0% versus >0% RVT-PT (hazard ratio = 0.18). RVT-PT predicted EFS for nivolumab plus chemotherapy (area under the curve = 0.74); 2-year EFS rates were 90%, 60%, 57% and 39% for patients with 0-5%, >5-30%, >30-80% and >80% RVT, respectively. Each 1% RVT associated with a 0.017 hazard ratio increase for EFS. Combining pathologic response from PT and LNs helped differentiate outcomes. When compared with radiographic response and circulating tumor DNA clearance, %RVT best approximated EFS. These findings support pathologic response as an emerging survival surrogate. Further assessment of the full spectrum of %RVT in lung cancer and other tumor types is warranted. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT02998528 ., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Brain metastasis (BRM) is uncommon in gastroesophageal cancer. As such, clinicopathologic and molecular determinants of BRM and impact on clinical outcome remain incompletely understood., Methods: We retrospectively analyzed clinicopathologic data from advanced esophageal/gastroesophageal junction (E/GEJ) patients at Johns Hopkins from 2003 to 2021. We investigated the association between several clinical and molecular features and the occurrence of BRM, with particular focus on human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) overexpression. Survival outcomes and time to BRM onset were also evaluated., Results: We included 515 patients with advanced E/GEJ cancer. Tumors were 78.3% esophageal primary, 82.9% adenocarcinoma, 31.0% HER2 positive. Cumulative incidence of BRM in the overall cohort and within HER2+ subgroup was 13.8% and 24.3%, respectively. HER2 overexpression was associated with increased risk of BRM [odds ratio 2.45; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.10-5.46]. On initial presentation with BRM, 50.7% had a solitary brain lesion and 11.3% were asymptomatic. HER2+ status was associated with longer median time to onset of BRM (14.0 versus 6.3 months, P < 0.01), improved median progression free survival on first-line systemic therapy (hazard ratio 0.35, 95% CI 0.16-0.80), and improved median overall survival (hazard ratio 0.20, 95% CI 0.08-0.54) in patients with BRM., Conclusion: HER2 overexpression identifies a gastroesophageal cancer molecular subtype that is significantly associated with increased risk of BRM, though with later onset of BRM and improved survival likely reflecting the impact of central nervous system-penetrant HER2-directed therapy. The prevalence of asymptomatic and solitary brain lesions suggests that brain surveillance for HER2+ patients warrants prospective investigation., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

The use of neoadjuvant or perioperative anti-PD(L)1 was recently tested in multiple clinical trials. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials comparing neoadjuvant or perioperative chemoimmunotherapy to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in resectable NSCLC. Nine reports from 6 studies were included. Receipt of surgery was more frequent in the experimental arm (odds ratio, OR 1.39) as was pCR (OR 7.60). EFS was improved in the experimental arm (hazard ratio, HR 0.55) regardless of stage, histology, PD-L1 expression (PD-L1 negative, HR 0.74) and smoking exposure (never smokers, HR 0.67), as was OS (HR 0.67). Grade > = 3 treatment-related adverse events were more frequent in the experimental arm (OR 1.22). The experimental treatment improved surgical outcomes, pCR rates, EFS and OS in stage II-IIIB, EGFR/ALK negative resectable NSCLC; confirmatory evidence is warranted for stage IIIB tumours and with higher maturity of the OS endpoint., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: DM: none. FTG: none. SP: none. MADC: none. AT: none. RG: none. AJG: none. MR: none. MV: none. EM: none. RT: none. FLC: none. LL: none. PN: none. NP: none. MO: sub-investigator in KEYNOTE-671. MB: none. PMF: consultant for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo Company, F-Star, G1 Therapeutics, Genentech, Iteos, Janssen Global Services LLC, Merck, Novartis, SANOFI PASTEUR INC, Surface Oncology; grant/contract (to institution) from AstraZeneca, BioNTech, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Corvus, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, LUNGevity Foundation, Mark Foundation, NCI Cancer Center Support Grant, Novartis, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Stand Up To Cancer; gift (research funding) from Bloomberg Philantropies, Earl & Darielle Linehan, Martha Furman, Susan Troll. SVL: advisory board/consultant for Abbvie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Catalyst, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Elevation Oncology, Genentech/Roche, Gilead, Guardant Health, Janssen, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Merus, Mirati, Novartis, Regeneron, Sanofi, Takeda, Turning Point Therapeutics; research grant (to institution) from Alkermes, Elevation Oncology, Genentech, Gilead, Merck, Merus, Nuvalent, RAPT, Turning Point Therapeutics; data safety monitoring board for Candel Therapeutics. AB: none. SN: consultant for Thermo Fisher Scientific; grant/contract (to institution) from Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene Switzerland GmbH, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly and Company, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, PFIZER CANADA INC, SANOFI PASTEUR INC, Takeda Oncology; speaker bureau from AstraZeneca, BeiGene Switzerland GmbH, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Takeda Oncology. GC: none. EC: none. FF: none. FC: personal fees from Roche/Genentech, AstraZeneca, Takeda, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Lilly, and Bayer. DS: Advisory Board role and speaker honoraria with Astra Zeneca, MSD, BMS, Astellas, Janssenn, EISAI, Merck, Pfizer, Bayer, Novartis, Astra Zeneca, Lilly., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) has improved outcomes for patients with advanced non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC). Building off of this, it has been hypothesized that the utilization of ICB early during the disease course may be advantageous, particularly in the neoadjuvant setting prior to definitive surgical resection. Preclinical studies have suggested that a more potent immune response may be induced by neoadjuvant ICB in the presence of a higher antigen burden and intact tumor draining lymph nodes. Recent clinical trials evaluating neoadjuvant ICB with or without chemotherapy combinations in patients with resectable NSCLC led to improved pathological responses and longer event-free survival when neoadjuvant ICB was added to chemotherapy. Surgical outcomes were also supportive of this approach, with encouraging rates of pathological downstaging. Additionally, the availability of pre-treatment biopsy samples and post-treatment surgical resection tissues facilitates the conducting of correlative studies that continue to improve our understanding of the mechanisms of response and resistance to ICB. As long-term survival outcomes from ongoing clinical trials are awaited, several important questions require further investigation, including the optimal duration of neoadjuvant therapy, the clinical endpoints most predictive of long-term outcomes, and translational studies that should be investigated in future trial designs. Additionally, the optimal clinical management of patients with residual disease at the time of surgical resection and those who experience recurrence remains to be determined. In this review, we will (1) discuss the rationale behind neoadjuvant ICB-based therapy in NSCLC, (2) summarize the clinical data available thus far, and (3) highlight unanswered questions that need to be addressed in future studies to maximize the clinical benefits of this approach., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.)

Neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy improves pathologic complete response rate and event-free survival in patients with resectable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) versus chemotherapy alone. NeoCOAST was the first randomized, multidrug platform trial to examine novel neoadjuvant immuno-oncology combinations for patients with resectable NSCLC, using major pathologic response (MPR) rate as the primary endpoint. Eighty-three patients received a single cycle of treatment: 26 received durvalumab (anti-PD-L1) monotherapy, 21 received durvalumab plus oleclumab (anti-CD73), 20 received durvalumab plus monalizumab (anti-NKG2A), and 16 received durvalumab plus danvatirsen (anti-STAT3 antisense oligonucleotide). MPR rates were higher for patients in the combination arms versus durvalumab alone. Safety profiles for the combinations were similar to those of durvalumab alone. Multiplatform immune profiling suggested that improved MPR rates in the durvalumab plus oleclumab and durvalumab plus monalizumab arms were associated with enhanced effector immune infiltration of tumors, interferon responses and markers of tertiary lymphoid structure formation, and systemic functional immune cell activation., Significance: A neoadjuvant platform trial can rapidly generate clinical and translational data using candidate surrogate endpoints like MPR. In NeoCOAST, patients with resectable NSCLC had improved MPR rates after durvalumab plus oleclumab or monalizumab versus durvalumab alone and tumoral transcriptomic signatures indicative of augmented immune cell activation and function. See related commentary by Cooper and Yu, p. 2306. This article is featured in Selected Articles from This Issue, p. 2293., (©2023 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

Purpose: Concomitant autoimmune rheumatic diseases (ARD) can add morbidity and complicate treatment decisions for patients with lung cancer. We evaluated the tumour characteristics at diagnosis and clinical outcomes in lung cancer patients with or without ARD., Methods: This retrospective cohort study included 10 963 patients with lung cancer, treated at Johns Hopkins. Clinical data including tumour characteristics and outcomes were extracted from the cancer registry. Data on patients' history of 20 ARD were extracted from the electronic medical record. Logistic regression was used to compare tumour characteristics between those with and without ARD; Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazards models were performed to compare survival outcomes., Results: ARD was present in 3.6% of patients (n=454). The mean age at diagnosis was 69 (SD 10) and 68 (SD 12) in patients with and without ARD (p=0.02). Female sex and smoking history were significantly associated with a history of ARD (OR: 1.75, OR: 1.46, p<0.05). Patients with ARD were more likely to be diagnosed with stage 1 lung cancer (36.8% vs 26.9%, p<0.001) and with smaller tumour size (OR: 0.76, p=0.01), controlling for sex, race and histology. Notably, lung cancer patients with ARD had a significantly prolonged median overall survival (OS) (7.11 years vs 1.7 years, p<0.001), independent of stage., Conclusion: Patients with ARD and lung cancer had better OS compared with their counterparts, independent of cancer stage and treatments and were less likely to have advanced stage lung cancer at diagnosis. Additional studies are needed to investigate the differential immunological anti-tumour immune activity and genomic variations in patients with and without ARD., Competing Interests: Competing interests: PG has no disclosures. JCM is a consultant/advisory: Regeneron, Johnson & Johnson, Doximity. JCM receives research funding to Merck. KAM has research funding from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Mirati and is a consultant and serves on the advisory boards for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Regeneron. SCS is a consultant for Amgen, Genentech, Foundation Medicine. JLF is a consultant to Eli Lilly, Astra Zeneca, Genentech, Takeda, Regeneron, Coherus, Jansen, Merck and Bristol-Myers Squibb. JLF receives research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Astra Zeneca, Pfizer. VKL is a consultant to Seattle Genetics, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Guardant Health, Takeda and Anheart Therapeutics. VKL receives funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Seattle Genetics and Astra Zeneca. CLH is a consultant to Amgen and AstraZeneca. CLH receives research funding from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca and Bristol-Myers Squibb. DSE is an advisor to Beyond Spring and Chair of the NCCN NSCLC Guideline. BPL is a consultant and on the advisory board for AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Genentech, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Guardant 360, Mirati, Amgen, Foundation one. PMF receives research funding from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Corvus, Kyowa, Novartis, Regeneron. PMF is a consultant to Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi, F-Star, G1, Genentech, Janssen, Iteos, Merck, Sanofi, Novartis, Surface. PMF is a DSMB member for Polaris. AAS obtains research funding from Arena Pharmaceuticals, Medpace, Eicos Sciences, Kadmon Corporation. CM is a consultant for Boehringer Ingelheim and Department of Justice Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. JB has research funding from AstraZeneca and Bristol-Myers Squibb, consulting for AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Genentech/Roche, Eli Lilly, Amgen, Bluprint, Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, Regneron and Sanofi, and honoraria from Janssen. LCC has research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Stereotactic ablative body radiation (SABR) delivers high rates of local control in early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC); however, systemic immune effects are poorly understood. Here, we evaluate the early pathologic and immunologic effects of SABR. Blood/core-needle tumor biopsies were collected from six patients with stage I NSCLC before and 5-7 days after SABR (48 Gy/4 or 50 Gy/5 fractions). Serial blood was collected up to 1-year post-SABR. We used immunohistochemistry to evaluate pathological changes, immune-cell populations (CD8, FoxP3), and PD-L1/PD-1 expression within the tumor. We evaluated T-cell receptor (TCR) profile changes in the tumor using TCR sequencing. We used the MANAFEST (Mutation-Associated Neoantigen Functional Expansion of Specific T-cells) assay to detect peripheral neoantigen-specific T-cell responses and dynamics. At a median follow-up of 40 months, 83% of patients (n=5) were alive without tumor progression. Early post-SABR biopsies showed viable tumor and similar distribution of immune-cell populations as compared with baseline samples. Core-needle samples proved insufficient to detect population-level TCR-repertoire changes. Functionally, neoantigen-specific T-cells were detected in the blood prior to SABR. A subset of these patients had a transient increase in the frequency of neoantigen-specific T-cells between 1 week and 3-6 months after SABR. SABR alone could induce a delayed, transient neoantigen-specific T-cell immunologic response in patients with stage I NSCLC., Competing Interests: Competing interests: KRV has received consulting from AstraZeneca; CH has received consulting fees from Johnson & Johnson and D1 Medical Technology; PTT has received consulting fees from RefleXion Medical Inc, Natsar Pharm, Bayer Healthcare, Regeneron & J&J, has a patent (9114158) licensed to Natsar Pharmaceuticals; JRB receives research funding from AstraZeneca and BMS. CT receives research grants from Siemens Medical Solutions and Carestream Health; JRB has advisory board or consulting agreements with Amgen, AstraZeneca (AZ), Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), Genentech/Roche, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Sanofi, Regeneron, Janssen, Johnson & Johnson and Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DMSB) relationships with Janssen; PMF receives research funding from AstraZeneca, BMS, Novartis, Regeneron, Kyowa, BioNTech. PMF has advisory board or consulting agreements with AstraZeneca, AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Novartis, Genentech, Sanofi, Surface, Janssen, G1, Merck and DSMB relationships with Polaris, Flame. JN receives consulting fees from AZ, Roche, Amgen, BMS, Mirati, Merck, Arcus Biosciences, AbbVie, Daiichi Sankyo, Elevation Oncology, Bayer, NGM Pharmaceutical, Regeneron, Pfizer, Takeda, Kaleido Biosciences. JN has DSMB relationships with AZ, BMS, Daiichi Sankyo; VA receives research funding to Johns Hopkins University from AstraZeneca, Personal Genome Diagnostics and Delfi Diagnostics and has received research funding to Johns Hopkins University from Bristol-Myers Squibb in the past 5 years. VA is an inventor on patent applications (63/276,525, 17/779,936, 16/312,152, 16/341,862, 17/047,006 and 17/598,690) submitted by Johns Hopkins University related to cancer genomic analyses, ctDNA therapeutic response monitoring and immunogenomic features of response to immunotherapy that have been licensed to one or more entities. Under the terms of these license agreements, the University and inventors are entitled to fees and royalty distributions; KNS has filed for patent protection on the MANAFEST technology (serial No. 16/341,862), has received travel support/honoraria from Illumina, Inc., receives research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Anara, and AstraZeneca, and owns founder’s equity in ManaT Bio, Inc. The terms of these arrangements are being managed by Johns Hopkins University in accordance with its conflict-of-interest policies., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Therapeutic strategies harnessing the immune system to eliminate tumour cells have been successfully used for several cancer types, including in patients with advanced-stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In these patients, immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) can provide durable responses and improve overall survival either as monotherapy, or combined with chemotherapy or other immunotherapeutic agents. However, the implementation of ICIs in early stage NSCLC has been hampered by the continuous struggle to develop robust end points to assess their efficacy in this setting, especially those enabling a fast and reproducible evaluation of the clinical activity of neoadjuvant strategies. Several trials are testing ICIs, alone or in combination with chemotherapy, in early stage NSCLC as an adjuvant, neoadjuvant or perioperative approach. As a novelty, most trials in the neoadjuvant setting have adopted pathological response as a primary end point. ICIs have been approved for use in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings on the basis of event-free survival and disease-free survival benefit, respectively; however, the correlation of these end points with overall survival remains unclear in these settings. Unresolved challenges for the optimal use of ICIs with curative intent include concerns about their applicability in daily clinical practice and about improving patient selection based on predictive biomarkers or assessment of pathological response and minimal residual disease. In this Review, we discuss the rationale, available strategies and current trial landscape for the implementation of ICIs in patients with resectable NSCLC, and we further elaborate on future approaches to optimize their clinical benefit., (© 2023. Springer Nature Limited.)

Background: Combination therapies that aim to improve the clinical efficacy to immune checkpoint inhibitors have led to the need for non-invasive and early pharmacodynamic biomarkers. Positron emission tomography (PET) is a promising non-invasive approach to monitoring target dynamics, and programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression is a central component in cancer immunotherapy strategies. [ 18 F]DK222, a peptide-based PD-L1 imaging agent, was investigated in this study using humanized mouse models to explore the relationship between PD-L1 expression and therapy-induced changes in cancer., Methods: Cell lines and xenografts derived from three non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLCs) and three urothelial carcinomas (UCs) were used to validate the specificity of [ 18 F]DK222 for PD-L1. PET was used to quantify anti-programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) therapy-induced changes in PD-L1 expression in tumors with and without microsatellite instability (MSI) in humanized mice. Furthermore, [ 18 F]DK222-PET was used to validate PD-L1 pharmacodynamics in the context of monotherapy and combination immunotherapy in humanized mice bearing A375 melanoma xenografts. PET measures of PD-L1 expression were used to establish a relationship between pathological and immunological changes. Lastly, spatial distribution analysis of [ 18 F]DK222-PET was developed to assess the effects of different immunotherapy regimens on tumor heterogeneity., Results: [ 18 F]DK222-PET and biodistribution studies in mice with NSCLC and UC xenografts revealed high but variable tumor uptake at 60 min that correlated with PD-L1 expression. In MSI tumors treated with anti-PD-1, [ 18 F]DK222 uptake was higher than in control tumors. Moreover, [ 18 F]DK222 uptake was higher in A375 tumors treated with combination therapy compared with monotherapy, and negatively correlated with final tumor volumes. In addition, a higher number of PD-L1+ cells and higher CD8 + -to-CD4 + cell ratio was observed with combination therapy compared with monotherapy, and positively correlated with PET. Furthermore, spatial distribution analysis showed higher [ 18 F]DK222 uptake towards the core of the tumors in combination therapy, indicating a more robust and distinct pattern of immune cell infiltration., Conclusion: [ 18 F]DK222-PET has potential as a non-invasive tool for monitoring the effects of immunotherapy on tumors. It was able to detect variable PD-L1 expression in tumors of different cancer types and quantify therapy-induced changes in tumors. Moreover, [ 18 F]DK222-PET was able to differentiate the impact of different therapies on tumors., Competing Interests: Competing interests: SN, MGP and DK are co-inventors on pending patents covering [18F]DK222, and as such are entitled to a portion of any licensing fees and royalties generated by this technology. This arrangement was reviewed and approved by Johns Hopkins University in accordance with its conflict-of-interest policies. SN, MGP and SPR received funding and were consultants for Precision Molecular, Inc., the licensee of [18F]DK222. SN, MGP and SPR have equity in D&D Pharmatech, the parent company of Precision Molecular, Inc. All other authors declare no conflicts pertaining to the described work., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Regulatory T cells (T reg ) are conventionally viewed as suppressors of endogenous and therapy-induced antitumor immunity; however, their role in modulating responses to immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) is unclear. In this study, we integrated single-cell RNA-seq/T cell receptor sequencing (TCRseq) of >73,000 tumor-infiltrating T reg (TIL-T reg ) from anti-PD-1-treated and treatment-naive non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLC) with single-cell analysis of tumor-associated antigen (TAA)-specific T reg derived from a murine tumor model. We identified 10 subsets of human TIL-T reg , most of which have high concordance with murine TIL-T reg subsets. Only one subset selectively expresses high levels of TNFRSF4 (OX40) and TNFRSF18 (GITR), whose engangement by cognate ligand mediated proliferative programs and NF-κB activation, as well as multiple genes involved in T reg suppression, including LAG3 . Functionally, the OX40 hi GITR hi subset is the most highly suppressive ex vivo, and its higher representation among total TIL-T reg correlated with resistance to PD-1 blockade. Unexpectedly, in the murine tumor model, we found that virtually all TIL-T reg -expressing T cell receptors that are specific for TAA fully develop a distinct T H 1-like signature over a 2-week period after entry into the tumor, down-regulating FoxP3 and up-regulating expression of TBX21 ( Tbet) , IFNG , and certain proinflammatory granzymes. Transfer learning of a gene score from the murine TAA-specific T H 1-like T reg subset to the human single-cell dataset revealed a highly analogous subcluster that was enriched in anti-PD-1-responding tumors. These findings demonstrate that TIL-T reg partition into multiple distinct transcriptionally defined subsets with potentially opposing effects on ICB-induced antitumor immunity and suggest that TAA-specific TIL-T reg may positively contribute to antitumor responses.

Among new treatment approaches for patients with cancer, few have accelerated as quickly as neoadjuvant immune checkpoint blockade (ICB). Neoadjuvant cancer therapy is administered before curative-intent surgery in treatment-naïve patients. Conventional neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy are primarily intended to reduce tumor size, improving surgical resectability. However, recent scientific evidence outlined here suggests that neoadjuvant immunotherapy can expand and transcriptionally modify tumor-specific T cell clones to enhance both intratumoral and systemic anti-tumor immunity. It further offers a unique "window of opportunity" to explore mechanisms and identify novel biomarkers of ICB response and resistance, opening possibilities for refining long-term clinical outcome predictions and developing new, more highly effective ICB combination therapies. Here, we examine advances in clinical and scientific knowledge gleaned from studies in select cancers and describe emerging key principles relevant to neoadjuvant ICB across many cancer types., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests SLT and DMP receive consulting fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Compugen, Dragonfly Therapeutics, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, PathAI, Regeneron, and Tizona LLC; receive research grants from Bristol Myers Squibb and Compugen; have stock options or stock in Dragonfly Therapeutics and Tizona LLC; and have patents related to T cell regulatory molecules including LAG-3, and the treatment of MSI-high cancers with anti-PD-1. PMF receives consulting fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Daiichi, Flame, Fosun, F-Star, G1, Genentech, Janssen, Iteos, Merck, Sanofi, Novartis, Regeneron, Surface, Synthekine, Tavotek, Teva; receives research grants from AstraZeneca, BMS, BioNTech, Novartis, and Regeneron; and has a patent related to the use of persistent mutation burden to predict benefit from immunotherapy in solid tumors. LAE is a current employee of Ankyra Therapeutics, with potential for future stock options; is the current President for the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer; has received research funding to the institution for clinical research work sponsored by Abbvie, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Compugen, CytomX, EMD Serono, Roche/Genentech, Immune Onc, Merck, Next Cure, Silverback Therapeutics, Takeda, and Tempest; acknowledges a consulting/advisory activity for AstraZeneca, Chugai, CytomX, Roche/Genentech, Gilead, GPCR, Immune Onc, Immutep, Mersana, and Shionogi; acknowledges Roche/Genentech for medical writing support; and has the potential for future stock options from Molecuvax. MY receives consulting fees Genentech/Roche, Exelixis, Eisai, AstraZeneca, Replimune, and Hepion; receives research grants from Bristol Myers Squibb, Incyte, and Genentech/Roche; and has equity interest in Adventris Pharmaceuticals. KNS has received honoraria/consulting fees from Adaptive Biotechnologies; receives research funding from BMS, Abbvie, AstraZeneca, and Enara; holds founder’s equity in ManaT Bio, Inc.; and has filed for patent protection related to the MANAFEST technology and T cell receptors specific for neoantigens derived from recurrent mutant oncogenes., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Only a minority of lung cancers are resectable at diagnosis, and many of these will eventually relapse. Adjuvant chemotherapy in this setting has a modest survival advantage, and there is significant need for new approaches to improve cure rates. Checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy has transformed the prognosis for advanced lung cancer, and is increasingly being used in the neoadjuvant setting alone, or in combination with cytotoxic chemotherapy. While this has demonstrated convincing improvements in event-free survival and pathologic response, questions remain over optimal duration of therapy, predictive and prognostic biomarkers, response assessment and combination with other modalities. In addition, these results must be considered in the context of recent positive studies of adjuvant immunotherapy. Here, we summarise preclinical context and clinical trials in this space, discuss areas of controversy and pitfalls, and consider future challenges., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: M.R.C. and C.D. have no relevant disclosures. P.M.F. has received research funding to Johns Hopkins University from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Corvus and Kyowa. He has also served as a consultant for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Genentech, G1 Therapeutics, Iteos, Janssen, Merck, Surface Oncology, Mirati, Novartis and Sanofi, and as a DSMB member for Polaris and Flame Therapeutics., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide and is associated with poor 5-year outcomes, even among the 20% to 25% of patients who present with operable disease. Cisplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy has long been the standard of care for patients with resected non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). With the incorporation of immunotherapy, however, the treatment paradigm for NSCLC has changed dramatically. The introduction of immune checkpoint blockade has improved clinical outcomes in multiple phase 2 and 3 trials in both the neoadjuvant and adjuvant setting, resulting in new US Food and Drug Administration approvals in the management of early-stage resectable lung cancer. This review explores the biological rationale for immune checkpoint blockade, both as monotherapy and in combination with chemotherapy, in conjunction with surgical management of patients with NSCLC. It also highlights the reported clinical trial data that have led to significant advances in the management of early-stage NSCLC. Additionally, this review summarizes ongoing key studies that will provide vital data on the clinical efficacy of these treatment approaches. The outcomes of ongoing trials and the associated biomarker-focused correlative studies will be critical to furthering the mechanistic understanding of immune checkpoint blockade in early-stage NSCLC. This, in turn, will help to uncover biomarkers of response and resistance in these patients.

Objective: Immunotherapy, particularly immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), has revolutionized the treatment of patients with many tumor histologies. Simultaneously, stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) provides excellent local control (LC) and plays an important role in the management of spine metastasis. Promising preclinical work suggests the potential therapeutic benefit of combining SBRT with ICI therapy, but the safety profile of combined therapy is unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the toxicity profile associated with ICI in patients receiving SBRT and, secondarily, whether ICI administration sequence with respect to SBRT affects LC or overall survival (OS) outcomes., Methods: The authors retrospectively reviewed patients with spine metastasis treated with SBRT at an academic center. Patients who received ICI at any point during their disease course were compared to those with the same primary tumor types who did not receive ICI by using Cox proportional hazards analyses. Primary outcomes were long-term sequelae, including radiation-induced spinal cord myelopathy, esophageal stricture, and bowel obstruction. Secondarily, models were created to evaluate OS and LC in the cohort., Results: Two hundred forty patients who received SBRT to 299 spine metastases were included in this study. The most common primary tumor types were non-small cell lung cancer (n = 59 [24.6%]) and renal cell carcinoma (n = 55 [22.9%]). One hundred eight patients received at least 1 dose of ICI, with the most common regimen being single-agent anti-PD-1 (n = 80 [74.1%]), followed by combination CTLA-4/PD-1 inhibitors (n = 19 [17.6%]). Three patients experienced long-term radiation-induced sequelae: 2 had esophageal stricture and 1 had bowel obstruction. No patients developed radiation-induced myelopathy. There was no association between receipt of ICI and development of any of these adverse events (p > 0.9). Similarly, ICI was not significantly associated with either LC (p = 0.3) or OS (p = 0.6). In the entire cohort, patients who received ICI prior to beginning SBRT had worse median survival, but ICI sequence with respect to SBRT was not significantly prognostic of either LC (p > 0.3) or OS (p > 0.07); instead, baseline performance status was most predictive of OS (HR 1.38, 95% CI 1.07-1.78, p = 0.012)., Conclusions: Treatment regimens that combine ICIs before, concurrent with, and after SBRT for spine metastases are safe, with minimal risk for increased rates of long-term toxicity.

With multiple PD-(L)1 inhibitors approved across dozens of indications by the US Food and Drug Administration, the number of patients exposed to these agents in adjuvant, first-line metastatic, second-line metastatic, and refractory treatment settings is increasing rapidly. Although some patients will experience durable benefit, many have either no clinical response or see their disease progress following an initial response to therapy. There is a significant need to identify therapeutic approaches to overcome resistance and confer clinical benefits for these patients. PD-1 pathway blockade has the longest history of use in melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Therefore, these settings also have the most extensive clinical experience with resistance. In 2021, six non-profit organizations representing patients with these diseases undertook a year-long effort, culminating in a 2-day workshop (including academic, industry, and regulatory participants) to understand the challenges associated with developing effective therapies for patients previously exposed to anti-PD-(L)1 agents and outline recommendations for designing clinical trials in this setting. This manuscript presents key discussion themes and positions reached through this effort, with a specific focus on the topics of eligibility criteria, comparators, and endpoints, as well as tumor-specific trial design options for combination therapies designed to treat patients with melanoma, NSCLC, or RCC after prior PD-(L)1 pathway blockade., Competing Interests: Competing interests: TZ reports grants or contracts from Acerta, Novartis, Merrimack, Abbvie/StemCentrx, Merck, Regeneron, Mirati Therapeutics, Janssen, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, OmniSeq, Personal Genome Diagnostics, Astellas, Eli Lilly, Exelixis, BMS, and Tempus; advisory board/consulting fees from Merck, Exelixis, Sanofi-Aventis, Janssen, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Amgen, BMS, Pharmacyclics, SeaGen, Calithera, QED Therapeutics, Eisai, Aveo, Eli Lilly, Aravive, and Bayer; honoraria from MJH Associates, Vaniam, Aptitude Health, Peerview, Clinical Care Options, KCA, SIU, and ASCO; all unrelated to submitted work. DB reports grants from BMS, Exelixis, AVEO Pfizer, Eisai, EMD Serono, leadership or fiduciary role in KCCure (President), NCI GU Steering Committee, and Alliance Cooperative Group GU Committee, all outside the submitted work. WS reports support for the present manuscript from LUNGevity Foundation paid to her company WSCollaborative. Outside the submitted publication, she reports consulting fees from LUNGevity Foundation, National Brain Tumor Society, Ovarian Cancer Research Alliance, Cholangiocarcinoma Foundation, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, Target Cancer Foundation, CancerCare, Childhood Cancer Coalition, and TriSalus Life Sciences paid to her company; honoraria from American Institutes of Cancer Research; leadership or fiduciary role in Rising Tide Foundation for Clinical Cancer Research; and owns stock in TriSalus Life Sciences. EB reports grants from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Genentech, Johnson&Johnson, Merck (MSD), and Natera outside the submitted work. RJS reports grants from Merck, loyalty to Up-to-date, consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Merck, BMS, Novartis, Eisai, Pfizer, and Iovance; and participation on a data safety monitoring/advisory board for Yale and Duke Universities, all outside the submitted work. MBA reports grants from the NCI (P30CA051008, R21CA270585, P50CA101942, R01CA231291, and DoD (KC170216), consultant fees from BMS, Merck, Novartis, Eisai, Aveo, Pfizer, Werewolf, Fathom, Pyxis Oncology, PACT, Elpis, X4Pharma, ValoHealth, ScholarRock, Surface, Takeda, Roche, SAB Bio, Exelixis, Iovance, COTA, Idera, Agenus, Asher Bio, AstraZeneca, Calithera, SeaGen, Sanofi, OncoRena, and GSK; honoraria from Medscape, OncLive, PRIME, Clinical Education Alliance, LivDerm, and ASCO; participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Novartis, BMS, Pfizer, SIMCHA, Genentech/Roche, and Melanoma Research Foundation; and owns stock in Werewolf, Pyxis Oncology, and Elpis, all outside the submitted work. PMF reports research funding to his affiliated institution from AstraZeneca, BMS, Corvus, Kyowa, Novartis, and Regeneron; consultant fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Daiichi, F-Star, G1, Genentech, Janssen, Iteos, Merck, Sanofi, Novartis, and Surface; and participation on a data safety monitoring board for Polaris, outside the submitted work. GF owns stock in Bristol Myers Squibb and works for BMS. MSH is the CEO of the Melanoma Research Alliance. SE is an employee of Merck&Co. The remaining authors report no conflicts of interest., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Anti-PD-1/PD-L1 agents have transformed the treatment landscape of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). To expand our understanding of the molecular features underlying response to checkpoint inhibitors in NSCLC, we describe here the first joint analysis of the Stand Up To Cancer-Mark Foundation cohort, a resource of whole exome and/or RNA sequencing from 393 patients with NSCLC treated with anti-PD-(L)1 therapy, along with matched clinical response annotation. We identify a number of associations between molecular features and outcome, including (1) favorable (for example, ATM altered) and unfavorable (for example, TERT amplified) genomic subgroups, (2) a prominent association between expression of inducible components of the immunoproteasome and response and (3) a dedifferentiated tumor-intrinsic subtype with enhanced response to checkpoint blockade. Taken together, results from this cohort demonstrate the complexity of biological determinants underlying immunotherapy outcomes and reinforce the discovery potential of integrative analysis within large, well-curated, cancer-specific cohorts., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Purpose: Neoadjuvant anti-PD-1 therapy has shown promise for resectable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We reported the first phase I/II trial of neoadjuvant nivolumab in resectable NSCLC, finding it to be safe and feasible with encouraging major pathological responses (MPR). We now present 5-year clinical outcomes from this trial, representing to our knowledge, the longest follow-up data for neoadjuvant anti-PD-1 in any cancer type., Patients and Methods: Two doses of nivolumab (3 mg/kg) were administered for 4 weeks before surgery to 21 patients with Stage I-IIIA NSCLC. 5-year recurrence-free survival (RFS), overall survival (OS), and associations with MPR and PD-L1, were evaluated., Results: With a median follow-up of 63 months, 5-year RFS and OS rates were 60% and 80%, respectively. The presence of MPR and pre-treatment tumor PD-L1 positivity (TPS ≥1%) each trended toward favorable RFS; HR, 0.61 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.15-2.44] and HR, 0.36 (95% CI, 0.07-1.85), respectively. At 5-year follow-up, 8 of 9 (89%) patients with MPR were alive and disease-free. There were no cancer-related deaths among patients with MPR. In contrast, 6/11 patients without MPR experienced tumor relapse, and 3 died., Conclusions: Five-year clinical outcomes for neoadjuvant nivolumab in resectable NSCLC compare favorably with historical outcomes. MPR and PD-L1 positivity trended toward improved RFS, though definitive conclusions are limited by cohort size., (©2023 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

Tumor mutation burden is an imperfect proxy of tumor foreignness and has therefore failed to consistently demonstrate clinical utility in predicting responses in the context of immunotherapy. We evaluated mutations in regions of the genome that are unlikely to undergo loss in a pan-cancer analysis across 31 tumor types (n = 9,242) and eight immunotherapy-treated cohorts of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer, melanoma, mesothelioma, and head and neck cancer (n = 524). We discovered that mutations in single-copy regions and those present in multiple copies per cell constitute a persistent tumor mutation burden (pTMB) which is linked with therapeutic response to immune checkpoint blockade. Persistent mutations were retained in the context of tumor evolution under selective pressure of immunotherapy and tumors with a high pTMB content were characterized by a more inflamed tumor microenvironment. pTMB imposes an evolutionary bottleneck that cancer cells cannot overcome and may thus drive sustained immunologic tumor control in the context of immunotherapy., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Introduction: Anti-PD-(L)1 immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) improve survival in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC). The clinical features, survival, and burden of toxicities of patients with aNSCLC alive >1 year from ICI initiation are poorly understood., Materials and Methods: We defined ICI survivors as patients alive >1 year after ICI start and retrospectively reviewed demographics, treatment, and immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Long-term irAEs were defined as ongoing irAEs lasting >1 year; burden of toxicity measures were based on percentage of days a patient experienced toxicity. Using linear and logistic regression, we evaluated association between demographics and disease characteristics with burden of toxicity., Results: We identified 114 ICI survivors from 317 patients with aNSCLC. Half (52%) experienced an irAE of any grade, and 23.7% developed long-term irAEs. More ICI survivors with irAES in the first year had never smoked (P = .018) or received ICIs as frontline therapy (P = .015). The burden of toxicity in the first year significantly correlated with the burden of toxicity afterward (ρ = 0.72; P < .001). No patients with progressive disease had a high burden of toxicity, and they experienced 30.6% fewer days with toxicity than those with stable disease. Increased duration of therapy was associated with higher odds of experiencing toxicity. Half of ICI survivors with irAEs were still receiving treatment for unresolved irAEs at time of death or last follow-up., Conclusion: Significant proportions of ICI survivors have unresolved long-term toxicities. These data support a growing need to understand long-term toxicity to optimize management of those treated with ICIs., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Background: Consolidation durvalumab immunotherapy following definitive chemoradiation (CRT) for unresectable stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) improves overall survival. As therapeutic options for patients with KRAS-driven disease evolve, more understanding regarding genomic determinants of response and patterns of progression for durvalumab consolidation is needed to optimize outcomes., Methods: We conducted a single-institutional retrospective analysis of real-world patients with locally advanced, unresectable NSCLC who completed CRT and received durvalumab consolidation. Kaplan-Meier analyses compared progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) from start of durvalumab consolidation between patients with KRAS-mutated and non-mutated tumors. Fisher's exact test was used to compare rates of intrathoracic or extrathoracic progression., Results: Of 74 response-evaluable patients, 39 had clinical genomic profiling performed. 18 patients had tumors with KRAS mutations, 7 patients had tumors with non-KRAS actionable alterations (EGFR, ALK, ERBB2, BRAF, MET, RET, or ROS1), and 14 patients had tumors without actionable alterations. Median PFS for the overall cohort was 16.1 months. PFS for patients with KRAS-mutated NSCLC was 12.6 months versus 12.7 months for patients with non-actionable tumors (P= 0.77, log-rank). Fisher's exact test revealed a statistically significantly higher rate of extrathoracic progression versus intrathoracic-only progression for patients with KRAS-driven disease compared to patients with non-actionable tumors (P= 0.015)., Conclusion: Patients with KRAS-mutated NSCLC derived similar benefit from durvalumab as patients with non-actionable tumors. A higher rate of extrathoracic progression was also observed among the patients with KRAS-mutated NSCLC compared to patients with non-actionable tumors. This highlights the potential unmet needs for novel systemic therapies and surveillance methods for KRAS-mutated stage III NSCLC., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Human gut microbial species found to associate with clinical responses to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are often tested in mice using fecal microbiota transfer (FMT), wherein tumor responses in recipient mice may recapitulate human responses to ICI treatment. However, many FMT studies have reported only limited methodological description, details of murine cohorts, and statistical methods. To investigate the reproducibility and robustness of gut microbial species that impact ICI responses, we performed human to germ-free mouse FMT using fecal samples from patients with non-small cell lung cancer who had a pathological response or nonresponse after neoadjuvant ICI treatment. R-FMT mice yielded greater anti-tumor responses in combination with anti-PD-L1 treatment compared to NR-FMT, although the magnitude varied depending on mouse cell line, sex, and individual experiment. Detailed investigation of post-FMT mouse microbiota using 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing, with models to classify and correct for biological variables, revealed a shared presence of the most highly abundant taxa between the human inocula and mice, though low abundance human taxa colonized mice more variably after FMT. Multiple Clostridium species also correlated with tumor outcome in individual anti-PD-L1-treated R-FMT mice. RNAseq analysis revealed differential expression of T and NK cell-related pathways in responding tumors, irrespective of FMT source, with enrichment of these cell types confirmed by immunohistochemistry. This study identifies several human gut microbial species that may play a role in clinical responses to ICIs and suggests attention to biological variables is needed to improve reproducibility and limit variability across experimental murine cohorts., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://tlcr.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/tlcr-22-617/coif). TH serves as an unpaid editorial board member of Translational Lung Cancer Research from January 2022 to December 2023. AR serves as an unpaid editorial board member of Translational Lung Cancer Research from November 2020 to October 2022. RAR serves as an unpaid editorial board member of Translational Lung Cancer Research from January 2022 to December 2023. MP serves as an unpaid editorial board member of Translational Lung Cancer Research from October 2021 to September 2023. RAR has been a consultant for Amgen, Ipsen Biopharmaceuticals, Novartis, Advanced Accelerator Applications, Curium Pharma, EMD Serono, Astra-Zeneca. He has also received research funding (to institution) from Merck & Co and Aadi Biosciences. He is also on the speaker bureaus for Ipsen Biopharmaceuticals and Astra-Zeneca. Mariano Provencio received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events and consulting fees from BMS, Astra Zéneca, MSD, Roche, Takeda and Pfizer. Jay M. Lee reports advisory board/consultant of Astrazeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech, Novartis, Roche; research support from Genentech, Novartis; steering committee of Genentech, Novartis; speaker’s bureau of AstraZeneca, Genentech, Roche; stock from Moderna; patents of UCLA. Antonio Passaro received honoraria for consulting, advisory role or lectures from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Jansenn, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche Genentech, Novartis, MundiPharma, Daiichi Sankyo, eCancer and Medscape. TC reports speaker fees/honoraria from The Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, Medscape, and PeerView; travel, food and beverage expenses from Dava Oncology; advisory role/consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Merck & Co., Genentech, and Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals; and institutional research funding from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim and EMD Serono. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Objective: Patients with inflammatory arthritis (IA) associated with immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) treatment for cancer are typically seronegative for anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide (CCP) antibodies and rheumatoid factor, but little is known about the presence of other autoantibodies in this patient population. We investigated the prevalence and characteristics of anti-RA33 antibodies in patients with ICI-induced IA., Methods: Anti-RA33 ELISAs were performed on sera from four groups of patients: 79 with ICI-induced IA, 52 with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), 35 treated with ICIs without IA during follow-up and 50 healthy controls. Anti-RA33 positivity and level, clinical and demographic data were compared across groups., Results: Anti-RA33 antibodies were found in 9/79 (11.4%) patients with ICI-induced IA but in 0/35 patients treated with ICIs who did not develop IA (0%; p=0.04). Of the patients positive for anti-RA33, two had sera available from before ICI treatment; anti-RA33 antibodies were present in both pre-ICI treatments. In patients with RA, 7.7% were positive for anti-RA33 antibodies as were 2% of healthy controls. In ICI-induced IA, anti-RA33 antibodies were associated with anti-CCP antibodies (p=0.001). We found no statistically significant differences in other clinical characteristics in those with and without anti-RA33 antibodies., Conclusions: Anti-RA33 antibodies are present in a subset of patients with ICI-induced IA, absent in other ICI-treated patients and may be a biomarker for developing IA. Additional studies evaluating serial samples before and after ICI treatment will further establish the temporal relationship of these antibodies to IA development., Competing Interests: Competing interests: LCC and COB have received research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb. LCC has consulted for Bristol Myers Squibb. JB has served on advisory boards for Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Astra Zeneca and Regeneron and has received research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb. VA has received research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb and Astra Zeneca. PMF has received honoraria or consulting fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Delfi, Novartis, Janssen, Iteos, Sanofi, Genentech, F-Star, G1 Therapeutics and Surface Oncology; research funding from AstraZeneca, BMS, Kyowa, Corvus and Novartis; and is a DSMB member for Flame and Polaris. EJL has received institutional grant/research support from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck and Sanofi/Regeneron and has been a consultant for Array BioPharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, EMD Serono, Genentech, Macrogenics, Merck, Novartis, Odonate Therapeutics, OncoSec and Sanofi-Regeneron. MS, ED, AAS and JM have no competing interests to disclose., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Importance: Clinical trial sponsors rely on eligibility criteria to control the characteristics of patients in their studies, promote the safety of participants, and optimize the interpretation of results. However, in recent years, complex and often overly restrictive inclusion and exclusion criteria have created substantial barriers to patient access to novel therapies, hindered trial recruitment and completion, and limited generalizability of trial results. A LUNGevity Foundation working group developed a framework for lung cancer clinical trial eligibility criteria. The goals of this framework are to (1) simplify eligibility criteria, (2) facilitate stakeholders' (patients, clinicians, and sponsors) search for appropriate trials, and (3) harmonize trial populations to support intertrial comparisons of treatment effects., Observations: Clinicians and representatives from the pharmaceutical industry, the National Cancer Institute, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the European Medicines Agency, and the LUNGevity Foundation undertook a process to identify and prioritize key items for inclusion in trial eligibility criteria. The group generated a prioritized library of terms to guide investigators and sponsors in the design of first-line, advanced non-small cell lung cancer clinical trials intended to support marketing application. These recommendations address disease stage and histologic features, enrollment biomarkers, performance status, organ function, brain metastases, and comorbidities. This effort forms the basis for a forthcoming FDA draft guidance for industry., Conclusions and Relevance: As an initial step, the recommended cross-trial standardization of eligibility criteria may harmonize trial populations. Going forward, by connecting diverse stakeholders and providing formal opportunity for public input, the emerging FDA draft guidance may also provide an opportunity to revise and simplify long-standing approaches to trial eligibility. This work serves as a prototype for similar efforts now underway for other cancers.

Background: Prognostic risk factors for completely resected stage IA non-small-cell lung cancers (NSCLCs) have advanced minimally over recent decades. Although several biomarkers have been found to be associated with cancer recurrence, their added value to TNM staging and tumor grade are unclear. Methods: Features of preoperative low-dose CT image and histologic findings of hematoxylin- and eosin-stained tissue sections of resected lung tumor specimens were extracted from 182 stage IA NSCLC patients in the National Lung Screening Trial. These features were combined to predict the risk of tumor recurrence or progression through integrated deep learning evaluation (IDLE). Added values of IDLE to TNM staging and tumor grade in progression risk prediction and risk stratification were evaluated. Results: The 5-year AUC of IDLE was 0.817 ± 0.037 as compared to the AUC = 0.561 ± 0.042 and 0.573 ± 0.044 from the TNM stage and tumor grade, respectively. The IDLE score was significantly associated with cancer recurrence (p < 0.0001) even after adjusting for TNM staging and tumor grade. Synergy between chest CT image markers and histological markers was the driving force of the deep learning algorithm to produce a stronger prognostic predictor. Conclusions: Integrating markers from preoperative CT images and pathologist’s readings of resected lung specimens through deep learning can improve risk stratification of stage 1A NSCLC patients over TNM staging and tumor grade alone. Our study suggests that combining markers from nonoverlapping platforms can increase the cancer risk prediction accuracy.

Introduction: The magnitude of response to immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy may be sex-dependent, as females have lower response rates and decreased survival after ICI monotherapy. The mechanisms underlying this sex dimorphism in ICI response are unknown, and may be related to sex-driven differences in the immunogenomic landscape of tumors that shape anti-tumor immune responses in the context of therapy., Methods: To investigate the association of immunogenic mutations with HLA haplotypes, we leveraged whole exome sequence data and HLA genotypes from 482 non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) tumors from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA). To explore sex-specific genomic features linked with ICI response, we analyzed whole exome sequence data from patients with NSCLC treated with ICI. Tumor mutational burden (TMB), HLA class I and II restricted immunogenic missense mutation (IMM) load, and mutational smoking signature were defined for each tumor. IMM load was combined with HLA class I and II haplotypes and correlated with therapeutic response and survival following ICI treatment. We examined rates of durable clinical benefit (DCB) for at least six months from ICI treatment initiation. Findings were validated utilizing whole exome sequence data from an independent cohort of ICI treated NSCLC., Results: Analysis of whole exome sequence data from NSCLC tumors of females and males revealed that germline HLA class II diversity (≥9 unique HLA alleles) was associated with higher tumor class II IMM load in females (p=0.01) and not in males (p=0.64). Similarly, in tumors of female patients, somatic HLA class II loss of heterozygosity was associated with increased IMM load (p=0.01) while this association was not observed in tumors in males (p=0.20). In females, TMB (p=0.005), class I IMM load (p=0.005), class II IMM load (p=0.004), and mutational smoking signature (p<0.001) were significantly higher in tumors responding to ICI as compared to non-responding tumors. In contrast, among males, there was no significant association between DCB and any of these features. When IMM was considered in the context of HLA zygosity, high MHC-II restricted IMM load and high HLA class II diversity was significantly associated with overall survival in males (p=0.017)., Conclusions: Inherent sex-driven differences in immune surveillance affect the immunogenomic determinants of response to ICI and likely mediate the dimorphic outcomes with ICI therapy. Deeper understanding of the selective pressures and mechanisms of immune escape in tumors in males and females can inform patient selection strategies and can be utilized to further hone immunotherapy approaches in cancer., Competing Interests: VA receives research funding to the institution from Astra Zeneca and has received research funding to her institution from Bristol-Myers Squibb in the past 5 years. SS has served in a consulting role for Genentech/Roche. KM has received research funding to the institution from Mirati and Bristol Myers Squibb, and she has served in a consulting role for Amgen, Janssen, Mirati, AstraZeneca and Puma. VL has received research funding to the institution from GlaxoSmithKline, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, and SeaGen and he has served in a consulting role for Takeda, SeaGen, Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Guardant Health and Takeda. JM has received research funding to the institution from Merck via the Conquer Cancer Young Investigators Award, and has served in a consulting role for MJH Life Sciences, Johnson & Johnson, and Doximity. JF has received research funding to the institution from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Bristol Myers Squibb, and has served in a consulting role for Genentech/Roche, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Merck, Takeda, Coherus, Regeneron, and Pfizer. BL has served in a consulting role for AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Janssen, Pfizer, Amgen, Takeda, Genentech/Roche, Eli Lilly, Mirati Therapeutics, and Guardant. DE has served in a consulting role for Beyond Spring Pharmaceuticals. CH has received research funding to the institution from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, and GlaxoSmithKline, and has served in a consulting role for AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech/Roche, Jannsen and GlaxoSmithKline. JB has received research funding to the institution from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech/Roche, Merck, RAPT Therapeutics Inc and Revolution Medicines, has served in a consulting role for Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Genentech/Roche, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Sanofi and Regeneron, and is in the Data and Safety Monitoring Board/Committees of GlaxoSmithKline and Sanofi. PF has received research funding to the institution from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Corvus, Kyowa, and has served as a consultant for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Iteos, Janssen, and as a data safety monitoring board member for Polaris and Flame Therapeutics. JN has received research funding from MSD, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Amgen, Genentech/Roche, Novartis, has served in a consultant/advisory role for Merck, MSD, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech/Roche, Pfizer, Takeda, Daiichi Sankyo, Kaleido Biosciences, Amgen and Mirati Therapeutics, and is in the Data and Safety Monitoring Board/Committee of Daiichi Sankyo. Under a license agreement between Genentech and the Johns Hopkins University, XS and RK and the University are entitled to royalty distributions related to technology described in the study discussed in this publication. This arrangement has been reviewed and approved by the Johns Hopkins University in accordance with its conflict of interest policies. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be constructed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Scott, Shao, Niknafs, Balan, Pereira, Marrone, Lam, Murray, Feliciano, Levy, Ettinger, Hann, Brahmer, Forde, Karchin, Naidoo and Anagnostou.)

Definitive management of locoregionally advanced solid tumors presents a major challenge and often consists of a combination of surgical, radiotherapeutic and systemic therapy approaches. Upfront surgical treatment with or without adjuvant radiotherapy carries the risks of significant morbidities and potential complications that could be lasting. In addition, these patients continue to have a high risk of local or distant disease relapse despite the use of standard adjuvant therapy. Preoperative neoadjuvant systemic therapy has the potential to significantly improve clinical outcomes, particularly in this era of expanding immunotherapeutic agents that have transformed the care of patients with metastatic/unresectable malignancies. Tremendous progress has been made with neoadjuvant immunotherapy in the treatment of several locoregionally advanced resectable solid tumors leading to ongoing phase 3 trials and change in clinical practice. The promise of neoadjuvant immunotherapy has been supported by the high pathologic tumor response rates in early trials as well as the durability of these responses making cure a more achievable potential outcome compared with other forms of systemic therapy. Furthermore, neoadjuvant studies allow the assessment of radiologic and pathological responses and the access to biospecimens before and during systemic therapy. Pathological responses may guide future treatment decisions, and biospecimens allow the conduct of mechanistic and biomarker studies that may guide future drug development. On behalf of the National Cancer Institute Early Drug Development Neoadjuvant Immunotherapy Working Group, this article summarizes the current state of neoadjuvant immunotherapy of solid tumors focusing primarily on locoregionally advanced melanoma, gynecologic malignancies, gastrointestinal malignancies, non-small cell lung cancer and head and neck cancer including recent advances and our expert recommendations related to future neoadjuvant trial designs and associated clinical and translational research questions., Competing Interests: Competing interests: AAT reports grants from Bristol Myers Squib, grants from Genentech-Roche, grants from Regeneron, grants from Sanofi-Genzyme, grants from Nektar, grants from Clinigen, grants from Merck, grants from Acrotech, grants from Pfizer, grants from Checkmate, grants from OncoSec, personal fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, personal fees from Merck, personal fees from Easai, personal fees from Instil Bio, personal fees from Clinigin, personal fees from Regeneron, personal fees from Sanofi-Genzyme, personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Partner Therapeutics, personal fees from Genentech/Roche, personal fees from BioNTech, outside the submitted work. RLF reports grants from AstraZeneca/MedImmune, grants from Bristol Myers Squibb, grants from Merck, grants from Novasenta, grants from Tesaro, stock from Novasenta, personal fees from Aduro Biotech, personal fees from Bicara Therapeutics, personal fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, personal fees from Brooklyn Immunotherapeutics, personal fees from Catenion, personal fees from Coherus BioSciences, personal fees from Everest Clinical Research Corporation, personal fees from F. Hoffmann-La Roche, personal fees from Genocea Biosciences, personal fees from Hookipa Biotech, personal fees from Instil Bio, personal fees from Kowa Research Institute, personal fees from Lifescience Dynamics Limited, personal fees from MacroGenics, personal fees from Merck, personal fees from Mirati Therapeutics, personal fees from Mirror Biologics, personal fees from Nanobiotix, personal fees from Novasenta, personal fees from Numab Therapeutics AG, personal fees from OncoCyte Corporation, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from PPD Development LP, personal fees from Rakuten Medical, personal fees from Sanofi, personal fees from Seagen, personal fees from Vir Biotechnology, personal fees from Zymeworks, outside of the submitted work. KNM reports advisory board participation and reimbursement from Aravive, Alkemeres, AstraZeneca, Blueprint pharma, Eisai, EMD/Serono, GSK/Tesaro, Genentech/Roche, Hengrui, Immunogen, IMXmed, IMab, Lilly, Mersana, Mereo, Myriad, Merck, Novarits, OncXerna, Onconova, VBL Therapeutics. Research funding from PTC therapeutics, Lilly, Merck, GSK/Tesaro. GOG Partners Associate director. VT-L does not have any competing interest to report. PMF reports advisory board participation and reimbursement from Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Daiichi, F-Star, G1, Genentech, Iteos, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Sanofi, Surface, and research grants to his institution from AstraZeneca, BioNTech, BMS, Corvus, Kyowa, Novartis, and Regeneron. JRE reports employment at Bristol Meyers Squibb (spouse) and Janssen (spouse), honoraria for Pfizer, consulting for Lexicon, advisory boards for Ipsen, Advanced Accelerator Applications, and research support from Xencor, Tarveda, Genentech, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Medimmune, Hutchison, Incyte, Oncolys, Seagen. Neither JW nor members of his immediate family have a financial interest or obligation related to the information transmitted in this publication. None of them have received any compensation, salary, gifts, promises of employment or reimbursement for travel., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Increased efforts to optimize outcomes for early stage NSCLC through the investigation of novel perioperative treatment strategies are ongoing. An emerging question is the role of pathologic response and its association with long-term clinical outcomes after neoadjuvant therapy., Methods: To investigate the association of pathologic complete response (pCR) and event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS), we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis identifying studies reporting on the prognostic impact of pCR after neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy. To evaluate this prognostic value, an aggregated data (AD) meta-analyses was conducted to estimate the pooled hazard ratios (HRs) of EFS and OS for pCR. Using reconstructed individual patient data (IPD), pooled Kaplan-Meier curves were obtained to estimate this association in a more granular fashion. Subgroup analyses were conducted to further explore the impacts of study-level characteristics., Results: A total of 28 studies comprising 7011 patients were included in the AD meta-analysis, of which, IPD was available for 6274 patients from 24 studies. Results from our AD meta-analysis revealed a pooled pCR rate of 18% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 15%-21%), including significant improvements in OS (HR = 0.50, 95% CI: 0.45-0.56) and EFS (HR = 0.46, 95% CI: 0.37-0.57) on the basis of pCR status. Our IPD analysis revealed a 5-year OS rate of 63% (95% CI: 59.6-67.4) for patients with a pCR compared with 39% (95% CI: 34.5-44.5) for those without a pCR., Conclusions: pCR after neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus or minus radiotherapy is associated with significant improvements in EFS and survival for patients with resectable NSCLC., (© 2022 The Authors.)

Introduction: With the increasing use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) for cancer, there is a growing burden on the healthcare system to provide care for the toxicities associated with these agents. Herein, we aim to identify and describe the distribution of encounters seen in an urgent care setting for immune-related adverse events (irAEs) and the clinical outcomes from irAE management. Methods: Patient demographics, disease characteristics, and treatment data were collected retrospectively from encounters at an oncology Urgent Care Clinic (UCC) from a single tertiary center for upper aerodigestive malignancies from 1 July 2018 to 30 June 2019. Data were summarized using descriptive statistics with odds ratios for associations between patient features and hospitalization after UCC evaluation. Results: We identified 494 encounters from 289 individual patients over the study period. A history of ICI therapy was noted in 34% (n = 170/494) of encounters and 29 encounters (29/170, 17%) were confirmed and treated as irAEs. For those treated for irAEs, the majority (n = 19/29; 66%) were discharged home. Having an irAE was associated with an increased risk of hospitalization compared to non-irAEs (OR 5.66; 95% CI 2.15−14.89; p < 0.001). Conclusion: In this single institution experience, the majority of UCC encounters for confirmed irAEs were safely managed within the UCC. In ICI-treated patients, having an irAE was associated with an increased risk of hospitalization versus non-irAEs.

Transcription factors ThPOK and Runx3 regulate the differentiation of "helper" CD4+ and "cytotoxic" CD8+ T cell lineages respectively, inducing single positive (SP) T cells that enter the periphery with the expression of either the CD4 or CD8 co-receptor. Despite the expectation that these cell fates are mutually exclusive and that mature CD4+CD8+ double positive (DP) T cells are present in healthy individuals and augmented in the context of disease, yet their molecular features and pathophysiologic role are disputed. Here, we show DP T cells in murine and human tumors as a heterogenous population originating from SP T cells which re-express the opposite co-receptor and acquire features of the opposite cell type's phenotype and function following TCR stimulation. We identified distinct clonally expanded DP T cells in human melanoma and lung cancer by scRNA sequencing and demonstrated their tumor reactivity in cytotoxicity assays. Our findings indicate that antigen stimulation induces SP T cells to differentiate into DP T cell subsets gaining in polyfunctional characteristics., (© 2022 Schad et al.)

Background: Despite treatment advancements with immunotherapy, our understanding of response relies on tissue-based, static tumor features such as tumor mutation burden (TMB) and programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression. These approaches are limited in capturing the plasticity of tumor-immune system interactions under selective pressure of immune checkpoint blockade and predicting therapeutic response and long-term outcomes. Here, we investigate the relationship between serial assessment of peripheral blood cell counts and tumor burden dynamics in the context of an evolving tumor ecosystem during immune checkpoint blockade., Methods: Using machine learning, we integrated dynamics in peripheral blood immune cell subsets, including neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), from 239 patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and predicted clinical outcome with immune checkpoint blockade. We then sought to interpret NLR dynamics in the context of transcriptomic and T cell repertoire trajectories for 26 patients with early stage NSCLC who received neoadjuvant immune checkpoint blockade. We further determined the relationship between NLR dynamics, pathologic response and circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) clearance., Results: Integrated dynamics of peripheral blood cell counts, predominantly NLR dynamics and changes in eosinophil levels, predicted clinical outcome, outperforming both TMB and PD-L1 expression. As early changes in NLR were a key predictor of response, we linked NLR dynamics with serial RNA sequencing deconvolution and T cell receptor sequencing to investigate differential tumor microenvironment reshaping during therapy for patients with reduction in peripheral NLR. Reductions in NLR were associated with induction of interferon-γ responses driving the expression of antigen presentation and proinflammatory gene sets coupled with reshaping of the intratumoral T cell repertoire. In addition, NLR dynamics reflected tumor regression assessed by pathological responses and complemented ctDNA kinetics in predicting long-term outcome. Elevated peripheral eosinophil levels during immune checkpoint blockade were correlated with therapeutic response in both metastatic and early stage cohorts., Conclusions: Our findings suggest that early dynamics in peripheral blood immune cell subsets reflect changes in the tumor microenvironment and capture antitumor immune responses, ultimately reflecting clinical outcomes with immune checkpoint blockade., Competing Interests: Competing interests: VA receives research funding to her institution from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Astra Zeneca. PMF has received research funding to his institution from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Corvus, Kyowa. He has also served as a consultant for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Iteos, Janssen, Mirati, Novartis, Sanofi and as a DSMB member for Polaris and Flame Therapeutics. KNS receives research funding to her institution from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Astra Zeneca, and Enara Bio, and holds founder’s equity in manaT Bio. VEV is a founder of Delfi Diagnostics and Personal Genome Diagnostics, serves on the Board of Directors and as a consultant for both organizations, and owns Delfi Diagnostics and Personal Genome Diagnostics stock, which are subject to certain restrictions under university policy. Additionally, Johns Hopkins University owns equity in Delfi Diagnostics and Personal Genome Diagnostics. VEV is an inventor of multiple licensed patents related to technologies from Johns Hopkins University. Some of these licenses and relationships are associated with equity or royalty payments directly to Johns Hopkins and VEV. VEV is an advisor to Bristol-Myers Squibb, Danaher, Genentech, and Takeda Pharmaceuticals. Within the last five years, VEV has been an advisor to Merck and Ignyta. These arrangements have been reviewed and approved by the Johns Hopkins University in accordance with its conflict of interest policies. JW is a consultant for Personal Genome Diagnostics, is the founder and owner of Resphera Biosciences and holds patents, royalties or other intellectual property from Personal Genomic Diagnostics. JER is in the advisory board/consultant of Oncocyte, receives speaking fees for Astrazeneca, and has received research funding to his institution from Genetech/Roche, and Verastem. JB is in the advisory board/consultant of Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Genentech/Roche, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Sanofi and Regeneron, receives grant research funding from AstraZeneca, BMS, Genentech/Roche, Merck, RAPT Therapeutics, Inc and Revolution Medicines and is in the Data and Safety Monitoring Board/Committees of GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi and Janssen. TS is in the advisory board/consultant of Cue Biopharma, Dracen, Innate, Nanobiotix, Merck, Sanofi, Synthekine, receives grant research funding from AstraZeneca, BMS, Cue Biopharma, Genentech/Roche, Merck, Nanobiotix, Synthekine, and is in the Data and Safety Monitoring Board/Committees of Astra Zeneca, and Nektar. VL has received research funding to his institution from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, SeaGen. He has also served as a consultant for Takeda, SeaGen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, and Guardant Health., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy confers a modest benefit over surgery alone for resectable non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In early-phase trials, nivolumab-based neoadjuvant regimens have shown promising clinical activity; however, data from phase 3 trials are needed to confirm these findings., Methods: In this open-label, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients with stage IB to IIIA resectable NSCLC to receive nivolumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy or platinum-based chemotherapy alone, followed by resection. The primary end points were event-free survival and pathological complete response (0% viable tumor in resected lung and lymph nodes), both evaluated by blinded independent review. Overall survival was a key secondary end point. Safety was assessed in all treated patients., Results: The median event-free survival was 31.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 30.2 to not reached) with nivolumab plus chemotherapy and 20.8 months (95% CI, 14.0 to 26.7) with chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio for disease progression, disease recurrence, or death, 0.63; 97.38% CI, 0.43 to 0.91; P = 0.005). The percentage of patients with a pathological complete response was 24.0% (95% CI, 18.0 to 31.0) and 2.2% (95% CI, 0.6 to 5.6), respectively (odds ratio, 13.94; 99% CI, 3.49 to 55.75; P<0.001). Results for event-free survival and pathological complete response across most subgroups favored nivolumab plus chemotherapy over chemotherapy alone. At the first prespecified interim analysis, the hazard ratio for death was 0.57 (99.67% CI, 0.30 to 1.07) and did not meet the criterion for significance. Of the patients who underwent randomization, 83.2% of those in the nivolumab-plus-chemotherapy group and 75.4% of those in the chemotherapy-alone group underwent surgery. Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 33.5% of the patients in the nivolumab-plus-chemotherapy group and in 36.9% of those in the chemotherapy-alone group., Conclusions: In patients with resectable NSCLC, neoadjuvant nivolumab plus chemotherapy resulted in significantly longer event-free survival and a higher percentage of patients with a pathological complete response than chemotherapy alone. The addition of nivolumab to neoadjuvant chemotherapy did not increase the incidence of adverse events or impede the feasibility of surgery. (Funded by Bristol Myers Squibb; CheckMate 816 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02998528.)., (Copyright © 2022 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Immunotherapy has transformed lung cancer care in recent years. In addition to providing durable responses and prolonged survival outcomes for a subset of patients with heavily pretreated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs)- either as monotherapy or in combination with other ICIs or chemotherapy-have demonstrated benefits in first-line therapy for advanced disease, the neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings, as well as in additional thoracic malignancies such as small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) and mesothelioma. Challenging questions remain, however, on topics including therapy selection, appropriate biomarker-based identification of patients who may derive benefit, the use of immunotherapy in special populations such as people with autoimmune disorders, and toxicity management. Patient and caregiver education and support for quality of life (QOL) is also important to attain maximal benefit with immunotherapy. To provide guidance to the oncology community on these and other important concerns, the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) convened a multidisciplinary panel of experts to develop a clinical practice guideline (CPG). This CPG represents an update to SITC's 2018 publication on immunotherapy for the treatment of NSCLC, and is expanded to include recommendations on SCLC and mesothelioma. The Expert Panel drew on the published literature as well as their clinical experience to develop recommendations for healthcare professionals on these important aspects of immunotherapeutic treatment for lung cancer and mesothelioma, including diagnostic testing, treatment planning, immune-related adverse events, and patient QOL considerations. The evidence- and consensus-based recommendations in this CPG are intended to give guidance to cancer care providers using immunotherapy to treat patients with lung cancer or mesothelioma., Competing Interests: Competing interests: CA—Consulting fees: AstraZeneca, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Genetech, Merck. SJA—Advisory board: Bristol Myers Squibb, Celsius, Merck, Samyang Biopharma, AstraZeneca/Medimmune; Consultant: Bristol Myers Squibb, Celsius, Merck, Samyang Biopharma, AstraZeneca/Medimmune, CBMG, Memgen, RAPT, Venn, Achilles Therapeutics, GlaxoSmithKline, Amgen; Scientific advisory board: CBMG, Memgen, RAPT, Venn, Achilles Therapeutics, GlaxoSmithKline, Amgen. MD—Speaker bureaus: Genentech, Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb and AstraZeneca (all have been discontinued as of November 2019). SMD—Scientific advisory boards: Johnson & Johnson Scientific, T-Cure Bioscience, LungLife AI, Early Diagnostics; Contracted research: Jansen. PMF—Consulting fees: Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Iteos, Novartis, Janssen; Contracted research: AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Kyowa, Novartis; DSMB: Polaris, Flame. EBG—Consulting fees: ABL-Bio, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Dracen, EMD Serono, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Novartis; Contracted research: AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Dynavax, EMD Serono, Eli Lilly, Genentech, Merck, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Mirati Therapeutics, Neon, Novartis. SBG—Consulting fees: AstraZeneca, Blueprint Medicine, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Genentech, Sanofi Genzyme, Daiichi Sankyo, Regeneron, Takeda, Janssen; Contracted research: AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim. RG—Consulting fee: Achilles, GenePlus, Inivata, Roche. RH—Contracted research: My institution receives funds for conducting clinical trials from Bayer and TCR2 under a cooperative research and development agreement with NCI. MDH—Consulting fees: Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, Nektar, Syndax, Mirati, Shattuck Labs, Immunai, Blueprint Medicines, Achilles, Arcus; Contracted research: Bristol Myers Squibb; IP rights: A patent filed by his institution related to the use of tumor mutation burden to predict response to immunotherapy (PCT/US2015/062208), which has received licensing fees from PGDx; Ownership interest: Arcus, Shattuck Labs, Immunai. RSH—Consulting fees: AbbVie Pharmaceuticals, ARMO Biosciences, AstraZeneca, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Bolt Biotherapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Candel Therapeutics, Cybrexa Therapeutics, eFFECTOR Therapeutics, Eli Lilly and Company, EMD Serono, Foundation Medicine, Genentech/Roche, Genmab, Gilead, Halozyme Therapeutics, Heat Biologic, I-Mab Biopharma, Immunocore, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Loxo Oncology, Merck and Company; Mirati Therapeutics, Nektar, Neon Therapeutics, NextCure, Novartis, Ocean Biomedical, Oncternal Therapeutics, Pfizer, Ribbon Therapeutics, Ventana Medical Systems, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Shire PLC, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, STCube Pharmaceuticals, Symphogen, Takeda, Tesaro, Tocagen, WindMIL Therapeutics, Xencor; Contracted research: AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly and Company, Genentech/Roche, Merck and Company; Board member (non-executive/independent): Immunocore Holdings Limited, Junshi Pharmaceuticals. FRH—Consulting fees: Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech/Roche, Lilly/Loxo, Daiichi, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, OncoCyte, Amgen, Sanofi/Regeneron; Contracted research through University of Colorado: Amgen, AbbVie, Biodesix, Rain Therapeutics, Aurora Oncology, Mersana; IP rights through University of Colorado: EGFR protein and EGFR Gene Copy Number as Predictive Biomarker for EGFR Therapy. MLJ—Consulting fees – all payments made to my institution: Achilles Therapeutics, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Atreca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, EMD Serono, G1 Therapeutics, Roche/Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Gritstone, Incyte, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Mirati, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis, WindMIL Therapeutics; Contracted research – all payments made to my institution: AbbVie, Adaptimmune, Amgen, Apexigen, Array Biopharma, AstraZeneca, Atreca, BeiGene, BerGenBio, Boehringer Ingelheim, Calithera, Checkpoint Therapeutics, Corvus Pharmaceuticals, CytomX, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly, EMD Serono, Roche/Genentech, Genmab, Genocea, GlaxoSmithKline, Gritstone Oncology, Guardant Health, Hengrui Therapeutics, Immunocore, Incyte, Janssen, Jounce, Mirati, Neovia Oncology, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Shattuck Labs, Syndax, Takeda, Tarveda, University of Michigan, WindMIL Therapeutics, TCR2 Therapeutics, Arcus, Ribon, Rubius Therapeutics, Tmunity Therapeutics, Seven and Eight Biosciences, Foundation Medicine; Partner consulting Fees: Otsuka. DM—Consulting fees: Gilead, G1 Therapeutics, AbbVie. JWN—Grants and personal fees: Takeda (during the conduct of the study), AstraZeneca; Grants (non-financial support): Genentech/Roche, Exelixis, Jounce Therapeutics, Eli Lilly and Company, Calithera Biosciences, Amgen, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Blueprint Pharmaceuticals, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Natera; Grants and non-financial support: Merck, Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Nektar Therapeutics, Adaptimmune, GSK, Janssen, AbbVie. JDP—Consulting fees: AstraZeneca, AbbVie, Takeda; Contracted research: Bristol Myers Squibb, Takeda, RAIN. DLR—Consulting fees: AstraZeneca, Agendia, Amgen, BMS, Cell Signaling Technology, Cepheid, Danaher, Daiichi Sankyo, Genoptix/Novartis, GSK, Konica Minolta, Merck, NanoString, PAIGE.AI, Perkin Elmer, Roche, Sanofi, Ventana and Ultivue; Laboratory support: Amgen, Cepheid, NavigateBP, NextCure, and Konica Minolta. SS—Gift cards: Healthcasts-Syneos, ZOOM RX Surveys, Schlesinger Group, Impact Rx; Monetary compensation: Global M3. LHS—Contracted research: Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, Regeneron. BS—Consulting fees: Bristol Myers Squibb. SITC staff: SMW—Shares owned: Pacific Biosciences, Editas Medicine; AK, LL, CG--Nothing to disclose, (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)