Search

Objective: Despite the growing relevance of immunotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), there is limited consensus on the optimal treatment strategy for locally advanced NSCLC. This study evaluated the overall survival of patients with stage III-N2 NSCLC undergoing induction chemoimmunotherapy with surgery (CT/IO+Surgery) and definitive concurrent chemoradiation followed by immunotherapy (cCRT+IO)., Methods: Patients with cT1-3, N2, M0 NSCLC in the National Cancer Database (2013 to 2019) were included and stratified by treatment regimen: CT/IO+Surgery or cCRT+IO. Overall survival was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier analysis, Cox proportional hazards modeling, and propensity score matching on 10 prognostic variables., Results: Of the 3382 patients who met the study eligibility criteria, 3289 (97.3%) received cCRT+IO and 93 (2.8%) received CT/IO+Surgery. The 3-year overall survival of the entire cohort was 58.2% (95% CI, 56.2% to 60.1%). Multivariable-adjusted Cox proportional hazards modeling demonstrated better survival after CT/IO+Surgery than after cCRT+IO (hazard ratio [HR], 0.52; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.32 to 0.84; P = .007). In a 3:1 variable ratio propensity score-matched analysis of 223 patients who received cCRT+IO and 76 patients who received CT/IO+Surgery, 3-year overall survival was 63.2% (95% CI, 55.9% to 70.2%) after cCRT+IO and 77.2% (95% CI, 64.6% to 85.7%) after CT/IO+Surgery (P = .029)., Conclusions: In this national analysis, multimodal treatment including immunotherapy was associated with a 3-year overall survival rate of 58.2% for all patients with stage III-N2 NSCLC and 77.2% for patients who underwent chemoimmunotherapy followed by surgery. These results should be considered hypothesis-generating and demonstrate the importance of developing a randomized trial to evaluate the role of surgery versus chemoradiation for locally advanced NSCLC in the modern immunotherapy era., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest Statement L.M. has received consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Genentech, Ontarget Laboratories, and Ethicon. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to report. The Journal policy requires editors and reviewers to disclose conflicts of interest and to decline handling or reviewing manuscripts for which they may have a conflict of interest. The editors and reviewers of this article have no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The treatment for locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer has changed dramatically over the past several years, with consolidative immunotherapy after concurrent chemoradiation becoming the new standard of care. Five-year survival outcomes have substantially improved with this approach. Despite these advances, further improvements are needed as the majority of patients ultimately develop progression of disease. The next-generation immunotherapy trials are currently being conducted that include approaches such as concurrent immunotherapy and addition of other therapeutic agents in the concurrent and consolidative settings. Specific unmet needs continue to exist for patients who develop disease progression after concurrent chemoradiation and immunotherapy, as well as defining the best treatment for patients with driver mutations. Future directions also include refinement of radiation techniques to reduce toxicities as much as possible, as well as the use of circulating tumor DNA in the surveillance setting. The current scientific landscape shows promising approaches that may further improve outcomes for patients with locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer., Competing Interests: Kristin A. HigginsHonoraria: PrecisCAConsulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, Genentech, Varian Medical SystemsResearch Funding: Reflexion MedicalTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: AstraZeneca Sonam PuriConsulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, G1 Therapeutics Jhanelle E. GrayHonoraria: Merck Sharp & Dohme, Axiom Healthcare Strategies, InivataConsulting or Advisory Role: Novartis, AstraZeneca, Blueprint Medicines, Bristol Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Lilly, Sanofi, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Janssen Scientific AffairsResearch Funding: Array BioPharma, Merck, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Genentech/Roche, G1 Therapeutics, Novartis, Pfizer, Ludwig Institute for Cancer ResearchTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Merck Sharp & Dohme, Inivata, Merck, EMD Serono, NovartisNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) is the standard treatment for medically inoperable, early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer. SABR results in high rates of in-field tumor control, but among larger and more biologically aggressive tumors, regional and distant failures are problematic. Cytotoxic chemotherapy is rarely used in this patient population and the benefit is unclear. Alternative systemic therapy options with a milder side-effect profile are of considerable interest, and several randomized phase III trials are currently testing immune checkpoint inhibitors in this setting. We review the rationale, data, and ongoing studies evaluating systemic therapy in medically inoperable, early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer treated with SABR., Competing Interests: Megan E. DalyEmployment: University of California, DavisLeadership: IJROBP, Practical Radiation OncologyConsulting or Advisory Role: Boston Scientific, Triptych Health PartnersResearch Funding: EMD Serono, Genentech (Inst), MerckTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Boston ScientificOther Relationship: Telesecurity Sciences/ImatrexNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

For patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (mNSCLC), the last decade has been characterized by critical progress that has contributed to substantially improved survival. In particular, the development of specific antibodies against the programmed death (PD-1) receptor, programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), and the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 receptor in the therapeutic strategy of mNSCLC either in first- or in second-line settings have led to unprecedented prolonged survival for a proportion of these patients. Although clinical development of immune checkpoint inhibitors with anti-PD-1 and PD-L1 therapies largely began as monotherapy in the second-line setting, the more recent progress has shifted toward combination approaches in first-line settings as well as the integration of immunotherapy into the clinical paradigm in earlier stages. Today, with the exception of mNSCLC harboring targetable oncogenes, nearly all patients with mNSCLC receive PD-1 or PD-L1 therapy in first-line settings. Here we report the current status of first-line immunotherapy in mNSCLC together with current challenges in selecting the best immunotherapeutic approach for the individual patient., Competing Interests: Martin ReckConsulting or Advisory Role: Lilly, MSD Oncology, Merck Serono, Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Novartis, Roche/Genentech, AbbVie, Amgen, Mirati Therapeutics, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi/RegeneronSpeakers' Bureau: Roche/Genentech, Lilly, MSD Oncology, Merck Serono, Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Pfizer, Novartis, Amgen, Mirati Therapeutics, Sanofi/Aventis Jordi RemonConsulting or Advisory Role: Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, MSD Oncology, AstraZeneca, OSE ImmunotherapeuticsTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche/Genentech, Inivata, OSE Immunotherapeutics, AstraZeneca Matthew D. HellmannStock and Other Ownership Interests: Shattuck Labs, Immunai, Arcus Biosciences, Shattuck Labs, FactorialConsulting or Advisory Role: Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Genentech, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Mirati Therapeutics, Immunai, Blueprint Medicines, Natera, Shattuck Labs, Arcus Biosciences, Achilles Therapeutics, Adagene, Adicet Bio, Lilly, Janssen, Instil Bio, Mana Therapeutics, PACT Pharma, RegeneronResearch Funding: Bristol Myers SquibbPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: A patent has been filed by Memorial Sloan Kettering (PCT/US2015/062208) for the use of tumor mutation burden for prediction of immunotherapy efficacy, and which is licensed to Personal Genome DiagnosticsNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a rare malignancy with few treatment options. Recent advances have led to US Food and Drug Administration approvals and changes in the standard of care with a novel biomedical device approved for use with platinum-pemetrexed, and also for immunotherapy agents to be included as a frontline treatment option in unresectable disease. Although predictive biomarkers for systemic therapy are not currently in use in clinical practice, it is essential to correctly identify the MPM histology to determine an optimal treatment plan. Patients with nonepithelioid MPM may have a greater magnitude of benefit to dual immunotherapy checkpoint inhibitors and this regimen should be preferred in the frontline setting for these patients. However, all patients with MPM can derive benefit from immunotherapy treatments, and these agents should ultimately be used at some point during their treatment journey. There are ongoing studies in the frontline unresectable setting that may further define the frontline therapy space, but a critical area of research will need to focus on the immunotherapy refractory population. This review article will describe the new developments in the areas of biology with genomics and chromothripsis, and also focus on updates in treatment strategies in radiology, surgery, radiation, and medical oncology with cellular therapies. These recent innovations are generating momentum to find better therapies for this disease., Competing Interests: Anne S. TsaoConsulting or Advisory Role: Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Genentech/Roche, Lilly, Bristol Myers Squibb, Epizyme, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, ARIAD, EMD Serono, Takeda, HERONResearch Funding: Merck, Genentech/Roche, Seattle Genetics, Millennium, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Polaris, EMD Serono, Seattle Genetics, Takeda, UpToDate Harvey I. PassHonoraria: Genentech/RocheConsulting or Advisory Role: Genentech/Roche, NovartisResearch Funding: Biodesix, Micronoma, NanoString Technologies, Celsius TherapeuticsPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Patent Pending, use of fibulin for the diagnosis of mesothelioma; Patent Pending, use of HMGB1 for the diagnosis of mesothelioma, with University of Hawaii; Patent Pending, use of osteopontin for the diagnosis of mesothelioma, with Wayne State UniversityTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Genentech/Roche Andreas RimnerHonoraria: More HealthConsulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, Merck, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cybrexa TherapeuticsResearch Funding: Varian Medical Systems, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, MerckTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Philips/Elekta Aaron S. MansfieldHonoraria: Shanghai RocheConsulting or Advisory Role: Genentech, Bristol Myers Squibb, AbbVie, AstraZenecaResearch Funding: NovartisTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche, AbbVieNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) was reported to be associated with prognosis of urothelial cancer (UC) patients receiving systemic chemotherapy or immunotherapy. However, it has not been elucidated how preceding first-line chemotherapy affects NLR and subsequent second-line pembrolizumab treatment. This multicenter study analyzed 458 patients with metastatic UC who received first-line chemotherapy and second-line pembrolizumab with regard to pre-chemotherapy and pre-pembrolizumab NLR in association with the efficacy of chemotherapy and pembrolizumab treatment. NLR was increased in 47% while decreased in 53% of patients before and after first-line chemotherapy. High pre-chemotherapy NLR (≥ 3) was significantly associated with unfavorable overall (OS, P = 0.0001) and progression-free (P < 0.0001) survivals after first-line chemotherapy. However, pre-chemotherapy NLR showed only modest influence on radiological response and survival after second-line pembrolizumab treatment, whereas pre-pembrolizumab NLR showed higher association. NLR decrease was associated with partial response or greater objective response by first-line chemotherapy, while NLR increase was associated with higher patient age. In conclusion, immediate pre-chemotherapy and pre-pembrolizumab NLR was significantly associated with efficacy of the following treatment, respectively. However, even patients with high pre-chemotherapy NLR achieved favorable OS if they had their NLR reduced by chemotherapy, whereas those with high pre-chemotherapy NLR yielded unfavorable OS if they had their NLR remained high after chemotherapy, suggesting that chemotherapy may have differential effect on the efficacy of subsequent pembrolizumab treatment in UC patients., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Background & Aims: The benefits of immunonutrition in patients with head and neck cancer (HNC), especially for those undergoing definitive concurrent chemoradiation (CCRT), remain unclear. We evaluated the benefits of immunonutrition regarding the prevention of severe oral mucositis. Secondary objectives included assessments of other treatment-related toxicities, changes of nutritional and inflammatory marker levels, treatment tolerance, and survival., Methods: In total, 110 patients with HNC undergoing definitive CCRT including 3-week cycles of cisplatin were enrolled in our double-blind phase II study. Patients were randomly assigned to receive an immunonutrient formula containing omega-3-fatty acids, arginine, dietary nucleotides, and soluble fiber (n = 55) or an isocaloric isonitrogenous control (n = 55). All patients received the assigned product 5 consecutive days before each chemotherapy session. The proportion of patients with severe oral mucositis was compared between the immunonutrients and control groups., Results: The rates of nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC) were 67% and 51% in the immunonutrients and control groups, respectively. All patients had 100% compliance to the assigned product. There was no difference of the proportion of patients with grade 3-4 oral mucositis between the two groups (62% vs. 67%, p = 0.690). At the time of analyses, survival tended to be better in the immunonutrients group. The 3-year progression-free survival rates were 69% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 55%-80%) and 44% (95% CI = 30%-57%) in the immunonutrients and control groups, respectively (p = 0.056), whereas the 3-year overall survival rates in these groups were 69% (95% CI = 54%-80%) and 50% (95% CI = 36%-66%; p = 0.065), respectively. In subgroup analyses according to the primary tumor location, the survival benefits were apparently maintained in patients with NPC., Conclusions: Although our study did not demonstrate a reduced risk of severe oral mucositis, we found that immunonutrition might improve survival. Larger studies are needed to determine the optimal dose and schedule of immunonutrition to prevent oral mucositis. In addition, randomized phase III trials evaluating the survival benefits of immunonutrition in patients with cancer are required, and NPC might be a primary malignancy of interest., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT05101889., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd and European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism. All rights reserved.)

Background: The association between immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) and outcomes of cancer patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection has yet to be systematically evaluated. This meta-analysis aims to investigate the effects of ICI treatment on COVID-19 prognosis, including mortality, severity, and any other prognosis-related outcomes., Methods: Eligible studies published up to 27 February 2021 were included and assessed for risk of bias using the Quality in Prognosis Studies tool. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted to estimate the pooled effect size along with its 95% confidence intervals. The quality of body evidence was evaluated using the modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework., Results: Eleven studies involving a total of 2826 COVID-19-infected cancer patients were included in the systematic review. We discovered a moderate-to-high quality of evidence that ICI was not associated with a higher mortality risk, while the other outcomes yielded a very low-to-low-evidence quality. Although our findings indicated that ICI did not result in a higher risk of severity and hospitalization, further evidence is required to confirm our findings. In addition, we discovered that prior exposure to chemoimmunotherapy may be linked with a higher risk of COVID-19 severity (OR 8.19 [95% CI: 2.67-25.08]; I 2  = 0%), albeit with small sample size., Conclusion: Our findings indicated that ICI treatment should not be adjourned nor terminated during the current pandemic. Rather, COVID-19 vigilance should be increased in such patients. Further studies with larger cohorts and higher quality of evidence are required to substantiate our findings., Trial Registration Number: This project has been prospectively registered at PROSPERO (registration ID: CRD42020202142) on 4 August 2020., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Data on the safety and efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in patients with concurrent autoimmune diseases (AID) are limited., Methods: We performed a retrospective multicenter review of medical records of patients with cancer and underlying AID who received ICI. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS)., Results: Among 123 patients with pre-existing AID who received ICI, the majority had been diagnosed with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC, 68.3%) and melanoma (14.6%). Most patients had a rheumatologic (43.9%), or an endocrine disorder (21.1%). Overall, 74 (60.2%) patients experienced an immune-related adverse event (irAE) after ICI initiation, AID flare (25.2%), or new irAE (35%). Frequent irAEs included thyroiditis, dermatitis and colitis. ICI was permanently discontinued due to unacceptable (8.1%) or fatal (0.8%) toxicity. In patients with NSCLC, corticosteroid treatment at the initiation of immunotherapy was associated with poor PFS (HR = 2.78, 95% CI 1.40-5.50, p = 0.003). The occurrence of irAE was associated with increased PFS (HR = 0.48, 95% CI 0.25-0.92, p = 0.026). Both parameters maintained their independent prognostic significance., Conclusions: ICI in patients with cancer and pre-existing AID is associated with manageable toxicity that infrequently requires treatment discontinuation. However, since severe AID flare might occur, expected ICI efficacy and toxicity must be balanced., Clinical Trial Identifier: NCT04805099., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Advances in the understanding of checkpoint blockade immunotherapy have suggested that boosting the cancer-immunity cycle (CIC) can help induce regression of tumors. However, good efficacy only occurs in a subset of patients. Predictive biomarkers that can reflect the tumor microenvironment (TME) and CIC may have great potential. More recently, the presence of intratumoral tertiary lymphoid structures (TLSs) has also been correlated with clinical benefit in patients. In this study, we comprehensively measured the immunogram scores (IGSs) for the CIC and explored the associations between immunological and mutational features and a 12-chemokine metagene TLS signature in data from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA). Three immunotherapy datasets were further applied for validation. In the TCGA dataset, we observed that the 12-chemokine TLS signature score was positively associated with the enhanced IGSs as represented by increased tumor mutational burden (TMB) and neoantigen burden (TNB), enriched immune cell (IC) infiltration, and elevated cytolytic activity and checkpoint expression. Specifically, in bladder cancer and melanoma, the high 12-chemokine TLS signature score was found to potentially reflect an expanded cancer-immunity status characterized by high TNB and an immune-inflamed feature. The predictive and prognostic value of the 12-chemokine TLS signature was further validated in several immunotherapy datasets. The score of the 12-chemokine TLS signature may serve as a pancancer marker of the immune-active phenotype. The 12-chemokine TLS signature showed promise as a predictive and prognostic biomarker for ICB efficacy, especially in melanoma and bladder cancer., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Treatment outcomes of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have substantially improved with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI), although only approximately 19% of patients respond to immunotherapy alone, increasing to 58% with the addition of chemotherapy. The gut microbiome has been recognized as a modulator of ICI response via its priming effect on the host immune response. Antibiotics as well as chemotherapy reduce gut microbial diversity, hence altering composition and function of the gut microbiome. Since the gut microbiome may modify ICI efficacy, we conducted a retrospective study evaluating the effects of prior antibiotic or chemotherapy use on NSCLC patient response to ICI., Methods: We retrospectively evaluated 256 NSCLC patients treated between 2011-2017 at Moffitt Cancer Center with ICI ± chemotherapy, examining the associations between prior antibiotic or chemotherapy use, overall response rate and survival. Relative risk regression using a log-link with combinatorial expectation maximization algorithm was performed to analyze differences in response between patients treated with antibiotics or chemotherapy versus patients who didn't receive antibiotics or chemotherapy. Cox proportional hazards models were constructed to evaluate associations between risk factors and overall survival., Results: Only 46 (18% of 256) patients used antibiotics prior to and/or during ICI treatment, and 146 (57%) had prior chemotherapy. Antibiotic users were 8% more likely to have worse overall response rate (RR:1.08; CI:0.93-1.26; p = 0.321), as well as a 35% worse overall survival (HR:1.35; CI:0.91-2.02; p = 0.145), although results were not statistically significant. However, prior use of chemotherapy was significantly associated with poor ICI response (RR:1.24; CI:1.05-1.47; p = 0.013) and worse overall survival (HR:1.47; CI:1.07-2.03; p = 0.018)., Conclusions: Patients receiving antibiotics prior to and/or during ICI therapy might experience worse treatment outcomes and survival than unexposed patients, although these associations were not statistically significant and hence warrant further prospective study. Prior chemotherapy significantly reduced ICI response and overall survival. Antibiotic or chemotherapy exposure may negatively impact ICI response, perhaps through disruption of the eubiotic gut microbiome., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: It has been postulated that patient's sex impacts response to immunotherapy. Sex modulation of immunotherapy benefit, however, has not yet been explored using patient-level data, where potential confounders, as well as histologic type, can be accounted for. Here we investigated the association between sex and chemoimmunotherapy efficacy for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) using a large, nation-wide dataset., Patients & Methods: Stage IV NSCLC patients diagnosed in 2015 were identified in the National Cancer Database (NCDB). Patients were treated with either chemoimmunotherapy or chemotherapy alone. The efficacy of the addition of immunotherapy treatment by sex was investigated using both an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model and propensity-score matching, in both the overall cohort and stratified by histological subtype., Results: 2064 (16%) patients received chemoimmunotherapy and10,733 (84%) received chemotherapy alone. Adjusted survival analysis in the overall cohort showed that both males (hazards ratio (HR) adj : 0.80, 95% CI: 0.74-0.87) and females (HR adj : 0.83, 95% CI: 0.76-0.90) had better OS when treated with chemoimmunotherapy than chemotherapy alone, with no statistically significant interaction between sex and receipt of immunotherapy (p = 0.63). Propensity matching confirmed these results. However, for those with squamous cell histology, male patients derived more benefit from chemoimmunotherapy treatment than females (HR adj : 0.73, 95% CI: 0.58-0.91 vs HR adj : 1.03, 95% CI: 0.76-1.38; p for interaction = 0.07)., Conclusion: Male patients with squamous cell carcinoma may derive more benefit from chemoimmunotherapy treatment. Histology likely plays an important role in how sex modulates immunotherapy efficacy., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Several observational studies suggested that gut microbiome-affecting-medication impairs the effectiveness of immunotherapy in patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We postulated that if the effectiveness of immunotherapy is affected by drug-related changes of the microbiome, a stronger association between the use of co-medication and overall survival (OS) will be observed in patients treated with immunotherapy as compared to patients treated with chemotherapy. In a retrospective matched cohort study, immunotherapy patients were matched (1:1) to patients treated with chemotherapy in the pre immunotherapy era. The association between the use of antibiotics, opioids, proton pump inhibitors, metformin and other antidiabetics on OS was assessed with multivariable cox-regression analyses. Interaction tests were applied to investigate whether the association differs between patients treated with immuno- or chemotherapy. A total of 442 patients were studied. The use of antibiotics was associated with worse OS (adjusted Hazard Ratio (aHR) 1.39, p = 0.02) independent of the type of therapy (chemotherapy or immunotherapy). The use of opioids was also associated with worse OS (aHR 1.33, p = 0.01). The other drugs studied showed no association with OS. Interaction term testing showed no effect modification by immuno- or chemotherapy for the association of antibiotics and opioids with OS. The use of antibiotics and opioids is similarly associated with worse outcomes in both chemotherapy and immunotherapy treated NSCLC patients. This suggests that the association is likely to be a consequence of confounding rather than disturbing the composition of the microbiome., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Purpose: Chronic myeloid leukemia (CP-CML) patients can achieve undetectable minimal residual disease (UMRD) and discontinue tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). Cellular immunity plays an important role in CML disease control. We conducted a randomized, non-blinded phase II trial of adjuvant immunotherapy with TKIs to facilitate TKI discontinuation., Methods: TKI-treated patients with CP-CML were randomized to receive the K562/GM-CSF vaccine (vaccine) OR Interferon-α + Sargramostim (IFN). If UMRD was achieved, then all treatment was stopped. Patients who did not achieve UMRD within one year, had a molecular relapse, or discontinued therapy for toxicity could crossover., Results: Thirty-four patients were randomized to IFN (n = 18) or vaccine (n = 16), and 21 patients crossed over (IFN⟶vaccine: n = 9, vaccine⟶IFN, n = 12). TKIs at enrollment included imatinib (n = 31), nilotinib (n = 2), and dasatinib (n = 1). No patients discontinued vaccine due to side effects, while 33 % of IFN-treated patients discontinued treatment. More patients randomized to IFN (47.4 %, 95 % CI: 16.7-66.7 %) versus vaccine (25.0 %, 95 % CI: 0.5-43.5 %) achieved UMRD within one year. Seven patients randomized to IFN discontinued treatment with 28.6 % (95 % CI: 8.9-92.2 %) sustaining treatment-free remission (TFR) at 1 year, while three patients randomized to vaccine discontinued treatment with none sustaining TFR. Including crossover, there was a cumulative discontinuation success rate of 36.4 % (95 % CI: 16.6 %-79.5 %) after adjuvant IFN. Patients who sustained TFR received a median of 29 months of imatinib prior to discontinuation., Conclusion: Adjuvant IFN led to durable TFRs with limited prior TKI exposure with comparable success to prior discontinuation trials, but many patients stopped IFN early., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Pancreatic cancer is associated with a high mortality rate, and the prognosis is positively related to immune status. In this study, we constructed a prognostic signature from survival- and immune-related genes (IRGs) to guide treatment and assess prognosis of patients with pancreatic cancer. The transcriptomic data were obtained from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) database, and IRGs were extracted from the ImmPort database. Univariate and LASSO regression analysis were used to obtain survival-related IRGs. Finally, the prognostic signature was constructed using multivariate regression analysis. The laboratory experiments were conducted to verify the key IRG expression. Immune cells infiltration was analyzed using the CIBERSORT algorithm and TIMER database. Prognostic signature containing four IRGs (ADA2, TLR1, PTPN6, S100P) was constructed with good predictive performance; in particular, S100P played a significant role in the immune microenvironment, and tumorigenesis of pancreatic cancer. Moreover, we found that CD8 + T cell and activated CD4 + memory T cell tumor infiltration was lower in the high-risk group, while high-risk score correlated positively with higher tumor mutational burden, and the higher half inhibitory centration 50 of chemotherapeutic agents Docetaxel and Sunitinib. In summary, this study identified and constructed an immune-related prognostic signature that can predict overall survival, besides suggests that S100P was a novel immune-related biomarker. We hope that this signature will aid the identification of new biomarkers for the individualized immunotherapy of pancreatic cancer.

Background: Recent advances in targeted therapy and immunotherapy have improved the prognosis of melanoma patients but brain metastasis remains a major challenge. Currently, it is unclear how existing therapies can be best used to prevent or treat brain metastasis in melanoma patients., Aims: We aimed to assess brain metastasis free survival (BMFS), overall survival (OS), incidence of brain metastases, and sequencing strategies of immunotherapy and targeted therapy in patients with BRAF-mutated advanced melanoma., Methods and Results: We retrospectively analyzed 683 patients with BRAF-mutated advanced melanoma treated with first line (1L) immunotherapy (N = 266) or targeted therapy (N = 417). The primary outcome was BMFS. Secondary outcomes included OS of all patients and incidence of brain metastases in patients without documented brain metastases prior to 1L therapy. The median BMFS was 13.7 months [95% confidence interval (CI): 12.4-16.0] among all patients. The median BMFS for patients receiving 1L immunotherapy was 41.9 months [95% CI: 22.8-not reached (NR)] and targeted therapy was 11.0 months (95% CI: 8.8-12.5). Median OS results were qualitatively similar to BMFS results. The cumulative incidence of brain metastases for patients receiving 1L targeted therapy was higher than for patients receiving 1L immunotherapy (P < .001). Patients receiving 1L anti-CTLA4 plus anti-PD1 combination immunotherapy only or followed by second line (2L) targeted therapy had better BMFS (HR 0.40, 95% CI: 0.24-0.67, P = .001), improved OS (HR 0.49, 95% CI: 0.30-0.81, P = .005), and reduced incidence of brain metastases (HR 0.47, 95% CI: 0.24-0.67, P = .047) than patients receiving 1L combination BRAF and MEK targeted therapy followed by 2L immunotherapy., Conclusion: Patients with advanced BRAF mutant melanoma treated with 1L immunotherapy have significantly longer BMFS and OS, and reduced incidence of brain metastases, compared with those treated with 1L targeted therapy. Further studies evaluating the ability of immunotherapy and targeted therapy to improve OS and prevent brain metastases are warranted., (© 2021 The Authors. Cancer Reports published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: The dependence of the adaptive immune system on circadian rhythm is an emerging field of study with potential therapeutic implications. We aimed to determine whether specific time-of-day patterns of immune checkpoint inhibitor infusions might alter melanoma treatment efficacy., Methods: Melanoma Outcomes Following Immunotherapy (MEMOIR) is a longitudinal study of all patients with melanoma who received ipilimumab, nivolumab, or pembrolizumab, or a combination of these at a single tertiary cancer centre (Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA). For this analysis, we collected deidentified participant-level data from the MEMOIR database for adults (age ≥18 years) diagnosed with stage IV melanoma between 2012 and 2020. Those who received fewer than four infusions were excluded. Standard of care doses were used, with modifications at the treating physicians' discretion. The primary outcome was overall survival, defined as death from any cause and indexed from date of first infusion of immune checkpoint inhibitor. We calculated the association between overall survival and proportion of infusions of immune checkpoint inhibitors received after 1630 h (a composite time cutoff derived from seminal studies of the immune-circadian rhythm to represent onset of evening) using Cox regression and propensity score-matching on age, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, serum lactate dehydrogenase concentration, and receipt of corticosteroids and radiotherapy. Treatment-related adverse events that led to change or discontinuation of immune checkpoint inhibitors were also assessed., Findings: Between Jan 1, 2012, and Dec 31, 2020, 481 patients with melanoma received treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors at the study centre, of whom 299 had stage IV disease and were included in this study; median follow-up was 27 months (IQR 14 to 47). In the complete unmatched sample, 102 (34%) patients were female and 197 (66%) were male, with a median age of 61 years (IQR 51 to 72). Every additional 20% of infusions of immune checkpoint inhibitors received after 1630 h (among all infusions received by a patient) conferred an overall survival hazard ratio (HR) of 1·31 (95% CI 1·00 to 1·71; p=0·046). A propensity score-matched analysis of patients who did (n=73) and did not (n=73) receive at least 20% of their infusions of immune checkpoint inhibitors after 1630 h (54 [37%] of 146 patients were women and 92 [63%] were men, with a median age of 58 years [IQR 48 to 68]) showed that having at least 20% of infusions in the evening was associated with shorter overall survival (median 4·8 years [95% CI 3·9 to not estimable] vs not reached; HR 2·04 [1·04 to 4·00; p=0·038]). This result remained robust to multivariable proportional hazards adjustment with (HR 1·80 [1·08 to 2·98; p=0·023]) and without (2·16 [1·10 to 4·25; p=0·025]) inclusion of the complete unmatched study sample. The most common adverse events were colitis (54 [18%] of 299 patients), hepatitis (27 [9%]), and hypophysitis (15 [5%]), and there were no treatment-related deaths., Interpretation: Our findings are in line with an increasing body of evidence that adaptive immune responses are less robust when initially stimulated in the evening than if stimulated in the daytime. Although prospective studies of the timing of immune checkpoint inhibitor infusions are warranted, efforts towards scheduling infusions before mid-afternoon could be considered in the multidisciplinary management of advanced melanoma., Funding: National Institutes of Health, American Society for Radiation Oncology and Melanoma Research Alliance, and Winship Cancer Institute., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests RRK reports grants from Regeneron, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Merck; consulting fees from Array BioPharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, Immunocore, Merck, Novartis, Regeneron, and Pfizer; support for conference travel from Bristol Myers Squibb; and honoraria from Array BioPharma and Bristol Myers Squibb. RDH reports grants from Abbisko, AbbVie, Actuate, Alkermes, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boston Biomedical, Calithera, FujiFilm, Genmab, GlaxoSmithKline, Infinity, InhibRx, Janssen, Lycera, Merck, Mersana, Meryx, Nektar, Pfizer, Puma, RAPT Therapeutics, Regeneron, Rgenix, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Sutro, Takeda, and Xencor. ZSB reports patent royalties from Ultragenyx. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: In Japan, over 25% of the population is elderly. As the risk of lung cancer increases with age, the number of elderly patients with lung cancer also increases. Given the challenges of an aging society, it is critical that elderly patients receive safe therapies., Aim: We assessed the safety and efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) aged ≥80 years., Methods: We retrospectively reviewed NSCLC patients aged ≥80 years old who received ICIs in the National Hospital Organization Kyoto Medical Center. We collected data on patient characteristics, prior treatments, number of cycles, response, and immune-related adverse events (irAEs) during ICI monotherapy., Results: A total of 45 patients were reviewed. The patients' median age was 85 years. Twenty-one, 17, and 7 patients received nivolumab, pembrolizumab, and atezolizumab, respectively. The disease control rate (partial response [PR] + stable disease [SD]) was 60.0%, and the progression-free survival was 3.4 months. In patients with nivolumab, seven patients (33.3%) achieved SD, and three patients (14.2%) achieved PR. In patients treated with pembrolizumab, seven patients (41.2%) achieved SD, and six patients (35.3%) achieved PR. In patients with atezolizumab, three patients (42.9%) achieved SD, and one patient (14.2%) achieved PR. Sixteen (36%) patients presented with a poor performance status. Three patients treated with pembrolizumab experienced grade 3 pneumonia, while one patient treated with nivolumab experienced grade 5 pneumonia., Conclusion: This study suggested that ICIs are an acceptable treatment option for NSCLC patients aged ≥80 years. Oncologists should pay attention to severe irAEs., (© 2021 The Authors. Cancer Reports published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: Immunotherapy is an important treatment in oncology, but only a fraction of patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) benefit from it. Therefore, the aim of this study was to identify predictive biomarkers of immunotherapy response for HNSCC in order to improve treatment outcomes., Methods: Survival analyses and comparative efficacy evaluation were performed to investigate prognostic and therapeutic impact factors in patients with advanced HNSCC following immunotherapy, and to examine the effects of factors including gene mutations, tumor mutational burden (TMB), mutant-allele tumor heterogeneity (MATH), and immune cell infiltration on the survival and efficacy., Results: Anti-PD-1 treatment led to a prolonged overall survival (OS) in HNSCC patients with gene mutations compared with those without the mutations, while no significant difference in the OS was found between the two groups of patients. And no marked association between the MATH value and OS was detected in HNSCC patients, whereas patients with either high TMB scores in tissues and blood or high immune cell infiltration displayed a significantly longer OS. Further analysis with efficacy as the primary endpoint revealed no significant differences in the tissue TMB, blood TMB, and MATH value between the patients who responded to immunotherapy and those who did not. Moreover, no significant differences in the expression percentages of positive immune cells in tumor, stroma, and total regions were identified between the above two groups of patients., Conclusion: HNSCC is characterized by high mutation rate, high mutation burden, and high level of immune cell infiltration, and a subset of HNSCC patients respond to immunotherapy. Here, we showed that high mutation burden and immune cell infiltration may improve the prognosis of HNSCC patients with immunotherapy, while there was no remarkable effect on the efficacy., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Objective: Due to the molecular heterogeneity of gastric cancer, only minor patients respond to immunotherapeutic schemes. This study is aimed at developing an immune-based gene signature for risk stratification and immunotherapeutic efficacy assessment in gastric cancer., Methods: An immune-based gene signature was developed in gastric cancer by LASSO method in the training set. The predictive performance was validated in the external datasets. KEGG pathways related to risk scores were assessed by GSEA. Based on multivariate Cox regression analysis, a nomogram was established. Sensitivity to chemotherapy drugs was evaluated between high- and low-risk samples. The relationships of risk scores with infiltration levels of immune cells, stromal scores, immune scores, immune cell subgroups, and overall response to anti-PD-L1 therapy were determined., Results: Our results showed that high risk scores were indicative of undesirable survival outcomes both in the training set ( p < 0.0001) and the validation set ( p = 0.002). Moreover, this signature could independently predict patients' survival (HR: 2.656 (1.919-3.676) and p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis confirmed the sensitivity of this signature in predicting prognosis (all p < 0.05). Cancer-related pathways were primarily enriched in high-risk samples, such as MAPK and TGF- β pathways ( p < 0.05). By incorporating stage and the risk score, we established a nomogram for predicting one-, three-, and five-year survival probability. Patients with high-risk scores were more sensitive to chemotherapy drugs ( p < 0.05). There was heterogeneity in immune cells between high- and low-risk samples ( p < 0.05). Samples with progressive disease exhibited the highest risk score, and those with complete response had the lowest risk score ( p < 0.05)., Conclusion: This immune-based gene signature might be representative of a promising prognostic classifier for predicting risk stratification and immunotherapeutic efficacy in gastric cancer, assisting personalized therapy and follow-up plan., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Feng Qiu et al.)

Purpose: Immunotherapy has been approved to treat many tumor types. However, one characteristic of this therapeutic class is that survival benefit is due to late immune response, which leads to a delayed treatment effect. Quantifying the benefit, if any, of such treatment, will thus require other metrics than the usual hazard ratio and different approaches have been proposed to quantify the long-term response of immunotherapy., Method: In this paper, we suggest to use quantile regression for survival data to quantify the long-term benefit of immunotherapy. Our motivation is that this approach is not trial-specific and provides clinically understandable results without specifying arbitrary time points or the necessity to reach median survival, as is the case with other methods. We use reconstructed data from published Kaplan-Meier curves to illustrate our method., Results: On average, patients from the immunotherapy group have 60% chance to survive 5.46 months (95% CI, 2.57 to 9.02) more than patients in the chemotherapy group.

Combined immunotherapy is associated with a significant risk of severe and potentially fatal immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Therefore, we retrospectively analyzed the side profile and efficacy of low-dose ipilimumab (1 mg/kg, IPI1) combined with anti-PD-1 immunotherapy in patients who progressed after anti-PD-1 monotherapy. Nine patients with unresectable stage III or IV melanoma treated with combined low-dose ipilimumab (1 mg/kg, IPI1) and anti-PD-1 immunotherapy, following progression after anti-PD-1 treatment, were identified. Treatment response and irAEs were recorded. Grade 3 irAEs occurred in one-third of patients. Interestingly, there were no grade 4 or 5 irAEs. In fact, four out of the nine patients experienced no irAEs at all. One patient discontinued combined immunotherapy due to immune-related colitis. The mean time to the onset of grade 3 irAEs was 14.3 weeks. The objective response rate was 33.3% and a disease control rate of 66.7% was achieved. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 5.7 months and median overall survival (OS) was 21.6 months. The median PFS when IPI1 and anti-PD-1 treatment was administered in the second-line setting was not reached, but only 2.8 months when used in subsequent treatment settings. Combined IPI1 and anti-PD-1 immunotherapy was well tolerated. Its use in the third-line or above setting was associated with a significantly poorer prognosis than in the second-line setting. Larger, prospective studies are required to evaluate the safety and efficacy of this dosing regimen following anti-PD-1 treatment failure., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Our aim was to analyse whether biomarkers extracted from baseline 18 F-FDG PET before anti-PD1 treatment contribute to prognostic survival information for early risk stratification in metastatic melanoma. Fifty-six patients, without prior systemic treatment, BRAF wild type, explored using 18 F-FDG PET were included retrospectively. Our primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Total metabolic tumoral volume (MTV) and forty-one IBSI compliant parameters were extracted from PET. Parameters associated with outcome were evaluated by a cox regression model and when significant helped build a prognostic score. Median follow-up was 22.1 months and 21 patients died. Total MTV and long zone emphasis (LZE) correlated with shorter OS and served to define three risk categories for the prognostic score. For low, intermediate and high risk groups, survival rates were respectively 91.1% (IC 95 80-1), 56.1% (IC 95 37.1-85) and 19% (IC 95 0.06-60.2) and hazard ratios were respectively 0.11 (IC 95 0.025-0.46), P = 0.0028, 1.2 (IC 95 0.48-2.8), P = 0.74 and 5.9 (IC 95 2.5-14), P < 0.0001. To conclude, a prognostic score based on total MTV and LZE separated metastatic melanoma patients in 3 categories with dramatically different outcomes. Innovative therapies should be tested in the group with the lowest prognosis score for future clinical trials., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

To date, immune checkpoint inhibitors have been successively approved and widely used in clinical cancer treatments, however, the overall response rates are very low and almost all cancer patients eventually progressed to drug resistance, this is mainly due to the intricate tumor microenvironment and immune escape mechanisms of cancer cells. One of the main key mechanisms leading to the evasion of immune attack is the presence of the immunosuppressive microenvironment within tumors. Recently, several studies illustrated that triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells-2 (TREM2), a transmembrane receptor of the immunoglobulin superfamily, was a crucial pathology-induced immune signaling hub, and it played a vital negative role in antitumor immunity, such as inhibiting the proliferation of T cells. Here, we reviewed the recent advances in the study of TREM2, especially focused on its regulation of tumor-related immune signaling pathways and its role as a novel target in cancer immunotherapy., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Qiu, Shao, Wen, Jiang, Ma, Wang, Huang, Ding and Zhang.)

Importance: Immunotherapy (anti-programmed death ligand 1 antibodies) is associated with improved survival rates in advanced kidney cell carcinoma (KCC) after progression on first-line tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) treatment. It is unknown whether and to what degree patients in the control arm receive postprotocol immunotherapy in trials comparing combination immunotherapy regimens with TKI in first-line advanced KCC., Objective: To characterize the proportion of patients in the control arm who received postprotocol immunotherapy in trials comparing combination immunotherapy regimens with TKI in first-line advanced KCC., Evidence Review: A search of PubMed was conducted to identify randomized clinical trials of combination immunotherapy compared with TKI in first-line advanced KCC between January 1, 2015, and February 28, 2021. Combination immunotherapy was defined as an anti-programmed death ligand 1 agent and an additional agent. Search terms included renal cell cancer and first-line and were filtered by the type clinical trial. All English-language trials of combination immunotherapy compared with a TKI were included. The trials and their protocols and supplements were analyzed to determine the proportion of patients in the control arm receiving postprotocol immunotherapy., Findings: A total of 106 articles met search criteria and were screened. A total of 6 trials and 3 published updates of trial results were included in the systematic review. Of 2565 patients assigned to control arm groups, 2069 (81%) were no longer on TKI at last data cutoff. Of patients in the control arm who discontinued TKI, 932 (45%) received postprotocol immunotherapy. Of patients in the control arm receiving any type of postprotocol therapy, 66.4% received immunotherapy., Conclusions and Relevance: This systematic review found that the proportion of patients in the control arm receiving postprotocol immunotherapy is low in randomized clinical trials of first-line combination immunotherapy regimens for advanced KCC. Appropriate use of postprotocol therapy is essential to answering the question of whether a combination or sequential treatment strategy with immunotherapy is superior.

Purpose: Although NRG1 fusions are oncogenic drivers across multiple tumor types including lung cancers, these are difficult to study because of their rarity. The global eNRGy1 registry was thus established to characterize NRG1 fusion-positive lung cancers in the largest and most diverse series to date., Methods: From June 2018 to February 2020, a consortium of 22 centers from nine countries in Europe, Asia, and the United States contributed data from patients with pathologically confirmed NRG1 fusion-positive lung cancers. Profiling included DNA-based and/or RNA-based next-generation sequencing and fluorescence in situ hybridization. Anonymized clinical, pathologic, molecular, and response (RECIST v1.1) data were centrally curated and analyzed., Results: Although the typified never smoking (57%), mucinous adenocarcinoma (57%), and nonmetastatic (71%) phenotype predominated in 110 patients with NRG1 fusion-positive lung cancer, further diversity, including in smoking history (43%) and histology (43% nonmucinous and 6% nonadenocarcinoma), was elucidated. RNA-based testing identified most fusions (74%). Molecularly, six (of 18) novel 5' partners, 20 unique epidermal growth factor domain-inclusive chimeric events, and heterogeneous 5'/3' breakpoints were found. Platinum-doublet and taxane-based (post-platinum-doublet) chemotherapy achieved low objective response rates (ORRs 13% and 14%, respectively) and modest progression-free survival medians (PFS 5.8 and 4.0 months, respectively). Consistent with a low programmed death ligand-1 expressing (28%) and low tumor mutational burden (median: 0.9 mutations/megabase) immunophenotype, the activity of chemoimmunotherapy and single-agent immunotherapy was poor (ORR 0%/PFS 3.3 months and ORR 20%/PFS 3.6 months, respectively). Afatinib achieved an ORR of 25%, not contingent on fusion type, and a 2.8-month median PFS., Conclusion: NRG1 fusion-positive lung cancers were molecularly, pathologically, and clinically more heterogeneous than previously recognized. The activity of cytotoxic, immune, and targeted therapies was disappointing. Further research examining NRG1 -rearranged tumor biology is needed to develop new therapeutic strategies., Competing Interests: Alexander DrilonHonoraria: Medscape, OncLive, PeerVoice, Physicans' Education Resource, Targeted Oncology, MORE Health, Research to Practice, Foundation Medicine, PeerviewConsulting or Advisory Role: Ignyta, Loxo, TP Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Blueprint Medicines, Genentech/Roche, Helsinn Therapeutics, BeiGene, Hengrui Therapeutics, Exelixis, Bayer, Tyra Biosciences, Verastem, Takeda/Millennium, BerGenBio, MORE Health, Lilly, Verastem, AbbVie, 14ner Oncology/Elevation Oncology, Remedica, Archer, Monopteros Therapeutics, Novartis, EMD Serono/Merck, Melendi, Repare TherapeuticsResearch Funding: Foundation MedicinePatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Wolters Kluwer (royalties for Pocket Oncology)Other Relationship: Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Teva, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Puma Biotechnology Michael DuruisseauxConsulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, MSD Oncology, BMS, Pfizer, Roche, Takeda, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen Oncology, Amgen, AbbVieTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck Sharp & Dohme Ji-Youn HanHonoraria: Roche, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, TakedaConsulting or Advisory Role: MSD Oncology, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Lilly, Novartis, Takeda, PfizerResearch Funding: Roche, Pfizer, Ono Pharmaceutical, Takeda Soo-Ryum YangConsulting or Advisory Role: Invitae Yonina R. Murciano-GoroffTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: AstraZeneca Morihito OkadaSpeakers' Bureau: Taiho Pharmaceutical, Johnson & Johnson, Covidien, Lilly, Chugai Pharma, AstraZeneca, Ono Pharmaceutical, CSL BehringResearch Funding: Taiho Pharmaceutical, Nippon Kayaku, Chugai Pharma, Covidien, Johnson & Johnson, Daiichi Sankyo, Yakult Honsha, Lilly Japan, Nihon Medi-Physics, Pfizer, Mochida Pharmaceutical Co Ltd, Shionogi, Ono Pharmaceutical, Kyowa Hakko Kirin Miguel Angel MolinaEmployment: Pangaea OncologyResearch Funding: AstraZeneca, Merck Serono, In3Bio Marie WislezConsulting or Advisory Role: Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, MSD Oncology, Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, AmgenSpeakers' Bureau: Boehringer Ingelheim, Amgen, Roche, MSD Oncology, Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZenecaTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche, MSD Oncology Alexa SchrockEmployment: Foundation MedicineStock and Other Ownership Interests: Foundation Medicine, Roche Siraj AliEmployment: EQRX (I), Foundation Medicine, EQRXLeadership: Incysus Inc, Elevation Oncology, Pillar BiosciencesStock and Other Ownership Interests: Exelixis, Merus NV, PfizerConsulting or Advisory Role: Azitra (I), Princepx Tx (I)Patents, Royalties, and Other Intellectual Property:Patents via Seres Health on microbiome in non neoplastic disease (I), Foundation Medicine Valérie GounantConsulting or Advisory Role: Bristol Myers Squibb, Takeda, Roche, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Chugai Pharma EuropeTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Takeda, Roche, Pfizer Alison M. SchramResearch Funding: Merus, Kura Oncology, Surface Oncology, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Northern Biologics, Pfizer, Black Diamond Therapeutics, BeiGene, Relay Therapeutics Isabelle MonnetTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: MSD Oncology, Roche, Takeda, Pfizer Jin-Yuan ShihHonoraria: AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Novartis, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Ono Pharmaceutical, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, Chugai Pharma, LillyConsulting or Advisory Role: Chugai Pharma, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Takeda, CStone Pharmaceuticals, Janssen Oncology, Novartis, Pfizer, Ono Pharmaceutical, Merck Sharp & DohmeResearch Funding: RocheTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Chugai Pharma, Roche Joshua SabariConsulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, Janssen Oncology, Navire, Pfizer, Regeneron, Medscape, Takeda Maurice PérolConsulting or Advisory Role: Lilly, Roche/Genentech, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Amgen, Takeda, Chugai Pharma, Gritstone OncologyResearch Funding: AstraZeneca, Roche, Takeda, Boehringer IngelheimTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: AstraZeneca, Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Takeda, Chugai Pharma Viola W. ZhuStock and Other Ownership Interests: TP TherapeuticsHonoraria: AstraZeneca, Roche/Genentech, Takeda, Blueprint Medicines, XcoveryConsulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, Takeda, TP Therapeutics, Roche/Genentech, XcoverySpeakers' Bureau: AstraZeneca, Roche/Genentech, Takeda, Blueprint MedicinesTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: AstraZeneca, Roche/Genentech, Takeda, TP Therapeutics Misako NagasakaConsulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, Caris Life Sciences, Daiichi Sankyo, Takeda, Novartis, EMD SeronoSpeakers' Bureau: Blueprint MedicinesResearch Funding: TempusTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Anheart Therapeutics Robert DoebeleEmployment: Rain TherapeuticsLeadership: Rain TherapeuticsStock and Other Ownership: Rain TherapeuticsConsulting or Advisory Role: GreenPeptide, AstraZeneca, Roche/Genentech, Bayer, Takeda, Rain Therapeutics, Anchiano, Blueprint Medicines, Foundation Medicine, Guardant HealthPatents, Royalties, and Other Intellectual Property: Abbott Molecular for Patent PCT/US2013/057495, Rain Therapeutics, Genentech (Inst), Foundation Medicine (Inst), Black Diamond (Inst), Pearl River (Inst), Voronoi (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Rain Therapeutics, Roche/Genentech D. Ross CamidgeHonoraria: Roche, Takeda, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Bio-Thera, Ribon Therapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Inivata, AbbVie, Apollomics, Elevation Oncology, EMD Serono, Helsinn Therapeutics, Lilly, Nuvalent Inc, Seattle Genetics, Turning Point Therapeutics, Kestrel Labs, Amgen Astellas BioPharma, Anchiano, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, OnKure, Mersana, Pfizer, QiLu Pharmaceutical, SanofiResearch Funding: Takeda Maria ArcilaHonoraria: Invivoscribe, BiocartisConsulting or Advisory Role: AstraZenecaTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: AstraZeneca, Invivoscribe, Raindance Technologies Sai-Hong Ignatius OuStock and Other Ownership Interests: Turning Point Therapeutics, Elevation OncologyHonoraria: Pfizer, Roche Pharma AG, Genentech/Roche, ARIAD/Takeda, AstraZenecaConsulting or Advisory Role: Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, AstraZeneca, Takeda, Jassen/JNJSpeakers' Bureau: AstraZeneca, Genentech/RocheResearch Funding: Pfizer, Roche Pharma AG, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, AstraZeneca, ARIAD, Revolution Medicines, Mirati Therapeutics, Jassen/JNJ Denis Moro-SibilotConsulting or Advisory Role: Roche/Genentech, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly/ImClone, Sanofi, Novartis, Amgen, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, MSD Oncology, ARIAD, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Takeda, AbbvieResearch Funding: Abbvie (Inst), Boehr (Inst), Roche/Genentech (Inst), Bristol-Myers Squibb (Inst)Expert Testimony: MSD OncologyTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche/Genentech, Lilly/ImClone, Pfizer, MSD Oncology, Bristol-Myers Squibb Lucia Anna MuscarellaTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Boehringer Ingelheim Stephen V. LiuConsulting or Advisory Role: Genentech, Pfizer, Lilly, Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Takeda, Regeneron, G1 Therapeutics, Guardant Health, Janssen Oncology, MSD Oncology, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Blueprint Medicines, Inivata, PharmaMar, Daiichi Sankyo/UCB Japan, BeiGene, AmgenResearch Funding: Genentech/Roche, Pfizer, Corvus Pharmaceuticals, Bayer, Merck, Lycera, AstraZeneca, Molecular Partners, Blueprint Medicines, Lilly, Rain Therapeutics, Alkermes, Bristol Myers Squibb, Turning Point Therapeutics, RAPT Therapeutics, Merus, Debiopharm Group, Elevation OncologyTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: AstraZeneca, Roche/Genentech, MSD Oncology Jacques CadranelHonoraria: AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche/Genentech, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Boehringer IngelheimConsulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Roche/Genentech, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Takeda, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Lilly, NovartisResearch Funding: Pfizer, Novartis, AstraZeneca/MedImmuneNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Background & Aims: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a leading cause of cancer-related mortality, with a rapidly changing landscape of treatments. In the past 20 years, numerous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have aimed at improving outcomes across disease stages. We aimed to analyze the current evidence and identify potential factors influencing response to therapies., Methods: We conducted a systematic review of phase III RCTs (2002-2020) across disease stages. A meta-analysis was designed to examine the relationship between etiology and outcome after systemic therapies with either tyrosine-kinase inhibitor (TKI)/antiangiogenic or immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy., Results: Out of 10,100 studies identified, 76 were phase III RCTs. Among them, a rigorous screening algorithm identified 49 with high quality including a total of 22,113 patients undergoing adjuvant (n = 7) and primary treatment for early (n = 2), intermediate (n = 7), and advanced (first-line, n = 21; second-line, n = 12) stages of disease. Nine of these trials were positive, 6 treatments have been adopted in guidelines (sorafenib [2 RCTs], lenvatinib, atezolizumab+bevacizumab, regorafenib, cabozantinib and ramucirumab), but 2 were not (adjuvant CIK cells and sorafenib plus hepatic arterial infusion with FOLFOX). Meta-analysis of 8 trials including 3739 patients revealed ICI therapy to be significantly more effective in patients with viral hepatitis compared with nonviral-related HCC, whereas no differences related to etiology were observed in patients treated with TKI/anti-vascular endothelial growth factor., Conclusions: Among 49 high-quality RCTs conducted in HCC during 2002-2020, 9 resulted in positive results. A meta-analysis of systemic therapies suggests that immunotherapies may be more effective in viral etiologies., (Copyright © 2021 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Brain metastases (BMs) indicate poor outcomes and are commonly excluded in immunotherapy clinical trials in advanced lung cancer; moreover, the effect of BM status on immunotherapy efficacy is inconsistent and inconclusive. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis to assess the influence of BM status on immunotherapy efficacy in advanced lung cancer., Methods: Electronic databases and all major conference proceedings were searched without language restrictions according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. We extracted randomized clinical trials on lung cancer immunotherapy that had available overall survival (OS) and/or progression-free survival (PFS) data based on the BM status. All analyses were performed using random effects models., Results: Fourteen randomized clinical trials with 9,089 patients were identified. Immunotherapy conferred a survival advantage to BM patients [OS-hazard ratio (HR), 0.72; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.58-0.90; P = 0.004; and PFS-HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.52-0.87, P = 0.003]. Non-BM patients could also derive a survival benefit from immunotherapy (OS-HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.71-0.80; P <0.001; and PFS-HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.56-0.82, P <0.001). The pooled ratios of OS-HRs and PFS-HRs reported in BM patients versus non-BM patients were 0.96 (95% CI, 0.78-1.18; P = 0.72) and 0.97 (95% CI, 0.79-1.20; P = 0.78), respectively, indicating no statistically significant difference between them. Subsequent sensitivity analyses did not alter the results. Subgroup analyses according to tumor type, line of therapy, immunotherapy type, study design, and representation of BM patients reconfirmed these findings., Conclusion: We demonstrated that BM status did not significantly influence the immunotherapy efficacy in lung cancer, suggesting that both BM and non-BM patients could obtain comparable benefits., Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier (CRD42020207446)., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Hu, Xu, Zhu, Liu, Jiang and Zheng.)

Background: dNLR at the baseline (B), defined by neutrophils/[leucocytes-neutrophils], correlates with immune-checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) outcomes in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (aNSCLC). However, dNLR is dynamic under therapy and its longitudinal assessment may provide data predicting efficacy. We sought to examine the impact of dNLR dynamics on ICI efficacy and understand its biological significance., Patients and Methods: aNSCLC patients receiving ICI at 17 EU/US centres were included [Feb/13-Jun/18]. As chemotherapy-only group was evaluated (NCT02105168). dNLR was determined at (B) and at cycle2 (C2) [dNLR≤3 = low]. B+C2 dNLR were combined in one score: good = low (B+C2), poor = high (B+C2), intermediate = other situations. In 57 patients, we prospectively explored the immunophenotype of circulating neutrophils, particularly the CD15+CD244-CD16 low cells (immature) by flow cytometry., Results: About 1485 patients treatment with ICI were analysed. In ICI-treated patients, high dNLR (B) (~1/3rd) associated with worse progression-free (PFS)/overall survival (OS) (HR 1.56/HR 2.02, P < 0.0001) but not with chemotherapy alone (N = 173). High dNLR at C2 was associated with worse PFS/OS (HR 1.64/HR 2.15, P < 0.0001). When dNLR at both time points were considered together, those with persistently high dNLR (23%) had poor survival (mOS = 5 months (mo)), compared with high dNLR at one time point (22%; mOS = 9.2mo) and persistently low dNLR (55%; mOS = 18.6mo) (P < 0.0001). The dNLR impact remained significant after PD-L1 adjustment. By cytometry, high rate of immature neutrophils (B) (30/57) correlated with poor PFS/OS (P = 0.04; P = 0.0007), with a 12-week death rate of 49%., Conclusion: The dNLR (B) and its dynamics (C2) under ICI associate with ICI outcomes in aNSCLC. Persistently high dNLR (B+C2) correlated with early ICI failure. Immature neutrophils may be a key subpopulation on ICI resistance., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement LM: Sponsored Research: Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim. Consulting, advisory role: Roche Diagnostics, Takeda, Roche. Lectures and educational activities: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Tecnofarma, Roche. Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche. Mentorship program with key opinion leaders: funded by AstraZeneca. IP has served as a consultant for AstraZeneca, Pfizer and BluePrint Medicines. EA: Travel expenses: Mundipharma. Lectures and educational activities: Sanofi Genzymes. DS, HR, JR, SP, SC, FB, FT, MLR, PS, JG, AJP, MC, MN, CR, APM, LC and WPhad nothing to disclose. LH: none related to the current article, outside of the current article: research funding Roche Genentech, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca (all institution), advisory board: Boehringer, BMS, Eli Lilly, Roche Genentech, Pfizer, Takeda, MSD, Boehringer Ingelheim, Amgen (all institution), speaker: MSD, travel/conference reimbursement: Roche Genentech (self); mentorship program with key opinion leaders: funded by AstraZeneca; fees for educational webinars: Quadia (self), interview sessions funded by Roche Genentech (institution), local PI of clinical trials: AstraZeneca, Novartis, BMS, MSD/Merck, GSK, Takeda, Blueprint Medicines, Roche Genentech, Janssen Cilag. EN: none related to the current article, outside of the current article: research support from Roche and Pfizer; advisory boards from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Lilly, Roche, Pfizer, Takeda, Boehringer Ingelheim, Amgen and AstraZeneca. PM: Principal/subinvestigator of Clinical Trials for Abbvie, Adaptimmune, Aduro Biotech, Agios Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, Argen-X Bvba, Arno Therapeutics, Astex Pharmaceuticals, Astra Zeneca Ab, Aveo, Basilea Pharmaceutica International Ltd, Bayer Healthcare Ag, Bbb Technologies Bv, Beigene, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Pharmaceuticals, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ca, Celgene Corporation, Chugai Pharmaceutical Co, Clovis Oncology, Cullinan-Apollo, Daiichi Sankyo, Debiopharm, Eisai, Eisai Limited, Eli Lilly, Exelixis, Forma Tharapeutics, Gamamabs, Genentech, Glaxosmithkline, H3 Biomedicine, Hoffmann La Roche Ag, Imcheck Therapeutics, Innate Pharma, Institut De Recherche Pierre Fabre, Iris Servier, Janssen Cilag, Janssen Research Foundation, Kyowa Kirin Pharm. Dev, Lilly France, Loxo Oncology, Lytix Biopharma As, Medimmune, Menarini Ricerche, Merck Sharp & Dohme Chibret, Merrimack Pharmaceuticals, Merus, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Molecular Partners Ag, Nanobiotix, Nektar Therapeutics, Novartis Pharma, Octimet Oncology Nv, Oncoethix, Oncopeptides, Orion Pharma, Ose Pharma, Pfizer, Pharma Mar, Pierre Fabre, Medicament, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, Sotio A.S, Syros Pharmaceuticals, Taiho Pharma, Tesaro, Xencor Research Grants from Astrazeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen Cilag, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi Non-financial support (drug supplied) from Astrazeneca, Bayer, BMS, Boringher Ingelheim, Medimmune, Merck, NH TherAGuiX, Pfizer, Roche. CAV: Personal fees from Roche, AbbVie, MSD, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Astra Zeneca, Takeda and Ipsen. PB: Speaker bureau: AstraZeneca, BMS, Roche, MSD. Honoraria: Beigene. SN: Speaker Bureau/Advisor: Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer, Beigene, MSD, Roche, Takeda, Pfizer. MDH receives research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb; has been a compensated consultant for Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, Nektar, Syndax, Mirati, Shattuck Labs, Immunai, Blueprint Medicines, Achilles and Arcus; received travel support/honoraria from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly and Bristol-Myers Squibb; has options from Shattuck Labs, Immunai and Arcus; has a patent filed by his institution related to the use of tumour mutation burden to predict response to immunotherapy (PCT/US2015/062,208), which has received licensing fees from PGDx. GZ: Grants and personal fees from BMS, non-financial support from MSD, personal fees from Borhinger, non-financial support from Roche, personal fees from Astra-Zeneca, non-financial support from Abbvie, outside the submitted work. MM: Grants and personal fees from BMS, personal fees and non-financial support from MSD, personal fees and non-financial support from BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM, personal fees, non-financial support and other from ASTRA ZENENCA, personal fees, non-financial support and other from ROCHE, personal fees from KYOWA KYRIN, personal fees from PIERRE FABRE, outside the submitted work. LPA: Honoraria (self): Adacap, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Ipsen, Merck, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Pharmamar, Roche, Sanofi, Servier, Sysmex, Takeda; Leadership role: Altum sequencing; Research grant/Funding (self): AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Pfizer; Officer/Board of Directors Genómica. AMD: Consulting, advisory role or lectures: Roche, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Astra Zeneca, Pfizer, BMS, Amgen, Novartis, MSD, Takeda, Pharmamar. Research support: Amgen, Abbvie, BMS. DP: Consulting, advisory role or lectures: AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer; Ingelheim, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, prIME Oncology, Peer. CME, Roche. Honoraria: AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene. Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, prIME Oncology, Peer CME, Roche. Clinical trials research: AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Medimmune, Sanofi-Aventis, Taiho Pharma, Novocure, Daiichi Sankyo. Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: AstraZeneca, Roche, Novartis, prIME Oncology, Pfizer. NC: Sponsored Research at Gustave Roussy Cancer Center BMS fondation, GSK, Sanofi, advisory role and lectures: AstraZeneca. These are outside the scope of this work. GL: Research support Merck serono, BMS, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Blueprint medicines. KA: Consultant for Astrazeneca and Iovance Biotherapeutics. Her institution has received non-monetary research support from Takeda and Novartis on her behalf. BB: Sponsored Research at Gustave Roussy Cancer Center Abbvie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Blueprint Medicines, BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, GSK, Ignyta, IPSEN, Merck KGaA, MSD, Nektar, Onxeo, Pfizer, Pharma Mar, Sanofi, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Takeda, Tiziana Pharma., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Measurable residual disease (MRD) status is widely adopted in clinical trials in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Findings from FILO group trials (CLL2007FMP, CLL2007SA, CLL2010FMP) enabled investigation of the prognostic value of high-sensitivity (0.7 × 10 -5 ) MRD assessment using flow cytometry, in blood (N = 401) and bone marrow (N = 339), after fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (FCR)-based chemoimmunotherapy in a homogeneous population with long follow-up (median 49.5 months). Addition of low-level positive MRD < 0.01% to MRD ≥ 0.01% increased the proportion of cases with positive MRD in blood by 39% and in bone marrow by 27%. Compared to low-level positive MRD < 0.01%, undetectable MRD was associated with significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS) when using blood (72.2 versus 42.7 months; hazard ratio 0.40, p = 0.0003), but not when using bone marrow. Upon further stratification, positive blood MRD at any level, compared to undetectable blood MRD, was associated with shorter PFS irrespective of clinical complete or partial remission, and a lower 5-year PFS rate irrespective of IGHV-mutated or -unmutated status (all p < 0.05). In conclusion, high-sensitivity (0.0007%) MRD assessment in blood yielded additional prognostic information beyond the current standard sensitivity (0.01%). Our approach provides a model for future determination of the optimal MRD investigative strategy for any regimen.

Background: STK11 is an important tumour suppressor gene reported to confer immunotherapy resistance in non-small-cell lung cancers (NSCLC) especially in the presence of KRAS co-alterations., Methods: This study analysed 4446 patients for whom next-generation sequencing of tissue and/or circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) had been performed., Results: Overall, 60 of 4446 tumours (1.35%) harboured STK11 alterations. STK11 alterations were associated with shorter median time to progression and overall survival (OS) across cancers from diagnosis: 6.4 months (5.1-7.9) versus 12 months (11.7-12.3; p = 0.001); and 20.5 (17.4-23.5) versus 29.1 (26.9-31.3; p = 0.03), respectively (pan-cancer). Pan-cancers, the median progression-free survival (PFS; 95% CI) for first-line therapy (regardless of treatment type) for those with co-altered STK11 and KRAS (N = 27; versus STK11-altered and KRAS wild type [N = 33]), was significantly shorter (3 [1.3-4.7] versus 10 [4.9-15.7] months, p < 0.0005, p multivariate, 0.06); the median OS also was also shorter (p multivariate = 0.02). In pan-cancer patients treated with checkpoint blockade, STK11 and KRAS co-altered versus STK11-altered/KRAS wild type had a shorter median PFS and trend toward shorter OS (p = 0.04 and p = 0.06, respectively). In contrast, in examining STK11-altered versus wild-type pan-cancer patients treated with checkpoint blockade immunotherapy, the two groups showed no difference in outcome (PFS [p = 0.4]; OS [p = 0.7]); STK11-altered versus wild-type lung cancer patients also did not fare worse on immunotherapy., Conclusions: Across cancers, STK11 alterations correlated with a poor prognosis regardless of therapy. However, STK11 alterations alone did not associate with inferior immunotherapy outcome in the pan-cancer setting or in NSCLC. Pan-cancer patients with co-altered STK11/KRAS did worse, regardless of treatment type., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: R.K. has the following disclosure information: Stock and Other Equity Interests (IDbyDNA, CureMatch, Inc., and Soluventis); Consulting or Advisory Role (Gaido, LOXO, X-Biotech, Actuate Therapeutics, Roche, NeoMed, Soluventis, Pfizer, and Merck); Speaker's fee (Roche); Research Funding (Incyte, Genentech, Merck Serono, Pfizer, Sequenom, Foundation Medicine, Guardant Health, Grifols, Konica Minolta, DeBiopharm, Boerhringer Ingelheim, and OmniSeq [All institutional]); Board Member (CureMatch, Inc., and CureMetrix, Inc.). A.M.G. consults for Seattle Genetics and EUSA Pharma. D.A.B. has no disclosures to report. N.K. has no disclosures to report., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have proved to be an effective treatment for up to 40% of muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC), but there is still a need for better performing biomarkers allowing to improve prediction of response to ICI. Response to immunotherapy in soft-tissue sarcoma, melanoma and renal cell carcinoma have been recently linked to the presence of tertiary lymphoid structures (TLS) in the tumour. TLS are organised aggregates of T, B and dendritic cells, participating in adaptive antitumor immune response. The chemokine CXCL13 is involved in the formation of TLS, and is reported as a reliable transcriptomic marker of TLS., Objectives: In this study, we sought to assess whether CXCL13 transcript expression can be a prognostic biomarker for ICI-treated MIBC patients and also investigated whether it can serve a biomarker of TLS in MIBC., Methods: We analysed transcriptomic data from three publicly available MIBC cohorts and evaluated pathological slides from the TCGA-BLCA cohort for TLS presence and stage of maturation., Results: We showed that CXCL13 was independently associated with both prolonged survival (HR = 0.8, 95% CI [0.68-0.94]) and objective response (p < 0.0001) in patients treated with ICI, at the difference of others immunological signatures. However, it was not a predictor for non-ICI-treated MIBC, suggesting a predictive effect of ICI efficacy. Finally, we validated that CXCL13 expression was correlated with tumour TLS in TCGA data set (p < 0.001), and can serve as a marker of TLS in bladder cancer., Conclusion: These results support that CXCL13 expression, as a surrogate for tumour TLS, is a relevant candidate predictive biomarker of response to ICI for patients with advanced-stage bladder cancer., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) ranks the fourth in terms of cancer-related mortality globally. Herein, in this research, we attempted to develop a novel immune-related gene signature that could predict survival and efficacy of immunotherapy for HCC patients., Methods: The transcriptomic and clinical data of HCC samples were downloaded from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and GSE14520 datasets, followed by acquiring immune-related genes from the ImmPort database. Afterwards, an immune-related gene-based prognostic index (IRGPI) was constructed using the Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) regression model. Kaplan-Meier survival curves as well as time-dependent receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve were performed to evaluate its predictive capability. Besides, both univariate and multivariate analyses on overall survival for the IRGPI and multiple clinicopathologic factors were carried out, followed by the construction of a nomogram. Finally, we explored the possible correlation of IRGPI with immune cell infiltration or immunotherapy efficacy., Results: Analysis of 365 HCC samples identified 11 differentially expressed immune-related genes, which were selected to establish the IRGPI. Notably, it can predict the survival of HCC patients more accurately than published biomarkers. Furthermore, IRGPI can predict the infiltration of immune cells in the tumor microenvironment of HCC, as well as the response of immunotherapy., Conclusion: Collectively, the currently established IRGPI can accurately predict survival, reflect the immune microenvironment, and predict the efficacy of immunotherapy among HCC patients.

Modulation of the immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment (TME) is essential for enhancing the anti-tumor effects of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Adhesion molecules and enzymes such as vascular adhesion protein-1 (VAP-1), which are expressed in some cancers and tumor vascular endothelial cells, may be involved in the generation of an immunosuppressive TME. In this study, the role of VAP-1 in TME was investigated in 2 murine colon cancer models and human cancer cells. Intraperitoneal administration of the VAP-1-specific inhibitor U-V296 inhibited murine tumor growth by enhancing IFN-γ-producing tumor antigen-specific CD8 + T cells. U-V296 exhibited significant synergistic anti-tumor effects with ICIs. In the TME of mice treated with U-V296, the expression of genes associated with M2-like macrophages, Th2 cells (Il4, Retnla, and Irf4), angiogenesis (Pecam1), and fibrosis (Acta2, Loxl2) were significantly decreased, and the Th1/Th2 balance was increased. H 2 O 2 , an enzymatic product of VAP-1, which promoted the production of IL-4 by mouse Th2 and inhibited IFN-γ by mouse Th1 and human tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, was decreased in tumors and CD31 + tumor vascular endothelial cells in the TMEs of mice treated with VAP-1 inhibitor. TCGA database analysis showed that VAP-1 expression was a negative prognostic factor in human cancers, exhibiting a significant positive correlation with IL-4, IL4R, and IL-13 expression and a negative correlation with IFN-γ expression. These results indicated that VAP-1 is involved in the immunosuppressive TMEs through H 2 O 2 -associated Th2/M2 conditions and may be an attractive target for the development of combination cancer immunotherapy with ICIs., (© 2021 The Authors. Cancer Science published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Japanese Cancer Association.)

Background: Progression-free survival (PFS) exhibits suboptimal performance as the surrogate endpoint for overall survival (OS) in trials studying immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Here we propose a novel surrogate endpoint, modified PFS (mPFS), which omits the events of disease progression (but not deaths) within 3 months after randomization., Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for randomized trials studying ICIs in advanced solid tumors with available PFS and OS data up to May 2020. Individual patient-level data (IPD) for PFS and OS were reconstructed for eligible trials. A simulation-based algorithm was used to match the reconstructed, disconnected PFS and OS IPD, and 1000 independent simulated datasets of matched PFS-OS IPD were generated for each trial. mPFS durations and statuses were then measured for each of the matched PFS-OS IPD. Trial-level correlation between Cox HRs for PFS or mPFS and HRs for OS was assessed using Pearson correlation coefficient (r p ) weighted by trial size; patient-level correlation between PFS or mPFS and OS was assessed using Spearman's rank correlation coefficient (r s ). Findings were further validated using the original IPD from two randomized ICI trials., Results: Fifty-seven ICI trials totaling 29,429 participants were included. PFS HR showed moderate correlation with OS HR (r p =0.60), and PFS was moderately correlated with OS at the patient level (median r s =0.66; range, 0.65-0.68 among the 1000 simulations). In contrast, mPFS HR achieved stronger correlation with OS HR (median r p =0.81; range, 0.77-0.84), and mPFS was more strongly correlated with OS at the patient level (median r s =0.79; range, 0.78-0.80). The superiority of mPFS over PFS remained consistent in subgroup analyses by cancer type, therapeutic regimen, and treatment setting. In both trials with the original IPD where experimental treatment significantly improved OS, mPFS successfully captured such clinical benefits whereas PFS did not., Conclusions: mPFS outperformed PFS as the surrogate endpoint for OS in ICI trials. mPFS is worthy of further investigation as a secondary endpoint in future ICI trials., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: The established role of morphological evaluation of tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is unknown. We aimed to determine TIL association with the outcome for ICIs and for chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC., Methods: This is a multicenter retrospective study of a nivolumab cohort of 221 patients treated between November 2012 and February 2017 and a chemotherapy cohort of 189 patients treated between June 2009 and October 2016. Patients with available tissue for stromal TIL evaluation were analysed. The presence of a high TIL count (high-TIL) was defined as ≥10% density. The primary end-point was overall survival (OS)., Results: Among the nivolumab cohort, 64% were male, with median age of 63 years, 82.3% were smokers, 77% had performance status ≤1 and 63% had adenocarcinoma histology. High-TIL was observed in 22% patients and associated with OS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.48; 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 0.28-0.81) and progression-free survival [PFS] (HR = 0.40; 95% CI: 0.25-0.64). Median PFS was 13.0 months (95% CI: 5.0-not reached) with high-TIL versus 2.2 months (95% CI: 1.7-3.0) with the presence of a low TIL count (low-TIL). Median OS for high-TIL was not reached (95% CI: 12.2-not reached) versus 8.4 months (95% CI: 5.0-11.6) in the low-TIL group. High-TIL was associated with the overall response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR) (both, P < .0001). Among the chemotherapy cohort, 69% were male, 89% were smokers, 86% had performance status ≤1 and 90% had adenocarcinoma histology. High-TIL was seen in 37%. Median PFS and OS were 5.7 months (95% CI: 4.9-6.7) and 11.7 months (95% CI: 9.3-13.0), respectively, with no association with TILs., Conclusions: High-TIL was associated with favourable outcomes in a real-world immunotherapy cohort of patients with NSCLC, but not with chemotherapy, suggesting that TILs may be useful in selecting patients for immunotherapy., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest statement The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Laura Mezquita reports receiving research sponsorship from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Boehringer Ingelheim; consulting and advisory roles in Roche Diagnostics and Takeda; lectures and educational activities in Bristol-Myers Squibb, Tecnofarma and Roche; receiving travel, accommodations and expenses from Roche; and participation in the mentorship program with key opinion leaders, funded by AstraZeneca. Edouard Auclin reports receiving travel expenses from Mundipharma and lectures and educational activities in Sanofi Genzymes. Lizza Hendriks reports no conflicts related to the current manuscript; however, outside of current manuscript LH reports receiving research funding from Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim and AstraZeneca (all institution); advisory board roles in Boehringer, BMS, Lilly, Roche, Pfizer, Takeda, MSD and Boehringer Ingelheim (all institution); and speaker roles in MSD; receiving travel/conference reimbursements from Roche and BMS (self); participation in the mentorship program with key opinion leaders, funded by AstraZeneca; receiving fees for educational webinars from Quadia (self); and participation in interview sessions funded by Roche (institution). Anas Gazzah reports receiving travel, accommodation and congress registration expenses from Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Pfizer and Roche; consultant/expert roles in Novartis; roles principal/sub-investigator of clinical trials for Aduro Biotech, Agios Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, Argen-X Bvba, Arno Therapeutics, Astex Pharmaceuticals, Astra Zeneca, Aveo, Bayer Healthcare Ag, Bbb Technologies Bv, Beigene, Bioalliance Pharma, Biontech Ag, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Ca, Celgene Corporation, Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Clovis Oncology, Daiichi Sankyo, Debiopharm S.A., Eisai, Exelixis, Forma, Gamamabs, Genentech, Inc., Gilead Sciences, Inc, Glaxosmithkline, Glenmark Pharmaceuticals, H3 Biomedicine, Inc, Hoffmann La Roche Ag, Incyte Corporation, Innate Pharma, Iris Servier, Janssen, Kura Oncology, Kyowa Kirin Pharm, Lilly, Loxo Oncology, Lytix Biopharma As, Medimmune, Menarini Ricerche, Merck Sharp & Dohme Chibret, Merrimack Pharmaceuticals, Merus, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Nanobiotix, Nektar Therapeutics, Novartis Pharma, Octimet Oncology Nv, Oncoethix, Oncomed, Oncopeptides, Onyx Therapeutics, Orion Pharma, Oryzon Genomics, Pfizer, Pharma Mar, Pierre Fabre, Rigontec Gmbh, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, Sierra Oncology, Taiho Pharma, Tesaro Inc., Tioma Therapeutics Inc. and Xencor; receiving research grants from Astrazeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen Cilag, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and Sanofi; receiving on-financial support (drug supplied) from Astrazeneca, Bayer, BMS, Boringher Ingelheim, Johnson & Johnson, Lilly, Medimmune, Merck, NH TherAGuiX, Pfizer and Roche. David Planchard reports consulting, advisory roles or lectures in AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, prIME Oncology, Peer CME, Roche; Honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, prIME Oncology, Peer CME, Roche; roles in clinical trials research: AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Medimmune, Sanofi-Aventis, Taiho Pharma, Novocure and Daiichi Sankyo; receiving travel and accommodation expenses from AstraZeneca, Roche, Novartis, prIME Oncology and Pfizer. Benjamin Besse reports Sponsored research sponsorship from Gustave Roussy Cancer Center Abbvie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Blueprint Medicines, BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, GSK, Ignyta, IPSEN, Merck KGaA, MSD, Nektar, Onxeo, Pfizer, Pharma Mar, Sanofi, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Takeda and Tiziana Pharma. Julien Adam reports advisory board roles in AstraZeneca and Bayer and honoraria from MSD and BMS. Remaining authors nothing to disclose., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Pre-clinical and clinical data had revealed the gut microbiome plays a critical role in immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) efficacy. This study was designed to investigate whether antibiotics (ATBs) affect the prognosis of malignancies treated with ICIs., Methods: Electronic databases were searched to identify relevant trials that evaluated the impact of ATBs on ICIs efficacy. The primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) measured by HRs with corresponding 95%CIs. Subgroup analyses were performed based on cancer type, study design, ICIs agent, and time of ATBs administration., Results: Totally, 12,492 individuals in the 44 cohorts were recruited. Pooled results showed that ATBs administration was significantly correlated with a worse objective remission rate (ORR) (OR = 0.61, 95%CI (0.42-0.90), P = 0.0128), PFS (HR = 1.18, 95%CI (1.11-1.25), P < 0.0001), and OS (HR = 1.20, 95%CI (1.15-1.25), P < 0.0001) in patients treated with ICIs. In subgroup analyses, patients treated with ICIs exposed to ATBs suffered an evidently worse ORR in arms of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) (OR = 0.30, 95%CI (0.14-0.67), P = 0.0034), multiple (OR = 0.44, 95%CI (0.27-0.73), P = 0.0016), and before ICIs initiation (OR = 0.47, 95%CI (0.32-0.71), P = 0.0003) without heterogeneity; experienced a worse PFS and OS in arms of non-small cell lung cancer, melanoma, RCC, urothelial carcinoma, multiple, prospective, retrospective, PD-(L)1 alone, PD-(L)1 plus CTLA-4, before ICIs initiation, before ICIs initiation and concurrent, and before or after ICIs within 1 month, while a better PFS and OS in concurrent with ICIs arm., Conclusions: ATBs administration was negatively associated with ORR, PFS and OS in malignancies treated with ICIs, while the time of ATBs exposure might impact ICIs efficacy., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) patients has radically changed over the last years following the introduction of next generation proteasome inhibitors (PI) and immunomodulatory derivative (IMiDs). In the last years, one further therapeutic option for MM patients is represented by monoclonal antibodies (MoAbs), that seem to change the paradigm of MM treatment, particularly for heavily pretreated or double refractory to a PI and IMiDs patients. Antibodies have an immune-based mechanism, induce durable responses with limited toxicity and combine well with existing therapies. The therapeutic effects are prevalently obtained by means of antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity (ADCC), antibody-dependent cell-mediated phagocytosis (ADCP), complement-dependent cytotoxicity (CDC) and concurrently by the induction of signals on cell effectors. Immunotherapeutic strategies offer a new and exciting approach to target key molecular pathways that continue to be implicated in the survival of malignant plasma cells. These targets include cell surface proteins (CD38, CD138 [SDC1], B cell maturation antigen [BCMA, TNFRSF17]), cytokines that play a role in plasma cell survival and proliferation (interleukin 6 [IL6] and B cell activating factor), signal regulators of bone metabolism (RANKL [TNFSF11], DKK1) and regulators of the immune system (PD-1[PDCD1], PD-L1[CD274]). This article focuses on new MoAbs and related innovative immunotherapeutic modalities currently under investigation in the treatment landscape of MM.

Purpose: Immunotherapy has revolutionized the treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In two phase III trials (CheckMate 017 and CheckMate 057), nivolumab showed an improvement in overall survival (OS) and favorable safety versus docetaxel in patients with previously treated, advanced squamous and nonsquamous NSCLC, respectively. We report 5-year pooled efficacy and safety from these trials., Methods: Patients (N = 854; CheckMate 017/057 pooled) with advanced NSCLC, ECOG PS ≤ 1, and progression during or after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy were randomly assigned 1:1 to nivolumab (3 mg/kg once every 2 weeks) or docetaxel (75 mg/m 2 once every 3 weeks) until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end point for both trials was OS; secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS) and safety. Exploratory landmark analyses were investigated., Results: After the minimum follow-up of 64.2 and 64.5 months for CheckMate 017 and 057, respectively, 50 nivolumab-treated patients and nine docetaxel-treated patients were alive. Five-year pooled OS rates were 13.4% versus 2.6%, respectively; 5-year PFS rates were 8.0% versus 0%, respectively. Nivolumab-treated patients without disease progression at 2 and 3 years had an 82.0% and 93.0% chance of survival, respectively, and a 59.6% and 78.3% chance of remaining progression-free at 5 years, respectively. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were reported in 8 of 31 (25.8%) nivolumab-treated patients between 3-5 years of follow-up, seven of whom experienced new events; one (3.2%) TRAE was grade 3, and there were no grade 4 TRAEs., Conclusion: At 5 years, nivolumab continued to demonstrate a survival benefit versus docetaxel, exhibiting a five-fold increase in OS rate, with no new safety signals. These data represent the first report of 5-year outcomes from randomized phase III trials of a programmed death-1 inhibitor in previously treated, advanced NSCLC.

Objectives: We sought to determine the safety and feasibility of esophagectomy after neoadjuvant immunotherapy and chemoradiotherapy in clinical trial patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer., Methods: We retrospectively identified patients who were treated with neoadjuvant immunotherapy and chemoradiotherapy (n = 25) or chemoradiotherapy alone (n = 143) at our institution between 2017 and 2020. The primary end point was risk of 30-day major complications (Clavien-Dindo classification system grade ≥ 3), which was assessed between groups using a multivariable log-binomial regression model to obtain adjusted relative risk ratios. Secondary end points were interval to surgery, 30-day readmission rate, and 30-day mortality., Results: All included patients successfully completed neoadjuvant therapy and underwent esophagectomy with negative margins. Age, sex, performance status, clinical stage, histologic subtype, procedure type, and operative approach were similar between groups. Neoadjuvant immunotherapy was not associated with a statistically significantly increased risk of developing a major pulmonary (relative risk, 1.43; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-3.84; P = .5), anastomotic (relative risk, 1.34; 95% confidence interval, 0.45-3.94; P = .6), or other complication (relative risk, 1.29; 95% confidence interval, 0.26-6.28; P = .8). Median (interquartile range) interval to surgery was 54 days (47-61 days) in the immune checkpoint inhibitor group versus 53 days (47-66 days) in the control group (P = .6). Minimally invasive approaches were successful in 72% of cases, with only 1 conversion. Thirty-day mortality and readmission rates were 0% and 17%, respectively, in the immune checkpoint inhibitor group and 1.4% and 13%, respectively, in the control group., Conclusions: On the basis of our preliminary experience, esophagectomy appears to be safe and feasible following combined neoadjuvant immunotherapy and standard chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced esophageal cancer., (Copyright © 2020 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Only a minority of studies addressing the association between immune-related adverse events (IrAE) and outcome considered the immortal time bias, with conflicting results. PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Scopus were searched through 2 January 2020. Studies reporting the impact of IrAE on outcome in patients treated with antiprogrammed death receptor 1 or PD-L1 were included. Twenty nine articles were included. IrAEs were associated with improved outcomes with high heterogeneity. With a landmark approach, the association between IrAE and outcome remains significant but the effect size was smaller (hazard ratio 0.61 vs 0.41 for overall survival; p = 0.015; hazard ratio 0.66 vs 0.47 for progression-free survival, p = 0.029; odds ratio 2.59 vs 6.77 for overall response rate; p < 0.001), no significant heterogeneity. Our analysis suggests a confounding effect of immortal time bias and a real effect of IrAE on outcome.

Background: The widespread introduction of immunotherapy in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has led to durable responses but still many patients fail and are treated beyond progression., Objective: This study investigated whether readily available blood-based tumor biomarkers allow accurate detection of early non-responsiveness, allowing a timely switch of therapy and cost reduction., Methods: In a prospective, observational study in patients with NSCLC treated with nivolumab or pembrolizumab, five serum tumor markers were measured at baseline and every other week. Six months disease control as determined by RECIST was used as a measure of clinical response. Patients with a disease control <  6 months were deemed non-responsive. For every separate tumor marker a criterion for predicting of non-response was developed. Each marker test was defined as positive (predictive of non-response) if the value of that tumor marker increased at least 50% from the value at baseline and above a marker dependent minimum value to be determined. Also, tests based on combination of multiple markers were designed. Specificity and sensitivity for predicting non-response was calculated and results were validated in an independent cohort. The target specificity of the test for detecting non-response was set at >  95%, in order to allow its safe use for treatment decisions., Results: A total of 376 patients (training cohort: 180, validation cohort: 196) were included in our analysis. Results for the specificity of the single marker tests in the validation set were CEA: 98·3% (95% CI: 90·9-100%), NSE: 96·5% (95% CI: 87·9-99·6%), SCC: 96·5% (95% CI: 88·1-99·6%), Cyfra21·1 : 91.8% (95% CI: 81·9-97·3%), and CA125 : 86·0% (95% CI: 74·2-93·7%). A test based on the combination of Cyfra21.1, CEA and NSE accurately predicted non-response in 32.3% (95% CI 22.6-43.1%) of patients 6 weeks after start of immunotherapy. Survival analysis showed a significant difference between predicted responders (Median PFS: 237 days (95% CI 184-289 days)) and non-responders (Median PFS: 58 days (95% CI 46-70 days)) (p <  0.001)., Conclusions: Serum tumor marker based tests can be used for accurate detection of non-response in NSCLC, thereby allowing early and safe discontinuation of immunotherapy in a significant subset of patients.

Graft versus host disease (GVHD) is one of the main causes of mortality and the reason for up to 50% of morbidity after hematopoietic stem cell transplantations (HSCT) which is the treatment of choice for many blood malignancies. Thanks to years of research and exploration, we have acquired a profound understanding of the pathophysiology and immunopathology of these disorders. This led to the proposition and development of many therapeutic approaches during the last decades, some of them with very promising results. In this review, we have focused on the recent GVHD treatments from classical chemical and pharmacological prophylaxis to more innovative treatments including gene therapy and cell therapy, most commonly based on the application of a variety of immunomodulatory cells. Furthermore, we have discussed the advantages and potentials of cell-free therapy as a newly emerging approach to treat GVHD. Among them, we have particularly focused on the implication of the TNFα-TNFR2 axis as a new immune checkpoint signaling pathway controlling different aspects of many immunoregulatory cells., Competing Interests: SN is the CEO of CellMedEx Company. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2020 Naserian, Leclerc, Shamdani and Uzan.)

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the most common neoplasms encountered, and its incidence is increasing worldwide. In this study, we explored the characteristics of gut microbiota in patients with primary hepatocellular carcinoma in advanced stage who received immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) based on a large population with hepatitis B virus infection. An initial cohort of 65 patients with metastatic melanoma were included in this study. All patients were treated with ICIs at Fujian provincial geriatric hospital between August 2016 and June 2018. The 16S rDNA V4 region was amplified by Polymerase chain reaction and sequenced on the MiSeq platform. We found that the diversities of the gut microbiota in HCC who received ICIs were obviously increased. Negative feedback, which is controlled by interplay between microbial metabolic activities and host pathways, is thought to promote high bacterial diversity. We focused on the Faecalibacterium genus in response group, and Bacteroidales order in non-response group, and stratified patients into high versus low categories based on the median relative abundance of these taxa in the gut microbiome. Patients with high Faecalibacterium abundance had a significantly prolonged PFS versus those with a low abundance. Conversely, patients with a high abundance of Bacteroidales had a shortened progressive free survival compared to those with a low abundance. In summary, the present study examined the oral and gut microbiome of HCC patients undergoing immune checkpoint inhibitors immunotherapy. Significant differences were observed in the diversity and composition of the patient gut microbiome of responders versus non-responders.

Background: Central nervous system (CNS) metastasis is common in advanced melanoma patients. New treatment options have improved overall prognosis, but information is lacking for patients with CNS metastases. We investigated treatment patterns and survival outcomes in older melanoma patients with and without CNS metastases., Methods: A retrospective analysis of SEER-Medicare, a population-based linked database, was undertaken in patients aged > 65 years with advanced melanoma diagnosed from 2004 to 2011 and followed until 2013., Results: A total of 2522 patients were included. CNS metastases were present in 24.8% of patients at initial metastatic diagnosis; 16.5% developed CNS metastases during follow-up. Chemotherapy was the most common treatment regardless of CNS metastases. Overall survival (OS) was better for patients without CNS metastases (median, 9.5 months; 95% confidence interval [CI], 8.8-10.2) vs patients with CNS metastases (3.63 months; 95% CI, 3.4-3.9). Among patients with CNS metastases, median OS for targeted therapy, immunotherapy, and chemotherapy was 6 (95% CI, 2.5-9.6), 5.5 (95% CI, 3.8-7.5), and 4.5 (95% CI, 3.8-5.4) months, respectively, vs 2.4 (95% CI, 2.1-2.7) and 2.1 (95% CI, 1.8-2.7) months for local radiotherapy and no treatment, respectively. Stereotactic radiosurgery demonstrated higher OS vs whole-brain radiation therapy (median, 4.98 [95% CI, 3.5-7.5] vs 2.4 [95% CI, 2.1-2.7] months)., Conclusion: Patients with CNS metastases from melanoma remain a population with high unmet medical need despite recent advances in treatment. Systemic treatments (eg, BRAF-targeted therapy and immunotherapy) and stereotactic radiosurgery demonstrated meaningful but modest improvements in OS. Further explorations of combinations of radiotherapy, BRAF-targeted therapies, and immunotherapies are needed., (© 2020 Roche/Genentech. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Importance: Sex, age, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) may affect immune response. However, the association of these factors with the survival benefit of cancer immunotherapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) remains unclear., Objective: To assess the potential sex, age, and ECOG PS differences of immunotherapy survival benefit in patients with advanced cancer., Data Sources: PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Scopus were searched from inception to August 31, 2019., Study Selection: Published randomized clinical trials comparing overall survival (OS) in patients with advanced cancer treated with ICI immunotherapy vs non-ICI control therapy were included., Data Extraction and Synthesis: Pooled OS hazard ratio (HR) and 95% CI for patients of different sex, age (<65 and ≥65 years) or ECOG PS (0 and ≥1) were calculated separately using a random-effects model, and the heterogeneity between paired estimates was assessed using an interaction test by pooling study-specific interaction HRs. This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guideline., Main Outcomes and Measures: The difference in survival benefit of ICIs between sex, age (<65 vs ≥65 years), and ECOG PS (0 vs ≥1), as well as the difference stratified by cancer type, line of therapy, agent of immunotherapy, and immunotherapy strategy in the intervention arm., Results: Thirty-seven phase 2 or 3 randomized clinical trials involving 23 760 patients were included. An OS benefit of immunotherapy was found for both men (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.71-0.81) and women (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.72-0.88); for both younger (<65 years: HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.71-0.83) and older (≥65 years: HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.72-0.84) patients; and for both patients with ECOG PS 0 (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.73-0.90) and PS greater than or equal to 1 (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.74-0.84). No significant difference of relative benefit from immunotherapy over control therapy was found in patients of different sex (P = .25, I2 = 19.02%), age (P = .94, I2 = 15.57%), or ECOG PS (P = .74, I2 = 0%). No significant difference was found in subgroup analyses by cancer type, line of therapy, agent of immunotherapy, and immunotherapy strategy in the intervention arm., Conclusions and Relevance: This meta-analysis found no evidence of an association of sex, age (<65 vs ≥65 years), or ECOG PS (0 vs ≥1) with cancer immunotherapy survival benefit. This finding suggests that the use of ICIs in advanced cancer should not be restricted to certain patients in sex, age, or ECOG PS categories.

Objectives: Early clinical trials showed promising outcomes with immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in a subset of patients with relapsed small-cell lung carcinoma (SCLC). The aim of this retrospective analysis was to assess the efficacy and safety of ICI for relapsed SCLC in a real-world patient population., Methods: Nine cancer centres in Switzerland contributed data to this cohort. Responses were assessed by the local investigators using standard RECIST v1.1 criteria. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were analysed by the Kaplan-Meier method. Associations between potential predictive markers and survival endpoints were probed by Cox proportional hazards., Results: Forty-five patients were included in the analysis. Median age was 63 years, 73% were males and 18% had an ECOG performance status (PS) ≥ 2. ICIs were given as second-line treatment in 60%. Twenty-four patients (53%) received ipilimumab with nivolumab. Twenty-eight patients (62%) had undergone irradiation (RT) prior to or during ICI. Overall response rate (ORR) was 29% and median PFS and OS were 2.3 and 6.5 months, respectively. Median duration of response was 9 months (95% CI 2.8-NA). Five patients maintained their response for > 6 months, all of them receiving combination treatment. There were no new safety signals., Conclusion: This is the first report of "real-world" data on ICI in relapsed SCLC also including patients with poor PS. Promising durable responses were observed. No biological prognostic marker could be identified.

Purpose: Immunotherapy has demonstrated efficacy in treatment of intracranial metastasis from melanoma, calling into question the role of intracranial radiotherapy (RT). Herein, we assessed the utilization patterns of intracranial RT in patients with melanoma brain metastasis and compared outcomes in patients treated with immunotherapy alone versus immunotherapy in addition to intracranial RT., Methods: We queried the National Cancer Database (NCDB) for patients with melanoma brain metastases treated with immunotherapy and intracranial RT or immunotherapy alone. Multivariable logistic regression identified variables associated with increased likelihood of receiving immunotherapy alone. Multivariable Cox regression was used to identify co-variates predictive of overall survival (OS). Propensity matching was used to account for indication bias., Results: We identified 528 and 142 patients that were treated with combination therapy and immunotherapy alone, respectively. Patients with lower comorbidity score were more likely to receive immunotherapy alone. Extracranial disease and treatment at a non-academic center were associated with worse OS. Median OS for all patients was 11.0 months. Treatment with stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) in addition to immunotherapy was superior to immunotherapy alone, median OS of 19.0 versus 11.5 months (p = 0.006). Whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT) in combination with immunotherapy performed worse than immunotherapy alone, median OS of 7.7 versus 11.5 months (p = 0.0255)., Conclusions: For melanoma patients requiring WBRT, immunotherapy alone may be reasonable in asymptomatic patients. For those eligible for SRS, combination therapy may provide better outcomes. Results of ongoing prospective studies will help provide guidance regarding the use of radioimmunotherapy in this population.

Introduction: Immunotherapy has become a key treatment for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). While a survival advantage has been proven for patients who are medically fit, it is unknown whether a benefit exists for patients with poor performance status (PS)., Patients and Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of NSCLC patients who received immunotherapy in our health system. Age and PS at the time of initial immunotherapy administration were assigned based on physician documentation. Radiographic response and date of progression were assigned according to the treating physician's assessment and confirmed by the study team. Immune-related adverse events were extracted from records., Results: We identified 285 NSCLC patients who received immunotherapy between January 2014 and April 2018. In this group, 153 patients (53.7%) had PS 0-1, 114 (40.0%) had PS 2, and 18 (6.3%) had PS 3. Response rates were similar across PS groups with 26.6% for PS 1, 25.2% for PS 2, and 23.1% for PS 3 (P = .95). Survival outcomes varied with pretreatment PS. For PS 0-1, PS 2, and PS 3, median overall survival was 14.7, 8.3, and 1.5 months (P < .001), and progression-free survival was 7.4, 5.1, and 1.3 months (P < .001). Patients aged < 70 had a lower rate (7.6%) of immune-related adverse events requiring steroids compared to patients ≥ 70 (15%) (P = .04)., Conclusion: Patients with poor baseline PS demonstrate similar response rate but inferior progression-free survival and overall survival compared to medically fit patients. Prospective trials are needed to optimize treatment for this large population., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Tumor genomic features have been of particular interest because of their potential impact on the tumor immune microenvironment and response to immunotherapy. Due to the substantial heterogeneity, an integrative approach incorporating diverse molecular features is needed to characterize immunologic features underlying primary resistance to immunotherapy and for the establishment of novel predictive biomarkers., Experimental Design: We developed a pan-cancer deep machine learning model integrating tumor mutation burden, microsatellite instability, and somatic copy-number alterations to classify tumors of different types into different genomic clusters, and assessed the immune microenvironment in each genomic cluster and the association of each genomic cluster with response to immunotherapy., Results: Our model grouped 8,646 tumors of 29 cancer types from The Cancer Genome Atlas into four genomic clusters. Analysis of RNA-sequencing data revealed distinct immune microenvironment in tumors of each genomic class. Furthermore, applying this model to tumors from two melanoma immunotherapy clinical cohorts demonstrated that patients with melanoma of different genomic classes achieved different benefit from immunotherapy. Interestingly, tumors in cluster 4 demonstrated a cold immune microenvironment and lack of benefit from immunotherapy despite high microsatellite instability burden., Conclusions: Our study provides a proof for principle that deep learning modeling may have the potential to discover intrinsic statistical cross-modality correlations of multifactorial input data to dissect the molecular mechanisms underlying primary resistance to immunotherapy, which likely involves multiple factors from both the tumor and host at different molecular levels., (©2020 American Association for Cancer Research.)