Search

Purpose: We aimed to validate the Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) risk index, and compare it with the Talcott model and artificial neural network (ANN) in predicting the outcome of febrile neutropenia in a Chinese population.Methods: We prospectively enrolled adult cancer patients who developed febrile neutropenia after chemotherapy and risk classified them according to MASCC score and Talcott model. ANN models were constructed and temporally validated in prospectively collected cohorts.Results: From October 2005 to February 2008, 227 consecutive patients were enrolled. Serious medical complications occurred in 22% of patients and 4% died. The positive predictive value of low risk prediction was 86% (95% CI = 81-90%) for MASCC score ≥ 21, 84% (79-89%) for Talcott model, and 85% (78-93%) for the best ANN model. The sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, and misclassification rate were 81%, 60%, 52%, and 24%, respectively, for MASCC score ≥ 21; and 50%, 72%, 33%, and 44%, respectively, for Talcott model; and 84%, 60%, 58%, and 22%, respectively, for ANN model. The area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve was 0.808 (95% CI = 0.717-0.899) for MASCC, 0.573 (0.455-0.691) for Talcott, and 0.737 (0.633-0.841) for ANN model. In the low risk group identified by MASCC score ≥ 21 (70% of all patients), 12.5% developed complications and 1.9% died, compared with 43.3%, and 9.0%, respectively, in the high risk group (p < 0.0001).Conclusions: The MASCC risk index is prospectively validated in a Chinese population. It demonstrates a better overall performance than the Talcott model and is equivalent to ANN model. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Systemic chemotherapy with platinum-based regimens provides modest improvements in survival and quality of life for patients with advanced-stage nonsmall-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Extended first-line chemotherapy with combination regimens for more than 4 to 6 cycles is not recommended because of cumulative toxicities and lack of proven advantage in survival with the increased duration of therapy. The early use of an anticancer agent as maintenance therapy after disease stabilization or maximal response with platinum-based regimens is, therefore, being recognized as a new treatment paradigm in NSCLC. Maintenance therapy can extend first-line treatment and provide an acceptable balance between efficacy and toxicity. The essential prerequisites for maintenance therapy include good tolerability, ability to administer extended cycles of therapy without cumulative toxicity, and an increase in the duration of progression-free survival. Pemetrexed has recently been shown to improve the median PFS in the maintenance setting. Molecularly targeted therapies with cytostatic properties and documented tolerability also have the potential to be effective as maintenance therapy to maintain tumor regression after an initial response to chemotherapy. Consequently, the role of erlotinib and other molecular targeted agents in this treatment setting is under active investigation in ongoing phase 3 trials. This could potentially establish a new standard on the clinical utility of molecular targeted agents as maintenance therapy for patients with advanced-stage NSCLC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study aimed to evaluate and compare the biodistribution properties of three transarterial Lipiodol-based therapeutic regimens in human hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). In this prospective study with 13 patients randomly allocated to one of three study groups, each of the patients received transcatheter intra-arterial administration into a solitary HCC with one of three different Lipiodol-based formulations: Lipiodol-ethanol mixture (LEM; Group A), Lipiodol alone (Group B), and Lipiodol and gelatin pledgets (Group C). With the use of radioactive iodine-131-labeled Lipiodol, each group was assessed for (1) pattern of Lipiodol accumulation in the lungs within the first 2 weeks as evaluated by single-photon emission computed tomography and (2) decomposition of Lipiodol formulation within the first 2 weeks as evaluated by radioactivity detected in peripheral blood and urine. The degree of Lipiodol retention in the tumor within the first 4 weeks was evaluated with CT. No statistically significant difference in Lipiodol accumulation in the lungs was detected among the three groups. However, the peak accumulation in the lungs was delayed 3 days for Group A compared to Groups B and C. The degree of Lipiodol retention within the tumor in Group A was significantly greater than that in Groups B and C on day 14 (p = 0.014) and day 28 (p = 0.013). This study showed that LEM is associated with a greater embolic effect in intrahepatic HCC at 4 weeks, and a comparable degree of lung shunting and decomposition rates, compared with ethanol-free Lipiodol formulations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: This prospective trial aimed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of transarterial ethanol ablation (TEA) of intrahepatic lesions of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with a Lipiodol-ethanol mixture. Materials and Methods: Seventy-seven patients were recruited and 164 lesions (mean size, 5.2 cm +/- 3.0) were treated. Inclusion criteria included histologic proof of HCC, refusal of (n = 9) or contraindication to (n = 68) surgical resection, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status no greater than 2, and intrahepatic disease without vascular invasion. The mixture consisted of 33% ethanol by volume, with the total dose of Lipiodol-ethanol mixture limited to 60 mL for each treatment session. The primary endpoint was patient survival. Secondary endpoints were tumor response, adverse effects of treatment, and progression-free survival. Median follow-up time for the whole cohort was 2.3 years. Results: Median overall survival was 2.2 years. Overall survival and progression-free survival rates at 1 year and 2 years were 77.9% and 50.1% and 63.6% and 46.3%, respectively. Complete ablation according to radiologic criteria was achieved in 61 patients (79.2%) and 86% of the 164 treated lesions. Mean tumor volume reduction was 65.22%. Patient survival was significantly better in patients with tumors no larger than 5 cm (Cox proportional-hazards regression, P = .0074). Treatment response was significantly better for patients with tumors no greater than 7 cm (chi2 test, P = .0462; Fisher exact test, P = .0326). Adverse effects included irreversible hepatic decompensation (0.6% of procedures), pain (4.8%), and fever (13.8%). Conclusions: TEA is a safe and effective means to establish local control of unresectable and resectable intrahepatic lesions of HCC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Single-agent doxorubicin has been widely used to treat unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), but the response rate is low (< 20%) and there is no convincing evidence for improved survival. Cisplatin, interferon, doxorubicin, and fluorouracil (PIAF) used in combination, by contrast, has shown promise in a phase II study. We compared doxorubicin to PIAF in patients with unresectable HCC in a phase III trial.Methods: Patients with histologically confirmed unresectable HCC were randomly assigned to receive either doxorubicin or PIAF every 3 weeks, for up to six cycles. The primary endpoint was overall survival, and secondary endpoints were response rate and toxicity. Survival differences were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Treatment groups were compared for differences in the incidence of adverse events using chi-square tests. All statistical tests were two-sided.Results: The median survival of the doxorubicin and PIAF groups was 6.83 months (95% confidence [CI] = 4.80 to 9.56) and 8.67 months (95% CI = 6.36 to 12.00), respectively (P = 0.83). The hazard ratio for death from any cause in the PIAF compared with the doxorubicin groups was 0.97 (95% CI = 0.71 to 1.32). Eighty-six of the 94 patients receiving doxorubicin and 91 of the 94 receiving PIAF were assessable for response. The overall response rates in the doxorubicin and PIAF groups were 10.5% (95% CI = 3.9% to 16.9%) and 20.9% (95% CI = 12.5% to 29.2%), respectively. Neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and hypokalemia were statistically significantly more common in patients treated with PIAF than in patients treated with doxorubicin.Conclusion: Although patients on PIAF had a higher overall response rate and better survival than patients on doxorubicin, the differences were not statistically significant. PIAF was also associated with increased treatment-related toxicity. The prognosis of patients with unresectable HCC remains poor. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Lung cancer remains a critical public health issue, presenting multifaceted challenges in prevention, diagnosis, and treatment. This article aims to review the current landscape of lung cancer research and management, delineate the persistent challenges, and outline pragmatic solutions., Materials and Methods: Global experts from academia, regulatory agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA), the National Cancer Institute (NCI), professional societies, the pharmaceutical and biotech industries, and patient advocacy groups were gathered by the New York Lung Cancer Foundation to review the state of the art in lung cancer and to formulate calls to action., Results: Improving lung cancer management and research involves promoting tobacco cessation, identifying individuals at risk who could benefit from early detection programs, and addressing treatment-related toxicities. Efforts should focus on conducting well-designed trials to determine the optimal treatment sequence. Research into innovative biomarkers and therapies is crucial for more personalized treatment. Ensuring access to appropriate care for all patients, whether enrolled in clinical trials or not, must remain a priority., Conclusions: Lung cancer is a major health burden worldwide, and its treatment has become increasingly complex over the past two decades. Improvement in lung cancer management and research requires unified messaging and global collaboration, expanded education, and greater access to screening, biomarker testing, treatment, as well as increased representativeness, participation, and diversity in clinical trials., (Copyright © 2024 European Society for Medical Oncology. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

What Is This Study About?: This is a summary of the results of an ongoing study called CROWN. In the CROWN study, researchers looked at the effects of two medicines called lorlatinib (Lorbrena) and crizotinib (Xalkori) for people with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who had not been treated yet. Everyone in the study had changes in a gene called anaplastic lymphoma kinase, or ALK , in their cancer cells. The changes in the ALK gene can make cancer grow. This analysis looked at how well lorlatinib and crizotinib worked and their side effects in people with advanced ALK -positive NSCLC after 5 years., What Did This Study Find?: After observing people for an average of 5 years, researchers found that more people who took lorlatinib were still alive without their cancer getting worse than the people who took crizotinib. At 5 years, the probability of being alive without their cancer getting worse was 60% in people who took lorlatinib compared with 8% in people who took crizotinib. Fewer people who took lorlatinib had their cancer spread within or to the brain than the people who took crizotinib. In more than half of the people who took lorlatinib, tumors that had spread to the brain did not get worse, and no new tumors spread to the brain after 5 years. In contrast, in about half of the people who took crizotinib, tumors that had spread to the brain got worse or new tumors spread to the brain after 16.4 months. More people who took lorlatinib (115 out of 149, or 77%) had severe or life-threatening side effects than people who took crizotinib (81 out of 142, or 57%). These side effects were like the ones reported in the earlier 3-year analysis., What Do the Findings of the Study Mean?: The 5-year results from the CROWN study showed that more people who took lorlatinib continued to benefit from their treatment than those who took crizotinib. The 5-year benefit of lorlatinib in people with ALK -positive NSCLC has never been seen before. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03052608 (Phase 3 CROWN study) (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Lung cancer, the leading cause of cancer-related deaths globally, remains a pressing health issue despite significant medical advances. The New York Lung Cancer Foundation brought together experts from academia, the pharmaceutical and biotech industries as well as organizational leaders and patient advocates, to thoroughly examine the current state of lung cancer diagnosis, treatment, and research. The goal was to identify areas where our understanding is incomplete and to develop collaborative public health and scientific strategies to generate better patient outcomes, as highlighted in our "Calls to Action." The consortium prioritized 8 different calls to action. These include (1) develop strategies to cure more patients with early-stage lung cancer, (2) investigate carcinogenesis leading to lung cancers in patients without a history of smoking, (3) harness precision medicine for disease interception and prevention, (4) implement solutions to deliver prevention measures and effective therapies to individuals in under-resourced countries, (5) facilitate collaborations with industry to collect and share data and samples, (6) create and maintain open access to big data repositories, (7) develop new immunotherapeutic agents for lung cancer treatment and prevention, and (8) invest in research in both the academic and community settings. These calls to action provide guidance to representatives from academia, the pharmaceutical and biotech industries, organizational and regulatory leaders, and patient advocates to guide ongoing and planned initiatives., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press.)

SMARCA4 mutation has emerged as a marker of poor prognosis in lung cancer and has potential predictive value in cancer treatment, but recommendations for which patients require its investigation are lacking. We comprehensively studied SMARCA4 alterations and the clinicopathological significance in a large cohort of immunohistochemically-subtyped non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). A total of 1416 patients was studied for the presence of SMARCA4 deficiency by immunohistochemistry (IHC). Thereafter, comprehensive sequencing of tumours was performed for 397 of these patients to study the mutational spectrum of SWI/SNF and SMARCA4 aberrations. IHC evidence of SMARCA4 deficiency was found in 2.9% of NSCLC. Of the sequenced tumours, 38.3% showed aberration in SWI/SNF complex, and 9.3% had SMARCA4 mutations. Strikingly, SMARCA4 aberrations were much more prevalent in large cell carcinoma (LCC) than other histological tumour subtypes. SMARCA4-deficient and SMARCA4-mutated tumours accounted for 40.5% and 51.4% of all LCC, respectively. Multivariable analyses confirmed SMARCA4 mutation was an independent prognostic factor in lung cancer. The immunophenotype of a subset of these tumours frequently showed TTF1 negativity and HepPAR1 positivity. SMARCA4 mutation or its deficiency was associated with positive smoking history and poor prognosis. It also demonstrated mutual exclusion with EGFR mutation. Taken together, the high incidence of SMARCA4 aberrations in LCC may indicate its diagnostic and prognostic value. Our study established the necessity of SMARCA4 IHC in the identification of SMARCA4-aberrant tumours, and this may be of particular importance in LCC and tumours without known driver events., (Copyright © 2024 Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Aim: We investigated association between skin adverse events (AEs) and efficacy with dacomitinib in patients with EGFR -positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods: Post hoc analyses from ARCHER 1050 evaluated efficacy in patients who did and did not experience grade ≥2 skin AEs with dacomitinib. Landmark analyses were performed at 3 and 6 months. Results: In patients who had skin AEs (72.2%) vs. those who did not (27.7%), median progression-free survival was 16.0 vs. 9.2 months, median overall survival (OS) was 37.7 vs. 21.6 months, and objective response rate was 80.2 vs. 61.5%; OS was improved at 3 and 6 months landmark analyses. Conclusion: Presence of grade ≥2 skin AEs was associated with numerically improved efficacy and represents a valuable biomarker of treatment outcome with dacomitinib in patients with advanced NSCLC. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT01774721 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Background: Baveno VII criteria for predicting varices needing treatment (VNT) have not been tested in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) population. We evaluated Baveno VII consensus for VNT in HCC patients of different stages according to Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stages undergoing curative hepatectomy., Methods: This was a prospective cohort study of patients with HCC. Patients underwent transient elastography examination before HCC treatment and received at least one upper endoscopic examination afterwards. Patients were prospectively followed for clinical events including VNT., Results: Six hundred and seventy-three patients (83.1% male, median age 62 years) with HCC of BCLC stage 0 (10%), A (57%), B (17%) and C (15%) were recruited and followed for 47 months. The median (range) LSM was 10.5 (6.9-20.4) kPa; 74% had LSM ≤ 20 kPa and 58% had platelet count ≥150 × 10/L, respectively. VNT occurred in 51 (7.6%) patients. In patients who fulfilled Baveno VII criteria, that is, LSM ≤ 20 kPa and platelet count above 150 × 10/L, only 11 (1.6%) patients had VNT. In all BCLC stages of HCC, the proportion of patients with VNT was below 5%, which support the validity and applicability of Baveno VII criteria in all BCLC stages of HCC., Conclusions: The Baveno VII criteria are valid and applicable in HCC patients undergoing curative hepatectomy for selecting patients to undergo screening endoscopy for VNT. The validity was consistent across different BCLC stages of HCC., (© 2023 Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology Foundation and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.)

What Is This Summary About?: This summary shows the updated results of an ongoing research study called CROWN that was published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine in December 2022. In the CROWN study, researchers looked at the effects of two study medicines called lorlatinib and crizotinib. The study included people with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) that had not been treated previously. All people in the study had cancer cells with changes (known as alterations) in a gene called anaplastic lymphoma kinase , or ALK . This ALK gene is involved in cancer growth. In this updated study, researchers looked at the continued benefit in people who took lorlatinib compared with people who took crizotinib after 3 years., What Did This Study Find?: After 3 years of being observed, people who took lorlatinib were more likely to be alive without their cancer getting worse than people who took crizotinib. At 3 years, 64% of people who took lorlatinib were alive without their cancer getting worse compared with 19% of people who took crizotinib. The cancer was less likely to have spread within or to the brain in people who took lorlatinib than in people who took crizotinib. After 3 years of being observed, 61% of people were still taking lorlatinib and 8% of people were still taking crizotinib. People who took lorlatinib had more severe side effects than people who took crizotinib. However, these side effects were manageable. The most common side effects with lorlatinib were high levels of cholesterol or high levels of triglycerides (a type of fat) in the blood. Life-threatening side effects were seen in 13% of people who took lorlatinib and 8% in crizotinib. Two people who took lorlatinib died because of side effects from lorlatinib., What Do the Results of the Study Mean?: The updated results from the CROWN study showed that a larger percentage of people who took lorlatinib continued to benefit from their treatment after being observed for 3 years compared with those who took crizotinib.

The Baveno VII criteria are used in patients with liver cirrhosis to predict high-risk varices in patients with liver cirrhosis. Yet its use in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has not been validated. HCC alone is accompanied with a higher variceal bleeding risk due to its association with liver cirrhosis and portal vein thrombosis. The use of systemic therapy in advanced HCC has been thought to further augment this risk. Upper endoscopy is commonly used to evaluate for the presence of varices before initiation of treatment with systemic therapy. Yet it is associated with procedural risks, waiting time and limited availability in some localities which may delay the commencement of systemic therapy. Our study successfully validated the Baveno VI criteria with a 3.5% varices needing treatment (VNT) missed rate, also with acceptable <5% VNT missed rates when considering alternative liver stiffness (LSM) and platelet cut-offs. The Baveno VII clinically significant portal hypertension rule-out criteria (LSM < 15 kPa and platelet >150 × 10 9 /L) also revealed a low frequency (2%) of hepatic events, whilst the rule-in criteria (LSM > 25 kPa) was predictive of a higher proportion of hepatic events (14%). Therefore, our study has successfully validated the Baveno VII criteria as a non-invasive stratification of the risk of variceal bleeding and hepatic decompensation in the HCC population.

Competing Interests: Disclosure LEH reports personal fees as an invited speaker from Benecke, Medtalks and VJOncology; personal fees for participation in mentorship programme funded by AstraZeneca; personal fees for travel support from Roche; personal fees as member of the committee that revised the Dutch guidelines on NSCLC, brain metastases and leptomeningeal metastases; fees paid to her institution for an educational webinar from Janssen; fees paid to her institution for advisory board membership from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and Takeda; fees paid to her institution as an invited speaker from AstraZeneca, Bayer, high5oncology, Lilly and MSD; fees paid to her institution for interview sessions from Roche; fees paid to her institution for podcast appearance from Takeda; institutional research grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, Takeda, Pfizer and Merck; institutional funding as a local principal investigator (PI) from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Blueprint Medicines, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), Merck Serono, Mirati, MSD, Novartis, Roche and Takeda; non-remunerated roles as chair for metastatic NSCLC of the lung cancer group for European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) and as the secretary of the studies foundation for NVALT (Nederlandse Vereniging van Artsen voor Longziekten en Tuberculose). KMK reports personal fees as an invited speaker from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Eli Lilly, Medscape, Merck Serono, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Prime Oncology, Roche and Roche Diagnostics/Ventana; personal fees for consultancy and advisory board membership from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Debiopharm, Diaceutics, Janssen, Merck Serono, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche and Roche Diagnostics/Ventana; non-remunerated roles as the past Pathology Committee Chair for IASLC (International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer) and member of the UK Lung Cancer Consortium. JM reports fees paid to her institution as an invited speaker from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, MSD and Roche; fees paid to her institution for expert testimony from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim and MSD; fees paid to her institution for travel expenses from Ipsen. TSM reports personal fees as an invited speaker from AbbVie, ACEA Pharma, Alpha Biopharma, Amgen, Amoy Diagnostics, BeiGene, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Daiichi Sankyo, Daz Group, Eli Lilly, Fishawack Facilitate, InMed Medical Communication, Janssen, Jiahui Holdings Co., LiangYiHui Healthcare, Lucene Health Inc., Lunit USA, Inc., MD Health, Medscape/WebMD, Merck Serono, MSD, MiRXES, Novartis, OrigiMed, PeerVoice, PER, Permanyer SL, Pfizer, Prime Oncology, Research to Practice, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, Shanghai BeBirds Translation & Consulting Co., Taiho Pharmaceutical Co., Takeda and Touch Medical Media; personal fees for advisory board membership from AbbVie, ACEA Pharma, Alpha Biopharma, Amgen, Amoy Diagnostics, BeiGene, Berry Oncology, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, C4 Therapeutics, Cirina Ltd., Covidien LP, CStone Pharma, Curio Science, D3 Bio Ltd., Da Volterra, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Fishawack Facilitate, G1 Therapeutics, Gilead Sciences, Gritstone Oncology, Guardant Health, Hengrui, Ignyta, Incyte, Inivata, IQVIA, Janssen, Lakeshore Biotech, Loxo Oncology, Lucene Health Inc., Lunit USA, Inc., Medscape/WebMD, Merck Serono, Mirati Therapeutics, MiRXES, MoreHealth, MSD, Novartis, OrigiMed, OSE Immunotherapeutics, Pfizer, Puma Tech, Qiming Development, Roche, Roche/Genentech, Sanofi-Aventis, SFJ Pharmaceutical Ltd., Synergy Research, Takeda, Tigermed, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, Virtus Medical and Yuhan; personal fees as the Chairman for ACT Genomics-Sanomics Group; personal fees as a member of the board of directors from AstraZeneca and HutchMed; holds stocks/shares from AstraZeneca, Aurora Tele-Oncology, Biolidics Ltd., HutchMed and Sanomics Ltd.; institutional funding from AstraZeneca, BMS, Clovis Oncology, G1 Therapeutics, Merck Serono, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, SFJ Pharmaceuticals, Takeda and XCovery; non-remunerated roles as an invited speaker with AstraZeneca, Aurora Tele-Oncology, Lunit USA, Inc. and Sanomics Ltd. and for an advisory role with geneDecode; non-remunerated leadership roles with ASCO (American Society of Clinical Oncology), ATORG (Asian Thoracic Oncology Research Group), CLCRF (Chinese Lung Cancer Research Foundation Limited), CSCO (Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology), HKCF (Hong Kong Cancer Fund), HKCTS (Hong Kong Cancer Therapy Society), IASLC and St. Stephen’s College & Prep School (Hong Kong). UN reports fees paid to her institution as an invited speaker from MSD; fees paid to her institution for advisory board membership and a writing engagement from AstraZeneca; institutional funding as a coordinating PI for Bayer; non-remunerated roles as a PI for clinical trials funded by Deutsche Krebshilfe and as a member of the board of directors and vice-chair of ‘Strahlenschutzkommission’ from the German Commission on Radiological Protection. AP reports personal fees as an invited speaker from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Mundipharma and Takeda; personal fees for advisory board membership from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer and Roche; non-remunerated activities with AIOM (Italian Association of Medical Oncology) as member of the Scientific Committee for lung cancer guidelines. SP reports personal fees for an editorial role as an Associate Editor for Annals of Oncology; fees paid to her institution as an invited speaker from AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, e-cancer, Eli Lilly, Fishawack, Illumina, Imedex, Medscape, Mirati, MSD, Novartis, OncologyEducation, PER, Pfizer, PRIME, RMEI, Roche/Genentech, RTP, Sanofi and Takeda; fees paid to her institution for advisory board membership from AbbVie, Amgen, Arcus, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, Bio Invent, Biocartis, Blueprint Medicines, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Debiopharm, Eli Lilly, F-Star, Foundation Medicine, Genzyme, Gilead, GSK, Illumina, Incyte, IQVIA, iTeos, Janssen, Merck Serono, Mirati, MSD, Novartis, Novocure, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Phosplatin Therapeutics, Regeneron, Roche/Genentech, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda and Vaccibody; institutional funding as a steering committee member from AstraZeneca, BeiGene, BMS, iTeos, Mirati, MSD, PharmaMar, Phosplatin Therapeutics and Roche/Genentech; institutional funding as a coordinating PI from AstraZeneca; institutional funding as a trial chair from GSK and Roche/Genentech; non-remunerated role as President and Council Member for the Ballet Béjart Lausanne Foundation; non-remunerated leadership roles as President of ESMO (2020-2022), Vice-President of SAMO (Swiss Academy of Multidisciplinary Oncology), Vice-President of Lung Group for SAKK (Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research); non-remunerated role as PI involved in academic trials for ETOP (European Thoracic Oncology Platform)/EORTC/SAKK; non-remunerated role as Council Member and Scientific Committee Chair for ETOP/IBCSG Partners (International Breast Cancer Study Group); member of AACR (American Association for Cancer Research), ASCO, ASMAC/VSAO (Association of Swiss Interns and Residents), FMH (Association of Swiss Physicians) and IASLC. DP reports personal fees as an invited speaker from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Novartis, Peer CME, Pfizer, priME Oncology and Samsung; personal fees for advisory board membership from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BMS, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and Samsung; institutional funding as a PI from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BMS, Daiichi Sankyo, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi and Sanofi-Aventis. EFS reports personal fees as an invited speaker from Boehringer Ingelheim and Daiichi Sankyo; personal fees for advisory board membership from Merck Serono; fees paid to his institution for advisory board membership from AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Roche, Sanofi and Takeda; institutional funding as a local PI from AstraZeneca, Genmab, Gilead and Pfizer. BJS reports personal fees as an invited speaker from AstraZeneca, Pfizer and Roche/Genentech; personal fees for advisory board membership from Amgen and Roche/Genentech; fees paid to his institution for advisory board membership from AstraZeneca, BMS, Merck and Novartis; fees paid to his institution for steering committee membership from Novartis, Pfizer and Roche/Genentech; personal fees as a member of the board of directors from Cancer Council Victoria and Thoracic Oncology Group of Australasia; personal fees as a consultant from Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre; royalties from UpToDate. GV reports personal fees as an invited speaker and for advisory board membership from Roche; personal fees as a consultant from Ab Medica; institutional funding as a PI from AIRC (Fondazione AIRC per la ricerca sul cancro ETS) and the Italian Ministry of Health. MR reports personal fees as an invited speaker from Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Roche and Sanofi; personal fees for advisory board membership from Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Mirati, MSD, Pfizer, Roche and Sanofi.

Competing Interests: Disclosure LEH reports personal fees as an invited speaker from Benecke, Medtalks and VJOncology; personal fees for participation in mentorship programme funded by AstraZeneca; personal fees for travel support from Roche; personal fees as member of the committee that revised the Dutch guidelines on NSCLC, brain metastases and leptomeningeal metastases; fees paid to her institution for an educational webinar from Janssen; fees paid to her institution for advisory board membership from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and Takeda; fees paid to her institution as an invited speaker from AstraZeneca, Bayer, high5oncology, Lilly and MSD; fees paid to her institution for interview sessions from Roche; fees paid to her institution for podcast appearance from Takeda; institutional research grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, Takeda, Pfizer and Merck; institutional funding as a local principal investigator (PI) from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Blueprint Medicines, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), Merck Serono, Mirati, MSD, Novartis, Roche and Takeda; non-remunerated roles as chair for metastatic NSCLC of the lung cancer group for European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) and as the secretary of the studies foundation for Nederlandse Vereniging van Artsen voor Longziekten en Tuberculose (NVALT). KK reports personal fees as an invited speaker from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Eli Lilly, Medscape, Merck Serono, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Prime Oncology, Roche and Roche Diagnostics/Ventana; personal fees for consultancy and advisory board membership from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Debiopharm, Diaceutics, Janssen, Merck Serono, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche and Roche Diagnostics/Ventana; non-remunerated roles as the past Pathology Committee Chair for International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC) and member of the UK Lung Cancer Consortium. JM reports fees paid to her institution as an invited speaker from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, MSD and Roche; fees paid to her institution for expert testimony from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim and MSD; fees paid to her institution for travel expenses from Ipsen. TSM reports personal fees as an invited speaker from AbbVie, ACEA Pharma, Alpha Biopharma, Amgen, Amoy Diagnostics, BeiGene, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Daiichi Sankyo, Daz Group, Eli Lilly, Fishawack Facilitate, InMed Medical Communication, Janssen, Jiahui Holdings Co., LiangYiHui Healthcare, Lucene Health Inc., Lunit USA, Inc., MD Health, Medscape/WebMD, Merck Serono, MIRXES, MSD, Novartis, OrigiMed, PeerVoice, PER, Permanyer SL, Pfizer, Prime Oncology, Research to Practice, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, Shanghai BeBirds Translation & Consulting Co., Taiho Pharmaceutical Co., Takeda and Touch Medical Media; personal fees for advisory board membership from AbbVie, ACEA Pharma, Alpha Biopharma, Amgen, Amoy Diagnostics, BeiGene, Berry Oncology, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, C4 Therapeutics, Cirina Ltd, Covidien LP, CStone Pharma, Curio Science, D3 Bio Ltd, Da Volterra, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Fishawack Facilitate, G1 Therapeutics, Gilead Sciences, Gritstone Oncology, Guardant Health, Hengrui, Ignyta, Incyte, Inivata, IQVIA, Janssen, Lakeshore Biotech, Loxo Oncology, Lucene Health Inc., Lunit USA, Inc., Medscape/WebMD, Merck Serono, Mirati Therapeutics, MiRXES, MoreHealth, MSD, Novartis, OrigiMed, OSE Immunotherapeutics, Pfizer, Puma Tech, Qiming Development, Roche, Roche/Genentech, Sanofi-Aventis, SFJ Pharmaceutical Ltd, Synergy Research, Takeda, Tigermed, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, Virtus Medical and Yuhan; personal fees as the Chairman for ACT Genomics-Sanomics Group; personal fees as a member of the board of directors from AstraZeneca and HutchMed; holds stocks/shares from AstraZeneca, Aurora Tele-Oncology, Biolidics Ltd, HutchMed and Sanomics Ltd.; institutional funding from AstraZeneca, BMS, Clovis Oncology, G1 Therapeutics, Merck Serono, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, SFJ Pharmaceuticals, Takeda and XCovery; non-remunerated roles as an invited speaker with AstraZeneca, Aurora Tele-Oncology, Lunit USA, Inc. and Sanomics Ltd and for an advisory role with geneDecode; non-remunerated leadership roles with American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), Asian Thoracic Oncology Research Group (ATORG), Chinese Lung Cancer Research Foundation Limited (CLCRF), Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology (CSCO), Hong Kong Cancer Fund (HKCF), Hong Kong Cancer Therapy Society (HKCTS), IASLC and St. Stephen’s College & Prep School (Hong Kong). UN reports fees paid to her institution as an invited speaker from MSD; fees paid to her institution for advisory board membership and a writing engagement from AstraZeneca; institutional funding as a coordinating PI for Bayer; non-remunerated roles as a PI for clinical trials funded by Deutsche Krebshilfe and as a member of the board of directors and vice-chair of ‘Strahlenschutzkommission’ from the German Commission on Radiological Protection. AP reports personal fees as an invited speaker from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Mundipharma and Takeda; personal fees for advisory board membership from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer and Roche; non-remunerated activities with Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM) as member of the Scientific Committee for lung cancer guidelines. SP reports personal fees for an editorial role as an Associate Editor for Annals of Oncology; fees paid to her institution as an invited speaker from AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, ecancer, Eli Lilly, Fishawack, Illumina, Imedex, Medscape, Mirati, MSD, Novartis, OncologyEducation, Physician’s Education Resource (PER), Pfizer, Partnerships in International Medical Education (PRIME), RMEI Medical Education, LLC (RMEI), Roche/Genentech, Research To Practice (RTP), Sanofi and Takeda; fees paid to her institution for advisory board membership from AbbVie, Amgen, Arcus, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, Bio Invent, Biocartis, Blueprint Medicines, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Debiopharm, Eli Lilly, F-Star, Foundation Medicine, Genzyme, Gilead, GSK, Illumina, Incyte, IQVIA, iTeos, Janssen, Merck Serono, Mirati, MSD, Novartis, Novocure, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Phosplatin Therapeutics, Regeneron, Roche/Genentech, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda and Vaccibody; institutional funding as a steering committee member from AstraZeneca, BeiGene, BMS, iTeos, Mirati, MSD, PharmaMar, Phosplatin Therapeutics and Roche/Genentech; institutional funding as a coordinating PI from AstraZeneca; institutional funding as a trial chair from GSK and Roche/Genentech; non-remunerated role as President and Council Member for the Ballet Béjart Lausanne Foundation; non-remunerated leadership roles as President of ESMO (2020-2022), Vice- President of Swiss Academy of Multidisciplinary Oncology (SAMO), Vice-President of Lung Group for Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research (SAKK); non-remunerated role as PI involved in academic trials for European Thoracic Oncology Platform (ETOP)/EORTC/SAKK; non-remunerated role as Council Member and Scientific Committee Chair for ETOP/International Breast Cancer Study Group (IBCSG) Partners member of American Association of Cancer Research (AACR), ASCO, Association Suisse des médecines-assistant(e)s et chef(fe)s de Clinique (ASMAC)/Verband Schweizerischer Assistenz- und Oberärztinnen und- ärzte (VSAO), Fédération des médecins suisses (FMH) and IASLC. DP reports personal fees as an invited speaker from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Novartis, Peer CME, Pfizer, priME Oncology and Samsung; personal fees for advisory board membership from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BMS, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and Samsung; institutional funding as a PI from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BMS, Daiichi Sankyo, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi and Sanofi-Aventis. ES reports personal fees as an invited speaker from Boehringer Ingelheim and Daiichi Sankyo; personal fees for advisory board membership from Merck Serono; fees paid to his institution for advisory board membership from AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Roche, Sanofi and Takeda; institutional funding as a local PI from AstraZeneca, Genmab, Gilead and Pfizer. BJS reports personal fees as an invited speaker from AstraZeneca, Pfizer and Roche/Genentech; personal fees for advisory board membership from Amgen and Roche/Genentech; fees paid to his institution for advisory board membership from AstraZeneca, BMS, Merck and Novartis; fees paid to his institution for steering committee membership from Novartis, Pfizer and Roche/Genentech; personal fees as a member of the board of directors from Cancer Council Victoria and Thoracic Oncology Group of Australasia; personal fees as a consultant from Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre; royalties from UpToDate. GV reports personal fees as an invited speaker and for advisory board membership from Roche; personal fees as a consultant from Ab Medica; institutional funding as a PI from Fondazione AIRC per la ricerca sul cancro ETS (AIRC) and the Italian Ministry of Health. MR reports personal fees as an invited speaker from Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Roche and Sanofi; personal fees for advisory board membership from Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Mirati, MSD, Pfizer, Roche and Sanofi.

Inflammation in the tumor microenvironment is a complicit and known carcinogenesis driver. Inhibition of IL-1β, one of the most abundant and influential cytokines in the tumor microenvironment, may enhance the efficacy of PD-1. In a post-hoc analysis of phase III cardiovascular CANTOS trial, canakinumab, a monoclonal anti-IL-1β antibody, significantly reduced lung cancer incidence. Immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) is the standard of care in non-small-cell lung cancer. However, ICI efficacy is heavily impacted by programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) status. Most patients with non-small-cell lung cancer have low PD-L1 expression levels. Thus, combinational strategies are needed to improve ICI efficacy and expand its use. Here, we describe the preclinical and clinical evidence to support the combination of IL-1β and PD-1 under investigation in the CANOPY program. The perioperative use of canakinumab with or without PD-1 inhibition in the CANOPY-N trial is described as a potential chemotherapy-free immunotherapy strategy.

Background: Manual evaluation of programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) tumour proportion score (TPS) by pathologists is associated with interobserver bias., Objective: This study explored the role of artificial intelligence (AI)-powered TPS analyser in minimisation of interobserver variation and enhancement of therapeutic response prediction., Methods: A prototype model of an AI-powered TPS analyser was developed with a total of 802 non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) whole-slide images. Three independent board-certified pathologists labelled PD-L1 TPS in an external cohort of 479 NSCLC slides. For cases of disagreement between each pathologist and the AI model, the pathologists were asked to revise the TPS grade (<1%, 1%-49% and ≥50%) with AI assistance. The concordance rates among the pathologists with or without AI assistance and the effect of the AI-assisted revision on clinical outcome upon immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) treatment were evaluated., Results: Without AI assistance, pathologists concordantly classified TPS in 81.4% of the cases. They revised their initial interpretation by using the AI model for the disagreement cases between the pathologist and the AI model (N = 91, 93 and 107 for each pathologist). The overall concordance rate among the pathologists was increased to 90.2% after the AI assistance (P < 0.001). A reduction in hazard ratio for overall survival and progression-free survival upon ICI treatment was identified in the TPS subgroups after the AI-assisted TPS revision., Conclusion: The AI-powered TPS analyser assistance improves the pathologists' consensus of reading and prediction of the therapeutic response, raising a possibility of standardised approach for the accurate interpretation., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement S.I.C., S.S., K.P., D.Y., W.J. and C.-Y.O. are employed by Lunit Inc. and has stock/stock options in Lunit Inc., and M.M., S.P., S.P. and B.J.A. are employed by Lunit Inc. No other disclosures were reported. The AI model in the study is a prototype model, and the model has developed for academic interest, not for commercialisation., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Biomarkers on the basis of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL) are potentially valuable in predicting the effectiveness of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). However, clinical application remains challenging because of methodologic limitations and laborious process involved in spatial analysis of TIL distribution in whole-slide images (WSI)., Methods: We have developed an artificial intelligence (AI)-powered WSI analyzer of TIL in the tumor microenvironment that can define three immune phenotypes (IPs): inflamed, immune-excluded, and immune-desert. These IPs were correlated with tumor response to ICI and survival in two independent cohorts of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC)., Results: Inflamed IP correlated with enrichment in local immune cytolytic activity, higher response rate, and prolonged progression-free survival compared with patients with immune-excluded or immune-desert phenotypes. At the WSI level, there was significant positive correlation between tumor proportion score (TPS) as determined by the AI model and control TPS analyzed by pathologists ( P < .001). Overall, 44.0% of tumors were inflamed, 37.1% were immune-excluded, and 18.9% were immune-desert. Incidence of inflamed IP in patients with programmed death ligand-1 TPS at < 1%, 1%-49%, and ≥ 50% was 31.7%, 42.5%, and 56.8%, respectively. Median progression-free survival and overall survival were, respectively, 4.1 months and 24.8 months with inflamed IP, 2.2 months and 14.0 months with immune-excluded IP, and 2.4 months and 10.6 months with immune-desert IP., Conclusion: The AI-powered spatial analysis of TIL correlated with tumor response and progression-free survival of ICI in advanced NSCLC. This is potentially a supplementary biomarker to TPS as determined by a pathologist., Competing Interests: Sehhoon ParkStock and Other Ownership Interests: Lunit Chan-Young OckEmployment: LunitLeadership: LunitStock and Other Ownership Interests: Lunit, Medpacto, Y-BiologicsConsulting or Advisory Role: Medpacto, Y-Biologics, Idience Sergio PereiraEmployment: LunitStock and Other Ownership Interests: Lunit Seonwook ParkEmployment: LunitStock and Other Ownership Interests: LunitResearch Funding: Lunit Minuk MaEmployment: LunitStock and Other Ownership Interests: Lunit Seunghwan ShinEmployment: LunitStock and Other Ownership Interests: Lunit Jaehong AumEmployment: LunitStock and Other Ownership Interests: Lunit Kyunghyun PaengEmployment: LunitLeadership: LunitStock and Other Ownership Interests: Lunit Donggeun YooEmployment: LunitLeadership: LunitStock and Other Ownership Interests: LunitPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Having several patents about medical AI developments in Lunit Inc Se Hyun KimConsulting or Advisory Role: Ono Pharmaceutical Jin Seok AhnHonoraria: Pfizer, Roche, BC World, Yuhan, Hanmi, Novartis, JW Pharmaceutical, Amgen, Boehringer IngelheimConsulting or Advisory Role: Bixink, Bayer, Yooyoung Pharmaceutical Co Ltd, Pharmbio Korea, Vifor Pharma Myung-Ju AhnHonoraria: AstraZeneca, Lilly, MSD, TakedaConsulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, MSD, Takeda, Alpha Pharmaceutical Keunchil ParkConsulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, Lilly, Ono Pharmaceutical, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Merck KGaA, AbbVie, Daiichi Sankyo, Boehringer Ingelheim, JNJ, Geinus, IMBdxSpeakers' Bureau: Boehringer IngelheimResearch Funding: AstraZeneca, MSD Oncology Sang Yong SongEmployment: AstraZeneca/MedImmuneLeadership: AstraZeneca/MedImmuneStock and Other Ownership Interests: AstraZeneca/MedImmune Yung-Jue BangConsulting or Advisory Role: BeiGene, Green Cross, Merck Serono, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Novartis, MSD Oncology, Hanmi, Genentech/Roche, Daiichi Sankyo, Astellas Pharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, Samyang, Alexo TherapeuticsResearch Funding: AstraZeneca/MedImmune (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Genentech/Roche (Inst), MSD (Inst), Merck Serono (Inst), Bayer (Inst), GlaxoSmithKline (Inst), Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Lilly (Inst), Ono Pharmaceutical (Inst), Taiho Pharmaceutical (Inst), Takeda (Inst), BeiGene (Inst), Curis (Inst), GC Pharma (Inst), Daiichi Sankyo (Inst), Astellas Pharma (Inst), Genexine (Inst) Yoon-La ChoiResearch Funding: Bayer Tony S. MokEmployment: The Chinese University of Hong KongLeadership: Sanomics Limited, AstraZeneca, Hutchison China Meditech, Aurora Tele-Oncology Platform, LunitStock and Other Ownership Interests: Sanomics Limited, Hutchison China Meditech, Aurora Tele-Oncology PlatformHonoraria: AstraZeneca, Alpha Biopharma, ACEA Pharmaceutical Research, Amgen, Amoy Diagnostics, BeiGene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo/UCB Japan, Fishawack Facilitate, InMed, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Origimed, Pfizer, Prime Oncology, Roche, Sanofi Aventis GmbH, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Takeda, Lucence Health Inc, Medscape, P. Permanyer SL, PeerVoice, Physicans' Education Resource, Research to Practice, Shanghai BeBirds Translation & Consulting Co, Liangyihui Network Technology Co., LtdConsulting or Advisory Role: AbbVie, ACEA Pharmaceutical Research, Alpha Biopharma, Amgen, Amoy Diagnostics, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Berry Oncology, Boehringer Ingelheim, Blueprint Medicines, Bristol Myers Squibb, CStone Pharmaceuticals, Curio Science, Daiichi Sankyo/UCB Japan, Eisai, Fishawack Facilitate, Gritstone Oncology, Guardant Health, Hengrui Therapeutics, Ignyta, Incyte, Inivata, IQvia, Lilly, Loxo, Lunit, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mirati Therapeutics, Novartis, Pfizer, Puma Biotechnology, Roche, SFJ Pharmaceuticals Group, Takeda, Vertex, Yuhan, Qiming Development (HK) LtdResearch Funding: AstraZeneca (Inst), Boehringer Ingelheim (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Novartis (Inst), SFJ Pharmaceuticals Group (Inst), Roche (Inst), Merck Sharp & Dohme (Inst), Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), Xcovery (Inst), G1 Therapeutics (Inst), Merck Serono (Inst), Takeda (Inst) Se-Hoon LeeHonoraria: AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, MerckConsulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, RocheResearch Funding: MerckTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: NovartisNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Background: The efficacy of atezolizumab (A) and/or bevacizumab (B) with carboplatin/paclitaxel (CP) chemotherapy was explored in the phase III, randomized IMpower150 study in patients with non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) according to KRAS mutations (m KRAS ) and co-occurring STK11 , KEAP1, or TP53 mutations., Methods: Mutation status was determined by circulating tumor DNA next-generation sequencing. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were analyzed in a mutation-evaluable intention-to-treat population (MEP; n=920) and SP263 (programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1)) biomarker-evaluable population (n=774)., Results: Within the m KRAS population (24.5% of MEP), ABCP showed numerical improvements vs BCP in median OS (19.8 vs 9.9 months; HR 0.50; 95% CI 0.34 to 0.72) and PFS (8.1 vs 5.8 months; HR 0.42; 95% CI 0.29 to 0.61)-greater than with ACP (OS: 11.7 vs 9.9 months; HR 0.63; 95% CI 0.43 to 0.91; PFS: 4.8 vs 5.8 months; HR 0.80; 95% CI 0.56 to 1.13) vs BCP. Across PD-L1 subgroups in m KRAS patients, OS and PFS were longer with ABCP vs BCP, but OS with ACP was similar to BCP in PD-L1-low and PD-L1-negative subgroups. Conversely, in KRAS -WT patients, OS was longer with ACP than with ABCP or BCP across PD-L1 subgroups. KRAS was frequently comutated with STK11 , KEAP1, and TP53 ; these subgroups conferred different prognostic outcomes. Within the m KRAS population, STK11 and/or KEAP1 mutations were associated with inferior OS and PFS across treatments compared with STK11 -WT and/or KEAP 1-WT. In m KRAS patients with co-occurring m STK11 and/or m KEAP1 (44.9%) or m TP53 (49.3%), survival was longer with ABCP than with ACP or BCP., Conclusions: These analyses support previous findings of mutation of STK11 and/or KEAP1 as poor prognostic indicators. While clinical efficacy favored ABCP and ACP vs BCP in these mutational subgroups, survival benefits were greater in the m KRAS and KEAP1 -WT and STK11 -WT population vs m KRAS and m KEAP1 and m STK11 population, suggesting both prognostic and predictive effects. Overall, these results suggest that atezolizumab combined with bevacizumab and chemotherapy is an efficacious first-line treatment in metastatic NSCLC subgroups with m KRAS and co-occurring STK11 and/or KEAP1 or TP53 mutations and/or high PD-L1 expression., Competing Interests: Competing interests: FC reports nonfinancial support from Roche/Genentech during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Roche/Genentech, AstraZeneca, Takeda, Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Lilly, and Bayer, outside the submitted work. RMJ reports nonfinancial support from Roche/Genentech during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Bristol Myers Squibb and Roche/Genentech, outside the submitted work. EK reports stock ownership from Genentech Inc outside the submitted work and employment by Genentech. MM reports other from Roche/Genentech outside the submitted work and employment by Roche/Genentech. TSKM reports personal fees from Abbvie, InMed Medical Communication, MD Health (Brazil), Medscape/WebMD, MoreHealth, PeerVoice, Physicians' Education Resource, P. Permanyer SL, PrIME Oncology, Research to Practice, Touch Medical Media, Curio Science, Inivata, and Berry Oncology. He reports personal fees and other from ACEA Pharma, Alpha Biopharma, Amgen, Amoy Diagnostics, BeiGene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Blueprint Medicines, CStone Pharmaceuticals, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Fishawack Facilitate, Gritstone Oncology, Guardant Health, Hengrui Therapeutics, Ignyta, IQVIA, Incyte, Janssen, Lilly, Loxo-Oncology, Lunit, Mirati Therapeutics, OrigiMed, Puma Technology, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis R&D, Takeda, and Yuhan. He reports grants from Clovis Oncology, SFJ Pharmaceuticals, and XCovery; grants and personal fees from G1 Therapeutics; and grants, personal fees, and other from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, and Pfizer. He reports other from Aurora, Virtus Medical Group, AstraZeneca, Hutchison Chi-Med, Sanomics, and geneDecode, outside the submitted work. SM reports employment by and stock ownership in F. Hoffmann-La Roche. MN reports grants and personal fees from Ono Pharmaceutical, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Eli Lilly, Taiho Pharmaceutical, AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo, and Takeda Pharmaceutical Company; and personal fees from Boehringer-Ingelheim, Merck Biopharma, Teijin Pharma, and AbbVie, outside the submitted work. MR reports personal fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Lilly, Merck, Mirati, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Bioepis, outside the submitted work. DS reports employment by Genentech and stock ownership in F. Hoffmann-La Roche. MDT reports employment by Genentech and stock ownership in F. Hoffmann-La Roche. GS reports previous employment by Genentech. MAS reports nonfinancial support from Roche/Genentech during the conduct of the study; grants and personal fees from Roche/Genentech and AstraZeneca; personal fees from Merck, Guardant, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Bayer; and grants from Novartis, outside the submitted work. HJW reports personal fees from Genentech/Roche, AstraZeneca, Merck, Takeda, and Bristol Myers Squibb, outside the submitted work. WZ reports employment by Genentech., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Immunotherapy has dramatically improved the survival of patients with advanced or metastatic malignancies. Recent studies suggest that immunotherapy may increase the risk of hepatitis, whereas it may also induce functional cure of chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection. We evaluated the incidence of hepatitis flare, HBV reactivation, hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) seroclearance or seroreversion in patients with current or past HBV infection who had received immunotherapy., Methods: This was a territory-wide observational cohort study in Hong Kong. We identified patients through electronic medical records based on the prescriptions of immune checkpoint inhibitors from July 1, 2014, to December 31, 2019. Patients who were HBsAg positive or HBsAg negative with results for antibody to hepatitis B surface or core antigen (anti-HBs or anti-HBc) were included., Results: A total of 990 patients (397 HBsAg-positive, 593 HBsAg-negative with 482 anti-HBc and/or anti-HBs positive, and 111 both anti-HBc and anti-HBs negative) were identified. All of HBsAg-positive and 15.9% HBsAg-negative patients were put on oral antiviral treatment. Hepatitis flare (alanine aminotransferase >2 times of the upper limit of normal) occurred in 39.3% HBsAg-positive and 30.4% HBsAg-negative patients. High baseline alanine aminotransferase and combination of immunotherapy increased the risk of hepatitis. HBV reactivation (≥2 log increase in HBV DNA from baseline) occurred in 2 HBsAg-positive patients; HBsAg seroclearance and seroreversion was observed in 1 HBsAg-positive and 1 HBsAg-negative patient, respectively (<1%)., Discussion: Hepatitis flare occurs in approximately 40% of HBsAg-positive patients and 30% of HBsAg-negative patients during immunotherapy. HBV reactivation, HBsAg seroclearance, and HBsAg seroreversion are rare. Current or past HBV infection has no impact on the emergence of hepatic flare associated with immunotherapy., (Copyright © 2021 by The American College of Gastroenterology.)

Objectives: To compare efficacy and safety of dacomitinib versus gefitinib as first-line therapy for EGFR mutation-positive advanced NSCLC in Asian patients enrolled in the ongoing ARCHER 1050 trial., Materials and Methods: In this ongoing, randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial (NCT01774721), eligible patients with newly diagnosed advanced EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC were randomized (1:1) to receive oral dacomitinib 45 mg/day or oral gefitinib 250 mg/day. Randomization, by a central computer system, was stratified by race and EGFR mutation type (exon 19 deletion mutation/exon 21 L858R substitution mutation). The primary endpoint was PFS by blinded independent review., Results: Of 346 Asian patients, 170 were randomized to dacomitinib and 176 to gefitinib. The hazard ratio (HR) for PFS with dacomitinib versus gefitinib was 0.509 (95 % confidence interval [CI]: 0.391-0.662; 1-sided p < 0.0001; median 16.5 months [95 % CI: 12.9-18.4] vs. 9.3 months [95 % CI: 9.2-11.0]). HR for OS with dacomitinib versus gefitinib was 0.759 (95 % CI: 0.578-0.996; median 37.7 months [95 % CI: 30.2-44.7] vs. 29.1 months [95 % CI: 25.6-36.0]). The OS benefit was still maintained in those patients who had a stepwise dose reduction of dacomitinib (to 30 and 15 mg/day). The most common adverse events (AEs) were diarrhea (154 [90.6 %] patients), paronychia (110 [64.7 %]), dermatitis acneiform (96 [56.5 %]), and stomatitis (87 [51.2 %]) with dacomitinib, and diarrhea (100 [56.8 %]), alanine aminotransferase increased (81 [46.0 %]), and aspartate aminotransferase increased (75 [42.6 %]) with gefitinib. Treatment-related serious AEs were reported in 16 (9.4 %) and 8 (4.5 %) patients treated with dacomitinib and gefitinib, respectively., Conclusion: First-line dacomitinib was associated with significant prolongation of PFS and improved OS compared with gefitinib in Asian patients with EGFR mutation-positive advanced NSCLC. The AE profiles of dacomitinib and gefitinib in Asian patients were consistent with the overall ARCHER 1050 population., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Canakinumab is a human IgGκ monoclonal antibody, with high affinity and specificity for IL-1β. The Canakinumab Anti-Inflammatory Thrombosis Outcome Study (CANTOS) trial, evaluating canakinumab for cardiovascular disease, provided the first signal of the potential of IL-1β inhibition on lung cancer incidence reduction. Here, we describe the rationale and design for CANOPY-N, a randomized Phase II trial evaluating IL-1β inhibition with or without immune checkpoint inhibition as neoadjuvant treatment in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. Patients with stage IB to IIIA non-small-cell lung cancer eligible for complete resection will receive canakinumab or pembrolizumab as monotherapy, or in combination. The primary end point is major pathological response by central review; secondary end points include overall response rate, major pathological response (local review), surgical feasibility rate and pharmacokinetics. Clinical trial registration: NCT03968419 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Aim: Patient-reported symptoms, functioning and overall quality of life (QoL) were compared between dacomitinib and gefitinib in ARCHER 1050. Patients & methods: Patients (n = 448) with advanced EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer completed the EORTC-QLQ-C30 questionnaire and its lung-specific module, LC-13. Mean scores over time were analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures. Results: Both treatments showed early improvement in disease-related symptoms that was maintained during treatment. Treatment-related diarrhea and sore mouth decreased following dose reduction with dacomitinib. There were no clinically meaningful changes in functioning and overall QoL in either treatment group. Conclusion: Longer treatment duration, enabled by dose reduction, allowed patients on dacomitinib to improve treatment-related symptoms and maintain functioning and overall QoL for longer than gefitinib.

Background: ARCHER 1050, an ongoing, randomized, open-label, phase III trial of dacomitinib versus gefitinib in newly diagnosed patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and an EGFR-activating mutation, reported significant improvement in overall survival (OS) with dacomitinib., Objective: This paper reports an updated OS analysis of ARCHER 1050 after an extended follow-up., Patients and Methods: In this multinational, multicenter trial, adults (aged ≥ 18 years or ≥ 20 years in Japan and Korea) with newly diagnosed NSCLC and EGFR mutation (exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R substitution), and no history of central nervous system metastases, were randomized 1:1 to receive dacomitinib 45 mg/day (n = 227) or gefitinib 250 mg/day (n = 225). Randomization was stratified by race and EGFR mutation type. An ad hoc updated analysis of OS was conducted at the protocol-defined cut-off of 48 months from first dosing of the last enrolled patient (13 May 2019)., Results: After a median follow-up of 47.9 months, 133 (58.6%) patients had died in the dacomitinib arm and 152 (67.6%) in the gefitinib arm. The hazard ratio (HR) for OS was 0.748 (95% CI 0.591-0.947; two-sided P = 0.0155); median OS was 34.1 months with dacomitinib versus 27.0 months with gefitinib. The HR for OS in patients with dose reduction(s) in the dacomitinib arm (n = 154) compared with all patients in the gefitinib arm was 0.554 (95% CI 0.420-0.730); median OS was 42.5 months for patients with dose reduction(s) in the dacomitinib arm. The most common adverse events were diarrhea (87.7%), paronychia (61.7%), dermatitis acneiform (49.3%), and stomatitis (43.6%) with dacomitinib, and diarrhea (55.8%) and alanine aminotransferase increased (40.2%) with gefitinib., Conclusions: The OS benefit from first-line treatment with dacomitinib versus gefitinib was maintained after extended follow-up in patients with advanced NSCLC with EGFR-activating mutations. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV: NCT01774721 (registered 24 January 2013).

Background: In AURA3 (NCT02151981), osimertinib, a third-generation epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), significantly prolonged progression-free survival and improved response in patients with EGFR T790M advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and progression on prior EGFR-TKI treatment. We report the final AURA3 overall survival (OS) analysis., Patients and Methods: Adult patients were randomized 2 : 1 to osimertinib (80 mg orally, once daily) or pemetrexed plus carboplatin/cisplatin (platinum-pemetrexed) intravenously, every 3 weeks (≤6 cycles). Patients could crossover to osimertinib on progression confirmed by blinded independent central review. OS and safety were secondary end points., Results: A total of 279 patients were randomly assigned to receive osimertinib and 140 to platinum-pemetrexed (136 received treatment). At data cut-off (DCO; 15 March 2019), 188 patients (67%) receiving osimertinib versus 93 (66%) receiving platinum-pemetrexed had died. The hazard ratio (HR) for OS was 0.87 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67-1.12; P = 0.277]; the median OS was 26.8 months (95% CI 23.5-31.5) versus 22.5 months (95% CI 20.2-28.8) for osimertinib and platinum-pemetrexed, respectively. The estimated 24- and 36-month survival was 55% versus 43% and 37% versus 30%, respectively. After crossover adjustment, there was an HR of 0.54 (95% CI 0.18-1.6). Time to first subsequent therapy or death showed a clinically meaningful advantage toward osimertinib (HR 0.21, 95% CI 0.16-0.28; P < 0.001). At DCO, 99/136 (73%) patients in the platinum-pemetrexed arm had crossed over to osimertinib, 66/99 (67%) of whom had died. The most common adverse events possibly related to study treatment were diarrhea (32%; grade ≥3, 1%) and rash (grouped term; 32%; grade ≥3, <1%) in the osimertinib arm, versus nausea (47%; grade ≥3, 3%) in the platinum-pemetrexed arm., Conclusions: In patients with T790M advanced NSCLC, no statistically significant benefit in OS was observed for osimertinib versus platinum-pemetrexed, which possibly reflects the high crossover rate of patients from platinum-pemetrexed to osimertinib., Clinical Trials Number: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02151981; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02151981., Competing Interests: Disclosures VAP has declared honorarium from F Hoffman-La Roche; advisory or consultancy fees from Nektar Therapeutics, Astra Zeneca Pharmaceuticals, Arrys Therapeutics, Merck & Co, LOXO Oncology, Araxes Pharma, F. Hoffman–LaRoche Ltd, Janssen Research Foundation, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Clovis Oncology, Eli Lilly & Co, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., Takeda Pharmaceuticals, AbbVie, TRM Oncology, Tesaro, Exelixis, Gritstone, Leeds Biolabs, IDEAYA, Bolt Therapeutics, and G2 Innovation; and research funding from Eli Lilly & Co, Novartis, Merck, Astra Zeneca Pharmaceuticals, F Hoffman-La Roche, Nektar Therapeutics, Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Checkmate, and Incyte. TSM has declared honoraria from ACEA Pharma, Alpha Biopharma, Amgen, Amoy Diagnostics, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Blueprint Medicines Corporation, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, CStone Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, Fishawack Facilitate, Hengrui Therapeutics, Ignyta, Incyte Corporation, InMed Medical Communication, IQVIA, Janssen, Loxo Oncology, Merck Serono, MSD, MORE Health, Novartis, OncoGenex Pharmaceuticals, OrigiMed, PeerVoice, Pfizer, PrIME Oncology, Roche/Genentech, Sanofi-Aventis R&D, SFJ Pharmaceutical, Takeda Pharmaceuticals HK, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, and Yuhan Corporation; advisory or consultancy fees from ACEA Pharma, Alpha Biopharma, Amgen, Amoy Diagnostics, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Blueprint Medicines Corporation, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Cirina, CStone Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, Fishawack Facilitate, GeneDecode, Hengrui Therapeutics, Ignyta, Incyte Corporation, InMed Medical Communication, IQVIA, Janssen, Loxo-Oncology, Merck Serono, MSD, MORE Health, Novartis, OncoGenex Pharmaceuticals, OrigiMed, PeerVoice, Pfizer, PrIME Oncology, Roche/Genentech, Sanofi-Aventis R&D, SFJ Pharmaceutical, Takeda Pharmaceuticals HK, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, and Yuhan Corporation; leadership roles for AstraZeneca and Hutchison Chi-Med; research funding from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Clovis Oncology, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, SFJ, and Xcovery; shareholdings in Hutchison Chi-Med, and Sanomics; stock options in Clearbridge BioMedics (now Biolidics), Loxo-Oncology, OrigiMed, and Virtus Medical Group; and officer or director for AstraZeneca, Hutchison Chi-Med (remunerated), American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), Asian Thoracic Oncology Research Group (ATORG), Chinese Lung Cancer Research Foundation Limited (CLCRF), Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology (CSCO), Hong Kong Cancer Fund (HKCF), Hong Kong Cancer Therapy Society (HKCTS), and International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC; term ended on 30/4/19 [non-remunerated]). J-YH has declared honoraria from Roche, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, and Takeda; advisory or consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Takeda, Pfizer, Novartis, and Lilly; research funding from Roche, Pfizer, Ono Pharmaceutical, and Takeda. M-JA has declared advisory or consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, MSD, Ono Pharmaceutical, and Lilly; and speaker fees from AstraZeneca, MSD, Ono Pharmaceutical, Lilly, Roche, Alpha Pharmaceutical, and Takeda. SSR has declared honoraria from AstraZeneca, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Roche/Genentech, Loxo, Nektar, and Tesaro; advisory or consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Roche/Genentech, Loxo, Nektar, and Tesaro; and research funding from AstraZeneca, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Tesaro, Advaxis, and Takeda. SWK has declared advisory or consultancy fees from AstraZeneca; and research funding from AstraZeneca. FAS has declared advisory or consultancy fees from AstraZeneca; research funding from AstraZeneca; and shareholdings in AstraZeneca. JL has declared honoraria from Roche, AstraZeneca, and Pfizer; and research funding from Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca. HA has declared honoraria from AstraZeneca, Chugai, Pfizer, and Boehringer Ingelheim; and advisory or consultancy fees from AstraZeneca and Pfizer. W-CS has declared travel, accommodation, or expenses from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Boehringer Ingelheim. TJ has declared advisory or consultancy fees from Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Ignyta, AstraZeneca, Takeda, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Pfizer. MS has declared honoraria from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Celgene, Takeda, Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and MSD; advisory or consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Celgene, Takeda, Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and MSD; and speaker fees from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Celgene, Takeda, Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and MSD. Y-LW has declared honoraria from AstraZeneca, Roche, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, MSD, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Boehringer Ingelheim; advisory or consultancy fees from AstraZeneca and Roche; and research funding from AstraZeneca and Roche. HM, MM, GL, and YR are employees of and have shareholdings in AstraZeneca. AD, YH, and WSMET have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2020 European Society for Medical Oncology. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are increasingly used in the treatment of cancers. We aimed to evaluate the incidence and prognostic impact of hepatic adverse events (AEs) in a territory-wide cohort of patients who received ICIs., Methods: Patients were identified from a territory-wide database who received ICIs in 2014-2018. Hepatic AEs were defined as any elevation of liver biochemistries including serum alanine aminotransferase (ALT), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), or total bilirubin levels. Hepatic AEs were graded according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v5.0., Results: Total of 1480 patients were identified (mean age 60 years, male 65.5%) and the commonest malignancies being lung cancer (39.6%), liver cancer (16.5%), and gastrointestinal cancer (10.0%). Grade 1-2 and grade 3-4 hepatic AEs occurred in 41.3% and 14.9% of patients during ICI treatment, respectively. Patients with liver cancer had the highest rate of hepatic AEs (grade 1-2:54.1%; grade 3-4:32.8%). Among 711 patients with hepatic AEs, 383 (53.9%) had raised ALT/AST only, and 328 (46.1%) had concomitant raised ALT/AST and bilirubin levels. In the whole cohort, median overall survival of patients without any hepatic AEs, grade 1-2 and grade 3-4 hepatic AEs during ICI treatment was 9.0 months, 7.2 months, and 3.3 months (P < .001), respectively. Similar results on overall survival were obtained among different types of cancers., Conclusions: Hepatic AEs occur in more than half of patients receiving ICIs for cancer treatment, with approximately 15% being grade 3-4 AEs. Occurrence of hepatic AEs is associated with worse prognosis., (© 2020 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Pulmonary lymphoepithelioma-like carcinoma (LELC) is a subtype of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) characterized by marked lymphocytic infiltration and association with Epstein-Barr virus (EBV). The molecular basis underlying the disease remains unclear. We sought to study the molecular landscape by multiple approaches including whole genomic sequencing, capture-based targeted sequencing, fluorescent in situ hybridization and immunohistochemistry. Tumor cells from 57 EBV-positive pulmonary LELCs were isolated by careful microdissection prior to genomic sequencing. Integrated analysis revealed a distinct genomic landscape of low TP53 mutation rate (11%), low incidence of known drivers in the RTK/RAS/RAF (11%) and PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathways (7%), but enriched for loss-of-function mutations in multiple negative regulators of the NF-κB pathway. High level programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression was shown with 47% and 79% of the cases showing positive PD-L1 immunoreactivity at ≥50% and ≥1% tumor proportion score, respectively. Subsets of the patients with actionable fibroblast growth factor receptor 3 ( FGFR3) aberrations (4%) and mismatch repair deficiency (4%) were potentially eligible for precision medicine. Pulmonary LELC showed a distinct genomic landscape, different from major NSCLC subtypes but resembled that of EBV-associated nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Our work facilitated the understanding of molecular basis underlying pulmonary LELC to explore potential therapeutic options.

Background: We sought to determine the differences with respect to the proteome of nasopharyngeal tissues between patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) and healthy controls by using sequential windowed acquisition of all theoretical fragment ion mass spectra (SWATH TM -MS) and ingenuity pathway analysis (IPA). Our primary purpose was to identify specific protein markers that can be applied for diagnosis or treatment of NPC., Methods: The CNE-1, CNE-2 and H1299 cell lines were cultured in stable isotope labeling of amino acids in cell culture (SILAC) medium for 10 generations to obtain labeled proteins. Thirty samples of NPC and 30 healthy control nasopharyngeal tissues were collected from the Department of Otolaryngology of the First Affiliated Hospital of Jinan University. Proteome of the nasopharyngeal tissues were analyzed and compared by SWATH-MS to identify differently expressed proteins. Further, extraction of target proteins and biological pathways was performed by IPA. Super-SILAC technique and liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry were used to verify the reliability of the data obtained using SWATH-MS., Results: We identified 1,415 differentially expressed proteins between NPC patients and healthy controls. On IPA analysis, EIF2AK2 and MAPK1 proteins were found to be enriched in multiple biological pathways and functional networks., Conclusions: The differentially expressed proteins EIF2AK2 and MAPK seem to play an important role in the biological network of NPC or may help discover the specific functional proteins of NPC. Further studies are required to identify the pathways and molecular mechanisms that underlie NPC., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/tcr.2019.11.14). The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (2020 Translational Cancer Research. All rights reserved.)

Aim: We evaluated reasons for dacomitinib dose reduction (DR) and examined adverse event (AE) incidence, key efficacy end points (progression-free survival [PFS]/overall survival [OS]), and pharmacokinetics in dose-reducing patients in the ARCHER 1050 trial. Patients & methods: Newly diagnosed patients with EGFR mutation-positive, advanced non-small-cell lung cancer received oral dacomitinib (45 mg once-daily [QD]), with stepwise toxicity-managing DR (30 and 15 mg QD) permitted. Results: Skin toxicities (62.7%) were the most common DR-leading AEs. The AE incidence and severity decreased following DRs. Initial plasma dacomitinib exposure (45 mg QD) was generally lower in patients remaining at 45 mg QD compared with dose-reducing patients. Median PFS and OS were similar in all dacomitinib-treated patients and dose-reducing patients. Conclusion: Tolerability-guided dose modifications enabled patients to continue with dacomitinib and benefit from PFS/OS improvement. Trial registration number: NCT01774721.

Aim: This pooled safety analysis was conducted to analyze incidence and management of key dacomitinib-associated adverse drug reactions (ADRs). Patients & methods: Patients with EGFR mutation-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer who received first-line dacomitinib at the 45 mg/day recommended starting dose were included. ADRs were identified based on reasonable association with EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Results: Overall, 251/255 patients (98%) experienced ADRs. The most common were diarrhea, rash, stomatitis, nail disorder and dry skin. Dose interruptions and dose reductions were reported in 47 and 52% of patients, respectively. Fewer grade 3 key ADRs were observed following dose reductions. Conclusion: Dacomitinib was generally tolerable. Most reported ADRs were known to be associated with EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors and were managed with standard medical management and dose modifications.

Introduction: The phase III randomized PROFILE 1014 study demonstrated superiority of crizotinib to first-line chemotherapy in prolonging progression-free survival (PFS) in previously untreated patients with ALK receptor tyrosine kinase gene (ALK)-positive advanced nonsquamous NSCLC. This result was consistent with that in the smaller subset of East Asian patients in PROFILE 1014. The subsequent study reported here prospectively evaluated crizotinib in a larger East Asian patient population., Methods: In this open-label phase III study (PROFILE 1029), patients were randomized 1:1 to receive orally administered crizotinib 250 mg twice daily continuously (3-week cycles) or intravenously administered chemotherapy (pemetrexed 500 mg/m 2 , plus cisplatin 75 mg/m 2 , or carboplatin [at a dose to produce area under the concentration-time curve of 5-6 mg·min/mL]) every 3 weeks for a maximum of six cycles. PFS confirmed by independent radiology review was the primary end point., Results: Crizotinib significantly prolonged PFS (hazard ratio, 0.402; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.286-0.565; p < 0.001). The median PFS was 11.1 months with crizotinib and 6.8 months with chemotherapy. The objective response rate was 87.5% (95% CI: 79.6-93.2%) with crizotinib versus 45.6% (95% CI: 35.8-55.7%) with chemotherapy (p < 0.001). The most common adverse events were increased transaminase levels, diarrhea, and vision disorders with crizotinib and leukopenia, neutropenia, and anemia with chemotherapy. Significantly greater improvements from baseline in patient-reported outcomes were seen in crizotinib-treated versus chemotherapy-treated patients., Conclusions: First-line crizotinib significantly improved PFS, objective response rate, and patient-reported outcomes compared with standard platinum-based chemotherapy in East Asian patients with ALK-positive advanced NSCLC, which is similar to the results from PROFILE 1014. The safety profiles of crizotinib and chemotherapy were consistent with those previously published., (Copyright © 2018 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Opinion Statement: Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring epidermal growth receptor (EGFR) mutation has distinct genomic characteristics. Introduction of systemic treatments that specifically targeted actionable EGFR mutations has changed the therapeutic paradigm in this group of patients. Moreover, newer generations of EGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) with superior pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics properties such as dacomitinib and osimertinib, when used in the front-line setting, have shown more favorable treatment outcomes than first-generation EGFR-TKIs. In addition, evolving molecular technologies such as droplet digital polymerase chain reaction (ddPCR) and next-generation sequencing (NGS) has enhanced our understanding towards the genetics and epigenetics in pathogenesis, drug-resistant mechanisms as well as improved diagnostic accuracy and efficacy. On the other hand, the recent development in immunotherapies has pushed anti-cancer treatment to new frontiers in many cancers including lung cancer. While ongoing research are focusing on how benefits of immunotherapy can be potentiated, the combinational use of EGFR-TKIs and checkpoint inhibitors have been shown repeatedly in prior trials to cause significant toxicities. This approach cannot be recommended outside of a clinical trial at this time. Overall, remarkable progresses have opened new therapeutic strategies with which patient survival is further improved. In this review, we shall discuss the latest treatment strategies in EGFR mutation positive NSCLC with a focus on latest evidence, and how advances in molecular diagnostics can play an important role patient management.

The isolation and analysis of circulating cell-free tumor DNA in plasma is a powerful tool with considerable potential to improve clinical outcomes across multiple cancer types, including NSCLC. Assays of this nature that use blood as opposed to tumor samples are frequently referred to as liquid biopsies. An increasing number of innovative platforms have been recently developed that improve not only the fidelity of the molecular analysis but also the number of tests performed on a single specimen. Circulating tumor DNA assays for detection of both EGFR sensitizing and resistance mutations have already entered clinical practice and many other molecular tests - such as detection of resistance mutations for Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase (ALK) receptor tyrosine kinase rearrangements - are likely to do so in the near future. Due to an abundance of new evidence, an appraisal was warranted to review strengths and weaknesses, to describe what is already in clinical practice and what has yet to be implemented, and to highlight areas in need of further investigation. A multidisciplinary panel of experts in the field of thoracic oncology with interest and expertise in liquid biopsy and molecular pathology was convened by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer to evaluate current available evidence with the aim of producing a set of recommendations for the use of liquid biopsy for molecular analysis in guiding the clinical management of advanced NSCLC patients as well as identifying unmet needs. In summary, the panel concluded that liquid biopsy approaches have significant potential to improve patient care, and immediate implementation in the clinic is justified in a number of therapeutic settings relevant to NSCLC., (Copyright © 2018 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: In clinical trials of patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with crizotinib, evaluation of the relationship between the percentage of ALK-positive cells by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH)-particularly near the cut-off defining positive status-and clinical outcomes have been limited by small sample sizes., Patients and Methods: Data were pooled from three large prospective trials (one single-arm and two randomized versus chemotherapy) of crizotinib in patients with ALK-positive NSCLC determined by Vysis ALK Break Apart FISH using a cut-off of ≥15% ALK-positive cells. Logistic regression and proportional hazards regression analyses were used to explore the association of percent ALK-positive cells with objective response and progression-free survival (PFS), respectively., Results: Of 11 081 screened patients, 1958 (18%) were ALK positive, 7512 (68%) were ALK negative, and 1540 (14%) were uninformative. Median percentage of ALK-positive cells was 58% in ALK-positive patients and 2% in ALK-negative patients. Of ALK-positive patients, 5% had 15%-19% ALK-positive cells; of ALK-negative patients, 2% had 10%-14% ALK-positive cells. Objective response rate for ALK-positive, crizotinib-treated patients with ≥20% ALK-positive cells was 56% (n = 700/1246), 55% (n = 725/1312) for those with ≥15% ALK-positive cells, and 38% for those with 15%-19% ALK-positive cells (n = 25/66). As a continuous variable, higher percentages of ALK-positive cells were estimated to be associated with larger differences in objective response and PFS between crizotinib and chemotherapy; however, tests for interaction between treatment and percentage of ALK-positive cells were not significant (objective response, P = 0.054; PFS, P = 0.17)., Conclusions: Patients with ALK-positive NSCLC benefit from treatment with crizotinib across the full range of percentage of ALK-positive cells, supporting the clinical utility of the 15% cut-off. The small number of patients with scores near the cut-off warrant additional study given the potential for misclassification of ALK status due to technical or biologic reasons.

Cancer cooperative groups have historically played a critical role in the advancement of non-small-cell lung cancer therapy. Representatives from cooperative groups worldwide convene at the International Lung Cancer Congress annually. The International Lung Cancer Congress had its 17th anniversary in the summer of 2016. The present review highlights the thoracic malignancy studies discussed by presenters. The included studies are merely a sample of the trials of thoracic malignancies ongoing globally., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)