Search

PURPOSE The open-label, phase III POSEIDON study evaluated tremelimumab plus durvalumab and chemotherapy (T + D + CT) and durvalumab plus chemotherapy (D + CT) versus chemotherapy alone (CT) in first-line metastatic non–small-cell lung cancer (mNSCLC). METHODS Patients (n = 1,013) with EGFR/ ALK wild-type mNSCLC were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to tremelimumab 75 mg plus durvalumab 1,500 mg and platinum-based chemotherapy for up to four 21-day cycles, followed by durvalumab once every 4 weeks until progression and one additional tremelimumab dose; durvalumab plus chemotherapy for up to four 21-day cycles, followed by durvalumab once every 4 weeks until progression; or chemotherapy for up to six 21-day cycles (with or without maintenance pemetrexed; all arms). Primary end points were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for D + CT versus CT. Key alpha-controlled secondary end points were PFS and OS for T + D + CT versus CT. RESULTS PFS was significantly improved with D + CT versus CT (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74; 95% CI, 0.62 to 0.89; P = .0009; median, 5.5 v 4.8 months); a trend for improved OS did not reach statistical significance (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.02; P = .0758; median, 13.3 v 11.7 months; 24-month OS, 29.6% v 22.1%). PFS (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.86; P = .0003; median, 6.2 v 4.8 months) and OS (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.92; P = .0030; median, 14.0 v 11.7 months; 24-month OS, 32.9% v 22.1%) were significantly improved with T + D + CT versus CT. Treatment-related adverse events were maximum grade 3/4 in 51.8%, 44.6%, and 44.4% of patients receiving T + D + CT, D + CT, and CT, respectively; 15.5%, 14.1%, and 9.9%, respectively, discontinued treatment because of treatment-related adverse events. CONCLUSION D + CT significantly improved PFS versus CT. A limited course of tremelimumab added to durvalumab and chemotherapy significantly improved OS and PFS versus CT, without meaningful additional tolerability burden, representing a potential new option in first-line mNSCLC.

Non–small cell lung cancer; Brain metastases; Somatic mutations Càncer de pulmó de cèl·lules no petites; Metàstasis cerebrals; Mutacions somàtiques Cáncer de pulmón de células no pequeñas; Metástasis cerebrales; Mutaciones somáticas Introduction In the phase 3 CheckMate 9LA study, nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy prolonged overall survival (OS) versus chemotherapy alone. We report updated efficacy and safety (≥3 y of follow-up), clinical outcomes in patients with baseline brain metastases, and exploratory somatic mutation analyses. Methods Adults with stage IV or recurrent NSCLC, no known sensitizing EGFR or ALK alterations, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status less than or equal to 1 were randomized 1:1 to nivolumab 360 mg every 3 weeks plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 6 weeks with chemotherapy (two cycles) or chemotherapy alone (four cycles). Assessments included OS, progression-free survival (PFS), and objective response rate. Exploratory analyses included systemic and intracranial efficacy in patients with or without baseline brain metastases, in addition to OS and PFS by KRAS, TP53, STK11, and KEAP1 somatic mutation status in patients with nonsquamous NSCLC. Results With a minimum follow-up of 36.1 months, nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy continued to prolong OS versus chemotherapy alone in the intent-to-treat population (median [hazard ratio; 95% confidence interval] OS: 15.8 versus 11.0 mo [0.74; 0.62–0.87]; 3-y OS: 27% versus 19%). Efficacy outcomes were improved in patients with pretreated baseline brain metastases (median [hazard ratio; 95% confidence interval] OS: 19.3 versus 6.8 mo [0.45; 0.29–0.70]; systemic PFS: 9.7 versus 4.1 mo [0.44; 0.28–0.69]; intracranial PFS: 11.4 versus 4.6 mo [0.42; 0.26–0.68]). A trend of OS benefit was observed in patients treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, despite KRAS, TP53, and STK11 tumor mutations. Extended follow-up revealed no new safety signals. Conclusions With a 3-year minimum follow-up, nivolumab plus ipilimumab with two cycles of chemotherapy continued to have long-term, durable efficacy versus chemotherapy alone; a manageable safety profile; and survival benefit in patients with or without baseline brain metastases or select somatic mutations, further supporting the regimen as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic NSCLC. This study was supported by Bristol Myers Squibb (Princeton, NJ).

Purpose In patients with unresectable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), durvalumab maintenance treatment after chemoradiotherapy (CRT) significantly improves survival. So far, however, metabolic changes of tumoral lesions and secondary lymphoid organs under durvalumab are unknown. Hence, we assessed changes on [18F]FDG PET/CT in comparison to patients undergoing CRT alone. Methods Forty-three patients with [18F]FDG PET/CT both before and after standard CRT for unresectable stage III NSCLC were included, in 16/43 patients durvalumab maintenance treatment was initiated (CRT-IO) prior to the second PET/CT. Uptake of tumor sites and secondary lymphoid organs was compared between CRT and CRT-IO. Also, readers were blinded for durvalumab administration and reviewed scans for findings suspicious for immunotherapy-related adverse events (irAE). Results Initial uptake characteristics were comparable. However, under durvalumab, diverging metabolic patterns were noted: There was a significantly higher reduction of tumoral uptake intensity in CRT-IO compared to CRT, e.g. median decrease of SUVmax –70.0% vs. –24.8%, p = 0.009. In contrast, the spleen uptake increased in CRT-IO while it dropped in CRT (median + 12.5% vs. –4.4%, p = 0.029). Overall survival was significantly longer in CRT-IO compared to CRT with few events (progression/death) noted in CRT-IO. Findings suggestive of irAE were present on PET/CT more often in CRT-IO (12/16) compared to CRT (8/27 patients), p = 0.005. Conclusion Durvalumab maintenance treatment after CRT leads to diverging tumoral metabolic changes, but also increases splenic metabolism and leads to a higher proportion of findings suggestive of irAE compared to patients without durvalumab. Due to significantly prolonged survival with durvalumab, survival analysis will be substantiated in correlation to metabolic changes as soon as more clinical events are present.

Purpose/aim The international standard for patients with large inoperable stage III NSCLC is durvalumab consolidation after concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CRT). In this single centre observational study based on individual data, we prospectively evaluated the role of concurrent/sequential versus sequential immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI). Methods and patients In total, 39 stage III NSCLC patients were prospectively enrolled, 11 (28%) patients were treated with simultaneous and consolidation therapy with PD-1 inhibition (nivolumab) (SIM-cohort) and 28 (72%) patients received PD-L1 inhibition (durvalumab) as consolidation treatment up to 12 months after the end of CRT (SEQ-cohort). Results For the entire cohort, median progression-free survival (PFS) was 26.3 months and median survival (OS), locoregional recurrence-free survival and distant metastasis-free survival were not reached. For the SIM-cohort, median OS was not reached and PFS was 22.8 months, respectively. In the SEQ-cohort, neither median PFS nor OS were reached. After propensity score matching, PFS at 12/24 months were 82/44% in the SIM-cohort and 57/57% in the SEQ-cohort (p = 0.714), respectively. In the SIM-cohort, 36.4/18.2% of patients showed grade II/III pneumonitis; in the SEQ-cohort 18.2/13.6% after PSM (p = 0.258, p = 0.55). Conclusion Both concurrent/sequential and sequential ICI show a favorable side effect profile and promising survival in treated patients with inoperable large stage III NSCLC. Concurrent ICI showed a numerical non-significant improvement regarding 6- and 12-months PFS and distant control compared to sequential approach in this small study. However, concurrent ICI to CRT was associated with a non-significant moderate increase in grade II/III pneumonitis.

Introduction: Patients with thoracic malignancies are at increased risk for mortality from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and a large number of intertwined prognostic variables have been identified so far. Methods: Capitalizing data from the Thoracic Cancers International COVID-19 Collaboration (TERAVOLT) registry, a global study created with the aim of describing the impact of COVID-19 in patients with thoracic malignancies, we used a clustering approach, a fast-backward step-down selection procedure, and a tree-based model to screen and optimize a broad panel of demographics and clinical COVID-19 and cancer characteristics. Results: As of April 15, 2021, a total of 1491 consecutive eligible patients from 18 countries were included in the analysis. With a mean observation period of 42 days, 361 events were reported with an all-cause case fatality rate of 24.2%. The clustering procedure screened 73 covariates in 13 clusters. A further multivariable logistic regression for the association between clusters and death was performed, resulting in five clusters significantly associated with the outcome. The fast-backward step-down selection procedure then identified the following seven major determinants of death: Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group—performance status (ECOG-PS) (OR = 2.47, 1.87–3.26), neutrophil count (OR = 2.46, 1.76–3.44), serum procalcitonin (OR = 2.37, 1.64–3.43), development of pneumonia (OR = 1.95, 1.48–2.58), C-reactive protein (OR = 1.90, 1.43–2.51), tumor stage at COVID-19 diagnosis (OR = 1.97, 1.46–2.66), and age (OR = 1.71, 1.29–2.26). The receiver operating characteristic analysis for death of the selected model confirmed its diagnostic ability (area under the receiver operating curve = 0.78, 95% confidence interval: 0.75–0.81). The nomogram was able to classify the COVID-19 mortality in an interval ranging from 8% to 90%, and the tree-based model recognized ECOG-PS, neutrophil count, and c-reactive protein as the major determinants of prognosis. Conclusions: From 73 variables analyzed, seven major determinants of death have been identified. Poor ECOG-PS was found to have the strongest association with poor outcome from COVID-19. With our analysis, we provide clinicians with a definitive prognostication system to help determine the risk of mortality for patients with thoracic malignancies and COVID-19.

Introduction: SARS-CoV-2 infected patients with cancer have a worse outcome including a significant higher mortality, compared to non-cancer patients. However, limited data are available regarding in-hospital mortality during the Omicron phase of the pandemic. Therefore, the aim of the study was the comparison of mortality in patients with history of cancer and patients with active cancer disease during the different phases of the COVID-19 pandemic, focusing on the current Omicron variant of concern. Methods: We conducted a multicenter, observational, epidemiological cohort study at 45 hospitals in Germany. Until July 20, 2022, all adult hospitalized SARS-CoV-2 positive patients were included. The primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality regarding cancer status (history of cancer and active cancer disease) and SARS-CoV-2 virus type. Results: From March 11 2020 to July 20 2022, a total of 27,490 adult SARS-CoV-2 positive patients were included into the study. 2,578 patients (9.4%) had diagnosis of cancer, of whom 1,065 (41.3%) had history of cancer, whereas 1,513 (58.7%) had active cancer disease. Overall 3,749 out of the total of 27,490 patients (13.6%) died during the hospital stay. Patients with active cancer disease had a significantly higher mortality compared to patients without cancer diagnosis, in both phases of the pandemic (wild-type to Delta: OR 1.940 [1.646-2.285]); Omicron: 2.864 [2.354-3.486]). After adjustment to co-variables, SARS-CoV-2 infected patients with active cancer disease had the highest risk for in-hospital mortality compared to the other groups, in both phases of the pandemic. Conclusion: The CORONA Germany study indicates that hospitalized patients with active cancer disease are at high risk of death during a SARS-CoV-2 infection. Mortality of patients with history of cancer improved to nearly the level of non-cancer patients during Omicron phase.

ImportanceAdvanced stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with no driver mutations are typically treated with immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based therapy, either in the form of monotherapy or concurrently with chemotherapy, while treatment modality selection is based mainly on programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression levels in the tumor. However, PD-L1 assays are only moderately predictive of therapeutic benefit.ObjectiveTo develop a novel decision-making tool for physicians treating NSCLC patients on whether to administer immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy alone or in combination with chemotherapy.Design, setting, and participantsThis multicenter observational study includes patients from an ongoing clinical trial (PROPHETIC;NCT04056247). Patients were recruited from 13 different centers (total n=425; 58 patients were excluded) from June 2016 and June 2021. Plasma samples were obtained prior to treatment initiation, and deep proteomic profiling was conducted. PROphet® computational model for predicting clinical benefit (CB) probability at 12 months was developed based on the plasma proteomic profile. The model performance was validated in a blinded manner. Following validation, training and prediction was performed over the entire cohort using cross-validation methodology. The patients were divided into four groups based on their PD-L1 expression level combined with their CB probability, and the survival outcome was examined for each group. The data were analyzed from July to October 2022.Main outcome and measuresClinical benefit from ICI-based treatment, overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS).ResultsThe model displayed strong predictive capability with an AUC of 0.78 (p-value = 5.00e-05), outperforming a PD-L1-based predictive model (AUC = 0.62; p-value 2.76e-01), and exhibited a significant difference in OS and PFS between patients with low and high CB probabilities. When combining CB probability with PD-L1 expression levels, four patient subgroups were identified; (i) patients with PD-L1≥50% and a negative PROphet result who significantly benefit from ICI-chemotherapy combination therapy compared to ICI monotherapy; (ii) patients with PD-L1≥50% and a positive PROphet result who benefit similarly from either treatment modalities; (iii) patients with PD-L1Conclusions and relevanceThe PROphet® model displayed good performance for prediction of CB at 12 months based on a plasma sample obtained prior to treatment. Our findings further demonstrate a potential clinical utility for informing treatment decisions for NSCLC patients treated with ICIs by adding resolution to the PD-L1 biomarker currently used to guide treatment selection, thereby enabling to select the most suitable treatment modality for each patient.

Background The PET-derived metabolic tumor volume (MTV) is an independent prognosticator in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. We analyzed the prognostic value of residual MTV (rMTV) after completion of chemoradiotherapy (CRT) in inoperable stage III NSCLC patients with and without immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI). Methods Fifty-six inoperable stage III NSCLC patients (16 female, median 65.0 years) underwent 18F-FDG PET/CT after completion of standard CRT. rMTV was delineated on 18F-FDG PET/CT using a standard threshold (liver SUVmean + 2 × standard deviation). 21/56 patients underwent additional ICI (CRT-IO, 21/56 patients) thereafter. Patients were divided in volumetric subgroups using median split dichotomization (MTV ≤ 4.3 ml vs. > 4.3 ml). rMTV, clinical features, and ICI-application were correlated with clinical outcome parameters (progression-free survival (PFS), local PFS (LPFS), and overall survival (OS). Results Overall, median follow-up was 52.0 months. Smaller rMTV was associated with longer median PFS (29.3 vs. 10.5 months, p = 0.015), LPFS (49.9 vs. 13.5 months, p = 0.001), and OS (63.0 vs. 23.0 months, p = 0.003). CRT-IO patients compared to CRT patients showed significantly longer median PFS (29.3 vs. 11.2 months, p = 0.034), LPFS (median not reached vs. 14.0 months, p = 0.016), and OS (median not reached vs. 25.2 months, p = 0.007). In the CRT subgroup, smaller rMTV was associated with longer median PFS (33.5 vs. 8.6 months, p = 0.001), LPFS (49.9 vs. 10.1 months, p = 0.001), and OS (63.0 vs. 16.3 months, p = 0.004). In the CRT-IO subgroup, neither PFS, LPFS, nor OS were associated with MTV (p > 0.05 each). The findings were confirmed in subsequent multivariate analyses. Conclusion In stage III NSCLC, smaller rMTV is highly associated with superior clinical outcome, especially in patients undergoing CRT without ICI. Patients with CRT-IO show significantly improved outcome compared to CRT patients. Of note, clinical outcome in CRT-IO patients is independent of residual MTV. Hence, even patients with large rMTV might profit from ICI despite extensive tumor load.

SummaryBackground. The present study evaluates outcome after chemoradiotherapy (CRT) with concurrent and/or sequential Programmed Cell Death 1 (PD-1) or Ligand 1 (PD-L1) immune checkpoint inhibition (CPI) for inoperable stage III NSCLC patients depending on planning target volume (PTV). Method and patients. Prospective data of thirty-three consecutive patients with inoperable stage III NSCLC treated with CRT and sequential durvalumab (67%, 22 patients) or concurrent and sequential nivolumab (33%, 11 patients) were analyzed. Different PTV cut offs and PTV as a continuous variable were evaluated for their association with progression-free (PFS), local–regional progression-free (LRPFS), extracranial distant metastasis-free (eMFS) and brain-metastasis free-survival (BMFS). Results. All patients were treated with conventionally fractionated thoracic radiotherapy (TRT); 93% to a total dose of at least 60 Gy, 97% of patients received two cycles of concurrent platinum-based chemotherapy. Median follow-up for the entire cohort was 19.9 (range: 6.0–42.4) months; median overall survival (OS), LRFS, BMFS and eMFS were not reached. Median PFS was 22.8 (95% CI: 10.7–34.8) months. Patients with PTV ≥ 900ccm had a significantly shorter PFS (6.9 vs 22.8 months, p = 0.020) and eMFS (8.1 months vs. not reached, p = 0.003). Furthermore, patients with PTV ≥ 900ccm and stage IIIC disease (UICC-TNM Classification 8th Edition) achieved a very poor outcome with a median PFS and eMFS of 3.6 vs 22.8 months (p Conclusion. In this prospective analysis of inoperable stage III NSCLC patients treated with definitive CRT combined with concurrent and/or sequential CPI, significantly shorter PFS and eMFS were observed in patients with initial PTV ≥ 900ccm.

On the basis of the findings of the phase 3 PACIFIC trial (NCT02125461), durvalumab is standard of care for patients with stage III, unresectable NSCLC and no disease progression after concurrent chemoradiotherapy (cCRT). Many patients are considered unsuitable for cCRT owing to concerns with tolerability. The phase 2 PACIFIC-6 trial (NCT03693300) evaluates the safety and tolerability of durvalumab after sequential CRT (sCRT). Patients with stage III, unresectable NSCLC and no progression after platinum-based sCRT were enrolled to receive durvalumab (1500 mg intravenously) every 4 weeks for up to 24 months. The primary end point was the incidence of grade 3 or 4 adverse events possibly related to treatment occurring within 6 months. Secondary end points included investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS; Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1) and overall survival. Overall, 117 patients were enrolled (59.8% with performance status >0, 65.8% aged ≥65 y, and 37.6% with stage IIIA disease). Median treatment duration was 32.0 weeks; 37.6% of patients remained on treatment at data cutoff (July 15, 2021). Grade 3 or 4 AEs occurred in 18.8% of patients. Five patients had grade 3 or 4 possibly related adverse events within 6 months (incidence: 4.3%; 95% confidence interval: 1.4-9.7), including two pneumonitis cases. Two patients (1.7%) had grade 5 AEs of any cause. Survival data maturity was limited. Median PFS was 10.9 months (95% confidence interval: 7.3-15.6), and 12-month PFS and overall survival rates were 49.6% and 84.1%, respectively. Durvalumab after sCRT had a comparable safety profile with that observed with durvalumab after cCRT in PACIFIC and had encouraging preliminary efficacy in a frailer population.

The primary objective of this study is to evaluate the clinical significance of RANK/L expression, in both a retrospective cohort of surgically resected stage I-III NSCLC (Lungscape) and a randomized clinical trial-cohort (SPLENDOUR) of advanced NSCLC treated with chemotherapy alone or in combination with denosumab.RANK-L expression was assessed on tissue microarrays (TMAs) in Lungscape and whole sections in SPLENDOUR, using immunohistochemistry, with H-scores values 0 indicating positivity. Prevalence of RANK positivity and its association with clinicopathological characteristics, and patient outcome was explored in a subset of the ETOP Lungscape cohort and in SPLENDOUR. Also investigated were the prevalence of RANK overexpression (proportion of positive cancer cells ≥ 50%) in the Lungscape cohort, and RANK-L in the SPLENDOUR trial.In the Lungscape cohort, RANK expression was assessed at a median follow-up of 46 months (N = 488 patients; 4 centers); 35% were female, 44/49/6% adenocarcinomas (AC)/squamous cell carcinomas (SCC)/other, 48/27/25% with stage I/II/III. Median RFS/TTR/OS were 58/Not reached/74 months. Prevalence of RANK expression was 31% (95%CI:27%-35%); significantly higher in AC: 50% (95%CI:43%-57%) vs SCC: 12% (95%CI:8%-16%) (p 0.001); more frequent in females (42% vs 25%, p 0.001) and tumors ≤ 4 cm (35.3% vs 23.3%, p = 0.0065). No association with outcome was found. In the SPLENDOUR trial (463 patients), the prevalence of membranous and cytoplasmic RANK positivity was 34% (95%CI:30%-38%) and 9% (95%CI:7%-12%), respectively, while prevalence for RANK-L was 5% (95%CI:3%-7%) and 36% (95%CI:31%-40%), respectively. Cytoplasmic RANK-L positivity was more common among females (47% vs 31%, p = 0.001) and in non-SCC histology (45% vs 10%, p 0.0001). At the pre-specified 1% significance level, no prognostic or predictive effect was found.Both cohorts indicate that RANK expression is more common in adenocarcinoma/non-squamous NSCLC and in female patients. No prognostic effect is found, and in the clinical trial involving addition of denosumab to chemotherapy no predictive effect is detected.

Purpose To investigate the impact of treatment time and patterns in inoperable stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) following concurrent chemoradiotherapy (cCRT) ± immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Methods Patients were stratified by treatment year: A (2011–2014), B (2015–2017) and C (2018–2020). Tumor- and treatment-related characteristics regarding locoregional recurrence-free survival (LRRFS), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were investigated. Results One hundred and thirty-six consecutive patients were analyzed. All patients completed thoracic radiotherapy (TRT) to a total dose ≥ 60.0 Gy; 36 (26%) patients received ICI. Median PFS in subgroups A, B and C was 8.0, 8.2 and 26.3 months (p = 0.007). Median OS was 19.9 months, 23.4 months and not reached (NR), respectively. In group C, median LRRFS and PFS were 27.2 vs. NR; and 14.2 vs. 26.3 months in patients treated with and without ICI. On multivariate analysis planning target volume (PTV) ≥ 700 cc was a negative prognosticator of LRRFS (HR 2.194; p = 0.001), PFS (HR 1.522; p = 0.042) and OS (HR 2.883; p = 0.001); ICI was a predictor of LRRFS (HR 0.497; p = 0.062), PFS (HR 0.571; p = 0.071) and OS (HR 0.447; p = 0.1). In the non-ICI cohort, multivariate analyses revealed PTV ≥ 700 cc (p = 0.047) and a maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) ≥ 13.75 (p = 0.012) were predictors of PFS; PTV ≥ 700 cc (p = 0.017), SUVmax ≥ 13.75 (p = 0.002) and a total lung V20 ≥ 30% (V20 ≥ 30) (p Conclusions Patients treated after 2018 had improved survival regardless of ICI use. Implementation of ICI resulted in further significant increase of all tested survival endpoints. PTV ≥ 700 cc and ICI were only prognosticators for LRRFS, PFS and OS in the analyzed cohort.

SummaryThe aim of this prospective study is to evaluate the clinical use and real-world efficacy of durvalumab maintenance treatment after chemoradiotherapy (CRT) in unresectable stage, locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). All consecutive patients with unresectable, locally advanced NSCLC and PD-L1 expression (≥1%) treated after October 2018 were included. Regular follow up, including physical examination, PET/CT and/or contrast-enhanced CT-Thorax/Abdomen were performed every three months after CRT. Descriptive treatment pattern analyses, including reasons of discontinuation and salvage treatment, were undertaken. Statistics were calculated from the last day of thoracic irradiation (TRT). Twenty-six patients were included. Median follow up achieved 20.6 months (range: 1.9–30.6). Durvalumab was initiated after a median of 25 (range: 13–103) days after completion of CRT. In median 14 (range: 2–24) cycles of durvalumab were applied within 6.4 (range 1–12.7) months. Six patients (23%) are still in treatment and seven (27%) have completed treatment with 24 cycles. Maintenance treatment was discontinued in 13 (50%) patients: 4 (15%) patients developed grade 3 pneumonitis according to CTCAE v5 after a median of 3.9 (range: 0.5–11.6) months and 7 (range: 2–17) cycles of durvalumab. Four (15%) patients developed grade 2 skin toxicity. One (4%) patient has discontinued treatment due to incompliance. Six and 12- month progression-free survival (PFS) rates were 82% and 62%, median PFS was not reached. No case of hyperprogression was documented. Eight (31%) patients have relapsed during maintenance treatment after a median of 4.8 (range: 2.2–11.3) months and 11 (range: 6–17) durvalumab cycles. Two patients (9%) developed a local-regional recurrence after 14 and 17 cycles of durvalumab. Extracranial distant metastases and brain metastases as first site of failure were detected in 4 (15%) and 2 (8%) patients, respectively. Three (13%) patients presented with symptomatic relapse. Our prospective study confirmed a favourable safety profile of durvalumab maintenance treatment after completion of CRT in unresectable stage, locally advanced NSCLC in a real-world setting. In a median follow-up time of 20.6 months, durvalumab was discontinued in 27% of all patients due to progressive disease. All patients with progressive disease were eligible for second-line treatment.

Introduction: Treatment modality selection for metastatic NSCLC patients (immunotherapy alone vs. combination of immunotherapy with chemotherapy) relies mainly on determining the programmed cell death 1 (PD-L1) expression levels in the tumor. However, available assays are only moderately predictive. Here we set to develop PROphet®, a plasma proteomics-based predictive model for informing treatment decisions for NSCLC patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based therapy. Methods: Pre-ICI plasma samples were collected in 12 centers in a clinical trial (NCT04056247) from 367 advanced-stage NSCLC patients. Clinical benefit (CB) was assessed at 12 months based on the occurrence of progression-free survival (PFS) until this time point. Deep proteomic profiling of the plasma samples was performed using aptamer-based technology. A novel machine learning model was developed to determine the CB probability for each patient, and the performance was successfully evaluated on an independent validation set, followed by training and prediction over the entire cohort using cross-validation. The resulting PROphet® score (positive or negative) was determined by setting the median CB rate probability as a threshold. The patients were divided into four subgroups based on their PD-L1 expression level combined with their PROphet® score prediction, and the overall survival (OS) was examined for each subgroup. Results: The PROphet® computational model was evaluated in a blinded manner on a subset of 85 patients and displayed strong predictive capability with area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) plot of 0.78 (p-value = 5.00e-05), outperforming a PD-L1-based predictive model (AUC = 0.62; p-value 2.76e-01). When combining PROphet® score with PD-L1 expression levels, four different outcome patterns were identified: (i) Patients with PD-L1 ≥50% and PROphet® negative score, who displayed significantly longer OS when treated with ICI-chemotherapy combination therapy compared to ICI monotherapy and may consider combination therapy. (ii) Patients with PD-L1 ≥50% and PROphet® positive score, who benefit similarly from either treatment modalities, and may consider monotherapy to avoid the potential toxicity of the combination therapy. (iii) Patients with PD-L1 Conclusions: Altogether, the PROphet® model, when combined with PD-L1 test, stratifies the patients into four subgroups, providing additional resolution to the PD-L1 biomarker currently used to guide treatment selection. Furthermore, the model accurately predicts CB at 12 months based on proteomic analysis of a pre-treatment plasma sample. Citation Format: Michal Harel, Petros Christopoulos, Coren Lahav, Itamar Sela, Nili Dahan, Niels Reinmuth, Ina Koch, Alona Zer, Mor Moskovitz, Adva Levy-Barda, Michal Lotem, Hovav Nechushtan, Rivka Katzenelson, Abed Agbarya, Mahmoud Abu-Amna, Maya Gottfried, Ido Wolf, Ella Tepper, Yanyan Lou, Raya Leibowitz, Adam P. Dicker, David Gandara, David P. Carbone. A pretreatment blood-based proteomic biomarker for enhanced decision-making in non-small cell lung cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2023; Part 1 (Regular and Invited Abstracts); 2023 Apr 14-19; Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(7_Suppl):Abstract nr 2159.

PURPOSE: IMpower133 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02763579 ), a randomized, double-blind, phase I/III study, demonstrated that adding atezolizumab (anti-programmed death-ligand 1 [PD-L1]) to carboplatin plus etoposide (CP/ET) for first-line (1L) treatment of extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) resulted in significant improvement in overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) versus placebo plus CP/ET. Updated OS, disease progression patterns, safety, and exploratory biomarkers (PD-L1, blood-based tumor mutational burden [bTMB]) are reported. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with untreated ES-SCLC were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive four 21-day cycles of CP (area under the curve 5 mg per mL/min intravenously [IV], day 1) plus ET (100 mg/m2 IV, days 1-3) with atezolizumab (1,200 mg IV, day 1) or placebo, and then maintenance atezolizumab or placebo until unacceptable toxicity, disease progression, or loss of clinical benefit. Tumor specimens were collected; PD-L1 testing was not required for enrollment. The two primary end points, investigator-assessed PFS and OS, were statistically significant at the interim analysis. Updated OS and PFS and exploratory biomarker analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Patients received atezolizumab plus CP/ET (n = 201) or placebo plus CP/ET (n = 202). At the updated analysis, median follow-up for OS was 22.9 months; 302 deaths had occurred. Median OS was 12.3 and 10.3 months with atezolizumab plus CP/ET and placebo plus CP/ET, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.95; descriptive P = .0154). At 18 months, 34.0% and 21.0% of patients were alive in atezolizumab plus CP/ET and placebo plus CP/ET arms, respectively. Patients derived benefit from the addition of atezolizumab, regardless of PD-L1 immunohistochemistry or bTMB status. CONCLUSION: Adding atezolizumab to CP/ET as 1L treatment for ES-SCLC continued to demonstrate improved OS and a tolerable safety profile at the updated analysis, confirming the regimen as a new standard of care. Exploratory analyses demonstrated treatment benefit independent of biomarker status.

Die Lunge ist bei Tumorerkrankungen sehr oft und auf sehr vielfaltige Weise betroffen. Das Lungenkarzinom ist eine der haufigsten Tumorerkrankungen und erfahrt gerade in den letzten Jahren eine erhebliche Erweiterung der Therapiemoglichkeiten. Die Lunge ist zudem ein haufiges Metastasierungsorgan verschiedenster Tumorentitaten. Aber auch Therapieansatze wie Tyrosinkinase- und Checkpointinhibitoren, chimare Antigenrezeptorzelltherapien oder strahlentherapeutische Verfahren konnen pulmonale Nebenwirkungen verursachen. Schlieslich gibt es viele Patienten, deren pulmonale Grunderkrankung auf den klinischen Verlauf und die Prognose der Tumorerkrankung Einfluss nimmt und ihrerseits beeinflusst werden kann. Beispielhaft werden verschiedene Aspekte wie pulmonale venookklusive Erkrankung, chronisch-obstruktive Atemwegserkrankung und idiopathische pulmonale Fibrose diskutiert.

Background: First-line durvalumab plus etoposide with either cisplatin or carboplatin (platinum–etoposide) showed a significant improvement in overall survival versus platinum–etoposide alone in patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) in the CASPIAN study. Here we report updated results, including the primary analysis for overall survival with durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum–etoposide versus platinum–etoposide alone. Methods: CASPIAN is an ongoing, open-label, sponsor-blind, randomised, controlled phase 3 trial at 209 cancer treatment centres in 23 countries worldwide. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older (20 years in Japan) and had treatment-naive, histologically or cytologically documented ES-SCLC, with a WHO performance status of 0 or 1. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) in blocks of six, stratified by planned platinum, using an interactive voice-response or web-response system to receive intravenous durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum–etoposide, durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide, or platinum–etoposide alone. In all groups, patients received etoposide 80–100 mg/m2 on days 1–3 of each cycle with investigator's choice of either carboplatin area under the curve 5–6 mg/mL/min or cisplatin 75–80 mg/m2 on day 1 of each cycle. Patients in the platinum–etoposide group received up to six cycles of platinum–etoposide every 3 weeks and optional prophylactic cranial irradiation (investigator's discretion). Patients in the immunotherapy groups received four cycles of platinum–etoposide plus durvalumab 1500 mg with or without tremelimumab 75 mg every 3 weeks followed by maintenance durvalumab 1500 mg every 4 weeks. The two primary endpoints were overall survival for durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide versus platinum–etoposide and for durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum–etoposide versus platinum–etoposide in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03043872. Findings: Between March 27, 2017, and May 29, 2018, 972 patients were screened and 805 were randomly assigned (268 to durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum–etoposide, 268 to durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide, and 269 to platinum–etoposide). As of Jan 27, 2020, the median follow-up was 25·1 months (IQR 22·3–27·9). Durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum–etoposide was not associated with a significant improvement in overall survival versus platinum–etoposide (hazard ratio [HR] 0·82 [95% CI 0·68–1·00]; p=0·045); median overall survival was 10·4 months (95% CI 9·6–12·0) versus 10·5 months (9·3–11·2). Durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide showed sustained improvement in overall survival versus platinum–etoposide (HR 0·75 [95% CI 0·62–0·91]; nominal p=0·0032); median overall survival was 12·9 months (95% CI 11·3–14·7) versus 10·5 months (9·3–11·2). The most common any-cause grade 3 or worse adverse events were neutropenia (85 [32%] of 266 patients in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum–etoposide group, 64 [24%] of 265 patients in the durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide group, and 88 [33%] of 266 patients in the platinum–etoposide group) and anaemia (34 [13%], 24 [9%], and 48 [18%]). Any-cause serious adverse events were reported in 121 (45%) patients in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum–etoposide group, 85 (32%) in the durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide group, and 97 (36%) in the platinum–etoposide group. Treatment-related deaths occurred in 12 (5%) patients in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum–etoposide group (death, febrile neutropenia, and pulmonary embolism [n=2 each]; enterocolitis, general physical health deterioration and multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, pneumonia, pneumonitis and hepatitis, respiratory failure, and sudden death [n=1 each]), six (2%) patients in the durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide group (cardiac arrest, dehydration, hepatotoxicity, interstitial lung disease, pancytopenia, and sepsis [n=1 each]), and two (1%) in the platinum–etoposide group (pancytopenia and thrombocytopenia [n=1 each]). Interpretation: First-line durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide showed sustained overall survival improvement versus platinum–etoposide but the addition of tremelimumab to durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide did not significantly improve outcomes versus platinum–etoposide. These results support the use of durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide as a new standard of care for the first-line treatment of ES-SCLC. Funding: AstraZeneca.

Mit der Entdeckung der therapeutischen Relevanz von Checkpointinhibitoren hat sich die Therapie des nichtkleinzelligen Lungenkarzinoms erheblich verandert. Aktuell sind verschiedene Programmed-cell-death-1(PD-1)- und Programmed-cell-death-1-ligand-1(PD-L1)-Checkpointinhibitoren in den Stadien III und IV zugelassen worden. Insbesondere im Stadium IV stehen derzeit verschiedene Therapieoptionen mit Checkpointinhibitoren zur Auswahl, allein oder in Kombination mit Chemotherapie. Daruber hinaus werden verschiedene Checkpointinhibitoren in Kombination, fur fruhe Stadien und auch gegen neuartige Checkpoints klinisch entwickelt. Damit ist zu erwarten, dass wir in naher Zukunft noch vielfaltigere Therapien einsetzen konnen. Dies wird die Etablierung von Entscheidungskriterien notwendig machen, die ihrerseits ein breiteres Verstandnis aufseiten des behandelnden Arztes voraussetzen.

Lurbinectedin is a synthetic marine-derived anticancer agent that acts as a selective inhibitor of oncogenic transcription. Lurbinectedin monotherapy (3·2 mg/mIn this phase 3, open-label, randomised study, adult patients aged 18 years or older with SCLC who relapsed after platinum-based chemotherapy were recruited from 135 hospitals across North America, South America, Europe, and the Middle East. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) centrally by dynamic allocation to intravenous lurbinectedin 2·0 mg/mBetween Aug 30, 2016, and Aug 20, 2018, 613 patients were randomly assigned to lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin (n=307) or control (topotecan, n=127; CAV, n=179) and comprised the intention-to-treat population; safety endpoints were assessed in patients who had received any partial or complete study treatment infusions (lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin, n=303; control, n=289). After a median follow-up of 24·1 months (95% CI 21·7-26·3), 303 patients in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group and 289 patients in the control group had discontinued study treatment; progressive disease was the most common reason for discontinuation (213 [70%] patients in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group vs 152 [53%] in the control group). Median overall survival was 8·6 months (95% CI 7·1-9·4) in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group versus 7·6 months (6·6-8·2) in the control group (stratified log-rank p=0·90; hazard ratio 0·97 [95% CI 0·82-1·15], p=0·70). 12 patients died because of treatment-related adverse events: two (1%) of 303 in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group and ten (3%) of 289 in the control group. 296 (98%) of 303 patients in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group had treatment-emergent adverse events compared with 284 (98%) of 289 patients in the control group; treatment-related adverse events occurred in 268 (88%) patients in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group and 266 (92%) patients in the control group. Grade 3 or worse haematological adverse events were less frequent in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group than the control group (anaemia, 57 [19%] of 302 patients in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group vs 110 [38%] of 288 in the control group; neutropenia, 112 [37%] vs 200 [69%]; thrombocytopenia, 42 [14%] vs 90 [31%]). The frequency of treatment-related adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation was lower in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group than in the control group (26 [9%] of 303 patients in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group vs 47 [16%] of 289 in the control group).Combination therapy with lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin did not improve overall survival versus control in patients with relapsed SCLC. However, lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin showed a favourable haematological safety profile compared with control.PharmaMar.

Background The efficacy and safety of the anti–programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) monoclonal antibody atezolizumab, as compared with those of platinum-based chemotherapy, as first-line trea...

Background: Concurrent platinum-based chemoradiotherapy (CRT) followed by durvalumab maintenance treatment represents the new standard of care in unresectable stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In this prospective hypothesis-generating single-center study, we aim to identify a framework of prognostic and predictive biomarkers by longitudinal characterization of tumor-and patient (host)-related parameters over all phases of multimodal treatment.Methods: This study will enroll 40 patients (>= 18 years, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) 0-2, with a diagnosis of PD-L1 positive (>= 1%), inoperable stage III NSCLC) with an indication for CRT followed by maintenance treatment with durvalumab according to European Medicines Agency (EMA) approval. Comprehensive analysis will include peripheral blood cellular and humoral immunophenotyping and circulating tumor DNA as well as gut/saliva microbiota analyses. Additional morphological analysis with18F-FDG-PET/computed tomography (CT) before, 6 weeks, 6 and 12 months after the end of CRT is included. Statistical analysis using multiple testing will be used to examine the impact of different parameters on progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) as well as tumor response and response duration.Discussion: This protocol describes the methodology of a comprehensive biomarker study in order to identify a framework of prognostic and predictive markers for unresectable stage III NSCLC in a real-world setting.

Assessing the risk for specific patient groups to suffer from severe courses of COVID-19 is of major importance in the current SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. This review focusses on the risk for specific patient groups with chronic respiratory conditions, such as patients with asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cystic fibrosis (CF), sarcoidosis, interstitial lung diseases, lung cancer, sleep apnea, tuberculosis, neuromuscular diseases, a history of pulmonary embolism, and patients with lung transplants. Evidence and recommendations are detailed in exemplary cases. While some patient groups with chronic respiratory conditions have an increased risk for severe courses of COVID-19, an increasing number of studies confirm that asthma is not a risk factor for severe COVID-19. However, other risk factors such as higher age, obesity, male gender, diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, chronic kidney or liver disease, cerebrovascular and neurological disease, and various immunodeficiencies or treatments with immunosuppressants need to be taken into account when assessing the risk for severe COVID-19 in patients with chronic respiratory diseases.

Was ist wichtig? Mögliche Screening-Verfahren Die Notwendigkeit eines Früherkennungsprogramms für Lungenkarzinome gilt als unumstritten. Röntgenübersichtsaufnahmen der Lunge sowie Sputum-Untersuchungen werden nicht empfohlen, jedoch haben jüngst publizierte Daten aus Studien mit Niedrigdosis-CT dieses Thema erneut aufleben lassen. Bei der Bewertung der Daten müssen jedoch verschiedene Besonderheiten dieser Studien berücksichtigt werden. Die aktuelle neue Bewertung stellt eine bedeutsame und notwendige Chance dar, die medizinische Versorgung und Prognose von Patienten mit Lungenkarzinom in Deutschland signifikant zu verbessern. Implementierung von Lungenkrebsscreening Um ein Screening-Programm möglichst effektiv auszuarbeiten, müssen insbesondere die Einschlusskriterien der Patienten genau definiert sein. Darüber hinaus ist es wichtig, die Zahl der falsch positiven Befunde zum Schutz der Patienten und zur Vermeidung unnötiger Kosten möglichst klein zu halten. Weitere Ansätze Weitere neue Verfahren zum Lungenkrebsscreening werden derzeit in klinischen Studien untersucht.

Small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) is a lung malignancy with high relapse rates and poor survival outcomes. Treatment-resistant disease relapse occurs frequently and effective salvage therapies are urgently needed.We aimed to define efficacy and safety of checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) in a heterogeneous population of relapsed and refractory SCLC patients in a large retrospective multicentric real-world cohort across German tertiary care centers.A total of 111 patients from 11 treatment centers were included. Median age of all patients was 64 years, and 63% were male. Approximately one-third of all patients had poor performance status [Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) ⩾ 2], and 37% had known brain metastases. Patients were heavily pretreated with a median number of prior therapy lines of 2 (range, 1-8). Median follow-up of the entire cohort was 21.7 months. Nivolumab and Nivolumab/Ipilimumab were the most common regimens. Overall disease control rate was 27.2% in all patients and was numerically higher in CPI combination regimens compared with single-agent CPI (31.8%CPI in patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) SCLC is of limited value in an overall patient cohort; however, long-term survival, in particular with CPI combination strategies, is possible. Clinical characteristics allow a more differentiated subgroup selection, in particular patients with low NLR showed less benefit from CPI in R/R SCLC.

Background: Most patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) have extensive-stage disease at presentation, and prognosis remains poor. Recently, immunotherapy has demonstrated clinical activity in extensive-stage SCLC (ES-SCLC). The CASPIAN trial assessed durvalumab, with or without tremelimumab, in combination with etoposide plus either cisplatin or carboplatin (platinum–etoposide) in treatment-naive patients with ES-SCLC. Methods: This randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial was done at 209 sites across 23 countries. Eligible patients were adults with untreated ES-SCLC, with WHO performance status 0 or 1 and measurable disease as per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1. Patients were randomly assigned (in a 1:1:1 ratio) to durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide; durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum–etoposide; or platinum–etoposide alone. All drugs were administered intravenously. Platinum–etoposide consisted of etoposide 80–100 mg/m2 on days 1–3 of each cycle with investigator's choice of either carboplatin area under the curve 5–6 mg/mL per min or cisplatin 75–80 mg/m2 (administered on day 1 of each cycle). Patients received up to four cycles of platinum–etoposide plus durvalumab 1500 mg with or without tremelimumab 75 mg every 3 weeks followed by maintenance durvalumab 1500 mg every 4 weeks in the immunotherapy groups and up to six cycles of platinum–etoposide every 3 weeks plus prophylactic cranial irradiation (investigator's discretion) in the platinum–etoposide group. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. We report results for the durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide group versus the platinum–etoposide group from a planned interim analysis. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of their assigned study treatment. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03043872, and is ongoing. Findings: Patients were enrolled between March 27, 2017, and May 29, 2018. 268 patients were allocated to the durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide group and 269 to the platinum–etoposide group. Durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide was associated with a significant improvement in overall survival, with a hazard ratio of 0·73 (95% CI 0·59–0·91; p=0·0047]); median overall survival was 13·0 months (95% CI 11·5–14·8) in the durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide group versus 10·3 months (9·3–11·2) in the platinum–etoposide group, with 34% (26·9–41·0) versus 25% (18·4–31·6) of patients alive at 18 months. Any-cause adverse events of grade 3 or 4 occurred in 163 (62%) of 265 treated patients in the durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide group and 166 (62%) of 266 in the platinum–etoposide group; adverse events leading to death occurred in 13 (5%) and 15 (6%) patients. Interpretation: First-line durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide significantly improved overall survival in patients with ES-SCLC versus a clinically relevant control group. Safety findings were consistent with the known safety profiles of all drugs received. Funding: AstraZeneca.

ZusammenfassungSeit dem letzten gemeinsamen Positionspapier der Deutschen Röntgengesellschaft und der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Pneumologie und Beatmungsmedizin im Jahr 2011 hat sich die Datenlage zur Lungenkrebsfrüherkennung mit Niedrigdosis-CT deutlich erweitert und in der 2018 revidierten S3-Leitlinie Lungenkarzinom wird eine schwache Empfehlung zur Lungenkrebsfrüherkennung mit Niedrigdosis-CT in einem qualitätsgesicherten Früherkennungsprogramm ausgesprochen. Diese neuen Entwicklungen erforderten eine Neupositionierung der beteiligten Fachgesellschaften. Das vorliegende Positionspapier beschreibt Grundzüge eines qualitätsgesicherten Früherkennungsprogramms für Lungenkrebs in Deutschland.

Background PF-06439535 is a bevacizumab biosimilar. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of PF-06439535 with that of reference bevacizumab (Avastin®) sourced from the EU (bevacizumab-EU), each with paclitaxel and carboplatin, in the first-line treatment of advanced non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods In this double-blind, parallel-group study, we recruited patients from 159 centers in 27 countries. Participants were randomized 1:1 to receive PF-06439535 plus paclitaxel and carboplatin or bevacizumab-EU plus paclitaxel and carboplatin on day 1 of each 21-day cycle for 4–6 cycles, followed by blinded monotherapy with PF-06439535 or bevacizumab-EU until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, withdrawal of consent, or the end of the study. Randomization was stratified by region, sex, and smoking history. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) in accordance with RECIST 1.1, based on responses achieved by week 19 and confirmed by week 25. Results Between 21 May 2015 and 14 November 2016, 719 patients were randomized to the PF-06439535 group (n = 358) or the bevacizumab-EU group (n = 361). As of data cutoff for analysis of the primary endpoint (8 May 2017), 45.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] 40.01–50.57) of patients in the PF-06439535 group and 44.6% (95% CI 39.40–49.89) of patients in the bevacizumab-EU group achieved an objective response by week 19 that was confirmed by week 25. The unstratified ORR risk ratio was 1.015 (95% CI 0.863–1.193; 90% CI 0.886–1.163), and the unstratified ORR risk difference was 0.653% (95% CI − 6.608 to 7.908); all three CIs fell within pre-specified equivalence margins. Using final data after study completion (22 December 2017), no notable differences in progression-free survival or overall survival were observed between the groups. The most frequently reported grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events were hypertension, neutropenia, and anemia. There were no clinically meaningful differences in safety, pharmacokinetics, or immunogenicity across treatment groups. Conclusion Among patients with advanced non-squamous NSCLC, PF-06439535 demonstrated similarity to bevacizumab-EU in terms of efficacy. Safety profiles for the two treatments were comparable. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02364999. Funding Pfizer. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s40259-019-00363-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Summary Background Atezolizumab (a monoclonal antibody against PD-L1), which restores anticancer immunity, improved overall survival in patients with previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer and also showed clinical benefit when combined with chemotherapy as first-line treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer. IMpower130 aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone as first-line therapy for non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer. Methods IMpower130 was a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 study done in 131 centres across eight countries (the USA, Canada, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and Israel). Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, and had histologically or cytologically confirmed stage IV non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and received no previous chemotherapy for stage IV disease. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1; permuted block [block size of six] with an interactive voice or web response system) to receive atezolizumab (1200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks) plus chemotherapy (carboplatin [area under the curve 6 mg/mL per min every 3 weeks] plus nab-paclitaxel [100 mg/m2 intravenously every week]) or chemotherapy alone for four or six 21-day cycles followed by maintenance therapy. Stratification factors were sex, baseline liver metastases, and PD-L1 tumour expression. Co-primary endpoints were investigator-assessed progression-free survival and overall survival in the intention-to-treat wild-type (ie, EGFRwt and ALKwt) population. The safety population included patients who received at least one dose of the study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02367781. Findings Between April 16, 2015, and Feb 13, 2017, 724 patients were randomly assigned and 723 were included in the intention-to-treat population (one patient died before randomisation, but was assigned to a treatment group; this patient was excluded from the intention-to-treat population) of the atezolizumab plus chemotherapy group (483 patients in the intention-to-treat population and 451 patients in the intention-to-treat wild-type population) or the chemotherapy group (240 patients in the intention-to-treat population and 228 patients in the intention-to-treat wild-type population). Median follow-up in the intention-to-treat wild-type population was similar between groups (18·5 months [IQR 15·2–23·6] in the atezolizumab plus chemotherapy group and 19·2 months [15·4–23·0] in the chemotherapy group). In the intention-to-treat wild-type population, there were significant improvements in median overall survival (18·6 months [95% CI 16·0–21·2] in the atezolizumab plus chemotherapy group and 13·9 months [12·0–18·7] in the chemotherapy group; stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0·79 [95% CI 0·64–0·98]; p=0·033) and median progression-free survival (7·0 months [95% CI 6·2–7·3] in the atezolizumab plus chemotherapy group and 5·5 months [4·4–5·9] in the chemotherapy group; stratified HR 0·64 [95% CI 0·54–0·77]; p Interpretation IMpower130 showed a significant and clinically meaningful improvement in overall survival and a significant improvement in progression-free survival with atezolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy as first-line treatment of patients with stage IV non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer and no ALK or EGFR mutations. No new safety signals were identified. This study supports the benefit of atezolizumab, in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy, as first-line treatment of metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. Funding F. Hoffmann-La Roche.

The immune oncological treatment approach uses immune checkpoint inhibitors to prevent tumor cells from shutting down the immune system, and thus from escaping immune response. Following the clinical success of immune checkpoint inhibitors, the number of approved immune oncological therapies continues to increase. Response rates and overall survival with anti-PD-1/PD-L1 and CTLA-4 blockade could be further improved by combining both treatment approaches. However, checkpoint inhibition is associated with a unique spectrum of side effects termed immune-related adverse events. These typically occur 3 to 6 months after treatment start and resolve with adequate management procedures if detected early on. Therefore, profound patient education, sensitizing and monitoring are mandatory. We describe in this article selected frequent and rare adverse events that are clinically relevant. Furthermore, using case reports, interdisciplinary experts share their practice-based experience in the management of frequent pneumonic, endocrine, and gastro-intestinal immune-related adverse events.

Background: Molecular response based on ctDNA dynamics may be predictive of benefit from immunotherapy in NSCLC, complementing radiologic disease assessment and potentially enabling early clinical decision-making, but data in SCLC are lacking. The phase 2, multi-arm, signal-searching BALTIC study (NCT02937818) assessed novel treatment combinations in platinum-refractory/resistant ES-SCLC; we report efficacy, safety, and exploratory ctDNA and PD-L1 analyses from pts who received D + T in Arm A. Methods: Eligible pts had ES-SCLC, progressive disease (PD) during or within 90 days of completing 1L platinum-based CT, WHO PS 0-1, and life expectancy ≥8 weeks. In Arm A, pts received D 1500 mg + T 75 mg q4w for 4 cycles, followed by maintenance D 1500 mg q4w until PD. The primary endpoint was ORR (investigator assessment, RECIST v1.1). Secondary endpoints included DCR, PFS, OS, and safety and tolerability. Prespecified exploratory analyses included assessment of baseline/on-treatment ctDNA levels measured by maximum variant allele frequency (MaxVAF), and PD-L1 expression on tumor cells (TC) and immune cells (IC) (VENTANA PD-L1 [SP263] Assay). Results: 41 pts received treatment with D + T (median age 63 years; 76% male; 76% PS 1). At the data cut-off (DCO; Jun 22, 2020), median treatment duration was 12 weeks, with 3 pts ongoing D treatment (these pts had received ≥38, ≥21, and ≥19 doses of D, respectively, at DCO). Confirmed ORR was 7.3% (95% CI 1.54‒19.92; 3 partial responses [PR]). DCR at 12 weeks was 27%. 21 pts (51%) were PD-L1 evaluable. Of 12 pts with PD-L1 expression (TC or IC) ≥1%, 3 (25%) had a best response of PR or stable disease, compared with 1 (11%) of 9 pts with PD-L1 (TC or IC) Conclusions: Although limited antitumor activity was observed in refractory/resistant ES-SCLC in BALTIC, association of lower baseline ctDNA levels (MaxVAF) with longer OS may reflect the prognostic effect of disease burden. Association of on-treatment reduction in ctDNA level with longer OS suggests potential use of ctDNA as a surrogate of treatment response in ES-SCLC. Further analyses in larger datasets and in a randomized setting are warranted. Citation Format: Niels Reinmuth, Oscar Juan-Vidal, Zsolt Horváth, Dariusz Kowalski, Anna Kryzhanivska, Eszter Csánky, Gabriella Gálffy, Maciej Bryl, David Vicente, Ihor Vynnychenko, Zsolt Pápai-Székely, Jon Armstrong, Tapashi Dalvi, Yashaswi Shrestha, Mingchao Xie, Haiyi Jiang, Igor Bondarenko. Durvalumab (D) plus tremelimumab (T) in platinum-refractory/resistant extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC): Efficacy, safety and ctDNA dynamics from Arm A of the phase 2 BALTIC study [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2022; 2022 Apr 8-13. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(12_Suppl):Abstract nr CT533.

e20578 Background: To investigate the impact of treatment patterns in inoperable stage III NSCLC following concurrent chemoradiotherapy with or without immune checkpoint inhibition (cCRT±ICI). Methods: Patients were stratified by treatment year and divided into three subgroups: A (2011–2014), B (2015–2017) and C (2018–2020). Patient- and treatment-related characteristics regarding to PFS and OS were analyzed. Survival parameters were calculated from the last day of thoracic radiotherapy (TRT). Results: 136 consecutive enrolled patients were included. Median follow-up (FU) was 35.7 months; median age was 66.9 years. All patients completed TRT to a total dose ≥60.0 Gy; Median radiotherapy planning target volume (PTV) was 700 cc (range: 172.5–2293.2). Thirty-six (26%) patients received ICI. Median PFS in subgroups A, B and C was 8.0, 8.2 and 26.3 months (p = 0.007). Median OS was 19.9 months, 23.4 months and not reached in subgroups A, B and C (p < 0.05). In subgroup C, median PFS was 14.2 vs. 26.3 months in patients treated with and without ICI. On multivariate analysis for the entire cohort, PTV > 700cc was a negative prognosticator of PFS (HR: 1.522; p = 0.042) and OS (HR: 2.671; p = 0.001); ICI was a predictor of improved PFS (HR: 0.571; p = 0.071) and longer OS (HR: 0.401; p = 0.062). In the Non-ICI cohort, multivariate analyses revealed PTV > 700cc (HR: 1.630; p = 0.047) and SUVmax > 13.75 (HR: 1.859; p = 0.012) were predictors of reduced PFS; PTV > 700cc (HR: 1.958; p = 0.017), SUVmax > 13.75 (HR: 2.405; p = 0.002) and total lung V20 > 30 (HR: 3.357; p < 0.05) were predictors of longer OS. Conclusions: Regardless of ICI, patients receiving multimodal therapy after 2018 demonstrated improved survival compared to patients treated earlier. Both PTV > 700cc and ICI were predictive for PFS and OS in the entire cohort.