Search

Totally implantable central venous access ports (IVAPs) are frequently used in oncology to assure chemotherapy delivery and other tasks. Obstruction of IVAPs is rare, but when it does occur it may result in treatment delays and/or invasive surgery for the patient. An IVAP unblocking protocol was implemented by the nursing staff of our department. The protocol is based on a precise decision tree comprising several progressive steps: (1) needle exchange; (2) if no result is observed, placement of a second needle and reservoir flushing with normal saline; and (3) if no result is observed, use of urokinase in the two-needle system. During 1 year, all consecutive patients presenting an obstructed IVAP in our unit benefited from this protocol. Medical files were then retrospectively reviewed to look for complication and for factors associated with blocked IVAPs. A total of 12 patients were included. The rate of successful IVAP unblocking was 92% (n = 11/12). The only unblocking failure was due to a mechanical obstruction, i.e., a bent catheter. No local or general complications were reported immediately after the unblocking protocol or in the following month. In 83% of the cases, obstruction occurred during use of IVAPs. Mains treatments administered when obstruction occurred were mannitol 20% (25%) and perfusion completed but non-flushed (50%). In the remaining 17%, obstruction was present before any action (at needle insertion). With all due caution because of the retrospective nature of this study, the IVAP unblocking protocol presented here appears to be efficacious and safe, and thus can be recommend for clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Capmatinib has previously shown activity in treatment-naive and previously treated patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and a MET exon 14-skipping mutation (METex14). Here, we report the final outcomes from the phase 2 GEOMETRY mono-1 study with an aim to provide further evidence for the activity of capmatinib., Methods: In this non-randomised, multi-cohort, open-label, phase 2 trial conducted in 152 centres and hospitals in 25 countries, with patients treated in 95 centres in 20 countries, eligible patients (aged ≥18 years) with MET-dysregulated, EGFR wild-type, and ALK rearrangement-negative advanced NSCLC (stage IIIB/IV) and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 were assigned to cohorts (1a, 1b, 2, 3, 4, 5a, 5b, 6 and 7) based on their MET status (METex14 or MET amplification) and previous therapy lines. Patients received capmatinib (400 mg orally twice daily) in 21-day treatment cycles. The primary endpoint was overall response rate by blinded independent central review per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1 and was performed on the full analysis set (all patients who received at least one dose of capmatinib). Previous reports of this study had published interim or primary data for cohorts 1-7. Here, we report the final clinical outcomes from all METex14 cohorts (4, 5b, 6, and 7) and safety from all study cohorts (1-7). The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02414139, and has been completed., Findings: Of 373 treated patients enrolled from June 11, 2015, to March 12, 2020, 160 (97 [61%] female) patients had METex14 NSCLC and were enrolled in four cohorts: 60 treatment-naive (cohorts 5b and 7) and 100 previously treated (cohorts 4 and 6). The overall median study follow-up was 46·4 months (IQR 41·8-65·4) for the treatment-naïve patients and 66·9 months (56·7-73·9) for previously treated patients, respectively. Overall responses were recorded in 41 (68%; 95% CI 55·0-79·7) of 60 treatment-naive patients and 44 (44%; 95% CI 34·1-54·3) of 100 previously treated patients. In all 373 treated patients, the most common treatment-related adverse events were peripheral oedema (n=174; 47%), nausea (n=130; 35%), increased blood creatinine (n=78; 21%), and vomiting (n=74; 20%). Grade 3-4 serious adverse events occurred in 164 (44%) patients, dyspnoea being the most common (18 patients [5%]). Treatment-related deaths occurred in four (1%) patients (one each of cardiac arrest, hepatitis, organising pneumonia, and pneumonitis). No new safety signals were reported., Interpretation: These long-term results support METex14 as a targetable oncogenic driver in NSCLC and add to the evidence supporting capmatinib as a targeted treatment option for treatment-naive and previously treated patients with METex14 NSCLC., Funding: Novartis Pharmaceuticals., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests JW reports research grant support (to their institution) from Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen Pharmaceutica, Novartis, and Pfizer; and consulting fees or honoraria for lectures and for attending meetings from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Blueprint, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Janssen, Lilly, Loxo, Merck, Mirati, MSD, Novartis, Nuvalent, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Seattle Genetics, Takeda, and Turning Point. MH declares personal honoraria for lectures and presentations from Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Takeda, Amgen, MSD, and Roche. J-YH reports research grants from Pfizer, Takeda, and ONO; consulting fees or honoraria for lectures and presentations from AstraZeneca, Jassen, Amgen, Oncobix, Daiichi Sankyo, Merck, Norvatis, Abion, Takeda, Pfizer, and Yuhan; participation in data safety monitoring board for AstraZeneca, Jassen; and a leadership role for National Cancer Drug Assessment Committee. NR declares research grants from Artidis, MSD, Amgen, and Roche; honoraria for lectures and presentations from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Takeda, and Regeneron; support for attending the meetings from Takeda, Regeneron, and Roche; and participation in a data safety monitoring and advisory board for AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer, Janssen, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Takeda, and Regeneron. P-JS reports the research grants received (to their institution) from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech, and Gilead; and consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pfizer, and Takeda. EFS reports consulting fees support to their institution from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda, and Merck; honoraria for lectures and presentations for self from Boehringer Ingelheim and Daiichi Sankyo; and participation in a data safety monitoring and advisory board for Daiichi Sankyo and Taiho for institution. JV declares consulting fees received from Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, and PDCline; honoraria for lectures and presentations from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, and Merck; and participation in a data safety monitoring and advisory board for AstraZeneca, Boehringer, and Transgene. MN reports honoraria received for lectures and presentations from Ono Pharmaceuticals, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly, AstraZeneca, MSD, AbbVie, Takeda Pfizer, Boehringer, Ingelheim, Novartis, Nippon, Kayaku, Merck, and Janssen; and support for attending meetings from Novartis. WA declares research grants received from Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Bioatla, Imugene, Astride, BridgeBio, AbbVie, and Novocure; and participation in data safety monitoring and advisory board for Lilly. EBG reports research grants received (to their institution) from ABL-Bio, Arrivent, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi, Sanko, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Genentech, Gilead, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Merck, Prelude, Regeneron, and Synthekine; consulting fees from AbbVie, Arcus, AstraZeneca, Arrivent, Atreca, BridgeBio, Bristol Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Hookipa, LianBio, Merckl Merus, Novartis, Nuvalent, Personalis, Regeneron, Sanofi, Seagan, Sensei, Sumitomo, Strata, Summit, Synthekine, Xilio, and Zymeworks; support for attending meetings from A2 and Novartis; patents issued (to their institution); and other financial support for independent medical education from Daiichi Sankyo and Ipsen. DSWT reports research grants support to their institution from ACM Biolabs, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Pfizer, outside of the submitted work; consulting fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer, Ingelheim, DKSH, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda; honoraria for lectures and presentations from Amgen, Bayer, Merck, Pfizer, Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, Takeda, BeiGene, Regeneron, and Zymeworks; and support for attending meetings from Bayer, Merck, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Zymeworks. TS declares honoraria for lectures from Amgen, AnHeart Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Eli Lilly Japan, GlaxoSmithKline, MSD, Novartis Pharma, Ono Pharmaceutical, Pfizer Japan, Takeda Pharmaceutical, and Towa Pharmaceutical. GMF declares the stocks and shareholder for Roche. AR, MC, SLM, CB, YY, LJ, LF, and AY are employees of Novartis. AB reports stocks and stock options from Novartis and Daiichi Sankyo. RSH declares research grants received to their institution for clinical trials from AbbVie, Agios, Corvus, Daichii Sankyo, Erasca, Lilly, Mirati, Mythic, Novartis, and Turning Point; and consulting fees for self from AbbVie, Astrazeneca, Biohaven, Claim Therapeutics, Daichii Sankyo, EMD Serono, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Regeneron, and Sanofi. SVO, HJMG, and MJ declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: We evaluated the disease and patient characteristics, treatment, and MET testing patterns, predictive biomarkers and survival outcomes in patients with MET-dysregulated metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in a real-world setting., Patients and Methods: This was a multinational, retrospective, noninterventional chart review study. Data from medical records of patients with advanced/metastatic EGFR wild-type, MET-dysregulated NSCLC (December 2017-September 2018) were abstracted into electronic data collection forms., Results: Overall, 211 patient charts were included in this analysis; 157 patients had MET exon 14 skipping mutations (METex14; with or without concomitant MET amplification) and 54 had MET amplification only. All patients were tested for METex14, whereas MET amplification was evaluated in 168 patients. No overlap was reported between MET dysregulation and ALK, ROS1 or RET rearrangements, or HER2 exon 20 insertions. Overall, 56 of 211 patients (26.5%) received MET inhibitor (METi) therapy in any treatment-line setting (31.2% in the METex14 cohort; 13% in the MET-amplified only cohort). In the METex14 cohort, median OS in patients receiving METi was 25.4 months versus 10.7 months in patients who did not (HR [95% CI]: 0.532 [0.340-0.832]; P = .0055). In the MET-amplified only cohort, median OS was 20.6 months in patients treated with METi compared with 7.6 months in those without METi (HR [95% CI]: 0.388 [0.152-0.991]; P = .0479)., Conclusions: MET alterations in NSCLC typically occur in the absence of other oncogenic driver mutations and are associated with poor survival outcomes. Notably, METi therapies are associated with improved survival outcomes in patients with MET-dysregulated NSCLC., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Low molecular weight heparins (LMWH) and anti-Xa direct oral anti-coagulants (DOACs) are recommended for the long-term treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) based on well-documented randomised controlled trials. Anti-Xa DOACs are viewed as a first choice for the treatment of patients with CAT. A large number of drug-drug interactions have been reported between DOACs and chemotherapy drugs, modifying circulating levels of DOAC leading to fears of increased bleeding risks or thrombotic recurrence. Progresses in anti-neoplastic therapies have improved the prognosis and the survival, thus increasing the prevalence of frail patients with cancer. However, since frailties tend to be excluded from large trials due to multiple co-morbidities, current guidelines are not fully applicable to this population. The management of these frail patients with CAT is particularly complex and requires a risk assessment on a case-by-case basis with specific focus on cancer, patient-related risk factors and drug-drug interactions. In this brief review we have identified age, co-morbidities and co-medications as key factors of frailty that require careful attention and we have developed a therapeutic decision algorithm to help clinicians optimising the use of anti-coagulants in patients with cancer with CAT, especially in case of anti-Xa DOACs concomitant medications. With the evaluation of the bleeding risk according to the type of cancer, and anticipating drug-drug interactions intensity, taking into account patient frailties allows the optimisation of the anti-coagulant choice. A systematic collaboration between oncologists, vascular pathology specialists and pharmacists is warranted to ensure an optimal patient management. Clinical studies are needed to determine the real impact of these interactions., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: In COVID-19 patients, older age (sixty or older), comorbidities, and frailty are associated with a higher risk for mortality and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) failure. It therefore seems appropriate to suggest limitations of care to older and vulnerable patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia and a poor expected outcome, who would not benefit from invasive treatment. HFNO (high flow nasal oxygen) is a non-invasive respiratory support device already used in de novo acute respiratory failure. The main objective of this study was to evaluate the survival of patients treated with HFNO outside the ICU (intensive care unit) for a severe COVID-19 pneumonia, otherwise presenting limitations of care making them non-eligible for IMV. Secondary objectives were the description of our cohort and the identification of prognostic factors for HFNO failure., Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study. We included all patients with limitations of care making them non-eligible for IMV and treated with HFNO for a severe COVID-19 pneumonia, hospitalized in a COVID-19 unit of the pulmonology department of Lyon Sud University Hospital, France, from March 2020 to March 2021. Primary outcome was the description of the vital status at day-30 after HFNO initiation, using the WHO (World Health Organization) 7-points ordinal scale., Results: Fifty-six patients were included. Median age was 83 years [76.3-87.0], mean duration for HFNO was 7.5 days, 53% had a CFS score (Clinical Frailty Scale) >4. At day-30, 73% of patients were deceased, one patient (2%) was undergoing HFNO, 9% of patients were discharged from hospital. HFNO failure occurred in 66% of patients. Clinical signs of respiratory failure before HFNO initiation (respiratory rate >30/min, retractions, and abdominal paradoxical breathing pattern) were associated with mortality (p = 0.001)., Conclusions: We suggest that HFNO is an option in non-ICU skilled units for older and frail patients with a severe COVID-19 pneumonia, otherwise non-suitable for intensive care and mechanical ventilation. Observation of clinical signs of respiratory failure before HFNO initiation was associated with mortality., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest None, (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.)

Introduction: The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab versus best supportive care (BSC) as adjuvant treatment following resection and platinum-based chemotherapy for patients with stage II-IIIA non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) whose tumours have a programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression ≥ 50% of tumour cells and excluding those with ALK/EGFR mutations, from a French collective perspective., Material and Methods: A five state Markov model over a 20-year time horizon was considered, including disease-free survival (DFS 1 ) from IMpower010 trial, three progression states (locoregional recurrence, first and second-line metastatic recurrence) and death. Utilities, quality-adjusted life year (QALY) decrements associated to adverse events, costs, resource use, and transition probabilities were considered in the model. These inputs were sourced from IMpower010 trial, literature, and clinical experts' opinion. Model uncertainty was assessed through deterministic, probabilistic sensitivity analyses and scenario analyses., Results: Atezolizumab was associated with a QALY gain of 1.662, mainly driven by additional time spent in the DFS state, and a life-year gain of 2.112 years. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for atezolizumab versus BSC was €21,348/QALY gained. The sensitivity analyses highlighted that uncertainty within the model had limited impact on results. Changing the DFS survival curves to other plausible distributions produced ICERs below €20,000/QALY. Introducing an increasing proportion of cured patients (91.5%) from year two to year five reduced the ICER to €13,083/QALY, while including a loss of efficacy at year two in the atezolizumab treatment arm increased the ICER to €33,755/QALY., Discussion: Atezolizumab as adjuvant treatment in stage II-IIIA NSCLC resected patients with PDL1 ≥ 50% and without ALK/EGFR mutations has a lower ICER than other oncology drugs in France and a similar ICER to other adjuvant treatment in oncology., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: [Ingrid Plessala, Hélène Cawston and Justine Cortes are employees of Amaris Consulting, which received professional fees from Roche SAS France for the study, and which has also received fees for projects outside the present study. Roula Ajjouri and Katell Le Lay are employees of Roche SAS France. Roche SAS France provided professional fees to Amaris Consulting for the project, including preparation of the manuscript. Pierre-Jean Souquet and, Christos Chouaid received fees for this project and provided clinical advice to Roche SAS France, as clinical experts. They also participated to advisory boards, to the manuscript development and its review]., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Oral folic acid supplementation is essential for patients treated with pemetrexed, to prevent the risk of severe hematologic toxicity. In case of intestinal absorption disorder, no recommendations exist for intravenous folic acid supplementation., Case Report: We describe a 74-year-old patient with multimetastatic non-small-cell lung adenocarcinoma, receiving first-line chemotherapy with carboplatin AUC5, pemetrexed 500 mg/m 2 and pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks. The patient presented neglected celiac disease, resulting in malabsorption syndrome with iron and folic acid deficiency. The question was how to administer folic acid supplementation during the pemetrexed-based chemotherapy., Management and Outcomes: Intravenous injection of 200 mg levoleucovorin on day 1 of cycle 1 of pemetrexed-based chemotherapy was administered and well tolerated. During the second cycle, the levoleucovorin perfusion was not renewed by omission. The patient was hospitalized for 7 days because of febrile aplasia. Piperacillin-tazobactam was started, and then switched to amoxicillin-clavulanate plus ciprofloxacin. After this episode of post-chemotherapy febrile aplasia, it was decided to systematically supplement the patient with intravenous levoleucovorin, with blood folate concentration monitoring at each cycle. At 16 months after start of treatment, the patient was in complete remission, indicating that the immune-chemotherapy was effective, with no further febrile neutropenia., Discussion/conclusion: This case report highlights intravenous levoleucovorin supplementation as an alternative to oral folic acid if needed during pemetrexed - antifolate-based chemotherapy.

Background and Objectives: Cancer patients undergoing cytotoxic chemotherapies exhibit a series of adverse side effects including smell and taste alterations, which can have a significant impact on their food behavior and quality of life. Particularly, olfactory alterations are often underestimated, although declared as frequent by cancer patients. In the present study, we set out to examine loss of smell in lung cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy and its relationship to food habits., Material and Methods: Forty-four bronchial cancer patients receiving cisplatin and 44 controls age and gender matched participants were tested for olfactory and gustatory functions using the European Test of Olfactory Capabilities and the Taste Strips test. Participants reported their food and dietary habits by filling a self-administered questionnaire. Patients were tested under two different sessions: i) before the beginning of the treatment, and ii) 6 weeks later, after 2 cycles of chemotherapy. Controls were tested under the same protocol with two sessions separated by 6 weeks., Results and Conclusions: The results highlighted decreased smell and taste abilities in almost half of the lung patients' group even before the exposition to Cisplatin. On a perceptual level, patients rated typical food odors as less edible compared to controls. Moreover, within the patients' group, hyposmics reported using more condiments, possibly as a compensatory mechanism to their decreased sensory abilities. Taken together, these findings showed that loss of smell is prevalent in lung cancer patients and is related to changes in dietary practices including seasoning. Future studies will provide a better understanding of these sensory compensation mechanisms associated with olfactory loss and their effects on food pleasure in this patient population., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The objective of this study was to describe filgrastim biosimilar-Sandoz modalities of use in patients receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy regimens with a rest period of ≤14 days and to investigate the incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) in routine clinical practice., Methods: This was a French, multicenter, prospective and descriptive, non-interventional study including patients with breast, lung, gastrointestinal cancer or a lymphoma initiating filgrastim biosimilar-Sandoz treatment and in the context of cytotoxic chemotherapy with a rest period not exceeding 14 days. Data were collected during two routine clinical visits on the modalities of use of filgrastim biosimilar-Sandoz, on the incidence of neutropenia events and on adverse events., Results: Between November 2015 and June 2018, 1080 patients were enrolled in the study in 129 centers. Overall, 941 patients were evaluable for efficacy and 937 for safety. Of the 941 patients, 84.8% had a solid tumor and 15.2% had a lymphoid hemopathy. Filgrastim biosimilar-Sandoz was prescribed as primary prophylaxis in 74.0% of the patients and as secondary prophylaxis in 22.4% of the patients. FN was reported in 1.5% of patients with a solid tumor and 12.6% of patients with a lymphoma. A chemotherapy relative dose intensity of over 85% with regard to the reference dose was achieved by more than 80% of the patients in all tumor localizations., Conclusions: The study showed that filgrastim biosimilar-Sandoz is safe to use and effective in preventing FN and in allowing to maintain the dose intensity of chemotherapy., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Pierre-Jean Souquet has served as a member of an advisory board for Sandoz, has received support to attend congresses and has participated to research sponsored by Sandoz. Jean-Marc Phelip has received consulting fees from Roche, Merck, Amgen, Sanofi, Bayer, Servier, Lilly, MSD and Pierre Favre, contracted research support from Merck Serono and has participated to research sponsored by Sandoz. Maya Hacini has participated to research sponsored by Sandoz. Mohamad Chehimi has nothing to disclose related to this research. Vincent Bourgeois has received support to attend congresses from Mundi Pharma, IPSEN and Sanofi, has served as a member of an advisory board for Servier, has received grants for training from AMGEN, and has participated to research sponsored by Servier, Roche, Bayer and Sanofi. Ryma Bennoune is employee of Sandoz. Olivier Tredan has received funding grants from Roche, MSD-Merck and BMS, and has received personal fees from Roche, MSD-Merck, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer, Lilly, Astra-Zeneca and Daiichi Sankyo. He has nothing to disclose related to this research., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Targeted therapies (TT) and immune checkpoint blockers (ICB) have revolutionized the approach to non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treatment in the era of precision medicine. Their impact as switch maintenance therapy based on molecular characterization is unknown., Patients and Methods: SAFIR02-Lung/IFCT 1301 was an open-label, randomized, phase II trial, involving 33 centers in France. We investigated eight TT (substudy-1) and one ICB (substudy-2), compared with standard-of-care as a maintenance strategy in patients with advanced EGFR, ALK wild-type (wt) NSCLC without progression after first-line chemotherapy, based on high-throughput genome analysis. The primary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS)., Results: Among the 175 patients randomized in substudy-1, 116 received TT (selumetinib, vistusertib, capivasertib, AZD4547, AZD8931, vandetanib, olaparib, savolitinib) and 59 standard-of-care. Median PFS was 2.7 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.6-2.9] with TT versus 2.7 months (1.6-4.1) with standard-of-care (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.7-1.36; P = 0.87). There were no significant differences in PFS within any molecular subgroup. In substudy-2, 183 patients were randomized, 121 received durvalumab and 62 standard-of-care. Median PFS was 3.0 months (2.3-4.4) with durvalumab versus 3.0 months (2.0-5.1) with standard-of-care (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.62-1.20; P = 0.38). Preplanned subgroup analysis showed an enhanced benefit with durvalumab in patients with PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) ≥1%, (n = 29; HR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.11-0.75) as compared with PD-L1 <1% (n = 31; HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.31-1.60; Pinteraction = 0.036)., Conclusions: Molecular profiling can feasibly be implemented to guide treatment choice for the maintenance strategy in EGFR/ALK wt NSCLC; in this study it did not lead to substantial treatment benefits beyond durvalumab for PD-L1 ≥ 1 patients., (©2022 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: Even after resection of early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), patients have a high risk of developing recurrence and second primary lung cancer. We aimed to assess efficacy of a follow-up approach including clinic visits, chest x-rays, chest CT scans, and fibre-optic bronchoscopy versus clinical visits and chest x-rays after surgery for resectable NSCLC., Methods: In this multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial (IFCT-0302), patients aged 18 years or older and after complete resection of pathological stage I-IIIA NSCLC according to the sixth edition of the TNM classification were enrolled within 8 weeks of resection from 122 hospitals and tertiary centres in France. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to CT-based follow-up (clinic visits, chest x-rays, thoraco-abdominal CT scans, and fibre-optic bronchoscopy for non-adenocarcinoma histology) or minimal follow-up (visits and chest x-rays) after surgery for NSCLC, by means of a computer-generated sequence using the minimisation method. Procedures were repeated every 6 months for the first 2 years and yearly until 5 years. The primary endpoint was overall survival analysed in the intention-to-treat population. Secondary endpoints, also analysed in the intention-to-treat population, included disease-free survival. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00198341, and is active, but not enrolling., Findings: Between Jan 3, 2005, and Nov 30, 2012, 1775 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to a follow-up group (888 patients to the minimal follow-up group; 887 patients to the CT-based follow-up group). Median overall survival was not significantly different between follow-up groups (8·5 years [95% CI 7·4-9·6] in the minimal follow-up group vs 10·3 years [8·1-not reached] in the CT-based follow-up group; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·95, 95% CI 0·83-1·10; log-rank p=0·49). Disease-free survival was not significantly different between follow-up groups (median not reached [95% CI not estimable-not estimable] in the minimal follow-up group vs 4·9 [4·3-not reached] in the CT-based follow-up group; adjusted HR 1·14, 95% CI 0·99-1·30; log-rank p=0·063). Recurrence was detected in 246 (27·7%) of 888 patients in the minimal follow-up group and in 289 (32·6%) patients of 887 in the CT-based follow-up group. Second primary lung cancer was diagnosed in 27 (3·0%) patients in the minimal follow-up group and 40 patients (4·5%) in the CT-based follow-up group. No serious adverse events related to the trial procedures were reported., Interpretation: The addition of thoracic CT scans during follow-up, which included clinic visits and chest x-rays after surgery, did not result in longer survival among patients with NSCLC. However, it did enable the detection of more cases of early recurrence and second primary lung cancer, which are more amenable to curative-intent treatment, supporting the use of CT-based follow-up, especially in countries where lung cancer screening is already implemented, alongside with other supportive measures., Funding: French Health Ministry, French National Cancer Institute, Weisbrem-Benenson Foundation, La Ligue Nationale Contre Le Cancer, and Lilly Oncology., Translation: For the French translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests VW reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Merck Sharpe and Dohme, Pfizer, and Roche outside the submitted work; support for attending meetings or travel from AstraZeneca, BMS, and Sanofi outside the submitted work; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board from MSD and Takeda outside the submitted work. JT reports support for attending meetings or travel from Roche and BMS, outside the submitted work. EQ reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Chugai and BMS, outside the submitted work; and support for attending meetings or travel from BMS, Roche, and Takeda, outside the submitted work. GZ reports grants or contracts from Fondation Roche, Takeda, and BMS outside the submitted work; consulting fees from BMS and AstraZeneca, outside the submitted work; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from BMS, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and MDS, outside the submitted work; support for attending meetings or travel from BMS, AstraZeneca, and AbbVie, outside the submitted work. FB reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly Oncology, F Hoffmann–La Roche, Novartis, Merck, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, and Takeda, outside the submitted work. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Concerns about the proper schedule for discontinuing immunotherapy have been raised by many clinicians, as well as the minimal check-up required to assess residual disease before stopping immunotherapy. In fact, there currently exist no recommendations concerning immunotherapy prescription and optimal assessment in the event of persistent oncological response in cases of metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)., Methods: We conducted an online survey among board-certified French Thoracic Oncologists belonging to two professional associations. The survey included multiple-choice questions that either stood alone or were included in case reports., Results: The survey was sent to 490 physicians, of whom 88 responded. For minimal residual disease assessment after 2 years of immunotherapy, PET-scan is prescribed by 92% of respondents and cerebral MRI by 59%. In the event of complete response after 2 years of treatment, 83% of physicians stop prescribing pembrolizumab and 70% discontinue nivolumab. In the event of partial response, 88% of respondents continue immunotherapy. In this case, only 33% use a complementary locoregional treatment such as radiotherapy., Conclusion: Our survey highlights a pronounced tendency to stop immunotherapy in the event of complete oncological response. In the event of partial morphologic response, on the other hand, there is a tendency to continue immunotherapy. However, the use of locoregional treatments remains more heterogeneous., (Copyright © 2022 SPLF. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Background: Immunotherapy using inhibitors targeting immune checkpoint programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1)/programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) is currently the standard of care in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC)., Materials and Methods: We carried out a nationwide cohort retrospective study of consecutive patients with advanced, refractory NSCLC who received nivolumab as second to later lines of treatment as part of the expanded access program. Key objectives were to assess the efficacy and safety of nivolumab and the efficacy of first post-nivolumab treatment., Results: Nine hundred and two patients were enrolled: 317 (35%) with squamous cell carcinoma and 585 (65%) with non-squamous cell carcinoma. Median age was 64 years; there were 630 (70%) men, 795 (88%) smokers, 723 (81%) patients with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) of 0/1, 197 (22%) patients with brain metastases, and 212 (27%) with liver metastases. Best response was partial response for 16.2% and stable disease (SD) for 30.5%. Progression-free survival and overall survival (OS) rates at 2, 3, and 5 years were 8% and 25%, 6% and 16%, and 4% and 10%, respectively. At multivariate analysis, ECOG PS ≥2 [hazard ratio (HR) = 2.13, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.78-2.55, P < 0.001], squamous histology (HR = 1.17, 95% CI 1.01-1.36, P = 0.04), and presence of central nervous system metastases (HR = 1.29, 95% CI 1.08-1.54, P = 0.005) were significantly associated with lower OS. Four hundred and ninety-two patients received at least one treatment after discontinuation of nivolumab, consisting of systemic therapies in 450 (91%). Radiation therapy was delivered to 118 (24%) patients., Conclusion: The CLINIVO cohort represents the largest real-world evidence cohort with the use of immune checkpoint inhibitor in advanced, metastatic NSCLC after failure of first-line chemotherapy, with long-term follow-up and analysis of subsequent therapies. Our data confirm the efficacy of nivolumab in a cohort larger than that reported in landmark clinical trials and identify prognostic factors, which reinforces the need for accurate selection of patients for treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Our data indicate that oligoprogression is frequent after nivolumab exposure and provide a unique insight into the long-term survival., Competing Interests: Disclosure OM reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Takeda, BMS, MSD, Novartis, and AMGEN. NG reports research/grant support from MSD, AstraZeneca, AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Hoffmann-La Roche, Janssen, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sivan, and Trizell, and consultative services for Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Hoffmann-La Roche, Janssen, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Sivan. BB reports grants from AbbVie, Amgen, Aptitude Health, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Blueprint Medicines, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Cergentis, Cristal Therapeutics, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eli Lilly, GSK, Inivata, Janssen, Onxeo, OSE Immunotherapeutics, Pfizer, Roche-Genentech, Sanofi, Takeda, and Tolero Pharmaceuticals. FB reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly Oncology, ß. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Novartis, Merck, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, and Takeda. CA-V reports personal fees and non-financial support from Roche, BMS, MSD, AstraZeneca, AbbVie, Pfizer, and Takeda. SF reports support for attending meetings and/or travel from Boehringer Ingelheim France, BMS, Leo Pharma, Sandoz, and Novartis Pharma SAS. JM reports personal fees from Roche, AstraZeneca, Pierre Fabre, Takeda, BMS, MSD, Hengrui, BLUEPRINT, DAIICHI, and Novartis and grants from Roche, AstraZeneca, Pierre Fabre, and BMS. JC reports consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Jansen, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda. WH reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker's bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from BMS and Astellas and support for attending meetings and/or travel from Astellas, Pfizer, and Janssen. DM-S reports grants or contracts from Roche, AstraZeneca, Amgen, AbbVie, Pfizer, Takeda, and Lilly; consulting fees from Roche, AstraZeneca, Amgen, AbbVie, Pfizer, Takeda, and Lilly; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker's bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Roche, AstraZeneca, Amgen, AbbVie, Pfizer, Takeda, Lilly, and BMS; and support for attending meetings and/or travel from Roche, AstraZeneca, Amgen, AbbVie, Pfizer, Takeda, Lilly, and BMS. VW reports honoraria from Roche, AstraZeneca, BMS, and MSD and non-financial support from Roche and Pfizer. PJS reports consulting fees, support for attending meetings and/or travel, payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker's bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from BMS and participated on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for BMS. The remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Benefit from maintenance in advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NS-NSCLC) might favor switch maintenance after disease stabilization (SD) and continuation after objective response (OR). This trial assessed a maintenance strategy conditioned by response to cisplatin-gemcitabine (CG) with G continuation for patients with OR or switch to pemetrexed (P) for patients with SD as compared with a control arm based on the Paramount regimen., Methods: Eligibility criteria: age 18-70 years, ECOG PS 0-1, untreated stage IV NS-NSCLC without EGFR or ALK alteration, ineligibility to bevacizumab. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either CG (4 cycles) followed by G maintenance in case of OR followed by P at progression, or switch to P for patients with SD, or 4 cycles of CP followed by P (control arm). Primary endpoint: overall Survival., Results: Between 2012 and 2016, 932 patients were randomized (CG: 467, CP: 465) with well-balanced characteristics. 257 patients (56.7%) in the CG arm received maintenance (G: 142, P: 113) versus 277 patients (59.7%) in the CP arm. Median number of maintenance cycles was 5 for G and P (CG induction) and 4 for P (CP induction). OS adjusted HR was 0.97 (95% CI 0.84, 1.13; p = 0.71) with a median of 10.9 months (CG) versus 10.4 (CP). HR for PFS was 0.95 (95% CI 0.83, 1.09; p = 0.45) with a median of 4.8 months for CG versus 4.5 for CP. Safety profile was as expected., Conclusions: Adapting maintenance strategy according to response to induction chemotherapy does not improve patient outcome., Clinical Trial Information: NCT01631136., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Introduction: Dabrafenib plus trametinib was found to have robust antitumor activity in patients with BRAF V600E-mutant metastatic NSCLC (mNSCLC). We report updated survival analysis of a phase 2 study (NCT01336634) with a minimum of 5-year follow-up and updated genomic data., Methods: Pretreated (cohort B) and treatment-naive (cohort C) patients with BRAF V600E-mutant mNSCLC received dabrafenib 150 mg twice daily and trametinib 2 mg once daily. The primary end point was investigator-assessed overall response rate per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. Secondary end points were duration of response, progression-free survival, overall survival, and safety., Results: At data cutoff, for cohorts B (57 patients) and C (36 patients), the median follow-up was 16.6 (range: 0.5-78.5) and 16.3 (range: 0.4-80) months, overall response rate (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 68.4% (54.8-80.1) and 63.9% (46.2-79.2), median progression-free survival (95% CI) was 10.2 (6.9-16.7) and 10.8 (7.0-14.5) months, and median overall survival (95% CI) was 18.2 (14.3-28.6) and 17.3 (12.3-40.2) months, respectively. The 4- and 5-year survival rates were 26% and 19% in pretreated patients and 34% and 22% in treatment-naive patients, respectively. A total of 17 patients (18%) were still alive. The most frequent adverse event was pyrexia (56%). Exploratory genomic analysis indicated that the presence of coexisting genomic alterations might influence clinical outcomes in these patients; however, these results require further investigation., Conclusions: Dabrafenib plus trametinib therapy was found to have substantial and durable clinical benefit, with a manageable safety profile, in patients with BRAF V600E-mutant mNSCLC, regardless of previous treatment., (Copyright © 2021 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Cancer is a chronic disease with an incidence of 24.5 million and 9.6 million deaths worldwide in 2017. Lung and colorectal cancer are the most common cancers for both sexes and, according to national and international recommendations, platinum-based chemotherapy is the reference adjuvant treatment. This chemotherapy can be moderately to highly emetogenic. Despite antiemetic therapy, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) may persist. Moreover, cancer patients are increasingly interested in alternative and complementary medicines and have expressed the desire that nonpharmacological treatments be used in hospitals. Among alternative and complementary medicines, foot reflexology significantly decreases the severity of CINV in patients with breast cancer., Objective: The primary aim of this study was to assess the benefits of foot reflexology as a complement therapy to conventional treatments regarding the severity of acute CINV in patients with digestive or lung cancer. The secondary objectives assessed were the frequency and severity of delayed CINV, quality of life, anxiety, and self-esteem., Methods: This study was conducted between April 2018 and April 2020 in the Hospices Civils de Lyon, France. This was an open-label randomized controlled trial. Participants were randomized into two groups: the intervention group (ie, conventional care with foot reflexology; n=40) and the control group (ie, conventional care without foot reflexology; n=40). Foot reflexology sessions (30 minutes each) were performed on outpatients or inpatients. Eligible participants were patients with lung or digestive cancer with an indication for platinum-based chemotherapy., Results: The severity of acute nausea and vomiting was assessed with a visual analog scale during the second cycle of chemotherapy. A significant increase of at least 2 points was observed for the control group (7/34, 21%; P=.001). Across all cycles, the foot reflexology group showed a trend toward less frequent delayed nausea (P=.28), a significantly less frequent consumption of antiemetic drugs (P=.04), and no significant difference for vomiting (P=.99); there was a trend toward a perception of stronger severity for delayed nausea in the control group (P=.39). Regarding quality of life and anxiety, there was no significant difference between the intervention group and the control group (P=.32 and P=.53, respectively)., Conclusions: This study's results indicate that foot reflexology provides significantly better management of acute nausea severity and decreased consumption of antiemetic drugs in patients with lung or digestive cancer. In order to fulfill patients' desires to use nonpharmacological treatments and complementary and alternative medicines in hospitals, foot reflexology could be provided as a complementary intervention to conventional antiemetic drugs. Foot reflexology did not result in adverse effects. To assess the benefits of foot reflexology in routine practice, a larger study with several health care centers would be needed with a cluster randomized controlled trial., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03508180; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03508180., International Registered Report Identifier (irrid): RR2-10.2196/17232., (©Audrey Murat-Ringot, Pierre Jean Souquet, Fabien Subtil, Florent Boutitie, Marie Preau, Vincent Piriou. Originally published in JMIR Cancer (https://cancer.jmir.org), 05.11.2021.)

Context: Residents in respiratory medicine are often confronted with breaking bad news to patients. In communication skill training, a recurring question is whether to use standardized or peer-played patients for simulation METHODS: In this prospective single-center crossover study in pulmonology residents, a range of scenarios were performed during training sessions using standardized or peer-played patients. The aim was to assess whether patient type did alter the quality of the role-play. The residents completed post-scenario questionnaires about the role-play of each scenario, but also pre- and post-session questionnaires about their perception of the effectiveness of both modalities, and pre- and post-testing questionnaires about the psychological impact of the training., Results: Collectively, 4 scenarios were performed 52 times and evaluated 208 times by 52 residents. The use of standardized patients appeared to improve the quality of the patient role (8.8 ± 1.0 vs. 8.3 ± 1.1; p = 0.001) and the general quality of role-play (8.8 ± 1.0 vs. 8.2 ± 0.9; p = 0.008), without affecting the quality of the physician role played by the resident. There were no significant differences between standardized and peer-played patients regarding learning interest or psychological impact. Regardless of the modality, the training sessions did appear to significantly affect the residents' evaluations of their ability to break bad news to patients (5.7 ± 1.1 vs. 7.4 ± 1.1; p < 10-4)., Conclusion: Our results did not point to a superiority of either of these modalities for learning how to break bad news. Both may be used, depending on the local resources., Competing Interests: Conflict of interests Dr. DARRASON reports personal fees from Bristol Meyers Squibb, personal fees from CCC Congres Colloques Conventions, outside the submitted work. Dr COURAUD reports reports grants and personal fees from Amgen, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from BMS, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Boehringer Ingelheim, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Chugai, grants and personal fees from Laidet, grants and personal fees from Lilly, grants and personal fees from MSD, grants from Pfizer, non-financial support from Sysmex Inostics, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Takeda, non-financial support from Vitalaire, grants from Bayer, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Astra Zeneca, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Roche, outside the submitted work. Dr SOUQUET reports no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2021 SPLF and Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Background: To further characterize survival benefit with first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab with two cycles of chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, we report updated data from the phase III CheckMate 9LA trial with a 2-year minimum follow-up., Patients and Methods: Adult patients were treatment naïve, with stage IV/recurrent non-small-cell lung cancer, no known sensitizing EGFR/ALK alterations, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤1. Patients were randomized 1 : 1 to nivolumab 360 mg every 3 weeks plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 6 weeks with two cycles of chemotherapy, or four cycles of chemotherapy. Updated efficacy and safety outcomes are reported, along with progression-free survival (PFS) after next line of treatment (PFS2), treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) by treatment cycle, and efficacy outcomes in patients who discontinued all treatment components in the experimental arm due to TRAEs., Results: With a median follow-up of 30.7 months, nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy continued to prolong overall survival (OS) versus chemotherapy. Median OS was 15.8 versus 11.0 months [hazard ratio 0.72 (95% confidence interval 0.61-0.86)]; 2-year OS rate was 38% versus 26%. Two-year PFS rate was 20% versus 8%. ORR was 38% versus 25%, respectively; 34% versus 12% of all responses were ongoing at 2 years. Median PFS2 was 13.9 versus 8.7 months. Improved efficacy outcomes in the experimental versus control arm were observed across most subgroups, including by programmed death-ligand 1 and histology. No new safety signals were observed; onset of grade 3/4 TRAEs was mostly observed during the first two treatment cycles in the experimental arm. In patients who discontinued all components of nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy treatment due to TRAEs (n = 61) median OS was 27.5 months; 56% of responders had an ongoing response ≥1 year after discontinuation., Conclusions: With a 2-year minimum follow-up, nivolumab plus ipilimumab with two cycles of chemotherapy provided durable efficacy benefits over chemotherapy with a manageable safety profile and remains an efficacious first-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer., Competing Interests: Disclosure MR reports advisory/consulting fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Mirati Therapeutics, MSD Oncology, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, and Samsung Bioepis; speaker fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Merck Serono, Mirati Therapeutics, MSD Oncology, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche/Genentech. TEC reports advisory/consulting fees and travel, accommodation, and expenses from Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Novartis/GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and Servier. MS reports research funding from AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Clovis, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer/EMD Serono, Regeneron, Roche, and Tesaro; travel, accommodation, and expenses from Bristol Myers Squibb. BZ reports research funding from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen-Cilag, MSD, and Roche. JB reports advisory/consulting fees and honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Roche, and Servier; travel, accommodation, and expenses from AstraZeneca and Roche. EF reports advisory fees from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, Blue Print Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Medical Trends, Merck KGaA, MSD, Novartis, Peptomyc, Pfizer, Puma Biotechnology, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, Syneos Health, Takeda; independent board member of Grifols; research funding from Grant for Oncology Innovation and Fundación Merck Salud; speaker fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Medscape, MSD, Novartis, PeerVoice, Pfizer, Prime Oncology, Roche, Springer, Takeda, Touch Medical, and CME Outfitters. OJV reports advisory/consulting fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Lilly, MSD, Roche/Genetech, and Takeda; honoraria from AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD Oncology, and Roche/Genentech; research funding from AstraZeneca Spain; speaker fees from Roche/Genentech; travel, accommodation, and expenses from Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, and Roche/Genentech. AA reports advisory/consulting fees from Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals Inc and Roche; expert testimony fees for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi; speaker fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, and Sandoz; travel, accommodation, and expenses from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi. HS reports research funding from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Chugai Pharma, Merck KGaA, MSD K.K, Ono Pharmaceutical, and Taiho Pharmaceutical; speaker fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb Japan, Chugai Pharma, MSD K.K, Ono Pharmaceutical, and Taiho Pharmaceutical. FR reports consulting and speaker fees from Novartis; travel, accommodation, and expenses from Roche. PJS reports non-financial support from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, and Roche; personal fees from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, and Roche; research funding from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, MSD, and Roche. CM reports advisory and speaker fees from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, and MSD. MP reports advisory fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda; research funding from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chugai, Roche, and Takeda; speaker fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Chugai, Eli Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda; travel support from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Chugai, Eli Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda. AS reports expert testimony fees from AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD Oncology, and Roche; research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb; speaker fees from AstraZeneca/MedImmune; travel, accommodation, and expenses from AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD Oncology, and Roche. SL reports advisory/consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Hutchison MediPharma, Roche, and Simcere; research funding from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Hutchison MediPharma, Heng Rui, and Roche; speaker fees from AstraZeneca, Hanseng, and Roche. LPA reports honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Blueprint Medicines, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Ipsen, Eli Lilly, Merck Serono, Mirati Therapeutics, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Roche/Genentech, Sanofi, Servier, and Takeda; leadership fees from Genomica and ALTUM Sequencing; research funding from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Kura Oncology, PharmaMar, and MSD; speaker fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Merck Serono, MSD Oncology, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech; travel, accommodation, and expenses from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda. DPC reports advisory/consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Bristol Myers Squibb Japan, Curio Science, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Flame Biosciences, G1 Therapeutics (Intellisphere), Geneplus, GlaxoSmithKline, Gloria Biosciences, Incyte, Inivata, Inovio Pharmaceutical, Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Loxo, Merck, Merck KGaA, MSD, Novartis, Novocure, Oncocyte, OncoHost, Pfizer, Piper Sandler, Roche/Genentech, Sanofi, and Takeda; employment with James Cancer Center; honoraria from AstraZeneca and Nexus Pharmaceutical; research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb. AM is an employee of and has stock ownership in Bristol Myers Squibb. SM is an employee of and has stock ownership in Bristol Myers Squibb; was employed as a contractor by Sanofi (Rangam Consultants Inc); reports travel, accommodation, and expenses from Bristol Myers Squibb. XZ is an employee of Bristol Myers Squibb. PT is an employee of and has stock ownership in Bristol Myers Squibb. TJ reports advisory/consulting fees from AstraZeneca, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ignyta, Merck KGaA, MSD Oncology, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche/Genentech; honoraria from AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD Oncology, and Roche/Genentech; travel, accommodation, and expenses from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, and Roche. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Smoking prevalence in the overall population in France was 27% in 2017. There are few data about smoking prevalence in hospital workers. The aim of this study was to assess prevalence of current smoking in student and staff populations at Lyon University Hospital. Secondary objectives were to identify main variables associated with current smoking and willingness to quit., Methods: We designed a single center, cross-sectional survey, using printed questionnaires. During one day, all registered staff and students were surveyed. We used optical reading to extract information from questionnaires. We performed univariate and multivariate analysis adjusted on most relevant factors., Results: We analyzed 9712 questionnaires. The participating rates were high: 40.6% in the student cohort and 51.5% in the staff cohort. The proportion of current cigarette users was 26% in students and 25% in staff. In multivariate analysis, current smoking was significantly associated with: younger age, male sex, occupation type (e.g. logistical staff, and paramedical students), overnight work, and e-cigarette use. Among smokers, 53% reported a willingness to quit. In multivariate analysis, number of quit attempts, and feeling symptoms from tobacco were associated with willingness to quit., Conclusions: Current smoking is less frequent in our cohorts of hospital staff and students than in the general French population. However, there are deep disparities in current smoking prevalence underlining a heterogeneous population. Among smokers, the majority reported a willingness to quit and some predictive factors may help to target this audience., Competing Interests: The authors have each completed and submitted an ICMJE form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. The authors declare that they have no competing interests, financial or otherwise, related to the current work. B. Rolland reports grants from Abbvie, Gilead, and Camurus, consulting fees from Abbvie, Gilead, Camurus, Pileje, Accord Health, Indivior, and Zentiva, honorary payments from Abbvie, Gilead, Recordati, Ethypharm, HAC Pharma, and Shire, and other payment from Camurus, outside the submitted work. M. Darrason reports honorary payment from Bristol Meyers Squibb, CCA congress colloquia, outside the submitted work., (© 2021 Sébastien Couraud.)

It remains unclear whether immune-related adverse events (irAEs) and glucocorticoid use could impact long-term outcomes in patients treated for solid tumors with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). All patients treated with a single-agent ICI for any advanced cancer were included in this retrospective unicentric study. The objectives were to assess the impact of grade ≥3 irAEs, glucocorticoid use and the interruption of immunotherapy on progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). In this 828-patient cohort, the first occurrence of grade ≥3 irAEs had no significant impact on PFS or OS. Glucocorticoid administration for the irAEs was associated with a significantly shorter PFS (adjusted HR 3.0; p = 0.00040) and a trend toward shorter OS. ICI interruption was associated with a significantly shorter PFS (adjusted HR 3.5; p < 0.00043) and shorter OS (HR 4.5; p = 0.0027). Glucocorticoid administration and ICI interruption were correlated. In our population of patients treated with single agent ICI, grade ≥3 irAEs did not impact long-term outcomes. However, the need for glucocorticoids and the interruption of immunotherapy resulted in poorer long-term outcomes. The impact of grade ≥3 irAEs reported in other studies might then be explained by the management of the irAEs.

Background/objectives: Acute Kidney Injury (AKI), induced by Checkpoint Inhibitors therapies (CPI-induced AKI), is an uncommon but severe Immune-Related Adverse Event (IRAE). The aim was to describe the epidemiology, risks factors, clinical, and laboratory characteristics of these renal adverse events (AEs) in a real-life cohort treatment., Design/participants: Consecutive patients undergoing a checkpoint inhibitor (CPI) therapy at the Hôpital Lyon Sud from January 2015 to July 2017 were included. A systematic retrospective analysis of medical files was performed, monthly serum creatinine levels, associated treatments, and occurrence of other IRAEs data were collected. AKI episodes explained by classic AKI aetiologies (prerenal, obstructive, septic) were excluded from the analysis., Results: CPI-induced AKI incidence was 3.7% (13/352) and appeared to be time-dependent (7.7% (11/143) for patients with >3 months of CPI exposure), ranging from 1 to 16 months. All cases with available histology were acute tubulointerstitial nephritis (ATIN), with poor urinary sediment. The severity of AKI was mild (stage 1 in 50% of cases), with no need for renal-replacement therapy. Although CPI-induced AKI patients had more frequently other IRAEs (77% versus 39%), this was not associated with a greater risk of AKI. Pre-existing chronic kidney disease (defined as an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <60 ml/min) was not associated with a greater risk of CPI-induced AKI. Treatments of CPI-induced AKI were heterogeneous, with discontinuation of CPIs, and inconstant systemic corticosteroid therapy., Conclusion: The monitoring of renal function and early identification of AKI during CPIs treatment is essential. The optimal management of CPI-induced AKI remains unclear and requires a close collaboration between the oncology and nephrology departments., Clinical Relevancy Statement: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) have dramatically improved patient outcomes in different malignant contexts such as melanoma, non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLC) and urologic cancers. Usually well-tolerated, CPIs are however associated with immune-related adverse events (IRAEs). Among them, acute kidney injury (AKI) is uncommon, and not well-described. Following the exponential increase in the prescription of CPIs, previously uncommon cases of IRAEs (such as AKI) have become common occurrence in referral centres. Data regarding the epidemiology, risk factors, or management of CPI-induced AKI are currently lacking or can be discordant. Data regarding CPI-induced AKI, in a large real-life cohort were reported herein., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest Statement All the authors have no conflict of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: First-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab has shown improved overall survival in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We aimed to investigate whether the addition of a limited course (two cycles) of chemotherapy to this combination would further enhance the clinical benefit., Methods: This randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial was done at 103 hospitals in 19 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with treatment-naive, histologically confirmed stage IV or recurrent NSCLC, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by an interactive web response system via permuted blocks (block size of four) to nivolumab (360 mg intravenously every 3 weeks) plus ipilimumab (1 mg/kg intravenously every 6 weeks) combined with histology-based, platinum doublet chemotherapy (intravenously every 3 weeks for two cycles; experimental group), or chemotherapy alone (every 3 weeks for four cycles; control group). Randomisation was stratified by tumour histology, sex, and PD-L1 expression. The primary endpoint was overall survival in all randomly assigned patients. Safety was analysed in all treated patients. Results reported here are from a pre-planned interim analysis (when the study met its primary endpoint) and an exploratory longer-term follow-up analysis. This study is active but no longer recruiting patients, and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT03215706., Findings: Between Aug 24, 2017, and Jan 30, 2019, 1150 patients were enrolled and 719 (62·5%) randomly assigned to nivolumab plus ipilimumab with two cycles of chemotherapy (n=361 [50%]) or four cycles of chemotherapy alone (n=358 [50%]). At the pre-planned interim analysis (median follow-up 9·7 months [IQR 6·4-12·8]), overall survival in all randomly assigned patients was significantly longer in the experimental group than in the control group (median 14·1 months [95% CI 13·2-16·2] vs 10·7 months [9·5-12·4]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·69 [96·71% CI 0·55-0·87]; p=0·00065). With 3·5 months longer median follow-up (median 13·2 months [IQR 6·4-17·0]), median overall survival was 15·6 months (95% CI 13·9-20·0) in the experimental group versus 10·9 months (9·5-12·6) in the control group (HR 0·66 [95% CI 0·55-0·80]). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were neutropenia (in 24 [7%] patients in the experimental group vs 32 [9%] in the control group), anaemia (21 [6%] vs 50 [14%]), diarrhoea (14 [4%] vs two [1%]), increased lipase (22 [6%] vs three [1%]), and asthenia (tjree [1%] vs eight [2%]). Serious treatment-related adverse events of any grade occurred in 106 (30%) patients in the experimental group and 62 (18%) in the control group. Seven (2%) deaths in the experimental group (acute kidney failure, diarrhoea, hepatotoxicity, hepatitis, pneumonitis, sepsis with acute renal insufficiency, and thrombocytopenia; one patient each) and six (2%) deaths in the control group (anaemia, febrile neutropenia, pancytopenia, pulmonary sepsis, respiratory failure, and sepsis; one patient each) were treatment related., Interpretation: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab with two cycles of chemotherapy provided a significant improvement in overall survival versus chemotherapy alone and had a favourable risk-benefit profile. These data support this regimen as a new first-line treatment option for patients with advanced NSCLC., Funding: Bristol Myers Squibb., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Tumor mutation screening is standard of care for patients with stage IV NSCLC. Since a couple of years, widespread NGS approaches used in routine diagnostics to detect driver mutations such as EGFR, KRAS, BRAF or MET allows the identification of other alterations that could modulated the intensity or duration of response to targeted therapies. The prevalence of co-occurring alterations that could affect response or prognosis as not been largely analyzed in clinical settings and large cohorts of patients. Thanks to the IFCT program "Biomarkers France", a collection of samples and data at a nation-wide level was available to test the impact of co-mutations on first line EGFR TKI in patients with EGFR mutated cancers., Materials and Methods: Targeted NGS was assessed on available (n = 208) samples using the Ion AmpliSeq™ Cancer Hotspot Panel v2 to screen for mutations in 50 different cancer genes., Results: This study showed that PTEN inactivating mutations, ATM alterations, IDH1 mutations and complex EGFR mutations were predictors of short PFS in patients with a stage 4 lung adenocarcinoma receiving first line EGFR TKI and that PTEN, ATM, IDH1 and KRAS mutations as well as alterations in the MAPK pathway were related to shorter OS., Conclusion: These findings may lead to new treatment options in patients with unfavorable genotypes to optimize first line responses., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Background: The IFCT-1603 trial evaluated atezolizumab in small cell lung cancer (SCLC). The purpose of the present study was to determine whether circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), prospectively collected at treatment initiation, was associated with the prognosis of SCLC, and whether it identified patients who benefited from atezolizumab., Methods: 68 patients were included in this study: 46 patients were treated with atezolizumab and 22 with conventional chemotherapy. Circulating DNA was extracted from plasma and NGS (Next Generation Sequencing) looked for mutations in the TP53, RB1 , NOTCH1, NOTCH2, and NOTCH3 genes. ctDNA was detectable when at least one somatic mutation was identified, and its relative abundance was quantified by the variant allele fraction (VAF) of the most represented mutation., Results: We found that 49/68 patients (70.6%) had detectable baseline ctDNA. The most frequently identified mutations were TP53 (32/49; 65.3%) and RB1 (25/49; 51.0%). Patients with detectable ctDNA had a significantly lower disease control rate at week 6 compared with patients with no detectable ctDNA, regardless of the nature of the treatment. Detection of ctDNA was associated with a poor OS prognosis. The detection of ctDNA at a relative abundance greater than the median value was significantly associated with poor overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS). Interestingly, the benefit in overall survival (OS) associated with low ctDNA was more pronounced in patients treated with atezolizumab than in patients receiving chemotherapy. Among patients whose relative ctDNA abundance was below the median, those treated with atezolizumab tended to have higher OS than those in the chemotherapy arm., Conclusion: ctDNA is strongly associated with the prognosis of SCLC patients treated with second-line immunotherapy. Its analysis seems justified for future SCLC clinical trials.

Purpose: Maintenance chemotherapy is a reasonable choice for patients with metastatic non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) not progressing after induction therapy with a platinum-based doublet. Nevertheless, there have been no studies dedicated to elderly patients., Patients and Methods: We conducted a randomised trial in patients aged 70-89 years, with advanced NSCLC (with neither EGFR mutation nor ALK rearrangement), who had not progressed after four cycles of monthly carboplatin and weekly paclitaxel in order to compare maintenance with either pemetrexed (500 mg/m 2 d1, 22) in patients with non-squamous cell carcinoma or gemcitabine (1,150 mg/m 2 d1, 8, 22) in squamous cell carcinoma to simple observation. The patients were required to have a performance status (PS) 0-2, mini-mental score >23, and creatinine clearance ≥45 mL/min. The primary end-point was overall survival (OS)., Results: 632 patients were enrolled from May 2013 to October 2016. Of the 328 (52.3%) patients randomised after induction therapy, 166 patients were assigned to the observation arm, versus 162 to the switch maintenance arm, 119 of whom received pemetrexed and 43 gemcitabine. The median OS from randomisation was 14.1 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 12.0-17.0) in the observation arm and 14 months (95% CI: 10.9-16.9) in the maintenance arm (p = 0.72). The median progression-free survival (PFS) from randomisation was 2.7 months (95% CI: 2.6-3.1) in the observation arm versus 5.7 months (95% CI: 4.8-7.1) in the maintenance arm (p < 0.001)., Conclusion: Switch maintenance therapy significantly prolonged PFS but not OS and, thus, should not be proposed to elderly patients with advanced NSCLC., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Among patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), MET exon 14 skipping mutations occur in 3 to 4% and MET amplifications occur in 1 to 6%. Capmatinib, a selective inhibitor of the MET receptor, has shown activity in cancer models with various types of MET activation., Methods: We conducted a multiple-cohort, phase 2 study evaluating capmatinib in patients with MET -dysregulated advanced NSCLC. Patients were assigned to cohorts on the basis of previous lines of therapy and MET status ( MET exon 14 skipping mutation or MET amplification according to gene copy number in tumor tissue). Patients received capmatinib (400-mg tablet) twice daily. The primary end point was overall response (complete or partial response), and the key secondary end point was response duration; both end points were assessed by an independent review committee whose members were unaware of the cohort assignments., Results: A total of 364 patients were assigned to the cohorts. Among patients with NSCLC with a MET exon 14 skipping mutation, overall response was observed in 41% (95% confidence interval [CI], 29 to 53) of 69 patients who had received one or two lines of therapy previously and in 68% (95% CI, 48 to 84) of 28 patients who had not received treatment previously; the median duration of response was 9.7 months (95% CI, 5.6 to 13.0) and 12.6 months (95% CI, 5.6 to could not be estimated), respectively. Limited efficacy was observed in previously treated patients with MET amplification who had a gene copy number of less than 10 (overall response in 7 to 12% of patients). Among patients with MET amplification and a gene copy number of 10 or higher, overall response was observed in 29% (95% CI, 19 to 41) of previously treated patients and in 40% (95% CI, 16 to 68) of those who had not received treatment previously. The most frequently reported adverse events were peripheral edema (in 51%) and nausea (in 45%); these events were mostly of grade 1 or 2., Conclusions: Capmatinib showed substantial antitumor activity in patients with advanced NSCLC with a MET exon 14 skipping mutation, particularly in those not treated previously. The efficacy in MET -amplified advanced NSCLC was higher in tumors with a high gene copy number than in those with a low gene copy number. Low-grade peripheral edema and nausea were the main toxic effects. (Funded by Novartis Pharmaceuticals; GEOMETRY mono-1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02414139.)., (Copyright © 2020 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Background: The side effects of chemotherapy, specifically chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, are a concern for patients. To relieve these side effects, antiemetic drugs are recommended. However, some patients report that these drugs are not sufficiently effective. Moreover, patients with chronic disease, including cancer, are increasingly interested in complementary and alternative medicines, and express the desire for nonpharmacological treatments to be used in hospitals. Foot reflexology is a holistic approach that is reported to significantly reduce the severity of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with breast cancer. Some of the chemotherapy treatments for patients with lung and digestive system cancer are moderately or highly emetic., Objective: The primary objective of this study is to assess the benefits of foot reflexology, together with conventional treatments, on the severity and frequency of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with lung or digestive system cancer. The secondary objectives to be assessed are quality of life, anxiety, and self-esteem., Methods: This study is an open-label randomized controlled trial conducted over 22 months (18 months intervention and 4 months follow-up). Eligible participants are patients with a lung or digestive system cancer with an indication for platinum-based chemotherapy. Participants are randomized into two groups: conventional care with foot reflexology and conventional care without foot reflexology. Foot reflexology sessions (30 minutes) are performed on an outpatient or inpatient basis. It was estimated that 40 participants per group will be required. The benefits of foot reflexology will be assessed by comparing the relative change in the severity of nausea and vomiting, as assessed by a visual analogue scale, and the frequency of these side effects between the two groups. The secondary objectives will be assessed with the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire; Hospital and Anxiety Depression Scale; and Body Image Questionnaire., Results: This study was approved by the regional ethics committee (Île de France X CPP) on April 3, 2018 (No. ID RCB 2018-A00571-54). Enrollment started in June 2018. Data analysis will be performed during the second quarter of 2020 and results will be published in the last quarter of 2020., Conclusions: The lack of knowledge regarding the efficacy and safety of foot reflexology limits oncologists to recommend it for this use. This study will provide evidence of the benefits of foot reflexology. If efficacy is confirmed, foot reflexology may be a promising complement to conventional antiemetic drugs., Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03508180; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03508180., International Registered Report Identifier (irrid): DERR1-10.2196/17232., (©Audrey Murat-Ringot, Pierre Jean Souquet, Marion Chauvenet, Charlotte Rentler, Fabien Subtil, Anne-Marie Schott, Marie Preau, Vincent Piriou. Originally published in JMIR Research Protocols (http://www.researchprotocols.org), 14.07.2020.)

Purpose: The incidence of lung cancer has dramatically increased in women. Preclinical data have suggested that combining EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) with an antiestrogen may overcome resistance to EGFR-TKI., Patients and Methods: The IFCT-1003 LADIE trial was a 2 × 2 arms parallel open-label randomized phase II trial. EGFR-TKI-naïve postmenopausal women with advanced lung cancer were treated with gefitinib (G) versus gefitinib + fulvestrant (G+F) in the EGFR-mutated group (EGFR + ) or with erlotinib (E) versus erlotinib + fulvestrant (E+F) in the EGFR wild-type group (EGFR-WT). The primary objective was progression-free survival (PFS) at 3 and 9 months for EGFR-WT and EGFR + patients., Results: Overall, 204 patients (gefitinib 104 and G+F 100) and 175 patients (erlotinib 87 and E+F 88) were enrolled in the EGFR + and EGFR-WT cohorts. In the EGFR + cohort, the primary endpoint was reached, with 58% of the G+F group patients being nonprogressive at 9 months. Adding fulvestrant to gefitinib was not associated with improved PFS (9.9 vs 9.4 months) or overall survival (OS; 22.1 vs 28.6 months). In the EGFR-WT cohort, the primary endpoint was also achieved (33.7% of the patients were nonprogressive at 3 months). Adding fulvestrant to erlotinib was not associated with improved outcome (PFS 1.8 vs 2.0 and OS 10.3 vs 7.3 months). No PFS difference was observed regarding estrogen receptor alpha expression. The tolerance was as expected with no treatment-related death., Conclusions: Adding fulvestrant to EGFR-TKI is feasible, but not associated with prolonged PFS regardless of EGFR status. The lack of benefits while combining fulvestrant to EGFR-TKI does not support its future development in an unselected population., (©2020 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Introduction: KRAS mutations are detected in 20% to 30% of NSCLC. However, KRAS mutation subtypes may differently influence the outcome of patients with advanced NSCLC., Methods: In the Biomarkers France study, 4894 KRAS mutations (26.2%) were detected in 4634 patients from the 17,664 enrolled patients with NSCLC. Survival and treatment data on noncurative stage III to IV NSCLC were available for 901 patients. First- and second-line treatment effects on progression-free survival and overall survival were analyzed according to the KRAS mutations subtype., Results: Over 95% of patients with KRAS mutation were smokers or former smokers who were white (99.5%), presenting with adenocarcinoma (82.5%). The most common KRAS mutation subtype was G12C (374 patients; 41.5%), followed by G12V (168; 18.6%), G12D (131; 14.5%), G12A (62; 6.9%), G13C (45; 5.0%), G13D (31; 3.4%), and others (10; 1%). Approximately 21% of patients had transition mutation and 68.2% had a transversion mutation. G12D and transition mutations were predominant in never-smokers. The median overall survival for patients with KRAS -mutated NSCLC was 8.1 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 7.5-9.5), without any differences according to the different KRAS subtypes mutations. The median progression-free survival was 4.6 months (95% CI: 4.2-5.1) for first-line treatment and 4.8 months (95% CI: 4.3-6.8) for second-line treatment, without any differences according to the different KRAS subtypes mutations., Conclusions: KRAS mutation subtypes influenced neither treatment responses nor outcomes. The KRAS G12C mutation was detected in 41.5% of patients, who are now eligible for potent and specific G12C inhibitors., (© 2020 The Authors.)

Background: BRAF mutations occurring in 1%-5% of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are therapeutic targets for these cancers but the impact of the exact mutation on clinical activity is unclear. The French National Cancer Institute (INCA) launched the AcSé vemurafenib trial to assess the efficacy and safety of vemurafenib in cancers with various BRAF mutations. We herein report the results of the NSCLC cohort., Patients and Methods: Tumour samples were screened for BRAF mutations in INCA-certified molecular genetic centres. Patients with BRAF-mutated tumours progressing after ≥1 line of treatment were proposed vemurafenib 960 mg twice daily. Between October 2014 and July 2018, 118 patients were enrolled in the NSCLC cohort. The primary outcome was the objective response rate (ORR) assessed every 8 weeks (RECIST v1.1). A sequential Bayesian approach was planned with an inefficacy bound of 10% for ORR. If no early stopping occurred, the treatment was of interest if the estimated ORR was ≥30% with a 90% probability. Secondary outcomes were tolerance, response duration, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS)., Results: Of the 118 patients enrolled, 101 presented with a BRAF V600 mutation and 17 with BRAF nonV600 mutations; the median follow-up was 23.9 months. In the BRAF nonV600 cohort, no objective response was observed and this cohort was stopped. In the BRAF V600 cohort, 43/96 patients had objective responses. The mean Bayesian estimated success rate was 44.9% [95% confidence intervals (CI) 35.2%-54.8%]. The ORR had a 99.9% probability of being ≥30%. Median response duration was 6.4 months, median PFS was 5.2 months (95% CI 3.8-6.8), and OS was 10 months (95% CI 6.8-15.7). The vemurafenib safety profile was consistent with previous publications., Conclusion: Routine biomarker screening of NSCLC should include BRAF V600 mutations. Vemurafenib monotherapy is effective for treating patients with BRAF V600 -mutated NSCLC but not those with BRAF nonV600 mutations., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02304809., (Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: In 2013, the French National Cancer Institute initiated the AcSé program to provide patients with secure access to targeted therapies outside of their marketed approvals. Efficacy and safety was then assessed using a two-stage Simon phase II trial design. When the study design was designed, crizotinib was approved only as monotherapy for adults with anaplastic lymphoma kinase plus non-small-cell lung cancers (NSCLC)., Patients and Methods: Advanced NSCLC patients with c-MET ≥6 copies, c-MET-mutated, or ROS-1-translocated tumours were enrolled in one of the three cohorts. Patients were treated with crizotinib 250 mg twice daily. Efficacy was assessed using the objective response rate (ORR) after two cycles of crizotinib as primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included disease control rate at four cycles, best ORR, progression-free survival, overall survival, and drug tolerance., Results: From August 2013 to March 2018, 5606 patients had their tumour tested for crizotinib targeted molecular alterations: 252 patients had c-MET ≥6 copies, 74 c-MET-mutation, and 78 ROS-1-translocated tumour. Finally, 25 patients in the c-MET ≥6 copies cohort, 28 in the c-MET-mutation cohort, and 37 in the ROS-1-translocation cohort were treated in the phase II trial. The ORR was 16% in the c-MET ≥6 copies cohort, 10.7% in the mutated, and 47.2% in the ROS-1 cohort. The best ORR during treatment was 32% in the c-MET-≥6 copies cohort, 36% in the c-MET-mutated, and 69.4% in the ROS-1-translocation cohort. Safety data were consistent with that previously reported., Conclusions: Crizotinib activity in patients with ROS1-translocated tumours was confirmed. In the c-MET-mutation and c-MET ≥6 copies cohorts, despite insufficient ORR after two cycles of crizotinib, there are signs of late response not sufficient to justify the development of crizotinib in this indication. The continued targeting of c-MET with innovative therapies appears justified., Clinical Trial Number: NCT02034981., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Obesity-hypoventilation syndrome (OHS) is defined as the combination of obesity (body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m 2 ) and daytime arterial hypercapnia (P aCO 2 > 45 mm Hg) in the absence of other causes of hypoventilation, and can lead to acute hypercapnic respiratory failure in the ICU. Our objective was to describe the ventilatory management and outcomes of subjects with OHS who were admitted to the ICU for acute hypercapnic respiratory failure., Methods: We retrospectively built a cohort of subjects with OHS who were admitted for acute hypercapnic respiratory failure in 4 ICUs of the university teaching hospital in Lyon, France, between 2013 and 2017. The main end point was the rate of success of noninvasive ventilation (NIV). Secondary end points were survival from OHS diagnosis to the last follow-up and risk factors for ICU admission and long-term survival., Results: One hundred fifteen subjects with OHS were included. Thirty-seven subjects (32.1%) were admitted to the ICU for acute hypercapnic respiratory failure. Congestive heart failure was the leading cause of acute hypercapnic respiratory failure (54%). At ICU admission, pH before NIV use was median (range) 7.26 (7.22-7.31) and P aCO 2 was 70 (61-76) mm Hg. NIV was used as first-line ventilatory support in 36 subjects (97.2%) and was successful in 33 subjects (91.7%). ICU mortality was low (2.7%). The subjects admitted to the ICU were significantly older and had a lower FEV 1 and vital capacity at the time of an OHS diagnosis. The difference in the restricted mean survival time was 663 d in favor of subjects not admitted to the ICU. Multivariate analysis showed that lower vital capacity at an OHS diagnosis was significantly associated with a higher risk of ICU admission. No factor was independently associated with long-term overall mortality in multivariate analysis., Conclusions: Acute hypercapnic respiratory failure in subjects with OHS was generally responsive to NIV and was frequently associated with congestive heart failure., Competing Interests: The authors have disclosed no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2019 by Daedalus Enterprises.)

Background: An international consensus proposed in 2011 a definition and classification system for cachexia (CAX), mainly based on weight loss, sarcopenia [skeletal muscle mass (SMM) loss], inflammation, and anorexia. The aim of this study was to stage CAX in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients by using a classification based on the Fearon criteria and supported by quantifiable parameters., Methods: This was a cross-sectional and non-interventional multicentre study. SMM was assessed by analysing L3 computed tomography-scan images. Patients completed the anorexia/CAX subscale of the Functional Assessment of Anorexia/Cachexia Therapy, EORTC QLQ-C30 quality of life (QoL) and International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ)., Results: Patients were recruited in 56 sites. The analysis population comprised 531 patients, and SMM was assessed in 312 patients. Male patients were 66.5%, with a mean (SD) age of 65.2 (10.0) years, 79.9% were PS 0-1, and the tumour stage was mainly IIIB-IV (87.3%). Overall, 38.7% of patients had CAX, 33.8% pre-CAX, and 0.9% refractory CAX. Molecular tumour profiles were significantly associated with the presence of CAX: 23.9% in EGFR, ALK, ROS1, BRAF, or HER2+ patients, 41.4% in K-RAS+, and 43.2% in patients with no molecular abnormality (P = 0.003). The more advanced the CAX stage, the poorer the scores of functional items of the QoL (P < 0.001) and International Physical Activity Questionnaire (P < 0.001). Sarcopenia was present in 66.7% of CAX and 68.5% of pre-CAX patients. Overall, 43.8% of pre-CAX patients had only sarcopenia with limited weight loss (≤2%) and no anorexia., Conclusions: This is the first study to show the distribution of CAX in a population of NSCLC patients and an association between molecular abnormality in NSCLC and CAX. The original Fearon classification for CAX stages was supported by the associated functional QoL scores and physical activity levels, resulting in a clinically relevant system for detection of early stages of CAX., (© 2019 The Authors. Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of the Society on Sarcopenia, Cachexia and Wasting Disorders.)

Introduction: Patients with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and BRAF V600 mutations may benefit from targeted therapies. Chemotherapy outcomes are little known in this population., Methods: The French Cooperative Thoracic Intergroup (IFCT) Biomarkers France study was a national prospective cohort study aiming to describe the molecular characteristics and clinical outcome of all consecutive NSCLC patients (N = 17,664) screened for molecular alterations. We used this data set to set up a case-control analysis. Cases had stage IV BRAF-mutated (BRAF-MT) NSCLC, whereas controls had NSCLC that was wild-type for EGFR, KRAS, HER2, BRAF, PIK3CA and ALK. Each case was matched for sex, age at diagnosis and smoking status to two controls randomly selected., Results: Overall, 83 cases with BRAF mutant disease (66.3% V600E) were matched to 166 controls. Five cases received tyrosine kinase inhibition in the first-line and 16 in the second-line. All others were treated with standard chemotherapy. There was no significant difference in first-line and second-line progression-free survival (PFS) between the groups, as well as in the disease control rate, BRAF mutation was not found to be prognostic of overall survival. We found no significant difference in outcome between the treatment types used in first-line or second-line in patients with BRAF-MT disease compared with controls nor between BRAF V600E or non-V600E compared with controls., Conclusions: BRAF mutation is not a strong prognostic factor in NSCLC. Although taxan-based therapy shows poorest PFS in first-line, no chemotherapy regimen was associated with prognosis., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Cell-free plasma DNA (cfDNA) and mimicking circulating tumor cells (mCTCs) have demonstrated tremendous potential for molecular diagnosis of cancer and have been rapidly implemented in specific settings. However, widespread clinical adoption still faces some obstacles. The purpose was to compare the performance of a BEAMing (beads, emulsion, amplification, and magnetics) assay (OncoBEAM™-epidermal growth factor receptor [EGFR] [Sysmex Inostics]) and a next-generation sequencing assay (NGS; 56G Oncology panel kit, Swift Bioscience) to detect the p.T790M EGFR mutation in cfDNA of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. CfDNA samples (n = 183) were collected within our hospital from patients having a known EGFR sensitizing mutation, and presenting disease progression while under first-line therapy. EGFR mutations were detected using NGS in 42.1% of samples during progression in cfDNA. Testing using the OncoBEAM™-EGFR assay enabled detection of the p.T790M EGFR mutation in 40/183 NSCLC patients (21.8%) versus 20/183 (10.9%), using the NGS assay. Samples that were only positive with the OncoBEAM™-EGFR assay had lower mutant allelic fractions (Mean = 0.1304%; SD ± 0.1463%). In addition, we investigated the detection of p.T790M in mCTCs using H1975 cells. These cells spiked into whole blood were enriched using the ClearCellFX1 microfluidic device. Using the OncoBEAM™-EGFR assay, p.T790M was detected in as few as 1.33 tumoral cells/mL. Overall, these findings highlight the value of using the OncoBEAM™-EGFR to optimize detection of the p.T790M mutation, as well as the complementary clinical value that each of the mutation detection assay offers: NGS enabled the detection of mutations in other oncogenes that may be relevant to secondary resistance mechanisms, whereas the OncoBEAM™-EGFR assay achieved higher sensitivity for detection of clinically actionable mutations., (© 2019 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)