Explore the vast range of titles available.

Spatial and temporal dissection of the genomic changes occurring during the evolution of human non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) may help elucidate the basis for its dismal prognosis. We sequenced 25 spatially distinct regions from seven operable NSCLCs and found evidence of branched evolution, with driver mutations arising before and after subclonal diversification. There was pronounced intratumor heterogeneity in copy number alterations, translocations, and mutations associated with APOBEC cytidine deaminase activity. Despite maintained carcinogen exposure, tumors from smokers showed a relative decrease in smoking-related mutations over time, accompanied by an increase in APOBEC-associated mutations. In tumors from former smokers, genome-doubling occurred within a smoking-signature context before subclonal diversification, which suggested that a long period of tumor latency had preceded clinical detection. The regionally separated driver mutations, coupled with the relentless and heterogeneous nature of the genome instability processes, are likely to confound treatment success in NSCLC.

People with cancer are at increased risk of hospitalisation and death following infection with SARS-CoV-2. Therefore, we aimed to conduct one of the first evaluations of vaccine effectiveness against breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections in patients with cancer at a population level. In this population-based test-negative case-control study of the UK Coronavirus Cancer Evaluation Project (UKCCEP), we extracted data from the UKCCEP registry on all SARS-CoV-2 PCR test results (from the Second Generation Surveillance System), vaccination records (from the National Immunisation Management Service), patient demographics, and cancer records from England, UK, from Dec 8, 2020, to Oct 15, 2021. Adults (aged ≥18 years) with cancer in the UKCCEP registry were identified via Public Health England's Rapid Cancer Registration Dataset between Jan 1, 2018, and April 30, 2021, and comprised the cancer cohort. We constructed a control population cohort from adults with PCR tests in the UKCCEP registry who were not contained within the Rapid Cancer Registration Dataset. The coprimary endpoints were overall vaccine effectiveness against breakthrough infections after the second dose (positive PCR COVID-19 test) and vaccine effectiveness against breakthrough infections at 3–6 months after the second dose in the cancer cohort and control population. The cancer cohort comprised 377 194 individuals, of whom 42 882 had breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections. The control population consisted of 28 010 955 individuals, of whom 5 748 708 had SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections. Overall vaccine effectiveness was 69·8% (95% CI 69·8–69·9) in the control population and 65·5% (65·1–65·9) in the cancer cohort. Vaccine effectiveness at 3–6 months was lower in the cancer cohort (47·0%, 46·3–47·6) than in the control population (61·4%, 61·4–61·5). COVID-19 vaccination is effective for individuals with cancer, conferring varying levels of protection against breakthrough infections. However, vaccine effectiveness is lower in patients with cancer than in the general population. COVID-19 vaccination for patients with cancer should be used in conjunction with non-pharmacological strategies and community-based antiviral treatment programmes to reduce the risk that COVID-19 poses to patients with cancer. University of Oxford, University of Southampton, University of Birmingham, Department of Health and Social Care, and Blood Cancer UK.

Purpose: Evaluation of predictors and outcomes in NSCLC patients treated with an immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) following a severe immune-related adverse event (irAE). Methods: We included all NSCLC patients receiving ≥1 ICI cycle and corticosteroids for CTCAE Grade ≥3 irAEs between 2017 and 2023 from three UK NHS teaching hospitals. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) after the 1st irAE, best overall response (BOR) to ICI, and predictors of clinical benefit were evaluated. Kaplan–Meier, Cox and logistic regression models, and Wilcoxon tests were used. Results: We screened 1658 NSCLC patients and identified 80 eligible subjects. The majority of patients had metastatic (n = 50, 63%) vs. localized (n = 30, 37%) NSCLC. Most patients developed a single ≥Grade 3 irAE on 1st line ICI (n = 71, 89%). Overall, 14 (18%) patients developed 2nd irAEs, 7 after rechallenge with ICIs. In the complete cohort, median OS after 1st irAE was 15.84 months (95% CI, 12.45–26.91). Lower neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), patients receiving >4 cycles of ICI or median duration of ICI of >2.76 months before 1st irAE were associated with improved OS (p < 0.05), the latter two with PFS (p < 0.05). Age, gender, stage, KRAS mutation, PD-L1 and ICI type were not associated with PFS or OS. Pneumonitis as 1st irAE had the worst PFS and OS (p < 0.05). Median starting corticosteroid dose of ≤60 mg for 1st irAE had an improved OS (p = 0.04). Post 1st irAE response associated with better PFS and OS (p < 0.05). Number and duration of irAEs and additional immunosuppressive agents (14% of patients) were not associated with PFS or OS. Conclusions: In ≥Grade 3 irAEs patients managed with corticosteroids, lower baseline NLR, longer ICI use, response to ICI after 1st irAE, and a ≤60 mg corticosteroid dose had promising outcomes.

Despite immunotherapy advancements for patients with advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), pivotal first-line trials were limited to patients with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) 0–1 and a median age of 65 years or younger. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of first-line atezolizumab monotherapy with single-agent chemotherapy in patients ineligible for platinum-based chemotherapy. This trial was a phase 3, open-label, randomised controlled study conducted at 91 sites in 23 countries across Asia, Europe, North America, and South America. Eligible patients had stage IIIB or IV NSCLC in whom platinum-doublet chemotherapy was deemed unsuitable by the investigator due to an ECOG PS 2 or 3, or alternatively, being 70 years or older with an ECOG PS 0–1 with substantial comorbidities or contraindications for platinum-doublet chemotherapy. Patients were randomised 2:1 by permuted-block randomisation (block size of six) to receive 1200 mg of atezolizumab given intravenously every 3 weeks or single-agent chemotherapy (vinorelbine [oral or intravenous] or gemcitabine [intravenous]; dosing per local label) at 3-weekly or 4-weekly cycles. The primary endpoint was overall survival assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses were conducted in the safety-evaluable population, which included all randomised patients who received any amount of atezolizumab or chemotherapy. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03191786. Between Sept 11, 2017, and Sept 23, 2019, 453 patients were enrolled and randomised to receive atezolizumab (n=302) or chemotherapy (n=151). Atezolizumab improved overall survival compared with chemotherapy (median overall survival 10·3 months [95% CI 9·4–11·9] vs 9·2 months [5·9–11·2]; stratified hazard ratio 0·78 [0·63–0·97], p=0·028), with a 2-year survival rate of 24% (95% CI 19·3–29·4) with atezolizumab compared with 12% (6·7–18·0) with chemotherapy. Compared with chemotherapy, atezolizumab was associated with stabilisation or improvement of patient-reported health-related quality-of-life functioning scales and symptoms and fewer grade 3–4 treatment-related adverse events (49 [16%] of 300 vs 49 [33%] of 147) and treatment-related deaths (three [1%] vs four [3%]). First-line treatment with atezolizumab monotherapy was associated with improved overall survival, a doubling of the 2-year survival rate, maintenance of quality of life, and a favourable safety profile compared with single-agent chemotherapy. These data support atezolizumab monotherapy as a potential first-line treatment option for patients with advanced NSCLC who are ineligible for platinum-based chemotherapy. F Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech Inc, a member of the Roche group.

The incidence of Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) among HIV-infected individuals remains unchanged since the introduction of combination antiretroviral therapy (cART). Recent epidemiological data suggest that CD4 count decline over a year is associated with subsequent diagnosis of HL. In an era of economic austerity monitoring the efficacy of cART by CD4 counts may no longer be required where CD4 count>350 cells/[micro]l and viral load is suppressed (<50 copies/ml). We sought to establish among our HIV outpatient cohort whether a CD4 count decline prior to diagnosis of HL, whether any decline was greater than in patients without the diagnosis, and also whether other clinical or biochemical indices were reliably associated with the diagnosis. Twenty-nine patients with a diagnosis of HL were identified. Among 15 individuals on cART with viral load <50 copies/ml the change in CD4 over 12 months preceding diagnosis of HL was -82 cells/[micro]l (95% CI -163 to -3; p = 0.04). Among 18 matched controls the mean change was +5 cells/[micro]l, 95% CI -70 to 80, p = 0.89). The decline in CD4 over the previous 6-12 months was somewhat greater in cases than controls (mean difference in change -55 cells/[micro]l, 95% CI -151 to 39; p = 0.25). In 26 (90%) patients B symptoms had been present for a median of three months (range one-12) before diagnosis of HL. The CD4 count decline in the 12 months prior to diagnosis of Hodgkin lymphoma among HIV-infected individuals with VL350 may not have delayed diagnosis.

Patients with cancer are at increased risk of hospitalisation and mortality following severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. However, the SARS-CoV-2 phenotype evolution in patients with cancer since 2020 has not previously been described. We therefore evaluated SARS-CoV-2 on a UK populationscale from 01/11/2020-31/08/2022, assessing case-outcome rates of hospital assessment(s), intensive care admission and mortality. We observed that the SARS-CoV-2 disease phenotype has become less severe in patients with cancer and the non-cancer population. Case-hospitalisation rates for patients with cancer dropped from 30.58% in early 2021 to 7.45% in 2022 while case-mortality rates decreased from 20.53% to 3.25%. However, the risk of hospitalisation and mortality remains 2.10x and 2.54x higher in patients with cancer, respectively. Overall, the SARS-CoV-2 disease phenotype is less severe in 2022 compared to 2020 but patients with cancer remain at higher risk than the non-cancer population. Patients with cancer must therefore be empowered to live more normal lives, to see loved ones and families, while also being safeguarded with expanded measures to reduce the risk of transmission.

Many patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) receive only active supportive care because of poor performance status or presence of several comorbidities. We investigated whether erlotinib improves clinical outcome in these patients. TOPICAL was a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, done at 78 centres in the UK. Eligibility criteria were newly diagnosed, pathologically confirmed NSCLC; stage IIIb or IV; chemotherapy naive; no symptomatic brain metastases; deemed unsuitable for chemotherapy because of poor (≥2) Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status or presence of several comorbidities, or both; and estimated life expectancy of at least 8 weeks. Patients were randomly assigned (by phone call, in a 1:1 ratio, stratified by disease stage, performance status, smoking history, and centre, block size 10) to receive oral placebo or erlotinib (150 mg per day) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Investigators, clinicians, and patients were masked to assignment. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Analyses were by intention to treat, and prespecified subgroup analyses included development of a rash due to erlotinib within 28 days of starting treatment. This study is registered, number ISRCTN 77383050. Between April 14, 2005, and April 1, 2009, we randomly assigned 350 patients to receive erlotinib and 320 to receive placebo. We followed up patients until March 31, 2011. 657 patients died; median overall survival did not differ between groups (erlotinib, 3·7 months, 95% CI 3·2–4·2, vs placebo, 3·6 months, 3·2–3·9; unadjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·94, 95% CI 0·81–1·10, p=0·46). 59% (178 of 302) of patients assigned erlotinib and who were assessable at 1 month developed first-cycle rash, which was the only independent factor associated with overall survival. Patients with first-cycle rash had better overall survival (HR 0·76, 95% CI 0·63–0·92, p=0·0058), compared with placebo. Compared with placebo, overall survival seemed to be worse in the group that did not develop first-cycle rash (1·30, 1·05–1·61, p=0·017). Grade 3 or 4 diarrhoea was more common with erlotinib than placebo (8% [28 of 334] vs 1% [four of 313], p=0·0001), as was high-grade rash (23% [79 of 334] vs 2% [five of 313], p<0·0001); other adverse events were much the same between groups. Patients with NSCLC who are deemed unsuitable for chemotherapy could be given erlotinib. Patients who develop a first-cycle rash should continue to receive erlotinib, whereas those who do not have a rash after 28 days should discontinue erlotinib, because of the possibility of decreased survival. Cancer Research UK, Roche.

Vaccines have revolutionised the field of medicine, eradicating and controlling many diseases. Recent pandemic vaccine successes have highlighted the accelerated pace of vaccine development and deployment. Leveraging this momentum, attention has shifted to cancer vaccines and personalised cancer vaccines, aimed at targeting individual tumour-specific abnormalities. The UK, now regarded for its vaccine capabilities, is an ideal nation for pioneering cancer vaccine trials. This article convened experts to share insights and approaches to navigate the challenges of cancer vaccine development with personalised or precision cancer vaccines, as well as fixed vaccines. Emphasising partnership and proactive strategies, this article outlines the ambition to harness national and local system capabilities in the UK; to work in collaboration with potential pharmaceutic partners; and to seize the opportunity to deliver the pace for rapid advances in cancer vaccine technology.

ObjectiveTo assess the cost-effectiveness of erlotinib versus supportive care (placebo) overall and within a predefined rash subgroup in elderly patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer who are unfit for chemotherapy and receive only active supportive care due to their poor performance status or presence of comorbidities.SettingBetween 2005 and 2009, a total of 670 patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) were randomised across 78 hospital sites (centres) in the UK.Participants670 patients with pathologically confirmed stage IIIb-IV NSCLC, unfit for chemotherapy, predominantly poor performance status (>2 on Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group, ECOG) and estimated life expectancy of at least 8 weeks. Patients were followed until disease progression or death, including a subgroup of patients who developed first cycle rash.InterventionsPatients were randomised (1:1) to receive best supportive care plus oral placebo or erlotinib (150 mg/day) until disease progression, toxicity or death.Primary outcomeOverall survival (OS).Secondary outcomesProgression-free survival (PFS), tumour response and quality adjusted life years (QALY), including within prespecified subgroups.ResultsThe mean incremental cost per QALY in all patients was £202 571/QALY. The probability of cost-effectiveness of erlotinib in all patients was <10% at thresholds up to £100 000. However, within the rash subgroup, the incremental cost/QALY was £56 770/QALY with a probability of cost-effectiveness of about 80% for cost-effectiveness thresholds between £50 000 to £60 000.ConclusionsErlotinib has about 80% chance of being cost-effective at thresholds between £50 000–£60 000 in a subset of elderly poor performance patients with NSCLC unfit for chemotherapy who develop first cycle (28 days) rash. Erlotinib is potentially cost-effective for this population, for which few treatment options apart from best supportive care are available.Trial registration number(ISCRTN): 77383050.