Explore the vast range of titles available.

Patients with locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who undergo concurrent chemotherapy and radiotherapy often experience synergistic toxicity, and local regional control rates remain poor. We assessed the activity and safety outcomes of primary tumour stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) followed by conventional chemoradiotherapy to the lymph nodes and consolidation immunotherapy in patients with unresectable locally advanced NSCLC. In this multicentre, single-arm, phase 2 trial, patients aged 18 years and older were enrolled at eight regional cancer centres in North Carolina and South Carolina, USA. Patients were eligible if they had stage II–III, unresectable, locally advanced NSCLC (any histology), with peripheral or central primary tumours that were 7 cm or smaller, excluding central tumours within 2 cm of involved nodal disease, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–2. Patients who had previously received systemic therapy or radiotherapy were excluded. Participants received SBRT to the primary tumour (50–54 Gy in three to five fractions) followed by standard radiotherapy (planned up to 60 Gy in 30 2 Gy fractions) to the involved lymph nodes with concurrent platinum doublet chemotherapy (either paclitaxel 50 mg/m2 intravenously plus carboplatin area under the curve 2 mg/mL per min every 7 days for a total of six 1-week cycles or etoposide 50 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1–5 and days 29–33 plus cisplatin 50 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1, 8, 29, and 36 for two cycles of 4 weeks). An amendment to the protocol (Dec 11, 2017) permitted the administration of consolidation durvalumab at the discretion of the treating investigator. An additional protocol amendment on Jan 13, 2021, directed patients without disease progression after chemoradiotherapy to receive consolidation durvalumab (10 mg/kg intravenously on day 1 and day 15 of a 4-week cycle for up to 12 cycles or 1500 mg intravenously on day 1 of a 4-week cycle for up to 12 cycles). The primary endpoint was 1-year progression-free survival (per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1), assessed in all participants who received at least one fraction of SBRT and had radiological follow-up data up to 1 year. A 1-year progression-free survival rate of greater than 60% was required to reject the null hypothesis and show significant improvement in 1-year progression-free survival. One-sided exact binomial tests were used to compare the primary endpoint versus the historical control 1-year progression-free survival rate used to determine the sample size. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one fraction of SBRT. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03141359, and is closed to accrual. Between May 11, 2017, and June 27, 2022, 61 patients were enrolled and received at least one dose of fractionated SBRT, of whom 59 were evaluable for the primary endpoint. Median age was 67 years (IQR 61–72), 28 (46%) of 61 were female, 33 (54%) were male, 51 (84%) were White, seven (11%) were Black, and three (5%) were of other or unknown race. Of the 61 patients enrolled, 47 received at least one dose of consolidation durvalumab. As of data cutoff (July 12, 2023), median follow-up was 29·5 months (IQR 14·9–47·1). 1-year progression-free survival was 62·7% (90% CI 51·2–73·2; one-sided p=0·39, compared with the historical control rate), with 37 of 59 evaluable participants progression free and alive 1 year after enrolment (n=14 progressed, n=8 died). The most common grade 3–4 treatment-related adverse events were decreased neutrophil count (nine [15%] of 61 patients), decreased white blood cell count (five [8%]), and anaemia (four [7%]). Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in 11 (18%) of 61 patients, which included lung infection (three [5%]), pneumonitis (two [3%]), decreased neutrophil count (two [3%]), febrile neutropenia (two [3%]), and dyspnoea, hypoxia, respiratory failure, sinus tachycardia, bronchial infection, and acute kidney injury (each in one [2%] patient). Treatment-related deaths occurred in four (7%) of 61 patients (one each of respiratory failure, respiratory failure and dyspnoea, lung infection, and pneumonitis). Although this study did not meet the primary endpoint, activity and safety profiles of primary lung tumour SBRT followed by concurrent mediastinal chemoradiotherapy were favourable compared with other modern trials treating locally advanced NSCLC with chemoradiotherapy. These findings serve as the basis for the ongoing randomised phase 3 study NRG Oncology LU008 (NCT05624996). AstraZeneca and Atrium Health Levine Cancer Institute.

Background An ASCO taskforce comprised of representatives of oncology clinicians, the American Cancer Society National Lung Cancer Roundtable (NLCRT), LUNGevity, the GO2 Foundation for Lung Cancer, and the ROS1ders sought to: characterize U.S. oncologists’ biomarker ordering and treatment practices for advanced non‐small‐cell lung cancer (NSCLC); ascertain barriers to biomarker testing; and understand the impact of delays on treatment decisions. Methods We deployed a survey to 2374 ASCO members, targeting U.S. thoracic and general oncologists. Results We analyzed 170 eligible responses. For non‐squamous NSCLC, 97% of respondents reported ordering tests for EGFR, ALK, ROS1, and BRAF. Testing for MET, RET, and NTRK was reported to be higher among academic versus community providers and higher among thoracic oncologists than generalists. Most respondents considered 1 (46%) or 2 weeks (52%) an acceptable turnaround time, yet 37% usually waited three or more weeks to receive results. Respondents who waited ≥3 weeks were more likely to defer treatment until results were reviewed (63%). Community and generalist respondents who waited ≥3 weeks were more likely to initiate non‐targeted treatment while awaiting results. Respondents <5 years out of training were more likely to cite their concerns about waiting for results as a reason for not ordering biomarker testing (42%, vs. 19% with ≥6 years of experience). Conclusions Respondents reported high biomarker testing rates in patients with NSCLC. Treatment decisions were impacted by test turnaround time and associated with practice setting and physician specialization and experience. U.S. oncologists who typically waited ≥3 weeks for biomarker test results were more likely to defer initiating treatment for patients with advanced non‐small‐cell lung cancer until results were reviewed. Treatment decision‐making based on biomarker test results was associated with practice setting and physician specialization and years of experience. Frequency that oncologist’s concern about delaying treatment is a reason for not testing, by years since oncology training completed.

Different types of therapy are currently being used to treat non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) depending on the stage of tumor and the presence of potentially druggable mutations. However, few biomarkers are available to guide clinicians in selecting the most effective therapy for all patients with various genetic backgrounds. To examine whether patients’ mutation profiles are associated with the response to a specific treatment, we collected comprehensive clinical characteristics and sequencing data from 524 patients with stage III and IV NSCLC treated at Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist. Overall survival based Cox-proportional hazard regression models were applied to identify mutations that were “beneficial” (HR < 1) or “detrimental” (HR > 1) for patients treated with chemotherapy (chemo), immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) and chemo+ICI combination therapy (Chemo+ICI) followed by the generation of mutation composite scores (MCS) for each treatment. We also found that MCS is highly treatment specific that MCS derived from one treatment group failed to predict the response in others. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analyses showed a superior predictive power of MCS compared to TMB and PD-L1 status for immune therapy-treated patients. Mutation interaction analysis also identified novel co-occurring and mutually exclusive mutations in each treatment group. Our work highlights how patients’ sequencing data facilitates the clinical selection of optimized treatment strategies.

Purpose To develop recommendations for clinical trial reporting that address the unique efficacy, toxicity, and combination and sequencing aspects of immuno-oncology (IO) treatments. Methods ASCO and the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) convened a working group that consisted of practicing medical oncologists, immunologists, clinical researchers, biostatisticians, and representatives from industry and government to develop Trial Reporting in Immuno-Oncology (TRIO) recommendations. These recommendations are based on expert consensus, given that existing data to support evidence-based recommendations are limited. Conclusion The TRIO recommendations are intended to improve the reporting of IO clinical trials and thus provide more complete evidence on the relative benefits and risks of an IO therapeutic approach. Given the rapid expansion of the number of IO clinical trials and ongoing improvements to the evidence base supporting the use of IO treatments in clinical care, these recommendations will likely need regular revision as the IO field develops.

AimsThe International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC) has proposed a new histological grading system for invasive lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD). However, the efficacy of this grading system in predicting distant metastases in patients with LUAD remains unexplored. This study aims to assess the potential of the IASLC grading system in predicting the occurrence of brain and bone metastases in patients with resectable LUAD, thereby identifying individuals at high risk of post-surgery distant metastasis.MethodsWe retrospectively analysed clinical data and pathological reports of 174 patients with early-stage LUAD who underwent surgical resection between 2008 and 2015 at our cancer center. Patients were monitored for 5 years, and their bone and brain metastasis-free survival rates were determined.Results28 out of 174 patients developed distant metastases in 5 years with a median overall survival of 60 months for metastasis-free patients and 38.3 months for patients with distant metastasis. Tumour grading of all samples was evaluated by both IASLC grading and predominant pattern-based grading systems. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to evaluate the predictive capabilities of the IASLC grading system and tumour stage for distant metastasis. Compared with the predominant pattern-based grading system, the IASLC grading system showed a better correlation with the incidence of distant metastasis and lymphovascular invasion. ROC analyses revealed that the IASLC grading system outperformed tumour stage in predicting distant metastasis.ConclusionsOur study indicates that the IASLC grading system is capable of predicting the incidence of distant metastasis among patients with early-stage invasive LUAD.

IntroductionAfatinib is an oral, irreversible ErbB family blocker approved for first-line treatment of metastatic epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation–positive non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The expanded access program (EAP) allowed early access to afatinib and provided additional data on its safety, tolerability, and efficacy.MethodsThe afatinib EAP was an open-label, multicenter, single-arm program in the United States that treated and followed patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC harboring EGFR mutations. Afatinib 40 mg was administered orally once daily until discontinuation due to disease progression, adverse events (AEs), or transition to commercially available drug.ResultsThree hundred twenty-two patients received ≥1 dose of afatinib. Most patients had received prior therapies. Drug-related AEs occurred in 89.4% of patients, including 7.8% with serious AEs. The most common afatinib-related AEs (all grades) were diarrhea (77.0%) and rash (36.0%). Dose reductions occurred in 31.1% of patients. Discontinuation rates due to diarrhea (1.6%) or rash/acne (0.3%) were low. Efficacy data were collected and analyzed when available, with 17.1% and 69.9% of patients achieving objective response and disease control, respectively, in this highly pretreated population.ConclusionsNo additional or unexpected safety concerns were revealed, and afatinib demonstrated antitumor activity in a heavily pretreated NSCLC patient population in a routine clinical setting.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01649284.FundingBoehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Phosphosidesterases (PDEs) are key regulators of cyclic nucleotide signaling, controlling many hallmarks of cancer and playing a role in resistance to chemotherapy in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We evaluated the anti-tumor activity of the anti-folate agent pemetrexed (PMX), alone or combined with biochemical inhibitors of PDE5, 8, 9, or 10, against squamous and non-squamous NCSLC cells. Genomic alterations to PDE genes (PDEmut) or PDE biochemical inhibition (PDEi) can sensitize NSCLC to PMX in vitro (observed in 50% NSCLC evaluated). The synergistic activity of PDEi with PMX required microdosing of the anti-folate drug. As single agents, none of the PDEis evaluated have anti-tumor activity. PDE biochemical inhibitors, targeting either cAMP or cGMP signaling (or both), resulted in significant cross-modulation of downstream pathways. The use of PDEi may present a new strategy to overcome PMX resistance of PDEwt NSCLC tumors but comes with important caveats, including the use of subtherapeutic PMX doses.

With the advent of the importance of histology in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and the development of targeted agents that work on newly found mutations, the field of lung cancer therapy has greatly changed. In addition to new uses of chemotherapeutics and targeted agents, the possibilities of immunotherapy are also being explored. This review will describe the well-known use of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) antibodies; the current uses of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) tyrosine kinase inhibitors; newer agents being used against MET, fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR), and other intracellular targets; insights regarding the field of immunotherapy in lung cancer; and finally, newer developments in chemotherapy.