Explore the vast range of titles available.

Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have dramatically changed the clinical prospects of patients with non-small cell lung cancer harboring epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-activating mutations. Despite prolonged disease control and high tumor response rates, all patients eventually progress on EGFR TKI treatment. Here, we review the mechanisms of acquired EGFR TKI resistance, the methods for monitoring its appearance, as well as current and future efforts to define treatment strategies to overcome resistance.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors are reshaping the prognosis of many cancer and are progressively becoming the standard of care in the treatment of many tumour types. Immunotherapy is bringing new hope to patients, but also a whole new spectrum of toxicities for healthcare practitioners to manage. Oncologists and specialists involved in the pluridisciplinary management of patients with cancer are increasingly confronted with the therapeutic challenge of treating patients with severe and refractory immune-related adverse events. In this Personal View, we summarise the therapeutic strategies that have been used to manage such toxicities resulting from immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment. On the basis of current knowledge about their pathogenesis, we discuss the use of new biological and non-biological immunosuppressive drugs to treat severe and steroid refractory immune-related adverse events. Depending on the immune infiltrate type that is predominant, we propose a treatment algorithm for personalised management that goes beyond typical corticosteroid use. We propose a so-called shut-off strategy that aims at inhibiting key inflammatory components involved in the pathophysiological processes of immune-related adverse events, and limits potential adverse effects of drug immunosuppression on tumour response. This approach develops on current guidelines and challenges the step-by-step increase approach to drug immunosuppression.

Immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), including anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA-4), anti-programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) and anti-programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 (PD-L1) antibodies, are arguably the most important development in cancer therapy over the past decade. The indications for these agents continue to expand across malignancies and disease settings, thus reshaping many of the previous standard-of-care approaches and bringing new hope to patients. One of the costs of these advances is the emergence of a new spectrum of immune-related adverse events (irAEs), which are often distinctly different from the classical chemotherapy-related toxicities. Owing to the growing use of ICIs in oncology, clinicians will increasingly be confronted with common but also rare irAEs; hence, awareness needs to be raised regarding the clinical presentation, diagnosis and management of these toxicities. In this Review, we provide an overview of the various types of irAEs that have emerged to date. We discuss the epidemiology of these events and their kinetics, risk factors, subtypes and pathophysiology, as well as new insights regarding screening and surveillance strategies. We also highlight the most important aspects of the management of irAEs.Immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have dramatically improved the survival of patients with certain forms of cancer; however, these agents also have adverse effects that are often quite different to those of more traditional cancer therapies. In this Review, the authors describe the epidemiology, treatment and management of the various immune-related adverse events that can occur in patients receiving ICIs.

Pembrolizumab is a standard-of-care for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We assessed pembrolizumab as adjuvant therapy for completely resected stage IB–IIIA NSCLC. In this randomised, triple-blind, phase 3 trial (PEARLS/KEYNOTE-091), patients were recruited from 196 medical centres in 29 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, with completely resected, pathologically confirmed stage IB (tumours of ≥4 cm in diameter), II, or IIIA NSCLC per the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system (7th edition) of any histology or PD-L1 expression level, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1; adjuvant chemotherapy was to be considered for stage IB disease and was strongly recommended for stage II and IIIA disease, according to national and local guidelines. Using a central interactive voice-response system, eligible participants were randomly assigned (1:1), using a minimisation technique and stratified by disease stage, previous adjuvant chemotherapy, PD-L1 expression, and geographical region, to pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo, both administered intravenously every 3 weeks for up to 18 cycles. Participants, investigators, and analysts were masked to treatment assignment. Dual primary endpoints were disease-free survival in the overall population and in the population with PD-L1 tumour proportion score (TPS) of 50% or greater. Efficacy was assessed in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population (ie, all participants randomly assigned to a treatment group). Safety was assessed in all participants randomly assigned to treatment who received at least one dose of study treatment. Here we report results of the second interim analysis, prespecified to occur when approximately 118 disease-free survival events had occurred in the PD-L1 TPS of 50% or greater population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02504372, and is active but not recruiting. Between Jan 20, 2016, and May 6, 2020, 1177 (60%) of 1955 screened participants were randomly assigned to pembrolizumab (n=590, including n=168 with PD-L1 TPS of ≥50%) or placebo (n=587; including n=165 with PD-L1 TPS of ≥50%) and included in the ITT population. Median follow-up as of data cutoff (Sept 20, 2021) for this interim analysis was 35·6 months (IQR 27·1–45·5). In the overall population, median disease-free survival was 53·6 months (95% CI 39·2 to not reached) in the pembrolizumab group versus 42·0 months (31·3 to not reached) in the placebo group (HR 0·76 [95% CI 0·63–0·91], p=0·0014). In the PD-L1 TPS of 50% or greater population, median disease-free survival was not reached in either the pembrolizumab group (95% CI 44·3 to not reached) or the placebo group (95% CI 35·8 to not reached; HR 0·82 [95% CI 0·57–1·18]; p=0·14). Grade 3 or worse adverse events occurred in 198 (34%) of 580 participants who received pembrolizumab and 150 (26%) of 581 participants who received placebo. Grade 3 or worse events that occurred in at least ten participants in either treatment group were hypertension (35 [6%]) and pneumonia (12 [2%]) with pembrolizumab and hypertension (32 [6%]) with placebo. Serious adverse events occurred in 142 (24%) participants in the pembrolizumab group and 90 (15%) in the placebo group; serious adverse events that occurred in more than 1% of participants were pneumonia (13 [2%]), pneumonitis (12 [2%]), and diarrhoea (seven [1%]) with pembrolizumab and pneumonia (nine [2%]) with placebo. Treatment-related adverse events led to death in four (1%) participants treated with pembrolizumab (one due to both cardiogenic shock and myocarditis, one due to both septic shock and myocarditis, one due to pneumonia, and one due to sudden death) and in no participants treated with placebo. Pembrolizumab significantly improved disease-free survival compared with placebo and was not associated with new safety signals in completely resected, PD-L1-unselected, stage IB–IIIA NSCLC. Pembrolizumab is potentially a new treatment option for stage IB–IIIA NSCLC after complete resection and, when recommended, adjuvant chemotherapy, regardless of PD-L1 expression. Merck Sharp & Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck & Co.

Therapeutic strategies harnessing the immune system to eliminate tumour cells have been successfully used for several cancer types, including in patients with advanced-stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In these patients, immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) can provide durable responses and improve overall survival either as monotherapy, or combined with chemotherapy or other immunotherapeutic agents. However, the implementation of ICIs in early stage NSCLC has been hampered by the continuous struggle to develop robust end points to assess their efficacy in this setting, especially those enabling a fast and reproducible evaluation of the clinical activity of neoadjuvant strategies. Several trials are testing ICIs, alone or in combination with chemotherapy, in early stage NSCLC as an adjuvant, neoadjuvant or perioperative approach. As a novelty, most trials in the neoadjuvant setting have adopted pathological response as a primary end point. ICIs have been approved for use in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings on the basis of event-free survival and disease-free survival benefit, respectively; however, the correlation of these end points with overall survival remains unclear in these settings. Unresolved challenges for the optimal use of ICIs with curative intent include concerns about their applicability in daily clinical practice and about improving patient selection based on predictive biomarkers or assessment of pathological response and minimal residual disease. In this Review, we discuss the rationale, available strategies and current trial landscape for the implementation of ICIs in patients with resectable NSCLC, and we further elaborate on future approaches to optimize their clinical benefit.Several trials are testing immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), alone or in combination with chemotherapy, in patients with resectable non-small-cell lung cancer as an adjuvant, neoadjuvant or perioperative approach. However, the optimal use of ICIs with curative intent in patients with early stage non-small-cell lung cancer remains unclear. The authors of this Review discuss the current trial landscape and discuss challenges and opportunities.

The immune checkpoint blockade-based immunotherapies are revolutionizing cancer management. Tumor-associated neutrophils (TANs) were recently highlighted to have a pivotal role in modulating the tumor microenvironment and the antitumor immune response. However, these cells were largely ignored during the development of therapies based on programmed cell death receptor or ligand-1 and cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen-4 immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Latest evidences of neutrophil functional diversity in tumor raised many questions and suggest that targeting these cells can offer new treatment opportunities in the context of ICI development. Here, we summarized key information on TAN origin, function, and plasticity that should be considered when developing ICIs and provide a detailed review of the ongoing clinical trials that combine ICIs and a second compound that might affect or be affected by TANs. This review article synthetizes important notions from the literature demonstrating that: (1) Cancer development associates with a profound alteration of neutrophil biogenesis and function that can predict and interfere with the response to ICIs, (2) Neutrophil infiltration in tumor is associated with key features of resistance to ICIs, and (3) TANs play an important role in resistance to antiangiogenic drugs reducing their clinical benefit when used in combination with ICIs. Finally, exploring the clinical/translational aspects of neutrophil impact on the response to ICIs offers the opportunity to propose new translational research avenues to better understand TAN biology and treat patients.

Alectinib, a potent ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitor, was more effective and somewhat less toxic than crizotinib when used as primary therapy in patients with ALK -positive non–small-cell lung cancer. Importantly, it reduced the risk of CNS relapse.

Cancer patients are highly vulnerable to SARS-CoV-2 infections due to frequent contacts with the healthcare system, immunocompromised state from cancer or its therapies, supportive medications such as steroids and most importantly their advanced age and comorbidities. Patients with lung cancer have consistently been reported to suffer from an increased risk of death compared with other cancers. This is possibly due to the combination of specific pathophysiological aspects, including underlying pulmonary compromise due to smoking history and the increased specific pressures on respiratory healthcare services caused by the related pandemic. Rationally and safely treating patients with lung cancer during the pandemic has become a continuous challenge over the last year. Deciding whether to offer, modify, postpone or even cancel treatments for this particular patient’s population has become the crucial recurrent dilemma for lung cancer professionals. Chemotherapy, immunotherapy and targeted agents represent distinct risks factors in the context of COVID-19 that should be balanced with the short-term and long-term consequences of delaying cancer care. Despite the rapid and persistent trend of the pandemic, declared by WHO on March 11, 2020, and still ongoing at the time of writing (January 2021), various efforts were made by oncologists worldwide to understand the impact of COVID-19 on patients with cancer. Adapted recommendations of our evidence-based practice guidelines have been developed for all stakeholders. Different small and large-scale registries, such as the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) and Thoracic Cancers International COVID-19 Collaboration quickly collected data, supporting cancer care decisions under the challenging circumstance created by the COVID-19 pandemic. Several recommendations were developed as guidance for prioritizing the various aspects of lung cancer care in order to mitigate the adverse effects of the COVID-19 healthcare crisis, potentially reducing the morbidity and mortality of our patients from COVID-19 and from cancer. These recommendations helped inform decisions about treatment of established disease, continuation of clinical research and lung cancer screening. In this review, we summarize available evidence regarding the direct and indirect impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on lung cancer care and patients.

Few options exist for treatment of patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) after failure of first-line therapy. Lurbinectedin is a selective inhibitor of oncogenic transcription. In this phase 2 study, we evaluated the acti and safety of lurbinectedin in patients with SCLC after failure of platinum-based chemotherapy. In this single-arm, open-label, phase 2 basket trial, we recruited patients from 26 hospitals in six European countries and the USA. Adults (aged ≥18 years) with a pathologically proven diagnosis of SCLC, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or lower, measurable disease as per Response Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1, absence of brain metastasis, adequate organ function, and pre-treated with only one previous chemotherapy-containing line of treatment (minimum 3 weeks before study initiation) were eligible. Treatment consisted of 3·2 mg/m2 lurbinectedin administered as a 1-h intravenous infusion every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with an overall response (complete or partial response) as assessed by the investigators according to RECIST 1.1. All treated patients were analysed for activity and safety. This study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02454972. Between Oct 16, 2015, and Jan 15, 2019, 105 patients were enrolled and treated with lurbinectedin. Median follow-up was 17·1 months (IQR 6·5–25·3). Overall response by investigator assessment was seen in 37 patients (35·2%; 95% CI 26·2–45·2). The most common grade 3–4 adverse events (irrespective of causality) were haematological abnormalities—namely, anaemia (in nine [9%] patients), leucopenia (30 [29%]), neutropenia (48 [46%]), and thrombocytopenia (seven [7%]). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 11 (10%) patients, of which neutropenia and febrile neutropenia were the most common (five [5%] patients for each). No treatment-related deaths were reported. Lurbinectedin was active as second-line therapy for SCLC in terms of overall response and had an acceptable and manageable safety profile. Lurbinectedin could represent a potential new treatment for patients with SCLC, who have few options especially in the event of a relapse, and is being investigated in combination with doxorubicin as second-line therapy in a randomised phase 3 trial. Pharma Mar.