Explore the vast range of titles available.

We aimed to compare overall survival after standard-dose versus high-dose conformal radiotherapy with concurrent chemotherapy and the addition of cetuximab to concurrent chemoradiation for patients with inoperable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer. In this open-label randomised, two-by-two factorial phase 3 study in 185 institutions in the USA and Canada, we enrolled patients (aged ≥18 years) with unresectable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer, a Zubrod performance status of 0–1, adequate pulmonary function, and no evidence of supraclavicular or contralateral hilar adenopathy. We randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) patients to receive either 60 Gy (standard dose), 74 Gy (high dose), 60 Gy plus cetuximab, or 74 Gy plus cetuximab. All patients also received concurrent chemotherapy with 45 mg/m2 paclitaxel and carboplatin once a week (AUC 2); 2 weeks after chemoradiation, two cycles of consolidation chemotherapy separated by 3 weeks were given consisting of paclitaxel (200 mg/m2) and carboplatin (AUC 6). Randomisation was done with permuted block randomisation methods, stratified by radiotherapy technique, Zubrod performance status, use of PET during staging, and histology; treatment group assignments were not masked. Radiation dose was prescribed to the planning target volume and was given in 2 Gy daily fractions with either intensity-modulated radiation therapy or three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy. The use of four-dimensional CT and image-guided radiation therapy were encouraged but not necessary. For patients assigned to receive cetuximab, 400 mg/m2 cetuximab was given on day 1 followed by weekly doses of 250 mg/m2, and was continued through consolidation therapy. The primary endpoint was overall survival. All analyses were done by modified intention-to-treat. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00533949. Between Nov 27, 2007, and Nov 22, 2011, 166 patients were randomly assigned to receive standard-dose chemoradiotherapy, 121 to high-dose chemoradiotherapy, 147 to standard-dose chemoradiotherapy and cetuximab, and 110 to high-dose chemoradiotherapy and cetuximab. Median follow-up for the radiotherapy comparison was 22·9 months (IQR 27·5–33·3). Median overall survival was 28·7 months (95% CI 24·1–36·9) for patients who received standard-dose radiotherapy and 20·3 months (17·7–25·0) for those who received high-dose radiotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] 1·38, 95% CI 1·09–1·76; p=0·004). Median follow-up for the cetuximab comparison was 21·3 months (IQR 23·5–29·8). Median overall survival in patients who received cetuximab was 25·0 months (95% CI 20·2–30·5) compared with 24·0 months (19·8–28·6) in those who did not (HR 1·07, 95% CI 0·84–1·35; p=0·29). Both the radiation-dose and cetuximab results crossed protocol-specified futility boundaries. We recorded no statistical differences in grade 3 or worse toxic effects between radiotherapy groups. By contrast, the use of cetuximab was associated with a higher rate of grade 3 or worse toxic effects (205 [86%] of 237 vs 160 [70%] of 228 patients; p<0·0001). There were more treatment-related deaths in the high-dose chemoradiotherapy and cetuximab groups (radiotherapy comparison: eight vs three patients; cetuximab comparison: ten vs five patients). There were no differences in severe pulmonary events between treatment groups. Severe oesophagitis was more common in patients who received high-dose chemoradiotherapy than in those who received standard-dose treatment (43 [21%] of 207 patients vs 16 [7%] of 217 patients; p<0·0001). 74 Gy radiation given in 2 Gy fractions with concurrent chemotherapy was not better than 60 Gy plus concurrent chemotherapy for patients with stage III non-small-cell lung cancer, and might be potentially harmful. Addition of cetuximab to concurrent chemoradiation and consolidation treatment provided no benefit in overall survival for these patients. National Cancer Institute and Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Lung cancer is the primary cause of mortality in the United States and around the globe. Therapeutic options for lung cancer treatment include surgery, radiation therapy, chemotherapy, and targeted drug therapy. Medical management is often associated with the development of treatment resistance leading to relapse. Immunotherapy is profoundly altering the approach to cancer treatment owing to its tolerable safety profile, sustained therapeutic response due to immunological memory generation, and effectiveness across a broad patient population. Different tumor-specific vaccination strategies are gaining ground in the treatment of lung cancer. Recent advances in adoptive cell therapy (CAR T, TCR, TIL), the associated clinical trials on lung cancer, and associated hurdles are discussed in this review. Recent trials on lung cancer patients (without a targetable oncogenic driver alteration) reveal significant and sustained responses when treated with programmed death-1/programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-1/PD-L1) checkpoint blockade immunotherapies. Accumulating evidence indicates that a loss of effective anti-tumor immunity is associated with lung tumor evolution. Therapeutic cancer vaccines combined with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) can achieve better therapeutic effects. To this end, the present article encompasses a detailed overview of the recent developments in the immunotherapeutic landscape in targeting small cell lung cancer (SCLC) and non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Additionally, the review also explores the implication of nanomedicine in lung cancer immunotherapy as well as the combinatorial application of traditional therapy along with immunotherapy regimens. Finally, ongoing clinical trials, significant obstacles, and the future outlook of this treatment strategy are also highlighted to boost further research in the field.

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells targeting CD19 are a breakthrough treatment for relapsed, refractory B cell malignancies 1 – 5 . Despite impressive outcomes, relapse with CD19 − disease remains a challenge. We address this limitation through a first-in-human trial of bispecific anti-CD20, anti-CD19 (LV20.19) CAR T cells for relapsed, refractory B cell malignancies. Adult patients with B cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma or chronic lymphocytic leukemia were treated on a phase 1 dose escalation and expansion trial ( NCT03019055 ) to evaluate the safety of 4-1BB–CD3ζ LV20.19 CAR T cells and the feasibility of on-site manufacturing using the CliniMACS Prodigy system. CAR T cell doses ranged from 2.5 × 10 5 –2.5 × 10 6 cells per kg. Cell manufacturing was set at 14 d with the goal of infusing non-cryopreserved LV20.19 CAR T cells. The target dose of LV20.19 CAR T cells was met in all CAR-naive patients, and 22 patients received LV20.19 CAR T cells on protocol. In the absence of dose-limiting toxicity, a dose of 2.5 × 10 6 cells per kg was chosen for expansion. Grade 3–4 cytokine release syndrome occurred in one (5%) patient, and grade 3–4 neurotoxicity occurred in three (14%) patients. Eighteen (82%) patients achieved an overall response at day 28, 14 (64%) had a complete response, and 4 (18%) had a partial response. The overall response rate to the dose of 2.5 × 10 6 cells per kg with non-cryopreserved infusion ( n  = 12) was 100% (complete response, 92%; partial response, 8%). Notably, loss of the CD19 antigen was not seen in patients who relapsed or experienced treatment failure. In conclusion, on-site manufacturing and infusion of non-cryopreserved LV20.19 CAR T cells were feasible and therapeutically safe, showing low toxicity and high efficacy. Bispecific CARs may improve clinical responses by mitigating target antigen downregulation as a mechanism of relapse. A new bispecific CAR T cell product targeting the CD20 and CD19 antigens demonstrates an excellent safety profile and high clinical efficacy in patients with B cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma and chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

A randomized trial comparing the CD19-specific CAR T-cell therapy tisagenlecleucel with salvage chemotherapy followed by high-dose therapy and autologous hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation in patients with refractory or early relapsed aggressive B-cell lymphoma did not show a longer event-free survival with CAR T cells.

Lenvatinib plus either pembrolizumab or everolimus was compared with sunitinib as first-line therapy for advanced renal cell cancer. Progression-free survival was significantly longer with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab than with sunitinib. Lenvatinib plus everolimus was also more effective than sunitinib, but the difference was smaller.

Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) is the standard treatment for medically inoperable early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but regional or distant relapses, or both, are common. Immunotherapy reduces recurrence and improves survival in people with stage III NSCLC after chemoradiotherapy, but its utility in stage I and II cases is unclear. We therefore conducted a randomised phase 2 trial of SABR alone compared with SABR with immunotherapy (I-SABR) for people with early-stage NSCLC. We did an open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial comparing SABR to I-SABR, conducted at three different hospitals in TX, USA. People aged 18 years or older with histologically proven treatment-naive stage IA–IB (tumour size ≤4 cm, N0M0), stage IIA (tumour size ≤5 cm, N0M0), or stage IIB (tumour size >5 cm and ≤7 cm, N0M0) as per the American Joint Committee on Cancer version 8 staging system or isolated parenchymal recurrences (tumour size ≤7 cm) NSCLC (TanyNanyM0 before definitive surgery or chemoradiotherapy) were included in this trial. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1; using the Pocock & Simon method) to receive SABR with or without four cycles of nivolumab (480 mg, once every 4 weeks, with the first dose on the same day as, or within 36 h after, the first SABR fraction). This trial was unmasked. The primary endpoint was 4-year event-free survival (local, regional, or distant recurrence; second primary lung cancer; or death). Analyses were both intention to treat (ITT) and per protocol. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03110978) and is closed to enrolment. From June 30, 2017, to March 22, 2022, 156 participants were randomly assigned, and 141 participants received assigned therapy. At a median 33 months' follow-up, I-SABR significantly improved 4-year event-free survival from 53% (95% CI 42–67%) with SABR to 77% (66–91%; per-protocol population, hazard ratio [HR] 0·38; 95% CI 0·19–0·75; p=0·0056; ITT population, HR 0·42; 95% CI 0·22–0·80; p=0·0080). There were no grade 3 or higher adverse events associated with SABR. In the I-SABR group, ten participants (15%) had grade 3 immunologial adverse events related to nivolumab; none had grade 3 pneumonitis or grade 4 or higher toxicity. Compared with SABR alone, I-SABR significantly improved event-free survival at 4 years in people with early-stage treatment-naive or lung parenchymal recurrent node-negative NSCLC, with tolerable toxicity. I-SABR could be a treatment option in these participants, but further confirmation from a number of currently accruing phase 3 trials is required. Bristol-Myers Squibb and MD Anderson Cancer Center Alliance, National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health through Cancer Center Core Support Grant and Clinical and Translational Science Award to The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center.

Pancreatic cancer is a major cause of cancer-related death, but despondently, the outlook and prognosis for this resistant type of tumor have remained grim for a long time. Currently, it is extremely challenging to prevent or detect it early enough for effective treatment because patients rarely exhibit symptoms and there are no reliable indicators for detection. Most patients have advanced or spreading cancer that is difficult to treat, and treatments like chemotherapy and radiotherapy can only slightly prolong their life by a few months. Immunotherapy has revolutionized the treatment of pancreatic cancer, yet its effectiveness is limited by the tumor's immunosuppressive and hard-to-reach microenvironment. First, this article explains the immunosuppressive microenvironment of pancreatic cancer and highlights a wide range of immunotherapy options, including therapies involving oncolytic viruses, modified T cells (T-cell receptor [TCR]-engineered and chimeric antigen receptor [CAR] T-cell therapy), CAR natural killer cell therapy, cytokine-induced killer cells, immune checkpoint inhibitors, immunomodulators, cancer vaccines, and strategies targeting myeloid cells in the context of contemporary knowledge and future trends. Lastly, it discusses the main challenges ahead of pancreatic cancer immunotherapy.

Previously untreated patients with advanced esophageal cancer were randomly assigned to receive chemotherapy alone, chemotherapy plus nivolumab, or nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Among patients with tumor-cell PD-L1 expression of 1% or greater, the two nivolumab regimens resulted in longer overall survival than chemotherapy. The side-effect profile was consistent with past reports on these agents.

Necitumumab is a second-generation, recombinant, human immunoglobulin G1 EGFR antibody. In this study, we aimed to compare treatment with necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin versus gemcitabine and cisplatin alone in patients with previously untreated stage IV squamous non-small-cell lung cancer. We did this open-label, randomised phase 3 study at 184 investigative sites in 26 countries. Patients aged 18 years or older with histologically or cytologically confirmed stage IV squamous non-small-cell lung cancer, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0–2 and adequate organ function and who had not received previous chemotherapy for their disease were eligible for inclusion. Enrolled patients were randomly assigned centrally 1:1 to a maximum of six 3-week cycles of gemcitabine and cisplastin chemotherapy with or without necitumumab according to a block randomisation scheme (block size of four) by a telephone-based interactive voice response system or interactive web response system. Chemotherapy was gemcitabine 1250 mg/m2 administered intravenously over 30 min on days 1 and 8 of a 3-week cycle and cisplatin 75 mg/m2 administered intravenously over 120 min on day 1 of a 3-week cycle. Necitumumab 800 mg, administered intravenously over a minimum of 50 min on days 1 and 8, was continued after the end of chemotherapy until disease progression or intolerable toxic side-effects occurred. Randomisation was stratified by ECOG performance status and geographical region. Neither physicians nor patients were masked to group assignment because of the expected occurrence of acne-like rash—a class effect of EGFR antibodies—that would have unmasked most patients and investigators to treatment. The primary endpoint was overall survival, analysed by intention to treat. We report the final clinical analysis. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00981058. Between Jan 7, 2010, and Feb 22, 2012, we enrolled 1093 patients and randomly assigned them to receive necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin (n=545) or gemcitabine and cisplatin (n=548). Overall survival was significantly longer in the necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin group than in the gemcitabine and cisplatin alone group (median 11·5 months [95% CI 10·4–12·6]) vs 9·9 months [8·9–11·1]; stratified hazard ratio 0·84 [95% CI 0·74–0·96; p=0·01]). In the necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin group, the number of patients with at least one grade 3 or worse adverse event was higher (388 [72%] of 538 patients) than in the gemcitabine and cisplatin group (333 [62%] of 541), as was the incidence of serious adverse events (257 [48%] of 538 patients vs 203 [38%] of 541). More patients in the necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin group had grade 3–4 hypomagnesaemia (47 [9%] of 538 patients in the necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin group vs six [1%] of 541 in the gemcitabine and cisplatin group) and grade 3 rash (20 [4%] vs one [<1%]). Including events related to disease progression, adverse events with an outcome of death were reported for 66 (12%) of 538 patients in the necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin group and 57 (11%) of 541 patients in the gemcitabine and cisplatin group; these were deemed to be related to study drugs in 15 (3%) and ten (2%) patients, respectively. Overall, we found that the safety profile of necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin was acceptable and in line with expectations. Our findings show that the addition of necitumumab to gemcitabine and cisplatin chemotherapy improves overall survival in patients with advanced squamous non-small-cell lung cancer and represents a new first-line treatment option for this disease. Eli Lilly and Company.

Relapse is common in patients with locally advanced unresectable lung cancer after concurrent chemotherapy and radiation therapy. In a randomized study, addition of the anti–PD-L1 antibody durvalumab every 2 weeks for 12 months increased relapse-free survival by 47%.