Search

Therapeutic strategies for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are advancing, with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and targeted therapies making their way into neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings. With recent advances, there was a need for multidisciplinary lung cancer healthcare providers from across Ontario to convene and review recent data from practical and implementation standpoints. The focus was on the following questions: (1) To what extent do patient (e.g., history of smoking) and disease (e.g., histology, tumor burden, nodal involvement) characteristics influence treatment approaches? (2) What are the surgical considerations in early-stage NSCLC? (3) What is the role of radiation therapy in the context of recent evidence? (4) What is the impact of biomarker testing on treatment planning? Ongoing challenges, treatment gaps, outstanding questions, and controversies with the data were assessed through a pre-meeting survey, interactive cases, and polling questions. By reviewing practice patterns across Ontario cancer centers in the context of evolving clinical data, Health Canada indications, and provincial (Cancer Care Ontario [CCO]) funding approvals, physicians treating lung cancer voiced their opinions on how new approaches should be integrated into provincial treatment algorithms. This report summarizes the forum outcomes, including pre-meeting survey and polling question results, as well as agreements on treatment approaches based on specific patient scenarios.

Treatment options for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are evolving, given recent and expected approvals of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) targeting programmed cell death-(ligand) 1 (PD-1/PD-L1). We retrospectively evaluated outcomes among patients with resected stage IB-IIIA NSCLC tumors expressing PD-L1 using PALEOS (Pan-cAnadian Lung cancEr Observational Study) data (2016–2019). Key outcomes included PD-L1 expression rate and treatment patterns, recurrence, and median overall (mOS) and disease-free survival (mDFS) among PD-L1+ patients. Among 539 PD-L1–tested patients, 317 (58.8%) were PD-L1+ (≥1%). At diagnosis, 35.3%, 39.8%, and 24.9% of PD-L1+ patients had stage IB, II, or IIIA disease. Forty-one percent had received adjuvant therapy. At 22.6 months (median follow-up), first disease recurrence had occurred in 31.9% of patients, primarily at metastatic sites. After first metastatic recurrence, ICI regimens were the most common first systemic therapy (29.8%). mOS was not reached; mDFS was 40.0 months. At four years, DFS probability was 44%. Four-year OS and DFS rates were generally similar when stratified by PD-L1 expression (1–49% vs. ≥50%). These findings underscore the generally poor outcomes experienced by patients with early-stage, resected, PD-L1+ NSCLC after treatment with available adjuvant therapies, and provide context to recent and emerging trials of new treatment options.

The increased use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) across cancer programs has created the need for standardized monitoring and management of immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Delayed recognition without appropriate treatment can have serious and life-threatening consequences. The management of irAEs presents a unique set of challenges that must be addressed at a multidisciplinary level. Although various national and international guidelines and working groups provide high-level recommendations for the management of irAEs, practical guidance is lacking. Furthermore, timely collaboration between specialists requires institutional protocols that enable the early recognition, assessment, and treatment of irAEs. Such protocols should be developed by institution specialists and include algorithms for all healthcare providers involved in the care of patients treated with ICIs. At William Osler Health System in Brampton, Ontario, practical step-by-step multidisciplinary treatment approaches with recommendations for the management of irAEs were developed in collaboration with experts across Canada. Here, we provide an in-depth description of the approaches, outlining baseline investigations prior to the initiation of ICIs, as well as the monitoring and management of irAEs based on symptoms, severity, and involved organ systems. We encourage other centres to adapt and modify our approaches according to their specific needs and requirements.

Activating mutations in Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homologue (KRAS), in particular, a point mutation leading to a glycine-to-cysteine substitution at codon 12 (G12C), are among the most frequent genomic alterations in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Several agents targeting KRAS G12C have recently entered clinical development. Sotorasib, a first-in-class specific small molecule that irreversibly inhibits KRAS G12C, has since obtained Health Canada approval. The emergence of novel KRAS-targeted therapies warrants the development of evidence-based consensus recommendations to help clinicians better understand and contextualize the available data. A Canadian expert panel was convened to define the key clinical questions, review recent evidence, and discuss and agree on recommendations for the treatment of advanced KRAS G12C-mutated NSCLC. The panel agreed that testing for KRAS G12C should be performed as part of a comprehensive panel that includes current standard-of-care biomarkers. Sotorasib, the only approved KRAS G12C inhibitor in Canada, is recommended for patients with advanced KRAS G12C-mutated NSCLC who progressed on guideline-recommended first-line standard of care for advanced NSCLC without driver alterations (immune-checkpoint inhibitor(s) [ICIs] +/− chemotherapy). Sotorasib could also be offered as second-line therapy to patients who progressed on ICI monotherapy that are not candidates for a platinum doublet and those that received first-line chemotherapy with a contraindication to ICIs. Preliminary data indicate the activity of KRAS G12C inhibitors in brain metastases; however, the evidence is insufficient to make specific recommendations. Regular liver function monitoring is recommended when patients are prescribed KRAS G12C inhibitors due to risk of hepatotoxicity.

Small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) is an aggressive, neuroendocrine tumour with high relapse rates, and significant morbidity and mortality. Apart from advances in radiation therapy, progress in the systemic treatment of SCLC had been stagnant for over three decades despite multiple attempts to develop alternative therapeutic options that could improve responses and survival. Recent promising developments in first-line and subsequent therapeutic approaches prompted a Canadian Expert Panel to convene to review evidence, discuss practice patterns, and reach a consensus on the treatment of extensive-stage SCLC (ES-SCLC). The literature search included guidelines, systematic reviews, and randomized controlled trials. Regular meetings were held from September 2022 to March 2023 to discuss the available evidence to propose and agree upon specific recommendations. The panel addressed biomarkers and histological features that distinguish SCLC from non-SCLC and other neuroendocrine tumours. Evidence for initial and subsequent systemic therapies was reviewed with consideration for patient performance status, comorbidities, and the involvement and function of other organs. The resulting consensus recommendations herein will help clarify evidence-based management of ES-SCLC in routine practice, help clinician decision-making, and facilitate the best patient outcomes.

Introduction: In the phase 3 KEYNOTE-604 study (NCT03066778), pembrolizumab plus etoposide and platinum chemotherapy (EP) significantly (p = 0.0023) improved progression-free survival versus placebo plus EP in previously untreated extensive-stage SCLC (ES-SCLC). We present health-related quality of life (HRQoL) results from KEYNOTE-604. Methods: Patients with stage IV SCLC were randomized 1:1 to pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo every 3 weeks for 35 cycles plus four cycles of EP. Secondary end points included mean change from baseline to week 18 in the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-Life Questionnaire—Core 30 (QLQ-C30) global health status/quality of life (GHS/QoL) scale and time to deterioration in the composite outcome of cough, chest pain, or dyspnea from QLQ-C30 and QLQ—Lung Cancer Module 13. Two-sided, nominal p values are reported. Results: A total of 439 patients completed at least one QLQ-C30 and QLQ—Lung Cancer Module 13 assessment (pembrolizumab + EP, n = 221; placebo + EP, n = 218). GHS/QoL scores improved from baseline to week 18: least squares mean (95% confidence interval [CI]) changes were 8.7 (5.3–12.1) for pembrolizumab plus EP and 4.2 (0.9–7.5) for placebo plus EP. Between-group differences in least squares mean scores were improved for pembrolizumab plus EP (4.4 [95% CI: 0.2–8.7], p = 0.040]). Median time to deterioration for the composite end point was not reached and 8.7 (95% CI: 5.9–not reached) months, respectively (hazard ratio = 0.80 [95% CI: 0.56–1.14], p = 0.208). Conclusions: First-line pembrolizumab plus EP therapy maintained HRQoL in patients with ES-SCLC and may be associated with greater improvement than placebo plus EP. Together with the efficacy and safety findings in KEYNOTE-604, HRQoL data support the benefit of pembrolizumab in ES-SCLC.

Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has historically been associated with a poor prognosis and low 5-year survival, but the use of targeted therapies in NSCLC has improved patient outcomes over the past 10 years. The pace of development of new targeted therapies is accelerating, with the associated need for molecular testing of new targetable alterations. As the complexity of biomarker testing in NSCLC increases, there is a need for guidance on how to manage the fluid standard-of-care in NSCLC, identify pragmatic molecular testing requirements, and optimize result reporting. An expert multidisciplinary working group with representation from medical oncology, pathology, and clinical genetics convened via virtual meetings to create consensus recommendations for testing of new targetable alterations in NSCLC. The importance of accurate and timely testing of all targetable alterations to optimize disease management using targeted therapies was emphasized by the working group. Therefore, the panel of experts recommends that all targetable alterations be tested reflexively at NSCLC diagnosis as part of a comprehensive panel, using methods that can detect all relevant targetable alterations. In addition, comprehensive biomarker testing should be performed at the request of the treating clinician upon development of resistance to targeted therapy. The expert multidisciplinary working group also made recommendations for reporting to improve clarity and ease of interpretation of results by treating clinicians and to accommodate the rapid evolution in clinical actionability of these alterations. Molecular testing of all targetable alterations in NSCLC is the key for treatment decision-making and access to new therapies. These consensus recommendations are intended as a guide to further optimize molecular testing of new targetable alterations.

The increased use of immune checkpoint inhibitors across cancer programs has created the need for standardized patient assessment, education, monitoring, and management of immune-related adverse events (irAEs). At William Osler Health System in Brampton, Ontario, a practical step-wise approach detailing the implementation of cancer immunotherapy in routine practice was developed. The approach focuses on four key steps: (1) identification of patient educators; (2) development of patient education materials; (3) development of patient monitoring tools; (4) involvement and education of multidisciplinary teams. Here, we provide an in-depth description of what was included in each step and how we integrated the different elements of the program. For each step, resources, tools, and materials that may be useful for patients, healthcare providers, and multidisciplinary teams were developed or modified based on existing materials. At our centre, the program led to improved patient comprehension of irAEs, the ability to act on symptoms (patient self-efficacy), and low rates of emergency room visits at first presentation for irAEs. We recognize that centres may need to tailor the approaches to their institutional policies and encourage centres to adapt and modify the forms and tools according to their needs and requirements.

Purpose: Biomarker data are critical to the delivery of precision cancer care. The average turnaround of next-generation sequencing (NGS) reports is over 2 weeks, and in-house availability is typically limited to academic centers. Lengthy turnaround times for biomarkers can adversely affect outcomes. Traditional workflows involve moving specimens through multiple facilities. This study evaluates the feasibility of rapid comprehensive NGS using the Genexus integrated sequencer and a novel streamlined workflow in a community setting. Methods: A retrospective chart review was performed to assess the early experience and performance characteristics of a novel approach to biomarker testing at a large community center. This approach to NGS included an automated workflow utilizing the Genexus integrated sequencer, validated for clinical use. NGS testing was further integrated within a routine immunohistochemistry (IHC) service, utilizing histotechnologists to perform technical aspects of NGS, with results reported directly by anatomic pathologists. Results: Between October 2020 and October 2021, 578 solid tumor samples underwent genomic profiling. Median turnaround time for biomarker results was 3 business days (IQR: 2–5). Four hundred eighty-one (83%) of the cases were resulted in fewer than 5 business days, and 66 (11%) of the cases were resulted simultaneously with diagnosis. Tumor types included lung cancer (310), melanoma (97), and colorectal carcinoma (68), among others. NGS testing detected key driver alterations at expected prevalence rates: lung EGFR (16%), ALK (3%), RET (1%), melanoma BRAF (43%), colorectal RAS/RAF (67%), among others. Conclusion: This is the first study demonstrating clinical implementation of rapid NGS. This supports the feasibility of automated comprehensive NGS performed and interpreted in parallel with diagnostic histopathology and immunohistochemistry. This novel approach to biomarker testing offers considerable advantages to clinical cancer care.

Background: The safety impact of radiotherapy (RT) timing relative to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is unclear. We investigated if RT within 14 days (Interval 1) and 90 days (Interval 2) of ICI use is associated with toxicities compared to RT outside these intervals. Methods: Advanced NSCLC patients treated with both RT and ICIs were reviewed. Toxicities were graded as per CTCAE v4.0 and attributed to either ICIs or RT by clinicians. Associations between RT timing and Grade ≥2 toxicities were analyzed using logistic regression models adjusted for patient, disease, and treatment factors (α = 0.05). Results: Sixty-four patients were identified. Twenty received RT within Interval 1 and 40 within Interval 2. There were 20 Grade ≥2 toxicities in 18 (28%) patients; pneumonitis (6) and nausea (2) were most prevalent. One treatment-related death (immune encephalitis) was observed. Rates of patients with Grade ≥2 toxicities were 35%/25% in the group with/without RT within Interval 1 and 30%/25% in the group with/without RT within Interval 2. No significant association between RT timing relative to ICI use period and Grade ≥2 toxicities was observed. Conclusion: Albeit limited by the small sample size, the result suggested that pausing ICIs around RT use may not be necessary.

The management of Stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is complex and requires multidisciplinary input. Since the publication of the PACIFIC trial (consolidative durvalumab post concurrent chemotherapy and radiation in Stage III disease) which showed improved survival for patients in the immunotherapy arm, there has been much interest in the use of immunotherapy in the Stage III setting. In this review, we explore the biologic and clinical rationale for the use of immunotherapy in Stage III NSCLC, present previously published and upcoming data in the neoadjuvant, adjuvant, and concurrent realms of Stage III management, and discuss unanswered questions and challenges moving forward.

In Canada, the therapeutic management of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with rare actionable mutations differs between provinces, territories, and individual centres based on access to molecular testing and funded treatments. These variations, together with the emergence of several novel mesenchymal-epithelial transition (MET) factor-targeted therapies for the treatment of NSCLC, warrant the development of evidence-based consensus recommendations for the use of these agents. A Canadian expert panel was convened to define key clinical questions, review evidence, discuss practice recommendations and reach consensus on the treatment of advanced MET-altered NSCLC. Questions addressed by the panel include: 1. How should the patients most likely to benefit from MET-targeted therapies be identified? 2. What are the preferred first-line and subsequent therapies for patients with MET exon 14 skipping mutations? 3. What are the preferred first-line and subsequent therapies for advanced NSCLC patients with de novo MET amplification? 4. What is the preferred therapy for patients with advanced epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutated NSCLC with acquired MET amplification progressing on EGFR inhibitors? 5. What are the potential strategies for overcoming resistance to MET inhibitors? Answers to these questions, along with the consensus recommendations herein, will help streamline the management of MET-altered NSCLC in routine practice, assist clinicians in therapeutic decision-making, and help ensure optimal outcomes for NSCLC patients with MET alterations.

Intracranial metastatic disease (IMD) is a prevalent complication of cancer that significantly limits patient survival and quality of life. Over the past half-century, our understanding of the epidemiology and pathogenesis of IMD has improved and enabled the development of surveillance and treatment algorithms based on prognostic factors and tumor biomolecular characteristics. In addition to advances in surgical resection and radiation therapy, the treatment of IMD has evolved to include monoclonal antibodies and small molecule antagonists of tumor-promoting proteins or endogenous immune checkpoint inhibitors. Moreover, improvements in the sensitivity and specificity of imaging as well as the development of new serological assays to detect brain metastases promise to revolutionize IMD diagnosis. In this review, we will explore current treatment principles in patients with IMD, including the emerging role of targeted and immunotherapy in select primary cancers, and discuss potential areas for further investigation.