Search

Background: Lung cancer remains a critical public health issue, presenting multifaceted challenges in prevention, diagnosis, and treatment. This article aims to review the current landscape of lung cancer research and management, delineate the persistent challenges, and outline pragmatic solutions., Materials and Methods: Global experts from academia, regulatory agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA), the National Cancer Institute (NCI), professional societies, the pharmaceutical and biotech industries, and patient advocacy groups were gathered by the New York Lung Cancer Foundation to review the state of the art in lung cancer and to formulate calls to action., Results: Improving lung cancer management and research involves promoting tobacco cessation, identifying individuals at risk who could benefit from early detection programs, and addressing treatment-related toxicities. Efforts should focus on conducting well-designed trials to determine the optimal treatment sequence. Research into innovative biomarkers and therapies is crucial for more personalized treatment. Ensuring access to appropriate care for all patients, whether enrolled in clinical trials or not, must remain a priority., Conclusions: Lung cancer is a major health burden worldwide, and its treatment has become increasingly complex over the past two decades. Improvement in lung cancer management and research requires unified messaging and global collaboration, expanded education, and greater access to screening, biomarker testing, treatment, as well as increased representativeness, participation, and diversity in clinical trials., (Copyright © 2024 European Society for Medical Oncology. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths in Canada, with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) accounting for the majority of cases. Timely access to comprehensive molecular profiling is critical for selecting biomarker-matched targeted therapies, which lead to improved outcomes in advanced NSCLC. Tissue biopsy samples are the gold standard for molecular profiling; however, several challenges can prevent timely and complete molecular profiling from being performed, causing delays in treatment or suboptimal therapy selection. Liquid biopsy offers a minimally invasive method for molecular profiling by analyzing circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) and RNA (cfRNA) in plasma, potentially overcoming these barriers. This paper discusses the outcomes of a multidisciplinary working group in Ontario, which proposed three eligibility criteria for liquid biopsy reimbursement: (1) insufficient tissue for complete testing or failed tissue biomarker testing; (2) suspected advanced NSCLC where tissue biopsy is not feasible; and (3) high-risk patients who may deteriorate before tissue results are available. The group also addressed considerations for assay selection, implementation, and economic impact. These discussions aim to inform reimbursement and implementation strategies for liquid biopsy in Ontario's public healthcare system, recognizing the need for ongoing evaluation as technology and evidence evolve.

Objectives: KRAS mutations, particularly KRAS G12C , are prevalent in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have been a frontline treatment, but recently developed KRAS G12C -selective inhibitors, such as sotorasib, present new therapeutic options. We conducted a multi-center retrospective cohort study to gain insights into real-world treatment patterns and outcomes in patients with KRAS G12C -positive advanced NSCLC receiving systemic therapy post-ICI treatment., Methods: From the CAnadian CAncers With Rare Molecular Alterations-Basket Real-world Observational Study (CARMA-BROS), a cohort of 102 patients with KRAS G12C -positive advanced NSCLC across 9 Canadian centers diagnosed between 2015 and 2021 was analyzed. Clinico-demographic and treatment data were obtained from electronic health records. Survival outcomes were assessed using Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazards models., Results: The patients (median age 66 years; 58 % female; 99 % current/former tobacco exposure; 59 % PD-L1 ≥ 50 %), exhibited heterogeneous treatment patterns post-ICI. Most patients received ICIs as a first-line therapy, with varying subsequent lines including chemotherapy and targeted therapy. In patients receiving systemic therapy post-ICI, median overall survival was 12.6 months, and real-world progression-free survival was 4.7 months. KRAS G12C -selective targeted therapy post-ICI (n = 20) showed longer real-world progression-free survival compared to single-agent chemotherapy (aHR = 0.39, p = 0.012)., Conclusion: This study contributes valuable real-world data on KRAS G12C -positive advanced NSCLC post-ICI treatment. The absence of a standard treatment sequencing post-ICI underscores the need for further investigation and consensus-building in the evolving landscape of KRAS G12C -targeted therapies., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: The study was supported by Amgen. The authors have no other conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Non-small cell lung cancer is a heterogeneous disease and molecular characterisation plays an important role in its clinical management. Next-generation sequencing-based panel testing enables many molecular alterations to be interrogated simultaneously, allowing for comprehensive identification of actionable oncogenic drivers (and co-mutations) and appropriate matching of patients with targeted therapies. Despite consensus in international guidelines on the importance of broad molecular profiling, adoption of next-generation sequencing varies globally. One of the barriers to its successful implementation is a lack of accepted standards and guidelines specifically for the reporting and clinical annotation of next-generation sequencing results. Based on roundtable discussions between pathologists and oncologists, we provide best practice recommendations for the reporting of next-generation sequencing results in non-small cell lung cancer to facilitate its use and enable easy interpretation for physicians. These are intended to complement existing guidelines related to the use of next-generation sequencing (solid and liquid). Here, we discuss next-generation sequencing workflows, the structure of next-generation sequencing reports, and our recommendations for best practice thereof. The aim of these recommendations and considerations is ultimately to ensure that reports are fully interpretable, and that the most appropriate treatment options are selected based on robust molecular profiles in well-defined reports., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: There is a paucity of information about the characteristics, treatment patterns, and outcomes of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with single organ metastasis (SOM)., Methods: This retrospective cohort study includes all patients with a diagnosis of stage IV NSCLC diagnosed from 2014 to 2016 and treated at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre. We compared baseline characteristics and patterns of metastatic sites between patients with SOM versus multiple (M)OM. Additionally, we identified treatment modalities and outcomes for patients with SOM. Cox multivariable models (MVA) were utilized to evaluate differences in overall survival (OS) between the SOM and MOM cohorts., Results: Of 893 pts analyzed, 457 (51 %) had SOM, while 436 (49 %) had MOM at initial diagnosis. Demographics were comparable between the two groups. Brain was the most common site of metastasis for SOM patients. When compared to the MOM group, the SOM group had lower percentages of liver and adrenal metastases. Amongst SOM patients, 54 % received single modality treatment, and 20 % did not receive any treatment for their SOM. In MVA, patients with liver (HR 2.4), bone (HR 1.8), and pleural (HR 1.7) metastasis as their SOM site had the worst outcomes, with median OS of 6.8 months, 12.1 months, and 13.0 months respectively. Patients with SOM had a significantly improved median OS compared to those with MOM (15.9 months vs. 10.6 months; HR 0.56, 95 % CI 0.47-0.66, p < 0.001)., Conclusion: In NSCLC patients who presented with SOM, survival correlated with the initial organ involved and was better overall compared to patients with MOM. SOM NSCLC may benefit from specific management strategies and SOM patients could be considered as a specific subgroup for survival analyses in observational and non-randomized interventional studies. In clinical trials, SOM can be considered as a stratification factor in the future., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer deaths in Canada, and because early cancers are often asymptomatic screening aims to prevent mortality by detecting cancer earlier when treatment is more likely to be curative. These reviews will inform updated recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care on screening for lung cancer., Methods: We will update the review on the benefits and harms of screening with CT conducted for the task force in 2015 and perform de novo reviews on the comparative effects between (i) trial-based selection criteria and use of risk prediction models and (ii) trial-based nodule classification and different nodule classification systems and on patients' values and preferences. We will search Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central (for questions on benefits and harms from 2015; comparative effects from 2012) and Medline, Scopus, and EconLit (for values and preferences from 2012) via peer-reviewed search strategies, clinical trial registries, and the reference lists of included studies and reviews. Two reviewers will screen all citations (including those in the previous review) and base inclusion decisions on consensus or arbitration by another reviewer. For benefits (i.e., all-cause and cancer-specific mortality and health-related quality of life) and harms (i.e., overdiagnosis, false positives, incidental findings, psychosocial harms from screening, and major complications and mortality from invasive procedures as a result of screening), we will include studies of adults in whom lung cancer is not suspected. We will include randomized controlled trials comparing CT screening with no screening or alternative screening modalities (e.g., chest radiography) or strategies (e.g., CT using different screening intervals, classification systems, and/or patient selection via risk models or biomarkers); non-randomized studies, including modeling studies, will be included for the comparative effects between trial-based and other selection criteria or nodule classification methods. For harms (except overdiagnosis) we will also include non-randomized and uncontrolled studies. For values and preferences, the study design may be any quantitative design that either directly or indirectly measures outcome preferences on outcomes pertaining to lung cancer screening. We will only include studies conducted in Very High Human Development Countries and having full texts in English or French. Data will be extracted by one reviewer with verification by another, with the exception of result data on mortality and cancer incidence (for calculating overdiagnosis) where duplicate extraction will occur. If two or more studies report on the same comparison and it is deemed suitable, we will pool continuous data using a mean difference or standardized mean difference, as applicable, and binary data using relative risks and a DerSimonian and Laird model unless events are rare (< 1%) where we will pool odds ratios using Peto's method or (if zero events) the reciprocal of the opposite treatment arm size correction. For pooling proportions, we will apply suitable transformation (logit or arcsine) depending on the proportions of events. If meta-analysis is not undertaken we will synthesize the data descriptively, considering clinical and methodological differences. For each outcome, two reviewers will independently assess within- and across-study risk of bias and rate the certainty of the evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation), and reach consensus., Discussion: Since 2015, additional trials and longer follow-ups or additional data (e.g., harms, specific patient populations) from previously published trials have been published that will improve our understanding of the benefits and harms of screening. The systematic review of values and preferences will allow fulsome insights that will inform the balance of benefits and harms., Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO CRD42022378858., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Introduction: Osimertinib is recommended by major guidelines for use in the adjuvant setting in patients with EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC following the significant improvement in disease-free survival observed in the Phase III ADAURA trials. Due to limited real-world data in the adjuvant setting, little guidance exists on how to approach potential recurrences either during or after the completion of the treatment. This study aimed to reach a broad consensus on key treatment decision criteria in the events of recurrence., Methods: To reach a broad consensus, a modified Delphi panel study was conducted consisting of two rounds of surveys, followed by two consensus meetings and a final offline review of key statements. An international panel of experts in the field of NSCLC (n=12) was used to provide clinical insights regarding patient management at various stages of NSCLC disease including patient monitoring, diagnostics, and treatment approach for specific recurrence scenarios. This study tested recurrences occurring 1) within or outside the central nervous system (CNS), 2) during or after the adjuvant-osimertinib regimen in NSCLC disease which is 3) amenable or not amenable to local consolidative therapy., Results: Panellists agreed on various aspects of patient monitoring and diagnostics including the use of standard techniques (e.g., CT, MRI) and tumour biomarker assessment using tissue and liquid biopsies. Consensus was reached on 6 statements describing treatment considerations for the specific NSCLC recurrence scenarios. Panellists agreed on the value of osimertinib as a monotherapy or as part of the overall treatment strategy within the probed recurrence scenarios and acknowledged that more clinical evidence is required before precise recommendations for specific patient populations can be made., Discussion: This study provides a qualitative expert opinion framework for clinicians to consider within their treatment decision-making when faced with recurrence during or after adjuvant-osimertinib treatment., Competing Interests: NL reports research funding from Amgen, AstraZeneca Canada, Bayer, EMD Serono, Guardant Health, Lilly, MSD, MSD Oncology, Roche Canada, and Takeda; travel and accommodation support from Merck Sharp & Dohme. CN reports advisor to Medtronic, Johnson & Johnson; speaker fees from AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, Medtronic, Johnson & Johnson. DP reports being an advisor to AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Janssen, and Abbvie; honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Janssen, and Abbvie; travel and accommodation grants from AstraZeneca, Roche, Novartis, and Pfizer; and conducting clinical trials research as principal or co-investigator institutional financial interests for AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Medimmun, Sanofi-Aventis, Taiho Pharma, Novocure, Daiichi Sankyo, Abbvie, and Janssen. SP reports consultancy to Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, Blueprint, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, EQRx, GlaxoSmithKline, Guardant Health, Janssen, Lilly, Merck KGaA, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda, and Turning Point Therapeutics. JR reports being an advisor to AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BioAtla, BMS, Daichi-Sankyo, G1 Therapeutics, Genentech, Gritstone Bio, Guardant, Janssen, Lilly, Jazz, Summit Therapeutics Takeda; speaker fees from AstraZeneca; institutional research funding from BioAtla, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Blueprint, RedCloud, Loxo Oncology, Daiichi Sankyo, Enliven, ORIC, and Summit. ES reports being an advisor to AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly, Merck KGaA, MSD Oncology, Novartis, Roche/Genentech, Seagen, and Takeda; honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo/Astra Zeneca, and Merck KGaA; research funding from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Roche/Genentech. RS reports being an advisor to Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Lily, Merck, Merck Serono, Novartis, Pfizer, Puma, Roche, Taiho, Takeda, Thermo Fisher, Yuhan and has received research grants from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim. MT reports being an advisor to AstraZeneca Japan, Chugai Pharma, Lilly Japan, MSD, Novartis and MiREXS; honoraria from AstraZeneca Japan, Bristol-Myers Squibb Japan, Chugai Pharma, Johnson & Johnson, Lilly Japan, Medtronic, MSD K.K, Novartis, Ono Pharmaceutical, Taiho Pharmaceutical, and Teijin Pharma; research funding from AstraZeneca Japan, Boehringer Ingelheim KK, Bristol-Myers Squibb KK, Merck, Ono Pharmaceutical, BMG Incorporated, and MiREXS. FY reports speaker fees from MSD, Pfizer, Roche, AstraZeneca, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. BS reports wife’s employment with PPD and Xalud Therapeutics; leadership at Verrica Pharmaceuticals; stock and other ownership interests in Pfizer, PPD, and Xalud Therapeutics; personal honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech, and Pfizer; consulting or advisor role at AstraZeneca, Gala Therapeutics, Medtronic, Arcus Biosciences, and Pfizer; research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation; patents, royalties, and other intellectual property related with a therapeutic antibody targeting ART1, an extracellular mono-ADP ribosyltransferase, for the treatment of cancer patent application filed; other relationship with Lung Cancer Research Foundation and Lungevity. CG reports being an advisor to AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and MSD Oncology; honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, MSD Oncology, Novartis, Roche, and Takeda; research funding from AstraZeneca; travel and accommodation support from Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Roche. Y-LW reports being an advisor to AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, and Takeda; honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb/China, Hengrui Pharmaceutical, Lilly, MSD Oncology, Pfizer, and Roche; research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, and Roche. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Mirza, Shrivastava, Matthews, Leighl, Ng, Planchard, Popat, Rotow, Smit, Soo, Tsuboi, Yang, Stiles, Grohe and Wu.)

Background: Pleural mesothelioma usually presents at an advanced, incurable stage. Chemotherapy with platinum-pemetrexed is a standard treatment. We hypothesised that the addition of pembrolizumab to platinum-pemetrexed would improve overall survival in patients with pleural mesothelioma., Methods: We did this open-label, international, randomised phase 3 trial at 51 hospitals in Canada, Italy, and France. Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older, with previously untreated advanced pleural mesothelioma, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0 or 1. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to intravenous chemotherapy (cisplatin [75 mg/m 2 ] or carboplatin [area under the concentration-time curve 5-6 mg/mL per min] with pemetrexed 500 mg/m 2 , every 3 weeks for up to 6 cycles), with or without intravenous pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks (up to 2 years). The primary endpoint was overall survival in all randomly assigned patients; safety was assessed in all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study therapy. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02784171, and is closed to accrual., Findings: Between Jan 31, 2017, and Sept 4, 2020, 440 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to chemotherapy alone (n=218) or chemotherapy with pembrolizumab (n=222). 333 (76 %) of patients were male, 347 (79%) were White, and median age was 71 years (IQR 66-75). At final analysis (database lock Dec 15, 2022), with a median follow-up of 16·2 months (IQR 8·3-27·8), overall survival was significantly longer with pembrolizumab (median overall survival 17·3 months [95% CI 14·4-21·3] with pembrolizumab vs 16·1 months [13·1-18·2] with chemotherapy alone, hazard ratio for death 0·79; 95% CI 0·64-0·98, two-sided p=0·0324). 3-year overall survival rate was 25% (95% CI 20-33%) with pembrolizumab and 17% (13-24%) with chemotherapy alone. Adverse events related to study treatment of grade 3 or 4 occurred in 60 (27%) of 222 patients in the pembrolizumab group and 32 (15%) of 211 patients in the chemotherapy alone group. Hospital admissions for serious adverse events related to one or more study drugs were reported in 40 (18%) of 222 patients in the pembrolizumab group and 12 (6%) of 211 patients in the chemotherapy alone group. Grade 5 adverse events related to one or more drugs occurred in two patients on the pembrolizumab group and one patient in the chemotherapy alone group., Interpretation: In patients with advanced pleural mesothelioma, the addition of pembrolizumab to standard platinum-pemetrexed chemotherapy was tolerable and resulted in a significant improvement in overall survival. This regimen is a new treatment option for previously untreated advanced pleural mesothelioma., Funding: The Canadian Cancer Society and Merck & Co., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests MP has received grants for research to institution from AstraZeneca and Roche; payment for educational events from Astellas, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca; and received drugs for research from Roche and AstraZeneca. GLR received consulting fees from MSD, BMS, AstraZeneca, Roche, Novartis, Lilly, Amgen, Sanofi, Pfizer, Takeda, GSK, and Italfarmaco; received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from MSD, BMS, AstraZeneca, Roche, Novartis, Lilly, Amgen, Sanofi, Pfizer, Takeda, GSK, and Italfarmaco; received support for attending meetings or travel from Roche, MSD, BMS, and Amgen; has participated on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for MSD, BMS, AstraZeneca, Roche, Novartis, Lilly, Amgen, Sanofi, Pfizer, Takeda, GSK, and Italfarmaco; and has other financial or non-financial interests from MSD, BMS, AstraZeneca, Roche, Novartis, Amgen, Sanofi, Pfizer, Takeda, and GSK. YL holds stock or stock options from Merck. SL received consulting fees from Lilly, MSD, Sanofi, and AbbVie and payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AstraZeneca. AS received grants or contracts (payments to institution) from MSD, BMS, AstraZeneca, Roche, and Amphera; received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AstraZeneca, BMS, MSD, and Roche; received support for attending meetings or travel from AstraZeneca, BMS, MSD, and Roche; and participated on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for AstraZeneca, BMS, MSD, and Roche. MF received consulting fees from AstraZeneca, BMS, and Takeda and received honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AstraZeneca, BMS, and Takeda. SAL has participated on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Sanofi and Bayer. JRG received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AstraZeneca and BMS. PB received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Merck and participated on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Mirati and AbbVie. NL has received editorial support from EMD Serono; received grants to institute (unrelated) from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Guardant Health, Inivata, Janssen, Merck/MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda; received honoraria or travel funding for CME lectures (unrelated) from AstraZeneca, Beigene, BMS, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, and Takeda; and participated on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Mirati, Helsinn, and Daichii Sankyo. LS has received grants or contracts to institution to support clinical trial from AstraZeneca, Merck, Bayer, Novartis, Repare, GSK, and Janssen and holds stock or stock options from AstraZeneca. DED has received research grants from CIHR, CancerCare Manitoba Foundation, and AstraZeneca; received research grants and salary awards from Manitoba Medical Services Foundation; received payment for educational events from Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, and BMS; served on an advisory board for Merck, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, and Novartis; has acted in a leadership or fiduciary role in a board, society, committee or advocacy group, paid or unpaid for Lung Cancer Canada (Medical Advisory Committee), Canadian Association of Medical Oncologists (Chair, Fellowship Committee), and Canadian Cancer Trials Group (Chair, Small Cell Lung Cancer Working Group); and received equipment, materials, drugs, medical writing, gifts, or other services from AstraZeneca (Medical writing assistance on a small-cell lung cancer paper). QC has received grants to institution from Alkermes, Amgen, Apollomics, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bicycle, BMS, Conjupro, Decipher, Eli Lilly, Esperas, Exactis, GSK, iTEOS, Kelun, Merck, Mirati, Nuvalent, Ocellaris, Pfizer, Rvolution Medicines, Roche, SeaGen, Spectrum, and Treadwell; received consulting fees from Amgen, AnHeart, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, GSK, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, Merck and Co, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda; received payment for speaking or presentations from AstraZeneca; acted on an advisory board for Amgen, AnHeart, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, GSK, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, Merck and Co, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda; acted on a Data Safety Monitoring Committee for Merck and KGaA; and occupied a leadership or fiduciary role in a board, society, committee, or advocacy group, paid or unpaid for Lung Cancer Canada and Canadian Mesothelioma Foundation. CWL has served as a member of the Board of Directors for Canadian Mesothelioma Foundation. LG received grants or contracts to institution from BMS, MSD, Takeda, Pfizer, Roche, Amgen, Sanofi, Janssen, Lilly, and Novartis; received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from BMS, MSD, Takeda, Pfizer, Roche, Amgen, Sanofi, Janssen, Lilly, and Novartis; received support for attending meetings or travel from Pfizer, MSD, AstraZeneca, and Takeda; and participated on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Inhatarget Therapeutics. XQ received support for attending meetings or travel from Pfizer (ESMO 2022), Janssen (ASCO 2022), and Sanofi (ASCO 2023). VW received consulting fees from Amgen; received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Roche, and Sanofi; received support for attending meetings or travel from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, MSD, Roche, and Sanofi; and participated on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Amgen, AstraZeneca, and Ipsen. GZ received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Inventiva Pharma, Lilly, MSD Oncology, Pfizer, and Roche; acted in a consulting or advisory role for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Da Volterra, Inventiva Pharma, MSD Oncology, Pfizer, and Roche; received research funding from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda; and received travel, accommodations, and expenses from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lilly, Pfizer, and Roche. MLS received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from BMS and support for attending meetings or travel from Pfizer (ESMO 2022). AM received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Roche, AstraZeneca, BMS, MSD, Pfizer, Takeda, Boehringer, Sanofi, Lilly, Novartis, and Italfarmaco and participated on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Roche, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, MSD, and Takeda. FG received consulting fees from Novocure, BMS, Novartis, PharmaMar, Pierre Fabre, and MSD; received payment for speaker bureau from Novocure; received support for attending meetings or travel from Novartis, MSD, BMS, PharmaMar, and Pierre Fabre. SD received payment for presentations from Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, and BMS and travel and accommodation support during meetings from Istituto Gentili, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, and BMS. GLC received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Novocure and BMS and participated on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Novocure. PAZ received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Merck Sharp and Dohme, Astellas, Janssen, Sanofi, Ipsen, Pfizer, Novartis, Bristol Meyer Squibb, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Roche, and Bayer; received support for attending meetings or travel from Merck Sharp and Dohme, Astellas, Janssen, Sanofi, Ipsen, Pfizer, Novartis, Bristol Meyer Squibb, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Roche, and Bayer; and participated on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Merck Sharp and Dohme, Astellas, Janssen, Sanofi, Ipsen, Pfizer, Novartis, Bristol Meyer Squibb, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Roche, and Bayer. MM received support for attending meetings or travel from Roche, Pfizer, and Novartis. FLC received consulting fees from Takeda, Amgen, Novartis, AstraZeneca, and Roche; received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Takeda, Amgen, Novartis, AstraZeneca, and Roche; and received support for attending meetings or travel from Takeda and Amgen. CG received consulting fees from Karyopharm, Menarini, and Roche; received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaux, manuscript writing, or educational events from MSD, BMS, Novartis, Amgen, Sanofi, Eli Lilly, GSK, Roche, Takeda, Boehringer, AstraZeneca, and Pfizer; and participated on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for MSD, BMS, Novartis, Amgen, Sanofi, Eli Lilly, GSK, Roche, Takeda, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, and Pfizer. FP received partial funding to institution and experimental study drug from Pfizer; received financial support to institution from Roche, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Incyte, Tesaro/GSK, and Merck; and received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Bayer, Pierre Fabre, AstraZeneca, Incyte, Ipsen, Clovis, Astellas, Sanofi, Roche, and Pfizer. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: We describe the clinical and genomic landscape of the non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) cohort of the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) Project Genomics Evidence Neoplasia Information Exchange (GENIE) Biopharma Collaborative (BPC)., Experimental Design: A total of 1,846 patients with NSCLC whose tumors were sequenced from 2014 to 2018 at four institutions participating in AACR GENIE were randomly chosen for curation using the PRISSMM data model. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated for patients treated with standard therapies., Results: In this cohort, 44% of tumors harbored a targetable oncogenic alteration, with EGFR (20%), KRAS G12C (13%), and oncogenic fusions (ALK, RET, and ROS1; 5%) as the most frequent. Median OS (mOS) on first-line platinum-based therapy without immunotherapy was 17.4 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 14.9-19.5 months]. For second-line therapies, mOS was 9.2 months (95% CI, 7.5-11.3 months) for immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) and 6.4 months (95% CI, 5.1-8.1 months) for docetaxel ± ramucirumab. In a subset of patients treated with ICI in the second-line or later setting, median RECIST PFS (2.5 months; 95% CI, 2.2-2.8) and median real-world PFS based on imaging reports (2.2 months; 95% CI, 1.7-2.6) were similar. In exploratory analysis of the impact of tumor mutational burden (TMB) on survival on ICI treatment in the second-line or higher setting, TMB z-score harmonized across gene panels was associated with improved OS (univariable HR, 0.85; P = 0.03; n = 247 patients)., Conclusions: The GENIE BPC cohort provides comprehensive clinicogenomic data for patients with NSCLC, which can improve understanding of real-world patient outcomes., (©2023 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

Biomarker tests in lung cancer have been traditionally ordered by the treating oncologist upon confirmation of an appropriate pathological diagnosis. The delay this introduces prolongs yet further what is already a complex, multi-stage, pre-treatment pathway and delays the start of first-line systemic treatment, which is crucially informed by the results of such analysis. Reflex testing, in which the responsibility for testing for an agreed range of biomarkers lies with the pathologist, has been shown to standardise and expedite the process. Twelve experts discussed the rationale and considerations for implementing reflex testing as standard clinical practice., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Superior sulcus tumors are a challenging subset of non-small cell lung carcinomas invading the thoracic inlet. In this study, we determined whether the location of the tumor along the first rib had an influence on survival., Methods: We performed a review of 92 consecutive patients undergoing surgery for non-small cell lung carcinomas invading the thoracic inlet between January 1996 and June 2021. Tumor location was categorized into anterior and posterior based on predefined zones., Results: In total, 21 tumors were located anteriorly (23%) and 71 posteriorly (77%). The rate of R0 resection (81% vs 87%; P = .4) and pathological complete response to induction therapy (33% vs 37%; P = .8) were similar between locations. After a median follow-up of 5.8 years (range, 0.8-24 years), 49 patients died for an overall survival of 48% (95% CI, 38%-59%) at 5 years. The 5-year survival was favorably influenced by R0 (vs R1) resection (51% vs 29%; P = .02), pathological complete response (vs no pathological complete response) (69% vs 31%; P = .03), posterior (vs anterior) location (56% vs 22%; P = .01), and ≤60 (vs >60) years of age (61% vs 37%; P = .007). Compared with posterior tumors, anterior tumors were associated with higher risk of systemic recurrence and significantly greater survival benefit from pathological complete response. Anterior tumors remained an independent predictor of worse survival in multivariate analysis (hazard ratio, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.2-4.5; P = .01)., Conclusions: The anatomical location of the tumor affects survival after resection of non-small cell lung carcinomas invading the thoracic inlet. Anterior tumors have greater propensity to metastasize and may derive greater benefit from optimal systemic therapy than posterior tumors., (Copyright © 2022 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Lung cancer remains the leading cancer-related death across North America. Imaging is fundamental. Recently, healthcare disparities came into research focus. Our aim was to explore disparity from an imaging, genetic, and outcome perspective. We utilized the AACR Project GENIE Biopharma Consortium (BPC) dataset v 1.1 to build a collated NSCLC dataset. Descriptive and analytical statistics were applied according to data characteristics. From 1849 patients, mean age was 64.4 y (±10.5), 58% ( n = 1065) were female, 23% ( n = 419) never smoked, 84% ( n = 1545) were of white race, and 57% ( n = 1052) were < stage III. No difference ( p > 0.05) was found for baseline imaging by race. White race showed higher 3-month surveillance imaging ( p = 0.048) and a baseline stage < IV (OR 0.61). KRAS (33.3 vs. 17.9%), STK11 (14.8 vs. 7.3%), and KEAP1 (13.3 vs. 5.3%) mutations were predominant among white patients while EGFR mutation (19.2 vs. 44.1%) was less predominant. Mutations in TP53 or KEAP1 had worse PFS and OS. The latter was also reduced in STK11, KRAS + STK11, and KRAS + KEAP1 mutations. Meanwhile, EGFR mutation had increased OS. Multivariate analysis showed that progression on imaging at 3 or 6 months (HR 1.69 and 1.43, respectively), TP53 (HR 1.37) and KRAS (HR 1.26) had lower OS while EGFR and LRP1B (HR 0.69 and 0.39, respectively) had higher OS. No racial disparity at baseline imaging was observed. Higher initial stages among non-white patients might reflect inequalities in accessing healthcare. However, race wasn't associated to OS. Finally, progression in imaging at 3 or 6 months showed the higher hazard ratios for death.

Objective: The 8th TNM edition classifies stage III-N2 disease as IIIA and IIIB based on a tumor size cutoff of 5 cm. However, the importance of tumor size on survival in patients with resectable stage III-N2 disease has not been analyzed systematically., Methods: Survival analysis based on tumor size (>5 cm vs ≤ 5 cm) for 255 consecutive patients with nonbulky (maximal lymph node diameter of 1.5 cm) stage III-N2 non-small cell lung cancer treated with surgery in our institution., Results: Ninety patients (35.3%) underwent induction chemoradiation therapy (n = 72, 28%) or induction chemotherapy (n = 18, 7%), and 165 patients underwent primary surgery followed by adjuvant chemotherapy (n = 52, 32%), adjuvant chemoradiation therapy (n = 47, 29%), or adjuvant radiation therapy (n = 14, 13.2%). After a median follow-up of 6.5 years, the overall survival was 46.5% at 5 years and 28.9% at 10 years. In tumors 5 cm or less, there was no difference in survival between patients treated with induction or adjuvant therapy. However, in tumors greater than 5 cm, the survival was significantly better after induction therapy compared with adjuvant therapy or surgery alone. Pathologic multi-station N2 disease was more frequently detected in tumors greater than 5 cm (31% vs 18% in tumors ≤5 cm, P = .042), and the rate of R1 resection was lower after induction therapy (2.2% vs 8.5% in primary surgery, P = .048)., Conclusions: These results support the redefinition of tumors greater than 5 cm with resectable N2 disease to stage IIIB. This change should help to refine the multimodality approach for stage III-N2 lung cancer., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) held a virtual consensus-building process on epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutant non-small-cell lung cancer in 2021. The consensus included a multidisciplinary panel of 34 leading experts in the management of lung cancer. The aim of the consensus was to develop recommendations on topics that are not covered in detail in the current ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline and where the available evidence is either limited or conflicting. The main topics identified for discussion were: (i) tissue and biomarkers analyses; (ii) early and locally advanced disease; (iii) metastatic disease and (iv) clinical trial design, patient's perspective and miscellaneous. The expert panel was divided into four working groups to address questions relating to one of the four topics outlined above. Relevant scientific literature was reviewed in advance. Recommendations were developed by the working groups and then presented to the entire panel for further discussion and amendment before voting. This manuscript presents the recommendations developed, including findings from the expert panel discussions, consensus recommendations and a summary of evidence supporting each recommendation., Competing Interests: Disclosure AP received education grants, provided consultation, attended advisory board meetings and/or provided lectures for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Daiichi Sankyo, eCancer, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Medscape, Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Merck KGaA, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, Takeda, outside the submitted work. NL reports unrelated institutional research funding received from Amgen, Array, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Lilly, EMD Serono, Guardant Health, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Takeda and unrelated personal fees (CME lectures, consulting) received from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, EMD Serono, MSD, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme. SPo reports personal fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, Blueprint Medicines, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Guardant Health, Janssen, Lilly, Merck KGaA, Novartis, Roche, Takeda, Seattle Genetics, Turning Point Therapeutics, GlaxoSmithKline, outside the submitted work. KK reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Roche, during the conduct of the study. MJA reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Takeda, Roche, Alpha Pharmaceutical, Amgen, Lilly, ONO, MSD, Merck, outside the submitted work. MEA reports personal fees from Biocartis, Invivoscribe, Janssen Global Services, BMS, AstraZeneca, Roche, Merck, RMEI Medical Education, Clinical Care Options, PeerView Institute for medical education, outside the submitted work. OA reports personal fees from Pfizer, grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, personal fees from Lilly, Merck, BMS, grants and personal fees from Roche, outside the submitted work. DP reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, BMS, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, prIME Oncology, Peer CME, Roche, Samsung, AbbVie, Janssen, outside the submitted work; and clinical trials research (as principal investigator or co-investigator): AstraZeneca, AbbVie, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, MedImmune, Sanofi-Aventis, Taiho Pharma, Novocure, Daiichi Sankyo, Janssen. FdM reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, grants from Boehringer, personal fees from Roche, BMS, Novartis, MSD, Pfizer, Takeda, outside the submitted work. AMD reports personal fees from Roche, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Pharmamar, Takeda, Boehringer Ingelheim, grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Jansen, Chiesi, grants and personal fees from Amgen, personal fees from Bayer, Sanofi, outside the submitted work. RD reports personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees and non-financial support from Roche, non-financial support from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Foundation Medicine, Karyopharm, outside the submitted work. CFF reports grants and other from AstraZeneca, other from MSD, grants and other from Elekta, during the conduct of the study. JF reports personal fees from Blueprint Medicines, Novartis, Janssen, AstraZeneca, outside the submitted work. EF reports personal fees from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Medscape, Merck KGaA, MSD, Novartis, PeerVoice, Pfizer, prIME Oncology, Puma Biotechnology, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, Springer, Takeda, Touch Medical, grants from Grant for Oncology Innovation (GOI), grants from Fundación Merck Salud, personal fees from CME Outfitters, BeiGene, Medical Trends, Peptomyc, Regeneron, from Syneos Health, outside the submitted work; and Grifols: independent member of the board. GC reports consultation fees from Pfizer, Roche, AstraZeneca, BMS, Daichii Sankyo, Seagen, Gilead, Novartis, Lilly, Ellipsis, Merck. RH reports consultation fees from AbbVie Pharmaceuticals, ARMO Biosciences, AstraZeneca, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc., Bolt Biotherapeutics, BMS, Candel Therapeutics, Inc., Checkpoint Therapeutics, Cybrexa Therapeutics, DynamiCure Biotechnology, LLC, eFFECTOR Therapeutics, Inc., Eli Lilly and Company, EMD Serono, Foundation Medicine, Inc., Genentech/Roche, Genmab, Gilead, Halozyme Therapeutics, Heat Biologics, HiberCell, Inc., I-Mab Biopharma, Immune-Onc Therapeutics, Immunocore, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Johnson & Johnson, Loxo Oncology, Merck and Company, Mirati Therapeutics, Nektar, Neon Therapeutics, NextCure, Novartis, Ocean Biomedical, Inc., Oncocyte Corp., Oncternal Therapeutics, Pfizer, Refactor Health, Inc., Ribbon Therapeutics, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Shire PLC, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, STCube Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Symphogen, Takeda, Tesaro, Tocagen, Ventana Medical Systems, Inc., WindMIL Therapeutics, Xencor, Inc., research support from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly and Company, Genentech/Roche, Merck and Company, and participation on board of Immunocore Holdings Limited, Junshi Pharmaceuticals. PAJ reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, personal fees from Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, Chugai Pharmaceuticals, Loxo Oncology, grants and personal fees from Eli Lilly, personal fees from SFJ Pharmaceuticals, Voronoi, grants and personal fees from Daiichi Sankyo, personal fees from Biocartis, Novartis, Sanofi, grants and personal fees from Takeda Oncology, personal fees from Mirati Therapeutics, Transcenta, Silicon Therapeutics, Syndax, Nuvalent, Bayer, Eisai, Allorion Therapeutics, Accutar Biotech, AbbVie, grants from Revolution Medicines, grants from PUMA, grants from Astellas, outside the submitted work. In addition, PAJ is a co-inventor on a DFCI patent on EGFR mutations and receives postmarketing royalties from Lab Corp. TJ reports personal fees from Pfizer, AstraZeneca, BMS, Merck, MSD, Takeda, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, Ignyta, Novartis, Bayer, Amgen, Gilead, Puma Pharmaceuticals, outside the submitted work. TM reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chugai, personal fees from Pfizer, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from BMS, grants and personal fees from Ono, MSD, personal fees from Novartis, grants and personal fees from Taiho, personal fees from Takeda, Amgen, Invitae, Merck Biopharma, Thermo Fisher, grants from Bridge Biotherapeutics, grants and personal fees from Ethicon, outside the submitted work. TM reports personal fees and other from AbbVie, Inc., ACEA Pharma, Alpha Biopharma Co. Ltd, Amgen, Amoy Diagnostics Co. Ltd, grants, personal fees and other from AstraZeneca, personal fees and other from BeiGene, Boehringer Ingelheim, grants, personal fees and other from BMS, personal fees and other from Blueprint Medicines Corporation, CStone Pharmaceuticals, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Fishawack Facilitate Ltd, other from geneDecode, personal fees and other from Gritstone Oncology Inc., Guardant Health, Hengrui Therapeutics, Ignyta Inc., Incyte Corporation, personal fees from InMed Medical Communication, personal fees and other from Janssen, Lilly, Loxo Oncology, Lunit USA, Inc., personal fees from MD Health (Brazil), Medscape/WebMD, grants, personal fees and other from Merck Serono, MSD, personal fees and other from Mirati Therapeutics Inc., personal fees from MoreHealth, grants, personal fees and other from Novartis, personal fees and other from OrigiMed, personal fees from PeerVoice, Physicians' Education Resource, P. Permanyer SL, grants, personal fees and other from Pfizer, Inc., personal fees from PrIME Oncology, personal fees and other from Puma Biotechnology Inc., personal fees from Research to Practice, grants, personal fees and other from Roche, personal fees and other from Sanofi-Aventis R&D, grants, personal fees and other from Takeda, personal fees from Touch Medical Media, other from Virtus Medical Group, personal fees and other from Yuhan Corporation, other from AstraZeneca PLC, Hutchison Chi-Med, Sanomics Ltd, grants from Clovis Oncology, grants, personal fees and other from SFJ Pharmaceuticals, grants from Xcovery, personal fees and other from Curio Science, personal fees from Inivata, Berry Oncology, grants and personal fees from G1 Therapeutics Inc., other from Aurora, personal fees from Qiming Development (HK) Ltd, Daz Group, Lucence Health Inc., Merck Pharmaceuticals HK Ltd, Shanghai BeBirds Translation & Consulting Co., Ltd, Liangyihui Network Technology Co., Ltd, Taiho, personal fees and other from Gilead Sciences, Inc, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, personal fees from Covidien LP, outside the submitted work. NN reports personal fees from MSD, grants and personal fees from Qiagen, Biocartis, Incyte, Roche, BMS, Merck, Thermo Fisher, AstraZeneca, personal fees from Sanofi, Eli Lilly, Bayer, ArcherDx, grants and personal fees from Illumina, personal fees from Amgen, outside the submitted work. LPA reports grants from MSD, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, BMS, personal fees from Lilly, MSD, Roche, Pharmamar, Merck, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Servier, Amgen, Pfizer, Ipsen, Sanofi, Bayer, Blueprint, BMS, Mirati, Janssen, other from Genomica, Altum sequencing, outside the submitted work. SR reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, BMS, Amgen, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Takeda, Eisai, Lilly, outside the submitted work. LS reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, grants from Novartis, personal fees from Janssen, grants and personal fees from Genentech, personal fees from Takeda, Pfizer, grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, outside the submitted work. JV reports honoraria for invited speaker from AstraZeneca, BMS, MSD, and Novartis; participation on advisory board of AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daichi Sankyo, MSD, Pfizer, and Roche; grant from MSD. IIW reports grants and personal fees from Genentech/Roche, Bayer, BMS, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, HTG Molecular, personal fees from Asuragen, grants and personal fees from Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Guardant Health, personal fees from Flame, grants and personal fees from Novartis, Sanofi, personal fees from Daiichi Sankyo, grants and personal fees from Amgen, personal fees from Oncocyte, MSD, Platform Health, grants from Adaptive, Adaptimmune, EMD Serono, Takeda, Karus, Johnson & Johnson, 4D, Iovance, Akoya, outside the submitted work. JW reports personal fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Blueprint, grants and personal fees from BMS, personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Ignyta, grants and personal fees from Janssen, personal fees from Lilly, Loxo, MSD, grants and personal fees from Novartis, Pfizer, personal fees from Roche, Seattle Genetics, Takeda, outside the submitted work. YLW reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Eli Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Novartis, Takeda; grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Hengrui and Roche, outside the submitted work. JCHY reports personal fees and other from Amgen, grants, personal fees and other from AstraZeneca, personal fees and other from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Daiichi Sankyo, other from Eli Lilly, personal fees and other from Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, MSD, Novartis, personal fees from Ono Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, personal fees and other from Roche/Genentech, Takeda Oncology, Yuhan Pharmaceuticals, other from Johnson & Johnson, Glaxo, Puma Technology, outside the submitted work. YY reports and contracted studies with ArcherDx, Chugai Pharma and Thermo Fisher Science; honoraria for lectures from MSD, Chugai Pharma, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Roche/Ventana, Agilent/Dako, Thermo Fisher Science, ArcherDx, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Amgen and Sysmex; participation on advisory board of MSD, Chugai Pharma, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Amgen, Takeda and Daiichi-Sankyo. GP reports grants from Amgen, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Merck, grants and non-financial support from AstraZeneca, grants and personal fees from Roche, BMS, grants from Lilly, grants and personal fees from MSD, Novartis, outside the submitted work. SPe received education grants, provided consultation, attended advisory board meetings and/or provided lectures for AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biocartis, BioInvent, Blueprint Medicines Corporation, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, Debiopharm, Eli Lilly, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Foundation Medicine, Illumina, Janssen, MSD, Merck Serono, Merrimack, Novartis, PharmaMar, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda and Vaccibody, from whom she received honoraria (all fees to institution). All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 European Society for Medical Oncology. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Topotecan is approved as second-line treatment for small cell lung cancer (SCLC). Irinotecan is also frequently used given its more convenient schedule and superior tolerability. Preclinical studies support disialoganglioside (GD2) as an SCLC target and the combination of dinutuximab, an anti-GD2 antibody, plus irinotecan in this setting. We tested dinutuximab/irinotecan versus irinotecan or topotecan as second-line therapy in relapsed/refractory (RR) SCLC., Materials and Methods: Patients with RR SCLC and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-1 were randomized 2:2:1 to receive dinutuximab 16-17.5 mg/m 2 intravenous (IV)/irinotecan 350 mg/m 2 IV (day 1), irinotecan 350 mg/m 2 IV (day 1), or topotecan 1.5 mg/m 2 IV (days 1-5) in 21-day cycles. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS); secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR; complete response [CR] + partial response [PR]), and clinical benefit rate (CBR; CR + PR + stable disease). Safety/tolerability were also assessed., Results: A total of 471 patients were randomized to dinutuximab/irinotecan (n = 187), irinotecan (n = 190), or topotecan (n = 94). Age, sex, performance status, prior therapies, and metastatic disease sites were similar between groups. Survival and response rates were not improved for patients receiving dinutuximab/irinotecan versus those receiving irinotecan or topotecan (median OS 6.9 vs 7.0 vs 7.4 months [p = 0.3132]; median PFS 3.5 vs 3.0 vs 3.4 months [p = 0.3482]; ORR confirmed 17.1% vs 18.9% vs 20.2% [p = 0.8043]; and CBR 67.4% vs 58.9% vs 68.1% [p = 0.0989]), respectively. Grade 3/4 adverse events (≥5% receiving dinutuximab/irinotecan) included neutropenia, anemia, diarrhea, and asthenia., Conclusions: Dinutuximab/irinotecan treatment did not result in improved OS in RR SCLC versus irinotecan alone. Irinotecan administered every 21 days demonstrated comparable activity to topotecan administered daily × 5 every 21 days., Clinicaltrials: gov Identifier. NCT03098030., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Introduction: The Blood First Assay Screening Trial is an ongoing open-label, multicohort study, prospectively evaluating the relationship between blood-based next-generation sequencing (NGS) detection of actionable genetic alterations and activity of targeted therapies or immunotherapy in treatment-naive advanced or metastatic NSCLC. We present data from the ALK-positive cohort., Methods: Patients aged more than or equal to 18 years with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC and ALK rearrangements detected by blood-based NGS using hybrid capture technology (FoundationACT) received alectinib 600 mg twice daily. Asymptomatic or treated central nervous system (CNS) metastases were permitted. Primary end point was investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR; Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1). Secondary end points were independent review facility-assessed ORR, duration of response, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival, and safety. Exploratory end points were investigator-assessed ORR in patients with baseline CNS metastases and relationship between circulating biomarkers and response., Results: In total, 2219 patients were screened and blood-based NGS yielded results in 98.6% of the cases. Of these, 119 patients (5.4%) had ALK-positive disease; 87 were enrolled and received alectinib. Median follow-up was 12.6 months (range: 2.6-18.7). Confirmed ORR was 87.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 78.5-93.5) by investigator and 92.0% (95% CI: 84.1-96.7) by independent review facility. Investigator-confirmed 12-month duration of response was 75.9% (95% CI: 63.6-88.2). In 35 patients (40%) with baseline CNS disease, investigator-assessed ORR was 91.4% (95% CI: 76.9-98.2). Median PFS was not reached; 12-month investigator-assessed PFS was 78.4% (95% CI: 69.1-87.7). Safety data were consistent with the known tolerability profile of alectinib., Conclusions: These results reveal the clinical application of blood-based NGS as a method to inform clinical decision-making in ALK-positive NSCLC., (Copyright © 2021 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Acquired resistance (AR) to programmed cell death protein 1/programmed death-ligand 1 [PD-(L)1] blockade is frequent in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), occurring in a majority of initial responders. Patients with AR may have unique properties of persistent antitumor immunity that could be re-harnessed by investigational immunotherapies. The absence of a consistent clinical definition of AR to PD-(L)1 blockade and lack of uniform criteria for ensuing enrollment in clinical trials remains a major barrier to progress; such clinical definitions have advanced biologic and therapeutic discovery. We examine the considerations and potential controversies in developing a patient-level definition of AR in NSCLC treated with PD-(L)1 blockade. Taking into account the specifics of NSCLC biology and corresponding treatment strategies, we propose a practical, clinical definition of AR to PD-(L)1 blockade for use in clinical reports and prospective clinical trials. Patients should meet the following criteria: received treatment that includes PD-(L)1 blockade; experienced objective response on PD-(L)1 blockade (inclusion of a subset of stable disease will require future investigation); have progressive disease occurring within 6 months of last anti-PD-(L)1 antibody treatment or rechallenge with anti-PD-(L)1 antibody in patients not exposed to anti-PD-(L)1 in 6 months., Competing Interests: Disclosure AJS reports consulting/advising role to J&J and Perceptive Advisors. SJA reports consulting/advising role from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, CBMG, AstraZeneca, Memgen, RAPT, and Venn, Achilles Therapeutics, Celsius, Samyang Biopharma, Glaxo Smith Klein, Amgen, other from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Rapt, Achilles Therapeutics, Celsius, GlaxoSmithKline, Amgen, grants from Novartis; expenses from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, CBMG, AstraZeneca, Memgen, RAPT, and Venn, Achilles Therapeutics, Celsius, Samyang Biopharma, Glaxo Smith Klein, Amgen, other from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Rapt, Achilles Therapeutics, Celsius, GlaxoSmithKline, Amgen, grants from Novartis. MMA reports grants and personal fees from Genentech, grants and personal fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, personal fees from Merck, grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, grants from Lilly, personal fees from Maverick, personal fees from Blueprint Medicine, personal fees from Syndax, personal fees from Ariad, personal fees from Nektar, personal fees from Gritstone, personal fees from ArcherDx, personal fees from Mirati, personal fees from NextCure, personal fees from EMD Serono. EF reports personal fees from AbbVie, personal fees from Amgen, personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Bayer, personal fees from Blue Print Medicines, personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, personal fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, personal fees from Eli Lilly, personal fees from GSK, personal fees from Janssen, personal fees from Medscape, personal fees from Merck KGaA, personal fees from Merck Sharp & Dohme, personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Roche, personal fees from PeerVoice, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from prIME Oncology, personal fees from Puma Biotechnology, personal fees from Roche, personal fees from Sanofi Genzyme, personal fees from Springer, personal fees from Takeda, personal fees from TouchIME, grants from Grant for Oncology Innovation (GOI), grants from Fundación Merck Salud, outside the submitted work; and Grífols: Independent Member of the Board. JG reports grants and personal fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, grants and personal fees from Genentech/Roche, personal fees from Takeda, grants and personal fees from Blueprint, grants and personal fees from Loxo, personal fees from Oncorus, personal fees from Regeneron, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Incyte, grants and personal fees from Novartis, grants and personal fees from Merck, personal fees from Agios, personal fees from Amgen, grants from Array, grants from Tesaro, grants from Moderna, grants from Adaptimmune, grants from Alexo, personal fees from Ironwood Pharmaceuticals, personal fees from Gilead, personal fees from EMD Serono, personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Mirati. SNG reports personal fees and other from Bristol Myers Squibb, personal fees from Nektar, other from Genentech, other from Ariad/Takeda, other from Iovance Biotherapeutics, during the conduct of the study. FSH reports grants, personal fees and other from Bristol-Myers Squibb, personal fees from Merck, personal fees from EMD Serono, grants, personal fees and other from Novartis, personal fees from Surface, personal fees from Compass Therapeutics, personal fees from Apricity, personal fees from Aduro, personal fees from Sanofi, personal fees from Pionyr, personal fees from 7 Hills Pharma, personal fees from Verastem, personal fees from Torque, personal fees from Rheos, personal fees from Kairos, personal fees from Bicara, from Psioxus Therapeutics, other from Pieris Pharmaceutical, from Zumutor, from Corner Therapeutics, personal fees from Eisai, personal fees from Checkpoint Therapeutics, outside the submitted work; In addition, FSH has a patent Methods for Treating MICA-Related Disorders (#20100111973) with royalties paid, a patent Tumor antigens and uses thereof (#7250291) issued, a patent Angiopoiten-2 Biomarkers Predictive of Anti-immune checkpoint response (#20170248603) pending, a patent Compositions and Methods for Identification, Assessment, Prevention, and Treatment of Melanoma using PD-L1 Isoforms (#20160340407) pending, a patent Therapeutic peptides (#20160046716) pending, a patent Therapeutic Peptides (#20140004112) pending, a patent Therapeutic Peptides (#20170022275) pending, a patent Therapeutic Peptides (#20170008962) pending, a patent Therapeutic Peptides Patent number: 9402905 issued, a patent Methods of using pembrolizumab and trebananib pending, a patent Vaccine compositions and methods for restoring NKG2D pathway function against cancers Patent number: 10279021 issued, a patent Antibodies that bind to MHC class I polypeptide-related sequence A Patent number: 10106611 issued, and a patent Anti- galectin antibody biomarkers predictive of anti-immune checkpoint and anti-angiogenesis responses. Publication number: 20170343552 pending. MLJ reports other from Achilles Therapeutics, grants and other from AstraZeneca, grants and other from Atreca, grants and other from Boehringer Ingelheim, grants and other from Calithera Biosciences, grants and other from EMD Serono, grants and other from Roche/Genentech, grants and other from GlaxoSmithKline, grants and other from Gritstone Oncology, grants and other from Guardant Health, grants and other from Incyte, grants and other from Janssen Research and Development, grants and other from Lilly, grants and other from Merck, grants and other from Mirati Therapeutics, grants and other from Novartis, grants and other from Pfizer, grants and other from Sanofi-Aventis, grants from AbbVie, grants from Acerta Pharma, grants from Adaptimmune, grants and other from Amgen, grants from Apexigen, grants from Array BioPharma, grants from BeiGene, grants from Checkpoint Therapeutics, grants from Corvus Pharmaceuticals, grants from CytomX, grants and other from Daiichi Sankyo, grants from Dynavax Technologies, grants from Genmab, grants from Genocea Biosciences, grants from Hengrui Therapeutics, grants from Immunocore, grants from Jounce Therapeutics, grants from Kadmon Pharmaceuticals, grants from Loxo Oncology, grants from Lycera, grants from Neovia Oncology, grants from OncoMed Pharmaceuticals, grants from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, grants from Shattuck Labs, grants from Stem CentRx, grants from Syndax Pharmaceuticals, grants from Takeda Pharmaceuticals, grants from Tarveda, grants from University of Michigan, grants and other from WindMIL Therapeutics, grants from TCR2 Therapeutics, grants from Arcus Biosciences, grants and other from Ribon Therapeutics, grants from Seven and Eight Biopharmaceuticals, other from Bristol-Myers Squibb, personal fees from Astellas, personal fees from Otsuka, grants from BerGenBio, grants from Foundation Medicine, other from G1 Therapeutics, grants from Tmunity Therapeutics. NBL reports grants and personal fees for CME lectures from MSD and BMS. CML reports other from Cepheid, other from Syros, other from Foundation Medicine, other from Novartis, other from Astra Zeneca, other from Takeda, other from Amgen, other from Blueprints Medicine, other from Genentech, other from Eli Lilly/Loxo, other from Pfizer, other from Roche, other from Achilles, from null, outside the submitted work. TM reports personal fees from AbbVie, Inc., personal fees and other from ACEA Pharma, personal fees and other from Alpha Biopharma Co. Ltd., personal fees and other from Amgen, personal fees and other from Amoy Diagnostics Co. Ltd., grants, personal fees and other from AstraZeneca, personal fees and other from BeiGene, personal fees and other from Boehringer Ingelheim, grants, personal fees and other from Bristol-Myers Squibb, personal fees and other from Blueprint Medicines Corporation, personal fees and other from CStone Pharmaceuticals, personal fees and other from Daiichi Sankyo, personal fees and other from Eisai, personal fees and other from Fishawack Facilitate Ltd., other from geneDecode, personal fees and other from Gritstone Oncology Inc., personal fees and other from Guardant Health, personal fees and other from Hengrui Therapeutics, personal fees and other from Ignyta Inc., personal fees and other from IQVIA, personal fees and other from Incyte Corporation, personal fees from InMed Medical Communication, personal fees and other from Janssen, personal fees and other from Lilly, personal fees and other from Loxo-Oncology, personal fees and other from Lunit, Inc., personal fees from MD Health (Brazil), personal fees from Medscape/WebMD, grants, personal fees and other from Merck Serono, grants, personal fees and other from Merck Sharp & Dohme, personal fees and other from Mirati Therapeutics Inc., personal fees from MoreHealth, grants, personal fees and other from Novartis, personal fees and other from OrigiMed, personal fees from PeerVoice, personal fees from Physicians' Education Resource, personal fees from P. Permanyer SL, grants, personal fees and other from Pfizer, Inc, personal fees from prIME Oncology, personal fees and other from Puma Technology Inc, personal fees from Research to Practice, grants, personal fees and other from Roche, personal fees and other from Sanofi-Aventis R&D, personal fees and other from Takeda, personal fees from Touch Medical Media, other from Virtus Medical Group, personal fees and other from Yuhan Corporation, other from AstraZeneca PLC, other from Hutchison Chi-Med, other from Sanomics Ltd., grants from Clovis Oncology, grants from SFJ Pharmaceuticals, grants from XCovery, outside the submitted work. MP reports grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Roche, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from AstraZeneca, personal fees from ELI LILLY, personal fees and non-financial support from Pfizer, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Boehringer Ingelheim, personal fees and non-financial support from B Bristol Myers Squibb, personal fees and non-financial support from Merck Sharp & Dohme, personal fees from Novartis, grants and personal fees from Takeda, personal fees and non-financial support from Chugai, personal fees from Amgen, personal fees from Illumina, personal fees from Gritstone, outside the submitted work. MR reports personal fees from Amgen, personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from BMS, personal fees from Boehringer-Ingelheim, personal fees from Lilly, personal fees from Merck, personal fees from MSD, personal fees from Mirati, personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Roche, personal fees from Samsung, outside the submitted work. BS reports personal fees from Roche/Genentech, personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Amgen, personal fees from Eli Lilly, personal fees from Loxo Oncology, personal fees from Merck, personal fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, personal fees from PharmaMar, personal fees from Pfizer, outside the submitted work. J-CS reports other from AstraZeneca, other from AstraZeneca, during the conduct of the study; other from Gritstone Oncology, other from Daiichi Sankyo, other from Relay Therapeutics, outside the submitted work. DSWT reports grants and personal fees from Novartis, grants and personal fees from Bayer, personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, personal fees from Celgene, grants and personal fees from Astra Zeneca, personal fees from Eli Lilly, personal fees from LOXO, personal fees from Merck, grants and personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Roche, personal fees from Takeda, grants from GlaxoSmithKline, personal fees from Merrimack, outside the submitted work. SP reports personal fees from AbbVie, personal fees from Amgen, personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Bayer, personal fees from Biocartis, personal fees from Boehringer-Ingelheim, personal fees from Bistrol-Myers Squibb, personal fees from Clovis, personal fees from Daiichi Sankyo, personal fees from Debiopharm, personal fees from Eli Lilly, personal fees from F. Hoffmann-La Roche, personal fees from Foundation Medicine, personal fees from Illumina, personal fees from Janssen, personal fees from Merck Sharp and Dohme, personal fees from Merck Serono, personal fees from Merrimack, personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Pharma Mar, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Regeneron, personal fees from Sanofi, personal fees from Seattle Genetics and Takeda, personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Boehringer-Ingelheim, personal fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, personal fees from Eli Lilly, personal fees from F. Hoffmann-La Roche, personal fees from Merck Sharp and Dohme, personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Takeda, non-financial support from Sponsored by Amgen, non-financial support from AstraZeneca, non-financial support from Boehringer-Ingelheim, non-financial support from Bristol-Meyers Squibb, non-financial support from Clovis, non-financial support from F. Hoffmann-La Roche, non-financial support from Illumina, non-financial support from Merck Sharp and Dohme, non-financial support from Merck Serono, non-financial support from Novartis, non-financial support from Pfizer, non-financial support from Sanofi, personal fees from Bioinvent, outside the submitted work. All fees to institution. MDH reports personal fees from Merck, personal fees from Genentech/Roche, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from BMS, personal fees and non-financial support from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Mirati, personal fees from Syndax, personal fees and other from Shattuck Labs, personal fees from Nektar, personal fees and other from Immunai, personal fees and other from Arcus, from Eli Lilly, during the conduct of the study; In addition, Dr. Hellmann has a patent A patent filed by Memorial Sloan Kettering related to the use of tumor mutational burden to predict response to immunotherapy (PCT/US2015/062208) licensed to PGDx., (Copyright © 2021 European Society for Medical Oncology. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Activating mutations in the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) are common driver mutations in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). First, second and third generation EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) are effective at inhibiting mutant EGFR NSCLC, however, acquired resistance is a major issue, leading to disease relapse. Here, we characterize a small molecule, EMI66, an analog of a small molecule which we previously identified to inhibit mutant EGFR signalling via a novel mechanism of action. We show that EMI66 attenuates receptor tyrosine kinase (RTK) expression and signalling and alters the electrophoretic mobility of Coatomer Protein Complex Beta 2 (COPB2) protein in mutant EGFR NSCLC cells. Moreover, we demonstrate that EMI66 can alter the subcellular localization of EGFR and COPB2 within the early secretory pathway. Furthermore, we find that COPB2 knockdown reduces the growth of mutant EGFR lung cancer cells, alters the post-translational processing of RTKs, and alters the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress response pathway. Lastly, we show that EMI66 treatment also alters the ER stress response pathway and inhibits the growth of mutant EGFR lung cancer cells and organoids. Our results demonstrate that targeting of COPB2 with EMI66 presents a viable approach to attenuate mutant EGFR signalling and growth in NSCLC., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests I.S., P.S. and J.S. (in conjunction with the University of Toronto) are listed as inventors on a patent (publication number 20190091205) for the use of EMI1 (and structurally related analogues), midostaurin, gilteritinib and AZD7762 (and structurally related analogues) in the treatment of mutant EGFR-mediated non-small-cell lung cancer., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Although precision medicine has had a mixed impact on the clinical management of patients with advanced-stage cancer overall, for NSCLC, and more specifically for lung adenocarcinoma, the advances have been dramatic, largely owing to the genomic complexity and growing number of druggable oncogene drivers. Furthermore, although tumor tissue is historically the "accepted standard" biospecimen for these molecular analyses, there are considerable innate limitations. Thus, liquid biopsy represents a practical alternative source for investigating tumor-derived somatic alterations. Although data are most robust in NSCLC, patients with other cancer types may also benefit from this minimally invasive approach to facilitate selection of targeted therapies. The liquid biopsy approach includes a variety of methodologies for circulating analytes. From a clinical point of view, plasma circulating tumor DNA is the most extensively studied and widely adopted alternative to tissue tumor genotyping in solid tumors, including NSCLC, first entering clinical practice for detection of EGFR mutations in NSCLC. Since the publication of the first International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC) liquid biopsy statement in 2018, several additional advances have been made in this field, leading to changes in the therapeutic decision-making algorithm for advanced NSCLC and prompting this 2021 update. In view of the novel and impressive technological advances made in the past few years, the growing clinical application of plasma-based, next-generation sequencing, and the recent Food and Drug and Administration approval in the United States of two different assays for circulating tumor DNA analysis, IASLC revisited the role of liquid biopsy in therapeutic decision-making in a recent workshop in October 2020 and the question of "plasma first" versus "tissue first" approach toward molecular testing for advanced NSCLC. Moreover, evidence-based recommendations from IASLC provide an international perspective on when to order which test and how to interpret the results. Here, we present updates and additional considerations to the previous statement article as a consensus from a multidisciplinary and international team of experts selected by IASLC., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Cost-effectiveness analyses embedded within randomized trials allow for evaluation of value alongside conventional efficacy outcomes; however, collection of resource utilization data can require considerable trial resources., Methods: We re-analyzed the results from four phase III Canadian Cancer Trials Group trials that embedded cost-effectiveness analyses to determine the impact of minimizing potential cost categories on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. For each trial, we disaggregated total costs into component incremental cost categories and recalculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios using (1) only the top 3 cost categories, (2) the top 5 cost categories, and (3) all cost components. Using individual trial-level data, confidence intervals for each incremental cost-effectiveness ratio simulation were generated by bootstrapping and descriptively presented with the original confidence intervals (and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios) from the publications., Results: Drug acquisition costs represented the highest incremental cost category in three trials, while hospitalization costs represented the other consistent cost driver and the top incremental cost category in the fourth trial. Recalculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios based on fewer cost components (top 3 and top 5) did not differ meaningfully from the original published results. Based on conventional willingness-to-pay thresholds (US$50,000-US$100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year), none of the re-analyses would have changed the original perception of whether the experimental therapies were considered cost-effective., Conclusions: These results suggest that the collection of resource utilization data within cancer trials could be narrowed. Omission of certain cost categories that have minimal impact on incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, such as routine laboratory investigations, could reduce the costs and undue burden associated with the collection of data required for cancer trial cost-effectiveness analyses.

Objectives: Approximately 20% of patients diagnosed with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have a history of prior (non-lung) cancer. Patients with prior cancer are frequently excluded from clinical trials. We aimed to assess the potential impact of prior cancer on commonly used clinical trial endpoints., Materials and Methods: Clinical trials of systemic therapy for incurable NSCLC from clinicaltrials.gov were reviewed to determine the frequency of exclusion on the basis of prior cancer. A cohort of patients with incurable NSCLC and prior cancer, treated with first-line systemic treatment at our institution were reviewed as a surrogate clinical trial population. A list of priori events was developed to capture the potential for prior cancer to negatively affect clinical trial conduct or endpoints. The proportions of patients that developed an outcome were assessed., Results: Among trials registered on clinicaltrials.gov, 66% listed prior cancer in the eligibility criteria, and of these 35% excluded patients with prior cancer in the last 5 years. Of NSCLC patients treated with systemic therapy at Princess Margaret Cancer Center, 20% had prior cancer, of these, breast (20%) and prostate (19%) were the most common malignancies. Median time between prior cancer and NSCLC was 82 months. Median survival was 20 months. For patients without evidence of active prior cancer at baseline, and not on active therapy for prior cancer, no patients had evidence of a recurrence of prior cancer during the treatment and follow-up for the NSCLC, nor died from prior cancer. However, two patients developed new primaries., Conclusions: A history of prior cancer has a low likelihood of impacting clinical trial endpoints in patients with incurable NSCLC, if not active or requiring treatment. These findings should be validated in larger data sets., (© 2021 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Introduction: MEK inhibition is a potential therapeutic strategy in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This phase I study evaluates the MEK inhibitor binimetinib plus carboplatin and pemetrexed in stage IV non-squamous NSCLC patients (NCT02185690)., Methods: A standard 3 + 3 dose-escalation design was used. Binimetinib 30 mg BID (dose level 1 [DL1]) or 45 mg BID (dose level 2 [DL2]) was given with standard doses of carboplatin and pemetrexed using an intermittent dosing schedule. The primary outcome was determination of the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) and safety of binimetinib. Secondary outcomes included efficacy, pharmacokinetics, and an exploratory analysis of response based on mutation subtype., Results: Thirteen patients (6 DL1, 7 DL2) were enrolled: 7 KRAS, 5 EGFR, and 1 NRAS mutation. The RP2D was binimetinib 30 mg BID. Eight patients (61.5%) had grade 3/4 adverse events, with dose limiting toxicities in 2 patients at DL2. Twelve patients were evaluated for response, with an investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR) of 50% (95% CI 21.1%-78.9%; ORR 33.3% by independent-review, IR), and disease control rate 83.3% (95% CI 51.6%-97.9%). Median progression free survival (PFS) was 4.5 months (95% CI 2.6 months-NA), with a 6-month and 12-month PFS rate of 38.5% (95% CI 19.3%-76.5%) and 25.6% (95% CI 8.9%-73.6%), respectively. In an exploratory analysis, KRAS/NRAS-mutated patients had an ORR of 62.5% (ORR 37.5% by IR) vs. 25% in KRAS/NRAS wild-type patients. In MAP2K1-mutated patients, the ORR was 42.8%., Conclusion: The addition of binimetinib to carboplatin and pemetrexed appears to have manageable toxicity with evidence of activity in advanced non-squamous NSCLC., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: A novel approach for managing malignant pleural mesothelioma, surgery for mesothelioma after radiotherapy (SMART), consisting of a short accelerated course of high-dose, hemithoracic, intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) followed by extrapleural pneumonectomy was developed. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical feasibility of the SMART protocol., Methods: In this single-centre, phase 2 trial, patients aged 18 years or older with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, with histologically proven, resectable, cT1-3N0M0 disease who had previously untreated malignant pleural mesothelioma were eligible for inclusion. Patients received 25 Gy in five daily fractions over 1 week to the entire ipsilateral hemithorax with a concomitant 5 Gy boost to high risk areas followed by extrapleural pneumonectomy within 1 week. Adjuvant chemotherapy was offered to patients with ypN+ disease on final pathology. The primary endpoint was feasibility, which was defined as the number of patients with 30-day perioperative treatment-related death (grade 5 events) or morbidity (grade 3 or 4 events). A key secondary endpoint was cumulative incidence of distant recurrence. The final analysis was done on an intention-to-treat basis (including all eligible patients). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00797719., Findings: Between Nov 1, 2008, and Oct 31, 2019, 102 patients were enrolled onto the trial and 96 eligible patients were treated with SMART on protocol and included in the analysis. Extrapleural pneumonectomy was done at a median of 5 days (range 2-12) after completing IMRT. 47 (49%) patients had 30-day perioperative grade 3-4 events and one (1%) patient died within 30 days perioperatively (grade 5 event; pneumonia). After a median follow-up of 46·8 months (IQR 13·4-61·2), the 5-year cumulative incidence of distant recurrence was 62 (63·3% [95% CI 52·3-74·4]). The most common first sites of recurrence were the contralateral chest (33 [46%] of 72 patients) and the peritoneal cavity (32 [44%])., Interpretation: Results from this study suggest that extrapleural pneumonectomy after radiotherapy can be done with good early and long-term results. However, minimising grade 4 events on the protocol is technically demanding and might affect survival beyond the post-operative period., Funding: Princess Margaret Hospital Foundation Mesothelioma Research Fund., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Decisions about trial funding, ethical approval, or clinical practice guideline recommendations require expert judgments about the potential efficacy of new treatments. We tested whether individual and aggregated expert opinion of oncologists could predict reliably the efficacy of cancer treatments tested in randomized controlled trials., Materials and Methods: An international sample of 137 oncologists specializing in genitourinary, lung, and colorectal cancer provided forecasts on primary outcome attainment for five active randomized cancer trials within their subspecialty; skill was assessed using Brier scores (BS), which measure the average squared deviation between forecasts and outcomes., Results: A total of 40% of trials in our sample reported positive primary outcomes. Experts generally anticipated this overall frequency (mean forecast, 34%). Individual experts on average outperformed random predictions (mean BS = 0.29 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.28-0.33] vs. 0.33) but underperformed prediction algorithms that always guessed 50% (BS = 0.25) or that were trained on base rates (BS = 0.19). Aggregating forecasts improved accuracy (BS = 0.25; 95% CI, 0.16-0.36]). Neither individual experts nor aggregated predictions showed appreciable discrimination between positive and nonpositive trials (area under the curve of a receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.52 and 0.43, respectively)., Conclusion: These findings are based on a limited sample of trials. However, they reinforce the importance of basing research and policy decisions on the results of randomized trials rather than expert opinion or low-level evidence., Implications for Practice: Predictions of oncologists, either individually or in the aggregate, did not anticipate reliably outcomes for randomized trials in cancer. These findings suggest that pooled expert opinion about treatment efficacy is no substitute for randomized trials. They also underscore the challenges of using expert opinion to prioritize interventions for clinical trials or to make recommendations in clinical practice guidelines., (© 2020 AlphaMed Press.)

Background: Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (tkis) have dramatically improved the survival of patients with ALK -rearranged ( ALK +) non-small-cell lung cancer (nsclc). Clinical trial data can generally compare drugs in a pair-wise fashion. Real-world collection of health utility data, symptoms, and toxicities allows for the direct comparison between multiple tki therapies in the population with ALK + nsclc., Methods: In a prospective cohort study, outpatients with ALK + recruited between 2014 and 2018, treated with a variety of tkis, were assessed every 3 months for clinico-demographic, patient-reported symptom and toxicity data and EQ-5D-derived health utility scores (hus)., Results: In 499 longitudinal encounters of 76 patients with ALK + nsclc, each tki had stable longitudinal hus when disease was controlled, even after months to years: the mean overall hus for each tki ranged from 0.805 to 0.858, and longitudinally from 0.774 to 0.912, with higher values associated with second- or third-generation tkis of alectinib, brigatinib, and lorlatinib. Disease progression was associated with a mean hus decrease of 0.065 (95% confidence interval: 0.02 to 0.11). Health utility scores were inversely correlated to multiple symptoms or toxicities: rho values ranged from -0.094 to -0.557. Fewer symptoms and toxicities were associated with the second- and third-generation tkis compared with crizotinib. In multivariable analysis, only stable disease state and baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status were associated with improved hus., Conclusions: There was no significant decrease in hus when patients with ALK + disease were treated longitudinally with each tki, as long as patients were clinically stable. Alectinib, brigatinib, and lorlatinib had the best toxicity profiles and exhibited high mean hus longitudinally in the real-world setting., Competing Interests: CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURES We have read and understood Current Oncology’s policy on disclosing conflicts of interest, and we declare the following interests: GL has received honoraria or research funding from Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda. AGS is a consultant or advisor, has received honoraria, or has participated in clinical trials with AstraZeneca, Amgen, Merck, Pfizer, Bayer, Genentech–Roche, KisoJi Biotechnology, Bristol Myers Squibb, Tesaro, Spectrum, and GlaxoSmithKline. The remaining authors have no conflicts to disclose., (2020 Multimed Inc.)

Background: The Lung Cancer Master Protocol (Lung-MAP; S1400) is a completed biomarker-driven master protocol designed to address an unmet need for better therapies for squamous non-small-cell lung cancer. Lung-MAP (S1400) was created to establish an infrastructure for biomarker screening and rapid regulatory intent evaluation of targeted therapies and was the first biomarker-driven master protocol initiated with the US National Cancer Institute (NCI)., Methods: Lung-MAP (S1400) was done within the National Clinical Trials Network of the NCI using a public-private partnership. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had stage IV or recurrent squamous non-small-cell lung cancer, had previously been treated with platinum-based chemotherapy, and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-2. The study included a screening component using the FoundationOne assay (Foundation Medicine, Cambridge, MA, USA) for next-generation sequencing, and a clinical trial component with biomarker-driven substudies and non-match substudies for patients who were ineligible for biomarker-driven substudies. Patients were pre-screened and received their substudy assignment upon progression, or they were screened at progression and received their substudy assignment upon completion of testing. Patients could enrol onto additional substudies after progression on a substudy. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02154490, and all research related to Lung-MAP (S1400) is completed., Findings: Between June 16, 2014, and Jan 28, 2019, 1864 patients enrolled and 1841 (98·9%) submitted tissue. 1674 (90·9%) of 1841 patients had biomarker results, and 1404 (83·9%) of 1674 patients received a substudy assignment. Of the assigned patients, 655 (46·7%) registered to a substudy. The biomarker-driven substudies evaluated taselisib (targeting PIK3CA alterations), palbociclib (cell cycle gene alterations), AZD4547 (FGFR alteration), rilotumumab plus erlotinib (MET), talazoparib (homologous recombination repair deficiency), and telisotuzumab vedotin (MET). The non-match substudies evaluated durvalumab, and nivolumab plus ipilimumab for anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1-naive disease, and durvalumab plus tremelimumab for anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 relapsed disease. Combining data from the substudies, ten (7·0%) of 143 patients responded to targeted therapy, 53 (16·8%) of 315 patients responded to anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 therapy for immunotherapy-naive disease, and three (5·4%) of 56 responded to docetaxel in the second line of therapy. Median overall survival was 5·9 months (95% CI 4·8-7·8) for the targeted therapy groups, 7·7 months (6·7-9·2) for the docetaxel groups, and 10·8 months (9·4-12·3) for the anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1-containing groups. Median progression-free survival was 2·5 months (95% CI 1·7-2·8) for the targeted therapy groups, 2·7 months (1·9-2·9) for the docetaxel groups, and 3·0 months (2·7-3·9) for the anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1-containing groups., Interpretation: Lung-MAP (S1400) met its goal to quickly address biomarker-driven therapy questions in squamous non-small-cell lung cancer. In early 2019, a new screening protocol was implemented expanding to all histological types of non-small-cell lung cancer and to add focus on immunotherapy combinations for anti-PD-1 and anti-PD-L1 therapy-relapsed disease. With these changes, Lung-MAP continues to meet its goal to focus on unmet needs in the treatment of advanced lung cancers., Funding: US National Institutes of Health, and AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech, and Pfizer through the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The advent of personalized therapy for non-small-cell lung carcinoma (nsclc) has improved patient outcomes. Selection of appropriate targeted therapy for patients with nsclc now involves testing for multiple biomarkers, including EGFR . EGFR mutation status is required to optimally treat patients with nsclc, and thus timely and accurate biomarker testing is necessary. However, in Canada, there are currently no standardized processes or methods in place to ensure consistent testing implementation. That lack creates challenges in ensuring that all appropriate biomarkers are tested for each patient and that the medical oncologist receives the results for making informed treatment decisions in a timely way. An expert multidisciplinary working group was convened to create consensus recommendations about biomarker testing in advanced nsclc in Canada, with a primary focus on EGFR testing. Recognizing that there are biomarkers beyond EGFR that require timely identification, the expert multidisciplinary working group considered EGFR testing in the broader context of integration into complex lung biomarker testing. Primarily, the panel of experts recommends that all patients with nonsquamous nsclc, regardless of stage, should undergo comprehensive reflex biomarker testing at diagnosis with targeted next-generation sequencing. The panel also considered the EGFR testing algorithm and the challenges associated with the pre-analytic, analytic, and post-analytic elements of testing. Strategies for funding testing by reducing silos of single biomarker testing for EGFR and for optimally implementing the recommendations presented here and educating oncology professionals about them are also discussed., Competing Interests: CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURES We have read and understood Current Oncology’s policy on disclosing conflicts of interest, and we declare the following interests: PKC reports consultancy fees and honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Amgen, Roche, Novartis, Merck, Pfizer, Takeda, and emd Serono. MG reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca and Hoffmann–La Roche, unrestricted educational grants from AstraZeneca, Hoffmann–La Roche, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, and Merck, and nonfinancial support from Merck, outside the submitted work. SB reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda, outside the submitted work. NBL reports institutional research funding from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Roche, and Merck Sharp and Dohme; and honoraria for continuing medical eduation lectures from Merck Sharp and Dohme. BM reports advisory board fees or honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Roche, and Novartis. BSS reports personal fees from AstraZeneca during the conduct of the study; grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, emd Serono, Novartis, and Pfizer; and personal fees from Bayer and Roche, outside the submitted work. TS reports personal fees from AstraZeneca during the conduct of the study. DNI reports personal fees from AstraZeneca during the conduct of the study; grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from AstraZeneca; grants and personal fees from Pfizer and Roche; nonfinancial support from Biocartis; and personal fees from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Amgen, Merck, and Novartis, outside the submitted work., (2020 Multimed Inc.)

Background: Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) represents approximately 15% of lung cancers, and approximately 70% are diagnosed as extensive-stage SCLC (ES-SCLC). Although ES-SCLC is highly responsive to chemotherapy, patients typically progress rapidly, and there is an urgent need for new therapies. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have recently been investigated in SCLC, and this review provides guidance on the use of these agents in ES-SCLC based on phase III evidence., Methods: Published and presented literature on phase III data addressing use of ICIs in ES-SCLC was identified using the key search terms "small cell lung cancer" AND "checkpoint inhibitors" (OR respective aliases). Directed searches of eligible studies were periodically performed to ensure capture of the most recent data., Results: Six phase III trials were identified, with four assessing the benefits of ICIs plus chemotherapy first-line, one evaluating ICIs as first-line therapy maintenance, and one assessing ICI monotherapy after progression on platinum-based chemotherapy. The addition of ipilimumab or tremelimumab to first-line treatment or as first-line maintenance did not improve survival. Two out of three studies combining PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors with first-line platinum-based chemotherapy demonstrated significant long-lasting survival benefits and improved quality of life with no unexpected safety concerns. PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors as first-line maintenance or in later lines of therapy did not improve survival. Biomarker research is ongoing as well as research into the role of ICIs in combination with radiation therapy in limited-stage SCLC., Conclusion: The addition of atezolizumab or durvalumab to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy for ES-SCLC prolongs survival and improves quality of life., Implications for Practice: Platinum-based chemotherapy has been standard of care for extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) for more than a decade. Six recent phase III trials investigating immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have clarified the role of these agents in this setting. Although ICIs were assessed first-line, as first-line maintenance, and in later lines of therapy, the additions of atezolizumab or durvalumab to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy were the only interventions that significantly improved overall survival and increased quality of life. These combinations should therefore be considered standard therapy for first-line ES-SCLC. Biomarker research and investigations into the role of ICIs for limited-stage disease are ongoing., (© AlphaMed Press 2020.)

Background: Accurate classification of lung cancer subtypes has become critical in tailoring lung cancer treatment. Our study aimed to evaluate changes in diagnostic testing and pathologic subtyping of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (nsclc) over time at a major cancer centre., Methods: In a review of patients diagnosed with advanced nsclc at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre between 2007-2009 and 2013-2015, diagnostic method, sample type and site, pathologic subtype, and use of immunohistochemistry (ihc) staining and molecular testing were abstracted., Results: The review identified 238 patients in 2007-2009 and 283 patients in 2013-2015. Over time, the proportion of patients diagnosed with adenocarcinoma increased to 73.1% from 60.9%, and diagnoses of nsclc not otherwise specified (nos) decreased to 6.4% from 18.9%, p < 0.0001. Use of diagnostic bronchoscopy decreased (26.9% vs. 18.4%), and mediastinal sampling procedures, including endobronchial ultrasonography, increased (9.2% vs. 20.5%, p = 0.0001). Use of ihc increased over time to 76.3% from 41.6% ( p < 0.0001). Larger surgical or core biopsy samples and those for which ihc was performed were more likely to undergo biomarker testing (both p < 0.01)., Conclusions: Customizing treatment based on pathologic subtype and molecular genotype has become key in treating patients with advanced lung cancer. Greater accuracy of pathology diagnosis is being achieved, including through the routine use of ihc., Competing Interests: CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURES We have read and understood Current Oncology’s policy on disclosing conflicts of interest, and we declare the following interests: DMH reports personal fees from Pfizer, grants and personal fees from Merck, grants from AstraZeneca, grants and personalfees from Novartis, personal fees from Takeda, and personal fees from Roche, outside the submitted work. MST reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Hoffmann–La Roche, Bayer, Takeda, and Merck, outside the submitted work. NBL reports institutional research funding from Roche, AstraZeneca, Array, Guardant, and Merck Sharp and Dohme outside submitted work; honoraria or travel expenses (or both) for independent continuing medical education lectures from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Roche, and Pfizer outside the submitted work; and advisor fees from Xcovery. The remaining authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (2020 Multimed Inc.)

Few germline mutations are known to affect lung cancer risk. We performed analyses of rare variants from 39,146 individuals of European ancestry and investigated gene expression levels in 7,773 samples. We find a large-effect association with an ATM L2307F (rs56009889) mutation in adenocarcinoma for discovery (adjusted Odds Ratio = 8.82, P = 1.18 × 10 -15 ) and replication (adjusted OR = 2.93, P = 2.22 × 10 -3 ) that is more pronounced in females (adjusted OR = 6.81 and 3.19 and for discovery and replication). We observe an excess loss of heterozygosity in lung tumors among ATM L2307F allele carriers. L2307F is more frequent (4%) among Ashkenazi Jewish populations. We also observe an association in discovery (adjusted OR = 2.61, P = 7.98 × 10 -22 ) and replication datasets (adjusted OR = 1.55, P = 0.06) with a loss-of-function mutation, Q4X (rs150665432) of an uncharacterized gene, KIAA0930. Our findings implicate germline genetic variants in ATM with lung cancer susceptibility and suggest KIAA0930 as a novel candidate gene for lung cancer risk.

Background: Minimal qualitative data exist on the experiences of cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors or costimulatory antibodies. Understanding the day to day experiences of patients being treated with immune checkpoint modulators, and how these relate to their health-related quality of life, can inform future research and lead to better clinical decision-making and care. We report here the first in depth qualitative study to consider patients' diverse and complex experiences with immune checkpoint modulators, with a focus on side effects and how these impact daily life., Methods: This single-center qualitative study was based on focus groups and semistructured interviews. Patients who were being treated or who had been treated with immune checkpoint modulators within the last year for a range of cancer diagnoses were recruited. Interpretive description informed our inductive, iterative approach to analysis., Results: Eight themes were identified, characterizing the complexity of these patients' lived experiences: major categories of side effects experienced and how they impacted patient well-being; the heterogeneous nature of side effects experienced; living with uncertainty; reframing the meaning and severity of SEs; focus on survival, hope, and being positive; acceptance and adaptation; feeling supported; and faith in medical innovation. Throughout their accounts, participants highlighted the profound impact that immune checkpoint modulators had on their daily lives., Conclusion: This is the first in-depth qualitative study into patient accounts of their experiences of treatment with immune checkpoint modulators, related side effects, and how it impacted their daily lives. This research is an integral initial step in developing an instrument that will assess treatment-related side effects in patients treated with this form of therapy., (© 2020 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Receptor tyrosine kinases (RTKs) are transmembrane receptors of great clinical interest due to their role in disease. Historically, therapeutics targeting RTKs have been identified using in vitro kinase assays. Due to frequent development of drug resistance, however, there is a need to identify more diverse compounds that inhibit mutated but not wild-type RTKs. Here, we describe MaMTH-DS (mammalian membrane two-hybrid drug screening), a live-cell platform for high-throughput identification of small molecules targeting functional protein-protein interactions of RTKs. We applied MaMTH-DS to an oncogenic epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutant resistant to the latest generation of clinically approved tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). We identified four mutant-specific compounds, including two that would not have been detected by conventional in vitro kinase assays. One of these targets mutant EGFR via a new mechanism of action, distinct from classical TKI inhibition. Our results demonstrate how MaMTH-DS is a powerful complement to traditional drug screening approaches.

Introduction: Improving health-related quality of life (hrqol) is a key goal of systemic therapy in advanced lung cancer, although routine assessment remains challenging. We analyzed the impact of a real-time electronic hrqol tool, the electronic Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (elcss-ql), on palliative care (pc) referral rates, patterns of chemotherapy treatment, and use of other supportive interventions in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (nsclc) receiving first-line chemotherapy., Methods: Patients with advanced nsclc starting first-line chemotherapy were randomized to their oncologist receiving or not receiving their elcss-ql data before each clinic visit. Patients completed the elcss-ql at baseline, before each chemotherapy cycle, and at subsequent follow-up visits until disease progression. Prospective data about the pc referral rate, hrqol, and use of other supportive interventions were collected., Results: For the 95 patients with advanced nsclc who participated, oncologists received real-time elcss-ql data for 44 (elcss-ql arm) and standard clinical assessment alone for 51 (standard arm). The primary endpoint, the pc referral rate, was numerically higher, but statistically similar, for patients in the elcss-ql and standard arms. The hrqol scores over time were not significantly different between the two study arms., Conclusions: The elcss-ql is feasible as a tool for use in routine clinical practice, although no statistically significant effect of its use was demonstrated in our study. Improving access to supportive care through the collection of patient-reported outcomes and hrqol should be an important component of care for patients with advanced lung cancer., Competing Interests: CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURES We have read and understood Current Oncology’s policy on disclosing conflicts of interest, and we declare that we have none., (2020 Multimed Inc.)

Background: Multiple clinical trials for the treatment of advanced EGFR- mutated non-small-cell lung cancer (nsclc) have recently been reported. As a result, the treatment algorithm has changed, and many important clinical questions have been raised:■ What is the optimal first-line treatment for patients with EGFR- mutated nsclc?■ What is preferred first-line treatment for patients with brain metastasis?■ What is the preferred second-line treatment for patients who received first-line first- or second-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors (tkis)?■ What is the preferred treatment after osimertinib?■ What evidence do we have for treating patients whose tumours harbour uncommon EGFR mutations?, Methods: A Canadian expert panel was convened to define the key clinical questions, review recent evidence, and discuss and agree on practice recommendations for the treatment of advanced EGFR- mutated nsclc., Results: The published overall survival results for osimertinib, combined with its central nervous system activity, have led to osimertinib becoming the preferred first-line treatment for patients with common EGFR mutations, including those with brain metastasis. Other agents could still have a role, especially when osimertinib is not available or not tolerated. Treatment in subsequent lines of therapy depends on the first-line therapy or on T790M mutation status. Treatment recommendations for patients whose tumours harbour uncommon EGFR mutations are guided mainly by retrospective and limited prospective evidence. Finally, the evidence for sequencing and combining tkis with chemotherapy, angiogenesis inhibitors, checkpoint inhibitors, and other new therapeutics is reviewed., Conclusions: This Canadian expert consensus statement and algorithm were driven by significant advances in the treatment of EGFR- mutated nsclc., Competing Interests: CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURES We have read and understood Current Oncology’s policy on disclosing conflicts of interest, and we declare the following interests: BM has received honoraria for advisory board participation from Bayer, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Roche. SB has received honoraria for advisory board participation from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol–Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda. NB has received honoraria for advisory board participation from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol–Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda, and has received research funding from AstraZeneca. QC has received honoraria for advisory board participation from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol–Myers Squibb, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda. RJ has received honoraria for advisory board participation from AstraZeneca, Bristol–Myers Squibb, Fusion, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda, and research funding from AstraZeneca, Bristol–Myers Squibb, and Merck. NBL is a beneficiary of institutional research funding from Guardant, Array, Novartis, Merck, and Roche; has received honoraria or travel expenses for independent continuing medical education from Roche, AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp and Dohme, and Bristol–Myers Squibb; and has acted as an advisor (compensated) for Xcovery and as a consultant for the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. GL has received honoraria for advisory board participation from AstraZeneca, Roche, Pfizer, Takeda, Novartis, Merck, Bristol–Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Bayer, and for providing education consulting services to AstraZeneca, Roche, emd Serono, and Takeda. GL has also received research funding from AstraZeneca, Roche, and Takeda. PC has received honoraria for advisory board participation from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, Pfizer, Takeda, Merck, and Bristol–Myers Squibb., (2020 Multimed Inc.)

Background: Patients with cancer who are treated with immune checkpoint modulators (ICMs) have their health-related quality of life (HRQOL) measured using general patient-reported outcome (PRO) tools. To the authors' knowledge, no instrument has been developed to date specifically for patients treated with ICMs. The objective of the current study was to develop a toxicity subscale PRO instrument for patients treated with ICMs to assess HRQOL., Methods: Input was collected from a systematic review as well as patients and physicians experienced with ICM treatment. Descriptive thematic analysis was used to evaluate the qualitative data obtained from patient focus groups and interviews, which informed an initial list of items that described ICM side effects and their impact on HRQOL. These inputs informed item generation and/or reduction to develop a toxicity subscale., Results: Focus groups and individual interviews with 37 ICM-treated patients generated an initial list of 176 items. After a first round of item reduction that produced a shortened list of 76 items, 16 physicians who care for patients who are treated with ICMs were surveyed with a list of 49 patient-reported side effects and 11 physicians participated in follow-up interviews. A second round of item reduction was informed by the physician responses to produce a list of 25 items., Conclusions: To the authors' knowledge, this 25-item list is the first HRQOL-focused toxicity subscale for patients treated with ICMs and was developed in accordance with US Food and Drug Administration guidelines, which prioritize patient input in developing PRO tools. The subscale will be combined with the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) to form the FACT-ICM. Prior to recommending the formal use of this PRO instrument, the authors will evaluate its validity and reliability in longitudinal studies involving substantially more patients., (© 2019 American Cancer Society.)

Purpose: Lung cancer is one of the most common types of cancer, resulting in approximately 1.8 million deaths worldwide. Immunotherapy using checkpoint inhibitors has become standard of care in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and there is increasing interest in further improving outcomes through combination with other therapeutics. This systematic review evaluates emerging phase III data on the efficacy and safety of checkpoint inhibitor combinations as first-line treatment for advanced NSCLC., Materials and Methods: Published and presented literature was searched using the key search terms "non-small cell lung cancer" AND "checkpoint-inhibitors" (OR respective aliases) AND phase III trials. Seven randomized phase III clinical trials reporting outcomes on checkpoint inhibitor combinations in first-line advanced NSCLC were identified., Results: Four first-line trials reported outcomes for checkpoint inhibitor combinations in nonsquamous NSCLC. Pembrolizumab-chemotherapy, atezolizumab-chemotherapy, and atezolizumab-bevacizumab-chemotherapy showed significantly improved overall survival compared with controls in patients with advanced nonsquamous epidermal growth factor receptor-negative (EGFR-)/ anaplastic lymphoma kinase gene (ALK)- NSCLC. Two trials reported outcomes for squamous NSCLC, with pembrolizumab-chemotherapy reporting significantly improved overall survival (OS) compared with chemotherapy. The combination of nivolumab-ipilimumab in all-comer histology failed to improve OS compared with histology appropriate chemotherapy in patients regardless of their tumor mutational burden status. Based on improved survival and safety, either pembrolizumab monotherapy or pembrolizumab-chemotherapy administered based on PD-L1 status and histology is a preferred treatment option. Outcomes for atezolizumab-bevacizumab-chemotherapy in EGFR+/ALK+ patients are promising and require further exploration., Conclusion: First-line checkpoint inhibitors added to standard therapies improve overall survival for nonsquamous EGFR-/ALK- and squamous advanced NSCLC., Implications for Practice: Single-agent immune checkpoint inhibitors are now standard of care for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and emerging data show that combining these agents with established chemotherapy further improves outcomes. The phase III KEYNOTE-189 and IMPower-130 trials showed significantly improved survival using this strategy for nonsquamous NSCLC, and the phase III KEYNOTE-407 trial showed similar results in squamous disease. Checkpoint inhibitor combinations are therefore an important new treatment option for first-line NSCLC. Programmed death ligand-1 expression may inform the use of checkpoint inhibitor combination therapy, and overall tumor mutation burden is also an emerging biomarker for this new treatment strategy., (© AlphaMed Press 2019.)

Purpose: Brain metastases (BrM) are common in patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFRm) mutant non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We sought to determine the rate of neurologic death (ND) in this population., Methods and Materials: We analyzed data from 198 patients who received a diagnosis of BrM from EGFRm NSCLC between 2004 and 2016, comparing patients whose initial treatment for BrM was stereotactic radiosurgery with or without tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI), whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT) with or without TKI, or TKI alone. The incidence of ND was determined using a competing risks analysis. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to identify clinical variables associated with this outcome., Results: The percentage of patients who initially received stereotactic radiosurgery, whole brain radiation therapy, or TKI alone was 22%, 61%, and 17%, respectively. Median overall survival in these subgroups was 31.1, 14.6, and 24.6 months, respectively ( P = .0016). The 5-year incidence of ND among all patients was 40% and did not significantly vary according to treatment group. In a multivariable model, only leptomeningeal disease at any point in a patient's disease course significantly correlated with ND (hazard ratio 4.75, P <.001)., Conclusions: Among our cohort of patients with BrM from EGFRm NSCLC, the incidence of ND was significantly higher than suggested by previous reports. BrM should be considered a driver of mortality in many patients with EGFRm NSCLC, and treatments providing better control of BrM, lower neurocognitive side effects, and maintenance of quality of life are needed., (© 2019 The Author(s).)

Cancer treatment and management have become increasingly economically burdensome. Consequently, to help with planning health service delivery, it is vital to understand the associated costs. Administrative databases can be used to help understand and generate real-world system-level costs. Using databases to generate costs can take one of two approaches: top-down or bottom-up. Top-down approaches disaggregate the total health care spending from a global health care budget by sector and provider. A bottom-up approach begins with individual-level health care use and its costs, which are then aggregated., Competing Interests: CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURES We have read and understood Current Oncology’s policy on disclosing conflicts of interest, and we declare the following interests: NC has received salary support from Cancer Care Ontario as the Clinical Lead in Patient Reported Outcomes and Symptom Management; WKE has received fees as an advisory board member for AbbVie, Astellas, Bristol–Myers Squibb, Eisai, Gilead, Lilly, Takeda, and Merck, and has received consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Roche, Servier, and Sanofi Genzyme. NM, SYC, NL, SJS, FES, CD, NJLH, CCE, MC, and NL have no conflicts to disclose., (2019 Multimed Inc.)

The ros1 kinase is an oncogenic driver in non-small-cell lung cancer (nsclc). Fusion events involving the ROS1 gene are found in 1%-2% of nsclc patients and lead to deregulation of a tyrosine kinase-mediated multi-use intracellular signalling pathway, which then promotes the growth, proliferation, and progression of tumour cells. ROS1 fusion is a distinct molecular subtype of nsclc, found independently of other recognized driver mutations, and it is predominantly identified in younger patients (<50 years of age), women, never-smokers, and patients with adenocarcinoma histology. Targeted inhibition of the aberrant ros1 kinase with crizotinib is associated with increased progression-free survival (pfs) and improved quality-of-life measures. As the sole approved treatment for ROS1- rearranged nsclc, crizotinib has been demonstrated, through a variety of clinical trials and retrospective analyses, to be a safe, effective, well-tolerated, and appropriate treatment for patients having the ROS1 rearrangement. Canadian physicians endorse current guidelines which recommend that all patients with nonsquamous advanced nsclc, regardless of clinical characteristics, be tested for ROS1 rearrangement. Future integration of multigene testing panels into the standard of care could allow for efficient and cost-effective comprehensive testing of all patients with advanced nsclc. If a ROS1 rearrangement is found, treatment with crizotinib, preferably in the first-line setting, constitutes the standard of care, with other treatment options being investigated, as appropriate, should resistance to crizotinib develop., Competing Interests: CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURES We have read and understood Current Oncology’s policy on disclosing conflicts of interest, and we declare the following interests: JA, SB, ACS have received personal fees from Pfizer, outside the submitted work; RA received personal fees from Pfizer during the conduct of the study; DGB received grants from Pfizer during the conduct of the study and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Roche, Bristol–Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Merck, Bayer, Lilly, and Takeda outside the submitted work; GB and WM are members of the Pfizer advisory board; CB and CC have received other consideration from Pfizer outside the submitted work; PD received grants from Pfizer during the conduct of the study and other consideration from Bayer, Bristol–Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, and Pfizer outside the submitted work; HSS has received other consideration from Pfizer Canada, Bayer, Merck, and EMD Serono Canada outside the submitted work; TLS has received grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca and personal fees from Bristol–Myers Squibb, Janssen, Pfizer, and Novartis outside the submitted work; ET has received grants from, and been an advisory board member for, Pfizer, Bristol–Myers Squibb, Merck, AstraZeneca, Roche, and Janssen outside the submitted work; MST received grants and personal fees from Pfizer during the conduct of the study and has received grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca and Merck, and personal fees from Bristol–Myers Squibb and Bayer outside the submitted work; JCC, DNI, NBL, BM, FRK, and ZX have no conflicts to disclose.

Lung cancer resulted in an estimated 1.8 million deaths worldwide in 2018 and approximately 20% of patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are diagnosed with stage III unresectable disease. Phase III data from the PACIFIC trial show significantly improved progression-free survival for the checkpoint-inhibitor durvalumab given as consolidation following definitive chemoradiotherapy (cCRT). Overall survival results from this study have now been reported, along with outcomes from other phase II trials. A thorough review of the efficacy and safety of checkpoint-inhibitors used in conjunction with cCRT for stage III unresectable NSCLC is needed. Published and presented literature on phase II and III data was identified using the key search terms "non-small cell lung cancer" AND "checkpoint-inhibitors" (OR respective aliases). One randomized phase III clinical trial and three phase II trials reporting outcomes of checkpoint-inhibitors in conjunction with cCRT for stage III unresectable NSCLC were identified. PACIFIC reported significantly improved overall survival for consolidation durvalumab following cCRT compared with placebo. Although discontinuation due to adverse events (AEs) was higher with durvalumab, rates of grade 3/4 pneumonitis or radiation pneumonitis were low and comparable between arms. Results from phase II trials also show promising activity for other checkpoint-inhibitors and alternative sequencing strategies, although these need to be confirmed in a randomized context. Preliminary data suggest differences in the safety profiles between PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors. Currently, the role of PD-L1 expression levels for patient selection in this setting remains unclear, and durvalumab should be administered on an individual basis in patients with known driver mutations. Consolidation durvalumab following cCRT significantly improves overall survival with an acceptable safety profile in patients with stage III unresectable NSCLC, now representing a new standard of care., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: This study investigated the safety and clinical activity of lumretuzumab, a humanised antihuman epidermal growth factor receptor 3 (HER3) monoclonal antibody, in combination with carboplatin and paclitaxel in first-line treatment of patients with squamous non-small cell lung cancer (sqNSCLC). HER3 ligand heregulin and HER3 protein expression were evaluated as potential biomarkers of clinical activity., Patients and Methods: This open-label, phase Ib/II study enrolled patients receiving lumretuzumab at 800 mg (flat) in combination with carboplatin (area under the curve (AUC) 6 mg/mL×min) and paclitaxel (200 mg/m 2 ) administered intravenously on a every 3-week schedule. Adverse event (AE) rates and tumour responses were determined. Heregulin messenger RNA (mRNA) and HER3 protein expression were investigated in archival tumour biopsies., Results: Altogether, 12 patients received lumretuzumab in combination with carboplatin and paclitaxel. The most frequent AEs were gastrointestinal, haematological and nervous system toxicities, which were generally mild and manageable. Partial responses were observed in 3 of 12 patients lasting 81, 177 and 207 days. All responses were achieved in tumours expressing higher heregulin mRNA levels., Conclusion: Lumretuzumab in combination with carboplatin and paclitaxel was well tolerated. Objective responses were enriched in tumours expressing higher heregulin mRNA levels., Competing Interests: Competing interests: WJ, MC, MH and MW are the sponsor employees and have sponsor stock ownership. CA and FM are also the sponsor employees. IJ is the sponsor consultant from A4P. AC is the member of the Speaker Bureau of Roche and got research support from Roche.

Introduction: Activation of the RAS/RAF/MEK/ERK pathway may confer resistance to chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Selumetinib (AZD6244, ARRY142886), a MEK1/2 inhibitor combined with chemotherapy in patients with NSCLC was evaluated in two schedules to evaluate efficacy and toxicity., Methods: IND.219 was a three-arm study of first line pemetrexed/platinum chemotherapy with two schedules of selumetinib (Arm A: intermittent given on days 2-19; Arm B: continuous given on days 1-21) versus chemotherapy alone (Arm C). The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR); secondary objectives were tolerability, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS). The trial was stopped at the planned interim analysis., Results: Arms A/B/C enrolled 20/21/21 patients, ORR was 35% (95% CI 15-59% median duration 3.8 months), 62% (95% CI 38-82%; median duration 6.3 months), 24% (95% CI 8-47%; median duration 11.6 months) respectively. The PFS (months Arm A, B, C) was 7.5, 6.7, 4.0 respectively (hazard ratio (HR) PFS Arm A over Arm C: 0.76 [95% CI, 0.38-1.51, 2-sided p = 0.42]; Arm B over Arm C 0.75 [95% CI 0.37-1.54, p = 0.43]. Skin and gastrointestinal adverse events were more common with the addition of selumetinib. A high incidence of venous thromboembolism was seen in all arms., Conclusions: Selumetinib combined with chemotherapy was associated with a higher response rate. Continuous selumetinib appeared to be superior to an intermittent schedule. PFS was prolonged with the addition of selumetinib, however this was not statistically significant., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: A subset of patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors experience an accelerated tumor growth rate (TGR) in comparison with pretreatment kinetics; this is known as hyperprogression. This study assessed the relation between hyperprogressive disease (HPD) and treatment-related toxicity and clinical factors., Methods: This study reviewed patients with solid tumors who were enrolled in early-phase immunotherapy trials at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre between August 2012 and September 2016 and had computed tomography scans in the pre-immunotherapy (reference) and on-immunotherapy (experimental) periods. HPD was defined as progression according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1 at the first on-treatment scan and a ≥2-fold increase in TGR between the reference and experimental periods. Treatment-related toxicities requiring systemic therapy, drug delays, or discontinuation were considered clinically significant adverse events (CSAEs)., Results: Of 352 patients, 182 were eligible for analysis. The median age was 60 years, and 54% were male. The Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status was 0 (32%) or 1 (68%). The Royal Marsden Hospital (RMH) prognostic score was 0/1 in 59%. Single-agent immunotherapy was given to 80% of the patients. Most patients (89%) received anti-programmed death (ligand) 1 antibodies alone or in combination with other therapies. HPD occurred in 12 of 182 patients (7%). A higher proportion of females was seen among HPD patients (P = .01), but no association with age, performance status, tumor type, RMH prognostic score, combination immunotherapy, or CSAEs was found. The 1-year overall survival rate was 28% for HPD patients and 53% for non-HPD patients (hazard ratio, 1.7; 95% confidence interval, 0.9-3.3; P = .11)., Conclusions: HPD was observed in 7% of patients with solid tumors treated with immunotherapy. HPD was not associated with CSAEs, age, tumor type, or the type of immunotherapy but was more common in females., (© 2019 American Cancer Society.)

Background: Economic evaluations are an integral component of many clinical trials. Costs used in those analyses are based on the prices of branded drugs when they first enter the market. The effect of genericization on the cost-effectiveness (ce) or cost-utility (cu) of an intervention is unknown because economic analyses are rarely updated using the costs of generic drugs., Methods: We re-examined the ce or cu of regimens previously evaluated in Canadian Cancer Trials Group (cctg) studies that included prospective economic evaluations and where genericization has occurred or is anticipated in Canada. We incorporated the new costs of generic drugs to characterize changes in ce or cu. We also determined acceptable cost levels of generic drugs that would make regimens reimbursable in a publicly funded health care system., Results: The four randomized controlled trials included (representing 1979 patients) were cctg br.10 (early lung cancer, adjuvant vinorelbine-cisplatin vs. observation, n = 172), cctg br.21 (metastatic lung cancer, erlotinib vs. placebo, n = 731), cctg co.17 (metastatic colon cancer, cetuximab vs. best supportive care, n = 557), and cctg ly.12 (relapsed or refractory lymphoma, gemcitabine-dexamethasone-cisplatin vs. cytarabine-dexamethasone-cisplatin, n = 619). Since the initial publication of those trials, the genericization of vinorelbine, erlotinib, cetuximab, and cisplatin has taken place or is expected in Canada. Costs of generics improved the ces and cus of treatment significantly. For example, genericization of erlotinib ($1460.25 per 30 days) resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (icer) of $45,746 per life-year gained compared with $94,638 for branded erlotinib. Likewise, genericization of cetuximab ($275.80 per 100 mg) produced an icer of $261,126 per quality-adjusted life-year (qaly) gained compared with $299,613 for branded cetuximab. Decreases in the cost of generic cetuximab to $129.39 and $63.51 would further improve the icer to $150,000 and $100,000 per QALY respectively., Conclusions: Genericization of a costly oncology drug can modify the ce and cu of a regimen significantly. Failure to revisit economic analyses with the costs of generics could be a missed opportunity for funding bodies to optimize value-based allocation of health care resources. At current levels, the costs of generics might not be sufficiently low to sustain publicly funded health care systems., Competing Interests: CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURES We have read and understood Current Oncology’s policy on disclosing conflicts of interest, and we declare that we have none.

The development of cancer is driven by the accumulation of many oncogenesis-related genetic alterations and tumorigenesis is triggered by complex networks of involved genes rather than independent actions. To explore the epistasis existing among oncogenesis-related genes in lung cancer development, we conducted pairwise genetic interaction analyses among 35,031 SNPs from 2027 oncogenesis-related genes. The genotypes from three independent genome-wide association studies including a total of 24,037 lung cancer patients and 20,401 healthy controls with Caucasian ancestry were analyzed in the study. Using a two-stage study design including discovery and replication studies, and stringent Bonferroni correction for multiple statistical analysis, we identified significant genetic interactions between SNPs in RGL1:RAD51B (OR=0.44, p value=3.27x10 -11 in overall lung cancer and OR=0.41, p value=9.71x10 -11 in non-small cell lung cancer), SYNE1:RNF43 (OR=0.73, p value=1.01x10 -12 in adenocarcinoma) and FHIT:TSPAN8 (OR=1.82, p value=7.62x10 -11 in squamous cell carcinoma) in our analysis. None of these genes have been identified from previous main effect association studies in lung cancer. Further eQTL gene expression analysis in lung tissues provided information supporting the functional role of the identified epistasis in lung tumorigenesis. Gene set enrichment analysis revealed potential pathways and gene networks underlying molecular mechanisms in overall lung cancer as well as histology subtypes development. Our results provide evidence that genetic interactions between oncogenesis-related genes play an important role in lung tumorigenesis and epistasis analysis, combined with functional annotation, provides a valuable tool for uncovering functional novel susceptibility genes that contribute to lung cancer development by interacting with other modifier genes., Competing Interests: CONFLICTS OF INTEREST The authors whose names are listed above certify that they have NO affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest or non-financial interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.

Background: Little evidence has been generated for how best to manage patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (nsclc) presenting with rarer clinical scenarios, including oligometastases, oligoprogression, and pseudoprogression. In each of those scenarios, oncologists have to consider how best to balance efficacy with quality of life, while maximizing the duration of each line of therapy and ensuring that patients are still eligible for later options, including clinical trial enrolment., Methods: An expert panel was convened to define the clinical questions. Using case-based presentations, consensus practice recommendations for each clinical scenario were generated through focused, evidence-based discussions., Results: Treatment strategies and best-practice or consensus recommendations are presented, with areas of consensus and areas of uncertainty identified., Conclusions: In each situation, treatment has to be tailored to suit the individual patient, but with the intent of extending and maximizing the use of each line of treatment, while keeping treatment options in reserve for later lines of therapy. Patient participation in clinical trials examining these issues should be encouraged., Competing Interests: CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURES We have read and understood Current Oncology’s policy on disclosing conflicts of interest, and we declare the following interests: SAL has received honoraria from Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Novartis; SB has served on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol–Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche, and has received research funding from AstraZeneca and Merck; NB has served on advisory boards for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Merck, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol–Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Roche; SB has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol–Myers Squibb, Eisai, and Merck; PKC has served as an advisor for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Hoffmann–La Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Takeda, Eli Lilly, and Bristol–Myers Squibb, and has received research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim and Hoffmann–La Roche; PC has received grants for investigator-initiated research projects from AbbVie, Pfizer, and Sanofi–Aventis; DH has served on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol–Myers Squibb, and Merck, and has received honoraria from Pfizer; VH has participated on advisory boards for AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol–Myers Squibb, Merck, Pfizer, and Roche; RJ has served as an advisor or consultant for AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Bristol–Myers Squibb, Merck, Pfizer/emd Serono, and Roche, has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bristol–Myers Squibb, Merck, Pfizer/emd Serono, and Roche, and has received research funding from AstraZeneca, Bristol–Myers Squibb, and Merck; JL has received honoraria for talks from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, and Roche, and her institution has received grant funding for research trials from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, and Roche; in the last 2 years, NL has received honoraria for independent unrelated continuing medical education from AstraZeneca, Bristol–Myers Squibb, and Merck; DR has received honoraria and support from Accuray, BrainLab, Elekta, Pfizer/emd Serono, Siemens Healthineers, and Varian Medical Systems; JR has received speaker and advisory board fees and institutional research support for clinical trials funded by Astra-Zeneca, Bristol–Myers Squibb, Merck, Pfizer, and Roche; DJS has received honoraria (2015–2018) from Roche Canada, Boehringer Ingelheim Canada, Novartis Canada, Merck Canada, AstraZeneca Canada, Bristol–Myers Squibb Canada, Exactis Innovation, and Pfizer Canada, and has received institutional research support from Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Bristol– Myers Squibb, and Celgene; MST has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bristol–Myers Squibb, Merck, and Roche/Ventana, and a research grant from Merck. The remaining authors have no conflicts to disclose.

The development of therapies that restore or activate the host immune response - the socalled "immuno-oncologic" therapy - has improved the survival of some cancer patients harboring specific tumor types. These drugs, however, are very expensive which has greatly limited their use and consequently reduced the number of patients who could likely benefit. Not to mention, the proportion of patients who display a clinical benefit from therapy is limited. Thus, from a clinical and health economics perspective, there is a pressing need to identify and treat those patients for whom a given immuno- oncologic therapy is most likely to be beneficial. At this end, the identification, validation and use of biomarkers emerge as an important therapeutic tool. Here, we briefly review the state of immunologic biomarker development and utilization and make suggestions for interested clinicians, health policy makers and other stakeholders to prepare for the broader use of biomarkers associated with immuno-oncologic therapy in routine practice. The biomarker field is clearly in its earliest stages and there is no doubt that continued research will identify new biomarkers with valuable clinical indications. Of course, the clinical utility of a biomarker must consider patient preferences and perspectives. In addition, health economic analyses are crucial to better define the value of immunotherapy based on precision medicine strategies and promote value-based pricing., (Copyright© Bentham Science Publishers; For any queries, please email at epub@benthamscience.org.)