Search

Background: Antibodies targeting the immune checkpoint molecules PD-1 or PD-L1 have demonstrated clinical efficacy in patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In this trial we investigated the efficacy and safety of avelumab, an anti-PD-L1 antibody, in patients with NSCLC who had already received platinum-based therapy.Methods: JAVELIN Lung 200 was a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial at 173 hospitals and cancer treatment centres in 31 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and had stage IIIB or IV or recurrent NSCLC and disease progression after treatment with a platinum-containing doublet, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0 or 1, an estimated life expectancy of more than 12 weeks, and adequate haematological, renal, and hepatic function. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1), via an interactive voice-response system with a stratified permuted block method with variable block length, to receive either avelumab 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks or docetaxel 75 mg/m2 every 3 weeks. Randomisation was stratified by PD-L1 expression (≥1% vs <1% of tumour cells), which was measured with the 73-10 assay, and histology (squamous vs non-squamous). The primary endpoint was overall survival, analysed when roughly 337 events (deaths) had occurred in the PD-L1-positive population. Efficacy was analysed in all PD-L1-positive patients (ie, PD-L1 expression in ≥1% of tumour cells) randomly assigned to study treatment (the primary analysis population) and then in all randomly assigned patients through a hierarchical testing procedure. Safety was analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02395172. Enrolment is complete, but the trial is ongoing.Findings: Between March 24, 2015, and Jan 23, 2017, 792 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive avelumab (n=396) or docetaxel (n=396). 264 participants in the avelumab group and 265 in the docetaxel group had PD-L1-positive tumours. In patients with PD-L1-positive tumours, median overall survival did not differ significantly between the avelumab and docetaxel groups (11·4 months [95% CI 9·4-13·9] vs 10·3 months [8·5-13·0]; hazard ratio 0·90 [96% CI 0·72-1·12]; one-sided p=0·16). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 251 (64%) of 393 avelumab-treated patients and 313 (86%) of 365 docetaxel-treated patients, including grade 3-5 events in 39 (10%) and 180 (49%) patients, respectively. The most common grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events were infusion-related reaction (six patients [2%]) and increased lipase (four [1%]) in the avelumab group and neutropenia (51 [14%]), febrile neutropenia (37 [10%]), and decreased neutrophil counts (36 [10%]) in the docetaxel group. Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 34 (9%) patients in the avelumab group and 75 (21%) in the docetaxel group. Treatment-related deaths occurred in four (1%) participants in the avelumab group, two due to interstitial lung disease, one due to acute kidney injury, and one due to a combination of autoimmune myocarditis, acute cardiac failure, and respiratory failure. Treatment-related deaths occurred in 14 (4%) patients in the docetaxel group, three due to pneumonia, and one each due to febrile neutropenia, septic shock, febrile neutropenia with septic shock, acute respiratory failure, cardiovascular insufficiency, renal impairment, leucopenia with mucosal inflammation and pyrexia, infection, neutropenic infection, dehydration, and unknown causes.Interpretation: Compared with docetaxel, avelumab did not improve overall survival in patients with platinum-treated PD-L1-positive NSCLC, but had a favourable safety profile.Funding: Merck and Pfizer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the use of postoperative radiotherapy (PORT) has been controversial since 1998, because of one meta-analysis showing a deleterious effect on survival in patients with pN0 and pN1, but with an unclear effect in patients with pN2 NSCLC. Because many changes have occurred in the management of patients with NSCLC, the role of three-dimensional (3D) conformal PORT warrants further investigation in patients with stage IIIAN2 NSCLC. The aim of this study was to establish whether PORT should be part of their standard treatment.Methods: Lung ART is an open-label, randomised, phase 3, superiority trial comparing mediastinal PORT to no PORT in patients with NSCLC with complete resection, nodal exploration, and cytologically or histologically proven N2 involvement. Previous neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy was allowed. Patients aged 18 years or older, with an WHO performance status of 0-2, were recruited from 64 hospitals and cancer centres in five countries (France, UK, Germany, Switzerland, and Belgium). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either the PORT or no PORT (control) groups via a web randomisation system, and minimisation factors were the institution, administration of chemotherapy, number of mediastinal lymph node stations involved, histology, and use of pre-treatment PET scan. Patients received PORT at a dose of 54 Gy in 27 or 30 daily fractions, on five consecutive days a week. Three dimensional conformal radiotherapy was mandatory, and intensity-modulated radiotherapy was permitted in centres with expertise. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival, analysed by intention to treat at 3 years; patients from the PORT group who did not receive radiotherapy and patients from the control group with no follow-up were excluded from the safety analyses. This trial is now closed. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00410683.Findings: Between Aug 7, 2007, and July 17, 2018, 501 patients, predominantly staged with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) PET (456 [91%]; 232 (92%) in the PORT group and 224 (90%) in the control group), were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive PORT (252 patients) or no PORT (249 patients). At the cutoff date of May 31, 2019, median follow-up was 4·8 years (IQR 2·9-7·0). 3-year disease-free survival was 47% (95% CI 40-54) with PORT versus 44% (37-51) without PORT, and the median disease-free survival was 30·5 months (95% CI 24-49) in the PORT group and 22·8 months (17-37) in the control group (hazard ratio 0·86; 95% CI 0·68-1·08; p=0·18). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were pneumonitis (13 [5%] of 241 patients in the PORT group vs one [<1%] of 246 in the control group), lymphopenia (nine [4%] vs 0), and fatigue (six [3%] vs one [<1%]). Late-grade 3-4 cardiopulmonary toxicity was reported in 26 patients (11%) in the PORT group versus 12 (5%) in the control group. Two patients died from pneumonitis, partly related to radiotherapy and infection, and one patient died due to chemotherapy toxicity (sepsis) that was deemed to be treatment-related, all of whom were in the PORT group.Interpretation: Lung ART evaluated 3D conformal PORT after complete resection in patients who predominantly had been staged using (18F-FDG PET-CT and received neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy. 3-year disease-free survival was higher than expected in both groups, but PORT was not associated with an increased disease-free survival compared with no PORT. Conformal PORT cannot be recommended as the standard of care in patients with stage IIIAN2 NSCLC.Funding: French National Cancer Institute, Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique from the French Health Ministry, Gustave Roussy, Cancer Research UK, Swiss State Secretary for Education, Research, and Innovation, Swiss Cancer Research Foundation, Swiss Cancer League. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Targeted inhibition of the PD-L1-PD-1 pathway might be further amplified through combination of PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors with novel anti-TIGIT inhibitory immune checkpoint agents, such as tiragolumab. In the CITYSCAPE trial, we aimed to assess the preliminary efficacy and safety of tiragolumab plus atezolizumab (anti-PD-L1) therapy as first-line treatment for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).Methods: CITYSCAPE is a phase 2, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Patients with chemotherapy-naive, PD-L1-positive (defined as a tumour proportion score of ≥1% by 22C3 immunohistochemistry pharmDx assay; Dako, Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA) recurrent or metastatic NSCLC with measurable disease, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and no EGFR or ALK alterations were enrolled from 41 clinics in Europe, Asia, and the USA. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1), via an interactive voice or web-based response system, to receive tiragolumab (600 mg) plus atezolizumab (1200 mg) or placebo plus atezolizumab intravenously once every 3 weeks. Investigators and patients were masked to treatment assignment. The co-primary endpoints were investigator-assessed objective response rate and progression-free survival as per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 in the intention-to-treat population, analysed after approximately 80 progression-free survival events had been observed in the primary population. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03563716, and is ongoing.Findings: Patients were enrolled between Aug 10, 2018, and March 20, 2019. At data cutoff for the primary analysis (June 30, 2019), 135 of 275 patients assessed for eligibility were randomly assigned to receive tiragolumab plus atezolizumab (67 [50%]) or placebo plus atezolizumab (68 [50%]). In this primary analysis, after a median follow-up of 5·9 months (4·6-7·6, in the intention-to-treat population, 21 patients (31·3% [95% CI 19·5-43·2]) in the tiragolumab plus atezolizumab group versus 11 patients (16·2% [6·7-25·7]) in the placebo plus atezolizumab group had an objective response (p=0·031). Median progression-free survival was 5·4 months (95% CI 4·2-not estimable) in the tiragolumab plus atezolizumab group versus 3·6 months (2·7-4·4) in the placebo plus atezolizumab group (stratified hazard ratio 0·57 [95% CI 0·37-0·90], p=0·015). 14 (21%) patients receiving tiragolumab plus atezolizumab and 12 (18%) patients receiving placebo plus atezolizumab had serious treatment-related adverse events. The most frequently reported grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse event was lipase increase (in six [9%] patients in the tiragolumab plus atezolizumab group vs two [3%] in the placebo plus atezolizumab group). Two treatment-related deaths (of pyrexia and infection) occurred in the tiragolumab plus atezolizumab group.Interpretation: Tiragolumab plus atezolizumab showed a clinically meaningful improvement in objective response rate and progression-free survival compared with placebo plus atezolizumab in patients with chemotherapy-naive, PD-L1-positive, recurrent or metastatic NSCLC. Tiragolumab plus atezolizumab was well tolerated, with a safety profile generally similar to that of atezolizumab alone. These findings demonstrate that tiragolumab plus atezolizumab is a promising immunotherapy combination for the treatment of previously untreated, locally advanced unresectable or metastatic NSCLC.Funding: F Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Recurrent gene fusions, such as ROS1 fusions, are oncogenic drivers of various cancers, including non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Up to 36% of patients with ROS1 fusion-positive NSCLC have brain metastases at the diagnosis of advanced disease. Entrectinib is a ROS1 inhibitor that has been designed to effectively penetrate and remain in the CNS. We explored the use of entrectinib in patients with locally advanced or metastatic ROS1 fusion-positive NSCLC.Methods: We did an integrated analysis of three ongoing phase 1 or 2 trials of entrectinib (ALKA-372-001, STARTRK-1, and STARTRK-2). The efficacy-evaluable population included adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with locally advanced or metastatic ROS1 fusion-positive NSCLC who received entrectinib at a dose of at least 600 mg orally once per day, with at least 12 months' follow-up. All patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, and previous cancer treatment (except for ROS1 inhibitors) was allowed. The primary endpoints were the proportion of patients with an objective response (complete or partial response according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1) and duration of response, and were evaluated by blinded independent central review. The safety-evaluable population for the safety analysis included all patients with ROS1 fusion-positive NSCLC in the three trials who received at least one dose of entrectinib (irrespective of dose or duration of follow-up). These ongoing studies are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02097810 (STARTRK-1) and NCT02568267 (STARTRK-2), and EudraCT, 2012-000148-88 (ALKA-372-001).Findings: Patients were enrolled in ALKA-372-001 from Oct 26, 2012, to March 27, 2018; in STARTRK-1 from Aug 7, 2014, to May 10, 2018; and in STARTRK-2 from Nov 19, 2015 (enrolment is ongoing). At the data cutoff date for this analysis (May 31, 2018), 41 (77%; 95% CI 64-88) of 53 patients in the efficacy-evaluable population had an objective response. Median follow-up was 15·5 monhts (IQR 13·4-20·2). Median duration of response was 24·6 months (95% CI 11·4-34·8). In the safety-evaluable population, 79 (59%) of 134 patients had grade 1 or 2 treatment-related adverse events. 46 (34%) of 134 patients had grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events, with the most common being weight increase (ten [8%]) and neutropenia (five [4%]). 15 (11%) patients had serious treatment-related adverse events, the most common of which were nervous system disorders (four [3%]) and cardiac disorders (three [2%]). No treatment-related deaths occurred.Interpretation: Entrectinib is active with durable disease control in patients with ROS1 fusion-positive NSCLC, and is well tolerated with a manageable safety profile, making it amenable to long-term dosing in these patients. These data highlight the need to routinely test for ROS1 fusions to broaden therapeutic options for patients with ROS1 fusion-positive NSCLC.Funding: Ignyta/F Hoffmann-La Roche. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Concurrent chemoradiotherapy is the standard of care in limited-stage small-cell lung cancer, but the optimal radiotherapy schedule and dose remains controversial. The aim of this study was to establish a standard chemoradiotherapy treatment regimen in limited-stage small-cell lung cancer.Methods: The CONVERT trial was an open-label, phase 3, randomised superiority trial. We enrolled adult patients (aged ≥18 years) who had cytologically or histologically confirmed limited-stage small-cell lung cancer, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, and adequate pulmonary function. Patients were recruited from 73 centres in eight countries. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either 45 Gy radiotherapy in 30 twice-daily fractions of 1·5 Gy over 19 days, or 66 Gy in 33 once-daily fractions of 2 Gy over 45 days, starting on day 22 after commencing cisplatin-etoposide chemotherapy (given as four to six cycles every 3 weeks in both groups). The allocation method used was minimisation with a random element, stratified by institution, planned number of chemotherapy cycles, and performance status. Treatment group assignments were not masked. The primary endpoint was overall survival, defined as time from randomisation until death from any cause, analysed by modified intention-to-treat. A 12% higher overall survival at 2 years in the once-daily group versus the twice-daily group was considered to be clinically significant to show superiority of the once-daily regimen. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00433563) and is currently in follow-up.Findings: Between April 7, 2008, and Nov 29, 2013, 547 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive twice-daily concurrent chemoradiotherapy (274 patients) or once-daily concurrent chemoradiotherapy (273 patients). Four patients (one in the twice-daily group and three in the once-daily group) did not return their case report forms and were lost to follow-up; these patients were not included in our analyses. At a median follow-up of 45 months (IQR 35-58), median overall survival was 30 months (95% CI 24-34) in the twice-daily group versus 25 months (21-31) in the once-daily group (hazard ratio for death in the once daily group 1·18 [95% CI 0·95-1·45]; p=0·14). 2-year overall survival was 56% (95% CI 50-62) in the twice-daily group and 51% (45-57) in the once-daily group (absolute difference between the treatment groups 5·3% [95% CI -3·2% to 13·7%]). The most common grade 3-4 adverse event in patients evaluated for chemotherapy toxicity was neutropenia (197 [74%] of 266 patients in the twice-daily group vs 170 [65%] of 263 in the once-daily group). Most toxicities were similar between the groups, except there was significantly more grade 4 neutropenia with twice-daily radiotherapy (129 [49%] vs 101 [38%]; p=0·05). In patients assessed for radiotherapy toxicity, was no difference in grade 3-4 oesophagitis between the groups (47 [19%] of 254 patients in the twice-daily group vs 47 [19%] of 246 in the once-daily group; p=0·85) and grade 3-4 radiation pneumonitis (4 [3%] of 254 vs 4 [2%] of 246; p=0·70). 11 patients died from treatment-related causes (three in the twice-daily group and eight in the once-daily group).Interpretation: Survival outcomes did not differ between twice-daily and once-daily concurrent chemoradiotherapy in patients with limited-stage small-cell lung cancer, and toxicity was similar and lower than expected with both regimens. Since the trial was designed to show superiority of once-daily radiotherapy and was not powered to show equivalence, the implication is that twice-daily radiotherapy should continue to be considered the standard of care in this setting.Funding: Cancer Research UK (Clinical Trials Awards and Advisory Committee), French Ministry of Health, Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (Cancer Research Fund, Lung Cancer, and Radiation Oncology Groups). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: BRAF mutations act as an oncogenic driver via the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). BRAF inhibition has shown antitumour activity in patients with BRAF(V600E)-mutant NSCLC. Dual MAPK pathway inhibition with BRAF and MEK inhibitors in BRAF(V600E)-mutant NSCLC might improve efficacy over BRAF inhibitor monotherapy based on observations in BRAF(V600)-mutant melanoma. We aimed to assess the antitumour activity and safety of dabrafenib plus trametinib in patients with BRAF(V600E)-mutant NSCLC.Methods: In this phase 2, multicentre, non-randomised, open-label study, we enrolled adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with pretreated metastatic stage IV BRAF(V600E)-mutant NSCLC who had documented tumour progression after at least one previous platinum-based chemotherapy and had had no more than three previous systemic anticancer therapies. Patients with previous BRAF or MEK inhibitor treatment were ineligible. Patients with brain metastases were allowed to enrol only if the lesions were asymptomatic, untreated (or stable more than 3 weeks after local therapy if treated), and measured less than 1 cm. Enrolled patients received oral dabrafenib (150 mg twice daily) plus oral trametinib (2 mg once daily) in continuous 21-day cycles until disease progression, unacceptable adverse events, withdrawal of consent, or death. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed overall response, which was assessed by intention to treat in the protocol-defined population (patients who received second-line or later treatment); safety was also assessed in this population and was assessed at least once every 3 weeks, with adverse events, laboratory values, and vital signs graded according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0. The study is ongoing but no longer recruiting patients. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01336634.Findings: Between Dec 20, 2013, and Jan 14, 2015, 59 patients from 30 centres in nine countries across North America, Europe, and Asia met eligibility criteria. Two patients who had previously been untreated due to protocol deviation were excluded; thus, 57 eligible patients were enrolled. 36 patients (63·2% [95% CI 49·3-75·6]) achieved an investigator-assessed overall response. Serious adverse events were reported in 32 (56%) of 57 patients and included pyrexia in nine (16%), anaemia in three (5%), confusional state in two (4%), decreased appetite in two (4%), haemoptysis in two (4%), hypercalcaemia in two (4%), nausea in two (4%), and cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma in two (4%). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia in five patients (9%), hyponatraemia in four (7%), and anaemia in three (5%). Four patients died during the study from fatal adverse events judged to be unrelated to treatment (one retroperitoneal haemorrhage, one subarachnoid haemorrhage, one respiratory distress, and one from disease progression that was more severe than typical progression, as assessed by the investigator).Interpretation: Dabrafenib plus trametinib could represent a new targeted therapy with robust antitumour activity and a manageable safety profile in patients with BRAF(V600E)-mutant NSCLC.Funding: GlaxoSmithKline. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Activating BRAF(V600E) (Val600Glu) mutations are found in about 1-2% of lung adenocarcinomas, which might provide an opportunity for targeted treatment in these patients. Dabrafenib is an oral selective inhibitor of BRAF kinase. We did a trial to assess the clinical activity of dabrafenib in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) positive for the BRAF(V600E) mutation.Methods: In this phase 2, multicentre, non-randomised, open-label study, we enrolled previously treated and untreated patients with stage IV metastatic BRAF(V600E)-positive NSCLC. Patients received oral dabrafenib 150 mg twice daily. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed overall response, which was assessed in patients who had received at least one dose of dabrafenib; safety was also assessed in this population. The study is ongoing but not enrolling patients in this cohort. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01336634.Findings: Between Aug 3, 2011, and Feb 25, 2014, 84 patients were enrolled, six of whom had not previously received systemic treatment for NSCLC. 26 of the 78 previously treated patients achieved an investigator-assessed overall response (33% [95% CI 23-45]). Four of the six previously untreated patients had an objective response. One patient died from an intracranial haemorrhage that was judged by the investigator to be due to the study drug. Serious adverse events were reported in 35 (42%) of 84 patients. The most frequent grade 3 or worse adverse events were cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma in ten (12%), asthenia in four (5%), and basal-cell carcinoma in four (5%).Interpretation: Dabrafenib showed clinical activity in BRAF(V600E)-positive NSCLC. Our findings suggest that dabrafenib could represent a treatment option for a population of patients with limited therapeutic options.Funding: GlaxoSmithKline. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Even after resection of early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), patients have a high risk of developing recurrence and second primary lung cancer. We aimed to assess efficacy of a follow-up approach including clinic visits, chest x-rays, chest CT scans, and fibre-optic bronchoscopy versus clinical visits and chest x-rays after surgery for resectable NSCLC., Methods: In this multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial (IFCT-0302), patients aged 18 years or older and after complete resection of pathological stage I-IIIA NSCLC according to the sixth edition of the TNM classification were enrolled within 8 weeks of resection from 122 hospitals and tertiary centres in France. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to CT-based follow-up (clinic visits, chest x-rays, thoraco-abdominal CT scans, and fibre-optic bronchoscopy for non-adenocarcinoma histology) or minimal follow-up (visits and chest x-rays) after surgery for NSCLC, by means of a computer-generated sequence using the minimisation method. Procedures were repeated every 6 months for the first 2 years and yearly until 5 years. The primary endpoint was overall survival analysed in the intention-to-treat population. Secondary endpoints, also analysed in the intention-to-treat population, included disease-free survival. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00198341, and is active, but not enrolling., Findings: Between Jan 3, 2005, and Nov 30, 2012, 1775 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to a follow-up group (888 patients to the minimal follow-up group; 887 patients to the CT-based follow-up group). Median overall survival was not significantly different between follow-up groups (8·5 years [95% CI 7·4-9·6] in the minimal follow-up group vs 10·3 years [8·1-not reached] in the CT-based follow-up group; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·95, 95% CI 0·83-1·10; log-rank p=0·49). Disease-free survival was not significantly different between follow-up groups (median not reached [95% CI not estimable-not estimable] in the minimal follow-up group vs 4·9 [4·3-not reached] in the CT-based follow-up group; adjusted HR 1·14, 95% CI 0·99-1·30; log-rank p=0·063). Recurrence was detected in 246 (27·7%) of 888 patients in the minimal follow-up group and in 289 (32·6%) patients of 887 in the CT-based follow-up group. Second primary lung cancer was diagnosed in 27 (3·0%) patients in the minimal follow-up group and 40 patients (4·5%) in the CT-based follow-up group. No serious adverse events related to the trial procedures were reported., Interpretation: The addition of thoracic CT scans during follow-up, which included clinic visits and chest x-rays after surgery, did not result in longer survival among patients with NSCLC. However, it did enable the detection of more cases of early recurrence and second primary lung cancer, which are more amenable to curative-intent treatment, supporting the use of CT-based follow-up, especially in countries where lung cancer screening is already implemented, alongside with other supportive measures., Funding: French Health Ministry, French National Cancer Institute, Weisbrem-Benenson Foundation, La Ligue Nationale Contre Le Cancer, and Lilly Oncology., Translation: For the French translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests VW reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Merck Sharpe and Dohme, Pfizer, and Roche outside the submitted work; support for attending meetings or travel from AstraZeneca, BMS, and Sanofi outside the submitted work; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board from MSD and Takeda outside the submitted work. JT reports support for attending meetings or travel from Roche and BMS, outside the submitted work. EQ reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Chugai and BMS, outside the submitted work; and support for attending meetings or travel from BMS, Roche, and Takeda, outside the submitted work. GZ reports grants or contracts from Fondation Roche, Takeda, and BMS outside the submitted work; consulting fees from BMS and AstraZeneca, outside the submitted work; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from BMS, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and MDS, outside the submitted work; support for attending meetings or travel from BMS, AstraZeneca, and AbbVie, outside the submitted work. FB reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly Oncology, F Hoffmann–La Roche, Novartis, Merck, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, and Takeda, outside the submitted work. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Early reports on patients with cancer and COVID-19 have suggested a high mortality rate compared with the general population. Patients with thoracic malignancies are thought to be particularly susceptible to COVID-19 given their older age, smoking habits, and pre-existing cardiopulmonary comorbidities, in addition to cancer treatments. We aimed to study the effect of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection on patients with thoracic malignancies., Methods: The Thoracic Cancers International COVID-19 Collaboration (TERAVOLT) registry is a multicentre observational study composed of a cross-sectional component and a longitudinal cohort component. Eligibility criteria were the presence of any thoracic cancer (non-small-cell lung cancer [NSCLC], small-cell lung cancer, mesothelioma, thymic epithelial tumours, and other pulmonary neuroendocrine neoplasms) and a COVID-19 diagnosis, either laboratory confirmed with RT-PCR, suspected with symptoms and contacts, or radiologically suspected cases with lung imaging features consistent with COVID-19 pneumonia and symptoms. Patients of any age, sex, histology, or stage were considered eligible, including those in active treatment and clinical follow-up. Clinical data were extracted from medical records of consecutive patients from Jan 1, 2020, and will be collected until the end of pandemic declared by WHO. Data on demographics, oncological history and comorbidities, COVID-19 diagnosis, and course of illness and clinical outcomes were collected. Associations between demographic or clinical characteristics and outcomes were measured with odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs using univariable and multivariable logistic regression, with sex, age, smoking status, hypertension, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease included in multivariable analysis. This is a preliminary analysis of the first 200 patients. The registry continues to accept new sites and patient data., Findings: Between March 26 and April 12, 2020, 200 patients with COVID-19 and thoracic cancers from eight countries were identified and included in the TERAVOLT registry; median age was 68·0 years (61·8-75·0) and the majority had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1 (142 [72%] of 196 patients), were current or former smokers (159 [81%] of 196), had non-small-cell lung cancer (151 [76%] of 200), and were on therapy at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis (147 [74%] of 199), with 112 (57%) of 197 on first-line treatment. 152 (76%) patients were hospitalised and 66 (33%) died. 13 (10%) of 134 patients who met criteria for ICU admission were admitted to ICU; the remaining 121 were hospitalised, but were not admitted to ICU. Univariable analyses revealed that being older than 65 years (OR 1·88, 95% 1·00-3·62), being a current or former smoker (4·24, 1·70-12·95), receiving treatment with chemotherapy alone (2·54, 1·09-6·11), and the presence of any comorbidities (2·65, 1·09-7·46) were associated with increased risk of death. However, in multivariable analysis, only smoking history (OR 3·18, 95% CI 1·11-9·06) was associated with increased risk of death., Interpretation: With an ongoing global pandemic of COVID-19, our data suggest high mortality and low admission to intensive care in patients with thoracic cancer. Whether mortality could be reduced with treatment in intensive care remains to be determined. With improved cancer therapeutic options, access to intensive care should be discussed in a multidisciplinary setting based on cancer specific mortality and patients' preference., Funding: None., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)