Search

This Viewpoint describes the use of broad molecular marker testing in patients with early-stage non–small cell lung cancer

Anatomic surgical resection followed by cisplatin-based platinum-doublet adjuvant chemotherapy has been a long-standing standard of care for patients with early-stage, resectable non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). More recently, incorporating of immunotherapy and targeted therapy in the perioperative setting has demonstrated improved disease-free or event-free survival in biomarker-defined subsets of patients. This article summarizes the results of major trials that led to approvals beyond chemotherapy in the perioperative setting. Alongside adjuvant osimertinib as a favored strategy for patients with EGFR mutation–positive NSCLC, there are competing potential standards of care for integrating immunotherapy in the neoadjuvant versus adjuvant setting, with advantages and disadvantages for each strategy. Emerging data in the coming years will provide further insight that may potentially lead to a combination of neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment for many patients. Future trials should focus on clarifying the benefit of each component of treatment, defining an optimal treatment duration, and incorporating minimal residual disease to optimize treatment decisions.

This JAMA Oncology Patient Page describes genetic testing, fertility concerns, adverse treatment effects, and psychosocial challenges among adolescents and young adults with cancer.

ImportanceAlthough cancer-related mortality continues to decline, lung cancer remains the No. 1 cause of cancer deaths in the US. Almost half of the patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are diagnosed with early-stage, local or regional disease and are at high risk of recurrence within 5 years of diagnosis.ObservationsImmune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have improved outcomes for patients with metastatic NSCLC and have recently been tested in multiple clinical trials to determine their efficacy in the neoadjuvant or adjuvant setting for patients with local or regional disease. The landscape for perioperative ICIs in lung cancer is evolving rapidly, with recently reported and soon to mature clinical trials; however, the recent data highlight the potential of ICIs to increase response rates and decrease rates of relapse in early stages of lung cancer. Concurrently, novel applications of cell-free DNA may guide perioperative management strategies.Conclusions and RelevanceThis article reviews the various approaches of incorporating perioperative use of immunotherapeutic agents for the treatment of early stages of NSCLC.

PURPOSE: AccessHope is a program developed initially by City of Hope to provide remote subspecialist input on cancer care for patients as a supplemental benefit for specific payers or employers. The leading platform for this work has been an asynchronous model of review of medical records followed by a detailed assessment of past and current management along with discussion of potential future options in a report sent to the local oncologist. This summary describes an early period of development and growth of this service, focusing on cases of lung cancer, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Cases were primarily identified by a trigger list of cancer diagnoses that included non–small-cell lung cancer and small-cell lung cancer. After medical records were obtained, a summary narrative was provided to a thoracic oncology specialist who wrote a case review sent to the local physician, followed by a direct discussion with the recipient. We focused on feasibility as measured by case volumes, the rates of concordance between the subspecialist reviewer with the local team, and cost savings from recommended changes, using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: From April 2019 to November 2020, 110 cases were reviewed: 55% male, median age 62.5 years (range, 33-92 years); 82% non–small-cell lung cancer (12% stage I or II, 16% stage III, and 57% stage IV), and 17% small-cell lung cancer (4% limited and 14% extensive). Median turnaround time for report send-out was 5.0 days. The review agreed with local management in 79 (72%) cases and disagreed in 31 (28%) cases; notably, specific additional recommendations were associated with evidence-based anticipated improvements in efficacy in 76 cases (69%) and improvement in potential for cure in 14 cases (13%). Recommendations leading to cost savings were identified in 14 cases (13%), translating to a projected cost savings of $19,062 (USD) per patient for the entire cohort of patient cases reviewed. CONCLUSION: We demonstrate the feasibility of completing a rapid turnaround of cases of lung cancer either patient-initiated for review or prospectively triggered by diagnosis and stage. This program of asynchronous second opinions identified evidence-based management changes affecting current treatment in 28% and potential improvements to improve care in 92% of patients, along with cost savings realized by eliminating low-value interventions.

125 Background: The advent of immunotherapy (IO) has led to significant improvement in outcomes for patients (pts) with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (adv NSCLC). The rate of crossovers and receipt of post-protocol IO in pivotal trials leading to FDA approvals of IO in NSCLC has not been systematically evaluated. Here, we evaluate crossover rates and post protocol therapies for pts with adv NSCLC across multiple first-line (1L) IO monotherapy and chemotherapy/IO (chemo/IO) combination trials. Methods: We utilized the publicly available data from pivotal clinical trials leading to approvals of IO or chemo/IO regimens in 1L treatment of adv NSCLC. We extracted data on outcomes, rate of crossover from control arm to IO, proportion of pts in control arm receiving IO and the start dates of these clinical trials. The primary outcomes were the rates of crossover and the proportion of patients in control arms who received post-control IO. Results: The study included 4 trials with IO monotherapy and 12 trials with chemo/IO combinations in 1L adv NSCLC. The primary endpoints for these trials were PFS (25%), OS (19%), and both PFS and OS (56%). The crossover rate from control arm to experimental arm (with IO) ranged from 0-74% in IO monotherapy trials and 0-49% in chemo/IO trials. Two IO monotherapy trials and five chemo/IO trials did not allow crossover; among them, 3 trials had a PFS/OS co-primary endpoint, while others had OS as primary endpoint. Ten of 16 trials provided explicit information on use of subsequent post-protocol therapies in their publications. Among the two IO monotherapy trials which did not allow crossover, post-protocol IO was administered in only 20-30% of patients. Among the six chemo/IO trials with information on post-protocol therapies, 30%-59% patients on the control arm subsequently received some form of IO on progression. Nine of 12 trials started accrual after 10/2015, when nivolumab was approved in the United States as second-line (2L) therapy for adv NSCLC regardless of tumor PD-L1 expression. Conclusions: Despite the highly significant OS benefit from 2L IO, which was the standard of care (SOC) in the United States, the rates of crossover and post-protocol IO administration was distressingly low in 1L IO monotherapy and chemo/IO trials for 1L adv NSCLC. This low rate of 2L treatment with IO may have been due to limited global availability prior to widespread regulatory approval during the conduct of these trials. There is an increased need for consistency in reporting of crossover treatment and post-protocol treatments to allow adequate assessment of the true 1L benefit with IO. Control arms in pivotal trials require scrutiny to ensure confirmation with SOC to provide access to optimal treatments for patients and prevent magnification of observed benefits in experimental arms. The difficulty lies in the global conduct of large randomized clinical trials with differing regulatory approvals.

The efficacy of atezolizumab (A) and/or bevacizumab (B) with carboplatin/paclitaxel (CP) chemotherapy was explored in the phase III, randomized IMpower150 study in patients with non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) according toMutation status was determined by circulating tumor DNA next-generation sequencing. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were analyzed in a mutation-evaluable intention-to-treat population (MEP; n=920) and SP263 (programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1)) biomarker-evaluable population (n=774).Within the mThese analyses support previous findings of mutation of

This JAMA Oncology Patient Page describes the use of systemic therapy in addition to surgery in the treatment of early-stage lung cancer.

BackgroundThe efficacy of atezolizumab (A) and/or bevacizumab (B) with carboplatin/paclitaxel (CP) chemotherapy was explored in the phase III, randomized IMpower150 study in patients with non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) according to KRAS mutations (mKRAS) and co-occurring STK11, KEAP1, or TP53 mutations.MethodsMutation status was determined by circulating tumor DNA next-generation sequencing. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were analyzed in a mutation-evaluable intention-to-treat population (MEP; n=920) and SP263 (programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1)) biomarker-evaluable population (n=774).ResultsWithin the mKRAS population (24.5% of MEP), ABCP showed numerical improvements vs BCP in median OS (19.8 vs 9.9 months; HR 0.50; 95% CI 0.34 to 0.72) and PFS (8.1 vs 5.8 months; HR 0.42; 95% CI 0.29 to 0.61)—greater than with ACP (OS: 11.7 vs 9.9 months; HR 0.63; 95% CI 0.43 to 0.91; PFS: 4.8 vs 5.8 months; HR 0.80; 95% CI 0.56 to 1.13) vs BCP. Across PD-L1 subgroups in mKRAS patients, OS and PFS were longer with ABCP vs BCP, but OS with ACP was similar to BCP in PD-L1-low and PD-L1-negative subgroups. Conversely, in KRAS-WT patients, OS was longer with ACP than with ABCP or BCP across PD-L1 subgroups. KRAS was frequently comutated with STK11, KEAP1, and TP53; these subgroups conferred different prognostic outcomes. Within the mKRAS population, STK11 and/or KEAP1 mutations were associated with inferior OS and PFS across treatments compared with STK11-WT and/or KEAP1-WT. In mKRAS patients with co-occurring mSTK11 and/or mKEAP1 (44.9%) or mTP53 (49.3%), survival was longer with ABCP than with ACP or BCP.ConclusionsThese analyses support previous findings of mutation of STK11 and/or KEAP1 as poor prognostic indicators. While clinical efficacy favored ABCP and ACP vs BCP in these mutational subgroups, survival benefits were greater in the mKRAS and KEAP1-WT and STK11-WT population vs mKRAS and mKEAP1 and mSTK11 population, suggesting both prognostic and predictive effects. Overall, these results suggest that atezolizumab combined with bevacizumab and chemotherapy is an efficacious first-line treatment in metastatic NSCLC subgroups with mKRAS and co-occurring STK11 and/or KEAP1 or TP53 mutations and/or high PD-L1 expression.

Introduction: AccessHope (AH) is a program developed initially by City of Hope to provide remote subspecialist input on cancer care for patients as a supplemental benefit for specific payers and employers. While offering several platforms, the leading one has been an asynchronous model of review of medical records followed by a detailed assessment of past and current management along with discussion of potential future options in a report sent to the local oncologist. The intent of this program is that the patient can continue to have most or all management in their home environment, with the input and support of a subspecialist in that tumor type available “on demand”. This summary describes an early period of development and growth of this service, focusing in cases of lung cancer, particularly relevant during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: Appropriate cases for the eligible “at risk” population were identified by a trigger list of cancer diagnoses associated with a significant degree of risk of poor outcomes that included non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and small cell lung cancer (SCLC). Medical records were solicited from the local medical team, from which a summary narrative and chronology was developed by a team of nurses at AH. This was shared with a physician specialist in thoracic oncology from AH who wrote a summary report within several days that was sent to the local physician, followed by a direct discussion with the recipient. Using descriptive statistics, case metrics focusing on concordance with the current or proposed management plan were tracked, along with recommended changes and clinical trial options, as well as potential cost savings from suggested changes. Results: Over a 19-month period from 4/19 through 11/20, 110 cases were reviewed: 55% male, median age 62.5 yrs (range 33-92);82% NSCLC (12% stage I/II, 16% stage III, 57% stage IV) and 17% SCLC (4% limited, 14% extensive). Median turnaround time for send out of report of 5.0 days. The AccessHope review agreed with the proposed or ongoing treatment in 79 (72%) cases and disagreed in 31 (28%) cases. Even with general agreement in the treatment approach, specific additional recommendations were associated with evidence-based anticipated improvements in efficacy in 76 cases (65%) and improvement in potential for cure in 14 cases (12%, only feasible in patients with curable disease). Specific recommendations associated with cost savings were identified in 14 cases (12%), associated with a total cost savings of $2,096,859. Molecular testing was ordered rarely for SCLC;for NSCLC, NGS was strongly favored and more commonly associated with more advanced stage and non-squamous histology. Conclusion: We have implemented a novel program of asynchronous reviews of cases of patients with lung cancer by thoracic oncology subspecialists and have demonstrated the feasibility of completing reports for a growing volume over the course of the pandemic without requiring travel and enabling patients to receive their care close to home. More than a quarter of these case reviews include recommendations associated with evidence to support improved clinical outcomes, as well as potentially significant cost savings from low value practices unsupported by evidence. Keywords: remote care, pandemic, expert review