Search

Background: Checkpoint inhibitor (CPI) therapy revolutionized treatment for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC); however, most patients progress due to primary or acquired resistance. Sitravatinib is a receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor that can shift the immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment toward an immunostimulatory state. Combining sitravatinib with nivolumab (sitra + nivo) may potentially overcome initial CPI resistance., Patients and Methods: In the phase III SAPPHIRE study, patients with advanced non-oncogenic driven, nonsquamous NSCLC who initially benefited from (≥4 months on CPI without progression) and subsequently experienced disease progression on or after CPI combined with or following platinum-based chemotherapy were randomized 1 : 1 to sitra (100 mg once daily administered orally) + nivo (240 mg every 2 weeks or 480 mg every 4 weeks administered intravenously) or docetaxel (75 mg/m 2 every 3 weeks administered intravenously). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). The secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), clinical benefit rate (CBR), duration of response (DOR; all assessed by blinded independent central review), and safety., Results: A total of 577 patients included randomized: sitra + nivo, n = 284; docetaxel, n = 293 (median follow-up, 17.1 months). Sitra + nivo did not significantly improve OS versus docetaxel [median, 12.2 versus 10.6 months; hazard ratio (HR) 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70-1.05; P = 0.144]. The median PFS was 4.4 versus 5.4 months, respectively (HR 1.08, 95% CI 0.89-1.32; P = 0.452). The ORR was 15.6% for sitra + nivo and 17.2% for docetaxel (P = 0.597); CBR was 75.5% and 64.5%, respectively (P = 0.004); median DOR was 7.4 versus 7.1 months, respectively (P = 0.924). Grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events were observed in 53.0% versus 66.7% of patients receiving sitra + nivo versus docetaxel, respectively., Conclusions: Although median OS was numerically longer with sitra + nivo, the primary endpoint was not met in patients with previously treated advanced nonsquamous NSCLC. The safety profiles demonstrated were consistent with previous reports., Competing Interests: Disclosure HB reports honoraria for lectures for Amgen, Pfizer, Daiichi, and Regeneron; writing engagements (nonfinancial) with Amgen, BMS, and AstraZeneca; advisory board participation with BMS, Lilly, Genentech, Inc., Pfizer, Merck, EMD-Serono, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Genmab, Regeneron, BioNTech, Amgen, Axiom, PharmaMar, Takeda, Mirati Therapeutics, Inc., Daiichi, Guardant, Natera, Oncocyte, BeiGene, iTEO, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, Da Volterra, Puma, and BerGenBio; full or part-time employment at Fox Chase Cancer Center; stock options from Sonnet Bio, Inspirna (formerly Rgenix) and Nucleai; research grants from BMS and Lilly; principal investigator (nonfinancial) for AstraZeneca, Mirati Therapeutics, Inc., and BMS; data and safety monitoring board for the University of Pennsylvania: CAR T Program, Takeda, Incyte, Novartis, and Springworks; and travel support from Amgen, BMS, Merck, Lilly, EMD-Serono, Genentech, Inc., and Regeneron. FdM reports speaker’s bureau and advisory board participation with AstraZeneca, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, BMS, and Novartis. DD reports institutional funding from BMS; principal investigator (nonfinancial) for BMS, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Mirati Therapeutics, Inc., and MSD; and an advisory role (nonfinancial) for Amgen, BMS, and MSD. CR reports advisory board fees from AstraZeneca; and stocks from Gilead. WSMET reports research grants from MSD, AstraZeneca, and Sanofi/Regeneron; principal investigator (non-financial) for Roche, Mirati Therapeutics, BeiGene, and Genmab. MLJ reports research funding (institutional) from AbbVie, Acerta, Adaptimmune, Amgen, Apexigen, Arcus Biosciences, Array BioPharma, Artios Pharma, AstraZeneca, Atreca, BeiGene, BerGenBio, BioAtla, Black Diamond, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Calithera Biosciences, Carisma Therapeutics, Checkpoint Therapeutics, City of Hope National Medical Center, Corvus Pharmaceuticals, Curis, CytomX, Daiichi Sankyo, Dracen Pharmaceuticals, Dynavax, Lilly, Elicio Therapeutics, EMD Serono, EQRx, Erasca, Exelixis, Fate Therapeutics, Genentech, Inc./F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Genmab, Genocea Biosciences, GSK, Gritstone Oncology, Guardant Health, Harpoon, Helsinn Healthcare SA, Hengrui Therapeutics, Hutchison MediPharma, IDEAYA, Biosciences, IGM Biosciences, Immunitas Therapeutics, Immunocore, Incyte, Janssen, Jounce Therapeutics, Kadmon Pharmaceuticals, Kartos Therapeutics, Loxo Oncology, Lycera, Memorial Sloan-Kettering, Merck, Merus, Mirati Therapeutics, Inc., Mythic Therapeutics, NeoImmuneTech, Neovia Oncology, Novartis, Numab Therapeutics, Nuvalent, OncoMed Pharmaceuticals, Palleon Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, PMV Pharmaceuticals, Rain Therapeutics, RasCal Therapeutics, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Relay Therapeutics, Revolution Medicines, Ribon Therapeutics, Rubius Therapeutics, Sanofi, Seven and Eight Biopharmaceuticals/Birdie Biopharmaceuticals, Shattuck Labs, Silicon Therapeutics, Stemcentrx, Syndax Pharmaceuticals, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Tarveda, TCR2 Therapeutics, Tempest Therapeutics, Tizona Therapeutics, TMUNITY Therapeutics, Turning Point Therapeutics, University of Michigan, Vyriad, WindMIL Therapeutics, and Y-mAbs Therapeutic; consulting/advisory role feed (institutional) from AbbVie, Amgen, Arcus Biosciences, ArriVent, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Axelia Oncology, Black Diamond, Calithera Biosciences, Daiichi Sankyo, EcoR1, Genentech, Inc./F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Genmab, Genocea Biosciences, GSK, Gritstone Oncology, IDEAYA Biosciences, Immunocore, iTeos, Janssen, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Mirati Therapeutics, Inc., Molecular Axiom, Novartis, Oncorus, Pyramid Biosciences, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Revolution Medicines, Sanofi-Aventis, Seagen, Synthekine, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Turning Point Therapeutics, and VBL Therapeutics. EBG reports research grants from ABL-Bio, AstraZeneca, BMS, Dynavax, Technologies, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Genentech, Inc., Iovance Biotherapeutics, Merck, Mirati Therapeutics, Inc., Neon, and Novartis; an advisory role for AbbVie, ABL-Bio, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Dracen Pharmaceuticals, EMD Serono, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GSK, Ipsen, Merck, Natera, Novartis, Personalis, Regeneron, Sanofi, Shionogi, and XILO. KH reports financial interests (personal) and advisory board participation with Mirati Therapeutics, Inc., Perthera, BMS, BeiGene, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Lyell, BioNTech, and AstraZeneca; and an institutional research grant or contract with OncoC4. DP reports to be an invited speaker for AstraZeneca, Novartis, priME Oncology, Peer CME, Samsung, AbbVie, Janssen, GSK, Pfizer; advisory board fees from AstraZeneca, BMS, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Samsung, Celgene, AbbVie, Daiichi Sankyo, Janssen, Sanofi-Aventis, GSK, Seagen, Pierre Fabre, and Gilead; principal investigator for AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Medimmune, Sanofi-Aventis, Taiho Pharma, Novocure, Daiichi Sankyo, Janssen, AbbVie, and GSK. MR reports to be an invited speaker for Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, Lilly, Mirati Therapeutics, Inc., MSD, Merck, Novartis, Regeneron, Sanofi, and F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd; speaker’s bureau fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, Lilly, Mirati Therapeutics, Inc., MSD, Merck, Novartis, Regeneron, Sanofi, and F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd; advisory board fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, BioNTech, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, GSK, MSD, Mirati Therapeutics, Inc., Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, and F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd; and is a member of the data and safety monitoring board for Daiichi Sankyo and Sanofi. SPo reports consulting fees (personal) from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Blueprint Medicines, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, GSK, Guardant Health, Incyte, Janssen, Lilly, Merck Serono, MSD, Novartis, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Takeda, Pfizer, Seattle Genetics, Turning Point Therapeutics, and EQRx; honoraria for lectures, presentations or speakers bureaus (personal) from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Guardant Health, Janssen, Merck Serono, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, and Takeda; payment for expert testimony (personal) from F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd and Merck Serono; support for attending meetings and/or travel from Janssen and F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd; and leadership or fiduciary role in other board, society, committee, or advocacy group (nonfinancial) for the British Thoracic Oncology Group, ALK Positive UK, Lung Cancer Europe, Ruth Strauss Foundation, Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation, and ETOP-IBCSG Partners Foundation Board. RSH reports consulting fees from DynamiCure Biotechnology, eFFECTOR Therapeutics, Eli Lilly, Genentech, Inc., Gilead, HiberCell, Janssen, Johnson and Johnson, Loxo Oncology, Merck, Mirati Therapeutics, Inc., NextCure, Novartis, Oncocyte Corp, Oncternal Therapeutics, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, and AbbVie; advisory board fees from AstraZeneca, Bolt Therapeutics, BMS, Candel Therapeutics, Cybrexa Therapeutics, EMD Serono, I-Mab Biopharma, Immune-Onc Therapeutics, Normunity, Ocean Biomedical, Revelar Biotherapeutics, Ribbon Therapeutics, Xencor; stock options from Normunity, Immunocore, and Checkpoint Therapeutics; member of the board of directors for Junshi Pharmaceuticals, American Association for Cancer Research, Immunocore, International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer, and Southwest Oncology Group; full-time employment at Yale Cancer Center; and research support from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Genentech, Inc./F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, and Merck. TAL reports consulting fees from Catalyst, Eisai, Jazz, Janssen, and F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd; and advisory board participation with GI Therapeutics, Pfizer, Regeneron, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Novocure, Takeda, Merck, and Jazz Pharmaceuticals. RLS reports full- or part-time employment with Mirati Therapeutics, Inc.; and stocks/shares from Mirati Therapeutics, Inc. XY reports full or part-time employment with Mirati Therapeutics, Inc.; and stocks/shares from Mirati Therapeutics, Inc. RH reports full- or part-time employment with Mirati Therapeutics, Inc.; and stocks/shares from Mirati Therapeutics, Inc. SPe reports honoraria (institutional) from AiCME, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, ecancer, Eli Lilly, Foundation Medicine, GSK, Illumina, Imedex, Ipsen, Medscape, Merck Sharp, and Dohme, Mirati Therapeutics, Inc., Novartis, PER, PeerView, Pfizer, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd/Genentech, Inc., RTP, Sanofi, Takeda, and Galencia; financial support (institutional) from Amgen, Arcus, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, BMS, GSK, iTeos, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Mirati Therapeutics, Inc., Pharma Mar, Promontory Therapeutics, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd/Genentech, Inc., and Seattle Genetics; and is a member of ESMO, ASCO, AACR, IASLC, SSOM, SAKK, and ETOP; Other: Vice President of Swiss Cancer League, past President of ESMO, Strategic Advisory board SPCC (Paris-Saclay) Chair, and ETOP scientific chair. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Introduction: Osimertinib is a central nervous system (CNS)-active, third generation, irreversible, epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EGFR-TKI) that potently and selectively inhibits EGFR-TKI sensitizing and EGFR T790M resistance mutations, with demonstrated efficacy in EGFR-mutated (EGFRm) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We present the rationale and design for TARGET (NCT05526755), which will evaluate the efficacy and safety of 5 years of adjuvant osimertinib in patients with completely resected EGFRm stage II to IIIB NSCLC., Materials and Methods: TARGET is a phase II, multinational, open-label, single-arm study. Adults aged ≥18 years (Taiwan ≥20 years), with resected stage II to IIIB NSCLC are eligible; prior adjuvant chemotherapy is allowed. Eligible patients must have locally confirmed common (exon 19 deletion or L858R) or uncommon (G719X, L861Q, and/or S768I) EGFR-TKI sensitizing mutations, alone or in combination. Patients will receive osimertinib 80 mg once daily for 5 years or until disease recurrence, discontinuation or death. The primary endpoint is investigator-assessed disease-free survival (DFS) at 5 years (common EGFR mutations cohort). Secondary endpoints include: investigator-assessed DFS at 3 and 4 years; overall survival at 3, 4, and 5 years (common EGFR mutations cohort); DFS at 3, 4, and 5 years (uncommon EGFR mutations cohort); safety and tolerability, type of recurrence and CNS metastases (both cohorts). Exploratory endpoints include: tissue/plasma concordance; analysis of circulating molecules in plasma samples using different profiling approaches to detect minimal residual disease; incidence and change over time of incidental pulmonary nodules., Results: TARGET is currently recruiting, and completion is expected in 2029., Competing Interests: Disclosure RAS reports research funding from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim, and advisory board fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, J INTS BIO, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Merck Serono, Novartis, Pfizer, Puma, Roche, Taiho, Takeda, Thermo Fisher, Yuhan. FDM reports consultation fees from AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp, & Dohme Oncology, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche/Genentech, Pfizer, Novartis, and Takeda. JYH reports receiving honoraria from Novartis, Pfizer, Merck, Roche, Janssen, AstraZeneca, and Yuhan, consultation fees from ABION, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Takeda, Amgen, AstraZeneca, reports grants from Roche, Takeda, ONO, and an advisory board fee from AstraZeneca. JCMH reports speakers’ bureau fees from AstraZeneca, Takeda, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Janssen, Amgen, and Novartis, and advisory board fees from AstraZeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo, Takeda, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Janssen, Amgen, and Novartis. EM reports employment for AstraZeneca and PHASTAR. LS and MS report employment and stock ownership with AstraZeneca. SP reports paid expert testimony for Merck Serono and Roche, consultation fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, Blueprint, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, EQRx, GlaxoSmithKline, Guardant Health, Janssen, Lilly, Merck KGaA, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda, and Turning Point Therapeutics, research funding (to institution) from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Blueprint, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, GlaxoSmithKline, Guardant Health, Janssen, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, Takeda, Seattle Genetics, Trizel, Turning Point Therapeutics and member of the board of directors for Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Since their first introduction in clinical practice, immune checkpoint inhibitors showed limited benefit in patients with NSCLC harboring EGFR mutations. With the rationale of increasing immune activation, combinatorial ICI strategies have been evaluated also in this subgroup of patients., Methods: We performed a systematic review on efficacy of ICI-based strategies in EGFR-mutant NSCLC according to most updated evidence., Results: Overall, ICI monotherapy and ICI plus chemotherapy confirm to be ineffective in EGFR-mutant NSCLC, whereas the combination of ICI with antiangiogenic and chemotherapy showed promising results. Limited data are available with alternative ICI combination strategies, driven by strong biological rationale of modulating the tumor immune microenvironment., Conclusions: To date, the available evidence do not support the use of ICI in patients with NSCLC harboring EGFR mutations. Clinical trials are ongoing to define which is the best timing and exploring novel combinations with ICI in this specific disease., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: A. Passaro reports personal fees, as speaker bureau or advisor, for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli-Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and Roche Genentech, outside the submitted work; F. de Marinis has served in a consultant/advisory role for Astra Zeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Roche Genentech, Takeda and Pfizer, outside the submitted work. The authors have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: In ADAURA, adjuvant osimertinib significantly improved disease-free survival versus placebo in resected stage IB to IIIA EGFR-mutated NSCLC. We report in-depth analyses of three-year safety, tolerability, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) from ADAURA., Methods: Patients were randomized 1:1 to osimertinib 80 mg or placebo once daily for up to 3 years. Safety assessments were performed at baseline, week 2, week 4, week 12, and every 12 weeks until treatment completion or discontinuation, and 28 days after treatment was stopped. The SF-36 survey measured HRQoL at baseline, week 12, week 24, and every 24 weeks until recurrence, treatment completion or discontinuation. Data cutoff: April 11, 2022., Results: Safety and HRQoL analysis sets: osimertinib, n = 337 and n = 339; placebo, n = 343 each. Median (range) total exposure duration was longer with osimertinib versus placebo: 35.8 (0-38) versus 25.1 (0-39) months. Most adverse events (AEs) were first reported within 12 months of starting treatment (osimertinib 97%, placebo 86%). AEs leading to dose reduction, interruption or discontinuation were reported in 12%, 27% and 13% respectively of patients with osimertinib; 1%, 13% and 3% with placebo. Stomatitis and diarrhea were the most common AEs leading to osimertinib dose reduction or interruption; interstitial lung disease was the most common leading to osimertinib discontinuation (per protocol). There were no differences in time to deterioration for SF-36 physical, mental component summaries between osimertinib and placebo., Conclusions: No new safety signals were reported and HRQoL was maintained with 3 years of adjuvant osimertinib treatment. Combined with significant efficacy benefit, these data further support adjuvant osimertinib in stage IB to IIIA EGFR-mutated NSCLC., (Copyright © 2023 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The role of salvage surgery after tyrosine kinase inhibitors in advanced oncogene-addicted non-small cell lung cancer is largely unexplored., Patients: We aimed to describe the pathological features and surgical early-outcomes of Anaplastic Lymphome Kinase anaplastic lymphome kinase positive non-small cell lung cancer patients undergoing surgery after first-line alectinib treatment. We retrospectively collected and analyzed multicentric data of 10 patients treated with alectinib for advanced-stage anaplastic lymphome kinase positive lung adenocarcinoma who underwent anatomical surgical resection from January 2020 to Decemeber 2021. All patients were treatment naive and received alectinib (600 mg twice daily). Surgery was always proposed after multidisciplinary discussion. The primary endpoints were pathological response and surgical feasibility (technical intraoperative complications, postoperative outcomes)., Results: Alectinib was received for a mean of 212 days before surgery (42-415 days) and was generally interrupted about one week before surgery (range: 0-32 days) with no patient experienced grade 4 toxicity. All patients received an R0 resection with surgery consisting of lobectomy in 8 cases with bilobectomy and (left) pneumonectomy in 1 case each. Intra-operative difficulties were described in 7 cases (70%), mostly due to perivascular fibrosis or thickening of mediastinal lymph nodal tissues. Major and minor complications occurred in 0 and 3 cases (30%), respectively. A pathological complete response and major pathological response (defined as 0% and < 10% viable tumor cells, respectively) were observed in 50% and 90% of cases, respectively. Despite short follow-up, only one tumor recurrence was observed (in the only patient who did not resume alectinib after surgery)., Interpretation: Despite some technical intraoperative difficulties, salvage surgery was safe and feasible after Alectinib for advanced lung adenocarcinoma., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: After a median follow-up of 18·3 months, the third-generation anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) tyrosine-kinase inhibitor, lorlatinib, improved progression-free survival in patients with treatment-naive, ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer in the phase 3 CROWN study. Here we report updated efficacy data, including intracranial activity, from an unplanned analysis after 3 years of follow-up., Methods: CROWN is an ongoing, international, randomised, open-label phase 3 trial done in 104 centres in 23 countries worldwide. Eligible participants were aged 18 years and older or aged 20 years and older (depending on local regulations) with advanced, ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer, had received no previous systemic treatment for metastatic disease, had at least one extracranial measurable target lesion (according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours [RECIST], version 1.1), and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0-2. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to oral lorlatinib 100 mg daily or oral crizotinib 250 mg twice daily in 28-day cycles. Randomisation was stratified by the presence or absence of brain metastasis, and by ethnicity. Since the primary endpoint of the study had been met at the planned interim analysis, no further formal analysis of progression-free survival was planned, per protocol. The current unplanned analysis was done to further characterise tumour-related endpoints with a longer follow-up and is presented descriptively. For the planned study, the primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed by blinded independent central review. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (investigator), objective response rate, intracranial objective response rate, time to intracranial progression, duration of response, intracranial duration of response, and safety. Efficacy endpoints were also assessed by the presence or absence of baseline brain metastases. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03052608., Findings: Between May 11, 2017, and Feb 28, 2019, 425 patients were screened for eligibility, of whom 296 were enrolled and randomly assigned to the lorlatinib (n=149) or crizotinib (n=147) group. At data cutoff for this unplanned analysis (Sept 20, 2021), median duration of follow-up for progression-free survival was 36·7 months (IQR 31·3-41·9) for lorlatinib and 29·3 months (10·8-35·0) for crizotinib. Median progression-free survival by blinded independent central review was not reached (95% CI not reached-not reached) for lorlatinib and was 9·3 months (7·6-11·1) for crizotinib (hazard ratio [HR] 0·27 [95% CI 0·18-0·39]). 3-year progression-free survival was 64% (95% CI 55-71) in the lorlatinib group and 19% (12-27) in the crizotinib group. Progression-free survival (investigator), objective response rate, intracranial objective response rate, time to intracranial progression, and duration of response were improved with lorlatinib versus crizotinib. In patients with baseline brain metastases (n=37 lorlatinib; n=39 crizotinib), the HR for time to intracranial progression for lorlatinib versus crizotinib was 0·10 (95% CI 0·04-0·27); in patients without baseline brain metastases (n=112 lorlatinib; n=108 crizotinib), the HR was 0·02 (95% CI 0·002-0·14). In patients without brain metastases, one (1%) in the lorlatinib group and 25 (23%) in the crizotinib group had intracranial progression. Grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in 113 (76%) of 149 patients (most commonly due to altered lipid levels) with lorlatinib and in 81 (57%) of 142 patients with crizotinib. Adverse events led to treatment discontinuation in 11 (7%) patients in the lorlatinib group and 14 (10%) patients in the crizotinib group. There were no new safety signals., Interpretation: These updated, long-term data from CROWN show the durable benefit of lorlatinib over crizotinib in patients with treatment-naive, ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer and support the use of first-line lorlatinib in patients with and without baseline brain metastases., Funding: Pfizer., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in the front-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is currently the standard of care. However, as clinical trials include a very limited number of elderly patients, evidence on the safety and efficacy of using ICI-based regimens is still limited., Methods: A virtual International Expert Panel took place in July 2022 to review the available evidence on the use of ICI-based regimens in the first-line setting in elderly patients with NSCLC and provide a position paper on the field both in clinical practice and in a research setting., Results: All panelists agreed that age per se is not a limitation for ICI treatments, as the elderly should be considered only as a surrogate for other clinical factors of frailty. Overall, ICI efficacy in the elderly population is supported by reviewed data. In addition, the panelists were confident that available data support the safety of single-agent immunotherapy in elderly patients with NSCLC. Conversely, concerns were expressed on the safety of chemo + ICI-based combination, which were considered mainly related to the toxicities of chemotherapy components. Therefore, suggestions were proposed to tailor combined approaches in the elderly patients with NSCLC. The panelists defined high, medium, and low priorities in clinical research. High priority was attributed to implementing the real-world assessment of elderly patients treated with ICIs, who are mostly underrepresented in pivotal clinical trials., Conclusions: Based on the current evidence, the panelists outlined the significant limitations affecting the clinical practice in elderly patients affected by NSCLC, and reached common considerations on the feasibility, safety, and effectiveness of ICI monotherapy and ICI combinations in the first-line setting., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Pivotal trials of COVID-19 vaccines did not include cancer patients with questions remaining in this population. Particularly in patients with thoracic malignancies receiving anticancer treatments, the safety of these vaccines has so far been little investigated., Methods: This is a prospective trial of patients with thoracic cancer receiving anticancer treatments and COVID-19 vaccines at the Division of Thoracic Oncology of European Institute of Oncology between February and September 2021., Results: A total 207 patients affected by thoracic cancers (199 lung cancers and 8 mesotheliomas) had received Covid-19 vaccines (206 mRNA vaccines and 1 virus-vectored vaccine). The majority of patients had at least one comorbidity (76.3%). They were concomitantly treating with targeted therapy (TT) (45.9%), immunotherapy (IO) (22.7%), and chemotherapy (CT) (14%). A total of 64 AEs (15.6%) were observed after administration of Sars-Cov-2 vaccine. The majority of AEs were grade 1 [G1] (6.3%) and G2 (8.8%), only two events were G3 (0.5%). The median follow-up was 9 months (range 1-22 months), during this follow-up 21 patients (10.1%) had a positive nasal swab, most of the patients were asymptomatic (67%) and the symptomatic ones (33%) had mild symptoms and fewer complications and hospitalizations., Conclusions: COVID-19 m-RNA vaccines appear to be safe in the cohort of patients with thoracic malignances in active treatment, including those receiving immunotherapy. Considering the high morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19 in patients with lung cancer receiving active treatments, our study supports the current vaccine prioritization, third and/or fourth dose, of all cancer patients with active treatment., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Brigatinib is a potent next-generation ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitor approved for treatment-naive and crizotinib-refractory advanced ALK-positive (ALK+) NSCLC. We evaluated brigatinib after other next-generation ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitors., Methods: In this single-arm, phase 2, ALK in Lung Cancer Trial of brigAtinib-2 (NCT03535740), patients with advanced ALK+ NSCLC whose disease progressed on alectinib or ceritinib received brigatinib 180 mg once daily (after 7-d 90-mg lead-in). Primary end point was independent review committee (IRC)-assessed overall response rate (ORR). Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) was analyzed., Results: Among 103 patients (data cutoff: September 30, 2020; median follow-up [range]: 10.8 [0.5-17.7] mo), confirmed IRC-ORR was 26.2% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 18.0-35.8), median duration of response, 6.3 months (95% CI: 5.6-not reached), and median progression-free survival (mPFS), 3.8 months (95% CI: 3.5-5.8). mPFS was 1.9 months (95% CI: 1.8-3.7) in patients with ctDNA-detectable baseline ALK fusion (n = 64). Among 86 patients who progressed on alectinib, IRC-ORR was 29.1% (95% CI: 19.8-39.9); mPFS was 3.8 months (95% CI: 1.9-5.4). Resistance mutations were present in 33.3% (26 of 78) of baseline ctDNA; 54% (14 of 26) of mutations were G1202R; 52% (33 of 64) of patients with detectable ALK fusion had EML4-ALK variant 3. Most common all-grade treatment-related adverse events were increased creatine phosphokinase (32%) and diarrhea (27%). The mean dose intensity of brigatinib (180 mg once daily) was 85.9%., Conclusions: In ALK in Lung Cancer Trial of brigAtinib-2, brigatinib was found to have a limited activity in patients with ALK+ NSCLC post-ceritinib or post-alectinib therapy. mPFS was longer with brigatinib in patients without baseline detectable plasma ALK fusion., (Copyright © 2022 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Hypofractionated proton beam radiotherapy (PBT) is gaining attention in early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (ES-NSCLC). However, there is a large unmet need to define indications, prescription doses and potential adverse events of protons in this clinical scenario. Hence, the present work aims to provide a critical literature revision, and to investigate associations between fractionation schedules/ biological effective doses (BEDs), oncological outcomes and toxicities., Materials and Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis complied with the PRISMA recommendations. Inclusion criteria were: 1) curative-intent hypofractionated PBT for ES-NSCLC (≥3 Gy(RBE)/fraction), 2) report of the clinical outcomes of interest, 3) availability of full-text written in English. The bibliographic search was performed on the NCBI Pubmed, Embase and Scopus in September 2021; no other limitations were applied. The BED was calculated for each included study (α/β = 10 Gy); the median BED for all studies was used as a threshold for stratifying selected evidence into "high" and "low"-dose subgroups. Heterogeneity was tested using chi-square statistics; inconsistency was measured with the I 2 index. Pooled estimate was obtained by fitting both the fixed-effect and the DerSimonian and Laird random-effect model., Results: Eight studies and 401 patients were available for the meta-analysis; median follow-up was 32.8 months. The median delivered BED was 105.6 Gy(RBE). A BED ≥ 105.6 Gy(RBE) consistently provided superior OS, CSS, DFS and LC rates (i.e.: 4-year OS: 0.56 [0.34-0.76] for BED < 105.6 Gy(RBE) and 0.78 [0.64-0.88] for BED ≥ 105.6 Gy(RBE)). The meta-analysis of proportions showed a comparable probability of developing acute grade ≥ 2 toxicity between the two groups, while the probability of any late grade ≥ 2 event was almost three-times greater for BED ≥ 105.6 Gy(RBE), with rib fractures being more common in the high dose group., Conclusion: Hypofractionated PBT is a safe and effective treatment option for ES-NSCLC; the delivery of BED ≥ 105.6 Gy(RBE) with advanced techniques for uncertainty management has been associated with improved oncological outcomes across all considered time points., 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 © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Rates of disease recurrence and death following surgery remain high in early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), despite adjuvant treatment and curative intent. Recently, osimertinib showed overwhelming evidence for disease-free survival (DFS), as demonstrated by an overall reduction in the risk of disease recurrence or death in the adjuvant setting of 80% versus control in the ADAURA study (stage IB-IIIA; hazard ratio 0.20; 99.12% confidence interval 0.14-0.30; P < 0.001). However, due to the early unblinding of ADAURA and lack of mature overall survival data, there is a need to qualitatively confirm consensus on the clinical and patient relevance of DFS., Materials and Methods: We conducted a modified Delphi panel study consisting of two rounds of surveys, followed by a consensus meeting. An international panel of experts in the field of NSCLC and epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) (n = 13) was asked to rate agreement and comment on a list of pre-defined statements covering key consensus gaps. Statements were eliminated or updated between surveys, depending on the level of agreement. A final list of agreed-upon statements was drafted in the consensus meeting., Results: Consensus was reached on 32 qualitative statements, with topics including unmet needs in early-stage NSCLC, the value of DFS, and the value of osimertinib. Crucially, DFS was agreed to be a clinically and patient-relevant endpoint in adjuvant NSCLC. The relevance of DFS was found to relate to the ability of an adjuvant therapy, such as osimertinib, to keep patients in the clinically valuable curative intent setting, while preventing the burden associated with distant and locoregional recurrence, and progressive disease., Conclusions: Addressing the need for measures that reflect clinical benefit is essential to continue improving outcomes for NSCLC patients. To that end, this work provides a qualitative framework for clinicians to consider the clinical and patient relevance of DFS in adjuvant NSCLC and the benefit demonstrated in ADAURA thus far., Competing Interests: Disclosure MP reports being an advisor to Takeda, Pfizer, Roche, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Eli Lilly, Amgen, Sanofi, Gritstone, GlaxoSmithKline; speaker fees from Takeda, Pfizer, Roche, Chugai, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Illumina; institutional research grants from Takeda, AstraZeneca, Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim. BMS reports being a consultant to Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Galvanize Therapeutics, Flame Therapeutics; advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Genentech, Bristol Myers Squibb; research support to Bristol Myers Squibb; board of Lung Cancer Research Foundation; employment at Xalud Therapeutics, PPD, Pfizer. CG reports receiving honoraria, speaker’s bureau and advisory board fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, and MSD; received travel and accommodation fees from Boehringer-Ingelheim. RC reports honoraria and consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, Boeringher Ingelheim, Lilly Oncology, Roche, Pfizer, MSD, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Takeda, Bayer, Sanofi, and Novartis; grants paid to institution for conduct of clinical trials or contracted research by Roche, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Clovis, Lilly Oncology, MSD, BMS, Abbvie, Takeda, Janssen, and Novartis. FdM reports advisor fees from AstraZeneca, Roche, BMS, Novartis, MSD, XCovery, Takeda, Eli Lilly. RAS reports participation in advisory boards for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lily, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Taiho, Takeda, Yuhan; research grant from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim. MT reports honoraria and lecture fees from Johnson & Johnson Japan, AstraZeneca KK, Eli Lilly Japan, Chugai Pharmaceutical CO., LTD, Taiho Pharma, Medtronic Japan, Ono Pharmaceutical CO.,LTD, MSD, Bristol-Myers Squibb KK, Teijin Pharma; consulting or advisory roles for AstraZeneca KK, Chugai Pharmaceutical CO Ltd, MSD, Novartis; receiving facilities research grant and commissioned research for Boehringer-Ingelheim Japan, MSD, AstraZeneca KK, Ono Pharmaceutical CO Ltd, MSD, Bristol-Myers Squibb KK, Eli Lilly Japan. SL reports receiving research support from AstraZeneca, Hutchison, BMS, Heng Rui Beigene and Roche, Hansoh; receiving speaker fees from AstraZeneca, Roche, Hansoh, Hengrui Therapeutics; advisor/consultant for Astra Zeneca, Pfizer, Hutchison MediPharma, ZaiLab, GenomiCare, Yuhan Corporation, Menarini, InventisBio Co. Ltd., and Roche. GL reports honoraria and advisory board membership/chair from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Hoffman La Roche, Pfizer, Abbvie, Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Takeda; industry research funding from Takeda, AstraZeneca, and Boehringer Ingelheim; educational sessions for AstraZeneca, Takeda, EMD-Serono, Pfizer. RGC reports participating in advisory boards for MSD, Bristol-Myers, Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Takeda; consulting for MSD, Bristol-Myers, Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Takeda; receiving speaker honoraria from MSD, Bristol-Myers, Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Takeda. MT reports speaker and consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Eli-Lilly, BMS, Novartis, Roche, MSD, Boehringer Ingelheim, Otsuka, Takeda, Pierre Fabre, Amgen, Merck; received institutional research grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest, (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is an aggressive tumor, and despite its sensitivity to chemotherapy and radiotherapy, patients usually have a short survival. There are no clinically relevant predictive factors of responses to therapies, and therapeutic options are still limited., Materials and Methods: Clinical data and somatic mutations of genes included in the MSK-IMPACT panel were retrieved from cBioPortal for 108 SCLCs and analyzed to identify mutated gene networks. Results were validated in an independent cohort of 54 SCLCs, whose information was also available from cBioPortal., Results: Different networks were observed in tumors of short and long survivors. Degree (K) and betweenness (B) are key features that characterize a gene in its network of related mutations. By comparing their B/K ratio, 2 signatures of mutated genes were identified, describing short (IL-7R, NTRK2, HNF-1A) and long survivors (NBN, PTPN-11, IRS-1, INPP-4A, PIK-3CG, HGF, LATS-2, SMARCA-4, FLT-3, EIF-4A2, SPEN, PAX-5, SH2-D1A, ARID-1A, HOXB-13, ERCC-4, FANCA, FH, FGFR-2, MST-1R, SMAD-4, DDR-2, IGF-1R, PIK-3CB). Patients with at least 1 mutated gene of the short signature had a worse median overall survival of 8 versus 28 months (P < .001). Patients with at least 1 mutated gene of the long signature had a better median overall survival of 39 versus 20 months (P = .004). The value of the short signature was further confirmed in an independent cohort of SCLCs., Conclusion: The networks of mutated genes could help subclassify SCLCs based on their somatic mutations and aid in identifying a subset of tumors with poor prognosis., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Adding bevacizumab to erlotinib prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) of patients with EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC in the Japanese JO25567 trial, but limited data were available in non-Asian patients. BEVERLY is an Italian, multicenter, randomized, phase 3 investigating the addition of bevacizumab to erlotinib as first-line treatment of advanced EGFR-mutated NSCLC., Methods: Eligible patients were randomized 1:1 to erlotinib plus bevacizumab or erlotinib alone. Investigator-assessed PFS and blinded independent centrally reviewed PFS were coprimary end points. With 80% power in detecting a 0.60 hazard ratio and two-sided α error of 0.05, 126 events of 160 patients were needed. The trial was registered as NCT02633189 and EudraCT 2015-002235-17., Results: From April 11, 2016, to February 27, 2019, a total of 160 patients were randomized to erlotinib plus bevacizumab (80) or erlotinib alone (80). At a median follow-up of 36.3 months, median investigator-assessed PFS was 15.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 12.2-18.6) with erlotinib plus bevacizumab and 9.6 months (95% CI: 8.2-10.6) with erlotinib alone (hazard ratio = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.47-0.92). Blinded independent centrally reviewed PFS analysis confirmed this result. A statistically significant interaction with treatment effect was found for smoking habit (p = 0.0323), with PFS prolongation being clinically significant only among current or previous smokers. Hypertension (grade ≥3: 24% versus 5%), skin rash (grade ≥ 3: 31% versus 14%), thromboembolic events (any grade: 11% versus 4%), and proteinuria (any grade: 23% versus 6%) were more frequent with the combination., Conclusions: The addition of bevacizumab to first-line erlotinib prolonged PFS in Italian patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC; toxicity was increased with the combination but without unexpected safety issues., (Copyright © 2022 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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: Adjuvant chemotherapy is recommended in patients with resected stages II to IIIA (and select IB) NSCLC; however, recurrence rates are high. In the phase 3 ADAURA study (NCT02511106), osimertinib was found to have a clinically meaningful improvement in disease-free survival (DFS) in patients with resected stages IB to IIIA EGFR-mutated (EGFRm) NSCLC. Here, we report prespecified and exploratory analyses of adjuvant chemotherapy use and outcomes from ADAURA., Methods: Patients with resected stages IB to IIIA EGFRm NSCLC were randomized 1:1 to receive osimertinib or placebo for 3 years. Adjuvant chemotherapy before randomization was not mandatory, per physician and patient choice. DFS in the overall population (IB-IIIA), with and without adjuvant chemotherapy, was a prespecified analysis. Exploratory analyses included the following: adjuvant chemotherapy use by patient age, disease stage, and geographic location; DFS by adjuvant chemotherapy use and disease stage., Results: Overall, 410 of 682 patients (60%) received adjuvant chemotherapy (osimertinib, n = 203; placebo, n = 207) for a median duration of 4.0 cycles. Adjuvant chemotherapy use was more frequent in patients: aged less than 70 years (338 of 509; 66%) versus more than or equal to 70 years (72 of 173; 42%); with stages II to IIIA (352 of 466; 76%) versus stage IB (57 of 216; 26%); and enrolled in Asia (268 of 414; 65%) versus outside of Asia (142 of 268; 53%). A DFS benefit favoring osimertinib versus placebo was observed in patients with (DFS hazard ratio = 0.16, 95% confidence interval: 0.10-0.26) and without adjuvant chemotherapy (hazard ratio = 0.23, 95% confidence interval: 0.13-0.40), regardless of disease stage., Conclusions: These findings support adjuvant osimertinib as an effective treatment for patients with stages IB to IIIA EGFRm NSCLC after resection, with or without previous adjuvant chemotherapy., (Copyright © 2021 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Immunotherapy represents the standard of care in the first-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), either as monotherapy in high programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive tumors (≥50%) or in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy regardless of PD-L1 status. However, most pivotal clinical trials of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) did not include patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) 2. Hence, a consensus is lacking on the safety and efficacy of ICIs in this specific subgroup of patients., Materials and Methods: A virtual International Expert Panel took place in July 2021 with the aim of reviewing the available evidence on the use of ICIs in NSCLC patients with ECOG PS 2, both in clinical practice and in a research setting., Results: All panelists expressed concern about the applicability of currently available PS scales to evaluate patients for ICI treatment. The panelists agreed that, though limited, the available data support the safety of single-agent immunotherapy in PS 2 NSCLC patients, whereas concern was raised on the safety of ICI combinations, mainly related to chemotherapy and/or anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 toxicity. On the basis of reviewed data, ICI efficacy may be speculated in PS 2 NSCLC patients; however, PS 2 remains a negative prognostic category as compared to PS 0-1 in patients treated with ICI, as it is for chemotherapy. The panelists defined high, medium and low priorities in clinical research. High priority was attributed to the inclusion of PS 2 patients in prospective clinical trials and the specific evaluation of combined ICI treatments with attenuated chemotherapy doses., Conclusions: Based on the current evidence, the panelists outlined the major limitations affecting PS 2 patients with NSCLC and reached common considerations on the feasibility, safety and effectiveness of ICI monotherapy and ICI combinations in the first-line setting., Competing Interests: Disclosure CG received honoraria as speaker bureau or advisory board member or as consultant from MSD, BMS, Roche, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, Menarini, Boehringer, Karyopharm and Eli Lilly. SP reports personal fees for speaking or attending advisory boards, and has participated in investigation in trials for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Clovis, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Illumina, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck Serono, Novartis and Pfizer; and personal fees for speaking or attending advisory boards for AbbVie, Bayer, Biocartis, Bioinvent, Daiichi Sankyo, Debiopharm, ecancer, Foundation Medicine, Janssen, Lilly, Medscape, Merrimack, Pharma Mar, Regeneron, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics and Takeda (all fees to institution). TM reported receiving personal fees, grants or other fees from AbbVie, ACEA Pharma, Alpha Biopharma Co Ltd, Amgen, Amoy Diagnostics Co Ltd, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Blueprint Medicines Corporation, CStone Pharmaceuticals, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Fishawack Facilitate Ltd, geneDecode, Gritstone Oncology Inc, Guardant Health, Hengrui Therapeutics, Ignyta Inc, IQVIA, Incyte Corporation, InMed Medical Communication, Janssen, Lilly, Loxo-Oncology, Lunit Inc, MD Health (Brazil), Medscape/WebMD, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mirati Therapeutics Inc, MORE Health, Novartis, OrigiMed, PeerVoice, Physicians' Education Resource, Permanyer SL, Pfizer Inc, PrIME Oncology, Puma Technology Inc, Research to Practice, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis R&D, Takeda, Touch Medical Media, Virtus Medical Group, Yuhan Corporation, AstraZeneca PLC, Hutchison Chi-Med, Sanomics Ltd, Clovis Oncology, SFJ Pharmaceuticals, Xcovery, Curio Science, Inivata, Berry Oncology, G1 Therapeutics Inc and Aurora. PMF received honoraria or consulting fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Janssen, Iteos, Flame, Sanofi, Genentech, F-Star, G1 therapeutics and Surface Oncology; and research funding from AstraZeneca, BMS, Kyowa, Corvus and Novartis. MR reports honoraria for consultancy and lecture roles from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Lilly, Merck, Mirati, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis and Pfizer. FdM received honoraria or consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Novartis, Takeda, Xcovery and Roche. IA has declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

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.)

Introduction: IMpower110 previously revealed significant overall survival (OS) benefit with atezolizumab versus chemotherapy in patients with treatment-naive EGFR- and ALK-negative (wild type [WT]) metastatic NSCLC with high programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression (≥50% on tumor cells [TCs] or ≥10% on tumor-infiltrating immune cells [ICs], per SP142 immunohistochemistry assay; p = 0.0106). We present primary OS analyses in lower PD-L1 expression groups and an updated, exploratory analysis in the high PD-L1 expression group., Methods: This open-label, phase 3 trial randomized patients with PD-L1 expression on greater than or equal to 1% of TC or IC to receive atezolizumab or platinum-based chemotherapy. The primary end point was OS, hierarchically tested in PD-L1 expression WT subgroups: first the high PD-L1 expression subgroup, then the high-or-intermediate PD-L1 expression subgroup (≥5% on TC or IC), and then the any PD-L1 expression subgroup (≥1% on TC or IC)., Results: The any PD-L1 expression WT population included 554 patients (excluded 18 EGFR- or ALK-positive patients). With 17 months' additional follow-up, OS improvement in the atezolizumab versus chemotherapy arm was not statistically significant in high-or-intermediate PD-L1 expression WT patients (n = 328; hazard ratio = 0.87, 95% confidence interval: 0.66-1.14, p = 0.3091; median = 19.9 versus 16.1 mo), precluding formal OS testing in any PD-L1 expression WT patients. Exploratory analysis in high PD-L1 expression WT patients (n = 205) revealed maintained OS benefit in the atezolizumab arm (hazard ratio = 0.76, 95% confidence interval: 0.54-1.09; median = 20.2 versus 14.7 mo). Updated safety data continued to favor atezolizumab., Conclusions: Statistical significance for OS was not revealed in the high-or-intermediate expression WT group, and, as a result, OS in the any PD-L1 expression WT group was not formally tested. No new safety signals were found. This updated analysis of IMpower110 supports using atezolizumab in treatment-naive, metastatic WT NSCLC with high PD-L1 expression., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Introduction: In the JAVELIN Lung 200 trial, avelumab (anti-programmed death-ligand 1 [PD-L1] antibody) did not significantly prolong overall survival (OS) versus docetaxel in patients with platinum-treated PD-L1+ NSCLC. We report greater than 2-year follow-up data., Methods: Patients with stage IIIB or IV or recurrent NSCLC with disease progression after platinum-doublet chemotherapy were randomized 1:1 to avelumab 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks or docetaxel 75 mg/m 2 every 3 weeks. The primary end point was OS in patients with PD-L1+ tumors (greater than or equal to 1% tumor cell expression; IHC 73-10 pharmDx assay)., Results: Of 792 patients, 529 had PD-L1+ tumors (264 versus 265 in the avelumab versus docetaxel arms, respectively). As of March 4, 2019, median duration of follow-up for OS in the PD-L1+ population was 35.4 months in the avelumab arm and 34.7 months in the docetaxel arm; study treatment was ongoing in 25 (9.5%) versus 0 patients, respectively. In the PD-L1+ population, 2-year OS rates (95% confidence interval [CI]) with avelumab versus docetaxel were 29.9% (24.5%-35.5%) versus 20.5% (15.6%-25.8%); in greater than or equal to 50% PD-L1+ subgroups, 2-year OS rates were 36.4% (29.1%-43.7%) versus 17.7% (11.8%-24.7%) and in the greater than or equal to 80% subgroup were 40.2% (31.3%-49.0%) versus 20.3% (12.9%-28.8%), respectively. Median duration of response (investigator assessed) was 19.1 months (95% CI: 10.8-34.8) versus 5.7 months (95% CI: 4.1-8.3). Safety profiles for both arms were consistent with the primary analysis., Conclusions: Although the JAVELIN Lung 200 primary analysis (reported previously) revealed that avelumab did not significantly prolong OS versus docetaxel in patients with platinum-treated PD-L1+ NSCLC, posthoc analyses at 2 years of follow-up revealed that 2-year OS rates were doubled with avelumab in subgroups with higher PD-L1 expression (greater than or equal to 50% and greater than or equal to 80%)., (Copyright © 2021 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The first-line treatment of choice for patients with EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC is an EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), of which five as follows are predominantly available in practice: gefitinib, erlotinib, afatinib, dacomitinib, and osimertinib. Most prospective clinical trial data with these agents are limited to patients with the common activating and sensitizing EGFR mutations as follows: exon 19 deletions and exon 21 L858R point mutations. However, 10% to 20% of patients with NSCLC harbor uncommon EGFR mutations that have variable sensitivity to different EGFR TKIs. Owing to their molecular structures, afatinib, dacomitinib, and osimertinib have broader inhibitory profiles than the first-generation agents, gefitinib and erlotinib. Nevertheless, the paucity of prospective clinical data, the wide heterogeneity of uncommon mutations, and the existence of compound mutations in up to 25% of the cases complicate treatment decisions in this patient subgroup. Here, we collate the latest preclinical and clinical data regarding the activity of different TKIs against major uncommon EGFR mutations including compound mutations, but excluding exon 20 insertions which are generally insensitive to TKIs. On the basis of these data, we offer suggestions regarding treatment strategies for uncommon EGFR mutations. Moving forward, it will be important to include uncommon EGFR mutations in the first-line molecular analysis of all patients with adenocarcinoma of the lung, as this will help optimize patient outcomes according to their precise genotype., (Copyright © 2021 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: To assess the efficacy and safety of a metronomic schedule of oral vinorelbine (mVNR) in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in patients unfit for platinum-based combination chemotherapy., Patients and Methods: This was a multicenter, prospective, randomized, open-label phase II study in treatment-naive patients with TNM stage IIIB/IV NSCLC. Patients received mVNR at a fixed dose of 50 mg × 3 or standard schedule 60-80 mg/m 2 weekly until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) without grade 4 toxicity (G4PFS; NCI-CTC v4). Main secondary objectives were safety, disease control rate (DCR) without grade 4 toxicity (G4DCR), DCR, PFS, overall survival (OS) and quality of life (QoL)., Results: A total of 167 patients were included, 83 and 84 patients in the mVNR and standard arms, respectively. The median G4PFS was 4.0 months [95% confidence interval (CI): 2.6-4.3] and 2.2 months (95% CI: 1.5-2.9), hazard ration (HR) = 0.63 (95% CI: 0.45-0.88), P = 0.0068 in favor of metronomic arm; G4DCR was 45.8% and 26.8% in the mVNR and standard arms, respectively. Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were less frequent in the mVNR arm (25.3% versus 54.4%) mainly owing to a reduction in all grades (15.7% versus 51.9%) and grade 3-4 neutropenia (10.8% versus 42%). PFS was 4.3 (95% CI: 3.3-5.1) and 3.9 months (95% CI: 2.8-5.2) in mVNR and standard arms, respectively. No difference in median OS was observed. QoL was comparable between arms., Conclusions: Metronomic oral vinorelbine significantly prolonged median G4PFS in advanced NSCLC patients unfit for platinum combinations as first-line treatment. It was associated with a clear reduction in toxicity and may be considered as an important option in this challenging population., Competing Interests: Disclosure AC has disclosed expert testimony (Pierre Fabre), travel accommodations/expenses (Roche, Pierre Fabre). A Morabito has disclosed speaker's bureau (Pfizer, BMS, Boehringer, MSD, Roche, AstraZeneca). FG has disclosed advisory boards/consultations (Eli Lilly, Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Pierre Fabre, BMS, MSD, Novartis); honoraria: seminar/talks to industry (Eli Lilly, Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Pierre Fabre, Amgen, Celgene, BMS, MSD); research funding (AstraZeneca, BMS, MSD). RR has disclosed consulting/advisory (Roche, MSD, Pfizer, Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim). G-LC has disclosed consulting/advisory (Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Astellas). JB-B reports grants and personal fees from Roche-Genentech, grants from Pfizer, personal fees from MSD, personal fees from BMS, personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Novartis and grants from Pierre Fabre outside the submitted work. PL is an employee of Pierre Fabre Médicament. CTTM is an employee of Pierre Fabre Médicament. SG, biostatistician, is an employee of Pierre Fabre Médicament (IRPF). DK has disclosed consultancy and advisory board: Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Roche/Genentech, BMS, MSD. T-EC reports consulting/advisory, personal fees from Astellas Pharma, Janssen, BMS, Merck Serono, Amgen, Roche, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Servier, A-D Pharm, Lilly, AstraZeneca and Novartis; non-financial support from Pfizer, Sanofi, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Servier, Ipsen, Amgen, Adpharm, AstraZeneca, Roche, BMS, Lilly, Janssen, Novartis and Astellas Pharma. All other authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

The advances in understanding the inherited biological mechanisms of non-small cell lung cancer harbouring epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations led to a significant improvement in the outcomes of patients treated with EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Despite these clinically impressive results, clinical results are not always uniform, suggesting the need for deepening the molecular heterogeneity of this molecularly defined subgroup of patients beyond the clinical and biological surface.The availability of tissue and blood-based tumour genotyping allows us to improve the understanding of molecular and genetic intratumor heterogeneity, driving the measurement of clonal evaluation in patients with lung cancer carrying EGFR mutations. Genetic diversification, clonal expansion and selection are highly variable patterns of genetic diversity, resulting in different biological entities, also a prerequisite for Darwinian selection and therapeutic failure.Such emerging pieces of evidence on the genetic diversity, including adaptive and immunomodulated aspects, provide further evidence for the role of the tumour microenvironment (TME) in drug-resistance and immune-mediated mechanisms. Matching in daily clinical practice, the detailed genomic profile of lung cancer disease and tracking the clonal evolution could be the way to individualise the further target treatments in EGFR-positive disease. Characterising the tumour and immune microenvironment during the time of the cancer evaluation could be the way forward for the qualitative leap needed from bench to bedside. Such a daring approach, aiming at personalising treatment selection in order to exploit the TME properties and weaken tumour adaptivity, should be integrated into clinical trial design to optimise patient outcome., Competing Interests: Competing interests: AP has received honoraria for consulting, advisory role or lectures from AstraZeneca, Agilent/Dako, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer and Roche Genentech. UM has received personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, MSD, Amgen, Merck and AstraZeneca. FDM has served in a consultant/advisory role for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Roche Genentech, Takeda and Pfizer. CR has received speakers’ bureau from AstraZeneca and MSD, a research grant from the Lung Cancer Research Foundation–Pfizer, and research support from Guardant Health and Biomark; has an advisory board role with ARCHER, Inivata and Merck Serono; and hasconsulted for Mylan and Oncopass., (© Author (s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. Published by BMJ on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology.)

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) represent one of the main steps forward for the treatment of advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), without oncogenic driver alterations. Despite this recent progress, only a minority of patients achieve a broad and durable benefit and another proportion report poor survival and sometimes fast disease progression, confirming the need to optimise the patient's selection. To date, several issues are unsolved about how to personalise the immunotherapy treatment for individual patients. In this review, analysing data from pivotal randomised clinical trials (RCTs), we discuss patient baseline clinical and demographic features, including sex, age, ECOG performance status, smoking habit and specific site of metastases (liver, bone and brain) that may influence the efficacy outcomes in patients treated with ICIs. The high performance of the ICIs blurred the vision on different efficacy-limiting factors, which require extensive evaluation to improve the understanding ofthe tumour-specificimmune response, in which clinical drivers could be useful for better patient stratification., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

A number of treatments have been developed for HER1, 2 and 3-driven non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), of which the most successful have been the epidermal growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitors in HER1-mutant tumours resulting in highly improved progression-free survival. Human epidermal growth factor (HER)2 and 3-driven tumours represent the minority of NSCLC, and effective therapies in these patients still represent an unmet medical need. The encouraging results seen with anti-HER2 and anti-HER3 monoclonal antibodies need to be validated in larger studies, even if the greatest obstacle is represented by the exiguous number of patients bearing deregulated HER2/3 system and abnormalities of signal transduction pathway. Considering NSCLC tumour heterogeneity, which affects response and resistance to treatment, combined multiparametric approaches, such as liquid biopsy together with radiomics, may provide a better understanding of the tumour dynamics and clonal selection during the treatments., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author (s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. Published by BMJ on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology.)

The COVID-19 pandemic, characterised by a fast and global spread during the first months of 2020, has prompted the development of a structured set of recommendations for cancer care management, to maintain the highest possible standards. Within this framework, it is crucial to ensure no disruption to essential oncological services and guarantee the optimal care.This is a structured proposal for the management of lung cancer, comprising three levels of priorities, namely: tier 1 (high priority), tier 2 (medium priority) and tier 3 (low priority)-defined according to the criteria of the Cancer Care Ontario, Huntsman Cancer Institute and Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale.The manuscript emphasises the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on lung cancer care and reconsiders all steps from diagnosis, staging and treatment.These recommendations should, therefore, serve as guidance for prioritising the different aspects of cancer care to mitigate the possible negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the management of our patients.As the situation is rapidly evolving, practical actions are required to guarantee the best patients' treatment while protecting and respecting their rights, safety and well-being. In this environment, cancer practitioners have great responsibilities: provide timely, appropriate, compassionate and justified cancer care, while protecting themselves and their patients from being infected with COVID-19. In case of shortages, resources must be distributed fairly. Consequently, the following recommendations can be applied with significant nuances, depending on the time and location for their use, considering variable constraints imposed to the health systems. An exceptional flexibility is required from cancer caregivers., Competing Interests: Competing interests: AP: honoraria for consulting, advisory role or lectures from AstraZeneca, Agilent/Dako, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme and Roche Genentech. AA: honoraria for consulting, advisory role from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Takeda, Pfizer, Roche Genentech and Boehringer Ingelheim. CvG: honoraria for consulting, advisory role or lectures from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer, PneumRx et Pulmonx. FB: honoraria for consulting, advisory role or lectures from AstraZeneca, Abbvie, Bayer, Roche Genentech, Pfizer, Cell Medica, Celgene, Takeda. DP: honoraria for consulting, advisory role or lectures from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, prIME Oncology, Peer CME, Roche Genentech, Samsung Honoraria: AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, prIME Oncology, Peer CME, Roche. EF: advisory role or speaker’s bureau from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Blueprint medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GSK, Eli Lilly, Guardant Health, Janssen, Medscape, Merck KGaA, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, prIME Oncology, Roche Genentech, Samsung, Springer, Takeda, Touchime. Board: Grifols, independent member Research funding: Fundación Merck Salud, Grant for Oncology Innovation EMD Serono. RD: honoraria for consulting, advisory role or lectures from from AstraZeneca, Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Seattle Genetics, Foundation Medicine, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Takeda. FdM: honoraria for consulting, advisory role or lectures from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Roche Genentech, Takeda and Pfizer. MR: honoraria for consulting, advisory role or lecture from Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Lilly, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung. Support for clinical research from BMS. HB: honoraria for consulting, advisory role or lecture for AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Roche Genentech. SP: received education grants, provided consultation, attended advisory boards, or provided lectures for Abbvie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biocartis, Bioinvent, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, Debiopharm, Eli Lilly, F Hoffmann-La Roche, Foundation Medicine, Illumina, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck Serono, Merrimack, Novartis, Pharma Mar, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda and Vaccibody, from whom she has received honoraria (all fees to institution)., (© Author (s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. Published by BMJ on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology.)

Introduction: At the prior data cutoff (February 9, 2017) the ALEX trial showed superior investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) for alectinib versus crizotinib in untreated, anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive, advanced NSCLC (hazard ratio = 0.47, 95% confidence interval: 0.34-0.65, p < 0.001). The median PFS in the alectinib arm was not reached versus 11.1 months with crizotinib. Retrospective analyses suggest that the echinoderm microtubule-associated protein-like 4 gene-ALK variant (EML4-ALK) may influence ALK-inhibitor treatment benefit. We present updated analyses, including exploratory subgroup analysis by EML4-ALK variant, after an additional 10 months' follow-up (cutoff December 1, 2017)., Methods: Patients were randomized to receive twice-daily alectinib, 600 mg, or crizotinib, 250 mg, until disease progression, toxicity, death, or withdrawal. PFS was determined by the investigators. Baseline plasma and tissue biomarker samples were analyzed by using hybrid-capture, next-generation sequencing to determine EML4-ALK variant., Results: Baseline characteristics were balanced. Investigator-assessed PFS was prolonged with alectinib (stratified hazard ratio = 0.43, 95% confidence interval: 0.32-0.58). The median PFS times were 34.8 months with alectinib and 10.9 months with crizotinib. EML4-ALK fusions were detectable in 129 patient plasma samples and 124 tissue samples; variants 1, 2, and 3/ab did not affect PFS, objective response rate, or duration of response. Investigator-assessed PFS was longer for alectinib than for crizotinib across EML4-ALK variants 1, 2, and 3a/b in plasma and tissue. Despite longer treatment duration (27.0 months in the case of alectinib versus 10.8 months in the case of crizotinib), the safety of alectinib compared favorably with that of crizotinib., Conclusion: Alectinib continues to demonstrate superior investigator-assessed PFS versus crizotinib in untreated ALK-positive NSCLC, irrespective of EML4-ALK variant., (Copyright © 2019 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Owing to the expected poor long-term outcomes and high postoperative morbidity and mortality, patients with stage IIIA-N2 tumors candidate to pneumonectomy (PN) are usually excluded from surgery. This study aims to analyze the outcome of patients who underwent PN to prove its safety and feasibility., Patients and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed data from 233 patients who underwent PN for N2 non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) between 1998 and 2015. Eighty-five patients were occult N2 disease (group 1), whereas 148 patients underwent induction therapy (IT) for stage IIIA-N2 (group 2)., Results: Overall morbidity, postoperative mortality, and 90-day mortality rates were 46.8%, 2.6%, and 8.6%, respectively. The 2 groups (group 1 vs. 2) had similar postoperative and 90-day mortality rates: 2.4% versus 2.7% (P = 1.00), and 9.4% versus 8.1% (P = .81), respectively. The incidence of major morbidity was higher and statistically significant in group 2 compared with group 1: 23% versus 12.9% (P = .1). Postoperative bronchopleural fistula occurred in 4.7% (4/85) of patients with occult N2 (group 1) and in 10.1% (15/148) of patients undergoing IT (group 2) (P = .10). Median overall survival (OS) was 2.2 years, with a 3 and 5-year OS of 43.4% and 31.6%, respectively. Disease-free survival (DFS) was 1.5 years, with 3 and 5-year DFS of 41.6% and 32%, respectively; no difference in OS and DFS between the 2 groups was found., Conclusions: Considering the acceptable morbidity and mortality rate and the long-term survival, PN should not be excluded for selected patients with stage IIIA-N2 NSCLC as a matter of principle., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Molecular characterization of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), defined predictive and druggable mutations that greatly modified patient prognoses. The most frequent driver mutations detected in NSCLC are epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations, accounting for approximately 90% of exon 19 deletions and exon 21 point mutations. The other EGFR mutations are classified as uncommon or nonclassical and include exon 18 point mutations, exon 20 insertions, and combined mutations, which present different sensitivity to tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) targeting., Patients and Methods: We collected data from EGFR TKI-naive patients with metastatic NSCLC, harboring EGFR exon 18 mutations and EGFR combined mutations treated with first- or second-generation EGFR TKIs. Efficacy end points were evaluated considering the activity of EGFR TKIs in exon 18 versus double-mutation EGFR groups., Results: Eighty-eight patients harboring uncommon EGFR mutations were evaluated in our analysis, and subdivided into 2 group: complex mutations (cohort A = 46 patients) and double mutations in exon 18 (cohort B = 42 patients). The results showed a median progression-free survival of 8.3 versus 12.3 months (hazard ratio [HR], 0.65; P = .06) and a median overall survival of 17.0 versus 31.0 months (HR, 0.62, P = .04) favoring the EGFR combination group. Within the combination group, no detrimental effect was associated with exon 20 mutations., Conclusion: Our study confirmed that EGFR exon 18 and combination mutations might be considered potentially sensitive uncommon mutations, with a similar survival compared with the well known common EGFR mutations. Comparative analysis showed that patients with complex mutations achieved longer survival compared with the exon 18 group, without correlation with the presence of exon 20 mutations., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Nivolumab is the first checkpoint inhibitor approved for the treatment of nonsquamous NSCLC. We report results from the nivolumab Italian expanded access program focusing on never-smokers and patients with EGFR-mutant nonsqamous NSCLC., Methods: Nivolumab (3 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks) was administered upon physicians' request to patients who had relapsed after one or more prior systemic treatments for stage IIIB/IV nonsquamous NSCLC. Efficacy and safety were evaluated in patients who received at least one dose of nivolumab., Results: Of 1588 patients with nonsquamous NSCLC, 305 (19.2%) were never-smokers. EGFR status was available for 1395 patients. Of the 102 patients (6.4%) with EGFR mutation-positive tumors, 51 (50%) were never-smokers. The objective response rate was significantly higher in patients with wild-type EGFR than patients with EGFR-mutant tumors (19.6% versus 8.8% [p = 0.007]), in former and current smokers than in never-smokers (21.5% versus 9.2% [p = 0.0001]), and in never-smokers with wild-type EGFR than in never-smokers with mutant EGFR (11.0% versus 1.9% [p = 0.04]). There was no significant difference in objective response rate between smokers with wild-type EGFR and smokers with mutant EGFR (22.0% versus 20.6%). There was no statistically significant difference in median progression-free survival or in median overall survival. The median overall survival times were 11 months in patients with EGFR wild-type tumors versus 8.3 months in patients with EGFR-mutant tumors, 11.6 months in smokers versus 10.0 months in never-smokers, 11.0 months in never-smokers with EGFR wild-type tumors versus 5.6 months in never-smokers with EGFR-mutant tumors, and 14.1 months in smokers with EGFR-mutant tumors versus 11.3 months in smokers with EGFR wild-type tumors., Conclusions: The data on the Italian expanded access program in populations with nonsquamous NSCLC suggest that subgroups of patients could benefit differently from nivolumab according to their EGFR mutational status and smoking habits. These results warrant further investigation., (Copyright © 2018 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: The efficacy and safety of atezolizumab versus the efficacy and safety of docetaxel as second- or third-line treatment in patients with advanced NSCLC in the primary (n = 850) and secondary (n = 1225) efficacy populations of the randomized phase III OAK study (respectively referred to as the intention-to-treat [ITT] 850 [ITT850] and ITT1225) at an updated data cutoff were assessed., Methods: Patients received atezolizumab, 1200 mg, or docetaxel, 75 mg/m 2 , intravenously every 3 weeks until loss of clinical benefit or disease progression, respectively. The primary end point was overall survival (OS) in the ITT population and programmed death-ligand 1-expressing subgroup. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to evaluate the impact of subsequent immunotherapy use in the docetaxel arm on the observed survival benefit with atezolizumab., Results: Atezolizumab demonstrated an OS benefit versus docetaxel in the updated ITT850 (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.75, 95% confidence interval: 0.64-0.89, p = 0.0006) and the ITT1225 (HR = 0.80, 95% confidence interval: 0.70-0.92, p = 0.0012) after minimum follow-up times of 26 and 21 months, respectively. Improved survival with atezolizumab was observed across programmed death-ligand 1 and histological subgroups. In the immunotherapy sensitivity analysis, the relative OS benefit with atezolizumab was slightly greater in the ITT850 (HR = 0.69) and ITT1225 (HR = 0.74) than the conventional OS estimate. Fewer patients receiving atezolizumab experienced grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events (14.9%) than did patients receiving docetaxel (42.4%); no grade 5 adverse events related to atezolizumab were observed., Conclusions: The results of the updated ITT850 and initial ITT1225 analyses were consistent with those of the primary efficacy analysis demonstrating survival benefit with atezolizumab versus with docetaxel. Atezolizumab continued to demonstrate a favorable safety profile after longer treatment exposure and follow-up., (Copyright © 2018 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients inevitably progress to first-line therapy and further active treatments are warranted. In the past few years, new second-line therapies, beyond chemotherapy agents, have become available in clinical practice. To date, several options for the second-line treatment of non-oncogene-addicted NSCLC patients ranging from chemotherapy in combination with antivascular endothelial growth factor receptor to immunotherapeutics are available. In oncogene-driven tumors, the better knowledge of mechanisms of acquired resistance to earlier tyrosine kinase inhibitors is leading to novel active inhibitors now available/in development. The second-line algorithm treatment of NSCLC becomes very intricate and the selection of proper patients with one of the new available therapeutic options is of paramount importance to personalize and optimize the treatment. In this review we discuss the second-line treatment opportunities of addicted as well as not-addicted NSCLC., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Although lung cancer remains the leading cause of death from cancer worldwide, the advent of immunotherapy is changing the survival of patients affected by non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). A multitude of clinical trials are evaluating different immune checkpoints inhibitors in this new field of thoracic oncology. At the beginning of the immunotherapy era, nivolumab, pembrolizumab and atezolizumab showed high efficacy in patients with advanced NSCLC in second-line setting, receiving approvals for clinical practice. Nivolumab and atezolizumab are approved independently from programmed death lig and 1 (PD-L1) expression, while pembrolizumab is currently approved only for patients with PD-L1 expression ≥1%. The role of PD-L1 expression acquired more interest considering first-line clinical trials, in which the role of immunotherapy as monotherapy was confirmed only for pembrolizumab in patients with PD-L1 expression ≥50%. These data were analysed in this paper, focusing on the implications in clinical practice and how to use them to an accurate clinical benefit of patients with advanced NSCLC. We report a review based on a MEDLINE/PubMed, searched for randomised phase 2/3 trials evaluating immune checkpoint inhibitors and NSCLC, that moved to an approval from Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicine Agency (EMA). The evidence discussed in this manuscript and the final therapeutic algorithm, coming out from an International Experts Panel Meeting of the Italian Association of Thoracic Oncology., Competing Interests: Competing interests: FdM received honoraria from BMS, Roche, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Celgene, MDS, Boehringer and Novartis. PB has received research grants from or has served as a consultant for Merck, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Polaris and Pfizer. MDH received honoraria from Genentech, Merck, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Janssen and Mirati. TSKM received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Roche Genentech, Eli Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, MSD and Pfizer. HL receiving honoraria from Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lilly, Pierre Fabre Oncologie, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche and Amgen. LP-A receiving honoraria AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MerckSharp & Dohme, Lilly, Roche, Merck Serono, Novartis and Boehringer Ingelheim. DR-A receiving advisory fees from MSD, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche and Boehringer Ingelheim.

Background: Central nervous system (CNS) metastases are common in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Osimertinib has shown systemic efficacy in patients with CNS metastases, and early clinical evidence shows efficacy in the CNS. To evaluate osimertinib activity further, we present a pre-specified subgroup analysis of CNS response using pooled data from two phase II studies: AURA extension (NCT01802632) and AURA2 (NCT02094261)., Patients and Methods: Patients with T790M-positive advanced NSCLC, who had progressed following prior epidermal growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitor treatment, received osimertinib 80 mg od (n = 411). Patients with stable, asymptomatic CNS metastases were eligible for enrolment; prior CNS treatment was allowed. Patients with ≥1 measurable CNS lesion (per RECIST 1.1) on baseline brain scan by blinded independent central neuroradiology review (BICR) were included in the evaluable for CNS response set (cEFR). The primary outcome for this CNS analysis was CNS objective response rate (ORR) by BICR; secondary outcomes included CNS duration of response, disease control rate (DCR) and progression-free survival (PFS)., Results: Of 128 patients with CNS metastases on baseline brain scans, 50 were included in the cEFR. Confirmed CNS ORR and DCR were 54% [27/50; 95% confidence interval (CI) 39-68] and 92% (46/50; 95% CI 81-98), respectively. CNS response was observed regardless of prior radiotherapy to the brain. Median CNS duration of response (22% maturity) was not reached (range, 1-15 months); at 9 months, 75% (95% CI 53-88) of patients were estimated to remain in response. Median follow-up for CNS PFS was 11 months; median CNS PFS was not reached (95% CI, 7, not calculable). The safety profile observed in the cEFR was consistent with the overall patient population., Conclusions: Osimertinib demonstrated clinically meaningful efficacy against CNS metastases, with a high DCR, encouraging ORR, and safety profile consistent with that reported previously., Clinicaltrials.gov Number: NCT01802632; NCT02094261.

Background: In a phase III study, maintenance pemetrexed showed superior survival over placebo (PARAMOUNT) for patients with advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who completed 4 cycles of pemetrexed plus cisplatin (PC) induction therapy, with low incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) generally associated with pemetrexed. Prior analyses did not account for toxicities carried over from induction; thus, the current analysis was developed to understand toxicities that may be attributed to pemetrexed maintenance versus PC induction, and how treatment duration affects toxicity., Patients and Methods: Selected clinically relevant TEAEs were explored in 2 analyses: assessing induction versus maintenance treatment in PARAMOUNT, and comparing PC from PARAMOUNT with toxicity data from a previous phase III study that established the role of PC in front-line therapy of non-squamous NSCLC (JMDB trial)., Results: In PARAMOUNT, the incidence of most drug-related TEAEs was higher during induction than maintenance, for both the pemetrexed and placebo randomized populations. The majority of TEAEs during maintenance, except renal events, were carried over from induction with no change in severity from the end of induction; the incidence of TEAEs associated with pemetrexed maintenance was low. The cross-trial analysis showed that 6 cycles of PC in JMDB compared with 4 cycles in PARAMOUNT increased grade 1/2 fatigue (34.1% vs. 25.0%), anemia (24.0% vs. 13.5%), and renal events (11.8% vs. 3.6%)., Conclusions: Safety data presented here support the favorable risk benefit of 4 cycles of PC followed by maintenance pemetrexed in patients with advanced non-squamous NSCLC., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The identification of EGFR mutations and their respectively tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), changed dramatically treatment and survival of patients with EGFR-positive lung cancer. Nowadays, different EGFR TKIs as afatinib, erlotinib and gefitinib are approved worldwide for the treatment of NSCLC harbouring EGFR mutations, in particular exon 19 deletions or exon 21 (Leu858Arg) substitution EGFR mutations. In first-line setting, when comparing with platinum-based chemotherapy, these target drugs improves progression-free survival, response rate and quality of life. Unfortunately, the development of different mechanism of resistance, limits the long term efficacy of these agents. The most clear mechanism of resistance is the development of EGFR Thr790Met mutation. Against this new target, different third-generation EGFR-mutant-selective TKIs, such as osimertinib, rociletinib and olmutinib, showed a great activity. In this review, we summarize the scientific evidences about biology, evaluation and treatment on NSCLC with EGFR T790M mutation., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Atezolizumab is a humanised antiprogrammed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) monoclonal antibody that inhibits PD-L1 and programmed death-1 (PD-1) and PD-L1 and B7-1 interactions, reinvigorating anticancer immunity. We assessed its efficacy and safety versus docetaxel in previously treated patients with non-small-cell lung cancer., Methods: We did a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial (OAK) in 194 academic or community oncology centres in 31 countries. We enrolled patients who had squamous or non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer, were 18 years or older, had measurable disease per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients had received one to two previous cytotoxic chemotherapy regimens (one or more platinum based combination therapies) for stage IIIB or IV non-small-cell lung cancer. Patients with a history of autoimmune disease and those who had received previous treatments with docetaxel, CD137 agonists, anti-CTLA4, or therapies targeting the PD-L1 and PD-1 pathway were excluded. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to intravenously receive either atezolizumab 1200 mg or docetaxel 75 mg/m 2 every 3 weeks by permuted block randomisation (block size of eight) via an interactive voice or web response system. Coprimary endpoints were overall survival in the intention-to-treat (ITT) and PD-L1-expression population TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 (≥1% PD-L1 on tumour cells or tumour-infiltrating immune cells). The primary efficacy analysis was done in the first 850 of 1225 enrolled patients. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02008227., Findings: Between March 11, 2014, and April 29, 2015, 1225 patients were recruited. In the primary population, 425 patients were randomly assigned to receive atezolizumab and 425 patients were assigned to receive docetaxel. Overall survival was significantly longer with atezolizumab in the ITT and PD-L1-expression populations. In the ITT population, overall survival was improved with atezolizumab compared with docetaxel (median overall survival was 13·8 months [95% CI 11·8-15·7] vs 9·6 months [8·6-11·2]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·73 [95% CI 0·62-0·87], p=0·0003). Overall survival in the TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 population was improved with atezolizumab (n=241) compared with docetaxel (n=222; median overall survival was 15·7 months [95% CI 12·6-18·0] with atezolizumab vs 10·3 months [8·8-12·0] with docetaxel; HR 0·74 [95% CI 0·58-0·93]; p=0·0102). Patients in the PD-L1 low or undetectable subgroup (TC0 and IC0) also had improved survival with atezolizumab (median overall survival 12·6 months vs 8·9 months; HR 0·75 [95% CI 0·59-0·96]). Overall survival improvement was similar in patients with squamous (HR 0·73 [95% CI 0·54-0·98]; n=112 in the atezolizumab group and n=110 in the docetaxel group) or non-squamous (0·73 [0·60-0·89]; n=313 and n=315) histology. Fewer patients had treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events with atezolizumab (90 [15%] of 609 patients) versus docetaxel (247 [43%] of 578 patients). One treatment-related death from a respiratory tract infection was reported in the docetaxel group., Interpretation: To our knowledge, OAK is the first randomised phase 3 study to report results of a PD-L1-targeted therapy, with atezolizumab treatment resulting in a clinically relevant improvement of overall survival versus docetaxel in previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer, regardless of PD-L1 expression or histology, with a favourable safety profile., Funding: F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Genentech, Inc., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: About 20% of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) cases harbor somatic mutations in the tyrosine kinase domain of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) gene. In these patients, the standard first-line treatments are the EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors, such as gefitinib, erlotinib, or afatinib. Most of these patients develop resistance and relapse within about 1 year of initiation of an EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitor. Consequently, it is important to develop new combination strategies to delay this resistance. Preclinical data have showed that EGFR and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) share a common downstream pathway, suggesting the important role of VEGF in the resistance to EGFR blockade. The combination of erlotinib and bevacizumab, an anti-VEGF agent, showed very interesting clinical results., Patients and Methods: The bevacizumab plus erlotinib study (BEVERLY) is a randomized, open-label, phase III trial investigating first-line erlotinib plus bevacizumab versus erlotinib in patients with advanced NSCLC harboring activating EGFR mutations. The co-primary endpoints are investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) and blinded, independent centrally reviewed PFS. The secondary endpoints include overall survival, quality of life, objective response rate, and safety. A total of 200 patients will be randomized 1:1 to receive oral erlotinib (150 mg daily) plus bevacizumab (15 mg/kg, intravenously, on day 1 of every 21-day cycle) or erlotinib alone, until objective disease progression or unacceptable toxicity or the patient's or physician's motivated decision to stop the treatment., Conclusion: If the primary endpoint of PFS is met, the erlotinib plus bevacizumab combination will be confirmed as the best first-line treatment for patients with advanced NSCLC harboring activating EGFR mutations., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Angiogenesis, one of the hallmarks of cancer, occurs when new blood vessels feed malignant cells, providing oxygen and nutrients, promoting tumor growth, and allowing tumor cells to escape into the circulation, thus leading to metastases. To date, a series of antiangiogenic drugs (either monoclonal antibodies or small molecules) have been approved by regulatory agencies for the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer, and they are currently available for both first- and second-line therapy. The overall benefit of these drugs seems modest (although clearly significant), especially when administered as a single agent, and there is no clear consensus with regard to which patients should be candidates to receive these drugs across the different disease settings. From the biological perspective, angiogenesis represents a difficult and complex process to explore, given the interference with other key pathways and the dynamic evolution during the disease's history. Indeed, this process is complicated by the presence of multiple targets to hit, polymorphisms, hypoxia-dependent modifications, and epigenetics. These difficulties do not allow capture of which specific key pathways can be identified as biomarkers of efficacy so as to maximize to overall benefit of such drugs. An International Experts Panel Meeting was inspired by the absence of clear recommendations to address which patients should receive antiangiogenic drugs in the context of advanced non-small cell lung cancer so as to support decisions for clinical practice on a daily basis and determine priorities for future research. After a literature review and panelists consensus, a series of recommendations were defined to support decisions for the daily clinical practice and to indicate a potential road map for translational research., (Copyright © 2016 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: The cost-effectiveness of first-line tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy in epidermal growth factor receptor gene (EGFR)-mutated advanced-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is poorly documented. We therefore conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of first-line treatment with erlotinib versus standard chemotherapy in European patients with advanced-stage EGFR-mutated NSCLC who were enrolled in the European Erlotinib versus Chemotherapy trial., Methods: The European Erlotinib versus Chemotherapy study was a multicenter, open-label, randomized phase III trial performed mainly in Spain, France, and Italy. We based our economic analysis on clinical data and data on resource consumption (drugs, drug administration, adverse events, and second-line treatments) collected during this trial. Utility values were derived from the literature. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated for the first-line treatment phase and for the overall strategy from the perspective of the three participating countries. Sensitivity analyses were performed by selecting the main cost drivers., Results: Compared with standard first-line chemotherapy, the first-line treatment with erlotinib was cost saving (€7807, €17,311, and €19,364 for Spain, Italy and France, respectively) and yielded a gain of 0.117 quality-adjusted life-years. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that, given a willingness to pay at least €90,000 for 1 quality-adjusted life-year, the probability that a strategy of first-line erlotinib would be cost-effective was 100% in France, 100% in Italy, and 99.8% in Spain., Conclusion: This economic analysis shows that first-line treatment with erlotinib, versus standard chemotherapy, is a dominant strategy for EGFR-mutated advanced-stage NSCLC in three European countries., (Copyright © 2016 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Lung cancer is the leading cause of death from cancer worldwide that currently has only a few available treatment options in patients with no driver mutations. The therapeutic options for patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who progress after first-line chemotherapy have been limited from a long time. Docetaxel has remained a cornerstone of second-line treatment for more than 20 years, but it is associated with an unfavorable safety profile. Recently, the results from immunotherapy treatment with anti-PD1 and PD-L1 inhibitors has changed our current knowledge base and increased therapeutic options for patients with NSCLC in the second-line setting. The results of 2 randomized phase III trials assessing nivolumab in lung cancer, Check-Mate-017 and Check-Mate-057, have deeply changed our current clinical practice and raised several discussion points. This paper explores the recent findings about nivolumab for the treatment of NSCLC in the second-line setting by analyzing recent trial findings and discussing their implications in clinical practice and future directions. The paper also summarizes the conclusions from an International Experts Panel Meeting of the Italian Association of Thoracic Oncology., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Afatinib has demonstrated clinical benefit in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer progressing after treatment with erlotinib/gefitinib. This phase III trial prospectively assessed whether continued irreversible ErbB-family blockade with afatinib plus paclitaxel has superior outcomes versus switching to chemotherapy alone in patients acquiring resistance to erlotinib/gefitinib and afatinib monotherapy., Patients and Methods: Patients with relapsed/refractory disease following ≥1 line of chemotherapy, and whose tumors had progressed following initial disease control (≥12 weeks) with erlotinib/gefitinib and thereafter afatinib (50 mg/day), were randomized 2:1 to receive afatinib plus paclitaxel (40 mg/day; 80 mg/m(2)/week) or investigator's choice of single-agent chemotherapy. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Other end points included objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), safety and patient-reported outcomes., Results: Two hundred and two patients with progressive disease following clinical benefit from afatinib were randomized to afatinib plus paclitaxel (n = 134) or single-agent chemotherapy (n = 68). PFS (median 5.6 versus 2.8 months, hazard ratio 0.60, P = 0.003) and ORR (32.1% versus 13.2%, P = 0.005) significantly improved with afatinib plus paclitaxel. There was no difference in OS. Global health status/quality of life was maintained with afatinib plus paclitaxel over the entire treatment period. The median treatment duration was 133 and 51 days with afatinib plus paclitaxel and single-agent chemotherapy, respectively; 48.5% of patients receiving afatinib plus paclitaxel and 30.0% of patients receiving single-agent chemotherapy experienced drug-related grade 3/4 adverse events. Treatment-related adverse events were consistent with those previously reported with each agent., Conclusion: Afatinib plus paclitaxel improved PFS and ORR compared with single-agent chemotherapy in patients who acquired resistance to erlotinib/gefitinib and progressed on afatinib after initial benefit. LUX-Lung 5 is the first prospective trial to demonstrate the benefit of continued ErbB targeting post-progression, versus switching to single-agent chemotherapy., Trial Registration Number: NCT01085136 (clinicaltrials.gov)., (© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology.)

Introduction: Sorafenib monotherapy has shown benefits in phase II trials as third-/fourth-line treatment in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC)., Methods: The phase III, multinational, double-blind, placebo-controlled Monotherapy admInistration of Sorafenib in patientS wIth nOn-small-cell luNg cancer (MISSION) trial randomized patients with advanced relapsed/refractory NSCLC, following two or three prior treatment regimens, to sorafenib 400 mg twice a day (n = 350) or matching placebo (n = 353) plus best supportive care. The primary end point was overall survival (OS); secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS) and time to progression. Epidermal growth factor receptor and KRAS mutation status was analyzed in archival tumor and/or circulating tumor DNA from blood samples obtained during screening., Results: Median OS was similar in the sorafenib and placebo groups (8.2 versus 8.3 mo; hazard ratio [HR], 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.84-1.17; p = 0.47). Median PFS (2.8 versus 1.4 mo; HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.51-0.72; p < 0.0001), and time to progression (2.9 versus 1.4 mo; HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.45-0.65; p < 0.0001) were significantly greater with sorafenib than with placebo. Among the 89 patients with epidermal growth factor receptor mutations, OS (13.9 versus 6.5 mo; HR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.30-0.76; p = 0.002) and PFS (2.7 versus 1.4 mo; HR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.16-0.46; p < 0.001) were significantly higher with sorafenib than placebo. PFS was significantly longer with sorafenib than placebo in patients with either wild-type or mutated KRAS, but OS was similar. Common drug-related adverse events were rash/desquamation, diarrhea, and fatigue, consistent with the safety profile of sorafenib., Conclusions: Third-/fourth-line sorafenib therapy did not significantly increase OS in patients with relapsed/refractory NSCLC, despite significantly increasing PFS., (Copyright © 2015 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The assessment of special categories of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients requires a comprehensive analysis of all factors potentially influencing the daily quality of life and the relative contribution of tumor-related symptoms on the overall patient health status. While for elderly patients prospective evidence and recommendations allow clinicians to better address their patients to a shared treatment, a paucity of reliable data refers to treatment opportunities for these patients, termed frail or unfit, who are not considered eligible for chemotherapy usually administered to adult patients. This consensus was inspired by the absence of clear criteria to define the category of unfit patients in the context of advanced NSCLC in order to share all the available tools for their classification and evaluation and to support decisions for clinical practice on a daily basis. After review of the literature and panelist consensus, a series of items was identified as relevant: age, performance status, renal function, heart failure, previous cerebrovascular events, uncontrolled hypertension, neuropathy, hearing loss, symptomatic brain metastases, severe psychiatric disorders, and absence of caregiver support. On the basis of these factors, a treatment algorithm for clinical practice to categorize unfit NSCLC patient into 3 major clinical scenarios was defined: (1) unfit for cisplatin-based chemotherapy, (2) unfit for carboplatin-based chemotherapy, and (3) unfit for single-agent chemotherapy., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Most patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are elderly, and age has important implications for their management and treatment. In May 2014, the Italian Association of Thoracic Oncology organized an International Experts Panel Meeting with the intent to review the available evidence regarding the treatment of elderly patients with NSCLC and to discuss the implications for clinical practice and future research in this field; this article summarizes the panelists' conclusions. All patients aged more than 70 years should receive an assessment of physiologic age, including mortality and toxicity prediction. Age itself does not contraindicate adjuvant chemotherapy after resection. Elderly patients with locally advanced NSCLC should be considered for combined chemo-radiotherapy. In the advanced setting, the combination of carboplatin/paclitaxel results in prolonged survival compared with single-agent gemcitabine or vinorelbine, albeit with increased toxicity. In fit selected patients, other carboplatin-based or cisplatin-based regimens are feasible, but randomized trials specifically showing survival prolongation in elderly patients are lacking. The survival benefit for bevacizumab added to chemotherapy seems limited to patients aged less than 75 years. In unfit elderly patients, single agents are recommended. Regardless of age, patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC, and those who have never smoked independently of their histologic subtype, should be tested for epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation and anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) rearrangement. In patients with NSCLC harboring EGFR mutation or ALK rearrangement, targeted drugs are feasible and well tolerated., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)