Search

Background: The combination of platinum-based chemotherapy with immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) is a standard of care option in the front-line treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Positive efficacy and safety results have been demonstrated with different chemo-ICI combinations in the corresponding clinical trials, however no randomized prospective comparison is available and there is no evidence on how to choose among the available regimens., Methods: A virtual International Expert Panel took place in July 2023 to review data on chemo-ICI regimens available in the first-line setting in patients with NSCLC, and reach common considerations both in clinical practice and in research setting., Results: Overall, all panelists agreed that safety of the chemo-immunotherapy combination regimens is supported by reviewed data, showing no additional toxicity concerns over those of the individual components of each regimen and highlighting differences in toxicity profile based on ICI component (single anti-PD-1 versus double anti-PD-1 and anti-CTLA-4). Among disease characteristics, PD-L1 value (<1%) but not histology was considered a potential selection factor in favor of the combination with dual ICI. With regards to clinical features, the panelists agreed that chemotherapy, whichever the ICI combination regimen, remains the backbone to counteract disease-related symptoms included those conditioning worse performance status. The panelists defined high, medium, and low priorities in clinical research. High priority was attributed to prospectively evaluating the impact of the addition of anti-CTLA-4 on brain metastasis, biomarker subgroups, and the optimal duration and schedule of combination regimens., Conclusions: Based on the available evidence, the panelists reached common considerations on strengths and differences between chemotherapy plus single agent ICI and chemotherapy plus double agent ICIs in patients with advanced NSCLC. In the absence of direct comparison, different toxicity profile and subgroup analysis by PD-L1 are considered as the main potential features to select among the two regimens, however to be confirmed by recommended prospective randomized clinical research., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest C. Gridelli received honoraria as speaker bureau or advisory board member or as consultant from MSD, BMS, Roche, Astra Zeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, Menarini, Boehringer, Karyopharm, Eli Lilly, Amgen, Sanofi, GSK, Boehringer Ingelheim. S. Peters received education grants, provided consultation, attended advisory boards and/or provided lectures for the following organizations: AbbVie, AiCME, Amgen, Arcus, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Beigene, Biocartis, BioInvent, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, Debiopharm, ecancer, Eli Lilly, Elsevier, F-Star, Fishawack, Foundation Medicine, Genzyme, Gilead, GSK, Illumina, Imedex, IQVIA, Incyte, iTeos, Janssen, Medscape, Medtoday, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Merck Serono, Merrimack, Mirati, Novartis, Novocure, OncologyEducation, Pharma Mar, Phosplatin Therapeutics, PER, Peerview, Pfizer, PRIME, Regeneron, RMEI, Roche/Genentech, RTP, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda, Vaccibody. T. Mok received education grants, honoraria, provided consultation, attended advisory boards and/or provided lectures for the following organizations: AstraZeneca, Aurora Tele-Oncology Platform, Lunit, ACT Genomics-Sanomics Group, HUTCHMED, Alpha Biopharma, ACEA Pharmaceutical Research, Amgen, Amoy Diagnostics, BeiGene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo/UCB Japan, Fishawack Facilitate, InMed, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Origimed, Pfizer, Prime Oncology, Roche, Sanofi Aventis GmbH, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Takeda, Lucence, Medscape, Permanyer Publications, PeerVoice, Physicans' Education Resource, Research to Practice, Shanghai BeBirds Translation & Consulting, Liangyihui Network Technology Co, Ltd, AbbVie, Berry Oncology, Blueprint Medicines, C4 Therapeutics, CStone Pharmaceuticals, Curio Science, D3, Eisai, Gilead Sciences, Gritstone Bio, Guardant Health, touchIME, Hengrui Therapeutics, Ignyta, Incyte, Inivata, IQvia, Lilly, Loxo, Lunit, Merck Serono, Mirati Therapeutics, Puma Biotechnology, SFJ Pharmaceuticals Group, Vertex, Yuhan, Qiming Development (HK) Ltd, G1 Therapeutics, Janssen, geneDecode. Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Aurora Tele-Oncology Platform, HUTCHMED, ACT Genomics-Sanomics Group. MC Garassino received education grants, honoraria, provided consultation, attended advisory boards and/or provided lectures for the following organizations: MSD Oncology, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, GlaxoSmithKline, Takeda, Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Tiziana Life Sciences, Sanofi, Celgene, Daiiki Sankyo, Inivata, Incyte, Pfizer, Seattle Genetics, Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Bayer, Blueprint Medicines, Janssen, Regeneron, Otsuka, AstraZeneca, Roche/Genentech, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Ipsen, Exelixis, Amgen. Luis Paz-Ares reports institutional research support from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, and Laboratorios Pfizer Ltda.; personal fees (self/family) from Altum Secuency, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly and Company, Genomica, Ipsen Biopharmaceuticals Inc., Janssen Biotech, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Mirati, Novartis, Laboratorios Pfizer Ltda., PharmaMar, Roche, Servier Pharmaceuticals, and Takeda Oncology; and serves as a board member at Genómica and Altum all outside the submitted work. F. de Marinis received honoraria or consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Novartis, Takeda, Xcovery, and Roche. Dr. Attili reports no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background and Purpose: Radiomics enables the mining of quantitative features from medical images. The influence of the radiomic feature extraction software on the final performance of models is still a poorly understood topic. This study aimed to investigate the ability of radiomic features extracted by two different radiomic platforms to predict clinical outcomes in patients treated with radiosurgery for brain metastases from non-small cell lung cancer. We developed models integrating pre-treatment magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-derived radiomic features and clinical data., Materials and Methods: Pre-radiotherapy gadolinium enhanced axial T1-weighted MRI scans were used. MRI images were re-sampled, intensity-shifted, and histogram-matched before radiomic extraction by means of two different platforms (PyRadiomics and SOPHiA Radiomics). We adopted LASSO Cox regression models for multivariable analyses by creating radiomic, clinical, and combined models using three survival clinical endpoints (local control, distant progression, and overall survival). The statistical analysis was repeated 50 times with different random seeds and the median concordance index was used as performance metric of the models., Results: We analysed 276 metastases from 148 patients. The use of the two platforms resulted in differences in both the quality and the number of extractable features. That led to mismatches in terms of end-to-end performance, statistical significance of radiomic scores, and clinical covariates found significant in combined models., Conclusion: This study shed new light on how extracting radiomic features from the same images using two different platforms could yield several discrepancies. That may lead to acute consequences on drawing conclusions, comparing results across the literature, and translating radiomics into clinical practice., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Quality of life (QoL) for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is negatively impacted by their disease and treatment side effects. We present detailed patient-reported outcome (PRO) data from the phase 3 CROWN study, which compared lorlatinib with crizotinib in patients with previously untreated ALK-positive advanced NSCLC., Materials and Methods: PROs were assessed using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QoL Questionnaire with Lung Cancer module. A longitudinal, random-intercept, random-slope, mixed-effect model assessed score changes from baseline up to (not including) end of treatment. Mean changes of absolute scores from baseline at each cycle were calculated and presented up to cycle 18 (≥ 10-point change considered clinically meaningful)., Results: In both lorlatinib (n = 148) and crizotinib (n = 140) arms, there were longitudinal improvements across multiple functioning and symptom scores during treatment compared with pre-treatment. Numerical improvements for most longitudinal functioning scores (physical, role, emotional, social) favored lorlatinib; cognitive functioning favored crizotinib. Numerical improvements favored lorlatinib for several symptoms (fatigue, nausea and vomiting, insomnia, appetite loss, constipation, diarrhea [clinically meaningful improvement], and cough); peripheral neuropathy favored crizotinib. Subgroup analyses showed PROs did not differ by presence/absence of baseline brain metastases., Conclusions: Patients receiving first-line lorlatinib or crizotinib showed improvements and delayed deterioration in QoL, functioning, and several symptoms. Alongside the previously reported significantly longer progression-free survival and higher intracranial response rates for lorlatinib versus crizotinib, these data further support the use of lorlatinib over crizotinib in patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC with/without baseline brain metastases and provide evidence of several QoL improvements with lorlatinib when used in the first-line setting., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest ICMJE form COIs Dr Mazieres reports receiving personal consulting fees or honorarium from Pfizer, and personal consultancy fees from F. Hoffman La-Roche Ltd, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Hengrui Therapeutics, and Amgen. Dr Iadeluca, Ms Reisman, Dr Thurm, Ms Polli are employees of Pfizer and hold Pfizer stock/stock options. Dr Shaw reports receiving personal honoraria, advisory board or consultancy fees, and institutional research support from Pfizer, and is currently an employee of Novartis and holds Novartis stock/stock options. Dr Solomon reports receiving personal honoraria or advisory board fees from Pfizer, Novartis, F. Hoffman La-Roche Ltd, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol Myers Squibb, BeiGene, Takeda, Janssen, and Lilly. Dr Bauer reports receiving personal consultancy and speakers’ bureau fees from AstraZeneca, Lilly, Bayer; personal consultancy fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Foundation Medicine, Pfizer, Loxo Oncology, Guardant Health, Exelixis, Blueprint Medicines; payment/reimbursement of exact expenses from Lilly, Bristol Myers Squibb, Foundation Medicine, Ignyta, Moderna Therapeutics, Loxo Oncology, Bayer, Guardant Health; institutional consultancy fees from Leap Therapeutics, Ignyta, Moderna Therapeutics, Pfizer; and institutional grant support from Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, Medpacto, Incyte, Mirati Therapeutics, MedImmune, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, MabVax, Stemline Therapeutics, Merck, Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Genentech, Deciphera, Merrimack, Immunogen, Millennium, Phosplatin Therapeutics, Calithera Biosciences, Kolltan Pharmaceuticals, Principia Biopharma, Peleton, Immunocore, F. Hoffman La-Roche Ltd, Aileron Therapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Amgen, Onyx, Sanofi, Boehringer Ingelheim, Astellas Pharma, Five Prime Therapeutics, Jacobio, Top Alliance BioScience, Janssen, Clovis Oncology, Takeda, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Foundation Medicine, ARMO BioSciences, Leap Therapeutics, Ignyta, Moderna Therapeutics, Pfizer, Loxo Oncology, and Bayer. Dr de Marinis reports receiving personal advisory fees from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, F. Hoffman La-Roche Ltd, and Merck Sharp & Dohme. Dr Felip reports receiving personal speakers’ bureau fees from Medscape, Peervoice, Springer, Touch Independent Medical Education, prIME Oncology, CME Outfitters; personal advisory board fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Bayer, Blueprint Medicines, Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Merck, Puma Biotechnology, F. Hoffman La-Roche Ltd, Sanofi Genzyme, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda, Daichii Sankyo; personal advisory or board member fees from Grifols; grant support from Fundación Merck Salud. Dr Goto reports receiving grant support or contracts from Pfizer, AZK; institutional grant support or contracts from AbbVie, Lilly, Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb, ONO Pharmaceutical, Novartis, Kyorin Pharmaceutical, Daiichi Sankyo, Preferred Networks Inc.; personal honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureau, manuscript writing or educational events from Lilly, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Boehringer Ingelheim, ONO Pharmaceutical, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Merck, and Thermo Fisher; personal advisory board or data safety monitoring board fees from AstraZeneca, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Pfizer, Novartis, Guardant Health, Illumina, Daiichi Sankyo, ONO Pharmaceutical, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Merck Sharp & Dohme; and reports a leadership, fiduciary or board role with Cancer Net Japan, and JAMT. Dr Kim reports receiving medical writing support from Pfizer; institutional grant support from Pfizer, Alpha Biopharma, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bridge BioTherapeutics, Chong Keun Dang, Daiichi Sankyo, GlaxoSmithKline, Hanmi, Janssen, Merck, Merus, Mirati Therapeutics, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, ONO Pharmaceutical, F. Hoffman La-Roche Ltd, Takeda, TP Therapeutics, Xcovery, and Yuhan; and travel support from Amgen, and Daiichi Sankyo. Dr Mok reports receiving grant support from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Serono, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Takeda, Clovis Oncology, SFJ Pharmaceuticals, XCovery, G1 Therapeutics Inc.; personal consultancy, advisory or lecture fees from Abbvie, ACEA Pharmaceuticals, Alpha Biopharma, Amgen, Amoy Diagnostics, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Blueprint Medicines Corporation, CStone Pharmaceuticals, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Fishawack Facilitate Ltd., geneDecode (uncompensated), Gritstone Oncology Inc., Guardant Health, Hengrui Therapeutics, Ignyta Inc., IQVIA, Incyte Corporation, InMed Medical Communication, Janssen, Lilly, Loxo-Oncology, Lunit USA, Inc., MD Health (Brazil), Medscape/WebMD, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mirati Therapeutics Inc., MoreHealth, Novartis, OrigiMed, PeerVoice, Physicians' Education Resource, P. Permanyer SL, Pfizer, Inc, PrIME Oncology, Puma Biotechnology Inc, Research to Practice, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis R&D, Takeda, Touch Medical Media, Virtus Medical Group (stock option), Yuhan Corporation, HutchMed (shareholder), SFJ Pharmaceuticals, Curio Science, Inivata, Berry Oncology, G1 Therapeutics Inc., Aurora (shareholder), 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, Gilead Sciences, Inc, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, Covidien LP, Elevation Oncology, C4 Therapeutics, Inc, D3 Bio Ltd.; shareholder or stock options from Loxo-Oncology, Lunit USA, Inc., Act Genomics-Sanomics Group; Board of Director at AstraZeneca PLC (Jan 2019 onwards), HutchMed (Oct 2018 onwards), Act Genomics-Sanomics Group (Board Chairman 2015 onwards), Lunit USA, Inc. (Mar 2021 onwards), Aurora (Sep 2020 onwards). Dr Liu reports receiving grants or contracts from institutions - NCI (US), CIHR (Canada), CCSRI (Canada), AstraZeneca, Takeda, Boehringer Ingelheim; Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events (personal) from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, EMD Serono, Takeda, Jazz; Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board (personal) from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, EMD Serono, Merck, Abbvie, Jazz, Takeda, Roche, BMS, Novartis., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The selective RET-inhibitor pralsetinib has shown therapeutic activity in early clinical trials in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring rearranged during transfection (RET) gene fusions. To date, the real-world efficacy of pralsetinib in this population is unknown., Materials and Methods: A retrospective efficacy and safety analysis was performed on data from patients with RET-fusion positive NSCLC enrolled in the pralsetinib Italian expanded access program between July 2019 and October 2021., Results: Overall, 62 patients with RET-fusion positive NSCLC received pralsetinib at 20 Italian centers. Next-generation sequencing was used to detect RET alterations in 44 patients (73 %). The most frequent gene fusion partner was KIF5B (75 % of 45 evaluable). Median age was 62 years (range, 36-90), most patients were female (57 %) and never smokers (53 %). Brain metastases were known in 18 patients (29.5 %) at the time of pralsetinib treatment. 13 patients were treatment naïve (unfit for chemotherapy), 48 were pretreated (median number of previous lines: 1, range, 1-4). The objective response rate (ORR) was 66 % [95 % confidence interval (CI), 53-81] in the evaluable population (n = 59). The disease control rate (DCR) was 79 %. After a median follow-up of 10.1 months, the median progression free survival was 8.9 months (95 %CI, 4.7-NA). In patients with measurable brain metastases (n = 6) intracranial ORR was 83 %, intracranial DCR was 100 %. Overall, 83.6 % of patients experienced any-grade treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), 39 % grade 3 or greater (G ≥ 3). The most common G ≥ 3 TRAEs were neutropenia (9.8 %), dry mouth/oral mucositis (8.2 %), and thrombocytopenia (6.6 %). Seven patients (12 %) discontinued pralsetinib due to TRAEs, twenty-six had at least one dose level modification due to TRAEs. Two treatment-related deaths were observed (1 sepsis, 1 typhlitis)., Conclusions: In the real-world setting, pralsetinib confirmed durable systemic activity and intracranial response in RET-fusion positive NSCLC. Toxicity profile was consistent with previous reports., 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 B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Alectinib, a highly selective next generation ALK-inhibitor, has exhibited potent anti-tumour activity in RET-rearranged NSCLC in the preclinical stage., Methods: ALERT-lung is a single-arm, phase II trial evaluating the activity of alectinib for the treatment of pretreated RET-rearranged advanced NSCLC. Alectinib was administered orally, 600 mg, twice per day until progression, refusal or unacceptable toxicity (treatment could continue beyond progression, if patient was deriving clinical benefit). Patient recruitment closed prematurely due to discouraging results for alectinib in a phase I/II study in the same indication., Results: All 14 patients who enrolled until the premature accrual closure, received at lease one dose of alectinib. Among them, median age was 61 years, majority (71 %) was female, never smokers, of ECOG PS 1. No objective response (complete or partial response) was recorded. Of the 13 evaluable patients, three (23 %) achieved and maintained disease stabilisation for 24 weeks. Up to 31 March 2021 (median follow-up 15.9 months), 12 PFS-events (92 %) were observed, with median PFS of 3.7 months (95 % C.I.: 1.8 - 7.3 months). Overall, three deaths (23 %) were reported. Seven patients (50 %) experienced grade ≥ 3 adverse events, while three discontinued treatment due to erythema multiforme of grade 3, related to alectinib. No treatment-related serious adverse event was reported., Conclusions: Accrual into our trial was terminated early in response to other reports of limited activity of alectinib in patients with RET-fusion NSCLC and the emergence of more potent selective RET-inhibitors. Also in our trial, alectinib did not show the expected potential for anti-tumour activity in NSCLC., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Enriqueta Felip reports grants for oncology innovation (GOI) from Merck Healthcare KGAa and Fundación Merck Salud, consulting fees from Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daichii Sankyo, Eli Lilly, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Glaxo Smith Kline, Janssen, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Peptomyc, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Takeda, payments or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Janssen, Medical Trends, Medscape, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Peervoice, Pfizer, Sanofi, Takeda, and Touch Oncology, she also reports to be an independent board member of GRÍFOLS. Urania Dafni reports a honorarium as Member of the Tumor Agnostic Evidence Generation working Group of Roche. Thierry Berghmans reports consulting fees from Inhatarget and reported participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for BMS, Bayer, Merck, Janssen, and Roche. Francesco Passiglia reports consulting fees from Merck Sharp and Dohme, Astrazeneca, Janssen, Amgen, and Beigene, payments or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Janssen, Amgen, Pfizer, and ThermoFisher Scientific, support for attending meetings and/or travel from Roche and Amgen, he also reports participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Amgen and Janssen. Anne-Marie C. Dingemans reports grants or contracts from Amgen, Dutch Cancer Society, and HANART, consulting fees from Amgen, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, and Roche, payments or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Janssen, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Lilly, and Takeda, reports participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Takeda and Roche, leadership or fiduciary role in other board, society, committee or advocacy group, paid or unpaid as chair of EORTC LCG (unapaid). Santiago Viteri reports payments or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from MSD, BMS, TAKEDA, CURIO, and ROCHE, payments for expert testimony from REDDY PHARMA IBERIA, support for attending meetings and/or travel from OSE IMMUNOTHERAPEUTHICS, MSD, TAKEDA, and MERCK, reports participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for MERCK, JANSSEN, PUMA, ASTRA ZENECA, BMS, TAKEDA, and ROCHE. Christian Britschgi reports consulting fees from Astra Zeneca, Pfizer, Roche, Takeda, Janssen-Cilag, Boehringer-Ingelheim, support for attending meetings and/or travel from AstraZeneca and Takeda. Sinead Cuffe reports support for attending meetings and/or travel from MSD, BMS, and Pfizer. Mariano Provencio reports grants or contracts from BMS, MSD, Lilly, AZ, and Takeda, consulting fees from BMS, MSD, Lilly, AZ, and Takeda, payments or honoraria for lectures from BMS, MSD, AZ, and Takeda, support for attending meetings from MSD and AZ. Sabine Merkelbach-Bruse reports payments or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from AstraZeneca, QuIP, Targos, Roche, Novartis, GSK, Molecular Health, Janssen, BMS, and MSD, support for attending meetings and/or travel from BMS, reports participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for AstraZeneca, Roche, Novartis, GSK, Molecular Health, Janssen, Merck, Amgen, and Onkowissen. Solange Peters reports grants/research support from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Beigene, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GSK,Merck Sharp and Dohme, and Roche/Genentech, consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Arcus, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Beigene, Biocartis, BioInvent, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, Debiopharm, ecancer, Eli Lilly, Elsevier, F-Star, Fishawack, Foundation Medicine, Genzyme, Gilead, GSK, Illumina, Imedex, IQVIA, Incyte, iTeos, Janssen,Medscape, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Merck Serono, Merrimack, Novartis, Novocure, OncologyEducation, Pharma Mar, Phosplatin Therapeutics, PER, Pfizer, PRIME, Regeneron, RMEI, Roche/Genentech, RTP, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda, and Vaccibody, payments or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, ecancer, Eli Lilly, Foundation Medicine, Illumina, Imedex, Medscape, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Mirati, Novartis, PER, Pfizer, Prime, Roche/Genentech, RTP, Sanofi, and Takeda. Jürgen Wolf reports participation on advisory boards for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Blueprint, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Ignyta, Janssen, Lilly, Loxo, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Seattle Genetics, and Takeda, reports lecture fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Blueprint, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Ignyta, Janssen, Lilly, Loxo, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Seattle Genetics, and Takeda, reports research support to institution from BMS, Janssen Pharmaceutica, Novartis, Pfizer. Rolf A. Stahel reports grants or contracts from AstraZeneca, BMS, Daiichi Sankyo, Celgene, Ipsen, Janssen, Mirati, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, and Roche. Consulting fees from AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Novocure, Pfizer, and Roche, payments or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Blueprint, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, MSD, Roche, and Sandoz, he also reports participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Genentech/Roche, MSD, and Takeda. All other authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

The adoption of Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) allowed the achievement of impressive long-term survival results in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but most patients develop resistance to ICI treatment over time. Resistance to ICIs is mediated by several complex mechanisms affecting, but not limited to, tumour cell-intrinsic alterations and the tumour microenvironment. The possibility of modulating the immune response by interfering with specific alternative immune receptors, pathways and mediators might provide additional strategies to delay or prevent the development of resistance. Therefore, a greater in-depth investigation and understanding of these mechanisms aims to identify novel classes of immune targets and subsequently to evaluate potential new strategies for overcoming resistance, which will be assessed in this review., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Since data from large retrospective observational studies and cancer registries became available, suggesting a benefit for patients undergoing surgery, the role of surgery in the treatment of small cell lung cancer (SCLC) needs to be reconsidered. The aim of this study was to evaluate outcomes and results of patients with SCLC undergoing intent-to-treat surgery., Material and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 324 patients (1998-2018) with a diagnosis of SCLC referred to our Institution. 65 patients underwent surgical resection with curative intent. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses were used to compare overall survival (OS) for all patients., Results: Among the patients, 39 (60.0 %) patients had surgery upfront, whereas 24 (36.9 %) had surgery after chemotherapy (CT) alone, and 2 (3.1 %) after CT plus radiotherapy (RT). Twenty-nine (44.6 %) patients were stage I or had a complete response to induction treatment, 21 (32.3 %) had stage II, and 15 (23.1 %) stage III. Forty-four (67.7 %) patients underwent adjuvant treatment: 21 (32.3 %) had CT, 31 (47.7 %) RT, and 7 (10.8 %) both. Prophylactic cranial irradiation was administered in 15 patients (23.1 %). The median OS after initial diagnosis at 1, 5, 10 years was 1, 5, 10 years was 81.4 %, 41.4 % and 25.4 % respectively. Among patients who underwent surgical resection with curative intent, those with clinical stage I had a longer survival (5-year OS 62.9 %) p < 0.0001., Conclusion: patients with stage I SCLC could be considered the best candidates for surgery, in a multidisciplinary setting. Instead, considering their worse survival, those with stage II and III should be carefully selected for the surgical approach, and alternative therapy should be considered., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Randomized controlled trials have demonstrated that afatinib is a suitable treatment option for patients with epidermal growth factor receptor mutation-positive (EGFRm +) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, such studies often exclude patients treated in routine clinical practice. We report interim results from a Phase 3b, open-label, multicenter, single-arm, exploratory trial, in which afatinib was investigated in a real-world setting., Materials and Methods: Patients with EGFRm + tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI)-naïve NSCLC received afatinib 40 mg orally, once-daily, until disease progression, or voluntary withdrawal. Primary objective was safety., Results: Overall, 479 patients received afatinib: median age 65 years, 8 % of patients had an ECOG performance status ≥ 2, 17 % had brain metastases, and 13 % had tumors containing uncommon mutations only. All but one patient (99.8 %) had an adverse event (AE). Treatment-related AEs (TRAEs; any/grade ≥ 3) occurred in 97 %/44 % of patients; most common were diarrhea (87 %/16 %) and rash (51 %/11 %). AEs leading to afatinib dose-reduction were reported in 258 patients (54 %), and 37 patients (8 %) discontinued treatment due to a TRAE. Objective response rate was 45.5 %, median duration of response was 14.1 months (95 % CI: 12.2-16.4). Overall median time to symptomatic progression and progression-free survival were 14.9 months (95 % CI: 13.8-17.6) and 13.4 months (95 % CI: 11.8-14.5), respectively, in the overall population and 19.3 months (95 % CI: 15.6-21.8) and 15.9 months (95 % CI: 13.9-19.1) in patients with EGFR exon 19 deletions., Conclusions: Afatinib administration in routine clinical practice was well tolerated with no new safety signals and demonstrated promising efficacy in patients with EGFRm + NSCLC. TRAEs were generally manageable with tolerability-guided dose reductions. Overall, these data independently support findings from randomized controlled trials of afatinib in EGFRm + NSCLC., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Highly proliferative lung carcinoids (HPLC) have been recently reported but information about this subset remains scarce., Objectives: Clinical and pathological data of 630 patients with lung carcinoids (LC) referred to Gustave Roussy Institute (GR) and European Institute of Oncology (IEO) were retrospectively reviewed to select HPLC and analyze their frequency, behavior and compare their outcome to conventional LC with Ki-67 ≤ 20 % and mitotic count (MC)≤10/2 mm 2 ., Materials and Methods: Selection criteria were: diagnosis of LC confirmed by local pathologist, and available clinical and follow-up data. Patients with Ki-67 > 20 % and/or MC > 10/ 2 mm2 in primary or metastatic specimens were identified as HPLC., Results: 30/514 patients (6%) met the selection criteria of HPLC. Based on primary tumor evaluation, 22/25 (88 %) were classified as atypical carcinoids (AC). Median MC was 4.5/2 mm 2 (1-11) 6/2 mm 2 (3-15) in primary tumors and metastasis, respectively. Median Ki-67 was respectively 23 % (15-65) and 25 % (8-60). Recurrence rate was 66 % (12/18) in HPLC and 9 % (33/352) in conventional LC. Median RFS was 24 (10-NR) months in HPLC, 288 (141-NR) months in LC with Ki-67 index≤5 % and NR (148-NR) months in LC with Ki-67 6-20% (p < 001). Median OS was 203 (83-NR) months in LC with Ki-67 index≤5%, 101 (79-NR) months in LC with Ki-67 index 6-20 % and 53 (39-NR) months in HPLC (p = 002). Among 20 metastatic patients with HPLC, median PFS under platinum-based chemotherapy, everolimus, alkylating-based chemotherapy, FOLFOX and PRRT was 5.1 (95 % CI 0.7-9.4), 12.1(95 %CI 0.3-24), 6.8 (95 % CI 0-14.9), 10.2 (95 % CI 0.4-19.9) and 14.2 months (95 % CI 0-30) respectively. Best response was stable disease (SD) under platinum-based chemotherapy and partial response (PR) under alkylating-based chemotherapy and FOLFOX., Conclusion: This study confirms the existence and rarity of HPLC. Their characteristics and clinical behavior are more similar to LC rather than neuroendocrine carcinomas (NECs), suggesting that this entity could be managed accordingly., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Brain metastases (BM) are common in patients with small cell lung cancer (SCLC). In recent years, the role of whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) for brain metastases in lung cancer is being reevaluated, especially in the context of new systemic treatments available for SCLC. With this analysis, we investigate decision-making in SCLC patients with BM among European experts in medical oncology and radiation oncology., Methods: We analyzed decision-making from 13 medical oncologists (selected by IASLC) and 13 radiation oncologists (selected by ESTRO) specialized in SCLC. Management strategies of individual experts were converted into decision trees and analyzed for consensus., Results and Conclusion: In asymptomatic patients, chemotherapy alone is the most commonly recommended first line treatment. In asymptomatic patients with limited volume of brain metastases, a higher preference for chemotherapy without WBRT among medical oncologists compared to radiation oncologists was observed. For symptomatic patients, WBRT followed by chemotherapy was recommended most commonly. For limited extent of BM in symptomatic patients, some experts chose stereotactic radiotherapy as an alternative to WBRT. Significant variation in clinical decision-making was observed among European SCLC experts for the first line treatment of patients with SCLC and BM., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Objectives: Stage IV small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is associated with short survival and progression after first-line systemic therapy frequently occurs within months. Although topotecan is approved for second-line treatment, its efficacy is limited, and treatment heterogeneity exists., Material and Methods: The decision-making patterns for second line treatment of 13 European medical oncologists with expertise in SCLC were analyzed., Results: The two criteria most relevant to decision-making were the performance status and the interval of recurrence since first-line treatment. With an interval of less than 3 months since the end of first-line chemotherapy, 62 % of the experts recommended cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin and vincristine (CAV) for fit patients and 54 % recommended topotecan for unfit patients. For an interval of more than 6 months, a clear consensus for a re-challenge with a platinum doublet was achieved (92 %). However, there was no consensus on the second-line therapy with an interval of 3-6 months since the end of first-line therapy., Conclusion: Real world practice may differ from recommendations in general guidelines and cannot always be directly derived from trial results as other factor such as habits, patient's preference, convenience or costs have to be factored in., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest MF reports advisor fees (paid to institution) from BMS, MSD, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, Takeda and institutional research grants from BMS and AstraZeneca CP: none MR reports honoraria for lectures and consultancy from Abbvie, Amgen, AstraZenece, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Lilly, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung. FB: none RC reports honoraria and consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, Boeringer Ingelheim, Lilly Oncology, Roche, Pfizer, MSD, Bristol Myers Squibb, Takeda and Novartis; institutional grands for conduct of clinical trials or contracted research from Roche, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Clovis, Lilly Oncology, MSD, BMS, Abbvie, Takeda and Novartis; stock ownership of The Christie Private Care. FC reports consultation and participation in advisory boards and lectures for Roche, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, BMS, Takeda, Lilly, MSD, Bayer. BB reports institutional grants from Abbvie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Blueprint Medicines, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Cristal Therapeutics, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eli Lilly, GSK, Ignyta, IPSEN, Inivata, Janssen, Merck KGaA, MSD, Nektar, Onxeo, OSE immunotherapeutics, Pfizer, Pharma Mar, Roche-Genentech, Sanofi, Servier, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Takeda, Tiziana Pharma, Tolero Pharmaceuticals. PG reports speaker and/or advisory fees for Roche, AstraZeneca, BMS, Guardant Health, MSD, Pfizer, Janssen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Gilead, Rovi, Abbvie, Lilly, Takeda, Sysmex, Blueprint Medicines, and Bayer. EF reports personal fees from Abbvie, AstraZeneca, Blue Print Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Eli Lilly, Guardant Health, Jannsen, Medscape, Merck KGaA, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Prime Oncology, Roche, Samsung, Takeda, Touchtime, GSK, Bayer; grants from Grant for Oncology Innovation (GOI), Fundacion Merck Salud, outside the submitted work; and Grifols: Independent Member of the Board. MOB reports advisory board work for MSD, BMS, BI and Pierre Fabre. LP-A is a board member of Genomica and Altum Sequencing, and has received honoraria from Roche/Genentech, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dohme, AstraZeneca, Merck Serono, Pharmamar, Novartis, Celgene, Sysmex, Amgen, Blueprint and Incyte; and travel, accommodations or expenses from Roche, AstraZeneca, AstraZeneca Spain, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly and Pfizer. FdM reports fees as consultant/advisor role for AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, Genentech, Pfizer and MSD VW reports personal fees and other from Roche, personal fees and other from BMS, personal fees and other from Astra Zeneca, personal fees from MSD, personal fees from Takeda, other from Pfizer, personal fees and other from Boehringer Ingelheim, personal fees from Lilly, outside the submitted work. DDR reports outside of this project advisor fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Merck/Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, AstraZeneca, MSD, Seattle genetics; institutional research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Philips, Olink. PMP reports speaker fees from Janssen and institutional educational grants from AstraZeneca and Celgene., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Presence of liver metastases correlates with worse survival and response to any treatments. This may be due to the microenvironment of liver which leads tumor to escape from Immune System. Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy may help to sensitize Immune System and to improve the immunotherapy effect. Interest is being directed toward combining Immune-Checkpoint Inhibitors with radiotherapy to improve response to immunotherapy. However, the mechanisms by which radiation induces anti-tumor T-cells remain unclear. Preclinical studies founded radiotherapy enhances antitumor immune responses, increasing tumor antigen release, and inducing T-cell infiltration. Radiotherapy is under investigation for its ability to enhance responses to immunotherapy. Nevertheless, how to optimally deliver combination therapy regarding dose-fractionation and timing of radiotherapy is unknown. The aim of this review is to explore the role of Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer, focusing on patients with liver metastases, and the possible immunological implications combining immunotherapy and radiotherapy., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: The role of consolidative thoracic radiotherapy (TRT) in stage IV small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is not uniformly accepted., Methods: We obtained a list of 13 European medical oncologists from the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC) and 13 European radiation oncologists from the European Society for Therapeutic Radiation Oncology (ESTRO). The strategies in decision making for TRT in stage IV SCLC were collected. Decision trees were created representing these strategies. Frequencies of recommending TRT were analysed for various parameter combinations based on the objective consensus methodology., Results: The factors associated with the recommendation for TRT included fitness of the patient, limited extrathoracic tumour burden, initial bulky thoracic disease and response to chemotherapy. The highest consensus for TRT was in fit patients with limited extrathoracic tumour burden and initial bulky disease with either a complete extrathoracic response or partial thoracic response (92% recommend TRT). For these patients the recommendations were the same for medical and radiation oncologists. In the setting of partial response (intra- and extra-thoracically) without initial bulky thoracic disease radiation oncologists were more likely to recommend TRT than medical oncologists. For unfit patients or for patients with poor overall response to chemotherapy, the majority did not recommend TRT., Conclusion: European radiation and medical oncologists specializing in lung cancer recommend TRT in selected patients with stage IV SCLC and restrict its use primarily to fit patients who responded to chemotherapy with limited extrathoracic tumour burden., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Due to conflicting results between major trials the role of prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) in stage IV small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is controversial., Methods: We obtained a list of 13 European experts from both the European Society for Therapeutic Radiation Oncology (ESTRO) and the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC). The strategies in decision making for PCI in stage IV SCLC were collected. Decision trees were created representing these strategies. Analysis of consensus was performed with the objective consensus methodology., Results: The factors associated with the recommendation for the use of PCI included the fitness of the patient, young age and good response to chemotherapy. PCI was recommended by the majority of experts for non-elderly fit patients who had at least a partial response (PR) to chemotherapy (for complete remission (CR) 85% of radiation oncologists and 69% of medical oncologists, for PR: 85% of radiation oncologists and 54% of medical oncologists). For patients with stable disease after chemotherapy, PCI was recommended by 6 out of 13 (46%) radiation oncologists and only 3 out of 13 medical oncologists (23%). For elderly fit patients with CR, a majority recommended PCI (62%) and no consensus was reached for patients with PR., Conclusion: European radiation and medical oncologists specializing in lung cancer recommend PCI in selected patients and restrict its use primarily to fit, non-elderly patients who responded to chemotherapy., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Brain metastases are common among patients with non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and result in a poor prognosis. Consequently, such patients are often excluded from clinical trials. In Italy an expanded access program (EAP) was used to evaluate nivolumab efficacy and safety in this subpopulation outside a clinical trial., Materials and Methods: In this EAP, nivolumab was available for patients with non-squamous NSCLC in progression after at least one systemic treatment for stage IIIB/IV disease. Nivolumab 3 mg/kg was administered intravenously every 2 weeks. Patients with brain metastases could be included if they were asymptomatic, neurologically stable and either off corticosteroids or on a stable or decreasing dose of ≤10 mg/day prednisone., Results: 409 out of 1588 patients included had asymptomatic or controlled brain metastases. A median of 7 doses (range 1-45) were delivered. Median follow-up was 6.1 months (range 0.1-21.9). The disease control rate was 39%: 4 patients had a complete response, 64 a partial response and 96 showed stable disease. At baseline, 118 patients were on corticosteroids and 74 were undergoing concomitant radiotherapy. The median overall survival in this subpopulation was 8.6 months (95% CI: 6.4-10.8). 337 discontinued treatment for various reasons, 23 (7%) of whom due to adverse events, in line with that observed in the overall population and in previous studies., Conclusions: Our results confirm that nivolumab is active in non-squamous NSCLC patients with brain metastases, despite their poor prognosis. Its safety profile is also concordant with results in the EAP overall population and in patients with other malignancies., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To assess the safety and efficacy of atezolizumab and docetaxel in patients with and without a history of asymptomatic, treated brain metastases in the phase III OAK trial., Materials and Methods: Patients received 1200 mg atezolizumab or 75 mg/m 2 docetaxel every 3 weeks until unacceptable toxicity, disease progression, or loss of clinical atezolizumab benefit. Patients with asymptomatic, treated supratentorial metastases were eligible. Patients had brain scans before enrollment; follow-up brain scans and treatment were required when clinically indicated., Results: Approximately 14% of patients in each arm had a history of asymptomatic, treated brain metastases (61/425 in the atezolizumab arm and 62/425 in the docetaxel arm). Fewer treatment-related adverse events (AEs), serious AEs, and treatment-related neurologic AEs were reported with atezolizumab than with docetaxel, regardless of history of asymptomatic, treated brain metastases. In patients with a history of asymptomatic, treated brain metastases, median overall survival (OS) was longer with atezolizumab than with docetaxel (16.0 vs 11.9 months; hazard ratio = 0.74; 95% CI: 0.49-1.13). Median OS was also longer with atezolizumab in patients without a history of asymptomatic, treated brain metastases (13.2 vs 9.3 months; hazard ratio = 0.74; 95% CI: 0.63-0.88). Landmark analyses showed that patients with a history of asymptomatic, treated brain metastases had a lower probability of developing new symptomatic brain lesions with atezolizumab vs docetaxel at 6-24 months. Patients without a history had a lower probability with atezolizumab at 18-24+ months., Conclusion: Atezolizumab had an acceptable neurologic safety profile, showed a trend toward an OS benefit, and led to a prolonged time to radiographic identification of new symptomatic brain lesions compared with docetaxel in patients who had a history of asymptomatic, treated brain metastases. Clinicaltrials.gov registration number: NCT02008227., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have emerged as one of the main new therapeutic options for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. Even though they demonstrated superiority towards standard chemotherapy in different disease settings, the response rates do not exceed 45% in highly molecularly selected patients. This is related to known limitations of the available biomarkers, as well to the complex and dynamic nature of tumor microenvironment. The study of the different strategies adopted by tumor cells to escape the immune system lays the basis of the new combination strategies. This review focuses on analyzing the biological rationale and early clinical data available concerning therapeutic strategies combining ICIs together, ICIs with different regimens and schedules of standard chemotherapy, ICIs with tyrosine kinase inhibitors, ICIs with antiangiogenic agents and ICs with radiotherapy., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Chemo-radiotherapy is standard of care in the treatment of unresectable stage III NSCLC. We aimed at assessing whether the addition of concurrent taxane-chemotherapy to thoracic irradiation following chemotherapy was able to improve treatment outcome., Material and Methods: In PITCAP trial, patients with unresectable stage III NSCLC were randomized to receive 2 cycles of platinum-paclitaxel followed by 60-61.2Gy thoracic irradiation (control arm) or by same radiotherapy with concomitant weekly paclitaxel (experimental arm). A literature-based meta-analysis including all studies with same design was also performed., Results: At the time of the second interim analysis, when 151 patients were randomized, accrual was terminated. With a median follow-up of 6.1 years, median survival was 13.2 vs 15.1 months, with a 3-year survival rate of 19.5 vs 21.2% in the control and experimental arm, respectively (HR: 0.97; 95% CI 0.69-1.36; p=0.845). Treatment toxicity was manageable in both arms. The meta-analysis of 5 trials (n=866) confirmed the lack of a meaningful effect on 1-year overall survival of a taxane added concurrently to radiotherapy., Conclusions: These results do not support a meaningful survival benefit with the addition of single agent taxane given concurrently to radiotherapy after platinum-based induction in locally advanced NSCLC., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Although patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and an activating epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation benefit from the use of EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI), most of them progress within 12 months from treatment start due to acquired resistance. In clinical practice, many physicians frequently offer these patients retreatment with EGFR-TKIs after a chemotherapy break, based on small or retrospective studies., Materials and Methods: A phase II trial was conducted in patients with stage III/IV NSCLC, to assess the efficacy, safety and impact on quality of life (QoL) and disease-related symptoms of gefitinib rechallenge. Eligible patients had initially responded to first-line gefitinib and progressed after second-line chemotherapy., Results: Of 61 enrolled patients, 73.8% were female, 100% had EGFR-mutated adenocarcinoma and 67.2% were never-smokers. Thirty-two (52.5%) patients obtained a clinical benefit, with 3 (4.9%) achieving a partial response and 29 (47.5%) having stable disease. Median progression-free survival was 2.8 months, overall survival 10.2 months and duration of gefitinib treatment 3.6 months. The most common all grade-adverse events were diarrhea (27.6%), nausea and/or vomiting (20.3%), rash (14.7%) and dyspnea (10.3%); no new toxicities were apparent., Conclusion: Findings from this study indicate that gefitinib rechallenge offers modest benefit and may be taken into consideration only for patients for whom no other treatment option exists., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Two phase III trials of advanced NSCLC patients were compared to examine relative efficacy and safety of differing treatment regimens. The JMDB trial investigated first-line pemetrexed-cisplatin (pemetrexed 500mg/m(2) plus cisplatin 75mg/m(2) every 21 days; maximum: 6 cycles). The PARAMOUNT phase III trial compared maintenance pemetrexed versus placebo after patients with nonsquamous NSCLC completed 4 cycles of first-line pemetrexed-cisplatin without disease progression., Methods: Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), analyzed by Kaplan-Meier and Cox methods, and toxicity rates were compared between the PARAMOUNT arms and a selected homogeneous population from JMDB: 346 patients with disease and prior treatment characteristics matching the PARAMOUNT population., Results: Outcomes for the PARAMOUNT placebo arm were similar to the JMDB homogeneous group (median PFS: 5.6 versus 6.2 months, p=0.117, HR=1.16; median OS: 14.0 versus 14.2 months, p=0.979, HR=1.00). The PARAMOUNT maintenance pemetrexed group had statistically superior efficacy compared with the JMDB homogeneous group (median PFS: 7.5 versus 6.2 months, p<0.00001, HR=0.66; median OS: 16.9 versus 14.2 months, p=0.003, HR=0.75). Patients who received pemetrexed maintenance (median 4 cycles, range 1-44) following 4 cycles of pemetrexed-cisplatin exhibited a higher incidence of drug-related serious adverse events compared with JMDB patients (median 6 cycles of pemetrexed-cisplatin) (10.6% versus 2.9%); grade 3/4 fatigue and renal toxicity were also higher in the pemetrexed arm of PARAMOUNT., Conclusions: The across-trial comparison of a relevant JMDB study population with the two arms of the PARAMOUNT study supported the efficacy of the pemetrexed continuation maintenance strategy and suggested the results are not influenced by limiting the pemetrexed-cisplatin induction treatment to four cycles. Although longer exposure to pemetrexed-cisplatin or maintenance pemetrexed increased some toxicities, the overall incidence remained low, underscoring the relative safety of these treatment regimens., (Copyright © 2014. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.)

Purpose: We performed a sensitivity and meta-regression analysis, cumulating all randomized trials exploring the benefit of afatinib, erlotinib and gefitinib versus chemotherapy in advanced EGFR mutant NSCLC, to investigate the potential role of additional clinico-pathological predictors of TKIs efficacy., Results: With regard to progression-free survival (PFS), a significant interaction according to ethnicity (Asian versus Caucasian versus mixed) and to trial design (retrospective versus prospective EGFR analysis), was found; a trend toward significance with regard to type of drug (gefitinib versus erlotinib versus afatinib) was determined. No statistically significant differences in survival were observed. With regard to response, a significant interaction according to ethnicity, trial design and type of drug, was found., Conclusion: These data, together with a deeper characterization of the molecular background sustaining the oncogenic process, may contribute to create a clinico-pathologic predictive model, aimed to improve the magnitude of benefit expected from the use of targeted agents., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Platinum-based chemotherapy is the standard treatment for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but the evidence of its efficacy among ECOG performance status (PS)2 patients is weak because these patients are usually excluded from clinical trials; concern exists about tolerability and feasibility of standard chemotherapy in these patients. No prospective randomized trial has tested the addition of cisplatin to single-agent chemotherapy in patients with advanced NSCLC and PS2. CAPPA-2 was a multicenter, randomized phase 3 study for first-line treatment of PS2 patients with advanced NSCLC. Patients, aged 18-70, were eligible if they had stage IV or IIIB with malignant pleural effusion or metastatic supraclavicular nodes (TNM VI edition) and adequate organ function. Patients in standard arm received gemcitabine 1200 mg/m(2) days 1 and 8. Patients in experimental arm received cisplatin 60 mg/m(2) day 1 plus gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) days 1 and 8. All treatments were repeated every 3 weeks, up to 4 cycles, unless disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). To have 80% power of detecting hazard ratio (HR) 0.71, corresponding to an increase in median OS from 4.8 to 6.8 months, 285 deaths were required. The study was stopped in June 2012 after the enrolment of 57 patients, due to the slow accrual and the report of positive results from a similar study. Median OS was 3.0 months with single-agent gemcitabine and 5.9 months with cisplatin plus gemcitabine (HR 0.52, 95% CI 0.28-0.98, p = 0.039). Combination chemotherapy produced longer PFS (median 1.7 vs. 3.3 months, HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.27-0.89, p = 0.017) and higher response rate (4% vs. 18%, p = 0.19), without substantial increase in toxicity. The addition of cisplatin to single-agent gemcitabine improves survival as first-line treatment of PS2 patients with advanced NSCLC., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The FLEX study demonstrated that the addition of cetuximab to chemotherapy significantly improved overall survival in the first-line treatment of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In the FLEX intention to treat (ITT) population, we investigated the prognostic significance of particular baseline characteristics. Individual patient data from the treatment arms of the ITT population of the FLEX study were combined. Univariable and multivariable Cox regression models were used to investigate variables with potential prognostic value. The ITT population comprised 1125 patients. In the univariable analysis, longer median survival times were apparent for females compared with males (12.7 vs 9.3 months); patients with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) of 0 compared with 1 compared with 2 (13.5 vs 10.6 vs 5.9 months); never smokers compared with former smokers compared with current smokers (14.6 vs 11.1 vs 9.0); Asians compared with Caucasians (19.5 vs 9.6 months); patients with adenocarcinoma compared with squamous cell carcinoma (12.4 vs 9.3 months) and those with metastases to one site compared with two sites compared with three or more sites (12.4 months vs 9.8 months vs 6.4 months). Age (<65 vs ≥65 years), tumor stage (IIIB with pleural effusion vs IV) and percentage of tumor cells expressing EGFR (<40% vs ≥40%) were not identified as possible prognostic factors in relation to survival time. In multivariable analysis, a stepwise selection procedure identified age (<65 vs ≥65 years), gender, ECOG PS, smoking status, region, tumor histology, and number of organs involved as independent factors of prognostic value. In summary, in patients with advanced NSCLC enrolled in the FLEX study, and consistent with previous analyses, particular patient and disease characteristics at baseline were shown to be independent factors of prognostic value. The FLEX study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00148798., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Several randomized trials have recently investigated the role of maintenance treatment for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with responding or stable disease after completion of first-line chemotherapy. Maintenance strategy has relevant implications in terms of potential toxicity, logistics and costs, and all of these aspects should be taken into account, together with the magnitude of benefit for the patient. In order to assess the strengths and limitations of available evidence, to help clinical practice, and to suggest priorities for future clinical research, the Italian Association of Thoracic Oncology (AIOT) organized an International Experts Panel Meeting on maintenance treatment of advanced NSCLC, which took place in Sperlonga (Italy) in May 2011. Based on the available evidence, panelists agreed that maintenance therapy represents a treatment option in advanced NSCLC. Maintenance should be discussed with patients not progressed after 4-6 cycles of first-line chemotherapy, who are fit (performance status 0-1) and without persistent chemotherapy-induced toxicity. Patients need to be well informed about potential advantages and disadvantages of accepting additional therapy without a "treatment-free period". Two different strategies, switch or continuation maintenance, are supported by available evidence. At the moment, there is no direct comparison between switch maintenance and continuation maintenance. For future trials, the panel recommends the use of overall survival as the primary endpoint, with pre-defined second-line treatment. Translational research is essential to identify predictive factors, and should be performed, whenever feasible, in order to achieve treatment optimization with proper patient selection., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: The Italian Association of Thoracic Oncology (AIOT) and the European Thoracic Oncology Platform (ETOP) realized the first conjunct educational meeting, open to European oncologists involved in the treatment of thoracic malignancies, entitled "Advanced non-small cell lung cancer: new perspectives in first-line setting"., Methods: The educational meeting included 8 interactive talks, held by European key opinion leaders, and 5 related clinical cases in which the attendees, divided in working tables based on their country origin, were involved for interactive discussion. The aim of this course was to elucidate the differences or similarities among the European countries in the first-line treatment of patients affected by advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)., Results: Twenty-two attendees of the following countries participated: Austria, France, Italy, Spain, Swiss, and UK. As expected, some discrepancies between the groups were identified concerning the approach to the diagnostic phase, the choice of first-line regimen, the duration of treatment and the use of maintenance therapy. These discrepancies were mainly due to familiarity with specific therapies and lack of access to certain therapies due to local regulatory issues., Conclusion: The European Medicine Agency grants marketing of drugs in all Europe, regulatory agency of each country can register the drug, but can also deny public reimbursement thus restricting the options of the oncologist. The European Oncology Associations should join to their effort to achieve a uniform access to the cancer therapy for all patients in Europe., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective of this indirect economic comparison was to estimate and compare management costs of grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) reported for first-line erlotinib or pemetrexed maintenance therapy in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The economic analysis was performed for Germany, France, Italy and Spain. Types and incidences of reported grade 3/4 AEs observed with erlotinib or pemetrexed maintenance therapy were retrieved from two recently published placebo-controlled trials. Country-specific estimates on standard treatment algorithms and incremental medical resource utilization associated with each of the reported grade 3/4 AEs have been obtained from clinical oncologists practicing in the four countries and co-authoring this article. The resource use items were subsequently assigned country-specific tariffs to estimate total per-patients costs associated with the AE profiles of the two compared maintenance regimens. For the economic analysis a customized economic spreadsheet model was employed. Our comparison shows lower total average per-patient AE management costs for erlotinib than for pemetrexed maintenance therapy in all four studied countries. Total estimated cost savings per patient in favour of erlotinib amount to € 121, € 237, € 106, and € 119 for Germany, France, Italy and Spain, respectively. These AE cost savings for erlotinib when compared to pemetrexed represent a decrease by 80%, 71%, 94%, and 82%, respectively. The study also discovered considerable differences in AE management costs across countries which are primarily due to differences in clinician's estimates of hospitalization referral rates. Erlotinib maintenance therapy in patients with advanced NSCLC causes lower AE management costs than pemetrexed maintenance therapy indicating a potentially superior tolerability profile., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Lung cancer is the most common cancer in the world today, in terms of both incidence and mortality. Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) accounts for about 85% of all lung cancers, and the majority of people diagnosed with NSCLC have locally advanced or metastatic disease. Treatment algorithms have rapidly changed in the last 10 years because of the introduction of new chemotherapeutic and targeted agents in clinical practice. SUN is a 1-year longitudinal observational multicenter study that has consecutively enrolled patients affected by stage IIIB or IV NSCLC with the aim to describe the pattern of care and evolving approaches in the treatment of advanced NSCLC. 987 consecutive NSCLC patients were enrolled between January 2007 and March 2008 at the 74 participating centers throughout Italy and a 12-month follow-up was performed. Cyto-histological diagnosis was performed mainly by broncoscopy with only 24% by CT-scan guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy. 91.4% of the patients received a first-line medical treatment and 8.6% supportive care only. Median age of patients receiving first-line treatment was 66 years. First-line chemotherapy consisted of a single agent in 20% of patients and combination chemotherapy in 80%. The most frequently used chemotherapy regimens were cisplatin plus gemcitabine and carboplatin plus gemcitabine. Median survival of patients receiving first-line chemotherapy was 9.1 months. 32% percent of patients received a second-line treatment that consisted of chemotherapy in 71% of cases and erlotinib in 29%. Overall third-line treatment was given to 7.3% of patients. These results showed a pattern of care for advanced NSCLC that reflects the current clinical practice in Italy at the study time with a high adherence to the International guidelines by the Italian Oncologists., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: AIOT (Italian Association of Thoracic Oncology) produces up-to-date, clinical practice guidelines for the management of lung cancer in Italy. Guidelines were developed by answering clinical relevant questions. Here we report only major clinical issues concerning the management of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC)., Methods: A PubMed search was performed to identify published data until December 2009. Abstracts presented at the main International meetings between 2004 and 2009 were also searched. The writing committee developed and graded recommendations, which were subsequently revised by experts. The search has been subsequently updated for this manuscript in December 2010., Results: In patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation positive tumour, gefitinib is recommended as first-line treatment. In presence of EGFR mutation negative or unknown status, patients with advanced squamous NSCLC, with good performance status (PS) and without major co-morbidities, chemotherapy with third-generation regimens containing cisplatin is the recommended treatment. In non-squamous NSCLC patients, also cisplatin plus pemetrexed and platinum-based chemotherapy plus bevacizumab should be considered. Carboplatin is a valid option for patients unsuitable for cisplatin. Maintenance therapy with pemetrexed or erlotinib is a reasonable choice if allowed by reimbursement procedures and discussed with patients. Elderly patients, defined as ≥ 70 years old, should receive third-generation single-agent chemotherapy, but in elderly patients with good PS, without major co-morbidities and with adequate organ function, platinum-based doublets with attenuated doses can be a valid option. In PS 2 patients, single-agent third-generation drug is a reasonable choice. Combination chemotherapy with carboplatin or low doses of cisplatin is a suitable alternative. For second-line treatment, two cytotoxic drugs (docetaxel and pemetrexed, the latter only in non-squamous tumours), and erlotinib, an EGFR inhibitor, are available. There are no strong data to help the choice between chemotherapy and erlotinib., Conclusions: Many developments have been made in advanced NSCLC treatment, and the appropriate use of available therapeutic approaches and the improved understanding of lung cancer molecular abnormalities continue to enhance the outcomes on the basis of well-designed clinical trials which address critical issues in this population., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Randomized trials comparing gefitinib with chemotherapy as first-line treatment in patients with EGFR mutated advanced NSCLC support gefitinib as a new, highly effective treatment option in this setting. However, its use in clinical practice has several relevant implications and open issues. In order to choose the best treatment, a molecular characterization is now mandatory, as part of baseline diagnostic procedures. Every effort should be made in order to obtain sufficient tissue. If a clinical enrichment has to be performed for selecting patients to test for EGFR mutation, a reasonable proposal is to test all non-squamous tumors, and patients with squamous tumors only if never smokers. In patients with EGFR mutated tumor, one major issue is the decision about immediate use of gefitinib as first-line, or after failure of standard chemotherapy. First-line gefitinib, compared to chemotherapy, is associated with longer progression-free survival, higher response rate, better toxicity profile and quality of life, and its administration as first-line warrants that all patients have the chance of receiving an EGFR inhibitor. Evidence about the efficacy of erlotinib in the same setting will be soon available, however, at the moment, there are no direct comparisons between gefitinib and erlotinib in EGFR mutated patients. Treatment with gefitinib is usually well tolerated. Typical side effects in most cases are of mild to moderate intensity, and usually manageable with temporary interruption of treatment. When indicated gefitinib appears feasible also in special populations, like elderly or unfit patients, characterized by a significantly poorer risk/benefit ratio with standard chemotherapy. Personalized medicine for patients with lung cancer is now a reality, and patients with EGFR mutation should be treated with first-line EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor., (Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Gefitinib is a small molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). Since 2004, it was clear that a substantial proportion of non-small-cell lung cancers (NSCLC) obtaining objective response when treated with gefitinib harbour activating mutations in the EGFR gene. Consequently, EGFR mutation has been widely studied, together with other molecular characteristics, as a potential predictive factor for gefitinib efficacy. As of August 2010, four East Asian randomized phase III trials comparing gefitinib to platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) eligible for first-line treatment have been reported or published. Two of these trials were conducted without a molecular selection in patients with clinical characteristics (adenocarcinoma histology, never or light smoking) characterized by higher prevalence of EGFR mutation. In patients selected for the presence of tumor harbouring EGFR mutation, the administration of first-line gefitinib, as compared to standard chemotherapy, was associated with longer progression-free survival, higher objective response rate, a more favourable toxicity profile and better quality of life. The relevant improvement in progression-free survival with first-line administration of gefitinib has been confirmed in the other two randomized trials, dedicated to cases with EGFR mutation. In July 2009, European Medicines Agency granted marketing authorization for gefitinib for the treatment of locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC with sensitizing mutations of the EGFR gene, across all lines of therapy. Gefitinib currently represents the best first-line treatment option for this molecularly selected subgroup of patients., (Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: The new targeted agent bevacizumab in combination with cisplatin and gemcitabine (BCG), and a third-generation chemotherapy pemetrexed in combination with cisplatin (PC), are approved as first-line treatment for patients with advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)., Methods: An indirect comparison between BCG and PC showed that the bevacizumab triplet achieved a favourable hazard ratio in terms of progression-free survival among patients with advanced NSCLC. This analysis aimed to compare the detailed costs and benefits of these treatments for advanced non-squamous NSCLC in Italy., Results: The monthly cost of single-agent bevacizumab, including administration and supportive care costs, and costs for adverse events as a single agent was 4,007 euro/patient less than pemetrexed over the patient's lifetime. BCG also achieved a mean gain of 0.12 life-years compared with PC over this period. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of BCG relative to PC was calculated to be 34,919 euro per additional life-year gained suggesting that BCG is cost-effective compared with PC as first-line treatment for advanced NSCLC in Italy., Conclusions: In conclusion, bevacizumab-based therapy can be considered as a cost-effective option when compared to chemotherapy treatments such as pemetrexed for the treatment for advanced non-squamous NSCLC., (Copyright 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: This is a phase II randomized study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of bortezomib and pemetrexed alone or in combination, in patients with previously treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The primary end point was assessment of response rate., Methods: A total of 155 patients were randomized (1:1:1) to pemetrexed (500mg/m(2)) on day 1 plus bortezomib (1.6mg/m(2)) on days 1 and 8 (Arm A) or pemetrexed (500mg/m(2)) on day 1 (Arm B) or bortezomib (1.6mg/m(2)) on days 1 and 8 (Arm C) of a 21 day cycle. Response rate was assessed by investigators using Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) criteria and toxicity assessed by the National Cancer Institute-Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (NCI-CTCAE) grading system., Results: Response rate was 7% in Arm A, 4% in Arm B, and 0% in Arm C; disease control rates were 73%, 62%, and 43%, respectively. Median overall survival was 8.6 months in Arm A, 12.7 months in Arm B, and 7.8 months in Arm C; time to progression was 4.0 months, 2.9 months, and 1.4 months, respectively. Most common reported adverse events >/=grade 3 were neutropenia (19%), thrombocytopenia (15%), and dyspnea (13%) in Arm A, neutropenia (10%) in Arm B, and dyspnea (13%) and fatigue (10%) in Arm C., Conclusion: In previously treated NSCLC the addition of bortezomib to pemetrexed was well tolerated but offered no statistically significant response or survival advantage versus pemetrexed alone, while bortezomib alone showed no clinically significant activity., (Copyright 2009 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose and Methods: To evaluate how the new strategic approaches impact on clinical practice for the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in Italy, an Italian survey was launched through the Italian Association of Thoracic Oncology (AIOT) website. The survey included 16 items with multiple answers: 4 regarding the professional characteristics of each member, 9 the first-line treatment, and 3 the second-line therapy., Results: From June 30 to July 30, 2008, 320 oncologists, AIOT members, were invited to fulfil the survey. A total of 176 (55%) out of 320 invited members completed the questionnaire. The data evidenced a high adherence to the International guidelines. In fact, the standard of care are platinum-based regimens for first-line therapy, single-agent chemotherapy for "special patients populations" including elderly and PS 2 patients, and licensed agents, i.e. docetaxel, pemetrexed and erlotinib, for second-line therapy. Moreover, great importance is given to the need of a specific histology diagnosis for an appropriate "histology-based treatment"., Conclusions: The present survey highlights a high adherence to the International guidelines and the importance of choosing an appropriate "histology-based treatment" by the Italian oncologists.

Background: In the attempt to optimize the efficacy of chemotherapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) several strategies need to be investigated including the use of non-platinum combinations and the sequential use of different agents., Patients and Methods: In a phase II randomised study 165 patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC were assigned to receive docetaxel 40 mg/m(2) days 1 and 8 plus gemcitabine 1200 mg/m(2) days 1 and 8 every 21 days (arm A, N=54) or docetaxel 50 mg/m(2) days 1 and 15 plus gemcitabine 1600 mg/m(2) days 1 and 15 every 28 days (arm B, N=57) or gemcitabine 1200 mg/m(2) days 1 and 8 plus cisplatin 100mg/m(2) day 2 every 21 days for 3 cycles followed by docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) day 1 every 21 days for 3 cycles (arm C, N=54). The primary endpoint of the trial was overall response rate. Secondary end points included safety, progression-free and overall survival., Results: Response rate was 22.2%, 23.2% and 33.3% after 3 cycles, whereas at the end of treatment was 24.1%, 12.5% and 27.8% in arm A-C, respectively. Median time to progression was similar in all the 3 arms: 6.7 months in arm A (95% CI: 4.8-9.7), 5.6 in arm B (5.0-7.9) and 6.6 in arm C (5.7-9.1). The median survival time was 10.7 months in arm A (95% CI: 6.8-15.6), 8.9 in arm B (7.4-12.5) and 14.6 in arm C (8.0-22.4) and 1-year survival rate was 46.3%, 37.9% and 53.9%, respectively. Grade 3-4 haematological toxicities were more frequent in arm C while non-haematological were more common in the gemcitabine and docetaxel arms., Conclusions: The results of this phase II randomised clinical trial do not indicate a clear superior efficacy of one of the tested combinations according to the planned statistical design and none of these regimens is sufficiently active or less toxic to warrant further investigation in a phase III study.

Pemetrexed, a new cytotoxic agent, is a potent inhibitor of thymidylate synthase and other folate-dependent enzymes. Firstly, pemetrexed was approved in combination with cisplatin for the treatment of malignant pleural mesothelioma. Successively, it has been studied, as single-agent, in phase II and III trials for second-line therapy of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Based on these results, pemetrexed has been registered for the treatment of recurrent NSCLC. The next step was to test pemetrexed plus cisplatin versus gemcitabine plus cisplatin, as first-line therapy in advanced NSCLC patients, in a phase III, non-inferiority, randomized trial. This trial reported the pemetrexed plus cisplatin regimen to be not inferior, in terms of activity and efficacy, to the control arm but statistically better tolerated. The role of pemetrexed as maintenance therapy after first-line therapy for advanced NSCLC is currently being evaluated into a phase III trial. The consistency of the results of these recent studies has identified a predictive effect of NSCLC non-squamous histology for pemetrexed. To date, pemetrexed is registered, at the dose of 500 mg/m(2) on day 1 of a 3-week schedule, in combination with cisplatin, for first-line therapy and, as single-agent, for second-line treatment of patients with non-squamous NSCLC.This review shows the latest and indicates the future developments of pemetrexed in the treatment of advanced NSCLC patients.

Owing to the slow but sustained progress made in lung cancer treatment over the last 20 years, several therapeutic options are now available in the first-line setting as well as for patients who have progressed after one or more previous lines of treatment. Considering the growing array of choices currently confronting clinicians involved in the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), an effort should be made to define the optimal treatment option in each disease setting and to identify a logical therapeutic strategy after initial disease progression. This is especially crucial in the management of young, fit patients, who may be suitable candidates for two or more lines of therapy. At present, a rational treatment strategy for advanced NSCLC may be designed on the basis of patient clinicopathological features and rely on evidence from large, well-conducted clinical trials. In a near future the results of prospective validation studies will provide more sophisticated approaches for the classification of lung cancer patients, allowing clinicians to make individualised treatment decisions based on tumour molecular profile and on novel, more refined predictive/prognostic factors.

Febrile neutropenia is a relatively frequent event in cancer patients treated with chemotherapy. A relevant body of scientific evidence has been produced in the last 2 decades, through clinical trials addressing the efficacy of colony stimulating factors (CSFs) in the prevention and treatment of febrile neutropenia. The correct use of CSFs needs to be optimized, and several guidelines have been produced and periodically updated, in order to uniform and guide clinical practice. The aim of this review is to synthesize the most relevant clinical trials and the most important existing guidelines about the role of CSFs in solid tumours. Role of CSFs as primary prophylaxis, secondary prophylaxis and treatment of afebrile and febrile neutropenia is discussed. A special focus is dedicated to neutropenia and the use of CSFs in the treatment of the three "big killers" among the solid tumours: breast cancer, lung cancer and colorectal cancer.

Background: To evaluate feasibility and safety of induction three-drugs combination chemotherapy and concurrent radio-chemotherapy in stage IIIB NSCLC., Patients and Methods: Patients with stage IIIB NSCLC were treated with three courses of induction chemotherapy, cisplatin 50 mg/m(2), paclitaxel 125 mg/m(2) and gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) on days 1,8 of every 21 day cycle. Patients without distant progressive disease were then treated with radiotherapy and concurrent weekly gemcitabine (250 mg/m(2)). Toxicity and response of radio-chemotherapy treatment have been assessed., Results: Between Jan 01 and Nov 02, 46 patients were enrolled. Grade 3+ hematological and non-hematological toxicity during the induction phase were 41.3% and 13.1%, respectively. In 38 patients a Clinical Response or Stable Disease was recorded and these patients underwent to concurrent radio-chemotherapy. Grade 3+ hematological and non-hematological toxicities were 8.2% in this group. Further response was observed in 66% of patients. Overall median survival time was 17.8 months, with a 3-year survival rates of 23%., Conclusion: Three-drugs induction chemotherapy and concurrent radio-chemotherapy with weekly gemcitabine in locally advanced stage IIIB NSCLC is feasible and safe.

Purpose: Gemcitabine is one of the most active drugs against non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Preclinical data suggested that gemcitabine efficacy could be improved by increasing the dose or by increasing the infusion duration. This study has been designed in order to explore two different approaches of gemcitabine dose intensification in patients with advanced NSCLC., Patients and Methods: A total of 121 chemonaive patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC not suitable for a platinum-based chemotherapy were randomly allocated to chemotherapy with gemcitabine 1500 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks by standard 30 min intravenous infusion (arm A), or gemcitabine 10 mg/m2/min for 150 min on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks by intravenous infusion at fixed dose rate (arm B)., Results: One hundred and seventeen patients were fully analyzed. No difference in response rate (16.1% versus 9.9%, p=0.28), median time to disease progression (4 months versus 4.5 months, p=0.34) median survival (9.8 months in both arms), and 1-year survival (42.6% versus 39.0% p=0.98) was detected in arms A and B, respectively. No treatment-related deaths occurred. Main hematological toxicities were grade 3-4 neutropenia observed in 17.9% of patients in group A and in 49.2% of individuals in group B (p=0.0002). The incidence of febrile neutropenia was 3.3% in arm A and 0% in arm B (p=0.17). Grade 3-4 thrombocytopenia was more frequently observed in arm B patients (9.9% versus 1.8%, p=0.057). Non-hematological toxicity was similar in both arms, and consisted in grade 1-2 gastrointestinal toxicity observed in 48.2% of patients in arm A and 41.0% in arm B., Conclusion: Intensification of standard doses or prolonged infusion schedule did not result in efficacy improvement. Gemcitabine infusion duration does not warrant further investigation in patients with advanced NSCLC.

A retrospective cost-minimisation analysis was conducted comparing novel chemotherapies for the treatment of chemo-naive patients with locally advanced, recurrent, and/or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Resource use information was obtained from a Phase III randomised trial investigating the efficacy and toxicity of gemcitabine/cisplatin (Gem/Cis), paclitaxel/carboplatin (Pac/Carbo) and vinorelbine/cisplatin (Vin/Cis) combination regimens in 612 patients with advanced NSCLC. Since there were no statistically significant differences between the three treatments in terms of progression-free or overall survival in this trial, a cost-minimisation analysis was considered to be the appropriate type of economic evaluation. The perspective was that of the national healthcare provider in Italy. Medical resource use was obtained from the clinical trial database, from which mean cost streams were calculated for each treatment group. The mean total treatment costs per patient were 8094 euros, 11,203 euros and 9320 euros for the Gem/Cis, Pac/Carbo and Vin/Cis regimens, respectively. Based on resource consumption in a clinical trial, Gem/Cis had the lowest overall mean costs of the three chemotherapy regimens. Gem/Cis therefore has the potential to save costs in the treatment of advanced NSCLC in Italy.

Background: Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treatment with new drugs in combination with platinum salts induce anemia G1/2 and G3/4 WHO in about 35 and 10-20% of patients, respectively, with a chemotherapy (CT) dose intensity decrease in 20% of cases. Epoetin alfa, administered at standard dosages has been shown to significantly increase hemoglobin (Hb) levels, decrease transfusion requirements, and improve quality-of-life parameters in patients undergoing chemotherapy., Objective: This open-label, non-randomized study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of an induction dose of epoetin alfa 40.000 IU in lung cancer patients with moderate or severe anemia who were receiving CT., Patients and Methods: Twenty-four patients (8 SCLC and 16 NSCLC) were enrolled in the study to receive single subcutaneous (s.c.) injections of epoetin alfa 40.000 IU on days 1, 4, 7, 10, and 13, followed by standard treatment (10.000 IU t.i.w.) for the further 2 weeks. Nine patients had been previously treated with epoetin alfa 10.000 IU t.i.w. Twenty-two patients were receiving first-line CT and two patients were receiving docetaxel as second-line CT., Results: After 15 days of treatment, in 21 evaluable patients, Hb was 10.5 +/- 1.3 g/dL (mean +/- S.D.), with a mean increase from baseline of 2.0 g/dL (95%CI: 1.3-2.7). Hb increase was > or =2g/dL in 11 patients, 1-1.9 g/dL in 5 patients, and <1g/dL in 5 patients. After 30 days of treatment, Hb was 11.5 +/- 0.8 g/dL (mean +/- S.D.), with a mean increase from baseline of 2.9 g/dL (95%CI: 2.4-3.4) in 20 evaluable patients. No adverse events possibly related to epoetin alfa treatment were observed., Conclusion: An induction therapy with epoetin alfa 40.000 IU for 2 weeks followed by standard treatment allows an Hb increase of 2.9 g/dL even in advanced lung cancer patients with a moderate/severe anemia, without RBC transfusion requirements. A randomized study of the proposed induction dose of epoetin alfa 40.000 IU is actually ongoing.

Purpose: Our objective was to determine the activity in terms of response rate, surgical resectability, and the tolerability of the new three-drug combination gemcitabine-cisplatin-paclitaxel (GCP) in unresectable stage IIIA(N2) and IIIB non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)., Patient and Methods: Forty-two chemo-naive patients with stage IIIA(N2)-IIIB NSCLC, median age of 59 years, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1, and the ability to tolerate pneumectomy, received gemcitabine (Gem) 1000 mg/m(2) IV days 1 and 8, cisplatin (CDDP) 50 mg/m(2) IV days 1 and 8, paclitaxel 125 mg/m(2) 1h infusion IV days 1 and 8, every 21 days for 3 cycles. After induction chemotherapy, patients were evaluated for surgery or definitive radiotherapy., Results: Grade 3-4 neutropenia was the main hematologic toxicity, occurring in 28% of patients. Grade 3-4 thrombocytopenia was observed in only 11% of cases. No neutropenic fever or bleeding episodes were recorded. Severe non-hematologic toxicity was uncommon. Thirty (71%, 95% CI: 57.2-84.7%) of the 42 eligible patients had objective responses (1 complete and 29 partial responses). After induction chemotherapy, 21 patients (50%) went to surgery. Complete resection was obtained in 16 patients (38%). Viable tumor was present in 18 of 21 resection specimens. In three cases only necrotic tumor cells were identified, for a pathological complete response of 7%. With a median follow-up of 13.9 months, median time to progression was 17.4 months, median survival 21.7 months and estimated 1-year survival 92%., Conclusions: GCP combination is active and well tolerated in locally-advanced, non-resectable NSCLC. The activity profile, in terms of response and surgical resection rate, is comparable to that obtained with standard doublets.

Objective: The objectives of this phase I/II study were to define the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), safety, and activity of cisplatin, etoposide, and gemcitabine (PEG) in the treatment of previously untreated patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC)., Patients and Methods: Chemonaive patients received fixed doses of gemcitabine (1000 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8) and cisplatin (70 mg/m(2) on day 2) and escalating doses of etoposide (starting dose of 50 mg/m(2) on days 3, 4, and 5) every 3 weeks. No prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factors were used., Results: From September 1998 to April 2000, 56 patients with limited- or extensive-stage SCLC were enrolled and received a total of 235 cycles. Two different etoposide doses were tested in eight patients. At the second level (75 mg/m(2)), two out of two patients experienced dose-limiting toxicities (neutropenia and thrombocytopenia) and no further dose-escalation was attempted, thus an etoposide dose of 50 mg/m(2) was defined as the MTD. In the subsequent phase II evaluation, 48 additional patients were enrolled, for a total of 54 patients treated at the MTD. Grade 3/4 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia occurred in 66.7 and 53.7% of patients, respectively. Non-hematologic toxicity was mild, with grade 3 diarrhea and fatigue as the main side effects. Two patients died of neutropenic sepsis (one at 75 mg/m(2) and the other at 50 mg/m(2) etoposide). Ten complete and 29 partial responses were reported, for an overall response rate of 72.2% (95% confidence interval, 56.6-85.0%). The median duration of response and median survival were 8.0 and 10 months, respectively, with a 1-year survival probability of 37.5%., Conclusions: The combination of PEG is feasible and well tolerated as front-line chemotherapy in SCLC. A randomized comparison of this triplet is underway.

Background: Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is a chemoresponsive tumor but overall survival remains poor even in limited disease (LD). With the aim of eradicating chemoresistant tumor cells and reducing toxicity, we investigated in this phase II trial the feasibility and outcome of a sequential approach of induction chemotherapy (CT) followed, in responding patients with LD-SCLC, by intensified platinum-based CT and concurrent thoracic irradiation (TI)., Materials and Methods: We treated 55 consecutive LD-SCLC patients with three 21-day cycles of cyclophosphamide, epiadriamycin and vincristine (CEV) as induction CT. In 44 (80%) patients there was an objective response and they received treatment intensification consisting of TI and concomitant CT with carboplatin and etoposide plus recombinant granulocite colony stimulating factor. Twenty-five (57%) patients were submitted to twice-daily thoracic irradiation (TDTI; 1.5 Gy per fraction, to a total dose of 45 Gy) and 19 (43%) to once-daily thoracic irradiation (ODTI; 2 Gy per fraction, to a total dose of 50 Gy)., Results: Median follow up was 75 months (range, 42-102). Of 44 patients submitted to intensification with TI plus CT, 32 (73%) had a complete and 12 (27%) a partial response. Median overall survival of all 55 patients was 17 months with actuarial survival probabilities of 2 and 5 years, 32 and 25%, respectively. Analysis of patient sub-groups showed a 5-month median survival in non-responders, 19 in TDTI and 17 in ODTI patients, respectively. Two and 5 year survival probabilities were 0% in non-responders, 40 and 35% in TDTI and 39 and 21% in ODTI patients, respectively. At present, 13 of 44 responders are still alive, of which nine (20%) have been progression-free from 45 to 93 months (median 60). Treatment failure was registered in 31 (70%) of 44 patients who received both induction and intensification treatment. One-half of patients had intrathoracic recurrence, eight of which only local and the remaining seven local and distant. Fourteen (32%) patients had brain metastases. Grade 3-4 neutropenia occurred in 24 (55%) patients with no differences between treatment groups. Grade 3 esophagitis was registered in four (9%) patients: in 3/25 (12%) and 1/19 (5%) of those who received TDTI and ODTI, respectively (P=not significant). Acute radiation pneumonitis occurred in three (12%) patients submitted to TDTI. No clinically debilitating pulmonary fibrosis, permanent esophageal stricture or toxic death was observed., Conclusions: In LD-SCLC patients late concurrent CT plus TI is feasible and effective. Our long-term results are similar to the best reported in the literature. Despite the high incidence of complete response obtained, however, one-half of the patients had intrathoracic relapse and one-third brain metastases.

Background: Our aim was to explore the activity and feasibility of gemcitabine plus cisplatin as induction chemotherapy in patients with Stage IIIA N(2) and selected IIIB non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)., Patients and Methods: From September 1997 to July 2000, 70 chemonaive patients with Stage III NSCLC, median age of 64 years, World Health Organization performance status 0, 1, or 2, and the ability to tolerate a pneumonectomy entered the study and received gemcitabine 1250 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 and cisplatin 70 mg/m(2) on day 2 every 3 weeks. After three cycles of induction chemotherapy, patients underwent resection or radiotherapy., Results: Responses were seen in 40 of the 69 assessable patients, for an intent-to treat overall response rate of 57.1% (95% confidence interval, 45-62%), with 4.2% complete response. Response rates were 68 and 35% in patients with Stage IIIA and IIIB disease, respectively. The overall pathological CR rate after induction chemotherapy was 3%, with an overall pathological downstaging rate of 20%. Median survival for all patients was 14.5 months, with an estimated 1-year survival rate of 67% (95% CI, 54.3-79.5%). The estimated time to treatment failure was 12.6 months. Grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia was the main hematologic toxicity, occurring in 26% of patients, but was not associated with life-threatening bleeding. Febrile neutropenia was rare and other severe non-hematologic toxicities were uncommon., Conclusions: The 3-week schedule of gemcitabine plus cisplatin is highly active as induction chemotherapy in Stage IIIA N(2) unresectable NSCLC. This suggests a need for a multimodality approach upfront, such as concurrent chemoradiation therapy, particularly in patients with Stage IIIB disease.