Search

Technologies for small non-coding RNA sequencing at the single-cell level are less mature than for sequencing mRNAs. Here the authors evaluate available protocols for analysis of circulating lung cancer tumour cells.

Following the PACIFIC trial, durvalumab has been approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for consolidation of locally advanced PD-L1-positive NSCLC after chemoradiotherapy (CRT). Patients were treated with durvalumab in the EAP from 22.11.2017 to 15.10.2018 allowing analysis of its efficacy and safety.211 patients were registered by 90 German centres. Data were collected retrospectively by questionnaire and queries. 56 centres reported data on 126 patients who actually received at least one cycle of durvalumab. In contrast to the PACIFIC-trial population, some patients with oligometastatic disease and a history of autoimmune disease are included in the EAP population. Information on PD-L1 status was obtained for 111 patients. Baseline data include age, gender, ECOG, stage (IASLC 8th ed.), and smoking history. Treatment data include mode of chemoradiotherapy, used chemotherapy agent, and duration of durvalumab therapy. Adverse evants were documented according to CTAEC 5.0. Data were analysed for progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and adverse events (AE). The results were published in Lung Cancer [1].

Objective Measuring the success of molecularly guided therapies is a major challenge in precision oncology trials. A commonly used endpoint is an intra-patient progression-free survival (PFS) ratio, defined as the PFS interval associated with molecularly guided therapy (PFS2) divided by the PFS interval associated with the last prior systemic therapy (PFS1), above 1.3 or, in some studies, above 1.33 or 1.5.Methods To investigate if the concept of PFS ratios is in agreement with actual response evaluations by physicians, we conducted a survey among members of the MASTER (Molecularly Aided Stratification for Tumor Eradication Research) Programme of the German Cancer Consortium who were asked to classify the success of molecularly guided therapies in 194 patients enrolled in the MOSCATO 01 trial based on PFS1 and PFS2 times.Results A comparison of classification profiles revealed three distinct clusters of PFS benefit assessments. Only 29% of assessments were consistent with a PFS ratio threshold of 1.3, whereas the remaining 71% of participants applied a different classification scheme that did not rely on the relation between PFS times alone, but also took into account absolute PFS1 intervals. Based on these community-driven insights, we developed a modified PFS ratio that incorporates the influence of absolute PFS1 intervals on the judgement of clinical benefit by physicians. Application of the modified PFS ratio to outcome data from two recent precision oncology trials, MOSCATO 01 and WINTHER, revealed significantly improved concordance with physician-perceived clinical benefit and identified comparable proportions of patients who benefited from molecularly guided therapies.Conclusions The modified PFS ratio may represent a meaningful clinical endpoint that could aid in the design and interpretation of future precision oncology trials.