Search

Introduction: Recent advances in the treatment of locally advanced NSCLC have led to changes in the standard of care for this disease. For the selection of the best approach strategy for each patient, it is necessary the homogenization of diagnostic and therapeutic interventions, as well as the promotion of the evaluation of patients by a multidisciplinary oncology team., Objective: Development of an expert consensus document with suggestions for the approach and treatment of locally advanced NSCLC leaded by Spanish Lung Cancer Group GECP., Methods: Between March and July 2023, a panel of 28 experts was formed. Using a mixed technique (Delphi/nominal group) under the guidance of a coordinating group, consensus was reached in 4 phases: 1. Literature review and definition of discussion topics 2. First round of voting 3. Communicating the results and second round of voting 4. Definition of conclusions in nominal group meeting. Responses were consolidated using medians and interquartile ranges. The threshold for agreement was defined as 85% of the votes., Results: New and controversial situations regarding the diagnosis and management of locally advanced NSCLC were analyzed and reconciled based on evidence and clinical experience. Discussion issues included: molecular diagnosis and biomarkers, radiologic and surgical diagnosis, mediastinal staging, role of the multidisciplinary thoracic committee, neoadjuvant treatment indications, evaluation of response to neoadjuvant treatment, postoperative evaluation, and follow-up., Conclusions: Consensus clinical suggestions were generated on the most relevant scenarios such as diagnosis, staging and treatment of locally advanced lung cancer, which will serve to support decision-making in daily practice., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Objectives: The S-REAL study aimed to assess the effectiveness of durvalumab as consolidation therapy after definitive chemoradiotherapy (CRT) in a real-world cohort of patients with locally advanced, unresectable stage III non-small cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC) included in a Spanish early access program (EAP)., Methods: In this multicentre, observational, retrospective study we analysed data from patients treated in 39 Spanish hospitals, who started intravenous durvalumab (10 mg/kg every 2 weeks) between September 2017 and December 2018. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included patient characterization and adverse events of special interest (AESI)., Results: A total of 244 patients were followed up for a median of 21.9 months [range 1.2-34.7]. Median duration of durvalumab was 45.5 weeks (11.4 months) [0-145]. Median PFS was 16.7 months (95% CI 12.2-25). No remarkable differences in PFS were observed between patients with programmed cell death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression ≥ 1% or < 1% (16.7 versus 15.6 months, respectively). However, PFS was higher in patients who had received prior concurrent CRT (cCRT) versus sequential CRT (sCRT) (20.6 versus 9.4 months). AESIs leading to durvalumab discontinuation were registered in 11.1% of patients., Conclusions: These results are in line with prior published evidence and confirm the benefits of durvalumab in the treatment of LA-NSCLC patients in a real-world setting. We also observed a lower incidence of important treatment-associated toxicities, such as pneumonitis, compared with the pivotal phase III PACIFIC clinical study., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Federación de Sociedades Españolas de Oncología (FESEO).)

Introduction: The LIPI, based on pretreatment derived neutrophils/[leukocytes-neutrophils] ratio (dNLR) and LDH, is associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) outcomes in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We aimed to assess baseline LIPI correlation with durvalumab consolidation outcomes in the locally advanced setting., Material and Methods: Multicentre retrospective study (330 patients) with stage III unresectable NSCLC treated with durvalumab after chemo-radiotherapy between April 2015 and December 2020; 65 patients treated with chemo-radiotherapy only. Baseline LIPI characterized 3 groups: good (dNLR≤3+LDH≤ULN), intermediate (dNLR>3/LDH>ULN) and poor (dNLR>3+LDH>ULN). Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS)., Results: In the durvalumab cohort, median age was 67 years, 95% smokers, 98% with a performance status of 0-1; 60% had nonsquamous histology and 16% a PD-L1 expression <1%. Radiotherapy was delivered concurrently in 81%. LIPI was evaluable in 216 patients: 66% good, 31% intermediate, 3% poor. LIPI significantly correlated with median OS (median follow-up: 19 months): 18.1 months vs. 47.0 months vs. not reached in poor, intermediate and good LIPI groups, respectively (P = .03). A trend between objective response rate and LIPI groups was observed: 0% vs. 41% vs. 45%, respectively (P = .05). The pooled intermediate/poor LIPI group was associated with shorter OS (HR 1.97; P = .03) and higher risk of progressive disease (OR 2.68; P = .047). Survivals and response were not influenced in the control cohort., Conclusion: Baseline LIPI correlated with outcomes in patients with locally advanced NSCLC treated with durvalumab consolidation, but not in those who only received chemo-radiotherapy, providing further evidence of its prognostic and potential predictive role of ICI benefit in NSCLC., Competing Interests: Disclosure VAA: Lectures and educational activities: Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, MSD; Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Takeda, Sanofi, Janssen; RL: Personal fees: AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb. Travel, Accommodations: Roche, Italfarmaco; RLC: Consulting, advisory role or lectures: Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pierre-Fabre, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Roche. Honoraria: AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pierre-Fabre, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Takeda. Clinical trials research: AstraZeneca, Roche. Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche, Novartis, Takeda, Boehringer Ingelheim; JBB: Reports grants and personal fees from Roche and Pfizer, and personal fees from MSD, BMS, AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Sanofi, and Novartis, outside the submitted work; SP: Consulting, advisory role or lectures: AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Amgen, Takeda (outside the submitted manuscript); MT: Travel, accommodation, expenses: Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Takeda, Eli Lilly. Honoraria as medical writer: Novartis, Amgen, MSD. None related to the current manuscript; MS: Speaker, Advisory Role: Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi Avemtis, Siemens Healthineers, Takeda; Research support (institutional): Amgen, BMS, Dracen Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Siemens Healthiness; EN: has participated in lectures and advisory boards from Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck Serono, Pfizer, Lilly, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Takeda, Sanofi and Bayer. E. N. has received research funding support from Pfizer, Roche, Merck Serono, Bristol Myers Squibb and Nanostring; GL: Honorary from Boehringer Ingelheim, Blueprint Medicines, AstraZeneca, Merck, Janssen; Consulting and advisory role from Pfizer and AstraZeneca; Research funding from AstraZeneca, Lucence, Xilis, Merck Sharp and Dohme, EMD Serono, Blueprint Medicines, Tesaro, Vavarian Nordic, Novartis, G1 Therapeutics. AdaptImmune, BMS, GSK, Abbvie, Rgenix, Pfizer, Roche, Genentech, Lilly, Janssen; travel, accommodations and expenses from Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Squibb Sons, Janssen, Seattle Genetics, Celgene, Ibsen, Pharmacyclocs, Merck, AstraZeneca, Seagen; DS: Consulting, advisory role: AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Sanofi. Honoraria: AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme. Principal Investigator in clinical trial sponsored by Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Eli Lilly. Travel, Accommodations: AstraZeneca, Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer; RGC: Consulting, advisory role or lectures from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Takeda, Janseen, MSD, Roche, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Amgen, Sanofi; honoraria (self) from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Roche, MSD, Takeda, Eli Lilly, Novartis; clinical trials research from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Medimmun, Sanofi-Aventis; VB: Consulting, advisory role: AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche. Clinical trials research: AstraZeneca, MSD, Roche; MC: Advisory or Consultancy role: AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, EUSA Pharma, Lilly, Roche. Honoraria, lectures: Abbot, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, EUSA Pharma, Ipsen, Merck, Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Takeda. Travel expenses: Ipsen, Lilly, Merck, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre. Institutional financial interests: Astra Zeneca, Merck, Pfizer, Roche; BB: Sponsored Research at Gustave Roussy Cancer Center, Abbvie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Blueprint Medicines, BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, GSK, Ignyta, IPSEN, Merck KGaA, MSD, Nektar, Onxeo, Pfizer, Pharma Mar, Sanofi, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Takeda, Tiziana Pharma; DP: Consulting, advisory role or lectures: AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, prIME Oncology, Peer CME, Roche. Honoraria: AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, prIME Oncology, Peer CME, Roche. Clinical trials research: AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Medimmun, Sanofi-Aventis, Taiho Pharma, Novocure, Daiichi Sankyo. Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: AstraZeneca, Roche, Novartis, prIME Oncology, Pfizer; LM: Research grant/Funding (self): Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Amgen, Stilla, Inivata; Advisory/Consultancy: Roche Diagnostics, Takeda; Honoraria (self): Bristol Myers Squibb, Tecnofarma, Roche; Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, Takeda, AstraZeneca. The remaining authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: We aimed to determine if advanced BRAF-mutant NSCLC has a higher thromboembolic events (TEE) rate than the expected., Methods: Between 2008 and 2021, 182 patients with BRAF-mutant advanced NSCLC (BRAF V600E, n = 70; BRAF non-V600E, n = 112) were retrospectively identified from 18 centers in Spain. Patients received chemotherapy (n = 147), immunotherapy (n = 69), targeted therapy (n = 42), and immunotherapy + chemotherapy (n = 26)., Results: Incidence rate of TEE was 26.4 % (95%CI: 19.9 %-32.9 %). A total of 72 TEE were documented among 48 patients, as 18 patients (37.5 %) developed more than one event. Median time to TEE onset was 2 months, 69 % of TEE occurred in the peridiagnostic period (+/- 90 days from cancer diagnosis), and in 16 pts. (33 %) TEE was the form of lung cancer presentation. Although most TEE were only venous (82 %; PE, n = 33; DVT, n = 16), arterial events were reported in 31 % and occurred earlier, or TEE presented in atypical locations (13.9 %). TEE were related to high hospitalization rate (59 %), recurrence (23 %), and mortality (10.4 %) despite appropriate anticoagulant/antiaggregant treatment. Median OS in patients without-TEE was 19.4 months (95%CI: 4.6-34.1), and significantly shorter in patients with arterial-TEE vs venous-TEE vs both of them: 9.9 months (95%CI: 0-23.5) vs 41.7 months (95%CI: 11.3-72.2 m) vs 2.7 months (95%CI: 2.1-3.3), p = 0.001. Neither clinical or molecular features (BRAF V600E/non-V600E), nor cancer treatment was associated to TEE occurrence. Khorana score underperformed to predict thrombosis at cancer diagnosis, as only 19.2 % of patients were classified as high-risk., Conclusions: Thrombotic events represent a new clinical feature of BRAF-mutant lung cancer. Patients with almost a 30 % incidence of TEE should be offered systematic anticoagulation., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests:, (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: Approximately 20% of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) receive a diagnosis of stage III disease. There is no current consensus regarding the most appropriate treatment for these patients., Methods: In this open-label, phase 2 trial, we randomly assigned patients with resectable stage IIIA or IIIB NSCLC to receive neoadjuvant nivolumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy (experimental group) or chemotherapy alone (control group), followed by surgery. Patients in the experimental group who had R0 resections received adjuvant treatment with nivolumab for 6 months. The primary end point was a pathological complete response (0% viable tumor in resected lung and lymph nodes). Secondary end points included progression-free survival and overall survival at 24 months and safety., Results: A total of 86 patients underwent randomization; 57 were assigned to the experimental group and 29 were assigned to the control group. A pathological complete response occurred in 37% of the patients in the experimental group and in 7% in the control group (relative risk, 5.34; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.34 to 21.23; P = 0.02). Surgery was performed in 93% of the patients in the experimental group and in 69% in the control group (relative risk, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.74). Kaplan-Meier estimates of progression-free survival at 24 months were 67.2% in the experimental group and 40.9% in the control group (hazard ratio for disease progression, disease recurrence, or death, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.25 to 0.88). Kaplan-Meier estimates of overall survival at 24 months were 85.0% in the experimental group and 63.6% in the control group (hazard ratio for death, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.19 to 0.98). Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 11 patients in the experimental group (19%; some patients had events of both grades) and 3 patients in the control group (10%)., Conclusions: In patients with resectable stage IIIA or IIIB NSCLC, perioperative treatment with nivolumab plus chemotherapy resulted in a higher percentage of patients with a pathological complete response and longer survival than chemotherapy alone. (Funded by Bristol Myers Squibb and others; NADIM II ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03838159; EudraCT number, 2018-004515-45.)., (Copyright © 2023 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

In recent years, major advances have been achieved in our understanding of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with oncogenic driver alterations and in the specific treatment of these with tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Currently, state-of-the-art management of patients with NSCLC (particularly adenocarcinoma or non-adenocarcinoma but with mild tobacco exposure) consists of the determination of EGFR , ALK , ROS1  and BRAF status, as they have US FDA and EMA approved targeted therapies. The increase in molecular knowledge of NSCLC and the development of drugs against other targets has settled new therapeutic indications. In this review we have incorporated the development around MET, KRAS and NTRK in the diagnosis of NSCLC given the therapeutic potential that they represent, as well as the drugs approved for these indications.

Introduction: Durvalumab is the standard-of-care as consolidation therapy after chemo-radiotherapy in stage III unresectable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC); however, its activity across patients with NSCLC harbouring driver genomic alterations (dGA) is poorly characterised., Material and Methods: Multicentre retrospective study including patients with stage III unresectable NSCLC treated with durvalumab after chemo-radiotherapy between April 2015 and October 2020 at 26 centres in Europe and America. Clinical and biological data were collected; dGA included: EGFR/BRAF/KRAS mutations (m) and ALK/ROS1 rearrangements (r). We evaluated progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) based on dGA., Results: Out of 323 patients included, 43 patients had one dGA: KRASm (n = 26; 8 G12C), EGFRm (n = 8; 6 del19/ex21), BRAFm (n = 5; 4 V600E) and ALKr (n = 4). The median age was 66 years [39-84], gender ratio 1:1, with 98% performance status (PS) 0-1 and 19% non-smokers; 88% had adenocarcinoma. PD-L1 was positive in 85% (n = 4 missing). In the whole cohort, the median PFS was 17.5 months (mo.) (95% CI, 13.2-24.9) and median OS 47 mo (95%CI, 47-not reached [NR]). No statistically significant differences in terms of the median PFS were observed between patients with dGA vs. non-dGA: 14.9 mo (95% CI, 8.1-NR) vs. 18 mo. (95% CI, 13.4-28.3) (P = 1.0); however, when analysed separately: the median PFS was NR (11.3-NR) in the KRASm G12C vs. 8.1 mo (5.8-NR) in the EGFRm del19/ex21 vs. 7.8 mo (7.7-NR) in the BRAFm V600E/ALKr (P = 0.02)., Conclusions: We observed limited activity of durvalumab consolidation in patients with stage III unresectable NSCLC with EGFR/BRAFm and ALKr but not for those harbouring KRASm. Larger prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement MMj: advisory and consultancy honoraria from Roche, Merck, BristolMyers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Boehringer, Sanofi and Takeda; speaker honoraria from Roche, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Amgen, Pfizer and Boehringer; grants from AstraZeneca and BristolMyers Squib, and travel/accommodation expenses from Roche, Merck and Lilly. RLC: honoraria from Kyowa Kirin, Pierre-Fabre, Takeda, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Roche, Merck Serono, Pfizer; consulting or advisory role from Roche, Astra-Zeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Aristo, Novartis; research funding from Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca. JBB: grants and personal fees from Roche-Genentech, Pfizer, MSD, BMS, Astrazeneca, Novartis, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Vifor, Sanofi, LEO Pharma, outside the submitted work. SP: Consulting, advisory role or lectures from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Amgen. MT: travel grants from Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Takeda; honoraria as medical writer from Novartis, Amgen. GZ: research grants from Roche-France, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Takeda outside of the submitted work; perceived fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Boehringer Ingelheim outside the submitted work; and reimbursement for international meetings assistance from AbbVie, Merck Sharp & Dohme, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Roche-France. XM-R: Research grant funding from Brystol-Myers Squibb; consulting, advisory role or lectures from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim; honoraria (self) from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Roche, MSD; clinical trials research from Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Roche, Abbvie; travel, accommodations and expenses from Roche, Pfizer, Brysto-Myers Squibb. JB: educational grants by AMGEN. MSch: speaker and advisory role honoraria, travel accommodations from AMGEN, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Takeda; personal research support from AMGEN, Dracen Pharmaceuticals, Siemens Healthineers; institutional research support from Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche. EN: research support from Roche, Merck Serono, Bristol Myers Squibb and Pfizer and participated in advisory boards or lectures from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Serono, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Lilly, Roche, Pfizer, Takeda, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Amgen and AstraZeneca. DS: Consulting, advisory role, honoraria from AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Eli Lilly; travel grants from Roche. RGC: Consulting, advisory role or lectures from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Takeda, Janseen, MSD, Roche, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Amgen, Sanofi; honoraria (self) from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Roche, MSD, Takeda, Eli Lilly, Novartis; clinical trials research from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Medimmun, Sanofi-Aventis. JMe: Advisory Boards/Honoraria/Speakers’ fee/Consultant for Astra-Zeneca, Boeringher Ingelheim, BMS, Roche, MSD; travel grants from Astra-Zeneca, Boeringher Ingelheim, BMS, Ipsen, Roche, MSD. VB: Clinical trial research from AstraZeneca, Roche, MSD; advisory role/consulting/speaker from Pfizer, MSD, AstraZeneca, Roche, Bristol, Merck, Takeda. MC: Advisory or Consultancy role from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, EUSA Pharma, Lilly, Roche; honoraria, lectures from Abbot, Bristol-Myers Squibb, EUSA Pharma, Ipsen, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche; travel, expenses from Ipsen, Lilly, Merck, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre; institutional financial interests from Astra Zeneca, Merck, Roche, Pfizer. GR: consulting, advisory role or lectures from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dome, Pfizer, Roche, Takeda; sponsored Research Amgen and Janssen. BB: sponsored research at Gustave Roussy Cancer Centre Abbvie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Blueprint Medicines, BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, GSK, Ignyta, IPSEN, Merck KGaA, MSD, Nektar, Onxeo, Pfizer, Pharma Mar, Sanofi, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Takeda, Tiziana Pharma. DP: consulting, advisory role or lectures from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, prIME Oncology, Peer CME, Roche; honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, prIME Oncology, Peer CME, Roche; clinical trials research from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Medimmun, Sanofi-Aventis, Taiho Pharma, Novocure, Daiichi Sankyo; travel, accommodations, expenses from AstraZeneca, Roche, Novartis, prIME Oncology, Pfizer. LM: research grant/Funding (self) from Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Amgen, Stilla, Inivata; advisory/consultancy from Roche, Takeda; honoraria (self) from Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, Takeda, AstraZeneca; travel/Accommodation/Expenses from Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, Takeda, AstraZeneca; non-remunerated activity/ies from AstraZeneca. MR, EA, MMo, ND, EE, RL, JMo, FA, SP, AD, MSp, EM, RR, JCB, LL, BD, AdG, CAV and GL declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: There is a lack of useful diagnostic tools to identify EGFR mutated NSCLC patients with long-term survival. This study develops a prognostic model using real world data to assist clinicians to predict survival beyond 24 months., Methods: EGFR mutated stage IIIB and IV NSCLC patients diagnosed between January 2009 and December 2017 included in the Spanish Lung Cancer Group (SLCG) thoracic tumor registry. Long-term survival was defined as being alive 24 months after diagnosis. A multivariable prognostic model was carried out using binary logistic regression and internal validation through bootstrapping. A nomogram was developed to facilitate the interpretation and applicability of the model., Results: 505 of the 961 EGFR mutated patients identified in the registry were included, with a median survival of 27.73 months. Factors associated with overall survival longer than 24 months were: being a woman (OR 1.78); absence of the exon 20 insertion mutation (OR 2.77); functional status (ECOG 0-1) (OR 4.92); absence of central nervous system metastases (OR 2.22), absence of liver metastases (OR 1.90) or adrenal involvement (OR 2.35) and low number of metastatic sites (OR 1.22). The model had a good internal validation with a calibration slope equal to 0.781 and discrimination (optimism corrected C-index 0.680)., Conclusions: Survival greater than 24 months can be predicted from six pre-treatment clinicopathological variables. The model has a good discrimination ability. We hypothesized that this model could help the selection of the best treatment sequence in EGFR mutation NSCLC patients., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: Lung cancer is currently the leading cause of cancer death. Despite its high incidence and mortality, there are few studies describing its symptoms at diagnosis broken down by tumour stage and tobacco use. Accordingly, this study was proposed to describe the frequency of the most common symptoms of non-small cell lung cancer and small cell lung cancer (SCLC) at diagnosis, with a breakdown by stage and tobacco use., Patients and Methods: Cases were collected from the Spanish Thoracic Tumour Registry, a nationwide registry sponsored by the Spanish Lung Cancer Group. More than 50 hospitals recruited histologically confirmed lung cancer cases and information was gathered through personal interview plus data contained in the electronic clinical record. There were no data available on the lag between the appearance of the first symptoms and diagnosis of lung cancer., Results: A total of 9876 patients (74% male, median age 64 years) were recruited from 2016 to 2019. Of these, 12.5% presented with SCLC. Stage IV was the most frequent stage at diagnosis (46.6%), and the most frequent symptom was cough (33.9%), followed by dyspnoea (26.7%). No symptom was present in 59% of patients diagnosed in stage I; 40% of stage I patients presented with at least one symptom, while 27.7% of patients in stage IV had no symptoms at diagnosis. Cough was the most frequent symptom in SCLC (40.6%), followed by dyspnoea (34.3%). The number of symptoms was similar across the respective smoking categories in SCLC, and differences between the symptoms analysed did not exceed 7% in any case., Conclusion: The absence of the most frequent symptoms (ie, cough, pain, dyspnoea) should not lead to a decision to rule out the presence of lung cancer. A relevant percentage of stage IV patients displayed no symptoms at diagnosis., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author (s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. Published by BMJ on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology.)

Background: Biological differences between the sexes have a major impact on disease and treatment outcome. In this paper, we evaluate the prognostic value of sex in stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the context of routine clinical data, and compare this information with other external datasets., Methods: Clinical data from stage IV NSCLC patients from Hospital Puerta de Hierro (HPH) were retrieved from electronic health records using big data analytics (N = 397). In addition, data from the Spanish Lung Cancer Group (GECP) Tumor Registry (N = 1382) and from a published study available from the cBioPortal (MSK) (N = 601) were analyzed. Survival curves were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. A Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to assess the prognostic value of sex. A meta-analysis to compare the outcome for males and females in terms of overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) was performed., Results: The median OS time was 12 months for males and 19 months for females (overall HR = 0.77; 95% CI: 0.68-0.87; P < 0.001). Similarly, females with stage IV NSCLC harboring an EGFR-sensitizing mutation lived significantly longer than males (median OS: males, 19 months; females, 32 months) with a lower risk of death compared with males (overall HR = 0.75; 95% CI: 0.67-0.84). In addition, female patients benefited more from EGFR inhibitors in terms of PFS and OS (overall HR = 0.45; 95% CI: 0.32-0.64, and HR = 0.62; 95% CI: 0.48-0.80, respectively). Median PFS was 21 months in females and 12 months in males (P < 0.001)., Conclusions: Using routine clinical data we confirmed the previous finding that among stage IV NSCLC patients, females had a significantly better prognosis than males. The effect size of the sex was notable, highlighting the fact that survival rates are usually estimated and patients are generally managed without considering the sexes separately, which may lead to suboptimal results., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)