Search

Introduction: In the AEGEAN trial, neoadjuvant durvalumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy (D+CT) followed by adjuvant durvalumab, versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone, significantly improved pathological complete response (pCR) rate and event-free survival (EFS) in patients with resectable NSCLC. In the PACIFIC trial, consolidation durvalumab significantly improved progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for patients with unresectable stage III NSCLC after chemoradiotherapy. Strong pathological and clinical outcomes with chemoimmunotherapy have generated interest in its use to enable patients with borderline-resectable NSCLC to undergo surgery. Additionally, for patients initially deemed resectable but who later become unresectable/inoperable during neoadjuvant treatment, consolidation immunotherapy after chemoradiotherapy should be explored., Patients and Methods: MDT-BRIDGE (NCT05925530) is a multicenter, phase II, non-randomized study in ∼140 patients with EGFR/ALK wild-type, stage IIB-IIIB (N2) NSCLC. Following baseline multidisciplinary team (MDT) assessment to determine resectable/borderline-resectable status, all patients receive 2 cycles of neoadjuvant D+CT every 3 weeks, followed by MDT reassessment of resectability. Patients deemed resectable receive 1-2 additional cycles of D+CT followed by surgery (Cohort 1). Patients deemed unresectable receive standard-of-care chemoradiotherapy (Cohort 2). Cohort 1 patients who become ineligible for surgery can enter Cohort 2. Following surgery or chemoradiotherapy, patients receive adjuvant or consolidation durvalumab for 1 year. The primary endpoint is resection rate in all patients. Additional endpoints include resection rates by baseline resectable/borderline-resectable status, resection outcomes, EFS/PFS, OS, pCR rate, circulating tumor DNA dynamics pre- and post-surgery (including correlation with clinical outcomes), and safety., Conclusion: Enrollment began in February 2024; primary completion is anticipated in April 2026., Competing Interests: Disclosure Martin Reck reports honoraria for lectures and consultation fees from AstraZeneca, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, GSK, Lilly, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mirati, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Regeneron. Ernest Nadal reports research grants from Roche, Pfizer, Merck Serono, and Bristol Myers Squibb; consultation fees from Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck Serono, Sanofi, Pfizer, Lilly, Amgen, Janssen, Daiichi-Sankyo, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Qiagen, Pierre Fabre, Takeda, Sanofi, and Bayer, and paid expert testimony for Apollomics, Roche, and Merck Sharp & Dohme. Nicolas Girard reports research grants/support from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi-Sankyo, Gilead, Hoffmann-La Roche, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Lilly, Merk Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Sanofi, and Sivan; consultative services for AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi-Sankyo, Gilead, Ipsen, Hoffmann-La Roche, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mirati, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, and Takeda; and employment of a family member with AstraZeneca. Andrea R. Filippi reports consultation fees from AstraZeneca, Roche, and Radiomics; an institutional research grant from AstraZeneca, being a principal investigator for AstraZeneca and being a co-investigator in clinical trials sponsored by Roche and Merck Sharp & Dohme. Linda W. Martin reports honoraria for speakers bureau participation from Ethicon and Genentech, and consultation fees for steering committee participation from OnTarget Laboratories. Carl M. Gay reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, BeiGene, MJH Healthcare, OncLive, PeerView, and Targeted Healthcare, and consultation fees from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Catalyst Pharmaceuticals, Daiichi-Sankyo, G1 Therapeutics, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Kisoji Biotechnology, Monte Rosa Therapeutics, Roche/Genentech, and STCube. Cordula Petersen reports no potential conflicts of interest. Davina Gale reports full employment, stock ownership or options, and a patent pending with AstraZeneca. Ugochinyere Emeribe reports full employment and stock ownership or options with AstraZeneca. Nefeli Georgoulia reports full employment and stock ownership or options with AstraZeneca. Ignacio E. Diaz Perez reports full employment and stock ownership or options with AstraZeneca. Jonathan Spicer reports honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, AstraZeneca, Roche, Amgen, Pfizer, Daiichi, and Eisai, consultation fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, and AstraZeneca, and institutional grants from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, AstraZeneca, Roche, CLS Therapeutics, and Protalix Biotherapeutics., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Selective KRAS G12C inhibitors have been developed to covalently lock the oncogene in the inactive GDP-bound state. Two of these molecules, sotorasib and adagrasib, are approved for the treatment of adult patients with KRAS G12C -mutated previously treated advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Drug treatment imposes selective pressures leading to the outgrowth of drug-resistant variants. Mass sequencing from patients' biopsies identified a number of acquired KRAS mutations -both in cis and in trans- in resistant tumors. We demonstrate here that disease progression in vivo can also occur due to adaptive mechanisms and increased KRAS-GTP loading. Using the preclinical tool tri-complex KRAS G12C -selective covalent inhibitor, RMC-4998 (also known as RM-029), that targets the active GTP-bound (ON) state of the oncogene, we provide a proof-of-concept that the clinical stage KRAS G12C (ON) inhibitor RMC-6291 alone or in combination with KRAS G12C (OFF) drugs can be an alternative potential therapeutic strategy to circumvent resistance due to increased KRAS-GTP loading., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Patients with EGFR-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and MET amplification as a mechanism of resistance to first-line osimertinib have few treatment options. Here, we report the primary analysis of the phase 2 INSIGHT 2 study evaluating tepotinib, a highly selective MET inhibitor, combined with osimertinib in this population., Methods: This open-label, phase 2 study was conducted at 179 academic centres and community clinics in 17 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 and advanced or metastatic EGFR-mutated NSCLC of any histology, with MET amplification by tissue biopsy fluorescence in-situ hybridisation (FISH; MET gene copy number of ≥5 or MET-to-CEP7 ratio of ≥2) or liquid biopsy next-generation sequencing (MET plasma gene copy number of ≥2·3), following progression on first-line osimertinib. Patients received oral tepotinib 500 mg plus oral osimertinib 80 mg once daily. The primary endpoint was independently assessed objective response in patients with MET amplification by central FISH treated with tepotinib plus osimertinib with at least 9 months of follow-up. Safety was analysed in patients who received at least one study drug dose. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03940703 (enrolment complete)., Findings: Between Feb 13, 2020, and Nov 4, 2022, 128 patients (74 [58%] female, 54 [42%] male) were enrolled and initiated tepotinib plus osimertinib. The primary activity analysis population included 98 patients with MET amplification confirmed by central FISH, previous first-line osimertinib and at least 9 months of follow-up (median 12·7 months [IQR 9·9-20·3]). The confirmed objective response rate was 50·0% (95% CI 39·7-60·3; 49 of 98 patients). The most common treatment-related grade 3 or worse adverse events were peripheral oedema (six [5%] of 128 patients), decreased appetite (five [4%]), prolonged electrocardiogram QT interval (five [4%]), and pneumonitis (four [3%]). Serious treatment-related adverse events were reported in 16 (13%) patients. Deaths of four (3%) patients were assessed as potentially related to either trial drug by the investigator due to pneumonitis (two [2%] patients), decreased platelet count (one [1%]), respiratory failure (one [1%]), and dyspnoea (one [1%]); one death was attributed to both pneumonitis and dyspnoea., Interpretation: Tepotinib plus osimertinib showed promising activity and acceptable safety in patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC and MET amplification as a mechanism of resistance to first-line osimertinib, suggesting a potential chemotherapy-sparing oral targeted therapy option that should be further investigated., Funding: Merck (CrossRef Funder ID: 10.13039/100009945)., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests Y-LW reports receiving institute grants from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Pfizer; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, and Roche; and speaker fees from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Hengrui, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi. VG reports receiving personal fees for advisory board membership from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Exact Sciences, Gilead, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and Olema Oncology; speaker fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Exact Sciences, Gilead, GSK, and Novartis; fees for expert testimony for Eli Lilly; and travel support from Gilead, AstraZeneca, and PharmaMar. PJV reports receiving personal fees for advisory board membership from Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Ipsen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche. MWi reports receiving personal advisory board fees, consulting fees, speaker fees, and institute grants from AstraZeneca. CKL reports receiving research grants from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim; honoraria for lectures from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Zuellig Pharma; travel support from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche; and personal fees for advisory board membership from AstraZeneca, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche. JM reports receiving advisory board fees from Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Novartis, Merck, Daiichi Sankyo, and MSD, and research funding to his institution from Roche, AstraZeneca, and Pierre Fabre. LMT reports receiving advisory board fees from AstraZeneca, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche; personal honoraria fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche; and travel support from AstraZeneca, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche. HH reports receiving honoraria fees from AstraZeneca, Ono Pharmaceutical, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sysmex Corporation, 3H Medi Solution, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Pfizer, Novartis, Merck Biopharma Co, Tokyo, Japan, an affiliate of Merck, Amgen, Daiichi Sankyo/UCB Japan, Takeda, and MSD; research funding from IQVIA, Syneos Health Clinical, EPS Corporation, Nippon Kayaku, Takeda, MSD, Amgen, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, CMIC, Pfizer R&D, LabCorp, Kobayashi Pharmaceutical, Pfizer, Eisai, EP-CRSU, Shionogi & Co, Otsuka Pharmaceutical, GSK, Sanofi, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Boehringer Ingelheim, SRL Medisearch, PRA Health Sciences, Astellas Pharma, Ascent Development Services, and Bayer; and financial support for the present manuscript from Guardant Health. PLC reports receiving advisory board fees from AstraZeneca, Merck, and Pfizer, and honoraria fees from AstraZeneca. JR reports receiving personal honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, speaker fees (to their institution) from Merck, and advisory board fees (to their institution) from Merck. GF reports receiving personal fees for speaker engagements with AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, and MSD, and travel support from Roche. TK reports receiving honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Ono Pharmaceutical, Pfizer, Taiho, and Takeda; receiving research funding for their institution from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, BluePrint, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Haihe Biopharma, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Takeda, and TurningPoint; receiving advisory board fees from AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Daiichi Sankyo, Janssen, Merck, MSD, Novartis, and Pfizer; and their spouse as an employee of Eli Lilly. EN reports receiving research funding from Roche, Pfizer, EMD Serono Research & Development Institute, Billerica, MA, USA, an affiliate of Merck, and Bristol Myers Squibb; consulting fees from Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, EMD Serono Research & Development Institute, Billerica, MA, USA, an affiliate of Merck, Sanofi, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Amgen, Janssen, Daiichi Sankyo, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Takeda, Sanofi, Janssen, Pierre Fabre, Qiagen, and Bayer; personal honoraria for lectures from Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Sanofi, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Amgen, Janssen, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Takeda, Sanofi, Janssen, Qiagen, Mirati, and Bayer; travel support from Takeda, MSD, AstraZeneca, and Roche; and fees for participation in data safety meetings from Apollomics. HSH reports receiving research grants for their institution from AstraZeneca, Merck, Janssen, Novartis, and Boehringer Ingelheim; honoraria and fees for lectures and advisory board meetings from AstraZeneca, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Janssen; and travel support from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche. EFS reports receiving advisory or consultancy fees to their institution from Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, MSD, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Takeda, and Daiichi Sankyo; personal speaker fees from Boehringer Ingelheim; and advisory board fees from Merck and Daiichi Sankyo. MWe reports holding a consulting or advisory role for Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, ISA Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, Immatics, Bayer, and ImCheck therapeutics; honoraria fees from Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, SYNLAB, Janssen, EMD Serono Research & Development Institute, Billerica, MA, USA, an affiliate of Merck, GWT, Amgen, and Novartis; travel support from Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Amgen, GEMoaB, Sanofi/Aventis, Immatics, and EMD Serono Research & Development Institute, Billerica, MA, USA, an affiliate of Merck; and research funding to his institution from Roche. DT reports receiving consulting fees for their institution from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, DKSH, GSK, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, and Takeda; research funding from ACM Biolabs, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Pfizer; and speaker fees for their institution from Amgen, Bayer, Merck, Pfizer, Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, and Takeda. MM reports receiving research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly; personal honoraria fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Chugai Pharmaceutical, MSD, Ono Pharmaceutical, and Taiho Pharmaceutical; and other clinical trial support from Chugai Pharmaceutical, AstraZeneca, Ono Pharmaceutical, Pfizer, EMD Serono Research & Development Institute, Billerica, MA, USA, an affiliate of Merck, Kissei, Taiho, and Novartis. AO’B, SA, BMP, CS, DJ, RS, BE-L, and NK report being employees of Merck. KB reports being an employee of Merck at the time of the study and manuscript preparation. KG reports being an employee of EMD Serono Research & Development Institute, Billerica, MA, USA, an affiliate of Merck. XL reports receiving consulting fees from EMD Serono Research & Development Institute, Billerica, MA, USA, an affiliate of Merck, AstraZeneca, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Hengrui Therapeutics, Janssen Oncology, Daiichi Sankyo, Blueprint Medicines, Sensei Biotherapeutics, AbbVie, Arrivent, and Regeneron; travel support from Spectrum Pharmaceuticals and EMD Serono Research & Development Institute, Billerica, MA, USA, an affiliate of Merck, and research funding to their institution from Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, EMD Serono Research & Development Institute, Billerica, MA, USA, an affiliate of Merck, and Regeneron. TMK reports receiving grants for their institution from AstraZeneca; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Janssen, Regeneron, Samsung Bioepis, Takeda, and Yuhan; honoraria for lectures from AstraZeneca, IMBDx, Janssen, Takeda, and Yuhan; advisory board fees from AstraZeneca, Janssen, Regeneron, and Takeda; and clinical trial funding to their institution from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca/Medimmune, Bayer, Black Diamond Therapeutics, Blueprint Medicines, Boryung, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Dizal, EMD Serono Research & Development Institute, Billerica, MA, USA, an affiliate of Merck, Roche/Genentech, Hanmi, Genmab, Janssen, Novartis, RAPT Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Takeda, and Yuhan. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.)

The use of anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), such as lorlatinib, for the treatment of patients with ALK gene rearrangement (or ALK-positive) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has been shown to improve the overall survival and quality of life of these patients. However, lorlatinib is not exempt from potential adverse events. Adequate monitoring and management of these adverse events are critical for increasing patient adherence to lorlatinib, thereby maximizing the benefits of treatment and minimizing the risks associated with treatment discontinuation. Considering that the adverse events of lorlatinib can affect different organs and systems, the participation of a multidisciplinary team, including cardiologists, neurologists, internal medicine specialists, and oncology pharmacists, is needed. This article presents specific and pragmatic strategies for identifying and treating the most relevant adverse events associated with lorlatinib in patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC based on the clinical experience of a multidisciplinary panel of experts., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Immunotherapy-based treatments have demonstrated high efficacy in patients with advanced and locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). BRAF mutations affect a small but significant fraction of NSCLC. The efficacy of these therapies in this subgroup of patients is unknown., Materials and Methods: Plasma and tissue samples from 116 resectable stage IIIA/B NSCLC patients, included in NADIM and NADIM II clinical trials (NADIM cohort), and from a prospective academic cohort with 84 stage IV NSCLC patients (BLI-O cohort), were analyzed by next-generation sequencing., Results: The p.G464E, p.G466R, p.G466V, p.G469V, p.L597Q, p.T599I, p.V600E (n = 2) BRAF mutations, were identified in four (3.45 %) samples from the NADIM cohort, all of which were cases treated with neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy (CH-IO), and four (4.76 %) samples from the BLI-O cohort, corresponding to cases treated with first-line immunotherapy (n = 2) or CH-IO (n = 2). All these patients were alive and had no evidence of disease at data cut-off. Conversely, patients with BRAF wild-type (wt) tumors in the BLI-O cohort had a median progression-free survival (PFS) of 5.49 months and a median overall survival (OS) of 12.00 months (P-LogRank = 0.013 and 0.046, respectively). Likewise, PFS and OS probabilities at 36 months were 60.5 % and 76.1 % for patients with BRAF-wt tumors in the NADIM cohort. The pathological complete response (pCR) rate after neoadjuvant CH-IO in patients with BRAF-positive tumors (n = 4) was 100 %, whereas the pCR rate in the BRAF-wt population was 44.3 % (RR: 2.26; 95 % CI: 1.78-2.85; P < 0.001)., Conclusion: BRAF mutations may be a good prognostic factor for advanced and locally advanced NSCLC patients undergoing immunotherapy-based treatments., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: M. Provencio declares consulting fees, payment for lectures, presentations or speakers bureaus and support for attending meetings and/or travel from BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB, Astra Zeneca, MSD, Roche, Takeda. This author has also declared that he have a pending patent (n° EP 22 382 701.5). R. Serna-Blasco declares to be in possession of a pending patent (n° EP 22 382 701.5). E. Nadal declares Grants or contracts from Roche, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Merck Serono; consulting fees from Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp Dohme, Merck-Serono, Sanofi, Pfizer, Lilly, Janssen, AMGEN, Daiichi-Sankyo, Boehringer-Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Takeda, Sanofi, Pierre Fabre, Qiagen, and Bayer; payment for lectures, presentations or speakers bureaus from Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp Dohme, Merck-Serono, Sanofi, Pfizer, Lilly, Janssen, Amgen, Boehringer-Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Takeda, Sanofi, Pierre Fabre and Qiagen; support for attending meetings and/or travel from Roche, Takeda and Pfizer; and Participation on data safety Monitoring board or advisory board from Roche, Apollomics and MSD. M.P. Diz Taín declares Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations or speakers bureaus from BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB, Astra-Zeneca, Roche, MSD, Takeda, Pfizer and Amgen; support for attending meetings and/or travel from BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB, Roche, MSD and Takeda; Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board from BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB, Astra-Zeneca, and Boehringer Ingelheim; and other financial or non-financial interests from Astra-Zeneca, Roche, Mirati, and Pfizer. B. Massuti declares consulting fees and support for attending meetings and/or travel from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Takeda, Merck Sharpe and Dohme. J.L. González Larriba declares consulting fees from MSD, Janssen Cilag, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, and AMGEN; Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations or speakers bureaus from MSD, Astra Zeneca, Roche, Pfizer, Janssen-Cilag, Novartis, Astella Pharma, and Bristol-Myers Squibb; Support for attending meetings and/or travel from MSD, Takeda, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Pfizer, and Janssen-Cilag. A. Insa declares Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations or speakers bureaus from AMGEN, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, and Takeda; Support for attending meetings and/or travel from Roche, Pfizer, and MSD; Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board from Astra Zeneca, Sanofi, and Pfizer. A. Sánchez-Hernández declares Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations or speakers bureaus from Roche, Lilly, MSD, Sanofi, Astra Zeneca, Janssen, Takeda, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and Bristol-Myers Squibb; Support for attending meetings and/or travel from Roche, Sanofi, MSD Takeda, Janssen, Pfizer, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. R. García-Campelo declares Grants or contracts from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Astra Zeneca, and MSC; consulting fees from Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Sanofi, Takeda, Pfizer, Regeneron, AMGEN, and Astra Zeneca. J. Rogado declares Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations or speakers bureaus from Roche, Astra Zeneca, MSD, MERCK, Ferrer, Persan Farma, Fresenius Kabi, and Sanofi; Support for attending meetings and/or travel from Roche, MSD, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Astra Zeneca, and Lilly; Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board from Fresenius Kabi, MSD, Sanofi. A. Martínez-Martí declares consulting fees from AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Bristol-Myers Squibb, F. Hoffmann La Roche AG, MSD, and Pfizer; Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus from AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Bristol-Myers Squibb, F. Hoffmann La Roche AG, MSD, MSD, and Pfizer; Payment for expert testimony from AstraZeneca/MedImmune; Support for attending meetings and/or travel from AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Bristol-Myers Squibb, F. Hoffmann La Roche AG, MSD, Pfizer, and Lilly; Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board from AstraZeneca/MedImmune, MSD, F. Hoffmann La Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb. J. Bosch-Barrera declares consulting fees from Sanofi and Roche; Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations or speakers bureaus from Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Astra Zeneca, and Pfizer; Support for attending meetings and/or travel from Takeda and MSD. R. Bernabé-Caro declares an investigational grant Roche; Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus from Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, MSD, Amgen, Takeda, and Astra Zeneca; Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board from Takeda, Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Astra Zeneca. J. de Castro Carpeño declares consulting from fees Astra Zeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Hoffmann- La Roche, MSD, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Lilly, Sanofi, Takeda, Pfizer, and Glaxo; Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus from Astra Zeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Hoffmann- La Roche, MSD, Pfizer, Janssen, Takeda, and Sanofi; Support for attending meetings and/or travel from Astra Zaneca, MSD, and Hoffmann- La Roche; Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board from Astra Zeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Hoffmann- La Roche, MSD, Glaxo, Janssen, Gilead, and Sanofi. N. Reguart declares Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations or speakers bureaus from MSD, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, Guardant Health, Bayer, Merck, Pfizer, Takeda, Novartis, Astra-Zeneca, Janssen Oncology, Sanofi, Eli Lilly, and Amgen; Support for attending meetings and/or travel from Roche, Takeda, and MSD. M. Dómine declares consulting fees and Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations or speakers bureaus from Astra Zeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda; Support for attending meetings and/or travel from Astra Zeneca, MSD, Pfizer, and Takeda. M. Majem declares Grants or contracts from Roche and Astra Zeneca; Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations or speakers bureaus from Roche, Astra Zeneca, MSD, Pfizer, Helsinn, Cassen, AMGEN, Janssen, Sanofi, Pierre Fabre, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Takeda; Support for attending meetings and/or travel from Astra Zeneca, MSD, and Roche. A. Estival declares Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations or speakers bureaus from MSD, Pharmamar, Astra Zeneca, Takeda, Roche, and GSK; Support for attending meetings and/or travel from MSD, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Pharmamar; Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board from Roche and MSD. A. López Martín declares Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus from GSK, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Astra Zeneca; Support for attending meetings and/or travel from Pfizer and Takeda. M. A. Sala González declares Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations or speakers bureaus from Takeda and Roche; Support for attending meetings and/or travel from Roche and PharmaMar. M. Cobo declares consulting fees from Novartis, Roche, Astra Zeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer-Ingelheim, MSD, Lilly, Takeda, Pfizer, Kyowa, Sanofi, and Jansen. Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations or speakers bureaus from Novartis, Astra Zeneca Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Lilly, MSD, Takeda, Kyowa, Pierre-Fabre, Novocure, Sanofi, and Jansen. I. Barneto declares Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations or speakers bureaus from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Astra Zeneca, MSD, Takeda, AMGEN, and Novartis; Support for attending meetings and/or travel from MSD and Astra Zeneca; Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board from Sanofi. V. Calvo declares consulting fees from Roche, Astra Zeneca, MSD, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Takeda, Sanofi, and AMGEN; Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations or speakers bureaus from Roche, Astra Zeneca, MSD, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Takeda, Pfizer, and Janssen; Support for attending meetings and/or travel from Astra Zeneca, Roche, and Takeda. A. Collazo declares Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations or speakers bureaus from Astra Zeneca and Janssen; Support for attending meetings and/or travel from MSD and Takeda. A. Romero declares consulting fees from Takeda; Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations or speakers bureaus from Illumina, Health in code, and Thermofisher. Support for attending meetings and/or travel from Thermofisher Scientific. Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation, and Takeda; the author also declares a pending patent (n° EP 22 382 701.5). The rest of the authors declare no potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported .Although the CNS activity of selpercatinib in patients with RET fusion-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has been previously described, the ability of potent RET inhibition to prevent new CNS metastases from developing has been challenging to measure without randomized data. Serial CNS scans were studied from LIBRETTO-431, a randomized phase III trial of selpercatinib versus platinum/pemetrexed ± pembrolizumab whose primary results have been previously disclosed. Intracranial outcomes were assessed by neuroradiologic blinded independent central review in patients with baseline and ≥1 postbaseline CNS scans. Of the 192 patients within the intention-to-treat pembrolizumab population with baseline CNS scans, 150 patients were without baseline CNS metastases. The cumulative incidence of CNS progression in these patients was reduced with selpercatinib versus chemotherapy + pembrolizumab (cause-specific hazard ratio [HR], 0.17 [95% CI, 0.04 to 0.69]). The HR for intracranial progression-free survival (PFS) was 0.46 (95% CI, 0.18 to 1.18). Among the 42 patients with baseline CNS metastases, similar trends were observed in the cumulative incidence of CNS progression (cause-specific HR, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.19 to 1.92]) and intracranial PFS (HR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.28 to 1.97]). These data demonstrate that selpercatinib effectively treats existing CNS disease and prevents or delays the formation of new CNS metastases. These results reinforce the importance of identifying RET fusions in first-line patients with NSCLC and treating with selpercatinib.

Although comprehensive biomarker testing is recommended for all patients with advanced/metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) before initiation of first-line treatment, tissue availability can limit testing. Genomic testing in liquid biopsies can be utilized to overcome the inherent limitations of tissue sampling and identify the most appropriate biomarker-informed treatment option for patients. The Blood First Assay Screening Trial is a global, open-label, multicohort trial that evaluates the efficacy and safety of multiple therapies in patients with advanced/metastatic NSCLC and targetable alterations identified by liquid biopsy. We present data from Cohort D (ROS1-positive). Patients ≥18 years of age with stage IIIB/IV, ROS1-positive NSCLC detected by liquid biopsies received entrectinib 600 mg daily. At data cutoff (November 2021), 55 patients were enrolled and 54 had measurable disease. Cohort D met its primary endpoint: the confirmed objective response rate (ORR) by investigator was 81.5%, which was consistent with the ORR from the integrated analysis of entrectinib (investigator-assessed ORR, 73.4%; data cutoff May 2019, ≥12 months of follow-up). The safety profile of entrectinib was consistent with previous reports. These results demonstrate consistency with those from the integrated analysis of entrectinib in patients with ROS1-positive NSCLC identified by tissue-based testing, and support the clinical value of liquid biopsies to inform clinical decision-making. The integration of liquid biopsies into clinical practice provides patients with a less invasive diagnostic method than tissue-based testing and has faster turnaround times that may expedite the reaching of clinical decisions in the advanced/metastatic NSCLC setting. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT03178552 ., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

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).)

Background: Crizotinib was approved to treat patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) with ROS proto-oncogene 1 (ROS1) gene fusion in 2016. We conducted a systematic literature review to identify real-world evidence (RWE) studies and estimated the efficacy and safety of crizotinib using meta-analyses (MA) for objective response rate (ORR), real-world progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS)., Methods: We searched MEDLINE®, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL from January 2016 to March 2023 using Ovid® for published single-arm or comparative RWE studies evaluating patients (N ≥ 20) receiving crizotinib monotherapy for aNSCLC with ROS1 gene fusion. Pooled estimates for ORR and grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) were derived using the metafor package in R while pooled estimates for median real-world PFS (rwPFS) and OS were derived using reconstructed individual patient data from published Kaplan-Meier curves. The primary analysis included all studies regardless of crizotinib line of therapy; a subgroup analysis (SA) was conducted using studies evaluating patients receiving first-line crizotinib., Results: Fourteen studies met the eligibility criteria and were considered feasible for MA. For the primary analysis, the pooled ORR (N = 9 studies) was 70.6 % (95 % confidence interval [CI]: 57.0, 81.3), median rwPFS was 14.5 months (N = 11 studies), and OS was 40.2 months (N = 9 studies). In the SA, the pooled ORR (N = 4 studies) was 81.1 % (95 % CI: 76.1, 85.2) and the median rwPFS (N = 4 studies) and OS (N = 2 studies) were 18.1 and 60 months, respectively. All MAs were associated with significant heterogeneity (I 2  > 25 %). Grade 3/4 AEs occurred in 18.7 % of patients (pooled estimate)., Conclusion: The results from this study are consistent with clinical trial data and, taken collectively, supports crizotinib as a safe and effective treatment across different lines of therapy in patients with ROS1 aNSCLC in the real-world setting., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Dr. Ernest Nadal is a consultant for and receives research funding from Pfizer. Nada Rifi and Hannah Le are employees of Pfizer and own Pfizer stock. Imtiaz A. Samjoo, Sarah Kane, Sokhna Mbacke, Lindsey Starkman, and Beatrice Suero are employees of EVERSANA, Canada, a paid consultant to Pfizer in connection with the development of this manuscript. EN is a consultant for and receives research funding from Pfizer. NR and HL are employees of Pfizer and own Pfizer stock. IAS, SK, SM, LS, and BS are employees of EVERSANA, Canada, a paid consultant to Pfizer in connection with the development of this manuscript., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

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.)

Purpose: Spanish Lung Cancer Group (SLCG) conducted a review to analyze the barriers to access to innovative targeted therapies for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in clinical practice in Spain., Methods: Review all relevant content published on websites of European Commission, European Medicines Agency, and Spanish Agency of Medicines and Medical Products regarding the authorization and access to oncology treatments., Results: More than 20 targeted therapies are available to treat different molecular alterations in patients with NSCLC. European Commission has approved treatments for genomic alterations involving the following genes: ALK, RET, ROS1, EGFR, BRAF, NTRK, KRAS, MET. However, the availability of these therapies in Spain is not complete, as innovative treatments are not reimbursed or funded late, with only five of these alterations currently covered by National Health System., Conclusion: SLCG considers imperative to improve the access in Spain to innovative treatments for NSCLC to reduce inequity across European countries., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

What Is This Summary About?: This is a summary of the results of a study called PHAROS. This study looked at combination treatment with encorafenib (BRAFTOVI ® ) and binimetinib (MEKTOVI ® ). This combination of medicines was studied in people with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). NSCLC is the most common type of lung cancer. Metastatic means that the cancer has spread to other parts of the body. All people in this study had a type of NSCLC that has a change in a gene called BRAF termed a BRAF V600E mutation. A gene is a part of the DNA that has instructions for making things that your body needs to work, and the BRAF V600E mutation contributes to the growth of the lung cancer., What Were the Results?: In this study, 98 people with BRAF V600E-mutant metastatic NSCLC were treated with the combination of encorafenib and binimetinib (called encorafenib plus binimetinib in this summary). Before starting the study, 59 people had not received any treatment for their metastatic NSCLC, and 39 people had received previous anticancer treatment. At the time of this analysis, 44 (75%) out of 59 people who did not receive any treatment before taking encorafenib plus binimetinib had their tumors shrink or disappear. Eighteen (46%) out of 39 people who had received treatment before starting encorafenib plus binimetinib also had their tumors shrink or disappear. The most common side effects of encorafenib plus binimetinib were nausea, diarrhea, fatigue, and vomiting., What Do the Results Mean?: These results support the use of encorafenib plus binimetinib combination treatment as a new treatment option in people with BRAF V600E-mutant metastatic NSCLC. The side effects of encorafenib plus binimetinib in this study were similar to the side effects seen with encorafenib plus binimetinib in people with a type of skin cancer called metastatic melanoma.

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: Targeted next-generation sequencing (NGS) is recommended to screen actionable genomic alterations (GAs) in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We determined the feasibility to detect actionable GAs using TruSight™ Oncology 500 (TSO500) in 200 consecutive patients with NSCLC., Materials and Methods: DNA and RNA were sequenced on an Illumina® NextSeq 550 instrument and processed using the TSO500 Docker pipeline. Clinical actionability was defined within the molecular tumour board following European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) guidelines for oncogene-addicted NSCLC. Overall survival (OS) was estimated as per the presence of druggable GAs and treatment with targeted therapy., Results: Most patients were males (69.5%) and former or current smokers (86.5%). Median age was 64 years. The most common histological type and tumour stage were lung adenocarcinoma (81%) and stage IV (64%), respectively. Sequencing was feasible in most patients (93.5%) and actionable GAs were found in 26.5% of patients. A high concordance was observed between single-gene testing and TSO500 NGS panel. Patients harbouring druggable GAs and receiving targeted therapy achieved longer OS compared to patients without druggable GAs. Conversely, patients with druggable GAs not receiving targeted therapy had a trend toward shorter OS compared with driver-negative patients., Conclusions: Hybrid capture sequencing using TSO500 panel is feasible to analyse clinical samples from patients with NSCLC and is an efficient tool for screening actionable GAs., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Bintrafusp alfa, a first-in-class bifunctional fusion protein composed of the extracellular domain of TGF-βRII (a TGF-β "trap") fused to a human immunoglobulin G1 monoclonal antibody blocking programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), has exhibited clinical activity in a phase 1 expansion cohort of patients with PD-L1-high advanced NSCLC., Methods: This adaptive phase 3 trial (NCT03631706) compared the efficacy and safety of bintrafusp alfa versus pembrolizumab as first-line treatment in patients with PD-L1-high advanced NSCLC. Primary end points were progression-free survival according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 per independent review committee and overall survival., Results: Patients (N = 304) were randomized one-to-one to receive either bintrafusp alfa or pembrolizumab (n = 152 each). The median follow-up was 14.3 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 13.1-16.0 mo) for bintrafusp alfa and 14.5 months (95% CI: 13.1-15.9 mo) for pembrolizumab. Progression-free survival by independent review committee was not significantly different between bintrafusp alfa and pembrolizumab arms (median = 7.0 mo [95% CI: 4.2 mo-not reached (NR)] versus 11.1 mo [95% CI: 8.1 mo-NR]; hazard ratio = 1.232 [95% CI: 0.885-1.714]). The median overall survival was 21.1 months (95% CI: 21.1 mo-NR) for bintrafusp alfa and 22.1 months (95% CI: 20.4 mo-NR) for pembrolizumab (hazard ratio = 1.201 [95% CI: 0.796-1.811]). Treatment-related adverse events were higher with bintrafusp alfa versus pembrolizumab; grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 42.4% versus 13.2% of patients, respectively. The study was discontinued at an interim analysis as it was unlikely to meet the primary end point., Conclusions: First-line treatment with bintrafusp alfa did not exhibit superior efficacy compared with pembrolizumab in patients with PD-L1-high, advanced NSCLC., (Copyright © 2023 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Lung cancer (LC) is associated with ageing, with the average age of affected individuals being approximately 70 years. However, despite a higher incidence and prevalence among older people, the older adult population is underrepresented in clinical trials. For LC with Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) mutations, there is no clear association of this mutation with age. Geriatric assessments (GAs) and a multidisciplinary approach are essential for defining the optimal treatment. In this consensus, a group of experts selected from the Oncogeriatrics Section of the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (Sección de Oncogeriatría de la Sociedad Española de Oncología Médica-SEOM), the Spanish Lung Cancer Group (Grupo Español de Cáncer de Pulmón-GECP) and the Association for Research on Lung Cancer in Women (Asociación para la Investigación del Cáncer de Pulmón en Mujeres-ICAPEM) evaluate the scientific evidence currently available and propose a series of recommendations to optimize the management of older adult patients with advanced LC with EGFR mutations., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Purpose: The Atezo-Brain study evaluated atezolizumab combined with chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with untreated brain metastases, a population traditionally excluded from trials., Methods: This single-arm phase II clinical trial enrolled patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC with untreated brain metastases without neurologic symptoms or asymptomatic with medical treatment. Dexamethasone was allowed up to 4 mg once daily. Atezolizumab plus carboplatin and pemetrexed was given for four to six cycles followed by atezolizumab plus pemetrexed until progression for a maximum of 2 years. The primary end points were to determine the progression-free survival (PFS) rate at 12 weeks and the incidence of grade ≥3 adverse events during the first 9 weeks. Intracranial outcomes were assessed using response assessment in neuro-oncology brain metastases criteria., Results: Forty patients were enrolled and 22 (55%) were receiving corticosteroids at baseline. The overall 12-week PFS rate was 62.2% (95% credibility interval [CrI], 47.1 to 76.2). The rate of grade 3/4 adverse events during the first 9 weeks was 27.5%. Most neurologic events were grade 1 and 2 but five patients (12.5%) experienced grade 3-4 neurologic events. With a median follow-up of 31 months, intracranial median PFS was 6.9 months and response rate was 42.7% (95% CrI, 28.1 to 57.9). Systemic median PFS was 8.9 months and response rate was 45% (95% CrI, 28.1 to 57.9). The median overall survival (OS) was 11.8 months (95% CI, 7.6 to 16.9) and the 2-year OS rate was 27.5% (95% CI, 16.6 to 45.5)., Conclusion: Atezolizumab plus carboplatin and pemetrexed demonstrates activity in patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC with untreated brain metastases with an acceptable safety profile.

Objectives: Since specific data on immunotherapy in older adults with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) are scarce, we designed this study to determine the overall survival (OS) at one year of first-line pembrolizumab in patients older than 70 years with aNSCLC expressing PD-L1. Secondary objectives included progression-free survival, disease-specific survival, response rate, tolerability, quality of life (QoL) changes, and geriatric assessments., Materials and Methods: A single-arm, open-label, phase II clinical trial was carried out by the Spanish Lung Cancer Group between February 2018 and November 2019 at ten active sites in Spain. We included patients 70 years old and older with histological or cytological documented stage IIIB or IV aNSCLC and PD-L1 expression ≥ 1%. Each subject received 200 mg of intravenous pembrolizumab every three weeks for a maximum of two years., Results: 83 patients were recruited for the study and 74 were finally analysed. Most were male (N = 64, 86.5%) and former smokers (N = 51, 68.9%). 24 patients (32.4%) completed at least one year of treatment, 62 (83.7%) discontinued treatment, and 30 (40.5%) experienced disease progression. The median follow-up of our cohort was 18.0 months [range: 0.1-47.7] and 46 patients (62.2%) died during the period of study. The estimated OS at one year was 61.7% (95% CI: 49.6-71.8%) and the median OS of our cohort was 19.2 months (95% CI: 11.3-25.5). QoL tended to improve throughout the study, although the differences were not statistically significant. The main geriatric scores remained stable, except for a worsening in nutritional status (P = 0.004) and an improvement in frailty (P = 0.028)., Conclusion: Our results support treating older adults with aNSCLC expressing PD-L1 with pembrolizumab in monotherapy. The stability of most geriatric scores and the positive trend on the patients' QoL should be highlighted, although our results did not reach statistical significance., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Remei Blanco has been awarded grants from AstraZeneca, MSD, and Roche, and Sanofi, has received payment or honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer, Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), MSD, and Sanofi, has received financial support for attending meetings from Lilly, MSD, and Roche, and has served as a consultant in advisory boards organized by Amgen and Boehringer. Manuel Dómine has received consulting fees for advisory boards from AstraZeneca, BMS, MSD oncology, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda, has received payment or honoraria from AstraZeneca, BMS, MSD oncology, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda, and has received financial support for attending meetings from AstraZeneca, MSD oncology, and Takeda. José Luis González Larriba has received payment or honoraria from AstraZeneca, MSD, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi, has received payment as an expert testimony from AstraZeneca, MSD, and Sanofi, has received financial support for attending meetings from MSD, Pfizer, and Sanofi, and has served as consultant in advisory boards of AstraZeneca, MSD, Sanofi, and Takeda. Juana Saldaña has received payment or honoraria from Roche. Begoña Campos has received payment or honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Leo Pharma, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche, and Rovi, has received financial support for attending meetings from BMS, Leo Pharma, Lilly, Novartis, and Roche, and has received consulting fees for advisory boards of AstraZeneca, BMS, and Roche. Andrés Barba has received payment for speaker bureaus from AstraZeneca, BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi, has received financial support for attending meetings from AstraZeneca, BMS, MSD, Roche, and Novartis, and has served as consultant in advisory boards of BMS and Sanofi. Diego Márquez-Medina has received consulting fees, payment or honoraria, payment for expert testimony, and financial support for attending meetings from AstraZeneca, BMS, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda. Ernest Nadal has been awarded grants from BMS, Merck-Serono, Nanostring, and Roche, has received consulting fees and payment or honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Boehringer, Janssen, Lilly, Merck-Serono, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and Takeda, and has served as consultant in advisory boards organized by Apollomics and Roche. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest related to the present study., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

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.)

Background: In this phase Ib/II open-label study, tumor immune suppression was targeted in patients with advanced refractory solid tumors and patients with recurrent/refractory non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) using galunisertib with nivolumab., Methods: Eligible patients were ≥ 18 years old, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤ 1, and were treatment-naive for anti-programmed cell death-1, its ligand, or transforming growth factor β receptor 1 kinase inhibitors. Phase Ib was an open-label, dose-escalation assessment of the safety and tolerability of galunisertib with nivolumab in patients with advanced refractory solid tumors. Phase II evaluated the safety of galunisertib with nivolumab in NSCLC patients who had received prior platinum-based treatment but were immuno-oncology agent-naive., Results: This trial was conducted between October 2015 and August 2020. No dose-limiting toxicities were observed in phase I. In the phase II NSCLC cohort (n = 25), patients received 150 mg twice daily galunisertib (14 days on/14 days off dosing schedule for all phases) plus nivolumab at 3 mg/kg (intravenously every 2 weeks). In this phase, the most frequent treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were pruritus (n = 9, 36%), fatigue (n = 8, 32%), and decreased appetite (n = 7, 28%). No grade 4 or 5 treatment-related AEs were observed. Six (24%) patients had confirmed partial response (PR) and 4 (16%) had stable disease; 1 additional patient had confirmed PR after initial pseudo-progression. The median duration of response was 7.43 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.75, NR). Among the 7 responders, including the delayed responder, 1 had high PD-L1 expression (≥ 50%). The median progression-free survival was 5.26 months (95% CI: 1.77, 9.20) and the median overall survival was 11.99 months (95% CI: 8.15, NR). Interferon gamma response genes were induced post-treatment and cell adhesion genes were repressed, although the association of these observations with tumor response and clinical outcomes was not statistically powered due to limited samples available., Conclusions: The study met its primary endpoint as galunisertib combined with nivolumab was well tolerated. Preliminary efficacy was observed in a subset of patients in the Phase 2 NSCLC cohort., Trial Registration: Trial registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02423343; 22.04.2015)., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Purpose: The combination of encorafenib (BRAF inhibitor) plus binimetinib (MEK inhibitor) has demonstrated clinical efficacy with an acceptable safety profile in patients with BRAF V600E/K -mutant metastatic melanoma. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of encorafenib plus binimetinib in patients with BRAF V600E -mutant metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC)., Methods: In this ongoing, open-label, single-arm, phase II study, patients with BRAF V600E -mutant metastatic NSCLC received oral encorafenib 450 mg once daily plus binimetinib 45 mg twice daily in 28-day cycles. The primary end point was confirmed objective response rate (ORR) by independent radiology review (IRR). Secondary end points included duration of response (DOR), disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival, time to response, and safety., Results: At data cutoff, 98 patients (59 treatment-naïve and 39 previously treated) with BRAF V600E -mutant metastatic NSCLC received encorafenib plus binimetinib. Median duration of treatment was 9.2 months with encorafenib and 8.4 months with binimetinib. ORR by IRR was 75% (95% CI, 62 to 85) in treatment-naïve and 46% (95% CI, 30 to 63) in previously treated patients; median DOR was not estimable (NE; 95% CI, 23.1 to NE) and 16.7 months (95% CI, 7.4 to NE), respectively. DCR after 24 weeks was 64% in treatment-naïve and 41% in previously treated patients. Median PFS was NE (95% CI, 15.7 to NE) in treatment-naïve and 9.3 months (95% CI, 6.2 to NE) in previously treated patients. The most frequent treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were nausea (50%), diarrhea (43%), and fatigue (32%). TRAEs led to dose reductions in 24 (24%) and permanent discontinuation of encorafenib plus binimetinib in 15 (15%) patients. One grade 5 TRAE of intracranial hemorrhage was reported. Interactive visualization of the data presented in this article is available at the PHAROS dashboard (https://clinical-trials.dimensions.ai/pharos/)., Conclusion: For patients with treatment-naïve and previously treated BRAF V600E -mutant metastatic NSCLC, encorafenib plus binimetinib showed a meaningful clinical benefit with a safety profile consistent with that observed in the approved indication in melanoma.

Introduction: Chemotherapy plus immunotherapy is the standard of care for patients with metastatic NSCLC. No study has evaluated the outcomes of second-line chemotherapy treatments after progression following first-line chemo-immunotherapy., Method: This multicenter retrospective study evaluated the efficacy of second line (2L) chemotherapies after progression under first-line (1L) chemo-immunotherapy, measured by overall survival (2L-OS) and progression free survival (2L-PFS)., Results: A total of 124 patients were included. The mean age was 63.1 years, 30.6 % of the patients were female, 72.6 % had an adenocarcinoma and 43.5 % had a poor ECOG-performance status prior to 2L initiation. Sixty-four (52.0 %) patients were considered resistant to first line chemo-immunotherapy. (1L-PFS < 6 months). In 2L treatments, 57 (46.0 %) patients received taxane monotherapy, 25 (20.1 %) taxane plus anti-angiogenic, 12 (9.7 %) platinum-based chemotherapy and 30 (24.2 %) other chemotherapy. At a median follow-up of 8.3 months (95 %CI: 7.2-10.2), post initiation of 2L treatment, the median 2L-OS was 8.1 months (95 % CI: 6.4-12.7) and the median 2L-PFS was 2.9 months (95 %CI: 2.4-3.3). Overall, the 2L-objective response and 2L-disease control rates were 16.0 %, and 42.5 %, respectively. Taxane plus anti-angiogenic and platinum rechallenge achieved longest median 2L-OS: not reached (95 %CI: 5.8-NR) and 17.6 months (95 %CI 11.6-NR), respectively (p = 0.05). Patients resistant to the 1L treatment had inferior outcomes (2L-OS 5.1 months, 2L-PFS 2.3 months) compared with 1L responders (2L-OS 12.7 months, 2L-PFS 3.2 months)., Conclusion: In this real-life cohort, 2L chemotherapy achieved modest activity following progression under chemo-immunotherapy. 1L-resistant patients remained a refractory population, highlighting a need for new 2L strategies., 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 © 2023. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Interleukin-8 (IL-8/CXCL8) is a pro-angiogenic and pro-inflammatory chemokine that plays a role in cancer development. Non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) produces high amounts of IL-8, which is associated with poor prognosis and resistance to chemo-radio and immunotherapy. However, the signaling pathways that lead to IL-8 production in NSCLC are unresolved. Here, we show that expression and release of IL-8 are regulated autonomously by TRAIL death receptors in several squamous and adenocarcinoma NSCLC cell lines. NSCLC constitutively secrete IL-8, which could be further enhanced by glucose withdrawal or by treatment with TRAIL or TNFα. In A549 cells, constitutive and inducible IL-8 production was dependent on NF-κB and MEK/ERK MAP Kinases. DR4 and DR5, known regulators of these signaling pathways, participated in constitutive and glucose deprivation-induced IL-8 secretion. These receptors were mainly located intracellularly. While DR4 signaled through the NF-κB pathway, DR4 and DR5 both regulated the ERK-MAPK and Akt pathways. FADD, caspase-8, RIPK1, and TRADD also regulated IL-8. Analysis of mRNA expression data from patients indicated that IL-8 transcripts correlated with TRAIL, DR4, and DR5 expression levels. Furthermore, TRAIL receptor expression levels also correlated with markers of angiogenesis and neutrophil infiltration in lung squamous carcinoma and adenocarcinoma. Collectively, these data suggest that TRAIL receptor signaling contributes to a pro-tumorigenic inflammatory signature associated with NSCLC., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Purpose: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus nivolumab has been shown to be effective in resectable non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the NADIM trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03081689). The 3-year overall survival (OS) and circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis have not been reported., Methods: This was an open-label, multicenter, single-arm, phase II trial in which patients with stage IIIA NSCLC, who were deemed to be surgically resectable, were treated with neoadjuvant paclitaxel (200 mg/m 2 once a day) and carboplatin (area under curve 6) plus nivolumab (360 mg) once on day 1 of each 21-day cycle, for three cycles, followed by adjuvant nivolumab monotherapy for 1 year (240 mg once every 2 weeks for 4 months, followed by 480 mg once every 4 weeks for 8 months). The 3-year OS and ctDNA analysis were secondary objectives of the trial., Results: OS at 36 months was 81.9% (95% CI, 66.8 to 90.6) in the intention-to-treat population, rising to 91.0% (95% CI, 74.2 to 97.0) in the per-protocol population. Neither tumor mutation burden nor programmed cell death ligand-1 staining was predictive of survival. Conversely, low pretreatment levels of ctDNA were significantly associated with improved progression-free survival and OS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.20; 95% CI, 0.06 to 0.63, and HR, 0.07; 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.39, respectively). Clinical responses according to RECIST v1.1 criteria did not predict survival outcomes. However, undetectable ctDNA levels after neoadjuvant treatment were significantly associated with progression-free survival and OS (HR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.07 to 0.93, and HR, 0.04; 95% CI, 0.00 to 0.55, respectively). The C-index to predict OS for ctDNA levels after neoadjuvant treatment (0.82) was superior to that of RECIST criteria (0.72)., Conclusion: The efficacy of neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus nivolumab in resectable NSCLC is supported by 3-year OS. ctDNA levels were significantly associated with OS and outperformed radiologic assessments in the prediction of survival.

Background: Neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has improved pathological responses and survival rates compared with chemotherapy alone, leading to Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of nivolumab plus chemotherapy for resectable stage IB-IIIA NSCLC (AJCC 7th edition) without ALK or EGFR alterations. Unfortunately, a considerable percentage of tumors do not completely respond to therapy, which has been associated with early disease progression. So far, it is impossible to predict these events due to lack of knowledge. In this study, we characterized the gene expression profile of tumor samples to identify new biomarkers and mechanisms behind tumor responses to neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy and disease recurrence after surgery., Methods: Tumor bulk RNA sequencing was performed in 16 pretreatment and 36 post-treatment tissue samples from 41 patients with resectable stage IIIA NSCLC treated with neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy from NADIM trial. A panel targeting 395 genes related to immunological processes was used. Tumors were classified as complete pathological response (CPR) and non-CPR, based on the total absence of viable tumor cells in tumor bed and lymph nodes tested at surgery. Differential-expressed genes between groups and pathway enrichment analysis were assessed using DESeq2 and gene set enrichment analysis. CIBERSORTx was used to estimate the proportions of immune cell subtypes., Results: CPR tumors had a stronger pre-established immune infiltrate at baseline than non-CPR, characterized by higher levels of IFNG, GZMB, NKG7 , and M1 macrophages, all with a significant area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) >0.9 for CPR prediction. A greater effect of neoadjuvant therapy was also seen in CPR tumors with a reduction of tumor markers and IFNγ signaling after treatment. Additionally, the higher expression of several genes, including AKT1, BST2, OAS3, or CD8B ; or higher dendritic cells and neutrophils proportions in post-treatment non-CPR samples, were associated with relapse after surgery. Also, high pretreatment PD-L1 and tumor mutational burden levels influenced the post-treatment immune landscape with the downregulation of proliferation markers and type I interferon signaling molecules in surgery samples., Conclusions: Our results reinforce the differences between CPR and non-CPR responses, describing possible response and relapse immune mechanisms, opening the possibility of therapy personalization of immunotherapy-based regimens in the neoadjuvant setting of NSCLC., Competing Interests: Competing interests: MP reports non-financial support (reagents for TCR sequencing) from ThermoFisher; grants, personal fees and non-financial support from BMS; grants, personal fees and non-financial support from ROCHE; grants, personal fees and non-financial support from ASTRAZENECA; personal fees from MSD; personal fees from TAKEDA; outside the submitted work. EN grants or contracts: Roche, Pfizer, Merck-Serono, BMS, and Nanostring. Consulting fees: Roche, BMS, MSD, Merck-Serono, Pfizer, Lilly, Amgen, Boehringer, AstraZeneca, Takeda, Bayer, and Sanofi. Payment honoraria: Roche, BMs, MSD, Merck-Serono, Pfizer, Lilly, Amgen, Boehringer, Astrazeneca, Takeda, Bayer, and Sanofi. Support For attending meetings and travel: MSD, Roche, and BMS. AI consulting fees: Pfizer, Amgen, and AstraZeneca. Payment for expert testimony: Bristol, Pfizer, Takeda, Roche, and AstraZeneca. Support for attending meetings or travels: Roche and Bristol. MRG-C reports personal fees from BMS, personal fees from MSD, personal fees from Roche, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from AstraZeneca, outside the submitted work; ML-Q: payment for honoraria: BMS, MSD, Ipsen, Astella, AstraZeneca, and Pfizer. Support for attendings meetings/travels: MSD, Takeda, Janssen, Pfizer, and BMS. MD reports personal fees from Astra-Zeneca, personal fees from BMS, personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, personal fees from MSD, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Roche, outside the submitted work; MM reports grants and personal fees from BMS, personal fees and non-financial support from MSD, personal fees and non-financial support from Boehringer Ingelheim; personal fees, non-financial support, and other from AstraZeneca; personal fees, non-financial support, and other from Roche; personal fees from Kyowa Kyrin; personal fees from Pierre Fabre, outside the submitted work; DR-A: consulting fees: Roche, AstraZeneca, BMS, MSD, Lilly, Pfizer, and Novartis. Payment for honoraria: Roche, Astrazeneca, BMS, MSD, Lilly, Pfizer, and Novartis. Support for attending meetings/travels: Roche, MSD, and Novartis; AM-M: advisory board: AstraZeneca, BMS, Roche, MSD, and Pfizer. Speaker's bureau: AstraZeneca, BMS, Roche, MSD, and Pfizer. Support for attending meetings or travel: AstraZeneca, BMS, Roche, MSD, Pfizer, and Lilly. Payment for expert testimony: AstraZeneca. Steering committee member: AstraZeneca. JDCC reports personal fees from Astra Zeneca, personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, personal fees from Merck Sharp and Dohme, personal fees from Hoffmann-la Roche, personal fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, personal fees from Takeda, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Novartis, outside the submitted work; IBA reports consulting or advisory board for Bristol Myers, Takeda, Roche, AstraZeneca, and Behringer Inngelheim; BM reports grants and personal fees from Roche, personal fees and other from BMS, personal fees from Takeda, other from MSD, personal fees from Boehringer, other from Takeda, outside the submitted work; AR: consulting fees: AstraZeneca. Payment or honoraria: Vivo diagnóstico. Advisory board: Takeda. VC: payment or honoraria: Roche, BMS, MSD, AstraZeneca, and Boehringer., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: The ETOP 10-16 BOOSTER trial failed to demonstrate a progression-free survival (PFS) benefit for adding bevacizumab to osimertinib in second line. An exploratory subgroup analysis, however, suggested a PFS benefit of the combination in patients with a smoking history and prompted us to do this study., Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the differential effect of smoking status on the benefit of adding an angiogenesis inhibitor to epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy was carried out. All relevant randomized controlled trials appearing in main oncology congresses or in PubMed as of 1 November 2021 were used according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses statement. Primarily PFS according to smoking status, and secondarily overall survival (OS) were of interest. Pooled and interaction hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated by fixed or random effects models, depending on the detected degree of heterogeneity. Bias was assessed using the revised Cochrane tool for randomized controlled trials (RoB 2)., Results: Information by smoking was available for 1291 patients for PFS (seven studies) and 678 patients for OS (four studies). The risk of bias was low for all studies. Combination treatment significantly prolonged PFS for smokers [n = 502, HR = 0.55, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.44-0.69] but not for nonsmokers (n = 789, HR = 0.92, 95% CI: 0.66-1.27; treatment-by-smoking interaction P = 0.02). Similarly, a significant OS benefit was found for smokers (n = 271, HR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.47-0.93) but not for nonsmokers (n = 407, HR = 1.07, 95% CI: 0.82-1.42; treatment-by-smoking interaction P = 0.03)., Conclusion: In advanced EGFR-non-small-cell lung cancer patients, the addition of an angiogenesis inhibitor to EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy provides a statistically significant PFS and OS benefit in smokers, but not in non-smokers. The biological basis for this observation should be pursued and could determine whether this might be due to a specific co-mutational pattern produced by tobacco exposure., Competing Interests: Disclosure UD reports honorarium as Member of the Tumor Agnostic Evidence Generation working Group of Roche, outside the submitted work. RASo reports advisory role for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Boehringer Ingelheim, Lily, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Taiho, Takeda, and Yuhan and grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, outside the submitted work. SP reports grants from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Clovis, F. Hoffman-La Roche, Illumina, Novartis, Pfizer, Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), personal fees from Amgen, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biocartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, Debiopharm, Eli Lilly, F. Hoffman-La Roche, Foundations Medicine, Illumina, Janssen, Novartis, PharmaMar, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda, MSD, Merck Serono, Merrimack, Medscape, Phosphoplatin Therapeutics, Beigene, Imedex, outside the submitted work. JDC reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, BMS, MSD, and Hoffmann-La Roche, personal fees from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), Jansen-Cilag, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and Takeda, outside the submitted work. LC reports advisory role for AstraZeneca, Roche, and Daichi, outside the submitted work. MF reports grants from AstraZeneca and BMS and other support AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda, outside the submitted work. EN reports grants, personal fees, and non-financial support from Roche, personal fees and non-financial support from AstraZeneca, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from BMS, personal fees and non-financial support from MSD, grants and personal fees from Merck Serono, personal fees from Takeda, grants, personal fees, and non-financial support from Pfizer, personal fees from Lilly, personal fees from Bayer, personal fees from Amgen, personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, outside the submitted work. EC reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Amgen, BMS, MSD, and Roche, outside the submitted work. MAS reports advisory role for Roche and Boehringer Ingelheim, speaker role for Pierre Fabre, and travel grants from Roche and PharmaMar, outside the submitted work. RB reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Roche, AstraZeneca, BMS, Amgen, and MSD, participation on Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for AstraZeneca, BMS, and Roche, outside the submitted work. MP reports grants, personal fees, and non-financial support from AstraZeneca, BMS, and Roche, personal fees from MSD and Takeda, outside the submitted work. SC reports non-financial support from Pfizer, Roche, MSD, BMS, outside the submitted work. RASt reports consultant or advisory role for AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Seattle Genetics, Takeda, speaker honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Blueprint, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Data Monitoring Committee (DMC) role from Genentech/Roche and Takeda, and financial support for ETOP and IBCSG trials (where he is president), from AstraZeneca, BMS, Daiichi Sankyo, Celgene, Ipsen, Janssen, Mirati, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

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: Detection of the ROS1 rearrangement is mandatory in patients with advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) to allow targeted therapy with specific inhibitors. However, in Spanish clinical practice ROS1 determination is not yet fully widespread. The aim of this study is to determine the clinical and economic impact of sequentially testing ROS1 in addition to EGFR and ALK in Spain., Methods: A joint model (decision-tree and Markov model) was developed to determine the cost-effectiveness of testing ROS1 strategy versus a no-ROS1 testing strategy in Spain. Distribution of ROS1 techniques, rates of testing, positivity, and invalidity of biomarkers included in the analysis (EGFR, ALK, ROS1 and PD-L1) were based on expert opinion and Lungpath real-world database. Treatment allocation depending on the molecular testing results was defined by expert opinion. For each treatment, a 3-states Markov model was developed, where progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) curves were parameterized using exponential extrapolations to model transition of patients among health states. Only medical direct costs were included (€ 2021). A lifetime horizon was considered and a discount rate of 3% was applied for both costs and effects. Both deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to address uncertainty., Results: A target population of 8755 patients with advanced NSCLC (non-squamous or never smokers squamous) entered the model. Over a lifetime horizon, the ROS1 testing scenario produced additional 157.5 life years and 121.3 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) compared with no-ROS1 testing scenario. Total direct costs were increased up to € 2,244,737 for ROS1 testing scenario. The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was 18,514 €/QALY. Robustness of the base-case results were confirmed by the sensitivity analysis., Conclusions: Our study shows that ROS1 testing in addition to EGFR and ALK is a cost-effective strategy compared to no-ROS1 testing, and it generates more than 120 QALYs in Spain over a lifetime horizon. Despite the low prevalence of ROS1 rearrangements in NSCLC patients, the clinical and economic consequences of ROS1 testing should encourage centers to test all advanced or metastatic NSCLC (non-squamous and never-smoker squamous) patients., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

MET amplification (MET amp), a mechanism of acquired resistance to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors, occurs in up to 30% of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) progressing on first-line osimertinib. Combining osimertinib with a MET inhibitor, such as tepotinib, an oral, highly selective, potent MET tyrosine kinase inhibitor, may overcome MET amp-driven resistance. INSIGHT 2 (NCT03940703), an international, open-label, multicenter phase II trial, assesses tepotinib plus osimertinib in patients with advanced/metastatic EGFR -mutant NSCLC and acquired resistance to first-line osimertinib and MET amp, determined centrally by fluorescence in situ hybridization (gene copy number ≥5 and/or MET/CEP7 ≥2) at time of progression. Patients will receive tepotinib 500 mg (450 mg active moiety) plus osimertinib 80 mg once-a-day. The primary end point is objective response, and secondary end points include duration of response, progression-free survival, overall survival and safety. Trial registration number: NCT03940703 (clinicaltrials.gov).

Background: While osimertinib, a third-generation epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) is the standard treatment in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with sensitising EGFR and acquired T790M mutations, progression inevitably occurs. The angiogenic pathway is implicated in EGFR TKI resistance., Patients and Methods: BOOSTER is an open-label randomised phase II trial investigating the efficacy and safety of combined osimertinib 80 mg daily and bevacizumab 15 mg/kg every 3 weeks, versus osimertinib alone, in patients with EGFR-mutant advanced NSCLC and acquired T790M mutations after failure on previous EGFR TKI therapy. Primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR) and adverse events (AEs)., Results: Between May 2017 and February 2019, 155 patients were randomised (combination: 78; osimertinib: 77). At data cut-off of 22 February 2021, median follow-up was 33.8 months [interquartile range (IQR): 26.5-37.6 months] and 129 (83.2%) PFS events were reported in the intention-to-treat population. There was no difference in median PFS between the combination [15.4 months; 95% confidence interval (CI) 9.2-18.0 months] and osimertinib arm (12.3 months; 95% CI 6.2-17.2 months; stratified log-rank P = 0.83), [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.96; 95% CI 0.68-1.37]. Median OS was 24.0 months (95% CI 17.8-32.1 months) in the combination arm and 24.3 months (95% CI 16.9-37.0 months) in the osimertinib arm (stratified log-rank P = 0.91), (HR = 1.03; 95% CI 0.67-1.56). Exploratory analysis revealed a significant interaction of smoking history with treatment for PFS (adjusted P = 0.0052) with a HR of 0.52 (95% CI 0.30-0.90) for smokers, and 1.47 (95% CI 0.92-2.33) for never smokers. ORR was 55% in both arms and the median time to treatment failure was significantly shorter in the combination than in the osimertinib arm, 8.2 months versus 10.8 months, respectively (P = 0.0074). Safety of osimertinib and bevacizumab was consistent with previous reports with grade ≥3 treatment-related AEs (TRAEs) reported in 47% and 18% of patients on combination and osimertinib alone, respectively., Conclusions: No difference in PFS was observed between osimertinib plus bevacizumab and osimertinib alone. Grade ≥3 TRAEs were more common in patients on combination., Competing Interests: Disclosure RAS reports advisory role for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lily, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Taiho, Takeda and Yuhan and grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, outside the submitted work. UD reports honorarium as Member of the Tumor Agnostic Evidence Generation working Group of Roche, outside the submitted work. BCC reports grants from Novartis, Bayer, AstraZeneca, MOGAM Institute, Dong-A ST, Champions Oncology, Janssen, Yuhan, Ono, Dizal Pharma, MSD, Abbvie, Medpacto, GI Innovation, Eli Lilly, Blueprint medicines, Interpark Bio Convergence Corp, personal fees from Novartis, AstraZeneca, Champions Oncology, Janssen, Yuhan, Ono, MSD, Medpacto, Eli Lilly, Blueprint medicines, Interpark Bio Convergence Corp, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, BMS, Pfizer, Takeda, KANAPH Therapeutic Inc., Bridgebio therapeutics, Cyrus therapeutics, Guardant Health, Joseah BIO, Gencurix Inc., and other from Interpark Bio Convergence Corp, KANAPH Therapeutic Inc., Bridgebio therapeutics, Cyrus therapeutics, Gencurix Inc, DAAN, TheraCanVac Inc., outside the submitted work. EN reports grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Roche, personal fees and non-financial support from AstraZeneca, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Bristol-Myers-Squibb, personal fees and non-financial support from Merck Sharp Dohme, grants and personal fees from Merck Serono, personal fees from Takeda, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Pfizer, personal fees from Lilly, personal fees from Bayer, personal fees from Amgen, personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, outside the submitted work. EC reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Amgen, BMS, MSD and Roche, outside the submitted work. JdC reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dohme and Hoffmann-La Roche, personal fees from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Glaxosmithkline, Jansen-Cilag, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer and Takeda, outside the submitted work. MAS reports advisory role for Roche and Boehringer Ingelheim, speaker role for Pierre Fabre and travel grants from Roche and PharmaMar, outside the submitted work. RB reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Roche, AstraZeneca, BMS, AMGEN and MSD, participation on Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for AstraZeneca, BMS and Roche. LC reports advisory role for AstraZeneca, Roche and Daichi, outside the submitted work. MPP reports grants, personal fees and non-financial support from AstraZeneca, BMS and ROCHE, personal fees from MSD and TAKEDA, outside the submitted work. RGC reports Advisory Board, Consultancy or Speaker honoraria from MSD, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Takeda, Janssen and Sanofi. SC reports non-financial support from Pfizer, Roche, MSD and BMS, outside the submitted work. MF reports grants from Astra Zeneca and BMS and other support from AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, Roche and Takeda, outside the submitted work. JGS reports grants for consulting or advisory role from Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, EUSA Pharma, research funding from Roche and travel, and accommodation expenses from Roche, BMS, Merck Sharp & Dohme and Pfizer, outside the submitted work. MD reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, MSD, Pfizer, Roche and Takeda, outside the submitted work. MM reports grants and personal fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pierre Fabre, personal fees and non-financial support from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, F. Hoffman – La Roche, Merck Sharp and Dohme, and personal fees from Kyowa Kirin, outside the submitted work. JMST reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Roche, Takeda and MSD, outside the submitted work. CB reports consulting or advisory role for AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Roche, Takeda, Janssen-Cilag and Boehringer Ingelheim, as well as travel support from AstraZeneca and Takeda, outside the submitted work. MP reports grants from AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, Takeda, Vifor, and personal fees from Abbvie, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eisei, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Takeda, Merck and Janssen, outside the submitted work. RAS reports consultant or advisory role for AstraZeneca, BMS, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Seattle Genetics and Takeda, speaker honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Blueprint, Eli Lilly, GSK, MSD, Novartis, Roche and Sandoz, DMC role from Genentech/Roche and Takeda, and financial support for ETOP and IBCSG trials, where he is president and scientific chair, from AstraZeneca, BMS, Ipsen, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche and Pfizer. SP reports grants from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Clovis, F. Hoffman – La Roche, Illumina, Novartis, Pfizer, Merck Sharp and Dohme, personal fees from Amgen, Abbvie, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biocartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, Debiopharm, Eli Lilly, F. Hoffman – La Roche, Foundations Medicine, Illumina, Janssen, Novartis, Pharma Mar, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Merck Serono, Merrimack, Medscape, Phosphoplatin Therapeutics, Beigene and Imedex, outside the submitted work. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 European Society for Medical Oncology. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The advent of high-throughput sequencing has allowed to profoundly interrogate the molecular landscape of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the last years. These findings constitute the opportunity to better stratify these patients in order to address specific treatments to well-defined oncogene-restricted subgroups. Among them, BRAF-mutated lung cancers represent around 4% of NSCLC, thus identifying a clinically relevant population that should be aptly managed. Pivotal phase II trials have demonstrated the efficacy of combinatorial treatment - dabrafenib plus trametinib, targeting both BRAF and MEK - for patients harboring V600E mutations, making this specific BRAF alteration a mandatory requirement in the genetic portrait of advanced non-squamous lung cancer patients. However, around half of BRAF+ NSCLC patients remain orphan of targeted approaches. Here we review the available evidence, mainly from a clinical perspective, of therapeutic strategies for both V600E and non-V600 patients, in terms of small molecule, immune checkpoint inhibitors and forthcoming integrated strategies. Looking at on-going clinical trials, a special attention is dedicated to emergent molecules and combinatorial strategies that not only will improve outcomes of classical V600E, but also will make concrete the chance of tailored treatments for the majority of BRAF-mutated patients., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The relapse rate in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is high, even in localized disease, suggesting that the current approach to pathological staging is insufficiently sensitive to detect occult micrometastases present in resected lymph nodes. Therefore, we aimed to determine the prognostic value of the expression of embryonic molecular markers in histologically-negative lymph nodes of completely-resected NSCLC., Methods: 76 completely-resected NSCLC patients were included: 60 pN0 and 16 pN1. Primary tumors and 347 lymph node were studied. CEACAM5, FGFR2b, and PTPN11 expression levels were evaluated through mRNA analysis using real-time RT-qPCR assay. Statistical analyses included the Kruskal-Wallis test, Kaplan Meier curves, and log-rank tests., Results: CEACAM5 expression levels were scored as high in of 90 lymph nodes (26%). The molecular-positive lymph nodes lead to the restaging of 37 (62%) pN0 patients as molecular N1 or N2 and 5 (31%) pN1 cases were reclassified as molecular-positive N2. Surprisingly, molecular-positive patients associated with a better OS (overall survival, p = 0,04). FGFR2b overexpression was observed in 41 (12%) lymph nodes leading to the restaging of 17 patients (22%). Again a trend was observed toward a better DFS (disease-free survival) in the restaged patients (p = 0,09). Accordingly, high expression levels of CEACAM5 or FGFR2b in the primary were related to better DFS (p = 0,06; p < 0,02, respectively)., Conclusion: Molecular nodal restaging based on expression levels of CEACAM5 and/or FGFR2b, does not add relevant clinical information to pathological staging of NSCLC likely related to the better prognosis of their overexpression in primary tumors.

Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) are standard of care in the first-line (1L) setting for patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) with activating EGFR mutations. EGFR-activating mutations are a predictive factor for response to EGFR-TKIs. Meta-analyses have shown that patients with exon 21&#95;L858R mutations exhibit reduced sensitivity to EGFR-TKIs, resulting in inferior patient outcomes compared to those with exon 19 deletion mutations, with worse overall survival, progression-free survival, objective response, and disease control rates. Clinical activity observed with 1L therapy with first-generation (1G), second-generation (2G), and third-generation (3G) EGFR-TKIs is not permanent, and resistance inevitably develops in all cases, supporting the importance of overall treatment planning. The introduction of the 3G EGFR-TKI, osimertinib, provides an opportunity to overcome T790M-mediated resistance to 1G, and 2G EGFR-TKIs. Additionally, with the use of osimertinib, fewer T790M mutations are being detected as T790M is not a reported resistance mechanism to 3G EGFR-TKIs. However, there are currently no approved targeted therapies after 3G EGFR-TKIs. In order to further improve patient outcomes, there is a need to explore additional options for the overall treatment strategy for patients, including 1L and beyond. Combination of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors and EGFR-TKIs or chemotherapy and EGFR-TKIs may be a potential therapeutic approach in the 1L setting. This review discusses current treatment options for mNSCLC with activating EGFR mutations based on tumor, patient, and treatment characteristics and how an overall treatment plan may be developed., (Copyright © 2021 Eli Lilly and Company. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: RELAY was a global, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III study that demonstrated superior progression-free survival (PFS) for ramucirumab plus erlotinib (RAM + ERL) versus placebo plus erlotinib (PBO + ERL) in the first-line treatment of patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) exon 19 deletion or exon 21 (L858R) mutation-positive, metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC)., Objective: This article provides an in-depth analysis of the safety profile of RAM + ERL versus PBO + ERL observed in RELAY., Methods: Eligible patients met these criteria: stage IV NSCLC; EGFR exon 19 deletion or exon 21 substitution (L858R) mutation; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 or 1; and no central nervous system metastases. Patients were randomized (1:1) to receive erlotinib 150 mg/day orally plus either ramucirumab 10 mg/kg intravenously or matching placebo once every 2 weeks, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was PFS. Safety was evaluated based on reported treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) and clinical laboratory assessments., Results: The safety population comprised 446 patients (221 in RAM+ERL arm; 225 in PBO + ERL arm) who received at least one dose of study drug between January 2016 and February 2018. The overall incidence of grade ≥ 3 AEs was higher with RAM + ERL than with PBO + ERL, primarily driven by grade 3 hypertension. Grade ≥ 3 dermatitis acneiform and diarrhea were also reported more frequently in the RAM + ERL arm. The increased incidence of AEs with RAM + ERL was easily detected through routine monitoring and managed through dose adjustments and appropriate supportive care., Conclusion: This in-depth safety analysis from RELAY supports that RAM + ERL, irrespective of the increased incidence of AEs, does not affect a patient's ability to benefit from treatment., Clinical Trial Registration Number: NCT02411448., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Introduction: The Blood First Assay Screening Trial is an ongoing open-label, multicohort study, prospectively evaluating the relationship between blood-based next-generation sequencing (NGS) detection of actionable genetic alterations and activity of targeted therapies or immunotherapy in treatment-naive advanced or metastatic NSCLC. We present data from the ALK-positive cohort., Methods: Patients aged more than or equal to 18 years with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC and ALK rearrangements detected by blood-based NGS using hybrid capture technology (FoundationACT) received alectinib 600 mg twice daily. Asymptomatic or treated central nervous system (CNS) metastases were permitted. Primary end point was investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR; Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1). Secondary end points were independent review facility-assessed ORR, duration of response, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival, and safety. Exploratory end points were investigator-assessed ORR in patients with baseline CNS metastases and relationship between circulating biomarkers and response., Results: In total, 2219 patients were screened and blood-based NGS yielded results in 98.6% of the cases. Of these, 119 patients (5.4%) had ALK-positive disease; 87 were enrolled and received alectinib. Median follow-up was 12.6 months (range: 2.6-18.7). Confirmed ORR was 87.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 78.5-93.5) by investigator and 92.0% (95% CI: 84.1-96.7) by independent review facility. Investigator-confirmed 12-month duration of response was 75.9% (95% CI: 63.6-88.2). In 35 patients (40%) with baseline CNS disease, investigator-assessed ORR was 91.4% (95% CI: 76.9-98.2). Median PFS was not reached; 12-month investigator-assessed PFS was 78.4% (95% CI: 69.1-87.7). Safety data were consistent with the known tolerability profile of alectinib., Conclusions: These results reveal the clinical application of blood-based NGS as a method to inform clinical decision-making in ALK-positive NSCLC., (Copyright © 2021 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Treatment guidelines for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) recommend broad molecular profiling for targeted therapy selection. This study prospectively assessed comprehensive next-generation sequencing (NGS) of cell-free circulating tumor DNA (cfDNA) compared with standard-of-care (SOC) tissue-based testing to identify guideline-recommended alterations in aNSCLC., Patients and Methods: Patients with treatment-naïve aNSCLC were tested using a well-validated NGS cfDNA panel, and results were compared with SOC tissue testing. The primary objective was noninferiority of cfDNA vs. tissue analysis for the detection of two guideline-recommended biomarkers ( EGFR and ALK ) and an additional six actionable biomarkers. Secondary analyses included tissue versus cfDNA biomarker discovery, overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS) to targeted therapy, and positive predictive value (PPV) of cfDNA., Results: The primary objective was met with cfDNA identifying actionable mutations in 46 patients versus 48 by tissue ( P < .05). In total, 0/186 patients were genotyped for all eight biomarkers with tissue, compared with 90.8% using cfDNA. Targetable alterations or KRAS were identified in 80.7% when cfDNA was used first versus 57.1% when tissue was used first. PPV for cfDNA-detected EGFR was 100.0% (25/25). ORR and PFS in patients receiving targeted therapy based on tissue or cfDNA were similar to those previously reported., Conclusion: This prospective study confirms a previous report that comprehensive cfDNA testing is noninferior to SOC tissue testing in detecting aNSCLC-recommended biomarkers. Furthermore, cfDNA-based first-line therapy produced outcomes similar to tissue-based testing, demonstrating the clinical utility of comprehensive cfDNA genotyping as the initial genotyping modality in patients with treatment-naïve aNSCLC when tissue is insufficient or when all actionable biomarkers cannot be rapidly assessed.

Purpose: Characterization of the T-cell receptor (TCR) repertoire may be a promising source for predictive biomarkers of pathologic response to immunotherapy in locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)., Experimental Design: In this study, next-generation TCR sequencing was performed in peripheral blood and tissue samples of 40 patients with NSCLC, before and after neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy (NADIM clinical trial, NCT03081689), considering their complete pathologic response (CPR) or non-CPR. Beyond TCR metrics, tissue clones were ranked by their frequency and spatiotemporal evolution of top 1% clones was determined., Results: We have found a positive association between an uneven TCR repertoire in tissue samples at diagnosis and CPR at surgery. Moreover, TCR most frequently ranked clones (top 1%) present in diagnostic biopsies occupied greater frequency in the total clonal space of CPR patients, achieving an AUC ROC to identify CPR patients of 0.967 (95% confidence interval, 0.897-1.000; P = 0.001), and improving the results of PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS; AUC = 0.767; P = 0.026) or tumor mutational burden (TMB; AUC = 0.550; P = 0.687). Furthermore, tumors with high pretreatment top 1% clonal space showed similar immune cell populations but a higher immune reactive gene expression profile. Finally, the selective expansion of pretreatment tissue top 1% clones in peripheral blood of CPR patients suggests also a peripheral immunosurveillance, which could explain the high survival rate of these patients., Conclusions: We have identified two parameters derived from TCR repertoire analysis that could outperform PD-L1 TPS and TMB as predictive biomarkers of CPR after neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy, and unraveled possible mechanisms of CPR involving enhanced tumor immunogenicity and peripheral immunosurveillance., (©2021 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

Non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) is a leading cause of cancer death. Approximately one-third of patients with NSCLC have a KRAS mutation. KRAS G12C , the most common mutation, is found in ~13% of patients. While KRAS was long considered 'undruggable', several novel direct KRAS G12C inhibitors have shown encouraging signs of efficacy in phase I/II trials and one of these (sotorasib) has recently been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration. This review examines the role of KRAS mutations in NSCLC and the challenges in targeting KRAS. Based on specific KRAS biology, it reports exciting progress, exploring the use of novel direct KRAS inhibitors as monotherapy or in combination with other targeted therapies, chemotherapy, and immunotherapy., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: In EGFR-mutated metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), outcomes from EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors have differed historically by mutation type present, with lower benefit reported in patients with ex21L858R versus ex19del mutations. We investigated if EGFR-activating mutation subtypes impact treatment outcomes in the phase III RELAY study. Associations between EGFR mutation type and preexisting co-occurring and treatment-emergent genetic alterations were also explored., Patients and Methods: Patients with metastatic NSCLC, an EGFR ex19del or ex21L858R mutation, and no central nervous system metastases were randomized (1:1) to erlotinib (150 mg/day) with either ramucirumab (10 mg/kg; RAM+ERL) or placebo (PBO+ERL), every 2 weeks, until RECIST v1.1-defined progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary and exploratory endpoints included overall response rate (ORR), duration of response (DOR), PFS2, time-to-chemotherapy (TTCT), safety, and next-generation sequencing analyses., Results: Patients with ex19del and ex21L858R mutations had similar clinical characteristics and comutational profiles. One-year PFS rates for ex19del patients were 74% for RAM+ERL versus 54% for PBO+ERL; for ex21L858R rates were 70% (RAM+ERL) versus 47% (PBO+ERL). Similar treatment benefits (ORR, DOR, PFS2, and TTCT) were observed in RAM+ERL-treated patients with ex19del and ex21L858R. Baseline TP53 comutation was associated with superior outcomes for RAM+ERL in both ex19del and ex21L858R subgroups. EGFR T790M mutation rate at progression was similar between treatment arms and by mutation type., Conclusions: RAM+ERL provided significant clinical benefit for both EGFR ex19del and ex21L858R NSCLC, supporting this regimen as suitable for patients with either of these EGFR mutation types., (©2021 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: Pneumonitis (Pn) is one of the main immune-related adverse effects, having a special importance in lung cancer, since they share affected tissue. Despite its clinical relevance, Pn development remains an unpredictable treatment adverse effect, whose mechanisms are mainly unknown, being even more obscure when it is associated to chemoimmunotherapy., Methods: In order to identify parameters associated to treatment related Pn, we analyzed clinical variables and molecular parameters from 46 patients with potentially resectable stage IIIA non-small-cell lung cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy included in the NADIM clinical trial (NCT03081689). Pn was defined as clinical or radiographic evidence of lung inflammation without alternative diagnoses, from treatment initiation to 180 days., Results: Among 46 patients, 12 developed Pn (26.1%). Sex, age, smoking status, packs-year, histological subtype, clinical or pathological response, progression-free survival, overall survival and number of nivolumab cycles, were not associated to Pn development. Regarding molecular parameters at diagnosis, Pn development was not associated to programmed death ligand 1, TPS, T cell receptor repertoire parameters, or tumor mutational burden. However, patients who developed Pn had statistically significant lower blood median levels of platelet to monocyte ratio (p=0.012) and teratocarcinoma-derived growth factor 1 (p=0.013; area under the curve (AUC) 0.801), but higher median percentages of natural killers (NKs) (p=0.019; AUC 0.786), monocytes (p=0.017; AUC 0.791), MSP (p=0.006; AUC 0.838), PARN (p=0.017; AUC 0.790), and E-Cadherin (p=0.022; AUC 0.788). In addition, the immune scenario of Pn after neoadjuvant treatment involves: high levels of neutrophils and NK cells, but low levels of B and T cells in peripheral blood; increased clonality of intratumoral T cells; and elevated plasma levels of several growth factors (EGF, HGF, VEGF, ANG-1, PDGF, NGF, and NT4) and inflammatory cytokines (MIF, CCL16, neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin, BMP-4, and u-PAR)., Conclusions: Although statistically underpowered, our results shed light on the possible mechanisms behind Pn development, involving innate and adaptative immunity, and open the possibility to predict patients at high risk. If confirmed, this may allow the personalization of both, the surveillance strategy and the therapeutic approaches to manage Pn in patients receiving chemoimmunotherapy., Competing Interests: Competing interests: EN reports personal fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, personal fees from Merck Sharpe & Dohme, personal fees from AstraZeneca, grants and personal fees from Roche, grants and personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Lilly, personal fees from Amgen, personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, outside the submitted work; AI reports personal fees from Bristol, personal fees from BOERINGHER, personal fees from MSD, personal fees from PFIZER, personal fees from Roche, personal fees from ASTRA ZENECA, outside the submitted work; MD reports personal fees from Astra-Zeneca, personal fees from BMS, personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, personal fees from MSD, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Roche, outside the submitted work; MM reports grants and personal fees from BMS, personal fees and non-financial support from MSD, personal fees and non-financial support from BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM, personal fees, non-financial support and other from ASTRA ZENENCA, personal fees, non-financial support and other from ROCHE, personal fees from KYOWA KYRIN, personal fees from PIERRE FABRE, outside the submitted work; DRA reports grants and personal fees from Bristol-Myers-Squibb, personal fees from GENENTECH/ROCHE, personal fees from MSD, personal fees from ASTRA ZENECA, personal fees from BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM, personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Lilly, outside the submitted work; AM-M reports personal fees and non-financial support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, personal fees and non-financial support from F. Hoffmann La Roche AG, personal fees and non-financial support from Merck Sharp & Dohme, personal fees and non-financial support from Pfizer, personal fees and non-financial support from Boehringer Ingelheim, personal fees and non-financial support from MSD Oncology, personal fees, non-financial support and other from AstraZeneca, outside the submitted work; JDCC reports personal fees from Astra Zeneca, personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, personal fees from Merck Sharp and Dohme, personal fees from Hoffmann-la Roche, personal fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, personal fees from Takeda, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Novartis, outside the submitted work; EDB reports non-financial support from ROCHE, BMS, PFIZER, ASTRA-ZENECA, MERCK, during the conduct of the study; IBA reports consulting or advisory board for Bristol Myers, Takeda, Roche, Astra Zeneca, Behringer Inngelheim; SV reports personal fees and non-financial support from BMS, personal fees and non-financial support from ROCHE, personal fees from MSD, personal fees from ABBVIE, non-financial support from OSE IMMUNOTHERAPEUTICS, non-financial support from MERCK SERONO, outside the submitted work; BM reports grants and personal fees from Roche, personal fees and other from BMS, personal fees from Takeda, other from MSD, personal fees from Boehringer, other from Takeda, outside the submitted work; AT.R. reports personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, outside the submitted work;MP reports grants, personal fees and non-financial support from BMS, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from ROCHE, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from ASTRAZENECA, personal fees from MSD, personal fees from TAKEDA, outside the submitted work; BS-R, AC-B, YG, JM, JC-R, MCo, GLV, RB, NV, RL-B, MC, AG-G and FF declare no conflicts of interest., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Immunotherapy is being tested in early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and achieving higher rates of complete pathological responses (CPR) as compared to standard of care. Early identification of CPR patients has vital clinical implications. In this study, we focused on basal peripheral immune cells and their treatment-related changes to find biomarkers associated to CPR., Methods: Blood from 29 stage IIIA NSCLC patients participating in the NADIM trial (NCT03081689) was collected at diagnosis and post neoadjuvant treatment. More than 400 parameters of peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) phenotype and plasma soluble factors were analyzed., Results: Neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy altered more than 150 immune parameters. At diagnosis, 11 biomarkers associated to CPR were described, with an area under the ROC curve >0.70 and p-value <.05. CPR patients had significantly higher levels of CD4 + PD-1 + cells, NKG2D, and CD56 expression on T CD56 cells, intensity of CD25 expression on CD4 + CD25hi + cells and CD69 expression on intermediate monocytes; but lower levels of CD3 + CD56 - CTLA-4 + cells, CD14 ++ CD16 + CTLA-4 + cells, CTLA-4 expression on T CD56 cells and lower levels of b-NGF, NT-3, and VEGF-D in plasma compared to non-CPR. Post treatment, CPR patients had significantly higher levels of CD19 expression on B cells, BCMA, 4-1BB, MCSF, and PARC and lower levels of MPIF-1 and Flt-3L in plasma compared to non-CPR., Conclusions: Patients achieving CPR seem to have a distinctive peripheral blood immune status at diagnosis, even showing different immune response to treatment. These results reinforce the different biology behind CPR and non-CPR responses., (© 2021 The Authors. Clinical and Translational Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Shanghai Institute of Clinical Bioinformatics.)

Background: dNLR at the baseline (B), defined by neutrophils/[leucocytes-neutrophils], correlates with immune-checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) outcomes in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (aNSCLC). However, dNLR is dynamic under therapy and its longitudinal assessment may provide data predicting efficacy. We sought to examine the impact of dNLR dynamics on ICI efficacy and understand its biological significance., Patients and Methods: aNSCLC patients receiving ICI at 17 EU/US centres were included [Feb/13-Jun/18]. As chemotherapy-only group was evaluated (NCT02105168). dNLR was determined at (B) and at cycle2 (C2) [dNLR≤3 = low]. B+C2 dNLR were combined in one score: good = low (B+C2), poor = high (B+C2), intermediate = other situations. In 57 patients, we prospectively explored the immunophenotype of circulating neutrophils, particularly the CD15+CD244-CD16 low cells (immature) by flow cytometry., Results: About 1485 patients treatment with ICI were analysed. In ICI-treated patients, high dNLR (B) (~1/3rd) associated with worse progression-free (PFS)/overall survival (OS) (HR 1.56/HR 2.02, P < 0.0001) but not with chemotherapy alone (N = 173). High dNLR at C2 was associated with worse PFS/OS (HR 1.64/HR 2.15, P < 0.0001). When dNLR at both time points were considered together, those with persistently high dNLR (23%) had poor survival (mOS = 5 months (mo)), compared with high dNLR at one time point (22%; mOS = 9.2mo) and persistently low dNLR (55%; mOS = 18.6mo) (P < 0.0001). The dNLR impact remained significant after PD-L1 adjustment. By cytometry, high rate of immature neutrophils (B) (30/57) correlated with poor PFS/OS (P = 0.04; P = 0.0007), with a 12-week death rate of 49%., Conclusion: The dNLR (B) and its dynamics (C2) under ICI associate with ICI outcomes in aNSCLC. Persistently high dNLR (B+C2) correlated with early ICI failure. Immature neutrophils may be a key subpopulation on ICI resistance., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement LM: Sponsored Research: Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim. Consulting, advisory role: Roche Diagnostics, Takeda, Roche. Lectures and educational activities: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Tecnofarma, Roche. Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche. Mentorship program with key opinion leaders: funded by AstraZeneca. IP has served as a consultant for AstraZeneca, Pfizer and BluePrint Medicines. EA: Travel expenses: Mundipharma. Lectures and educational activities: Sanofi Genzymes. DS, HR, JR, SP, SC, FB, FT, MLR, PS, JG, AJP, MC, MN, CR, APM, LC and WPhad nothing to disclose. LH: none related to the current article, outside of the current article: research funding Roche Genentech, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca (all institution), advisory board: Boehringer, BMS, Eli Lilly, Roche Genentech, Pfizer, Takeda, MSD, Boehringer Ingelheim, Amgen (all institution), speaker: MSD, travel/conference reimbursement: Roche Genentech (self); mentorship program with key opinion leaders: funded by AstraZeneca; fees for educational webinars: Quadia (self), interview sessions funded by Roche Genentech (institution), local PI of clinical trials: AstraZeneca, Novartis, BMS, MSD/Merck, GSK, Takeda, Blueprint Medicines, Roche Genentech, Janssen Cilag. EN: none related to the current article, outside of the current article: research support from Roche and Pfizer; advisory boards from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Lilly, Roche, Pfizer, Takeda, Boehringer Ingelheim, Amgen and AstraZeneca. PM: Principal/subinvestigator of Clinical Trials for Abbvie, Adaptimmune, Aduro Biotech, Agios Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, Argen-X Bvba, Arno Therapeutics, Astex Pharmaceuticals, Astra Zeneca Ab, Aveo, Basilea Pharmaceutica International Ltd, Bayer Healthcare Ag, Bbb Technologies Bv, Beigene, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Pharmaceuticals, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ca, Celgene Corporation, Chugai Pharmaceutical Co, Clovis Oncology, Cullinan-Apollo, Daiichi Sankyo, Debiopharm, Eisai, Eisai Limited, Eli Lilly, Exelixis, Forma Tharapeutics, Gamamabs, Genentech, Glaxosmithkline, H3 Biomedicine, Hoffmann La Roche Ag, Imcheck Therapeutics, Innate Pharma, Institut De Recherche Pierre Fabre, Iris Servier, Janssen Cilag, Janssen Research Foundation, Kyowa Kirin Pharm. Dev, Lilly France, Loxo Oncology, Lytix Biopharma As, Medimmune, Menarini Ricerche, Merck Sharp & Dohme Chibret, Merrimack Pharmaceuticals, Merus, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Molecular Partners Ag, Nanobiotix, Nektar Therapeutics, Novartis Pharma, Octimet Oncology Nv, Oncoethix, Oncopeptides, Orion Pharma, Ose Pharma, Pfizer, Pharma Mar, Pierre Fabre, Medicament, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, Sotio A.S, Syros Pharmaceuticals, Taiho Pharma, Tesaro, Xencor Research Grants from Astrazeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen Cilag, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi Non-financial support (drug supplied) from Astrazeneca, Bayer, BMS, Boringher Ingelheim, Medimmune, Merck, NH TherAGuiX, Pfizer, Roche. CAV: Personal fees from Roche, AbbVie, MSD, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Astra Zeneca, Takeda and Ipsen. PB: Speaker bureau: AstraZeneca, BMS, Roche, MSD. Honoraria: Beigene. SN: Speaker Bureau/Advisor: Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer, Beigene, MSD, Roche, Takeda, Pfizer. MDH receives research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb; has been a compensated consultant for Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, Nektar, Syndax, Mirati, Shattuck Labs, Immunai, Blueprint Medicines, Achilles and Arcus; received travel support/honoraria from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly and Bristol-Myers Squibb; has options from Shattuck Labs, Immunai and Arcus; has a patent filed by his institution related to the use of tumour mutation burden to predict response to immunotherapy (PCT/US2015/062,208), which has received licensing fees from PGDx. GZ: Grants and personal fees from BMS, non-financial support from MSD, personal fees from Borhinger, non-financial support from Roche, personal fees from Astra-Zeneca, non-financial support from Abbvie, outside the submitted work. MM: Grants and personal fees from BMS, personal fees and non-financial support from MSD, personal fees and non-financial support from BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM, personal fees, non-financial support and other from ASTRA ZENENCA, personal fees, non-financial support and other from ROCHE, personal fees from KYOWA KYRIN, personal fees from PIERRE FABRE, outside the submitted work. LPA: Honoraria (self): Adacap, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Ipsen, Merck, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Pharmamar, Roche, Sanofi, Servier, Sysmex, Takeda; Leadership role: Altum sequencing; Research grant/Funding (self): AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Pfizer; Officer/Board of Directors Genómica. AMD: Consulting, advisory role or lectures: Roche, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Astra Zeneca, Pfizer, BMS, Amgen, Novartis, MSD, Takeda, Pharmamar. Research support: Amgen, Abbvie, BMS. 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, Medimmune, Sanofi-Aventis, Taiho Pharma, Novocure, Daiichi Sankyo. Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: AstraZeneca, Roche, Novartis, prIME Oncology, Pfizer. NC: Sponsored Research at Gustave Roussy Cancer Center BMS fondation, GSK, Sanofi, advisory role and lectures: AstraZeneca. These are outside the scope of this work. GL: Research support Merck serono, BMS, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Blueprint medicines. KA: Consultant for Astrazeneca and Iovance Biotherapeutics. Her institution has received non-monetary research support from Takeda and Novartis on her behalf. 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., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Currently biomarkers play an essential role in diagnosis, treatment, and management of cancer. In non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) determination of biomarkers such as ALK, EGFR, ROS1 or PD-L1 is mandatory for an adequate treatment decision. The aim of this study is to determine the clinical and economic impact of current anaplastic lymphoma kinase testing scenario in Spain., Methods: A joint model, composed by decision-tree and Markov models, was developed to estimate the long-term health outcomes and costs of NSCLC patients, by comparing the current testing scenario for ALK in Spain vs a hypothetical no-testing. The current distribution of testing strategies for ALK determination and their sensitivity and specificity data were obtained from the literature. Treatment allocation based on the molecular testing result were defined by a panel of Spanish experts. To assess long-term effects of each treatment, 3-states Markov models were developed, where progression-free survival and overall survival curves were extrapolated using exponential models. Medical direct costs (expressed in €, 2019) were included. A lifetime horizon was used and a discount rate of 3% was applied for both costs and health effects. Several sensitivity analyses, both deterministic and probabilistic, were performed in order test the robustness of the analysis., Results: We estimated a target population of 7628 NSCLC patients, including those with non-squamous histology and those with squamous carcinomas who were never smokers. Over the lifetime horizon, the current ALK testing scenario produced additional 5060 and 3906 life-years and quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), respectively, compared with the no-testing scenario. Total direct costs were increased up to € 51,319,053 for testing scenario. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 10,142 €/QALY. The sensitivity analyses carried out confirmed the robustness of the base-case results, being the treatment allocation and the test accuracy (sensitivity and specificity data) the key drivers of the model., Conclusions: ALK testing in advanced NSCLC patients, non-squamous and never-smoker squamous, provides more than 3000 QALYs in Spain over a lifetime horizon. Comparing this gain in health outcomes with the incremental costs, the resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratio reinforces that testing non-squamous and never-smoker squamous NSCLC is a cost-effective strategy in Spain.

The discovery of oncogenic driver mutations led to the development of targeted therapies with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) being a paradigm for precision medicine in this setting. Nowadays, the number of clinical trials focusing on targeted therapies for uncommon drivers is growing exponentially, emphasizing the medical need for these patients. Unfortunately, similar to what is observed with most targeted therapies directed against a driver oncogene, the clinical response is almost always temporary and acquired resistance to these drugs invariably emerges. Here, we review the biology of infrequent genomic actionable alterations in NSCLC as well as the current and emerging therapeutic options for these patients. Mechanisms leading to acquired drug resistance and future challenges in the field are also discussed., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: In EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC, dual EGFR/VEGFR inhibition compared to EGFR alone increases anti-tumor efficacy. The Phase III RELAY trial demonstrated superior PFS for ramucirumab plus erlotinib (RAM + ERL) over placebo plus erlotinib (PBO + ERL) (HR 0.591 [95% CI 0.461-0.760], p<0.0001). EGFR mutated NSCLC is less prevalent in Western versus Asian patients. This prespecified analysis evaluates efficacy and safety of RAM + ERL in EU and US patients enrolled in RELAY., Patients and Methods: Patients were randomized 1:1 to ERL + RAM (10 mg/kg IV) or PBO Q2W. Treatment continued until unacceptable toxicity or progressive disease. Patients were stratified by geographic region (East Asia vs "other" [EU/US and Canada (EU/US)]). Objectives included PFS, ORR, DoR, OS, PFS2, safety and biomarker analysis., Results: EU/US subset included 113/449 (25.9%) patients (58 RAM + ERL, 55 PBO + ERL). RAM + ERL improved PFS (20.6 vs 10.9 months, HR 0.605 [95% CI: 0.362-1.010]). ORR and DCR were similar, but median DoR was longer with RAM + ERL (18.0 vs 10.1 months, HR 0.527 [95% CI: 0.296-0.939]). OS and PFS2 were immature at data cut-off (censoring rates 81.0-81.8% and 67.3-79.3%, respectively). Most commonly reported Grade ≥3 TEAE for RAM + ERL was hypertension (17 [29.8%]) and for PBO + ERL, dermatitis acneiform (5 [9.1%])., Conclusion: EU/US subset analysis showed improved efficacy outcomes for RAM + ERL and a safety profile consistent with the overall population. Ramucirumab is a safe and effective addition to standard-of-care EGFR-TKI for EGFR mutation-positive metastatic NSCLC., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: Non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is terminal in most patients with locally advanced stage disease. We aimed to assess the antitumour activity and safety of neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy for resectable stage IIIA NSCLC., Methods: This was an open-label, multicentre, single-arm phase 2 trial done at 18 hospitals in Spain. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with histologically or cytologically documented treatment-naive American Joint Committee on Cancer-defined stage IIIA NSCLC that was deemed locally to be surgically resectable by a multidisciplinary clinical team, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients received neoadjuvant treatment with intravenous paclitaxel (200 mg/m 2 ) and carboplatin (area under curve 6; 6 mg/mL per min) plus nivolumab (360 mg) on day 1 of each 21-day cycle, for three cycles before surgical resection, followed by adjuvant intravenous nivolumab monotherapy for 1 year (240 mg every 2 weeks for 4 months, followed by 480 mg every 4 weeks for 8 months). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival at 24 months, assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, which included all patients who received neoadjuvant treatment, and in the per-protocol population, which included all patients who had tumour resection and received at least one cycle of adjuvant treatment. Safety was assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03081689, and is ongoing but no longer recruiting patients., Findings: Between April 26, 2017, and Aug 25, 2018, we screened 51 patients for eligibility, of whom 46 patients were enrolled and received neoadjuvant treatment. At the time of data cutoff (Jan 31, 2020), the median duration of follow-up was 24·0 months (IQR 21·4-28·1) and 35 of 41 patients who had tumour resection were progression free. At 24 months, progression-free survival was 77·1% (95% CI 59·9-87·7). 43 (93%) of 46 patients had treatment-related adverse events during neoadjuvant treatment, and 14 (30%) had treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or worse; however, none of the adverse events were associated with surgery delays or deaths. The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events were increased lipase (three [7%]) and febrile neutropenia (three [7%])., Interpretation: Our results support the addition of neoadjuvant nivolumab to platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with resectable stage IIIA NSCLC. Neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy could change the perception of locally advanced lung cancer as a potentially lethal disease to one that is curable., Funding: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Brain metastases are frequent complications in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) associated with significant morbidity and poor prognosis. Our goal is to give a global overlook on clinical efficacy from immune checkpoint inhibitors in this setting and to review the role of biomarkers and molecular interactions in brain metastases from patients with NSCLC., Methods: We reviewed clinical trials reporting clinical outcomes of patients with NSCLC with brain metastases as well as publications assessing the tumor microenvironment and the complex molecular interactions of tumor cells with immune and resident cells in brain metastases from NSCLC biopsies or preclinical models., Results: Although limited data are available on immunotherapy in patients with brain metastases, immune checkpoint inhibitors alone or in combination with chemotherapy have shown promising intracranial efficacy and safety results. The underlying mechanism of action of immune checkpoint inhibitors in the brain niche and their influence on tumor microenvironment are still not known. Lower PD-L1 expression and less T CD8 + infiltration were found in brain metastases compared with matched NSCLC primary tumors, suggesting an immunosuppressive microenvironment in the brain. Reactive astrocytes and tumor associated macrophages are paramount in NSCLC brain metastases and play a role in promoting tumor progression and immune evasion., Conclusions: Discordances in the immune profile between primary tumours and brain metastases underscore differences in the tumour microenvironment and immune system interactions within the lung and brain niche. The characterization of immune phenotype of brain metastases and dissecting the interplay among immune cells and resident stromal cells along with cancer cells is crucial to unravel effective immunotherapeutic approaches in patients with NSCLC and brain metastases., 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. E. Nadal has received honoraria for participating in advisory boards from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Lilly, Roche, Pfizer, Takeda, Boehringer Ingelheim and AstraZeneca. E. Nadal has received research funding from Roche and Pfizer.J. Bosch-Barrera serves on advisory boards and/or accepted honoraria for giving lectures from Bristol Myers-Squibb (BMS), Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), AstraZeneca, Novartis and Boehringer-Ingelheim. J. Bosch-Barrera has also received grants for research from Pfizer and Roche. All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Around 40% of newly diagnosed lung cancer patients are Stage IV, where the improvement of survival and reduction of disease-related adverse events is the main goal for oncologists. In this scenario, we present preclinical evidence supporting the use of ABTL0812 in combination with chemotherapy for treating advanced and metastatic Nonsmall cell lung adenocarcinomas (NSCLC) and squamous carcinomas. ABTL0812 is a new chemical entity, currently in Phase 1b/2a clinical trial for advanced squamous NSCLC in combination with paclitaxel and carboplatin (P/C), after successfully completing the first-in-human trial where it showed an excellent safety profile and signs of efficacy. We show here that ABTL0812 inhibits Akt/mTOR axis by inducing the overexpression of TRIB3 and activating autophagy in lung squamous carcinoma cell lines. Furthermore, treatment with ABTL0812 also induces AMPK activation and ROS accumulation. Moreover, combination of ABTL0812 with chemotherapy markedly increases the therapeutic effect of chemotherapy without increasing toxicity. We further show that combination of ABTL0812 and chemotherapy induces nonapoptotic cell death mediated by TRIB3 activation and autophagy induction. We also present preliminary clinical data indicating that TRIB3 could serve as a potential novel pharmacodynamic biomarker to monitor ABTL0812 activity administered alone or in combination with chemotherapy in squamous NSCLC patients. The safety profile of ABTL0812 and its good synergy with chemotherapy potentiate the therapeutic potential of current lines of treatment based on chemotherapy regimens, arising as a promising option for improving these patients therapeutic expectancy., (© 2020 UICC.)