Search

Objective: In recent years, the introduction of immune checkpoint inhibitors has significantly changed the outcome of patients affected by lung cancer and cutaneous melanoma. Although the clinical advantages, the selection of patients and the evaluation of response to immunotherapy remain unclear, the immune-related Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumor (irRECIST) was proposed as an update of the RECIST criteria for the assessment of response to immunotherapy. However, morphological images cannot predict early response to therapy that represents a challenge in clinical practice. 18F-FDG PET/CT before and after immunotherapy has an indeterminate role, demonstrating ambiguous results due to inflammatory effects secondary to activation of the immune system. The aim of the present review was to analyze the role of PET/CT as a guide for immunotherapy, by analyzing the current status and future perspectives., Methods: A literature search was conducted in order to select all papers that discussed the role of PET/CT with FDG or other tracers in the evaluation or prediction of response to immunotherapy in lung cancer patients., Results: Many papers are now available. Many clinical trials have demonstrated the efficacy of immunotherapy in lung cancer patients. FDG PET/CT can be used for the prediction of response to immunotherapy, while its utility for the evaluation of response is not still clearly reported. Moreover, the standardization of FDG PET/CT interpretation is missing and different criteria, such as information, have been investigated until now., Conclusion: The utility of FDG PET/CT for patients with lung cancer undergoing immunotherapies is still preliminary and not well addressed. New agents for PET are promising, but large clinical trials are mandatory., (Copyright© Bentham Science Publishers; For any queries, please email at epub@benthamscience.net.)

Management of small cell lung cancer (SCLC) has not changed over the last decades. In more recent years, alterations of DNA repair machinery and other molecular pathways have been identified in SCLC and preclinical data suggest that dysregulation of these pathways might offer new therapeutic opportunities.While immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have had a major impact on the clinical outcome of several solid tumors, including non-small cell lung cancer, the potential role of ICIs is currently under investigation in SCLC and some promising data are available. However, several clinical and biological hurdles have to be overcome and predictive markers are still eagerly needed. Knowledge of molecular pathways specifically involved in SCLC growth and treatment resistance is essential for a more rational planning of new combinations including ICIs.The present manuscript summarizes the current clinical evidence on immunotherapy in SCLC, describes the molecular bases underlying treatment resistance and discusses the potentialities and the rationale of different therapeutic combinations.

Aim: The aim of this study was to assess the predictive role of fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose (F-FDG) PET/computed tomography (CT) in the evaluation of response to immunotherapy in patients affected by metastatic lung cancer., Materials and Methods: From a single-center database, data for 32 patients (median age: 69 years; range: 37-78) with metastatic lung cancer were retrospectively retrieved. All patients were treated with nivolumab. PD-L1 expression was available in 19/32 patients. All patients underwent F-FDG PET/CT before immunotherapy. Whole-body maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmaxwb), metabolic tumor volume (MTVwb), and total lesion glycolysis (TLGwb) were obtained as the sum of SUVmax, metabolic tumor volume, and total lesion glycolysis in all metabolic lesions. The best response to therapy was considered in terms of partial response (PR), stable disease (SD), and progressive disease (PD) on the basis of clinical and radiological follow-up., Results: F-FDG PET/CT was positive in 30/32 (94%) patients. The majority of them had a pathological F-FDG uptake in the lung, lymph nodes, and bones. SUVmaxwb, MTVwb, and TLGwb were higher in patients with a positive PD-L1 expression than those with negative expression. Twenty-one patients achieved disease control (PR+SD), whereas 11 did not (PD). SUVmaxwb was significantly higher in patients without a response to therapy than those with a response to immunotherapy (median: 48.97 vs. 20.85; Student t-test: P = 0.002). Similarly, TLGwb and MTVwb were also higher in nonresponders than responders, although not statistically significant. However, the difference was more evident in women than men (median SUVmaxwb in responders and nonresponders for women and men: 17.86 vs. 85.89 and 21.38 vs. 44.38, respectively)., Conclusion: The entire tumor burden evaluated by F-FDG PET/CT can be predictive of response to immunotherapy in patients with metastatic lung cancer. A large prospective multicenter trial is warranted to definitively assess the usefulness of F-FDG PET/CT as a predictive biomarker of response to immunotherapy.

Introduction The prognosis of small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) is dismal and new effective therapies are needed. Immunotherapy looks promising, but no molecular predictive markers are currently available, and data on immune microenvironment are very limited. Methods We retrospectively analysed 104 SCLC cases. Immunohistochemistry evaluation of PD-L1 was performed both on tumour cells (TCs) and on tumour-infiltrating immune cells (TIICs) by using anti-PD-L1 22C3 antibody (DAKO) and categorised by using 1% as cut-off point. Tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) were characterised by using anti-CD8 and anti-FOXP3 antibodies. Semi-quantitative score was used and categorised as positive versus negative/low. The relation of molecular markers with prognosis and with clinical variables was evaluated. Results The analysis included 66 stage I–III patients (48 surgically resected, 18 treated with radical-intent chemoradiotherapy) and 38 metastatic cases. In the overall study population, PD-L1 was expressed on TCs and TIICs in 25% and 40% of cases, respectively. The proportion of PD-L1-positive cases was significantly higher in stage I–III versus metastatic patients (32% versus 13%, p: 0.034 for TCs; 51.5% versus 21% for TIICs, p: 0.002). CD8- and FOXP3-positive TILs were present in 59% and 72% of samples, respectively. The presence of FOXP3-TILs was associated with improved prognosis among non-metastatic patients, with a hazard ratio for survival of 0.32 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.16–0.7, p: 0.006) for univariate analysis, and 0.37 (95% CI: 0.17–0.81, p: 0.013) for multivariate analysis. Conclusions Immune contexture of SCLC may differ according to stage. The presence of FOXP3-positive TILs is a potential prognostic marker for stage I–III SCLCs and warrants further investigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Tempo-Lung trial randomly assessed the role of metronomic oral vinorelbine (OV) vs standard weekly oral vinorelbine in advanced NSCLC patients (pts) unfit to platinum doublets. Little data are available on treatment options after first-line in platinum-unfit pts. Methods Advanced NSCLC pts unfit to receive platinum doublets (Creatinine clearance <60 ml/min; heart failure NYHA class II-III; hearing loss >G2; any medical condition impairing platinum treatment according to physician's opinion) were randomized to arm A (metronomic): OV 50mg x3/week (wk) or arm B (standard): OV 60 mg/m²/wk cycle 1, then 80 mg/m²/wk. Primary endpoint was progression free-survival without grade 4 toxicity (PFSG4) and secondary efficacy and safety end-point, quality of life (QoL). Data on treatment after failure of first-line vinorelbine were collected. Results Intention-to-treat population included 165 (arm A 83 - arm B 82) pts. Baseline characteristics were well balanced between both arms. Mean dose intensity by cycle: 73.56 mg/m²/week (arm A), 55.85 mgm²/week (arm B). Median PFSG4 significantly differ in favor of metronomic arm [95%CI]: 4.0 [2.6-4.3] vs 2.2 [1.5-2.9] months (p = 0.0068), HR [95%CI] = 0.63 [0.45-0.88]. Overall treatment related adverse events (61.4% vs 84%): haematological toxicities (27.7% vs 55.6%), G3/4 neutropenia (11% vs 42%), febrile neutropenia (3.6% vs 6.2%) and G3/4 asthenia (4.8% vs 8.6%) were reduced with metronomic OV. It was observed that 40% of patients (subset) had second line treatment: immunotherapy, chemotherapy, protein kinase inhibitor, radiotherapy. No difference was found for changes in EORTC QoL scores. Secondary endpoints will be presented. Conclusions Metronomic OV could be a suitable option for advanced NSCLC pts unfit to receive platinum doublets. Less toxicity was observed in metronomic arm. QoL scores were similar in both arms. A subset of platinum unfit patients could receive second-line treatment mainly consisting on immunotherapy, chemotherapy. Clinical trial identification 2014-003859-61. Legal entity responsible for the study IRPF, Pierre Fabre Medicament. Funding Pierre Fabre Medicament. Disclosure A. Camerini: Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, expert testimony: Pierre Fabre; Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Roche; Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Pierre Fabre. A. Morabito: Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, speaker bureau: Pfizer; Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, speaker bureau: BMS; Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, speaker bureau: MSD; Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, speaker bureau: Roche; Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, speaker bureau: AstraZeneca; Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, speaker bureau: Boehringer Ingelheim. F. Grossi: Advisory / Consultancy: Eli Lilly; Advisory / Consultancy: Roche; Advisory / Consultancy: AstraZeneca; Advisory / Consultancy: Pierre Fabre; Advisory / Consultancy: Boehringer Ingelheim; Advisory / Consultancy: BMS; Advisory / Consultancy: MSD; Advisory / Consultancy: Novartis; Honoraria (self): Eli Lilly; Honoraria (self): Roche; Honoraria (self): AstraZeneca; Honoraria (self): Boehringer Ingelheim; Honoraria (self): Pierre Fabre; Honoraria (self): BMS; Honoraria (self): Novartis; Research grant / Funding (self): AstraZeneca; Research grant / Funding (self): BMS; Research grant / Funding (self): MSD. R. Ramlau: Advisory / Consultancy: Roche; Advisory / Consultancy: MSD; Advisory / Consultancy: Pfizer; Advisory / Consultancy: Novartis; Advisory / Consultancy: Boehringer Ingelheim. T-E. Ciuleanu: Advisory / Consultancy: Astellas; Advisory / Consultancy: Janssen; Advisory / Consultancy: BMS; Advisory / Consultancy: Merck Serono; Advisory / Consultancy: Amgen; Advisory / Consultancy: Roche; Advisory / Consultancy: Pfizer; Advisory / Consultancy: Boehringer Ingelheim; Advisory / Consultancy: Lilly; Advisory / Consultancy: AstraZeneca; Advisory / Consultancy: MSD; Advisory / Consultancy: Sanofi; Advisory / Consultancy: Servier; Advisory / Consultancy: A et D Pharma; Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Pfizer; Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Sanofi; Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Boehringer Ingelheim; Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Merck; Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Servier; Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Ipsen. G.L. Ceresoli: Advisory / Consultancy: Pfizer; Advisory / Consultancy: Astellas; Advisory / Consultancy: Boehringer Ingelheim. J. Bosch-Barrera: Honoraria (self): Pierre Fabre; Honoraria (self): MSD; Honoraria (self): Roche; Honoraria (self): BMS; Advisory / Consultancy: Boehringer Ingelheim. P. Landreau: Full / Part-time employment: Pierre Fabre. S. Gautier: Full / Part-time employment: Pierre Fabre. C. Ta Thanh Minh: Full / Part-time employment: Pierre Fabre. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]