Search

Purpose: This phase 1b/2 trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of capmatinib plus nazartinib in patients with advanced EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)., Methods: In phase 1b, patients with progression on first-/second-generation EGFR-TKIs received escalating doses of capmatinib 200-400 mg bid plus nazartinib 50-150 mg qd. Once the MTD/RP2D was declared, phase 2 commenced with patient enrollment into groups according to mutation status and prior lines of treatment: group 1 (fasted; EGFR-TKI resistant; 1-3 prior lines; EGFR L858R/ex19del ; any T790M/MET); group 2 (fasted; EGFR-TKI naïve; 0-2 prior lines; de novo T790M+; any MET); group 3 (fasted; treatment-naïve; EGFR L858R/ex19del ; T790M-; any MET); group 4 (with food; 0-2 prior lines; EGFR L858R/ex19del ; any T790M/MET). Primary endpoints in phase 2 were investigator-assessed overall response rate (ORR) per RECIST v1.1 (groups 1-3), safety, and tolerability of the combination with food (group 4). Efficacy was assessed by T790M and MET status for a subgroup of patients., Results: The RP2D was capmatinib 400 mg bid plus nazartinib 100 mg qd. In phase 2 (n = 144), the ORR was 28.8 %, 33.3 %, 61.7 %, and 42.9 % in groups 1 (n = 52), 2 (n = 3), 3 (n = 47), and 4 (n = 42), respectively. In group 1 +phase 1b RP2D, the ORR was 45.8 %, 26.2 %, 37.9 %, and 32.4 % in MET+ (n = 24), MET- (n = 42), T790M+ (n = 29), and T790M- (n = 34) patients. Most common any-grade treatment-related adverse events (≥25 %; n = 144) were peripheral edema (54.9 %), nausea (41.7 %), diarrhea (34.0 %), and maculopapular rash (25.0 %)., Conclusion: Capmatinib plus nazartinib showed antitumor activity in patients with EGFR-TKI-resistant, EGFR-mutated NSCLC. The overall safety profile was acceptable., Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02335944., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Enriqueta Felip: Consulting or Advisory Role: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Lilly, Roche, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Peptomyc, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Takeda, Turning Point Therapeutics, Daiichi Sankyo. Speakers' Bureau: Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly, Roche, Genentech, Janssen, Medical Trends, Medscape, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Peervoice, Pfizer, Sanofi, Takeda, Touch Oncology. Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: AstraZeneca, Janssen, Roche. Other Relationship: Grifols. Uncompensated Relationships: Member of the Scientific Advisory Committee Hospital Universitari Parc Taulí , SEOM (Sociedad Española de Oncología Médica), President from 2021–2023, “ETOP IBCSG Partners” Member of the Scientific Committee. Giulio Metro: Consultants fee from Amgen, Pfizer, Takeda, and AstraZeneca. Ross A. Soo: Advisory Board: Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Lily, Merck, Merck Serono, Novartis, Pfizer, Puma, Roche, Taiho, Takeda, Thermo Fisher, Yuhan. Research grant: AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim. Jürgen Wolf: Advisory boards and lecture fees: Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Blueprint, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Janssen, Lilly, Loxo, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Nuvalent, Pfizer, Roche, Seattle Genetics, Takeda; Research Support (to institution): BMS, Janssen Pharmaceutica, Novartis, Pfizer. Benjamin J. Solomon: Honoraria: AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme (Inst), Roche/Genentech, Pfizer (Inst), Amgen (Inst). Consulting or Advisory Role: Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), Merck Sharp & Dohme, AstraZeneca (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Roche/Genentech (Inst), Amgen, Lilly, BeiGene, Takeda, GlaxoSmithKline (Inst), Janssen (Inst), GlaxoSmithKline. Research Funding: Sanofi (Inst). Daniel SW Tan: Honoraria: Bristol Myers Squibb, Takeda, Novartis, Roche, Pfizer. Consulting or Advisory Role: Novartis, Merck, Loxo, AstraZeneca, Roche, Pfizer, C4 Therapeutics. Research Funding: Novartis (Inst), GlaxoSmithKline (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst). Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche. Andrea Ardizzoni: Honoraria: AstraZeneca, BMS, Lilly, MSD Oncology, Abbvie, Roche. Consulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, MSD Oncology, BMS, Lilly, Novartis, Takeda, Janssen Oncology, Roche, Sanofi. Dae Ho Lee: Honoraria: Abbvie; AstraZeneca/MedImmune; BC World Pharm; Boehringer Ingelheim; Bristol-Myers Squibb; ChongKeunDang Healthcare; Lilly; Menarini; MSD; Novartis; Ono Pharmaceutical; Pfizer; Roche/Genentech; Samyang; ST Cube; Takeda; Yuhan. Consulting or Advisory Role: ST Cube. Lecia V. Sequist: Consulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca; Genentech/Roche; Takeda. Research Funding: AstraZeneca (Inst); Boehringer Ingelheim (Inst); Delfi Diagnostics (Inst); Novartis (Inst). Fabrice Barlesi: Consulting or Advisory Role: Roche/Genentech (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), AstraZeneca/MedImmune (Inst), Boehringer Ingelheim (Inst), Lilly (Inst), Merck Serono (Inst), MSD Oncology (Inst), Takeda (Inst), Bayer (Inst), Amgen (Inst), Eisai Europe (Inst), Sanofi (Inst), Mirati Therapeutics (Inst). Research Funding: Roche/Genentech (Inst), AstraZeneca/MedImmune (Inst), Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), Pierre Fabre (Inst), AbbVie (Inst), Amgen (Inst), Bayer (Inst), Boehringer Ingelheim (Inst), Eisai (Inst), Lilly (Inst), Ipsen (Inst), Innate Pharma (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Merck Serono (Inst), MSD Oncology (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Sanofi/Aventis (Inst), Takeda (Inst). Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche/Genentech. Santiago Ponce-Aix: No conflicts of interest. Delvys Rodriguez Abreu: Consulting/advisory role from Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca Spain, Novartis; Speaker fees from Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and MSD; Travel expense from Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, and Novartis. Maria Rosario Garcia Campelo: Consulting or Advisory Role: Roche/Genentech, MSD Oncology, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Novartis, Takeda, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen Oncology. Speakers' Bureau: Roche, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Novartis, Takeda, Boehringer Ingelheim, MSD Oncology, Sanofi/Aventis, Janssen Oncology, Amgen, Lilly. Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche/Genentech, MSD Oncology, Pfizer. Mette Sprauten: No conflicts of interest. Leslie O’Sullivan Djentuh: Employee of Novartis. Nathalie Smith: Employee of Novartis. Aline Jary: Employee of Novartis. Riccardo Belli: Employee of Novartis. Sabine Glaser: Employee of Novartis and stockholder of Novartis, Alcon, Sandoz. Mike Zou: Employee of Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. Xiaoming Cui: Employee and stockholder - Novartis. Monica Giovannini: Employee of Novartis. James Chih-Hsin Yang: Honoraria: Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, MSD, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ono Pharmaceutical, Takeda, Lilly, Pfizer. Consulting or Advisory Role: Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Lilly, MSD Oncology, Merck Serono, Celgene, Bayer, Pfizer, Ono Pharmaceutical, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim (Inst), Yuhan, Hansoh, Blueprint Medicines, Daiichi Sankyo, G1 Therapeutics, AbbVie, Takeda, Amgen, Incyte, Merck Serono (Inst), Janssen (Inst), GlaxoSmithKline (Inst), Amgen (Inst), Takeda (Inst), Daiichi Sankyo (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Novartis (Inst), MSD Oncology (Inst). Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Pfizer., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: CONVERT was a phase 3 international randomized clinical trial comparing once-daily (OD) and twice-daily (BD) radiation therapy (RT). This updated analysis describes the 6.5-year outcomes of these regimens delivered with conformal techniques., Methods and Materials: CONVERT (NCT00433563) randomized patients 1:1 between OD RT (66 Gy/33 fractions/6.5 weeks) and BD RT (45 Gy/30 fractions/3 weeks), both delivered with concurrent cisplatin/etoposide. Three-dimensional conformal RT was mandatory, intensity-modulated RT was permitted, and elective nodal irradiation was not allowed. Prophylactic cranial irradiation was delivered at the discretion of treating clinicians. RT treatment planning was subject to central quality assurance., Results: Five hundred forty-seven patients were recruited at 73 centers. The median follow-up for the surviving cohort (n = 164) was 81.2 months. The median survival for the OD and BD arms were 25.4 months (95% CI, 21.1-30.9) and 30.0 months (95% CI, 25.3-36.5; hazard ratio, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.92-1.38; P = .247). Performance status and tumor volume were associated with survival on multivariate analysis. No treatment-related deaths occurred subsequent to the initial analysis performed in 2017. Regarding late toxicity, 7 patients in the OD arm developed grade 3 esophagitis, 4 of which went on to develop stricture or fistulation, compared with no patients in the BD arm. Grade 3 pulmonary fibrosis occurred in 2 and 3 patients in the OD and BD arms, respectively., Conclusions: As the CONVERT trial did not demonstrate the superiority of OD RT and this regimen had a slightly worse toxicity profile after 80 months of follow-up, 45 Gy BD should remain the standard of care in limited stage small cell lung cancer., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The gut microbiota influences the clinical responses of cancer patients to immunecheckpoint inhibitors (ICIs). However, there is no consensus definition of detrimental dysbiosis. Based on metagenomics (MG) sequencing of 245 non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patient feces, we constructed species-level co-abundance networks that were clustered into species-interacting groups (SIGs) correlating with overall survival. Thirty-seven and forty-five MG species (MGSs) were associated with resistance (SIG1) and response (SIG2) to ICIs, respectively. When combined with the quantification of Akkermansia species, this procedure allowed a person-based calculation of a topological score (TOPOSCORE) that was validated in an additional 254 NSCLC patients and in 216 genitourinary cancer patients. Finally, this TOPOSCORE was translated into a 21-bacterial probe set-based qPCR scoring that was validated in a prospective cohort of NSCLC patients as well as in colorectal and melanoma patients. This approach could represent a dynamic diagnosis tool for intestinal dysbiosis to guide personalized microbiota-centered interventions., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests L. Zitvogel is founder of everImmune and its SAB President. L.D. is an everImmune SAB member. R.D. is a scientific co-founder of everImmune. L. Zitvogel received a research contract from Kaleido, 9 meters/Innovate Pharma, and is currently sponsored by Pileje. G.Z. received a research grant from Fondation Roche; received fees from Roche, MSD, BMS, and Astra Zeneca; and is a consultant for Da Volterra & Inventiva. E.D. reports grants and personal fees from Roche Genentech, grants from Boehringer, grants from AstraZeneca, grants and personal fees from Merck Serono, grants from BMS, and grants from MSD. E.D. is founder of Graegis/Alys. M.L.I., L.B., and A.F. are employees and shareholders of Bio-Me. P.D. had consulting and advisory roles for AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, prIME Oncology, Peer CME, Roche, and Samsung, as well as honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, prIME Oncology, Peer CME, Roche, and Samsung. P.D. ran clinical trials as principal or co-investigator for AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, MedImmune, Sanofi-Aventis, Taiho Pharma, Novocure, and Daiichi Sankyo and received travel, accommodation, and expenses from AstraZeneca, Roche, Novartis, prIME Oncology, and Pfizer. M.F. and R.K.W. were supported by the Seerave Foundation. R.K.W. received unrestricted research grants from Takeda, J&J, Ferring, and Tramedico; speaker’s fee from AbbVie, MSD., and Boston Scientific; and has acted as consultant for Takeda Pharmaceuticals. C.C. reported personal fees from Amgen, Bayer, Merck Serono, MSD, Nordic Pharma, Roche, Pierre Fabre, Servier, and Takeda and research grants from Bayer, Merck Serono, Pierre Fabre, Seagen, Servier, and Tempus. F.G. received honoraria from Amgen, Sanofi, Merk Serono, MSD, BMS, and Astra Zeneca; had a consultancy or advisory role for Roche and Enterome; and received direct research fundings from Roche, Enterome, Astra Zeneca, and Servier and traveling supports from Servier, Amgen, and Roche. L. Zaho is cofounder of Notitia Biotechnologies. F.B. institutional interest AbbVie, ACEA, Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, EISAI, Eli Lilly Oncology, F. Hoffmann–La Roche Ltd, Genentech, Ipsen, Ignyta, Innate Pharma, Loxo, Novartis, MedImmune, Merck, Mirati, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis, and Takeda.art, (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Platinum-based chemotherapy is the recommended adjuvant treatment for patients with resectable, ALK -positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Data on the efficacy and safety of adjuvant alectinib as compared with chemotherapy in patients with resected ALK -positive NSCLC are lacking., Methods: We conducted a global, phase 3, open-label, randomized trial in which patients with completely resected, ALK -positive NSCLC of stage IB (tumors ≥4 cm), II, or IIIA (as classified according to the seventh edition of the Cancer Staging Manual of the American Joint Committee on Cancer and Union for International Cancer Control) were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive oral alectinib (600 mg twice daily) for 24 months or intravenous platinum-based chemotherapy in four 21-day cycles. The primary end point was disease-free survival, tested hierarchically among patients with stage II or IIIA disease and then in the intention-to-treat population. Other end points included central nervous system (CNS) disease-free survival, overall survival, and safety., Results: In total, 257 patients were randomly assigned to receive alectinib (130 patients) or chemotherapy (127 patients). The percentage of patients alive and disease-free at 2 years was 93.8% in the alectinib group and 63.0% in the chemotherapy group among patients with stage II or IIIA disease (hazard ratio for disease recurrence or death, 0.24; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.13 to 0.45; P<0.001) and 93.6% and 63.7%, respectively, in the intention-to-treat population (hazard ratio, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.13 to 0.43; P<0.001). Alectinib was associated with a clinically meaningful benefit with respect to CNS disease-free survival as compared with chemotherapy (hazard ratio for CNS disease recurrence or death, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.08 to 0.58). Data for overall survival were immature. No unexpected safety findings were observed., Conclusions: Among patients with resected ALK -positive NSCLC of stage IB, II, or IIIA, adjuvant alectinib significantly improved disease-free survival as compared with platinum-based chemotherapy. (Funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche; ALINA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03456076.)., (Copyright © 2024 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Background: STK11/LKB1 mutations have been associated with primary resistance to PD-1 axis inhibitors and poor prognosis in advanced KRAS-mutant lung adenocarcinoma. This study aimed to assess the prognostic significance of STK11/LKB1 alterations in localized non-squamous non-small cell lung carcinoma (non-sq NSCLC)., Patients and Methods: Surgical samples from patients undergoing complete resection for stage IIa, IIb, or IIIa (N2 excluded) non-sq NSCLC in the randomized adjuvant phase II trial (NCT00775385 IFCT-1801 TASTE trial) were examined. Patients received either standard chemotherapy (Pemetrexed Cisplatin) or personalized treatment based on EGFR mutation (Erlotinib) and ERCC1 expression. Tumor molecular profiles were analyzed using targeted NGS and correlated with overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS), adjusting for relevant clinical variables. Additionally, interactions between treatment groups and molecular alterations on OS, PD-L1 expression, and tumor-circulating DNA in post-operative plasma samples were evaluated., Results: Among 134 patients (predominantly male smokers with adenocarcinoma), KRAS mutations were associated with shorter DFS (HR: 1.95, 95 % CI: 1.1-3.4, p = 0.02) and OS (HR: 2.32, 95 % CI: 1.2-4.6, p = 0.014). Isolated STK11/LKB1 mutations (n = 18) did not significantly impact DFS or OS. However, within KRAS-mutated samples (n = 53), patients with concurrent STK11/LKB1 mutations (n = 10) exhibited significantly shorter DFS (HR: 3.85, CI: 1.5-10.2, p = 0.006) and a trend towards shorter OS (HR: 1.80, CI: 0.6-5.3, p = 0.28). No associations were found between PD-L1 expression, other gene mutations, progression-free survival (PFS), or OS., Conclusion: This analysis reinforces KRAS mutations as predictive factors for relapse and poor survival in localized non-sq NSCLC. Furthermore, the presence of concomitant STK11/LKB1 mutations exacerbated the prognosis within the KRAS-mutated subset. These findings emphasize the clinical relevance of these molecular markers and their potential impact on treatment strategies in non-sq NSCLC., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Dr. Oudart has received consulting fees from Astra Zeneca and Novartis; has received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Astra Zeneca; has received support for attending meetings and/or travel from Astra Zeneca. Dr. Barlesi has received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Astra-Zeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer–Ingelheim, Eli Lilly Oncology, F. Hoffmann–La Roche Ltd, Novartis, Merck, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer and Takeda. Dr. Mazière has received grants from Roche, Astra Zeneca, Pierre Fabre, BMS and Illumina; has received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Roche, Astra Zeneca, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Jiangsu Hengruii, Blueprint, Takeda, BMS, MSD, Daiichi, Novartis and Amgen. Dr. Audigier-Valette has received consulting fees from Roche and Abbvie; has received support for attending meetings and/or travel from Pfizer and MSD; has received participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board from Roche, Sanofi, MSD, BMS, Lilly, Pfizer, Astra Zeneca, Janssen and Abbvie. Dr. Moro-Sibilot has received consulting fees and payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Astra Zeneca, Roche, Pfizer, Amgen, BMS, MSD, Lilly and Takeda; has received support for attending meetings and/or travel from Roche, Takeda and BMS. Dr. Blons has received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Astra Zeneca, BMS and MSD. Dr. Wislez has received grants from Astra Zeneca; and has received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from MSD, Astra Zeneca, Amgen, BMS, Roche, Janssen and Sanofi; and has received support for attending meetings and/or travel from Roche and Janssen; and has received Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board from MSD, Astra Zeneca, Amgen, BMS, Roche, Janssen and Sanofi. The remaining authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted treatments for cancer is common; thus, novel immunotherapy agents are needed. Urelumab is a monoclonal antibody agonist that binds to CD137 receptors expressed on T cells. Here, we report two studies that evaluated urelumab in combination with cetuximab or nivolumab in patients with select, advanced solid tumors., Methods: CA186-018: Patients with metastatic colorectal cancer or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) were treated in a dose-evaluation phase with urelumab 0.1 mg/kg (urelumab-0.1) every 3 weeks (Q3W)+cetuximab 250 mg/m 2 (cetuximab-250) weekly; and in a dose-expansion phase with urelumab 8 mg flat dose (urelumab-8) Q3W+cetuximab-250 weekly. CA186-107: The dose-escalation phase included patients with previously treated advanced solid tumors (or treated or treatment-naive melanoma); patients received urelumab 3 mg flat dose (urelumab-3) or urelumab-8 every 4 weeks+nivolumab 3 mg/kg (nivolumab-3) or 240 mg (nivolumab-240) every 2 weeks. In the expansion phase, patients with melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer, or SCCHN were treated with urelumab-8+nivolumab-240. Primary endpoints were safety and tolerability, and the secondary endpoint included efficacy assessments., Results: CA186-018: 66 patients received study treatment. The most frequent treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were fatigue (75%; n=3) with urelumab-0.1+cetuximab-250 and dermatitis (45%; n=28) with urelumab-8+cetuximab-250. Three patients (5%) discontinued due to TRAE(s) (with urelumab-8+cetuximab-250). One patient with SCCHN had a partial response (objective response rate (ORR) 5%, with urelumab-8+cetuximab-250).CA186-107: 134 patients received study treatment. Fatigue was the most common TRAE (32%; n=2 with urelumab-3+nivolumab-3; n=1 with urelumab-8+nivolumab-3; n=40 with urelumab-8+nivolumab-240). Nine patients (7%) discontinued due to TRAE(s) (n=1 with urelumab-3+nivolumab-3; n=8 with urelumab-8+nivolumab-240). Patients with melanoma naive to anti-PD-1 therapy exhibited the highest ORR (49%; n=21 with urelumab-8+nivolumab-240). Intratumoral gene expression in immune-related pathways (CD3, CD8, CXCL9, GZMB) increased on treatment with urelumab+nivolumab., Conclusions: Although the addition of urelumab at these doses was tolerable, preliminary response rates did not indicate an evident additive benefit. Nevertheless, the positive pharmacodynamics effects observed with urelumab and the high response rate in treatment-naive patients with melanoma warrant further investigation of other anti-CD137 agonist agents for treatment of cancer., Trial Registration Numbers: NCT02110082; NCT02253992., Competing Interests: Competing interests: NIK reports consulting fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Jounce, Novartis, Regeneron, Genzyme, Iovance, Castle Biosciences, Nektar, Replimune, and Instil Bio; research funding (to institute) from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Celgene, Novartis, GSK, HUYA, Regeneron, Replimune, Modulation Therapeutics; participation on a data safety monitoring board with Incyte, AstraZeneca; participation in a study steering committee with Bristol Myers Squibb, Nektar, Regerenon, Replimune; and ownership of common stock in Bellicum, Amarin, and Asensus Surgical. PAO reports grants from Bristol Myers Squibb, Neon Therapeutics, Merck, Pfizer, Novartis, Celldex, Xencor, Roche/Genentech, Oncorus; consulting fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Evaxion, Merck, Roche/Genentech, Novartis, Immunetune, LG Chem; leadership or fiduciary role with NCCN. RF reports grants or contracts from AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Novasenta, Tesaro; consulting fees with Adagene, Aduro Biotech, Bicara Therapeutics, Brooklyn ImmunoTherapeutics, Catenion, EMD Serono, Everest Clinical Research Corporation, F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd., Federation Bio, Genocea Biosciences, Kowa Research Institute, Mirati Therapeutics, Nanobiotix, Novartis, Novasenta, PPD Development, Sanofi, Zymeworks; participation on a data safety monitoring or advisory board with Coherus BioSciences, Eisai Europe Ltd., Genmab, Hookipa, Instil Bio, Lifescience Dynamics, MacroGenics, MeiraGtx, Merck, Mirror Biologics, Numab Therapeutics AG, OncoCyte, Pfizer, Rakuten Medical, Seagen, SIRPant Immunotherapeutics, Vir Biotechnology, stock or stock options with Novasenta. TC reports speaker fees/honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Clinical Care Options, IDEOlogy Health, Mark Foundation for Cancer Research, Medscape, OncLive, PeerView, Physicians’ Education Resource, Roche, and Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer; advisory role/consulting fees from Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech, MedImmune/AstraZeneca, Merck, Pfizer, and Regeneron; institutional research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, and MedImmune/AstraZeneca; and travel, food and/or beverage expenses from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Dava Oncology, Genentech, IDEOlogy Health, International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, OncLive, Parker Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy, Physicians’ Education Resource, and Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer. DS reports research funding to the institution from Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Novartis, Amgen, Roche, Array; patient fees to the institution for clinical studies from Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Novartis, Merck-EMD, Philogen, Pfizer, Array, InflaRX, Nektar, Sun Pharma; consulting fees/honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Novartis, Merck-EMD, Philogen, Pfizer, Array, InflaRX, Nektar, Sun Pharma, OncoSec, Replimune, NeraCare, Sandoz, Ultimovacs; reimbursement from the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, Medscape Oncology and PeerView Institute for travel; nonfinancial support from Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Novartis, Merck-EMD, Pierre-Fabre, Pfizer, InFlaRX, NeraCare, Nektar, Sun Pharma, Sandoz; consulting/advisory role fees from MedImmune, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck& Co., Genentech, Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, and EMD Serono; institutional clinical research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, MedImmune, AstraZeneca, EMD Serono, and Bristol Myers Squibb. DTL reports serving on advisory boards for Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, Nouscom, G1 Therapeutics, and Janssen; receiving research funding from Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, Curegenix, Nouscom, and AbbVie; speaking honoraria from Merck; being an inventor of licensed intellectual property related to technology for mismatch repair deficiency for diagnosis and therapy (WO2016077553A1) from Johns Hopkins University. MRS reports support for present manuscript from Bristol Myers Squibb; participation on a data safety monitoring or advisory board with Pilant Therapeutics; stock or stock options with Bristol Myers Squibb. FB reports financial interest with AbbVie, ACEA, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eisai, Eli Lilly Oncology, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., Genentech, Ipsen, Ignyta, Innate Pharma, Loxo, Novartis, MedImmune, Merck, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis, Takeda. WS reports grants and personal fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, and Novartis; personal fees from Regeneron; and grants from Genentech. JJL reports grants or contracts from AbbVie, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Corvus, Day One, EMD Serono, F-star, Genmab, Ikena, Immatics, Incyte, Kadmon, KAHR, MacroGenics, Merck, Moderna, Nektar, Next Cure, Numab, Palleon, Pfizer, Replimune, Rubius, Servier, Scholar Rock, Synlogic, Takeda, Trishula, Tizona, Xencor; consulting fees from 7 Hills, Bright Peak, Exo, F-star, Inzen, RefleXion, Xilio, Actym, Alphamab Oncology, Arch Oncology, Duke Street Bio, Kanaph, Mavu, NeoTx, Onc.AI, OncoNano, Pyxis, Saros, Stipe, Tempest, AbbVie, Alnylam, Atomwise, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Castle, Checkmate, Codiak, Crown, Cugene, Curadev, Day One, Eisai, EMD Serono, Endeavor, Flame, G1 Therapeutics, Genentech, Gilead, Glenmark, HotSpot, Kadmon, KSQ, Janssen, Ikena, Inzen, Immatics, Immunocore, Incyte, Instil, IO Biotech, MacroGenics, Merck, Mersana, Nektar, Novartis, Partner, Pfizer, Pioneering Medicines, PsiOxus, Regeneron, Ribon, Roivant, Servier, Stingthera, Synlogic, Synthekine; provisional patents in cancer immunotherapy (serial no. 15/612,657) and microbiome biomarkers for anti-PD-1/PD-L1 responsiveness: diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic uses thereof (PCT/US18/36052); participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board with AbbVie, Immutep, Evaxion; leadership or fiduciary role with Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer; stock or stock options with Actym, Alphamab Oncology, Arch Oncology, Duke Street Bio, Kanaph, Mavu, NeoTx, Onc.AI, OncoNano, Pyxis, Saros, STipe, Tempest. IM reports support for the current manuscript from Bristol Myers Squibb; grants or contracts from Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, Genmab, Highlight Therapeutics, AstraZeneca; consulting fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, Genmab, Merus, Pieris, AstraZeneca, Numab, Highlight Therapeutics; payment or honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb; support for attending meetings and/or travel from Bristol Myers Squibb and Roche. DL, JN and JH are employees and stock owners of Bristol Myers Squibb. AS is an employee of Boston Scientific. SS, AS, RS and SE report employment with Bristol Myers Squibb. NHS reports consulting fees from ABL Bio, Agenus, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, Novartis, Numab, Puretech, Regeneron, Revitope, and Roche/Genentech; and research funding from Agenus, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Immunocore, Merck, Pfizer, Puretech, Regeneron, and Roche/Genentech., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Purpose: To characterize treatment patterns and real-world clinical outcomes of patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) who developed progression on an anti-PD-1/anti-PD-L1, herein referred to as anti-PD-(L)1, and platinum-doublet chemotherapy., Methods: Eligible oncologists/pulmonologists in the United States, Europe (France, Germany, and United Kingdom), and Japan completed electronic case report forms for patients with mNSCLC (no evidence of EGFR/ALK/ROS1 alterations). Eligible patients had disease progression on/after an anti-PD-(L)1 and platinum-doublet chemotherapy (received concurrently or sequentially), initiated a subsequent line of therapy (LOT) between 2017 and 2021, and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status 0-2 at this subsequent LOT initiation (index date). Overall survival (OS), time to treatment discontinuation (TTD), and real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS) after index were assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis., Results: Overall, 160 physicians (academic, 54.4%; community, 45.6%) provided deidentified data from 487 patient charts (United States, 141; Europe, 218; Japan, 128; at mNSCLC diagnosis: median age 66 years, 64.7% male, 81.3% nonsquamous, 86.2% de novo mNSCLC; at line of interest initiation: 86.0% ECOG 0-1, 39.6% liver metastases, 18.9% brain metastases, 79.1% smoking history). The most common treatment regimens upon progression after anti-PD-(L)1/platinum-doublet chemotherapy were nonplatinum chemotherapy (50.5%), nonplatinum chemotherapy plus vascular endothelial growth factor receptor inhibitor (12.9%), and platinum-doublet chemotherapy (6.6%). Median OS was 8.8 months (squamous, 7.8 months; nonsquamous, 9.5 months). Median TTD was 4.3 months (squamous, 4.1 months; nonsquamous, 4.3 months). Median rwPFS was 5.1 months (squamous, 4.6 months; nonsquamous, 5.4 months)., Conclusion: In this multiregional, real-world analysis of pooled patient chart data, patients with mNSCLC who had disease progression after anti-PD-(L)1/platinum-doublet chemotherapy had poor clinical outcomes with various treatment regimens, demonstrating an unmet clinical need for effective options after failure on anti-PD-(L)1 and platinum-doublet chemotherapy treatments.

Purpose: Mechanisms of primary resistance to inhibitors of the programmed cell death-1 (PD-1)/programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) signaling axis in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are still poorly understood. While some studies suggest the involvement of trophoblast cell surface antigen 2 (TROP2) in modulating tumor cell resistance to therapeutic drugs, its specific role in the context of PD-1/PD-L1 axis blockade is not definitively established., Experimental Design: We performed high-throughput analysis of transcriptomic data from 891 NSCLC tumors from patients treated with either the PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab or chemotherapy in two large randomized clinical trials. To confirm our results at the protein level, we complemented this transcriptional approach by performing a multiplex immunofluorescence analysis of tumor tissue samples as well as a proteomic profiling of plasma., Results: We observed a significant association of TROP2 overexpression with worse progression-free survival and overall survival on PD-L1 blockade, independent of other prognostic factors. Importantly, we found increased TROP2 expression to be predictive of survival in patients treated with atezolizumab but not chemotherapy. TROP2 overexpression was associated with decreased T-cell infiltration. We confirmed these results at the proteomic level both on tumor tissue and in plasma., Conclusions: Our results suggest an important contribution of TROP2 expression to the primary resistance to PD-L1 blockade in NSCLC. TROP2-biomarker-based strategy may be relevant in selecting patients with NSCLC who are more likely to benefit from a combination of immunotherapy and an anti-TROP2 agent., (©2023 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

Introduction: We report the primary analysis from JAVELIN Lung 100, a phase 3 trial comparing avelumab (anti⁠-programmed death-ligand 1 [PD-L1]) versus platinum-based doublet chemotherapy as first-line treatment for PD-L1-positive (+) advanced NSCLC., Methods: Adults with PD-L1+ (≥1% of tumor cells; PD-L1 immunohistochemistry 73-10 pharmDx), EGFR and ALK wild-type, previously untreated, stage IV NSCLC were randomized to avelumab 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks (Q2W), avelumab 10 mg/kg once weekly (QW) for 12 weeks and Q2W thereafter, or platinum-based doublet chemotherapy every 3 weeks. Primary end points were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) per independent review committee. The primary analysis population was patients with high-expression PD-L1+ tumors (≥80% of tumor cells)., Results: A total of 1214 patients were randomized to avelumab Q2W (n = 366), avelumab QW (n = 322), or chemotherapy (n = 526). In the primary analysis population, hazard ratios (HRs) for OS and PFS with avelumab Q2W (n = 151) versus chemotherapy (n = 216) were 0.85 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.67-1.09; one-sided p = 0.1032; median OS, 20.1 versus 14.9 mo) and 0.71 (95% CI: 0.54-0.93; one-sided p = 0.0070; median PFS, 8.4 versus 5.6 mo), respectively. With avelumab QW (n = 130) versus chemotherapy (n = 129), HRs were 0.79 (95% CI: 0.59-1.07; one-sided p = 0.0630; median OS, 19.3 versus 15.3 mo) and 0.72 (95% CI: 0.52-0.98; one-sided p = 0.0196; median PFS, 7.5 versus 5.6 mo), respectively. No new safety signals were observed., Conclusions: Longer median OS and PFS were observed with avelumab versus platinum-based doublet chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC, but differences in OS and PFS were not statistically significant, and the trial did not meet its primary objective., Clinicaltrials: gov Identifier: NCT02576574., (Copyright © 2023 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Preclinical evaluation of bintrafusp alfa (BA) combined with radiotherapy revealed greater antitumor effects than BA or radiotherapy alone. In a phase 1 study, BA exhibited encouraging clinical activity in patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC who had received previous treatment., Methods: This multicenter, double-blind, controlled phase 2 study (NCT03840902) evaluated the safety and efficacy of BA with concurrent chemoradiotherapy (cCRT) followed by BA (BA group) versus placebo with cCRT followed by durvalumab (durvalumab group) in patients with unresectable stage III NSCLC. The primary end point was progression-free survival according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 as assessed by the investigator. On the basis of the recommendation of an independent data monitoring committee, the study was discontinued before the maturity of overall survival data (secondary end point)., Results: A total of 153 patients were randomized to either BA (n = 75) or durvalumab groups (n = 78). The median progression-free survival was 12.8 months versus 14.6 months (stratified hazard ratio = 1.48 [95% confidence interval: 0.69-3.17]), in the BA and durvalumab groups, respectively. Trends for overall response rate (29.3% versus 32.1%) and disease control rate (66.7% versus 70.5%) were similar between the two groups. Any-grade treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 94.6% versus 96.1% of patients in the BA versus durvalumab groups, respectively. Bleeding events in the BA group were mostly grade 1 (21.6%) or 2 (9.5%)., Conclusions: BA with cCRT followed by BA exhibited no efficacy benefit over placebo with cCRT followed by durvalumab in patients with stage III unresectable NSCLC., (Copyright © 2023 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Effective treatments for resectable non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are limited and relapse rates are high. The interleukin (IL)-1β pathway has been linked with tumor development and progression, including in the Canakinumab Anti-Inflammatory Thrombosis Outcomes cardiovascular study in which IL-1β pathway inhibition with canakinumab reduced lung cancer incidence and mortality in an exploratory analysis., Methods: CANOPY-A (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03447769) is a phase III, randomized, double-blind, multicenter study of canakinumab versus placebo for adult patients with stage II-IIIA or IIIB (T >5 cm, N2-positives II-IIIB; American Joint Committee on Cancer/Union for International Cancer Control version 8), completely resected NSCLC who had received adjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy. The primary end point was disease-free survival (DFS) and the key secondary end point was overall survival (OS)., Results: In total, 1,382 patients were randomized to 200 mg canakinumab (n = 693) or placebo (n = 689) once every 3 weeks for 18 cycles. Grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) were reported in 20.8% and 19.6% of patients receiving canakinumab and placebo, respectively; AEs led to discontinuation in 4.3% and 4.1% of patients in these groups, respectively. This study did not meet its primary end point. Median DFS was 35.0 months (canakinumab arm) and 29.7 months (placebo arm; hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.14; one-sided P = .258). DFS subgroup analyses did not show any meaningful differences between arms. As expected, because of canakinumab-driven IL-1β pathway inhibition, C-reactive protein and IL-6 levels decreased in the canakinumab arm versus placebo arm, but had no correlation with differential clinical outcomes. OS was not formally tested as DFS was not statistically significant., Conclusion: CANOPY-A did not show a DFS benefit of adding canakinumab after surgery and adjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy in patients with resected, stage II-III NSCLC. No new safety signals were identified with canakinumab.

Introduction: Dual immune checkpoint blockers regimen represents a standard first-line therapy in unresectable pleural mesothelioma (PM). Novel combination strategies, including immune checkpoint blockers and antiangiogenic drugs, are currently under investigation in this setting. We aimed to assess the efficacy of the chemoimmunotherapy combination by reference to literature evidence., Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of trials with first-line platinum-based chemotherapy associated with programmed death-ligand 1 and programmed cell death protein 1 agent in unresectable PM. We estimated the weighted summary proportion of disease response, along with the landmark probability of survival outcomes., Results: A total of 349 patients with unresectable PM from four trials (DREAM, PrE0505, JME-001, and IND.227) were included, 79% (n = 274) with epithelioid and 21% (n = 75) with nonepithelioid histologic type. In aggregate, the objective response rate was 59.2% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 50.3%-67.9%) and disease control rate was 92.2% (95% CI: 89.2%-94.8%). Comparing epithelioid versus nonepithelioid tumors, the objective response rate was 64.5% versus 46.4%, (p < 0.001) and the disease control rate was 92.3% versus 80.0%, (p = 0.043), with an OR of 2.56 (95% CI: 1.51-4.32) for disease response and of 3.37 (95% CI: 0.99-11.47) for disease control. The aggregated estimated probability of progression-free survival was 63% (95% CI: 53%-71%) at 6 months and 25% (95% CI: 21%-31%) at 12 months, whereas the 6-, 12- and 24-month overall survival rates were 88% (95% CI: 81%-93%), 71% (95% CI: 61%-79%) and 39% (95% CI: 34%-45%), respectively., Conclusions: According to our analysis, first-line chemoimmunotherapy holds promise as a new treatment approach for PM, exhibiting encouraging survival outcomes and an enhanced response rate, including for the epithelioid subtype. Ongoing studies are necessary to establish its precise placement within the treatment algorithm., (Copyright © 2023 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. 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.)

Progresses of systemic treatments in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), such as immune checkpoint blockers (ICB) and targeted therapies, led to the increased incidence of oligoprogressive disease (OPD). The OPD is a subtype of oligometastatic disease (OMD) defined as a progression of a limited number of lesions during systemic treatment exposure. The hypothesis was formulated that local radical treatments (LRT) could eradicate progressive lesions resulting from resistant clones, ultimately leading to systemic treatment sensitivity restoration. Recently published international consensuses and guidelines aim to obtain a uniform definition of OMD NSCLC, to standardize the inclusion of these patients in future clinical trials, as well as their management in daily practice. Although there is no specific definition of OPD, LRT strategies in OPD are supported after reporting promising results. Both retrospective and preliminary prospective randomized data of LRT for patients with OPD NSCLC are encouraging. More clinical and translational data are needed for selecting best scenarios where LRT should be delivered. In this review, we analyze the current available literature on LRT for patients with OPD in advanced NSCLC and discuss about future trial design and challenges., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: E.D. reports grants and personal fees from Roche-Genentech, grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, grants and personal fees from Merck Serono, grants and personal fees from Boehringer, grants and personal fees from BMS, and grants and personal fees from MSD. B.B. reports sponsored research at Gustave Roussy Cancer Center by Abbvie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Daiichi-Sankyo, Ellipse Pharma, EISAI, Genmab, Genzyme Corporation, Hedera Dx, Inivata, IPSEN, Janssen, MSD, Pharmamar, Roche-Genentech, Sanofi, Socar Research, Tahio Oncology, Turning Point Therapeutics. A.L. reports sponsored research at Gustave Roussy Cancer Center by Amgen, AstraZeneca, Beigene, Roche. The other authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Anti-PD1/PDL1 immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) transformed the prognosis of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, the response rate remains disappointing and toxicity may be life-threatening, making urgent identification of biomarkers predictive for efficacy. Immunologic Constant of Rejection signature (ICR) is a 20-gene expression signature of cytotoxic immune response with prognostic value in some solid cancers. Our objective was to assess its predictive value for benefit from anti-PD1/PDL1 in patients with advanced NSCLC., Methods: We retrospectively profiled 44 primary tumors derived from NSCLC patients treated with ICI as single-agent in at least the second-line metastatic setting. Transcriptomic analysis was performed using the nCounter ® analysis system and the PanCancer Immune Profiling Panel. We then pooled our data with clinico-biological data from four public gene expression data sets, leading to a total of 162 NSCLC patients treated with single-agent anti-PD1/PDL1. ICR was applied to all samples and correlation was searched between ICR classes and the Durable Clinical Benefit (DCB), defined as stable disease or objective response according to RECIST 1.1 for a minimum of 6 months after the start of ICI., Results: The DCB rate was 29%; 22% of samples were classified as ICR1, 30% ICR2, 22% ICR3, and 26% ICR4. These classes were not associated with the clinico-pathological variables, but showed enrichment from ICR1 to ICR4 in quantitative/qualitative markers of immune response. ICR2-4 class was associated with a 5.65-fold DCB rate when compared with ICR1 class. In multivariate analysis, ICR classification remained associated with DCB, independently from PDL1 expression and other predictive immune signatures. By contrast, it was not associated with disease-free survival in 556 NSCLC TCGA patients untreated with ICI., Conclusion: The 20-gene ICR signature was independently associated with benefit from anti-PD1/PDL1 ICI in patients with advanced NSCLC. Validation in larger retrospective and prospective series is warranted., (© 2023. BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Our aim was to explore the prognostic value of anthropometric parameters in a large population of patients treated with immunotherapy., Methods: We retrospectively included 623 patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) (n=318) or melanoma (n=305) treated by an immune-checkpoint-inhibitor having a pretreatment (thorax-)abdomen-pelvis CT scan. An external validation cohort of 55 patients with NSCLC was used. Anthropometric parameters were measured three-dimensionally (3D) by a deep learning software (Anthropometer3DNet) allowing an automatic multislice measurement of lean body mass, fat body mass (FBM), muscle body mass (MBM), visceral fat mass (VFM) and sub-cutaneous fat mass (SFM). Body mass index (BMI) and weight loss (WL) were also retrieved. Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was performed and overall survival was calculated using Kaplan-Meier (KM) curve and Cox regression analysis., Results: In the overall cohort, 1-year mortality rate was 0.496 (95% CI: 0.457 to 0.537) for 309 events and 5-year mortality rate was 0.196 (95% CI: 0.165 to 0.233) for 477 events. In the univariate Kaplan-Meier analysis, prognosis was worse (p<0.001) for patients with low SFM (<3.95 kg/m 2 ), low FBM (<3.26 kg/m 2 ), low VFM (<0.91 kg/m 2 ), low MBM (<5.85 kg/m 2 ) and low BMI (<24.97 kg/m 2 ). The same parameters were significant in the Cox univariate analysis (p<0.001) and, in the multivariate stepwise Cox analysis, the significant parameters were MBM (p<0.0001), SFM (0.013) and WL (0.0003). In subanalyses according to the type of cancer, all body composition parameters were statistically significant for NSCLC in ROC, KM and Cox univariate analysis while, for melanoma, none of them, except MBM, was statistically significant. In multivariate Cox analysis, the significant parameters for NSCLC were MBM (HR=0.81, p=0.0002), SFM (HR=0.94, p=0.02) and WL (HR=1.06, p=0.004). For NSCLC, a KM analysis combining SFM and MBM was able to separate the population in three categories with the worse prognostic for the patients with both low SFM (<5.22 kg/m 2 ) and MBM (<6.86 kg/m 2 ) (p<0001). On the external validation cohort, combination of low SFM and low MBM was pejorative with 63% of mortality at 1 year versus 25% (p=0.0029)., Conclusions: 3D measured low SFM and MBM are significant prognosis factors of NSCLC treated by immune checkpoint inhibitors and can be combined to improve the prognostic value., Competing Interests: Competing interests: No, there are no competing interests., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Molecular modifiers of KRASG12C inhibitor (KRASG12Ci) efficacy in advanced KRASG12C-mutant NSCLC are poorly defined. In a large unbiased clinicogenomic analysis of 424 patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), we identified and validated coalterations in KEAP1, SMARCA4, and CDKN2A as major independent determinants of inferior clinical outcomes with KRASG12Ci monotherapy. Collectively, comutations in these three tumor suppressor genes segregated patients into distinct prognostic subgroups and captured ∼50% of those with early disease progression (progression-free survival ≤3 months) with KRASG12Ci. Pathway-level integration of less prevalent coalterations in functionally related genes nominated PI3K/AKT/MTOR pathway and additional baseline RAS gene alterations, including amplifications, as candidate drivers of inferior outcomes with KRASG12Ci, and revealed a possible association between defective DNA damage response/repair and improved KRASG12Ci efficacy. Our findings propose a framework for patient stratification and clinical outcome prediction in KRASG12C-mutant NSCLC that can inform rational selection and appropriate tailoring of emerging combination therapies., Significance: In this work, we identify co-occurring genomic alterations in KEAP1, SMARCA4, and CDKN2A as independent determinants of poor clinical outcomes with KRASG12Ci monotherapy in advanced NSCLC, and we propose a framework for patient stratification and treatment personalization based on the comutational status of individual tumors. See related commentary by Heng et al., p. 1513. This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 1501., (©2023 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: Antibody drug conjugates (ADCs) represent a revolutionary drug class in cancer therapy, combining the precision of targeted therapy with the cytotoxic effects of chemotherapy. Promising activity of novel ADCs, namely Trastuzumab Deruxtecan and Patritumab Deruxtecan, has been observed in hard-to treat molecular subtypes, such as HER2-positive and heavily pretreated EGFR-mutant Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC). However, therapeutic advances are expected in certain subgroups of lung cancer patients, including non-oncogene-addicted NSCLC after failure of current standard of care (e.g., immunotherapy with or without chemotherapy, chemo-antiangiogenic treatment). Trophoblastic Cell Surface Antigen 2 (TROP-2) is a surface transmembrane glycoprotein member of the epithelial cell adhesion molecule (EpCAM) family. TROP-2 represents a promising therapeutic target in refractory non-oncogene-addicted NSCLC., Methodology: We performed a systematic literature search of the clinical trials about TROP-2 directed ADCs in NSCLC referenced in the pubmed.gov database, Cochrane Library database and clinicaltrial.gov database., Results: First-in-humans ADCs targeting TROP-2, namely Sacituzumab Govitecan (SN-38) and Datopotamab Deruxtecan (Dxd), yielded promising activity signals in NSCLC with a manageable safety profile. Most common grade ≥ 3 adverse events (AEs) of Sacituzumab Govitecan included neutropenia (28 %), diarrhea (7 %), nausea (7 %), fatigue (6 %), and febrile neutropenia (4 %). Nausea and stomatitis were the most common all grade AEs with Datopotamab Deruxtecan; dyspnea, amylase increase, hyperglycemia and lymphopenia were reported as grade ≥ 3 AEs in less than 12 % of patients., Conclusion: As more effective strategies are needed for patients with refractory non-oncogene-addicted NSCLC, the design of novel clinical trials with ADCs targeting TROP-2 is encouraged as both a monotherapy or combination strategy with existing agents (e.g., monoclonal antibodies targeting immune checkpoint inhibitors or chemotherapy)., 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 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Nearly 1% to 2% of NSCLCs harbor RET fusions. Characterization of this rare population is still incomplete., Methods: This retrospective multicenter study included patients with any-stage RET positive (RET+) NSCLC from 31 cancer centers. Molecular profiling included DNA/RNA sequencing or fluorescence in situ hybridization analyses. Clinicobiological features and treatment outcomes (per investigator) with surgery, chemotherapy (CT), immune checkpoint blockers (ICBs), CT-ICB, multityrosine kinase inhibitors, and RET inhibitors (RETis) were evaluated., Results: For 218 patients included between February 2012 and April 2022, median age was 63 years, 56% were females, 93% had adenocarcinoma, and 41% were smokers. The most frequent fusion partner was KIF5B (72%). Median tumor mutational burden was 2.5 (range: 1-4) mutations per megabase, and median programmed death-ligand 1 expression was 10% (range: 0%-55%). The most common metastatic sites were the lung (50%), bone (43%), and pleura (40%). Central nervous system metastases were found at diagnosis of advanced NSCLC in 21% of the patients and at last follow-up or death in 31%. Overall response rate and median progression-free survival were 55% and 8.7 months with platinum doublet, 26% and 3.6 months with single-agent CT, 46% and 9.6 months with CT-ICB, 23% and 3.1 months with ICB, 37% and 3 months with multityrosine kinase inhibitor, and 76% and 16.2 months with RETi, respectively. Median overall survival was longer in patients treated with RETi versus no RETi (50.6 mo [37.7-72.1] versus 16.3 mo [12.7-28.8], p < 0.0001)., Conclusions: Patients with RET+ NSCLC have mainly thoracic and bone disease and low tumor mutational burden and programmed death-ligand 1 expression. RETi markedly improved survival, whereas ICB may be active in selected patients., (Copyright © 2023 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Bintrafusp alfa is a first-in-class bifunctional fusion protein composed of the extracellular domain of transforming growth factor beta receptor II (a TGF-β "trap") fused to a human immunoglobulin G1 monoclonal antibody blocking programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 (PD-L1). We report the efficacy and safety in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) that progressed following anti-PD-(L)1 therapy., Materials and Methods: In this expansion cohort of NCT02517398-a global, open-label, phase I trial-adults with advanced NSCLC that progressed following chemotherapy and was primary refractory or had acquired resistance to anti-PD-(L)1 treatment received intravenous bintrafusp alfa 1200 mg every 2 weeks until confirmed progression, unacceptable toxicity, or trial withdrawal. The primary endpoint was best overall response (by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 adjudicated by independent review committee); secondary endpoints included safety., Results: Eighty-three eligible patients (62 [74.7%] treated with ≥3 prior therapies) received bintrafusp alfa. Four patients (3 primary refractory, 1 acquired resistant) had confirmed partial responses (objective response rate, 4.8%; 95% CI, 1.3%-11.9%), and 9 had stable disease. Tumor cell PD-L1 expression was not associated with response. Nineteen patients (22.9%) experienced grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events, most commonly asthenia (3 [3.6%]) and fatigue, eczema, and pruritus (2 each [2.4%]). One patient had grade 4 amylase increased. One patient died during treatment for pneumonia before initiation of bintrafusp alfa., Conclusion: Although the primary endpoint was not met, bintrafusp alfa showed some clinical activity and a manageable safety profile in patients with heavily pretreated NSCLC, including prior anti-PD-(L)1 therapy. Tumor responses occurred irrespective of whether disease was primary refractory or had acquired resistance to prior anti-PD-(L)1 therapy., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press.)

In oncology, genome-wide testing is a major element in facilitating the implementation of precision medicine. However, current recommendations do not always specify the indication and utility of these tests according to the type of cancer. A national consensus approach based on a modified Delphi methodology was set up to provide expert opinion on the use of genome-wide testing in clinical practice in France. Four groups of experts - 4 each representing the following topics of interest - were defined: non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), breast cancer, melanoma, and cancer of unknown primary (CUP). In each group, assertions were formulated by a lead expert (8, 5, 7 and 6, respectively) and rated by five panellists involved in the management of these cancers, on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 9 (strongly agree). Consensus was reached when 75% of the scores were above 7. In case of disagreement, the panellists were asked to justify their rate. In total, 24 statements reached consensus after two to four rounds of rating, depending on the group. While the experts advocated the routine use of genome-wide testing in the diagnostic management of NSCLC and CUP, they did not recommend the systematisation of these tests for breast cancer and melanoma. Nevertheless, access to innovation in France could soon remove certain barriers and allow greater standardisation of broad molecular screening in oncology., (Copyright © 2023 Société Française du Cancer. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Background: We aimed to determine whether immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) time-of-day infusion might influence the survival of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)., Methods: We retrospectively analysed patients who received single-agent anti-PD-(L)1 therapy in any line between 2016 and 2021. We calculated by Cox regression models the association between the proportion of ICI infusions received after 16:30h and overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS)., Results: 180 patients were included, 77% received ICI as second- or further-line (median of 12 infusions/patient). The median age was 65 years (IQR 57-70), 112 patients (62%) were male, 165 (92%) were current or former tobacco smokers, 140 (78%) had performance status (PS) 0 or 1, 26 (14%) were on steroid therapy at ICI initiation. Histology was non-squamous for 139 (77%), the median number of metastatic sites was 3, and 33% had brain metastases. Patients who received at least 20% of ICI infusions after 16:30h (65 out of 180, 36%) had a statistically significant shorter median PFS as compared with patients receiving less than 20% of infusions in the evening (4.9 vs 9.4 months, log-rank p = 0.020), while numerical but not statistical shorter OS was observed (14.0 vs 26.2 months, log-rank p = 0.090). In the multivariate analysis, receiving at least 20% of evening infusions did not significantly increase the risk of death, while PS and line of treatment were significantly correlated with the OS. On the contrary, a proportion of ICI administration after 16:30h ≥20% conferred an HR for the PFS of 1.44 (95% CI: 1.01-2.05, p = 0.043), but this prognostic effect was not found when including in the model the total number of ICI infusions received (HR 1.20, 95% CI: 0.83-1.75, p = 0.329)., Conclusion: Time-of-day infusion of ICI may impact the survival of patients with advanced NSCLC. Underlying prognostic characteristics and the number of infusions received could represent conceivable confounding factors, linked to increased variance related to ICI infusion timing. Nonetheless, further studies may unravel chronobiological mechanisms modulating ICI efficacy., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: 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. ED: Honoraria/Board: Amgen and Sanofi Genzyme. MA: Expenses: Sandoz; Advisory Board: Viatris; Research funding: Sandoz. AL: Grants for academic research from Amgen, BeiGene, Astra Zeneca, Roche. None related to the current manuscript. NC: Grants: BMS, Sanofi, Astra Zeneca, GSK. Personal fees: Astra Zeneca, Servier. None related to the current manuscript. FB: Consultancy fees: AstraZeneca, Astex, Clovis, GSK, GamaMabs, Eli Lilly, MSD, Mission Therapeutics, Merus, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Pierre Fabre, Roche/Genentech, Sanofi, Servier, Symphogen, and Takeda. None related to the current manuscript. 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, Janssen, AbbVie; honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, prIME Oncology, Peer CME, Roche, Janssen, and AbbVie; clinical trial research as principal or co-investigator (institutional financial interests): AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Medimmune, Sanofi-Aventis, Taiho Pharma, Novocure, Daiichi Sankyo, Janssen, and AbbVie; travel, accommodations, and expenses: AstraZeneca, Roche, Novartis, and Pfizer. None related to the current manuscript. BB: Sponsored Research at Gustave Roussy Cancer Center: 4D Pharma, Abbvie, Amgen, Aptitude Health, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Blueprint Medicines, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Cergentis, Cristal Therapeutics, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eli Lilly, GSK, Inivata, Janssen, Onxeo, OSE immunotherapeutics, Pfizer, Roche-Genentech, Sanofi, Takeda, Tolero Pharmaceuticals. None related to the current manuscript. The other authors declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Overexpression of c-Met protein and epidermal growth factor receptor ( EGFR ) mutations can co-occur in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), providing strong rationale for dual targeting. Telisotuzumab vedotin (Teliso-V), a first-in-class antibody-drug conjugate targeting c-Met, has shown a tolerable safety profile and antitumor activity as monotherapy. Herein, we report the results of a phase Ib study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02099058) evaluating Teliso-V plus erlotinib, an EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), in patients with c-Met-positive (+) NSCLC., Patients and Methods: This study evaluated Teliso-V (2.7 mg/kg once every 21 days) plus erlotinib (150 mg once daily) in adult patients (age ≥ 18 years) with c-Met+ NSCLC. Later enrollment required presence of an EGFR -activating mutation ( EGFR -M + ) and progression on a prior EGFR TKI. End points included safety, pharmacokinetics, objective response rate (ORR), and progression-free survival (PFS). The efficacy-evaluable population consisted of c-Met+ patients (confirmed histology [H]-score ≥ 150) who had at least one postbaseline scan; c-Met+ patients with H-scores ≥ 225 were classified as c-Met high., Results: As of January 2020, 42 patients were enrolled (N = 36 efficacy-evaluable). Neuropathies were the most common any-grade adverse events reported, with 24 of 42 patients (57%) experiencing at least one event. The pharmacokinetic profile of Teliso-V plus erlotinib was similar to Teliso-V monotherapy. Median PFS for all efficacy-evaluable patients was 5.9 months (95% CI, 2.8 to not reached). ORR for EGFR -M + patients (n = 28) was 32.1%. Of EGFR- M + patients, those who were c-Met high (n = 15) had an ORR of 52.6%. Median PFS was 6.8 months for non-T790M+ and for those whose T790M status was unknown, versus 3.7 months for T790M+., Conclusion: Teliso-V plus erlotinib showed encouraging antitumor activity and acceptable toxicity in EGFR TKI-pretreated patients with EGFR -M+, c-Met+ NSCLC.

Background: CheckMate 817, a phase 3B study, evaluated flat-dose nivolumab plus weight-based ipilimumab in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Here, in this research, we report on first-line treatment in patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) 0-1 (cohort A) and special populations (cohort A1: ECOG PS 2; or ECOG PS 0-1 with untreated brain metastases, renal impairment, hepatic impairment, or controlled HIV infection)., Methods: Cohorts A and A1 received nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 6 weeks. The primary endpoint was the incidence of grade 3-4 and grade 5 immune-mediated adverse events (IMAEs; adverse events (AEs) deemed potentially immune-related, occurring <100 days of last dose, and treated with immune-modulating medication (except endocrine events)) and treatment-related select AEs (treatment-related AEs with potential immunological etiology requiring frequent monitoring/intervention, reported between first dose and 30 days after the last dose) in cohort A; efficacy endpoints were secondary/exploratory. In cohort A1, safety/efficacy assessment was exploratory., Results: The most common grade 3-4 IMAEs were pneumonitis (5.1%), diarrhea/colitis (4.9%), and hepatitis (4.6%) in cohort A (N=391) and diarrhea/colitis (3.5%), hepatitis (3.5%), and rash (3.0%) in cohort A1 (N=198). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related select AEs were hepatic (5.9%), gastrointestinal (4.9%), and pulmonary (4.6%) events in cohort A and gastrointestinal (4.0%), skin (3.5%), and endocrine (3.0%) events in cohort A1. No grade 5 IMAEs or treatment-related select AEs occurred. Treatment-related deaths occurred in 4 (1.0%) and 3 (1.5%) patients in cohorts A and A1, respectively. Three-year overall survival (OS) rates were 33.7% and 20.5%, respectively., Conclusions: Flat-dose nivolumab plus weight-based ipilimumab was associated with manageable safety and durable efficacy in cohort A, consistent with data from phase 3 metastatic NSCLC studies. Special populations of cohort A1 including patients with ECOG PS 2 or ECOG PS 0-1 with untreated brain metastases had manageable treatment-related toxicity and clinically meaningful 3-year OS rate., Trial Registration Number: NCT02869789., Competing Interests: Competing interests: NER reports receiving consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech, Jazz, Lilly, Merck, Regeneron and Roche; and other fees (honoraria) from Bristol Myers Squibb. CA-V reports interests (clinical trials, as principal investigator) with AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi; other fees (consultant/advisor) from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, FoundationOne, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and Takeda; and, as speaker (conferences and invitations) for AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche. JWG reports receiving grants/research support from Advaxis, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech and Merck; and other fees (consultant/advisor) from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Genentech. EF reports receiving grants/research support for the institution from Merck; other fees (consultant/advisor) from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Beigene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Medical Trends, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Peptomyc, Pfizer, Puma Biotechnology, Regeneron, Sanofi and Takeda for Advisory Board and Syneos Health for Data Safety and Monitoring; other fees (honoraria) from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Janssen, Medscape, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Peervoice, Pfizer, Springer and Touch Medical; and other fees (personal) from Grifols as an independent member of the board. T-EC reports personal fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Amgen, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Genzyme, Ipsen, Janssen, Lilly, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi and Servier; and personal fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, outside the submitted work. MRGC reports receiving consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and Takeda; other fees (honoraria) from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and Takeda; and support for attending meetings for AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Lilly, MSD, Pfizer and Roche. KJ reports receiving consulting fees from Amgen and Novartis; and other fees (honoraria) from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Merck, Pfizer and Takeda. FB reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly Oncology, Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Novartis, Merck, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer and Takeda. SB reports no conflicts of interest. ER reports receiving other fees (honoraria) from Bristol Myers Squibb. LU reports receiving other fees (scholarship) for coursework in Molecular Oncology at the Institute of Bioscience Madrid. J-SA reports receiving grants/research support for the institution from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck and Roche; other fees (honoraria) from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer and Sanofi; and participation on Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer and Roche. CZ reports no conflicts of interest. KV reports receiving grants/research support from Bristol Myers Squibb; other fees (honoraria) from Bristol Myers Squibb; support for attending meetings for AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb and Merck; patents planned/issued/pending on behalf of Ghent University; and participation on Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb and Merck. OAF reports receiving other fees (honoraria) from Bristol Myers Squibb of Chile. ACF reports receiving fees (honoraria) from MSD; and participation on Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen-Cilag, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda. AS-G reports no conflicts of interest. OJ-V reports receiving other fees (honoraria) from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Lilly, MSD, Roche and Takeda; and participation on Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Lilly, MSD and Takeda. HL reports receiving personal fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer and Roche. EP reports no conflicts of interest. DRS reports all support for present manuscript from Bristol Myers Squibb; receiving grants/research support from Aeglea Biotherapeutics, Agios, Apollomics, Arcus Biosciences, Arrys Therapeutics, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, BIND Therapeutics, BioNTech RNA Pharmaceuticals, Blueprint Medicine, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Calithera Biosciences, Celgene, Celldex Therapeutics, Clovis, Cyteir Therapeutics, Daiichi Sankyo, Denovo Biopharma, Eisai, Elevation Oncology, EMD Serono, Evelo Biosciences, G1 Therapeutics, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, GRAIL, Hutchison MediPharma, ImClone Systems, Incyte, Ipsen, Janssen, Kronos Bio, Lilly, Loxo, MacroGenics, MedImmune, Merck, Molecular Template, Nektar, Neon, Novartis, Novocure, Oncologie, Pfizer, PTC Therapeutics, PureTech Health, Razor Genomics, Repare Therapeutics, Rgenix, Takeda, Tarveda, Tesaro, Tizona Therapeutics, UT Southwestern, and Verastem; and other fees (consultant/advisor) from Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Bristol Myers Squibb, Curio Science, EMD Serono, Evidera, Exelixis, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Intellisphere, Ipsen, Janssen, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Lilly, Mirati Therapeutics, Molecular Templates, Novartis, Novocure, Pfizer, Puma Biotechnology, Regeneron and Sanofi-Aventis. SA reports receiving other fees (consultant/advisor) from Bristol Myers Squibb. MM reports other fees (honoraria) from Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD and Merck Serono; support for attending meetings for Alfasigma, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Incyte, Merck, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi, and Sciclone; participation on Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Alfasigma, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Incyte, Merck, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi, and Sciclone; and has stock in Epigen Therapeutics and Theravance. SL is a Bristol Myers Squibb employee and has stock in Bristol Myers Squibb. HC is a Bristol Myers Squibb employee and has stock in Bristol Myers Squibb. JF is a Bristol Myers Squibb employee and has stock in Bristol Myers Squibb. AA is a Bristol Myers Squibb employee and has stock in Bristol Myers Squibb. LP-A reports receiving grants/research support for the institution from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD and Pfizer; other fees (consultant/advisor) from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Ipsen, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Mirati, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Pharmamar, Roche, Sanofi, Servier and Takeda; other fees (honoraria) from AstraZeneca, Janssen, Merck and Mirati; and other (leadership/fiduciary) from Altum Sequency and Genomica., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Molecular profile of resected stage I-II non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) would help refine prognosis and personalize induction or adjuvant strategies. We sought to report the molecular profile of resected stage I-II NSCLC and analyzed the impact of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations on outcomes in a Western population., Patients and Methods: Surgical cases were identified from Biomarkers France study, a nationwide prospective study including NSCLC patients screened for EGFR, HER2, KRAS, BRAF, PIK3CA, ALK alterations from 2012 to 2013. Among surgical patients, clinical charts of the largest centers were reviewed in order to analyze the prognostic impact of EGFR mutations., Results: In the BMF database (n = 17.636), surgical patients (n = 854) were characterized by a higher proportion of EGFR mutations than nonsurgical patients (12.9% vs. 10.2%, P = .025), while the other molecular alterations did not differ. The proportion of EGFR mutations was 27% in women undergoing surgery. In the study group (n = 293; EGFR wild type, n = 235; usual mutation, n = 50; rare mutation, n = 8), after a median follow-up of 67 months, 215 patients (74.4%) had not relapsed. No difference was found between EGFR-mutant and EGFR-wt tumors regarding recurrence site, disease-free survival, and overall survival. The 5-year disease-free survival and overall survival after surgical resection of stage I-II EGFR-mutated tumors were 65% and 75%, respectively., Conclusion: In resected stage I to II NSCLC, EGFR mutations were found in 12.9% of cases, associated with a 5-year overall survival of 75%, with no impact on recurrence site, disease-free survival, and overall survival., Competing Interests: Disclosure Dr Mordant, Dr Brosseau, Dr Milleron, Dr Santelmo, Dr Fraboulet, Mrs Langlais, Dr Gossot, Dr Thomas, Dr Pujol, Dr Madelaine, Dr Lamy, Dr Missy, Dr Blons report no conflict of interest. Dr Besse reports grants from Abbvie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Blueprint Medicines, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Cristal Therapeutics, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eli Lilly, GSK, Ignyta, IPSEN, Inivata, Janssen, Merck KGaA, MSD, Nektar, Onxeo, OSE Immunotherapeutics, Pfizer, Pharma Mar, Roche-Genentech, Sanofi, Servier, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Takeda, Tiziana Pharma, Tolero Pharmaceuticals, during the conduct of the study. Dr Ricordel reports grants from Novartis, outside the submitted work. Dr Audigier-Valette reports personal fees and non-financial support from Roche, BMS, MSD, AstraZeneca, Abbvie, Pfizer, Takeda outside the submitted work. Dr Barlesi reports personal fees from Astra-Zeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Eli Lilly Oncology, F. Hoffmann–La Roche Ltd, Novartis, Merck, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer and Takeda, outside the submitted work. Dr Westeel reports honoraria from Roche, AstraZeneca, BMS and MSD and non-financial support from Roche and Pfizer., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Brigatinib is a potent next-generation ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitor approved for treatment-naive and crizotinib-refractory advanced ALK-positive (ALK+) NSCLC. We evaluated brigatinib after other next-generation ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitors., Methods: In this single-arm, phase 2, ALK in Lung Cancer Trial of brigAtinib-2 (NCT03535740), patients with advanced ALK+ NSCLC whose disease progressed on alectinib or ceritinib received brigatinib 180 mg once daily (after 7-d 90-mg lead-in). Primary end point was independent review committee (IRC)-assessed overall response rate (ORR). Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) was analyzed., Results: Among 103 patients (data cutoff: September 30, 2020; median follow-up [range]: 10.8 [0.5-17.7] mo), confirmed IRC-ORR was 26.2% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 18.0-35.8), median duration of response, 6.3 months (95% CI: 5.6-not reached), and median progression-free survival (mPFS), 3.8 months (95% CI: 3.5-5.8). mPFS was 1.9 months (95% CI: 1.8-3.7) in patients with ctDNA-detectable baseline ALK fusion (n = 64). Among 86 patients who progressed on alectinib, IRC-ORR was 29.1% (95% CI: 19.8-39.9); mPFS was 3.8 months (95% CI: 1.9-5.4). Resistance mutations were present in 33.3% (26 of 78) of baseline ctDNA; 54% (14 of 26) of mutations were G1202R; 52% (33 of 64) of patients with detectable ALK fusion had EML4-ALK variant 3. Most common all-grade treatment-related adverse events were increased creatine phosphokinase (32%) and diarrhea (27%). The mean dose intensity of brigatinib (180 mg once daily) was 85.9%., Conclusions: In ALK in Lung Cancer Trial of brigAtinib-2, brigatinib was found to have a limited activity in patients with ALK+ NSCLC post-ceritinib or post-alectinib therapy. mPFS was longer with brigatinib in patients without baseline detectable plasma ALK fusion., (Copyright © 2022 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Durvalumab significantly improves overall survival for patients with unresectable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer and no progression after concurrent chemoradiotherapy (cCRT). Building upon that standard of care, COAST is a phase II study of durvalumab alone or combined with the anti-CD73 monoclonal antibody oleclumab or anti-NKG2A monoclonal antibody monalizumab as consolidation therapy in this setting., Methods: Patients with unresectable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0/1, and no progression after cCRT were randomly assigned 1:1:1, ≤ 42 days post-cCRT, to durvalumab alone or combined with oleclumab or monalizumab for up to 12 months, stratified by histology. The primary end point was investigator-assessed confirmed objective response rate (ORR; RECIST v1.1)., Results: Between January 2019 and July 2020, 189 patients were randomly assigned. At this interim analysis (data cutoff, May 17, 2021), median follow-up was 11.5 months (range, 0.4-23.4 months; all patients). Confirmed ORR was numerically higher with durvalumab plus oleclumab (30.0%; 95% CI, 18.8 to 43.2) and durvalumab plus monalizumab (35.5%; 95% CI, 23.7 to 48.7) versus durvalumab (17.9%; 95% CI, 9.6 to 29.2). Progression-free survival (PFS) was prolonged with both combinations versus durvalumab (plus oleclumab: hazard ratio, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.26 to 0.75; and plus monalizumab: hazard ratio, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.24 to 0.72), with higher 12-month PFS rates (plus oleclumab: 62.6% [95% CI, 48.1 to 74.2] and plus monalizumab: 72.7% [95% CI, 58.8 to 82.6] v durvalumab alone: 33.9% [95% CI, 21.2 to 47.1]). All-cause grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 40.7%, 27.9%, and 39.4% with durvalumab plus oleclumab, durvalumab plus monalizumab, and durvalumab, respectively., Conclusion: Both combinations increased ORR and prolonged PFS versus durvalumab alone. Safety was similar across arms with no new or significant safety signals identified with either combination. These data support their further evaluation in a phase III trial.

Purpose: Targeted therapies (TT) and immune checkpoint blockers (ICB) have revolutionized the approach to non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treatment in the era of precision medicine. Their impact as switch maintenance therapy based on molecular characterization is unknown., Patients and Methods: SAFIR02-Lung/IFCT 1301 was an open-label, randomized, phase II trial, involving 33 centers in France. We investigated eight TT (substudy-1) and one ICB (substudy-2), compared with standard-of-care as a maintenance strategy in patients with advanced EGFR, ALK wild-type (wt) NSCLC without progression after first-line chemotherapy, based on high-throughput genome analysis. The primary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS)., Results: Among the 175 patients randomized in substudy-1, 116 received TT (selumetinib, vistusertib, capivasertib, AZD4547, AZD8931, vandetanib, olaparib, savolitinib) and 59 standard-of-care. Median PFS was 2.7 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.6-2.9] with TT versus 2.7 months (1.6-4.1) with standard-of-care (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.7-1.36; P = 0.87). There were no significant differences in PFS within any molecular subgroup. In substudy-2, 183 patients were randomized, 121 received durvalumab and 62 standard-of-care. Median PFS was 3.0 months (2.3-4.4) with durvalumab versus 3.0 months (2.0-5.1) with standard-of-care (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.62-1.20; P = 0.38). Preplanned subgroup analysis showed an enhanced benefit with durvalumab in patients with PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) ≥1%, (n = 29; HR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.11-0.75) as compared with PD-L1 <1% (n = 31; HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.31-1.60; Pinteraction = 0.036)., Conclusions: Molecular profiling can feasibly be implemented to guide treatment choice for the maintenance strategy in EGFR/ALK wt NSCLC; in this study it did not lead to substantial treatment benefits beyond durvalumab for PD-L1 ≥ 1 patients., (©2022 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: Even after resection of early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), patients have a high risk of developing recurrence and second primary lung cancer. We aimed to assess efficacy of a follow-up approach including clinic visits, chest x-rays, chest CT scans, and fibre-optic bronchoscopy versus clinical visits and chest x-rays after surgery for resectable NSCLC., Methods: In this multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial (IFCT-0302), patients aged 18 years or older and after complete resection of pathological stage I-IIIA NSCLC according to the sixth edition of the TNM classification were enrolled within 8 weeks of resection from 122 hospitals and tertiary centres in France. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to CT-based follow-up (clinic visits, chest x-rays, thoraco-abdominal CT scans, and fibre-optic bronchoscopy for non-adenocarcinoma histology) or minimal follow-up (visits and chest x-rays) after surgery for NSCLC, by means of a computer-generated sequence using the minimisation method. Procedures were repeated every 6 months for the first 2 years and yearly until 5 years. The primary endpoint was overall survival analysed in the intention-to-treat population. Secondary endpoints, also analysed in the intention-to-treat population, included disease-free survival. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00198341, and is active, but not enrolling., Findings: Between Jan 3, 2005, and Nov 30, 2012, 1775 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to a follow-up group (888 patients to the minimal follow-up group; 887 patients to the CT-based follow-up group). Median overall survival was not significantly different between follow-up groups (8·5 years [95% CI 7·4-9·6] in the minimal follow-up group vs 10·3 years [8·1-not reached] in the CT-based follow-up group; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·95, 95% CI 0·83-1·10; log-rank p=0·49). Disease-free survival was not significantly different between follow-up groups (median not reached [95% CI not estimable-not estimable] in the minimal follow-up group vs 4·9 [4·3-not reached] in the CT-based follow-up group; adjusted HR 1·14, 95% CI 0·99-1·30; log-rank p=0·063). Recurrence was detected in 246 (27·7%) of 888 patients in the minimal follow-up group and in 289 (32·6%) patients of 887 in the CT-based follow-up group. Second primary lung cancer was diagnosed in 27 (3·0%) patients in the minimal follow-up group and 40 patients (4·5%) in the CT-based follow-up group. No serious adverse events related to the trial procedures were reported., Interpretation: The addition of thoracic CT scans during follow-up, which included clinic visits and chest x-rays after surgery, did not result in longer survival among patients with NSCLC. However, it did enable the detection of more cases of early recurrence and second primary lung cancer, which are more amenable to curative-intent treatment, supporting the use of CT-based follow-up, especially in countries where lung cancer screening is already implemented, alongside with other supportive measures., Funding: French Health Ministry, French National Cancer Institute, Weisbrem-Benenson Foundation, La Ligue Nationale Contre Le Cancer, and Lilly Oncology., Translation: For the French translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests VW reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Merck Sharpe and Dohme, Pfizer, and Roche outside the submitted work; support for attending meetings or travel from AstraZeneca, BMS, and Sanofi outside the submitted work; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board from MSD and Takeda outside the submitted work. JT reports support for attending meetings or travel from Roche and BMS, outside the submitted work. EQ reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Chugai and BMS, outside the submitted work; and support for attending meetings or travel from BMS, Roche, and Takeda, outside the submitted work. GZ reports grants or contracts from Fondation Roche, Takeda, and BMS outside the submitted work; consulting fees from BMS and AstraZeneca, outside the submitted work; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from BMS, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and MDS, outside the submitted work; support for attending meetings or travel from BMS, AstraZeneca, and AbbVie, outside the submitted work. FB reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly Oncology, F Hoffmann–La Roche, Novartis, Merck, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, and Takeda, outside the submitted work. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: A phase Ia/Ib trial of metronomic oral vinorelbine (MOV) driven by a mathematical model was performed in heavily pretreated metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer or Pleural Mesothelioma patients. Disease Control Rate, progression free survival, toxicity and PK/PD were the main endpoints., Methods: Best MOV scheduling was selected using a simplified phenomenological, semi-mechanistic model with a total weekly dose of 150-mg vinorelbine. Computation of individual PK parameters was performed using population approach., Results: The mathematical model proposed the following metronomic schedule for a 150-mg weekly dose of vinorelbine: 60 mg D1, 30 mg D2, 60 mg D4. A total of 37 heavily pre-treated patients (30 evaluable) were enrolled. Grade III/IV neutropenia was observed in 30% patients. Median PFS was 11 weeks. Disease Control Rate was 73% (i.e.; 13% partial response and 60% stable disease). A large variability in drug exposure (AUC 0-24 h : 53%) and PK parameters (Cl: 83%) were observed among patients. Simulated trough levels after D2 and D4 showed similarly 56-73% variability among patients. Drug exposure was not associated with efficacy, but neutropenia was more frequent in patients with AUC > 250 ng/ml.h. Tumor burden, performance status and neutrophils-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) were associated with PFS, suggesting that MOV would be indicated in selected patients. We built a composite score to predict efficacy, mixing baseline tumor size and NLR showing 84% selectivity and 75% specificity., Conclusions: MOV was characterized by important variability in drug exposure among patients. However, and despite being all heavily pre-treated, 73% of disease control rate and 11 weeks PFS were achieved with manageable toxicities. PK/PD relationships yielded conflicting results depending on the initial tumor burden and BSA, suggesting that patients should be carefully selected prior to be scheduled for metronomic regimen. Possible role NLR could play as a predictive marker suggests immunomodulating features with MOV., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Introduction: Lung cancer remains the most frequent cause of brain metastases (BMs) and is responsible for high morbidity and mortality. Intracranial response to systemic treatments is inconsistent due to several mechanisms: genomic heterogeneity, blood-tumor barrier, and the brain-specific microenvironment. We conducted a study using data from the SAFIR02-LUNG trial. The primary objective was to compare the molecular profiles of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with or without BMs. The secondary objective was to explore central nervous system (CNS) outcomes with various maintenance treatment regimens., Methods: In total, 365 patients harboring interpretable molecular data were included in this analysis. Clinical and biological data were collected. Genomic analyses were based on array-comparative genomic hybridization and next-generation sequencing (NGS) following the trial recommendations., Results: Baseline genomic analyses of copy number variations identified a 24-gene signature specific to lung cancer BM occurrence, all previously known to take part in oncogenesis. NGS analysis identified a higher proportion of KRAS mutations in the BM-positive group (44.3% versus 32.3%), especially G12C mutations (63% versus 47%). Protein interaction analyses highlighted several functional interactions centered on EGFR. Furthermore, the risk of CNS progression was decreased with standard pemetrexed maintenance therapy. The highest rate of CNS progression was observed with durvalumab, probably because of the specific intracranial immune microenvironment., Conclusion: This work identified a 24-gene signature specific to lung cancer with BM. Further studies are needed to precisely determine the functional implications of these genes to identify new therapeutic targets for the treatment of lung cancer with BM., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Central nervous system metastases are a prominent cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with ALK-positive (ALK+) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The phase II ASCEND-7 (NCT02336451) study was specifically designed to assess the efficacy and safety of the ALK inhibitor (ALKi) ceritinib in patients with ALK+ NSCLC metastatic to the brain and/or leptomeninges., Patients and Methods: Patients with active brain metastases were allocated to study arms 1 to 4 based on prior exposure to an ALKi and/or prior brain radiation (arm 1: prior radiotherapy/ALKi-pretreated; arm 2: no radiotherapy/ALKi-pretreated; arm 3: prior radiotherapy/ALKi-naïve; arm 4: no radiotherapy/ALKi-naïve). Arm 5 included patients with leptomeningeal carcinomatosis. Patients received ceritinib 750 mg once daily (fasted condition). Primary endpoint was investigator-assessed whole-body overall response rate (ORR) per RECIST v1.1. Secondary endpoints included disease control rate (DCR) and intracranial/extracranial responses., Results: Per investigator assessment, in arms 1 (n = 42), 2 (n = 40), 3 (n = 12), and 4 (n = 44), respectively: whole-body ORRs [95% confidence interval (CI)] were 35.7% (21.6-52.0), 30.0% (16.6-46.5), 50.0% (21.1-78.9), and 59.1% (43.2-73.7); whole-body DCR (95% CI): 66.7% (50.5-80.4), 82.5% (67.2-92.7), 66.7% (34.9-90.1), and 70.5% (54.8-83.2); intracranial ORRs (95% CI): 39.3% (21.5-59.4), 27.6% (12.7-47.2), 28.6% (3.7-71.0), and 51.5% (33.5-69.2). In arm 5 (n = 18), whole-body ORR was 16.7% (95% CI, 3.6-41.4) and DCR was 66.7% (95% CI, 41.0-86.7). Paired cerebrospinal fluid and plasma sampling revealed that ceritinib penetrated the human blood-brain barrier., Conclusions: Ceritinib showed antitumor activity in patients with ALK+ NSCLC with active brain metastases and/or leptomeningeal disease, and could be considered in the management of intracranial disease. See related commentary by Murciano-Goroff et al., p. 2477., (©2022 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: Targeted inhibition of the PD-L1-PD-1 pathway might be further amplified through combination of PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors with novel anti-TIGIT inhibitory immune checkpoint agents, such as tiragolumab. In the CITYSCAPE trial, we aimed to assess the preliminary efficacy and safety of tiragolumab plus atezolizumab (anti-PD-L1) therapy as first-line treatment for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC)., Methods: CITYSCAPE is a phase 2, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Patients with chemotherapy-naive, PD-L1-positive (defined as a tumour proportion score of ≥1% by 22C3 immunohistochemistry pharmDx assay; Dako, Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA) recurrent or metastatic NSCLC with measurable disease, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and no EGFR or ALK alterations were enrolled from 41 clinics in Europe, Asia, and the USA. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1), via an interactive voice or web-based response system, to receive tiragolumab (600 mg) plus atezolizumab (1200 mg) or placebo plus atezolizumab intravenously once every 3 weeks. Investigators and patients were masked to treatment assignment. The co-primary endpoints were investigator-assessed objective response rate and progression-free survival as per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 in the intention-to-treat population, analysed after approximately 80 progression-free survival events had been observed in the primary population. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03563716, and is ongoing., Findings: Patients were enrolled between Aug 10, 2018, and March 20, 2019. At data cutoff for the primary analysis (June 30, 2019), 135 of 275 patients assessed for eligibility were randomly assigned to receive tiragolumab plus atezolizumab (67 [50%]) or placebo plus atezolizumab (68 [50%]). In this primary analysis, after a median follow-up of 5·9 months (4·6-7·6, in the intention-to-treat population, 21 patients (31·3% [95% CI 19·5-43·2]) in the tiragolumab plus atezolizumab group versus 11 patients (16·2% [6·7-25·7]) in the placebo plus atezolizumab group had an objective response (p=0·031). Median progression-free survival was 5·4 months (95% CI 4·2-not estimable) in the tiragolumab plus atezolizumab group versus 3·6 months (2·7-4·4) in the placebo plus atezolizumab group (stratified hazard ratio 0·57 [95% CI 0·37-0·90], p=0·015). 14 (21%) patients receiving tiragolumab plus atezolizumab and 12 (18%) patients receiving placebo plus atezolizumab had serious treatment-related adverse events. The most frequently reported grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse event was lipase increase (in six [9%] patients in the tiragolumab plus atezolizumab group vs two [3%] in the placebo plus atezolizumab group). Two treatment-related deaths (of pyrexia and infection) occurred in the tiragolumab plus atezolizumab group., Interpretation: Tiragolumab plus atezolizumab showed a clinically meaningful improvement in objective response rate and progression-free survival compared with placebo plus atezolizumab in patients with chemotherapy-naive, PD-L1-positive, recurrent or metastatic NSCLC. Tiragolumab plus atezolizumab was well tolerated, with a safety profile generally similar to that of atezolizumab alone. These findings demonstrate that tiragolumab plus atezolizumab is a promising immunotherapy combination for the treatment of previously untreated, locally advanced unresectable or metastatic NSCLC., Funding: F Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests BCC reports research funding from Novartis, Bayer, AstraZeneca, MOGAM Institute, Dong-A ST, Champions Oncology, Janssen, Yuhan, Ono, Dizal Pharma, Merck Sharp & Dohme, AbbVie, Medpacto, GIInnovation, Eli Lilly, Blueprint Medicines, and Interpark Bio Convergence; royalties from Champions Oncology; and consulting fees from Novartis, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Ono, Yuhan, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Takeda, MSD, Medpacto, and Blueprint Medicines; participates on a scientific advisory board for KANAPH Therapeutic, Brigebio Therapeutics, Cyrus Therapeutics, Guardant Health, and Joseah BIO; is on the Board of Directors for Interpark Bio Convergence and Gencurix; holds stock in TheraCanVac, Gencurix, Bridgebio Therapeutics, KANAPH Therapeutic, Cyrus Therapeutics, and Interpark Bio Convergence; and is the founder of DAAN Biotherapeutics. DRA reports personal payment or honoraria from Roche, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, and Novartis; and institutional support for attending meetings or travel from Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme and Novartis. MH reports consulting or advisory fees from IntegraConnect, Coherus Biosciences, Athenex, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, and Mirati Therapeutics. AJP is on the Executive Board of Florida Cancer Specialists. KHL reports consulting fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Lilly, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca. BM reports consulting fees from Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Takeda; payment or honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and AstraZeneca; support for attending meetings or travel from Merck Sharp & Dohme and AstraZeneca; and a leadership or fiduciary role in the Spanish Lung Cancer Group. SH is a consultant–advisor to AstraZeneca and Takeda. JCHY reports grants from AstraZeneca; personal fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringrer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Merck KGaA, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Ono Pharmaceutical, Pfizer, Roche–Genentech, Takeda Oncology, and Yuhan Pharmaceuticals; and institutional fees for advisory or consulting services from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringrer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Merck KGaA, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Roche–Genentech, Takeda Oncology, Yuhan Pharmaceuticals, and Johnson and Johnson. FB reports personal consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly Oncology, F Hoffmann-La Roche, Novartis, Merck, Mirati, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Seattle Genetics, and Takeda; and institutional consulting fees from AbbVie, ACEA, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eisai, Eli Lilly Oncology, F Hoffmann-La Roche, Genentech, Ipsen, Ignyta, Innate Pharma, Loxo, Novartis, Medimmune, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis, and Takeda. DHL reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CJ Healthcare, Eli Lilly, ChongKeunDang, Janssen, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mundipharma, Novartis, Ono, Pfizer, Roche, Samyang Biopharm, ST Cube, AbbVie, Takeda, Genexine, Menarini, and BC Pharma; and non-financial support from Takeda and Blueprint Medicine. LPA reports grants or contracts from Merck Sharp & Dohme, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Bristol-Myers Squibb; consulting fees from Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Pharmamar, Merck, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Servier, Amgen, Pfizer, Ipsen, Sanofi, Bayer, Blueprint, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Mirati; payment or honoraria from AstraZeneca, Janssen, Merck, Mirati and Sanofi; and a leadership or fiduciary role in Genomica and Altum Sequency. RWH reports stock and stock options with F Hoffmann-La Roche, and is an employee of Genentech. NSP is an employee of Genentech. PT reports stock and stock options with F Hoffmann-La Roche. XY is an employee of Genentech. RM is an employee of Genentech and reports stock with Genentech. MLJ reports grants from AbbVie, Amgen, Apexigen, Arcus Biosciences, Array Biopharma, Artios Pharma, AstraZeneca, Atreca, BeiGene, BerGenBio, Boehringer Ingelheim, Calithera Biosciences, Checkpoint Therapeutics, Corvus Pharmaceuticals, Curis, CytomX, Daiichi Sankyo, Dracen Pharmaceuticals, Dynavax, Lilly, EMD Serono, Genentech–Roche, Genmab, Genocea Biosciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Gritstone Oncology, Guardant Health, Harpoon, Hengrui Therapeutics, Immunocore, Incyte, Janssen, Jounce Therapeutics, Kadmon Pharmaceuticals, Loxo Oncology, Lycera, Merck, Mirati Therapeutics, Neovia Oncology, Novartis, OncoMed Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, PMV Pharmaceuticals, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Ribon Therapeutics, Sanofi, Seven and Eight Biopharmaceuticals–Birdie Biopharmaceuticals, Shattuck Labs, Silicon Therapeutics, Stem CentRx, Syndax Pharmaceuticals, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Tarveda, TCR2 Therapeutics, TMUNITY Therapeutics, University of Michigan, and WindMIL; and institutional fees for consulting services from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Atreca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Calithera Biosciences, Checkpoint Therapeutics, CytomX, Daiichi Sankyo, EMD Serono, Genentech–Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Gritstone Oncology, Guardant Health, Incyte, Janssen, Loxo Oncology, Merck, Mirati Therapeutics, Novartis, Pfizer, Ribon Therapeutics, Sanofi, WindMIL, Achilles Therapeutics, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Editas Medicine, Eisai, G1 Therapeutics, Ideaya Biosciences, Lilly, and Association of Community Cancer Centers. MC, NS, and XY declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: An assessment of the impact of functional status (FS) evaluated using a combination of Activities of Daily Living (ADL) and the short version of the Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL), on 3- and 6- month mortality and on 3-month unplanned hospitalizations in older patients treated for lung cancers., Method and Objectives: This observational retrospective study was conducted between September 2015 and January 2019 at Marseille University Hospital (AP-HM). During this period, all consecutive outpatients aged 70 years or older referred for a comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) before the initiation of lung cancer treatment were enrolled., Results: Two hundred twenty-seven patients were analyzed: the median age was 78.7 years and 74.0% were male. Almost half of the patients were metastatic (45.4%). Concerning FS, 41.9% of patients had no ADL-IADL impairment, 30.0% had either IADL or ADL impairment, and both ADL-IADL were impaired for 28.1%. Impaired ADL-IADL was associated with poor nutritional status, depression, mobility, and cognitive disorders. In a logistic regression model, ADL or IADL impairment (aOR = 2.1; 95% CI [1.0-4.2]; p = 0.037) and impaired ADL-IADL (aOR = 2.6; 95% CI [1.2-5.3]; p = 0.012) were independently associated with a higher risk of unplanned hospitalizations within 3 months. In the multivariate Cox model, 6-month mortality risk was independently associated with impaired ADL-IADL (aHR = 2.3; 95% CI [1.3-4.4]; p = 0.008)., Conclusion: The combination of ADL and IADL scales to assess FS is a prognostic marker of the mortality risk at 6 months in older patients with lung cancer and should be more largely used by oncologists in treatment decision making., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Genomic tumour profiling informs targeted treatment options. Entrectinib is a tyrosine kinase inhibitor with efficacy in NTRK fusion-positive (-fp) solid tumours and ROS1-fp non-small cell lung cancer. FoundationOne® Liquid CDx (F1L CDx), a non-invasive in vitro next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based diagnostic, detects genomic alterations in plasma circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA). We evaluated the clinical validity of F1L CDx as an aid in identifying patients with NTRK-fp or ROS1-fp tumours and assessed the genomic landscape pre- and post-entrectinib treatment. Among evaluable pre-treatment clinical samples (N = 85), positive percentage agreements between F1L CDx and clinical trial assays (CTAs) were 47.4% (NTRK fusions) and 64.5% (ROS1 fusions); positive predictive value was 100% for both. The objective response rate for CTA + F1L CDx + patients was 72.2% in both cohorts. The median duration of response significantly differed between F1L CDx + and F1L CDx - samples in ROS1-fp (5.6 vs. 17.3 months) but not NTRK-fp (9.2 vs. 12.9 months) patients. Fifteen acquired resistance mutations were detected. We conclude that F1L CDx is a clinically valid complement to tissue-based testing to identify patients who may benefit from entrectinib and those with acquired resistance mutations associated with disease progression., (© 2022 Genentech, Inc. Molecular Oncology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Federation of European Biochemical Societies.)

Background: Tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) having immunosuppressive properties are one of the most abundant immune cells in the tumor microenvironment (TME). Preclinical studies have highlighted the potential role of TAMs in resistance to immune checkpoint blockers (ICBs). Here, we investigated the predictive value of TAM infiltration in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with ICBs and characterized their transcriptomic profiles., Methods: Tumor samples were collected from 152 patients with NSCLC before ICB treatment onset. After immunohistochemical staining and image analysis, the correlation between CD163+ cell infiltration and survival was analyzed. Spatial transcriptomic analyses were performed using the NanoString GeoMx Immune Pathways assay to compare the gene expression profile of tumors with high or low levels of CD163+ cell infiltration and to identify determinants of response to ICBs in tumors with high CD163+ infiltration., Results: Low intratumoral CD163+ cell infiltration was associated with longer progression-free survival (PFS; HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.94, p=0.023) and overall survival (OS; HR 0.48, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.80, p=0.004) under ICB treatment. Spatial transcriptomic profiles of 16 tumors revealed the upregulation of ITGAM , CD27, and CCL5 in tumors with high CD163+ cell infiltration. Moreover, in tumors with high macrophage infiltration, the upregulation of genes associated with the interferon-γ signaling pathway and the M1 phenotype was associated with better responses under immunotherapy. Surprisingly, we found also a significantly higher expression of CSF1R in the tumors of responders. Analysis of three independent data sets confirmed that high CSF1R expression was associated with an increased durable clinical benefit rate (47% vs 6%, p=0.004), PFS (median 10.89 months vs 1.67 months, p=0.001), and OS (median 23.11 months vs 2.66 months, p<0.001) under ICB treatment., Conclusions: Enrichment of TAMs in the TME of NSCLC is associated with resistance to immunotherapy regardless of the programmed death ligand 1 status and is driven by upregulation of CD27 , ITGAM, and CCL5 gene expression within the tumor compartment. Our transcriptomic analyses identify new potential targets to alter TAM recruitment/polarization and highlight the complexity of the CSF1R pathway, which may not be a suitable target to improve ICB efficacy., Competing Interests: Competing interests: ML, IS, SC, FLL: Nothing to disclose. AB, J-PG, CR: Employees of Explicyte. AI: Received research grants from AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Chugai, Merck, MSD, Pharmamar, Novartis, Roche, and received personal fees from Epizyme, Bayer, Lilly, Roche, and Springworks. BB: Received grants from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Onxeo, Bristol Myers Squibb, Inivata, AbbVie, Amgen, Blueprint Medicines, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Ignyta, Ipsen, Merck KGaA, MSD Oncology, Nektar, PharmaMar, Sanofi, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Takeda, Tiziana Therapeutics, Cristal Therapeutics, Daiichi Sankyo, Janssen Oncology, OSE Immunotherapeutics, BeiGene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Genentech, Servier, Tolero Pharmaceuticals. J-CS: Has received consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, Astex, Clovis, GSK, GamaMabs, Lilly, MSD, Mission Therapeutics, Merus, Pfizer, Pharma Mar, Pierre Fabre, Roche/Genentech, Sanofi, Servier, Symphogen, and Takeda. FB: Has received consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, Astex, Clovis, GSK, GamaMabs, Lilly, MSD, Mission Therapeutics, Merus, Pfizer, Pharma Mar, Pierre Fabre, Roche/Genentech, Sanofi, Servier, Symphogen, and Takeda., (© 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.)

Objectives: According to 2018 United States and international lung cancer and pathology guidelines, testing of EGFR, ALK, ROS1 and BRAF genes is a minimum requirement to identify targeted therapy options in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC). We describe real-world use and clinical features of next-generation sequencing (NGS) and other non-NGS testing technologies in these patients., Materials and Methods: Patients were from the Flatiron Health electronic health record-derived de-identified database and were newly diagnosed with non-squamous aNSCLC between 1 January 2018 and 30 June 2019. We describe occurrence and patterns of NGS- (including comprehensive genomic profiling [CGP]) and non-NGS-based genomic testing before the start of first-line therapy, unsuccessful genotyping (<4 genes tested) and incidence of potentially missed targeted therapy options (<4 genes tested with no positive results)., Results: Among 3050 patients, 2356 received any type of genomic testing (NGS: 1406 [59.7%]). Unsuccessful genotyping occurred in 13.2% and 52.2% of NGS- and non-NGS-tested patients, respectively. Among NGS-tested patients, 10.0% had a potentially missed targeted therapy option (CGP: 2.9%), compared with 40.2% in the non-NGS tested group. While all four guideline-recommended genes were tested in ≥ 92% of patients who had NGS testing, when only non-NGS testing was used, although EGFR and ALK had similarly high testing proportions, BRAF and ROS1 (56.1% and 83.7%, respectively) were examined less often., Conclusions: Our findings suggest that in aNSCLC clinical practice, NGS testing may help to avoid potentially missed targeted therapy options and improve testing uptake for recently approved biomarkers. Results therefore support the use of guideline-recommended broad-panel NGS testing in clinical practice., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: To evaluate the effects of the global coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on lung cancer trials, we surveyed investigators and collected aggregate enrollment data for lung cancer trials across the world before and during the pandemic., Methods: A Data Collection Survey collected aggregate monthly enrollment numbers from 294 global lung cancer trials for 2019 to 2020. A 64-question Action Survey evaluated the impact of COVID-19 on clinical trials and identified mitigation strategies implemented., Results: Clinical trial enrollment declined from 2019 to 2020 by 14% globally. Most reductions in enrollment occurred in April to June where we found significant decreases in individual site enrollment (p = 0.0309). Enrollment was not significantly different in October 2019 to December of 2019 versus 2020 (p = 0.25). The most frequent challenges identified by the Action Survey (N = 172) were fewer eligible patients (63%), decrease in protocol compliance (56%), and suspension of trials (54%). Patient-specific challenges included access to trial site (49%), ability to travel (54%), and willingness to visit the site (59%). The most frequent mitigation strategies included modified monitoring requirements (47%), telehealth visits (45%), modified required visits (25%), mail-order medications (25%), and laboratory (27%) and radiology (21%) tests at nonstudy facilities. Sites that felt the most effective mitigation strategies were telehealth visits (85%), remote patient-reported symptom collection (85%), off-site procedures (85%), and remote consenting (89%)., Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic created many challenges for lung cancer clinical trials conduct and enrollment. Mitigation strategies were used and, although the pandemic worsened, trial enrollment improved. A more flexible approach may improve enrollment and access to clinical trials, even beyond the pandemic., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Introduction: Patients with thoracic malignancies are at increased risk for mortality from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and a large number of intertwined prognostic variables have been identified so far., Methods: Capitalizing data from the Thoracic Cancers International COVID-19 Collaboration (TERAVOLT) registry, a global study created with the aim of describing the impact of COVID-19 in patients with thoracic malignancies, we used a clustering approach, a fast-backward step-down selection procedure, and a tree-based model to screen and optimize a broad panel of demographics and clinical COVID-19 and cancer characteristics., Results: As of April 15, 2021, a total of 1491 consecutive eligible patients from 18 countries were included in the analysis. With a mean observation period of 42 days, 361 events were reported with an all-cause case fatality rate of 24.2%. The clustering procedure screened 73 covariates in 13 clusters. A further multivariable logistic regression for the association between clusters and death was performed, resulting in five clusters significantly associated with the outcome. The fast-backward step-down selection procedure then identified the following seven major determinants of death: Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group-performance status (ECOG-PS) (OR = 2.47, 1.87-3.26), neutrophil count (OR = 2.46, 1.76-3.44), serum procalcitonin (OR = 2.37, 1.64-3.43), development of pneumonia (OR = 1.95, 1.48-2.58), C-reactive protein (OR = 1.90, 1.43-2.51), tumor stage at COVID-19 diagnosis (OR = 1.97, 1.46-2.66), and age (OR = 1.71, 1.29-2.26). The receiver operating characteristic analysis for death of the selected model confirmed its diagnostic ability (area under the receiver operating curve = 0.78, 95% confidence interval: 0.75-0.81). The nomogram was able to classify the COVID-19 mortality in an interval ranging from 8% to 90%, and the tree-based model recognized ECOG-PS, neutrophil count, and c-reactive protein as the major determinants of prognosis., Conclusions: From 73 variables analyzed, seven major determinants of death have been identified. Poor ECOG-PS was found to have the strongest association with poor outcome from COVID-19. With our analysis, we provide clinicians with a definitive prognostication system to help determine the risk of mortality for patients with thoracic malignancies and COVID-19., (Copyright © 2022 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Afatinib and pembrolizumab have separately shown survival benefit in patients with squamous cell carcinoma (SqCC) of the lung, and there is biological rationale for concurrent inhibition of the programmed death ligand-1 and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) pathways in this patient population., Materials and Methods: This open-label, single-arm study enrolled patients with SqCC of the lung who had progressed during/after first-line chemotherapy and comprised two parts: a safety run-in to establish the recommended phase II dose (RP2D; afatinib 40 mg or 30 mg once daily with pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks); and the main part assessing efficacy and safety of the RP2D. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR); secondary endpoints included the RP2D, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS)., Results: Twenty-four patients were treated in the safety run-in (afatinib 40 mg/30 mg cohorts: n = 12/12). Median age was 63.5 years; 79.2% of patients were male. All patients discontinued afatinib and pembrolizumab, most commonly due to disease progression (58.3% and 75.0%, respectively) or adverse events (AEs; 37.5% and 25.0%, respectively). The study was discontinued early after completion of the safety run-in, and no patients entered the main part. ORR was 12.5%; median PFS and OS were 13.1 and 29.3 weeks, respectively. All patients had ≥ 1 drug-related AE (grade ≥ 3: 45.8%)., Conclusion: While there were no new or unexpected safety findings, exploratory analysis of antitumor activity indicated limited efficacy with afatinib plus pembrolizumab in patients with SqCC of the lung who had progressed during/after first-line chemotherapy., Clinical Trial Registration Number: NCT03157089., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Preclinical data show that the combination of an ALK inhibitor (ALKi) with a cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor (CDK4/6i) may act synergistically to overcome drug resistance mechanisms. Here, we assessed the safety, tolerability, and preliminary clinical activity of ceritinib, an ALKi in combination with ribociclib, a CDK4/6i, in patients with ALK-rearranged non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)., Methods: This was a multicenter, open-label, phase Ib/II dose-escalation study to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and/or recommended phase II dose (RP2D) for ceritinib plus ribociclib therapy., Results: Twenty-seven adult patients with ALK-rearranged advanced NSCLC with an ECOG PS ≤ 2 were enrolled into five cohorts to receive various dose combinations of ceritinib (range, 300-450 mg/day) and ribociclib (range, 100-300 mg/day). Median age of patients was 57 years. MTDs were not reached in this study. Enrollment into phase Ib was terminated early and phase II was not opened due to changes in the ALK-rearranged NSCLC treatment landscape. Ceritinib 300 mg/day and ribociclib 200 mg/day (3-weeks-on/1-week-off schedule) was identified as the RP2D. Among the 27 evaluable patients, the overall response rate (ORR) was 37.0% (95% CI, 19.4-57.6) and median progression-free survival (mPFS) was 21.5 months (95% CI, 5.5-25.0). At RP2D, the ORR was 50.0%, disease control rate was 75%, and mPFS was 24.8 months (95% CI, 5.5-25.1). Safety profile of the combination therapy was consistent with single-agent safety data., Conclusion: Combination of ceritinib and ribociclib showed clinical activity with a manageable safety profile in patients with advanced ALK-rearranged NSCLC., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: A phase I open-label multicentre study was initiated to evaluate the association of tremelimumab with gefitinib in EGFR-mutant NSCLC patients who progressed after first-generation EGFR-TKI. Here we provide the efficacy data from the entire cohort., Material and Methods: Patients with advanced EGFR-mutant NSCLC with progression after response to EGFR-TKI were enrolled. Study treatment was gefitinib 250 mg daily and tremelimumab at 3 dose levels: 3, 6 and 10 mg/kg IV Q4W for 6 cycles followed by Q12W until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary objective was safety and tolerability, and to establish a RP2D., Results: Between January 2014 and July 2015, 27 patients (21 in the escalating dose cohort and 6 in expansion cohort) received at least one dose of tremelimumab. DLTs occurred in 4 patients: 1 at 3 mg/kg (one grade 3 diarrhoea), 1 at 6 mg/kg (one grade 3 diarrhoea) and 2 at 10 mg/kg (one grade 3 diarrhoea and one grade 3 AST/ALT increase) of tremelimumab. Grade 3 TRAE occurred in 22 patients (81%), most frequently diarrhoea (30%) and ALT/AST increase (15%). Stable disease was the best overall response in 72% patients, with median PFS of 2.2 months (95% CI, 1.8-4.2). All patients discontinued treatment, most frequently due to disease progression (63% of patients)., Conclusion: The recommended dose of tremelimumab in combination with gefitinib in EGFR-mutant NSCLC patients was 3 mg/kg. The gastrointestinal toxicity and the limited efficacy data prevented further evaluation of this combination. (GEFTREM; clinical trial number NCT02040064)., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Aside from PD-L1 expression, biomarkers of response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are needed. In a previous retrospective analysis, we documented that fecal Akkermansia muciniphila (Akk) was associated with clinical benefit of ICI in patients with NSCLC or kidney cancer. In the current study, we performed shotgun-metagenomics-based microbiome profiling in a large cohort of patients with advanced NSCLC (n = 338) treated with first- or second-line ICIs to prospectively validate the predictive value of fecal Akk. Baseline stool Akk was associated with increased objective response rates and overall survival in multivariate analyses, independent of PD-L1 expression, antibiotics, and performance status. Intestinal Akk was accompanied by a richer commensalism, including Eubacterium hallii and Bifidobacterium adolescentis, and a more inflamed tumor microenvironment in a subset of patients. However, antibiotic use (20% of cases) coincided with a relative dominance of Akk above 4.8% accompanied with the genus Clostridium, both associated with resistance to ICI. Our study shows significant differences in relative abundance of Akk that may represent potential biomarkers to refine patient stratification in future studies., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature America, Inc.)

Background: Benefit from maintenance in advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NS-NSCLC) might favor switch maintenance after disease stabilization (SD) and continuation after objective response (OR). This trial assessed a maintenance strategy conditioned by response to cisplatin-gemcitabine (CG) with G continuation for patients with OR or switch to pemetrexed (P) for patients with SD as compared with a control arm based on the Paramount regimen., Methods: Eligibility criteria: age 18-70 years, ECOG PS 0-1, untreated stage IV NS-NSCLC without EGFR or ALK alteration, ineligibility to bevacizumab. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either CG (4 cycles) followed by G maintenance in case of OR followed by P at progression, or switch to P for patients with SD, or 4 cycles of CP followed by P (control arm). Primary endpoint: overall Survival., Results: Between 2012 and 2016, 932 patients were randomized (CG: 467, CP: 465) with well-balanced characteristics. 257 patients (56.7%) in the CG arm received maintenance (G: 142, P: 113) versus 277 patients (59.7%) in the CP arm. Median number of maintenance cycles was 5 for G and P (CG induction) and 4 for P (CP induction). OS adjusted HR was 0.97 (95% CI 0.84, 1.13; p = 0.71) with a median of 10.9 months (CG) versus 10.4 (CP). HR for PFS was 0.95 (95% CI 0.83, 1.09; p = 0.45) with a median of 4.8 months for CG versus 4.5 for CP. Safety profile was as expected., Conclusions: Adapting maintenance strategy according to response to induction chemotherapy does not improve patient outcome., Clinical Trial Information: NCT01631136., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Introduction: Final overall survival (OS) analyses are presented for EGFR mutations and liver or brain metastases subgroups in the phase 3 IMpower150 study (NCT02366143) evaluating atezolizumab plus bevacizumab plus carboplatin and paclitaxel (ABCP) or atezolizumab plus carboplatin and paclitaxel (ACP) versus bevacizumab plus carboplatin and paclitaxel (BCP)., Methods: Overall, 1202 patients (intention-to-treat population) with chemotherapy-naive, metastatic, nonsquamous NSCLC were randomized to ABCP, ACP, or BCP. Patients with treated, stable brain metastases were permitted. OS was evaluated in EGFR mutations and baseline liver metastases subgroups; rate and time to development of new brain metastases were evaluated in the intention-to-treat patients., Results: At data cutoff (September 13, 2019; median follow-up, 39.3 mo), OS improvements were sustained with ABCP versus BCP in sensitizing EGFR mutations (all: hazard ratio [HR] = 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.31-1.14; previous tyrosine kinase inhibitor [TKI]: HR = 0.74; 95% CI: 0.38-1.46) and baseline liver metastases (HR = 0.68; 95% CI: 0.45-1.02) subgroups. ACP did not have survival benefit versus BCP in sensitizing EGFR mutations (all: HR = 1.0; 95% CI: 0.57-1.74; previous TKI: HR = 1.22; 95% CI: 0.68-2.22) or liver metastases (HR = 1.01; 95% CI: 0.68-1.51) subgroups. Overall, 100 patients (8.3%) developed new brain metastases. Although not formally evaluated, an improvement toward delayed time to development was found with ABCP versus BCP (HR = 0.68; 95% CI: 0.39-1.19)., Conclusions: This final exploratory analysis revealed OS benefits for ABCP versus BCP in patients with sensitizing EGFR mutations, including those with previous TKI failures, and with liver metastases, although these results should be interpreted with caution. The impact of ABCP on delaying the development of new brain lesions requires further investigation., (Copyright © 2021 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. All rights reserved.)

Background: This phase III OAK trial (NCT02008227) subgroup analysis (data cutoff, January 9, 2019) evaluated the predictive value of 2 PD-L1 IHC tests (VENTANA SP142 and Dako 22C3) for benefit from atezolizumab versus docetaxel by programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) status in patients with previously treated metastatic non-small cell lung cancer., Methods: PD-L1 expression was assessed prospectively with SP142 on tumor cells (TC) and tumor-infiltrating immune cells (IC) and retrospectively with 22C3 using a tumor proportion score (TPS) based on TC membrane staining. Efficacy was assessed in the 22C3 biomarker-evaluable population (22C3-BEP) (n = 577; 47.1% of SP142-intention-to-treat population) and non-22C3-BEP (n = 648) in PD-L1 subgroups (high, low, and negative) and according to selection by 1 or both assays., Results: In the 22C3-BEP, overall survival benefits with atezolizumab versus docetaxel were observed across PD-L1 subgroups; benefits were greatest in SP142-defined PD-L1-high (TC3 or IC3: hazard ratio [HR], 0.39 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.25-0.63]) and 22C3-defined PD-L1-high (TPS ≥ 50%: HR, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.38-0.82]) and low (TPS, 1% to < 50%: HR, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.37-0.82]) groups. Progression-free survival improved with increasing PD-L1 expression for both assays. SP142 and 22C3 assays identified overlapping and unique patient populations in PD-L1-high, positive, and negative subgroups. Overall survival and progression-free survival benefits favored atezolizumab over docetaxel in double PD-L1-positive and negative groups; patients with both SP142- and 22C3-positive tumors derived the greatest benefit., Conclusions: Despite different scoring algorithms and differing sensitivity levels, the SP142 and 22C3 assays similarly predicted atezolizumab benefit at validated PD-L1 thresholds in patients with non-small cell lung cancer., Competing Interests: Disclosure Dr. Gadgeel reports personal fees from Genentech/Roche, AstraZeneca, Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Daichii-Sanyko, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Xcovery, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, and Janssen, outside the submitted work. Dr. Hirsch reports scientific advisory board for Genentech/Roche, Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, AstraZeneca/Daiichi, Regeneron/Sanofi, and Amgen, outside the submitted work. Dr. Kerr reports personal fees from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Archer Diagnostics, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Debiopharm, Diaceutics, Eli Lilly, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, and Roche Diagnostics/Ventana, outside the submitted work. Dr. Barlesi reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly Oncology, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Novartis, Merck, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, and Takeda, outside the submitted work. Dr. Park has nothing to disclose. Dr. Rittmeyer reports grants from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, and Novartis, outside the submitted work. Dr. Zou reports employment from Genentech, outside the submitted work. Dr. Bhatia reports employment from Genentech, outside the submitted work. Dr. Koeppen reports employment from Genentech, outside the submitted work. Dr. Paul reports employment from Genentech, outside the submitted work. David Shames reports employment from Genentech and stock ownership from Roche, outside the submitted work. Dr. Yi reports employment and spousal employment from Genentech and stock ownership from Roche, outside the submitted work. Dr. Matheny reports employment from Genentech, during the conduct of the study, and employment from Genentech, outside the submitted work. Dr. Ballinger reports employment from Genentech and stock ownership from Roche, outside the submitted work. Dr. McCleland reports employment from Genentech, outside the submitted work. Dr. Gandara reports personal fees and institutional grants from Genentech, outside the submitted work., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: In patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the use of postoperative radiotherapy (PORT) has been controversial since 1998, because of one meta-analysis showing a deleterious effect on survival in patients with pN0 and pN1, but with an unclear effect in patients with pN2 NSCLC. Because many changes have occurred in the management of patients with NSCLC, the role of three-dimensional (3D) conformal PORT warrants further investigation in patients with stage IIIAN2 NSCLC. The aim of this study was to establish whether PORT should be part of their standard treatment., Methods: Lung ART is an open-label, randomised, phase 3, superiority trial comparing mediastinal PORT to no PORT in patients with NSCLC with complete resection, nodal exploration, and cytologically or histologically proven N2 involvement. Previous neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy was allowed. Patients aged 18 years or older, with an WHO performance status of 0-2, were recruited from 64 hospitals and cancer centres in five countries (France, UK, Germany, Switzerland, and Belgium). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either the PORT or no PORT (control) groups via a web randomisation system, and minimisation factors were the institution, administration of chemotherapy, number of mediastinal lymph node stations involved, histology, and use of pre-treatment PET scan. Patients received PORT at a dose of 54 Gy in 27 or 30 daily fractions, on five consecutive days a week. Three dimensional conformal radiotherapy was mandatory, and intensity-modulated radiotherapy was permitted in centres with expertise. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival, analysed by intention to treat at 3 years; patients from the PORT group who did not receive radiotherapy and patients from the control group with no follow-up were excluded from the safety analyses. This trial is now closed. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00410683., Findings: Between Aug 7, 2007, and July 17, 2018, 501 patients, predominantly staged with 18 F-fluorodeoxyglucose ( 18 F-FDG) PET (456 [91%]; 232 (92%) in the PORT group and 224 (90%) in the control group), were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive PORT (252 patients) or no PORT (249 patients). At the cutoff date of May 31, 2019, median follow-up was 4·8 years (IQR 2·9-7·0). 3-year disease-free survival was 47% (95% CI 40-54) with PORT versus 44% (37-51) without PORT, and the median disease-free survival was 30·5 months (95% CI 24-49) in the PORT group and 22·8 months (17-37) in the control group (hazard ratio 0·86; 95% CI 0·68-1·08; p=0·18). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were pneumonitis (13 [5%] of 241 patients in the PORT group vs one [<1%] of 246 in the control group), lymphopenia (nine [4%] vs 0), and fatigue (six [3%] vs one [<1%]). Late-grade 3-4 cardiopulmonary toxicity was reported in 26 patients (11%) in the PORT group versus 12 (5%) in the control group. Two patients died from pneumonitis, partly related to radiotherapy and infection, and one patient died due to chemotherapy toxicity (sepsis) that was deemed to be treatment-related, all of whom were in the PORT group., Interpretation: Lung ART evaluated 3D conformal PORT after complete resection in patients who predominantly had been staged using ( 18 F-FDG PET-CT and received neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy. 3-year disease-free survival was higher than expected in both groups, but PORT was not associated with an increased disease-free survival compared with no PORT. Conformal PORT cannot be recommended as the standard of care in patients with stage IIIAN2 NSCLC., Funding: French National Cancer Institute, Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique from the French Health Ministry, Gustave Roussy, Cancer Research UK, Swiss State Secretary for Education, Research, and Innovation, Swiss Cancer Research Foundation, Swiss Cancer League., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests CLP reports grants to the institution from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Medscape, and Nanobiotix; grants to the institution for participation in advisory boards for Roche; and grants to the institution for speaker fees from PriMEOncology, all outside the submitted work. NP reports grants from Pfizer and Varian, all outside the submitted work. FB reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Eli Lilly Oncology, Roche, Novartis, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, and Takeda, outside the submitted work. UN reports consulting fees, honoraria, and participation in advisory boards for AstraZeneca. PB reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Merck; support for meetings and travel from Merck Sharp & Dohme; and participation in advisory boards for Merck. ED reports personal financial interests from Astra-Zeneca, Ipsen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, and Roche, all outside the submitted work. GZ reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer, and MSD; and non-financial support and funding for international meeting attendance from Abbvie, AstraZeneca, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda, all outside the submitted work. EP reports personal financial interests from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, and Takeda; and non-financial support from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Merck Sharp & Dohme, all outside the submitted work. ALav reports travel and accommodation grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb; and a consulting role for AstraZeneca, all outside the submitted work. CF-F reports grants from AstraZeneca and Elekta, all outside the submitted work. PAT reports financial support for teaching lectures and advisory boards from AstraZeneca and Ethicon Endosurgery, all outside the submitted work. OM reports financial support for participation in advisory boards AstraZeneca and MSD, all outside the submitted work. AB reports consultancy fees from Roche. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Dabrafenib plus trametinib was found to have robust antitumor activity in patients with BRAF V600E-mutant metastatic NSCLC (mNSCLC). We report updated survival analysis of a phase 2 study (NCT01336634) with a minimum of 5-year follow-up and updated genomic data., Methods: Pretreated (cohort B) and treatment-naive (cohort C) patients with BRAF V600E-mutant mNSCLC received dabrafenib 150 mg twice daily and trametinib 2 mg once daily. The primary end point was investigator-assessed overall response rate per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. Secondary end points were duration of response, progression-free survival, overall survival, and safety., Results: At data cutoff, for cohorts B (57 patients) and C (36 patients), the median follow-up was 16.6 (range: 0.5-78.5) and 16.3 (range: 0.4-80) months, overall response rate (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 68.4% (54.8-80.1) and 63.9% (46.2-79.2), median progression-free survival (95% CI) was 10.2 (6.9-16.7) and 10.8 (7.0-14.5) months, and median overall survival (95% CI) was 18.2 (14.3-28.6) and 17.3 (12.3-40.2) months, respectively. The 4- and 5-year survival rates were 26% and 19% in pretreated patients and 34% and 22% in treatment-naive patients, respectively. A total of 17 patients (18%) were still alive. The most frequent adverse event was pyrexia (56%). Exploratory genomic analysis indicated that the presence of coexisting genomic alterations might influence clinical outcomes in these patients; however, these results require further investigation., Conclusions: Dabrafenib plus trametinib therapy was found to have substantial and durable clinical benefit, with a manageable safety profile, in patients with BRAF V600E-mutant mNSCLC, regardless of previous treatment., (Copyright © 2021 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)