Search

Cure of cancer is a sensitive and multidimensional concept that is challenging to define, difficult to assert at the individual patient level, and often surrounded by controversy. The notion of cure in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has changed and continues to evolve with improvements in diagnosis and treatment. Targeted and immune therapies have recently entered the treatment landscape of stage I-III NSCLC. While some initial pivotal trials of such agents failed to improve survival, recently approved epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors (in EGFR-mutated NSCLC) and immune checkpoint inhibitors have shown delays in disease recurrence or progression and unprecedented survival gains compared to previous standards of care. Additional data is now emerging supporting the benefit of treatment strategies based on alternation-matched targeting (anaplastic lymphoma kinase [ALK] inhibition in ALK-altered disease) and immune checkpoint inhibition in stage I-III NSCLC. Similar to previous developments in the treatment of early and locally advanced NSCLC, it is expected that statistically significant and clinically meaningful trial-level benefits will translate into real-world benefits, including improvements in cure measures. Parallel advances in molecular testing (e.g., circulating tumor DNA analyses) are also allowing for a deeper and more comprehensive characterization of disease status and treatment response. Given the impact that curative-intent treatments have on survival, it is critical that various stakeholders, including clinicians and patients, are aware of new opportunities to pursue cure in stage I-III NSCLC., (© 2024 The Author(s). International Journal of Cancer published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of UICC.)

Objectives: KRAS mutations, particularly KRAS G12C , are prevalent in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have been a frontline treatment, but recently developed KRAS G12C -selective inhibitors, such as sotorasib, present new therapeutic options. We conducted a multi-center retrospective cohort study to gain insights into real-world treatment patterns and outcomes in patients with KRAS G12C -positive advanced NSCLC receiving systemic therapy post-ICI treatment., Methods: From the CAnadian CAncers With Rare Molecular Alterations-Basket Real-world Observational Study (CARMA-BROS), a cohort of 102 patients with KRAS G12C -positive advanced NSCLC across 9 Canadian centers diagnosed between 2015 and 2021 was analyzed. Clinico-demographic and treatment data were obtained from electronic health records. Survival outcomes were assessed using Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazards models., Results: The patients (median age 66 years; 58 % female; 99 % current/former tobacco exposure; 59 % PD-L1 ≥ 50 %), exhibited heterogeneous treatment patterns post-ICI. Most patients received ICIs as a first-line therapy, with varying subsequent lines including chemotherapy and targeted therapy. In patients receiving systemic therapy post-ICI, median overall survival was 12.6 months, and real-world progression-free survival was 4.7 months. KRAS G12C -selective targeted therapy post-ICI (n = 20) showed longer real-world progression-free survival compared to single-agent chemotherapy (aHR = 0.39, p = 0.012)., Conclusion: This study contributes valuable real-world data on KRAS G12C -positive advanced NSCLC post-ICI treatment. The absence of a standard treatment sequencing post-ICI underscores the need for further investigation and consensus-building in the evolving landscape of KRAS G12C -targeted therapies., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: The study was supported by Amgen. The authors have no other conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

For patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) tumors without currently targetable molecular alterations, standard-of-care treatment is immunotherapy with anti-PD-(L)1 checkpoint inhibitors, alone or with platinum-doublet therapy. However, not all patients derive durable benefit and resistance to immune checkpoint blockade is common. Understanding mechanisms of resistance-which can include defects in DNA damage response and repair pathways, alterations or functional mutations in STK11/LKB1, alterations in antigen-presentation pathways, and immunosuppressive cellular subsets within the tumor microenvironment-and developing effective therapies to overcome them, remains an unmet need. Here the phase 2 umbrella HUDSON study evaluated rational combination regimens for advanced NSCLC following failure of anti-PD-(L)1-containing immunotherapy and platinum-doublet therapy. A total of 268 patients received durvalumab (anti-PD-L1 monoclonal antibody)-ceralasertib (ATR kinase inhibitor), durvalumab-olaparib (PARP inhibitor), durvalumab-danvatirsen (STAT3 antisense oligonucleotide) or durvalumab-oleclumab (anti-CD73 monoclonal antibody). Greatest clinical benefit was observed with durvalumab-ceralasertib; objective response rate (primary outcome) was 13.9% (11/79) versus 2.6% (5/189) with other regimens, pooled, median progression-free survival (secondary outcome) was 5.8 (80% confidence interval 4.6-7.4) versus 2.7 (1.8-2.8) months, and median overall survival (secondary outcome) was 17.4 (14.1-20.3) versus 9.4 (7.5-10.6) months. Benefit with durvalumab-ceralasertib was consistent across known immunotherapy-refractory subgroups. In ATM-altered patients hypothesized to harbor vulnerability to ATR inhibition, objective response rate was 26.1% (6/23) and median progression-free survival/median overall survival were 8.4/22.8 months. Durvalumab-ceralasertib safety/tolerability profile was manageable. Biomarker analyses suggested that anti-PD-L1/ATR inhibition induced immune changes that reinvigorated antitumor immunity. Durvalumab-ceralasertib is under further investigation in immunotherapy-refractory NSCLC.ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03334617., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: The early-generation ROS1 tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) that are approved for the treatment of ROS1 fusion-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have antitumor activity, but resistance develops in tumors, and intracranial activity is suboptimal. Repotrectinib is a next-generation ROS1 TKI with preclinical activity against ROS1 fusion-positive cancers, including those with resistance mutations such as ROS1 G2032R., Methods: In this registrational phase 1-2 trial, we assessed the efficacy and safety of repotrectinib in patients with advanced solid tumors, including ROS1 fusion-positive NSCLC. The primary efficacy end point in the phase 2 trial was confirmed objective response; efficacy analyses included patients from phase 1 and phase 2. Duration of response, progression-free survival, and safety were secondary end points in phase 2., Results: On the basis of results from the phase 1 trial, the recommended phase 2 dose of repotrectinib was 160 mg daily for 14 days, followed by 160 mg twice daily. Response occurred in 56 of the 71 patients (79%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 68 to 88) with ROS1 fusion-positive NSCLC who had not previously received a ROS1 TKI; the median duration of response was 34.1 months (95% CI, 25.6 to could not be estimated), and median progression-free survival was 35.7 months (95% CI, 27.4 to could not be estimated). Response occurred in 21 of the 56 patients (38%; 95% CI, 25 to 52) with ROS1 fusion-positive NSCLC who had previously received one ROS1 TKI and had never received chemotherapy; the median duration of response was 14.8 months (95% CI, 7.6 to could not be estimated), and median progression-free survival was 9.0 months (95% CI, 6.8 to 19.6). Ten of the 17 patients (59%; 95% CI, 33 to 82) with the ROS1 G2032R mutation had a response. A total of 426 patients received the phase 2 dose; the most common treatment-related adverse events were dizziness (in 58% of the patients), dysgeusia (in 50%), and paresthesia (in 30%), and 3% discontinued repotrectinib owing to treatment-related adverse events., Conclusions: Repotrectinib had durable clinical activity in patients with ROS1 fusion-positive NSCLC, regardless of whether they had previously received a ROS1 TKI. Adverse events were mainly of low grade and compatible with long-term administration. (Funded by Turning Point Therapeutics, a wholly owned subsidiary of Bristol Myers Squibb; TRIDENT-1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03093116.)., (Copyright © 2024 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Aim: To examine whether tumor-specific and tumor-agnostic oncology trials produce comparable estimates of objective response rate (ORR) in BRAF -altered cancers. Materials & methods: Electronic database searches were performed to identify phase I-III clinical trials testing tyrosine kinase inhibitors from 2000 to 2021. A random-effects model was used to pool ORRs. A total of 22 cohorts from five tumor-agnostic trials and 41 cohorts from 27 tumor-specific trials had published ORRs. Results: There was no significant difference between pooled ORRs from either trial design for multitumor analyses (37 vs 50%; p = 0.05); thyroid cancer (57 vs 33%; p = 0.10); non-small-cell lung cancer (39 vs 53%; p = 0.18); or melanoma (55 vs 51%; p = 0.58). Conclusion: For BRAF -altered advanced cancers, tumor-agnostic trials do not yield substantially different results from tumor-specific trials.

This study assessed the total costs of testing, including the estimated costs of delaying care, associated with next-generation sequencing (NGS) versus single-gene testing strategies among patients with newly diagnosed metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) from a Canadian public payer perspective. A decision tree model considered testing for genomic alterations using tissue biopsy NGS or single-gene strategies following Canadian guideline recommendations. Inputs included prevalence of mNSCLC, the proportion that tested positive for each genomic alteration, rebiopsy rates, time to test results, testing/medical costs, and costs of delaying care based on literature, public data, and expert opinion. Among 1,000,000 hypothetical publicly insured adult Canadians (382 with mNSCLC), the proportion of patients that tested positive for a genomic alteration with an approved targeted therapy was 38.0% for NGS and 26.1% for single-gene strategies. The estimated mean time to appropriate targeted therapy initiation was 5.1 weeks for NGS and 9.2 weeks for single-gene strategies. Based on literature, each week of delayed care cost CAD 406, translating to total mean per-patient costs of CAD 3480 for NGS and CAD 5632 for single-gene strategies. NGS testing with mNSCLC in current Canadian practice resulted in more patients with an identified mutation, shorter time to appropriate targeted therapy initiation, and lower total testing costs compared to single-gene strategies.

Aim: Report the final analysis from ASTRIS, the largest real-world study of second-/later-line osimertinib in advanced/metastatic EGFR T790M non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods: Patients with advanced/metastatic EGFR T790M NSCLC and prior EGFR-TKI treatment, received once-daily osimertinib 80 mg. Primary end point: overall survival (OS); secondary end points: progression-free survival (PFS), time-to-treatment discontinuation (TTD) and response rate. Safety was also recorded. Results: In 3014 patients, median OS: 22.8 months (21.6-23.8), median PFS: 11.1 months (11.0-12.0), median TTD: 13.5 months (12.6-13.9), and response rate: 57.3% (55.5-59.2). All end points reported with 95% CIs. Numerically longer median OS was observed in patients with baseline WHO performance status <2 versus 2 (24.0 vs 11.1 months) and those without versus with brain/leptomeningeal metastases (25.4 vs 18.0 months). No new safety signals were identified. Conclusion: Second-/later-line osimertinib demonstrated real-world clinical benefit and safety in advanced/metastatic EGFR T790M NSCLC. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02474355 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Objectives: The ADAURA trial demonstrated the benefit of adjuvant osimertinib among patients with resected, early-stage, epidermal growth factor receptor-mutated (EGFRm) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). To understand the potential population impact, it is critical to deduce the prevalence, management, and outcomes of this patient population in the real-world setting before use of adjuvant osimertinib., Materials and Methods: Using PALEOS (Pan-cAnadian Lung cancEr Observational Study) data (2012-2019), a retrospective, multi-center, observational cohort study was conducted among patients with early-stage (IB-IIIA) resected NSCLC who had not received neoadjuvant therapy. Study outcomes included EGFRm prevalence, treatment patterns, recurrence outcomes, and overall and disease-free survival (OS/DFS)., Results: Among patients undergoing reflexive EGFRm testing by a pathologist at time of diagnosis irrespective of disease stage (N = 535), 23 % were EGFRm-positive; 15.9 % had common mutations and 5.6 % had uncommon mutations. Within the EGFRm-positive cohort (N = 156), mean age at diagnosis was 68 years, 65 % of patients were female, and 35 % were of Asian descent. At diagnosis, 48 %, 31 %, and 21 % had stage IB, II, or IIIA disease, respectively; 46 % received adjuvant therapy after resection. Half of patients experienced disease recurrence, typically involving distant sites; central nervous system metastasis varied from 12 % to 15.0 % across disease stages. EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors were the most commonly received therapy after first metastatic recurrence. Median OS (DFS) was not reached, 71.2 (22.8) months, and 50.1 (18.0) months among stage IB, II, and IIIA patients. Patients with uncommon EGFRm had a lower probability of survival than those with common EGFRm (2 years: 87 % vs 91 %-94 %; 4 years: 56 % vs 73 %-82 %)., Conclusion: Approximately-one-quarter of patients with resected, early-stage NSCLC were EGFRm-positive in this study. These patients had high recurrence rates and suboptimal long-term survival after treatment with current therapies. New adjuvant treatments are warranted., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: M. S. Kuruvilla has received honorariums from and been involved in advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Merck, and Novartis. G. Liu has received institutional research grants from AstraZeneca and Takeda; he has also participated in advisory boards, provided consulting services, and/or received honoraria from AstraZeneca, BMS, EMD Serono, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda. I. Syed, D. Moldaver, and M.K. Shanahan are employees and shareholders of AstraZeneca Canada Inc. F. Gwadry-Sridhar is an employee and shareholder of Pulse Infoframe Inc. B.S. Sheffield has received grants, participated in advisory boards, and/or received consulting fees and honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biocartis, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Cell Marque, Elevation Oncology, Eli Lily, EMD Serono, Incyte, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Thermo Fisher Scientific, and Turning Point Therapeutics. P.K. Cheema has received consulting fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Beigene, BMS, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi, and has received honoraria from Amgen and AstraZeneca. All other authors have no conflicts to disclose., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Tumor mutational burden (TMB) is being explored as a predictive biomarker for cancer immunotherapy outcomes in non-small cell lung cancer. BFAST (NCT03178552)-an open-label, global, multicohort trial-evaluated the safety and efficacy of first-line targeted therapies or immunotherapy in patients with unresectable Stage IIIB or IV advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer who were selected for biomarker status using blood-based targeted next-generation sequencing. In the Phase 3 cohort C evaluating blood-based (b)TMB as a biomarker of atezolizumab efficacy, patients with bTMB of ≥10 (N = 471) were randomized 1:1 to receive atezolizumab or platinum-based chemotherapy per local standard of care. Cohort C did not meet its primary endpoint of investigator-assessed progression-free survival in the population with bTMB of ≥16 (hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% confidence interval: 0.59, 1.00; P = 0.053). Adverse events leading to treatment withdrawal occurred in 10% of patients in the atezolizumab arm and 20% in the chemotherapy arm. Adverse events of special interest occurred in 42% of patients in the atezolizumab arm and 26% in the chemotherapy arm. A prespecified exploratory analysis compared the bTMB clinical trial assay with the FoundationOne Liquid Companion Diagnostic assay and showed high concordance between assays. Additional exploration of bTMB to identify optimal cutoffs, confounding factors, assay improvements or cooperative biomarkers is warranted., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has historically been associated with a poor prognosis and low 5-year survival, but the use of targeted therapies in NSCLC has improved patient outcomes over the past 10 years. The pace of development of new targeted therapies is accelerating, with the associated need for molecular testing of new targetable alterations. As the complexity of biomarker testing in NSCLC increases, there is a need for guidance on how to manage the fluid standard-of-care in NSCLC, identify pragmatic molecular testing requirements, and optimize result reporting. An expert multidisciplinary working group with representation from medical oncology, pathology, and clinical genetics convened via virtual meetings to create consensus recommendations for testing of new targetable alterations in NSCLC. The importance of accurate and timely testing of all targetable alterations to optimize disease management using targeted therapies was emphasized by the working group. Therefore, the panel of experts recommends that all targetable alterations be tested reflexively at NSCLC diagnosis as part of a comprehensive panel, using methods that can detect all relevant targetable alterations. In addition, comprehensive biomarker testing should be performed at the request of the treating clinician upon development of resistance to targeted therapy. The expert multidisciplinary working group also made recommendations for reporting to improve clarity and ease of interpretation of results by treating clinicians and to accommodate the rapid evolution in clinical actionability of these alterations. Molecular testing of all targetable alterations in NSCLC is the key for treatment decision-making and access to new therapies. These consensus recommendations are intended as a guide to further optimize molecular testing of new targetable alterations.

Purpose : Biomarker data are critical to the delivery of precision cancer care. The average turnaround of next-generation sequencing (NGS) reports is over 2 weeks, and in-house availability is typically limited to academic centers. Lengthy turnaround times for biomarkers can adversely affect outcomes. Traditional workflows involve moving specimens through multiple facilities. This study evaluates the feasibility of rapid comprehensive NGS using the Genexus integrated sequencer and a novel streamlined workflow in a community setting. Methods : A retrospective chart review was performed to assess the early experience and performance characteristics of a novel approach to biomarker testing at a large community center. This approach to NGS included an automated workflow utilizing the Genexus integrated sequencer, validated for clinical use. NGS testing was further integrated within a routine immunohistochemistry (IHC) service, utilizing histotechnologists to perform technical aspects of NGS, with results reported directly by anatomic pathologists. Results : Between October 2020 and October 2021, 578 solid tumor samples underwent genomic profiling. Median turnaround time for biomarker results was 3 business days (IQR: 2-5). Four hundred eighty-one (83%) of the cases were resulted in fewer than 5 business days, and 66 (11%) of the cases were resulted simultaneously with diagnosis. Tumor types included lung cancer (310), melanoma (97), and colorectal carcinoma (68), among others. NGS testing detected key driver alterations at expected prevalence rates: lung EGFR (16%), ALK (3%), RET (1%), melanoma BRAF (43%), colorectal RAS / RAF (67%), among others. Conclusion : This is the first study demonstrating clinical implementation of rapid NGS. This supports the feasibility of automated comprehensive NGS performed and interpreted in parallel with diagnostic histopathology and immunohistochemistry. This novel approach to biomarker testing offers considerable advantages to clinical cancer care.

Background: The safety impact of radiotherapy (RT) timing relative to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is unclear. We investigated if RT within 14 days (Interval 1) and 90 days (Interval 2) of ICI use is associated with toxicities compared to RT outside these intervals., Methods: Advanced NSCLC patients treated with both RT and ICIs were reviewed. Toxicities were graded as per CTCAE v4.0 and attributed to either ICIs or RT by clinicians. Associations between RT timing and Grade ≥2 toxicities were analyzed using logistic regression models adjusted for patient, disease, and treatment factors (α = 0.05)., Results: Sixty-four patients were identified. Twenty received RT within Interval 1 and 40 within Interval 2. There were 20 Grade ≥2 toxicities in 18 (28%) patients; pneumonitis (6) and nausea (2) were most prevalent. One treatment-related death (immune encephalitis) was observed. Rates of patients with Grade ≥2 toxicities were 35%/25% in the group with/without RT within Interval 1 and 30%/25% in the group with/without RT within Interval 2. No significant association between RT timing relative to ICI use period and Grade ≥2 toxicities was observed., Conclusion: Albeit limited by the small sample size, the result suggested that pausing ICIs around RT use may not be necessary.

The management of Stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is complex and requires multidisciplinary input. Since the publication of the PACIFIC trial (consolidative durvalumab post concurrent chemotherapy and radiation in Stage III disease) which showed improved survival for patients in the immunotherapy arm, there has been much interest in the use of immunotherapy in the Stage III setting. In this review, we explore the biologic and clinical rationale for the use of immunotherapy in Stage III NSCLC, present previously published and upcoming data in the neoadjuvant, adjuvant, and concurrent realms of Stage III management, and discuss unanswered questions and challenges moving forward.

In Canada, the therapeutic management of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with rare actionable mutations differs between provinces, territories, and individual centres based on access to molecular testing and funded treatments. These variations, together with the emergence of several novel mesenchymal-epithelial transition ( MET ) factor-targeted therapies for the treatment of NSCLC, warrant the development of evidence-based consensus recommendations for the use of these agents. A Canadian expert panel was convened to define key clinical questions, review evidence, discuss practice recommendations and reach consensus on the treatment of advanced MET -altered NSCLC. Questions addressed by the panel include: 1. How should the patients most likely to benefit from MET- targeted therapies be identified? 2. What are the preferred first-line and subsequent therapies for patients with MET exon 14 skipping mutations? 3. What are the preferred first-line and subsequent therapies for advanced NSCLC patients with de novo MET amplification? 4. What is the preferred therapy for patients with advanced epidermal growth factor receptor ( EGFR )-mutated NSCLC with acquired MET amplification progressing on EGFR inhibitors? 5. What are the potential strategies for overcoming resistance to MET inhibitors? Answers to these questions, along with the consensus recommendations herein, will help streamline the management of MET -altered NSCLC in routine practice, assist clinicians in therapeutic decision-making, and help ensure optimal outcomes for NSCLC patients with MET alterations.

Lung cancer is a highly heterogeneous disease often driven by well-characterized driver mutations. Although the best studied are common alterations in the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) oncogenes, rapid advances in molecular characterization has led to the development of novel therapeutics that inhibit additional oncogenic alterations in advanced NSCLC. The literature search identified 62 eligible phase I/II clinical trials or integrated analyses of assessing novel targeted agents against the following molecular alterations: ROS1-rearranged, BRAF V600E-mutant, NTRK-rearranged, MET-altered, uncommon EGFR-mutant, RET-rearranged, HER2-positive, KRAS G12C-mutant and NRG1-rearranged. This rapidly evolving field has produced many new targeted treatment options and promising outcomes have led to the FDA approval of seven novel agents for use in ROS1-rearranged, BRAF V600E-mutant, NTRK-rearranged, MET exon 14 skipping-mutant or RET-rearranged advanced NSCLC. Research continues at a rapid pace, with a number of phase III trials underway to fully evaluate new promising agents under development for improving outcomes in patients with NSCLC harboring distinct molecular subtypes. This review will provide a comprehensive summary of existing data as well as a user-friendly guide on the current status of novel targeted therapy in oncogene-driven advanced NSCLC., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) comprises a highly heterogenous group of patients with regards to patient fitness and tumour size and distribution, resulting in a wide range of treatment goals and therapy options. Curative-intent multimodality treatment should be considered in all patients with stage III NSCLC. For patients with unresectable disease who are fit, have adequate lung function, and have a disease that can be encompassed within a radical radiation volume, concurrent chemoradiation therapy (cCRT) is the standard of care and can produce cure rates of 20-30%. Recently, consolidation immunotherapy with durvalumab has been recognized as the standard of care following cCRT based on significant improvement rates in overall survival at 4 years. The large heterogeneity of the stage III NSCLC population, along with the need for extensive staging procedures, multidisciplinary care, intensive cCRT, and now consolidation therapy makes the delivery of timely and optimal treatment for these patients complex. Several logistical, communication, and education factors hinder the delivery of guideline-recommended care to patients with stage III unresectable NSCLC. This commentary discusses the potential challenges patients may encounter at different points along their care pathway that can interfere with delivery of curative-intent therapy and suggests strategies for improving care delivery.

Background: Neuregulin 1 (NRG1) fusions, which activate ErbB signaling, are rare oncogenic drivers in multiple tumor types. Afatinib is a pan-ErbB family inhibitor that may be an effective treatment for NRG1 fusion-driven tumors., Patients and Methods: This report summarizes pertinent details, including best tumor response to treatment, for six patients with metastatic NRG1 fusion-positive tumors treated with afatinib., Results: The six cases include four female and two male patients who ranged in age from 34 to 69 years. Five of the cases are patients with lung cancer, including two patients with invasive mucinous adenocarcinoma and three patients with nonmucinous adenocarcinoma. The sixth case is a patient with colorectal cancer. NRG1 fusion partners for the patients with lung cancer were either CD74 or SDC4. The patient with colorectal cancer harbored a novel POMK-NRG1 fusion and a KRAS mutation. Two patients received afatinib as first- or second-line therapy, three patients received the drug as third- to fifth-line therapy, and one patient received afatinib as fifteenth-line therapy. Best response with afatinib was stable disease in two patients (duration up to 16 months when combined with local therapies) and partial response (PR) of >18 months in three patients, including one with ongoing PR after 27 months. The remaining patient had a PR of 5 months with afatinib 40 mg/day, then another 6 months after an increase to 50 mg/day., Conclusion: This report reviews previously published metastatic NRG1 fusion-positive tumors treated with afatinib and summarizes six previously unpublished cases. The latter include several with a prolonged response to treatment (>18 months), as well as the first report of efficacy in NRG1 fusion-positive colorectal cancer. This adds to the growing body of evidence suggesting that afatinib can be effective in patients with NRG1 fusion-positive tumors., Key Points: NRG1 fusions activate ErbB signaling and have been identified as oncogenic drivers in multiple solid tumor types. Afatinib is a pan-ErbB family inhibitor authorized for the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer that may be effective in NRG1 fusion-driven tumors. This report summarizes six previously unpublished cases of NRG1 fusion-driven cancers treated with afatinib, including five with metastatic lung cancer and one with metastatic colorectal cancer. Several patients showed a prolonged response of >18 months with afatinib treatment. This case series adds to the evidence suggesting a potential role for afatinib in this area of unmet medical need., (© AlphaMed Press 2020.)

Background: Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) represents approximately 15% of lung cancers, and approximately 70% are diagnosed as extensive-stage SCLC (ES-SCLC). Although ES-SCLC is highly responsive to chemotherapy, patients typically progress rapidly, and there is an urgent need for new therapies. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have recently been investigated in SCLC, and this review provides guidance on the use of these agents in ES-SCLC based on phase III evidence., Methods: Published and presented literature on phase III data addressing use of ICIs in ES-SCLC was identified using the key search terms "small cell lung cancer" AND "checkpoint inhibitors" (OR respective aliases). Directed searches of eligible studies were periodically performed to ensure capture of the most recent data., Results: Six phase III trials were identified, with four assessing the benefits of ICIs plus chemotherapy first-line, one evaluating ICIs as first-line therapy maintenance, and one assessing ICI monotherapy after progression on platinum-based chemotherapy. The addition of ipilimumab or tremelimumab to first-line treatment or as first-line maintenance did not improve survival. Two out of three studies combining PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors with first-line platinum-based chemotherapy demonstrated significant long-lasting survival benefits and improved quality of life with no unexpected safety concerns. PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors as first-line maintenance or in later lines of therapy did not improve survival. Biomarker research is ongoing as well as research into the role of ICIs in combination with radiation therapy in limited-stage SCLC., Conclusion: The addition of atezolizumab or durvalumab to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy for ES-SCLC prolongs survival and improves quality of life., Implications for Practice: Platinum-based chemotherapy has been standard of care for extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) for more than a decade. Six recent phase III trials investigating immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have clarified the role of these agents in this setting. Although ICIs were assessed first-line, as first-line maintenance, and in later lines of therapy, the additions of atezolizumab or durvalumab to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy were the only interventions that significantly improved overall survival and increased quality of life. These combinations should therefore be considered standard therapy for first-line ES-SCLC. Biomarker research and investigations into the role of ICIs for limited-stage disease are ongoing., (© AlphaMed Press 2020.)

Purpose: Pembrolizumab monotherapy has shown antitumor activity in patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). The randomized, double-blind, phase III KEYNOTE-604 study compared pembrolizumab plus etoposide and platinum (EP) with placebo plus EP for patients with previously untreated extensive-stage (ES) SCLC., Methods: Eligible patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to pembrolizumab 200 mg once every 3 weeks or saline placebo for up to 35 cycles plus 4 cycles of EP. Primary end points were progression-free survival (PFS; RECIST version 1.1, blinded central review) and overall survival (OS) in the intention-to-treat population. Objective response rate (ORR) and duration of response were secondary end points. Prespecified efficacy boundaries were one-sided P = .0048 for PFS and .0128 for OS., Results: Of the 453 participants, 228 were randomly assigned to pembrolizumab plus EP and 225 to placebo plus EP. Pembrolizumab plus EP significantly improved PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.75; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.91; P = .0023). Twelve-month PFS estimates were 13.6% with pembrolizumab plus EP and 3.1% with placebo plus EP. Although pembrolizumab plus EP prolonged OS, the significance threshold was not met (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.64 to 0.98; P = .0164). Twenty-four-month OS estimates were 22.5% and 11.2%, respectively. ORR was 70.6% in the pembrolizumab plus EP group and 61.8% in the placebo plus EP group; the estimated proportion of responders remaining in response at 12 months was 19.3% and 3.3%, respectively. In the pembrolizumab plus EP and placebo plus EP groups, respectively, any-cause adverse events were grade 3-4 in 76.7% and 74.9%, grade 5 in 6.3% and 5.4%, and led to discontinuation of any drug in 14.8% and 6.3%., Conclusion: Pembrolizumab plus EP significantly improved PFS compared with placebo plus EP as first-line therapy for patients with ES-SCLC. No unexpected toxicities were seen with pembrolizumab plus EP. These data support the benefit of pembrolizumab in ES-SCLC.

Background: Osimertinib is a third-generation, irreversible tyrosine kinase inhibitor of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR-TKI) that selectively inhibits both EGFR-TKI-sensitizing and EGFR T790M resistance mutations. A phase 3 trial compared first-line osimertinib with other EGFR-TKIs in patients with EGFR mutation-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The trial showed longer progression-free survival with osimertinib than with the comparator EGFR-TKIs (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.46). Data from the final analysis of overall survival have not been reported., Methods: In this trial, we randomly assigned 556 patients with previously untreated advanced NSCLC with an EGFR mutation (exon 19 deletion or L858R allele) in a 1:1 ratio to receive either osimertinib (80 mg once daily) or one of two other EGFR-TKIs (gefitinib at a dose of 250 mg once daily or erlotinib at a dose of 150 mg once daily, with patients receiving these drugs combined in a single comparator group). Overall survival was a secondary end point., Results: The median overall survival was 38.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 34.5 to 41.8) in the osimertinib group and 31.8 months (95% CI, 26.6 to 36.0) in the comparator group (hazard ratio for death, 0.80; 95.05% CI, 0.64 to 1.00; P = 0.046). At 3 years, 79 of 279 patients (28%) in the osimertinib group and 26 of 277 (9%) in the comparator group were continuing to receive a trial regimen; the median exposure was 20.7 months and 11.5 months, respectively. Adverse events of grade 3 or higher were reported in 42% of the patients in the osimertinib group and in 47% of those in the comparator group., Conclusions: Among patients with previously untreated advanced NSCLC with an EGFR mutation, those who received osimertinib had longer overall survival than those who received a comparator EGFR-TKI. The safety profile for osimertinib was similar to that of the comparator EGFR-TKIs, despite a longer duration of exposure in the osimertinib group. (Funded by AstraZeneca; FLAURA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02296125.)., (Copyright © 2019 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Objectives: Treatment of advanced NSCLC (aNSCLC) is rapidly evolving, as new targeted and immuno-oncology (I-O) treatments become available. The iTEN model was developed to predict the cost and survival benefits of changing aNSCLC treatment patterns from a Canadian healthcare system perspective. This report describes iTEN model development and validation., Materials & Methods: A discrete event patient simulation of aNSCLC was developed. A modified Delphi process using Canadian clinical experts informed the development of treatment sequences that included commonly used, Health Canada approved treatments of aNSCLC. Treatment efficacy and the timing of progression and death were estimated from published Kaplan-Meier progression free and overall survival data. Costs (2018 CDN$) included were: drug acquisition and administration, imaging, monitoring, adverse events, physician visits, best supportive care, and end-of-life., Results and Conclusion: Clinical validity of the iTEN model was assessed by comparing model survival predictions to published real-world evidence (RWE). Four RWE studies that reported the overall survival of patients treated with a broad sampling of common aNSCLC treatment patterns were used for validation. The validation coefficient of determination was R 2  = 0.95, with the model generally producing estimates that were neither optimistic nor conservative. The model estimated that current Canadian practice patterns yield a median survival of almost 13 months, a five-year survival rate of 3% and a life-time per-treated-patient cost of $110,806. Cost and survival estimates are presented and were found to vary by aNSCLC subtype. In conclusion, the iTEN model is a reliable tool for forecasting the impact on cost and survival of new treatments for aNSCLC., (Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: The PACIFIC study established durvalumab as a standard of care for consolidation therapy in patients treated with radical intent chemoradiation for stage III inoperable non-small cell lung cancer. In clinical practice, many patients are not eligible for trials, yet radical intent chemoradiation may still be used., Methods: A virtual anonymous tumour board Delphi-model was used in order to generate consensus on the use of durvalumab in six clinical situations where chemoradiation is used in clinical practice and recommended in guidelines, yet not PACIFIC eligible. Two anonymous iterations were sent and recommendations were circulated for approval and comment. Results are presented using a modified PICOT format (patients, intervention, control, outcomes, and ongoing trials)., Results: In three of the scenarios, consensus was reached and recommendations were for the use of consolidation durvalumab, but being respectful of potentially increased toxicity/reduced benefit in comparison to PACIFIC results (treatment of stage IIB inoperable, recurrent mediastinal disease, and residual gross disease post attempted surgical removal). There was a recommendation against using durvalumab in resected stage III disease with R1 or R0 margins, even if chemoradiation were considered. There was not consensus on the use of consolidation durvalumab in the setting of oligometastatic disease or in the setting of large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma or combined small cell carcinoma., Conclusion: Treatment of 'real-world' lung cancer often involves chemoradiation in settings outside of stage III and eligible for the PACIFIC study. This paper offers recommendations in these scenarios based on a consensus approach., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Aim: Osimertinib is a third-generation, irreversible, oral EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor. We report real-world effectiveness and safety data. Patients & methods: EGFR T790M positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer adults, who received ≥1 prior EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor, received osimertinib 80 mg daily. Primary effectiveness outcome: overall survival. Secondary effectiveness outcomes included: investigator-assessed clinical response, progression-free survival, time-to-treatment discontinuation. Results: At data cutoff, 3015 patients had enrolled: 57.1% had investigator-assessed response (95% CI: 55.2-58.9). Median progression-free survival: 11.1 months (95% CI: 11.0-12.0) and median time-to-treatment discontinuation: 13.5 months (95% CI: 12.6-13.9). Interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis-like events reported in 28 (1%) patients. Conclusion: Osimertinib demonstrated clinical effectiveness similar to efficacy observed in the clinical trial program with no new safety signals.

Introduction: At the prior data cutoff (February 9, 2017) the ALEX trial showed superior investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) for alectinib versus crizotinib in untreated, anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive, advanced NSCLC (hazard ratio = 0.47, 95% confidence interval: 0.34-0.65, p < 0.001). The median PFS in the alectinib arm was not reached versus 11.1 months with crizotinib. Retrospective analyses suggest that the echinoderm microtubule-associated protein-like 4 gene-ALK variant (EML4-ALK) may influence ALK-inhibitor treatment benefit. We present updated analyses, including exploratory subgroup analysis by EML4-ALK variant, after an additional 10 months' follow-up (cutoff December 1, 2017)., Methods: Patients were randomized to receive twice-daily alectinib, 600 mg, or crizotinib, 250 mg, until disease progression, toxicity, death, or withdrawal. PFS was determined by the investigators. Baseline plasma and tissue biomarker samples were analyzed by using hybrid-capture, next-generation sequencing to determine EML4-ALK variant., Results: Baseline characteristics were balanced. Investigator-assessed PFS was prolonged with alectinib (stratified hazard ratio = 0.43, 95% confidence interval: 0.32-0.58). The median PFS times were 34.8 months with alectinib and 10.9 months with crizotinib. EML4-ALK fusions were detectable in 129 patient plasma samples and 124 tissue samples; variants 1, 2, and 3/ab did not affect PFS, objective response rate, or duration of response. Investigator-assessed PFS was longer for alectinib than for crizotinib across EML4-ALK variants 1, 2, and 3a/b in plasma and tissue. Despite longer treatment duration (27.0 months in the case of alectinib versus 10.8 months in the case of crizotinib), the safety of alectinib compared favorably with that of crizotinib., Conclusion: Alectinib continues to demonstrate superior investigator-assessed PFS versus crizotinib in untreated ALK-positive NSCLC, irrespective of EML4-ALK variant., (Copyright © 2019 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: In the phase III FLAURA study, third-generation epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) osimertinib significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus standard-of-care (SoC) EGFR-TKI (gefitinib or erlotinib) in patients with previously untreated EGFR (exon 19 deletion or L858R) mutation-positive advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Interim overall survival (OS) data were encouraging, but not formally statistically significant at current maturity (25%). Here we report exploratory postprogression outcomes., Patients and Methods: Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive osimertinib (80 mg orally, once daily) or SoC EGFR-TKI (gefitinib 250 mg or erlotinib 150 mg, orally, once daily). Treatment beyond disease progression was allowed if the investigator judged ongoing clinical benefit. Patients receiving SoC EGFR-TKI could cross over to receive osimertinib after independently confirmed objective disease progression with documented postprogression T790M-positive mutation status., Results: At data cutoff (June 12, 2017), 138 of 279 (49%) and 213 of 277 (77%) patients discontinued osimertinib and SoC EGFR-TKI, respectively, of whom 82 (59%) and 129 (61%), respectively, started a subsequent treatment. Median time to discontinuation of any EGFR-TKI or death was 23.0 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 19.5-not calculable (NC)] in the osimertinib arm and 16.0 months (95% CI, 14.8-18.6) in the SoC EGFR-TKI arm. Median second PFS was not reached (95% CI, 23.7-NC) in the osimertinib arm and 20.0 months (95% CI, 18.2-NC) in the SoC EGFR-TKI arm [hazard ratio (HR), 0.58; 95% CI, 0.44-0.78; P = 0.0004]., Conclusions: All postprogression endpoints showed consistent improvement with osimertinib versus SoC EGFR-TKI, providing further confidence in the interim OS data., (©2019 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Purpose: Afatinib is a standard first-line therapy for advanced EGFR-positive NSCLC. We implemented a pharmacist-led proactive follow-up algorithm to identify and manage early afatinib-related adverse events (AEs)., Methods: We conducted a retrospective chart review of all patients treated with afatinib after implementation of the algorithm at the Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre (Toronto, ON, Canada) from April 1, 2015 to July 31, 2016. Our in-house algorithm involved consultations in person and proactive pharmacist-led callbacks on days 5, 10, and 17. All AEs were graded and documented in real time and management based on toxicity grade was standardized. This study evaluated the impact of our algorithm on real-world AEs., Results and Discussion: Thirty-three patients were identified and reviewed. Median follow-up was 248 days. All patients experienced at least one drug-related AE; 18.2% were grade 3/4. The most common AEs were diarrhea 87.9%, rash 81.8%, stomatitis 57.6%, and paronychia 45.5%. Median dose of afatinib was 40 mg daily; 51.5% of patients had ≥ 1 dose reduction and 6.3% discontinued afatinib due to AEs. Proactive calls by the pharmacist identified 36.5% of all drug-related AEs, 33.3% of grade 3/4 AEs, 58.1% of first drug-related AEs and identified two patients that were non-compliant. Only 3.2% of AEs were identified by an emergency room/urgent clinic visit., Conclusions: This proactive multi-disciplinary AE management algorithm resulted in a low rate of urgent assessments and discontinuation due to toxicity while maintaining afatinib at ideal dose, thus providing a useful tool for centers prescribing afatinib.

Competing Interests: CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURES We have read and understood Current Oncology’s policy on disclosing conflicts of interest, and we declare the following interests: BM serves on advisory boards for Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche; GL serves on advisory boards for and has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Merck, AbbVie, Bristol–Myers Squibb, and Takeda, and has received grants from AstraZeneca and Roche; PC has no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to review the clinical outcomes following the use of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) in patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from a large academic institution., Materials and Methods: Metastatic NSCLC patients treated with extracranial SBRT were identified from an institutional database. Treatment indications were: (1) oligometastases, (2) oligoprogression, and (3) local control of dominant tumors. Endpoints included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), time to starting/changing systemic therapy (SCST), and local failure (LF). Univariate and multivariable analyses were performed to look for predictive factors., Results: 108 patients with 165 tumors were treated. SBRT was delivered for oligometastases in 66 patents, for oligoprogression in 20 patients, and for local control in 22 patients. Median OS and PFS for all patients were 27.3 months and 4.4 months, respectively, with treatment indication being the only predictive factor on multivariable analysis (patients with oligometastases having the highest median OS and PFS of 39.3 months and 7.6 months respectively). Cumulative incidence of SCST was only 21.5% at 1 year after SBRT, with larger tumor size and positivity for EGFR/ALK mutation being predictive of higher rates of SCST on multivariable analysis. LF was 15.6% at 1 year, with larger tumor size and exposure to previous systemic therapy being predictive of higher rates of LF on multivariable analysis., Conclusion: Patients treated with SBRT for oligometastases have better OS and PFS than those treated for oligoprogression or for local control of dominant tumors. Use of SBRT may delay the need for SCST. Larger tumors and previous exposure to systemic therapy were predictive of higher rates of LF., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Optimal first-line systemic therapy for patients with advanced nonsquamous (nonsq) non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) requires confirmation of EGFR/ ALK status, which can delay treatment. We evaluated the impact of reflex testing, defined as pathologists initiating EGFR/ ALK testing at the time of diagnosis of nonsq NSCLC, on time to treatment (TTT)., Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of patients with nonsq NSCLC with medical oncology consultation at Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre between March 18, 2010 and April 30, 2014. Data were compared during routine and reflex testing. TTT was defined as the interval between the first medical oncology visit with advanced NSCLC and the initiation of systemic therapy., Results: A total of 306 patients were included (n = 232 for routine testing, n = 74 for reflex testing). There was a trend to improvement in median TTT with reflex testing (36 days [interquartile range {IQR}, 16 to 71 days v 26 days [IQR, 8 to 41 days], P = .071). Omitting patients with intentional delays in systemic therapy for low-volume disease, poor performance status, comorbidity management, and/or radiation therapy, median TTT improved (34 days [IQR, 15 to 67 days] v 22 days [IQR, 8 to 42 days], P = .049). Time to optimal first-line systemic therapy according to published guidelines improved (median, 36 days [IQR, 16 to 91 days] v 24 days [IQR, 8 to 43 days], P = .036). There was no impact on receipt of any first-line systemic therapy (55% v 59%, P = .66). The quality of biomarker testing improved, with fewer unsuccessful tests ( EGFR, 14% v 4%, P = .039; and ALK, 17% v 3%, P = .037)., Conclusion: Reflex testing of EGFR/ ALK improved the time to optimal systemic therapy and the quality of biomarker testing for patients with advanced nonsq NSCLC.