Search

Lung cancer (LC) is the leading cause of death among patients with cancer both in worldwide and China. China accounts for 11.4% of the total number of cancer cases and 18.0% of the total number of cancer deaths in the world. Standardizing the diagnosis and treatment of LC is a key measure to improve the survival rate of LC patients and reduce the mortality rate. However, county hospitals generally face the problem of inaccessibility to advanced diagnostic and treatment technologies. Therefore, when developing quality control standards and clinical diagnosis and treatment specifications, it is necessary to combine the actual situation of county hospitals and formulate specific recommendations. The recommendations of treatment measures also need to consider the approval status of indications and whether it is included in the National Reimbursement Drug List (NRDL), to ensure the access to medicines. In order to solve the above problems, based on existing guidelines at home and abroad and the clinical work characteristics of county hospitals, the first clinical pathway in Chinese county for LC diagnosis and treatment (2023 edition) was compiled. This pathway elaborated on the imaging diagnosis, pathological diagnosis, molecular testing, and precision medicine based on histological-pathological types, tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) classification, and molecular classification, developed different diagnosis and treatment processes for different types of LC patients. Simultaneously, according to the actual work situation of county hospitals, the diagnosis and treatment recommendations in clinical scenarios are divided into basic strategies and optional strategies for elaboration. The basic strategies are the standards that county hospitals must meet, while the optional strategies provide more choices for hospitals, which are convenient for county doctors to put into clinical practice. All the recommended diagnostic and treatment plans strictly refer to existing guidelines and consensus, ensuring the scientificity.

Background: In CheckMate 227 Part 1, first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab prolonged overall survival (OS) in patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and tumor programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression ≥1% versus chemotherapy. We report results from CheckMate 227 Part 2, which evaluated nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy in patients with metastatic NSCLC regardless of tumor PD-L1 expression., Patients and Methods: Seven hundred and fifty-five patients with systemic therapy-naive, stage IV/recurrent NSCLC without EGFR mutations or ALK alterations were randomized 1 : 1 to nivolumab 360 mg every 3 weeks plus chemotherapy or chemotherapy. Primary endpoint was OS with nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy in patients with nonsquamous NSCLC. OS in all randomized patients was a hierarchically tested secondary endpoint., Results: At 19.5 months' minimum follow-up, no significant improvement in OS was seen with nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy in patients with nonsquamous NSCLC [median OS 18.8 versus 15.6 months, hazard ratio (HR) 0.86, 95.62% confidence interval (CI) 0.69-1.08, P = 0.1859]. Descriptive analyses showed OS improvement with nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy in all randomized patients (median OS 18.3 versus 14.7 months, HR 0.81, 95.62% CI 0.67-0.97) and in an exploratory analysis in squamous NSCLC (median OS 18.3 versus 12.0 months, HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.50-0.97). A trend toward improved OS was seen with nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy, regardless of the tumor mutation status of STK11 or TP53, regardless of tumor mutational burden, and in patients with intermediate/poor Lung Immune Prognostic Index scores. Safety with nivolumab plus chemotherapy was consistent with previous reports of first-line settings., Conclusions: CheckMate 227 Part 2 did not meet the primary endpoint of OS with nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy in patients with metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC. Descriptive analyses showed prolonged OS with nivolumab plus chemotherapy in all-randomized and squamous NSCLC populations, suggesting that this combination may benefit patients with untreated metastatic NSCLC., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: We evaluated whether tissue tumor mutational burden (tTMB) and STK11, KEAP1, and KRAS mutations have clinical utility as biomarkers for pembrolizumab monotherapy versus platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive (tumor proportion score ≥1%) advanced/metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) without EGFR/ALK alterations in the phase III KEYNOTE-042 trial., Patients and Methods: This retrospective exploratory analysis assessed prevalence of tTMB and STK11, KEAP1, and KRAS mutations determined by whole-exome sequencing of tumor tissue and matched normal DNA and their associations with outcomes in KEYNOTE-042. Clinical utility of tTMB was assessed using a prespecified cut point of 175 mutations/exome., Results: Of 793 patients, 345 (43.5%) had tTMB ≥175 mutations/exome and 448 (56.5%) had tTMB <175 mutations/exome. No association was observed between PD-L1 expression and tTMB. Continuous tTMB score was associated with improved overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival among patients receiving pembrolizumab (Wald test, one-sided P < 0.001) but not those receiving chemotherapy (Wald test, two-sided P > 0.05). tTMB ≥175 mutations/exome was associated with improved outcomes for pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy, whereas tTMB <175 mutations/exome was not {OS: hazard ratio, 0.62 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.48-0.80] and 1.09 (95% CI 0.88-1.36); progression-free survival: 0.75 (0.59-0.95) and 1.27 (1.04-1.55), respectively}. Improved OS [hazard ratio (95% CI)] for pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy was observed regardless of STK11 [STK11 mutant (n = 33): 0.37 (0.16-0.86), STK11 wild-type (n = 396): 0.83 (0.65-1.05)]; KEAP1 [KEAP1 mutant (n = 64): 0.75 (0.42-1.35), KEAP1 wild-type (n = 365): 0.78 (0.61-0.99)], or KRAS [KRAS mutant (n = 69): 0.42 (0.22-0.81); KRAS wild-type (n = 232): 0.86 (0.63-1.18)] mutation status., Conclusion: tTMB with a cut point of ≥175 mutations/exome is a potential predictive biomarker for pembrolizumab monotherapy for advanced/metastatic PD-L1 tumor proportion score ≥1% NSCLC. Pembrolizumab is a standard first-line treatment in this setting regardless of STK11, KEAP1, or KRAS mutation status., (Copyright © 2023 Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC., a subsidiary Merck & Co., Inc., The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) held a virtual consensus-building process on epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutant non-small-cell lung cancer in 2021. The consensus included a multidisciplinary panel of 34 leading experts in the management of lung cancer. The aim of the consensus was to develop recommendations on topics that are not covered in detail in the current ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline and where the available evidence is either limited or conflicting. The main topics identified for discussion were: (i) tissue and biomarkers analyses; (ii) early and locally advanced disease; (iii) metastatic disease and (iv) clinical trial design, patient's perspective and miscellaneous. The expert panel was divided into four working groups to address questions relating to one of the four topics outlined above. Relevant scientific literature was reviewed in advance. Recommendations were developed by the working groups and then presented to the entire panel for further discussion and amendment before voting. This manuscript presents the recommendations developed, including findings from the expert panel discussions, consensus recommendations and a summary of evidence supporting each recommendation., Competing Interests: Disclosure AP received education grants, provided consultation, attended advisory board meetings and/or provided lectures for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Daiichi Sankyo, eCancer, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Medscape, Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Merck KGaA, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, Takeda, outside the submitted work. NL reports unrelated institutional research funding received from Amgen, Array, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Lilly, EMD Serono, Guardant Health, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Takeda and unrelated personal fees (CME lectures, consulting) received from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, EMD Serono, MSD, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme. SPo reports personal fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, Blueprint Medicines, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Guardant Health, Janssen, Lilly, Merck KGaA, Novartis, Roche, Takeda, Seattle Genetics, Turning Point Therapeutics, GlaxoSmithKline, outside the submitted work. KK reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Roche, during the conduct of the study. MJA reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Takeda, Roche, Alpha Pharmaceutical, Amgen, Lilly, ONO, MSD, Merck, outside the submitted work. MEA reports personal fees from Biocartis, Invivoscribe, Janssen Global Services, BMS, AstraZeneca, Roche, Merck, RMEI Medical Education, Clinical Care Options, PeerView Institute for medical education, outside the submitted work. OA reports personal fees from Pfizer, grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, personal fees from Lilly, Merck, BMS, grants and personal fees from Roche, outside the submitted work. DP reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, BMS, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, prIME Oncology, Peer CME, Roche, Samsung, AbbVie, Janssen, outside the submitted work; and clinical trials research (as principal investigator or co-investigator): AstraZeneca, AbbVie, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, MedImmune, Sanofi-Aventis, Taiho Pharma, Novocure, Daiichi Sankyo, Janssen. FdM reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, grants from Boehringer, personal fees from Roche, BMS, Novartis, MSD, Pfizer, Takeda, outside the submitted work. AMD reports personal fees from Roche, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Pharmamar, Takeda, Boehringer Ingelheim, grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Jansen, Chiesi, grants and personal fees from Amgen, personal fees from Bayer, Sanofi, outside the submitted work. RD reports personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees and non-financial support from Roche, non-financial support from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Foundation Medicine, Karyopharm, outside the submitted work. CFF reports grants and other from AstraZeneca, other from MSD, grants and other from Elekta, during the conduct of the study. JF reports personal fees from Blueprint Medicines, Novartis, Janssen, AstraZeneca, outside the submitted work. EF reports personal fees from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Medscape, Merck KGaA, MSD, Novartis, PeerVoice, Pfizer, prIME Oncology, Puma Biotechnology, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, Springer, Takeda, Touch Medical, grants from Grant for Oncology Innovation (GOI), grants from Fundación Merck Salud, personal fees from CME Outfitters, BeiGene, Medical Trends, Peptomyc, Regeneron, from Syneos Health, outside the submitted work; and Grifols: independent member of the board. GC reports consultation fees from Pfizer, Roche, AstraZeneca, BMS, Daichii Sankyo, Seagen, Gilead, Novartis, Lilly, Ellipsis, Merck. RH reports consultation fees from AbbVie Pharmaceuticals, ARMO Biosciences, AstraZeneca, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc., Bolt Biotherapeutics, BMS, Candel Therapeutics, Inc., Checkpoint Therapeutics, Cybrexa Therapeutics, DynamiCure Biotechnology, LLC, eFFECTOR Therapeutics, Inc., Eli Lilly and Company, EMD Serono, Foundation Medicine, Inc., Genentech/Roche, Genmab, Gilead, Halozyme Therapeutics, Heat Biologics, HiberCell, Inc., I-Mab Biopharma, Immune-Onc Therapeutics, Immunocore, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Johnson & Johnson, Loxo Oncology, Merck and Company, Mirati Therapeutics, Nektar, Neon Therapeutics, NextCure, Novartis, Ocean Biomedical, Inc., Oncocyte Corp., Oncternal Therapeutics, Pfizer, Refactor Health, Inc., Ribbon Therapeutics, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Shire PLC, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, STCube Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Symphogen, Takeda, Tesaro, Tocagen, Ventana Medical Systems, Inc., WindMIL Therapeutics, Xencor, Inc., research support from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly and Company, Genentech/Roche, Merck and Company, and participation on board of Immunocore Holdings Limited, Junshi Pharmaceuticals. PAJ reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, personal fees from Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, Chugai Pharmaceuticals, Loxo Oncology, grants and personal fees from Eli Lilly, personal fees from SFJ Pharmaceuticals, Voronoi, grants and personal fees from Daiichi Sankyo, personal fees from Biocartis, Novartis, Sanofi, grants and personal fees from Takeda Oncology, personal fees from Mirati Therapeutics, Transcenta, Silicon Therapeutics, Syndax, Nuvalent, Bayer, Eisai, Allorion Therapeutics, Accutar Biotech, AbbVie, grants from Revolution Medicines, grants from PUMA, grants from Astellas, outside the submitted work. In addition, PAJ is a co-inventor on a DFCI patent on EGFR mutations and receives postmarketing royalties from Lab Corp. TJ reports personal fees from Pfizer, AstraZeneca, BMS, Merck, MSD, Takeda, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, Ignyta, Novartis, Bayer, Amgen, Gilead, Puma Pharmaceuticals, outside the submitted work. TM reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chugai, personal fees from Pfizer, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from BMS, grants and personal fees from Ono, MSD, personal fees from Novartis, grants and personal fees from Taiho, personal fees from Takeda, Amgen, Invitae, Merck Biopharma, Thermo Fisher, grants from Bridge Biotherapeutics, grants and personal fees from Ethicon, outside the submitted work. TM reports personal fees and other from AbbVie, Inc., ACEA Pharma, Alpha Biopharma Co. Ltd, Amgen, Amoy Diagnostics Co. Ltd, grants, personal fees and other from AstraZeneca, personal fees and other from BeiGene, Boehringer Ingelheim, grants, personal fees and other from BMS, personal fees and other from Blueprint Medicines Corporation, CStone Pharmaceuticals, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Fishawack Facilitate Ltd, other from geneDecode, personal fees and other from Gritstone Oncology Inc., Guardant Health, Hengrui Therapeutics, Ignyta Inc., Incyte Corporation, personal fees from InMed Medical Communication, personal fees and other from Janssen, Lilly, Loxo Oncology, Lunit USA, Inc., personal fees from MD Health (Brazil), Medscape/WebMD, grants, personal fees and other from Merck Serono, MSD, personal fees and other from Mirati Therapeutics Inc., personal fees from MoreHealth, grants, personal fees and other from Novartis, personal fees and other from OrigiMed, personal fees from PeerVoice, Physicians' Education Resource, P. Permanyer SL, grants, personal fees and other from Pfizer, Inc., personal fees from PrIME Oncology, personal fees and other from Puma Biotechnology Inc., personal fees from Research to Practice, grants, personal fees and other from Roche, personal fees and other from Sanofi-Aventis R&D, grants, personal fees and other from Takeda, personal fees from Touch Medical Media, other from Virtus Medical Group, personal fees and other from Yuhan Corporation, other from AstraZeneca PLC, Hutchison Chi-Med, Sanomics Ltd, grants from Clovis Oncology, grants, personal fees and other from SFJ Pharmaceuticals, grants from Xcovery, personal fees and other from Curio Science, personal fees from Inivata, Berry Oncology, grants and personal fees from G1 Therapeutics Inc., other from Aurora, personal fees from Qiming Development (HK) Ltd, Daz Group, Lucence Health Inc., Merck Pharmaceuticals HK Ltd, Shanghai BeBirds Translation & Consulting Co., Ltd, Liangyihui Network Technology Co., Ltd, Taiho, personal fees and other from Gilead Sciences, Inc, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, personal fees from Covidien LP, outside the submitted work. NN reports personal fees from MSD, grants and personal fees from Qiagen, Biocartis, Incyte, Roche, BMS, Merck, Thermo Fisher, AstraZeneca, personal fees from Sanofi, Eli Lilly, Bayer, ArcherDx, grants and personal fees from Illumina, personal fees from Amgen, outside the submitted work. LPA reports grants from MSD, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, BMS, personal fees from Lilly, MSD, Roche, Pharmamar, Merck, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Servier, Amgen, Pfizer, Ipsen, Sanofi, Bayer, Blueprint, BMS, Mirati, Janssen, other from Genomica, Altum sequencing, outside the submitted work. SR reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, BMS, Amgen, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Takeda, Eisai, Lilly, outside the submitted work. LS reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, grants from Novartis, personal fees from Janssen, grants and personal fees from Genentech, personal fees from Takeda, Pfizer, grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, outside the submitted work. JV reports honoraria for invited speaker from AstraZeneca, BMS, MSD, and Novartis; participation on advisory board of AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daichi Sankyo, MSD, Pfizer, and Roche; grant from MSD. IIW reports grants and personal fees from Genentech/Roche, Bayer, BMS, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, HTG Molecular, personal fees from Asuragen, grants and personal fees from Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Guardant Health, personal fees from Flame, grants and personal fees from Novartis, Sanofi, personal fees from Daiichi Sankyo, grants and personal fees from Amgen, personal fees from Oncocyte, MSD, Platform Health, grants from Adaptive, Adaptimmune, EMD Serono, Takeda, Karus, Johnson & Johnson, 4D, Iovance, Akoya, outside the submitted work. JW reports personal fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Blueprint, grants and personal fees from BMS, personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Ignyta, grants and personal fees from Janssen, personal fees from Lilly, Loxo, MSD, grants and personal fees from Novartis, Pfizer, personal fees from Roche, Seattle Genetics, Takeda, outside the submitted work. YLW reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Eli Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Novartis, Takeda; grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Hengrui and Roche, outside the submitted work. JCHY reports personal fees and other from Amgen, grants, personal fees and other from AstraZeneca, personal fees and other from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Daiichi Sankyo, other from Eli Lilly, personal fees and other from Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, MSD, Novartis, personal fees from Ono Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, personal fees and other from Roche/Genentech, Takeda Oncology, Yuhan Pharmaceuticals, other from Johnson & Johnson, Glaxo, Puma Technology, outside the submitted work. YY reports and contracted studies with ArcherDx, Chugai Pharma and Thermo Fisher Science; honoraria for lectures from MSD, Chugai Pharma, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Roche/Ventana, Agilent/Dako, Thermo Fisher Science, ArcherDx, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Amgen and Sysmex; participation on advisory board of MSD, Chugai Pharma, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Amgen, Takeda and Daiichi-Sankyo. GP reports grants from Amgen, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Merck, grants and non-financial support from AstraZeneca, grants and personal fees from Roche, BMS, grants from Lilly, grants and personal fees from MSD, Novartis, outside the submitted work. SPe received education grants, provided consultation, attended advisory board meetings and/or provided lectures for AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biocartis, BioInvent, Blueprint Medicines Corporation, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, Debiopharm, Eli Lilly, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Foundation Medicine, Illumina, Janssen, MSD, Merck Serono, Merrimack, Novartis, PharmaMar, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda and Vaccibody, from whom she received honoraria (all fees to institution). All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 European Society for Medical Oncology. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The phase III PACIFIC trial (NCT02125461) established consolidation durvalumab as standard of care for patients with unresectable, stage III non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and no disease progression following chemoradiotherapy (CRT). In some cases, patients with stage IIIA-N2 NSCLC are considered operable, but the relative benefit of surgery is unclear. We report a post hoc, exploratory analysis of clinical outcomes in the PACIFIC trial, in patients with or without stage IIIA-N2 NSCLC., Materials and Methods: Patients with unresectable, stage III NSCLC and no disease progression after ≥2 cycles of platinum-based, concurrent CRT were randomized 2 : 1 to receive durvalumab (10 mg/kg intravenously; once every 2 weeks for up to 12 months) or placebo, 1-42 days after CRT. The primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS; assessed by blinded independent central review according to RECIST version 1.1) and overall survival (OS). Treatment effects within subgroups were estimated by hazard ratios (HRs) from unstratified Cox proportional hazards models., Results: Of 713 randomized patients, 287 (40%) had stage IIIA-N2 disease. Baseline characteristics were similar between patients with and without stage IIIA-N2 NSCLC. With a median follow-up of 14.5 months (range: 0.2-29.9 months), PFS was improved with durvalumab versus placebo in both patients with [HR = 0.46; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.33-0.65] and without (HR = 0.62; 95% CI 0.48-0.80) stage IIIA-N2 disease. Similarly, with a median follow-up of 25.2 months (range: 0.2-43.1 months), OS was improved with durvalumab versus placebo in patients with (HR = 0.56; 95% CI 0.39-0.79) or without (HR = 0.78; 95% CI 0.57-1.06) stage IIIA-N2 disease. Durvalumab had a manageable safety profile irrespective of stage IIIA-N2 status., Conclusions: Consistent with the intent-to-treat population, treatment benefits with durvalumab were confirmed in patients with stage IIIA-N2, unresectable NSCLC. Prospective studies are needed to determine the optimal treatment approach for patients who are deemed operable., Competing Interests: Disclosure SS reports participating on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Celgene, Merck Sharp & Dohme, BeiGene, Eli Lilly, and Varian Medical Systems; and institutional research grants from AstraZeneca, Varian Medical Systems, and ViewRay Inc. MÖ reports receiving personal fees from Janssen, Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, and MSD; and reports receiving a research grant from Janssen. DD reports receiving institutional research support from AstraZeneca, Genentech, Guardant Health, Janssen Research and Development, Bristol-Myers Squibb, G1 Therapeutics, Merck & Co, Inc., Novartis, AbbVie, ARMO Biosciences, Immunomedics, Eli Lilly, Merus NV, and Daiichi Sankyo. AV reports receiving personal fees for participating in a speakers’ bureau for AstraZeneca. DV reports receiving honoraria from AstraZeneca; receiving institutional research support from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Roche; undertaking a consulting or advisory role for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MDS Oncology, Pfizer, and Roche/Genentech; and receiving travel/accommodation/expenses from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Roche. SM reports receiving institutional research support from Takeda Pharmaceuticals; and receiving travel/accommodations/expenses from AstraZeneca, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Boehringer Ingelheim, Taiho Pharmaceutical, and Ono Pharmaceutical. RH reports participating on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Oncosec, Pfizer, Seagen, and Roche; receiving honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Oncosec, Pfizer, Seagen, and Roche; receiving research funding (paid to the institution) from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Onosec, Roche, and Seagen; and receiving travel, accommodations, and expenses from Novartis. CF-F reports receiving honoraria from AstraZeneca; participating in a speaker’s bureau and an advisory board for AstraZeneca (fees paid to institution); is a scientific committee member/chair for AstraZeneca; and reports receiving research funding and travel, accommodations, or expenses from AstraZeneca and Elekta. LP-A reports being board member of Genomica; participating in a leadership role for ALTUM Sequencing; participating in a speaker’s bureau for AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Merk Serono, MSD Oncology, Pfizer, and Roche/Genentech; receiving honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Blueprint Medicines, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Incyte, Ipsen, Eli Lilly, Merck Serono, Mirati Therapeutics, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Roche/Genentech, Sanofi, Servier, Sysmex, and Takeda; receiving research funding (paid to the institution) from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Kura Oncology, Merck Sharp and Dohme, and PharmaMar; and receiving travel, accommodations, or expenses from Roche, AstraZeneca, AstraZeneca Spain, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, and Takeda. YLW reports receiving institutional research support from Roche, Pfizer, and Boehringer Ingelheim; receiving consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Takeda, Roche, and Merck; and receiving honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb/China, Hengrui Pharmaceutical, MSD Oncology, Eli Lilly, Roche, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Merck. HM is an employee of AstraZeneca and holds stock or stock options in AstraZeneca. PAD is a former employee of AstraZeneca and holds stock or stock options in AstraZeneca. SJA reports a consulting or advisory role for AstraZeneca, Achilles Therapeutics, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, CBMG, Celsius Therapeutics, EMD Serono, G1 Therapeutics, GlaxoSmithKline, Glympse Bio, Memgen, Merck, RAPT Therapeutics, Samyang, Tarus Therapeutics, and Venn Therapeutics., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Polymeric micellar paclitaxel (pm-Pac) is a novel Cremophor EL-free, nanoparticle micellar formulation of paclitaxel. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety between pm-Pac plus cisplatin and solvent-based paclitaxel (sb-Pac) plus cisplatin in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC)., Patients and Methods: A total of 448 stage IIIB to IV NSCLC patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive six 3-week cycles of either pm-Pac (230 mg/m 2 ) plus cisplatin (70 mg/m 2 ; n = 300), followed by dose escalation of pm-Pac to 300 mg/m 2 from the second 3-week cycle if prespecified toxic effects were not observed after the first cycle, or sb-Pac (175 mg/m 2 ) plus cisplatin (70 mg/m 2 ; n = 148). The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) assessed by independent review committees (IRCs). The secondary end points included IRC-assessed progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety., Results: Patients in the pm-Pac-plus-cisplatin group showed significant improvements in IRC-assessed ORR compared with those in the sb-Pac-plus-cisplatin group (50% versus 26%; rate ratio 1.91; P < 0.0001). Additionally, subgroup analysis showed that a higher ORR was consistently observed in both squamous and nonsquamous histological types. IRC-assessed median PFS was significantly higher in the pm-Pac-plus-cisplatin group than in the sb-Pac-plus-cisplatin group (6.4-month versus 5.3-month; hazard ratio 0.63; P = 0.0001). Median OS was not significantly different between the two groups. The incidence of treatment-related serious adverse events (9% versus 18%; P = 0.0090) was significantly lower in the pm-Pac-plus-cisplatin group than in the sb-Pac-plus-cisplatin group., Conclusion: Pm-Pac plus cisplatin yielded superior ORR and PFS along with a favorable safety profile and should become an option for patients with advanced NSCLC., Clinical Trial Identifier: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02667743; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02667743., Competing Interests: Disclosure YW has provided advisory or consultancy service and received personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, and Roche; has received institutional research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim and Roche; and has received honoraria from Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche, and Sanofi. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: In AURA3 (NCT02151981), osimertinib, a third-generation epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), significantly prolonged progression-free survival and improved response in patients with EGFR T790M advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and progression on prior EGFR-TKI treatment. We report the final AURA3 overall survival (OS) analysis., Patients and Methods: Adult patients were randomized 2 : 1 to osimertinib (80 mg orally, once daily) or pemetrexed plus carboplatin/cisplatin (platinum-pemetrexed) intravenously, every 3 weeks (≤6 cycles). Patients could crossover to osimertinib on progression confirmed by blinded independent central review. OS and safety were secondary end points., Results: A total of 279 patients were randomly assigned to receive osimertinib and 140 to platinum-pemetrexed (136 received treatment). At data cut-off (DCO; 15 March 2019), 188 patients (67%) receiving osimertinib versus 93 (66%) receiving platinum-pemetrexed had died. The hazard ratio (HR) for OS was 0.87 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67-1.12; P = 0.277]; the median OS was 26.8 months (95% CI 23.5-31.5) versus 22.5 months (95% CI 20.2-28.8) for osimertinib and platinum-pemetrexed, respectively. The estimated 24- and 36-month survival was 55% versus 43% and 37% versus 30%, respectively. After crossover adjustment, there was an HR of 0.54 (95% CI 0.18-1.6). Time to first subsequent therapy or death showed a clinically meaningful advantage toward osimertinib (HR 0.21, 95% CI 0.16-0.28; P < 0.001). At DCO, 99/136 (73%) patients in the platinum-pemetrexed arm had crossed over to osimertinib, 66/99 (67%) of whom had died. The most common adverse events possibly related to study treatment were diarrhea (32%; grade ≥3, 1%) and rash (grouped term; 32%; grade ≥3, <1%) in the osimertinib arm, versus nausea (47%; grade ≥3, 3%) in the platinum-pemetrexed arm., Conclusions: In patients with T790M advanced NSCLC, no statistically significant benefit in OS was observed for osimertinib versus platinum-pemetrexed, which possibly reflects the high crossover rate of patients from platinum-pemetrexed to osimertinib., Clinical Trials Number: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02151981; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02151981., Competing Interests: Disclosures VAP has declared honorarium from F Hoffman-La Roche; advisory or consultancy fees from Nektar Therapeutics, Astra Zeneca Pharmaceuticals, Arrys Therapeutics, Merck & Co, LOXO Oncology, Araxes Pharma, F. Hoffman–LaRoche Ltd, Janssen Research Foundation, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Clovis Oncology, Eli Lilly & Co, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., Takeda Pharmaceuticals, AbbVie, TRM Oncology, Tesaro, Exelixis, Gritstone, Leeds Biolabs, IDEAYA, Bolt Therapeutics, and G2 Innovation; and research funding from Eli Lilly & Co, Novartis, Merck, Astra Zeneca Pharmaceuticals, F Hoffman-La Roche, Nektar Therapeutics, Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Checkmate, and Incyte. TSM has declared honoraria from ACEA Pharma, Alpha Biopharma, Amgen, Amoy Diagnostics, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Blueprint Medicines Corporation, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, CStone Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, Fishawack Facilitate, Hengrui Therapeutics, Ignyta, Incyte Corporation, InMed Medical Communication, IQVIA, Janssen, Loxo Oncology, Merck Serono, MSD, MORE Health, Novartis, OncoGenex Pharmaceuticals, OrigiMed, PeerVoice, Pfizer, PrIME Oncology, Roche/Genentech, Sanofi-Aventis R&D, SFJ Pharmaceutical, Takeda Pharmaceuticals HK, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, and Yuhan Corporation; advisory or consultancy fees from ACEA Pharma, Alpha Biopharma, Amgen, Amoy Diagnostics, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Blueprint Medicines Corporation, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Cirina, CStone Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, Fishawack Facilitate, GeneDecode, Hengrui Therapeutics, Ignyta, Incyte Corporation, InMed Medical Communication, IQVIA, Janssen, Loxo-Oncology, Merck Serono, MSD, MORE Health, Novartis, OncoGenex Pharmaceuticals, OrigiMed, PeerVoice, Pfizer, PrIME Oncology, Roche/Genentech, Sanofi-Aventis R&D, SFJ Pharmaceutical, Takeda Pharmaceuticals HK, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, and Yuhan Corporation; leadership roles for AstraZeneca and Hutchison Chi-Med; research funding from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Clovis Oncology, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, SFJ, and Xcovery; shareholdings in Hutchison Chi-Med, and Sanomics; stock options in Clearbridge BioMedics (now Biolidics), Loxo-Oncology, OrigiMed, and Virtus Medical Group; and officer or director for AstraZeneca, Hutchison Chi-Med (remunerated), American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), Asian Thoracic Oncology Research Group (ATORG), Chinese Lung Cancer Research Foundation Limited (CLCRF), Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology (CSCO), Hong Kong Cancer Fund (HKCF), Hong Kong Cancer Therapy Society (HKCTS), and International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC; term ended on 30/4/19 [non-remunerated]). J-YH has declared honoraria from Roche, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, and Takeda; advisory or consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Takeda, Pfizer, Novartis, and Lilly; research funding from Roche, Pfizer, Ono Pharmaceutical, and Takeda. M-JA has declared advisory or consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, MSD, Ono Pharmaceutical, and Lilly; and speaker fees from AstraZeneca, MSD, Ono Pharmaceutical, Lilly, Roche, Alpha Pharmaceutical, and Takeda. SSR has declared honoraria from AstraZeneca, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Roche/Genentech, Loxo, Nektar, and Tesaro; advisory or consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Roche/Genentech, Loxo, Nektar, and Tesaro; and research funding from AstraZeneca, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Tesaro, Advaxis, and Takeda. SWK has declared advisory or consultancy fees from AstraZeneca; and research funding from AstraZeneca. FAS has declared advisory or consultancy fees from AstraZeneca; research funding from AstraZeneca; and shareholdings in AstraZeneca. JL has declared honoraria from Roche, AstraZeneca, and Pfizer; and research funding from Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca. HA has declared honoraria from AstraZeneca, Chugai, Pfizer, and Boehringer Ingelheim; and advisory or consultancy fees from AstraZeneca and Pfizer. W-CS has declared travel, accommodation, or expenses from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Boehringer Ingelheim. TJ has declared advisory or consultancy fees from Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Ignyta, AstraZeneca, Takeda, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Pfizer. MS has declared honoraria from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Celgene, Takeda, Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and MSD; advisory or consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Celgene, Takeda, Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and MSD; and speaker fees from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Celgene, Takeda, Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and MSD. Y-LW has declared honoraria from AstraZeneca, Roche, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, MSD, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Boehringer Ingelheim; advisory or consultancy fees from AstraZeneca and Roche; and research funding from AstraZeneca and Roche. HM, MM, GL, and YR are employees of and have shareholdings in AstraZeneca. AD, YH, and WSMET have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2020 European Society for Medical Oncology. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

We investigated whether genetic susceptibility to tuberculosis (TB) influences lung adenocarcinoma development among never-smokers using TB genome-wide association study (GWAS) results within the Female Lung Cancer Consortium in Asia. Pathway analysis with the adaptive rank truncated product method was used to assess the association between a TB-related gene-set and lung adenocarcinoma using GWAS data from 5512 lung adenocarcinoma cases and 6277 controls. The gene-set consisted of 31 genes containing known/suggestive associations with genetic variants from previous TB-GWAS. Subsequently, we followed-up with Mendelian Randomization to evaluate the association between TB and lung adenocarcinoma using three genome-wide significant variants from previous TB-GWAS in East Asians. The TB-related gene-set was associated with lung adenocarcinoma (p = 0.016). Additionally, the Mendelian Randomization showed an association between TB and lung adenocarcinoma (OR = 1.31, 95% CI: 1.03, 1.66, p = 0.027). Our findings support TB as a causal risk factor for lung cancer development among never-smoking Asian women., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

The most recent version of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Clinical Practice Guidelines for the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) was published in 2016. At the ESMO Asia Meeting in November 2017 it was decided by both ESMO and the Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology (CSCO) to convene a special guidelines meeting immediately after the Chinese Thoracic Oncology Group Annual Meeting 2018, in Guangzhou, China. The aim was to adapt the ESMO 2016 guidelines to take into account the ethnic differences associated with the treatment of metastatic NSCLC cancer in Asian patients. These guidelines represent the consensus opinions reached by experts in the treatment of patients with metastatic NSCLC representing the oncological societies of China (CSCO), Japan (JSMO), Korea (KSMO), Malaysia (MOS), Singapore (SSO) and Taiwan (TOS). The voting was based on scientific evidence, and was independent of both the current treatment practices and the drug availability and reimbursement situations in the six participating Asian countries. During the review process, the updated ESMO 2018 Clinical Practice Guidelines for metastatic NSCLC were released and were also considered, during the final stages of the development of the Pan-Asian adapted Clinical Practice Guidelines., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: In clinical trials of patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with crizotinib, evaluation of the relationship between the percentage of ALK-positive cells by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH)-particularly near the cut-off defining positive status-and clinical outcomes have been limited by small sample sizes., Patients and Methods: Data were pooled from three large prospective trials (one single-arm and two randomized versus chemotherapy) of crizotinib in patients with ALK-positive NSCLC determined by Vysis ALK Break Apart FISH using a cut-off of ≥15% ALK-positive cells. Logistic regression and proportional hazards regression analyses were used to explore the association of percent ALK-positive cells with objective response and progression-free survival (PFS), respectively., Results: Of 11 081 screened patients, 1958 (18%) were ALK positive, 7512 (68%) were ALK negative, and 1540 (14%) were uninformative. Median percentage of ALK-positive cells was 58% in ALK-positive patients and 2% in ALK-negative patients. Of ALK-positive patients, 5% had 15%-19% ALK-positive cells; of ALK-negative patients, 2% had 10%-14% ALK-positive cells. Objective response rate for ALK-positive, crizotinib-treated patients with ≥20% ALK-positive cells was 56% (n = 700/1246), 55% (n = 725/1312) for those with ≥15% ALK-positive cells, and 38% for those with 15%-19% ALK-positive cells (n = 25/66). As a continuous variable, higher percentages of ALK-positive cells were estimated to be associated with larger differences in objective response and PFS between crizotinib and chemotherapy; however, tests for interaction between treatment and percentage of ALK-positive cells were not significant (objective response, P = 0.054; PFS, P = 0.17)., Conclusions: Patients with ALK-positive NSCLC benefit from treatment with crizotinib across the full range of percentage of ALK-positive cells, supporting the clinical utility of the 15% cut-off. The small number of patients with scores near the cut-off warrant additional study given the potential for misclassification of ALK status due to technical or biologic reasons.

Background: Leptomeningeal metastases (LM) are more frequent in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations. Due to limited access to leptomeningeal lesions, the purpose of this study was to explore the potential role of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) as a source of liquid biopsy in patients with LM., Patients and Methods: Primary tumor, CSF, and plasma in NSCLC with LM were tested by next-generation sequencing. In total, 45 patients with suspected LM underwent lumbar puncture, and those with EGFR mutations diagnosed with LM were enrolled., Results: A total of 28 patients were enrolled in this cohort; CSF and plasma were available in 26 patients, respectively. Driver genes were detected in 100% (26/26), 84.6% (22/26), and 73.1% (19/26) of samples comprising CSF cell-free DNA (cfDNA), CSF precipitates, and plasma, respectively; 92.3% (24/26) of patients had much higher allele fractions in CSF cfDNA than the other two media. Unique genetic profiles were captured in CSF cfDNA compared with those in plasma and primary tissue. Multiple copy number variations (CNVs) were mainly identified in CSF cfDNA, and MET copy number gain identified in 47.8% (11/23) of patients was the most frequent one, while other CNVs included ERBB2, KRAS, ALK, and MYC. Moreover, loss of heterozygosity (LOH) of TP53 was identified in 73.1% (19/26) CSF cfDNA, which was much higher than that in plasma (2/26, 7.7%; P < 0.001). There was a trend towards a higher frequency of concomitant resistance mutations in patients with TP53 LOH than those without (70.6% versus 33.3%; P = 0.162). EGFR T790M was identified in CSF cfDNA of 30.4% (7/23) of patients who experienced TKI progression., Conclusion: CSF cfDNA could reveal the unique genetic profiles of LM and should be considered as the most representative liquid biopsy medium for LM in EGFR-mutant NSCLC.

Purpose: Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and bevacizumab plus chemotherapy were effective for EGFR-mutant patients. However, the appropriated treatment orders remained controvertible. We investigated the efficacy of treatment orders between bevacizumab plus chemotherapy and EGFR-TKIs for EGFR-mutant patients with advanced pulmonary adenocarcinoma., Patients and Methods: This study involved 40 EGFR-mutant patients with advanced pulmonary adenocarcinoma who were treated with bevacizumab plus carboplatin and paclitaxel (Bev + CP) and EGFR-TKIs in different treatment orders or gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GP) in first-line setting. Seventeen patients were treated with Bev + CP and 10 cases with GP in first-line treatment. Thirteen patients received EGFR-TKIs after first-line Bev + CP regimen, while 13 patients were treated with first-line EGFR-TKIs. Progression-free survival (PFS), the response rate (ORR) and overall survival (OS) were evaluated., Results: Median PFS of Bev + CP treatment was significantly longer in first-line than non-first-line settings (11.7 vs. 5.6 months, P = 0.003). Median OS was 37.8 months for EGFR-mutant patients with first-line Bev + CP followed by second-line EGFR-TKIs and 31.0 months for those with first-line EGFR-TKIs and non-first-line Bev + CP, respectively (P = 0.509). Median PFS was 11.7 (95% CI 10.6-12.8) months for Bev + CP group and 4.7 (95% CI 4.4-5.0) months for GP group with the hazard ratio of 0.17 (P = 0.001). ORR was 70.6 and 50.0% in the two groups, respectively (P = 0.415). However, there was no significant difference in median OS (33.7 vs 27.8 months, P = 0.293)., Conclusions: First-line Bev + CP followed by EGFR-TKIs might possibly provide favorable prognosis for EGFR-mutant patients. Bev + CP regimen significantly prolonged PFS in first-line than non-first-line settings. These findings warrant further investigations.

Background: A phase III trial was conducted to compare the safety and efficacy of erlotinib with that of gefitinib in advanced non-small cell lung cancer harbouring epidermal growth factor receptor mutations in exon 19 or 21., Methods: Eligible patients were randomised to receive erlotinib (150 mg per day) or gefitinib (250 mg per day) orally until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. We aimed to determine whether erlotinib is superior to gefitinib in efficacy. The primary end point was progression-free survival., Results: A total of 256 patients were randomised to receive erlotinib (N=128) or gefitinib (N=128). Median progression-free survival was not better with erlotinib than with gefitinib (13.0 vs 10.4 months, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62-1.05, P=0.108). The corresponding response rates and median overall survival were 56.3% vs 52.3% (P=0.530) and 22.9 vs 20.1 months (95% CI 0.63-1.13, P=0.250), respectively. There were no significant differences in grade 3/4 toxicities between the two arms (P=0.172)., Conclusions: The primary end point was not met. Erlotinib was not significantly superior to gefitinib in terms of efficacy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer with epidermal growth factor receptor mutations in exon 19 or 21, and the two treatments had similar toxicities.

Background: Osimertinib is an epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EGFR-TKI) that is selective for both EGFR-TKI sensitizing and T790M resistance mutations in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. The efficacy of osimertinib as compared with platinum-based therapy plus pemetrexed in such patients is unknown., Methods: In this randomized, international, open-label, phase 3 trial, we assigned 419 patients with T790M-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer, who had disease progression after first-line EGFR-TKI therapy, in a 2:1 ratio to receive either oral osimertinib (at a dose of 80 mg once daily) or intravenous pemetrexed (500 mg per square meter of body-surface area) plus either carboplatin (target area under the curve, 5 [AUC5]) or cisplatin (75 mg per square meter) every 3 weeks for up to six cycles; maintenance pemetrexed was allowed. In all the patients, disease had progressed during receipt of first-line EGFR-TKI therapy. The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival., Results: The median duration of progression-free survival was significantly longer with osimertinib than with platinum therapy plus pemetrexed (10.1 months vs. 4.4 months; hazard ratio; 0.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.23 to 0.41; P<0.001). The objective response rate was significantly better with osimertinib (71%; 95% CI, 65 to 76) than with platinum therapy plus pemetrexed (31%; 95% CI, 24 to 40) (odds ratio for objective response, 5.39; 95% CI, 3.47 to 8.48; P<0.001). Among 144 patients with metastases to the central nervous system (CNS), the median duration of progression-free survival was longer among patients receiving osimertinib than among those receiving platinum therapy plus pemetrexed (8.5 months vs. 4.2 months; hazard ratio, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.21 to 0.49). The proportion of patients with adverse events of grade 3 or higher was lower with osimertinib (23%) than with platinum therapy plus pemetrexed (47%)., Conclusions: Osimertinib had significantly greater efficacy than platinum therapy plus pemetrexed in patients with T790M-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (including those with CNS metastases) in whom disease had progressed during first-line EGFR-TKI therapy. (Funded by AstraZeneca; AURA3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02151981 .).

Background: Afatinib 40 mg/day is approved for first-line treatment of EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In the case of drug-related grade ≥3 or selected prolonged grade 2 adverse events (AEs), the dose can be reduced by 10 mg decrements to a minimum of 20 mg. Here, we evaluate the influence of afatinib dose reduction on AEs, pharmacokinetics and progression-free survival (PFS) in the phase III LUX-Lung 3 and 6 (LL3/6) trials., Patients and Methods: Treatment-naïve patients with advanced EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC in LL3 (global) and LL6 (China, Thailand, South Korea) were randomized to afatinib or chemotherapy. All afatinib-treated patients (LL3, n = 229; LL6, n = 239) were included in the post hoc analyses. Incidence and severity of common AEs before and after afatinib dose reduction were assessed. Afatinib plasma concentrations were compared in patients who reduced to 30 mg versus those remaining at 40 mg. PFS was compared between patients who dose reduced within the first 6 months of treatment and those who did not., Results: Dose reductions occurred in 53.3% (122/229) and 28.0% (67/239) of patients in LL3 and LL6, respectively; most (86.1% and 82.1%) within the first 6 months of treatment. Dose reduction led to decreases in the incidence of drug-related AEs, and was more likely in patients with higher afatinib plasma concentrations. On day 43, patients who dose reduced to 30 mg (n = 59) had geometric mean afatinib plasma concentrations of 23.3 ng/ml, versus 22.8 ng/ml in patients who remained on 40 mg (n = 284). The median PFS was similar in patients who dose reduced during the first 6 months versus those who did not {LL3: 11.3 versus 11.0 months [hazard ratio (HR) 1.25]; LL6: 12.3 versus 11.0 months (HR 1.00)}., Conclusions: Tolerability-guided dose adjustment is an effective measure to reduce afatinib-related AEs without affecting therapeutic efficacy., Clinical Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov identifiers: NCT00949650 and NCT0112393., (© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: The OPTIMAL study was the first study to compare efficacy and tolerability of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) erlotinib, versus standard chemotherapy in first-line treatment of patients with EGFR mutation-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Findings from final overall survival (OS) analysis and assessment of post-study treatment impact are presented., Patients and Methods: Of 165 randomised patients, 82 received erlotinib and 72 gemcitabine plus carboplatin. Final OS analyses were conducted when 70% of deaths had occurred in the intent-to-treat population. Subgroup OS was analysed by Cox proportional hazards model and included randomisation stratification factors and post-study treatments., Results: Median OS was similar between the erlotinib (22.8 months) and chemotherapy (27.2 months) arms with no significant between-group differences in the overall population [hazard ratio (HR), 1.19; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83-1.71; P = 0.2663], the exon 19 deletion subpopulation (HR, 1.52; 95% CI 0.91-2.52; P = 0.1037) or the exon 21 L858 mutation subpopulation (HR, 0.92; 95% CI 0.55-1.54; P = 0.7392). More patients in the erlotinib arm versus the chemotherapy arm did not receive any post-study treatment (36.6% versus 22.2%). Patients who received sequential combination of EGFR-TKI and chemotherapy had significantly improved OS compared with those who received EGFR-TKI or chemotherapy only (29.7 versus 20.7 or 11.2 months, respectively; P < 0.0001). OS was significantly shorter in patients who did not receive post-study treatments compared with those who received subsequent treatments in both arms., Conclusion: The significant OS benefit observed in patients treated with EGFR-TKI emphasises its contribution to improving survival of EGFR mutant NSCLC patients, suggesting that erlotinib should be considered standard first-line treatment of EGFR mutant patients and EGFR-TKI treatment following first-line therapy also brings significant benefits to those patients., Clinicaltrialsgov Identifier: NCT00874419., (© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: The phase III, randomized, open-label ENSURE study (NCT01342965) evaluated first-line erlotinib versus gemcitabine/cisplatin (GP) in patients from China, Malaysia and the Philippines with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC)., Patients and Methods: Patients ≥18 years old with histologically/cytologically confirmed stage IIIB/IV EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2 were randomized 1:1 to receive erlotinib (oral; 150 mg once daily until progression/unacceptable toxicity) or GP [G 1250 mg/m(2) i.v. days 1 and 8 (3-weekly cycle); P 75 mg/m(2) i.v. day 1, (3-weekly cycle) for up to four cycles]. Primary end point: investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS). Other end points include objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and safety., Results: A total of 217 patients were randomized: 110 to erlotinib and 107 to GP. Investigator-assessed median PFS was 11.0 months versus 5.5 months, erlotinib versus GP, respectively [hazard ratio (HR), 0.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22-0.51; log-rank P < 0.0001]. Independent Review Committee-assessed median PFS was consistent (HR, 0.42). Median OS was 26.3 versus 25.5 months, erlotinib versus GP, respectively (HR, 0.91, 95% CI 0.63-1.31; log-rank P = .607). ORR was 62.7% for erlotinib and 33.6% for GP. Treatment-related serious adverse events (AEs) occurred in 2.7% versus 10.6% of erlotinib and GP patients, respectively. The most common grade ≥3 AEs were rash (6.4%) with erlotinib, and neutropenia (25.0%), leukopenia (14.4%), and anemia (12.5%) with GP., Conclusion: These analyses demonstrate that first-line erlotinib provides a statistically significant improvement in PFS versus GP in Asian patients with EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC (NCT01342965)., (© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: CTONG0806 assessed the efficacy of pemetrexed versus gefitinib as second-line treatment in advanced nonsquamous nonsmall-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring wild-type epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)., Patients and Methods: Patients with locally advanced or metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC harboring wild-type EGFR, detected by direct sequencing, and previously treated with platinum-based chemotherapy were randomized to receive gefitinib (250 mg/day) orally or pemetrexed (500 mg/m(2)) i.v. on day 1 of a 21-day cycle until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). The Independent Review Committee (IRC) evaluated all pictorial data., Results: From February 2009 to August 2012, 161 patients were enrolled, and 157 were assessable (81 in the gefitinib arm, 76 in the pemetrexed arm). Baseline characteristics were balanced between the two arms. The median PFSs were 4.8 versus 1.6 months in the pemetrexed and gefitinib arms, respectively [hazard ratio (HR) 0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40-0.75, P < 0.001] as confirmed by IRC evaluation (5.6versus 1.7 months, HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.38-0.75, P < 0.001). The median overall survival (OS) showed a trend of superiority in the pemetrexed arm (12.4 versus 9.6 months, HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.49-1.04, P = 0.077). Quality-of-life assessment showed no marked difference between the arms. No unexpected adverse events were found. Of 108 patients with sufficient DNA samples, EGFR mutation status was re-tested by Scorpion amplification refractory mutation system (ARMS); 32 (29.6%) tested positive (19 in the pemetrexed arm, 13 in the gefitinib arm; median PFS: 8.1 versus 7.0 months, HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.43-2.08, P = 0.877)., Conclusions: CTONG0806 is the first trial to show significant improvement in PFS and an improved OS trend with pemetrexed compared with gefitinib as second-line setting treatment of EGFR wild-type advanced nonsquamous NSCLC. ARMS is superior to direct sequencing in excluding false-negative patients., Clinicaltrialsgov Identifier: NCT00891579., (© The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Bevacizumab is a monoclonal antibody with high antitumor activity against malignant diseases. Previous studies have demonstrated the efficacy of first-line bevacizumab combination therapy in advanced, non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NS-NSCLC). SAiL (MO19390), an open-label, multicenter, single-arm study, evaluated the safety and efficacy of first-line bevacizumab-based treatment in clinical practice. This report presents the results of a subgroup analysis of Chinese patients enrolled in SAiL., Methods: Chemo-naive Chinese patients with locally advanced, metastatic or recurrent NSCLC were randomized to receive Bev 15 mg/kg every 3 weeks plus carboplatin + paclitaxel for maximum of six cycles, followed by single-agent bevacizumab until disease progression. The primary endpoint was safety. Secondary endpoints included time to progression and overall survival., Results: The Chinese intent-to-treat (ITT) population consists of 198 Chinese patients, among whom 107 (54 %) were non-smokers and 90 (45.5 %) were female. The median cycle of bevacizumab administration was 10 and median duration of bevacizumab treatment was 29.5 weeks. Only eight cases of severe adverse events were observed in the study, which were deemed to be related to bevacizumab. The incidence of AEs over grade 3 in Chinese ITT patients was generally low (<9 %). No new safety signals were reported. Objective response rate in 195 evaluable Chinese patients was 68.8 %, including four complete responses (2.1 %). Time to disease progression (TTP) and overall survival were 8.8 and 18.5 months, respectively., Conclusions: The safety and efficacy of first-line bevacizumab-based treatment in Chinese population with advanced NS-NSCLC are consistent with those in previous studies as well as in Asian subgroup population from SAiL study. No new safety signals were reported.

The objective of this study was to analyze the predictive roles of VEGF/KDR/Ras/MAPK gene expression in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with bevacizumab plus chemotherapy. Twenty-five patients participating in an open-label phase IV trial (SAiL, MO19390) with available tumor tissues were analyzed. The mRNA expression levels of VEGF, kinase insert domain receptor (KDR), Ras, and mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) in tumor tissues were detected using real-time quantitative PCR methods. The relationships between gene expression and disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were assessed. Patients with lower Ras expression had a longer PFS and OS than patients with higher expression (median PFS, 9.9 vs 5.5 months, χ(2)=3.944, P=0.047; OS, 19.3 vs 7.1 months, χ(2)=9.384, P=0.002). The PFS and OS of patients with lower and higher MAPK expression exhibited a marginal and significant difference (median PFS, 9.9 vs 5.5 months, χ(2)=3.464, P=0.063; OS, 19.3 vs 9.7 months, χ(2)=5.298, P=0.021), respectively. Multivariate analyses using Cox's proportional hazards model showed that Ras is an independent predictor of OS (χ(2)=9.384, P=0.002). No differences in DCR were found according to Ras expression level. The results indicate that Ras is an independent predictor of OS. Thus, patients with lower Ras expression are most likely to benefit from bevacizumab plus chemotherapy treatment regimen. Patients with higher levels of Ras should receive other inhibitors that target Ras. The results also suggest that gene therapies that decrease RAS expression combined with bevacizumab may improve lung cancer treatment. Although there is a very important implication to patient selection in the target therapy, the data in this study are very preliminary owing to the too small sample size. Therefore, further research involving large numbers of patients and a prospective assessment of low and high RAS mRNA expressions getting the same treatments need to be done before conclusions can be made.

Background: Meta-analyses were conducted to characterize patterns of mutation incidence in non small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC)., Design: Nine genes with the most complete published mutation coincidence data were evaluated. One meta-analysis generated a 'mutMap' to visually represent mutation coincidence by ethnicity (Western/Asian) and histology (adenocarcinoma [ADC] or squamous cell carcinoma). Another meta-analysis evaluated incidence of individual mutations. Extended analyses explored incidence of EGFR and KRAS mutations by ethnicity, histology, and smoking status., Results: Genes evaluated were TP53, EGFR, KRAS, LKB1, EML4-ALK, PTEN, BRAF, PIK3CA, and ErbB2. The mutMap highlighted mutation coincidences occurring in ≥5% of patients, including TP53 with KRAS or EGFR mutations in patients with ADC, and TP53 with LKB1 mutation in Western patients. TP53 was the most frequently mutated gene overall. Frequencies of TP53, EGFR, KRAS, LKB1, PTEN, and BRAF mutations were influenced by histology and/or ethnicity. Although EGFR mutations were most frequent in patients with ADC and never/light smokers from Asia, and KRAS mutations were most frequent in patients with ADC and ever/heavy smokers from Western countries, both were detected outside these subgroups., Conclusions: Potential molecular pathology segments of NSCLC were identified. Further studies of mutations in NSCLC are warranted to facilitate more specific diagnoses and guide treatment.

Introduction: This randomized, open-label study compared pemetrexed versus docetaxel as second-line therapy for Chinese patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The primary endpoint tested non-inferiority of overall survival (OS) on the combined data from these patients and those in the global registration trial. Data from patients in the current study only (Chinese patients) were the basis for the study's secondary objectives., Methods: Patients with stage IIIB/IV disease were randomized (1:1) to receive pemetrexed (500 mg/m(2); 107 randomized; 106 treated) or docetaxel (75 mg/m(2); 104 randomized; 102 treated) on Day 1 of each 21-day cycle. Treatment continued until progressive disease, unacceptable toxicity or patient/investigator decision. All efficacy and safety data were analyzed at the pre-specified study completion; supplementary OS analyses were performed later, after additional events had been recorded., Results: The primary endpoint of OS noninferiority of pemetrexed to docetaxel was not met, the lower CL was <50% and P>0.025 (efficacy retained=97.9% [95% CLs: 47.1, 141.9]; P=0.0276), in the combined population (pemetrexed: n=390, docetaxel: n=392). Supplementary values were 101.3% (95% CLs: 57.9, 148.8), P=0.0186. For the secondary objectives, assessed in the population from the current study (pemetrexed: n=107, docetaxel: n=104), median OS was 11.7 and 12.2 months for the pemetrexed and docetaxel arms, respectively (HR [95% CLs]: 1.14 [0.78, 1.68], P=0.492). Supplementary values were 11.4 and 11.5 months, respectively (HR [95% CLs]: 1.02 [0.74, 1.40], P=0.926). Median PFS values were 2.8 and 3.1 months (HR [95% CLs]: 1.05 [0.75, 1.46], P=0.770) and ORR values were 9.6% and 4.1% (odds ratio [95% CLs]: 2.50 [0.76, 8.25], P=0.133) for pemetrexed and docetaxel, respectively. Pemetrexed-treated patients had significantly fewer drug-related grade 3-4 adverse events (pemetrexed: 20.8%, docetaxel: 40.2%; P=0.003). Few drug-related serious adverse events were reported (pemetrexed: 5 patients, docetaxel: 8 patients)., Conclusion: The comparable efficacy and superior tolerability of pemetrexed compared with docetaxel in this study supports the use of single-agent, second-line pemetrexed for advanced non-squamous NSCLC in Chinese patients. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00391274., (Copyright © 2012. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.)

XAGE-1b is regarded as one of the most immunogenic antigens and the most promising targets for lung adenocarcinoma immunotherapy. In this study, we sought to determine whether monocyte-derived dendritic cells (DCs) pulsed with purified full-length XAGE-1b could induce specific cytotoxic T lymphocytes (CTLs) against tumour cells from patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in vitro. XAGE-1b mRNA expression was examined in primary cultures of lung cancer cells and normal lung epithelial cells established from fresh tissues surgically resected from 30 patients with NSCLC using reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). XAGE-1b mRNA expression was observed in 11 of 18 (61.1%) adenocarcinomas and one of 12 (8.3%) lung cancers of other histological types (P = 0.015). The 246-base pairs XAGE-1b gene was inserted into a recombinant expression vector. Full-length XAGE-1b was then expressed in BL21 (DE3) Escherichia coli and purified by AKTA-fast performance liquid chromatography (FPLC). DCs generated from peripheral blood mononuclear cells were pulsed with XAGE-1b by incubation with the protein at an immature stage. The XAGE-1b-pulsed DCs induced CTLs following 14 days of co-culture. Finally, an adherent target detachment (ATD) assay was performed to test the cytotoxicity of the XAGE-1b-specific CTLs against cancer cells and normal lung epithelial cells. The XAGE-1b-specific CTLs had a stronger lytic effect on autologous XAGE-1b mRNA-positive cancer cells than on autologous XAGE-1b mRNA-negative cancer cells or allogenous XAGE-1b mRNA-positive cancer cells. The CTLs had no lytic activity against normal lung epithelial cells. These results can be used to develop simple and effective cancer/testis antigen-based immunotherapies for NSCLC.

Aims: It has been shown that the introduction of a second mutation into the already mutated epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) will alter the sensitivity to tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). EGFR double activating mutations involving both exons 19 and 21 were previously detected in Asian patients, but the sensitivity to TKIs had not yet been characterised. Our objective was to profile the status of EGFR double mutations in Chinese NSCLC patients and to further ascertain the biological properties., Materials and Methods: In total, 145 NSCLC tumour samples from unselected Chinese NSCLC patients were sequenced to screen mutations in exons 18, 19 and 21 of EGFR. Five patients were detected to harbour the delE746-A750+L858R double activating mutations. Subcloning experiments were carried out, expression vectors inserted with corresponding full-length EGFR were constructed, and in vitro transient transfections were performed in 293T cells. Whole cell lysates were collected to assess the sensitivity to TKIs using immunoblotting., Results: All five patients had adenocarcinoma. The frequency of double mutations was 3.4% (5/145). Three patients received and responded to gefitinib treatment. Subcloning experiments showed that all the subclones were either wild type or double mutated. At a concentration of TKIs of 0.1 microM, the autophosphorylation of the double mutant was inhibited greater than that of either single mutated EGFR. However, the difference disappeared when the concentration increased to 1 microM., Conclusions: delE746-A750+L858R double activating EGFR mutations exist in Chinese NSCLC patients and both locate on the same allele. These patients tend to respond well to TKIs and the sensitivity to TKIs of this double mutated EGFR is enhanced compared with either single mutant. Nonetheless, the alteration in downstream signal transduction of the double mutant remains to be determined.

High-level expression of Rad51, a key factor in homologous recombination, has been observed in a variety of human malignancies. This study was aimed to evaluate Rad51 expression to serve as prognostic marker in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). A total of 383 non-small-cell lung tumours were analysed immunohistochemically on NSCLC tissue microarrays. High-level Rad51 expression was observed in 29.4% (100 out of 340) of cases. Patients whose tumours displayed high-level Rad51 expression showed a significantly shorter median survival time of 19 vs 68 months (P<0.0001, log-rank test). Similarly T status, N status, M status, clinical stage and histological tumour grade were significant prognostic markers in univariate Cox survival analysis. Importantly, Rad51 expression (P<0.0001) together with tumour differentiation (P<0.009), clinical stage (P=0.004) and N status (P=0.0001) proved to be independent prognostic parameters in multivariate analysis. Rad51 expression predicted the outcome of squamous cell cancer as well as adenocarcinoma of the lung. Our results suggest that Rad51 expression provides additional prognostic information for surgically treated NSCLC patients. We hypothesise that the decreased survival of NSCLC patients with high-level expression of Rad51 is related to an enhanced propensity of tumour cells for survival, antiapoptosis and chemo-/radioresistance.

A case-control study involving 390 lung cancer cases, matched 1:1 with controls, was carried out in Guangdong Province to compare risk factors for different histopathologic types of lung cancer in both sexes. Female and male lung cancers appear to differ in epidemiological characteristics, pathologic types, and risk factors. The 291 lung cancer cases in males were predominantly squamous cell lung carcinoma (squamous cell carcinoma/adenocarcinoma = 1:0.5), whereas the 99 female lung cancer cases were predominantly adenocarcinoma (squamous cell carcinoma/adenocarcinoma = 1:2.7). The age at which lung cancer was first diagnosed was lower for females than for males (P < 0.0001). Single-factor conditional logistic regression analysis showed an association of lung cancer with family history of tumors, family history of lung cancer, history of chronic bronchitis/emphysema, history of tuberculosis, history of other lung disease, smoking, exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) in the home and in the workplace, being professional drivers, use of oral contraceptives, and consumption of pickled and salted fish (P < 0.05). Further multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that family history of tuberculosis, history of chronic bronchitis/emphysema, family history of tumors, smoking, exposure to ETS in the home and in the workplace, and consumption of pickled and salted fish were independent risk factors for lung cancer. Using log-linear model analysis, it was confirmed that lung cancer had significant interactions with chronic bronchitis/emphysema, exposure to ETS, history of tuberculosis and smoking. Smoking, however, could only explain 1/5 of the incidence of female lung cancers. Family history of lung cancer and the use of oral contraceptives were related to lung cancer in women. Except for a weak relationship with history of chronic bronchitis/emphysema, adenocarcinoma was found to have no association with the other risk factors.

A case-control study on interaction among the risk factors of primary lung cancer with 390 matched pairs was carried out in Guangdong from 1990 to 1993. The subjects of study were the in-patients with primary lung cancer (age 32-78), which consisted of 171 cases of primary lung squamous cell cancer (L. S), 138 cases of primary lung adenocarcinoma (L. A), and 81 cases of other pathological type (L. S:L. A = 1:0.8). Primary lung squamous cell cancer accounted for the majority (51.55%) of 291 male cases (L. S:L. A = 1:0.5). Primary lung adenocarcinoma made up the majority (57.57%) of 99 female cases (L. S:L. A = 1:2.7). Single factor conditional logistic regression analysis showed that the occurrence of lung cancer was closely associated with history of chronic bronchitis, emphysema, pulmonary tuberculosis and other pulmonary diseases (OR = 2.9-3.6, chi 2 = 13.52-37.55, P < 0.01) other risk factors were smoking, passive smoking from spouse or in the working place and family history of tumour (OR = 2.7-3.6, chi 2 = 8.53-33.15, P < 0.01). Driver, taking oral contraceptive, liking pickles or salted fish and bad ventilation in kitchen could be the risk factors of lung cancer (OR = 1.3-3.0, chi 2 = 4.78-5.0, P < 0.05). Further multiple conditional logistic regression analysis turned out that history of chronic bronchitis, emphysema, pulmonary tuberculosis, smoking, family history of tumour, passive smoking from spouse or in the working place, liking pickles were the independent risk factors of lung cancer (OR = 1.7-3.5). In search of the interaction between lung cancer and the risk factors which included history of chronic bronchitis, emphysema, pulmonary tuberculosis, smoking and passive smoking, a loglinear model analysis was performed. The results revealed that there was significant interaction between two factors in one-stage analysis. Although the interaction existed between chronic bronchitis and tuberculosis, chronic bronchitis and smoking or passive smoking, tuberculosis and passive smoking in the meantime, it had not attained the level of significance among three or more factors (including the principal effect of lung cancer) in two-stage analysis (chi 2 = 1.31-2.27, P > 0.13), and therefore the interaction of the former was not affected by the effects of the latter as yet.

A series of 225 consecutive lung cancer patients were prospectively randomized into study group (75 patients) and control group (150 patients), and the conformity of CTNM and PTNM staging was was evaluated. Radical mediastinal lymph node dissection was performed and in average 11.5 nodes were dissected in the study group. Only suspected metastatic lymph nodes, 3.4 in average, were dissected in the control group. CTNM classification was made according to clinical examination, chest image examination and bronchoscopy in every patient and PTNM staging was made after thoracotomy. Then the conformity of CTNM and PTNM staging was examined by Kappa value. The results showed that the Kappa value in the two groups was lower than the effective standard value of 0.4. The study group (Kappa = 0.097) was poorer than the control group (Kappa = 0.371). The principal influencing cause was that N was not well evaluated by CTNM. The principal manifestation of the staging inconsistency was that the stage of PTNM was advanced than that of CTNM. In the study group 43% of patients showed an increased stage and this occurred in 33% of the control group (P < 0.05). The results of the study show that at present the CTNM staging has not fully satisfied the needs of practice and requires to be further improved. The operative procedure which only dissects suspected involved mediastinal lymph nodes can not meet the needs of PTNM staging. In order to make PTNM staging accurately and evaluate the results of treatment for lung cancer, radical mediastinal lymph node dissection should be performed in every operable patient.

The result of percutaneous superfine-needle aspiration biopsy in 100 patients with intrathoracic lesions guided by simulator is reported. The success rate of aspiration biopsy was 94%, and no major complication was observed. The method of localization by simulator had advantages such as accuracy in localization, no limitation of mass size and site, and a high rate of puncture success. Cell smears obtained by superfine needle were similar to those obtained by fine- or large-bore needles, but fewer complications were encountered. This is a useful technique that can provide early cytological diagnosis, especially for the peripheral type of pulmonary mass.