Search

Objectives: IMbrella A is a Phase III extension study that allowed rollover from Roche/Genentech-sponsored atezolizumab trials, including IMpower133, a Phase I/III trial of first-line atezolizumab or placebo plus carboplatin/etoposide in extensive-stage small cell lung cancer. We report outcomes from an exploratory analysis of IMpower133 with extended time-to-event data for patients who rolled over to IMbrella A., Materials and Methods: IMpower133 patients could roll over to IMbrella A to receive atezolizumab 1200 mg intravenously every three weeks if they continued to receive atezolizumab at IMpower133 closure or were in survival follow-up after atezolizumab discontinuation. Overall survival and safety were assessed; only serious adverse events and AEs of special interest were collected in IMbrella A., Results: Eighteen of 26 eligible patients rolled over to IMbrella A. At clinical cutoff (March 16, 2023), median follow-up in the atezolizumab plus carboplatin/etoposide arm (IMpower133 and IMbrella A) was 59.4 months. The three-, four-, and five-year overall survival (95 % CI) estimates were 16 % (11 %-21 %), 13 % (8 %-18 %), and 12 % (7 %-17 %), respectively. In IMbrella A, serious adverse events occurred in three patients (16.7 %), and one adverse event of special interest was reported (grade two hypothyroidism)., Conclusion: This long-term analysis of patients from IMbrella A previously enrolled in IMpower133 provides the first report of five-year overall survival outcomes in patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer treated with first-line cancer immunotherapy and chemotherapy. While limited by small patient numbers and lack of long-term data for the IMpower133 control arm, exploratory overall survival analyses in patients treated with atezolizumab plus carboplatin/etoposide compared favorably with historical data with chemotherapy alone. NCT03148418., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: All authors report editorial support funded by the Sponsor. Martin Reck reports receiving consulting fees, honoraria and travel support from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Beigene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, GSK, Mirati, Merck, MSD, Lily, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Roche, and Regeneron; and participation on a data safety monitoring or advisory board for Sanofi and Daiichi Sankyo. Rafal Dziadziuszko reports receiving honoraria from Roche, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Novartis, MSD, Bristol Myers Squibb, Takeda, and Pfizer; and materials from Novartis. Shunichi Sugawara reports receiving grants (to institution) from AstraZeneca, Chugai Pharma, MSD, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Ono Pharmaceutical; and honoraria from AstraZeneca, Chugai Pharma, MSD, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Ono Pharmaceutical. Steven Kao reports receiving grants (to institution) from AstraZeneca; honoraria from AstaZeneca, Pfizer, MSD, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, Amgen, Beigene, and Boehringer Ingelheim; and travel support from MSD. Maximilian Hochmair reports receiving honoraria from MSD, Roche, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Takeda, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Amgen. Florian Huemer declares no conflict of interest. Gilberto de Castro, Jr reports receiving consulting fees from Daiichi-Sankyo; honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Jannsen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Amgen, and Daiichi-Sankyo; travel support from Roche, Amgen, Daiichi-Sankyo, MSD, AstraZeneca, and Bristol Myers Squibb; and participation on a data safety monitoring or advisory board for GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, MSD, and Novartis. Libor Havel declares no conflict of interest. Reyes Bernabé Caro reports receiving an investigational grant from Roche; honoraria from Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, MSD, Amgen, Takeda, and AstraZeneca; and participation in a data safety monitoring or advisory board for Takeda, Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, and AstraZeneca. György Losonczy and Jong-Seok Lee declare no conflict of interest. Dariusz M. Kowalski reports participation on an advisory board and consultancy for Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Sanofi-Aventis, Takeda, Pfizer, and Johnson & Johnson. Zoran Andric declares no conflict of interest. Raffaele Califano reports receiving grants (to institution) from Roche and MSD; consulting fees from Roche, MSD, Bristol Myers Squibb, and AstraZeneca; and honoraria from Roche, MSD, and AstraZeneca; membership in the EORTC lung cancer group and ESMO educational publication working group; and stock or stock options in The Christie Private Care and Supportive Care UK. Andrea Veatch, Gregory Gerstner, and Marta Batus declare no conflicts of interest. Stefanie Morris reports employment with and stock or stock options in Roche. Monika Kaul, Vaikunth Cuchelkar, Huafei Li, Bradford J. Danner, and Barzin Y. Nabet report employment with Roche. Stephen V. Liu reports receiving grants from AbbVie, Alkermes, Elevation Oncology, Ellipses, Genentech, Gilead, Merck, Merus, Nuvalent, RAPT, and Turning Point Therapeutics; and consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Catalyst, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Elevation Oncology, Genentech/Roche, Gilead, Guardant Health, Janssen, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Merus, Mirati, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Takeda, and Turning Point Therapeutics; and participation on a data safety monitoring for Candel Therapeutics., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Atezolizumab (anti-PD-L1), combined with carboplatin and etoposide (CE), is now a standard of care for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). A clearer understanding of therapeutically relevant SCLC subsets could identify rational combination strategies and improve outcomes. We conduct transcriptomic analyses and non-negative matrix factorization on 271 pre-treatment patient tumor samples from IMpower133 and identify four subsets with general concordance to previously reported SCLC subtypes (SCLC-A, -N, -P, and -I). Deeper investigation into the immune heterogeneity uncovers two subsets with differing neuroendocrine (NE) versus non-neuroendocrine (non-NE) phenotypes, demonstrating immune cell infiltration hallmarks. The NE tumors with low tumor-associated macrophage (TAM) but high T-effector signals demonstrate longer overall survival with PD-L1 blockade and CE versus CE alone than non-NE tumors with high TAM and high T-effector signal. Our study offers a clinically relevant approach to discriminate SCLC patients likely benefitting most from immunotherapies and highlights the complex mechanisms underlying immunotherapy responses., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests B.Y.N., H.H., and D.S.S. are co-inventors on a provisional patent application filed by Genentech/Roche related to this manuscript. B.Y.N. is an employee and stockholder of Roche/Genentech. H.H. is an employee and stockholder of Roche/Genentech. R.B. is an employee and shareholder of Roche/Genentech. S.M. is an employee and shareholder of Roche. L.A. is an employee and shareholder of Roche. V.G. is an employee of Rancho Biosciences and a consultant to Roche/Genentech. M.C.L. is an employee of Roche/Genentech. A.M.E. is an employee of Roche/Genentech. M.K.S. is an employee and shareholder of Roche/Genentech. N.S.P. is an employee and shareholder of Roche/Genentech. K.A.S. is an employee of Roche/Genentech. R.J. is an employee and shareholder of Roche/Genentech. C.C. is an employee and shareholder of Roche/Genentech. P.S.C. is an employee and shareholder of Roche/Genentech. M.F. is an employee of Roche/Genentech. S.R. is an employee and shareholder of Roche/Genentech. L.M.M. is an employee and shareholder of Roche/Genentech. H.K. is an employee and shareholder of Roche/Genentech. J.D.M. receives royalties from the NIH and UTSW for distribution of human tumor cell lines and has the following grants: CA070907, CA213274, and CA213338. C.M.G. reports consulting/advisory fees from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Catalyst Pharmaceuticals, Daiichi Sankyo, G1 Therapeutics, Insights Driven Research, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, and Monte Rosa Therapeutics, as well as speaking/travel fees from Aptitude Health, BeiGene, DAVA Oncology, MJH, and OncLive, and royalties from UpToDate, Inc. J.M.C. has been paid as a consultant for Sonata Therapeutics and also owns stock in Mirati Therapeutics. J.V.H. has advisory or consulting relationships with Genentech, Mirati Therapeutics, Eli Lilly & Co, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Boehringer-Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Regeneron, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, BerGenBio, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Curio Science, Novartis, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, BioAtla, Sanofi, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, GlaxoSmithKline, EMD Serono, Blueprint Medicine, and Chugai Pharmaceuticals. C.M.R. has consulted regarding oncology drug development with AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, D2G, Daiichi Sankyo, Epizyme, Genentech/Roche, Ipsen, Jazz, Kowa, Lilly, Merck, and Syros. He serves on the scientific advisory boards of Auron, Bridge Medicines, DISCO, Earli, and Harpoon Therapeutics. L.A.B. has consulted regarding oncology drug development Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, Genetech Inc., BeiGene, AbbVie, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Puma Biotechnology, Amgen, and Daiichi Sankyo. S.V.L. served as a paid consultant/advisor for oncology drug development with AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, Blueprint, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Catalyst, AstraZeneca, D2G, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Elevation Oncology Epizyme, Genentech/Roche, Gilead, Guardant Health, Janssen, Ipsen, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Kowa, Lilly, Merck/MSD, Novartis, Regeneron, Sanofi, Takeda, Turning Point, and Syros. He serves on the scientific advisory boards of Bridge Medicines, Earli, and Harpoon Therapeutics and has received research funding (to institution). M.R. has received honoraria for lectures and consultancy from Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, BeiGene, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, GSK, Mirati, Merck, MSD, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi. He has received compensation for membership of DMSB by Daiichi Sankyo and Sanofi. D.S.S. is an employee and stockholder of Roche/Genentech., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The phase III SKYSCRAPER-02 study determined whether the benefits of atezolizumab plus carboplatin and etoposide (CE) could be enhanced by the addition of tiragolumab in untreated extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). We report final progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) analyses., Methods: Patients received tiragolumab 600 mg/placebo, plus atezolizumab 1,200 mg and CE (four cycles), then maintenance tiragolumab/placebo plus atezolizumab. Primary end points were investigator-assessed PFS and OS in patients without history/presence of brain metastases (primary analysis set [PAS]). Additional end points included PFS and OS in all patients regardless of brain metastases status (full analysis set [FAS]), response, and safety., Results: Four hundred ninety patients were randomly assigned (FAS): 243 to tiragolumab arm and 247 to control arm. At the cutoff date (February 6, 2022; median duration of follow-up, 14.3 months [PAS] and 13.9 months [FAS]), final analysis of PFS in the PAS (n = 397) did not reach statistical significance (stratified hazard ratio [HR], 1.11; P = .3504; median, 5.4 months tiragolumab v 5.6 months control). At the cutoff date (September 6, 2022; median duration of follow-up, 21.2 months [FAS]), median OS in the PAS at final OS analysis was 13.1 months in both arms (stratified HR, 1.14; P = .2859). Median PFS and OS in the FAS were consistent with the PAS. The proportion of patients with immune-mediated adverse events (AEs) in the tiragolumab and control arms was 54.4% and 49.2%, respectively (grade 3/4: 7.9% and 7.7%). AEs leading to treatment withdrawal occurred in 8.4% and 9.3% of tiragolumab- and control-treated patients, respectively., Conclusion: Tiragolumab did not provide additional benefit over atezolizumab and CE in untreated ES-SCLC. The combination was well tolerated with no new safety signals.

Objectives: In the Phase I/III IMpower133 study, first-line atezolizumab plus carboplatin and etoposide (CP/ET) treatment for extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) significantly improved overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival versus placebo plus CP/ET. We explored patient and disease characteristics associated with long-term survival in IMpower133, and associations of differential gene expression and SCLC-A (ASCL1-driven), SCLC-N (NEUROD1-driven), SCLC-P (POU2F3-driven), and SCLC-inflamed (SCLC-I) transcriptional subtypes with long-term survival., Materials and Methods: Patients with previously untreated ES-SCLC were randomized 1:1 to four 21-day cycles of CP/ET with atezolizumab or placebo. Long-term survivors (LTS) were defined as patients who lived ≥ 18 months post randomization. A generalized linear model was used to evaluate the odds of living ≥ 18 months. Differential gene expression was analyzed using RNA-sequencing data in LTS and non-LTS. OS was assessed by T-effector and B-cell gene signature expression. Distribution of SCLC transcriptional subtypes was assessed in LTS and non-LTS., Results: More LTS were in the atezolizumab arm (34%) than in the placebo arm (20%). The odds ratio for living ≥ 18 months in the atezolizumab arm versus the placebo arm was 2.1 (P < 0.03). Enhanced immune-related signaling was seen in LTS in both arms. Exploratory OS analyses showed atezolizumab treatment benefit versus placebo across T-effector and B-cell gene signature expression subgroups. A higher proportion of LTS than non-LTS in both arms had the SCLC-I subtype; this difference was particularly pronounced in the atezolizumab arm., Conclusion: These exploratory analyses suggest that long-term survival is more likely with atezolizumab than placebo in ES-SCLC, confirming the treatment benefit of the IMpower133 regimen., Clinicaltrial: gov Identifier: NCT02763579., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: S.V.L. declares grants or contracts from Alkermes, Bayer, Blueprint, Bristol Myers Squibb, Elevation Oncology, Genentech, Lilly, Merck, Merus, Pfizer, Rain Therapeutics, RAPT, Turning Point Therapeutics; consulting fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, Blueprint, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Elevation Oncology, Genentech/Roche, Gilead, Guardant Health, Janssen, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Lilly, Merck/Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis, Regeneron, Sanofi, Takeda, Turning Point Therapeutics; and participation on a Data Safety Monitoring or Advisory Board for Candel Therapeutics. T.S.K.M. declares consulting and advisory personal fees from AbbVie, Inc., ACEA Pharma, Alpha Biopharma Co. Ltd., Amgen, Amoy Diagnostics Co. Ltd., AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Blueprint Medicines Corporation, CStone Pharmaceuticals, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Fishawack Facilitate Ltd., geneDecode (uncompensated), Gritstone Oncology Inc., Guardant Health, Hengrui Therapeutics, Ignyta Inc., IQVIA, Incyte Corporation, Janssen, Lilly, Loxo-Oncology, Lunit USA, Inc., Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mirati Therapeutics Inc., Novartis, OrigiMed, Pfizer, Inc., Puma Biotechnology Inc., Roche, Sanofi-Aventis R&D, Takeda, Yuhan Corporation, SFJ Pharmaceuticals, Curio Science, Inivata, Berry Oncology, Qiming Development (HK) Ltd., Gilead Sciences, Inc., Vertex Pharmaceuticals, and Covidien LP; lecture personal fees from ACEA Pharmaceuticals, Alpha Biopharma Co. Ltd., Amgen, Amoy Diagnostics Co. Ltd., AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Fishawack Facilitate Ltd., geneDecode, (uncompensated), InMed Medical Communication, Janssen, Lilly, Lunit USA, Inc., MD Health (Brazil), Medscape/WebMD, Merck Serono, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis, OrigiMed, PeerVoice, Physicians’ Education Resource, P. Permanyer SL, Pfizer, Inc., PrIME Oncology, Research to Practice, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis R&D, Takeda, Touch Medical Media, Daz Group, Lucence Health Inc., Merck Pharmaceuticals HK Ltd., Shanghai BeBirds Translation & Consulting Co. Ltd., Liangyihui Network Technology Co. Ltd., and Taiho; grants from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Serono, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Inc., Roche, Takeda, Clovis Oncology, SFJ Pharmaceuticals, XCovery, and G1 Therapeutics Inc.; personal fees for supporting an advisory board for Inivata, Berry Therapeutics Inc., and G1 Therapeutics Inc.; shareholding for Aurora, Sanomics Ltd., Hutchison ChiMed; and a role on the Board of Directors for Lunit USA, Inc., AstraZeneca PLC, Hutchison ChiMed, Sanomics Ltd., Aurora. B.Y.N declares employment by Genentech and stockholding in Roche. A.S.M declares grants or contracts from NIH/NCI, Verily, Novartis, Department of Defense, and Mark Foundation; payment or honoraria to institution for lecture, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or education events from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech; support for attending meetings and/or travel from Shanghai Roche Pharmaceuticals; patents planned, issues, or pending for patents submitted unrelated to this work; and other financial or non-financial interests from non-remunerated director of the Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation. R. De Boer declares payment of honoraria from Novartis, AstraZeneca, and Gilead; and support for attending meetings and/or travel from Amgen, Novartis, and Roche. S.S. declares payment or honoraria for lectures, presentation, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educations events from Chugai Pharma, AstraZeneca, Ono Pharmaceutical, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Nippon Boehringer-Ingelheim, Pfizer, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Eli Lilly, and Company, Novartis, Kyowa Kirin, Yakult Honsha, and Towa Pharmaceutical. R. Dziadziuszko declares consulting fees from Roche, Boehringer-Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Takeda, Pfizer, Foundation Medicine, Novartis, and Karyopharm; and payment or honoraria from Roche, Novartis, AstraZeneca, and Pfizer. A.S. declares payment or honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis, and Pfizer; support for attending meetings and/or travel from Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, Boehringer-Ingelheim, and AstraZeneca; and participation on data safety monitoring or advisory boards for Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, Takeda, AstraZeneca, BIOCAD, and Boehringer-Ingelheim. M.J.H declares payment or honoraria from Boehringer-Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Takeda, Pfizer, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, and Roche; and participation on data safety monitoring or advisory boards for Boehringer-Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Takeda, Pfizer, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, and Roche. M.C.G. declares grants from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Merck Serono, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Amgen, GSK, Sanofi; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Janssen, Lilly, Yuhan, Merck Serono, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Amgen, Libbs, and Sanofi; payment of honoraria from Boehringer-Ingelheim, Pfizer, Bayer, Roche, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Merck Serono, Janssen, and Amgen; support for attending meetings and/or travel from Boehringer-Ingelheim, Pfizer, Bayer, Roche, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Merck Serono; participation on data safety monitoring or advisory boards for TEVA, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bayer, Pfizer, Roche, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Yuhan, Janssen, Merck Serono, Novartis, Amgen; and payment of honoraria for promotional activities from Boehringer-Ingelheim, Pfizer, Roche, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Novartis, TEVA, Amgen, and Janssen. C.M.G. declares research grants/funding to self from AstraZeneca; advisory/consultancy to AstraZeneca, Kisoji Biotechnology, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, and Bristol Myers Squibb; and speaker bureau/expert testimony for AstraZeneca and BeiGene. J.V.H declares advisory/consultancy for Bristol Myers Squibb, BrightPath Biotherapeutics, Janssen Global Services, Nexus Health Systems Pneuma Respiratory, Kairos Venture Investments, Roche, Leads Biolabs, AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Catalyst, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Guardant Health, Foundation Medicine, Hengrui Therapeutics, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Spectrum, EMD Serono, Sanofi, Takeda, and Mirati Therapeutics; research support to AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, and Spectrum; and royalties/licensing fees from Spectrum. L.A.B. declares an advisory role/consultancy for AstraZeneca, AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Merck; and research funding from AstraZeneca and AbbVie. S.L. declares employment by Genentech and stockholding in Roche. A.C. declares employment by Roche and stockholding in Roche. S.M. declares employment by Roche and stockholding in Roche. L.A. declares employment by Roche and stockholding in Roche. D.S.S. declares employment by Genentech and stockholding in Roche. M.R. declares consulting fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Lilly, Merck, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Mirati, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Roche; payment of honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Lilly, Merck, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Mirati, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Roche; support for attending meetings and/or travel from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Lilly, Merck, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Mirati, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Roche; and participation on data safety monitoring or advisory boards for DSMB Sanofi. G.L. and M.K. declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Background: Tarlatamab, a bispecific T-cell engager immunotherapy targeting delta-like ligand 3 and CD3, showed promising antitumor activity in a phase 1 trial in patients with previously treated small-cell lung cancer., Methods: In this phase 2 trial, we evaluated the antitumor activity and safety of tarlatamab, administered intravenously every 2 weeks at a dose of 10 mg or 100 mg, in patients with previously treated small-cell lung cancer. The primary end point was objective response (complete or partial response), as assessed by blinded independent central review according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1., Results: Overall, 220 patients received tarlatamab; patients had previously received a median of two lines of treatment. Among patients evaluated for antitumor activity and survival, the median follow-up was 10.6 months in the 10-mg group and 10.3 months in the 100-mg group. An objective response occurred in 40% (97.5% confidence interval [CI], 29 to 52) of the patients in the 10-mg group and in 32% (97.5% CI, 21 to 44) of those in the 100-mg group. Among patients with an objective response, the duration of response was at least 6 months in 59% (40 of 68 patients). Objective responses at the time of data cutoff were ongoing in 22 of 40 patients (55%) in the 10-mg group and in 16 of 28 patients (57%) in the 100-mg group. The median progression-free survival was 4.9 months (95% CI, 2.9 to 6.7) in the 10-mg group and 3.9 months (95% CI, 2.6 to 4.4) in the 100-mg group; the estimates of overall survival at 9 months were 68% and 66% of patients, respectively. The most common adverse events were cytokine-release syndrome (in 51% of the patients in the 10-mg group and in 61% of those in the 100-mg group), decreased appetite (in 29% and 44%, respectively), and pyrexia (in 35% and 33%). Cytokine-release syndrome occurred primarily during treatment cycle 1, and events in most of the patients were grade 1 or 2 in severity. Grade 3 cytokine-release syndrome occurred less frequently in the 10-mg group (in 1% of the patients) than in the 100-mg group (in 6%). A low percentage of patients (3%) discontinued tarlatamab because of treatment-related adverse events., Conclusions: Tarlatamab, administered as a 10-mg dose every 2 weeks, showed antitumor activity with durable objective responses and promising survival outcomes in patients with previously treated small-cell lung cancer. No new safety signals were identified. (Funded by Amgen; DeLLphi-301 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05060016.)., (Copyright © 2023 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Background: Tumor samples from the phase III IMpower010 study were used to compare two programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) immunohistochemistry assays (VENTANA SP263 and Dako 22C3) for identification of PD-L1 patient subgroups (negative, positive, low, and high expression) and their predictive value for adjuvant atezolizumab compared with best supportive care (BSC) in resectable early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)., Methods: PD-L1 expression was assessed by the SP263 assay, which measured the percentage of tumor cells with any membranous PD-L1 staining, and the 22C3 assay, which scored the percentage of viable tumor cells showing partial or complete membranous PD-L1 staining., Results: When examining the concordance at the PD-L1-positive threshold (SP263: tumor cell (TC)≥1%; 22C3: tumor proportion score (TPS)≥1%), the results were concordant between assays for 83% of the samples. Similarly, at the PD-L1-high cut-off (SP263: TC≥50%; 22C3: TPS≥50%), the results were concordant between assays for 92% of samples. The disease-free survival benefit of atezolizumab over BSC was comparable between assays for PD-L1-positive (TC≥1% by SP263: HR, 0.58 (95% CI: 0.40 to 0.85) vs TPS≥1% by 22C3: HR, 0.65 (95% CI: 0.45 to 0.95)) and PD-L1-high (TC≥50% by SP263: HR, 0.27 (95% CI: 0.14 to 0.53) vs TPS≥50% by 22C3: HR, 0.31 (95% CI: 0.16 to 0.60)) subgroups., Conclusions: The SP263 and 22C3 assays showed high concordance and a comparable clinical predictive value of atezolizumab at validated PD-L1 thresholds, suggesting that both assays can identify patients with early-stage NSCLC most likely to experience benefit from adjuvant atezolizumab., Trial Registration Number: NCT02486718., Competing Interests: Competing interests: CZ reports consulting fees from Innovent Biologics, Qilu, Hengrui, and TopAlliance Biosciences Inc; and payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Eli Lilly China, Sanofi, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, MSD, Qilu, Hengrui, Innovent Biologics, C-Stone LUYE Pharma, TopAlliance Biosciences Inc, Amoy Diagnostics, and AnHeart. MS reports employment by Genentech and stockholding in Roche. HX reports stockholding in Roche as a former Roche employee. EF reports grants or contracts from Merck Healthcare KGaA and Fundación Merck Salud; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, F. Hoffman-La Roche, Janssen, Medical Trends, Medscape, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, PeerVoice, Pfizer, Sanofi, Takeda, and Touch Oncology; and is an independent member of the board for Grífols. HW reports grants or contracts from ACEA Biosciences, Arrys Therapeutics, AstraZeneca/Medimmune, Bristol Myers Squibb, Clovis Oncology, Genentech/Roche, Merck, Novartis, SeaGen, Xcovery, and Helsinn; participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for AstraZeneca, Janssen, Daiichi Sankyo, Blueprint, Mirati, Merck, and Genentech/Roche; and leadership or fiduciary role in other board, society, committee, or advocacy group (paid or unpaid) for International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC) and ECOG-ARIN. MR reports consulting fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, GSK, Mirati, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Roche; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, GSK, Mirati, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Roche; support for attending meetings and/or travel from Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, GSK, Mirati, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Roche; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Sanofi and Daiichi Sankyo. SO reports grants or contracts from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Chugai Pharmaceuticals, Daiichi Sankyo, Ono Pharmaceutical, Pfizer, MSD, Sanofi, Taiho, and Takeda. Hiroshi Tanaka reports grants or contracts from Chugai Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, MSD, Ono Pharmaceutical, and Bristol Myers Squibb; and honoraria for Chugai Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, MSD, Ono Pharmaceutical, and Bristol Myers Squibb. SLM reports support from Genentech as a research site for this trial. EB reports employment by Genentech and stockholding in Roche. BG reports employment by Genentech and stockholding in Roche. VM reports employment by Roche and stockholding in Roche. MB reports employment by Genentech and stockholding in Roche. MM reports being a former employee of Roche/Genentech. WZ reports employment by Roche and stockholding in Roche. MDT reports stock or stock options as a former employee of Roche/Genentech. SN reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AstraZeneca, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, Pfizer, Takeda, Novartis, Sanofi, Janssen, and GSK; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for AstraZeneca, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, Pfizer, Takeda, Novartis, Sanofi, Janssen, and GSK. NA, RL, AK and JH declare no conflicts of interest., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Therapeutic strategies harnessing the immune system to eliminate tumour cells have been successfully used for several cancer types, including in patients with advanced-stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In these patients, immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) can provide durable responses and improve overall survival either as monotherapy, or combined with chemotherapy or other immunotherapeutic agents. However, the implementation of ICIs in early stage NSCLC has been hampered by the continuous struggle to develop robust end points to assess their efficacy in this setting, especially those enabling a fast and reproducible evaluation of the clinical activity of neoadjuvant strategies. Several trials are testing ICIs, alone or in combination with chemotherapy, in early stage NSCLC as an adjuvant, neoadjuvant or perioperative approach. As a novelty, most trials in the neoadjuvant setting have adopted pathological response as a primary end point. ICIs have been approved for use in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings on the basis of event-free survival and disease-free survival benefit, respectively; however, the correlation of these end points with overall survival remains unclear in these settings. Unresolved challenges for the optimal use of ICIs with curative intent include concerns about their applicability in daily clinical practice and about improving patient selection based on predictive biomarkers or assessment of pathological response and minimal residual disease. In this Review, we discuss the rationale, available strategies and current trial landscape for the implementation of ICIs in patients with resectable NSCLC, and we further elaborate on future approaches to optimize their clinical benefit., (© 2023. Springer Nature Limited.)

Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is an aggressive neuroendocrine carcinoma with a poor prognosis. Initial responses to standard-of-care chemo-immunotherapy are, unfortunately, followed by rapid disease recurrence in most patients. Current treatment options are limited, with no therapies specifically approved as third-line or beyond. Delta-like ligand 3 (DLL3), a Notch inhibitory ligand, is an attractive therapeutic target because it is overexpressed on the surface of SCLC cells with minimal to no expression on normal cells. Several DLL3-targeted therapies are being developed for the treatment of SCLC and other neuroendocrine carcinomas, including antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs), T-cell engager (TCE) molecules, and chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) therapies. First, we discuss the clinical experience with rovalpituzumab tesirine (Rova-T), a DLL3-targeting ADC, the development of which was halted due to a lack of efficacy in phase 3 studies, with a view to understanding the lessons that can be garnered for the rapidly evolving therapeutic landscape in SCLC. We then review preclinical and clinical data for several DLL3-targeting agents that are currently in development, including the TCE molecules-tarlatamab (formerly known as AMG 757), BI 764532, and HPN328-and the CAR T-cell therapy AMG 119. We conclude with a discussion of the future challenges and opportunities for DLL3-targeting therapies, including the utility of DLL3 as a biomarker for patient selection and disease progression, and the potential of rational combinatorial approaches that can enhance efficacy., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Introduction: In the phase 1/3 IMpower133 study, atezolizumab plus carboplatin and etoposide (CP/ET) followed by maintenance atezolizumab for first-line treatment of extensive-stage SCLC (ES-SCLC) led to improvement in both overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) versus placebo plus CP/ET followed by maintenance placebo. We explored the benefit of atezolizumab versus placebo in the subset of patients who reached the IMpower133 maintenance phase and the safety profile of maintenance therapy., Methods: Patients with untreated ES-SCLC were randomized 1:1 to four 21-day cycles of CP/ET with atezolizumab or placebo, followed by maintenance atezolizumab or placebo. The primary end points were OS and investigator-assessed PFS. A multivariate Cox model from the start of maintenance treatment was used to evaluate the treatment effect and account for lead-time bias; a generalized linear model was used to identify prognostic or predictive characteristics for reaching the maintenance phase., Results: A similar proportion of patients in each arm received at least the first dose of maintenance therapy (atezolizumab: 77%, n = 154 of 201; placebo: 81%, n = 164 of 202) and were included in the maintenance analysis population. An Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 and absence of liver metastases at baseline were identified as prognostic factors for reaching the maintenance phase. The positive treatment effect with atezolizumab remained after adjusting for baseline characteristics. Median OS and PFS from the start of maintenance therapy in the atezolizumab versus placebo arm were 12.5 versus 8.4 months (hazard ratio = 0.59, 95% confidence interval: 0.43-0.80) and 2.6 versus 1.8 months (hazard ratio = 0.63 [95% confidence interval: 0.49-0.80]), respectively. Treatment-related adverse events from the start of maintenance therapy occurred in 41% (n = 64 of 155) and 25% (n = 41 of 163) of safety-evaluable patients in the atezolizumab and placebo arms, respectively, and were grade 3 or 4 in 28% (n = 43 of 155) and 23% (n = 37 of 163) of the respective populations; no patient in the atezolizumab arm and one patient in the placebo arm had a grade 5 treatment-related adverse event., Conclusions: These data in the context of other immunotherapy trials in ES-SCLC suggest that induction with atezolizumab plus CP/ET and maintenance treatment with atezolizumab are important components that contributed to the OS benefit observed in IMpower133. Safety results from randomization and from the start of maintenance therapy were similar between the treatment arms despite the continuation of atezolizumab in the maintenance phase., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

For patients with resectable, early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), surgery is the primary treatment; however, 5-year survival rates remain poor. Postoperative adjuvant platinum-doublet chemotherapy is associated with a statistically significant but modest improvement in survival of ∼5% at 5 years and is widely accepted as standard of care in patients with resectable, Stage II-III NSCLC. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy has been associated with similar improvements in overall survival to adjuvant therapy in this setting. Durvalumab, a high-affinity PD-L1 inhibitor, has become the standard of care for patients with unresectable, Stage III NSCLC following chemoradiotherapy based on improved progression-free and overall survival in the phase III PACIFIC trial. AEGEAN is a phase III, double-blind, placebo-controlled, international study that will assess pathological and clinical outcomes of durvalumab plus chemotherapy prior to surgery, followed by durvalumab monotherapy after surgery in adults with resectable, Stage II-III NSCLC. Approximately 800 patients will be randomized (1:1) to receive durvalumab or placebo every 3 weeks (q3w) alongside platinum-based chemotherapy (≤4 cycles) prior to surgery, followed by durvalumab or placebo monotherapy q4w, for an additional 12 cycles post surgery, stratified by disease stage (IASLC 8th Edition, Stage II vs. Stage III) and PD-L1 tumor cell expression levels (<1% vs. ≥1%). Primary endpoints include pathological complete response and event-free survival for patients with wild-type EGFR and ALK. Key secondary efficacy endpoints include major pathologic response, disease-free survival and overall survival., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Retrospective studies have suggested a potential risk of hyperprogressive disease (HPD) in patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). We compared the incidence of HPD during treatment with nivolumab±ipilimumab versus natural tumor progression with placebo in post hoc analyses of two randomized, double-blind clinical trials., Methods: ATTRACTION-2 randomized patients with advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer (GC/GEJC) and progression on ≥2 prior regimens to nivolumab 3 mg/kg Q2W or placebo. CheckMate 451 randomized patients with extensive-disease small cell lung cancer (ED SCLC) and ongoing complete/partial response or stable disease after first-line chemotherapy to nivolumab 240 mg Q2W, nivolumab 1 mg/kg+ipilimumab 3 mg/kg Q3W for four doses then nivolumab 240 mg Q2W, or placebo. Patients receiving ≥1 dose of study drug and with tumor scans at baseline and the first on-treatment evaluation were included in the HPD analyses. HPD definitions were ≥20%, ≥50%, and ≥100% increase in target lesion sum of the longest diameters (SLD) at the first on-treatment assessment., Results: In the ATTRACTION-2 HPD-evaluable population, 243 patients received nivolumab and 115 placebo. Fewer patients receiving nivolumab versus placebo had increases in SLD ≥20% (33.7% vs 46.1%) and ≥50% (6.2% vs 11.3%); similar proportions had increases in SLD ≥100% (1.6% vs 1.7%). In the CheckMate 451 HPD-evaluable population, 177 patients received nivolumab, 179 nivolumab+ipilimumab, and 175 placebo. Fewer patients receiving nivolumab or nivolumab+ipilimumab versus placebo had increases in SLD ≥20% (27.1%, 27.4% vs 45.7%), ≥50% (10.2%, 11.2% vs 22.3%), and ≥100% (2.8%, 2.8% vs 6.3%)., Conclusions: Nivolumab±ipilimumab was not associated with an increased rate of progression versus placebo in patients with GC, GEJC, or ED SCLC, suggesting that previous reports of HPD may reflect the natural disease course in some patients rather than ICI-mediated progression., Trial Registration Number: NCT02538666; NCT02267343., Competing Interests: Competing interests: Y-KK received honoraria for consultancy from ALX Oncology, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, DAE HWA, MacroGenics, Novartis, Surface Oncology, and Zymeworks. MR received honoraria for lectures and consultancy from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mirati, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Samsung. PN served as a paid consultant to EMD Serono and Pfizer; his institution received research support from Bristol Myers Squibb and EMD Serono. YF was employed by Bristol Myers Squibb at the time of manuscript preparation and owns Bristol Myers Squibb stock. HRK declares no conflicts of interest. TKO served as a paid consultant to Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Roche/Genentech, Novartis, BeiGene, Lilly, and Oncocyte. His institution received grants from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Roche/Genentech, and Novartis. NB received honoraria for lectures from Ono and Taiho and received research funding from Ono and Takeda. L-TC is employed by Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung Medical University, and the National Institute of Cancer Research, National Health Research Institutes in Taiwan, received honoraria to their institution from PharmaEngine, Taivex, and OBI, received research grants to their institution from SynCore Biotechnology, TTY, Polaris, ACT Genomics, Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, and Merck Serono, served as a paid consultant to ONO, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Ipsen, TTY, SynCore Biotechnology, Novartis, AstraZeneca, and Stone, reports royalties by HuniLife, and is part of the board of directors of ScinoPharm Taiwan, Ltd. AB, HC, ML, WHL, GP, AR, and JS are employees of Bristol Myers Squibb and own Bristol Myers Squibb stock., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Competing Interests: Disclosure A-MCD reports receipt of honoraria for participation in advisory boards and/or lectures from Roche, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Amgen, Novartis, Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Takeda and PharmaMar; research funding from BMS, AbbVie and Amgen. MF reports receipt of advisory board honoraria to institution from BMS, Takeda, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, MSD and Roche. AA reports receipt of honoraria for participation in advisory boards from AstraZeneca, Roche, MSD, BMS, Lilly, Takeda and Bayer; research grant from BMS. BB reports receipt of grants/research support to institute from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Blueprint Medicines, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Cristal Therapeutics, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), Ignyta, IPSEN, Inivata, Janssen, Merck KGaA, MSD, Nektar, Onxeo, OSE Immunotherapeutics, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Roche-Genentech, Sanofi, Servier, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Takeda, Tiziana Pharma and Tolero Pharmaceuticals. CF-F reports participation in advisory boards for AstraZeneca; research funding from MSD and AstraZeneca. LEH reports research funding to institution from Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim and AstraZeneca; advisory board honoraria to institution from BMS, Lilly, Roche, Pfizer, Takeda, MSD, Amgen and Boehringer Ingelheim; speaker fees from MSD; travel/conference reimbursement from Roche and BMS; participation in mentorship program funded by AstraZeneca; fees for educational webinars from Quadia; fees to institution for interview sessions from Roche. SL reports consulting activities for MSD, AstraZeneca, BMS, Bayer and Eli Lilly. SP reports receipt of honoraria to institute for consultancy, advisory boards and/or lectures from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biocartis, Bioinvent, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, Debiopharm, Eli Lilly, Roche, Foundation Medicine, Illumina, Janssen, MSD, Merck Serono, Merrimack, Mirati, Novartis, PharmaMar, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda and Vaccibody; institutional financial support for clinical trials from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Biodesix, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Clovis, Roche, Illumina, MSD, Merck Serono, Novartis and Pfizer. NR reports receipt of speaker honoraria from MSD, BMS, Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, Guardant Health, Pfizer, AbbVie, Ipsen, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Takeda and Amgen; fees for organising educational events from Amgen and Roche; advisory panel honoraria from MSD, BMS, Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, Guardant Health, Pfizer, AbbVie, Ipsen, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Takeda and Amgen; sponsorship to attend scientific meetings from Boehringer Ingelheim, MSD and Roche; research grants from Novartis and Pfizer. CMR reports consultancy for AbbVie, Amgen, Ascentage, AstraZeneca, Bicycle, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Genentech/Roche, Ipsen, Jazz, Lilly, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Syros and Vavotek; serves on scientific advisory boards for Bridge Medicines and Harpoon Therapeutics. DDR reports receipt of research grants to institute from BMS, AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim; advisory board honoraria to institute from BMS, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim and Philips; funding to institute for investigator-initiated study from Olink. PEVS reports board membership of IASLC; treasurer of BACTS; fees to institution for serving as an external expert for AstraZeneca, MSD and National Cancer Institute, France. JV reports receipt of advisory board honoraria and/or lecture fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Pfizer and BMS; research grant to institute from MSD. MR reports receipt of honoraria for lectures and consultancy from Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and Samsung; funding for academic research from BMS and Boehringer Ingelheim.

Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is an aggressive malignancy accounting for 15% of all diagnosed cases of lung cancer. After >15 years without any clinically relevant therapeutic advances, extensive-disease SCLC has become the second thoracic malignancy for which immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have shifted the treatment paradigm to improve overall survival. Today, atezolizumab or durvalumab in combination with platinum-etoposide chemotherapy is considered the new standard of care in the first-line setting in SCLC. However, the magnitude of benefit with this immune-chemotherapy strategy in SCLC is more modest than that observed in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer patients. The immunosuppressive phenotype of SCLC plays an important role in hampering ICI efficacy and may explain the differences in outcomes between these two types of lung cancer. In this review, we provide a summary of recent therapeutic advances in SCLC in light of ICIs, as well as current challenges of this strategy in patients who are elderly, have poor performance status or brain metastases. We also address future perspectives of immunotherapeutic strategies currently in clinical development for these patients., Competing Interests: Disclosure RM reports personal fees and other from MSD and OSE Immunotherapeutics, other from Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, BMS, AstraZeneca and Roche, outside the submitted work. BB reports grants from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Blueprint Medicines, BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, GSK, Ignyta, IPSEN, Merck KGaA, MSD, Nektar, Onxeo, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Sanofi, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Takeda, Tiziana Pharma, outside the submitted work; DP reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Prime Oncology, Peer CME, Roche, Samsung, outside the submitted work; and clinical trials research (as principal investigator or co-investigator): AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Medimmune, Sanofi-Aventis, Taiho Pharma, Novocure, Daiichi Sankyo. MR reports personal fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Lilly, Merck, MSD, MIRATI, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung, outside the submitted work. J-CS reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, GSK, Astex, Clovis, Genmab, Lilly, MSD, Servier, Mission Therapeutics, MERUS, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Roche, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Symphogen, Takeda, outside the submitted work; and has been a full-time employee of AstraZeneca between September 2017 and January 2020. He is a shareholder of AstraZeneca and Gritstone. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 European Society for Medical Oncology. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Patients with relapsed small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) have few treatment options and dismal survival. Phase I/II data show activity of nivolumab in previously treated SCLC., Patients and Methods: CheckMate 331 is a randomized, open-label, phase III trial of nivolumab versus standard chemotherapy in relapsed SCLC. Patients with relapse after first-line, platinum-based chemotherapy were randomized 1 : 1 to nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks or chemotherapy (topotecan or amrubicin) until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS)., Results: Overall, 284 patients were randomized to nivolumab and 285 to chemotherapy. Minimum follow-up was 15.8 months. No significant improvement in OS was seen with nivolumab versus chemotherapy [median OS, 7.5 versus 8.4 months; hazard ratio (HR), 0.86; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.72-1.04; P = 0.11]. A survival benefit with nivolumab was suggested in patients with baseline lactate dehydrogenase ≤ upper limit of normal and in those without baseline liver metastases. OS (nivolumab versus chemotherapy) was similar in patients with programmed death-ligand 1 combined positive score ≥1% versus <1%. Median progression-free survival was 1.4 versus 3.8 months (HR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.18-1.69). Objective response rate was 13.7% versus 16.5% (odds ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.50-1.27); median duration of response was 8.3 versus 4.5 months. Rates of grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events were 13.8% versus 73.2%., Conclusion: Nivolumab did not improve survival versus chemotherapy in relapsed SCLC. No new safety signals were seen. In exploratory analyses, select baseline characteristics were associated with improved OS for nivolumab., Competing Interests: Disclosure DRS: consulting or advisory role: Aptitude Health (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Bayer (Inst), Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), Celgene (Inst), Dracen Pharmaceuticals (Inst), EMD Serono (Inst), Evelo Biosciences (Inst), Genentech/Roche (Inst), GlaxoSmithKline (Inst), Iksuda Therapeutics (Inst), Illumina (Inst), Merck (Inst), Molecular Templates (Inst), Nektar Therapeutics (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), PharmaMar (Inst), Roche (Inst), Seattle Genetics (Inst), Takeda (Inst), TRIPTYCH Health Partners (Inst), TRM Oncology, Williams and Connolly LLP (Inst); research funding: Aeglea BioTherapeutics (Inst), Astellas (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), BIND Therapeutics (Inst), Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), Celgene (Inst), Celldex (Inst), Clovis (Inst), Daiichi Sankyo (Inst), Eisai (Inst), Eli Lilly (Inst), EMD Serono (Inst), G1 Therapeutics (Inst), Genentech (Inst), GRAIL (Inst), ImClone Systems (Inst), ImmunoGen (Inst), Ipsen (Inst), Janssen (Inst), MedImmune (Inst), Merck (Inst), Molecular Partners (Inst), Nektar (Inst), Neon (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Takeda (Inst), Transgene (Inst), University of Texas Southwestern (Inst); travel, accommodations, expenses: Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Seattle Genetics, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, and Takeda. DV: honoraria: AstraZeneca; consulting or advisory role: AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Roche; travel, accommodations, expenses: AstraZeneca. TEC: consulting or advisory role: A&D Pharma, Amgen, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Genentech/Roche, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck Serono, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Servier; travel, accommodations, expenses: A&D Pharma, Amgen, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Ipsen, Janssen, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Servier. SG: consulting or advisory role: Bristol Myers Squibb, Nektar; research funding: Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), Genentech/Roche (Inst), Iovance Biotherapeutics (Inst). SP: consultation/advisory role: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biocartis, BioInvent, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, Debiopharm, Eli Lilly, Foundation Medicine, Illumina, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck Serono, Merrimack, Novartis, PharmaMar, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche/Genentech, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda, and Vaccibody; talk in a company's organized public event: AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Illumina, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, Sanofi, Takeda; research finding: Amgen (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Biodesix (inst), Boehringer Ingelheim (inst), Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), Clovis (Inst), Illumina (Inst), Merck Sharp & Dohme (Inst), Merck Serono (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), and Roche/Genentech (Inst). LH: consulting or advisory role: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, EMB Serono, Genentech/Roche, Incyte, Merck, Xcovery; research funding: Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Xcovery. CA-V: consulting or advisory role: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, Takeda; travel, accommodations, expenses: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, Takeda. NPA: Consulting or advisory role: Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Roche; travel, accommodations, expenses: Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Roche. OJ-V: honoraria: AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech/Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme; consulting or advisory role: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Genentech/Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Takeda; travel, accommodations, expenses: Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche. MS: speaker's bureau: Jiangsu Cancer Hospital, Jiangsu Institute of Cancer Research, Nanjing Medical University Affiliated Cancer Hospital. JW: honoraria: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Blueprint, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Ignyta, Janssen, Loxo, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Takeda; research funding: Bristol Myers Squibb, Johnson and Johnson, Novartis, Pfizer. SA: consulting or advisory role: Achilles Therapeutics, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cellular Biomedicine Group, Celsius, GlaxoSmithKline, Memgen, Merck, RAPT Therapeutics, Samyang Biopharm, Venn Therapeutics; travel, accommodations, expenses: Achilles Therapeutics, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celsius, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, RAPT Therapeutics. KN: honoraria: Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca K.K., Bristol Myers Squibb, Carenet Health, Inc., Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd., Eli Lilly Japan K.K., Hisamitsu Pharmaceutical Co., Inc., KYORIN Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Medical Review Co., Ltd., MEDICUS SHUPPAN Publishers Co., Ltd., Merck Sharp & Dohme K.K., Nanzando Co., Ltd., Nichi-Iko Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Nikkei Business Publications, Inc., Nippon Boehringer Ingelheim Co., Ltd., Novartis Pharma K.K., ONO Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Pfizer Japan Inc., Taiho Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd, Thermo Fisher Scientific K.K., YODOSHA Co., Ltd., Yomiuri Telecasting Corporation; consulting or advisory role: Astellas Pharma Inc., Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd; research funding: AbbVie, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca K.K., Bayer Yakuhin, Ltd., Bristol Myers Squibb, Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., CMIC Shift Zero K.K., Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd., Eisai Co., Ltd., Eli Lilly Japan K.K., EPS Corporation, IQVIA., ICON Japan K.K., Kissei Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Kyowa Hakko Kirin Co., Ltd., Merck Serono Co., Ltd., Merck Sharp & Dohme K.K., Nippon Boehringer Ingelheim Co., Ltd., Novartis Pharma K.K., ONO Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Parexel International Corp., Pfizer Japan Inc., Quintiles Inc., SymBio Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Taiho Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. JF: former employee of Bristol Myers Squibb. CB employment: Bristol Myers Squibb. DP employment: Bristol Myers Squibb. PD employment: Bristol Myers Squibb, former employee of Johnson and Johnson. HC employment: Bristol Myers Squibb. MR: consulting or advisory role: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Takeda; speaker's bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Takeda; research funding: Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb; travel, accommodations, expenses: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Takeda. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest. Data sharing Bristol Myers Squibb policy on data sharing may be found at https://www.bms.com/researchers-and-partners/clinical-trials-and-research/disclosure-commitment.html., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: In extensive-disease small-cell lung cancer (ED-SCLC), response rates to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy are robust, but responses lack durability. CheckMate 451, a double-blind phase III trial, evaluated nivolumab plus ipilimumab and nivolumab monotherapy as maintenance therapy following first-line chemotherapy for ED-SCLC., Methods: Patients with ED-SCLC, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-1, and no progression after ≤ 4 cycles of first-line chemotherapy were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg once every 3 weeks for 12 weeks followed by nivolumab 240 mg once every 2 weeks, nivolumab 240 mg once every 2 weeks, or placebo for ≤ 2 years or until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Primary end point was overall survival (OS) with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus placebo. Secondary end points were hierarchically tested., Results: Overall, 834 patients were randomly assigned. The minimum follow-up was 8.9 months. OS was not significantly prolonged with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.92; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.12; P = .37; median, 9.2 v 9.6 months). The HR for OS with nivolumab versus placebo was 0.84 (95% CI, 0.69 to 1.02); the median OS for nivolumab was 10.4 months. Progression-free survival HRs versus placebo were 0.72 for nivolumab plus ipilimumab (95% CI, 0.60 to 0.87) and 0.67 for nivolumab (95% CI, 0.56 to 0.81). A trend toward OS benefit with nivolumab plus ipilimumab was observed in patients with tumor mutational burden ≥ 13 mutations per megabase. Rates of grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were nivolumab plus ipilimumab (52.2%), nivolumab (11.5%), and placebo (8.4%)., Conclusion: Maintenance therapy with nivolumab plus ipilimumab did not prolong OS for patients with ED-SCLC who did not progress on first-line chemotherapy. There were no new safety signals., Competing Interests: Taofeek K. OwonikokoStock and Other Ownership Interests: Cambium Medical TechnologiesConsulting or Advisory Role: Novartis, Celgene, Lilly, Sandoz, Abbvie, Eisai, G1 Therapeutics, Takeda, Seattle Genetics, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MedImmune, BerGenBio, Amgen, AstraZeneca, PharmaMar, Boehringer Ingelheim, EMD Serono, Xcovery, Bayer, Heron Pharmaceutical, ARMO BioSciences, MerckSpeakers' Bureau: AbbvieResearch Funding: Novartis, Astellas Pharma, Celgene, Bayer, Stem CentRx, Regeneron, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Abbvie, G1 Therapeutics, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Corvus Pharmaceuticals, United Therapeutics, Amgen, Loxo/Lilly, Fujifilm, Pfizer, Aeglea Biotherapeutics, Incyte, MerckPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Overcoming acquired resistance to chemotherapy treatments through suppression of STAT3, Selective chemotherapy treatments and diagnostic methods related thereto, DR4 modulation and its implications in EGFR-target cancer therapy ref:18089 PROV (CSP) United States patent application no. 62/670,210 June 26, 2018 (Co-Inventor), Soluble FAS ligand as a biomarker of recurrence in thyroid cancer; provisional patent 61/727,519 (Inventor)Other Relationship: Roche/Genentech, EMD SeronoUncompensated Relationships: Reflexion Medical Keunchil ParkConsulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, Lilly, Ono Pharmaceutical, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Blueprint Medicines, Amgen, Merck KGaA, LOXO, Abbvie, Daiichi Sankyo, Boehringer Ingelheim, JNJ, Eisai, Puma BiotechnologySpeakers' Bureau: Boehringer Ingelheim, AZDResearch Funding: AstraZeneca, MSD Oncology Ramaswamy GovindanHonoraria: Genentech/Abbvie, Abbvie, GeneplusConsulting or Advisory Role: GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech/Roche, Abbvie, Celgene, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Merck Serono, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Lilly, Ignyta, Nektar, Phillips Gilmore Oncology, Jounce Therapeutics, Roche, Janssen, Amgen, Achilles Therapeutics Neal ReadyConsulting or Advisory Role: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Merck, Abbvie, Celgene, Merck Serono, AstraZeneca, G1 Therapeutics, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, RemeronSpeakers' Bureau: Bristol-Myers SquibbResearch Funding: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Martin ReckConsulting or Advisory Role: Lilly, MSD Oncology, Merck Serono, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Novartis, Roche/Genentech, Abbvie, Amgen, Mirati Therapeutics, Samsung BioepisSpeakers' Bureau: Roche/Genentech, Lilly, MSD Oncology, Merck Serono, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Pfizer, Novartis, Amgen, Mirati Therapeutics Solange PetersHonoraria: Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pfizer, MSD, AstraZeneca, Takeda, IlluminaConsulting or Advisory Role: Roche/Genentech, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, MSD, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Regeneron, Merck Serono, Boehringer Ingelheim, Takeda, Lilly, Abbvie, Bayer, Biocartis, Debiopharm Group, Illumina, PharmaMar, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Blueprint Medicines, Daiichi Sankyo, Incyte, Bioinvent, Clovis Oncology, VaccibodyResearch Funding: Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Amgen, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Illumina, Merck Serono, Novartis, Biodesix, Boehringer Ingelheim, Iovance BiotherapeuticsTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Sanofi, IncyteUncompensated Relationships: Journal of Thoracic Oncology, ESMO, European Thoracic Oncology Platform (ETOP), Annals on Oncology associate editor Alejandro NavarroHonoraria: Pfizer, Roche, AstraZenecaConsulting or Advisory Role: Boehringer IngelheimExpert Testimony: Oryzon Genomics, MedsirTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer Jerónimo Rodríguez-CidConsulting or Advisory Role: Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb (Mexico), MSD Oncology, Takeda, BayerSpeakers' Bureau: MSD Oncology, Bristol-Myers Squibb (Mexico), Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Bayer, Lilly, AstraZenecaResearch Funding: MSD, Bristol-Myers Squibb (Mexico), Roche, Celltrion, Lilly, BeiGene, AstraZenecaTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche, MSD Oncology, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim Michael SchenkerResearch Funding: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Amgen, MSD, Pfizer/EMD Serono, Lilly, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Regeneron, Novartis, Abbvie, Gilead SciencesTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Bristol-Myers Squibb Jong-Seok LeeConsulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, Ono Pharmaceutical Ivor PercentConsulting or Advisory Role: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Abbvie, Takeda, PharmaMar, Gilead Sciences, G1 TherapeuticsResearch Funding: Heat Biologics, Merck, Celgene, AstraZeneca, Baxter, Incyte, Abbvie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, EpicentRx, Pfizer, Roche, Lilly, Altum Pharmaceuticals, Array BioPharma Carlos H. BarriosStock and Other Ownership Interests: Biomarker, MedSIR, TummiHonoraria: Novartis, Roche/Genentech, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eisai, MSD, Lilly, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Zodiac PharmaConsulting or Advisory Role: Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche/Genentech, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Eisai, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Libbs, MSD Oncology, United Medical, LillyResearch Funding: Pfizer, Novartis, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Roche/Genentech, Lilly, Sanofi, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Mylan, Merrimack, Merck, Abbvie, Astellas Pharma, Biomarin, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Abraxis BioScience, AB Science, Asana Biosciences, Medivation, Exelixis, ImClone Systems, LEO Pharma, Millennium, Janssen, Clinica Atlantis, INC Research, Halozyme, Covance, Celgene, inVentiv Health, Merck KGaA, Shanghai Henlius Biotech, Polyphor, PharmaMarTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche/Genentech, Novartis, Pfizer, BMS Brazil, AstraZeneca, MSD Oncology, Lilly Laurent GreillierHonoraria: AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Takeda, Abbvie, Novartis, PfizerConsulting or Advisory Role: Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Takeda, MSD, AstraZeneca, Abbvie, NovartisTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, MSD Sofia BakaConsulting or Advisory Role: MSD Oncology, Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, NovartisResearch Funding: Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, MSD Oncology, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Takeda, Genesis PharmaceuticalsTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, MSD, Demo Pharmaceutical Wen Hong LinEmployment: Bristol-Myers Squibb Giovanni SelvaggiEmployment: Xcovery Holdings IncOther Relationship: Xcovery Holdings Inc Christine BaudeletEmployment: Bristol-Myers SquibbStock and Other Ownership Interests: Bristol-Myers Squibb Jonathan BadenEmployment: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Johnson & JohnsonStock and Other Ownership Interests: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Johnson & Johnson Dimple PandyaEmployment: Bristol-Myers SquibbStock and Other Ownership Interests: Bristol-Myers SquibbPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Bristol-Myers Squibb Parul DoshiEmployment: Bristol-Myers SquibbStock and Other Ownership Interests: Bristol-Myers SquibbTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Bristol-Myers Squibb Hye Ryun KimSpeakers' Bureau: Ono Pharmaceutical, Roche/GenentechNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Purpose: IMpower133 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02763579), a randomized, double-blind, phase I/III study, demonstrated that adding atezolizumab (anti-programmed death-ligand 1 [PD-L1]) to carboplatin plus etoposide (CP/ET) for first-line (1L) treatment of extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) resulted in significant improvement in overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) versus placebo plus CP/ET. Updated OS, disease progression patterns, safety, and exploratory biomarkers (PD-L1, blood-based tumor mutational burden [bTMB]) are reported., Patients and Methods: Patients with untreated ES-SCLC were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive four 21-day cycles of CP (area under the curve 5 mg per mL/min intravenously [IV], day 1) plus ET (100 mg/m 2 IV, days 1-3) with atezolizumab (1,200 mg IV, day 1) or placebo, and then maintenance atezolizumab or placebo until unacceptable toxicity, disease progression, or loss of clinical benefit. Tumor specimens were collected; PD-L1 testing was not required for enrollment. The two primary end points, investigator-assessed PFS and OS, were statistically significant at the interim analysis. Updated OS and PFS and exploratory biomarker analyses were conducted., Results: Patients received atezolizumab plus CP/ET (n = 201) or placebo plus CP/ET (n = 202). At the updated analysis, median follow-up for OS was 22.9 months; 302 deaths had occurred. Median OS was 12.3 and 10.3 months with atezolizumab plus CP/ET and placebo plus CP/ET, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.95; descriptive P = .0154). At 18 months, 34.0% and 21.0% of patients were alive in atezolizumab plus CP/ET and placebo plus CP/ET arms, respectively. Patients derived benefit from the addition of atezolizumab, regardless of PD-L1 immunohistochemistry or bTMB status., Conclusion: Adding atezolizumab to CP/ET as 1L treatment for ES-SCLC continued to demonstrate improved OS and a tolerable safety profile at the updated analysis, confirming the regimen as a new standard of care. Exploratory analyses demonstrated treatment benefit independent of biomarker status.

Background: Brain metastases (BM) are common in patients with small cell lung cancer (SCLC). In recent years, the role of whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) for brain metastases in lung cancer is being reevaluated, especially in the context of new systemic treatments available for SCLC. With this analysis, we investigate decision-making in SCLC patients with BM among European experts in medical oncology and radiation oncology., Methods: We analyzed decision-making from 13 medical oncologists (selected by IASLC) and 13 radiation oncologists (selected by ESTRO) specialized in SCLC. Management strategies of individual experts were converted into decision trees and analyzed for consensus., Results and Conclusion: In asymptomatic patients, chemotherapy alone is the most commonly recommended first line treatment. In asymptomatic patients with limited volume of brain metastases, a higher preference for chemotherapy without WBRT among medical oncologists compared to radiation oncologists was observed. For symptomatic patients, WBRT followed by chemotherapy was recommended most commonly. For limited extent of BM in symptomatic patients, some experts chose stereotactic radiotherapy as an alternative to WBRT. Significant variation in clinical decision-making was observed among European SCLC experts for the first line treatment of patients with SCLC and BM., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Objectives: Stage IV small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is associated with short survival and progression after first-line systemic therapy frequently occurs within months. Although topotecan is approved for second-line treatment, its efficacy is limited, and treatment heterogeneity exists., Material and Methods: The decision-making patterns for second line treatment of 13 European medical oncologists with expertise in SCLC were analyzed., Results: The two criteria most relevant to decision-making were the performance status and the interval of recurrence since first-line treatment. With an interval of less than 3 months since the end of first-line chemotherapy, 62 % of the experts recommended cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin and vincristine (CAV) for fit patients and 54 % recommended topotecan for unfit patients. For an interval of more than 6 months, a clear consensus for a re-challenge with a platinum doublet was achieved (92 %). However, there was no consensus on the second-line therapy with an interval of 3-6 months since the end of first-line therapy., Conclusion: Real world practice may differ from recommendations in general guidelines and cannot always be directly derived from trial results as other factor such as habits, patient's preference, convenience or costs have to be factored in., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest MF reports advisor fees (paid to institution) from BMS, MSD, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, Takeda and institutional research grants from BMS and AstraZeneca CP: none MR reports honoraria for lectures and consultancy from Abbvie, Amgen, AstraZenece, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Lilly, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung. FB: none RC reports honoraria and consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, Boeringer Ingelheim, Lilly Oncology, Roche, Pfizer, MSD, Bristol Myers Squibb, Takeda and Novartis; institutional grands for conduct of clinical trials or contracted research from Roche, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Clovis, Lilly Oncology, MSD, BMS, Abbvie, Takeda and Novartis; stock ownership of The Christie Private Care. FC reports consultation and participation in advisory boards and lectures for Roche, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, BMS, Takeda, Lilly, MSD, Bayer. BB reports institutional grants from Abbvie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Blueprint Medicines, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Cristal Therapeutics, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eli Lilly, GSK, Ignyta, IPSEN, Inivata, Janssen, Merck KGaA, MSD, Nektar, Onxeo, OSE immunotherapeutics, Pfizer, Pharma Mar, Roche-Genentech, Sanofi, Servier, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Takeda, Tiziana Pharma, Tolero Pharmaceuticals. PG reports speaker and/or advisory fees for Roche, AstraZeneca, BMS, Guardant Health, MSD, Pfizer, Janssen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Gilead, Rovi, Abbvie, Lilly, Takeda, Sysmex, Blueprint Medicines, and Bayer. EF reports personal fees from Abbvie, AstraZeneca, Blue Print Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Eli Lilly, Guardant Health, Jannsen, Medscape, Merck KGaA, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Prime Oncology, Roche, Samsung, Takeda, Touchtime, GSK, Bayer; grants from Grant for Oncology Innovation (GOI), Fundacion Merck Salud, outside the submitted work; and Grifols: Independent Member of the Board. MOB reports advisory board work for MSD, BMS, BI and Pierre Fabre. LP-A is a board member of Genomica and Altum Sequencing, and has received honoraria from Roche/Genentech, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dohme, AstraZeneca, Merck Serono, Pharmamar, Novartis, Celgene, Sysmex, Amgen, Blueprint and Incyte; and travel, accommodations or expenses from Roche, AstraZeneca, AstraZeneca Spain, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly and Pfizer. FdM reports fees as consultant/advisor role for AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, Genentech, Pfizer and MSD VW reports personal fees and other from Roche, personal fees and other from BMS, personal fees and other from Astra Zeneca, personal fees from MSD, personal fees from Takeda, other from Pfizer, personal fees and other from Boehringer Ingelheim, personal fees from Lilly, outside the submitted work. DDR reports outside of this project advisor fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Merck/Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, AstraZeneca, MSD, Seattle genetics; institutional research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Philips, Olink. PMP reports speaker fees from Janssen and institutional educational grants from AstraZeneca and Celgene., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

The COVID-19 pandemic, characterised by a fast and global spread during the first months of 2020, has prompted the development of a structured set of recommendations for cancer care management, to maintain the highest possible standards. Within this framework, it is crucial to ensure no disruption to essential oncological services and guarantee the optimal care.This is a structured proposal for the management of lung cancer, comprising three levels of priorities, namely: tier 1 (high priority), tier 2 (medium priority) and tier 3 (low priority)-defined according to the criteria of the Cancer Care Ontario, Huntsman Cancer Institute and Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale.The manuscript emphasises the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on lung cancer care and reconsiders all steps from diagnosis, staging and treatment.These recommendations should, therefore, serve as guidance for prioritising the different aspects of cancer care to mitigate the possible negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the management of our patients.As the situation is rapidly evolving, practical actions are required to guarantee the best patients' treatment while protecting and respecting their rights, safety and well-being. In this environment, cancer practitioners have great responsibilities: provide timely, appropriate, compassionate and justified cancer care, while protecting themselves and their patients from being infected with COVID-19. In case of shortages, resources must be distributed fairly. Consequently, the following recommendations can be applied with significant nuances, depending on the time and location for their use, considering variable constraints imposed to the health systems. An exceptional flexibility is required from cancer caregivers., Competing Interests: Competing interests: AP: honoraria for consulting, advisory role or lectures from AstraZeneca, Agilent/Dako, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme and Roche Genentech. AA: honoraria for consulting, advisory role from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Takeda, Pfizer, Roche Genentech and Boehringer Ingelheim. CvG: honoraria for consulting, advisory role or lectures from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer, PneumRx et Pulmonx. FB: honoraria for consulting, advisory role or lectures from AstraZeneca, Abbvie, Bayer, Roche Genentech, Pfizer, Cell Medica, Celgene, Takeda. DP: honoraria for consulting, advisory role or lectures from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, prIME Oncology, Peer CME, Roche Genentech, Samsung Honoraria: AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, prIME Oncology, Peer CME, Roche. EF: advisory role or speaker’s bureau from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Blueprint medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GSK, Eli Lilly, Guardant Health, Janssen, Medscape, Merck KGaA, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, prIME Oncology, Roche Genentech, Samsung, Springer, Takeda, Touchime. Board: Grifols, independent member Research funding: Fundación Merck Salud, Grant for Oncology Innovation EMD Serono. RD: honoraria for consulting, advisory role or lectures from from AstraZeneca, Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Seattle Genetics, Foundation Medicine, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Takeda. FdM: honoraria for consulting, advisory role or lectures from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Roche Genentech, Takeda and Pfizer. MR: honoraria for consulting, advisory role or lecture from Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Lilly, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung. Support for clinical research from BMS. HB: honoraria for consulting, advisory role or lecture for AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Roche Genentech. SP: received education grants, provided consultation, attended advisory boards, or provided lectures for Abbvie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biocartis, Bioinvent, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, Debiopharm, Eli Lilly, F Hoffmann-La Roche, Foundation Medicine, Illumina, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck Serono, Merrimack, Novartis, Pharma Mar, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda and Vaccibody, from whom she has received honoraria (all fees to institution)., (© Author (s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. Published by BMJ on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology.)

Despite the highly immunogenic potential of small cell lung cancer (SCLC), progress in evaluating the therapeutic value of immune checkpoint agents has lagged behind that of non-small cell lung cancer. Results from a number of phase I-III clinical trials that specifically address the use of anti-PD-1, anti-PD-L1 and anti-CTLA-4 agents in SCLC have now been reported. This review will focus on the available evidence for immune checkpoint blockade in SCLC and review current biomarker strategies with the aim of providing perspective and interpretation of this data for clinical practice., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The CONVERT trial showed that twice-daily (BD) concurrent chemoradiotherapy should continue to be considered the standard of care in localised LS-SCLC. A survey was conducted to assess the impact of the CONVERT trial in clinical practice and to identify any relevant research questions for future trials in this setting., Methods and Materials: An EORTC Group online survey of LS-SCLC practice was distributed to the EORTC LCG and to members of several European thoracic oncology societies between April and December 2018., Results: 198 responses were analysed. The majority of respondents (88%, n = 174) were aware of the CONVERT trial. Radiation oncologists comprised 56% of all respondents. Once-daily (OD) radiotherapy is still the most commonly used regimen, however the use of concurrent BD radiotherapy increased after the publication of CONVERT (n = 59/186, 32% prior to and n = 78/187, 42% after the publication, p = 0.053). The main reasons for not implementing BD after the CONVERT publication were logistical issues (n = 88, 44%), inconvenience for patients (n = 56, 28%), and the absence of a statistical survival difference between the two arms in CONVERT (n = 38, 19%). Brain MRI was used by 28% during staging but more than half (60%) of the respondents did not routinely image the brain during follow-up. The main research questions of interest in LS-SCLC were 1) integrating novel targeted therapies-immunotherapies (n = 160, 81%), 2) PCI (+/- hippocampal sparing) vs. MRI surveillance (n = 140, 71%) and, 3) biomarker driven trials (n = 92, 46%)., Conclusion: Once daily radiotherapy (60-66 Gy in 30-33 fractions) remains the most prescribed radiotherapy fractionation, despite the findings suggested by the CONVERT trial., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Background: The role of consolidative thoracic radiotherapy (TRT) in stage IV small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is not uniformly accepted., Methods: We obtained a list of 13 European medical oncologists from the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC) and 13 European radiation oncologists from the European Society for Therapeutic Radiation Oncology (ESTRO). The strategies in decision making for TRT in stage IV SCLC were collected. Decision trees were created representing these strategies. Frequencies of recommending TRT were analysed for various parameter combinations based on the objective consensus methodology., Results: The factors associated with the recommendation for TRT included fitness of the patient, limited extrathoracic tumour burden, initial bulky thoracic disease and response to chemotherapy. The highest consensus for TRT was in fit patients with limited extrathoracic tumour burden and initial bulky disease with either a complete extrathoracic response or partial thoracic response (92% recommend TRT). For these patients the recommendations were the same for medical and radiation oncologists. In the setting of partial response (intra- and extra-thoracically) without initial bulky thoracic disease radiation oncologists were more likely to recommend TRT than medical oncologists. For unfit patients or for patients with poor overall response to chemotherapy, the majority did not recommend TRT., Conclusion: European radiation and medical oncologists specializing in lung cancer recommend TRT in selected patients with stage IV SCLC and restrict its use primarily to fit patients who responded to chemotherapy with limited extrathoracic tumour burden., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: This phase II study evaluated the efficacy and safety of the pan-cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor roniciclib with platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with extensive-disease SCLC., Methods: In this randomized, double-blind study, unselected patients with previously untreated extensive-disease SCLC received roniciclib, 5 mg, or placebo twice daily according to a 3 days-on, 4 days-off schedule in 21-day cycles, with concomitant cisplatin or carboplatin on day 1 and etoposide on days 1 to 3. The primary end point was progression-free survival. Other end points included overall survival, objective response rate, and safety., Results: A total of 140 patients received treatment: 70 with roniciclib plus chemotherapy and 70 with placebo plus chemotherapy. Median progression-free survival times was 4.9 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.2-5.5) with roniciclib plus chemotherapy and 5.5 months (95% CI: 4.6-5.6) with placebo plus chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.242, 95% CI: 0.820-1.881, p = 0.8653). Median overall survival times was 9.7 months (95% CI: 7.9-11.1) with roniciclib plus chemotherapy and 10.3 months (95% CI: 8.7-11.9) with placebo plus chemotherapy (HR = 1.281, 95% CI: 0.776-1.912, p = 0.7858). The objective response rates were 60.6% with roniciclib plus chemotherapy and 74.6% with placebo plus chemotherapy. Common treatment-emergent adverse events in both groups included nausea, vomiting, and fatigue. Serious treatment-emergent adverse events were more common with roniciclib plus chemotherapy (57.1%) than with placebo plus chemotherapy (38.6%)., Conclusions: Roniciclib combined with chemotherapy demonstrated an unfavorable risk-benefit profile in patients with extensive-disease SCLC, and the study was prematurely terminated., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Due to conflicting results between major trials the role of prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) in stage IV small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is controversial., Methods: We obtained a list of 13 European experts from both the European Society for Therapeutic Radiation Oncology (ESTRO) and the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC). The strategies in decision making for PCI in stage IV SCLC were collected. Decision trees were created representing these strategies. Analysis of consensus was performed with the objective consensus methodology., Results: The factors associated with the recommendation for the use of PCI included the fitness of the patient, young age and good response to chemotherapy. PCI was recommended by the majority of experts for non-elderly fit patients who had at least a partial response (PR) to chemotherapy (for complete remission (CR) 85% of radiation oncologists and 69% of medical oncologists, for PR: 85% of radiation oncologists and 54% of medical oncologists). For patients with stable disease after chemotherapy, PCI was recommended by 6 out of 13 (46%) radiation oncologists and only 3 out of 13 medical oncologists (23%). For elderly fit patients with CR, a majority recommended PCI (62%) and no consensus was reached for patients with PR., Conclusion: European radiation and medical oncologists specializing in lung cancer recommend PCI in selected patients and restrict its use primarily to fit, non-elderly patients who responded to chemotherapy., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Introduction : Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is a tumor with a poor prognosis, often diagnosed in an advanced stage. Despite aggressive treatment of early and locally advanced disease, SCLC often relapses. First line chemotherapy provides good response rates in advanced disease, but progression free and overall survival are limited. New drugs such as some targeted therapies and immune therapies are promising in SCLC. Areas covered : In this review, we discuss the preclinical rationale and trial data for targeted therapies and immune therapies in SCLC, with a specific focus on clinical trials. Expert commentary : Lack of identification of clear prognostic and predictive biomarkers has limited the advances in treatment efficacy. This has most likely been the main cause of failure for compounds tested so far. Due to the highly mutational profile and the rapid growth pattern of SCLC, immunotherapy combined with chemotherapy seems the most promising treatment option. Concerning targeted agents, achievements made so far are small, but DLL3-antibodies or combinations of PARPi and immunotherapy could be very promising. These promising strategies also need testing in limited disease.

Background: Enhancing tumor-specific T-cell immunity by inhibiting programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1)-programmed death 1 (PD-1) signaling has shown promise in the treatment of extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer. Combining checkpoint inhibition with cytotoxic chemotherapy may have a synergistic effect and improve efficacy., Methods: We conducted this double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial to evaluate atezolizumab plus carboplatin and etoposide in patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer who had not previously received treatment. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive carboplatin and etoposide with either atezolizumab or placebo for four 21-day cycles (induction phase), followed by a maintenance phase during which they received either atezolizumab or placebo (according to the previous random assignment) until they had unacceptable toxic effects, disease progression according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1, or no additional clinical benefit. The two primary end points were investigator-assessed progression-free survival and overall survival in the intention-to-treat population., Results: A total of 201 patients were randomly assigned to the atezolizumab group, and 202 patients to the placebo group. At a median follow-up of 13.9 months, the median overall survival was 12.3 months in the atezolizumab group and 10.3 months in the placebo group (hazard ratio for death, 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.54 to 0.91; P=0.007). The median progression-free survival was 5.2 months and 4.3 months, respectively (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.62 to 0.96; P=0.02). The safety profile of atezolizumab plus carboplatin and etoposide was consistent with the previously reported safety profile of the individual agents, with no new findings observed., Conclusions: The addition of atezolizumab to chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer resulted in significantly longer overall survival and progression-free survival than chemotherapy alone. (Funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech; IMpower133 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02763579 .).

Purpose Patients with extensive-stage disease small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) have poor survival outcomes despite first-line chemotherapy with etoposide and platinum. This randomized, double-blind phase III study evaluated the efficacy and safety of ipilimumab or placebo plus etoposide and platinum in patients with newly diagnosed extensive-stage disease SCLC. Patients and Methods Patients were randomly assigned at a ratio of one to one to receive chemotherapy with etoposide and platinum (cisplatin or carboplatin) plus ipilimumab 10 mg/kg or placebo every 3 weeks for a total of four doses each in a phased induction schedule (chemotherapy in cycles one to four; ipilimumab or placebo beginning in cycle three up to cycle six), followed by ipilimumab or placebo maintenance every 12 weeks. Primary end point was overall survival (OS) among patients receiving at least one dose of blinded study therapy. Results Of 1,132 patients randomly assigned, 954 received at least one dose of study therapy (chemotherapy plus ipilimumab, n = 478; chemotherapy plus placebo, n = 476). Median OS was 11.0 months for chemotherapy plus ipilimumab versus 10.9 months for chemotherapy plus placebo (hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.09; P = .3775). Median progression-free survival was 4.6 months for chemotherapy plus ipilimumab versus 4.4 months for chemotherapy plus placebo (hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.75 to 0.97). Rates and severity of treatment-related adverse events were similar between arms, except for diarrhea, rash, and colitis, which were more frequent with chemotherapy plus ipilimumab. Rate of treatment-related discontinuation was higher with chemotherapy plus ipilimumab (18% v 2% with chemotherapy plus placebo). Five treatment-related deaths occurred with chemotherapy plus ipilimumab and two with chemotherapy plus placebo. Conclusion Addition of ipilimumab to chemotherapy did not prolong OS versus chemotherapy alone in patients with newly diagnosed extensive-stage disease SCLC. No new or unexpected adverse events were observed with chemotherapy plus ipilimumab. Several ongoing studies are evaluating ipilimumab in combination with programmed death-1 inhibitors in SCLC.

Unlabelled: : Small cell lung cancer (SCLC), which accounts for 10%-15% of lung cancer cases, is an aggressive disease characterized by rapid growth and early widespread metastasis. Although up to 80% of patients respond to first-line chemotherapy, most eventually relapse, and there are no approved agents beyond the second line. Despite the high incidence of mutations in SCLC, to date no targeted therapy has shown a benefit for this patient population, and systemic treatment has not changed significantly during the past 3 decades. Given that extensive-stage SCLC has a 5-year survival rate of only 1%-2%, novel therapies are desperately needed. Recent evidence shows that the immune system is capable of generating antitumor responses against various tumors, including lung cancer, suggesting that immunotherapy may be a viable therapeutic approach to the treatment of patients with SCLC. Of the immunotherapies being investigated for patients with SCLC, antibodies that target the programmed cell death protein-1 (nivolumab and pembrolizumab) and cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 (ipilimumab) immune checkpoint pathways are perhaps the most promising. Because these immune checkpoint pathways, which under normal circumstances function to protect healthy tissues from damage during inflammatory responses and maintain self-tolerance, can help tumor cells evade elimination by the immune system, they represent potential therapeutic targets. This review discusses the rationale for immunotherapy and the early clinical results of immunotherapeutic agents being investigated in SCLC., Implications for Practice: Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is an aggressive lung cancer subtype. Despite sensitivity to first-line chemotherapy, SCLC has high recurrence rates, and responses to second-line treatments are poor. Recent evidence shows that the immune system is capable of generating responses against various tumors, including lung cancer, suggesting that immunotherapy may be a viable approach for patients with SCLC. Of several immunotherapies being investigated, antibodies that target the programmed cell death protein-1 (nivolumab and pembrolizumab) and cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 (ipilimumab) immune checkpoint pathways are among the most promising for patients with SCLC and are the focus of this review., (©AlphaMed Press.)

Treatment for small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) has changed little over the past few decades; available therapies have failed to extend survival in advanced disease. In recent years, immunotherapy with treatments such as interferons, TNFs, vaccines and immune checkpoint inhibitors has advanced and shown promise in the treatment of several tumor types. Immune checkpoint inhibitors such as ipilimumab, nivolumab, pembrolizumab, durvalumab, tremelimumab and ulocuplumab are at the forefront of immunotherapy and have achieved approvals for certain cancer types, including melanoma (ipilimumab, nivolumab and pembrolizumab), non-SCLC (nivolumab and pembrolizumab) and renal cell carcinoma (nivolumab). Clinical trials are investigating different immunotherapies in patients with other solid and hematologic malignancies, including SCLC. We review emerging evidence supporting the use of immunotherapy in SCLC patients.

Purpose: Amrubicin, a third-generation anthracycline and potent topoisomerase II inhibitor, showed promising activity in small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) in phase II trials. This phase III trial compared the safety and efficacy of amrubicin versus topotecan as second-line treatment for SCLC., Patients and Methods: A total of 637 patients with refractory or sensitive SCLC were randomly assigned at a ratio of 2:1 to 21-day cycles of amrubicin 40 mg/m(2) intravenously (IV) on days 1 to 3 or topotecan 1.5 mg/m(2) IV on days 1 to 5. Primary end point was overall survival (OS); secondary end points included overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and safety., Results: Median OS was 7.5 months with amrubicin versus 7.8 months with topotecan (hazard ratio [HR], 0.880; P = .170); in refractory patients, median OS was 6.2 and 5.7 months, respectively (HR, 0.77; P = .047). Median PFS was 4.1 months with amrubicin and 3.5 months with topotecan (HR, 0.802; P = .018). ORR was 31.1% with amrubicin and 16.9% with topotecan (odds ratio, 2.223; P < .001). Grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events in the amrubicin and topotecan arms were: neutropenia (41% v 54%; P = .004), thrombocytopenia (21% v 54%; P < .001), anemia (16% v 31%; P < .001), infections (16% v 10%; P = .043), febrile neutropenia (10% v 3%; P = .003), and cardiac disorders (5% v 5%; P = .759); transfusion rates were 32% and 53% (P < .001), respectively. NQO1 polymorphisms did not influence safety outcomes., Conclusion: Amrubicin did not improve survival when compared with topotecan in the second-line treatment of patients with SCLC. OS did not differ significantly between treatment groups, although an improvement in OS was noted in patients with refractory disease treated with amrubicin., (© 2014 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Background: Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is associated with poor prognosis due to its early metastatic potential and lack of improved outcomes with newer cytotoxic agents. Identifying factors associated with clinical outcomes can help clinicians determine which patients are more likely to benefit from therapy. Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) subscales and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) were retrospectively analyzed as prognostic factors for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with extensive-stage disease (ED)-SCLC., Methods: Using data from a Phase III trial of pemetrexed-carboplatin vs. etoposide-carboplatin, the effect of the prognostic factors on OS and PFS was analyzed via Cox models. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate OS and PFS parameters for the prognostic subgroups (defined by baseline FACT scores and ECOG PS)., Results: Patients with higher baseline FACT-General (FACT-G) score (≥ median) had significantly higher OS (hazard ratio [HR]=0.62, P<.0001) and PFS (HR=0.83, P=.032) compared with patients with lower FACT-G score (

Background: Clinical results of a randomized phase III trial comparing pemetrexed-carboplatin (PC) with etoposide-carboplatin (EC) in chemonaive patients with extensive-stage disease small-cell lung cancer (ED-SCLC) resulted in trial closure for futility; biomarker analyses using immunohistochemistry (IHC) and single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) are described herein., Patients and Methods: Thymidylate synthase (TS), excision repair cross complementing-1 (ERCC1), glycinamide ribonucleotide formyltransferase (GARFT), and folylpolyglutamate synthetase (FPGS) were investigated using IHC (n=395). SNPs were genotyped for TS, FPGS, γ-glutamyl hydrolase (GGH), methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR), folate receptor-α FR-α, and solute carrier 19A1 (SLC19A1; n=611)., Results: None of the IHC biomarkers (folate pathway or ERCC1) were found to be predictive or prognostic in this setting. rs2838952 (adjacent to SLC19A1) had significant treatment-independent association with overall survival (OS; hazard ratio 0.590, P=0.01). Nine GGH-associated SNPs interacted with rs3788205 (SLC19A1) for OS on the PC arm. rs12379987 (FPGS) interacted with treatment for OS (interaction P=0.036)., Conclusion: Potential ERCC1 and folate pathway IHC biomarkers failed to predict outcome in either study arm in ED-SCLC. SNPs in regions including FPGS and SLC19A1 and interacting SNPs in GGH and SLC19A1 were associated with differences in OS; however, none of these SNPs predicted for greater survival with PC over EC.

Purpose: The aim of this retrospective study is to present data on clinical significance of hyponatremia in an unselected contemporary patient population with small cell lung cancer (SCLC) with limited disease (LD) and extensive disease (ED)., Patients and Methods: Our electronic database was searched for patients with newly diagnosed SCLC from June 2004 to December 2008. 395 cases were identified. We collected data on patient characteristics including clinical performance status, serum sodium values, serum LDH values, metastatic sites, chemotherapy regimens and response, radiotherapy and survival., Results: Hyponatremia (sodium <135 mmol/l) was present in 18.9% of all cases. Severe hyponatremia (sodium <129 mmol/l) was detected in 8.8%. Hyponatremia was present in 58 out of 241 (24%) patients with ED SCLC and 17 of 154 (11%) patients with LD SCLC. Hyponatremia was associated with significantly shorter median survival (SCLC all patients: 9.0 vs. 13.0 months, p < 0.001, LD SCLC: 9.0 vs. 17.0, p = 0.050, ED SCLC 9.0 vs. 10.0, p = 0.135). After adjustment for age, gender, LDH and performance status hyponatremia was an independent predictor of mortality in patients with ED and LD SCLC., Conclusion: According to the extensive statistical analyses in our comprehensive unselected patient population, hyponatremia seems to constitute an independent prognostic factor in patients with SCLC., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The aim of this retrospective study was to compare patient characteristics, treatment patterns and treatment results in two groups of patients with limited disease (LD) and extensive disease (ED) small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) in 2004 - 2005 vs. 2007 - 2008., Patients and Methods: We included all patients with LD or ED SCLC in this retrospective analysis who were diagnosed in our department in the periods 2004 - 2005 and 2007 - 2008. We collected data on patient characteristics, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, treatment response and median survival. Statistical analyses were separately performed for patients in LD and ED SCLC., Results: 109 patients had LD SCLC. The response rate on first-line therapy was 74 %. More than half of the cases had recurrent disease. Second-line treatment was given to about two thirds of these patients. Third-line therapy was administered in around 15 % of all cases. Prophylactic cranial irradiation was performed more frequently from 2007 - 2008. The median survival was 17 months. There were no statistically significant differences regarding patient characteristics and treatment results. ED SCLC was present in 188 patients. The response rate was around 68 %. All patients relapsed, second-line therapy was administered in half of these cases; third-line therapy in 10 % of all cases. No statistically significant differences were detected between the two time frames. Median survival was 10 months., Conclusion: Overall, no statistically significant differences were present for patients with LD and ED SCLC in 2004 - 2005 vs. 2007 - 2008. Prophylactic cranial irradiation was employed more frequently in LD SCLC from 2007., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

Treatment of small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is based on the stage of disease. While combination of chemo- and radiotherapy preferably as concomitant chemoradiotherapy represents standard treatment in patients with locally advanced tumors (UICC stage I-III), patients with metastatic disease (stage IV) should be treated with an established platinum based chemotherapy regimen. After chemotherapy and in case of an achieved tumor response treatment should be completed by an adjuvant radiation of the brain in patients with adequate performance status. In patients with a very early stage of disease without involvement of lymph node metastasis a surgical approach in combination with an adjuvant chemotherapy can be discussed. In patients with relapsed tumors second line therapies like the topoisomerase I inhibitor Topotecan have proven efficacy. Up to now neither molecular targeted therapies nor cytotoxic or immunological maintenance strategies have provided any benefit to patients with SCLC.

Purpose: Following a phase II trial in which pemetrexed-platinum demonstrated similar activity to that of historical etoposide-platinum controls, a phase III study was conducted to compare pemetrexed-carboplatin with etoposide-carboplatin for the treatment of extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC)., Patients and Methods: Chemotherapy-naive patients with ES-SCLC and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of zero to 2 were randomly assigned to receive pemetrexed-carboplatin (pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) on day 1; carboplatin at area under the serum concentration-time curve [AUC] 5 on day 1) or etoposide-carboplatin (etoposide 100 mg/m(2) on days 1 through 3; carboplatin AUC 5 on day 1) every 3 weeks for up to six cycles. The primary objective of the study was noninferiority of pemetrexed-carboplatin overall survival with a 15% margin., Results: Accrual was terminated with 908 of 1,820 patients enrolled after results of a planned interim analysis. In the final analysis, pemetrexed-carboplatin was inferior to etoposide-carboplatin for overall survival (median, 8.1 v 10.6 months; hazard ratio [HR],1.56; 95% CI, 1.27 to 1.92; log-rank P < .01) and progression-free survival (median, 3.8 v 5.4 months; HR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.58 to 2.17; log-rank P < .01). Objective response rates were also significantly lower for pemetrexed-carboplatin (31% v 52%; P < .001). Pemetrexed-carboplatin had lower grade 3 to 4 neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, and leukopenia than etoposide-carboplatin; grade 3 to 4 thrombocytopenia was comparable between arms and anemia was higher in the pemetrexed-carboplatin arm., Conclusion: Pemetrexed-carboplatin is inferior for the treatment of ES-SCLC. Planned translational research and pharmacogenomic analyses of tumor and blood samples may help explain the study results and provide insight into new treatment strategies.