Search

Simona Carnio, Rosario Francesco Di Stefano, Silvia Novello Oncology Department, University of Turin, AOU San Luigi, Orbassano, Italy Abstract: Lung cancer (LC) remains the most common cause of cancer death in several countries across the world. Fatigue is the most frequently reported symptom in LC patients throughout the entire course of disease, and all international guidelines recommend early screening for cancer-related fatigue (CRF) and symptoms that can affect patients' quality of life. In patients with LC, fatigue belongs to the symptom cluster of pain, depression, and insomnia, which are commonly observed simultaneously, but are typically treated as separate although they may have common biological mechanisms. The treatment of CRF remains one of the difficult areas in the oncology field: scarce evidence supports pharmacological therapies, while some interesting data arising indicates alternative remedies and physical exercise seem to be one of the most effective approaches for CRF at any stage of LC. Keywords: fatigue, lung cancer, symptom cluster, quality of life

Single-agent osimertinib has improved outcomes in EGFR-mutated lung cancer patients with brain metastases (BMs), but still, 40 % of them will experience an intracranial progression. We performed a systematic review to evaluate the role of brain radiotherapy upfront plus osimertinib. We evaluated articles comparing the use of osimertinib versus osimertinib plus brain radiotherapy. We included 897 patients from nine retrospective studies. Patients treated with combination therapy had an improvement in intracranial progression-free survival (HR 0.76; 95 % CI 0.61-0.94) and overall survival (HR 0.56; 95 % CI 0.36-0.87) with an acceptable safety profile. Osimertinib with upfront brain radiotherapy may be a suitable first-line treatment option for EGFR mutated patients with BMs at diagnosis. The main limitations of this analysis are the retrospective nature and the inability to control for a single variable of interest. Despite that, the combination of osimertinib and upfront brain radiotherapy is a treatment strategy that deserves further prospective trials., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Background: Small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) accounts for 10%-15% of all lung cancers. At diagnosis, nearly two thirds of patients with SCLC have extensive stage (ES), with a median overall survival (OS) less than 12 months. The combination of protein-death-1/protein-death-ligand-1 (PD-1/PD-L1) immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) with first-line platinum plus etoposide chemotherapy has changed the therapeutic landscape for ES-SCLC. Older adults represent most of the cancers diagnosed and deaths by age group, with an expected increase over the next decade. In the real-world setting, about 30%-40% of patients with a diagnosis of SCLC are reported to be over 70-years-old at the time of diagnosis. However, this subgroup of patients is underrepresented in clinical trials. Based on this evidence, we performed this systematic review to define the activity of ICIs plus chemotherapy in older patients with previously untreated ES-SCLC., Methods: This systematic review was carried out in accordance with the statement in the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). A systematic search on multiple electronic databases was conducted from inception to the end of April to identify randomized trials that prospectively evaluated chemotherapy ± PD-1/PD-L1 ICIs. When more than one report of the same study was available, the most recent data (with longer follow-up and/or higher number of patients) was considered. The primary endpoint of the study was efficacy, in terms of overall survival, progression-free survival, and disease control rate., Results: We selected six randomized clinical trials that enrolled 3396 patients in the meta-analysis. In the experimental arm, 670 patients were 65 years of age and older compared to 504 in the control arm. In the subgroup of patients ≥65 years, adding ICIs to chemotherapy led to a significant benefit in OS [hazard ratio (HR) 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72-0.90). There was moderate but not-significant heterogenity among the trials (I 2  = 47%, P = 0.07)., Conclusion: This systematic review found that the combination of chemotherapy plus ICIs improved OS among older patients with ES-SCLC. Biomarker and comprehensive geriatric assessment are needed to improve the identification and selection of patients with cancer that are uniformly defined as older., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

We demonstrated the non-inferiority of a dexamethasone (DEX)-sparing (single-dose) regimen with NEPA, a netupitant/palonosetron fixed combination, for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) caused by cisplatin. This pre-planned exploratory analysis assessed the effect of the DEX-sparing regimen on a patient's food intake. Chemotherapy-naïve patients undergoing cisplatin (≥ 70 mg/m 2 ) were given NEPA and DEX (12 mg) on day 1 and randomized to receive either no further DEX (DEX1), or oral DEX (4 mg BID) on days 2-4 (DEX4). Patient-reported endpoint maintenance of usual daily food intake was assessed during the 5-days post-chemotherapy. The relationship between usual daily food intake and CINV control, pre-chemotherapy self-rated food intake and BMI-adjusted weight loss (WL) were evaluated. One-hundred fifty-two patients (76/group) were assessable. The proportion of patients reporting maintenance of usual daily food intake was similar in both groups: 69.7% (95% CI, 58.6-78.9) for DEX1 vs. 72.4% (95% CI, 61.4-81.2) for DEX4. Only CINV control was significantly associated with maintenance of usual daily food intake (P ≤ 0.001) during the overall phase. The DEX-sparing regimen does not adversely affect patient-reported daily food intake post-chemotherapy. The current analysis adds further insights into antiemetic efficacy of DEX sparing beyond day 1 in the challenging setting of cisplatin.Trial registration: The parent study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04201769)., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Introduction: In non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) histologic transformation upon immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) is rare., Case Presentation: We described the case of a patient with early-stage lung adenocarcinoma who relapsed after surgery. At the time of relapse, he received chemo-radiotherapy, followed by consolidation immunotherapy. After 3 cycles the patient experienced disease hyperprogression for onset of a new lung mass, which resulted in squamous cell carcinoma. The preservation of an atypical mutation in the v-raf murine sarcoma viral oncogene homolog B1 (BRAF) gene in both the primary adenocarcinoma and the new squamous carcinoma suggests histological transformation, likely ICI-related., Discussion: We reviewed similar cases in literature, highlighting common patterns and substantial differences. For a deeper insight into inherent biological mechanisms, re-biopsy in case of atypical ICI response should be encouraged.

Background: Nutritional support, including nutritional counseling and oral nutritional supplements (ONS), has been recommended as a first-line strategy in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Evidence on the efficacy of immunonutrition during immunotherapy in these patients is positive, but still limited some secondary endpoints, such as treatment toxicity and tolerance. We hypothesize that early systematic provision of ONS with a high-protein-high calorie mixture containing immunonutrients (Impact®) in addition to nutritional counseling, compared to nutritional counseling alone, is beneficial to patients with NSCLC receiving immunotherapy with or without chemotherapy. We designed the present study to evaluate the efficacy of early systematic provision of ONS enriched with immunonutrients compared to nutritional counseling alone, in patients with NSCLC undergoing immunotherapy. Study endpoints were: treatment response (primary endpoint: progression-free survival), treatment tolerance and toxicity, body weight, body composition, protein-calorie intake, quality of life, fatigue, muscle strength and immunological profile., Methods: This is a pragmatic, multicentre, randomized (1:1), parallel-group, open label, controlled, pilot clinical trial (N = 180)., Discussion: The improvement of efficacy of nutritional support in oncology still deserves many efforts. Immunonutrition represents a promising approach also in patients with NSCLC, but evidence on its efficacy on clinical outcomes during immunotherapy is still inconclusive. The present pilot study, which guarantees early high-quality nutritional care (assessment and treatment) to all patients in agreement with current guidelines and recommendations, could represent one of the first proofs of efficacy of early oral immunonutrition in patients with cancer undergoing immunotherapy. Further large randomized trials addressing the improvement of supportive care could be hypothesized, accordingly., Trial Registration: This study is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05384873., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Lung cancer (LC) tissue for immunological characterization is often scarce. We explored and compared T cell characteristics between broncho-alveolar lavage from tumor affected (t-BAL) and contralateral lung (cl-BAL), with matched peripheral blood (PB)., Methods: BAL and PB were collected during bronchoscopy for diagnostic and/or therapeutic purposes in patients with monolateral primary lesion., Results: Of 33 patients undergoing BAL and PB sampling, 21 had histologically-confirmed LC. Most cases were locally-advanced or metastatic non-small cell LC. T cell characteristics were not significantly different in t-BAL vs. cl-BAL. Compared to PB, CD8 T cells in BAL presented features of immune activation and exhaustion (high PD-1, low IFN-g production). Accordingly, regulatory CD4 T cells were also higher in BAL vs. PB. When dichotomizing T cell density in t-BAL in high and low, we found that PD-L1 expression in LC was associated with T cell density in t-BAL. T-BAL with high T cell density had higher %IFN-g+CD8 T cells and lower %T-regs., Conclusion: In BAL from advanced LC patients, T cells present features of exhaustion. T cells in t-BAL could be the best surrogate of tumor-infiltrating T cell, and future studies should evaluate T cell phenotype and density as potential biomarkers for cancer immunotherapy outcome.

Background: The non-inferiority of dexamethasone (DEX) on day 1, with or without low-dose DEX on days 2 and 3, combined with oral NEPA (netupitant/palonosetron), compared with the guideline-consistent use of DEX was demonstrated in cisplatin. Here, we complete the analysis by assessing the impact of emesis on daily lives of patients receiving DEX-sparing regimens using the Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE)., Methods: Chemotherapy-naïve patients undergoing cisplatin (≥70 mg/m 2 ), were given NEPA and DEX (12 mg) on day 1 and randomized to receive either 1) no further DEX (DEX1), 2) oral DEX (4 mg daily) on days 2-3 (DEX3), or 3) DEX (4 mg twice daily) on days 2-4 (DEX4; control). Patients completed the FLIE questionnaire on day 6 of cycle 1. Endpoints included the FLIE nausea domain, vomiting domain, and overall combined domain scores, as well as the proportion of patients with no impact on daily life (NIDL; overall score > 108). This was a protocol-planned analysis., Results: In the DEX1 group, no significant differences were observed in the FLIE nausea score (48.9 [±1.8; SE] vs. 53.7 [±1.5]), vomiting score (56.6 [±1.4] vs. 58.7 [±0.8]) and overall score (105.6 [±2.8] vs.112.4 [±1.9]) versus DEX4 control; similar results were observed in the DEX3 group for nausea score (49.6 [±1.7]), vomiting score (58.2 [±1]) and overall score (107.8 [±2.4]) versus control. There were no significant between-group differences in the proportion of patients reporting NIDL., Conclusion: Reducing DEX, when administered with NEPA, does not seem to adversely impact the daily functioning in patients undergoing cisplatin., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04201769 . Registration date: 17/12/2019 - Retrospectively registered., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Introduction: Advanced stage malignant mesothelioma (asMM) patients have poor prognosis. Several trials investigated the role of programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) and its ligand 1 (PD-L1) immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in pre-treated asMM., Methods: A systematic review of the literature of clinical trials testing single-agent anti PD-1/PD-L1 ICIs in pre-treated asMM was performed. Objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) data were extracted. The predictive role of PD-L1 was assessed., Results: We selected 13 studies including 888 patients. ORR and DCR were 18.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 13.9-22.8%) and 55.4% (95% CI: 48.1-62.5%), respectively. Median PFS and OS ranged from 2.1 to 5.9 and from 6.7 to 20.9 months, respectively. ORR according to PD-L1 was 27.0% (95% CI: 18.7-36.2%)., Conclusions: Anti-PD-(L)1 ICIs might be considered a treatment option for chemotherapy-resistant asMM, even if reliable predictive factors are still lacking., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: To reduce the overall exposure to dexamethasone (DEX) in patients receiving cisplatin-based chemotherapy, we evaluated the noninferiority of DEX on day 1, with or without low-dose DEX on days 2 and 3, combined with an oral fixed-dose combination of netupitant and palonosetron (NEPA), compared with the guideline-consistent use of 4-day DEX., Patients and Methods: In this open-label, multicenter study, chemotherapy-naïve patients undergoing high-dose cisplatin (≥70 mg/m 2 ), were given NEPA and DEX (12 mg) on day 1 and randomized (1:1:1 ratio) to receive either (a) no further DEX (DEX1), (b) oral DEX (4 mg daily) on days 2-3 (DEX3), or (c) DEX (4 mg twice daily) on days 2-4 (DEX4). The primary efficacy endpoint was complete response (CR: no emesis and no rescue medication) during the 5-day overall phase. The noninferiority margin was set at -15% difference (DEX1 or DEX3 minus DEX4). Secondary efficacy endpoints included complete protection (CP: CR and none or mild nausea)., Results: Two-hundred twenty-eight patients, 76 in each arm, were assessable. Noninferiority was met for both DEX-sparing regimens and the reference arm, with overall phase CR rates of 76.3% in each of the DEX1 and DEX3 arms and 75.0% in the DEX4 arm (95% confidence interval, -12.3% to 15% for each comparison). During the overall phase, CP rates were similar between groups., Conclusion: A simplified regimen of NEPA plus single-dose DEX offers comparable chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting prevention throughout 5 days post-chemotherapy with the advantage of sparing patients additional doses of DEX in the high-emetic-risk setting of cisplatin-based chemotherapy., Implications for Practice: Dexamethasone (DEX) has traditionally played an integral role in the management of chemotherapy-induced emesis. Although generally considered safe, even short-term DEX use is associated with various side effects, and some evidence suggests that concurrent steroids may reduce the efficacy of immunotherapies. This study demonstrates comparable antiemetic control during the 5 days post-chemotherapy with a simplified regimen of netupitant/palonosetron plus single-dose DEX versus the standard 4-day DEX reference treatment in high-dose cisplatin. This represents a clinically relevant achievement as it not only simplifies antiemetic prophylaxis but also offers an opportunity to appropriately use in patients where caution with corticosteroid use is advised., (© 2021 The Authors. The Oncologist published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of AlphaMed Press.)

Background: dNLR at the baseline (B), defined by neutrophils/[leucocytes-neutrophils], correlates with immune-checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) outcomes in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (aNSCLC). However, dNLR is dynamic under therapy and its longitudinal assessment may provide data predicting efficacy. We sought to examine the impact of dNLR dynamics on ICI efficacy and understand its biological significance., Patients and Methods: aNSCLC patients receiving ICI at 17 EU/US centres were included [Feb/13-Jun/18]. As chemotherapy-only group was evaluated (NCT02105168). dNLR was determined at (B) and at cycle2 (C2) [dNLR≤3 = low]. B+C2 dNLR were combined in one score: good = low (B+C2), poor = high (B+C2), intermediate = other situations. In 57 patients, we prospectively explored the immunophenotype of circulating neutrophils, particularly the CD15+CD244-CD16 low cells (immature) by flow cytometry., Results: About 1485 patients treatment with ICI were analysed. In ICI-treated patients, high dNLR (B) (~1/3rd) associated with worse progression-free (PFS)/overall survival (OS) (HR 1.56/HR 2.02, P < 0.0001) but not with chemotherapy alone (N = 173). High dNLR at C2 was associated with worse PFS/OS (HR 1.64/HR 2.15, P < 0.0001). When dNLR at both time points were considered together, those with persistently high dNLR (23%) had poor survival (mOS = 5 months (mo)), compared with high dNLR at one time point (22%; mOS = 9.2mo) and persistently low dNLR (55%; mOS = 18.6mo) (P < 0.0001). The dNLR impact remained significant after PD-L1 adjustment. By cytometry, high rate of immature neutrophils (B) (30/57) correlated with poor PFS/OS (P = 0.04; P = 0.0007), with a 12-week death rate of 49%., Conclusion: The dNLR (B) and its dynamics (C2) under ICI associate with ICI outcomes in aNSCLC. Persistently high dNLR (B+C2) correlated with early ICI failure. Immature neutrophils may be a key subpopulation on ICI resistance., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement LM: Sponsored Research: Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim. Consulting, advisory role: Roche Diagnostics, Takeda, Roche. Lectures and educational activities: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Tecnofarma, Roche. Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche. Mentorship program with key opinion leaders: funded by AstraZeneca. IP has served as a consultant for AstraZeneca, Pfizer and BluePrint Medicines. EA: Travel expenses: Mundipharma. Lectures and educational activities: Sanofi Genzymes. DS, HR, JR, SP, SC, FB, FT, MLR, PS, JG, AJP, MC, MN, CR, APM, LC and WPhad nothing to disclose. LH: none related to the current article, outside of the current article: research funding Roche Genentech, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca (all institution), advisory board: Boehringer, BMS, Eli Lilly, Roche Genentech, Pfizer, Takeda, MSD, Boehringer Ingelheim, Amgen (all institution), speaker: MSD, travel/conference reimbursement: Roche Genentech (self); mentorship program with key opinion leaders: funded by AstraZeneca; fees for educational webinars: Quadia (self), interview sessions funded by Roche Genentech (institution), local PI of clinical trials: AstraZeneca, Novartis, BMS, MSD/Merck, GSK, Takeda, Blueprint Medicines, Roche Genentech, Janssen Cilag. EN: none related to the current article, outside of the current article: research support from Roche and Pfizer; advisory boards from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Lilly, Roche, Pfizer, Takeda, Boehringer Ingelheim, Amgen and AstraZeneca. PM: Principal/subinvestigator of Clinical Trials for Abbvie, Adaptimmune, Aduro Biotech, Agios Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, Argen-X Bvba, Arno Therapeutics, Astex Pharmaceuticals, Astra Zeneca Ab, Aveo, Basilea Pharmaceutica International Ltd, Bayer Healthcare Ag, Bbb Technologies Bv, Beigene, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Pharmaceuticals, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ca, Celgene Corporation, Chugai Pharmaceutical Co, Clovis Oncology, Cullinan-Apollo, Daiichi Sankyo, Debiopharm, Eisai, Eisai Limited, Eli Lilly, Exelixis, Forma Tharapeutics, Gamamabs, Genentech, Glaxosmithkline, H3 Biomedicine, Hoffmann La Roche Ag, Imcheck Therapeutics, Innate Pharma, Institut De Recherche Pierre Fabre, Iris Servier, Janssen Cilag, Janssen Research Foundation, Kyowa Kirin Pharm. Dev, Lilly France, Loxo Oncology, Lytix Biopharma As, Medimmune, Menarini Ricerche, Merck Sharp & Dohme Chibret, Merrimack Pharmaceuticals, Merus, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Molecular Partners Ag, Nanobiotix, Nektar Therapeutics, Novartis Pharma, Octimet Oncology Nv, Oncoethix, Oncopeptides, Orion Pharma, Ose Pharma, Pfizer, Pharma Mar, Pierre Fabre, Medicament, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, Sotio A.S, Syros Pharmaceuticals, Taiho Pharma, Tesaro, Xencor Research Grants from Astrazeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen Cilag, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi Non-financial support (drug supplied) from Astrazeneca, Bayer, BMS, Boringher Ingelheim, Medimmune, Merck, NH TherAGuiX, Pfizer, Roche. CAV: Personal fees from Roche, AbbVie, MSD, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Astra Zeneca, Takeda and Ipsen. PB: Speaker bureau: AstraZeneca, BMS, Roche, MSD. Honoraria: Beigene. SN: Speaker Bureau/Advisor: Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer, Beigene, MSD, Roche, Takeda, Pfizer. MDH receives research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb; has been a compensated consultant for Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, Nektar, Syndax, Mirati, Shattuck Labs, Immunai, Blueprint Medicines, Achilles and Arcus; received travel support/honoraria from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly and Bristol-Myers Squibb; has options from Shattuck Labs, Immunai and Arcus; has a patent filed by his institution related to the use of tumour mutation burden to predict response to immunotherapy (PCT/US2015/062,208), which has received licensing fees from PGDx. GZ: Grants and personal fees from BMS, non-financial support from MSD, personal fees from Borhinger, non-financial support from Roche, personal fees from Astra-Zeneca, non-financial support from Abbvie, outside the submitted work. MM: Grants and personal fees from BMS, personal fees and non-financial support from MSD, personal fees and non-financial support from BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM, personal fees, non-financial support and other from ASTRA ZENENCA, personal fees, non-financial support and other from ROCHE, personal fees from KYOWA KYRIN, personal fees from PIERRE FABRE, outside the submitted work. LPA: Honoraria (self): Adacap, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Ipsen, Merck, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Pharmamar, Roche, Sanofi, Servier, Sysmex, Takeda; Leadership role: Altum sequencing; Research grant/Funding (self): AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Pfizer; Officer/Board of Directors Genómica. AMD: Consulting, advisory role or lectures: Roche, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Astra Zeneca, Pfizer, BMS, Amgen, Novartis, MSD, Takeda, Pharmamar. Research support: Amgen, Abbvie, BMS. DP: Consulting, advisory role or lectures: AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer; Ingelheim, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, prIME Oncology, Peer. CME, Roche. Honoraria: AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene. Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, prIME Oncology, Peer CME, Roche. Clinical trials research: AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Medimmune, Sanofi-Aventis, Taiho Pharma, Novocure, Daiichi Sankyo. Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: AstraZeneca, Roche, Novartis, prIME Oncology, Pfizer. NC: Sponsored Research at Gustave Roussy Cancer Center BMS fondation, GSK, Sanofi, advisory role and lectures: AstraZeneca. These are outside the scope of this work. GL: Research support Merck serono, BMS, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Blueprint medicines. KA: Consultant for Astrazeneca and Iovance Biotherapeutics. Her institution has received non-monetary research support from Takeda and Novartis on her behalf. BB: Sponsored Research at Gustave Roussy Cancer Center Abbvie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Blueprint Medicines, BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, GSK, Ignyta, IPSEN, Merck KGaA, MSD, Nektar, Onxeo, Pfizer, Pharma Mar, Sanofi, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Takeda, Tiziana Pharma., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)