Search

Background: Diffuse pleural mesothelioma (dPM) is an aggressive malignancy, primarily treated with palliative systemic therapy. Since 2022, nivolumab-ipilimumab (nivo/ipi) has replaced chemotherapy as the standard first-line treatment for dPM in the Netherlands. Chemotherapy remains a rational second-line treatment. The real-world effectiveness of second-line treatment after doublet immunotherapy remains unknown. The FLORA study aimed to provide an overview of treatment patterns in patients with dPM after first-line nivo/ipi and evaluate the effectiveness of second-line chemotherapy based on real-world data., Patients and Methods: FLORA was a Dutch multicenter retrospective cohort study. Clinical data were collected from the medical records. The primary endpoints were treatment patterns after nivo/ipi and median overall survival (mOS) of patients receiving second-line chemotherapy. The secondary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR), median progression-free survival (mPFS) of second-line chemotherapy, and subgroup analyses (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status and histological subtype). The study also updated the mOS for first-line nivo/ipi patients., Results: Between May 2021 and July 2023, 277 patients with dPM receiving first-line nivo/ipi therapy were included. Sixty-eight percent of the patients were male, with a median age of 72 years (interquartile range 67-77 years). The histological subtypes were epithelioid (62%), sarcomatoid (22%), biphasic (13%), and unknown (3%). One hundred and two (47%) of the 218 patients with disease progression received second-line treatment, of whom 83 received second-line platinum-pemetrexed chemotherapy. The mOS and mPFS for second-line chemotherapy were 8.2 months ([95% confidence interval (CI) 7.4-9.1 months] and 5.6 months (95% CI 4.9-6.3 months), respectively, with an ORR of 37%. Poor performance score was the main reason for not receiving second-line treatment., Conclusion: This study provides the first real-world data on subsequent treatment of patients with dPM with disease progression on nivo/ipi, resulting in an mOS of 8.2 months after second-line chemotherapy., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Atezolizumab is a programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) checkpoint inhibitor for the treatment of different forms of cancer. The subcutaneous formulation of atezolizumab has recently received approval. However, treatment with atezolizumab continues to be expensive, and the number of patients needing treatment with this drug continues to increase., Objective: We propose two alternative dosing regimens for subcutaneous atezolizumab to reduce drug expenses while ensuring effective exposure; one may be directly implemented in the clinic., Patients and Methods: We developed two alternative dose interval prolongation strategies based on pharmacokinetic modeling and simulation. The first dosing regimen was based on patients' weight while maintaining equivalent systemic drug exposure by adhering to Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidelines for in silico dose adjustments. The second dosing regimen aimed to have a minimum atezolizumab concentration above the 6 µg/mL threshold, associated with 95% intratumoral PD-L1 receptor saturation for at least 95% of all patients., Results: We found that, for the weight-based dosing regimen, the approved 3-week dosing interval could be extended to 5 weeks for patients < 50 kg and 4 weeks for patients weighing 50-65 kg. Besides improving patient convenience, these alternative dosing intervals led to a predicted 7% and 12% cost reduction for either the USA or European population. For the second dosing regimen, we predicted that a 6-week dosing interval would result in 95% of the patients above the 6 µg/mL threshold while reducing costs by 50%., Conclusions: We have developed and evaluated two alternative dosing regimens that resulted in a cost reduction. Our weight-based dosing regimen can be directly implemented and complies with FDA guidelines for alternative dosing regimens of PD-L1 inhibitors. For the more progressive alternative dosing regimen aimed at the intratumoral PD-L1 receptor threshold, further evidence on efficacy and safety is needed before implementation., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Sotorasib given after immunotherapy could put patients at increased risk of hepatotoxicity. Therefore, there is a need to gain insight into the potential correlation between anti-PD-(L)1 treatment, anti-PD-(L)1 concentrations, sotorasib concentrations, and the incidence of hepatotoxicity during sotorasib., Methods: Patients with KRAS G12C -mutated NSCLC treated with sotorasib were prospectively enrolled in our biomarker cohort study (NCT05221372). Plasma samples were collected prior and during sotorasib treatment for anti-PD-1 and sotorasib concentrations. ALT/AST/ALP/GGT increases were collected prospectively and graded according to CTCAEv5.0. Severe hepatotoxicity was defined as grade ≥3 ALT/AST/ALP/GGT increase., Findings: Of the 91 included patients, 80 (88%) received prior anti-PD-(L)1. Prior anti-PD-(L)1 and prior immune-related hepatotoxicity were associated with a higher incidence of severe hepatotoxicity (35% versus 0%, p = 0.016 and 75% versus 31%, p = 0.019, respectively). Patients with an interval of ≤6 weeks between anti-PD-(L)1 and sotorasib (n = 18) had a significantly higher incidence of severe hepatotoxicity than those with a 6-12 week (n = 24) and ≥12 week (n = 38) interval (83% versus 33% versus 13%, respectively, p < 0.0001). Sotorasib trough concentrations did not differ significantly between those with or without severe hepatotoxicity (106 versus 126 ng/mL, p = 0.16). Pembrolizumab concentrations were higher in those with severe hepatotoxicity versus those without (25.6 versus 6.1 μg/mL, p < 0.0001)., Interpretation: In this preliminary prospective study, sotorasib after PD-(L)1 blockade was associated with severe hepatotoxicity, especially in patients with a short interval between treatments, prior immune-related hepatitis and higher anti-PD-1 plasma concentrations. Our results suggest a minimum interval of 6 weeks between anti-PD-(L)1 and sotorasib to minimize the risk of hepatotoxicity., Funding: None., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests M.S. Paats reports receiving institutional fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and Takeda; outside the current work. J.G.J.V. Aerts reports receiving advisory board and speakers fees from Eli Lilly, BMS, MSD, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Amphera and is a stock owner of Amphera; outside the current work. D.W. Dumoulin reports receiving consulting fees from BMS, MSD, Pfizer, Amgen and Roche; outside the current work. R.C. Cornelissen reports receiving advisory board and speakers fees from MSD, Janssen, Librerium and Spectrum; outside the current work. J.H. von der Thüsen reports receiving advisory board and speakers fees from Eli Lilly, BMS, MSD, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Janssen, Pfizer, Amgen, and institutional receipt of materials of Roche; outside the current work. R.H.J. Mathijssen reports receiving institutional fees for investigator-initiated trials from Astellas, Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Cristal Therapeutics, Novartis, Pamgene, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi and Servier; outside the current work. S.L.W. Koolen reports receiving speakers fee from Promise Proteomics; outside the current work. A.C Dingemans reports receiving institutional fees from Roche, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Chiezi, Amgen, Pfizer, Bayer, Takeda, Pharmamar, Sanofi and Daiichi, and grants from the Dutch Cancer Society, HANARTH and Amgen paid to the institution; outside the current work; chair EORTC Lung Cancer group. All other authors report no disclosures., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. 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: Nivolumab (anti-PD-1) plus ipilimumab (anti-CTLA-4) is a new first-line treatment combination for patients with pleural mesothelioma. Nivolumab-ipilimumab improved the survival, however, 30.3% of the patients suffered from grade 3-4 treatment related adverse events (TRAE's) and TRAE's led to discontinuation in 23.0% of all patients. Here, we present the first real-world data of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with malignant mesothelioma treated in two mesothelioma expert centers., Methods: Clinical data of patients with mesothelioma treated with nivolumab and ipilimumab were prospectively collected. Clinical parameters were obtained every visit, CT scans were evaluated every 12 weeks and adverse events were assessed continuously during the treatment. Data on grade 2-5 TRAE's and activity (overall response rate (ORR), duration of response (DOR), disease control rate (DCR), median progression-free survival (mPFS) and median overall survival (mOS) were reported., Results: Between January 2021 and August 2022, 184 patients were treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab. The median follow-up was 12.1 months (95 %CI 11.1 - 13.1). Grade 3-4 TRAEs were seen in 27.7 % of the patients and 25.0 % discontinued immunotherapy treatment early because of TRAE's. ORR was 21.7 % (95 % CI 15.7-27.7), median DOR was 5.7 months (IQR 3.2-8.7) and DCR at 12 weeks 56.0 % (95 % CI 48.8-63.2). The mPFS was 5.5 months (95 %CI 4.1-6.9), mOS was 14.1 months (95 % CI 11.1-18.2)., Conclusions: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab had an equal efficacy in a real-world comparable population but also a high risk of TRAE's, leading to discontinuation of treatment in 25% of the patients., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: This study describes the evolving characteristics of patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) from 1989 to 2020 in the Netherlands to analyse how the population of patients with SCLC has changed in the last decades, hypothesising that this might explain the little progress made in SCLC., Methods: Patients with SCLC diagnosed from 1989 to 2020 were selected from the Dutch cancer registry. Incidence, patient and disease characteristics, treatments, and overall survival (OS) were analysed. Joinpoint analyses were used to test annual percentage changes for statistical significance., Results: A total of 52,527 patients were diagnosed with SCLC. The absolute numbers of patients with SCLC remained equal over the years; however, the incidence rates decreased from 15.01 to 8.93 per 100,000 person-years. The proportion of women increased from 22% to 50%, and those aged ≥75 years increased from 20% to 25%. The latter coincided with a higher proportion receiving only the best supportive care (BSC) over the years (18-24%). The use of surgery in stage I increased from 2% to 37%. The proportion of patients diagnosed with stage IV increased from 46% to 70% due to better staging. The OS improved for all stages, with a 2-year OS rate for stage IV doubling from 3% to 6%., Conclusion: The incidence of SCLC has significantly decreased over the last 30 years, with an increasing proportion of elderly and women. The male-female ratio became similar, and the OS improved. As a consequence of more elderly and probably more vulnerable patients, more patients received only the BSC., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships, which may be considered as potential competing interests: Authors’ disclosures of potential conflicts of interest. The authors declare no relevant conflict of interest related to the published manuscript. Relevant financial activities outside the submitted work: DD reports consulting for MSD and Amgen and receiving speakers fee from BMS, Roche, Pfizer, and MSD. DR reports receiving grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Beigene, Philips, Olink; and other fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Philips, and Olink, outside of the submitted work. JGJVA reports receiving commercial research grants from Amphera, Eli-Lilly, and Roche, holds ownership interest (including patents) in Amphera BV, and is a consultant/advisory board member for Amphera, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli-Lilly, MSD, Takeda, Bayer, Astra Zeneca, and Roche. AD reports receiving grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb, AbbVie, and Amgen; and other fees from Roche, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Amgen, Novartis, MSD, Takeda, and PharmaMar outside of the submitted work., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Alectinib is a standard-of-care treatment for metastatic ALK+ NSCLC. Weight gain is an unexplored side effect reported in approximately 10%. To prevent or intervene alectinib-induced weight gain, more insight in its extent and etiology is needed., Methods: Change in body composition was analyzed in a prospective series of 46 patients with ALK+ NSCLC, treated with alectinib. Waist circumference, visceral adipose tissue (VAT), subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT), and skeletal muscle were quantified using sliceOmatic software on computed tomography images at baseline, 3 months (3M), and 1 year (1Y). To investigate an exposure-toxicity relationship, alectinib plasma concentrations were quantified. Four patients with more than 10 kg weight gain were referred to Erasmus MC Obesity Center CGG for in-depth analysis (e.g., assessments of appetite, dietary habits, other lifestyle, medical and psychosocial factors, and extensive metabolic and endocrine assessments, including resting energy expenditure)., Results: Mean increase in waist circumference was 9 cm (9.7%, p < 0.001) in 1Y with a 40% increase in abdominal obesity (p = 0.014). VAT increased to 10.8 cm 2 (15.0%, p = 0.003) in 3M and 35.7 cm 2 (39.0%, p < 0.001) in 1Y. SAT increased to 18.8 cm 2 (12.4%, p < 0.001) in 3M and 45.4 cm 2 (33.3%, p < 0.001) in 1Y. The incidence of sarcopenic obesity increased from 23.7% to 47.4% during 1Y of treatment. Baseline waist circumference was a positive predictor of increase in VAT (p = 0.037). No exposure-toxicity relationship was found. In-depth analysis (n = 4) revealed increased appetite in two patients and metabolic syndrome in all four patients., Conclusions: Alectinib may cause relevant increased sarcopenic abdominal obesity, with increases of both VAT and SAT, quickly after initiation. This may lead to many serious metabolic, physical, and mental disturbances in long-surviving patients., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Alectinib is the keystone treatment in advanced anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive (ALK+) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). An exposure-response threshold of 435 ng/mL has recently been established, albeit 37% of patients do not reach this threshold. Alectinib is orally administered, and absorption is largely influenced by food. Hence, further investigation into this relationship is needed to optimize its bioavailability., Patients and Methods: In this randomized 3-period crossover clinical study in ALK+ NSCLC, alectinib exposure was compared among patients with different diets. Every 7 days, the first alectinib dose was taken with either a continental breakfast, 250-g of low-fat yogurt, or a self-chosen lunch, and the second dose was taken with a self-chosen dinner. Sampling for alectinib exposure (Ctrough) was performed at day 8, just prior to alectinib intake, and the relative difference in Ctrough was compared., Results: In 20 evaluable patients, the mean Ctrough was 14% (95% CI, -23% to -5%; P=.009) and 20% (95% CI, -25% to -14%; P<.001) lower when taken with low-fat yogurt compared with a continental breakfast and a self-chosen lunch, respectively. Administration with a self-chosen lunch did not change exposure compared with a continental breakfast (+7%; 95% CI, -2% to +17%; P=.243). In the low-fat yogurt period, 35% of patients did not reach the threshold versus 5% with the other meals (P<.01)., Conclusions: Patients and physicians should be warned for a detrimental food-drug interaction when alectinib is taken with low-fat yogurt, because it results in a clinically relevant lower alectinib exposure. Intake with a self-chosen lunch did not change drug exposure and could be a safe and patient-friendly alternative.

Background: Expensive novel anticancer drugs put a serious strain on healthcare budgets, and the associated drug expenses limit access to life-saving treatments worldwide., Objective: We aimed to develop alternative dosing regimens to reduce drug expenses., Methods: We developed alternative dosing regimens for the following monoclonal antibodies used for the treatment of lung cancer: amivantamab, atezolizumab, bevacizumab, durvalumab, ipilimumab, nivolumab, pembrolizumab, and ramucirumab; and for the antibody-drug conjugate trastuzumab deruxtecan. The alternative dosing regimens were developed by means of modeling and simulation based on the population pharmacokinetic models developed by the license holders. They were based on weight bands and the administration of complete vials to limit drug wastage. The resulting dosing regimens were developed to comply with criteria used by regulatory authorities for in silico dose development., Results: We found that alternative dosing regimens could result in cost savings that range from 11 to 28%, and lead to equivalent pharmacokinetic exposure with no relevant increases in variability in exposure., Conclusions: Dosing regimens based on weight bands and the use of complete vials to reduce drug wastage result in less expenses while maintaining equivalent exposure. The level of evidence of our proposal is the same as accepted by regulatory authorities for the approval of alternative dosing regimens of other monoclonal antibodies in oncology. The proposed alternative dosing regimens can, therefore, be directly implemented in clinical practice., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Despite the progress in outcomes seen with immunotherapy in various malignancies, including nonsmall cell lung cancer, the benefits are less in small cell lung cancer, malignant pleural mesothelioma and thymic epithelial tumours. New effective treatment options are needed, guided via more in-depth insights into the pathophysiology of these rare malignancies. This review comprehensively presents an overview of the clinical presentation, diagnostic tools, staging systems, pathophysiology and treatment options for these rare thoracic cancers. In addition, opportunities for further improvement of therapies are discussed., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: D.W. Dumoulin reports personal fees from Roche, BMS, MSD, Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Novartis. P. Bironzo declares honoraria from AstraZeneca, BMS, BeiGene, Roche and Takeda; an institutional research grant from Roche and Pfizer; and virtual meeting registration from Amgen and Daiichi Sankyo. F. Passiglia declares advisory/consultant fees from MSD, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Amgen, Sanofi, Beigene and Thermofisher Scientific. G.V. Scagliotti declares honoraria from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Johnson & Johnson and Takeda; consulting or advisory roles for Eli Lilly, Beigene, AstraZeneca and Verastem; institutional research funding from Eli Lilly, MSD and Tesaro; and travel and accommodation from Bayer. J.G.J.V. Aerts declares honoraria and nonfinancial support from MSD, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Amphera, Eli Lilly, Takeda, Bayer, Roche and AstraZeneca, outside the submitted work. In addition, J.G.J.V. Aerts has a patent allogenic tumour cell lysate licensed to Amphera, a patent combination immunotherapy in cancer pending, and a patent biomarker for immunotherapy pending., (Copyright ©The authors 2023.)

Purpose: Pemetrexed is a chemotherapeutic drug in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer and mesothelioma. Optimized dosing of pemetrexed based on renal function instead of body surface area (BSA) is hypothesized to reduce pharmacokinetic variability in systemic exposure and could therefore improve treatment outcomes. The aim of this study is to compare optimized dosing to standard BSA-based dosing., Methods: A multicenter randomized (1:1) controlled trial was performed to assess superiority of optimized dosing versus BSA-based dosing in patients who were eligible for pemetrexed-based chemotherapy. The individual exposure to pemetrexed in terms of area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) was determined. The fraction of patients attaining to a predefined typical target AUC (164 mg × h/L ± 25%) was calculated., Results: A total of 81 patients were included. Target attainment was not statistically significant different between both arms (89% vs. 84% (p = 0.505)). The AUC of pemetrexed was similar between the optimized dosing arm (n = 37) and the standard of care arm (n = 44) (155 mg × h/L vs 160 mg × h/L (p = 0.436)., Conclusion: We could not show superiority of optimized dosing of pemetrexed in patients with an adequate renal function does not show added value on the attainment of a pharmacokinetic endpoint, safety, nor QoL compared to standard of care dosing., Clinical Trial Number: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03655821., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Immune checkpoint inhibitors have revolutionised cancer treatment by offering durable responses to many patients with solid and haematological cancers. The high prices and increasing use of immune checkpoint inhibitors put considerable strain on health-care budgets globally. This financial strain could jeopardise patients' access to these anti-cancer therapies. However, substantial evidence suggests that immune checkpoint inhibitors are being administered at doses that exceed the minimum dose required for maximum anti-tumour efficacy. Therefore, investigating and implementing the most cost-effective dosing strategies for immune checkpoint inhibitors are urgently necessary. This Personal View provides an overview of existing data on immune checkpoint inhibitor pharmacology and (novel) dosing strategies for anti-PD-1 therapy with nivolumab and pembrolizumab, with a special focus on cost-effectiveness and saving potential. Furthermore, specific recommendations to guide health-care professionals are provided, through the process of prescribing, rounding, preparing, and administering nivolumab and pembrolizumab in the most practical and cost-effective way possible., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests DWD reports speakers fees from Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca, all outside the submitted work. JJMAH reports an unconditional grant for patient benefit program from Merck, outside the submitted work and paid to the institution. JGJVA reports speaker fees from Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and BIOCAD; patents issued on allogenic tumour cell lysate and on combination immuno-oncology, owned by the Erasmus Medical Center Cancer Institute; participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Eli Lilly, Biocad, Amphera, and Merck Sharp & Dohme; unpaid leadership role for the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer; stock or stock options for Amphera; and present participation in more than 60 clinical trials related to oncology (all compensation paid to the institution), all outside the submitted work. AAMvdV reports consulting fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Sanofi, Pierre-Fabre, Ipsen, Eisai, Pfizer, Roche, and Novartis outside the submitted work. RWFvL reports consulting fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Pierre Fabre, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bayer, and Sanofi; and speaker's fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer and Astellas, all outside the submitted work. All other authors declare no competing interests. This Personal View was not supported by external funding., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Lurbinectedin is a promising new drug being investigated in pre-treated patients with small cell lung cancer (SCLC) or malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). Its clinical activity in the real-world setting has not been investigated yet., Patients and Methods: Clinical data of patients with SCLC and MPM who were treated with lurbinectedin were prospectively collected. Comprehensive immune cell profiling by flow cytometry was performed on screening and treating peripheral blood samples., Results: A total of 95 patients (43 SCLC and 52 MPM) were treated, mostly as ≥3-line of therapy. In the SCLC cohort, a median progression-free survival (mPFS) was 1.5 months (95% CI: 1.4-3.0), and median overall survival was 7.0 months (95% CI: 4.7-not reached). Objective radiological response and disease control rate after 12 weeks were 16% and 28%, respectively. In the MPM cohort, median progression-free survival was 2.8 months (95% CI: 1.4-4.2), and median overall survival was 7.2 months (95% CI: 5.9-not reached). Disease control rate after 12 weeks was 29%, whereas no partial responses were registered. No new safety signals were observed. Lurbinectedin treatment was significantly associated with the depletion of circulating classical monocytes, which correlated with a better PFS in patients with SCLC. Lurbinectedin increased the proliferation of CD4 + and CD8 + T cells (SCLC) and natural killer and natural killer T cells (SCLC and MPM) and altered co-stimulatory and co-inhibitory receptor expression on circulating lymphocytes., Conclusion: Lurbinectedin has a manageable safety profile and shows clinical activity in pre-treated patients with SCLC and MPM. Its immune-modulatory functions make lurbinectedin a potential platform for immunotherapy combinations., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: The authors declare no relevant conflict of interest related to the published manuscript. Relevant financial activities outside the submitted work: DD reports receiving speakers fee from BMS, Roche, Pfizer, and Novartis. LC is granted by ESMO with an ESMO Translational Research Fellowship. Any views, opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those solely of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of ESMO. RC reports consulting for Roche, MSD, Boehringer Ingelheim and receiving speaker's fee from BMS, Roche, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis. AD reports receiving grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb, AbbVie, and Amgen; and other fees from Roche, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Amgen, Novartis, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Takeda, and PharmaMar outside of the submitted work. JGJVA reports receiving commercial research grants from Amphera, Eli-Lilly and Roche, holds ownership interest (including patents) in Amphera BV, and is a consultant/advisory board member for Amphera, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli-Lilly, MSD, Takeda, Bayer, Astra Zeneca and Roche. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: The rechallenge of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) is now an optional strategy for patients who discontinued ICI due to immune-related adverse events (irAEs) or disease progression. However, little data is available for the prognosis and prognostic factors of patients receiving ICI rechallenge treatment in advanced lung cancer patients. Our study aimed to explore the efficacy, prognosis and safety of patients who received anti-programmed cell death-1/programmed cell death ligand 1 (anti-PD-1/PD-L1) inhibitor rechallenge., Methods: In our retrospective cohort study, data of advanced lung cancer patients who received anti-PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor and discontinued due to irAEs or disease progression were collected from December 2016 to August 2021. Enrolled patients were categorized into two groups: rechallenge group (R group) and non-rechallenge group (NR group). Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), disease control rate (DCR) and safety data were analyzed. Cox model and subgroup analysis were analyzed according to baseline characteristics, ICI type, the reason for discontinuing ICI, etc. According to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors Version 1.1 (RECIST 1.1), evaluation was performed routinely every 6-8 weeks after initiating treatment with the PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor. The last follow-up in the study was on September 20, 2021., Results: Eighty-one patients who met our inclusion criteria were enrolled. In the whole cohort, the R group achieved better OS than the NR group [hazard ratio (HR) =0.176; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.065-0.477; P=0.001). In the irAEs group, the survival analyses showed a trend toward improved OS in the rechallenge subgroup (HR =0.287; 95% CI: 0.081-1.025; P=0.055), and a promising DCR of 75% after an ICI rechallenge. Additionally, the exploration of safety outcomes indicated an acceptable recurrence rate (22.5%) of irAEs and an early onset of irAEs after an ICI rechallenge. In the disease progression group, the rechallenge subgroup did not improve OS (HR =0.214; 95% CI: 0.027-1.695; P=0.144), and the DCR of the rechallenge subgroup was 40% after ICI rechallenge., Conclusions: ICI rechallenge might be an attractive option for patients who discontinue treatment due to irAEs. For patients with disease progression, further research should be conducted. The recurrence of irAEs and their early onset during the second round of ICI should be considered., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://tlcr.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/tlcr-22-360/coif). DWD reports receiving payment for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events by Roche, BMS, MSD, Pfizer and Astra Zeneca. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (2022 Translational Lung Cancer Research. All rights reserved.)

Aim of the Study: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic significantly impacted cancer care. In this study, clinical patient characteristics related to COVID-19 outcomes and advanced care planning, in terms of non-oncological treatment restrictions (e.g. do-not-resuscitate codes), were studied in patients with cancer and COVID-19., Methods: The Dutch Oncology COVID-19 Consortium registry was launched in March 2020 in 45 hospitals in the Netherlands, primarily to identify risk factors of a severe COVID-19 outcome in patients with cancer. Here, an updated analysis of the registry was performed, and treatment restrictions (e.g. do-not-intubate codes) were studied in relation to COVID-19 outcomes in patients with cancer. Oncological treatment restrictions were not taken into account., Results: Between 27th March 2020 and 4th February 2021, 1360 patients with cancer and COVID-19 were registered. Follow-up data of 830 patients could be validated for this analysis. Overall, 230 of 830 (27.7%) patients died of COVID-19, and 60% of the remaining 600 patients with resolved COVID-19 were admitted to the hospital. Patients with haematological malignancies or lung cancer had a higher risk of a fatal outcome than other solid tumours. No correlation between anticancer therapies and the risk of a fatal COVID-19 outcome was found. In terms of end-of-life communication, 50% of all patients had restrictions regarding life-prolonging treatment (e.g. do-not-intubate codes). Most identified patients with treatment restrictions had risk factors associated with fatal COVID-19 outcome., Conclusion: There was no evidence of a negative impact of anticancer therapies on COVID-19 outcomes. Timely end-of-life communication as part of advanced care planning could save patients from prolonged suffering and decrease burden in intensive care units. Early discussion of treatment restrictions should therefore be part of routine oncological care, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: P.H. reports consulting fees from Astellas, MSD, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, BMS, Ipsen, all outside the submitted work; D.D. reports personal speakers fees from MSD, Roche, AstraZeneca, BMS, Novartis, Pfizer, all outside the submitted work; EGEdV reports an advisory role at Daiichi Sankyo, NSABP and Sanofi (all outside the submitted work and paid to UMCG), and research funding from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Chugai Pharma, Crescendo, CytomX Therapeutics, G1 Therapeutics, Genentech, Nordic Nanovector, Radius Health, Regeneron, Roche, Servier and Synthon (all outside the submitted work and paid to UMCG); L.H. reports others from boehringer ingelheim, others from BMS, others from Roche Genentech, others from BMS, grants from Roche Genentech, grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, others from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Quadia, grants from Astra Zeneca, others from Eli Lilly, others from Roche Genentech, others from Pfizer, others from MSD, others from Takeda, non-financial support from AstraZeneca, non-financial support from Novartis, non-financial support from BMS, non-financial support from MSD/Merck, non-financial support from GSK, non-financial support from Takeda, non-financial support from Blueprint Medicines, non-financial support from Roche Genentech, others from Amgen, all outside the submitted work; H.W. reports personal fees and non-financial support from Astellas, personal fees from roche, non-financial support from Ipsen, all outside the submitted work; JH has received financial compensation for advisory roles from Achilles Tx, BMS, BioNTech, Eisai, Immunocore, Instil Bio, Ipsen, MSD, Merk Serono, Molecular Partners, Neogene Tx, PokeAcel, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, T-knife, Third Rock Ventures, all outside the submitted work. JH received research grants from Amgen, Asher Bio, BMS, BioNTech, MSD and Novartis, all outside the submitted work. JH owns stock options from Neogene Therapeutics, outside the submitted work; A.D. reports personal fees from Roche, Eli Lily, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, BMS, Novartis, Takeda, Pharmamar, non-financial support from Abbvie, grants from BMS, grants from Amgen, all outside the submitted work; A.V. reports advisory board of BMS, MSD, Merck, Pfizer, Ipsen, Eisai, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Novartis, Sanofi, all paid to Erasmus MC and outside the submitted work; J.G. reports advisory board of Pierre Fabre, BMS, MSD, and Servier, all outside the submitted work; T.H. reports grants from Roche, Astra Zeneca, BMS, advisory board from MSD and BMS, congress support from Takeda, all outside the submitted work; K.S. reports grants and personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Roche, Pierre Fabre, and Abbvie, all outside the submitted work; all remaining authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Metabolic reprogramming is a major feature of many tumors including non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Branched-chain α-keto acid dehydrogenase kinase (BCKDK) plays an important role in diabetes, obesity, and other diseases. However, the function of BCKDK in NSCLC is unclear. This study aimed to explore the function of BCKDK in NSCLC., Methods: Metabolites in the serum of patients with NSCLC and the supernatant of NSCLC cell cultures were detected using nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy. Colony formation, cell proliferation, and cell apoptosis were assessed to investigate the function of BCKDK in the progression of NSCLC. Glucose uptake, lactate production, cellular oxygen consumption rate, extracellular acidification rate, and reactive oxygen species (ROS) were measured to examine the function of BCKDK in glucose metabolism. The expression of BCKDK was measured using reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction, western blot, and immunohistochemical assay., Results: Compared with healthy controls and postoperative NSCLC patients, increased branched-chain amino acid (BCAA) and decreased citrate were identified in the serum of preoperative NSCLC patients. Upregulation of BCKDK affected the metabolism of BCAAs and citrate in NSCLC cells. Knockout of BCKDK decreased the proliferation and exacerbated apoptosis of NSCLC cells ex vivo, while increased oxidative phosphorylation and, ROS levels, and inhibited glycolysis., Conclusions: BCKDK may influence glycolysis and oxidative phosphorylation by regulating the degradation of BCAA and citrate, thereby affecting the progression of NSCLC., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://dx.doi.org/10.21037/tlcr-21-885). The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (2021 Translational Lung Cancer Research. All rights reserved.)

Background: Paraneoplastic neurological syndromes with anti-Hu antibodies (Hu-PNS) have a very poor prognosis: more than half of the patients become bedridden and median survival is less than 12 months. Several lines of evidence suggest a pathogenic T cell-mediated immune response. Therefore, we conducted a prospective open-label phase II trial with natalizumab., Methods: Twenty Hu-PNS patients with progressive disease were treated with a maximum of three monthly natalizumab cycles (300 mg). The primary outcome measure was functional improvement, this was defined as at least one point decrease in modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score at the last treatment visit. In addition, treatment response was assessed wherein a mRS score ≤3 after treatment was defined as treatment responsive., Results: The median age at onset was 67.8 years (SD 8.4) with a female predominance ( n = 17, 85%). The median time from symptom onset to Hu-PNS diagnosis was 5 months (IQR 2-11). Most patients had subacute sensory neuronopathy ( n = 15, 75%), with a median mRS of 4 at baseline. Thirteen patients had a tumor, all small cell lung cancer. After natalizumab treatment, two patients (10%) showed functional improvement. Of the remaining patients, 60% had a stable functional outcome, while 30% showed further deterioration. Treatment response was classified as positive in nine patients (45%)., Conclusions: Natalizumab may ameliorate the disease course in Hu-PNS, but no superior effects above other reported immunosuppressive and immunomodulatory were observed. More effective treatment modalities are highly needed., Trial Registration: https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/trial/2014-000675-13/NL., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press, the Society for Neuro-Oncology and the European Association of Neuro-Oncology.)

Objective: In this review, the concept of (synchronous) oligometastatic disease in patients with non-oncogene-driven non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) will be placed in the context of tumor biology and metastatic growth patterns. We will also provide considerations for clinical practice and future perspectives, which will ultimately lead to better patient selection and oligometastatic disease outcome., Background: The treatment landscape of metastasized NSCLC has moved from "one-size fits all" to a personalized approach. Prognosis has traditionally been poor but new treatment options, such as immunotherapy and targeted therapy, brighten future perspectives. Another emerging development is the recognition of patients with so-called "oligometastatic" state of disease. Oligometastatic disease has been recognized as a distinct clinical presentation in which the tumor is stated to be early in its evolution of metastatic potential. It is suggested that this stage of disease has an indolent course, comes with a better prognosis and therefore could be considered for radical multimodality treatment., Methods: Narrative overview of the literature synthesizing the findings of literature retrieved from searches of computerized databases, hand searches, and authoritative texts., Conclusions: Oligometastatic NSCLC is a broad spectrum disease, with a variable prognosis. Although the biology and behavior of "intermediate state" of metastatic disease are not fully understood, there is evidence that a subgroup of patients can benefit from local radical treatment when integrated into a multimodality regime. The consensus definition of oligometastatic NSCLC, including accurate staging, may help to uniform future trials. The preferable treatment strategy seems to sequential systemic treatment with subsequent local radical treatment in patients with a partial response or stable disease. Prognostic factors such as N-stage, number and site of distant metastases, tumor volume, performance status, age, and tumor type should be considered. The local radical treatment strategy has to be discussed in a multidisciplinary team meeting, taking into account patient characteristics and invasiveness of the procedure. However, many aspects remain to be explored and learned about the cancer biology and characteristics of intermediate state tumors., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://dx.doi.org/10.21037/tlcr-21-265). The series “Oligometastatic NSCLC: definition and treatment opportunities” was commissioned by the editorial office without any funding or sponsorship. DWD reports consulting fees from Roche, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Astra Zeneca, BMS, outside the submitted work. RC reports speaker fee from Roche, Pfizer and BMS, personal fees from Advisory board of MSD, Roche and Spectrum, outside the submitted work. AMCD reports personal fees from Roche, eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Astra Zeneca, Pfizer, BMS, Amgen, Novartis, Takeda, Pharmamar and MSD, grants from BMS and Amgen, non-financial support from Abbvie, outside the submitted work. The authors have no other conflicts of interest to declare., (2021 Translational Lung Cancer Research. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: NTRK fusion genes have been found in several solid tumors, among which NSCLC and sarcoma. Novel NTRK translocation-related tumors are still being discovered., Methods: We report a 49-year-old patient with a mass in the left lower lung lobe that was resected. This specimen was analyzed and sequenced using targeted DNA next generation sequencing (NGS) and anchored-multiplex-PCR (AMP) targeted RNA NGS., Results: On pathological evaluation, a peribronchial mucinous neoplasm with a unique morphology was found. RNA NGS analysis showed anETV6-NTRK3 translocation in a low-grade mucinous bronchial adenocarcinoma., Conclusions: This entity represents a novel subtype of non-small cell lung cancer, which we would like to term 'ETV6-NTRK3 translocation-associated low-grade mucinous bronchial adenocarcinoma'., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Chemotherapy with or without radiotherapy has been the standard of care for many years for patients with small cell lung cancer (SCLC). Despite exceptionally high responses (up to 80%) with chemotherapy, the majority of patients relapse rapidly within weeks to months after treatment completion. Therefore, new and better treatment options are necessary. Recently, synergistic activity has been reported for the addition of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) to standard platinum-based chemotherapy in the therapeutic strategy of advanced SCLC. For the first time after several decades, a significant survival improvement was achieved for this population. However, the overwhelming majority of patients do not respond to ICI, or relapse rapidly. There is need for better knowledge about the biology, histopathologic features, and molecular pathways of SCLC. This can probably help to identify the optimal predictive biomarkers, which are warranted to develop an individual therapeutic strategy including the rational use of a combination of immunotherapeutic agents. Here, we provide an overview of the rationale for and clinical results of the completed and ongoing trials using different strategies of immunotherapy in SCLC. In addition, opportunities for further improvement of therapies will be discussed, including the addition of radiotherapy, co-stimulatory antibodies, and other immune modifying agents., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/tlcr-20-630). The series “Immunotherapy in other thoracic malignancies and uncommon populations” was commissioned by the editorial office without any funding or sponsorship. JGJV Aerts serves as an unpaid editorial board member of Translational Lung Cancer Research from Sep 2019 to Sep 2021. JR served as the unpaid Guest Editor of the series and serves as an unpaid editorial board member of Translational Lung Cancer Research from Sep 2019 to Sep 2021. DD reports personal fees from Roche, personal fees from BMS, personal fees from MSD, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Astra Zeneca, personal fees from Novartis, outside the submitted work. AMD reports other from Roche, other from BOEHRINGER, other from Pharmamar, other from Pfizer, other from Takeda, grants and other from BMS, other from Lilly, grants from Abbvie, outside the submitted work. JGJVA reports personal fees and non-financial support from msd, personal fees from bms, personal fees from boehringer ingelheim, personal fees from amphera, personal fees from eli-lilly, personal fees from takeda, personal fees from bayer, personal fees from roche, personal fees from astra zeneca, outside the submitted work; In addition, Dr. JGJVA has a patent allogenic tumor cell lysate licensed to amphera, a patent combination immunotherapy in cancer pending, and a patent biomarker for immunotherapy pending. JR reports other from MSD, other from Boehringer, other from Pfizer, personal fees and other from Ose Immunotherapeutics, other from BMS, other from AstraZeneca, other from Roche, outside the submitted work. DDR reports grants from Boehringer, other from Celgene, grants and other from BMS, other from Pfizer, other from Roche, grants and other from AstraZeneca, other from MSD, other from Seattle genetics, grants from Philips, grants from Olink, outside the submitted work. LH reports grants and other from Roche, grants and other from Boehringer, grants from AstraZeneca, other from BMS, other from Eli Lilly, other from Pfizer, other from Takeda, other from MSD, from null, outside the submitted work. The authors have no other conflicts of interest to declare., (2021 Translational Lung Cancer Research. All rights reserved.)

Background: Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a fatal neoplasm with, if untreated, poor survival of approximately nine months from diagnosis. Until recently, phase II-III immunotherapy trials did not show any significant benefit. The lack of immunotherapy efficacy can be explained by the fact that mesothelioma is a tumor with an "immune desert" phenotype, meaning a non-inflamed tumor characterized by low T-cell infiltration. By administration of DCs, which were ex-vivo cultured, exposed to (tumor-associated) antigens, and subsequently activated, this "immune desert" phenotype might be turned into an "inflamed" phenotype. Three phase I/II studies have been performed and published using activated DCs, which support this concept. We here report on the long-term survival of patients treated with DCs in three phase I/II studies., Methods: Survival data of the phase I/II trials using DC therapy in MPM patients were obtained and subsequently analyzed. In the first two trials, DCs were loaded with autologous tumor lysate. In the third trial, DCs were loaded with allogeneic mesothelioma tumor cell line lysate., Results: In the three studies combined, 29 patients with MPM were treated with DC vaccination between 2006 and 2015. At data cut-off, the median OS was 27 months (95% CI: 21-47 months). OS at 2 years was 55.2% (95% CI: 39.7-76.6%), and OS at 5 years was 20.7% (95% CI: 10.1-42.2%)., Conclusions: The long-term survival of DC therapy in MPM in these three trials is promising, which is the basis for the randomized phase II/III DENIM study. This DENIM study is currently enrolling, and the results of which have to be awaited for definite conclusions.

Background: In preclinical models, statins showed vaccine adjuvant activities and synergized with PD-1 inhibitors. We analyzed the impact of statin treatment on clinical outcome in thoracic cancer patients treated with PD-1 inhibitors., Methods: A total of 82 malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) and 179 advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) patients treated with PD-1 inhibitors as second or further line treatment were examined. Seventy-seven MPM patients treated with standard chemotherapy were analyzed as control cohort. Objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were calculated., Results: Among 253 patients with available data, statin use was associated with increased ORR (32% versus 18%, P = .02), PFS (median 6.7 versus 2.9 months, hazard ratio [HR] 0.57, 95% CI 0.39-0.83, P < .01), and OS (median 13.1 versus 8.7 months, HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.45-1.00, P = .05). In the control MPM cohort treated with chemotherapy (n = 77), no association was found. MPM patients who used statins showed improved ORR (22% versus 6%, P = .05), PFS (median 6.7 versus 2.4 months, P < .01), and OS (median not reached versus 6.0 months, P = .01). In aNSCLC patients, statin use was associated with improved ORR (40% versus 22%, P = .04) and PFS (median 7.8 versus 3.6 months, P = .03), but no significant difference in OS was found (median 13.1 versus 10.1 months, P = .30). Multivariable analysis confirmed the correlation between statin use and better PFS and OS in MPM and better PFS in aNSCLC. In the whole cohort, high but not low/moderate-intensity statins were associated with better OS compared to no user (P = .02 and P = .59, respectively)., Conclusions: Our study showed that statins are associated with better clinical outcome in MPM and aNSCLC patients treated with PD-1 inhibitors in an intensity-dependent manner., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. Relevant financial activities outside the submitted work: DD reports receiving speakers fee from BMS, Roche, Pfizer, and Novartis. RC reports consulting for Roche, MSD, Boehringer Ingelheim and receiving speakers fee from BMS, Roche, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis. JA reports receiving commercial research grants from Amphera and Roche, holds ownership interest (including patents) in Amphera BV, and is a consultant/advisory board member for Amphera, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli-Lilly, MSD, Takeda, Bayer, Astra Zeneca and Roche. RB is a consultant/advisory board member for Astra Zeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, MSD, Otsuka, Eli-Lilly, Roche. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Aim of the Study: Patients with cancer might have an increased risk for severe outcome of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). To identify risk factors associated with a worse outcome of COVID-19, a nationwide registry was developed for patients with cancer and COVID-19., Methods: This observational cohort study has been designed as a quality of care registry and is executed by the Dutch Oncology COVID-19 Consortium (DOCC), a nationwide collaboration of oncology physicians in the Netherlands. A questionnaire has been developed to collect pseudonymised patient data on patients' characteristics, cancer diagnosis and treatment. All patients with COVID-19 and a cancer diagnosis or treatment in the past 5 years are eligible., Results: Between March 27th and May 4th, 442 patients were registered. For this first analysis, 351 patients were included of whom 114 patients died. In multivariable analyses, age ≥65 years (p < 0.001), male gender (p = 0.035), prior or other malignancy (p = 0.045) and active diagnosis of haematological malignancy (p = 0.046) or lung cancer (p = 0.003) were independent risk factors for a fatal outcome of COVID-19. In a subgroup analysis of patients with active malignancy, the risk for a fatal outcome was mainly determined by tumour type (haematological malignancy or lung cancer) and age (≥65 years)., Conclusion: The findings in this registry indicate that patients with a haematological malignancy or lung cancer have an increased risk of a worse outcome of COVID-19. During the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, these vulnerable patients should avoid exposure to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, whereas treatment adjustments and prioritising vaccination, when available, should also be considered., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement D.D. reports personal fees from speakers fee MSD, personal fees from speakers fee Roche, personal fees from speakers fee AstraZeneca, personal fees from speakers fee BMS, personal fees from speakers fee Novartis, personal fees from speakers fee Pfizer, outside the submitted work; H.W. reports honoraria from Astellas and Roche and travel expenses from Ipsen, outside the submitted work; K.S. reports personal fees and advisory role for Novartis, personal fees from Roche, personal fees and advisory role for MSD, advisory role BMS, advisory role Pierre Fabre, advisory role Abbvie, outside the submitted work; L.H. reports other from Boehringer Ingelheim, other from BMS, other from Roche Genentech, other from BMS, grants from Roche Genentech, grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, other from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Quadia, grants from Astra Zeneca, other from Eli Lilly, other from Roche Genentech, other from Pfizer, other from MSD, other from Takeda, non-financial support from AstraZeneca, non-financial support from Novartis, non-financial support from BMS, non-financial support from MSD/Merck, non-financial support from GSK, non-financial support from Takeda, non-financial support from Blueprint Medicines, non-financial support from Roche Genentech, other from Amgen, outside the submitted work; A.D. reports personal fees from Roche, personal fees from Eli Lily, personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from BMS, personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Takeda, personal fees from Pharmamar, non-financial support from Abbvie, grants from BMS, grants from Amgen, outside the submitted work; A.V. reports advisory board of BMS, MSD, Merck, Pfizer, Ipsen, Eisai, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Novartis, Sanofi, outside the submitted work. All remaining authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have become the standard of care treatment for several tumor types. ICI-induced pneumonitis is a serious complication seen with treatment with these agents. Cancer has been reported to be one of the risk factors for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), that has engulfed the world in the last couple of months. In patients with cancer treated with ICI who present at the emergency department with respiratory symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic, correct diagnosis can be challenging. Symptoms and radiological features of ICI pneumonitis can be overlapping with those of COVID-19 related pneumonia. For the latter, dexamethasone and remdesivir have shown encouraging results, while vaccines are currently being evaluated in phase III trials. The mainstay of treatment in ICI pneumonitis is immunosuppressive therapy, as this is a potentially fatal adverse event. It has been speculated that immunosuppression may be associated with increased risk of progression to severe COVID-19, especially during the early stage of infection with SARS-CoV-2. Therefore, distinction between these two entities is warranted. We summarize the clinical, radiological features as well as additional investigations of both entities, and suggest a diagnostic algorithm for distinction between the two. This algorithm may be a supportive tool for clinicians to diagnose the underlying cause of the pneumonitis in patients treated with ICI during this COVID-19 pandemic., (Copyright © 2020 Dumoulin, Gietema, Paats, Hendriks and Cornelissen.)

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, has inevitable consequences for medical care of patients without COVID-19. To assess the impact of this pandemic on oncological care, a nationwide survey was conducted among patients with cancer in the Netherlands., Methods: The patients' perspective on oncological care was investigated using an online survey between March 29th 2020 and April 18th 2020. The survey consisted of 20 questions on four topics: patients' characteristics, contact with the hospital, consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic and concerns about COVID-19., Results: Five thousand three hundred two patients with cancer completed this nationwide survey. Overall, 30% of patients reported consequences for their oncological treatment or follow-up. In the majority of cases, this resulted in conversion from hospital visit to consultation by phone or video. The most frequently adjusted treatments were chemotherapy (30%) and immunotherapy (32%). Among patients with delay and discontinuation of treatment, 55% and 63% of patients, respectively, were (very) concerned about these consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic. Consequences were independent of regional differences in COVID-19 incidence. However, patients in regions with high COVID-19 incidence were significantly more concerned., Conclusion: This is the first study investigating perspectives of patients with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic. The study demonstrates the significant impact of the COVID-19 crisis on oncological care, indicating the need for psycho-oncological support during this pandemic., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement D.W.D. reports receiving personal fees and speaker fee from MSD, Roche, AstaZeneca, BMS, Novartis and Pfizer, outside the submitted work. A.C.D. reports receiving personal fees from Roche, PharmaMar, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Takeda, Pfizer and Eli Lilly; grants from BMS and Amgen and non-financial support from Abbvie,grants fees outside the submitted work; A.A.M.v.d.V. reports receiving other grants from BMS, MSD, Merck, Pfizer, Ipsen, Eisai, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Novartis and Sanofi, outside the submitted work. All other authors report no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) is an aggressive cancer that remains very hard to treat. The life expectancy of a patient diagnosed with this disease has not changed over the past three decades. Recently, three large clinical studies showed a survival benefit by adding an anti-programmed death (ligand) 1 (PD-(L)1 antibody to the current chemotherapy regimen. Although significant and important, the benefit seems less than what has been achieved in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer treated with chemoimmunotherapy. A number of hypotheses have been explored to explain this discrepancy. Here, we hypothesise that the current chemotherapy backbone in ES-SCLC does not contain the optimal drugs to trigger immunogenic cell death and therefore does not induce a synergy between chemotherapy and immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy. Thereby, we advocate that doxorubicin treatment instead of etoposide should be reconsidered as standard-of-care (SoC) first-line treatment of SCLC., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement J.G.J.V.A reports being a member of the advisory board for and/or received speakers fee from Eli Lilly, Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, AstraZeneca and MSD; is a stock owner of Amphera B.V. Immunotherapy; has a patent pending on tumour lysate antigen. D.W.D. has received speakers fee from Roche, Novartis, BMS, MSD, AstraZeneca and Pfizer. All the remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

The combination of chemotherapy and immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) therapy is the current standard of care for most patients who are fit to undergo treatment for metastatic NSCLC. With this combination, renal toxicity was slightly higher than with chemotherapy alone in initial clinical trials. However, in recent real-world data, loss of kidney function is reported to be more frequent. Both chemotherapy and ICI therapy can induce renal impairment, although the mechanism of renal damage is different. Renal injury from chemotherapy is often ascribed to acute tubular injury and necrosis, whereas the main mechanism of injury caused by ICI therapy is acute tubulointerstitial nephritis. In cases of concomitant use of chemotherapy and ICI therapy, distinguishing the cause of renal failure is a challenge. Discriminating between these two causes is of utmost importance, as it would help assess which drug can be safely continued and which drug must be halted. This review aims to describe the underlying mechanisms of the renal adverse effects caused by chemotherapy and ICI therapy, leading to a suggested diagnostic and treatment algorithm on the basis of clinical, laboratory, radiographic, and pathologic parameters. This algorithm could serve as a supportive tool for clinicians to diagnose the underlying cause of acute kidney injury in patients treated with the combination of chemotherapy and immunotherapy., (Copyright © 2020 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Randomized phase III trials are ongoing to investigate the efficacy of nivolumab in malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM), but real-world data are still scarce. In this real-world study, we investigated the clinical outcomes of nivolumab treatment in pre-treated MPM patients., Methods: Data from 107 nivolumab treated MPM patients within the Dutch expanded access program were retrospectively analyzed. Treatment was independent of programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression on tumor samples. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to evaluate the relationship between clinically important factors, baseline peripheral blood parameters and survival. The landmark method was used to compare the outcome of patients according to their radiological response., Results: In the full cohort, the median progression-free survival (mPFS) was 2.3 months (95% CI: 1.6-2.9) and the median overall survival (mOS) was 6.7 months (95% CI: 6.2-10.0). After 12 weeks, the disease control rate (DCR) was 37% and the objective response rate (ORR) was 10%. PD-L1 status was determined in 33 patients (30%) and PD-L1 positivity (≥1%) was associated with an improved ORR (36% vs. 9%, P value 0.05), but not with PFS or OS. Low albumin was associated with worse OS (P value 0.002). Median OS was significantly longer for patients who had partial response to treatment (P value 0.0002)., Conclusions: In this real-world analysis, ORR and mOS were lower compared to those obtained in phase II trials. However, exceptional survival rates were observed in patients who had a radiological response. Although we cannot determine whether prognostic or predictive, PD-L1 expression and albumin were associated with greater response rate and may represent useful biomarkers for nivolumab treatment in MPM., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/tlcr-19-686). DWD reports personal fees from Roche, BMS, MSD, Pfizer, Astra Zeneca and Novartis outside the submitted work. RC reports speakers fee from Roche, Pfizer and BMS, personal fees from Advisory Board MSD and Advisory Board Roche outside the submitted work. JAB reports other from Bristol-Meyers Squibb, MSD B.V., F. Hoffmann- La Roche Ltd. during the conduct of the study. PB reports other from Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD B.V., AstraZeneca, Takeda outside the submitted work. JGJVA reports personal fees and non-financial support from MSD, personal fees from BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Amphera, Eli-Lilly, Takeda, Bayer, Roche, Astra Zeneca outside the submitted work; in addition, JGJVA has a patent allogenic tumor cell lysate licensed to Amphera, a patent combination immunotherapy in cancer pending, and a patent biomarker for immunotherapy pending; JGJVA serves as an unpaid editorial board member of Translational Lung Cancer Research from Sep 2019 to Sep 2021. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (2020 Translational Lung Cancer Research. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Many patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) receiving immunotherapy show primary resistance. High-dose radiotherapy can lead to increased tumor antigen release, improved antigen presentation, and T-cell infiltration. This radiotherapy may enhance the effects of checkpoint inhibition., Objective: To assess whether stereotactic body radiotherapy on a single tumor site preceding pembrolizumab treatment enhances tumor response in patients with metastatic NSCLC., Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter, randomized phase 2 study (PEMBRO-RT) of 92 patients with advanced NSCLC enrolled between July 1, 2015, and March 31, 2018, regardless of programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) status. Data analysis was of the intention-to-treat population., Interventions: Pembrolizumab (200 mg/kg every 3 weeks) either alone (control arm) or after radiotherapy (3 doses of 8 Gy) (experimental arm) to a single tumor site until confirmed radiographic progression, unacceptable toxic effects, investigator decision, patient withdrawal of consent, or a maximum of 24 months., Main Outcomes and Measures: Improvement in overall response rate (ORR) at 12 weeks from 20% in the control arm to 50% in the experimental arm with P < .10., Results: Of the 92 patients enrolled, 76 were randomized to the control arm (n = 40) or the experimental arm (n = 36). Of those, the median age was 62 years (range, 35-78 years), and 44 (58%) were men. The ORR at 12 weeks was 18% in the control arm vs 36% in the experimental arm (P = .07). Median progression-free survival was 1.9 months (95% CI, 1.7-6.9 months) vs 6.6 months (95% CI, 4.0-14.6 months) (hazard ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.42-1.18; P = .19), and median overall survival was 7.6 months (95% CI, 6.0-13.9 months) vs 15.9 months (95% CI, 7.1 months to not reached) (hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.37-1.18; P = .16). Subgroup analyses showed the largest benefit from the addition of radiotherapy in patients with PD-L1-negative tumors. No increase in treatment-related toxic effects was observed in the experimental arm., Conclusions and Relevance: Stereotactic body radiotherapy prior to pembrolizumab was well tolerated. Although a doubling of ORR was observed, the results did not meet the study's prespecified end point criteria for meaningful clinical benefit. Positive results were largely influenced by the PD-L1-negative subgroup, which had significantly improved progression-free survival and overall survival. These results suggest that a larger trial is necessary to determine whether radiotherapy may activate noninflamed NSCLC toward a more inflamed tumor microenvironment., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02492568.