Search

Introduction: Clinical and laboratory parameters associated with response for patients with advanced pre-treated malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) are lacking. We aimed to identify prognostic and predictive markers among patients with relapsed MPM who were randomised into the ETOP 9–15 PROMISE-meso phase III trial, evaluating pembrolizumab and chemotherapy. Methods: Baseline clinical and laboratory parameters were investigated for prognostic or predictive value on progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in a retrospective analysis, based on the full cohort of 144 MPM patients. These consisted of immune-inflammatory indexes (neutrophil–lymphocyte ratio [NLR], systemic immune-inflammatory index [SII], lactate dehydrogenase [LDH]) along with other already known prognostic baseline characteristics and laboratory values. Cut-offs were chosen independently of outcome. Based on Cox multivariable analysis for PFS in the whole cohort, a risk factor model was built to illustrate the prognostic stratification of patients by the combination of the derived independent prognostic factors, taking into account the EORTC score, a validated prognostic score in MPM. All models were stratified by histology and adjusted by treatment. Results: In the stratified multivariable analysis in the whole cohort, high SII (hazard ratio (HR) 2.06; 95%CI 1.39–3.05) and low haemoglobin (HR 1.62; 95%CI 1.06–2.50) were associated with worse PFS. Based on these two prognostic factors, a mesothelioma risk score (MRS) was constructed with three PFS risk prognosis categories: favourable, intermediate and poor with 0, 1 and 2 risk factors, respectively (corresponding percent of cohort: 24%, 34% and 42% and median PFS: 5.8, 4.2 and 2.1 months). The derived MRS stratified the prognosis for PFS and OS, overall and within each of the EORTC groups. No significant predictors of treatment benefit were identified. Conclusions: The proposed MRS is prognostic of patient outcome and it fine-tunes the prognosis of patients with pre-treated MPM alone or when used with the already established EORTC score. © 2022

Introduction: Longitudinal evaluation of mutations in blood samples was a prespecified secondary objective in the BELIEF trial of erlotinib and bevacizumab in advanced EGFR-positive NSCLC. Here, we report the testing results and explore the correlation of EGFR status in blood with clinical outcomes. Methods: Blood samples were prospectively collected from patients at baseline, at response evaluation, and at progression and sent to a central laboratory. Circulating free DNA was purified and EGFR mutations were analyzed with a validated real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction assay. Results: EGFR exon 19/21 mutations were detected in 55 of 91 baseline blood samples (60.4%) and correlated with a significantly worse progression-free survival: 11.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 9.0−14.8 mo) for the patients who were positive versus 22.9 months (95% CI: 9.5−33.9 mo) for those who were negative (log-rank p = 0.0020). Among the 74 samples at response, exon 19/21 mutations were detected only in three samples (4.1%). In contrast, 29 of 58 patients (50.0%) were exon 19/21 positive at progression and showed a significantly worse median overall survival of 21.7 months (95% CI: 17.0−30.9 mo) compared with 37.4 months (95% CI: 22.6−53.1 mo) for those who were negative (log-rank p = 0.011). Blood samples at the three time points were available for 48 patients. Of those, among 14 exon 19/21 EGFR-negative at presentation, 13 (93%) were persistently negative for the sensitizing mutations after progression and the p.T790M could only be detected in the blood of two patients. Conclusions: Longitudinal testing of EGFR mutations in blood can offer valuable clinical information. In patients of the BELIEF study, detection of EGFR mutations in circulating free DNA at presentation was associated with shorter progression-free survival, whereas positivity at progression correlated with shorter overall survival. Finally, patients negative in blood at presentation were almost invariably negative at relapse. © 2019

BACKGROUND Consolidation immunotherapy with the programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor durvalumab improves survival in patients with stage III non-small-cell lung cancer responding to radiochemotherapy. The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of durvalumab in Switzerland based on the most recent PACIFIC survival follow-up. MATERIALS AND METHODS We constructed a Markov model based on the 3-year follow-up data of the PACIFIC trial and compared consolidation durvalumab with observation. We used published utility values and assessed costs for treatment strategies from the perspective of the Swiss health care payers. Cost-effectiveness was tested both in the intention-to-treat population of the PACIFIC trial unselected for PD-L1 tumor expression and in patients with PD-L1-expressing tumors (≥1%). RESULTS In the unselected/PD-L1-positive patients, durvalumab showed an incremental effectiveness of 0.76/1.18 quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and incremental costs of Swiss Francs (CHF) 67 239/78 177, resulting in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of CHF 88 703/66 131 per QALY gained, respectively. The most influential factors for the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio were the utility before first progression, costs for durvalumab, and the hazard ratio for overall survival under durvalumab versus observation. The cost-effectiveness of durvalumab was better than CHF 100 000 per QALY gained in 75% of the simulations in probabilistic sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSION Assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of CHF 100 000 per QALY gained, consolidation durvalumab is likely to be cost-effective both in patients with inoperable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) unselected for PD-L1 status and in patients with PD-L1-expressing tumors in Switzerland.

Introduction: Receptor activator of NF-kB ligand stimulates NF-kB–dependent cell signaling and acts as the primary signal for bone resorption. Retrospective analysis of a large trial comparing denosumab versus zoledronic acid in bone metastatic solid tumors suggested significant overall survival (OS) advantage for patients with lung cancer with denosumab (p = 0.01). The randomized open-label phase III SPLENDOUR trial was designed to evaluate whether the addition of denosumab to standard first-line platinum-based doublet chemotherapy improved OS in advanced NSCLC. Methods: Patients with stage IV NSCLC were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either chemotherapy with or without denosumab (120 mg every 3–4 wks), stratified by the presence of bone metastases (at diagnosis), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, histology, and region. To detect an OS increase from 9 to 11.25 months (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.80), 847 OS events were required. The trial closed prematurely owing to decreasing accrual rate. Results: A total of 514 patients were randomized, with 509 receiving one or more doses of the assigned treatment (chemotherapy: 252, chemotherapy-denosumab: 257). The median age was 66.1 years, 71% were men, and 59% were former smokers. Bone metastases were identified in 275 patients (53%). Median OS (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 8.7 (7.6–11.0) months in the control arm versus 8.2 (7.5–10.4) months in the chemotherapy-denosumab arm (HR = 0.96; 95% CI: 0.78–1.19; one-sided p = 0.36). For patients with bone metastasis, HR was 1.02 (95% CI: 0.77–1.35), whereas for those without, HR was 0.90 (95% CI: 0.66–1.23). Adverse events grade 3 or greater were observed in 40.9%, 5.2%, 8.7% versus 45.5%, 10.9%, 10.5% of patients. Conditional power for OS benefit was less than or equal to 10%. Conclusions: Denosumab was well-tolerated without unexpected safety concerns. There was no OS improvement for denosumab when added to chemotherapy in the intention-to-treat population and the subgroups with and without bone metastases. Our data do not provide evidence of a clinical benefit for denosumab in patients with NSCLC without bone metastases. © 2020 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer

Background: Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is an aggressive malignancy characterised by limited treatment options and a poor prognosis. At relapse after platinum-based chemotherapy, single-agent chemotherapy is commonly used and single-arm trials of immune-checkpoint inhibitors have demonstrated encouraging activity. Patients and methods: PROMISE-meso is an open-label 1:1 randomised phase III trial investigating the efficacy of pembrolizumab (200 mg/Q3W) versus institutional choice single-agent chemotherapy (gemcitabine or vinorelbine) in relapsed MPM patients with progression after/on previous platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients were performance status 0–1 and unselected for programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) status. At progression, patients randomly assigned to receive chemotherapy were allowed to crossover to pembrolizumab. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS), assessed by blinded independent central review (BICR). Secondary end points were overall survival (OS), investigator-assessed PFS, objective response rate (ORR), and safety. Efficacy by PD-L1 status was investigated in exploratory analyses. Results: Between September 2017 and August 2018, 144 patients were randomly allocated (pembrolizumab: 73; chemotherapy: 71). At data cut-off [20 February 2019, median follow-up of 11.8 months (interquartile range: 9.9–14.5)], 118 BICR-PFS events were observed. No difference in BICR-PFS was detected [hazard ratio = 1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.73–1.53; P = 0.76], and median BICR-PFS (95% CI) for pembrolizumab was 2.5 (2.1–4.2), compared with 3.4 (2.2–4.3) months for chemotherapy. A difference in ORR for pembrolizumab was identified (22%, 95% CI: 13% to 33%), over chemotherapy (6%, 95% CI: 2% to 14%; P = 0.004). Forty-five patients (63%) assigned to chemotherapy received pembrolizumab at progression. With follow-up to 21 August 2019 [17.5 months: (14.8–19.7)], no difference in OS was detected between groups (HR = 1.12, 95% CI: 0.74–1.69; P = 0.59), even after adjusting for crossover. Pembrolizumab safety was consistent with previous observations. Exploratory efficacy analyses by PD-L1 status demonstrated no improvements in ORR/PFS/OS. Conclusion: This is the first randomised trial evaluating the efficacy of pembrolizumab in MPM patients progressing after/on previous platinum-based chemotherapy. In biologically unselected patients, although associated with an improved ORR, pembrolizumab improves neither PFS nor OS over single-agent chemotherapy. © 2020 European Society for Medical Oncology