Search

Aim: We investigated the effectiveness of durvalumab post-concurrent CRT (cCRT) and post-sequential CRT (sCRT) versus cCRT and sCRT alone and compared these outcomes with the PACIFIC trial. Methods: Four cohorts of stage III NSCLC patients who received CRT were included: cCRT with and without durvalumab, sCRT with and without durvalumab. PFS and OS were analyzed using Cox regression. Results: Durvalumab improved PFS (cCRT: aHR = 0.69, sCRT: aHR = 0.71) and OS (cCRT: aHR = 0.71, sCRT: aHR = 0.32), although not all results were significant. PFS was longer in the real-world than in the trial, while OS did not differ. Conclusion: Durvalumab after CRT improved the survival outcomes. The difference between PFS in our study and the trial may be due to differences in follow-up methods.

Competing Interests: Disclosure LEH reports personal fees as an invited speaker from Benecke, Medtalks and VJOncology; personal fees for participation in mentorship programme funded by AstraZeneca; personal fees for travel support from Roche; personal fees as member of the committee that revised the Dutch guidelines on NSCLC, brain metastases and leptomeningeal metastases; fees paid to her institution for an educational webinar from Janssen; fees paid to her institution for advisory board membership from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and Takeda; fees paid to her institution as an invited speaker from AstraZeneca, Bayer, high5oncology, Lilly and MSD; fees paid to her institution for interview sessions from Roche; fees paid to her institution for podcast appearance from Takeda; institutional research grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, Takeda, Pfizer and Merck; institutional funding as a local principal investigator (PI) from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Blueprint Medicines, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), Merck Serono, Mirati, MSD, Novartis, Roche and Takeda; non-remunerated roles as chair for metastatic NSCLC of the lung cancer group for European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) and as the secretary of the studies foundation for NVALT (Nederlandse Vereniging van Artsen voor Longziekten en Tuberculose). KMK reports personal fees as an invited speaker from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Eli Lilly, Medscape, Merck Serono, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Prime Oncology, Roche and Roche Diagnostics/Ventana; personal fees for consultancy and advisory board membership from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Debiopharm, Diaceutics, Janssen, Merck Serono, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche and Roche Diagnostics/Ventana; non-remunerated roles as the past Pathology Committee Chair for IASLC (International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer) and member of the UK Lung Cancer Consortium. JM reports fees paid to her institution as an invited speaker from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, MSD and Roche; fees paid to her institution for expert testimony from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim and MSD; fees paid to her institution for travel expenses from Ipsen. TSM reports personal fees as an invited speaker from AbbVie, ACEA Pharma, Alpha Biopharma, Amgen, Amoy Diagnostics, BeiGene, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Daiichi Sankyo, Daz Group, Eli Lilly, Fishawack Facilitate, InMed Medical Communication, Janssen, Jiahui Holdings Co., LiangYiHui Healthcare, Lucene Health Inc., Lunit USA, Inc., MD Health, Medscape/WebMD, Merck Serono, MSD, MiRXES, Novartis, OrigiMed, PeerVoice, PER, Permanyer SL, Pfizer, Prime Oncology, Research to Practice, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, Shanghai BeBirds Translation & Consulting Co., Taiho Pharmaceutical Co., Takeda and Touch Medical Media; personal fees for advisory board membership from AbbVie, ACEA Pharma, Alpha Biopharma, Amgen, Amoy Diagnostics, BeiGene, Berry Oncology, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, C4 Therapeutics, Cirina Ltd., Covidien LP, CStone Pharma, Curio Science, D3 Bio Ltd., Da Volterra, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Fishawack Facilitate, G1 Therapeutics, Gilead Sciences, Gritstone Oncology, Guardant Health, Hengrui, Ignyta, Incyte, Inivata, IQVIA, Janssen, Lakeshore Biotech, Loxo Oncology, Lucene Health Inc., Lunit USA, Inc., Medscape/WebMD, Merck Serono, Mirati Therapeutics, MiRXES, MoreHealth, MSD, Novartis, OrigiMed, OSE Immunotherapeutics, Pfizer, Puma Tech, Qiming Development, Roche, Roche/Genentech, Sanofi-Aventis, SFJ Pharmaceutical Ltd., Synergy Research, Takeda, Tigermed, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, Virtus Medical and Yuhan; personal fees as the Chairman for ACT Genomics-Sanomics Group; personal fees as a member of the board of directors from AstraZeneca and HutchMed; holds stocks/shares from AstraZeneca, Aurora Tele-Oncology, Biolidics Ltd., HutchMed and Sanomics Ltd.; institutional funding from AstraZeneca, BMS, Clovis Oncology, G1 Therapeutics, Merck Serono, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, SFJ Pharmaceuticals, Takeda and XCovery; non-remunerated roles as an invited speaker with AstraZeneca, Aurora Tele-Oncology, Lunit USA, Inc. and Sanomics Ltd. and for an advisory role with geneDecode; non-remunerated leadership roles with ASCO (American Society of Clinical Oncology), ATORG (Asian Thoracic Oncology Research Group), CLCRF (Chinese Lung Cancer Research Foundation Limited), CSCO (Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology), HKCF (Hong Kong Cancer Fund), HKCTS (Hong Kong Cancer Therapy Society), IASLC and St. Stephen’s College & Prep School (Hong Kong). UN reports fees paid to her institution as an invited speaker from MSD; fees paid to her institution for advisory board membership and a writing engagement from AstraZeneca; institutional funding as a coordinating PI for Bayer; non-remunerated roles as a PI for clinical trials funded by Deutsche Krebshilfe and as a member of the board of directors and vice-chair of ‘Strahlenschutzkommission’ from the German Commission on Radiological Protection. AP reports personal fees as an invited speaker from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Mundipharma and Takeda; personal fees for advisory board membership from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer and Roche; non-remunerated activities with AIOM (Italian Association of Medical Oncology) as member of the Scientific Committee for lung cancer guidelines. SP reports personal fees for an editorial role as an Associate Editor for Annals of Oncology; fees paid to her institution as an invited speaker from AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, e-cancer, Eli Lilly, Fishawack, Illumina, Imedex, Medscape, Mirati, MSD, Novartis, OncologyEducation, PER, Pfizer, PRIME, RMEI, Roche/Genentech, RTP, Sanofi and Takeda; fees paid to her institution for advisory board membership from AbbVie, Amgen, Arcus, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, Bio Invent, Biocartis, Blueprint Medicines, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Debiopharm, Eli Lilly, F-Star, Foundation Medicine, Genzyme, Gilead, GSK, Illumina, Incyte, IQVIA, iTeos, Janssen, Merck Serono, Mirati, MSD, Novartis, Novocure, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Phosplatin Therapeutics, Regeneron, Roche/Genentech, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda and Vaccibody; institutional funding as a steering committee member from AstraZeneca, BeiGene, BMS, iTeos, Mirati, MSD, PharmaMar, Phosplatin Therapeutics and Roche/Genentech; institutional funding as a coordinating PI from AstraZeneca; institutional funding as a trial chair from GSK and Roche/Genentech; non-remunerated role as President and Council Member for the Ballet Béjart Lausanne Foundation; non-remunerated leadership roles as President of ESMO (2020-2022), Vice-President of SAMO (Swiss Academy of Multidisciplinary Oncology), Vice-President of Lung Group for SAKK (Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research); non-remunerated role as PI involved in academic trials for ETOP (European Thoracic Oncology Platform)/EORTC/SAKK; non-remunerated role as Council Member and Scientific Committee Chair for ETOP/IBCSG Partners (International Breast Cancer Study Group); member of AACR (American Association for Cancer Research), ASCO, ASMAC/VSAO (Association of Swiss Interns and Residents), FMH (Association of Swiss Physicians) and IASLC. DP reports personal fees as an invited speaker from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Novartis, Peer CME, Pfizer, priME Oncology and Samsung; personal fees for advisory board membership from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BMS, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and Samsung; institutional funding as a PI from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BMS, Daiichi Sankyo, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi and Sanofi-Aventis. EFS reports personal fees as an invited speaker from Boehringer Ingelheim and Daiichi Sankyo; personal fees for advisory board membership from Merck Serono; fees paid to his institution for advisory board membership from AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Roche, Sanofi and Takeda; institutional funding as a local PI from AstraZeneca, Genmab, Gilead and Pfizer. BJS reports personal fees as an invited speaker from AstraZeneca, Pfizer and Roche/Genentech; personal fees for advisory board membership from Amgen and Roche/Genentech; fees paid to his institution for advisory board membership from AstraZeneca, BMS, Merck and Novartis; fees paid to his institution for steering committee membership from Novartis, Pfizer and Roche/Genentech; personal fees as a member of the board of directors from Cancer Council Victoria and Thoracic Oncology Group of Australasia; personal fees as a consultant from Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre; royalties from UpToDate. GV reports personal fees as an invited speaker and for advisory board membership from Roche; personal fees as a consultant from Ab Medica; institutional funding as a PI from AIRC (Fondazione AIRC per la ricerca sul cancro ETS) and the Italian Ministry of Health. MR reports personal fees as an invited speaker from Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Roche and Sanofi; personal fees for advisory board membership from Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Mirati, MSD, Pfizer, Roche and Sanofi.

Competing Interests: Disclosure LEH reports personal fees as an invited speaker from Benecke, Medtalks and VJOncology; personal fees for participation in mentorship programme funded by AstraZeneca; personal fees for travel support from Roche; personal fees as member of the committee that revised the Dutch guidelines on NSCLC, brain metastases and leptomeningeal metastases; fees paid to her institution for an educational webinar from Janssen; fees paid to her institution for advisory board membership from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and Takeda; fees paid to her institution as an invited speaker from AstraZeneca, Bayer, high5oncology, Lilly and MSD; fees paid to her institution for interview sessions from Roche; fees paid to her institution for podcast appearance from Takeda; institutional research grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, Takeda, Pfizer and Merck; institutional funding as a local principal investigator (PI) from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Blueprint Medicines, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), Merck Serono, Mirati, MSD, Novartis, Roche and Takeda; non-remunerated roles as chair for metastatic NSCLC of the lung cancer group for European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) and as the secretary of the studies foundation for Nederlandse Vereniging van Artsen voor Longziekten en Tuberculose (NVALT). KK reports personal fees as an invited speaker from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Eli Lilly, Medscape, Merck Serono, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Prime Oncology, Roche and Roche Diagnostics/Ventana; personal fees for consultancy and advisory board membership from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Debiopharm, Diaceutics, Janssen, Merck Serono, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche and Roche Diagnostics/Ventana; non-remunerated roles as the past Pathology Committee Chair for International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC) and member of the UK Lung Cancer Consortium. JM reports fees paid to her institution as an invited speaker from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, MSD and Roche; fees paid to her institution for expert testimony from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim and MSD; fees paid to her institution for travel expenses from Ipsen. TSM reports personal fees as an invited speaker from AbbVie, ACEA Pharma, Alpha Biopharma, Amgen, Amoy Diagnostics, BeiGene, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Daiichi Sankyo, Daz Group, Eli Lilly, Fishawack Facilitate, InMed Medical Communication, Janssen, Jiahui Holdings Co., LiangYiHui Healthcare, Lucene Health Inc., Lunit USA, Inc., MD Health, Medscape/WebMD, Merck Serono, MIRXES, MSD, Novartis, OrigiMed, PeerVoice, PER, Permanyer SL, Pfizer, Prime Oncology, Research to Practice, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, Shanghai BeBirds Translation & Consulting Co., Taiho Pharmaceutical Co., Takeda and Touch Medical Media; personal fees for advisory board membership from AbbVie, ACEA Pharma, Alpha Biopharma, Amgen, Amoy Diagnostics, BeiGene, Berry Oncology, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, C4 Therapeutics, Cirina Ltd, Covidien LP, CStone Pharma, Curio Science, D3 Bio Ltd, Da Volterra, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Fishawack Facilitate, G1 Therapeutics, Gilead Sciences, Gritstone Oncology, Guardant Health, Hengrui, Ignyta, Incyte, Inivata, IQVIA, Janssen, Lakeshore Biotech, Loxo Oncology, Lucene Health Inc., Lunit USA, Inc., Medscape/WebMD, Merck Serono, Mirati Therapeutics, MiRXES, MoreHealth, MSD, Novartis, OrigiMed, OSE Immunotherapeutics, Pfizer, Puma Tech, Qiming Development, Roche, Roche/Genentech, Sanofi-Aventis, SFJ Pharmaceutical Ltd, Synergy Research, Takeda, Tigermed, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, Virtus Medical and Yuhan; personal fees as the Chairman for ACT Genomics-Sanomics Group; personal fees as a member of the board of directors from AstraZeneca and HutchMed; holds stocks/shares from AstraZeneca, Aurora Tele-Oncology, Biolidics Ltd, HutchMed and Sanomics Ltd.; institutional funding from AstraZeneca, BMS, Clovis Oncology, G1 Therapeutics, Merck Serono, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, SFJ Pharmaceuticals, Takeda and XCovery; non-remunerated roles as an invited speaker with AstraZeneca, Aurora Tele-Oncology, Lunit USA, Inc. and Sanomics Ltd and for an advisory role with geneDecode; non-remunerated leadership roles with American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), Asian Thoracic Oncology Research Group (ATORG), Chinese Lung Cancer Research Foundation Limited (CLCRF), Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology (CSCO), Hong Kong Cancer Fund (HKCF), Hong Kong Cancer Therapy Society (HKCTS), IASLC and St. Stephen’s College & Prep School (Hong Kong). UN reports fees paid to her institution as an invited speaker from MSD; fees paid to her institution for advisory board membership and a writing engagement from AstraZeneca; institutional funding as a coordinating PI for Bayer; non-remunerated roles as a PI for clinical trials funded by Deutsche Krebshilfe and as a member of the board of directors and vice-chair of ‘Strahlenschutzkommission’ from the German Commission on Radiological Protection. AP reports personal fees as an invited speaker from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Mundipharma and Takeda; personal fees for advisory board membership from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer and Roche; non-remunerated activities with Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM) as member of the Scientific Committee for lung cancer guidelines. SP reports personal fees for an editorial role as an Associate Editor for Annals of Oncology; fees paid to her institution as an invited speaker from AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, ecancer, Eli Lilly, Fishawack, Illumina, Imedex, Medscape, Mirati, MSD, Novartis, OncologyEducation, Physician’s Education Resource (PER), Pfizer, Partnerships in International Medical Education (PRIME), RMEI Medical Education, LLC (RMEI), Roche/Genentech, Research To Practice (RTP), Sanofi and Takeda; fees paid to her institution for advisory board membership from AbbVie, Amgen, Arcus, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, Bio Invent, Biocartis, Blueprint Medicines, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Debiopharm, Eli Lilly, F-Star, Foundation Medicine, Genzyme, Gilead, GSK, Illumina, Incyte, IQVIA, iTeos, Janssen, Merck Serono, Mirati, MSD, Novartis, Novocure, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Phosplatin Therapeutics, Regeneron, Roche/Genentech, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda and Vaccibody; institutional funding as a steering committee member from AstraZeneca, BeiGene, BMS, iTeos, Mirati, MSD, PharmaMar, Phosplatin Therapeutics and Roche/Genentech; institutional funding as a coordinating PI from AstraZeneca; institutional funding as a trial chair from GSK and Roche/Genentech; non-remunerated role as President and Council Member for the Ballet Béjart Lausanne Foundation; non-remunerated leadership roles as President of ESMO (2020-2022), Vice- President of Swiss Academy of Multidisciplinary Oncology (SAMO), Vice-President of Lung Group for Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research (SAKK); non-remunerated role as PI involved in academic trials for European Thoracic Oncology Platform (ETOP)/EORTC/SAKK; non-remunerated role as Council Member and Scientific Committee Chair for ETOP/International Breast Cancer Study Group (IBCSG) Partners member of American Association of Cancer Research (AACR), ASCO, Association Suisse des médecines-assistant(e)s et chef(fe)s de Clinique (ASMAC)/Verband Schweizerischer Assistenz- und Oberärztinnen und- ärzte (VSAO), Fédération des médecins suisses (FMH) and IASLC. DP reports personal fees as an invited speaker from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Novartis, Peer CME, Pfizer, priME Oncology and Samsung; personal fees for advisory board membership from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BMS, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and Samsung; institutional funding as a PI from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BMS, Daiichi Sankyo, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi and Sanofi-Aventis. ES reports personal fees as an invited speaker from Boehringer Ingelheim and Daiichi Sankyo; personal fees for advisory board membership from Merck Serono; fees paid to his institution for advisory board membership from AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Roche, Sanofi and Takeda; institutional funding as a local PI from AstraZeneca, Genmab, Gilead and Pfizer. BJS reports personal fees as an invited speaker from AstraZeneca, Pfizer and Roche/Genentech; personal fees for advisory board membership from Amgen and Roche/Genentech; fees paid to his institution for advisory board membership from AstraZeneca, BMS, Merck and Novartis; fees paid to his institution for steering committee membership from Novartis, Pfizer and Roche/Genentech; personal fees as a member of the board of directors from Cancer Council Victoria and Thoracic Oncology Group of Australasia; personal fees as a consultant from Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre; royalties from UpToDate. GV reports personal fees as an invited speaker and for advisory board membership from Roche; personal fees as a consultant from Ab Medica; institutional funding as a PI from Fondazione AIRC per la ricerca sul cancro ETS (AIRC) and the Italian Ministry of Health. MR reports personal fees as an invited speaker from Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Roche and Sanofi; personal fees for advisory board membership from Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Mirati, MSD, Pfizer, Roche and Sanofi.

Background: Molecular tumor boards (MTBs) provide rational, genomics-driven, patient-tailored treatment recommendations. Worldwide, MTBs differ in terms of scope, composition, methods, and recommendations. This study aimed to assess differences in methods and agreement in treatment recommendations among MTBs from tertiary cancer referral centers in The Netherlands., Materials and Methods: MTBs from all tertiary cancer referral centers in The Netherlands were invited to participate. A survey assessing scope, value, logistics, composition, decision-making method, reporting, and registration of the MTBs was completed through on-site interviews with members from each MTB. Targeted therapy recommendations were compared using 10 anonymized cases. Participating MTBs were asked to provide a treatment recommendation in accordance with their own methods. Agreement was based on which molecular alteration(s) was considered actionable with the next line of targeted therapy., Results: Interviews with 24 members of eight MTBs revealed that all participating MTBs focused on rare or complex mutational cancer profiles, operated independently of cancer type-specific multidisciplinary teams, and consisted of at least (thoracic and/or medical) oncologists, pathologists, and clinical scientists in molecular pathology. Differences were the types of cancer discussed and the methods used to achieve a recommendation. Nevertheless, agreement among MTB recommendations, based on identified actionable molecular alteration(s), was high for the 10 evaluated cases (86%)., Conclusion: MTBs associated with tertiary cancer referral centers in The Netherlands are similar in setup and reach a high agreement in recommendations for rare or complex mutational cancer profiles. We propose a "Dutch MTB model" for an optimal, collaborative, and nationally aligned MTB workflow., Implications for Practice: Interpretation of genomic analyses for optimal choice of target therapy for patients with cancer is becoming increasingly complex. A molecular tumor board (MTB) supports oncologists in rationalizing therapy options. However, there is no consensus on the most optimal setup for an MTB, which can affect the quality of recommendations. This study reveals that the eight MTBs associated with tertiary cancer referral centers in The Netherlands are similar in setup and reach a high agreement in recommendations for rare or complex mutational profiles. The Dutch MTB model is based on a collaborative and nationally aligned workflow with interinstitutional collaboration and data sharing., (© 2020 The Authors. The Oncologist published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of AlphaMed Press.)

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

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have revolutionized the treatment of many advanced cancers. However, in most pivotal trials, patients with brain metastases (BM) were either excluded, or only selected patients were allowed. Therefore, there are still some concerns about the safety/efficacy ratio of ICI in patients with BM. In this special report we will provide an overview on the biological rationale for using ICI in the treatment of BM, the reported BM-related outcomes of clinical trials with a focus on ICI plus chemotherapy and ICI plus ICI combinations. Last, we will provide future challenges with this strategy, as well as directions for future research.

Objective: Phase III studies of checkpoint inhibitors changed the therapeutic landscape for lung cancer. In 2015 the Dutch Society of Chest Physicians (NVALT) introduced a national immunotherapy registry for patients with lung cancer; quality standards for hospitals were implemented. At population level we studied clinical benefit in daily practice and in patients who are underrepresented in phase III trials., Materials and Methods: From the initial introduction of checkpoint inhibitors in the Netherlands patients were centrally registered. Educational programs and quality control were provided under supervision of NVALT. The largest immunotherapy providing hospitals were compared to hospitals who provided less checkpoint inhibitors as marker of experience. Patients characteristics, treatment and side effects, response rate and survival were studied., Results: A total of 2676 patients were registered, 2302 with follow up data were evaluated. Between October 2015 and December 2017 a gradual increase from 12 to 30 qualified hospitals showed no major toxicity differences. Toxicity led to a hospital admission rate of 9.1 with an average duration of 10.4 days. Overall tumor response was 21.8 % and median overall survival 12.6 months. Overall survival was not significantly different for patients aged ≥ 75 years, those having brain metastases or selected auto-immune diseases before start checkpoint inhibitors compared to younger patients or those without, respectively. Survival outcomes were worse in patients with PS 2+, non-smokers, and patients who received any palliative radiotherapy (HR 2.1, 95 % CI 1.7-2.7; 1.3, 95 % CI 1.0-1.6 and 1.2, 95 % CI 1.1-1.4, respectively)., Conclusions: Changes in the therapeutic landscape did not lead to major differences in quality of care between hospitals. Elderly patients, those with brain metastases or selected auto-immune disease underrepresented in clinical trials did not do worse on checkpoint inhibitors, except for those with PS 2 + ., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Synchronous oligometastatic (sOM) disease is an oncological concept characterized by a limited cancer burden. Patients with oligometastasis could potentially benefit from local radical treatments. Despite the fact that the sOM condition is well recognized, a universal definition, including a specific definition for NSCLC, is not yet available. The aim of this systematic review was to summarize the definitions of and staging requirements for use of the term synchronous oligometastatic in the context of NSCLC., Methods: The key issue was formulated in one research question according to the population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes strategy. The question was introduced in MEDLINE (OvidSP). All articles dealing with sOM NSCLC and providing a definition of synchronous oligometastasis in NSCLC were selected and analyzed., Results: A total of 21 eligible articles focusing on sOM NSCLC were retrieved and analyzed. In 17 studies (81%), patients had to be staged with magnetic resonance imaging or computed tomography of the brain, thoracic and abdominal computed tomography, and positron emission tomography. The total number of metastases allowed in the definitions ranged from one to eight, but in 38.1% of studies the maximum number was 5. Most of the publications did not define the number of involved organs or the maximum number of metastases per organ. For mediastinal lymph node involvement, only five articles (27.8%) counted this as a metastatic site., Conclusions: No uniform definition of sOM NSCLC could be retrieved by this systematic review. However, extended staging was mandated in most of the studies. An accepted oncological definition of synchronous oligometastasis is essential for patient selection to define prospective clinical trials., (Copyright © 2019 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide. Tobacco consumption remains the most important risk factor. Although the prevalence of smoking has decreased overall, it continues to be a significant burden for global health. It is estimated that there are still nearly 1 billion cigarette smokers worldwide. Prevention strategies have largely focused on tobacco control and prevention. However, we have witnessed a dramatic increase in the use of e-cigarettes and other vaping products. Primary chemoprevention has historically not been a successful strategy for lung cancer; however, focused approaches in specific groups of patients at high risk for development of lung cancer are underway. The majority of cases with NSCLC are diagnosed with locally advanced or metastatic disease, where the overall prognosis remains very poor. Early-stage NSCLC on the other hand has a much better prognosis and can usually be treated radically with either surgical resection or radical radiotherapy, with relatively favorable long-term outcomes. In addition to image-based screening, other methods such as breath-based and biofluid-based approaches are now being investigated for early detection of NSCLC. This review will focus on recent advancements in the field of prevention, screening, and early detection of NSCLC., (Copyright © 2019 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) still has a poor prognosis. Prior studies with individualized, accelerated, isotoxic dose escalation (INDAR) with 3D-CRT showed promising results, especially in patients not treated with concurrent chemo-radiotherapy. We investigated if INDAR delivered with IMRT would improve the overall survival (OS) of stage III NSCLC patients treated with concurrent chemotherapy and radiotherapy., Patients and Methods: Patients eligible for concurrent chemo-radiotherapy were entered in this prospective study. Radiotherapy was given to a dose of 45 Gy/30 fractions BID (1.5 Gy/fraction), followed by QD fractions of 2 Gy until a total dose determined by the normal tissue constraints. The primary endpoint was OS, secondary endpoints were loco-regional relapses and toxicity., Results: From May 4, 2009 until April 26, 2012, 185 patients were included. The mean tumor dose was 66.0 ± 12.8 Gy (36-73 Gy), delivered in a mean of 39.7 fractions in an overall treatment time of 38.2 days. The mean lung dose (MLD) was 17.3 Gy. The median OS was 19.8 months (95% CI 17.3-22.3) with a 5-year OS of 24.3%. Loco-regional failures as first site of recurrence occurred in 59/185 patients (31.8%). Isolated nodal failures (INF) were observed in 3/185 patients (1.6%). Dyspnea grade 3 was seen in 3.2% of patients and transient dysphagia grade 3 in 22%., Conclusions: INDAR with IMRT concurrently with chemotherapy did not lead to a sign of an improved OS in unselected stage III NSCLC patients., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Anti-programmed death (ligand)-1 [anti-PD-(L)1] therapies such as pembrolizumab, nivolumab or atezolizumab have become standard of care for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients either in first line or beyond. PD-L1 expression level allows enriching the treated population with responders, but it is still not an optimal biomarker. Even in patients with PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) levels of ≥50% treated with first line pembrolizumab overall response rate (ORR) is only 44.8% and overall survival at one year is 70%. Moreover, in combination trials with chemotherapy and anti-PD-(L)1 therapy, a significant proportion of patients does not respond (ORR ranges from 45.3% to 64.0%), regardless of PD-L1 expression. Furthermore, PD-L1 expression level is not associated with improved benefit in patients treated with combinations of anti-PD-(L)1 and anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen (anti-CTLA4) therapy. One of the new promising biomarkers is tumor mutational burden (TMB). It has been discovered that especially tumor types with a known high mutation rate such as NSCLC and melanoma respond best to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). An explanation is that this high mutation rate makes it more likely that neoantigens arise that are targeted by activated immune cells, but it is not feasible to determine neoantigen load in daily practice. However, TMB of a certain tumor type is associated with neoantigen load and outcome on ICIs. In this comprehensive review, we discuss the TMB analysis methods, the rationale to use TMB as a predictive biomarker and the clinical utility of TMB in NSCLC patients treated with ICIs., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: LE Hendriks: institutional research funding Roche, advisory board: Boehringer, BMS, travel reimbursement: Roche, BMS. E Rouleau: Advisory board: AstraZeneca, Roche, BMS – Travel reimbursement: BMS, AstraZeneca. B Besse: Institutional grants for clinical and translational research AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche-Genentech, Sanofi-Aventis, Servier, Onxeo, OncoMed, Inivata, OSE Pharma, Loxo.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have been incorporated in the treatment strategy of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in first- and second-line setting improving the prognosis of these patients. However, the treatment landscape has been also drastically overturned with the advent of targeted therapies in oncogenic-addicted advanced NSCLC patients. Despite ICIs represent an active and new treatment option for a wide range of advanced NSCLC patients, the efficacy and the optimal place of ICI in the treatment strategy algorithm of oncogenic-addicted tumors remains still controversial, as only a minority of trials with ICI enrol oncogenic-addicted NSCLC patients previously treated with standard therapy. Therefore, there are still several open questions about ICI in oncogenic-driven NSCLC, such as the efficacy and toxicities, which need to be addressed before considering treatment with ICI as a standard approach in this population. It is in this framework, we provide a thorough overview on this currently controversial topic., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Two randomized studies have shown an increased progression-free survival (PFS) by adding a radical local treatment to systemic therapy in responding patients with oligometastatic NSCLC, but long-term data are lacking. We updated the results of our previous phase II trial with a minimal follow-up exceeding 7 years., Methods: This is a prospective single-arm phase II trial. The main inclusion criteria were pathologically proven NSCLC stage IV with less than five metastases at primary diagnosis, amendable for radical local treatment (surgery or radiotherapy). No previous response to systemic treatment was needed., Results: Forty patients were enrolled, 39 of whom were evaluable (18 men, 21 women); mean age was 62.1 ± 9.2 years (range, 44 to 81 years). Twenty-nine (74%) had N2 or N3 disease; 17 (44%) brain, 7 (18%) bone, and 4 (10%) adrenal gland metastases. Thirty-five (87%) had a single metastatic lesion. Thirty-seven (95%) of the patients received chemotherapy as part of their primary treatment. Median overall survival (OS) was 13.5 months (95% confidence interval: 7.6-19.4 months); 1-, 2-, 3-, 5-, and 6- year OS was 56.4%, 23.3%,12.8%, 10.3%, 7.7%, and 5.1%, respectively. Median PFS was 12.1 months (95% confidence interval: 9.6-14.3 months); 1-, 2-, 3-, 5-, and 6- year OS was 51.3%, 13.6%, %,12.8%, 7.7%, 7.7%, and 2.5%, respectively. Only three patients (7.7%) had a local recurrence., Conclusions: In patients who were not selected according to response to systemic treatment, the PFS at 5 years was 8%. Entering patients in trials combining local therapy with novel systemic agents (e.g., immunotherapy) remains mandatory., (Copyright © 2018 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Purpose: We externally validated a previously established multivariable normal-tissue complication probability (NTCP) model for Grade ≥2 acute esophageal toxicity (AET) after intensity-modulated (chemo-)radiotherapy or volumetric-modulated arc therapy for locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer., Materials and Methods: A total of 603 patients from five cohorts (A-E) within four different Dutch institutes were included. Using the NTCP model, containing predictors concurrent chemoradiotherapy, mean esophageal dose, gender and clinical tumor stage, the risk of Grade ≥2 AET was estimated per patient and model discrimination and (re)calibration performance were evaluated., Results: Four validation cohorts (A, B, D, E) experienced higher incidence of Grade ≥2 AET compared to the training cohort (49.3-70.2% vs 35.6%; borderline significant for one cohort, highly significant for three cohorts). Cohort C experienced lower Grade ≥2 AET incidence (21.7%, p < 0.001). For three cohorts (A-C), discriminative performance was similar to the training cohort (area under the curve (AUC) 0.81-0.89 vs 0.84). In the two remaining cohorts (D-E) the model showed poor discriminative power (AUC 0.64 and 0.63). Reasonable calibration performance was observed in two cohorts (A-B), and recalibration further improved performance in all three cohorts with good discrimination (A-C). Recalibration for the two poorly discriminating cohorts (D-E) did not improve performance., Conclusions: The NTCP model for AET prediction was successfully validated in three out of five patient cohorts (AUC ≥0.80). The model did not perform well in two cohorts, which included patients receiving substantially different treatment. Before applying the model in clinical practice, validation of discrimination and (re)calibration performance in a local cohort is recommended., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

The incidence of brain metastases of solid tumors is increasing. Local treatment of brain metastases is generally straightforward: cranial radiotherapy (e.g., whole-brain radiotherapy or stereotactic radiosurgery) or resection when feasible. However, treatment becomes more complex when brain metastases occur while other metastases, outside of the central nervous system, are being controlled with systemic therapy (chemotherapeutics, molecular targeted agents, or monoclonal antibodies). It is known that some anticancer agents can increase the risk for neurotoxicity when used concurrently with radiotherapy. Increased neurotoxicity decreases quality of life, which is undesirable in this predominantly palliative patient group. Therefore, it is of utmost importance to identify the compounds that should be temporarily discontinued when cranial radiotherapy is needed.This review summarizes the (neuro)toxicity data for combining systemic therapy (chemotherapeutics, molecular targeted agents, or monoclonal antibodies) with concurrent radiotherapy of brain metastases. Because only a limited amount of high-level data has been published, a risk assessment of each agent was done, taking into account the characteristics of each compound (e.g., lipophilicity) and the microenvironment of brain metastasis. The available trials suggest that only gemcitabine, erlotinib, and vemurafenib induce significant neurotoxicity when used concurrently with cranial radiotherapy. We conclude that for most systemic therapies, the currently available literature does not show an increase in neurotoxicity when these therapies are used concurrently with cranial radiotherapy. However, further studies are needed to confirm safety because there is no high-level evidence to permit definitive conclusions. The Oncologist 2017;22:222-235 Implications for Practice: The treatment of symptomatic brain metastases diagnosed while patients are receiving systemic therapy continues to pose a dilemma to clinicians. Will concurrent treatment with cranial radiotherapy and systemic therapy (chemotherapeutics, molecular targeted agents, and monoclonal antibodies), used to control intra- and extracranial tumor load, increase the risk for neurotoxicity? This review addresses this clinically relevant question and evaluates the toxicity of combining systemic therapies with cranial radiotherapy, based on currently available literature, in order to determine the need to and interval to interrupt systemic treatment., (© AlphaMed Press 2017.)

The incidence of stage I and II nonsmall cell lung cancer is likely to increase with the ageing population and introduction of screening for high-risk individuals. Optimal management requires multidisciplinary collaboration. Local treatments include surgery and radiotherapy and these are currently combined with (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy in specific cases to improve long-term outcome. Targeted therapies and immunotherapy may also become important therapeutic modalities in this patient group. For resectable disease in patients with low cardiopulmonary risk, complete surgical resection with lobectomy remains the gold standard. Minimally invasive techniques, conservative and sublobar resections are suitable for a subset of patients. Data are emerging that radiotherapy, especially stereotactic body radiation therapy, is a valid alternative in compromised patients who are high-risk candidates for surgery. Whether this is also true for good surgical candidates remains to be evaluated in randomised trials. In specific subgroups adjuvant chemotherapy has been shown to prolong survival; however, patient selection remains important. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy may yield similar results as adjuvant chemotherapy. The role of targeted therapies and immunotherapy in early stage nonsmall cell lung cancer has not yet been determined and results of randomised trials are awaited., (Copyright ©ERS 2017.)

Background: In unselected elderly with stage III Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC), evidence is scarce regarding motives and effects of treatment modalities., Methods: Hospital-based multicenter retrospective study including unresectable stage III NSCLC patients aged ⩾70 and diagnosed between 2009 and 2013 (N=216). Treatment motives and tolerance (no unplanned hospitalizations and completion of treatment), and survival were derived from medical records and the Netherlands Cancer Registry., Results: Patients received concurrent chemoradiation (cCHRT, 33%), sequential chemoradiation (sCHRT, 24%), radical radiotherapy (RT, 16%) or no curative treatment (27%). Comorbidity, performance status (58%) and patient refusal (15%) were the most common motives for omitting cCHRT. Treatment tolerance for cCHRT and sCHRT was worse in case of severe comorbidity (OR 6.2 (95%CI 1.6-24) and OR 6.4 (95%CI 1.8-22), respectively). One-year survival was 57%, 50%, 49% and 26% for cCHRT, sCHRT, RT and no curative treatment, respectively. Compared to cCHRT, survival was worse for no curative treatment (P=0.000), but not significantly worse for sCHRT and RT (P=0.38)., Conclusion: Although relatively fit elderly were assigned to cCHRT, treatment tolerance was worse, especially for those with severe comorbidity. Survival seemed not significantly better as compared to sCHRT or RT. Prospective studies in this vital and understudied area are needed., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess the effect of early weight loss before the onset of radiation esophagitis on overall survival (OS) in patients with non-small cell lung cancer treated with concurrent chemoradiotherapy., Methods: Characteristics (e.g., patient weight, radiation esophagitis score, sex, World Health Organization performance status, chemotherapy dose, nodal status, and gross tumor volume) of 151 patients who received concurrent chemoradiotherapy (in 2006-2013) were retrospectively correlated with OS. Early weight loss was defined as weight loss of more than 5% between the start and third week of radiotherapy in patients whose weight was stable before treatment initiation., Results: In 17% of the patients early weight loss was observed. Median OS (95% confidence interval [CI]) was significantly shorter in the early weight loss group (OS = 13.0 months, 95% CI: 2.0-24.0) versus in the non-early weight loss group (OS = 23.0 months, 95% CI: 14.7-31.3) (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.8, 95% CI: 1.12-2.96, p = 0.017). On multivariate analysis sex (HR = 2.1, 95% CI: 1.33-3.29, p = 0.001), World Health Organization performance status (HR = 1.9, 95% CI: 1.20-2.97, p = 0.006), nodal status (HR = 2.9, 95% CI: 1.38-6.01, p = 0.005), and early weight loss (HR = 1.9, 95% CI: 1.10-3.19, p = 0.022) were associated with OS., Conclusions: Early weight loss in patients with non-small cell lung cancer was found to be associated with worse prognosis. These data warrant further investigation into the efficacy of tailored intervention to prevent early weight loss., (Copyright © 2016 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Pulmonary large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (LCNEC) is an orphan disease and few data are available on its clinical characteristics. Therefore, we analysed LCNEC registered in the Netherlands Cancer Registry, and compared data with small cell lung carcinoma (SCLC), squamous cell carcinoma (SqCC) and adenocarcinoma (AdC).Histologically confirmed LCNEC (n=952), SCLC (n=11 844), SqCC (n=19 633) and AdC (n=24 253) cases were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (2003-2012). Patient characteristics, metastasis at diagnosis (2006 or later), overall survival (OS) including multivariate Cox models and first-line treatment were compared for stage I-II, III and IV disease.The number of LCNEC cases increased from 56 patients in 2003 to 143 in 2012, accounting for 0.9% of all lung cancers. Stage IV LCNEC patients (n=383) commonly had metastasis in the liver (47%), bone (32%) and brain (23%), resembling SCLC. Median OS (95% CI) of stage I-II, III and IV LCNEC patients was 32.4 (22.0-42.9), 12.6 (10.3-15.0) and 4.0 (3.5-4.6) months, respectively. Multivariate-adjusted OS of LCNEC patients resembled that of SCLC patients, and was poorer than those of SqCC and AdC patients. However, frequency of surgical resection and adjuvant chemotherapy resembled SqCC and AdC more than SCLC.Diagnosis of LCNEC has increased in recent years. The metastatic pattern of LCNEC resembles SCLC as does the OS. However, early-stage treatment strategies seem more comparable to those of SqCC and AdC., (Copyright ©ERS 2016.)

Bone metastases are common in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), often causing pain and a decrease in quality of life (QoL). The effect of bone-targeted agents is evaluated by reduction in skeletal-related events in which neither pain nor QoL are included. Radioisotopes can be administered for more diffuse bone pain that is not eligible for palliative radiotherapy. The evidence that bone-targeted agents relieve pain or improve QoL is not solid. We performed a systematic review of the effect of bone-targeted agents on pain and QoL in patients with NSCLC. Our systematic literature search included original articles or abstracts reporting on bisphosphonates, denosumab, or radioisotopes or combinations thereof in patients with bone metastases (≥5 patients with NSCLC), with pain, QoL, or both serving as the primary or secondary end point. Of the twenty-five eligible studies, 13 examined bisphosphonates (one also examined denosumab) and 12 dealt with radioisotopes. None of the randomized studies on bisphosphonates or denosumab evaluated pain and QoL as the primary end point. In the single-arm studies of bisphosphonates a decrease in pain or analgesic consumption was found for 38% to 77% of patients. QoL was included in five of 13 studies, but improvement was found in only two. No high-level evidence that bisphosphonates or denosumab reduce pain or improve QoL was found. Although the data are limited, radioisotopes seem to reduce pain with a rapid onset of action and duration of response of 1 to 3 months. The evidence that bisphosphonates or denosumab reduce or prevent pain in patients with NSCLC and bone metastases or that they have an influence on QoL is very weak. Radioisotopes can be used to reduce diffuse pain, although there is no high-level evidence supporting such use., (Copyright © 2015 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: As suggested by in-vitro data, we hypothesize that subtypes of KRAS mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) respond differently to chemotherapy regimens., Methods: Patients with advanced NSCLC and known KRAS mutation, treated with first-line platinum-based chemotherapy, were retrieved from hospital databases., Primary Objective: to investigate overall response rate (ORR), progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) between different types of platinum-based chemotherapy per type of KRAS mutation., Results: 464 patients from 17 hospitals, treated between 2000 and 2013, were included. The majority of patients had stage IV disease (93%), had a history of smoking (98%) and known with an adenocarcinoma (91%). Most common types of KRAS mutation were G12C (46%), G12V (20%) and G12D (10%). Platinum was combined with pemetrexed (n=334), taxanes (n=68) or gemcitabine (n=62). Patients treated with taxanes had a significant improved ORR (50%) compared to pemetrexed (21%) or gemcitabine (25%; p<0.01). Patients treated with bevacizumab in addition to taxanes (n=38) had the highest ORR (62%). The PFS was significantly improved in patients treated with taxanes compared to pemetrexed (HR=0.72, p=0.02), but not OS (HR=0.87, p=0.41). In patients with G12V, significantly improved ORR (p<0.01) was observed for taxanes, but not PFS or OS. Patients with G12C or G12D mutation had comparable ORR, PFS and OS in all treatment groups., Conclusion: KRAS mutated NSCLC patients treated with taxane-based chemotherapy had best ORR. Response to chemotherapy regimens was different in types of KRAS mutation. Especially patients with G12V had better response to taxane treatment., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To analyse the prognostic impact on overall survival (OS) of single versus multiple organ metastases, organ affected, and local disease status in a population based stage IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) cohort., Methods: In this observational study, data were analysed of all histologically confirmed stage IV NSCLC patients diagnosed between 1 January 2006 and 31 December 2012 registered in the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Location of metastases before treatment was registered. Multivariable survival analyses [age, gender, histology, M-status, local disease status, number of involved organs, actual organ affected] were performed for all patients and for an (18)fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography ((18)FDG-PET)-staged subgroup., Results: 11,094 patients were selected: 60% male, mean age 65 years, 73% adenocarcinoma. Median OS for 1 (N = 5676), 2 (N = 3280), and ⩾ 3 (N = 2138) metastatically affected organs was 6.7, 4.3, 2.8 months, respectively (p < 0.001). Hazard ratio (HR) for 2 versus 1 organ(s) was 1.33 (p < 0.001), for ⩾ 3 versus 1 organ(s) 1.91 (p < 0.001). Results were confirmed in the (18)FDG-PET-staged cohort (N = 1517): patients with single organ versus 2 and ⩾ 3 organ metastases had higher OS (8.6, 5.7, 3.8 months, HR 1.40 and 2.17, respectively, p < 0.001). In single organ metastases, OS for low versus high TN-status was 8.5 versus 6.5 months [HR 1.40 (p < 0 .001)]. (18)FDG-PET-staged single organ metastases patients with low TN-status had a superior OS than those with high TN-status (11.6 versus 8.2 months, HR 1.62, p < 0.001)., Conclusion: Patients with single organ metastases stage IV NSCLC have a favourable prognosis, especially in combination with low TN status. They have to be regarded as a separate subgroup of stage IV disease., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Development of leptomeningeal metastasis (LM) in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)-patients is associated with a poor prognosis. It has been suggested that LM-patients with epidermal growth factor receptor mutated (EGFR+) NSCLC have a superior prognosis compared to EGFR-wild type NSCLC. Studies in EGFR+ NSCLC-patients with LM are scarce. We retrospectively evaluated a multi-institutional cohort of EGFR+ NSCLC-patients for LM to assess clinical outcome in relation to patient characteristics and treatment modalities., Material and Methods: Medical records of advanced-stage EGFR+ NSCLC-patients (diagnosed between August 2000 and June 2014) from 11 Dutch hospitals were evaluated for LM as diagnosed by MRI and/or cytopathological liquor analysis. Data on patient characteristics, treatment and outcome were collected., Results: Thirty-two of 356 (9.0%) advanced-stage EGFR+ NSCLC-patients (median follow-up 21.0 months), were diagnosed with LM between 2006 and 2014. LM was diagnosed by MRI (59.4%), liquor analysis (9.4%) or by both MRI and liquor analysis (31.3%). Median survival after LM-diagnosis was 3.1 months (95% CI: 0.0-7.3). Six- and 12-month survival rates were 43.8% and 18.8%, respectively. Patients with performance status (PS) 0-1 at time of diagnosis of LM had a significantly higher chance to be alive after 6 months and had a significantly longer survival after diagnosis of LM compared to patients with PS≥2. Age, treatment with high-dose EGFR-TKI, radiotherapy and whether LM was the only site of progressive disease did not influence survival after LM-diagnosis., Conclusion: Although median survival after LM-diagnosis in EGFR-mutated NSCLC-patients was poor, a substantial part of the patients had a prolonged survival of more than 6 months. PS of 0-1 at time of diagnosis of LM was associated with prolonged survival. No other patient- or treatment-related characteristics were identified. Further research is warranted to identify treatment strategies that improve survival in EGFR+ NSCLC-patients with LM., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Recently, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has been partly subclassified into molecularly-defined oncogene "addicted" tumors for which targeted agents are available. Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) are currently approved for patients with an activating epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation or anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) rearrangement. In these patients, brain metastases are often the first site of progression while on TKI treatment. The TKI may however still be active on extra-cranial sites and clinicians are thus faced with the question if the TKI may be continued during cranial radiotherapy. Advantages of combining TKI with cranial radiotherapy would be a possible synergistic effect on the brain metastases and the prevention of a systemic disease flare-up. A disadvantage is the possibly increased risk of (neuro)toxicity. The present systematic review addresses the toxicity of combining TKI with cranial radiotherapy in NSCLC patients., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Median survival after diagnosis of brain metastases is, depending on the Recursive Partitioning Analysis (RPA) classes, 7.1 (class I) to 2.3 months (class III). In 2011 the Dutch guideline on brain metastases was revised, advising to withhold whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) in RPA class III. In this large retrospective study, we evaluated the guideline's use in daily practice., Material and Methods: Data of 428 lung cancer patients undergoing WBRT for brain metastases (2004-2012) referred from three Dutch hospitals were retrospectively analyzed. Details on Karnofsky performance score (KPS), age, control of primary tumor, extracranial metastases, histology, and survival after diagnosis of brain metastases were collected. RPA class was determined using the first four items., Results: In total 327 patients had non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and 101 small cell lung cancer (SCLC). For NSCLC, 6.1%, 71.9%, and 16.2% were classified as RPA I, II, and III, respectively, and 5.8% could not be classified. For SCLC this was 8.9%, 66.3%, 14.9%, and 9.9%, respectively. Before the revised guideline was implemented, 11.3-21.3% of WBRT patients were annually classified as RPA III. In the year thereafter, this was 13.0% (p = 0.646). Median survival (95% CI) for NSCLC RPA class I, II, and III was 11.4 (9.9-12.9), 4.0 (3.4-4.7), and 1.7 (1.3-2.0) months, respectively. For SCLC this was 7.9 (4.1-11.7), 4.7 (3.3-6.1), and 1.7 (1.5-1.8) months., Conclusions: Although it is advised to withhold WBRT in RPA class III patients, in daily practice 11.3-21.3% of WBRT-treated patients were classified as RPA III. The new guideline did not result in a decrease. Reasons for referral of RPA III patients despite a low KPS were not found. Despite WBRT, survival of RPA III patients remains poor and this poor outcome should be stressed in practice guidelines. Therefore, better awareness amongst physicians would prevent some patients from being treated unnecessarily.

Objectives: Both bone and brain are frequent sites of metastasis in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Conflicting data exist whether EGFR mutant (+) patients are more prone to develop brain metastases or have a better outcome with brain metastases compared to EGFR/KRAS wildtype (WT) or KRAS+ patients. For bone metastases this has not been studied., Methods: In this retrospective case-control study all EGFR+ (exons 19 and 21) patients diagnosed at two pathology departments were selected (2004/2008 to 2012). For every EGFR+ patient a consecutive KRAS+ and WT patient with metastatic NSCLC (mNSCLC) was identified. Patients with another malignancy within 2 years of mNSCLC diagnosis were excluded. Data regarding age, gender, performance score, histology, treatment, bone/brain metastases diagnosis, skeletal related events (SRE) and subsequent survival were collected., Results: 189 patients were included: 62 EGFR+, 65 KRAS+, 62 WT. 32%, 35% and 40%, respectively, had brain metastases (p=0.645). Mean time to brain metastases was 20.8 [± 12.0], 10.8 [± 9.8], 16.4 [± 10.2] months (EGFR+-KRAS+, p = 0.020, EGFR+-WT, p = 0.321). Median post brain metastases survival was 12.1 [5.0-19.1], 7.6 [1.2-14.0], 10.7 [1.5-19.8] months (p = 0.674). 60%, 52% and 50% had metastatic bone disease (p=0.528). Mean time to development of metastatic bone disease was 13.4 [± 10.6], 23.3 [± 19.4], 16.4 [± 9.6] months (p = 0.201). Median post metastatic bone disease survival was 15.0 [10.6-20.3], 9.0 [5.2-12.9], 3.2 [0.0-6.9] months (p = 0.010). Time to 1st SRE was not significantly different., Conclusions: Incidence of brain and bone metastases was not different between EGFR+, KRAS+ and WT patients. Post brain metastases survival, time from mNSCLC diagnosis to metastatic bone disease and 1st SRE did not differ either. Post metastatic bone disease survival was significantly longer in EGFR+ patients. Although prevention of SRE's is important for all patients, the latter finding calls for a separate study for SRE preventing agents in EGFR+ patients., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Stage III NSCLC patients are candidates for treatment with curative intent. Current guidelines advise post contrast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or contrast enhanced computed tomography (CE-CT) of the brain in these patients to exclude brain metastases (BM). In previous small studies MRI was reported to be superior to CE-CT. However, CT and MR technology have evolved and 18F-deoxyglucose-positron-emission-tomography (18FDG-PET) has been implemented in staging of NSCLC. If CE-CT, performed together with 18FDG-PET-CT shows the same yield of BM detection as an additionally performed MRI, substantial gain in time and resources is expected., Methods: All NSCLC patients who underwent a staging 18FDG-PET-CT between January 2008 and September 2011 were reviewed. Neurological asymptomatic patients with stage III NSCLC who were eligible for treatment with curative intent were selected, without taking into account the results of brain MRI. CT was compared to MRI to investigate whether additional BM were detected on MRI. Development of BM within a year after negative MRI was recorded., Results: 97/429 NSCLC patients who underwent a PET-CT had stage III disease. Three otherwise stage III patients already had occult BM on CE-CT. 77/97 (79%) patients underwent MRI, 45/77 (58%) CE-CT and 32/77 (42%) LD-CT. In none of the CE-CT, but in 5/32 (16%) LD-CT patients BM were detected on MRI. 9/72 patients (13%) without BM on MRI at diagnosis developed BM within a year., Conclusions: This retrospective study suggests that there is no additive value of MRI to 18FDG-PET-CT with CE-CT in screening for BM in neurological asymptomatic patients with stage III NSCLC., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

A 67-year-old male was diagnosed with pulmonary embolism and treated with anticoagulants. Half a year later CT of the chest showed growth of the embolism and that pleural fluid and pleural noduli had appeared. A 18FDG-PET-CT showed uptake in these abnormalities and in several bones. Bone biopsy showed a leiomyosarcoma. The patient was diagnosed with metastasized pulmonary artery sarcoma.

Lung transplantation is an accepted therapy for patients with end-stage lung disease and offers a major survival benefit in selected patients. The most important indications are chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis besides cystic fibrosis and pulmonary arterial hypertension. The incidence of lung cancer in patients after Ltx is 20-25 times higher than in the general population. Diagnosis is often difficult in IPF patients because of the diffuse lung abnormalities due to the underlying fibrosis. Moreover, the lung cancer may mimic a pulmonary infection. Symptoms are often aspecific, diagnosis is difficult, and prognosis is extremely poor. We describe three patients who were transplanted for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis and who developed a primary lung cancer.

Hyperthyroidism results from excessive production of thyroid hormones. This is usually caused by Graves disease, but exogenous thyroid hormones can lead to similar symptoms. Recognition of the latter is difficult as excessive intake of thyroid hormone is not usually admitted nor recognised. To our knowledge, exogenous hyperthyroidism caused by thyroid-contaminated food has been described twice, but not in the Netherlands. A 77-year-old man presented at the Outpatient Department of Internal Medicine with lab values revealing hyperthyroidism. There were no abnormal findings at the physical examination. Antibodies against the thyroidstimulating hormone (TSH) receptor were not detectable. Thyroid scintigraphy with 123I showed an uptake of less than 1%. Silent thyroiditis was diagnosed and the natural course was awaited, but with no improvement in the thyroid values. The thyroglobulin was very low. Further anamnesis revealed an excessive daily consumption of sausages. Thyroid hormones were detectable in these sausages. After the patient stopped eating them, he became and remained euthyroid. The case stipulates the importance of a thorough anamnesis.