Search

PURPOSE The open-label, phase III POSEIDON study evaluated tremelimumab plus durvalumab and chemotherapy (T + D + CT) and durvalumab plus chemotherapy (D + CT) versus chemotherapy alone (CT) in first-line metastatic non–small-cell lung cancer (mNSCLC). METHODS Patients (n = 1,013) with EGFR/ ALK wild-type mNSCLC were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to tremelimumab 75 mg plus durvalumab 1,500 mg and platinum-based chemotherapy for up to four 21-day cycles, followed by durvalumab once every 4 weeks until progression and one additional tremelimumab dose; durvalumab plus chemotherapy for up to four 21-day cycles, followed by durvalumab once every 4 weeks until progression; or chemotherapy for up to six 21-day cycles (with or without maintenance pemetrexed; all arms). Primary end points were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for D + CT versus CT. Key alpha-controlled secondary end points were PFS and OS for T + D + CT versus CT. RESULTS PFS was significantly improved with D + CT versus CT (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74; 95% CI, 0.62 to 0.89; P = .0009; median, 5.5 v 4.8 months); a trend for improved OS did not reach statistical significance (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.02; P = .0758; median, 13.3 v 11.7 months; 24-month OS, 29.6% v 22.1%). PFS (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.86; P = .0003; median, 6.2 v 4.8 months) and OS (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.92; P = .0030; median, 14.0 v 11.7 months; 24-month OS, 32.9% v 22.1%) were significantly improved with T + D + CT versus CT. Treatment-related adverse events were maximum grade 3/4 in 51.8%, 44.6%, and 44.4% of patients receiving T + D + CT, D + CT, and CT, respectively; 15.5%, 14.1%, and 9.9%, respectively, discontinued treatment because of treatment-related adverse events. CONCLUSION D + CT significantly improved PFS versus CT. A limited course of tremelimumab added to durvalumab and chemotherapy significantly improved OS and PFS versus CT, without meaningful additional tolerability burden, representing a potential new option in first-line mNSCLC.

Background: Early intramuscular administration of SARS-CoV-2-neutralising monoclonal antibody combination, tixagevimab–cilgavimab, to non-hospitalised adults with mild to moderate COVID-19 has potential to prevent disease progression. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of tixagevimab–cilgavimab in preventing progression to severe COVID-19 or death. Methods: TACKLE is an ongoing, phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study conducted at 95 sites in the USA, Latin America, Europe, and Japan. Eligible participants were non-hospitalised adults aged 18 years or older with a laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (determined by RT-PCR or an antigen test) from any respiratory tract specimen collected 3 days or less before enrolment and who had not received a COVID-19 vaccination. A WHO Clinical Progression Scale score from more than 1 to less than 4 was required for inclusion and participants had to receive the study drug 7 days or less from self-reported onset of mild to moderate COVID-19 symptoms or measured fever. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either a single tixagevimab–cilgavimab 600 mg dose (two consecutive 3 mL intramuscular injections, one each of 300 mg tixagevimab and 300 mg cilgavimab) or placebo. Randomisation was stratified (using central blocked randomisation with randomly varying block sizes) by time from symptom onset, and high-risk versus low-risk of progression to severe COVID-19. Participants, investigators, and sponsor staff involved in the treatment or clinical evaluation and monitoring of the participants were masked to treatment-group assignments. The primary endpoints were severe COVID-19 or death from any cause through to day 29, and safety. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04723394. Findings: Between Jan 28, 2021, and July 22, 2021, 1014 participants were enrolled, of whom 910 were randomly assigned to a treatment group (456 to receive tixagevimab–cilgavimab and 454 to receive placebo). The mean age of participants was 46·1 years (SD 15·2). Severe COVID-19 or death occurred in 18 (4%) of 407 participants in the tixagevimab–cilgavimab group versus 37 (9%) of 415 participants in the placebo group (relative risk reduction 50·5% [95% CI 14·6–71·3]; p=0·0096). The absolute risk reduction was 4·5% (95% CI 1·1–8·0; p Interpretation: A single intramuscular tixagevimab–cilgavimab dose provided statistically and clinically significant protection against progression to severe COVID-19 or death versus placebo in unvaccinated individuals and safety was favourable. Treating mild to moderate COVID-19 earlier in the disease course with tixagevimab–cilgavimab might lead to more favourable outcomes.

Background The oral, selective Janus kinase 1/2 inhibitor baricitinib has shown efficacy in studies of hospitalised adults with COVID-19. COV-BARRIER (NCT04421027) was a multinational, phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of baricitinib in patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of baricitinib plus standard of care in critically ill hospitalised adults with COVID-19 requiring invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Methods This exploratory trial followed the study design of COV-BARRIER in a critically ill cohort not included in the main phase 3 trial. The study was conducted across 18 hospitals in Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, and the USA. Participants (aged ≥18 years) hospitalised with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection on baseline invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation were randomly assigned (1:1) to baricitinib (4 mg) or placebo once daily for up to 14 days in combination with standard of care. Participants, study staff, and investigators were masked to study group assignment. Prespecified endpoints included all-cause mortality through days 28 and 60, number of ventilator-free days, duration of hospitalisation, and time to recovery through day 28. The efficacy analysis was done in the intention-to-treat population and the safety analysis was done in the safety population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04421027. Findings Between Dec 23, 2020, and April 10, 2021, 101 participants were enrolled into the exploratory trial and assigned to baricitinib (n=51) or placebo (n=50) plus standard of care. Standard of care included baseline systemic corticosteroid use in 87 (86%) participants. Treatment with baricitinib significantly reduced 28-day all-cause mortality compared with placebo (20 [39%] of 51 participants died in the baricitinib group vs 29 [58%] of 50 in the placebo group; hazard ratio [HR] 0·54 [95% CI 0·31–0·96]; p=0·030; 46% relative reduction; absolute risk reduction 19%). A significant reduction in 60-day mortality was also observed in the baricitinib group compared with the placebo group (23 [45%] events vs 31 [62%]; HR 0·56 [95% CI 0·33–0·97]; p=0·027; 44% relative reduction; absolute risk reduction 17%). In every six baricitinib-treated participants, one additional death was prevented compared with placebo at days 28 and 60. The number of ventilator-free days did not differ significantly between treatment groups (mean 8·1 days [SD 10·2] in the baricitinib group vs 5·5 days [8·4] in the placebo group; p=0·21). The mean duration of hospitalisation in baricitinib-treated participants was not significantly shorter than in placebo-treated participants (23·7 days [SD 7·1] vs 26·1 days [3·9]; p=0·050). The rates of infections, blood clots, and adverse cardiovascular events were similar between treatment groups. Interpretation In critically ill hospitalised patients with COVID-19 who were receiving invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, treatment with baricitinib compared with placebo (in combination with standard of care, including corticosteroids) reduced mortality, which is consistent with the mortality reduction observed in less severely ill patients in the hospitalised primary COV-BARRIER study population. However, this was an exploratory trial with a relatively small sample size; therefore, further phase 3 trials are needed to confirm these findings. Funding Eli Lilly and Company.

Summary Background Baricitinib is an oral selective Janus kinase 1/2 inhibitor with known anti-inflammatory properties. This study evaluates the efficacy and safety of baricitinib in combination with standard of care for the treatment of hospitalised adults with COVID-19. Methods In this phase 3, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial, participants were enrolled from 101 centres across 12 countries in Asia, Europe, North America, and South America. Hospitalised adults with COVID-19 receiving standard of care were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive once-daily baricitinib (4 mg) or matched placebo for up to 14 days. Standard of care included systemic corticosteroids, such as dexamethasone, and antivirals, including remdesivir. The composite primary endpoint was the proportion who progressed to high-flow oxygen, non-invasive ventilation, invasive mechanical ventilation, or death by day 28, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. All-cause mortality by day 28 was a key secondary endpoint, and all-cause mortality by day 60 was an exploratory endpoint; both were assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses were done in the safety population defined as all randomly allocated participants who received at least one dose of study drug and who were not lost to follow-up before the first post-baseline visit. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT04421027 . Findings Between June 11, 2020, and Jan 15, 2021, 1525 participants were randomly assigned to the baricitinib group (n=764) or the placebo group (n=761). 1204 (79·3%) of 1518 participants with available data were receiving systemic corticosteroids at baseline, of whom 1099 (91·3%) were on dexamethasone; 287 (18·9%) participants were receiving remdesivir. Overall, 27·8% of participants receiving baricitinib and 30·5% receiving placebo progressed to meet the primary endpoint (odds ratio 0·85 [95% CI 0·67 to 1·08], p=0·18), with an absolute risk difference of −2·7 percentage points (95% CI −7·3 to 1·9). The 28-day all-cause mortality was 8% (n=62) for baricitinib and 13% (n=100) for placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0·57 [95% CI 0·41–0·78]; nominal p=0·0018), a 38·2% relative reduction in mortality; one additional death was prevented per 20 baricitinib-treated participants. The 60-day all-cause mortality was 10% (n=79) for baricitinib and 15% (n=116) for placebo (HR 0·62 [95% CI 0·47–0·83]; p=0·0050). The frequencies of serious adverse events (110 [15%] of 750 in the baricitinib group vs 135 [18%] of 752 in the placebo group), serious infections (64 [9%] vs 74 [10%]), and venous thromboembolic events (20 [3%] vs 19 [3%]) were similar between the two groups. Interpretation Although there was no significant reduction in the frequency of disease progression overall, treatment with baricitinib in addition to standard of care (including dexamethasone) had a similar safety profile to that of standard of care alone, and was associated with reduced mortality in hospitalised adults with COVID-19. Funding Eli Lilly and Company. Translations For the French, Japanese, Portuguese, Russian and Spanish translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

In patients with previously treated advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), atezolizumab therapy improves survival with manageable safety. The open-label, single-arm phase III/IV TAIL study (NCT03285763) evaluated atezolizumab monotherapy in patients with previously treated NSCLC, including those with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2, severe renal impairment, prior anti-programmed death 1 therapy, autoimmune disease, and age ≥75 years. Patients received atezolizumab intravenously (1200 mg) every 3 weeks. At data cut-off for final analysis, the median follow-up was 36.1 (range 0.0–42.3) months. Treatment-related (TR) serious adverse events (SAEs) and TR immune-related adverse events (irAEs) were the coprimary endpoints. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate, and duration of response. Safety and efficacy in key patient subgroups were also assessed. TR SAEs and TR irAEs occurred in 8.0% and 9.4% of patients, respectively. No new safety signals were documented. In the overall population, median OS and PFS (95% CI) were 11.2 months (8.9 to 12.7) and 2.7 months (2.3 to 2.8), respectively. TAIL showed that atezolizumab has a similar risk-benefit profile in clinically diverse patients with previously treated NSCLC, which may guide treatment decisions for patients generally excluded from pivotal clinical trials.

e14570 Background: Cancer in Mexico represents the third cause of death nationally. Immunotherapy agents have changed management and prognosis of cancer patients. Immune-checkpoint agents are now being used as both first- and second-line treatment improving cancer patient prognosis, nevertheless it is not always accessible. Methods: Retrospective review of patients diagnosed with any type of cancer that received immunotherapy during their disease course from the last 5-years. We present the most common malignancies, immunotherapeutic regimens received, population characteristics and survival analysis. Results: 130 records of patients ≥18 years that received immunotherapy were included. 52.3% female with mean age of 59 years (range, 22-89 years), 48.5% former smokers (average pack/year of 22.5) and 31.5% asbestos exposure. 53.1% were ECOG 0 and 82.3% clinical stage IV. 62.3% of cases were lung adenocarcinoma, followed by lung epidermoid carcinoma (13.1%) and 10% small-cell lung carcinoma. Immunotherapeutic agents used included nivolumab in 63.1%, pembrolizumab 12.3%, nivolumab + ipilimumab 8.5%, durvalumab 6.2%, pembrolizumab + ipilimumab 4.6%. 36.2% of patients received immunotherapy as second line treatment, 30.0% as third and 23.8% as first line treatment. The best Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) was RECIST 3 in 46.2% followed by RECIST 0 with 25.4%. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 5 months (95% CI; 3.883-6.117) and median OS of 13 months (95% CI; 10.210-15.790). Analysis per immunotherapy on PFS (p = 0.0414) and OS (p = 0.0046) demonstrated pembrolizumab had the longest median PFS with 19-months and OS with 22-months. Analysis between tumor types was significant for both PFS (p = 0.0018) and OS (p = 0.0090) with melanoma having the longest median PFS (42-months) and OS (46-months). Conclusions: Immunotherapy has changed cancer management; however, its use depends on specific biomarkers and adequate patient selection. Not all patients benefit from immunotherapy, in a country like ours where resources are limited, it is of vital importance to properly select candidates for immunotherapy. Even though, all patients had an FDA-approved indication at the time of receiving immunotherapy, PFS and OS are not as significant as Phase 3 studies demonstrate, this may be due to late stages, advanced ECOG, correct biomarkers availability and adequate patient selection. It is important to mention that about 40-60% of patients with immunotherapy do not respond adequately. In our study, because there is more evidence with pembrolizumab, the patients who received it were better chosen and therefore there was an impact in PFS and OS. Immunotherapy selection also depends on physician experience to the different immunotherapy regimens.

9035 Background: In the Phase 3 POSEIDON study in 1L mNSCLC, adding T to D+CT resulted in statistically significant improvements in PFS and OS vs CT. No new safety signals were identified and treatment discontinuations due to treatment-related AEs (TRAEs) were similar for the T+D+CT and D+CT arms (15.5% and 14.1%). Here we present details of AEs and their management. Methods: 1013 pts with EGFR/ ALK wild-type mNSCLC were randomized 1:1:1 to 1L T+D+CT, D+CT or CT. Safety was assessed in all treated pts. Results: 330, 334 and 333 pts received T+D+CT, D+CT and CT; 78%, 82% and 74% received at least 4 cycles of platinum-based CT. The most common grade 3/4 TRAEs were hematologic (anemia in 17%, 15% and 20% of pts in the T+D+CT, D+CT and CT arms and neutropenia in 16%, 13% and 12%) and most were managed using standard approaches per local practice; 22%, 18% and 16% of pts received colony stimulating factors and 22%, 21% and 26% received blood transfusions. All grade immune-mediated AEs (imAEs) occurred in 34%, 19% and 5% of pts in the T+D+CT, D+CT and CT arms; a higher incidence of diarrhea/colitis, dermatitis/rash and endocrinopathies was seen with the addition of T to D+CT (Table). Grade 3/4 imAEs occurred in 10%, 7% and 2% of pts in the T+D+CT, D+CT and CT arms, and serious imAEs in 10%, 6% and 1%; imAEs led to discontinuation of any study treatment in 6%, 4% and 0.6%, and led to death in 0.6%, 0.3% and 0%. Most imAEs were low grade and manageable with systemic corticosteroids (received by 26%, 13% and 4% of pts in the T+D+CT, D+CT and CT arms) or endocrine therapy (12%, 8% and 1%). Median time from first dose to onset of imAEs (TTO) was generally > 60 days and the majority of non-endocrine imAEs resolved (Table). Conclusions: In POSEIDON, the safety profile of all regimens was manageable per standard guidelines and in line with the known profiles of D, T+D and CT; the most common grade 3/4 TRAEs were those typically associated with CT. As expected, more imAEs occurred with T+D+CT than D+CT, but the incidence of grade 3 or 4 imAEs, imAE-related deaths and treatment discontinuations due to imAEs was generally similar in the IO arms. T+D did not compromise the ability to administer planned CT. Clinical trial information: NCT03164616. [Table: see text]

BackgroundThe efficacy and safety of baricitinib, an oral selective Janus kinase 1/2 inhibitor, in addition to standard of care (SOC) in hospitalised adults with COVID-19 is unknown.MethodsIn this phase 3, global, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial, participants were enrolled from 101 centres across 12 countries in Asia, Europe, North America, and South America (ClinicalTrials.govNCT04421027). Hospitalised adults with COVID-19 receiving SOC were randomly assigned (1:1) to once-daily baricitinib 4-mg or placebo for up to 14 days. SOC included systemic corticosteroids in 79·3% of participants (dexamethasone ∼90%). The composite primary endpoint was the proportion who progressed to high-flow oxygen, non-invasive ventilation, invasive mechanical ventilation, or death by day 28. All-cause mortality by days 28 and 60 were key secondary and exploratory endpoints, respectively. Efficacy and safety analyses included the intent-to-treat and safety populations, respectively.FindingsBetween June 11, 2020 and January 15, 2021, 1525 participants were randomly assigned to baricitinib 4-mg (n=764) or matched placebo (n=761). Overall, 27·8% of participants receiving baricitinib vs 30·5% receiving placebo progressed (primary endpoint, odds ratio 0·85, 95% CI 0·67-1·08; p=0·18). The 28-day all-cause mortality was 8·1% (n=62) for baricitinib and 13·1% (n=100) for placebo, corresponding to a 38·2% reduction in mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 0·57, 95% CI 0·41-0·78; nominal p=0·0018). The 60-day all-cause mortality was 10·3% (n=79) for baricitinib and 15·2% (n=116) for placebo (HR 0·62, 95% CI 0·47-0·83; p=0·0050). Frequency of serious adverse events (14·7% [n=110] vs 18·0% [n=135]), serious infections (8·5% [n=64] vs 9·8% [n=74]), and venous thromboembolic events (2·7% [n=20] vs 2·5% [n=19]) was similar between baricitinib and placebo, respectively.InterpretationWhile reduction of disease progression did not achieve statistical significance, treatment with baricitinib in addition to SOC (including dexamethasone) significantly reduced mortality, with a similar safety profile to SOC, in hospitalised COVID-19 participants.FundingEli Lilly and Company.Research in contextEvidence before this studyWe searched PubMed using the terms “COVID-19”, “SARS-CoV-2”, “treatment”, “baricitinib” and “JAK inhibitor” for articles in English published up to April 31, 2020, regardless of article type. We considered previous and current clinical trials of investigational medications in COVID-19, as well as previous clinical trials of the Janus kinase (JAK)1 and JAK2 inhibitor, baricitinib, before undertaking this study. At the time the COV-BARRIER study was designed, there were no approved therapies for the treatment of COVID-19. Management of COVID-19 was supportive, and limited phase 3 randomised placebo-controlled studies had been completed. Limited phase 2 and 3 data on the antimalarial hydroxychloroquine and protease inhibitor lopinavir/ritonavir were available, and trials investigating the use of the antiviral remdesivir were ongoing. Baricitinib’s mechanism of action as a JAK1 and JAK2 inhibitor was identified as a potential intervention for the treatment of COVID-19 given its known anti-cytokine properties and potential for targeting host proteins for its antiviral mechanism. Additionally, early case series evaluating the efficacy and safety of baricitinib in the hospitalised patient population supported further evaluation of baricitinib as a potential treatment option for hospitalised patients with COVID-19. While COV-BARRIER was enrolling, ACTT-2, a phase 3 study evaluating baricitinib plus remdesivir was completed showing that baricitinib added to remdesivir improved time to recovery and other outcomes.Added value of this studyThis was the first phase 3 study to evaluate baricitinib in addition to the current standard of care (SOC) and included antivirals, anticoagulants, and corticosteroids. After the earliest publication of the RECOVERY study in June 2020, the treatment of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 changed with the adoption of dexamethasone as SOC. As a result of its design, COV-BARRIER became the first trial to evaluate the benefit/risk of baricitinib when added to the most current SOC (dexamethasone) in these patients. This was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted globally in regions with high COVID-19 hospitalisation rates. The reduction in the composite primary endpoint of progression to non-invasive ventilation, high flow oxygen, invasive mechanical ventilation, or death for baricitinib plus SOC (including dexamethasone) compared to placebo plus SOC did not reach statistical significance. However, in a pre-specified key secondary endpoint, treatment with baricitinib reduced 28-day all-cause mortality by 38·2% compared to placebo (HR 0·57, 95% CI 0·41-0·78; nominal p=0·0018); one additional death was prevented per 20 baricitinib-treated participants. The reduction of all-cause mortality with baricitinib was maintained by day 60 in an exploratory analysis. The frequency of serious adverse events, serious infections, and venous thromboembolic events was similar between baricitinib and placebo, respectively.Implications of all the available evidenceIn this phase 3 trial, baricitinib given in addition to SOC (which predominantly included dexamethasone) did not reduce a composite endpoint of disease progression, but showed a strong effect on reducing mortality by 28 days, an effect which was maintained by 60 days. In the ACTT-2 study, baricitinib further reduced time to recovery above the background use of remdesivir. Taken together, these findings suggest that baricitinib has synergistic effects to other SOC treatment modalities including remdesivir and dexamethasone. Based on all available evidence, baricitinib is a potentially effective oral treatment option to decrease mortality in hospitalised patients with COVID-19.

Lung cancer is one the leading causes of mortality worldwide. Symptomatic manifestations of the disease generally occur in the advanced-stage setting, and therefore an important number of patients have advanced or metastatic disease by the time they are diagnosed. This situation contributes to a poor prognosis in the treatment of lung cancer. Evidencebased clinical recommendations are of great value to support decision-making for daily practice, and thus improving health care quality and patient outcomes.This document was an initiative of the Mexican Society of Oncology (SMEO) in collaboration with Mexican Center of Clinical Excellence (Cenetec) according to Interna- tional Standards. Such standards included those described by the IOM, NICE, SIGN and GI-N. An interdisciplinary Guideline Development Group (GDG) was put together which included medical oncologists, surgical oncologistsc, radiation therapists, and methodologists with expertise in critical appraisal, sys- tematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines development.62 clinical questions were agreed among members of the GDG. With the evidence identified from systematic reviews, the GDG developed clinical recommendations using a Modified Delphi Panel technique. Patients' representatives validated them.These Clinical Practice Guideline aims to support the shared decision-making process for patients with different stages of non-small cell lung cancer. Our goal is to improve health-care quality on these patients.El cáncer de pulmón es una de las principales causas de mortalidad alrededor del mundo. Su historia natural, con la manifestación de síntomas en etapas avanzadas y el retraso en su diagnóstico hacen que una gran proporción de pacientes se diagnostiquen en estadios tardíos de la enfermedad, lo que hace muy complicado el tratamiento exitoso de la misma. De esto deriva la importancia de dar origen a recomendaciones basadas en evidencia para soportar la toma de decisiones clínicas por parte de los grupos interdisicplinarios que se encargan del manejo de este padecimiento.Este documento se desarrolló por parte de la Sociedad Mexicana de Oncología en colaboración con el Centro Nacional de Excelencia Tec- nológica de México (Cenetec) a través de la dirección de integración de Guías de Práctica Clínica en cumplimiento a estándares internacionales como los descritos por el Ins- tituto de Medicina de EUA (IOM, por sus siglas en inglés), el Instituto de Excelencia Clínica de Gran Bretaña (NICE, por sus siglas en inglés), la Red Colegiada para el Desarrollo de Guías de Escocia (SIGN, por sus siglas en inglés), la Red Internacional de Guías (G-I-N, por sus siglas en inglés); entre otros. Se integró en representación de la Sociedad Mexicana de Oncología un Grupo de Desarrollo de la Guía (GDG) de manera interdisciplinaria, considerando oncólogos médicos, cirujanos oncólogos, cirujanos de tórax, radio-oncólogos, y metodólogos con experiencia en revisiones sistemáticas de la literatura y guías de práctica clínica.Se consensuaron 62 preguntas cllínicas que abarcaron lo establecido previamente por el GDG en el documento de alcances de la Guía. Se identificó la evidencia científica que responde a cada una de estas preguntas clínicas y se evaluó críticamente la misma, antes de ser incorporada en el cuerpo de evidencia de la Guía. El GDG acordó mediante la técnica de consenso formal de expertos Panel Delphi la redacción final de las recomendaciones clínicas. C.Esta Guía de Práctica Clínica pretende proveer recomendaciones clínicas para el manejo de los distintos estadios de la enfermedad y que asistan en el proceso de toma de decisiones compartida. El GDG espera que esta guía contribuya a mejorar la calidad de la atención clínica en las pacientes con cáncer de pulmón de células no pequeñas.

Background Tissue-based assessment of actionable mutations in pts with NSCLC is limited by invasive biopsies and adequacy of biopsied tumour material. Blood-based testing may overcome such limitations, allowing multiplex profiling in a single test. BFAST (NCT03178552) is an ongoing multicentre, open-label, multi-cohort study evaluating the relationship between blood-based next-generation sequencing (NGS) detection of actionable genetic alterations in cell-free DNA, and the activity of targeted therapies and immunotherapy in pts with treatment-naive advanced NSCLC. We present first results from the ALK+ cohort. Methods Pts ≥18 years with stage IIIB/IV ALK+ NSCLC (detected by blood-based NGS) received oral alectinib 600mg twice daily. Asymptomatic/treated central nervous system (CNS) metastases were permitted. All pts (with/without CNS disease) had 8-weekly restaging and brain scans. Primary endpoint: confirmed investigator (INV)-assessed objective response rate (ORR; RECIST v1.1). Key secondary endpoints: independent review facility (IRF)-assessed ORR; INV- and IRF-assessed duration of response (DoR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival; and safety. Results Of 2,219 pts screened, blood-based NGS yielded results in 2,188 pts. Overall, 119 pts (5.4%) had ALK+ disease; 87 pts were enrolled and received alectinib. EML4 was the fusion partner in 73 (84%) pts, with TP53 mutations detected in 38 (44%) pts. Median blood-based tumour mutational burden was 2 (range, 0–21). Median follow-up: 12.6 months (range, 2.6–18.7). Confirmed ORR: 87.4% (95% CI 78.5–93.5) by INV and 92.0% (95% CI 84.1–96.7) by IRF. The 12-month INV-confirmed DoR was 75.9% (95% CI 63.6–88.2). In 35 (40%) pts with asymptomatic baseline CNS disease, ORR by INV was 91.4% (95% CI 76.9–98.2). Median PFS: not reached; 12-month PFS by INV was 78.4% (95% CI 69.1–87.7). Safety data were consistent with the known safety profile of alectinib. Conclusions Blood-based detection of ALK fusions results in high ORR and clinical benefit in pts receiving alectinib. These data validate the clinical utility of blood-based NGS as an additional method to inform clinical decision-making in ALK+ NSCLC. Clinical trial identification NCT03178552. Editorial acknowledgement Medical Writing support was provided by Nicola Griffin of Gardiner-Caldwell Communications and funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche. Legal entity responsible for the study F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. Funding F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd. Disclosure S.M. Gadgeel: Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Ariad, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer and F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd/Genentech. T.S.K. Mok: Leadership role: Sanonics Ltd; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: ACEA Biosciences, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Chimed, Cirina, Fishawack Facilitate, Ignyta, Janssen, Lilly, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, OncoGenex, Pfizer, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd/Genentech, SFJ Pharm; Research grant / Funding (self): AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Clovis Oncology, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, SFJ Pharmaceutical and XCovery. S. Peters: Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Clovis, Eli Lilly, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck Serono, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron and Takeda; Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis and Pfizer. J.A.A. Alexander: Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer and F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd/Genentech, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda. N.B. Leighl: Research grant / Funding (self): F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Array, Guardant and AstraZeneca; Honoraria (self): AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, F. Hoffmann-Lar Roche, Pfizer ; Advisory / Consultancy: Excovery. V. Sriuranpong: Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: AstraZeneca, Novartis, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Pfizer, Sanofi, Eisai, Boehringer, Taiho, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb ; Research grant / Funding (institution): AstraZeneca, Novartis, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Pfizer, Boehringer, Eisai, Taiho, Lilly and Merck Sharp & Dohme. M. Perol: Honoraria (self): F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Takeda, Chugai, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Amgen and AbbVie. G. De Castro Jr.: Advisory / Consultancy: AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Bayer; Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Bayer, TEVA ; Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Bayer, Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Pfizer and Bayer.. E. Nadal: Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer and Takeda. F. De Marinis: Honoraria (self): F. Hoffmann La Roche Ltd, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca and Merck. J. Han: Honoraria (self): Roche, AstraZeneca, BMS, MSD, Takeda; Advisory / Consultancy: AstraZeneca, BMS, MSD, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda; Research grant / Funding (self): Roche, Pfizer, ONO . M. Yan: Full / Part-time employment: F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd.. T. Riehl: Full / Part-time employment: Genentech, Inc. E. Schleifman: Full / Part-time employment: Genentech, Inc. S.M. Paul: Full / Part-time employment: Genentech, Inc. S. Mocci: Full / Part-time employment: Genentech, Inc. D. Shames: Full / Part-time employment: Genentech, Inc. M.S. Mathisen: Full / Part-time employment: Genentech, Inc. R. Dziadziuszko: Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Clovis Oncology, Novartis, AstraZeneca and Tesaro..

e14090 Background: Since 2010, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have been approved for the treatment of several neoplasms. Their immune-mediated toxicity profile, used as monotherapy (nivolumab [N], Ipilimumab [Ip], pembrolizumab [P]) or in combination (Nivolumab/Ipilimumab [N/Ip]) and their management is still being described, recently. Methods: A retrospective review of medical records, included all cancer patients treated, in our institution, with ICI from January 2014 to February 2018. Frequency, type and grade of immune related adverse events (irAE) by neoplasm, individual agent or combination were recorded. Time to first ir-AE (TTF-irAE) was estimated by Kaplan Meir Method and compared by Cox regression model. Results: 140 patients were evaluated, all in pretreated metastatic setting. Median age 65.8+/-11.8, men in 59.3%. The most frequent neoplasms treated with ICI were: lung (34%), melanoma (33%), genitourinary (17%), H&NC (6%), and GI (6%). Ip alone was indicated in 11.4% cases; N, 30%; P, 54.29%; N/Ip 4.29%. Median number of cycles per drug: Ip: 3 cycles, N/Ip: 4; N: 6; and P: 4 cycles. Toxicity (G1-4) was seen in Ip: 62.5%, N/Ip: 50%, N: 40.5%, P: 31.6%, p > 0.05. The most frequent irAE's were: dermatological 40%, gastrointestinal 18.3%, and endocrine 13.4%; other irAE´s were reported in: pulmonary 7.3%, ophthalmologic 6%, muscle-skeletal 6%, neurologic 2.4%, renal 1.2%, hematologic 1.2%. Severe toxicities (G3-4) were observed with N/Ip: 33.3%, P: 17.4%, Ip: 10%, N: 5.6%. TTF-ir-AE per drug: I: 1st cycle (dermatitis, pruritus, colitis), N/Ip: 2nd cycle (dermatitis, conjunctivitis), N: 3rd cycle (dermatitis, thyroiditis, colitis, hepatitis), P: 1st cycle (pruritus, neuritis, adrenalitis). Ipilimumab was an independent prognostic factor for developing severe ir-AE´s [OR = 12.8, p = 0.038], and any grade toxicity [OR = 1.9 (IC95% 0.92 - 4.1, p = 0.079)]. Conclusions: In this study, the dermatological, gastrointestinal and endocrine toxicities were the most frequent ir-AE´s, and they were observed in a low grade toxicity. The irAE´s profile is different among ICI or their combination and number of cycles administered. Ipilimumab alone or combined was associated to higher risk of severe irAEs.