Search

EGFR exon 20 (EGFR Ex20) insertion mutations in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are insensitive to traditional EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). Mobocertinib is the only approved TKI specifically designed to target EGFR Ex20. We performed an international, real-world safety and efficacy analysis on patients with EGFR Ex20-positive NSCLC enrolled in a mobocertinib early access program. We explored the mechanisms of resistance by analyzing postprogression biopsies, as well as cross-resistance to amivantamab. Data from 86 patients with a median age of 67 years and a median of two prior lines of treatment were analyzed. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 95% of patients. Grade ≥3 TRAEs were reported in 38% of patients and included diarrhea (22%) and rash (8%). In 17% of patients, therapy was permanently discontinued, and two patients died due to TRAEs. Women were seven times more likely to discontinue treatment than men. In the overall cohort, the objective response rate to mobocertinib was 34% (95% CI, 24–45). The response rate in treatment-naïve patients was 27% (95% CI, 8–58). The median progression-free and overall survival was 5 months (95% CI, 3.5–6.5) and 12 months (95% CI, 6.8–17.2), respectively. The intracranial response rate was limited (13%), and one-third of disease progression cases involved the brain. Mobocertinib also showed antitumor activity following EGFR Ex20-specific therapy and vice versa. Potential mechanisms of resistance to mobocertinib included amplifications in MET, PIK3CA, and NRAS. Mobocertinib demonstrated meaningful efficacy in a real-world setting but was associated with considerable gastrointestinal and cutaneous toxicity.

Due to the devastating COVID-19 pandemic, a preventive tool in the form of vaccination was introduced. Thoracic cancer patients had one of the highest rates of morbidity and mortality due to COVID-19 disease, but the lack of data about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines in this population triggered studies like ours to explore these parameters in a cancer population. Out of 98 patients with thoracic malignancies vaccinated per protocol, 60–75% experienced some adverse events (AE) after their first or second vaccination, most of them were mild and did not interfere with their daily activities. Out of 17 severe AEs reported, all but one were resolved shortly after vaccination. No significant differences were noted considering AE occurrence between different cancer therapies received after the first or second vaccination dose, p = 0.767 and p = 0.441, respectively. There were 37 breakthrough infections either after the first (1), second (13) or third (23) vaccine dose. One patient died as a direct consequence of COVID-19 infection and respiratory failure, and another after disease progression with simultaneous severe infection. Eight patients had moderate disease courses, received antiviral therapies and survived without consequences. Vaccination did not affect the time to disease progression or death from underlying cancer.

In 2019, the Recommendations for the management of patients with lung cancer were published bringing much-needed standardisation of diagnosis and treatment to improve survival of patients with lung cancer. Three years after the original Recommendations were published, the update of the Recommendations brings the most innovations in the chapter on systemic treatment of patients with lung cancer. This reflects the remarkable progress made in the field of understanding the oncogenesis and biology of lung cancer and thus the development of new drugs. The burden of lung cancer remains high, as lung cancer is still the most common cause of cancer related death in our country and worldwide. Lung cancer is responsible for one of five cancer-related deaths. Almost one third of patients with lung cancer do not receive any oncological treatment, either because of poor performance status, comorbidities or the extent of the disease. Half of the patients have metastatic disease at diagnosis, resulting in only small improvements in survival despite advances in the treatment of lung cancer patients. These data remind us that if we are to make major shifts in the management of lung cancer patients, we will need to take different approaches. The most promising seems to be the detection of early stages of lung cancer which offers the best treatment results. The Recommendations written here are guidelines for the management of patients with lung cancer. Only with comprehensive multidisciplinary treatment approach, the best outcome from the prognostically unfavourable disease can be offered.

Background The relationship between anti-SARS-CoV-2 humoral immune response, pathogenic inflammation, lymphocytes and fatal COVID-19 is poorly understood. Methods A longitudinal prospective cohort of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 (n=254) was followed up to 35 days after admission (median, 8 days). We measured early anti-SARS-CoV-2 S1 antibody IgG levels and dynamic (698 samples) of quantitative circulating T-, B- and natural killer lymphocyte subsets and serum interleukin-6 (IL-6) response. We used machine learning to identify patterns of the immune response and related these patterns to the primary outcome of 28-day mortality in analyses adjusted for clinical severity factors. Results Overall, 45 (18%) patients died within 28 days after hospitalisation. We identified six clusters representing discrete anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunophenotypes. Clusters differed considerably in COVID-19 survival. Two clusters, the anti-S1-IgGlowestTlowestBlowestNKmodIL-6mod, and the anti-S1-IgGhighTlowBmodNKmodIL-6highest had a high risk of fatal COVID-19 (HR 3.36–21.69; 95% CI 1.51–163.61 and HR 8.39–10.79; 95% CI 1.20–82.67; p≤0.03, respectively). The anti-S1-IgGhighestTlowestBmodNKmodIL-6mod and anti-S1-IgGlowThighestBhighestNKhighestIL-6low cluster were associated with moderate risk of mortality. In contrast, two clusters the anti-S1-IgGhighThighBmodNKmodIL-6low and anti-S1-IgGhighestThighestBhighNKhighIL-6lowest clusters were characterised by a very low risk of mortality. Conclusions By employing unsupervised machine learning we identified multiple anti-SARS-CoV-2 immune response clusters and observed major differences in COVID-19 mortality between these clusters. Two discrete immune pathways may lead to fatal COVID-19. One is driven by impaired or delayed antiviral humoral immunity, independently of hyper-inflammation, and the other may arise through excessive IL-6-mediated host inflammation response, independently of the protective humoral response. Those observations could be explored further for application in clinical practice.

No abstract.

ni abstrakta

Background: Patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) presenting with mesenchymal–epithelial transition ( MET ) exon 14 skipping mutation have an unfavorable prognosis with standard treatments. Capmatinib is a selective MET inhibitor, which showed promising efficacy in this patient population in early trials. Methods: We performed a retrospective, international, multicenter efficacy and safety analysis in patients with NSCLC treated with capmatinib in an early access program between March 2019 and December 2021. Results: Data from 81 patients with advanced MET exon 14 mutated NSCLC treated with capmatinib in first- or later-line therapy were analyzed. Median age was 77 years (range, 48–91), 56% were women, 86% had stage IV disease, and 27% had brain metastases. For all patients, the objective response rate (ORR) to capmatinib was 58% (95% CI, 47–69), whereas it was 68% (95% CI, 50–82) in treatment-naïve and 50% (95% CI, 35–65) in pretreated patients. The median progression-free survival was 9.5 months (95% CI, 4.7–14.3), whereas it was 10.6 months (95% CI, 5.5–15.7) in first-line and 9.1 months (95% CI, 3.1–15.1) in pretreated patients. After a median follow-up of 11.0 months, the median overall survival was 18.2 months (95% CI, 13.2–23.1). In patients with measurable brain metastases ( n = 11), the intracranial ORR was 46% (95% CI, 17–77). Capmatinib showed a manageable safety profile. Grade ⩾ 3 treatment-related adverse events included peripheral edema (13%), elevated creatinine (4%), and elevated liver enzymes (3%). Conclusion: In patients with MET exon 14 skipping mutation, capmatinib showed durable systemic and intracranial efficacy and a manageable safety profile. This analysis confirms previously reported phase II data in a real-world setting.

Background: The recommended booster third dose of vaccination against COVID-19 in cancer patients seems reasonable to protect them against a severe disease course. A prospective study was designed to assess the immunogenicity, efficacy, and safety of COVID-19 vaccination in this cohort. Methods: Patients with solid malignancies on active treatment were followed up after the primary course and booster third dose of vaccination to assess their anti-SARS-CoV-2 S1 IgG levels, efficacy in the case of SARS-CoV-2 infection, and safety. Results: Out of 125 patients receiving the primary course of vaccination, 66 patients received a booster third dose of mRNA vaccine, with a 20-fold increase in median anti-SARS-CoV-2 S1 IgG levels compared to Ab levels six months post-primary course of vaccination (p < 0.0001). After the booster third dose, anti-SARS-CoV-2 S1 IgG levels were comparable to healthy controls (p = 0.113). There was a decline in Ab levels 3 (p = 0.0003) and 6 months (p < 0.0001) post-third booster dose. No patients had either a severe disease course or a lethal outcome in the case of SARS-CoV-2 infection after the third booster dose. Conclusion: The third booster vaccination dose against COVID-19 in solid cancer patients triggers substantial immunogenicity and is safe and effective for preventing a severe COVID-19 disease course.

Introduction: Rearranged during transfection (RET) gene fusions are rare genetic drivers in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Selective RET-inhibitors such as selpercatinib have shown therapeutic activity in early clinical trials; however, their efficacy in the real-world setting is unknown. Methods: A retrospective efficacy and safety analysis was performed on data from RET fusion-positive NSCLC patients who participated in a selpercatinib access program (named patient protocol) between August 2019 and January 2021. Results: Data from 50 patients with RET fusion-positive advanced NSCLC treated with selpercatinib at 27 centers in 12 countries was analyzed. Most patients were Non-Asian (90%), female (60%), never-smokers (74%), with a median age of 65 years (range, 38–89). 32% of the patients had known brain metastasis at the time of selpercatinib treatment. Overall, 13 patients were treatment-naïve, while 37 were pretreated with a median of three lines of therapy (range, 1–8). The objective response rate (ORR) was 68% [95% confidence interval (CI), 53–81] in the overall population. The disease control rate was 92%. The median progression-free survival was 15.6 months (95% CI, 8.8–22.4) after a median follow-up of 9 months. In patients with measurable brain metastases ( n = 8) intracranial ORR reached 100%. In total, 88% of patients experienced treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), a large majority of them being grade 1 or 2. The most common grade ⩾ 3 TRAEs were increased liver enzyme levels (in 10% of patients), prolonged QTc time (4%), abdominal pain (4%), hypertension (4%), and fatigue/asthenia (4%). None of patients discontinued selpercatinib treatment for safety reasons. No new safety concerns were observed, nor where there any treatment-related death. Conclusions: In this real-world setting, the selective RET-inhibitor selpercatinib demonstrated durable systemic and intracranial antitumor activity in RET fusion-positive NSCLC and was well tolerated.

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a devastating malignancy with limited therapeutic options. Fibroblast growth factor receptors (FGFR) and their ligands were shown to contribute to MPM aggressiveness and it was suggested that subgroups of MPM patients could benefit from FGFR-targeted inhibitors. In the current investigation, we determined the expression of all four FGFRs (FGFR1−FGFR4) by immunohistochemistry in tissue samples from 94 MPM patients. From 13 of these patients, we were able to establish stable cell lines, which were subjected to FGFR1−4 staining, transcript analysis by quantitative RT-PCR, and treatment with the FGFR inhibitor infigratinib. While FGFR1 and FGFR2 were widely expressed in MPM tissue and cell lines, FGFR3 and FGFR4 showed more restricted expression. FGFR1 and FGFR2 showed no correlation with clinicopathologic data or patient survival, but presence of FGFR3 in 42% and of FGFR4 in 7% of patients correlated with shorter overall survival. Immunostaining in cell lines was more homogenous than in the corresponding tissue samples. Neither transcript nor protein expression of FGFR1−4 correlated with response to infigratinib treatment in MPM cell lines. We conclude that FGFR3 and FGFR4, but not FGFR1 or FGFR2, have prognostic significance in MPM and that FGFR expression is not sufficient to predict FGFR inhibitor response in MPM cell lines.