Search

INTRODUCTION: This phase I study primarily addresses the safety and tolerability of Stereotactic radiotherapy on the primary tumor combined with double Immune Checkpoint Inhibition (SICI) in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Increasing the release of neoantigens by radiotherapy might enhance response to immunotherapy. Especially, by targeting trunk mutations in the primary tumor.MATERIALS AND METHODS: In three sequential cohorts, immunotherapy regimes combined with stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) on the primary tumor (1x20 Gy on 9 cc) were studied in stage IIIB/IV NSCLC patients progressing on chemotherapy. The first cohort (n = 3) received durvalumab. The second (n = 6) received a combination of tremelimumab and durvalumab followed by durvalumab monotherapy. The third cohort (n = 6) was similar except that the combination was reversed. Descriptive statistics were used to assess safety parameters and the exploratory outcomes of efficacy. Adverse events were reported using NCI CTCAE version 4.03. Exhaled breath was analyzed at baseline.RESULTS: Fifteen patients were included. Median irradiated volume was 9.13 cc, on a median primary tumor volume of 79 cc. There were seven patients with grade 1-2, and two patients with grade 3 treatment related adverse events. There was 1 dose limiting toxicity (colitis) with double immunotherapy.CONCLUSION: The combination of SBRT to the primary tumor and double immunotherapy in advanced NSCLC patients is safe and feasible.

Purpose: ALK rearrangement detection using FISH is the standard test to identify patients with non–small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) eligible for treatment with ALK inhibitors. Recently, ALK protein expression in resectable NSCLC showed predictive value. We evaluated tumor response rate and survival after crizotinib treatment of patients with advanced NSCLC with ALK activation using both dichotomous immunohistochemical (IHC) staining and FISH.Experimental Design: Patients with stage IV NSCLC treated with crizotinib were selected. Tumor response was assessed. ALK rearrangements were detected by FISH (Vysis ALK-break-apart FISH-Probe KIT) and IHC [Ventana ALK (D5F3) CDx assay]. Cohorts of patients with ALK-FISH–positive advanced NSCLC from four other hospitals were used for validation.Results: Twenty-nine consecutive patients with ALK-positive advanced NSCLC diagnosed by FISH and/or IHC on small biopsies or fine-needle aspirations (FNA) were treated with ALK inhibitors. All ALK-IHC–positive patients responded to crizotinib except three with primary resistance. No tumor response was observed in 13 ALK-FISH–positive but ALK-IHC–negative patients. This was confirmed in an external cohort of 16 patients. Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves for ALK-IHC and ALK-FISH compared with treatment outcome showed that dichotomous ALK-IHC outperforms ALK-FISH [tumor response area under the curve: (AUC), 0.86 vs. 0.64, P = 0.03; progression-free survival (PFS): AUC 0.86 vs. 0.36, P = 0.005; overall survival (OS): AUC, 0.78 vs. 0.41, P = 0.01, respectively].Conclusions: Dichotomous ALK-IHC is superior to ALK-FISH on small biopsies and FNA to predict tumor response and survival to crizotinib for patients with advanced NSCLC. Our data strongly suggest adapting the guidelines and using dichotomous ALK-IHC as standard companion diagnostic test to select patients with NSCLC who benefit from ALK-targeting therapy. Clin Cancer Res; 23(15); 4251–8. ©2017 AACR.

Percentage of nuclei considered as ALK positive based on ALK-FISH in the screening cohort.

In this file a description of all used ALK-FISH and ALK-IHC tests have been put together with table S1

Flow diagram of patients in study cohort and external validation

Aim: Retrospective analysis of the safety and efficacy of extended interval dosing (EI) ICI compared to standard dose (SD) schedules. Results: 117 patients received EI dosing and 88 SD. In the EI dosing cohort was no increase in toxicity leading to dose reduction and/or discontinuation of treatment. Furthermore, efficacy of EI dosing of pembrolizumab and durvalumab were comparable to SD. Based on our safety and efficacy data EI dosing for ICI seem a safe and effective strategy and should be continued also beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. Introduction: Extended interval (EI) dosing for immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) mono- or consolidation therapy initiated due to the COVID-19 pandemic led to a significant reduction in ICI-related site visits for patients with stage III and IV non-small cell lung cancer. Here we report the safety and efficacy compared to standard dose (SD) schedules. Method: In this retrospective analysis, patients who received ICI mono- or consolidation therapy, or adjuvant ICI therapy were assessed. Safety and efficacy of EI dosing with data of SD schedules were compared. Results: One hundred seventeen patients received EI dosing for ICI and 88 patients SD. Patient characteristics were comparable. We observed 237 adverse events in the EI dosing cohort versus 118 in the SD group (P = .02). Overall, there was no difference in the occurrence of grade >= 3 adverse events (EI dosing: 21/237 [8.9%]; SD group: 20/118 [17.0%], P = .42), except for the pembrolizumab EI dosing cohort. Of all patients who received an EI dosing schedule, however, only 8 (6.8%) were reduced to SD because of toxicity. In 5 (4.3%) patients ICI was permanently stopped because of severe toxicity compared to 11 (12.5%) discontinuations in the SD group. Short-term treatment interruption occurred with similar frequencies in both groups. Progression-free survival and overall survival were comparable in patients receiving pembrolizumab and in those receiving adjuvant durvalumab. Progression-free survival and OS were better in the EI dosing cohort of nivolumab. Conclusion: EI dosing for ICI did not lead to an increase of clinically relevant toxicities resulting in dose reduction and/or treatment discontinuation. Efficacy of EI dosing of pembrolizumab and durvalumab were comparable to SD. Based on our safety and efficacy data EI dosing for ICI seems a safe and effective strategy. (C) 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Aim of the study: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic significantly impacted cancer care. In this study, clinical patient characteristics related to COVID-19 outcomes and advanced care planning, in terms of non-oncological treatment restrictions (e.g. do not-resuscitate codes), were studied in patients with cancer and COVID-19. Methods: The Dutch Oncology COVID-19 Consortium registry was launched in March 2020 in 45 hospitals in the Netherlands, primarily to identify risk factors of a severe COVID-19 outcome in patients with cancer. Here, an updated analysis of the registry was performed, and treatment restrictions (e.g. do-not-intubate codes) were studied in relation to COVID19 outcomes in patients with cancer. Oncological treatment restrictions were not taken into account. Results: Between 27th March 2020 and 4th February 2021, 1360 patients with cancer and COVID-19 were registered. Follow-up data of 830 patients could be validated for this analysis. Overall, 230 of 830 (27.7%) patients died of COVID-19, and 60% of the remaining 600 patients with resolved COVID-19 were admitted to the hospital. Patients with haematological malignancies or lung cancer had a higher risk of a fatal outcome than other solid tumours. No correlation between anticancer therapies and the risk of a fatal COVID-19 outcome was found. In terms of end-of-life communication, 50% of all patients had restrictions regarding life prolonging treatment (e.g. do-not-intubate codes). Most identified patients with treatment restrictions had risk factors associated with fatal COVID-19 outcome. Conclusion: There was no evidence of a negative impact of anticancer therapies on COVID-19 outcomes. Timely end-of-life communication as part of advanced care planning could save patients from prolonged suffering and decrease burden in intensive care units. Early discussion of treatment restrictions should therefore be part of routine oncological care, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Background Rhinovirus infections in airway epithelial cells in vitro have been shown to upregulate intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (ICAM-1) expression. Epithelial ICAM-1, in its dual role as the major rhinovirus receptor and as adhesion molecule for inflammatory cells may be involved in the pathogenesis of rhinovirus-induced exacerbations of asthma. Objective We aimed to investigate the effect of experimental rhinovirus 16 (RV16) infection on ICAM-1 expression in bronchial mucosal biopsies in asthma. In addition, the effect of 2 weeks pretreatment with inhaled budesonide (800 μg b.d.) on RV16-associated changes in ICAM-1 expression was studied. Methods The study had a parallel, placebo-controlled design in 25 steroid-naive nonsmoking atopic asthmatic subjects. After 2 weeks budesonide (BUD) or placebo (PLAC) pretreatment bronchoscopy was performed 2 days before (day −2) and 6 days after (day 6) RV16 inoculation (on days 0 and 1). Immunohistochemical staining for ICAM-1 was performed on snap-frozen bronchial biopsies. ICAM-1 staining intensity on the basal epithelial cells was scored semiquantitatively from 1 (weak) to 3 (intense). Similarly, epithelial intactness was noted (1 = basal cells only, 2 = basal and parabasal cells, 3 = intact epithelium). Results ICAM-1 scores were not significantly different between the groups at day −2 (P ≥ 0.08). Subsequent RV16 infection was associated with a trend towards an increase in ICAM-1 expression in the BUD-group (P = 0.07), whereas the increase was significant in the PLAC-group (P = 0.03). However, the increase was not significantly different between the groups (P = 0.74). Epithelial intactness score was not different between the groups before RV16 infection (P ≥ 0.07), and no significant changes were observed in either group (P ≥ 0.59). Moreover, ICAM-1 score did not correlate significantly with epithelium score in either group, at any time-point (P ≥ 0.27). Conclusion We conclude that an RV16 common cold in atopic asthmatic subjects is associated with increased ICAM-1 expression in the bronchial epithelium, which is not related to epithelial intactness. Glucocorticoid treatment does not appear to prevent the RV16-associated increased ICAM-1 expression. This suggests that other treatment modalities are required to protect against the spreading of infection during rhinovirus-induced exacerbations in asthma.