Search

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

The safety of first-line (1L) durvalumab in patients with advanced nonsmall-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 2 (PS2) is unknown. This is an interim unplanned safety analysis of the study SAKK 19/17 for patients with metastatic NSCLC with programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression in ≥ 25% of tumor cells and an ECOG PS2 treated with 1L durvalumab. This safety analysis was triggered by the SAKK data and safety monitoring board due to a high mortality rate observed after the recruitment of the first 21 patients. This single-arm phase II study recruited patients with metastatic NSCLC with PD-L1 in ≥ 25% and ECOG PS2. Patients received durvalumab 1500 mg every four weeks. The trial aims to recruit 48 patients in total. This report includes safety analyses only. Adverse events (AEs) were assessed using National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for AEs (NCI CTCAE) Version 5.0. Efficacy data including the primary endpoint overall survival at 6 months and secondary endpoints (objective response rate, progression-free survival, and quality of life) will be reported at a later time point. The data from 21 patients were available at this interim safety analysis. Among these, 13 deaths (13/21; 62%) were reported, including one treatment-related fatal colonic perforation at 9 months after treatment initiation (1/13; 8%). Twelve deaths were not treatment-related (12/13; 92%), and mostly attributed to tumor progression (10/13; 77%). Of note, seven deaths (7/13; 54%) occurred during the first 5 weeks (range 0.6–4.7 weeks) after treatment initiation. Four (4/7; 57%) were respiratory failures attributed to tumor progression. One of these patients (25%) had pre-existing COPD, and three (75%) had baseline dyspnea grade 2–3 related to the tumor. Grade ≥ 3 treatment-related AEs (TRAEs) included colonic perforation (grade 5), abdominal pain, and colitis (grade 3 each) in one patient, and fatigue (grade 3) in another. Other Grade ≥ 3 AEs unrelated to treatment were all of pulmonary origin: lung infections (19%), dyspnea (24%), cough (5%), and bronchial obstruction (5%). 1L durvalumab in patients with ECOG PS2 and metastatic NSCLC with PD-L1 expression ≥ 25% resulted in an unexpectedly high number of fatal early events due to rapid tumor progression. We recommend to avoid treatment with 1 L durvalumab of patients who are highly symptomatic from the tumor, particularly those with respiratory symptoms. The study is continuing its accrual after an amendment excluding these patients.

Early clinical trials showed promising outcomes with immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in a subset of patients with relapsed small-cell lung carcinoma (SCLC). The aim of this retrospective analysis was to assess the efficacy and safety of ICI for relapsed SCLC in a real-world patient population. Nine cancer centres in Switzerland contributed data to this cohort. Responses were assessed by the local investigators using standard RECIST v1.1 criteria. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were analysed by the Kaplan–Meier method. Associations between potential predictive markers and survival endpoints were probed by Cox proportional hazards. Forty-five patients were included in the analysis. Median age was 63 years, 73% were males and 18% had an ECOG performance status (PS) ≥ 2. ICIs were given as second-line treatment in 60%. Twenty-four patients (53%) received ipilimumab with nivolumab. Twenty-eight patients (62%) had undergone irradiation (RT) prior to or during ICI. Overall response rate (ORR) was 29% and median PFS and OS were 2.3 and 6.5 months, respectively. Median duration of response was 9 months (95% CI 2.8–NA). Five patients maintained their response for > 6 months, all of them receiving combination treatment. There were no new safety signals. This is the first report of “real-world” data on ICI in relapsed SCLC also including patients with poor PS. Promising durable responses were observed. No biological prognostic marker could be identified.

Background Scientific data on the image modality to be used in postcurative treatment surveillance of non-small cell lung cancer patients are scarce. This prospective randomized pilot trial compared the performance of integrated 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) and contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CE-CT). Methods After termination of curative-intent treatment, patients were randomly assigned to the PET-CT or the CE-CT group. Imaging was performed every 6 months for 2 years. If suspicious radiologic findings were detected or patients became symptomatic, a diagnostic workup was initiated. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value for detecting cancer recurrence were calculated for both imaging procedures. Results The study enrolled 96 patients. In 14 of 50 patients (28%) in the PET-CT group and in 14 of 46 patients (30%) in the CE-CT group, a suspicious radiologic finding was confirmed as cancer recurrence after diagnostic workup. False-positive findings were detected in 11 patients (22%) of the PET-CT group and in 8 patients (17%) of the CE-CT group. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value for detecting cancer recurrence (95% confidence interval) were 0.88 (0.62 to 0.98), 0.62 (0.42 to 0.79), and 0.56 (0.35 to 0.76) for PET-CT and 0.93 (0.68 to 1.00), 0.72 (0.53 to 0.87), and 0.64 (0.41to 0.83) for CE-CT, respectively. Conclusions The results of our study suggest that PET-CT is not superior to CE-CT in detecting cancer recurrence during 2 years after curative-intent treatment of non-small cell lung cancer.

Background: For patients with resectable stage IIIA(N2) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) neoadjuvant chemotherapy with three cycles of cisplatin and docetaxel followed by surgery has been shown to yield a 1-year event-free survival (EFS) rate of 48% and is an accepted standard of care. Neoadjuvant PD-(L)1 inhibitors can result in high response rates in resectable NSCLC. Methods: Neoadjuvant treatment consisted of three cycles of cisplatin 100 mg/m 2 and docetaxel 85 mg/m 2 q3w followed by two cycles of durvalumab 750 mg q2w. Adjuvant durvalumab was continued for 1 year after surgery. The primary endpoint was 1-year EFS. The hypothesis for statistical considerations was an improvement of 1-year EFS from 48% to 65%. This trial is registered with ClinicialTrials.gov, NCT02572843. Findings: Sixty-eight patients were enrolled, 67 were included in the full analysis set. Radiographic response rate was 43·3% (95%CI: 31·2-56·0) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (complete remission (CR): 2·9%, partial remission (PR): 40·3%, stable disease (SD): 44·8%) and 58·1% (95%CI: 44·8-70·5) after additional neoadjuvant immunotherapy (CR: 6·5%, PR: 51·6%, SD: 25·8%). Fifty-five patients were resected, of which 34 (61·8%) achieved a major pathological response (MPR; ≤10% viable tumour cells), and 10 (18·2%) amongst them a complete pathological response. Postoperative nodal down-staging (ypN0-1) was observed in 37 patients (67·3%). Fifty-one (92·7%) patients had an R0 resection. There was no significant effect of pre-treatment PD-L1 expression on MPR or nodal down-staging. In the entire study population, the 1-year EFS rate was 73·4% (90%CI: 62·7-81·5). Median EFS and overall survival were not reached after 28 months of median follow-up. Fifty-nine (88·1%) patients had an adverse event (AE) grade ≥3 including two fatal AEs that were not assessed to be treatment-related. Interpretation: This is thus far the largest report on perioperative PD-(L)1 inhibition in patients with resectable stage IIIA(N2) NSCLC. The addition of perioperative durvalumab to neoadjuvant chemotherapy is safe and exceeds historical data of chemotherapy alone with a high MPR and an encouraging 1-year EFS rate of 73·4%. Trial Registration: This trial is registered with ClinicialTrials.gov, NCT02572843. Funding Statement: The study was supported by research agreements with the following institutions: Swiss State Secretary for Education, Research and Innovation (SERI), Swiss Cancer Research Foundation (SCS) and Swiss Cancer League (SCL). Research funding for translational research projects was granted by Gateway for Cancer Research and Rising Tide Foundation. AstraZeneca provided drug and financial support. Declaration of Interests: SIR: Honoraria for advisory boards and consulting (all paid to the institution) from Astra-Zeneca, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Merck Serono, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Takeda. Research funding from AbbVie, Astra-Zeneca, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Merck. Support for travel and accommodations from Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, MSD, Roche, Takeda. Member of the Federal Drug Commission of the Federal Office of Public Health. AZ: Honoraria for advisory boards and consulting (all paid to the institution) from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Hoffmann–La Roche, NBE Therapeutics, Secarna, ACM Pharma and Hookipa. Non-commercial research agreements with Hoffmann–La Roche, NBE Therapeutics, Secarna, ACM Pharma, Hookipa, and BeyondSpring. EIE: None SSP: Honoraria for advisory boards and consulting from Astra-Zeneca, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer and Roche. DB: None AB: None MF: Research grants from Bristol-Myers-Squibb and Astra Zeneca (paid to the institution). Honoraria for advisory boards from Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Takeda, Roche, Boehringer-Ingelheim and MSD. MJ: Research grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche and Merck. DL: None HG: None LAM: Honoraria for advisory boards from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, Takeda, Roche and MSD. Support for travel and accommodations from AstraZeneca and Roche. CB: Honoraria for advisory boards from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Roche, Takeda, Janssen-Cilag and Boehringer-Ingelheim. Support for travel and accommodations from AstraZeneca and Takeda. WW: Honoraria for advisory boards and consulting from Astra Zeneca SP: Personal fees from Abbvie, grants and personal fees from Amgen, grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Bayer, personal fees from Biocartis, grants and personal fees from Boehringer-Ingelheim, grants and personal fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, grants and personal fees from Clovis, personal fees from Daiichi Sankyo, personal fees from Debiopharm, personal fees from Eli Lilly, grants and personal fees from F. Hoffman - La Roche, personal fees from Foundations Medicine, grants and personal fees from Illumina, personal fees from Janssen, grants and personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Pharma Mar, grants and personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Regeneron, personal fees from Sanofi, personal fees from Seattle Genetics, personal fees from Takeda, grants and personal fees from Merck Sharp and Dohme, personal fees from Merck Serono, personal fees from Merrimack. MM: Honoraria for advisory boards from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, MSD, Roche and Takeda. Research grant (to the institution) from AstraZeneca. RC: Honoraria for advisory boards (all paid to the institution) from AstraZeneca, Astellas, MSD, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, Janssen-Cilag, Roche, Pfizer, Merck Serono, Ipsen and Bayer. AFO: None WDJ: None CW: None NM: None PF: Honoraria for advisory from Pfizer, Roche, Takeda, Boehringer-Ingelheim and BristolMyers Squibb. MB: None PB: None GG: None CR: None MG: Honoraria for advisory boards and consulting (all paid to the institution) from Astra-Zeneca. MP: Honoraria for advisory boards from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, BristolMyers-Squibb, Eisai, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Takeda and Merck. Speakers fee from Janssen-Cilag. Support for travel and accommodations from AstraZeneca, BoehringerIngelheim, Bristol-Myers-Squibb and Vifor. Ethics Approval Statement: The trial was done in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. The protocol was approved by the ethics committee of each participating site. Written informed consent was obtained from all patients.

The safety of first-line (1L) durvalumab in patients with advanced nonsmall-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 2 (PS2) is unknown. This is an interim unplanned safety analysis of the study SAKK 19/17 for patients with metastatic NSCLC with programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression in ≥ 25% of tumor cells and an ECOG PS2 treated with 1L durvalumab. This safety analysis was triggered by the SAKK data and safety monitoring board due to a high mortality rate observed after the recruitment of the first 21 patients.This single-arm phase II study recruited patients with metastatic NSCLC with PD-L1 in ≥ 25% and ECOG PS2. Patients received durvalumab 1500 mg every four weeks. The trial aims to recruit 48 patients in total. This report includes safety analyses only. Adverse events (AEs) were assessed using National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for AEs (NCI CTCAE) Version 5.0. Efficacy data including the primary endpoint overall survival at 6 months and secondary endpoints (objective response rate, progression-free survival, and quality of life) will be reported at a later time point.The data from 21 patients were available at this interim safety analysis. Among these, 13 deaths (13/21; 62%) were reported, including one treatment-related fatal colonic perforation at 9 months after treatment initiation (1/13; 8%). Twelve deaths were not treatment-related (12/13; 92%), and mostly attributed to tumor progression (10/13; 77%). Of note, seven deaths (7/13; 54%) occurred during the first 5 weeks (range 0.6-4.7 weeks) after treatment initiation. Four (4/7; 57%) were respiratory failures attributed to tumor progression. One of these patients (25%) had pre-existing COPD, and three (75%) had baseline dyspnea grade 2-3 related to the tumor. Grade ≥ 3 treatment-related AEs (TRAEs) included colonic perforation (grade 5), abdominal pain, and colitis (grade 3 each) in one patient, and fatigue (grade 3) in another. Other Grade ≥ 3 AEs unrelated to treatment were all of pulmonary origin: lung infections (19%), dyspnea (24%), cough (5%), and bronchial obstruction (5%).1L durvalumab in patients with ECOG PS2 and metastatic NSCLC with PD-L1 expression ≥ 25% resulted in an unexpectedly high number of fatal early events due to rapid tumor progression. We recommend to avoid treatment with 1 L durvalumab of patients who are highly symptomatic from the tumor, particularly those with respiratory symptoms. The study is continuing its accrual after an amendment excluding these patients.

Background: Data show that the initial specialist’s image interpretation and final multidisciplinary tumor board (MTB) assessment can vary substantially in the pretherapeutic cancer setting. The aim of this post hoc analysis was to investigate the concordance of the specialist’s and MTB’s image interpretations in patients undergoing systematic posttreatment lung cancer image surveillance. Methods: In the initial prospective study, lung cancer patients who had received curative-intent treatment were randomly assigned to undergo either contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CE-CT) or integrated 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT). Imaging was performed every 6months for 2 years, and all imaging studies were finally assessed by our MTB. This post hoc analysis assessed differences between the initial specialist’s image interpretation and the final MTB’s image interpretation. Results: In 89 patients, 266 imaging studies (129 PET-CT, 137 CE-CT) were analyzed. In 87.2% (88.4, 86.1%) of the studies, complete concordance was found. Out of the 12.8% (11.6, 13.9%) with discordant results, 7.5% (6.9, 8.0%) had implications for alterations in patient management (major disagreements). Twenty major disagreements were detected in 17 study patients. Retrospectively, in eight out of these 17 (47%) patients, in contrast to the MTB’s view, the specialist’s interpretation was more appropriate, whereas in nine out of 17 patients (53%), the MTB’s interpretation was more accurate. Conclusions: In an experienced MTB, the agreement between imaging specialists and the rest of the MTB with regard to the interpretation of images is high in a setting of posttreatment lung cancer image surveillance. It seems that in cases of disagreements, the rates of more accurate interpretation are well balanced between imaging specialists and the MTB. Trial registration: ISRCTN16281786, Date 23. February 2017.

9016 Background: For patients (pts) with resectable stage IIIA(N2) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) neoadjuvant chemotherapy (chemo) with 3 cycles cisplatin (cis)/docetaxel (doc) followed by surgery is an accepted standard of care leading to a 1-year (yr) event-free survival (EFS) of 48% and a 5-yr overall survival (OS) of 37%. PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors have recently shown to lead to high response rates in resectable NSCLC. Methods: SAKK 16/14 is an open-label single-arm phase II study including 68 pts with resectable NSCLC stage IIIA(N2) (T1-3 N2 M0), irrespective of histological subtype, genomic aberrations or PD-L1 expression status. Neoadjuvant treatment consisted of 3 cycles of cis 100 mg/m2 and doc 85 mg/m2 q3w followed by 2 cycles of durvalumab 750 mg q2w. Durvalumab was continued after surgery q2w for 1 yr. The primary endpoint is EFS at 1 yr. The statistical hypothesis is to improve EFS at 1 yr from 48% based on the SAKK 16/00 study to 65%. Here, we report the primary endpoint and response data from 67 evaluable pts included in the study. Results: 68 pts were included from 06/16 to 01/19 and 67 pts (35 males, 32 females) were evaluable. Median age was 61 yrs (range, 41-74). 52 pts (77.6%) had a WHO PS of 0. 95.5% were current or former smokers. The majority of tumors were adenocarcinoma (55.2%) followed by squamous cell histology (32.8%). Clinical stage T1, T2 and T3 were present at diagnosis in 22.4%, 49.3% and 28.4%, respectively. 81.1% of pts underwent resection. The main reason for not undergoing surgery was disease progression (33.3%). Pneumonectomy was performed in 5 pts (9.1%), 43 pts underwent lobectomy and 7 pts bilobectomy. 30-day postoperative mortality was observed in one patient (1.8%). One patient died due to a bleeding complication after surgery most likely not related to neoadjuvant therapy. Radiographic response was 44.8% (95%CI: 32.6-57.4) after neoadjuvant chemo and 59.7% (95%CI: 46.4-71.9) after additional neoadjuvant immunotherapy. 1-yr EFS was 73.3% (90%CI: 62.5-81.4). Results for pathologic remission rate as well as correlation with PD-L1 status will be presented during the meeting. Conclusions: We report on treatment outcomes of the largest cohort of pts with resectable stage IIIA(N2) NSCLC receiving perioperative immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy. The addition of perioperative durvalumab to standard of care cis/doc is safe and leads to a high response rate and a very encouraging 1-yr EFS rate that appears substantially higher than with chemo alone. Clinical trial information: NCT 02572843.

Drug conjugates have been studied extensively in preclinical in vitro and in vivo models but to date only a few compounds have progressed to the clinical setting. This situation is now changing with the publication of studies demonstrating a significant impact on clinical practice and highlighting the potential of this new class of targeted therapies. This review summarizes the pharmacological and molecular background of the main drug conjugation systems, namely antibody drug conjugates (ADCs), immunotoxins and immunoliposomes. All these compounds combine the specific targeting moiety of an antibody or similar construct with the efficacy of a toxic drug. The aim of this strategy is to target tumor cells specifically while sparing normal tissue, thus resulting in high efficacy and low toxicity. Recently, several strategies have been investigated in phase I clinical trials and some have entered phase III clinical development. This review provides a detailed overview of various strategies and critically discusses the most relevant achievements. Examples of the most advanced compounds include T-DM1 and brentuximab vedotin. However, additional promising strategies such as immunotoxins and immunoliposmes are already in clinical development. In summary, targeted drug delivery by drug conjugates is a new emerging class of anti-cancer therapy that may play a major role in the future.