Search

Introduction: In France, 40% of patients diagnosed with lung cancer are ≥70 years old, but these are under-represented in clinical trials. Using data from the French Epidemiological Strategy and Medical Economics (ESME) platform on Lung Cancer (LC), the objective is to provide an overview of the management and the prognosis of older patients with advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (AM-NSCLC) in a real-world context., Materials and Methods: From the ESME-LC database, we selected patients with AM-NSCLC (stage IIIB, IIIC, and IV), diagnosed between 2015 and 2019, and who received first-line systemic treatment. Demographics, tumour characteristics, and treatment received were described in patients ≥70, and compared to younger ones. Real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS) and overall survival (OS) were evaluated using the multivariable Cox model., Results: Among 10,002 patients with AM-NSCLC, the median age was 64 years, with 2,754 (27.5%) aged ≥70. In comparison with patients <70, older patients were more often male, with worse performance status and more comorbidities, but they were less underweight and more often non-smokers. The proportion of EGFR mutated non-squamous NSCLC was higher in older patients (25.0% vs 12.8%, p < 0.001), particularly among smokers and former smokers (12.7% vs 7.3%, p < 0.001). Among patients ≥70, 76.6% received first-line chemotherapy (including 67.0% treated with a platinum-based doublet), 15.0% received only targeted therapy, and 11.0% received immunotherapy (alone or in combination). Median first-line rwPFS was 5.1 months (95% confidence interval [CI] = [4.8;5.4]) for patients ≥70 and 4.6 months (95%CI = [4.4;4.8]) for patients <70, but age was not associated with rwPFS in multivariable analysis. Median OS was 14.8 months (95%CI = [13.9;16.1]) for patients ≥70 and 16.7 months (95%CI = [15.9;17.5]) for patients <70, with a significant effect of age in multivariable analysis for patients treated with chemotherapy and/or with targeted therapy, but not for patients treated with immunotherapy (alone or in combination with chemotherapy)., Discussion: In this real-world cohort of patients with AM-NSCLC, age was not associated with first-line rwPFS regardless of treatment received, nor with OS for patients receiving immunotherapy. However, OS was significantly shorter for patients aged ≥70 treated with chemotherapy or with targeted therapy alone., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Mathilde Cabart reports non-financial support from Janssen, non-financial support from Pfizer, outside the submitted work. Loïc Mourey reports personal fees and non-financial support from Sanofi, personal fees from Astellas, personal fees and non-financial support from Janssen, personal fees and non-financial support from MSD, personal fees and non-financial support from BMS, personal fees and non-financial support from Ipsen, personal fees and non-financial support from Astra-Zeneca, personal fees and non-financial support from Pfizer, personal fees from Merck, outside the submitted work. David Pasquier has nothing to disclose. Sophie Schneider has nothing to disclose. Hervé Léna reports personal fees and non-financial support from Roche, personal fees from Astrazeneca, personal fees and non-financial support from MSD, personal fees and non-financial support from Novartis, personal fees and non-financial support from Takeda, personal fees from BMS, personal fees and non-financial support from Pfizer, non-financial support from Lilly, personal fees and non-financial support from Amgen, outside the submitted work. Nicolas Girard reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Daiichi, grants and personal fees from Roche, grants and personal fees from MSD, grants and personal fees from BMS, grants and personal fees from Pfizer, grants and personal fees from Janssen, grants and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, grants and personal fees from Takeda, grants and personal fees from Novartis, grants and personal fees from Sanofi, outside the submitted work; and Family Member employee of AstraZeneca. Christos Chouaid reports grants, personal fees and non-financial support from AstraZeneca, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Boehringer Ingelheim, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from GSK, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Roche, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Sanofi Aventis, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from BMS, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from MSD, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Lilly, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Novartis, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Pfizer, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Takeda, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Bayer, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Janssen, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Viatris, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Chugai, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Pierre Fabre, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Amgen, outside the submitted work. Roland Schott reports personal fees and non-financial support from Roche, non-financial support from Takeda, personal fees and non-financial support from AstraZeneca, personal fees and non-financial support from Pfizer, non-financial support from IPSEN, personal fees and non-financial support from BMS, outside the submitted work. Sandrine Hiret reports non-financial support from Roche, non-financial support from Novartis, other from Sanofi, other from Astra Zeneca, other from Takeda, other from BMS, outside the submitted work. Didier Debieuvre has nothing to disclose. Xavier Quantin has nothing to disclose. Anne Madroszyk has nothing to disclose. Pascale Dubray-Longeras reports personal fees from MSD, personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees and non-financial support from Takeda, non-financial support from Pfizer, outside the submitted work. Eric Pichon reports personal fees and non-financial support from Takeda, personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from MSD, outside the submitted work. Anne Baranzelli has nothing to disclose. Grégoire Justeau has nothing to disclose. Maurice Pérol reports personal fees and non-financial support from Takeda, personal fees from Janssen, personal fees and non-financial support from AstraZeneca, outside the submitted work. Lise Bosquet has nothing to disclose. Bastien Cabarrou has nothing to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Although checkpoint inhibitors have improved first-line treatment for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), a therapeutic need remains for patients whose disease does not respond or who experience disease progression after anti-PD-L1/PD-1 immunotherapy. CONTACT-01 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04471428) evaluated atezolizumab plus cabozantinib versus docetaxel in patients with metastatic NSCLC who developed disease progression after concurrent or sequential treatment with anti-PD-L1/PD-1 and platinum-containing chemotherapy., Methods: This multicenter, open-label, phase III trial randomly assigned patients 1:1 to atezolizumab 1,200 mg intravenously once every 3 weeks (q3w) plus cabozantinib 40 mg orally once daily or docetaxel 75 mg/m 2 intravenously once every 3 weeks. The primary end point was overall survival (OS)., Results: One hundred eighty-six patients were assigned atezolizumab plus cabozantinib, and 180 docetaxel. Minimum OS follow-up was 10.9 months. Median OS was 10.7 months (95% CI, 8.8 to 12.3) with atezolizumab plus cabozantinib and 10.5 months (95% CI, 8.6 to 13.0) with docetaxel (stratified hazard ratio [HR], 0.88 [95% CI, 0.68 to 1.16]; P = .3668). Median progression-free survival was 4.6 months (95% CI, 4.1 to 5.6) and 4.0 months (95% CI, 3.1 to 4.4), respectively (stratified HR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.59 to 0.92]). Serious adverse events (AEs) occurred in 71 (38.4%) patients receiving atezolizumab plus cabozantinib and 58 (34.7%) receiving docetaxel. Grade 3/4 treatment-related AEs occurred in 73 (39.5%) patients receiving atezolizumab plus cabozantinib and 58 (34.7%) receiving docetaxel. Grade 5 AEs occurred in 14 (7.6%) and 10 (6.0%) patients in the atezolizumab plus cabozantinib and docetaxel arms, respectively (treatment-related in four [2.2%] and one [0.6%], respectively)., Conclusion: Atezolizumab plus cabozantinib after disease progression following anti-PD-L1/PD-1 immunotherapy and platinum-containing chemotherapy for metastatic NSCLC did not improve OS compared with docetaxel. Safety was consistent with known profiles of these agents.

Introduction: Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab was found to have antitumor activity and acceptable safety in previously treated metastatic NSCLC. We evaluated first-line lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus placebo plus pembrolizumab in metastatic NSCLC in the LEAP-007 study (NCT03829332/NCT04676412)., Methods: Patients with previously untreated stage IV NSCLC with programmed cell death-ligand 1 tumor proportion score of at least 1% without targetable EGFR/ROS1/ALK aberrations were randomized 1:1 to lenvatinib 20 mg or placebo once daily; all patients received pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles. Primary end points were progression-free survival (PFS) per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 and overall survival (OS). We report results from a prespecified nonbinding futility analysis of OS performed at the fourth independent data and safety monitoring committee review (futility bound: one-sided p < 0.4960)., Results: A total of 623 patients were randomized. At median follow-up of 15.9 months, median (95% confidence interval [CI]) OS was 14.1 (11.4‒19.0) months in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group versus 16.4 (12.6‒20.6) months in the placebo plus pembrolizumab group (hazard ratio = 1.10 [95% CI: 0.87‒1.39], p = 0.79744 [futility criterion met]). Median (95% CI) PFS was 6.6 (6.1‒8.2) months versus 4.2 (4.1‒6.2) months, respectively (hazard ratio = 0.78 [95% CI: 0.64‒0.95]). Grade 3 to 5 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 57.9% of patients (179 of 309) versus 24.4% (76 of 312). Per data and safety monitoring committee recommendation, the study was unblinded and lenvatinib and placebo were discontinued., Conclusions: Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab did not have a favorable benefit‒risk profile versus placebo plus pembrolizumab. Pembrolizumab monotherapy remains an approved treatment option in many regions for first-line metastatic NSCLC with programmed cell death-ligand 1 tumor proportion score of at least 1% without EGFR/ALK alterations., Competing Interests: Disclosure Dr. Yang reports receiving funding to institution for serving on advisory or consultancy services for Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Roche, Genentech, Takeda Oncology, Yuhan Pharmaceuticals, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Puma Technology, Gilead Sciences Inc., GlaxoSmithKline, BeiGene, Blueprint Medicines Corporation, Regeneron Pharmaceutical, and Taiho Pharmaceutical; receiving grant from Roche/Genentech; and having advisory or consultancy services from Ono Pharmaceuticals and Pfizer. Dr. Han reports receiving study funding to the institution from Eisai Inc., Nutley, New Jersey, and Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, New Jersey, to support study conduct. Dr. Jiménez reports receiving study funding to the institution from Eisai Inc., Nutley, New Jersey, and Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, New Jersey, to support study conduct. Dr. Lee reports receiving study funding to the institution from Eisai Inc., Nutley, New Jersey, and Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, New Jersey, to support study conduct. Dr. Koralewski reports receiving study funding to the institution from Eisai Inc., Nutley, New Jersey, and Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, New Jersey, to support study conduct. Dr. Karadurmus reports receiving study funding to the institution from Eisai Inc., Nutley, New Jersey, and Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, New Jersey, to support study conduct. Dr. Sugawara reports receiving grants or contracts to their institution from AnHeart, AstraZeneca, Chugai Pharma, MSD, Daiichi Sankyo, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Nippon Boehringer Ingelheim, Ono Pharmaceuticals, AbbVie, Amgen, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Takeda, and Clinipace; payment or honoraria from AstraZeneca, Chugai Pharma, Ono Pharmaceutical, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Nippon Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Eli Lilly and Company, Novartis, Kyowa Kirin, Takeda, Nippon Kayaku, Merck Biopharma Japan, Amgen, AbbVie, Otsuka, Thermo Fisher Scientific, and Towa Pharmaceutical. Dr. Livi reports receiving study funding to the institution from Eisai Inc., Nutley, New Jersey, and Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, New Jersey, to support study conduct. Dr. Basappa reports receiving grants or contracts from Ipsen; receiving payment or honoraria from Bayer, Astellas, and Janssen; receiving support for attending meetings from Eisa, Ipsen, and Janssen; having participation on data safety monitoring board or advisory board with Eisai, Ipsen, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Janssen, AstraZeneca, EMD Serono, Bayer, Astellas, and MSD. Dr. Quantin reports receiving payment or honoraria to their institution from Sanofi, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and AstraZeneca; receiving support for attending meetings from Janssen Cilag, Sanofi, and Pfizer; and having participation on data safety monitoring board or advisory board with Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Dudnik reports receiving study funding to the institution from Eisai Inc., Nutley, New Jersey, and Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, New Jersey, to support study conduct. Dr. Moran reports receiving support for present manuscript from MSD; grants or contracts from Abbott; consulting fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb and MSD; honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Bayer; support for attending meetings from Tecnofarma, Roche, Pfizer, Bayer, and Janssen; and having participation on data safety monitoring board or advisory board with MSD. Dr. Mekhail reports receiving payment for speakers bureau from MSD. Drs. Okpara and Dutcus are employees of Eisai Ltd., Hatfield, UK. Drs. Zimmer, Samkari, and Bhagwati are employees of Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, New Jersey, and own stock in Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, New Jersey. Dr. Csőszi reports receiving study funding to the institution from Eisai Inc., Nutley, New Jersey, and Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, New Jersey, to support study conduct., (Copyright © 2024 Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA, The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The RAS/MEK signaling pathway is essential in carcinogenesis and frequently altered in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), notably by KRAS mutations (KRASm) that affect 25%-30% of non-squamous NSCLC. This study aims to explore the impact of KRASm subtypes on disease phenotype and survival outcomes., Patients and Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of the French Epidemiological Strategy and Medical Economics database for advanced or metastatic lung cancer from 2011 to 2021. Patient demographics, histology, KRASm status, treatment strategies, and outcomes were assessed., Results: Of 10 177 assessable patients for KRAS status, 17.6% had KRAS p.G12C mutation, 22.6% had KRAS non-p.G12C mutation, and 59.8% were KRASwt. KRASm patients were more often smokers (96.3%) compared with KRASwt (85.8%). A higher proportion of programmed death-ligand 1 ≥50% was found for KRASm patients: 43.5% versus 38.0% (P < 0.01). KRASm correlated with poorer outcomes. First-line median progression-free survival was shorter in the KRASm than the KRASwt cohort: 4.0 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 3.7-4.3 months] versus 5.1 months (95% CI 4.8-5.3 months), P < 0.001. First-line overall survival was shorter for KRASm than KRASwt patients: 12.6 months (95% CI 11.6-13.6 months) versus 15.4 months (95% CI 14.6-16.2 months), P = 0.012. First-line chemoimmunotherapy offered better overall survival in KRAS p.G12C (48.8 months) compared with KRAS non-p.G12C (24.0 months) and KRASwt (22.5 months) patients. Second-line overall survival with immunotherapy was superior in the KRAS p.G12C subgroup: 12.6 months (95% CI 8.1-18.6 months) compared with 9.4 months (95% CI 8.0-11.4 months) for KRAS non-p.G12C and 9.6 months (8.4-11.0 months) for KRASwt patients., Conclusion: We highlighted distinct clinical profiles and survival outcomes according to KRASm subtypes. Notably KRAS p.G12C mutations may provide increased sensitivity to immunotherapy, suggesting potential therapeutic implications for sequencing or combination of therapies. Further research on the impact of emerging KRAS specific inhibitors are warranted in real-world cohorts., Competing Interests: Disclosure QDT received honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, and Sanofi and meeting/travel support from Amgen and Sanofi. CC received grants or contracts, consulting fees, personal/institutional honoraria, and meeting/travel support from AstraZeneca, Amgen, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and Takeda. TF received personal/institutional honoraria from Janssen, Lilly, and Roche. JRM received grants or contracts from MSD, received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker’s bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from AstraZeneca, Edimark, Janssen, MSD, Sanofi, Roche, and Takeda and meeting/travel support from Ose-Immunotherapeutics. MP received consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Ipsen, Janssen, MSD, Novocure, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker bureau, manuscript writing or educational events from Anheart Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Takeda; payment for expert testimony from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, and Roche; support for attending meetings and/or travel from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda; and participated on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Pharmamar and Roche. CAV received consulting fees or meeting/travel support from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, and Takeda; and participated in an advisory board for AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi. GJ received meeting/travel support from Sanofi. SH received personal/institutional honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Sanofi, and Takeda; and meeting/travel support from Novartis and Sanofi. AS received consulting fees from Exafield and Guidepoint; honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, and MSD; meeting/travel support from Amgen and Roche; and is a board member of the SFFPO. EP received personal/institutional honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, and MSD; meeting/travel support from Takeda and Amgen; and participated in an advisory board for Takeda. NG declared research grants/support from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi-Sankyo, Gilead, Hoffmann-La Roche, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Lilly, Merk Serono, MSD, Novartis, Sanofi, Sivan; consultative services for AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi-Sankyo, Gilead, Ipsen Hoffmann-La Roche, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Lilly, MSD, Mirati, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Takeda; participation on a data safety monitoring board for Hoffmann-La Roche; and employment of a family member with AstraZeneca. PDR received meeting/travel support from Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Summit Therapeutics, Sanofi, and Takeda; and participated in an advisory board for Sanofi and Takeda. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Understanding the factors that lead to relapse is a major challenge for the clinical support of smoking cessation. Neurocognitive abilities such as attention, executive functioning and working memory, are possible predictors of relapse and can be easily assessed in everyday clinical practice. In this prospective longitudinal study, we investigated the relationship between pre-smoking cessation neurocognitive performance and relapse at six months in a sample of patients being treated for their tobacco dependence., Methods: 130 tobacco consumers were included in the study. They completed a comprehensive neuropsychological and clinical assessment before smoking cessation. The targeted abilities were intelligence, inhibition, shifting, working memory updating, verbal fluency and decision-making., Results: The rate of tobacco relapse at 6 months was 58%. Logistic regressions were used to assess which variables best explained relapse. None of the neuropsychological tests was a significant predictor of relapse at either 1, 3 or 6 months, either alone, or controlling for other covariates acting as significant predictors of relapse., Conclusions: Common neuropsychological tests, even those specifically targeting executive functioning such as inhibition, are not useful predictors of the success of a smoking cessation program in a clinical setting. Other variables, such as motivation to quit smoking or the presence of comorbid depression or anxiety disorders, appear to be more useful predictors of relapse., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Immune checkpoint blockers have revolutionized the first-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Pembrolizumab, an anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody, is a standard therapy either alone or in combination with chemotherapy (chemo-IO). The current study explores the efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab with carboplatin and weekly paclitaxel in a cohort of frail patients., Methods: A monocentric retrospective study was conducted between 22 September 2020 and 19 January 2023 regarding patients with stage IV NSCLC treated with chemo-IO combination: carboplatin (AUC 5 mg/mL/min; Q4W), weekly paclitaxel (90 mg/m 2 on days 1, 8, and 15), and pembrolizumab (200 mg Q4W). The primary objective was real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS). Secondary objectives were overall survival (OS), toxicity profile, and outcomes based on histological subtype., Results: A total of 34 patients (20 squamous and 14 non-squamous NSCLC) benefited from the chemo-IO regimen for frail patients; 41.9% had an ECOG-PS = 2. The median age was 75.5 years. We observed an overall response rate (ORR) of 55.9%. Notably, squamous NSCLC exhibited a significantly higher ORR (80%) than non-squamous NSCLC (21.4%); p = 0.001. The median rw-PFS was 10.6 months (95% CI [6.0, NA]), with 6- and 12-month rw-PFS rates of 69% and 45.8%, respectively. The median OS was not reached, with 12- and 18-month OS rates of 75.6% and 61.4%, respectively. The median number of maintenance cycles of pembrolizumab was 5 (0; 27). Nine patients (26.5%) experienced a toxicity related to chemotherapy leading to a reduction of the dose administered and, in five patients (14.7%), to the permanent discontinuation of chemotherapy. Six patients (17.6%) had an immune-related adverse event leading to the discontinuation of immunotherapy., Discussion: Pembrolizumab plus carboplatin and weekly paclitaxel demonstrates promising efficacy and safety in frail patients with metastatic NSCLC, especially for ORR in sq-NSCLC. Prospective studies focusing on frail populations are warranted in order to validate these findings and optimize therapeutic strategies in the first-line setting.

Objective: Systemic therapeutic advancements have improved the prognosis of cancer patients, leading to surgery more frequently being carried out for patients with multiple brain metastases (BM). The underlying evidence for the strategy is currently lacking. This study aimed to evaluate the prognostic significance of the number of BM and total tumor burden (TTB) on the overall survival (OS) of patients with resected BM of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in a modern series., Methods: In this monocentric retrospective series, patients who underwent resection of BM of NSCLC between 2015 and 2021 were included. Demographic, clinical, and histological parameters were collected, and formal radiological volumetric analyses were performed. Prognostic biomarkers for cerebral progression-free survival (C-PFS) and OS were analyzed with univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards analysis., Results: One hundred eighty-four patients were included in the study. Among these, 108 patients (58.7%) presented with a single brain metastasis, 36 patients (19.6%) with 2 BM, 22 patients (11.9%) with 3 BM, and 18 patients (9.8%) with more than 3 BM (maximum 15 BM). The mean ± SD (range) preoperative tumor burden was 23.1 ± 25.3 (1.1-145.3) cm3. The mean residual tumor burden after surgery was 0.3 ± 0.8 (0.0-6.3) cm3. By the time of the analysis, 128 patients (69.6%) had died. The median follow-up duration was 49.0 months (95% CI 39.6-63.6). The median OS was 19.2 months (95% CI 13.2-24.0), and the survival rates at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years were 76% (95% CI 69%-82%), 61% (95% CI 53%-67%), and 43% (95% CI 35%-50%), respectively. The median C-PFS was 8.4 months (95% CI 7.2-12.0). In the Cox multivariate regression model, younger age (< 65 years), single brain metastasis, adjuvant brain radiation therapy, adjuvant use of targeted therapy, and TTB < 7 cm3 were all independent predictors of longer OS., Conclusions: In this era of modern systemic treatments for cancer, the number of BM and total cerebral tumor burden remain significant prognostic factors of OS. However, resection should be considered as an option even in those patients with multiple BM in order to enhance patient clinical status, enable further local and systemic treatment delivery, and improve their survival and quality of life.

Background: Circulating tumour cells (CTCs), circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA), and extracellular vesicles (EVs) are minimally invasive liquid biopsy biomarkers. This study investigated whether they predict prognosis, alone or in combination, in heterogenous unbiased non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients., Methods: Plasma samples of 54 advanced NSCLC patients from a prospective clinical trial. CtDNA mutations were identified using the UltraSEEK™ Lung Panel (MassARRAY® technology). PD-L1 expression was assessed in small EVs (sEVs) using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay., Results: At least one ctDNA mutation was detected in 37% of patients. Mutations were not correlated with overall survival (OS) (HR = 1.1, 95% CI = 0.55; 1.83, P = 0.980) and progression-free survival (PFS) (HR = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.57-1.76, P = 0.991). High PD-L1 + sEV concentration was correlated with OS (HR = 1.14, 95% CI = 1.03-1.26, P = 0.016), but not with PFS (HR = 1.08, 95% CI = 0.99-1.18, P = 0.095). The interaction analysis suggested that PD-L1 + sEV correlation with PFS changed in function of CTC presence/absence (P interaction = 0.036). The combination analysis highlighted worse prognosis for patients with CTCs and high PD-L1 + sEV concentration (HR = 7.65, 95% CI = 3.11-18.83, P < 0.001). The mutational statuses of ctDNA and tumour tissue were significantly correlated (P = 0.0001)., Conclusion: CTCs and high PD-L1 + sEV concentration correlated with PFS and OS, but not ctDNA mutations. Their combined analysis may help to identify patients with worse OS., Trial Registration: NCT02866149, Registered 01 June 2015, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT02866149 ., (© 2023. The Author(s).)