Search

Introduction: EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) is the standard adjuvant treatment for patients with stages IB to IIIA EGFR-mutated NSCLC. Nevertheless, adapting this approach to include a molecular residual disease (MRD)-guided de-escalation strategy warrants further investigation. Methods: From January 2019 to December 2022, 71 patients with stages I to III NSCLC and EGFR (exon 19 deletion or L858R) mutations were enrolled in this observational study. A total of 375 blood samples were analyzed using the MRD_Navigator assay. Among them, 27 patients suspended EGFR TKI treatment based on undetectable MRD and were thus included in the adaptive, de-escalation group. Results: Overall, the sensitivity of longitudinal MRD was 86.2%. Only four patients (11.8%) recurred with longitudinal undetectable MRD, indicating a negative predictive value of 88.2%. Of the patients who had detectable MRD after surgery, nine subsequently received EGFR TKI treatment, with only one (11.1%) achieving persistent circulating tumor DNA clearance post–EGFR TKI. Furthermore, 22 patients with stages IB to III disease who had previously suspended their TKI treatment based on undetectable MRD were included in the adaptive group, with an average duration of TKI 3.9 (range: 0–35.0) months. The 2-year disease-free survival rate of these 22 patients was 80.2%, and the median was not reached. Five patients (n = 5 of 22, 22.7%) had disease recurrence during the period of drug cessation but were stable under EGFR TKI treatment until the latest follow-up. Two patients remained in complete remission. Conclusions: Our initial findings underscore the potential of an adaptive, de-escalation approach to adjuvant EGFR TKIs based on circulating tumor DNA-MRD monitoring.

Introduction: Transformation to SCLC is a resistance mechanism to tyrosine kinase inhibitor in EGFR-mutated lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD). Nevertheless, the clinical and molecular features of SCLC transformation in LUAD with leptomeningeal metastases (LM) are scarce. Methods: We retrospectively collected 237 patients with NSCLC who underwent lumbar puncture owing to suggestion of LM. All SCLC transformation in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) was confirmed by two experienced pathologists using cytologic evaluation. CSF circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) was tested by next-generation sequencing. Results: Tumor cells in CSF samples were found in 111 patients (111 of 237, 46.8%), and eight cases (eight of 111, 7.2%) were identified as having SCLC cells in CSF. Seven patients carried the EGFR mutation, including four patients with EGFR exon 19 deletion and three patients with EGFR exon 21 L858R mutation. Another patient harbored ERBB2 insertion. Seven of these patients were resistant to targeted therapy. CSF ctDNA analysis reported that TP53 and RB1 mutations were common. The median time from the diagnosis of advanced NSCLC to SCLC transformation found in CSF was 9.7 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.0–17.5 mo). The median overall survival since the initial diagnosis of metastatic NSCLC was 15.3 months (95% CI: 1.2–29.4 mo). The median overall survival after SCLC transformation detected in CSF was 5.0 months (95% CI: 4.0–5.9 mo). Conclusions: SCLC transformation may be revealed in CSF by both cytologic evaluation and ctDNA, not just in tissue that underwent rebiopsy. SCLC transformation of CSF is informative for resistance mechanism in patients with LUAD with LM on tyrosine kinase inhibitor progression, which was associated with poor survival.

Introduction: In Chinese patients with NSCLC, prevalence of EGFR-mutated (EGFRm) disease is high. In the global phase 3 ADAURA study (NCT02511106), adjuvant osimertinib was found to have a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in disease-free survival (DFS) versus placebo in resected stage IB to IIIA EGFRm NSCLC. We present efficacy and safety data from a subgroup analysis of 159 Chinese patients enrolled in the People’s Republic of China from ADAURA. Methods: In ADAURA, patients with completely resected stage IB to IIIA EGFRm (exon 19 deletion/exon 21 L858R) NSCLC were randomized 1:1 to receive osimertinib (80 mg once daily) or placebo for 3 years or until disease recurrence/discontinuation. Adjuvant chemotherapy was permitted before randomization, per physician/patient choice. Primary end point was investigator-assessed DFS in stage II to IIIA disease; secondary end points included DFS in stage IB to IIIA (overall population), overall survival, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and safety. Results: Of 682 patients enrolled globally, 159 patients in the People’s Republic of China were included in this subgroup analysis (osimertinib n = 77; placebo n = 82). Baseline characteristics were balanced across the treatment arms. At data cutoff, stage II to IIIA DFS hazard ratio (HR) was 0.23 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.13–0.42; maturity 59%); stage IB to IIIA DFS HR was 0.29 (95% CI: 0.17–0.48; maturity 42%). At 13% maturity (21 deaths), HR for overall survival in the stage IB to IIIA population was 0.51 (95% CI: 0.21–1.20). HRQoL was maintained from baseline, and safety was consistent with the global population. Conclusions: In this population of Chinese patients from ADAURA, adjuvant osimertinib was found to have a clinically meaningful improvement in DFS versus placebo, with maintained HRQoL and a safety profile consistent with the global study population.

Introduction: Lorlatinib is a potent, third-generation inhibitor of ALK. In the planned interim analysis of the ongoing, phase 3, randomized, global CROWN trial (NCT03052608), lorlatinib resulted in significantly longer progression-free survival than crizotinib in patients with previously untreated, advanced, ALK-positive NSCLC. Here, we present a subgroup analysis of Asian patients in the CROWN study. Methods: Patients received lorlatinib 100 mg once daily or crizotinib 250 mg twice daily. The primary end point was progression-free survival assessed by blinded independent central review. Objective response rate (ORR), intracranial ORR, safety, and select biomarkers were secondary end points. Results: At data cutoff (September 20, 2021), 120 patients were included in the Asian intention-to-treat subgroup (lorlatinib n = 59; crizotinib n = 61). At 36 months, 61% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 47–72) and 25% (95% CI: 12–41) of patients in the lorlatinib and crizotinib groups, respectively, were alive without disease progression (hazard ratio for disease progression by blinded independent central review or death: 0.40; 95% CI: 0.23–0.71). ORR was 78% (95% CI: 65–88) versus 57% (95% CI: 44–70) for patients treated with lorlatinib and crizotinib, respectively. In patients with measurable, nonmeasurable, or both measurable and nonmeasurable brain metastases at baseline, intracranial ORR was 73% (95% CI: 39–94) versus 20% (95% CI: 4–48) for patients treated with lorlatinib and crizotinib, respectively. The definition of nonmeasurable brain metastases is: a brain lesion less than 10 mm in MRI scan is defined as nonmeasurable brain metastasi based on RECIST criteria (Clinical trial evaluation criteria). Hypercholesterolemia, hypertriglyceridemia, and edema were the most frequently reported adverse events with lorlatinib. Conclusions: Lorlatinib efficacy and safety in the Asian subgroup of CROWN were consistent with those in the overall population.

Background: Previously reported results have shown promising efficacy of neoadjuvant immunotherapy for resectable non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, no randomized control trials comparing neoadjuvant immunotherapy with chemotherapy have yet been reported. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the superiority of neoadjuvant immunotherapy compared with standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy in resectable NSCLC in terms of short-term clinical outcomes and surgical outcomes. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the ClinicalTrials.gov database, Web of Science, and abstracts derived from multiple major cancer meetings up to March 1, 2020. Short-term clinical outcomes (including objective response rate [ORR], major pathologic response, and pathologic complete response [pCR]) and surgical outcomes (including surgical resection rate and R0 resection rate) were reported. Data were summarized as the estimated pooled value of each evaluated index. The risk of bias of included studies was assessed using standard methods. Results: This systematic review and meta-analysis of 21 trials on neoadjuvant immunotherapy and neoadjuvant chemotherapy for NSCLC included 1795 patients. Patients who received Programmed death ligand 1 (PD-1/PD-L1) inhibitors (NeoIO) alone (13.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 9.0%-19.3%) had the lowest ORR compared with those who received NeoIO plus chemotherapy (CT) (62.5%; 95% CI, 54.4%-70.0%) or CT alone (41.6%; 95% CI, 36.8%-46.7%) (NeoIO vs CT, P

Introduction: Crizotinib provided meaningful clinical benefit in the initial analysis of a phase 2 study in East Asian patients with advanced ROS1-positive NSCLC (NCT01945021). Nevertheless, overall survival (OS) data were immature. Here, we present the final OS, quality of life (QoL), and safety data after an additional 3 years of follow-up. Methods: In this phase 2, open-label, single-arm trial, East Asian patients with ROS1-positive advanced NSCLC who had received less than or equal to three systemic therapies previously were treated with crizotinib 250 mg twice daily on a continuous daily dosing schedule in 28-day cycles. The OS (secondary end point) was analyzed for the total population, by country, and by number of previous chemotherapy regimens. QoL and safety were also evaluated. Results: With a median duration of follow-up of 56.1 months, the median OS was 44.2 months (95% confidence interval: 32.0–not reached) for the total population (N = 127). Differences in median OS were observed among individual countries and with number of previous regimens. The improvement in QoL found in the previous analysis was maintained with the extended follow-up. Treatment-related adverse events led to crizotinib dose reductions or permanent treatment discontinuations in 17.3% and 2.4%, respectively, of the patients. Conclusions: This is the largest trial of an ALK/ROS1 inhibitor to treat patients with ROS1-positive advanced NSCLC and provides a new benchmark for OS in East Asian patients. The QoL and safety profile with long-term follow-up were consistent with previous reports and support the continued use of crizotinib in the treatment of patients with ROS1-positive advanced NSCLC.

Introduction: BRAF variants were reported resistant mechanisms to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) in EGFR-mutant NSCLC. Nevertheless, characteristics and subsequent treatment strategies of such patients remain unclear. Methods: From October 2016 to May 2020, patients with advanced NSCLC for whom next-generation sequencing detected mutations of both BRAF and EGFR were retrospectively included. From June 2020 to January 2021, patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC who acquired the BRAF V600E mutation after progression on osimertinib were prospectively enrolled to explore the efficacy and safety of EGFR plus BARF co-inhibition. Results: A total of 58 patients were retrospectively identified and five prospectively included. BRAF variants were acquired after a median time of 22.7 months from initial diagnosis. The frequency of variations in TP53, PIK3CA, RB1, MET, LRP1B, APC, CDKN2A, MYC, ERBB2, and SMAD4 was all more than 10%; these mutations affected the cell cycle or p53 pathway and the EGFR downstream and bypass pathways. The median progression-free survival was 5.0 months for patients on chemotherapy and 2.1 months for those on TKIs not targeting both of EGFR and BRAF (p = 0.019). The median PFS was 7.8 months in five patients who received EGFR plus BRAF co-inhibitory drugs. RAS signaling was activated on disease progression. Conclusions: Variations in the EGFR downstream and bypass pathways were frequent in patients with dual mutations of EGFR and BRAF. The efficacies of TKIs not targeting both EGFR and BRAF were inferior to chemotherapy. EGFR plus BRAF co-inhibition improved efficacy. Such treatment strategies should be further explored.

Introduction: The adjuvant treatment of patients with resected lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD) remains unstandardized. We analyzed the survival outcomes of these patients based on EGFR mutation status and adjuvant chemotherapy treatment. Methods: This noninterventional real-world study (ICAN) enrolled Chinese patients with resected stages I to III LUAD from April 8, 2010, to December 31, 2010. Tumor EGFR mutation status and 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) were determined. The extension phase provided long-term follow-up with overall survival (OS) as the primary end point. Secondary end points included DFS and prognostic factors of survival. Survival outcomes based on adjuvant chemotherapy treatment, EGFR mutation status, and postoperative stage were analyzed post hoc. Results: Among 568 patients in the ICAN cohort, 472 continued to the extension phase and remained eligible. The 3-year DFS rate was 58.8%. In the extension cohort, 260 patients (55.1%) had EGFR-mutant disease and 207 (43.9%) received adjuvant chemotherapy. At a median follow-up of 109.0 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 106.6–111.4) months, median OS and DFS were 103.3 (95% CI: 101.7–104.9) and 67.4 (95% CI: 49.7–85.2) months, respectively. The 5-year OS and DFS rates were 68.9% (95% CI: 64.3–73.6) and 52.9% (95% CI: 48.2–57.7), respectively. EGFR wild-type disease was a significant independent predictor of worse OS (HR = 1.24, 95% CI: 1.07–1.44, p= 0.004) based on the Cox regression analysis of common factors. Post hoc subgroup analysis revealed that survival outcomes were not significantly different with adjuvant chemotherapy regardless of EGFR mutation status across all postoperative stages. Conclusions: EGFR mutations are common in operable LUAD, and recurrence and mortality after resection were considerable. Adjuvant chemotherapy did not improve survival outcomes, regardless of EGFR mutation status and postoperative stage.

Introduction: Whereas interpatient heterogeneity in clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes of NSCLC harboring a KRAS mutation is recognized, the characterization of these patients in Asia has been limited. Methods: A multicenter, retrospective cohort study was conducted in eight academic centers across Asia. Patients diagnosed with advanced NSCLC harboring a KRAS mutation and who had received at least one line of anticancer therapy between January 2014 and December 2018 were included. Modified time to next treatment (TTNT) was adopted as a proxy for progression-free survival. Results: A total of 216 patients were analyzed. The median age at diagnosis of advanced NSCLC was 63.3 years, 70.8% were men and 89.8% had adenocarcinoma. KRAS G12D was the most common subtype (25.5%), followed by G12C (24.5%), and G12V (19.4%) The proportion of current or former smokers was 65.7% in the overall population, with 86.8% in G12C and 58.9% in non-G12C subgroups. For all treatments combined for the total population, the first-line duration of therapy, modified TTNT, and TTNT were 4.5 (95% confidence interval: 3.4–5.9), 6.2 (4.9–8.8), and 9.5 (7.1–11.4) months, respectively. The median overall survival for the total population was 10.3 (6.9–12.4) months and was prolonged in patients ever treated with immunotherapy (14.6 [8.6–19.1] versus 7.0 [5.9–10.6] mo, hazard ratio = 0.54, p < 0.001), with left truncation to account for the time of KRAS testing. Conclusions: Whereas treatment outcomes with conventional anticancer therapy are reasonable and immunotherapy looks promising, the unmet need remains high for patients with KRAS-mutated NSCLC in Asia, underscoring the need for novel therapeutic approaches.

Introduction: Pulmonary atypical carcinoid (PAC) is a rare subtype of pulmonary neuroendocrine neoplasm. Although EML4-ALK fusion has been detected in PAC, EGFR mutations have not been reported before. Methods: We performed hematoxylin and eosin staining, immunohistochemistry, and next-generation sequencing on tissues at baseline and after surgery. Results: The patient was diagnosed with having advanced PAC harboring the EGFR L858R mutation and then received a combination of icotinib and irinotecan plus cisplatin chemotherapy, achieving a partial response before the operation. Postoperative histology results revealed SCLC harboring the EGFR L858R mutation. Surprisingly, both the KRAS amplification and the RB1 deletion disappeared. Conclusions: EGFR tyrosine inhibitors plus irinotecan plus cisplatin chemotherapy might be a potential treatment option for advanced pulmonary neuroendocrine neoplasms harboring EGFR mutations.

Neoadjuvant immunotherapy may improve outcomes in patients with resectable NSCLC and is being evaluated in phase 2 and 3 studies. Nevertheless, preoperative treatment postpones resection; the potential for increased surgical complexity and greater intra- and postoperative morbidity and mortality is an additional consideration. In studies primarily designed to evaluate efficacy, the impact of neoadjuvant immunotherapy on surgery is based on parameters that are poorly defined and reported differently between studies. Defining and reporting common end points among trials would improve understanding and facilitate cross-comparison of different immunotherapy regimens and may facilitate wider adoption of induction therapies by surgeons and oncologists. We propose several surgical end points and related metrics for neoadjuvant immunotherapy in resectable NSCLC. These include the periods from screening to treatment initiation and from last neoadjuvant dose to surgery; reporting of the allowable window for surgery to preclude masking delays caused by induction treatment-related toxicity; complete resection (R0) rate; preoperative downstaging; a standardized list of immune-related adverse events and associated delay to surgery; preoperative attrition; postoperative attrition before adjuvant therapy; and postoperative 30- and 90-day mortality and morbidity rates. Intraoperative end points (blood loss, duration, and type of surgery) and our proposed system of grading complexity based on lymphadenopathy and fibrosis would allow quantitation of technical difficulty and quality of oncologic resection. In conclusion, the standardization, reporting, and prospective inclusion of these end points in study protocols would provide a comparative overview of the impact of different neoadjuvant immunotherapy regimens on surgery and ultimately clinical oncologic outcomes in resectable NSCLC.

Introduction: We retrospectively evaluated outcomes in patients with programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)–positive non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) to determine whether baseline (i.e., at study enrollment) brain metastases were associated with the efficacy of pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy. Methods: We pooled data for patients with previously treated or untreated PD-L1‒positive (tumor proportion score [TPS], ≥1%) advanced or metastatic NSCLC in KEYNOTE-001 (NCT01295827), KEYNOTE-010 (NCT01905657), KEYNOTE-024 (NCT02142738), and KEYNOTE-042 (NCT02220894). Patients received pembrolizumab (2 mg/kg, 10 mg/kg, or 200 mg every 3 wk or 10 mg/kg every 2 wk); chemotherapy was a comparator in all studies except KEYNOTE-001. All studies included patients with previously treated, stable brain metastases. Results: A total of 3170 patients were included, 293 (9.2%) with and 2877 (90.8%) without baseline brain metastases; median (range) follow-up at data cutoff was 12.9 (0.1‒43.7) months. Pembrolizumab improved overall survival versus chemotherapy in patients with or without baseline brain metastases: benefit was seen in patients with PD-L1 TPS ≥50% (0.67 [95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.44‒1.02] and 0.66 [95% CI: 0.58‒0.76], respectively) and PD-L1 TPS ≥1% (0.83 [95% CI: 0.62‒1.10] and 0.78 [95% CI: 0.71‒0.85], respectively). Progression-free survival was improved, objective response rates were higher, and duration of response was longer with pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy regardless of brain metastasis status. The incidence of treatment-related adverse events with pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy was 66.3% versus 84.4% in patients with brain metastases and 67.2% versus 88.3% in those without. Conclusions: Pembrolizumab monotherapy improved outcomes and was associated with fewer adverse events than chemotherapy in patients with treatment-naive and previously treated PD-L1‒positive advanced/metastatic NSCLC regardless of the presence of baseline treated, stable brain metastases.

Introduction: In the phase 3 ASCEND-4 study, ceritinib exhibited improved progression-free survival (PFS) by Blinded Independent Review Committee (BIRC) assessment versus the standard first-line chemotherapy in patients with advanced ALK-rearranged NSCLC. Here, we assessed the efficacy and safety of ceritinib in the subgroup of Asian patients from the ASCEND-4 trial. Methods: Treatment-naive patients with stage IIIB or IV ALK-rearranged nonsquamous NSCLC were randomized in a one-to-one ratio to receive either oral ceritinib 750 mg/day (fasted) daily or intravenous chemotherapy ([cisplatin 75 mg/m2 or carboplatin area under the curve 5–6 plus pemetrexed 500 mg/m2] every three wk, followed by pemetrexed maintenance). The primary end point was PFS by BIRC assessment. Results: Of 376 randomized patients, 158 (42.0%) were Asian (ceritinib arm: N = 76; chemotherapy arm: N = 82). The median time from randomization to the cutoff date (June 24, 2016) was 18.3 months (range = 13.5–34.2) in the Asian subgroup. The median PFS (by BIRC assessment) was 26.3 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 8.6–not estimable) and 10.6 months (95% CI: 6.7–15.0), with an estimated 34% risk reduction in PFS (hazard ratio = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.41–1.05) in the ceritinib arm versus chemotherapy arm. The most common adverse events of any grade were diarrhea (85.5%), increased alanine aminotransferase and vomiting (73.7% each), and increased aspartate aminotransferase and nausea (69.7% each) in the ceritinib arm, and nausea (49.3%), vomiting (42.7%), and anemia (40.0%) in the chemotherapy arm. Conclusion: Ceritinib was effective and safe in treatment-naive Asian patients with advanced ALK-rearranged NSCLC. The findings were largely consistent with that of the overall study population.

Introduction: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak throughout the world has affected millions of people in many ways, putting a huge burden on the health care system. The ongoing outbreak of this respiratory disease has posed critical challenges to public health, research, and medical communities around the world. This study aimed at evaluating the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on patients with lung cancer in the People’s Republic of China. Methods: We collected data on 397 inpatients from a single center during 4 weeks of the pandemic (2020 group) and that of 2504 inpatients during the same period (4 wk) in the past 5 years (2015–2019 group). A questionnaire was used to investigate the medical demands of 803 patients with lung cancer at 65 hospitals in 20 provinces in the People’s Republic of China during the pandemic. We evaluated the incidence data of COVID-19 in Guangdong to analyze the tendency of the pandemic and compared it with inpatient data. Results: The number of hospitalizations and lung cancer–related operations had steadily increased from 2015 to 2019 but reduced by an average of 26.72% (133.8) and 57.18% (45.4) in 2020. The hospital capacity decreased by 28.00% (35 inpatient beds) during the pandemic period of infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. The pandemic caused a greater impact on medical work related to lung cancer after the Chinese New Year holiday. Patients were most concerned about long waiting times for outpatient services, inpatient beds, physical examinations, or operations (406; 50.56%); the possibility of infection with the novel coronavirus (359; 44.71%); and the difficulties in getting to a hospital owing to transportation outages (279; 34.74%). Patients in stage I and II revealed having less fear about disease progression (14 [18.18%] and four [14.81%], respectively), had lower proportions of delayed medical arrangement (15 [19.48%] and six [22.22%], respectively), and complained less about complex treatment procedures (12 [15.58%] and five [18.52%], respectively). Patients in the high-infected area (345, 56.74%) complained more frequently about longer booking periods than those in the low-infected area (61, 31.28%). Conclusions: The treatment of patients with lung cancer has been affected by the pandemic to some extent. We provide suggestions on both clinical diagnosis and treatment strategies for lung cancer to optimize the process, given the urgency of the current circumstances. The demand for medical support among patients with lung cancer or other life-threatening diseases should be given sufficient attention, especially during the current COVID-19 outbreak.