The value of immunotherapy for survivors of stage IV non-small cell lung cancer: patient perspectives on quality of life

Why and How to Integrate Early Palliative Care Into Cutting-Edge Personalized Cancer Care

Early palliative care, palliative care integrated with oncology care early in the course of illness, has myriad benefits for patients and their caregivers, including improved quality of life, reduced physical and psychological symptom burden, enhanced prognostic awareness, and reduced health care utilization at the end of life. Although ASCO and others recommend early palliative care for all patients with advanced cancer, widespread implementation of early palliative care has not been realized because of barriers such as insufficient reimbursement and a palliative care workforce shortage. Investigators have recently tested several implementation strategies to overcome these barriers, including triggers for palliative care consultations, telehealth delivery, navigator-delivered interventions, and primary palliative care interventions. More research is needed to identify mechanisms to distribute palliative care optimally and equitably. Simultaneously, the transformation of the oncology treatment landscape has led to shifts in the supportive care needs of patients and caregivers, who may experience longer, uncertain trajectories of cancer. Now, palliative care also plays a clear role in the care of patients with hematologic malignancies and may be beneficial for patients undergoing phase I clinical trials and their caregivers. Further research and clinical guidance regarding how to balance the risks and benefits of opioid therapy and safely manage cancer-related pain across this wide range of settings are urgently needed. The strengths of early palliative care in supporting patients' and caregivers' coping and centering decisions on their goals and values remain valuable in the care of patients receiving cutting-edge personalized cancer care.

Living in the twilight zone: a qualitative study on the experiences of patients with advanced cancer obtaining long-term response to immunotherapy or targeted therapy

PURPOSE

The introduction of immunotherapy and targeted therapy has drastically improved the life expectancy of patients with advanced cancer. Despite improved survival, obtaining long-term response can be highly distressing and comes with uncertainties that affect several life domains. The aim of this study is to gain a deeper understanding of long-term responders' lived experiences with obtaining long-term response to immunotherapy or targeted therapy.

METHODS

We conducted an exploratory qualitative study using thematic data analysis. Semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted with 17 patients with advanced melanoma or lung cancer who had a confirmed response to or long-term stable disease while on immunotherapy or targeted therapy.

RESULTS

Long-term responders are living in a twilight zone, where they neither feel like a patient, nor feel healthy. This impacts their self-image, interactions with their social environment, and feelings of uncertainty. Due to their uncertain life perspective, long-term responders are going back and forth between hope and despair, while they are longing for their 'old' life, several barriers, such as protective behavior of the social environment, force them to adjust to a life with cancer.

CONCLUSION

Long-term responders are facing many challenges, such as searching for a renewed identity, dealing with ongoing uncertainty, and having to adapt to a new normal. This emphasizes the importance of providing this new patient group with tailored information and support.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Healthcare professionals can support patients by normalizing their feelings and providing space for varying emotions. Using patient-tailored scan frequencies could help temper fear of progression.

Safety and Patient-Reported outcomes of atezolizumab plus chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab in stage IIIB/IV non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer with EGFR mutation, ALK rearrangement or ROS1 fusion progressing after targeted therapies (GFPC 06-2018 study)

BACKGROUND

In an open-label multicenter non-randomized non-comparative phase II study in patients with stage IIIB/IV non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), oncogenic addiction (EGFR mutation or ALK/ROS1 fusion), with disease progression after tyrosine-kinase inhibitor and no prior chemotherapy (NCT04042558), atezolizumab, carboplatin, pemetrexed with or without bevacizumab showed some promising result. Beyond the clinical evaluation, we assessed safety and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to provide additional information on the relative impact of adding atezolizumab to chemotherapy with and without bevacizumab in this population.

MATERIALS

Patients received platinum-pemetrexed-atezolizumab-bevacizumab (PPAB cohort) or, if not eligible, platinum-pemetrexed-atezolizumab (PPA cohort). The incidence, nature, and severity of adverse events (AEs) were assessed. PROs were evaluated using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-Core 30 and EORTC QLQ-Lung Cancer 13).

RESULT

Overall, 68 (PPAB) and 72 (PPA) patients were evaluable for safety. Grade 3-4 AEs occurred in 83.8% (PPAB) and 63.9% (PPA). Grade 3-4 atezolizumab-related AEs occurred in 29.4% and 19.4%, respectively. Grade 3-4 bevacizumab-related AEs occurred in 36.8% (PPAB). Most frequent grade 3-4 AEs were neutropenia (19.1% in PPAB; 23.6% in PPA) and asthenia (16.2% in PPAB; 9.7% in PPA). In PPAB, we observed a global stability in global health security (GHS) score, fatigue and dyspnea with a constant tendency of improvement, and a significant improvement in cough. In PPA, we observed a significant improvement in GHS score with a significant improvement in fatigue, dyspnea and cough. At week 54, we observed an improvement from baseline in GHS score for 49.2% of patients. In both cohorts, patients reported on average no clinically significant worsening in their overall health or physical functioning scores.

CONCLUSION

PPAB and PPA combinations seem tolerable and manageable in patients with stage IIIB/IV non-squamous NSCLC with oncogenic addiction (EGFR mutation or ALK/ROS1 fusion) after targeted therapies.

Neoadjuvant and Adjuvant Immunotherapy in Resectable NSCLC

Non-small cell lung cancer, even when diagnosed in early stages, has been linked with poor survival rates and distant recurrence patterns. Novel therapeutic approaches harnessing the immune system have been implemented in early stages, following the designated steps of advanced NSCLC treatment strategies. Immune-checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) regimens as monotherapy, combinational, or alongside chemotherapy have been intensely investigated as adjuvant, neoadjuvant, and, more recently, perioperative therapeutic strategies, representing pivotal milestones in the evolution of early lung cancer management while holding great potential for the future. The subject of current ongoing research is optimizing treatment outcomes for patient subsets with different needs and identifying biomarkers that could be predictive of response while translating the trials' endpoints to survival rates. The aim of this review is to discuss all current treatment options with the pros and cons of each, persistent challenges, and future perspectives on immunotherapy as illuminating the path to a new era for resectable NSCLC.

Experience of patients considering or using checkpoint inhibitors in cancer treatment: a systematic review of qualitative research

Increasing numbers of patients with cancer are considering or undergoing immunotherapy, however, little is known about patients' perspectives on this treatment. We undertook a systematic review for use by clinicians and researchers, consolidating published qualitative research studies on patient experience of checkpoint inhibitor therapy. A search of Medline, Embase, and PsycINFO was carried out for publications in English to 30 June 2022. Publications were selected if they reported a qualitative study of patient experience with checkpoint inhibitor therapy for cancer, either by patients or their families or carers. Quality was appraised using the Johanna Briggs Institute quality assessment tool for qualitative studies. A thematic synthesis was conducted. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses standard was followed. We identified 17 eligible studies published between 2017 and 2022, 9 using mixed methods, and 8 solely using qualitative methods. Most studies reported on the experiences of patients with advanced stage melanoma and were using the earliest approved checkpoint inhibitors for cancer therapy. Studies met most formal quality criteria but varied in the extent of their qualitative explorations of data; some mixed methods studies had limited reporting of qualitative results. Through thematic synthesis, we categorized study findings into four domains: (1) treatment decision-making; (2) success with immunotherapy; (3) treatment-related adverse events (AEs); and (4) quality of life on immunotherapy. Our review identified several areas with potential for improving the care system. These include, for example: routinely linking patients to peers who have experienced this therapy; improving the capacity of patients and carers to identify and report AEs faster; and supporting patients and carers to live with changed circumstances after successful treatment. Most studies focused on patients who had successful treatment, effectively excluding those who do not respond or who discontinue due to serious side effects; future research targets are suggested.

Assessing the Content Validity of Preference-Based Measures in Cancer

OBJECTIVES

This study assessed the content validity of generic and condition-specific preference-based measures (PBMs) with patients treated for cancer, evaluated against 10 Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments criteria for good content validity, to best inform measurement strategies regarding the use of PBMs in oncology development programs and real-world applications.

METHODS

Individual, semistructured interviews were conducted with patients who received drug treatment for cancer in the United Kingdom (n = 47) and the United States (n = 49). During the interview, patients completed 3 generic PBMs (EQ-5D-5L, EuroQol Health and Wellbeing measure-Short Form, Château Santé Base) and 2 condition-specific PBMs (Quality of Life Utility-Core 10 Dimension, Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Eight Dimension [FACT-8D]). Interviews were conducted via teleconference, audio recorded, and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were coded using thematic and content analysis methods.

RESULTS

Condition-specific measures were evaluated as having better relevancy than generic PBMs. Overall, the FACT-8D was evaluated as holding the best content validity in terms of relevancy, and the EuroQol Health and Wellbeing measure-Short Form received the most favorable evaluation of relevancy for generic PBMs. All measures demonstrated comparable comprehensiveness, with all suggested by patients to be missing concepts. The EQ-5D-5L was evaluated best in terms of comprehensibility. This was followed by the Quality of Life Utility-Core 10 Dimension and FACT-8D; both received similar evaluations.

CONCLUSIONS

All measures were generally seen by patients as adequate in capturing appropriate aspects of health-related quality of life for measuring cancer outcomes, although together condition-specific measures were evaluated as having better relevancy than generic PBMs. Further health-related quality of life instrument development is encouraged, particularly with regard to the longer-term detrimental impacts of cancer and treatment side effects. Other developments could include new cancer-specific tools inclusive of conventional health items, treatment impacts, and psychological items.

Learning Needs of Patients with Cancer and a Pre-Existing Autoimmune Disease Who Are Candidates to Receive Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors

Patients with pre-existing autoimmune disorders and cancer considering immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) need to receive balanced information about the benefits and risk of developing immune-related adverse events (irAEs) and flare-ups of their autoimmune disease. To assess the learning needs of patients with cancer and pre-existing autoimmune disease regarding ICI treatment, we interviewed 29 patients with autoimmune disease and cancer from a comprehensive cancer center, of whom 20 had received ICI and 9 were candidates to receive ICI at a US Cancer Center. In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted from August 2021 and January 2022. Interviewee's opinions and preferences about content and information delivery methods were collected. We recorded and transcribed interviews and analyzed them using thematic analysis. Half of the participants were female, and their median (SD) age was 62.9 (±10.9) years. The identified health information needs included the following: (1) information on irAEs and autoimmune disease flare-ups; (2) benefits of ICI; (3) ICI mechanism in the context of autoimmune disease; (4) management of flare-ups; (5) reasons for stopping or modifying cancer or autoimmune disease treatment; (6) likelihood of autoimmune disease progression or organ damage; and (7) lifestyle changes that could help avoid irAEs. Patients who had received ICI and those who had not yet received treatment reported similar needs, although patients who had received ICI had more questions about cancer treatment modifications. Patients also expressed the need to better understand when to contact their provider and how to share information with multiple providers. Most patients wanted to receive information in visual formats for review at home and at their own pace. Patients expressed interest in having educational tools to facilitate shared decision-making with their physicians, and they identified several areas of health information concerning therapy with ICI. They also highlighted the importance of communication among their various providers.

Consumers' longitudinal health information needs and seeking: a scoping review

Needing and seeking health information often is a longitudinal everyday life information behavior that involves the use of technology. However, no reviews of consumers' longitudinal health information needs (HIN) and health information-seeking (HIS) behavior have been conducted. We performed a scoping review to address this gap. Specifically, we surveyed the characteristics, timeline construction and research findings of studies investigating consumers' longitudinal HIN and HIS. Initial searches were conducted in November 2019 and updated in July 2022. A total of 128 papers were identified, reviewed and analyzed using content and thematic analyses. Results showed that most papers were quantitative, conducted in the USA, related to cancer, conducted during the diagnosis and treatment phases, and followed preset time intervals. Findings concerning the development patterns of consumers' HIN degrees and HIS effort were mixed (i.e. increasing, decreasing or being consistent over time). They seemed to be shaped by factors such as health conditions, data collection methods and the length of data collection. Consumers' use of sources changes depending on health status and source accessibility; their medical terminologies seem to expand over time. HIS has a strong emotional dimension which may lead to adaptive or maladaptive information behaviors (e.g. information avoidance). Overall, the results revealed a lack of understanding of HIN and HIS from a longitudinal perspective, particularly along health condition progression and coping trajectories. There is also a lack of understanding of the role of technologies in the longitudinal HIS process.

Organizational Impact of Immunotherapies in Advanced Cancers in France

PURPOSE

In 2020, the French National Authority for Health (Haute Autorité de Santé) published a methodologic guide called organizational impact (OI) cartography to define and structure assessment of the OI of health technologies. As immunotherapies are associated with extended survival and improved quality of life in advanced cancer, we aimed to identify OIs that immunotherapies had on health care systems and professionals. To our knowledge, we suggest the first implementation for OI assessment on the basis of the cartography.

METHODS

A literature review was conducted, and interviews with health care professionals (HCPs) were performed to identify OIs of immunotherapies. They were asked if immunotherapies had OIs classified into three macrocriteria, namely, impact on the care process (six criteria), impact on capacities and skills required (six criteria), and impact on society (four criteria). If an OI was mentioned for a criterion, information on its impact (minor/moderate/major) and its timing was collected. We considered that an OI existed when 75% of HCPs mentioned an impact for a given criterion.

RESULTS

Overall, 27 HCPs were interviewed. For 12 of 16 criteria, most HCPs mentioned an impact, whereas the literature identified impacts for 11 criteria. Four criteria (skills and transfer between HCPs, scheduling capabilities, and social relationship) had consensus among HCPs and a high impact; two criteria (rhythm or care duration, working/living conditions) showed consensus but a moderate impact; two criteria (funding and scheduling capabilities cross-structure) had a high impact but no consensus. For eight criteria (as environment or inequity), there was no consensus and moderate impact.

CONCLUSION

The introduction of immunotherapies for advanced cancer has had an important OI in France, regarding capacities and skills. Further research using qualitative analysis of interviews will provide more information regarding OI.

Evaluation of Managing Cancer and Living Meaningfully (CALM) in people with advanced non-small cell lung cancer treated with immunotherapies or targeted therapies: protocol for a single-arm, mixed-methods pilot study

INTRODUCTION

People with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with immunotherapies (IT) or targeted therapies (TT) may have improved outcomes in a subset of people who respond, raising unique psychological concerns requiring specific attention. These include the need for people with prolonged survival to reframe their life plans and tolerate uncertainty related to treatment duration and prognosis. A brief intervention for people with advanced cancer, Managing Cancer and Living Meaningfully (CALM), could help people treated with IT or TT address these concerns. However, CALM has not been specifically evaluated in this population. This study aims to evaluate the acceptability and feasibility of CALM in people with advanced NSCLC treated with IT or TT and obtain preliminary evidence regarding its effectiveness in this population.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Twenty people with advanced NSCLC treated with IT or TT will be recruited from Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia. Participants will complete three to six sessions of CALM delivered over 3-6 months. A prospective, single-arm, mixed-methods pilot study will be conducted. Participants will complete outcome measures at baseline, post-intervention, 3 months and 6 months, including Patient Health Questionnaire, Death and Dying Distress Scale, Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy General and Clinician Evaluation Questionnaire. The acceptability of CALM will be assessed using patient experiences surveys and qualitative interviews. Feasibility will be assessed by analysis of recruitment rates, treatment adherence and intervention delivery time.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval has been granted by the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/82047/PMCC). Participants with cancer will complete a signed consent form prior to participation, and carers and therapists will complete verbal consent. Results will be made available to funders, broader clinicians and researchers through conference presentations and publications. If CALM is found to be acceptable in this cohort, this will inform a potential phase 3 trial.

A qualitative research exploring the experiences of patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors for advanced lung cancer

PURPOSES

In patients with advanced lung cancer, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) dramatically extended survival. We aimed to investigate the experiences of patients with advanced lung cancer who are receiving ICIs, with a focus on perceptions and sentiments on ICIs, to inform future research and clinical care.

METHODS

Patients were recruited from January to July 2022 at Tianjin Medical University Hospital Cancer Institute & Hospital. The method of purposive sampling was used. Patients with stage IV lung cancer who were taking ICIs as a single therapy were recruited. Data were gathered using semi-structured and face-to-face interview. An inductive approach to analysis was used.

RESULTS

Of the 42 eligible patients, 27 were invited, 20 agreed to participate, and ultimately 17 patients completed the interview. A total of 5 themes were extracted: suffered from adverse effects but generally tolerable; focus on survival, hope, and expectation; uncertainty about durability of response and the future; poor knowledge and attitude of ICIs; and financial stress and guilt over family.

CONCLUSION

These findings make an important contribution to healthcare professionals' understanding of what it is like to be a patient with advanced lung cancer who is receiving ICIs. In general, the experience of immunotherapy is different from that of chemotherapy; financial and family pressures and uncertainty issues are likely to be heavier in this population. Oncology specialist nurses should provide tailored education to improve the patient's knowledge of immunotherapy, especially to improve risk awareness of immune-related adverse events and objective prognosis expectations.

Physician Views on the Provision of Information on Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy to Patients with Cancer and Pre-Existing Autoimmune Disease: A Qualitative Study

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have improved cancer outcomes but can cause severe immune-related adverse events (irAEs) and flares of autoimmune conditions in cancer patients with pre-existing autoimmune disease. The objective of this study was to identify the information physicians perceived as most useful for these patients when discussing treatment initiation with ICIs. Twenty physicians at a cancer institution with experience in the treatment of irAEs were interviewed. Qualitative thematic analysis was performed to organize and interpret data. The physicians were 11 medical oncologists and 9 non-oncology specialists. The following themes were identified: (1) current methods used by physicians to provide information to patients and delivery options; (2) factors to make decisions about whether or not to start ICIs in patients who have cancer and pre-existing autoimmune conditions; (3) learning points for patients to understand; (4) preferences for the delivery of ICI information; and (5) barriers to the implementation of ICI information in clinics. Regarding points to discuss with patients, physicians agreed that the benefits of ICIs, the probability of irAEs, and risks of underlying autoimmune condition flares with the use of ICIs were most important. Non-oncologists were additionally concerned about how ICIs affect the autoimmune disease (e.g., impact on disease activity, need for changes in medications for the autoimmune disease, and monitoring of autoimmune conditions).

First-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab with two cycles of chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone (four cycles) in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer: CheckMate 9LA 2-year patient-reported outcomes

BACKGROUND

In CheckMate 9LA (NCT03215706), first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy (2 cycles) significantly improved overall survival versus chemotherapy (4 cycles) in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer and no known sensitising epidermal growth factor receptor/anaplastic lymphoma kinase alterations. We present exploratory patient-reported outcomes (PROs; minimum follow-up, 2 years).

METHODS

In patients (N = 719) randomised 1:1 to nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy or chemotherapy alone, disease-related symptom burden and health-related quality of life were assessed using the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS) and 3-level EQ-5D (EQ-5D-3L). Treatment-phase changes in LCSS average symptom burden index (ASBI), LCSS three-item global index (3-IGI) and EQ-5D-3L visual analogue scale (VAS) and utility index (UI) over time were analysed descriptively and using mixed-effect model repeated measures. Time-to-deterioration/improvement analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

Treatment-phase PRO questionnaire completion rates were >80%. Mean treatment-phase changes showed no deterioration from baseline in both arms for LCSS ASBI/3-IGI and EQ-5D-3L VAS/UI; however, minimally important differences were not met. Mixed-effect model repeated measures analyses showed overall reduction in symptom burden from baseline for both arms; changes from baseline for LCSS 3-IGI and EQ-5D-3L VAS/UI were numerically improved with nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy, but minimally important differences were not met. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy delayed time-to-definitive-deterioration versus chemotherapy (LCSS ASBI: hazard ratio, 0.62 [95% confidence interval, 0.45-0.87]); results were similar across PRO measures.

CONCLUSIONS

At 2-year minimum follow-up, first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy reduced the risk of definitive deterioration in disease-related symptom burden and health-related quality of life versus chemotherapy and maintained QoL in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier, NCT03215706.

Efficacy of ipilimumab 3mg/kg following progression on low dose ipilimumab in metastatic melanoma

BACKGROUND

Differing doses of ipilimumab (IPI) are used in combination with an anti-PD1 antibody in advanced melanoma. There is no data on the outcomes of patients who progress following low-dose IPI (< 3 mg/kg) and are subsequently treated with IPI 3 mg/kg (IPI3). We conducted a multicentre retrospective survey to assess the efficacy of this strategy.

METHODS

Patients with resected stage III, unresectable stage III or IV melanoma who received low dose IPI (< 3 mg/kg) with an anti-PD1 antibody with recurrence (neo/adjuvant) or progressive disease (metastatic), who then received IPI3± anti-PD1 antibody were eligible. Best investigator-determined Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours response, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were analysed.

RESULTS

Total 36 patients received low-dose IPI with an anti-PD1 antibody, 18 (50%) in the neo/adjuvant and 18 (50%) in the metastatic setting. Of which, 20 (56%) had primary resistance and 16 (44%) had acquired resistance. All patients received IPI3 for unresectable stage III or IV melanoma; median age 60 (29-78), 18 (50%) M1d disease, 32 (89%) Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-1. Around 35 (97%) received IPI3 with nivolumab and 1 received IPI3 alone. The response rate to IPI3 was 9/36 (25%). In patients with primary resistance, the response rate was 6/20 (30%). After a median follow-up of 22 months (95% CI: 15-27 months), the median PFS and OS were not reached in patients who responded; 1-year PFS and OS were 73% and 100%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

IPI3 following recurrence/progression on low dose IPI has clinical activity, including in primary resistance. IPI dosing is therefore critical in a subset of patients.

Needs of Lung Cancer Patients Receiving Immunotherapy and Acceptance of Digital and Sensor-Based Scenarios for Monitoring Symptoms at Home—A Qualitative-Explorative Study

Background: The development of immunotherapy in the treatment for lung cancer has changed the outlook for both patients and health care practitioners. However, reporting and management of side effects are crucial to ensure effectiveness and safety of treatment. The aim of this study was to learn about the subjective experiences of patients with lung cancer receiving immunotherapy and to explore their potential acceptance of digital and sensor-based systems for monitoring treatment-related symptoms at home. Methods: A qualitative-explorative interview study with patients with lung cancer (n = 21) applying qualitative content analysis. Results: Participants had trouble to classify and differentiate between symptoms they experienced and it seemed challenging to assess whether symptoms are serious enough to be reported and to figure out the right time to report symptoms to health care practitioners. We identified four basic needs: (1) the need to be informed, (2) the need for a trustful relationship, (3) the need to be taken seriously, and (4) the need for needs-oriented treatment concepts. The idea of digital and sensor-based monitoring initially provoked rejection, but participants expressed more differentiated attitudes during the interviews, which could be integrated into a preliminary model to explain the acceptance of digital and sensor-based monitoring scenarios. Conclusions: Supporting lung cancer patients and their health care providers in communicating about treatment-related symptoms is important. Technology-based monitoring systems are considered to be potentially beneficial. However, in view of the many unfulfilled information needs and the unsatisfactory reporting of symptoms, it must be critically questioned what these systems can and should compensate for, and where the limits of such monitoring lie.

Three-year follow-up and patient-reported outcomes from CheckMate 078: Nivolumab versus docetaxel in a predominantly Chinese patient population with previously treated advanced non-small cell lung cancer

OBJECTIVES

In the phase 3 CheckMate 078 study, nivolumab prolonged overall survival (OS) and showed a favorable safety profile versus docetaxel in a predominantly Chinese patient population with previously treated advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC). However, long-term efficacy, safety, and health-related quality of life findings with second-line nivolumab are very limited in Asian patients with previously treated aNSCLC. Here, we report updated clinical data and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from the phase 3 CheckMate 078 trial with a 3-year minimum follow-up.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with aNSCLC and disease progression after platinum-doublet chemotherapy were randomized 2:1 to nivolumab (3 mg/kg every 2 weeks) or docetaxel (75 mg/m2 every 3 weeks) until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was OS; secondary endpoints included objective response rate, progression-free survival, safety, and disease-related symptom deterioration assessed using the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS) by Week 12. Additional PRO assessments were exploratory endpoints.

RESULTS

At ≥ 37.3 months follow-up, 3-year OS rates were 19% with nivolumab and 12% with docetaxel; 30% and 0% of responders remained in response for ≥ 3 years, respectively. Incidence of treatment-related adverse events occurring after 2 years was lower than during the first 2 years. No new treatment-related deaths were reported. By Week 12 of treatment, rates of disease-related symptom deterioration were 32% with nivolumab and 47% with docetaxel. Completion rates for PRO questionnaires were ≥ 80% in both arms. Clinically meaningful and sustained improvements in LCSS Average Symptom Burden Index scores and delayed time to first symptom deterioration were observed with nivolumab against docetaxel.

CONCLUSIONS

At 3 years, nivolumab continued to demonstrate survival benefit versus docetaxel, exhibiting improvements in disease-related symptoms and overall health status in a predominantly Chinese patient population with previously treated aNSCLC. No new safety signals were observed. These findings are similar to the global population.

Experiences of cancer immunotherapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ExCIm)-insights of people affected by cancer and healthcare professionals: a qualitative study protocol

INTRODUCTION

There is a global interest in cancer immunotherapy. Clinical trials have found that one group, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), has demonstrated clinical benefits across various cancers. However, research focused on the experiences of people affected by cancer who have undergone this treatment using qualitative methodology is currently limited. Moreover, little is known about the experiences and education needs of the healthcare staff supporting the people receiving these immunotherapies. This study therefore seeks to explore the experiences of using ICIs by both the people affected by cancer and the healthcare professionals who support those people, and use the findings to make recommendations for ICI supportive care guidance development, cancer immunotherapy education materials for healthcare professionals, cancer policy and further research.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Patient participants (n=up to 30) will be recruited within the UK. The sample will incorporate a range of perspectives, sociodemographic factors, diagnoses and ICI treatments, yet share some common experiences. Healthcare professionals (n=up to 15) involved in supporting people receiving immunotherapy will also be recruited from across the UK. Data will be generated through in-depth, semistructured interviews. Reflexive thematic analysis will be used to obtain thorough understanding of individual's perspectives on, and experiences of, immunotherapy. Study dates are as follows: December 2019-March 2022.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The research will be performed in accordance with the UK Policy for Health and Social Care Research and Cardiff University's Research Integrity and Governance Code of Practice (2018). The study received ethical approval from the West Midlands and Black Country Research Ethics Committee in October 2019. Health Research Authority and Health and Care Research Wales approvals were confirmed in December 2019. All participants will provide informed consent. Findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals, non-academic platforms, the Macmillan Cancer Support website, disseminated at relevant national and international conferences and presented via a webinar. The study is listed on the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Clinical Research Network Central Portfolio.

Living with and beyond metastatic non-small cell lung cancer: the survivorship experience for people treated with immunotherapy or targeted therapy

PURPOSE

Immunotherapy (IT) and targeted therapy (TT) have improved survival for some patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Their lived experience is under-studied. We conducted a single centre, qualitative study to understand concerns and unmet needs amongst this novel survivor population.

METHODS

Eligible participants had metastatic NSCLC, aged >18, English-speaking and >6 months post initiation of IT/TT without progressive disease. Semi-structured interviews focused on physical, psychological, social and functional impacts of diagnosis, therapy and prognosis. Interviews were recorded and transcribed. Data were analysed via qualitative thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Between May and December 2019, 20 participants were interviewed: median age 62 (range 34-83), 13 (65%) female; median time since diagnosis of metastatic NSCLC 27 months (range 10-108). Twelve out of 20 (60%) participants had a targetable mutation (EGFR/ALK/BRAF); 6 were receiving IT, 11 TT, 2 IT + chemotherapy and 1 IT + TT. Four main themes were identified: living long-term on IT and TT (chronic toxicities), psychological concerns (living with uncertainty, fear of cancer progression, scan-related anxiety), support with practical issues (finances, employment amidst prognostic uncertainty, challenges with trial participation) and wanting information pertinent to NSCLC subtype.

CONCLUSIONS

Longer-term survivors of metastatic NSCLC experience significant physical, psychological and functional concerns and unmet needs. Results will inform a broader cross-sectional survey and resources to address the needs of this growing survivor group.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

A 'one-size-fits-all' approach to NSCLC survivorship is no longer appropriate. Survivors of metastatic NSCLC treated with novel therapies may benefit from specific information regarding long-term toxicities and psychological supports.

First-Line Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab Versus Chemotherapy in Advanced NSCLC With 1% or Greater Tumor PD-L1 Expression: Patient-Reported Outcomes From CheckMate 227 Part 1

INTRODUCTION

In CheckMate 227 (NCT02477826), patients with treatment-naive stage IV or recurrent NSCLC and 1% or greater tumor programmed death ligand 1 expression had significantly improved overall survival with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy. We present the patient-reported outcomes (PROs).

METHODS

Patients (N = 1189) were randomized to nivolumab plus ipilimumab, nivolumab, or chemotherapy. PROs were exploratory. Changes in Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS) average symptom burden index, LCSS 3-item global index, EQ-5D visual analog scale (VAS), and EQ-5D utility index were analyzed descriptively. Mixed-effect model repeated measures and time-to-first deterioration and improvement analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

PRO completion rates were generally greater than 80%. On-treatment improvements from baseline in LCSS measures of symptom burden and global health status with nivolumab plus ipilimumab generally met or exceeded the minimal important difference (smallest clinically meaningful change) from weeks 24 and 30, respectively; improvements with chemotherapy generally remained below the minimal important difference. Mean on-treatment EQ-5D VAS scores for both treatments approached the U.K. population norm at week 24, remaining so throughout the treatment period. Mixed-effect model repeated measures analyses revealed numerically greater improvements from baseline with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy across LCSS average symptom burden index and 3-item global index, and EQ-5D VAS and utility index. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab had delayed time-to-first deterioration (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval] 0.74 [0.56 to 0.98]) and a trend for more rapid time-to-first improvement (1.24 [0.98 to 1.59]) versus chemotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab revealed delayed deterioration and numerical improvement in symptoms and health-related quality of life versus chemotherapy in patients with advanced NSCLC and 1% or greater programmed death ligand 1 expression.

A nurse-led intervention for fear of cancer progression in advanced cancer: A pilot feasibility study

PURPOSE

To assess the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary effects of a nurse-led intervention for managing fear of cancer progression in advanced cancer patients.

METHODS

A single group mixed methods study was conducted in patients with stage III or IV gynecologic or lung cancer (n = 31) with dysfunctional levels of fear of progression or distress. The intervention consisted of seven videoconferencing sessions with skills practice. Feasibility measures included enrollment rate, attendance, attrition, and home practice adherence. Acceptability was based on exit interview responses. Content analysis was used to analyze the qualitative data. Participants completed quantitative questionnaires assessing fear of progression and secondary outcomes at baseline, eight, and 12 weeks. Linear mixed model analysis was used to assess changes in outcome measures.

RESULTS

The average enrollment rate was seven participants/month over 4.5 months. Participants attended a mean of 5.3 of seven sessions. Attrition rate was 30%. The analysis showed improvements over time in fear of progression and exploratory outcomes. Participants reported feeling calmer and more focused. The skills practice helped to manage anxiety and fears. Themes included: Struggling with fears, Refocusing the fears, and Realizing/reaffirming what is important in life. The most beneficial components included the values clarification exercise, detached mindfulness and worry postponement practices.

CONCLUSION

The intervention was acceptable; most feasibility criteria were met. Preliminary data suggest that the intervention reduced fear of progression and improved secondary outcomes. The intervention required a significant time commitment by participants, which may have contributed to increased attrition. To decrease burden, we will shorten the intervention.