378MO EMPOWER-Lung 1: Phase III first-line (1L) cemiplimab monotherapy vs platinum-doublet chemotherapy (chemo) in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with programmed cell death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) ≥50%

Defining clinically useful biomarkers of immune checkpoint inhibitors in solid tumours

Although more than a decade has passed since the approval of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for the treatment of melanoma and non-small-cell lung, breast and gastrointestinal cancers, many patients still show limited response. US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved biomarkers include programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 (PDL1) expression, microsatellite status (that is, microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H)) and tumour mutational burden (TMB), but these have limited utility and/or lack standardized testing approaches for pan-cancer applications. Tissue-based analytes (such as tumour gene signatures, tumour antigen presentation or tumour microenvironment profiles) show a correlation with immune response, but equally, these demonstrate limited efficacy, as they represent a single time point and a single spatial assessment. Patient heterogeneity as well as inter- and intra-tumoural differences across different tissue sites and time points represent substantial challenges for static biomarkers. However, dynamic biomarkers such as longitudinal biopsies or novel, less-invasive markers such as blood-based biomarkers, radiomics and the gut microbiome show increasing potential for the dynamic identification of ICI response, and patient-tailored predictors identified through neoadjuvant trials or novel ex vivo tumour models can help to personalize treatment. In this Perspective, we critically assess the multiple new static, dynamic and patient-specific biomarkers, highlight the newest consortia and trial efforts, and provide recommendations for future clinical trials to make meaningful steps forwards in the field.

The prognostic biological markers of immunotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer: current landscape and future perspective

The emergence of immunotherapy, particularly programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) and programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1) produced profound transformations for treating non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Nevertheless, not all NSCLC patients can benefit from immunotherapy in clinical practice. In addition to limited response rates, exorbitant treatment costs, and the substantial threats involved with immune-related adverse events, the intricate interplay between long-term survival outcomes and early disease progression, including early immune hyperprogression, remains unclear. Consequently, there is an urgent imperative to identify robust predictive and prognostic biological markers, which not only possess the potential to accurately forecast the therapeutic efficacy of immunotherapy in NSCLC but also facilitate the identification of patient subgroups amenable to personalized treatment approaches. Furthermore, this advancement in patient stratification based on certain biological markers can also provide invaluable support for the management of immunotherapy in NSCLC patients. Hence, in this review, we comprehensively examine the current landscape of individual biological markers, including PD-L1 expression, tumor mutational burden, hematological biological markers, and gene mutations, while also exploring the potential of combined biological markers encompassing radiological and radiomic markers, as well as prediction models that have the potential to better predict responders to immunotherapy in NSCLC with an emphasis on some directions that warrant further investigation which can also deepen the understanding of clinicians and provide a reference for clinical practice.

Addressing CPI resistance in NSCLC: targeting TAM receptors to modulate the tumor microenvironment and future prospects

Lung cancer remains a leading cause of cancer death worldwide, with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) accounting for the majority of cases. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs), including those targeting programmed cell death protein-1 and its ligand (PD-1/PD-L1), have revolutionized the treatment landscape for various cancers. Notably, PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor-based regimens now form the standard first-line therapy for metastatic NSCLC, substantially improving patients' overall survival. Despite the progress made using CPI-based therapies in advanced NSCLC, most patients experience disease progression after an initial response due to resistance. Given the currently limited therapeutic options available for second-line and beyond settings in NSCLC, new treatment approaches are needed to improve long-term survival in these patients. Thus, CPI resistance is an emerging concept in cancer treatment and an active area of clinical research.Among the key mechanisms of CPI resistance is the immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment (TME). Effective CPI therapy is based on shifting immune responses against cancer cells, therefore, manipulating the immunosuppressive TME comprises an important strategy to combat CPI resistance. Several aspects of the TME can contribute to treatment resistance in NSCLC, including through the activation of Tyro3, Axl, MerTK (TAM) receptors which are essential pleiotropic regulators of immune homeostasis. Their roles include negatively modulating the immune response, therefore ectopic expression of TAM receptors in the context of cancer can contribute to the immunosuppressive, protumorigenic TME. Furthermore, TAM receptors represent important candidates to simultaneously target both tumor cells and immune cells in the TME. Clinical development of TAM receptor inhibitors (TAM RIs) is increasingly focused on their ability to rescue the antitumor immune response, thereby shifting the immunosuppressive TME to an immunostimulatory TME. There is a strong biological rationale for combining TAM RIs with a CPI to overcome resistance and improve long-term clinical responses in NSCLC. Combinatorial clinical trials of TAM RIs with CPIs are underway with encouraging preliminary results. This review outlines the key mechanisms of CPI resistance, including the role of the immunosuppressive TME, and discusses the rationale for targeting TAM receptors as a novel, promising therapeutic strategy to overcome CPI resistance in NSCLC.

Single or combined immune checkpoint inhibitors compared to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab for people with advanced non-small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) targeting the PD-1/PD-L1 axis have changed the first-line treatment of people with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Single-agent pembrolizumab (a PD-1 inhibitor) is currently the standard of care as monotherapy in patients with PD-L1 expression ≥ 50%, either alone or in combination with chemotherapy when PD-L1 expression is less than 50%. Atezolizumab (PD-L1 inhibitor) has also been approved in combination with chemotherapy and bevacizumab (an anti-angiogenic antibody) in first-line NSCLC regardless of PD-L1 expression. The combination of first-line PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors with anti-CTLA-4 antibodies has also been shown to improve survival compared to platinum-based chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC, particularly in people with high tumour mutational burden (TMB). The association of ipilimumab (an anti CTLA4) and nivolumab (PD-1 inhibitor) has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in all patients with PD-L1 expression ≥1%. Although these antibodies are currently used in clinical practice, some questions remain unanswered, such as the best-treatment strategy, the role of different biomarkers for treatment selection and the effectiveness of immunotherapy according to specific clinical characteristics.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and safety of first-line immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), as monotherapy or in combination, compared to platinum-based chemotherapy, with or without bevacizumab for people with advanced NSCLC, according to the level of PD-L1 expression.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed an electronic search of the main databases (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase) from inception until 31 December 2020 and conferences meetings from 2015 onwards.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) reporting on the efficacy or safety of first-line ICI treatment for adults with advanced NSCLC who had not previously received any anticancer treatment. We included trials comparing single- or double-ICI treatment to standard first-line therapy (platinum-based chemotherapy +/- bevacizumab). All data come from 'international multicentre studies involving adults, age 18 or over, with histologically-confirmed stage IV NSCLC.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently assessed the search results and a fourth review author resolved any disagreements. Primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS); secondary outcomes were overall objective response rate (ORR) by RECIST v 1.1, grade 3 to 5 treatment-related adverse events (AEs) (CTCAE v 5.0) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). We performed meta-analyses where appropriate using the random-effects model for hazard ratios (HRs) or risk ratios (RRs), with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs), and used the I² statistic to investigate heterogeneity.

MAIN RESULTS

Main results We identified 15 trials for inclusion, seven completed and eight ongoing trials. We obtained data for 5893 participants from seven trials comparing first-line single- (six trials) or double- (two trials) agent ICI with platinum-based chemotherapy, one trial comparing both first-line single- and double-agent ICsI with platinum-based chemotherapy. All trials were at low risk of selection and detection bias, some were classified at high risk of performance, attrition or other source of bias. The overall certainty of evidence according to GRADE ranged from moderate-to-low because of risk of bias, inconsistency, or imprecision. The majority of the included trials reported their outcomes by PD-L1 expressions, with PD-L1 ≥ 50 being considered the most clinically useful cut-off level for decision makers. Also, iIn order to avoid overlaps between various PDL-1 expressions we prioritised the review outcomes according to PD-L1 ≥ 50. Single-agent ICI In the PD-L1 expression ≥ 50% group single-agent ICI probably improved OS compared to platinum-based chemotherapy (hazard ratio (HR) 0.68, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60 to 0.76, 6 RCTs, 2111 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). In this group, single-agent ICI also may improve PFS (HR: 0.68, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.88, 5 RCTs, 1886 participants, low-certainty evidence) and ORR (risk ratio (RR):1.40, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.75, 4 RCTs, 1672 participants, low-certainty evidence). HRQoL data were available for only one study including only people with PD-L1 expression ≥ 50%, which suggested that single-agent ICI may improve HRQoL at 15 weeks compared to platinum-based chemotherapy (RR: 1.51, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.10, 1 RCT, 297 participants, low-certainty evidence). In the included studies, treatment-related AEs were not reported according to PD-L1 expression levels. Grade 3-4 AEs may be less frequent with single-agent ICI compared to platinum-based chemotherapy (RR: 0.41, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.50, I² = 62%, 5 RCTs, 3346 participants, low-certainty evidence). More information about efficacy of single-agent ICI compared to platinum-based chemotherapy according to the level of PD-L1 expression and to TMB status or specific clinical characteristics is available in the full text. Double-agent ICI Double-ICI treatment probably prolonged OS compared to platinum-based chemotherapy in people with PD-L1 expression ≥50% (HR: 0.72, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.89 2 RCTs, 612 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). Trials did not report data on HRQoL, PFS and ORR according to PD-L1 groups. Treatment related AEs were not reported according to PD-L1 expression levels. The frequency of grade 3-4 AEs may not differ between double-ICI treatment and platinum-based chemotherapy (RR: 0.78, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.09, I² = 81%, 2 RCTs, 1869 participants, low-certainty evidence). More information about efficacy of double-agent ICI according to the level of PD-L1 expression and to TMB status is available in the full text.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Authors' conclusions The evidence in this review suggests that single-agent ICI in people with NSCLC and PD-L1 ≥50% probably leads to a higher overall survival rate and may lead to a higher progression-free survival and overall response rate when compared to platinum-based chemotherapy and may also lead to a lower rate of adverse events and higher HRQoL. Combined ICI in people with NSCLC and PD-L1 ≥50% also probably leads to a higher overall survival rate when compared to platinum-based chemotherapy, but its effect on progression-free survival, overall response rate and HRQoL is unknown due to a lack of data. The rate of adverse events may not differ between groups. This review used to be a living review. It is transitioned out of living mode because current research is exploring ICI in association with chemotherapy or other immunotherapeutic drugs versus ICI as single agent rather than platinum based chemotherapy.

Targeting cancer metastasis with antibody therapeutics

Cancer metastasis, the spread of disease from a primary to a distal site through the circulatory or lymphatic systems, accounts for over 90% of all cancer related deaths. Despite significant progress in the field of cancer therapy in recent years, mortality rates remain dramatically higher for patients with metastatic disease versus those with local or regional disease. Although there is clearly an urgent need to develop drugs that inhibit cancer spread, the overwhelming majority of anticancer therapies that have been developed to date are designed to inhibit tumor growth but fail to address the key stages of the metastatic process: invasion, intravasation, circulation, extravasation, and colonization. There is growing interest in engineering targeted therapeutics, such as antibody drugs, that inhibit various steps in the metastatic cascade. We present an overview of antibody therapeutic approaches, both in the pipeline and in the clinic, that disrupt the essential mechanisms that underlie cancer metastasis. These therapies include classes of antibodies that indirectly target metastasis, including anti-integrin, anticadherin, and immune checkpoint blocking antibodies, as well as monoclonal and bispecific antibodies that are specifically designed to interrupt disease dissemination. Although few antimetastatic antibodies have achieved clinical success to date, there are many promising candidates in various stages of development, and novel targets and approaches are constantly emerging. Collectively, these efforts will enrich our understanding of the molecular drivers of metastasis, and the new strategies that arise promise to have a profound impact on the future of cancer therapeutic development. This article is categorized under: Therapeutic Approaches and Drug Discovery > Nanomedicine for Oncologic Disease.

Single or combined immune checkpoint inhibitors compared to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab for people with advanced non-small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) targeting the PD-1/PD-L1 axis have changed the first-line treatment of people with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Single-agent pembrolizumab (a PD-1 inhibitor) is currently the standard of care as monotherapy in patients with PD-L1 expression ≥ 50%, either alone or in combination with chemotherapy when PD-L1 expression is less than 50%. Atezolizumab (PD-L1 inhibitor) has also been approved in combination with chemotherapy and bevacizumab (an anti-angiogenic antibody) in first-line NSCLC regardless of PD-L1 expression. The combination of first-line PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors with anti-CTLA-4 antibodies has also been shown to improve survival compared to platinum-based chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC, particularly in people with high tumour mutational burden (TMB). The association of ipilimumab (an anti CTLA4) and nivolumab (PD-1 inhibitor) has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in all patients with PD-L1 expression ≥1%. Although these antibodies are currently used in clinical practice, some questions remain unanswered, such as the best-treatment strategy, the role of different biomarkers for treatment selection and the effectiveness of immunotherapy according to specific clinical characteristics.

OBJECTIVES

Primary objective: to determine the effectiveness and safety of first-line immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), as monotherapy or in combination, compared to platinum-based chemotherapy, with or without bevacizumab for people with advanced NSCLC, according to the level of PD-L1 expression.

SECONDARY OBJECTIVE

to maintain the currency of evidence using a living systematic review approach.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed an electronic search of the main databases (Cochrane Lung Cancer Group Trial Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase) from inception until 21 October 2020 and conferences meetings from 2015 onwards.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) reporting on the efficacy or safety of first-line ICI treatment for adults with advanced NSCLC who had not previously received any anticancer treatment. We included trials comparing single- or double-ICI treatment to standard first-line therapy (platinum-based chemotherapy +/- bevacizumab). All data come from 'international multicentre studies involving adults, age 18 or over, with histologically-confirmed stage IV NSCLC who had not received any previous systemic anti-cancer treatment for advanced disease.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently assessed the search results and a fourth review author resolved any disagreements. Primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS); secondary outcomes were overall objective response rate (ORR) by RECIST v 1.1, grade 3 to 5 treatment-related adverse events (AEs) (CTCAE v 5.0) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). We performed meta-analyses where appropriate using the random-effects model for hazard ratios (HRs) or risk ratios (RRs), with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs), and used the I² statistic to investigate heterogeneity.

MAIN RESULTS

Main results We identified 15 trials for inclusion, seven completed and eight ongoing trials. We obtained data for 5893 participants from seven trials comparing first-line single- (six trials) or double- (two trials) agent ICI with platinum-based chemotherapy, one trial comparing both first-line single- and double-agent ICsI with platinum-based chemotherapy. All trials were at low risk of selection and detection bias, some were classified at high risk of performance, attrition or other source of bias. The overall certainty of evidence according to GRADE ranged from moderate-to-low because of risk of bias, inconsistency, or imprecision. The majority of the included trials reported their outcomes by PD-L1 expressions, with PD-L1 ≥ 50 being considered the most clinically useful cut-off level for decision makers. Also, iIn order to avoid overlaps between various PDL-1 expressions we prioritised the review outcomes according to PD-L1 ≥ 50. Single-agent ICI In the PD-L1 expression ≥ 50% group single-agent ICI probably improved OS compared to platinum-based chemotherapy (hazard ratio (HR) 0.68, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60 to 0.76, 6 RCTs, 2111 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). In this group, single-agent ICI also may improve PFS (HR: 0.68, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.88, 5 RCTs, 1886 participants, low-certainty evidence) and ORR (risk ratio (RR):1.40, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.75, 4 RCTs, 1672 participants, low-certainty evidence). HRQoL data were available for only one study including only people with PD-L1 expression ≥ 50%, which suggested that single-agent ICI may improve HRQoL at 15 weeks compared to platinum-based chemotherapy (RR: 1.51, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.10, 1 RCT, 297 participants, low-certainty evidence). In the included studies, treatment-related AEs were not reported according to PD-L1 expression levels. Grade 3-4 AEs may be less frequent with single-agent ICI compared to platinum-based chemotherapy (RR: 0.41, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.50, I² = 62%, 5 RCTs, 3346 participants, low-certainty evidence). More information about efficacy of single-agent ICI compared to platinum-based chemotherapy according to the level of PD-L1 expression and to TMB status or specific clinical characteristics is available in the full text. Double-agent ICI Double-ICI treatment probably prolonged OS compared to platinum-based chemotherapy in people with PD-L1 expression ≥50% (HR: 0.72, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.89 2 RCTs, 612 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). Trials did not report data on HRQoL, PFS and ORR according to PD-L1 groups. Treatment related AEs were not reported according to PD-L1 expression levels. The frequency of grade 3-4 AEs may not differ between double-ICI treatment and platinum-based chemotherapy (RR: 0.78, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.09, I² = 81%, 2 RCTs, 1869 participants, low-certainty evidence). More information about efficacy of double-agent ICI according to the level of PD-L1 expression and to TMB status is available in the full text.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Authors' conclusions The evidence in this review suggests that single-agent ICI in people with NSCLC and PD-L1 ≥50% probably leads to a higher overall survival rate and may lead to a higher progression-free survival and overall response rate when compared to platinum-based chemotherapy and may also lead to a lower rate of adverse events and higher HRQoL. Combined ICI in people with NSCLC and PD-L1 ≥50% also probably leads to a higher overall survival rate when compared to platinum-based chemotherapy, but its effect on progression-free survival, overall response rate and HRQoL is unknown due to a lack of data. The rate of adverse events may not differ between groups.